Hacker News Reader

One issue with Corn in México is that we have hundreds of different varieties of corn (including those fancy coloured corn used for tortillas). Introducing High yield GMO corn without taking care if the local varieties could decimate the biodiversity of the region.

The high yield corn isn’t edible. You have to do food science to it or feed it to livestock.

This is not true.

It isn't sweet corn, which is essentially a mutation variety from hundreds of years ago eaten like a vegetable instead of a grain.

All field corn (dent corn, lots of names) is perfectly edible. There are varieties with different characteristics like protein, oil, or starch content, or varieties grown to grind up and feed the whole plant to animals.

Regulation approves only certain genetics and grain millers will have certain approved varieties that mill well, and in general lots of extra care must be taken for human food corn. Ultimately though, it is extremely similar to all other corn.

Unless I'm mistaken, I think this misconception arises from people not realizing that a lot of corn is actually intended to become flour, not to be eaten off of the cob like sweet corn. So yes, these corns aren't edible when rolled in butter at a barbecue, but they do grind into flour just fine to become other things.

I think the parent meant ‘not palatable’ instead of ‘not edible’, it’s an understandable mistake for someone who’s rarely, or never, experienced edible but not palatable food.

> feed it to livestock

So, it's edible?

I don't think it would require repealing NAFTA. I don't know the legal details of NAFTA (or whatever it is called today). But usually, what free trade agreements do is forcing countries not to advantage local companies over foreign ones among the parties of the agreement. So I suppose if Mexico bans corn imports from the US, it will be against NAFTA. If it bans all genetically-engineered corn whether they are produced in Mexico or US or Canada, that will be OK. If most US corn is GE, then they effectively ban corn imports from the US without banning corn imports.

> I don't know the legal details of NAFTA...

I hate to say this... but, why are you commenting if you don't know the legal details of NAFTA? The legal details of NAFTA are thorny, often surprising, and extremely relevant to this issue. Just search for the case history of the "tantamount to expropriation" phrase from NAFTA, and the crazy way these court cases have played out over the years under NAFTA.

NAFTA is practically the poster child for "trade deals with weird language, that should probably have never been approved by congress, with far-reaching consequences."

> I hate to say this... but, why are you commenting if you don't know the legal details of NAFTA?

They've given a good hypothesis. Are you expecting commenters to only contribute to topics they can claim to be specialized experts in?

I'm expecting commenters to contribute to topics when they have something relevant to say, rather than make guesses in the dark in fields they're not familiar with. If someone's comfortable making guesses about whether something will turn out to be struck down by NAFTA, but doesn't know anything about NAFTA other than the fact that it's a trade deal... well, aren't the details of NAFTA explicitly what's important to answering the question here?

And wouldn't someone with a passing familiarity with NAFTA at least know about the "tantamount to appropriation" clause? I know this much, and that's just from a half-remembered required social studies class I took in public high school in the US, some twenty-odd years ago.

I’ve found on most topics I know something, the top comment is usually a random guess in the dark. They don’t know what they’re talking about and actively harm understanding of the issue. The standard HN top comment will have no grounding in facts but will simply assume the worst intent possible of everyone involved. This cynicism is mistaken for wisdom.

Of course I see a lot of wisdom on HN threads discussing subjects I’m not familiar with … but only because I can’t tell the difference between cynicism and wisdom in those cases.

You’re frustrated that someone would comment on a thorny legal issue while having no understanding of the law or knowledge of the specifics of NAFTA. But that’s how it is on every thread not related to software. See the hundreds of threads where software engineers suddenly became expert epidemiologists overnight for an example of this phenomenon.

I’m not sure what the alternative is. Certainly it isn’t just keeping quiet and not discussing anything we’re not experts in. Maybe sometimes it’s ok to speculate just for fun.

Your reasoning about the cynicism of HN while being cynical is kind of amazing in a good, humorous way. Not sure if intended, but appreciated nonetheless.

> The standard HN top comment will have no grounding in facts but will simply assume the worst intent possible of everyone involved. This cynicism is mistaken for wisdom.

The last decades of politics have shown all over the world that modern politicians act primarily on the whims of those who line their pockets, which is way too often contrary to the best solutions for their constituents or the ability of the planet to support human life.

That cynicism, itself a symptom of the erosion of trust in democracy, as well as populist tendencies, doesn't come from nothing.

> The last decades of politics

There was never an era where politicians didn’t prioritise their self interest above all else.

If somebody say something that is wrong and another person correct it, we all learn something.

