WABASH CO. – A massive genetically-modified corn lawsuit has been filed in Wabash County.
And unfortunately, the issue isn’t with the dangers of genetically-modified organisms (GMO), but rather, it’s a financial one, having to do with the U.S. government’s control over who sells grain where, and worse, what grain they are “allowed” to choose from when growing “their own” (read: government-controlled) crops.
Filed by many of the farm families in Wabash, the case was opened on November 16.
The multiple plaintiffs filed against Syngenta Seeds, Gavilon Grain, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Cargill, Louis Dryfus Company Grains and associated companies thereof, which are referred to collectively in the suit as Syngenta, developers and marketers of genetically modified corn seed.
The biggest obstacle the plaintiffs are going to have to overcome, as a result, will likely be the attorneys that names as big as these will bring in to fight to move the case from state court in Wabash County to federal court in either East St. Louis or Benton.
But even this is addressed in the body of the petition.
The petitioners are listed as Johnson Farms Partnership, Dan Strine Farms Inc., David L. Haase, Hocking Farms, David L. Hammell, Robert Haase Farms Inc., Gerald R. Hocking, Tommy H. Holzhauer, Triple O Farms, Watkins Family Partnership, Watkins Farms, Wheeler Lake Farming Co. Inc., Hornbeck Grain Farms, Whiting Farms LLC, Wilson Family Farms, Wright Farms Partnership, Morton Ag Partnership, Morton Farms Partnership, NCM Berry Farm Trust, Conrid C. Berry as trustee of the NCM Berry Farm Trust, Pike Farms Inc., R&B Relyea Inc., Ray J. Holzhauer, Relyea Brothers Inc., Richard and Sheila Siems JV, Roberson & Roberson Farms, Robin Padgett, Rodgers and Young Partnership, 4R Farms, Shirley Family Trust, Sherry L. Shirley as Trustee of the Shirley Family Trust, JBR Farms of Hoxie Inc., Jase B Richardson, Corey Patterson, Curtis Seideuchworz, JD Simpson III Farms LLC, Duch Farms Inc., Watkins Farms Partnership, The Waire Joint Revocable Trust, Charles Waire as Trustee of the Waire Joint Revocable Trust, Conant Crops Inc. and SNP Farms.
The plaintiffs are bringing the action against the seed giants because, as stated, “As a result of Syngenta’s refusal to wait for its new biotech traits implanted in genetically modified corn seed to be approved for human and/or animal consumption by major U.S. export partners, and the subsequent and foreseeable discovery of this unapproved trait in exports to China, Syngenta has caused damages to U.S. corn farmers, including Plaintiffs. Syngenta’s conduct in marketing, distributing and selling corn seed that was unapproved for import in major foreign markets violated the legal standards of the marketplace because the primary market risk falls on U.S. farmers, not on Syngenta.”
At the mercy of the corporate giants
The petition goes on to point out that U.S. corn farmers have long been at the mercy of “corporate biotechnology giants in their battle to sell genetically modified seed. Syngenta marketed, distributed and sold its genetically modified corn with unapproved biotech traits in total disregard of the rights of farmers and the impact its actions would have on the U.S. corn market. As foreseen, Syngenta’s genetically modified corn contaminated the U.S. corn supply. China, the fastest growing export market for U.S. corn, discovered the contamination and, in February 2014, banned the import of contaminated U.S. corn. As a result, exports of U.S. corn were down 85 percent in 2014 compared to 2013. This dramatic reduction in exports of U.S. corn to China continues to date. Given the laws of supply and demand, prices have fallen as well. Plaintiffs have been harmed by Syngenta’s decision to negligently and prematurely market, distribute, and sell genetically modified corn seed that was not approved in major U.S. export markets.”
The suit goes on to identify a hybrid corn seed sold beginning in 2011 under the trade name Agrisure Viptera, which contains a new genetically modified trait known as MIR 162.
“Syngenta claims that its Viptera corn seeds increase yields (as compared to other types of corn seed) due to improved resistance to insects,” the suit states. “Despite knowing the rest of the world was not as eager as the United States to adopt bio-engineered food or feed, Syngenta began selling Viptera in the United States before other countries decided whether to approve it.”
Foreign markets don’t want it
The plaintiffs state in the suit that as Syngenta knew or should have known what would happen with their “highly regulated” nature of new GM traits in foreign markets, the European Union, China, and most other countries needed time to determine whether to approve Viptera for human and/or animal consumption. Between 2011 and 2013, certain countries approved Viptera for food and feed use; however, other countries, including China, did not, and have now adopted a “zero tolerance” policy with respect to unapproved genetic traits.
But in November of 2013 – three years before this action was commenced in court – Chinese officials, the Wabash County court documents show, “discovered the Viptera trait in shipments of what was supposed to be non-Viptera corn from the U.S.
