European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law Research Unit for European Tort Law Austrian Academy of Sciences Bernhard A. Koch (ed.) Liability and Compensation Schemes for Damage Resulting from the Presence of Genetically Modified Organisms in Non-GM Crops Annex I: Country Reports April 2007 / Contract 30-CE-0063869/00-28 This study has been financed by the European Commission. The conclusions, recommendations and positions presented in this report reflect the opinion of the consultant and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Commission. Contributors Bjarte Askeland Rok Lampe Ewa Bagińska David Langlet Agris Bitāns Maria Manuel Veloso Gomes Eugene Buttigieg Miquel Martín-Casals Eugenia Dacoronia Attila Menyhárd Bernard Dubuisson Melissa Moncada Castillo Anton Dulak Alberto Monti Ina Ebert Markus Müller-Chen Michael G. Faure Christian Lahnstein Jörg Fedtke Ken Oliphant Raymond Friel Gediminas Pranevicius Federico Fusco Albert Ruda Gregoire Gathem Björn Sandvik Patrick Goergen Mårten Schultz Monika Hinteregger Simon Taylor Jiří Hrádek Willem H. van Boom Elke Joeinig Andri Wibisana Bernhard A. Koch Vanessa Wilcox Villu Kõve Louise Zambartas Irene Kull Table of Contents Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 9 1. Austria (Monika Hinteregger/Elke Joeinig).................................... 19 2. Belgium (Bernard Dubuisson/Gregoire Gathem)........................... 32 3. Cyprus (Louise Zambartas)............................................................. 53 4. Czech Republic (Jiří Hrádek) ......................................................... 78 5. Denmark (Vibe Ulfbeck)................................................................ 101 6. Estonia (Irene Kull/Villu Kõve)..................................................... 119 7. Finland (Björn Sandvik) ................................................................ 139 8. France (Simon Taylor)................................................................... 159 9. Germany (Jörg Fedtke) ................................................................. 171 10. Greece (Eugenia Dacoronia) ...................................................... 192 11. Hungary (Attila Menyhárd)......................................................... 219 12. Ireland (Raymond Friel).............................................................. 240 13. Italy (Alberto Monti/Federico Fusco) ......................................... 260 14. Latvia (Agris Bitāns) ................................................................... 271 15. Lithuania (Gediminas Pranevicius) ............................................ 277 16. Luxembourg (Patrick Goergen).................................................. 284 17. Malta (Eugene Buttigieg) ............................................................ 298 18. Netherlands (Melissa Moncada Castillo/Willem H. van Boom) . 306 19. Norway (Bjarte Askeland)........................................................... 321 20. Poland (Ewa Bagińska) ............................................................... 334 21. Portugal (Maria Manuel Veloso Gomes) .................................... 353 22. Slovakia (Anton Dulak)............................................................... 380 23. Slovenia (Rok Lampe) ................................................................. 392 24. Spain (Miquel Martín-Casals/Albert Ruda)................................ 407 25. Sweden (David Langlet/Mårten Schultz) .................................... 438 26. Switzerland (Markus Müller-Chen) ............................................ 453 27. United Kingdom: England & Wales (Ken Oliphant) .................. 470 QUESTIONNAIRE I. Objective of the study 1. Summary The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in EU agricul- ture may have economic implications that result from incomplete segregation of GM and traditional crop production. In particular, the presence of GMOs could not be ruled out in non-GM agricultural products. Due to requirements for labelling of GMOs and other purity criteria of non-GM products as well as market demand for non-GMO products, such presence – and even reasonable fear thereof already – may have negative economic implications for the opera- tors concerned. The present study is aimed to analyse aspects concerning the liability of GMO presence in traditional agricultural products. 2. Background The cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the EU may lead to cases, in which traditional agricultural products contain detectable traces of GMOs. On the one hand, such admixture may result from inadequate applica- tion of segregation measures by farmers. On the other hand, as agriculture is an open process that does not allow the complete isolation of individual fields, a certain degree of admixture between neighbouring crops is unavoidable in practice. The presence of GMOs in traditional products may lead to their devaluation, which would entail an economic damage to the producer of the traditional products. For instance, due to the presence of the GMO the traditional product may require to be labelled as GM. GMOs and products containing or produced from GMOs have to be labelled according to Community legislation, in particular Directive 2001/18/EC, Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003, and Regulation (EC) No. 1830/2003. For the case of adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GMOs in non-GM products, Regulation 1829/2003 provides for a threshold of 0.9% below which such presence in food or feed does not require labelling. For seeds, Directive 2001/18/EC provides for the possibility of adopting thresholds, below which the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of GM seeds does not require the labelling of conventional seed lots. Such thresholds have not yet been adopted. The presence of GMOs in a product above the labelling threshold also triggers the need for traceability of GM products according to Regulation 1830/2003, which may cause additional costs for the operators concerned. 10 Questionnaire In the EU, crops may only be commercially cultivated after having been authorised for the purpose of cultivation under Community legislation (i.e. Di- rective 2001/18 or Regulation 1829/2003). The labelling thresholds only ap- ply for the presence of authorised GMOs. Products containing detectable traces of unauthorised events can not be legally marketed in the EU. According to part B of Directive 2001/18, an individual Member State may grant authorisation for a non-commercial release of a GMO, for instance for the purpose of experimental field testing. As a result of such experimental cul- tivation, GMOs not authorised under part C of Directive 2001/18 or under Regulation 1829/2003 may be present in traditional crops. This presence could cause economic damage as food and feed could not be marketed if it contains detectable traces of such GMOs. The admixture of GMOs may also have specific implications for organic products. Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 on organic production of agricul- tural products specifies that GMOs may not be used in organic production, with the exception of certain veterinary products. Therefore, products that re- quire labelling as GM could not be used in organic farming. This implies that GMO presence in organic input materials (such as seed or feed) could have implications beyond the necessity of labelling alone. Further economic implications may result for farmers producing non-GM crops, if specific requirements concerning GMO presence, which go beyond the provisions in Community legislation, are laid down in contracts with the retailers or other operators further down the food or feed production chain. Such conditions may also apply for products produced under quality schemes. In addition to the economic implications resulting from the actual presence of a GMO in a traditional product, costs may also occur due to sampling and testing of products, either on a basis of routine controls or in cases, where relevant GMO admixture may be suspected. In many cases, the presence of GMOs and their quantity could not be assessed without the use of laboratory analyses, which may cause significant costs. Furthermore, economic implications for traditional producers that may relate to the presence of GM crop production in a region, and which could enlarge the risk of GMO admixture, could not be ruled out. For instance, food or feed producers may preferentially purchase crops from certain regions, where no GM crop production may take place. If the cultivation of GM crops will become more widespread, the issue of li- ability in relation to GMO admixture could gain further importance in the EU. Compared to other cases of economic damage resulting from neighbouring ac- tivity, GMO admixture may pose specific difficulties because the admixture may initially remain undetected and become known at later stages of the food Questionnaire Contract 30-CE-0063869/00-28 Annex I Country Reports 11 or feed production chain. Furthermore, the causal link between the damage and the operator responsible for it may not always be apparent as there may be different sources of admixture (e.g., seed impurities, outcrossing with neighbouring crops, volunteers from previous GM crop cultivation). Liability in the case of economic damage that may result from the presence of GMOs in other crops is a case of civil law. Generally, civil law is in the re- sponsibility of the Member States. In Recommendation 2003/556/EC on guidelines for the development of national strategies