Did you know that the Republican Party of Iowa Platform does not have a section on agriculture?
This AP article in today’s Argus-Dispatch Farmers file more than 360 corn lawsuits against Syngenta is of interest because it involves government approved commerce initiated to increase food production and keep it from disease.* For the sake of mankind we think that is a good thing. The subject of genetically modified crops, generically referred to as genetically modified organisms GMOs, has received high profile interest from various quarters since before the first products were marketed. The politics of it are actually prominent worldwide but given Iowa’s standing as a key agricultural and political center it should be of keen interest. We will get back to the AD article but first this background information on the politics in Iowa.
In the past, Republican Party of Iowa platforms have dealt with the subject directly and responsibly, but only in the past. The 2012 State Republican Platform had this to say:
2.6 We affirm the property rights of farmers to sow seeds of their own choosing. Farmers planting seed shall not be held liable for the presence of invading seed by natural, uncontrollable causes, such as drift, wind, storms, animal movement, or water flow.
2.9 We support labeling GMO (genetically modified) crops and food products made from GMO crops as such.
2.30 We support bio-technical agriculture and bio-technical products.
The 2014 platform is directly silent on the subject. On this important issue one might presume something, or not. The platform is now such an insipid document, that incredible as it sounds the Iowa Republican platform does not have a section devoted to agriculture. The closest things you can find in the current platform to crop production are these three items:
9. We demand that all laws restricting the growing of industrial hemp be immediately eliminated.
10. We support legalizing cannabis oil for medical use.
12. We support the definition of manure as a natural fertilizer.
See for yourself. The entire platform can be accessed here.
Back to the A-D article and our brief commentary. Excerpts:
The dispute centers around Syngenta’s sale of a corn seed called Agrisure Viptera, which was genetically altered to contain a protein that kills corn-eating bugs such as earworms and cutworms. The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved it in 2010, and Syngenta first sold it to farmers in 2011.
China, a growing importer of U.S. corn that refuses to buy genetically modified crops . . .
It began rejecting U.S. corn imports in February 2014. The lawsuits say it rejected more than 131 million bushels.
Farmers who did not plant the Syngenta seed, grain handlers and exporters claim they lost money because of the Chinese boycott of U.S. corn and corn byproducts. . . .
Syngenta has said it plans to ask the court to dismiss the farmer lawsuits because “plaintiffs do not and cannot point to any authority barring the introduction of a U.S.-approved product in the U.S. simply because the product was not yet approved for sale in a foreign country like China.”
“In short, this litigation constitutes an unprecedented effort to hold a company liable for selling a U.S.-approved product in the U.S., simply because the product was not yet approved by a foreign country like China,” lawyers for Syngenta wrote in a Jan. 14 court filing.
The following information was contained in the on-line version not seen in the print version which initially attracted our attention:
China approved Viptera for import in December, but Kansas City lawyer Richard Paul said that doesn’t change the assertion that farmers lost money. Paul, who represents clients suing Syngenta and serves on an executive committee of lawyers coordinating all the plaintiffs’ cases, said China’s approval may establish a definite period of time in which damages can be assessed, but the extent of financial harm may not be over.
So there you have it, government approves a product after no small amount of investigation and “comment period ” all available to the opponents. Allegations that the product has “inevitable” carryover problems, if true, must have been true during the comment period and “known” to the government as it was to the opponents. Yet the products were approved. If there is a case to be made against anyone, which we doubt, why are these farmers and agribusinesses suing Syngenta** and not the federal government? The lawyers for the complainants are still collecting clients*** by the way. The suit should be dismissed at the earliest possible stage.
The article reminded us of the protests by leftists regarding Monsanto and GMOs. We have no doubt that they are at least cheering this on if not prodding it. We wrote then about them:
We understand that genuine conservatives are concerned about GMO’s in general and caution is entirely in order. But when it comes to plant seeds, alarms from leftists who have never found a money making enterprise they appreciated other than abortion clinics and never marched against human genetic engineering and cloning, well they deserve to be met with some healthy skepticism as well.
Forgive us our opinion of too many of such protestors as being more inclined, at root, to be misanthropes in spite of their protestations, and knee jerk leftist business haters, then concerned about feeding mankind. Some of the same people seem rather nonchalant about supporting mandatory ethanol and the resultant amount of cropland devoted to produce it.
* Genetically modified crops( GMCs) are often lumped in with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We think they deserve distinct references and discussion which they do not often get. Concerns over GMC we think should not rise to the level of concerns about GMO and animal husbandry and production.
** Synargy is said to be the world’s largest agricultural chemical corporation. Its corporate heritage includes Ciba-Geigy.
*** The article mentions some Big Ag conglomerates are part of the lawsuits, including Cargill and ADM. Irony abounds. They benefit mightily from government mandates and protections (ethanol and other matters) that they lobby for. Now another company is issued the paperwork necessary by this government to bring something to market and another government complicates the matter for American producers. Live by government die by government comes to mind.
R Mall
