Fuentes para que formes tu opinión:
Banco Mundial Informe sobre TLCAN (2004)
En el Blog Grist Search List for corn mexico
Acuerdo para Estabilizar el precio de la Tortilla
TradeNote 2004 Mexican Corn the Effects of NAFTA
Países OCDE Reporte en Biocombustibles
Americas Program NAFTA Report
Bad Wrap How Archer Daniels Midland cashes in on Mexico's tortilla woes
Tortilla Prices Rise to a Usual Suspect
Evaluating US and UE biofuel policies
La montée en puissance des agrocarburants risque d'exacerber les pénuries alimentaires
Washington Post
El Financiero
USAToday
Some Facts
Corn in Mexico accounts for 60% of cultivated land,
employs 3 million farmers (8% of Mexico’s population
and 40% of people working in agriculture) and is the
country’s main staple food crop. There are a total of 18
million people dependent on corn production, including
farmers and their families. Seventy-two percent of
national corn-producing units are organized into ejidos—
mostly small-scale holdings that account for 62% of corn
production. Corn production accounts for more than twothirds
of the gross value of Mexico’s agricultural production,
while horticultural crops account for only 6%.
There are considerable differences between corn production
in Mexico and in the United States. First, the U.S.
is the world’s largest producer of yellow corn, normally
used for animal feed, while Mexico is the largest producer
of white corn, preferred by Mexican consumers.
Mexico has also retained far more local varieties, while
the U.S. has concentrated heavily in a few. Second, the
U.S. uses technology-intensive production, including
heavy chemical use and mechanization. Mexico’s steep
and mountainous terrain makes it difficult to introduce
mechanized production as used in the wide-open fields
of the U.S. Midwest, and small farmers often use far less
chemicals on their land due to cost. Second, Mexico averages
1.7 tons of corn per hectare while the United States
averages 7 tons. To produce one ton of corn in Mexico,
on average, 17.8 labor days are required to the U.S.’s 1.2
hours.24 This average again hides a great deal of variation,
however—on some modern, irrigated Mexican
farms, yields are comparable to the United States.
Nonetheless, 80% of total area of corn cultivation in
Mexico is rain-fed and frequently difficult to cultivate
because of steep slopes and poor soil.
Key findings
International and national decreases in corn prices
Stable levels of Mexican corn production despite price changes
Increase in rural poverty
Increase in out-migration
Increases in the price of tortillas
Tariff rate quotas not enforced and revenue foregone
Heterogeneity of impact among farmers
Wikipedia with footnotes:
The effects of NAFTA.
The effects of NAFTA, both positive and negative, have been quantified by several economists, whose findings have been reported in publications such as the World Bank's Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and the Caribbean,[8] NAFTA's Impact on North America,[9] and NAFTA Revisited by the Institute for International Economics.[10] Some argue that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen its poverty rates fall and real income rise, even after accounting for the 1994–1995 economic crisis.[11] Others argue that NAFTA has been beneficial to business owners and elites in all three countries, but has had negative impacts on farmers in Mexico who saw food prices fall based on cheap imports from highly subsidized U.S. agribusiness, and negative impacts on US workers in manufacturing and assembly industries who lost jobs. Critics also argue that NAFTA has contributed to the rising levels of inequality in both the U.S. and Mexico. Some economists believe that NAFTA has not been enough (or worked fast enough) to produce an economic convergence,[12] nor to substantially reduce poverty rates. Some have suggested that in order to fully benefit from the agreement, Mexico must invest more in education and promote innovation in infrastructure and agriculture
Agriculture
From the earliest negotiation, agriculture was (and remains) a controversial topic within NAFTA, as it has been with almost all free trade agreements that have been signed within the WTO framework. Agriculture is the only section that was not negotiated trilaterally; instead, three separate agreements were signed between each pair of parties. The Canada-U.S. agreement contains significant restrictions and tariff quotas on agricultural products (mainly sugar, dairy, and poultry products), whereas the Mexico-U.S. pact allows for a wider liberalization within a framework of phase-out periods (ironically, it was the first North-South FTA on agriculture to be signed).