I think there is nothing wrong with saying your thing, if you do it in a humble way and you don't pretend to be an expert. It's called having a conversation.

If they declare themselves an expert on NAFTA before commenting would that satisfy your requirements? You sound silly. Everyone please check-in with klodolph before commenting.

Personally, I'd just prefer people assert less often what they don't know to be true with a good degree of confidence. I'm including myself in this goal. I'm trying to say, "Why would ...?" rather than, "I don't think ...", especially when my basis for thinking a certain thing is shaky.

Seems like a reasonable assumption to me. A trade agreement doesn't compel a country to accept literally anything that a trading partner wants to export. For instance Mexico couldn't force the US to import cocaine since obviously that's illegal. Mexico is just saying GM corn is banned internally and externally.

Many trade deals contain a catalogue of legal and illegal substances under the deal, often with the requirement to make not-yet-legal ones legal under the deal.

NAFTA was replaced last year with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). I don't believe it goes into full effect until 2025-26. It's basically the same as NAFTA, though.

I’m not an expert but it’s my understanding that the deal is more detailed then that and less about not favoring foreign companies and more about getting one big negotiation done all at once for a large number of industries.

I really enjoyed this episode of Planet Money that tells the story of some of the original NAFTA negotiators: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/epis...

Articles 5th and 6th mention genetically modified corn.

>Artículo Quinto.- Las Secretarías de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, de Salud, y de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, así como el Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, a más tardar en el primer semestre del año 2023, promoverán las reformas de los ordenamientos jurídicos aplicables para evitar el uso de glifosato como sustancia activa de agroquímicos y de maíz genéticamente modificado en México.

At the end: "...to avoid the use of glyphosate as active substance in agrochemicals and genetically modified corn in Mexico"

In Art. 6: > revocarán y se abstendrán de otorgar permisos de liberación al ambiente de semillas de maíz genéticamente modificado.

"... will revoke and abstain from granting permits to release into the environment genetically modified corn seeds"

> cheap, government-subsidized U.S. corn

Maybe the US gov't should stop subsidizing it? I assume that brings the price down quite a bit.

This would be nice, it sucks that everything in the U.S contains corn syrup.

Check your ingredient labels. Over the past decade, we've shifted away from HFCS to use more refined sugar. Sauce: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/backg...

FWIW it only contains corn syrup because it's cheaper than cane sugar. If corn wasn't so cheap, you'd just eat an equivalent amount of cane sugar instead.

>cheaper than cane sugar

Which is because the US restricts cheap sugar imports from Mexico, to make US sugar cane farming profitable.

My first thought when I saw the headline was that Mexico corn restrictions were retaliation for US sugar restrictions.

55% sugar beets, 45% cane.

Which is better? Cane sugar and corn syrup are very different and the harmful effects of “sugar” are greatly increased with HFCS

Are they that different? I thought the major difference was that the disaccharide in cane sugar was split in corn syrup, which happens very quickly in your digestion anyway.

It has significantly more fructose which can cause digestive issues for some people (search fructose malabsorption, it's apparently fairly common).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM - the main gist of it is cane sugar is 50/50 sucrose and fructose while HFCS contains much more fructose which is harder for the body to digest/make use of as it requires being broke down or something and its hard on the liver ect. that video goes way into depth about it if your interested.

Wouldn't it be just ordinary beetroot sugar? Why cane?

I assume you mean the sugar beet?

Cane sugar is cheaper than beet sugar.

Alas, the sugar beet industry is also just another creature of tariffs and subsidies.

See eg https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-spends-4-billion-a-... for the US. The situation in Europe was similar when I last looked, but that was at least a decade ago.

AFAIK sugar in Europe is mostly refined beet sugar, while refined ir brown cane sugar costs much more.

Yes, and as far as I know that's down to tariffs and subsidies in the EU.

See https://www.researchgate.net/figure/White-Sugar-Prices-Euro-... to see that sugar is much more expensive inside the EU than on the world market.

And https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-sugar-prices-graphic-i... and https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-f...

https://www.ragus.co.uk/tariffs-on-sugars-explained/ also seemed interesting. They say:

> The basic tariff for importing direct consumption sugar into the EU is €419 per tonne. So, every tonne of sugar imported from a non-EU country costs an extra €419. Raw sugar imported into the EU is to be further refined into white sugar attracts a tariff of €339 per tonne.

remember when we had those toilet paper shortages and other essential shortages due to minor supply chain disruptions during the early stages of the COVID pandemic?

now imagine that it was actual food shortages because we outsourced farming for short term profit, food subsidies are a national security issue. Outsourcing food production to maximize(short-term) economic efficiency is exactly the type of short sighted decision that has resulted in China taking over global manufacturing

Corn based ethanol would like a word. Also, it’s ironic to me that subsidized industrial monoculture has a number of insecurity producing effects:

1. Topsoil loss 2. Mismanagement of surface water and subsurface reserves 3. Centralization and consolidation, decimating rural communities which would be producing more labor intensive food in a crisis 4. Lower biodiversity, increased risk of catastrophic loss 5. The whole system relies on global trade to make useful food anyway

If national security were the actual driving force, farm policy would look a lot different.

