Mexico’s Agriculture & Economy Secretariats Pushing to Stop Labeling GMO & Toxic Pesticide Use in Food

ByNancy Flores

This article by Nancy Flores originally appeared in the April 6, 2026 edition of Revista Contralínea.

Civil organizations warn that, within the framework of the USMCA review, the Secretariats of Economy –headed by Marcelo Ebrard– and Agriculture –headed by Julio Berdegué– are pressuring to prevent the future Regulations of the General Law on Adequate and Sustainable Food from including the requirement that the agri-food industry inform consumers –through the use of clear front-of-package labeling– when its products include genetically modified organisms (GMOs, popularly known as transgenic organisms), or if highly toxic herbicides, such as glyphosate, were used during their production.

The Secretariats of Health—primarily responsible—Science, and Environment are also involved in drafting these regulations, and these ministries are allegedly yielding to the interests of transnational corporations. This is despite the fact that in the United States, this industry is required to label foods containing GMOs, the organizations point out. They also note that the federal government is in default, as the regulations should have been published in October 2024. In other words, more than a year and a half has passed without this mandate being fulfilled.

In an interview with Contralínea, biologist and independent researcher Érica Hagman explains that the General Law on Adequate and Sustainable Food establishes that, based on everyone’s right to choose and to know, processed and ultra-processed foods must be properly labeled. “It’s also worth mentioning that foods containing genetically modified organisms are already labeled in various countries, including the United States. In the United States, GMO food labeling has been mandatory since 2022.”

“We have the right to choose what we want to eat and also to be given information about the harms and risks associated with processed foods, GMOs and highly dangerous herbicides.”

For her part, Mercedes López – international director of Vía Orgánica and common representative of the Lawsuit against Genetically Modified Corn – explains to this weekly publication that the Regulations should have been issued 180 days after the Law was published (which occurred on April 17, 2024). “This deadline expired on October 15, 2024, and therefore the responsibility falls to the Secretariat of Health.”

Mercedes López emphasizes the importance of this Regulation becoming a reality, because it will make the Law effective and guarantee food sovereignty, “which implies continuing to plant our traditional products that come from the milpa, and which were the basis of a very healthy diet, and also very sustainable in terms of the environment.”

She adds that this delay can be attributed to pressure from transnational corporations: “What we’ve noticed is that there are many vested interests from people in various ministries, including some groups within the Secretariat of Health itself, who have very close corporate interests; some come from FEMSA, which owns Coca-Cola, and other groups that sell these ultra-processed foods and beverages.” She also mentions that these same interests have been identified in the Secretariats of Economy, Agriculture, and Science.

For her part, Professor Hagman indicates that this Regulation should establish labeling similar to that required in the United States – where a lawsuit was even won in 2025 requiring ultra-processed foods to be labeled –: “We are not talking about a label that says it does not contain GMOs, because that is a type of labeling that exists in the United States – a voluntary labeling that has been in place for about 15 years called the GMO Project, and it is also an independent project –; that is not the labeling, I am talking about mandatory labeling that informs that the food contains genetically modified organisms.”

The independent researcher adds that, since the General Food Law was published in 2024, this labeling should have been mandatory. Regarding the context of the USMCA review, she states that it does not contradict the United States. And she questions: “Or do Americans have more rights than we Mexicans to know what we are eating? Well, I don’t think so. Therefore, there is no excuse, for example, to eliminate it from the Regulations, since this labeling issue is already included in the General Food Law.”

Professor Hagman adds that the industry also lacks arguments regarding additional costs to its processes: “There may be concern that [the labeling] will increase food prices, because the industry will have to conduct studies to see if the food it is selling, that it is processing, contains GMO ingredients. That is false: that is resolved with traceability.”

In this regard, he explains that in the United States and European countries where labeling is already mandatory, there is traceability: “basically, it’s the clear and transparent transfer of information from the moment the seed is purchased and planted.” This means that the place where GMOs are planted must inform the buyer of the harvest, which is the next step in the chain, about the “transgenic event.” They must inform “whoever will collect, let’s say, those grains, which could be an exporting company. That exporting company then has to inform the importing company. And there, for example, there might be a control mechanism, which is customs. This transfer of information is free of charge.”

