Did you have to grow Syngenta’s seeds in order to participate in this GMO corn lawsuit?

Answer: “No.”

  • Ninety-seven percent (97%) of the seed grown in the U.S. during crop years 2013 and 2014 was not seed sold by Syngenta
  • Nonetheless, farmers who were not customers of Syngenta saw the price they were paid for their corn drop significantly, and have a meritorious claim for that lost corn income
  • Grain elevators and corn exporters suffered damages from Syngenta’s conduct, regardless of whether they processed corn grown from Sygenta’s seeds
  • Corn exporters having no contractual relationship with Syngenta lost hundreds of millions of dollars, and can recover the same

Syngenta’s introduction in the United States of MIR 162 (Viptera Agrisure) in crop year 2013 and its subsequent introduction of Duracade Agrisure in crop year 2014 achieved over $1 billion in sales for the corporation, yet overall, only three percent (3%) of the corn seeds sold in 2013 and 2014 were these two non-approved genetically-modified seeds marketed by Syngenta. Thus, during the effected crop years in 2013 and 2014, ninety-seven percent (97%) of American corn farmers grew an approved seed marketed by an entity other than Syngenta. Nonetheless, every corn farmer in America saw lost corn income as a result of Syngenta’s actions.

Farmers who were not customers of Syngenta saw the price they were paid for their corn drop significantly, and have a meritorious claim for that lost corn income. As a result, more than ninety-seven percent (97%) of American corn farmers – in excess of 425,000 American corn farmers – who had nothing to do with Syngenta’s unapproved GMO corn trait – suffered billions of dollars in damages as a result of Syngenta’s actions. Nevertheless, the three percent (3%) of corn seed sales that involved MIR 162 or Duracade resulted in a meltdown of the U.S. corn export market, and billions of dollars in lost corn income to farmers having nothing to do with Syngenta.

Likewise, grain elevators intending to resell corn to exporters, and those exporters intending to transport such corn to foreign markets, likewise lost hundreds of millions of dollars when the price of corn plummeted through no fault of their own. Those grain elevators and corn exporters have righteously filed lawsuits against Syngenta, seeking to recover the enormous losses their shareholders have suffered as a result of Syngenta’s risky behavior. Iconic United States agricultural conglomerates such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland filed the first and third lawsuits filed in the country against Syngenta. For example, in its lawsuit against Syngenta, corn exporter Archer Daniels Midland specifically alleged that its “lawsuit arises from improper actions by Syngenta that have adversely affected the export market for corn grown in the United States and caused damages to ADM in particular.” ADM further specifically alleged that “[t]he results [of Syngenta’s actions] have been predictable and entirely foreseeable. Syngenta’s GMO corn has become intermixed with the rest of the U.S. corn supply. That, in turn, has resulted in China, which has never granted regulatory approval to Syngenta’s GMO corn but is one of the largest export markets for corn, rejecting the vast majority of U.S. corn shipments because of the intermixed presence of Syngenta’s GMO corn. These rejections have resulted in very substantial losses to U.S. exporters who have had their shipments to China turned away, including tens of millions of dollars in damages to ADM.”

In conclusion, Syngenta’s conduct has harmed a wide array of persons and entities having nothing to do with growing its GMO corn. Both those who did grow it, and those who did not grow it, were seriously harmed by Syngenta’s GMO corn strain; all of them are now seeking to recover their damages from Syngenta, and rightfully so.

Written by*:
Mikal C. Watts
WATTS GUERRA, LLP
Four Dominion Drive, Bldg. Three, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257

* This information is provided to supply relevant information concerning the GMO corn lawsuit, and should not be received as legal advice. Legal advice is only given to persons or entities with whom Watts Guerra LLP has established an attorney-client relationship. If you have another lawyer in the GMO Corn lawsuit, you should consult with your own attorney, and rely upon his or her advice, rather than the information contained herein.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*