In March 2004, the U.K. government announced its intention to grant limited authorization for the growing of commercial genetically modified (GM) crops. This article reviews the potential liabilities that may arise from GM cropping, for environmental damage and for economic losses claimed by non-GM producers. It considers the application of the European Community (EC) Environmental Liability Directive of 2004 to genetically modified organisms (GMO) releases, and the proposed statutory scheme for the coexistence of GM and non-GM agriculture in England and Wales. It also examines the application of the common law of nuisance to the release of GMOs and considers the relevant case law of the English courts. Although there will be a residual role for liability at common law following the establishment of a statutory coexistence scheme, the article highlights a number of formidable problems facing attempts to establish claims for liability arising from GMO releases at common law.
Article 174 (2) EC Treaty (Treaty of Rome) as amended.
2.
Bybrook Barn Garden Centre Ltd v. Kent County Council [2001] Env LR 543.
3.
Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264.
4.
Commission of the European Communities. (2000 a). Communication on the precautionary principle ( 2000 COM 1 Final). Brussels, Belgium: Author.
5.
Commission of the European Communities. (2000 b). White paper on environmental liability (2000 COM 66 Final) . Brussels, Belgium: Author.
6.
Commission of the European Communities. (2002 ). Proposal for a directive on environmental liability (2002 COM 17 Final). Brussels, Belgium: Author.
7.
Commission of the European Communities. (2003 ). Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies and best practices to ensure the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming (OJ L 189, 29.7.2003, p. 36). Brussels , Belgium: Author.
8.
Commission of the European Communities. (2006 ). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Report on the implementation of national measures on the coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming (COM 2006 104 Final). Brussels, Belgium: Author.
9.
Cook v. South West Water PLC [1992] Water Law 103.
10.
Council Directive 1979/409/EEC on wild birds, [1979] OJ L 103/1.
11.
Council Directive 1990/220/EC on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms, [1990] OJ L 117/15.
12.
Council Directive 1992/43/EC on Habitats and Species, [1992] OJ L 206/7.
13.
Council Directive 2001/18/EC on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms, [2001] OJ L 106/1.
14.
Council Regulation (EC) 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products, including matters of labelling, [1991] OJ L 198/1.
15.
Council Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 concerning genetically modified food and feed, [2001] OJ L 268/1.
16.
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, Schedule 9.
17.
Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2001). Guidance on the assessment of the impact on wider biodiversity from proposed cultivation of GM crops (ACRE Guidance Note 12) . London, England. Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/crops/index.htm
18.
Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2002). The criteria used by ACRE to gauge harm when giving advice on the risks of releasing genetically modified organisms to the environment . Available at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/harm/pdf/acre_harm_report_.pdf
19.
Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2003a). Farm scale evaluations. Managing GM crops with herbicides; Effects on farmland wildlife. London, England. Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/crops/index.htm
20.
Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2003b). GM crops? Coexistence and liability: A report by the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. London, England. Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/crops/index.htm
21.
Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2004). Guidance on best practice in the design of post market monitoring plans (ACRE Guidance Note 16). London , England. Available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/crops/index.htm
22.
Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2006). Consultation on proposals for managing the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops. Available at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/crops/index.htm
23.
Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, [2004] OJ L 143/56.
24.
Environmental Protection Act 1990, sect. 108-112.
25.
European Communities Act 1972.
26.
Gillingham Borough Council v. Medway Dock Co Ltd [1992] 3 All ER 923.
27.
Glenn, J.M. (2004). Footloose: Civil responsibility for GMO gene wandering in Canada. Washburn Law Journal, 43, 547.
28.
Graham and Graham v. Rechem [1996] Env LR 158.
29.
Hansard. (2004a). GM foods — Evaluating the Farm Scale Trials: The government response (House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2003-04). Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk
30.
Hansard. (2004b). GM foods — Evaluating the Farm Scale Trials (House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Second Report of Session 2003-04). Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk
31.
Hoffman, LB Hoffman Farms Inc. and Beaudoin v. Monsanto Canada and Aventis Crop Science Canada Holding Inc., 2002 SKQB no 67, 2005 SKQB 225.
32.
Hunter v. Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655.
33.
Jones, B. (2002). European Commission: Proposal for a framework directive on environmental liability. Environmental Law and Management, 14, 5-10.
34.
Kennaway v. Thompson [1981] QB 88.
35.
Land Oberosterriech and Austria v Commission [2005] joined cases T-366/03 and T-234/04.
36.
Law of Property Act 1925, sect. 205.
37.
Lee, M. ( 2002). Tort, regulation and environmental liability. Legal Studies, 22, 33—52.
38.
Lee, M. ( 2003a). Regulatory solutions for GMOs in Europe: The problem of liability. Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 12,311.
39.
Lee, M. ( 2003b). What is private nuisance? Law Quarterly Review, 119, 298.
40.
Lee, M., & Burrell, R. (2002). Liability for the escape of GM seeds: Pursuing the victim? Modern Law Review, 65, 517.
41.
Monsanto v. Schmeiser [2004] SCC 34.
42.
Murphy, J. (2004). The merits of Rylands v Fletcher. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 643-669.
43.
Newark, F.H. (1949). The boundaries of nuisance. Law Quarterly Review, 65, 480.
44.
Pfizer v. European Commission [2002] ECR 11-3305.
45.
R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Watson [1999] Env LR 310.
46.
Re Star Link Corn Products Liability Litigation, Marvin Kramer et al. v. Aventis Crop Science USA Holdings Inc., 212 F.Supp.2d 828 (2002).
47.
Rodgers, C.P. (2003). Liability for the release of GMOs to the environment: Exploring the boundaries of nuisance. Cambridge Law Journal , 62, 371-402.
48.
Rylands v. Fletcher [1868] LR 3 HL 330.
49.
Savage v. Fairclough [2000] Env LR 183 CA.
50.
Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982.
