各国管控转基因技术安全性的法规

提要：中国某些人鼓吹立对转基因犯罪单独刑法，其实质是对抗国家十三五规划关于发展转基因的有关规定。

先说说转基因技术和产品的现状：

已经批准种植的转基因作物总面积占全球作物总面积的12.5%；
不管是合法种植还是非法种植的转基因作物，没有一例科学和法律确认的毒副作用例证；
全球3代以上、几十亿人吃转基因食品20年， 无一科学和法律确认的毒副作用例证；
几十万亿头禽畜吃转基因饲料6-20代，无一科学和法律确认的毒副作用例证；
没有一例科学和法律确认未经批准种植的转基因作物不安全的例证；
全世界没有一例转基因技术和产品刑事入罪的例证；
反对转基因活动而被刑事入罪在法国等国有例证， 但在中国没有入罪。

下面简要介绍欧、美及亚洲涉及转基因技术和产品的主要国家的转基因安全管控法律。所有资料来自英文原始数据和文件，这些资料和文件多达几百页， 我尽自己的能力将它们精简为这篇文章， 挂一漏万，在所不免。

本文未采用来自中国媒体的二手资料，因为我无法确认这些中国媒体二手资料的真实性和可靠性

1. 荷兰（Netherlands）

责任机制： 荷兰並无专门针对转基因作物造成损失的责任机制和赔偿制度。荷兰法律有民法中的严格赔偿规定和过失赔偿，两者有区别。前者按民法Civil Code art. 6:170, on tortious acts by employees和Civil Code art. 6:175处理， 后者按民法“The Civil Code covers fault-based liability in article 6:162.”以过失处理。

至于损失是否与转基因有关，需根据民法“Civil Code, Book 6, article 982”两个法律程序确定：必要条件（sine qua non）和归因测试（the imputation test ）。 只有在完成这2个程序后，确认损失是转基因造成的，才可以要求赔偿。

到目前为止， 荷兰还没有一例法律上认可的转基因技术造成损害而赔偿的案件。

在此补充说明： 在北欧诸国（荷兰、瑞典、挪威和芬兰诸国）中，荷兰是涉及转基因技术最重要的国家，因为荷兰的养牛业需要进口大量转基因大豆做饲料。荷兰的阿姆斯特丹是欧洲最大的货物集散中心，欧盟其他国家进口的转基因大豆和玉米，大多经荷兰转运到法国、德国等欧洲国家。所以荷兰对转基因产品的法律处置是风向标，而芬兰等国根本就不是重点，就像在亚洲将老挝、柬埔寨的转基因法律做标杆就是一个笑话。

2. 挪威（Norway）

转基因造成的损害处理主要是根据基因技术法的第4章23节条款处理。至今没有一例重大的法律案件，唯一一个案件是2013年的转基因玉米非法进口和销售，处理办法是停止销售含有转基因成分的爆玉米花。

3. 阿根廷（Argentina）

阿根廷对环境破坏的处罚依据是环境保护总法（Ley General del Ambiente, LGA）。不管是何种技术对环境造成的破坏都按照LGA法处罚。也就是说其它技术也会对环境造成破坏，转基因技术造成的对环境破坏，将与其它技术造成的环境破坏 一视同仁地按阿根廷的LGA法处罚。

阿根廷有一例与转基因技术相关的对环境破坏的案例，此案例是用LGA法处罚，而不是专门设立转基因犯罪法处理。这个案例就是种植转基因大豆的农场用直升机喷除草剂后造成 142个小孩中的114个小孩血液中发现5种杀虫剂和除草剂。最后法庭根据有害产品法24051（Law 24051 on Hazardous Products）[49]判决打农药者5年徒刑，依据是打农药者不恰当的打了硫丹(endosulfa-一种杀虫剂)和草甘膦。显然这是与转基因没有直接关联的案例，而且也不是转基因犯罪法入案的例子。但这个案例一直被反转人士作为反对转基因的例子大肆宣传。