The overall effect of the Mexico-U.S. agricultural agreement is a matter of dispute. Mexico did not invest in the infrastructure necessary for competition, such as efficient railroads and highways, creating more difficult living conditions for the country's poor. Still, the causes of rural poverty cannot be directly attributed to NAFTA; in fact, Mexico's agricultural exports increased 9.4 percent annually between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9 percent a year during the same period.[13]
Production of corn in Mexico has increased since NAFTA's implementation. However, internal corn demand has increased beyond Mexico's sufficiency, and imports have become necessary, far beyond the quotas Mexico had originally negotiated.[14] Zahniser & Coyle have also pointed out that corn prices in Mexico, adjusted for international prices, have drastically decreased, yet through a program of direct income transfer (a subsidy) expanded by former president Vicente Fox, production has remained stable since 2000.[15]
The logical result of a lower commodity price is that more use of it is made downstream. Unfortunately, many of the same rural people who would have been likely to produce higher-margin value-added products in Mexico have instead emigrated. The rise in corn prices due to increased ethanol demand may improve the situation of corn farmers in Mexico.
Impact on Mexican farmers
In 2000, U.S. government subsidies to the corn sector totaled $10.6 billion, a figure ten times greater than the total Mexican agricultural budget that year.[30] Other studies reject NAFTA as the force responsible for depressing the incomes of poor corn farmers, citing the trend's existence more than a decade before NAFTA's existence, an increase in maize production after NAFTA went into effect in 1994, and the lack of a measurable impact on the price of Mexican corn due to subsidized corn coming into Mexico from the United States, though they agree that the abolition of U.S. agricultural subsidies would benefit Mexican farmers.[31]
Americas Policy Report
The reasons outlined below explain farmers’ seemingly
illogical choice to keep producing corn despite lower
prices. Farmers recognize the importance of price signals,
and, contrary to the arguments of government officials,
prices affect even subsistence farmers. But given the lack
of alternatives and the multi-functional nature of corn
production in campesino life, many have reacted contrary
to “market expectations”—they are sowing more
corn, not less.
The stability of corn production despite lower prices is
inconsistent with straightforward laws of supply and
demand. Something else is going on. This paradox can
be explained by a variety of factors:
Lack of Options: Many producers do not have readily
available options to switch to more competitive crops;
this is because they lack assets like credit and technology
or because they work in poor-quality soil.
They increase their production, in spite of the
declines in price supports and corn prices, in order to
maintain income levels. Such producers have few
alternatives and hence place greater pressure on the
only production factors available to them—land and
labor.
Increased Yields and Expansion of Land under
Cultivation: Production growth may be related to
increased yields, often a result of increased pesticide
and fertilizer use, as well as the expansion of land
under cultivation. A study of corn production by
Alejandro Nadal in Oaxaca shows that 25% of production
growth was due to increased yields, and 65%
was due to expansion of land under cultivation.31
Producers in Oaxaca are increasing output due to
increased economic stress and with that increasing
pressure on lesser quality lands and the environment.
Safe Crop: Corn was once highly protected and many
have identified it as the least risky crop for production.
Risk-averse farmers, especially those producing
at subsistence levels, continue to identify corn as a
safe crop.
Staple: Since corn is a staple, many subsistence farmers
will continue to grow it for family consumption
despite decreases in price.
Culture and Tradition: Corn has been cultivated in
Mexico for generations and is used in rituals, ceremonies,
religious services, traditional culinary practices,
and healing. Corn historically forms the backbone
of Mesoamerican cultures, many of which are
alive today in the thousands of corn-growing indigenous
communities across Mexico.
