Obesity has reached epidemic proportions, in the United States as well as among its trade partners such as Mexico. It has been established that an "obesogenic" (obesity-causing) food environment is one influence on obesity prevalence. To isolate the particular role of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, in changing Mexico's food environment, we plotted the flow of several key products between the United States and Mexico over the 14-year NAFTA period (1994-2008) and situated them in a broader historical context. Key sources of USDA data include the Foreign Agricultural Service's Global Agricultural Trade System, its official repository for current and historical data on imports, exports and re-exports, and its Production, Supply, and Distribution online database. US export data were queried for agricultural products linked to shifting diet patterns including: corn, soybeans, sugar and sweeteners, consumer-oriented products, and livestock products. The Bureau of Economic Analysis' Balance of Payments and Direct Investment Position Data in their web-based International Economic Accounts system also helped determine changes in US direct investment abroad from 1982 to 2009. Directly and indirectly, the United States has exported increasing amounts of corn, soybeans, sugar, snack foods, and meat products into Mexico over the last two decades. Facilitated by NAFTA, these exports are one important way in which US agriculture and trade policy influences Mexico's food system. Because of significant US agribusiness investment in Mexico across the full spectrum of the latter's food supply chain, from production and processing to distribution and retail, the Mexican food system increasingly looks like the industrialized food system of the United States.

No abstract

Highlights COVID-19 has exposed interconnected weaknesses of food, social and economic systems. Levels of food insecurity have increased by 83-132 million people mainly due to food access disruptions and exacerbated poverty. Those who are food insecure are more likely to suffer from health conditions that cause more severe symptoms of COVID-19. Food workers are essential but are treated as sacrificial, with racialized migrant food workers facing unique inequities. Addressing these inequities are not only what is just, it is what is necessary to promote resilience to future shocks.

When the G20 took up food security in 2010, many were optimistic that it could bring about positive change by addressing structural problems in commodity markets that were contributing to high and volatile food prices and exacerbating hunger. Its members could tighten the regulation of agricultural commodity futures markets, support multilateral trade rules that would better reflect both importer and exporter needs, end renewable fuel targets that diverted land to biofuels production, and coordinate food reserves. In this article, we argue that although the G20 took on food security as a focus area, it missed an important opportunity and has shown that it is not the most appropriate forum for food security policy. Instead of tackling the structural economic dimensions of food security, the G20 chose to promote smoothing and coping measures within the current global economic framework. By shifting the focus away from structural issues, the G20 has had a chilling effect on policy debates in other global food security forums, especially the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS). In addition, the G20 excludes the voices of the least developed countries and civil society, and lacks the expertise and capacity to implement its recommendations.