4. 法国（France）

法国对反转分子破坏转基因试验田的反转活动做出过逮捕和入狱的判决（刑事入罪），以至于一些反转分子的反转破坏活动改到晚间进行，避免被监测到后被逮捕（作者建议：中国是否应该根据法国的案件处理，建立反转基因刑事入罪法？）。

尽管法国现在已经禁止种植转基因玉米Mon810， 但法国仍然大量进口转基因大豆以满足其国内的饲料产业。

5. 日本（Japan）

日本甚至没有任何关于开发、 使用和推广转基因产品的国内民事责任法规（There is no special civil liability regime in relation to the development, use, or release of GMOs）。 日本处理转基因所依据的法规就是卡塔赫纳条约（The Cartagena Act）。

日本唯一一个转基因案例是：2005年一个城市的农民起诉一个在他们外面的土地上种植转基因水稻的研究所。研究所声称他们是根据卡塔赫纳法（Cartagena Act）合法栽种这些转基因水稻的。最后法庭判决原告（农民）败诉。

6. 英国（England）

英国管控环境损失的法律主要是根据欧盟有关的法规（欧盟法规见后），原则上就是对造成环境破坏者给以罚款处理。具体的法律是环境损害法（the Environmental Damage Regulations --(Prevention and Remediation）。这个法律仅处理对环境造成严重损害的案件，其严格赔偿规定并不管你是转基因或非转基因的，只要造成严重的环境污染或人体健康，都要付钱赔款。事故造成者有权向上控诉，表示没有造成损害，或当局对环境损害的判断不正确，或环境损害是第三方造成，或处罚过重，以及其它。虽然非故意行为造成损失的民事法可以应用，但这个民事法一般不用于转基因领域，因为很难判断基因漂流造成对环境损害是否无意。更多的案例是对非转基因技术造成的环境损害。

在英国， 迄今所有的转基因案件都是牵涉到欧盟或者其它国家，英国本身没有转基因违法案件。

7. 意大利（Italy）

意大利处理转基因活动带来的损失的根据是民法：疏忽造成的民事责任。其中在L.D. No.224 条款中包含了对人的健康和环境造成损害的纠正、恢复和赔偿。在2005年的L.D. No.70号条款中，又建立了赔偿制度：没有获得政府批准而擅自把转基因产品商业化（包括不遵守转基因作物标识法）将按此民法给以罚款。

补充一点：意大利是欧盟反对种植转基因作物最激烈的国家之一，他们对违反转基因法规的行为，也只是根据民事法有关条款给以罚款，没有什么转基因技术刑事入罪的法律。

8. 欧盟（European Union）

一般来说，欧盟涉及转基因食品/饲料的法律责任问题是由民事法规（civil liability）管理。如果转基因产品损害了非转基因产品，则由冗长的民事和保险法律（European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law）处理。至于涉及环境损害的问题，则由环境责任法2004/35/EC（2004/35/EC on Environmental Liability）条款处理。即转基因的破坏与其它因子的破坏都按2004/35/EC处理。 基本原则是谁破坏了环境，谁付钱赔偿。

9. 芬兰

芬兰的转基因生物的立法：芬兰是转基因产品微不足道的一个国家，它怎么立法，没有一个国家会当回事。但2016年09月09日的法制日报刊登了一篇题为“转基因非法种植入刑势在必行——有专家提设立基因技术罪”的文章，其中上海社科院的刘长秋副研究员提出，“更好的办法是以基因技术罪来规制。转基因食品的种植主要危害生产环境，导致土壤单一化，其他作物再难种植。目前，芬兰等欧洲国家已在刑法中采用了此罪名”。

我们一直在等待刘长秋副研究员的“芬兰“等”欧洲国家”的“等”究竟包含哪些国家（出处），现在看来既等不到刘长秋副研究员的“等”， 也等不到他的芬兰转基因刑法入罪法律了。 所以我不得不把一个可以忽略不计、不值一提的芬兰转基因产品的管控法律向大家介绍一下， 让大家了解真相。

