Federal Constitutional Court denies the damaging effect of the term “genetically modified milk” on business

A dairy company had filed a lawsuit against an association dedicated to educating consumers about the risks it considered to be associated with certain products, seeking an injunction against it for making statements that were damaging to its business. The association had referred to the company's products as "genetically modified milk" in publications and public campaigns because companies belonging to the company had processed milk from cows that had also been fed genetically modified feed, particularly genetically modified corn, in their products.

Even though the company had initially been successful before the Regional Court (judgment of 24 May 2006 – 15 U 110/06 - NJW-RR 2007, 698), this decision was then overturned by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH, judgment of 11 March 2008 – VI ZR 7/07 -, NJW 2008, 2110 ff.), so that the company turned to the Federal Constitutional Court.
In its ruling, the Federal Court of Justice found that the designation of the products as "genetically modified milk" had a detrimental effect on the company's corporate and entrepreneurial reputation in the public eye because its products were associated with the use of genetic engineering techniques. These techniques were viewed by parts of the population as a health hazard. Nevertheless, the designation enjoyed protection under the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The designation of the products as "genetically modified milk" did not constitute a false statement of fact. The term "genetically modified milk" lacked substance and lacked any tangible meaning.

In its decision of September 8, 2010 (1 BvR 1890/08), the Federal Constitutional Court followed the Federal Court of Justice's opinion and found no violation of its rulings on ambiguous factual statements. The Federal Court of Justice correctly did not recognize the term "genetically modified milk" as ambiguity. It lacked a concrete factual statement that would be likely to "contribute to misconceptions among recipients based on false factual statements."

Whether this applies to the majority of the population is doubtful given the hysteria surrounding genetic engineering in food production.

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