Mexico’s parties on farming and water: GM maize and concessions

Between September 2024 and December 2025, Congress changed four rules that weigh heavily on rural Mexico. It wrote into the Constitution the right of Indigenous peoples to be consulted; it turned guaranteed prices for five staple foods into a duty of the State; it banned the planting of genetically modified (GM) maize in the Constitution; and it passed a new General Water Law together with an amendment to the National Waters Law that stops water concessions from being sold on their own.

The test topic “Water, farming and indigenous peoples” asks one question about each of those rules. This piece sets out what the Constitution and the laws now say, how each caucus in the Chamber of Deputies voted and what each party proposes. Of the 32 positions, six carry an asterisk (*): the party has not stated a view on that point, and we place it using its documents on related issues. The two most recently registered parties, SOMOS and Partido PAZ (2026), have cast no votes in the Chamber yet and will file their platforms in January 2027; so they are placed here provisionally, using the documents they registered with.

The four votes

Each caucus’s vote in general (Parliamentary Gazette); the totals include deputies with no caucus. On the General Water Law there were also five abstentions: three from the PT, one from Morena and one from a deputy with no caucus.

Both 2024 amendments passed unanimously; the 2025 ones split the Chamber in different ways. On maize, the PRI and Movimiento Ciudadano voted with Morena, the PVEM and the PT, and only the PAN was against; on water, the three opposition caucuses voted against together.

GM maize (AG01)

What the law says. Since 18 March 2025, Article 4 of the Constitution has stated that Mexico is a center of origin and diversity of maize and that growing it in the national territory “must be free of genetic modifications” made with techniques that overcome the natural barriers of reproduction or recombination, “such as transgenic ones.” The ban is on planting; any other use of GM maize must be assessed under the law so that it poses no threat to biosafety, health or the country’s biocultural heritage. Article 27 adds that the State will promote the milpa (the traditional maize field) and native seeds on land free of GM maize. Congress had 180 days to bring the laws into line (DOF, 17 March 2025).

Who wants to keep the ban. Four parties strongly agree, and all four backed the amendment. Morena had already pledged it in its 2024 platform, which presents opposition to GM maize as a fight to keep up. The PT’s platform lists the ban on GM crops and on glyphosate among its achievements. The PVEM caucus backed the amendment without a single vote against. The PRI supported it almost unanimously (33 to 1), on the reserved articles too.

Movimiento Ciudadano agrees, one step lower: its caucus supported the amendment in general but rejected the reserved articles, 0 to 23.

Who is against. The PAN is the only party that strongly disagrees: all 67 of its deputies present voted against the amendment.

In the middle. Partido PAZ is neutral, with a documented position: its program of action calls for research on the biosafety of GM organisms and defends food sovereignty, but takes no side on banning or allowing them. SOMOS is neutral*: its 2026 program wants to preserve native varieties and, at the same time, research pest-resistant ones, without mentioning GM maize.

Selling or inheriting a water concession (AG02)

What the law says. Water belongs to the Nation, and private parties may use it only under a concession granted by the federal executive (Article 27 of the Constitution). Until 2025, the National Waters Law allowed those titles to be transferred between private parties. The decree of 11 December 2025 enacted the General Water Law, which governs the human right to water, and amended the National Waters Law, which governs concessions. The amended Article 22 says that the rights under a concession “shall not be subject to transfer.”

That does not mean the water is lost when the land is sold or inherited. The new Article 37 Bis 1 requires the National Water Commission (Conagua), when a property with a concession is sold, a company merges or splits, or inheritance rights are proven, to issue a new title within 20 working days to the new owner or heir, for the same volume, the same use and the time left on the old one. What can no longer be done is to sell the water right separately: it goes with the land, and through the authority. That procedure applies 180 days after publication (DOF, 11 December 2025).

Deputies voted on it on 3 December 2025, amid protests by growers who, according to that day’s report in Expansión Política, mainly wanted that ban lifted.

Who wants to be able to sell or inherit it with the land. The PAN and the PRI strongly agree; their deputies voted against the law. In that report, a PAN deputy complained in committee that the law guaranteed neither that water rights could be passed on nor that wells could be inherited, and the PRI caucus leader wrote on X that, under Article 22, the titles could be neither sold nor inherited.

Who does not. Morena, the PVEM and the PT, whose caucuses passed the law (the PT’s by 40 to 3), disagree. In the same report, a Morena deputy replied that “concessions and the transfer of rights will continue,” through the new title. The PT’s program of action also calls for stopping the privatization of water. The PVEM is placed by its vote, which came after a 2024 platform pointing the other way: a National Water Bank to reassign concessions.

In the middle. Movimiento Ciudadano is neutral: it voted against the law, but its 2024 platform criticizes the hoarding of water by a few and calls for reviewing concessions. SOMOS and Partido PAZ are neutral*: their documents defend property, but also a sustainable, monitored use of water (Partido PAZ also wants to keep land from being concentrated), and neither discusses selling concessions.