芬兰管控转基因产品的主要法律是“基因技术法律”（The Gene Technology Act 377/1995)。这个法律的宗旨是在谨慎和伦理可接受的原则下，在保护人和动物的健康以及环境的前提下，安全使用和发展转基因技术——也即不是限制转基因技术，而是要发展转基因技术。

下面是芬兰目前所有的与转基因技术和产品管控有关的法律：

1.Gene Technology Act ( 377/1995)
2.政府法律( 928/2004)
3.卫生部法规 ( 110/2005)
4.卫生部法规( 90/2005)
5.卫生部法规( 1053/2005)
6.卫生部法规( 272/2006)
7.卫生部法规( 198/2007)
8.政府法规 (1539/2015)
9.卫生部法规 ( 771/2014)

对其中第8项政府法规 (1539/2015)没有英文版，我写信给芬兰政府（社会卫生部），得到芬兰政府转基因技术委员会的答复，作了简要解释。
迄今为止，芬兰没有一例因转基因技术或产品而民事判罚的例子，更不要说以刑法入罪的例子。

笔者还可以举出至少10个国家对转基因技术和产品监管的法律，限于篇幅，就写到这里。全国人大等立法机构如需详细来源资料，我可以提供。

10.中国的最新进展

国家《十三五规划》提出，“将加大转基因棉花、玉米、大豆研发力度，推进新型抗虫棉、抗虫玉米、抗除草剂大豆等重大农产品产业化”。这也贯彻了习主席的号召：“占领转基因技术制高点，不能把转基因农产品市场都让外国大公司占领了。”

中国没有禁止种植转基因作物的法规，也没有禁止转基因产品做食物和饲料的法规（欧盟某些国家和乌克兰等国有禁止种植的法规）。 确切来说，中国迄今没有明确发现非法种植转基因作物。因为中国农业部认为种子法没有审批转基因作物的条款，对转基因作物不予审批，所以种植获得安全证书的水稻、玉米的种植没有可循的法律处理。中国的转基因作物的栽种也没有触犯任何国外公司的专利，因为没有一个外国公司对中国种植的转基因作物提出起诉。

在这种新形势下，主张把转基因技术刑法入罪的鼓吹者，明显是在对抗中央和习主席有关发展转基因产品的国家政策。

目前，我国每年不得不进口相当于5亿亩耕地种植的转基因大豆、玉米来解决饲料不足。而进口大豆基本被外国公司控制。在此大背景下，有些人坚持国内反转、煽动民意，显然会干扰国家的大政方针，不利于我国解决粮食问题，会危及13亿人的民生。

小结：

1. 全世界没有一例对转基因技术刑事入罪的案列，更不要说对转基因犯罪单独立法。把一个技术刑事入罪是可笑的。
2. 中国某些人鼓吹立对转基因犯罪单独刑法，其实质是对抗国家十三五规划关于发展转基因的有关规定。
3. 针对严重案例*，全国人大应该考虑设立“借反转危害国家安全的刑事犯罪法”。

* 中国发生过：绿色和平组织偷盗国家机密转基因试验材料；一些媒体反复对转基因技术造谣；在六四前，借口抗议转基因组织示威活动而被国家安全局将策划人拘押的事件。这些都是刑事犯罪活动。

下面是每个国家有关转基因立法的摘录。全部列出会有几百页。如果要把全部法律列出将会有几千页。

资料来源摘录

1.Netherlands

Liability Regime
The Netherlands apparently has no special regime for liability or compensation for damage in connection with GMO crops.[114]
Under Dutch law, there is a distinction between and fault-based liability for wrong acts.[115] Strict liability falls into the
two main categories of strict liability for unlawful acts of other individuals and strict liability for defective objects and substances,
with possibility two relevant sources: vicarious liability (Civil Code art. 6:170, on tortious acts by employees) and strict liability for
hazardous substances (Civil Code art. 6:175).[116] The Civil Code covers fault-based liability in article 6:162.[117]
To establish a causal link between alleged damage and the presence of a GM crop, Dutch law is said to rely on a two-stage test:
the condition sine qua non (“but for”) test, whereby the GMO’s presence is a necessary condition for the existence of the damage,
and the imputation test.[118] This test is based on the Civil Code, Book 6, article 98, which states that compensation can only be
claimed insofar as the damage related to the event creating liability can be imputed to the debtor as a result of the event.[119]
Dutch case law had further developed the imputation test to include the requirement of “reasonable imputability” now codified in article 98.[120]
Judicial Decisions / Prominent Cases
No key judicial decisions or prominent cases were found