Regarding the inspection by the authorities, he points out that all agri-food imports are already regulated by the Biosafety Law; “therefore, it is not a new responsibility. It is not a new area of ​​competence, and it does not generate a new cost; it is something that should already be happening.” In the traceability chain, he adds that the importer, in turn, must notify that the imported product contains GMOs “to the entity concentrating the seeds. Then, to the company that will process those grains, that will transform them into ingredients. And in that way, there is no additional cost.”

Hagman reiterates that biosecurity authorities are already obligated to establish inspection and surveillance points, so this is neither a new responsibility nor does it imply a greater expenditure of public resources. He adds that it is not an impediment either, because it will not increase costs.

“We want to be informed; we want to know what we’re being sold, whether it contains residues, whether it’s made with or based on genetically modified organisms, and we also want information about conflicts of interest, about the potential or proven harm caused by pesticide residues, genetically modified organisms, or ultra-processed foods. We need this clear information so we can choose what we want to eat and how we want it to be produced and processed or are transformed.”

Interviewed separately, Hagman and López agree that there are four non-negotiable points in the future Regulation: respecting the precautionary principle and food sovereignty; including mandatory labeling of GMOs and toxic herbicides; establishing the intersectoral government group to make the General Law of Adequate and Sustainable Food and its constitutional obligations effective, with mechanisms for citizen participation and a committee for the prevention of conflicts of interest; and promoting breastfeeding during the first six months of life, preferably almost exclusively, and for up to two years complemented with other foods, and ensuring that mothers and their children have adequate spaces for breastfeeding.

Hagman explains that food labeling and the other three irreducible rights are about human rights: “We have the right to choose what we want to eat and also to be given information about the harms and risks associated with processed foods, GMOs and highly dangerous herbicides.”

For her part, Mercedes López reiterates that the Regulation must respond to “the fundamental basic right to food, health, the protection of biodiversity, information, and the power of decision that people have. We are prioritizing these principles of public interest and prevention of conflicts of interest, in the best interests of children; also, to the strengthening of local production.”

Therefore, López called “on the federal government, on public servants, to fulfill their function: to defend Mexican society and food sovereignty, and to ensure that the Regulation is issued as firm and strong as possible.”

Advanced Law & Food Sovereignty

To explain the relevance of the Regulation, Professor Hagman explains that the General Law of Adequate and Sustainable Food is a progressive law, closely linked to the food sovereignty of Mexico.

This law, he indicates, “is in accordance with the highest, most current, most recent standards in human rights, both in the so-called universal sphere and in the regional or inter-American sphere; but it also incorporates other elements that are precisely in the discussions of these human rights spaces, such as food sovereignty.”

Regarding the concept of food sovereignty, he indicates that it has been discussed in the context of peasant movements throughout the last century. He adds that it was already stated in the 2018 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas; “and in Mexico, food sovereignty was recognized or stated for the first time in 2023, with the publication of the General Law on Humanities, Sciences, Technology, and Innovation. A year later, it was also added as a concept in this General Law on Adequate and Sustainable Food, and more recently in 2025, in the reform to Article Four of the Constitution, in the paragraph that refers precisely to the human right to food.”

Regarding food sovereignty, Professor Hagman explains that it refers to “being able to choose, to be informed, and for people collectively, in the exercise of our self-determination, to be able to express what we truly want for our agri-food systems. It is similar to national sovereignty; that is, food sovereignty is not food security, it is not food self-sufficiency, it is more similar to the constitutional concept of national sovereignty in Article 39, which resides in and emanates essentially from the people and establishes a benefit for them.”

She adds that food sovereignty is about the people, “who, in their self-determination, collectively choose what they want for agri-food systems. And what we want is no mystery: we want healthy, sufficient, quality food at fair prices. We don’t want gourmet organic food that only the rich can afford. We want fair conditions for farmers, so they can make a living in the countryside, dignified peasant economies, and we want technologies—sometimes called alternatives, but which are really agriculture itself—that are truly sustainable. From the consumer’s perspective, we want to be informed; we want to know what we’re being sold, whether it contains residues, whether it’s made with or based on genetically modified organisms, and we also want information about conflicts of interest, about the potential or proven harm caused by pesticide residues, genetically modified organisms, or ultra-processed foods. We need this clear information so we can choose what we want to eat and how we want it to be produced and processed or are transformed.”