In August 2011, the National Grain and Feed Association and the North American Export Grain Association issued a joint warning to Syngenta that their unapproved trait risked foreign trade:
“U.S. farmers, as well as the commercial grain handling and export industry, depend heavily upon biotechnology providers voluntarily exercising corporate responsibility in the timing of product launch as part of their product stewardship obligation . . .The negative consequences of overly aggressive commercialization of biotech-enhanced events by technology providers are numerous, and include exposing exporting companies to financial losses because of cargo rejection, reducing access to some export markets, and diminishing the United States’ reputation as a reliable, often-preferred supplier of grains, oilseeds and grain products. Premature commercialization can reduce significantly U.S. agriculture’s contribution to global food security and economic growth.
Putting the Chinese and other markets at risk with such aggressive commercialization of biotech-enhanced events is not in the best interest of U.S. agriculture or the U.S. economy.”
Trade organizations warned Syngenta numerous times in 2011 that their marketing MIR 162, an unapproved trait, posed risks to the ability to export American corn. Additionally, Cargill, complained to Syngenta about its marketing MIR 162 posing risks to United States’ corn exports. On June 29, 2011, Syngenta’s Head of Industry Relations emailed several Syngenta executives:
“All, just want to continue to let you know the questions about MIR162 continue to increase both on EU and China. Today at NGFA meeting [a Cargill executive] said his export business is really wound up about China and MIR162 not being approved. I predict we are going to have some rough water around MIR162 until China and EU are approved.”
Email from Jack Bernens to Charles Lee, Sarah Hull, and David Morgan dated June 29, 2011.
Additionally in the summer of 2011, Bunge North America and Consolidated Grain & Barge both stated they would not be accepting MIR 162 Syngenta corn. Bunge posted signs at its elevators across the mid-west stating Bunge did not want MIR 162 brought to its terminals because it risked trade with China.
By the summer of 2011, Syngenta was warned its unapproved genetic traits created the risk of disruption of the export market for American corn. Syngenta was warned by the National Grain and Feed Association, North American Export Grain Association, Bunge North America, Consolidated Grain & Barge, Cargill, and others.
These warnings were issued 2 years and 2 crop planting seasons before China rejected any shipments of American corn. Syngenta didn’t need to be warned, but they were. Syngenta had 2 years after the 2011 warnings to prevent its traits from contaminating the U.S. corn supply. Unfortunately, the multiple warnings from multiple industry leaders to Syngenta fell on deaf ears.
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
