US lawsuits against Syngenta corn begin

MINNEAPOLIS — The first of tens of thousands of U.S. lawsuits against Swiss agribusiness giant Syngenta began Monday, spurred by its decision to introduce a genetically engineered corn seed variety to the U.S. market before China approved it for imports.

The lawsuits allege that Syngenta’s move wrecked an increasingly important export market for U.S. corn and resulted in price drops that hurt all producers. Court filings show Syngenta aggressively marketed the seeds even when it knew Chinese approval was going to be a problem.

Plaintiffs’ experts estimate the economic damage at about $5 billion, though Syngenta denies its actions caused any losses for farmers.

The trial in state court in Minneapolis is the first test case. The second goes to trial in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas, on June 5. The two cases are meant to provide guidance for how the complex web of litigation in state and federal courts could be resolved.

Syngenta decided to commercialize its Viptera brand of genetically modified corn seeds before China approved importing it. Syngenta invested over $100 million and 15 years in developing Viptera, which has a trait called MIR162 that protects against pests such as earworms, cutworms, army worms and corn borers.

With U.S. government approval, Syngenta began selling Viptera in the United States for the 2011 growing season. But China didn’t approve it until December 2014.

Court papers show that Syngenta initially assured stakeholders that China would approve MIR162 in time for the 2011 crop. But the date kept slipping. Some exporters sent shipments containing the trait to China anyway. After two years of accepting them, China began rejecting them in late 2013.

One expert working for the plaintiffs estimated damage to U.S. farmers at $5.77 billion; another pegged it at $4.68 billion.

Most plaintiffs didn’t grow Viptera, but China excluded their grain, too, because elevators and shippers typically mix grain from a large number of suppliers, which made it difficult to source corn that was free of the trait. So the plaintiffs say that all farmers were hurt by the resulting price drop.