This article by Arturo Huerta González originally appeared in the October 7, 2025 edition of La Jornada de Oriente, the Puebla edition of Mexico’s premier left wing daily newspaper.
In response to the demands of producers of basic grains (wheat, corn, sorghum and beans) from Sonora, Sinaloa, Baja California, Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, Zacatecas, Guanajuato, Nayarit and Jalisco, together with the voices of academics from UNAM and Chapingo, we expressed on September 25, 2025, at a Forum on the Rescue of the Mexican Countryside held at the UNAM Faculty of Economy, the urgency of removing basic grains from the T-MEC.
This has generated statements against it. The director of the Agricultural Markets Consulting Group (GCMA) on October 2, within the framework of the Expo Agro Noreste & Bovinos Carne, said that “ ideological ” voices in Mexico are pushing for the withdrawal of basic grains from the agreement, and even from the Chicago Stock Exchange.
They talk to us about sovereignty in the country, but they don’t respect it; they don’t implement economic policies to ensure sovereignty and self-sufficiency in basic grains.
This criticism describes as “ideological voices” those who are in favor of the protection of national production, employment, and self-sufficiency and food sovereignty of basic grains. How could we describe those who are in favor of continuing to favor producers and employment in the United States, as well as large companies that market international agricultural exports and imports such as ADM, Cargill, Bunge, and Louis Dreyfous? Calling the defenders of self-sufficiency in basic grains in the country “ideological voices” is to disqualify these demands.
The discussion does not have to do with ideology, but with data and with the results of Mexico’s prevailing policy. The GCMA ‘s position reflects the defense of the interests of transnational corporations that have benefited from imports of basic grains, at the cost of displacing domestic producers and slowing the country ‘s growth. The GCMA’s argument recognizes that “Mexico ‘s self-sufficiency in grains and oilseeds is only 42%, so it depends on the US for supplies.” But what is not pointed out is that this has been a consequence of the country’s predominant neoliberal policies of free trade, zero tariffs on said products, coupled with a cheap dollar that makes imports cheaper, coupled with the lack of subsidies for domestic producers, and high interest rates that make credit and investment more expensive.
Mexican governments have preferred to lower inflation with cheap imports, so the cheap dollar with which they work is functional, at the cost of affecting national basic grain producers, slowing economic growth, creating a foreign trade deficit, increasing debt levels and increasingly depending on capital inflows. To attract capital, high interest rates and fiscal austerity are established, and such policies continue to act to the detriment of national production, which leads us to continue depending on imports and capital inflows. And still neoliberals continue to defend the USMCA and tell us that “decoupling basic grains from the North American free trade rules “would make them more expensive, since Mexico would be forced to import from more distant countries, such as Brazil or Argentina, increasing costs.”
Mexican governments have preferred to lower inflation with cheap imports, at the cost of affecting national basic grain producers, slowing economic growth, creating a foreign trade deficit, increasing debt levels and increasingly depending on capital inflows.
The position of Mexico’s basic grains producers is that this country has the capacity to be self-sufficient without resorting to imports, but this requires a protectionist policy, cheap credit, subsidies and setting prices around national productive conditions, just as the USA has always done to promote its agriculture. Furthermore, 95% of American agricultural producers receive subsidies and work with lower interest rates than in Mexico.
Our country has accepted unequal conditions in a treaty that should represent the same production opportunities for the countries involved. Removing basic grains from the USMCA would not harm the livestock sector, as GCMA points out, because its raw material would be satisfied by national production. A better endogenous context of growth and job creation would be better, one that would reduce our food dependence and the foreign trade deficit and capital inflow requirements, even if it generates some price increases, since the population would have jobs and income to overcome such a situation.
Japan produces its own rice, even though it’s more expensive than importing it from Vietnam. As productivity and production increase, prices will fall, and with them, interest rates, allowing for greater capacity for the public and private investment needed for growth and employment.
GCMA notes that “the withdrawal of grains from the USMCA would damage the trade relationship with the US , particularly endangering the most competitive export sectors, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, and beer.” It is unlikely that the US would ban such imports. It would impose tariffs, but these products have price-inelastic demand and cannot easily be replaced by others, so producers of these goods would not be greatly affected.
GCMA also pointed out that it is not true that the agricultural sector was a loser in the Treaty; on the contrary, it “was one of the big winners.” In this regard, it must be said that the winners were the aforementioned transnational trading companies.
GCMA concludes by saying that “these are terrible ideological things. Don’t you see the numbers showing how well Mexico has done with the USMCA ? We are a different country since the Treaty. It would be regrettable (if the grains were to leave the agreement) because consumer prices would increase.” However, the numbers reflect that with NAFTA & the USMCA we have had less economic growth, less industry (and what industry exists, is highly foreign-owned), less production of basic grains, high participation of transnational companies in the production and marketing of agricultural products, high underemployment, higher levels of debt, greater poverty, crime, and high dependence on capital inflows. GCMA ’s approach is concerned with consumer prices , but not with national production and employment. What’s the point of lowering inflation with cheap imported products that generate unemployed people who have no income to purchase cheap goods?
I’m Not Afraid of israel
October 7, 2025
If we don’t react to israel’s genocide against Palestine, we will have failed as human beings, writes Workers Party deputy Lilia Aguilar Gil.
Agricultural Producers Call for Removing Basic Grains from USMCA, Building Food Sovereignty
October 7, 2025October 7, 2025
What’s the point of lowering inflation with cheap imported products that generate unemployed people who have no income to purchase cheap goods?
US Warns No USMCA Negotiations if Mexico Does Not Give In
October 7, 2025
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer stated that there will be no negotiations to extend or renew the USMCA while Mexico does not “comply” with the energy, telecommunications, agriculture, & other sectors.
The post Agricultural Producers Call for Removing Basic Grains from USMCA, Building Food Sovereignty appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.
From Mexico Solidarity Media via this RSS feed