SYNGENTA CORN

April 15, 2014

SYNGENTA CORN

Case Caption: In Re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, District of Kansas
Docket #:  2:14-md-2591
Case Type: Mass Tort – Product Liability
Defendant: Syngenta AG; Syngenta Crop Protection AG; Syngenta Seeds, Inc.; Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.
Judge: John W. Lungstrum

Syngenta is a multibillion-dollar global agribusiness enterprise that develops and produces genetically modified corn seed.

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture determined that a corn line developed by Syngenta, known as Agrisure Viptera (designated as transformation event MIR162—a seed designed to be insect-resistant), was no longer considered “regulated” under the regulations governing the introduction of certain genetically engineered organisms (the GMO Regulations and the Plant Protection Act).

Despite deregulation by the USDA, the largest export markets for the U.S., including China, did not approve the MIR162 trait. Thus, that same year, Syngenta sought regulatory approval of MIR162 in China. At that time, the average period of time to receive approval for an application without errors from the country was two to three years.

According to the plaintiffs’ allegations, Syngenta, realizing that the patent on MIR162 was about to expire and wanting to maximize profitability, chose to commercialize Agrisure Viptera for the 2011 crop year “knowing that China would not approve MIR162 until sometime after that trait had entered into export channels” and that the country had a zero-tolerance policy. Purportedly, Syngenta sold Agrisure Viptera to approximately 12,000 corn producers with a projected yield estimated in September 2011 of 250 million bushels. Syngenta continued to sell even more Agrisure Viptera in 2012, even though it still had not received Chinese approval and as China was dramatically increasing imports of U.S. corn—projections showing it to be the largest importer of U.S. corn by 2020.

In November 2013, China found that U.S. exports of corn were contaminated with MIR162. As a result, China started rejecting shipments of corn from the U.S. and notified the global media of the incident. Prior to China’s contamination discovery, the price of corn per bushel was $4.63. After, the price of corn to dropped to $4.41.

By March 2014, 68 global export markets had rejected 3.3 million metric tons of U.S. corn and China officially banned all U.S. corn shipments.

In April 2014, the National Grain and Feed Association and the North American Export Grain Association urged Syngenta to halt the commercialization of Agrisure Viptera corn. The organizations also issued a study, which predicted that Syngenta’s launch of the product before it had been globally approved would ultimately cost U.S. corn farmers around $1.95 billion.

Rather than pull Agrisure Viptera from the American market during the 2014 crop year, Syngenta announced the production of another globally unregulated product called Agrisure Duracade. Agrisure Duracade also contained MIR162, along with the genetic trait Event 5307, which provides farmers with corn rootworm control.

China officially approved Agrisure Viptera corn for human consumption in December 2014, however, did not approve, and still has not approved Agrisure Duracade. Because of this, US farmers and grain exporters are still experiencing economic harm.

The plaintiffs in the litigation include U.S. corn growers who priced their corn for sale after November 18, 2013 (“Producers”) and those entities that purchased, stored, transported, and/or exported corn grown in the U.S. (“Non-Producers”).

Plaintiffs claim that defendant Syngenta sold Agrisure Viptera and Arisure Duracade to U.S. farmers knowing that the corn was not approved, and would not be approved, in the immediate future in major export markets. The plaintiffs also allege that Syngenta acted negligently with regards to its corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait known as MIR162 and violated the Lantham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and state laws related to false or misleading statements about the product, as well as have claims for trespass to chattels, nuisance, and violations of state consumer protection laws.  

The plaintiffs seek $1.14 billion in damages to compensate for the 18% decrease in the price of corn since the products have been introduced. The plaintiffs also ask the courts to enjoin Syngenta from selling, marketing, distributing, or otherwise disseminating any corn with the MIR162 train until China approves both Agrisure Viptera (which has already been approved) and Agrisure Duracade for import.