2.Norway ：

Liability Regime
Damages and liability for GMO are regulated in chapter 4, section 23 of the Gene Technology Act.[64] A person (legal or physical) who releases a GMO is responsible for any damage, inconvenience, or loss that it may cause, regardless of his or her own culpability. In addition, violations of the Gene Technology Act may result in a fine or imprisonment for up to one year.[65]
Judicial Decisions / Prominent Cases
There are no prominent court cases in Norway on GMOs. In 2013 the Food Safety Authority discovered that GM corn was illegally imported and distributed as popcorn.[66] The Food Safety Authority had previously stopped the sale of popcorn containing GMOs.[67]

3.Argentina

Liability Regime
Liability for damage to the environment in Argentina is provided for in the General Law on the Environment (Ley General del Ambiente, LGA),[44] which defines environmental damage as any relevant alteration that negatively modifies the environment, its resources, the balance of ecosystems, or collective values or assets.[45]
The LGA establishes a general principle of civil liability that anyone who causes current or future degrading effects to the environment is responsible for the costs of preventive and corrective actions, regardless of other environmental liabilities that may arise.[46] Whoever causes environmental damage is subject to strict liability to restore the environment to its prior condition before the damage occurred.[47] An allegedly responsible party may be exonerated from liability only by proving that all measures aimed at preventing the damage were taken and the damage was caused exclusively by the victim or a third party.[48]
Prominent Judicial Decisions
On September 4, 2012, a Criminal Court of Appeals of the Córdoba Province rendered a decision convicting a farmer and a crop-spraying pilot for spraying agrochemicals in the suburbs of the provincial capital neighborhood. It appears that the herbicides were applied to a GM soy variety. During the criminal proceeding, it was proved that 114 out of 142 children in the same neighborhood had agrochemicals in their blood. The medical expert in the case testified that he had found children in the area with more than five herbicides and insecticides in their blood. This is an unprecedented decision, since it is the first case in which pollution and harm to public health is treated as a crime and prosecuted in a Criminal court, under the Law 24051 on Hazardous Products[49], which punishes offenders with between five and ten years in prison for polluting soil, water, air, or the environment in a manner that is harmful to health. The ruling points specifically to two agrochemicals: endosulfan and glyphosate.[50] This case may highlight the popular concern about the increased use of herbicides on herbicide-resistant GM crops.

4.France

Judicial Decisions / Prominent Cases
As GMOs are highly controversial in France, they have been at the heart of several judicial cases over the last several years. Some of the most publicized cases have involved the trials of anti-GMO activists charged with the destruction or degradation of GM crops. The first incident of GM crop destruction by a group of faucheurs volontaires (volunteer reapers), as these activists call themselves, happened in 1997.[77] Many more similar incidents happened in the following years, to the point where these activists could claim to have destroyed 70% of GM research fields in 2004.[78] Many of these incidents have led to arrests and criminal charges against some of these anti-GMO activists, but courts have been very inconsistent in their treatment of such cases, with results ranging from acquittals to prison sentences.[79] Despite these inconsistencies, however, and despite the fact that such trials have been used by activists to publicize their cause, defending against these criminal charges has also proven quite costly for anti-GMO groups over the long run. This has lead many of them to conduct their destructions of GM crops at night in order to avoid detection and arrest.[80]
Aside from these trials, there have been other judicial decisions that have had a significant impact on the regulation of GMOs in France. The most recent case is a decision from the French Conseil d’Etat (Council of State, France’s highest court for administrative matters) of August 1, 2013.[81] In this case, the Conseil d’Etat was asked to rule on the legality of a French governmental decree prohibiting the use of a GM maize called MON 810. Although the MON 810 maize had been approved by the European Commission, the French government had the authority to ban it in case of a situation of emergency or a “serious risk to human health, animal health, or the environment” under article 34 of European Regulation 1829/2003.[82] However, the Conseil d’Etat ruled that neither a serious risk, nor a situation of emergency, existed with regard to MON 810, and that the government therefore exceeded its authority in banning it. Thus, this decision essentially legalized that particular GMO in France. This result was received quite negatively by the French public, and the government expressed its intention to seek other ways to maintain the moratorium on MON 810 maize.[83]
Update: June 19, 2014
On May 5, 2014, a judge from France’s highest court for administrative matters rejected a request from corn producers to strike down a government regulation prohibiting the sale, use, and growing of MON810 genetically modified corn. Furthermore, on that same date, the French Parliament adopted a law banning that same type of genetically modified corn. A group of senators has referred this law to the Conseil constitutional (Constitutional Council) to have it determine whether it is constitutionally valid.

