Farmers suing Syngenta over GMO corn granted class action status in federal court

https://www.rt.com/usa/361003-farmers-granted-classaction-gmo-lawsuit/

Published time: 28 Sep, 2016 22:38

A federal judge has granted class action status to at least 440,000 farmers accusing agrochemical giant Syngenta of selling genetically modified corn seeds and costing them billions of dollars in lost revenue, due to China resisting imports of US corn.

US District Court of Kansas Judge John Lungstrum certified a class of at least 440,000 farmers on Monday, according to the Kansas City Star.

“The Court’s ruling will make it easier and less expensive for farmers to pursue their claims against Syngenta,” said Scott Powell, one of the plaintiff’s lawyers, in a released statement, according to the St. Louis Dispatch. “Instead of having to retain and pay individual counsel, file their own lawsuit, produce voluminous farm records, sit for a deposition and appear at trial, the Court found that all class members may attempt to prove their claims through a limited number of class representatives. If those class representatives win, all class members win. No individual farmer has to file a lawsuit to seek a recovery.”

The legal dispute against Syngenta began in 2014, when the company allegedly “prematurely and irresponsibly” released new seed varieties that were not approved by China.

Those varieties, Agrisure Viptera and Duracade, contaminated US corn exports to China, leading to a trade ban in late 2013.

Plaintiffs said the trade ban and China’s continued unwillingness to buy GMO corn from the US had resulted in estimated losses of $5 to $7 million for domestic corn growers. China at the time had not approved corn grown by the Syngenta seeds.
Syngenta said it may appeal the district court’s decision.

“Syngenta respectfully disagrees with this ruling, particularly given the widely varying ways in which farmers grow and sell corn in different markets across the US,” Syngenta spokesman Paul Minehart told the St. Louis Dispatch.

The plaintiffs in the case did not use Syngenta’s products, but said that Syngenta-grown corn was commingled throughout the US corn supply, causing China to reject all US corn. That caused corn prices to fall in the US, plaintiffs said, according to the Kansas City Star.

“Once you’ve lost a foreign market, it’s very difficult to get it back because they tend to look to other countries to fill their needs,” Don Downing, one of four lawyers working on the case told St. Louis Dispatch.

Downing added that Syngenta’s responsibility was intentional, not a result of negligence. The grain industry had warned the corporation that China’s failure to approve the seed varieties presented an unnecessary risk to an important foreign trade partner.

Downing said China has turned to Ukraine as its primary supplier of corn imports. He says China now also uses imports of the grain milo, a sorghum product, as a feed substitute to US corn.

“When we lost the Chinese market, it affected the Chicago Board of Trade price for corn,” Downing said. “All farmers across the country were affected on a per-bushel
basis, equally.”

In terms of sheer monetary value, Downing says the legal case to recover losses could be one for the ages.

“In the agricultural sector, it certainly has the potential to be the largest case in history,” Downing said.

A trial is currently set for June 2017.

In addition to the nationwide class action status established by Monday’s ruling, statewide classes of affected farmers were approved in Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and South Dakota.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Food for thought. With the money grubbing farmers, the crooked councillors, the greasy palmed parliamentarians and the rat bags from Monsanto trialling "secret Genetically Modified crops" at various sites in Australia, with the totally bullshit (was it a ) 150 meter buffer zone, to protect from crop contamination, thus contaminating the entire countries crops with the pollen.....

Maybe there is room to move in on all the corporate and civil servant corruption in Australia....)

This is a good assemblage of information about the evil GM industry.


http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/manipulation.htm



http://www.farmonline.com.au/blogs/grain-of-truth/end-gm-bickering-so-data-can-speak/1995735.aspx?storypage=0

Bob Phelps
12/11/2010 11:01:50 PM
Gregor: GM trials are fixed for the same reasons as cricket matches. Dollars. Surely you are being ironical when you say: "Let’s go to the independent umpire and see how well the varieties go." All the relevant scientists, officials and public institutions are compromised by their corporate connections, contracts and influence-peddling. For instance, our Premier is a member of the Washington-based Biotechnology Industry Organisation that promotes GM crops on behalf of the US government and companies globally - so rot starts at the top. No-one is independent. With the process you propose, it is a foregone conclusion that GM wheat would be commercialised. With US experience,Scientific American says: "biotech companies have given themselves veto powers over independent research" (A Seedy Practice, August 2009). Nature Biotechnology, October 2009, also asks: "Are the crop industry’s strong-arm tactics and close-fisted attitude to sharing seeds holding back independent research and undermining public acceptance of transgenic crops?" Yes! In a perfect world your proposal for independent, objective and unbiased science is a nice idea but it can't work in the GM context. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mexico builds wall to keep out Monsanto’s GMOs 

Published on Sep 27, 2016

Mexican beekeepers are celebrating a victory after biotech giant Monsanto lost its permit to plant Roundup-ready genetically modified soybeans in the country. RT America's Marina Portnaya reports. Then, Simone Del Rosario is joined by Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology to weigh-in.







