Release of genetically modified sugar beets legal despite image damage and profit losses for neighbors

The Administrative Court of Braunschweig (VG Braunschweig, decision of 23 April 2009 – 2 A 224/09) has dismissed the action of a neighbouring farmer against release permits, in which he had asserted general concerns about the release of genetically modified organisms, damage to the image of the region and his own loss of profit due to the reduced leasing potential of his land.

This specific case concerned the release of genetically modified sugar beet on a 6,000 m² site in Saxony-Anhalt. Field trials were to be conducted using hybrids derived from H7-1 sugar beet transformants. These hybrids exhibit genetic modifications that give them increased tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. During the approval process, the Central Commission for Biological Safety (ZKBS) concluded that no harmful effects on protected legal interests were to be expected from the planned release trials. It based its decision on the fact that no unexpected reactions had occurred in 18 field trials conducted in the European Union since 1995, and that the European Commission, based on an opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), had authorized the marketing of food, food additives, and feed derived from H7-1 sugar beet in 2007. The permit was then granted subject to the conditions for the immediate removal of bolting beets and for monitoring for volunteers in the following growing seasons.

The court has already partially dismissed the farmer's lawsuit as inadmissible. He had raised general concerns about the release of genetically modified organisms. However, the public interest does not justify a violation of his own legal rights.

With regard to the expected loss of profits, the court stated that such financial losses lack a specific material connection. Depreciation of value resulted from effects that are not inherent in the property itself, so a violation of property rights could not be considered. The damage to the region's image was also not a material asset within the meaning of Section 1 No. 1 of the GenTG. The mere impairment of market opportunities in economic life was not subject to the property rights guarantee.

Conclusion:
Only those impacts that have a direct impact on the object (e.g. land, crops) and are attributable to specific hazards and risks of genetic engineering can be opposed to the release permit.

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