Agricultural Biotechnology

(DF) Suppose opponents of a technology inaccurately depict it as dangerous--as some would argue happened with both Alar and irradiation of food--and by doing so cost producers a lot of money. Should the opponents be liable, or should such speech be protected by the second amendment? Should they be liable in a class action on behalf of injured consumers? (see an entertaining paper on this subject by a previous year's student)

(DF) The Prince of Wales waded into the biotech debate a few years ago, vowing in a column in The Daily Telegraph that he would never eat, or serve to his guests, the fruits of a technology that "takes mankind into realms that belong to God and to God alone." Does it follow that regulation of agricultural biotech would, in the U.S., violate the first amendment? How does one make that judgement in an issue where the regulation can be, and is, defended on both religious and secular grounds?

(PYS) What rights do landowners/farmers have to protect their land from an adjoining farmer's genetically engineered pollen/seed?  Do they have to show damage?  Is the mere spread of genetically engineered pollen/seed considered damage?  Can the landowners/farmers argue nuisance or trespass?

(PYS Who can reasonably be held liable for the accidental/negligent spreading of genetically engineered pollen/seed into the natural environment--farmers, developers/sellers?  If there is more than one farmer in an area that grows genetically engineered plants and tracing the source is not possible, who is liable--industry created fund, both farmers, no one?

(PYS The day after I ate six tacos for dinner, I learned the taco shells had been recalled because they contained corn the government had decided was fit only for animal consumption. The risk to people is that the corn contains a protein to which a small number of the population is allergic. Assuming this is the only medical effect, why should it be treated any differently under the law than peanuts?

(DF) What general rules, if any, ought to apply to mandatory labelling? Consider that any label provides only a subset of the truth, and that some subsets ("this food contains arsenic"--probably true of many foods, since arsenic is a useful trace mineral in human nutrition) are more deceptive than no information at all. Consider also that if labelling provides immunity against liability, there is an incentive to overwarn--with the result that consumers ignore all warnings (the boy who cried wolf), including the important ones. Is there a good simple solution?

(PYS) Some people are completely vegan, meaning they refuse to eat any animal products. If pig genes were used in a genetic modification process to make tomatoes plumper and richer, would the company have an obligation to label the tomatoes as containing pig products? If no label was required on the tomatoes, but the vegans found out about the pig genes, could they bring an action for failure to warn?

(PYS) Bioengineers have already created transgenic plants and animals which possess certain advantageous traits from different species. What if bioengineers could create new and improved "versions" of endangered species that could withstand the environmental pollution/destruction that was causing their extinction. Should such plants and animals count as to whether a species is entitled to protection under the Endangered Species Act?

(PYS) Not only am I a great plant genetic engineer, I'm also an apple grower. To make this a worthy hobby, I've engineered my apple trees to grow faster with bigger apples, all while ignoring the seasons. Unfortunately, my apple trees have crossbred with my neighbor's (and arch-rival's) crop. He begins growing my genetically engineered apples and since its a full-time endeavor for him, he makes a killing. Do I have any property right in his crop? Can I retain some or all of his profits?

(DF) Under current law (the DSHEA), "Dietary Supplements" and drugs face different regulatory rules. How would a genetically engineered "herb" designed for some desirable effect on health fit into that system?

Genetic Testing

(DF) Suppose genetic testing develops to the point where employers routinely look at a variety of genetic characteristics in deciding whether to hird someone. Different racial groups have different distributions of some genetic characteristics. If an employer uses genetic criteria that are met by 60% of whites and 50% of blacks, is he guilty of racial discrimination?

(PYS): If genetic testing could determine lifespan and intelligence at birth, should a child who is likely to live long and be extremely bright be afforded better educational and health resources than a child who is likely to die young and have only average intelligence since the former will benefit society more in the long term? Do we already do this to a certain degree?

(DF) How should intellectual property law adjust as progress in biotechnology makes the process more like engineering and less like plant breeding? For example, should (does) the law recognize a patent on an idea in plant or animal design--a way of modifying the organism to produce some desirable feature? This would go beyond present plant patents, which merely protect a particular variety, to cover new varieties produced by someone else applying the same idea.

Biowarfare

(DF) Under the Geneva Protocol to the Hague Convention and the later Biological Weapons Convention, all forms of biological warfare are banned. Are there good reasons to treat biological warfare differently from other ways of killing people? Would those reasons still apply to much more sophisticated versions--for instance, a disease designed to burn itself out in a certain length of time or number of generations, giving it an effective range of (say) only about a hundred miles from where it started.

(DF) Suppose the relevant conventions are repealed and advanced biological warfare becomes one more weapon among many. A tailored disease is created which targets particular genotypes. It will predictably kill half of the population of the country we are at war with--and 100,000 Americans, mostly the descendants of immigrants from that country. Does its use raise either legal or moral problems beyond those that apply to any military tactic expected to result in some casualties among those using it--nuclear weapons that generate fallout some of which will blow onto friendly territory, for instance, or bombing enemy forces very close to friendly forces.

DF: David Friedman
PYS: Previous Year's Student

Links for Non-human Biotech

Legal research from previous years on genetic engineering , lasik surgery and hand transplants and genetic screening.

Legal research from this year on agricultural biotech in the third world.