~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F0217fd09-dc06-4bd4-a21e-0cea40cf41ba%2F0033;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F0217fd09-dc06-4bd4-a21e-0cea40cf41ba%2F0140%22

Senator THORP (Tasmania) (13:00): 

 It is no secret that Tasmania has suffered some severe economic blows over recent years, as international economic instability and the high Australian dollar have brought many retail, manufacturing and tourism businesses to their knees. But our agricultural sector has bucked this trend, proving itself to be a real shining light in our state's economy. In fact, it is one of the very few sectors that have continued to deliver improved performance in the long term.

Over five years, from 2003-04 to 2008-09, the gross value of our agricultural produce grew by a massive 42 per cent. In 2009-10, our agricultural and fisheries industries, for example, injected $1.6 billion into the economy. This direct farm-gate output contributed approximately five per cent to our gross state product and generated six per cent of the total state employment. 

When agriculture's post-farm-gate activity is added to the mix, the contribution to the economy increases to 16 per cent of gross state product and 20 per cent of state employment. As we move forward into the Asian century, there will be even more opportunities to expand this vital and productive sector to build greater wealth for our producers in the state economy and generate much-needed employment opportunities.

But Tasmanian producers also face significant challenges. While our geographical isolation provides confidence for our trading partners in the quality and purity of our produce, this can also be a double-edged sword. We are a small island and we are very far away from our major trading partners. As a result, we are always going to be faced with the hurdles of distance and scale in getting our produce to market. 

Leading economist Saul Eslake recognised this challenge recently during a visit to Launceston when he said:

"In order to be economically sustainable in those circumstances, Tasmanian producers have to concentrate on producing premium products for which customers can be persuaded to pay high prices.

There is no future in the old Tasmanian model of producing what, for us, might be large volumes, but on a global scale are small volumes of essentially undifferentiated commodities competing only on price.

If we want to pay ourselves first-world wages and observe first-world standards of environmental protection and health and safety standards, then we can only do that while selling goods that people will pay high prices for, not competing on the basis of the lowest price.

To my mind, if Tasmanian agriculture is going to continue to grow, we need to take advantage of every opportunity to leverage our natural advantages to secure premium markets and lucrative contracts. Currently, a very clear advantage that Tasmanian producers are able to access is the state's GMO-free status."

In 2001, the Tasmanian state government, of which I was a part, showed great foresight in placing a moratorium on the production of genetically modified crops. This move recognised that a GMO-free status would provide a vital point of difference for Tasmanian produce that would capitalise on our clean, green brand.

In 2007, I sat on the state government's joint select committee which was tasked with revisiting that moratorium. This was a robust and extensive review, which again concluded that our GMO-free status provides Tasmanian producers with a competitive advantage that far outweighs any potential benefits of genetically modified crops. 

Thanks to this state government moratorium, our producers have an iron-clad promise to their customers that produce is completely free of genetic modification. This is an asset that has proven to be valuable—and very saleable—to our international and domestic customers. But, with the moratorium set to expire in November next year, we again find ourselves at the GMO crossroads.

The Tasmanian government has established another review, and a decision should be made before the end of this year. But the government should be very aware that any potential decision to sacrifice the state's GMO-free status is one that cannot be unmade. It could also have far-reaching implications for many primary producers and for our clean, green Tasmanian brand. I believe that the government made the right decision in previous years, and I believe it is still the right one in 2013.

In recent months, I have actively met with the heads of industry and government to learn more about their perspective on the issue. The vast majority have agreed that allowing GM crops into Tasmania is a risk we simply cannot afford to take. 

Representatives from the honey, beef, fruit, feedlot, organic and vegetable sectors have told me not only that they are securing higher contracts on the basis of our clean, green, GMO-free reputation but also that they simply could not enter a number of markets, particularly in Europe and Asia, if the moratorium were to be lost. We must also recognise that if we open the door to GMOs we may be unwisely investing in a product that people simply do not want.

It is undeniable that innovation is needed to drive productivity within our agricultural sector, and I support advances that may increase farm profitability, but there are many ways to do this without turning to genetic modification. Better soil, water and traffic management all have a proven capacity to increase yields without the potential risks and negative market perception of GMOs. 

It would also be counterproductive to embrace innovation that results in products that consumers do not want to buy or that we have to sell at a reduced price for biofuel or animal feed, like many GM crops in North and South America. 

Across the globe, people are becoming much more food aware and they are increasingly concerned about what goes into their shopping baskets. We simply cannot afford to ignore this groundswell of community concern about gene technology in a world where 61 countries already have mandatory labelling of GMOs and at least 24 American states have GMO labelling bills before them this year.

We also need to look at the genetically modified crops that are currently available and consider the potential benefits they could offer producers and whether these benefits outweigh the benefits of maintaining the moratorium. Currently only two broadacre GM crops are approved for commercial growing in Australia: cotton, which is not suitable for Tasmania's climate, and canola. 

