Contextual Essay

“Before NAFTA, everybody here grew corn. People didn’t make much money, but nobody went hungry.”^​*​ This is a quote from Griselda Mendoza, the daughter of a farmer in Oaxaca, Mexico. This is a fact, the ratification of NAFTA resulted in Mexico losing nearly a million agricultural jobs in the deal’s first decade alone.^​†​ This dramatic result is due to the overproduction of cheap U.S. corn that flooded the market at extremely low prices.^​‡​ NAFTA, a three way partnership between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, while beneficial to Mexico in some aspects, unleashed a domino effect of consequences upon Mexico. The deal was devastating to the country’s agricultural sector, small businesses, and everyday diet and health. NAFTA, typically regarded in a positive light, was merely an opportunity for U.S. exploitation of Mexico, in an effort to recreate the ideals and society of the U.S. within Mexico. 

Following NAFTA’s approval, there was a harsh decline in the growing of Mexican corn, or maíz, but a significant increase in the United States corn industry.^​§​ This transition was extremely devastating to Mexican families, particularly those involved in small-scale agriculture. In an interview of the Mendozas, the family blames the infamous deal for ripping their family apart. The father, Benancio, used to make a living by growing and selling corn.^​¶​ Following NAFTA, Benancio was unable to challenge the inexpensive U.S. corn that undercut him and his fellow growers.^​#​ To support his family, Mr. Mendoza decided to emigrate to the very country that caused his situation in hopes of employment.^​**​ His family didn’t see him for another eighteen years.^​††​ Unfortunately, the Mendozas simply reflect a bigger trend across Mexico post-NAFTA. In every case, the story is the same. A family is negatively affected by the U.S. government subsidized corn that was imported into Mexico, and, as a result, was forced to be torn apart due to one or multiple members looking for employment in the United States.

Another example of the hardships NAFTA has caused for small-scale laborers and business owners is demonstrated by the case of Doña Yolanda, the owner of a tienda, or small store, in Santo Tomás Tlalpa.^​‡‡​ Yolanda has been in business for over 27 years, but is losing clients dramatically as a result of the installation of cheap superstores such as Walmart.^​§§​ Yolanda claims that her fellow residents take a bus to Walmart rather than support her business because it is so much less expensive.^​¶¶​ This too is an effect of NAFTA. With ultra processed foods becoming an increasingly popular import to Mexico throughout the years, a location to sell them is needed, thus creating the arrival of superstores within Mexico. The fall of the tienda can also be attributed to the rise of convenience stores such as Oxxo, a 7-11 equivalent.^​##​ In 2015, Oxxo opened an average of three stores a day, combining to a massive 14,000 stores in Mexico, making it the second largest chain in the country.^​***​ Mexicans support stores like Oxxo because of its cheapness and the convenience that it provides, making them more popular than the traditional tienda. According to Eating NAFTA, “Mexico’s Chamber of Commerce estimates that for every convenience store that opens, five tiendas close.”^{​†††​} NAFTA led to the fall of the age-old tienda due to the ascent in popularity of super and convenience stores following the deal’s ratification.

Another detrimental consequence of NAFTA is the slew of negative effects it has had upon the health of the country’s people. The individuals that did remain in Mexico, while able to stay in their native country, are often plagued by obesity, diabetes, and cancer.^{​‡‡‡​} Since 1980, the Mexican obesity rate has risen to around 30%.^​§§§​ By 2050, it is expected that this percentage will rise to 54  percent in men and 37 percent in women.^​¶¶¶​ This severe increase in obesity has its roots in NAFTA’s enactment. Since small-scale Mexican farmers could no longer grow their own corn, and U.S. corn often arrived in the form of ultra processed foods, the Mexican diet was altered.^​###​NAFTA led to the importation of corn, soybeans, sweeteners, consumer-oriented products, meats, and snack foods.^​****​ This shift has had a dramatic effect upon the everyday diet of Mexicans, as these imports from the United States place little emphasis upon a traditional, more healthy, diet based upon locally grown corn. The researchers from Kantar health and Novo Nordisk claim that the prevalence of obesity in Mexico is a result of  “increased consumption of calorically dense foods and a more sedentary lifestyle.”^{​††††​} Their work aimed to analyze the abundance of obesity and diabetes, research the relation between weight and quality of life, and find weight loss methods.^{​‡‡‡‡​} By collecting data from a diverse sample group, the researchers were able to find that 62% of these adults were categorized as overweight.^{​§§§§​} They also found that of individuals with a BMI of at least 35, roughly 30% of them possessed type two diabetes and another 45% were considered to have prediabetes, measuring up to a total of 75% afflicted.^{​¶¶¶¶​} Mexico’s rise in obesity coincides with the ratification of NAFTA. The deal was ratified in 1994.^​####​ In 1990, obesity composed around eight percent of Mexico’s total deaths.^​*****​ Since then, the amount of deaths caused by obesity has dramatically risen: eleven percent in 1998, fourteen and a half percent in 2007, and over sixteen percent in 2017.^{​†††††​}  Comparatively, obesity produced only eight percent of deaths globally the same year.^{​‡‡‡‡‡​} This data shows that NAFTA directly increased the amount of deaths caused by obesity in Mexico and made the country significantly more unhealthy. 