5.Japan

Liability Regime
There is no special civil liability regime in relation to the development, use, or release of GMOs. The Cartagena Act provides administrative and criminal sanctions against violators of the Act.
Judicial Decisions / Prominent Cases
There was a case in 2005 in which farmers in a city sued a research institution that owned lands in the same city to stop the experimental planting of genetically modified rice outside a building on that land. The institution was planting rice, in conformity with Cartagena Act regulations, that is supposed to create a protein to kill a rice pathogen. The plaintiffs claimed that a pathogen that is immune to the protein may be created and thereby endanger humans and the environment. However, the courts held that the plaintiffs had not successfully proved their claims and dismissed the case.[53]

6.England

Liability Regime
Legislation in England that governs environmental damage is largely based on EU regulations and the principal that the “polluter pays.”[50] Liability for environmental damage in England is, in part, provided for by the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations.[51] These regulations place the responsibility on the “operator of an activity” that poses an environmental threat, or that has caused environmental damage, to identify when there is an imminent threat, or that damage has been caused, and to act immediately to prevent or rectify this damage.[52]Environmental liability is thus frequently described as a “backstop,” with emphasis on measures to prevent pollution, and to stop threats and damage from arising.[53]
The regulations apply only to serious cases of environmental damage. Such cases include where the integrity of a site of special scientific interest has been adversely affected, surface or ground water has been adversely affected, or land has been contaminated, resulting in an adverse effect on human health.[54]
Strict liability (liability without the need to show fault) applies in cases where GMOs are used and released, including during transportation.[55]In the case of actual or imminent environmental damage, the operator is required to take steps to prevent damage, or any further damage, and notify the relevant authority,[56] which in the majority of cases is the Environment Agency. The authority then determines whether the damage is environmental damage within the terms of the regulations and identifies the operator responsible. The authority then serves a remediation notice on the operator, who must then undertake the steps specified and pay any costs claimed by the authority for the environmental damage.[57]
Operators may also appeal against are [sic] mediation notice on the grounds that the contents of the remediation notice are unreasonable.[58]
General civil liability rules may also come into play, such as the laws of negligence and nuisance. There do not appear to be any reported cases that involve GMOs and civil liability in England. A law review article from 2005 notes that liability for negligence is “of limited use in the field of genetic contamination” because it will be difficult to prove the absence of reasonable care for preventing cross-pollination or other gene transfer. Moreover, liability is for damage to land and other property. While ‘failed’ crops or propagation of wild relatives of GM plants as weeds may be considered as property damage, gene flow that affects only commerciability of crops does normally not constitute an actionable damage. Pure pecuniary damage is not covered in most common law jurisdictions.[59]
Judicial Decisions / Prominent Cases
The majority of judicial decisions concerning GMOs that affect England are at the EU level and involve other countries. There appear to be no reported cases involving GMOs in England.

