The U.S. government presented 14 defense arguments in a controversy over restrictions on GM corn imports to Mexico.

Because Mexico banned the use of GM corn in tortillas or dough, the White House Trade Representative (USTR) initiated a panel under the Mexico-U.S.-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

At the same time, also part of the controversy, the Mexican government is implementing a plan to gradually replace the use of GM corn in all products for human consumption and animal feed. 

USTR requested that the Panel make findings of non-compliance with respect to both the Corn Tortilla Ban and the Substitution Instruction, which the United States is challenging in this dispute. 

GM Corn

Specifically, the United States requests that the Panel find that: 

The ban on tortilla corn is inconsistent with the following provisions of the USMCA: 

• Article 9.6.3 because the measure is not based on relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations or an adequate risk assessment.
• Article 9.6.6(a) because the measure is not applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.
• Article 9.6.6(b) because the measure is not based on relevant scientific principles, taking into account relevant factors.
• To the extent that Mexico conducted a risk assessment, Article 9.6.7 because Mexico did not conduct a risk assessment or risk management with respect to an SPS regulation in a manner that is documented and provides an opportunity for other Parties to comment.
• To the extent that Mexico conducted a risk assessment, Article 9.6.8 because such risk assessment did not take into account available relevant scientific evidence, relevant guidance from the WTO SPS Committee, or relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations.
• Article 9.6.10 because Mexico did not select an SPS measure that is no more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the level of protection that the Party has determined to be appropriate.
• Article 2.11 because Mexico adopted or maintains a prohibition or restriction on the importation of a good from another Party.

Defense

In addition, USTR argued that the Substitute Instruction is inconsistent with the following provisions of the USMCA: 

• Article 9.6.3 because the measure is not based on relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations or an adequate risk assessment.
• Article 9.6.6(a) because the measure is not applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.
• Article 9.6.6(b) because the measure is not based on relevant scientific principles, taking into account relevant factors.
• To the extent that Mexico conducted a risk assessment, Article 9.6.7 because Mexico did not conduct a risk assessment or risk management with respect to an SPS regulation in a manner that is documented and provides an opportunity for other Parties to comment.
• To the extent that Mexico conducted a risk assessment, Article 9.6.8 because such risk assessment did not take into account available relevant scientific evidence, relevant guidance from the WTO SPS Committee, and relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations. 
• Article 9.6.10 because Mexico did not select an SPS measure that was no more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve the level of protection that the Party has determined to be appropriate.
• Article 2.11 because Mexico adopted or maintains a prohibition or restriction on the importation of an SPS measure.