In March 2015, Syngenta Corp. pleaded with a Kansas federal judge to reject a bid made by Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland Co. to remand the GMO (genetically modified) corn seed lawsuits from federal court. These plaintiffs claim that these lawsuits should be transferred to the state jurisdiction where they were filed, as their allegations involve state-law claims and do not fall under federal jurisdiction.

The agriculture giants named above have teamed up with a couple of commercial corn farmers and are the latest plaintiffs to complain about a lack of Syngenta’s move to have their GMO corn lawsuits consolidated. The plaintiff parties originally filed their Syngenta lawsuits in the states of Arkansas and Louisiana, claiming that Syngenta’s Viptera corn seed had led to them to suffer massive economic damages.

While many similar Syngenta corn lawsuits from different plaintiffs have been consolidated in Kansas federal court, some argue that their GMO corn lawsuits do not belong in federal court. While the multidistrict litigation method is a highly convenient legal method which consolidates similar lawsuits under one judge with the intent of speeding up the litigation process, it has reportedly been a hindrance to many plaintiffs involved in Syngenta GMO corn lawsuits.

Many GMO corn lawsuits claim that the company is in the wrong to argue federal jurisdiction since each plaintiff is alleging state law violations. Furthermore, the current and potential plaintiffs still choose to blame Syngenta for their economic losses rather than China, because it was Syngenta’s premature release of the corn that cost the market billions.

Despite the bids against federal jurisdiction, Syngenta reiterated its argument that China was to blame for the devastating economic blow to the American corn market, which affected the plaintiffs and other persons or companies. Additionally, Syngenta states this gives reason for these lawsuits to be reviewed by the federal court, because it involves the legality of China’s decision to reject the corn.

According to Syngenta’s argument:

“The complaints make clear that China’s actions directly caused plaintiffs’ alleged injuries — specifically, China’s actions in delaying approval of Viptera corn, rejecting shipments containing Viptera, and later banning U.S. corn imports. Plaintiffs claim they were injured ‘as a result of China’s prohibition on’ Viptera, and there is no question that plaintiffs’ alleged injuries would not have occurred but for China’s actions.”

According to legal records, China had recently rejected Viptera MIR162 corn between 2013 to 2014 because of certain GMO traits. However, Syngenta allegedly first submitted the trait for import approval in March 2010 and chose to sell the unapproved corn to American farmers in 2011. China is one of America’s largest corn buyers, so the rejection of corn has devastated the American corn market.

The Syngenta Corn Lawsuits are housed under In Re: Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation, Case No.2:14-md-02591, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

Overview of Syngenta Corn Allegations

As mentioned before, Syngenta had begun selling the Viptera corn to American farmers in 2011, when it was approved for sale and import in Brazil and Argentina. Viptera’s MIR162 strain is a genetically modified characteristic in the corn that was implemented to buildup stronger defenses against insects and corn pests. A year previously, Syngenta had submitted Viptera corn for import approval to Chinese regulators in 2010, but was ultimately rejected. By late 2013, Chinese authorities had begun turning away United States corn shipments that contained Viptera corn as part of the country’s campaign against GMO corn.

Before Syngenta released the Viptera corn seed, China was the third largest importer of corn from the United States, reportedly importing 2.5 million tons per year. After rejecting Viptera, Chinese corn import levels had dropped by about 85 percent (375,000 tons) by 2014. Because of China’s Viptera rejection, the American corn market has lost between $1 to $3 billion. American corn farmers and agricultural companies are suing Syngenta for selling them unapproved corn and costing them substantial profit.