This article critically considers calls for the precautionary principle to inform judicial decision making in a private law context in light of the Hoffman litigation, where it is alleged that the potential for genetic contamination from genetically modified (GM) crops causes an unreasonable interference with the rights of organic farmers to use and enjoy their lands, giving rise to an actionable nuisance. Applying the precautionary principle in this context would likely privilege non-GM land uses over GM uses, given the latter's uncertain environmental impacts. Through a comparison of the institutional characteristics and respective roles of public and private regulation, the authors argue that the private law context, which lacks democratic accountability and has a limited ability to address complex scientific issues, is poorly suited to apply the diffuse, policy-based risk allocation considerations raised by the precautionary principle.
Abouchar, J. (2001). Implementation of the precautionary principle in Canada. In T. O'Riordan, J. Cameron, & A. Jordan (Eds.), Reinterpreting the precautionary principle (pp. 235-267). London: Cameron May Ltd.
2.
Bergen Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development in the ECE Region . U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/PC/10 (1990), 1 YB Intl Envtl Law429, 4312 (1990).
3.
Breyer, S.I. (1993). Breaking the vicious cycle: Toward effective risk regulation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc., 1 All E.R. 53 (1994).
5.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, R.S.C. 1999, c. 33.
6.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (1994). Assessment criteria for determining environmental safety of plants with novel traits (Directive 94-08 [1004]). Ottawa: Author.
7.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (2006). Use of the precautionary approach in the regulation of biotechnology-derived products in agriculture. Retrieved October 23, 2006, from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/biotech/reg/preagrie.shtml
8.
Clean Air Act, S.N.B. 1997, c. C-5.2.
9.
Convention on Biological Diversity, 5 June 1992 (entered into force 29 December 1993).
10.
European Commission. (2006). Special Eurobarometer 248/Wave 64.1—TNS Opinion and Social: Risk issues . Brussels: Author.
11.
Government of Canada Privy Council Office. ( 2003). Framework for the application of precaution in science-based decision making about risk (Cat. no. CP22-70/2003). Retrieved October 23, 2006, from http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/docs/Publications/precaution/precaution_e.pdf
Hunter v. Canary Wharf, H.L.J. No. 13, A.C. 655, 2 All E.R. 426 (1997).
15.
Kent v. Dominion Steel & Coal Corp., 49 D.L.R. (2d) 241 (1963).
16.
Kershen, D.L., & McHughen, A. (2005). Adventitious presence (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology commentary). Retrieved August 22, 2006 , from http://www.cast-science.org/cast/news/QTA2005- 1
17.
Khoury, L., & Smyth, S. (2005, July). Reasonable foreseeability and liability in relation to genetically modified organisms. Paper presented at the 9th ICABR International Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology, Ravello, Italy.
18.
Lee, M. ( 2003). What is private nuisance?Law Quarterly Review, 119, 298-325.
19.
Linden, A.M. (2001). Nuisance. In Canadian tort law (7th ed., pp. 517-552). Markham, Ontario : Butterworths Canada Ltd.
20.
MandrakeManagement Consultants Ltd. v. Toronto Transit Commission, 102 D.L.R. (4th), 11 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 100 (1993).
21.
Office of the Auditor General of Canada. ( 2005, November 18). Response of the federal departments and agencies to Environmental Petition 152 filed by Greenpeace Canada under the Auditor General Act. Ottawa: Stéphane Dion, Minister of the Environment. Retrieved October 23, 2006, from http://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/domino/petitions.nsf/viewE1.2/305DF40A2D83430D852570DC007E9718
22.
O'Riordan, T., Cameron, J. , & Jordan, A. (Eds.). ( 2001). Reinterpreting the precautionary principle. London: Cameron May Ltd.
23.
Pardy, B. (2002). Applying the precautionary principle to private persons: Should it affect civil and criminal liability?Les Cahiers de Droit, 43(1).
24.
Peel, J. (2005). The precautionary principle in practice: Environmental decision making and scientific uncertainty. Sydney: Federation Press.
25.
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2006). Americans' opinions about genetically modified foods remain divided, but majority want a strong regulatory system. Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http://www.pewtrusts.com/ideas/ideas_item.cfm?content_item_id=2764&content_type_id=7&page=7&issue=12&issue_name=Food%20%26%20Biotechnology&name=Grantee%20Press%20Releases
26.
R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Watson, Env. L.R. 310 (C.A.) (1999).
27.
re Starlink Corn Products Liability Litigation, Marvin Kramer et al. v. Aventis Crop Science U.S.A. Holding Inc. et al., 212 F. Supp. 2d 828 (U.S. Dist. Ct.) (2002).
28.
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 14 June 1992, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I); 31 I.L.M. 874; T.W.C. 1992/5 at Principle 15.
29.
Rodgers, C.P. (2003). Liability for the release of GMOs into the environment: Exploring the boundaries of nuisance. Cambridge Law Journal , 62(2), 371-402.
30.
Royal Society of Canada. (2001). Elements of precaution: Recommendations for the regulation of food biotechnology in Canada. Ottawa: Expert Panel Report.
31.
Russell Transport Ltd. v. Ontario Malleable Iron Co. Ltd., O.R. 621 at 627 (1952).
32.
Ryan v. Victoria (City), 1 S.C.R. 201, 168 D.L.R. (4th) 513 (1999).
Schneck v. Ontario, 34 O.R. (2d) 595 at 603 (1981).
35.
Scott, D.N. (2005). Shifting the burden of proof: The precautionary principle and its potential for the “democratization” of risk . In Law Commission of Canada (Ed.), Law and risk (pp. 50-85). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
36.
Seeds Act, R.S. 1985, c. S-8, s. 3(b).
37.
Seeds Regulations, C.R.C. c. 1400 (Part III Variety Registration) (1985).
38.
St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping, 11 H.L.C. 642 (1865).
Tock v. St. John's (City) Metropolitan Area Board, 2 S.C.R. 1181, 64 D.L.R. (4th) 620 (1989).
43.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, June 1992, U.N. Doc. A/AC 237/18 (Part II) (Add.1), 31 I.L.M. 848 (entered into force 21 March 1994).
44.
VanderZwaag, D. (1995). Canada and marine environmental protection: Charting a legal course towards sustainable development. London : Kluwer Law International.
45.
Walter v. Selfe, 64 E.R. 849 (1851).
46.
Wightman, J. (1998). Nuisance—the environmental tort? Hunter v. Canary Wharf in the House of Lords. Modern Law Review, 61(6), 870-885.
47.
Wilde, M. (1998). The law of tort and the “precautionary principle”: Civil liability issues arising from trial plantings of genetically modified (GM) crops. Environmental Liability,6, 163.
