Bavarian Administrative Court submits beekeeping case to European Court of Justice

For some time now, the courts have been arguing about whether pollen in honey is no longer a genetically modified organism simply because corn pollen is no longer a functioning living organism.
Some courts have taken the view that the actual reproductive capacity of the GMO is irrelevant, but rather that the mere presence of genetically modified material is crucial for understanding a genetically modified organism. Only in this way can the health of humans and animals be protected.
In contrast, case law (cf. Berlin Higher Administrative Court, judgment of June 27, 2007 – 11 S 54.07 –) has also held that an organism is any biological unit capable of reproducing or transferring genetic material. This is not the case with corn pollen in honey, as it can no longer reproduce itself and, moreover, has lost its ability to reproduce due to the passage of time.
The Bavarian Administrative Court (Bay. VGH, decision of October 26, 2009 – 22 BV 08.1968) has now referred this question to the European Court of Justice. It is of the opinion that the answer to this question is relevant to the beekeeper's claims for damages. These depend on whether there has been a significant impairment of the beekeeping products. This can only be assumed if the honey may no longer be marketed as a genetically modified food due to a lack of approval, or at least may only be marketed with a reference to the genetic modification. Both of these are to be affirmed, insofar as the beekeeping products containing pollen from the genetically modified maize variety MON 810 fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2008. The prerequisite for this is that the honey and pollen are a genetically modified organism.
It now remains to be seen how the European Court of Justice will decide this question of interpretation. This would also close an obvious gap in the Genetic Engineering Act.

This publication can also be found on the website of the law firm Dr. Kauch .