In order to obtain regulatory approval in the United States for its new genetic corn traits, Syngenta filed an environmental assessment and a document called a Petition for Non-Regulated Status with the United States Department of Agriculture. In both of those documents filed with the federal government, Syngenta stated:
“Syngenta’s stewardship agreements with growers will include a term requiring growers to divert this product away from export markets (i.e. channeling) where the grain has not yet received regulatory approval for import. Syngenta will communicate these requirements to growers using a wide-ranging grower education campaign (e.g., grower Stewardship Guide). As noted in the context of the IRM program, these procedures are not hypothetical.
The ability to channel particular types of maize for particular uses, such as the export market, is demonstrated by the continuing success of the specialty maize market. Use of identity preservation measures has enabled growers to maintain a wide variety of specialized maize products, including white food maize, waxy maize, hard endosperm maize, high oil maize, nutritionally enhanced maize, high extractable starch maize, non GMO maize, and organic maize (U.S. Grains Council, 2006). Channeling programs are well established for separating each of these maize varieties.“ See Syngenta’s 2007 Petition for Non-Regulated Status.
Archer Daniels Midland Co. has sued Syngenta for causing disruptions in the export market. In ADM’s suit, they cite the above promises from Syngenta to the USDA and ADM concludes Syngenta failed to keep its promises and did none of the promised conduct to protect the corn supply. See ADM complaint at paragraph 12. ADM went on to conclude:
“Syngenta’s failure to engage in reasonable stewardship programs for MIR-162 corn has resulted in the MIR 162 trait tainting much of the regular corn crop in the United States, a wholly foreseeable result. The regular corn crop has been tainted as a result of both cross-pollination and commingling MIR 162 corn or its residue is combined with – rather than “channeled” away from- regular corn at grain elevators and elsewhere in the distribution chain.…even in the face of explicit warnings, Syngenta did not implement a reasonable stewardship program.” See ADM complaint at paragraph 13-14.
ADM is a leading expert in the field of agriculture, and ADM has concluded that Syngenta failed to exercise “good stewardship practices.” ADM also concluded Syngenta failed to keep its promises to the USDA.
Thousands of individual corn farmers have followed ADM’s lead and also filed claims over Syngenta’s disruption of the export market and prices in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Both ADM and corn farmers across America are standing up to make Syngenta responsible for its broken promises.
Written by:
Jon Givens
Watts Guerra LLP
4 Dominion Drive, Bldg. 3, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Phone (210) 447-0500
*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.
© Watts Guerra LLP 2015