“After testing conducted over the sex several weeks and months revealed that numerous shipments of U.S. corn from U.S. exporters (including the ones named in this suit – ed.) were contaminated with Viptera, China banned the import of contaminated U.S. corn. To date, China has canceled or rejected orders for hundreds of millions of bushels of corn.”
The court documents then state that in 2014, “despite knowing from its experience with Viptera that China and other countries not only had not approved its genetically modified corn but were not likely to do so in the near future, Syngenta began marketing yet another genetically modified corn seed under the tradename Agrisure Duracade, which, in addition to MIR 162, contains a new genetically modified trait known as ‘Event 5307.’ China, all 28 states of the European Union, Brazil, Switzerland (Syngenta’s home country), Colombia, Egypt, India, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Turkey have refused to approve Duracade for human and animal consumption. By improperly and prematurely commercializing its Duracade corn, Syngenta knowingly and intentionally exacerbated and prolonged the disruption to, and loss of, the Chinese market to U.S. corn.”
The eighth paragraph of the lawsuit contains the crux of the matter, wherein it states “The loss of a large purchaser of U.S. corn like China as a result of Syngenta’s Viptera and Duracade contamination has had a sudden and calamitous impact on the U.S. corn market.”
GMOs = BAD
In the suit, all of the plaintiffs allege that the defendants contributed to cause the loss of the Chinese market to the U.S. corn and this resulted in their damages.
In other words, all of the plaintiffs allege that their government-subsidized corn farming has been choked off from a market (China and others) unfairly because that market wisely refuses to use a genetically modified grain.
And the problem is, there’s no easy resolution for this, because the more corn is genetically modified, the less useful the corn gets for anything except filler, for both humans and animals. Corn to begin with – the type that’s been widely farmed for the past several decades, anyway – has very little nutritional value. It’s a good fodder for animals but shouldn’t be used as their sole food source for that very reason: There’s minor nutritional value in it. And as America’s corn consumption continues to grow, its health effects begin to show in many emerging conditions not seen some 50 years ago; obesity in nearly every person (due to what GMOs do to the human digestive system, wherein fats are thrown off to the body to be deposited in places nearly impossible to get rid of); and untold numbers of cancers exacerbated by the chemicals used in the processing of the GMO corn, such as formaldehyde and arsenic.
But probably the most heinous offender of American GMO grain of all sorts (including the other big-subsidized grains, soybeans and wheat) is the fact that the finished product contains glyphosate, which is probably what China and the other markets mentioned are concerned about, and not necessarily the GMO aspect of it. In fact, many grains have been genetically modified in order to be able to withstand glyphosate, which is not only an herbicide (used to control weeds in crop fields) but is also used as a dessicant (defoliant, a la agent orange), utilized on fields to get the grain plants to ripen uniformly if at harvest time only parts of the field are ready. Glyphosate remains on the grain when it’s shipped, ground, and placed in food, and is one of the most disruptive substances for the human gut ever to be found due to its destruction of good gut flora (digestive bacteria).
Because corn, soy and wheat are in nearly everything in the American food system except for single-item products such as raw food (and even then, contamination from adjacent fields can impact fresh produce), Americans are sick, fat and toxic.
And foreign markets know this…hence their refusal to take American grains if they’re genetically modified, whether they’re blaming it on glyphosate openly or not.
It’s THEIR fault
However, in the 95-page complaint, the concern is that the farmers in Wabash County can’t sell their grain now, and it’s all the fault of Syngenta for not doing their part in ensuring that foreign markets have been convinced of the “safety” of their most recent genetically-modified corn.
The plaintiffs argue that the case should stay in Wabash County because the court there has jurisdiction because the plaintiffs suffered “injury and property damages, including decreased prices for their corn,” in that county. They’re specifically asking the court to direct the defendants to not attempt to move the case to the federal realm, where the defendants are used to fighting (largely because genetically-modified corn and other grains are forced on the farmer, who isn’t allowed to keep his own seed from the grain because Syngenta owns the patent on it, so Syngenta “owns” the corn that each farmer takes out of his or her field each fall.)
So instead of filing in the federal court venue, they’re calling into question Syngenta’s business dealing with Illinois farmers, and term it a violation of Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Each plaintiff is asking for a judgment for compensatory damages in a sum to be determined by the court, expected to be in excess of $50,000.
It’s not like Syngenta couldn’t pay out on it…but an admission of guilt by a payout, even if it’s “just” $50k to each of the 42 plaintiffs, would likely open up Syngenta to more such suits, and if that’s every farmer in the Midwest, that could put the company out of business…which wouldn’t be such a bad idea, but unfortunately one head lopped off that snake would result in the growth of more, so it’s somewhat futile.
The sheer irony of farm families supported by government subsidies, fighting a company that managed to lobby the government to force those very families taking the subsidies to purchase the corn provided by the company being sued, is probably going to be lost on most who have now been made aware of this issue.
As of press time, no court setting had yet been made.