Consultation with Indigenous peoples (AG03)

What the law says. Article 2 of the Constitution changed on 30 September 2024. Since then it has recognized Indigenous peoples and communities as “subjects of public law,” with their own legal personality and assets. Its new clause XIII gives them the right to be consulted on legislative or administrative measures that may significantly affect their lives or surroundings, “for the purpose of obtaining their consent or, where appropriate, reaching an agreement.” If the measure benefits a private party, that party pays for the consultation, and whoever makes a profit must give the communities a fair benefit (DOF, 30 September 2024).

The Constitution does not say what happens if the community says no, and that is exactly what the test asks. The amendment passed with no votes against: 492 to 0.

Who agrees. No party is against, and five agree:

• the PAN, whose 2024 platform proposes a law on Indigenous peoples’ free, prior and informed consent, in line with Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization;
• the PRI, whose platform pledges to guarantee them consultation and prior consent, as well as the right to land and territory;
• Movimiento Ciudadano, which wants to consult them on all public works and to back energy projects only with the communities’ acceptance;
• SOMOS, whose program calls for prior consultation on any project affecting Indigenous communities and recognizes their right to decide over their land;
• the PT, by a different route: it does not mention consultation, but demands recognition of the San Andrés Accords and protection of Indigenous peoples’ territory against plunder.

Neutral. Partido PAZ (neutral, documented) wants a role for Indigenous and farming communities when the use of their land is decided, without saying whether their refusal should stop a project. Morena and the PVEM are neutral*: Morena’s platform commits to Indigenous autonomy and to peoples keeping their land, and also to expanding major public works; the PVEM’s, to communities taking part in managing natural resources. Neither says what happens to a rejected project.

Guaranteed prices (AG04)

What the law says. Since December 2024, after the constitutional amendment on social welfare, Article 27 has stated that the State “shall maintain guaranteed prices for maize, beans, milk, rice and bread wheat,” under the applicable provisions, and that it will provide direct support to small-scale farmers and fishers (DOF, 2 December 2024). It passed unanimously in general, 483 to 0; the PAN opposed only the reserved articles.

In practice, the State buys grain from growers. In 2025 this was done by Seguridad Alimentaria Mexicana (Segalmex) through its guaranteed-price program. At the end of 2025, Segalmex was being merged into the state company Alimentación para el Bienestar, which in 2026 pays small-scale growers a “purchase price.” For 2026 it is 7,000 pesos per metric ton of maize (up to 5 hectares and 35 metric tons per crop cycle), 8,000 pesos per metric ton of pigmented native maize and 27,000 pesos per metric ton of beans (up to 15 metric tons in both cases), according to its operating rules (DOF, 31 December 2025).

The positions. No statement in the topic draws more agreement: none of the parties wants the market alone to set grain prices. SOMOS is the only one that strongly disagrees: in April 2026 it called “fair” the demands of growers asking the government for guaranteed prices for staple grains.

Six others disagree:

• Morena’s program of action promises to strengthen food supply at reasonable prices and to make farming viable for growers;
• the PRI, in the program of action it adopted in 2024, proposes a new mechanism for farm prices, target income and marketing support;
• the PVEM wants the basic food basket always to be within reach of a family earning half the minimum wage;
• the PT counts fair prices for growers among the achievements it wants to keep;
• Movimiento Ciudadano supports fair prices that protect small growers above all;
• Partido PAZ proposes funds to offset the disadvantages faced by those who sell staple grains.

None of those six documents mentions guaranteed prices by name. The PAN is neutral*: its doctrine is the social market economy, but in 2024 it offered farmers subsidies and better prices.

The positions in one table

The sources for each position are linked on the party pages (Morena, PAN, PRI, PVEM, PT, Movimiento Ciudadano, SOMOS, PAZ) and on the topic page.

What divides the parties

On the test’s 1-to-5 scale, GM maize is what pulls them furthest apart: the average distance between any two parties is 1.61 points, and between the PAN and the four that strongly agree it is the maximum, 4 points. Water comes next, at 1.39: it is the only one of the four with several parties on each side, two in favor and three against. Indigenous consultation (0.54) and guaranteed prices (0.50) barely divide them: on the first no party is against, and on the second none is in favor. (Our own calculations from the test positions.)

The blocs do not hold from one statement to the next. Morena and the PVEM do not differ at all, and the PT departs from them only on Indigenous consultation. The PRI, by contrast, sides with them on maize and with the PAN on water; so the PAN and the PRI, united against the water law, end up 4 points apart on maize (PAN vs PRI). The largest average distance in the topic is between the PAN and Morena and between the PAN and the PVEM (2.25 points), followed by the PAN and the PT (2.00); see Morena vs PAN or Morena vs PRI.

Movimiento Ciudadano sits in the middle: it voted with Morena, the PVEM and the PT on maize, and with the PAN and the PRI on water; its average distance is half a point from the PT, from SOMOS and from Partido PAZ.

All four statements count in the full test, and two of them (maize and water) in the quick test as well; this topic has no tiebreaker questions. You can compare your answers with theirs in the political test. The guaranteed-price amendment is also covered in the analysis of social programs; mining concessions and water, in the energy analysis.