Price of Substitutes: The decision to grow corn is not
based only on the prices of corn; it also depends on
the prices of other crops and the conditions available
to farmers to grow those other crops, such as suitable
land and inputs. Liberalization has also opened the
market to world prices in other goods; under such
conditions, it is unclear that farmers have any other
crops to which they might profitably switch.
Los efectos del Tratado y del Mercado Mundial influenciado por el boom de los biocombustibles son inequitativos y dicen que México debe cambiar de cultivo porque cultivar maíz ya no es productivo. El Gobierno actual quitó el subsidio a la tortilla y el aumento de los precios mundiales del maíz ha hecho que los mexicanos no podamos comprarlas.
A pesar del "Acuerdo para estabilizar el precio de la tortilla", el mercado internacional está golpeando directamente al campo mexicano y el Gobierno prefiere beneficiar a los empresarios como GRUMA que a las cooperativas y pequenas empresas mexicanas. [Archer Daniels Midland, the leading U.S. ethanol maker and the world's biggest grain buyer, owns a 27 percent stake in Gruma, Mexico's dominant tortilla maker.]
As mentioned above, not all of Mexico’s farmers have
suffered under NAFTA. “Competitive farmers” with
access to high-quality land, credit, and, perhaps most
importantly, government support, have fared well under
the trade agreement, even if this has meant shifting away
from corn to other commodities. But these constitute
the minority and for subsistence farmers, the prognosis
is not healthy.
Subsistence farmers, small farmers who own less than
5 hectares of land, account for 45% of all corn-growing
units in Mexico.Production for household consumption
represents 38% of their total production. For the most
part they farm poor-quality, rain-fed soil on sloping terrain;
they face irregular rainfall, and little or no access to
technology, credit, storage facilities, and marketing channels.
Many of these farmers work on ejidos and their
yields are 16% and 26% lower than privately owned
plots of rain-fed or irrigated land respectively. These producers
are often forced to sell their yields right after harvests,
when local prices are at the lowest, because they
lack storage facilities. They sell small amounts of the
corn they produce and their own labor to supplement
household income needs. A 1994 ejido survey found that
41% of ejidarios were selling part of their production.
There is a strong positive correlation between subsistence
production and poverty.
La realidad es que hoy no alcanza con los salarios para comprar una docena de tortillas.
Over the NAFTA period the domestic price for corn has fallen.
But the price of corn food—especially the Mexican staple,
the tortilla—did not decrease; in fact, it has increased
279%.
The reasons for this are twofold: first, and most important,
tortilla prices were subsidized until 1996, when
manufacturers were able to transfer their increased costs
to consumers. Second, the Mexican tortilla market is a
monopoly where the two largest companies—GIMSA and
MINSA—account for 70% and 27% of the market respectively.
38 These companies operate like cartels, using their
market power to set higher prices. The graph below
traces consumer prices for tortillas from 1994, when
prices were still subsidized, to 1999, well after liberalization.
Imposed on the same graph are the real prices of
corn in Pesos per bushel, which is how much Mexico is
paying for imported corn.
A strong political component operates in the distribution
of costs and benefits that reflects both power relations
within Mexico and within the international trade
system. To illustrate: the Mexican government could have
used NAFTA regulations to protect the corn sector until
2008, giving its farmers a longer adjustment period.
During the first year of NAFTA, Mexico’s tariff-free import
quota was set at 2.5 million metric tons of corn. This
quota was to expand at a compounded rate of 3% a year
starting in 1995, continuing until 2008 when the tarifffree
import quota would have reached 3.6 million metric
tons of corn.
But the Mexican government did just the opposite.
When prices soared recently, accusations swirled that Gruma was taking advantage of the global corn rally to gouge Mexican consumers on tortillas. The company claimed it was merely passing on its higher corn costs, but that claim rang hollow. U.S. ethanol makers use yellow corn, and their heightened demand for it indeed caused its global price to double. But Mexican tortilla makers use white corn, the price of which has not risen nearly as steeply.
In January, protesters marched in Mexico City with signs reading, "We don't want bread, we want tortillas."