You should read up on modern farming techniques. That would mitigate a lot of your concerns.

Thanks… but I do. My state is responsible for more than 1/3 of the total nutrient entering the Gulf of Mexico, and our major city recently tried and failed to sue counties to the north for making their water cost prohibitive to treat.

What exactly don’t you think I know about farming practices? I personally know both commodity farmers and sustainable vegetable farmers.

I agree with the benefits of crop subsidization, however the subsidies on corn are way beyond national security. Corn is a very robust crop that grows in nearly any conditions and has limited nutritional value, subsidies need to be spread out among more varied and vulnerable crops. We should also be focusing them on more sustainable farming techniques that don't deplete the topsoil.

I used to not like farm subsidies, but the free market tends to plan for supply shocks poorly, and the cost of shortages is incredibly high, so I don't mind paying farmers to overproduce food.

The problem is that the government tells you to produce a limited selection of crops. Then subsidy farmers will try to optimize the crap out of the subsidies. It's ok for food security but now all the food processing companies will try to use the subsidized crops everywhere because they are much cheaper.

Not if the farm subsidies incentivize dumb things.

We should have a universal subsidy, not preferential subsidy for some food groups.

For instance, 87 cents of every dollar that a dairy farmer makes is from subsidy. That is ridiculous.

Do you have a source for this? I believe you, but there are multiple ways of parsing that sentence, and a source would clarify things.

One reading (87% of gross income) is obviously problematic, and another (87% of profit) is exactly what you'd expect to get if you add almost any subsidy to a previously low-margin activity.

Revenue, but the number is actually 73%, I misremembered.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/12/best-way-...

Thanks

But you don't need subsidies for that - you can just buy on the market and rotate reserves

This is also a subsidy.

Absolutely, but depending on how you do it, you can cause less market distortions - what I've seen subsidies do locally is make farmers do things that would be unprofitable instead of searching for what's profitable for them (eg. planting sub-optimal crops because they know they get subsidies, prevent small inefficient farmers from going bust effectively becoming a welfare program that prevents more efficient farming, etc.)

Having a functioning farm sector a food reserve is sooooo much better than having any amount of food in storage. You can only store so much, it won't last long given the huge amount needed every day. Disruptions that last years rather than weeks or months look more likely now than in the past century.

That can be generalized and of course is not limited to farming.

Maybe on the US level it makes sense, but I live in a small country and I hear this argument a lot and it makes 0 sense :

a) our agricultural sector isn't diverse or strong enough anyway, if we get cut off from imports we are fucked even with subsidies

b) ramping up basic agriculture doesn't seem that hard, as in that's an easier crisis scenario to handle

c) on the market if global food prices jumped (has happened in the past) the subsidized farmers were quick to export to richer markets at a higher price, I believe US also saw similar price jump effects when China was affected by pork shortages IIRC

Best case scenario is government just increases the emergency supplies they already have to cover the period it would take the production to ramp up

> Maybe on the US level it makes sense, but I live in a small country

In case you missed it, this entire discussion here is about the US situation. The "U.S:" even is in the article's subtitle (once you click on the article) and the US and NAFTA are all over the article and this discussion.

Mexico

The country talked about as the one subsidizing their products, leading to the problem elsewhere, is not Mexico. Not sure what you were reading here. It's the USA.

And apparently, see the current topic, Mexico too thinks having a functioning farming sector is more important than having access to the cheapest goods. Other wise they would welcome that the US pays for them being able to import the products more cheaply because of the subsidies.

So, given that, I'm not sure why you think pointing to Mexico refutes my point?

> [...] but the free market tends to plan for supply shocks poorly, [...]

Well, when you ban people from raising prices when they prepared for an emergency better than others, that tends to disincentives preparing for emergencies.

(And, yes, the US and many state ban raising prices whenever they declare emergencies.)

That might sound appealing, but economics isn't with you here.

In addition, the farmland in eg the US isn't going away, just because you drop subsidies and tariffs from corn. People will just grow something else there, when corn isn't as profitable anymore.