7.Italy

Liability Regime and Criminal Penalties
The civil liability regime for damages arising from GMO-related activities in Italy is that set forth in the Civil Code, and therefore reflects the negligence-based liability structure that applies to torts.[44]
In particular, L.D. No. 224 contains provisions for damage to human health and the environment, environmental remediation and restoration, and compensation for environmental damage. L.D. No. 224 specifically provides that anyone who by an act or omission, in violation of L.D. No. 224, causes damage to water, soil, subsoil, or other environmental resources that leads to a real and present danger of environmental pollution must, at their own expense, implement measures for safety and for the remediation and environmental restoration of the polluted areas.[45]
In turn, L.D. No. 70 of 2005[46] establishes penalties for those who, without the proper government authorizations, commercially distribute a GMO designed for human nutrition or a food that contains or has been produced with GMOs. Those who fail to take the appropriate measures to monitor the performance of the GMO, or who do not inform the authorities about ensuing developments affecting the security of the GMO, are also subject to penalties.[47]
L.D. No. 70 of 2005 also provides additional penalties for those who release GMOs into the market without complying with labeling requirements, or who release food that contains a higher concentration of GMOs than that authorized by law or the authorities.[48] Furthermore, penalties are imposed on those who release GMOs designed as animal food or feed without complying with the Law’s specified authorizations and labeling requirements.[49]
Judicial Decisions / Prominent Cases
Perhaps the most important judicial decision concerning GMOs in Italy is that issued by the Constitutional Court in 2006[50] on the constitutionality of Decree-Law No. 279 of 2004. The Court partially annulled this Decree-Law based on procedural irregularities in the legislative process that led to its enactment, and considered its powers as an encroachment by the national government on the powers of the regions. Furthermore, the Court held that the executive branch did not hold “consultation and wide debate” prior to adopting the measure as required by the Constitution. In addition, the Court considered arguments concerning the alleged irreversibility of the potential damage posited by the admixture of GMO products and non-GMO products. The effect of this decision was to allow for a decentralization of the national government’s policy-making powers concerning GMOs and an increase in regional power. The practical result has been a lack of uniform national policies concerning GMOs in Italy.

8.European Union

Liability Issues
In general, liability issues arising from the use of food or feed produced from GMOs or consisting of or containing GMOs fall within the legal systems of the EU Member States, where producers and importers of GMOs may be subject to the general rules of civil liability.[70] The specific question of liability and compensation schemes for damage due to the presence of GMOs in non-GM crops is the subject of a lengthy study by the European Centre of Tort and Insurance Law, which provides information on the individual EU Member States.[71]
At the EU level, the scope of Directive 2004/35/EC on Environmental Liability with Regard to the Prevention and Remedying of Environmental Damage[72] may be relevant to this discussion. The general EU principle is that the polluter pays for environmental damage. Directive 2004/35/EC extends the damage or imminent threats of damage to the environment––including protected species and their natural habitats, water, and land––due to a number of activities, including any deliberate release into the environment, transport, or placing on the market of GMOs, as defined by Directive 2001/18/EC. [73] The scope appears to be limited, however, since biodiversity found in farmlands appears to fall outside its scope, unless such farmland is located within a protected area.[74]
In 2011, the Court of Justice of the EU rendered a preliminary ruling in a case that could be influential in paving the way for biotech companies to be held accountable for GMOs released into the environment that cause damage to individuals. In this case, the Court upheld the right to compensation of a German beekeeper who instituted legal proceedings against the State of Bavaria when Monsanto’s GM corn (MON810), which was cultivated for research purposes in plots owned by the State of Bavaria, contaminated his honey. The Court found that the beekeeper suffered an economic loss by not being able to sell his product and that he ought to be compensated.[75]
The EU ratified the Supplementary Protocol on March 21, 2013, by depositing the instruments of approval.[81]
Judicial Decisions / Prominent Cases
The EU court system has played a significant role in the area of GMOs, by interpreting provisions of EU legislation on GMOs and by ensuring effective implementation when the Commission initiates action against certain EU Members for failing to comply with its requirements. The most recent judgment delivered in September 2013 terminates the EU’s de facto moratorium by requiring the Commission to take further action in a long-pending application for authorization.
A. Case T-164/10: Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.（略）
B. Judgment in Case C-442/09: Karl Heinz Bablok and Others v. Freistaat Bayern（略）