This time, the government had little choice but to intervene. President Felipe Calderon gained power last fall in an election every bit as close and bitterly contested as the 2000 U.S. campaign. Widely viewed as the plutocrats' candidate, Calderon initially waffled as public outrage over high prices mounted. In mid-January, amid rising protests, he relented, perhaps calculating that a Mexico in which the poor can't afford tortillas would be ungovernable. He cobbled together a "gentleman's agreement" among tortilla makers and corn-flour processors, including Gruma/ADM and its rival, the U.S. agribusiness giant Cargill, to hold tortilla prices to about 78 cents per kilogram -- well above pre-crisis levels, but below the range ($1.36 to $1.81) reported in January. Already, there are reports that tortilla vendors are violating the agreement, and protests in the Mexican capital have resumed since the agreement.
Meanwhile, the Mexican federal government is investigating charges of price-gouging among Gruma and other big players, citing "monopolistic practices in the corn-tortilla chain that are harming consumers."
Firma la petición al Gobierno Mexicano para que se haga algo!
Fuentes:
Gisele Henriques and Raj Patel, “NAFTA, Corn, and Mexico’s Agricultural Trade Liberalization,” Americas Program (Silver City, NM: Interhemispheric Resource Center, January
28, 2004).
Bad Wrap How Archer Daniels Midland cashes in on Mexico's tortilla woes. By Tom Philpott
22 Feb 2007.
Wikipedia.org. NAFTA.
*Nixtamal (wikipedia)
El nixtamal es un tipo de masa preparada con maíz y con cal principalmente para la elaboración de tortillas, en México. La palabra proviene del náhuatl nextli, o cenizas de cal, y tamalli, masa de maíz cocido.
El nixtamal se prepara según una técnica mesoamericana: se cuece el maíz en agua con una proporción fija de cal (hidróxido de calcio)comúnmente tres partes de agua por cada una de cal, aunque el contenido de cal puede aumentar si los granos son muy duros. Una vez cocido, el grano se deja reposar durante la noche, tiempo en que revienta y se separa la cáscara del maíz para facilitar la molienda. Luego se enjuaga para eliminar el exceso de cal y se muele sobre el metate hasta formar la masa, este proceso se ha modernizado y actualmente la molienda se lleva a cabo mayoritariamente con máquinas o molinos industriales, pero en las áreas rurales el uso del metate persiste.
Los cambios químicos durante el proceso de elaboración dan la maleabilidad a la masa y a las tortillas. El proceso de nixtamalización disminuye ligeramente el contenido de vitaminas presentes, el almidón y la solubilidad de la proteína del maíz pero aumenta la biodisponibilidad de aminoácidos, el contenido de fósforo y calcio, de fibra soluble y almidón resistente, el contenído de ácido fítico disminuye también, mejorando con ello la absorción de minerales.
La nixtamalización eleva la disponibilidad de niacina, eliminando con ello el riesgo de desarrollar Pelagra atribuido en otras partes del mundo, fuera de Mesoamérica, al consumo del maíz.
English:
Hominy or nixtamal is dried maize (corn) kernels which have been treated with an alkali of some kind.
The traditional U.S. version involves soaking dried corn in lye-water (sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide solution), traditionally derived from wood ash, until the hulls are removed. Mexican recipes describe a preparation process consisting primarily of cooking in lime-water (calcium hydroxide). In either case, the process is called nixtamalization, and removes the germ and the hard outer hull from the kernels, making them more palatable, easier to digest, and easier to process.
Commercially available canned hominy often has a strong and unique odor.
The earliest known usage of nixtamalization was in what is present-day Guatemala around 1500–1200 BC. It affords several significant nutritional advantages over untreated maize products. It converts some of the niacin (and possibly other B vitamins) into a form more absorbable by the body, improves the availability of the amino acids, and (at least in the lime-treated variant) supplements the calcium content, balancing maize's comparative excess of phosphorus.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario