The Risks of Going Non-GMO Drew L. Kershen Earl Sneed Centennial Prof. of Law University of Oklahoma © 2003 Drew L. Kershen, all rights reserved
The Risks The Risk of Product Liability -- Foods The Risk of Environmental Compliance -- Pesticides The Risk of Scientific Ignorance – Future Developments
Product Liability: Foods Restatement 3 rd Torts: Products Liability Sec.7 – food Sec. 2 – manufacturing defect Sec. 2 – design defect – reasonable alternative design Comment (g) rejects consumer expectation defense Sec. 2 – inadequate warning or instructions -- label Peanuts – significant % -- significant risk Hypo-allergenic peanuts Research is in test phases Not the only technology What defense for a food company? Shell Fish, shrimp, prawns – significant allergy Hypo-allergenic animals Laboratory research Soybeans, wheat
Environmental Risks -- Pesticides EPA re-evaluation Organophosphates Environmental harms Worker harms Registration revocation Best Management Practices Technology Forcing Standards Potato Farming Transgenic Potatoes Reduction in Pesticides Refusal to use – processors, food chains Contract clauses prohibiting agbiotech Prince Edward Island Fish kills Fearmongering Liability Theories
Risk of Scientific Ignorance: Future Developments Agricultural biotechnology Product Development Not just market share Science for Plaintiff’s lawyers Poverty Alleviation Impact on developing nations Transgenic potato and Bolivia
Conclusion Citations Drew L. Kershen, The Risks of Going Non- GMO, Oklahoma Law Review, 53:4 pp (2000) Howard J. Atkinson, et. al, The case for genetically modified crops with a poverty focus, Trends in Biotechnology, 19:3 pp (March 2001) Thank you