There has been talk of a genetically modified rye grass which the dairy industry is interested in pursuing, but by the industry's own reckoning there will not be a market-ready product for at least six years. This is likely to be beyond the time frame of an extension to the moratorium. 

Similarly, some poppy growers have called for an end to the moratorium, but to date there have been no commercial GM poppy crops grown anywhere in the world. In fact, in Australia all licences for research into GM poppies have been surrendered. The poppy industry also needs to be cognisant that a move to GM poppies would almost certainly impact opportunities to sell into the lucrative European market, which is notoriously concerned about GMOs.

So that only leaves genetically modified Roundup Ready canola. This product comprises only 10 per cent of national canola crops, showing farmers are still choosing conventional canola over its GM relative. This is not hard to understand given that discerning Japanese and European customers are offering premiums of up to $60 a tonne for GM-free produce. Very recently, Tasmania secured a contract for 600 hectares of oilseed from a new Japanese buyer at a price premium. 

I understand that Tasmanian non-GM canola is actually garnering the greatest price of all Australian canola, even above the prices for non-GM produce from other states. This sends a very clear message that it is not just the GM-free status of the individual crop that matters but also the confidence that the state-wide moratorium brings.

Some have suggested that Tasmania will somehow be left behind if we do not open our doors to genetically modified crops, with many claims being made of increased yield and productivity. However, some important studies have cast doubts on these claims. In fact, a very recent study undertaken by New Zealand genetics expert Professor Jack Heinemann compared agricultural productivity in North America and Western Europe over the last 50 years. 

The study concluded that GM-free crops in Europe actually yielded more per hectare than the USA's GM crops. Similarly, back in Australia a Birchip Cropping Group report on the 2011 canola season found GM varieties yielded no more than the best conventional varieties and were actually less profitable than non-GM crops by $150 a hectare due to higher input costs.

We should also recognise that GM crops bring with them potential environmental risks. The vast majority of currently approved GM crops across the globe are designed to exhibit one of two traits: either they are resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide or they have a pesticide built into the cells of the plant itself. 

Unfortunately, many growers have found weeds develop resistance to the chemicals the GM crops are designed to withstand. This has resulted in increased herbicide use and has forced farms to turn to tank mixes of older, more dangerous chemicals to get the same effect—something I think all of us in this place would agree is undesirable.

Another risk of some GM crops is their capacity to spread their seed a great distance, escaping into the wild and putting neighbouring crops at risk of contamination. In New South Wales GM canola jumped containment lines within a year of the state's moratorium being lifted, and in Tasmania we still have rogue plants cropping up from small-scale GM canola trials in 1998-99. 

Western Australian farmer Steve Marsh learnt about this risk firsthand when seeds from his neighbour's GM crops blew into his fields, contaminating his crops, causing cancellation of his organic certification and sparking a legal battle for compensation. 

Contamination can also have large-scale trade implications, as we saw last year when Japan and South Korea suspended wheat imports from the United States after the discovery of unapproved genetically modified wheat in a field in Oregon.

In Tasmania our beekeepers are acutely aware of what they stand to lose if the moratorium is not maintained. Unfortunately, bees cannot tell the difference between GM and non-GM plants, and premium contracts in Europe would be jeopardised if there is any risk of GM contamination. Opening the doors to GMOs in Tasmania could also spell the end of vital pollination services for some of our vegetable crops if honey producers are forced to withdraw to maintain their GM-free status. This could threaten millions of dollars in revenue.

This reality stands in stark contrast to assertions in a recent report into the economic impacts of maintaining the moratorium which was commissioned by the state government and undertaken by Macquarie Franklin. In this report the authors asserted, 'Tasmania's GM-free status is not of itself a market advantage for honey producers.' The Macquarie Franklin report also failed to quantify the financial impacts on other industries, instead referring to the 'intangible benefits' of maintaining the moratorium. 

In doing so, it did not take into account the lucrative and very tangible contracts our producers are currently securing on the back of our clean, green GM-free status. While I believe the Macquarie Franklin report offered a solid contribution to our understanding of the issue, we simply cannot rely on 'intangibles' in making this important decision. As far as is practical, we need an industry-by-industry, contract-by-contract analysis of the situation to make an informed decision. 

To this end, I would strongly support further investment by the state government in this area. I am sure Senator Bushby would agree that, until we have this information and until GM products demonstrate incontrovertible benefits that outweigh the risk for Tasmanian primary producers, the moratorium needs to remain.

It is my great hope that the state government will recognise the value of the moratorium to our producers and the wider Tasmanian brand. However, even if the moratorium is saved, I still have a concern that it could potentially be threatened by current federal government negotiations into the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, in particular the potential for investor states' dispute settlements. 

These provisions could, as I understand it, allow companies to sue the Australian government for decisions that result in the loss of profits. The previous Labor government opposed ISDS provisions during earlier Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, but there have been some reports that the new coalition government may support them. I urge the government to ensure that Australia retains sovereignty over its decision-making capacity and Tasmania's GMO moratorium by ensuring that any investor dispute provisions be excluded from any free trade agreements. (Time expired)