(Or the land might drop in value.)

Farmland in the US has been going away for years, and getting turned into developments and urban sprawl.

For context, about 5% of the US is developed, and about 45% is used as farmland. Sprawl can be pretty bad and still not have much of an effect.

Do you have numbers on how much of an issues that is?

3-ish percent between 1992 and 2012: https://www.ngfa.org/newsletter/report-outlines-dramatic-los... (and it's disproportionally the good land)

^ not to mention biofuel from corn actually takes more energy to produce than it provides

The dream would be for that energy to come from renewable electricity, so I think it's still a viable fuel to consider for the future as a holdover fuel for the enormous internal combustion engine fleet the world has. We can't immediately convert everyone to electric, so a good holdover might be making renewable fuels more viable.

I intend to keep my car in operation for a long time, as a car for motorsport, so I converted it to E85 for performance and long term robustness of fuel supply. My guess is that as petroleum and diesel fuels go out of fashion, only niche consumers will need combustion fuels, and that will be motorsport and ethanol blends. Companies can already make ethanol racing blends work financially, so I expect it to stick around.

Do you run gas through your lines and injectors before storage?

Not currently but I still use the car once a week, we have an all year driving season so I just inspect the lines occasionally and I haven't seen any erosion yet. I think I would run unleaded through it if I had to store it for 6+ months though.

What lines?

EDIT: Fuel lines? Are these things which one simply modifies for fun and profit?

There are two statements here that you are getting mixed up.

Ethanol absorbs moisture. You cannot store gas that contains ethanol for as long as you can non ethanol gas. If you are putting your car in storage, it is prudent to flush out the ethanol. This can be as simple as running the tank down and filling up with regular gas, and then driving more so the lines don't have ethanol gas anymore.

Ethanol attacks rubber compounds in a different method than gasoline. You need to have special lines to run E85 gas. I presume he switched it out himself. Not sure what else is involved in the conversion.

Yep that's all correct, there were a few lines that needed to be replaced with E85 rated lines, it wasn't a big task though.

For my setup I have an ethanol content sensor so I can run regular and ethanol based fuels, and I upgraded my fuel pump and injectors, as you need about twice as much fuel volume per combustion compared to regular unleaded.

To answer the "Why" of the parent post, typically it's because you can get more power out of a vehicle with ethanol.

The reason you can get more power out of ethanol fuels, is because the aforementioned increased volume of fuel cools the combustion temperature. Ethanol brings some of it's own oxygen, hence why you can combust that extra fuel without adding more air.

Lowering combustion temperatures reduces the tendency for an engine to "knock" or "ping". Knocking is when the flame front is uneven, which gives a poorly timed and high peak pressure combustion that can lead to catastrophic failure.

Most turbocharged or supercharged engines are "knock limited" meaning you could produce more power if you could eliminate the risk of knocking. This only gets worse as turbo/superchargers increase intake air temperatures, which increases combustion temperature, increasing the tendency to knock. So by using ethanol fuels, you decrease combustion temperatures and get back the ability to push the engine further using other parameters.

If it took less we would already be a post scarcity world so that's hardly a problem with biofuels. They are a reasonably good solar battery.

Banning only glyphosate does nothing to stop cheap imports from flooding the market, so it makes no sense in the context of the problem described.

The GE corn is specifically engineered to be tolerant of glyphosate. That way you can spray it all over the fields and it kills the nutrient stealing weeds and not the corn. It seems their goal is to get rid of the GE corn and outlawing glyphosate to reduce the demand for the GE corn is a big part of the process.

So, non-glyphosate herbicides aren't really relevant to the goals of the program.

No, my point is that if the problem is cheap imports of ready-to-eat corn is the problem, then only banning glyphosate itself will do nothing to stem that. If it's banned alongside GMO corn imports, that's a different matter.

Ahh, I misunderstood. I get your point and agree. Thanks.

> So the solution is to ban growing high yielding strains domestically? I'm not sure how that's going to work.

The answer is in the headline: it's a decree from a populist. It might sound good to voters, but might even be harmful when it faces economic realities.

> The google translated version says nothing about banning genetically engineered corn, just banning glyphosate?

That's a question, right? The answer is no: articles 5 and 6 do talk about banning genetically modified corn.

It appears around 95% of the imported corn is feed-grade yellow corn because Mexica doesn't grow very much of that. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2020/august/us-corn-exp...

You can use broad leaf herbicides on corn. Also modern tech spot treats at planting. Some farmers do this already. I don’t think everyone is growing pioneer.