A bill on 'genetic' crops (what other kind are there?) is headed for approval in Germany. The Financial Times (which now seems to be linkable here) reports that it "received a warm welcome" from environmentalists. German biotech companies argued that it will have "catastrophic consequences." The bill imposes direct liability on those who plant "genetically modified" crops for damage to surrounding fields. In addition, it requires a variety of "safety" measures, such as planting hedges of non-GM plants around the fields and entering the land in a public register.

The bill seems to do two separate things. First, it attempts to raise the cost of growing GM crops by requiring the various "protective" measures. Second, it sets out what sounds like a straightforward principle of tort law: if you damage a neighbor's field, you have to pay. The former is bad news, the second is possibly less so if the FT's report is accurate. The main question is why it is necessary to state what seems an obvious principle of tort law -- which suggests that the liability rule is not just a restatement of basic tort principles, but something new. In that case it is likely to be pernicious.

I don't read German or have access to the language of the bill, but it certainly looks as if this bill will drive biotech crops out of Germany and into countries with less oppressive regulatory regimes.

Note: German civil law doesn't use the word "tort" but the idea is the same in both civil law and common law systems.