The larger historical significance of the data given from these sources is that much of NAFTA was mere exploitation of Mexico. With NAFTA, the United States sought to rebuild the country into something similar to itself- a much more industrialized, ultra processed food addicted, overweight country. When enacting NAFTA, the U.S. seemed apathetic to the consequences Mexico would face. As previously mentioned, the deal led to a loss of traditional corn growing and agricultural jobs, popularity of tiendas, as well as an abundance of unhealthy foods and products, and, as a result, the creation of an obesity epidemic within Mexico. President Trump called the deal one sided in 2017, claiming that the deal was much more favorable toward Mexico.^{​§§§§§​} However, this doesn’t seem to be the case when one examines the negative aspects that NAFTA yielded upon Mexico in comparison to the positives that it netted the United States. NAFTA was extremely beneficial to U.S. farmers and the country’s agricultural industry as a whole. In 1995, the year after NAFTA’s enactment, U.S. corn exports to Mexico were about 390 million dollars. Flash forward twenty years, and that number increased over sixfold to over 2.4 billion.^{​¶¶¶¶¶​} The flooding of the market caused Mexican corn prices to drop by nearly 70%.^​#####​ 

NAFTA also allowed the U.S. to export a variety of other food products as well, as seen by Eating NAFTA: “U.S. companies invested twenty-five times more in Mexico’s food industry in 1999 than 1987, with three-quarters of that investment in the arena of processed food production. And from 1995 to 2003, sales of processed foods expanded 5 to 10 percent each year in Mexico.”^​******​ This shows that the U.S. has benefitted much more than Donald Trump lets on. North American growers were able to undercut their Mexican counterparts, thus taking over the market and opening up many other financial opportunities for the U.S. agricultural and food industries.  The severity of this is demonstrated by the impact the U.S. has had upon Mexican infrastructure, but in terms of the distribution of consumer goods. These goods often arrive in places where basic needs and infrastructure are not met, it is only the distribution of goods and processed foods that improve infrastructure.^{​††††††​} A representative of the Puebla state’s government’s food distribution service for malnourished children revealed that in many of the areas she works in, roads were not present until recently.^{​‡‡‡‡‡‡​} Once paved roads were built, the first vehicles that drove on them were Coca Cola trucks.^{​§§§§§§​} Another impact of NAFTA is especially relevant to the modern political climate: immigration to the United States. During President Trump’s campaign run in 2016, he was adamant that he would reduce illegal immigration, much of it caused by NAFTA. Four years before the deal came into action, there were around four and a half million Mexican immigrants who had moved to the States.^{​¶¶¶¶¶¶​} By 2008, that number was nearly thirteen million.^​######​ The United States used NAFTA as a means of exploiting Mexico and spreading their industrial and dietary practices. This exploitation caused immigration to the United States due to a loss of jobs in Mexico’s agricultural industry.

In conclusion, NAFTA, while beneficial to Mexico in some aspects, was a deal that rebuilt Mexico with the United States as its model. Thousands of individuals such as Benancio Mendoza lost their jobs and were forced to look for employment opportunities in the United States. Once U.S. corn dominated the market, the American diet began to as well. Soon, ultra processed foods became popular and easily available within Mexico, upending the traditional tienda. These foods produced the obesity epidemic in Mexico. While many of Mexico’s people were suffering from obesity, diabetes, unemployment, and family separation, U.S. industries were booming with the arrival of superstores to sell their exported foods and goods. NAFTA mirrors the trope of U.S. exploitation, exposing how truly “one sided” the deal is.

