In a landmark decision for biodiversity and food sovereignty, Mexico has passed a constitutional reform prohibiting the planting of genetically modified (GMO) corn. The reform of articles 4 and 27 cements Mexico’s position as the center of origin of maize,  and promotes traditional crops through the milpa system, safeguarding one of the world’s most important staple crops. This reform comes after the dissolution of the 2020 presidential declarations banning the importation of GMO corn for human and animal consumption as well as the phase out and ban of glyphosate, earlier in February 2025. The dissolution came after the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (T-MEC) courts ruled against Mexico in these presidental decrees.

The Mexican constitutional amendment to Articles 4 reads: “Mexico is the center of origin and diversity of corn, element of national identity, basic food of the Mexican people and the basis of the existence of indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples, its cultivation in the national territory must be free of genetic modifications produced with techniques that overcome the natural barriers of reproduction or recombination such as transgenic ones.” With article 27 these amendments explicitly recognize maize as an element of national identity and a basic food for the Mexican people, particularly indigenous and Afro-Mexican communities. The law prohibits its genetic modification, affirming Mexico’s responsibility as the guardian of maize diversity for the world.

Photo: Navdanya International

While the prohibition of GMO corn cultivation represents a crucial step forward, it follows the rollback of earlier policy declarations aiming to ban both glyphosate and GMO corn imports by 2024. Exposing the contradictions and compromises Mexico has been forced into by the US.  In February 2025, the Mexican government lifted the ban on importing GMO corn, following intense pressure from the United States and the agribusiness sector under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (T-MEC).  Following pressure from US agribusiness lobby groups, the US government sued Mexico for violation of the T-MEC agreement, starting a multi-year long legal dispute on the issue. In December 2024, the T-MEC dispute panel ruled in favor of U.S. corn exporters, arguing that Mexico’s restrictions on GMO imports violated trade agreements and did not provide sufficient scientific justification for a ban.This ruling is emblematic of bioimperialism, where international trade policies and corporate science are weaponized to override national regulations protecting biodiversity, food security, and traditional knowledge.A ruling that represents an undermining of a country’s food sovereignty, keeping Mexico entangled in a global trade system that prioritizes corporate profits over ecological and public health concerns.

Moreover, Mexico’s constitutional reform did not come without resistance from powerful agribusiness interests and extensive U.S. political pressure. The push to impose GMO corn on Mexico is part of a larger pattern of agricultural imperialism, where corporate interests dictate farming policies throughout the world. Countries that resist GMO adoption often face economic retaliation, legal challenges, and diplomatic pressure often shifting international policy concerns in favor of corporate interests.

Contrasts with the CBD

Mexico’s constitutional reform coincides with the conclusion of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s COP16 summit. This convergence highlights a critical juncture in global biodiversity policy, especially concerning financing mechanisms, synthetic biology, and the use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI). The COP established the “Cali Fund,” a global fund aimed at ensuring that companies benefiting from DSI contribute to biodiversity preservation. Companies meeting certain financial thresholds are encouraged to contribute a percentage of their profits or revenues to this fund, with at least half allocated to support indigenous peoples and local communities. While the fund may facilitate and promote further genetic manipulation under the guise of conservation funding, the fund is still a move towards pushing big corporations to pay for digital data they access mainly for free. Data mined from biodiversity hotspots such as Mexico, for example.

Synthetic biology was also a key topic at this CBD COP, with continued opening and promotion of synthetic biology. Marking how the CBD might be on the defensive when it comes to regulating risky genetic manipulation techniques and information. The opening up of synthetic biology and the singular focus on generating funds from DSI at the CBD also marks a narrowing away from true regulation of very risky technologies that mostly affect the world’s most biodiverse regions.

Mexico’s reform marks a contrast with global frameworks emerging from COP16 that, while promoting conservation funding, could also open avenues for genetic manipulation of natural resources. This juxtaposition raises important questions about how international policy landscapes differ from national interests to conserve food and biodiversity sovereignty.

Photo credits: Fernanda Estrada González

A Strong Stance Amidst Global Deregulation of GMOs

Amidst the global trends, Mexico’s decision to prohibit the cultivation of GM corn serves as a key model for protecting national biodiversity. By enshrining this ban constitutionally, Mexico not only safeguards its rich maize heritage but also asserts its sovereignty over agricultural practices. This move challenges the prevailing trend of GMO deregulation currently underway all over the globe.

For example, New Zealand’s government has proposed significant changes to its GMO regulations, aiming to exempt certain gene-edited organisms from existing controls. While New Zealand has historically prohibited the planting of GMOs, the new legislative plan suggests removing a subclass of gene-edited plants, animals, and microbes from GMO regulations, meaning they would be exempt from pre-market risk assessments, traceability requirements, and GMO labeling. This approach is based on the assumption that these gene-edited organisms could also arise from conventional breeding, thus not necessitating special regulation. An argument that Navdanya International, amongst others has debunked thoroughly as language manipulation to circumvent biosafety laws.

However, this proposal has faced criticism from independent scientists. A report from the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety at the University of Canterbury, led by Prof. Jack Heinemann, warns that if the bill passes, New Zealand would have one of the most permissive GMO regulatory environments globally.

The European Union has also been the site of much debate on the deregulation of GMOs and the adoption of gene edited organisms. While the EU has historically maintained a strict regulatory stance on GMOs, recent developments indicate a significant shift towards deregulation, particularly concerning gene-edited crops. In February 2024, the European Parliament voted in favor of loosening regulations for new genomic techniques (NGTs), effectively allowing certain gene-edited crops to bypass previous GMO risk assessment requirements. While some restrictions remain—such as the exclusion of herbicide-resistant gene-edited crops and a prohibition on corporate patenting of NGT seeds—this marks a considerable deregulation trend in Europe. Environmental and farmer advocacy groups, including Navdanya International, have strongly criticized this decision, arguing that it prioritizes agribusiness interests over ecological sustainability and food sovereignty.

This goes to show that while other nations weaken their regulatory frameworks under industry pressure, Mexico’s stance reaffirms the importance of democratic decision-making in agricultural policies.

Navdanya International in Resistance to Bioimperialism

In March 2024, Navdanya International in alliance with Mexican civil society groups and several Mexican Ministries, hosted a series of events in Mexico focused on resisting GMO imperialism and defending biodiversity from the corporate agenda. Over the course of these various events, NI invited representatives from movements from Latin America such as Argentina, Colombia, Bolivia, Costa Rica in collaboration with Mexican civil society organizations, and Mexican ministries, to help demonstrate that this struggle goes beyond individual countries.

Through dialogues, workshops, and strategy sessions, these events reinforce the role of indigenous and peasant communities as the rightful stewards of biodiversity, playing a crucial role in mobilizing grassroots resistance and amplifying Mexico’s stand against bioimperialism on the global stage.

Photo credits: Fernanda Estrada González

These gatherings brought together farmers, indigenous leaders, government officials, scientists, citizens and activists to strengthen international networks of resistance against agribusiness control, as well as show solidarity in the protection of a center of biodiverse origin. The event underscored the importance of recognizing biodiversity as tied to the cultural and ecological identity of people, and emphasized the urgency of protecting native seeds from corporate exploitation in the name of food sovereignty and people’s rights.

Navdanya International began its involvement following  an open letter was issued by the Diverse Women for Diversity Movement in 2023, condemning the bullying of the US to force the importation of GMO corn. Women from all over the world signed the letter demanding that governments:

• Stop this strategy of pressuring the Government of Mexico to accept GMO corn. Mexico is the genetic reservoir of maize globally, which we must preserve.
• Recognize and accept the policy decisions democratically adopted by a sovereign country
• Acknowledge that the policies of Mexico are based on solid international scientific evidence demonstrating the harmful impacts of GMOs and glyphosate on human and environmental health.
• Recognize that the biodiversity of maize in Mexico is essential to food sovereignty not only in Mexico, but globally. No GMO should be introduced into any country, especially if it is a center of diversity.

Conclusion: 

Mexico stands as an international symbol for the struggle to conserve biodiversity, as all over the world impositions of industrial agriculture continue to take place, directly violating the sovereignty and rights of people and nature, in favor of corporate agenda. In the face of this, building relationships based on common struggle and common vision of an ecological future is an imperative.

By securing a legal framework to protect native maize, Mexico sets an important precedent for other nations seeking to reclaim control over their agricultural heritage. However, legislation alone is not enough. True food sovereignty and protection of biodiversity requires:

• A full ban on new and old GMOs, including gene edited organisms, preventing corporate seeds from infiltrating local markets and local landraces.
• The full recognition of the importance of local communities as the true custodians and guardians of biodiversity. Biodiversity is not just for corporate use, but is a part of a living web that communities are in communion with.
• The strengthening of agroecological policies, and ensuring public funding and research prioritize traditional and regenerative farming methods.

Mexico’s decision to constitutionally prohibit the planting of GMO corn is a significant victory in the fight for food sovereignty, biodiversity, and people’s rights. However, it exists within a larger struggle against corporate-driven agricultural policies and trade agreements that undermine national autonomy. The continued allowance of GMO imports and the rollback of previous bans highlight the compromises Mexico has been forced into under U.S. pressure.

The world must recognize that the fight for maize is the fight for sovereignty itself. As the birthplace of one of humanity’s most vital crops, Mexico’s resistance against bioimperialism offers inspiration for global movements working to protect biodiversity, indigenous knowledge, and regenerative agriculture. Only through continued activism, policy advocacy, and farmer-led innovation can this reform be a stepping stone toward a truly GMO-free, agroecological future.

Cover photo: Navdanya International