- All corn farmers, whether or not they planted Syngenta’s MIR 162 seed, saw the price of corn drop significantly in 2013 and 2014 and have a claim against Syngenta for that lost corn revenue.
- Grain elevators and exporters also suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in damages from Syngenta’s conduct, regardless of whether they processed corn grown from Syngenta’s MIR 162 seed, and have a claim against Syngenta for those damages.
Syngenta’s sale in the United States of MIR 162 corn seed in crop years 2013 and 2014 achieved over $1 billion in sales for the corporation. Yet only three percent (3%) of all corn seed planted in the U.S. in those years was Syngenta’s MIR 162 seed. Thus, during the affected crop years 2013 and 2014, ninety-seven percent (97%) of American corn farmers planted a seed other than MIR 162 seed. Nonetheless, every corn farmer in America lost corn revenue as a result of Syngenta’s actions.
All farmers, whether or not they were customers of Syngenta corn, saw the price of corn drop significantly and have a meritorious claim for their lost corn revenue. The three percent (3%) of corn seed sales that involved MIR 162 resulted in a meltdown of the entire U.S. corn export market. Thus, even the ninety-seven percent (97%) of U.S. corn farmers who did not plant MIR 162 seed suffered billions of dollars in damages as a result of Syngenta’s actions.
Likewise, grain elevators intending to resell corn to exporters, and exporters intending to transport corn to foreign markets lost hundreds of millions of dollars when the price of corn plummeted in 2013. Those grain elevators and corn exporters have righteously filed lawsuits against Syngenta seeking to recover the enormous losses suffered as a result of Syngenta’s risky behavior.
In fact, iconic U.S. agricultural companies Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland (“ADM”) filed the first and third GMO corn lawsuits in the country against Syngenta. In its lawsuit against Syngenta, corn exporter ADM specifically alleges 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 alleges 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 many people and entities who had nothing to do with growing MIR 162. All parties who were harmed by Syngenta’s conduct are now rightfully seeking to recover damages from Syngenta.
* 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.