Bibliography

Bacon, David. “NAFTA, the Cross-Border Disaster.” The American Prospect, November 7, 2017. https://prospect.org/power/nafta-cross-border-disaster/.

Darlington, Shasta, and Patrick Gillespie. “Mexican Farmer’s Daughter: NAFTA Destroyed Us.” CNNMoney. Cable News Network, February 2017. https://money.cnn.com/2017/02/09/news/economy/nafta-farming-mexico-us-corn-jobs/index.htm

Dibonaventura, Marco D, Henrik Meincke, Agathe Le Lay, Janine Fournier, Erik Bakker, and Allison Ehrenreich. “Obesity in Mexico: Prevalence, Comorbidities, Associations with Patient Outcomes, and Treatment Experiences.” Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity: Targets and Therapy Volume 11 (2017): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2147/dmso.s129247.

Gálvez, Alyshia. Eating NAFTA: Trade, Food Policies, and the Destruction of Mexico. Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2018. Accessed April 1, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctv3znx6r. 

Ritchie, Hannah, and Max Roser. “Obesity.” Our World in Data, August 11, 2017. https://ourworldindata.org/obesity

Sarah E. Clark, Corinna Hawkes, Sophia M. E. Murphy, Karen A. Hansen-Kuhn & David Wallinga (2012) Exporting obesity: US farm and trade policy and the transformation of the Mexican consumer food environment,International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 18:1, 53-64, DOI: 10.1179/1077352512Z.0000000007

---

1. ^​*​
   Darlington and Gillepsie 2017, para. 2.9
2. ^​†​
   Darlington and Gillepsie 2017, para. 2.9
3. ^​‡​
   Darlington and Gillepsie 2017, para. 2.9
4. ^​§​
   Darlington and Gillepsie 2017, para. 2.9
5. ^​¶​
   Darlington and Gillepsie 2017, para. 2.9
6. ^​#​
   Darlington and Gillepsie 2017, para. 2.9
7. ^​**​
   Darlington and Gillepsie 2017, para. 2.9
8. ^​††​
   Darlington and Gillepsie 2017, para. 2.9
9. ^​‡‡​
   Gálvez 2018, 89
10. ^​§§​
    Gálvez 2018, 89
11. ^​¶¶​
    Gálvez 2018, 90
12. ^​##​
    Gálvez 2018, 92
13. ^​***​
    Gálvez 2018, 99
14. ^{​†††​}
    Gálvez 2018, 99
15. ^{​‡‡‡​}
    DiBonaventura et al. 2017 para. 5.12
16. ^​§§§​
    DiBonaventura et al. 2017 para. 5.12
17. ^​¶¶¶​
    DiBonaventura et al. 2017 para. 5.12
18. ^​###​
    Clark et al. 2013 para 11.12
19. ^​****​
    Clark et al. 2013 para 11.12
20. ^{​††††​}
    DiBonaventura et al. 2017 para. 5.12
21. ^{​‡‡‡‡​}
    DiBonaventura et al. 2017 para. 5.12
22. ^{​§§§§​}
    DiBonaventura et al. 2017 para. 5.12
23. ^{​¶¶¶¶​}
    DiBonaventura et al. 2017 para. 5.12
24. ^​####​
    Darlington and Gillepsie 2017, para. 2.9
25. ^​*****​
    Ritchie and Roser 2020
26. ^{​†††††​}
    Ritchie and Roser 2020
27. ^{​‡‡‡‡‡​}
    Ritchie and Roser 2020
28. ^{​§§§§§​}
    Darlington and Gillepsie 2017, para. 2.9
29. ^{​¶¶¶¶¶​}
    Darlington and Gillepsie 2017, para. 2.9
30. ^​#####​
    Darlington and Gillepsie 2017, para. 2.9
31. ^​******​
    Gálvez 2018, 100
32. ^{​††††††​}
    Gálvez 2018, 94-95
33. ^{​‡‡‡‡‡‡​}
    Gálvez 2018, 94-95
34. ^{​§§§§§§​}
    Gálvez 2018, 94-95
35. ^{​¶¶¶¶¶¶​}
    Bacon 2017, para 11.7
36. ^​######​
    Bacon 2017, para 11.7