Following up on my last post, here's another quote from U.S. Trade Rep. Katherine Tai speaking at the University of Chicago yesterday, this one in response to a question on the GE Corn USMCA dispute:
Q: Your office is bringing an international trade complaint against Mexico under the USMCA for regulating the sale of genetically engineered corn. My question is, don't your actions interfere with Mexico's right to regulate? And as long as Mexico isn't discriminating against US corn, why can't it regulate how it wants?
Tai: This is another good trade basics question. So, your question demonstrates that you appreciate that the fundamental principle underlying our trade rules is non-discrimination. So non-discrimination as between your goods and imported goods, goods from another country, and non-discrimination as between goods from one country and another country. Our trade agreements have actually become much, much more complex and far reaching. And they're not without controversy. So let me just start with that.
But in terms of the trade complaint that we've brought against Mexico, it's not actually based on a discrimination complaint. The complaint is that Mexico's regulations are not based on science. And so the question that's presented in Mexico's decree is, in regulating against the import of genetically modified white corn that goes into human consumption, what is the justification for Mexico making this decree? Is there a scientific reason? Can Mexico show that there is something somehow unsafe about this corn vis-a-vis yellow corn, for example, that comes in for animal feed? And I think that's at the center of the dispute, but it does really highlight the extent to which trade agreements go beyond some of our basic principles and encompass additional principles that have consequences on the right to regulate.
Q: In Mexico, they've been cultivating corn for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And it's very important culturally to the cuisine, and just in general. Is a cultural justification not enough to justify the regulation?
Tai: So because it's a trade agreement, and this is where I can say -- I'm not an economist, but I am a lawyer -- you look at the commitments that Mexico signed up for in the agreement. And they were: we promise not to regulate arbitrarily; we promise to regulate within these parameters. One is that when it comes to food safety, that what we do will be based on standards, international standards, and it will be based on science. Our trade agreements do recognize that trade is not the end all be all. And there are exceptions written in that recognize that there are, and there can be, larger legitimate public interest and regulatory governmental prerogatives that would justify deviating from your trade commitments. I think that on that basis, the question around culture is on Mexico to advance as a defense.
I feel like if you read between the lines here, maybe, just maybe, she's not totally convinced that international trade rules requiring that food safety measures be based on science are a great idea, and perhaps they even go too far ("not without controversy" and "go beyond some of our basic principles and encompass additional principles that have consequences on the right to regulate"). But obviously she would have difficulty saying that in her current position, and maybe I'm reading too much into this. Some day after she's no longer in office, perhaps I'll get a chance to ask her about it.
