Mexico Urges Science-Based Trade Rules in USMCA Review

Mexico will advocate for science and technology-based decision-making during the upcoming USMCA review, said Julio Berdegué, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (SADER), while criticizing recent US measures affecting Mexican agricultural exports, including tomatoes and livestock. Speaking during the presentation of results from public consultations ahead of the trade agreement review, Berdegué said Mexico should insist that decisions affecting agri-food trade are grounded in scientific evidence. “We must return to an environment where measures affecting trade are based on scientific and technological evidence. That should be one of Mexico’s main positions in the USMCA review.” he said.

The minister argued that several recent US actions affecting Mexican products were not supported by scientific or technical evidence. Among them, he cited a compensatory duty imposed on Mexican tomatoes over alleged dumping.“Without scientific or technological evidence, the US government imposed a compensatory duty on Mexican tomatoes over alleged dumping, but there is no basis for finding such a violation of trade rules,” he said.

Berdegué also criticized restrictions on Mexican cattle exports linked to the presence of the New World screwworm, saying they contradict a protocol signed between the two countries in December 2024. According to the minister, the agreement established procedures, based on international technical standards, to maintain livestock exports despite the pest. “We signed a protocol based on international technical standards on how to maintain cattle exports despite the presence of the screwworm,” he said, adding that the United States has not respected the arrangement.

The minister also warned of a potential compensatory duty on Mexican strawberries and pointed to what he described as a significant increase in US direct subsidies that distort agricultural trade. He said Washington has provided more than US$12 billion in recent months to support grains and oilseeds production.

Despite the tensions, Berdegué said the overall balance of North American agro-food integration remains positive. He said regional integration has benefited primary producers, manufacturers and thousands of small and medium-sized service companies, as well as consumers in all three countries.

However, he acknowledged that some subsectors have faced challenges as integration deepened under the USMCA framework. Mexico must also address domestic issues to strengthen its position in regional trade, he said, including expanding opportunities for producers in the country’s south and east, where many small and medium-sized companies still have room to grow.

Berdegué said Mexico should also increase infrastructure capacity and add more value to its agricultural exports, particularly in meat products. Improving labor conditions in agro-export sectors is another priority, he added, so farmworkers can gain access to social security.

Mexico will enter the formal review process seeking to deepen agro-food integration with the United States and Canada, Berdegué said, describing the agreement as widely favorable for national interests.

The debate over science-based regulation has been a recurring theme in recent USMCA disputes. During the 2024 trade conflict over genetically modified (GM) corn, the United States repeatedly argued that Mexico’s restrictions on biotech crops were not supported by scientific evidence and therefore violated the agreement’s sanitary and phytosanitary provisions.

At the time, the Office of the US Trade Representative said it would continue monitoring Mexico’s agricultural biotechnology policies to ensure they were grounded in scientific principles. The dispute was significant for bilateral trade: in 2024, the United States exported US$5.6 billion worth of corn to Mexico, making the country the largest export market for American corn. Mexico ultimately suspended key restrictions on GM corn in February 2025 following the dispute panel ruling, highlighting how the interpretation of “science-based” regulation has become a central argument for both governments in North American agricultural trade disputes.