1 Federal Statistical Office (FSO)/Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Umweltstatistik Schweiz in der Tasche 2009, (Neuchâtel: 2009), at pp.22 et sqq.

2 Swiss Federal Administrative Court Judgment A-2723/2007 of 30 January 2008 at para. 6 (reversed on formal grounds), reconfirmed in Swiss Supreme Court Judment of 3 March 2009, 1C.108/2008 (refusal to consider the case).

3 Swiss Supreme Court Judgment of 30 August 2000, BGE 126 II 399, at para. 3b: “[When listing these values the ICNIRP merely considered effects which could be repeated and reproduced and posed a risk to human health. One-time or irreproducible findings, particularly epidemiological examinations and individual experiencenes of ‘electro-sensitive’ persons had been excluded.]”

4 Errass, Likewise Christoph, Öffentliches Recht der Gentechnologie im Ausserhumanbereich (Bern: Schulthess 2006), at p. 195 Google Scholar; Haldemann, Frank, Verantwortung im Gentechnikrecht – Verfassungsrechtliche Betrachtungen zur Freisetzung gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen, (Basel: Schulthess 2009), at pp.118 et sqq. Google Scholar; Pfeifer, Beatrice Wagner, Das Umweltrecht vor den Herausforderungen der Gentechnologie, (Zurich: Schulthess 1997), at pp.131 et sqq. (with further references)Google Scholar; see also Swiss Supreme Court Judgment of 12 March 2003, BGE 129 II 286 at paras. 4.3–4.5.

5 Fagerström, Torbjörn, Dixelius, Christina, Magnusson, Ulf and Sundström, Jens F., “Stop worrying; start growing”, 13 EMBO reports (2012), pp. 493–497, at p. 496CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

6 See Art. 197 No. 7 BV (in effect until 27 November 2010), Art. 37a GTG (extension of the moratorium until 27 November 2013).

7 [Swiss Federal Law of 21 March 2003 on Gene Technology in the extra-human field] Bundesgesetz vom 21. März 2003 über die Gentechnik im Ausserhumanbereich (Gentechnikgesetz, GTG, SR 814.91).

8 Swiss Federal Council Dispatch of 1 March 2000 [regarding an amendment of the Federal Environmental Protection Law] zu einer Änderung des Bundesgesetzes über den Umweltschutz (USG), in Federal Gazette, BBl 2000 2391, at pp. 2393, 2402 and 2427.

9 Melanie Connor, Die Schweizer Bevölkerung und die Grüne Gentechnologie, Presentation at the 5th Symposium on green gene technology of the Zurich-Basel Plant Science Center, held 2 September 2011.

10 Luhmann, Further Niklas, Soziologie des Risikos, (Berlin: Gruyter 2003), at pp.148 et sqq. Google Scholar; cf. Fagerström, Dixelius, Magnusson and Sundström, “Stop worrying; start growing”, supra note 5, at p. 496.

11 Rainer Wolf, “Zur Antiquiertheit des Rechts in der Risikogesellschaft”, 15 Leviathan (1987), at p. 391; see also Hansjörg Seiler, Recht und technische Risiken:Grundzüge eines technischen Sicherheitsrechts, (Zurich: vdf Hochschulverlag an der ETH 1997), at p. 85.

12 In the case of the field release trial with transgenic KP4 wheat in Lindau/ZH the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich submitted an application with the FOEN, which was initially refused due to incompleteness. The submission of a revised application took place on 4 January 2001. The FOEN approved the latter application but imposed conditions and additional requirements. As a consequence of several appeal proceedings (i.a. BGE 129 II 286) the approving decision did not become res judicata until 27 February 2004. The sowing of the transgenic KP4 wheat on the trial field in Lindau was finally effected on 18 March 2004.

13 See for example [Statement] Votum Bürgi, Official Bulletin of the Federal Assembly, Council of States’ summer session 2001 of 13 June 2001, at pp.302 et sqq.; [Statement] Votum Plattner, Official Bulletin of the Federal Assembly, Council of States’ summer session 2001 of 13 June 2001, at pp.304 et sqq.

14 Swiss Federal Council Dispatch USG, supra note 8, at p.2431.

15 In the area of green gene technology one must particularly consider the quantitative and qualitative improvement of the crop yield in plants, e.g. by increasing resistance against diseases, vermin, herbicides, extreme temperatures, drought or oligotrophic soil. Furthermore, gene technology opened up the potential for the systematic stimulation of the production of pharmaceutically desired substances or other useful raw materials. See thereto Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (ed.), Grüne Gentechnik, (Weinheim: Wiley-VCH 2010), at pp.39 et sqq.; Kempken, Frank and Kempken, Renate, Gentechnik bei Pflanzen – Chancen und Risiken, 3rd ed., (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer 2006), at pp.125 et sqq Google Scholar.; Chawla, H.S., Introduction to Plant Biotechnology, 3rd ed., (Enfield: Science Publishers 2009), at pp.459 et sqq Google Scholar.; Fagerström, Dixelius, Magnusson and Sundström, “Stop worrying; start growing”, supra note 5, at pp. 493 et sqq.; Apel, Andrew, “The costly benefits of opposing agricultural biotechnology”, 27 New Biotechnology (2010), at pp.635 et sqq CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

16 Swiss Federal Council Dispatch USG, supra note 8, at pp.2392 et sqq.; Official Bulletin of the Federal Assembly, Council of States’ summer session 2001 of 13 June 2001, at p. 302 and Official Bulletin of the Federal Assembly, National Council's autumn session 2002 of 1 October 2002, at p. 1539; see also Rainer J. Schweizer, Kommentar zu Art. 120 BV, in Bernhard Ehrenzeller, Philippe Mastronardi, Rainer Schweizer, Klaus A. Vallender (eds), Die Schweizerische Bundesverfassung, Kommentar, 2nd ed., (Zurich: Dike 2008), Art. 120 BV, at para. 5.

17 Swiss Federal Council Dispatch USG, supra note 8, at p.2393.

18 Ibid., at p.2426.

19 Ibid., at p. 2406, 2430.

20 Art. 6 Para. 2 Subpara.b GTG.

21 Swiss Federal Council Dispatch USG, supra note 8, at pp.2406, 2426 and 2430.

22 Which would in turn have to be addressed as a problem of externalities. Kip Viscusi, Thereto W., Harrington, Joseph E. and Vernon, John M., Economics of Regulation and Antitrust, 4th ed., (Cambridge: MIT Press 2005), at pp.746 et sqq Google Scholar.

23 Hettich, Peter and Walther, Simone, “Schutz (vor) der Gentechnologie”, in Lorandi, Franco and Staehelin, Daniel (eds), Innovatives Recht (Zurich: Dike, 2011), pp. 65–86, at p. 71Google Scholar.

24 Fabio, Udo Di, Risikoentscheidungen im Rechtsstaat: Zum Wandel der Dogmatik im öffentlichen Recht, insbesondere am Beispiel der Arzneimittelüberwachung, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1994), at p. 56 Google Scholar; Bardach, Eugene and Kagan, Robert A., Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2002), at pp.196 et sqq Google Scholar.

25 Art. 11 Para. 1 GTG.

26 Häfelin, Ulrich, Müller, Georg, Uhlmann, Felix, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, 6th ed. (Zurich: Schulthess 2010), paras.2523 et sqq., and para.2534Google Scholar.

27 Art. 19 Para. 1 and 2 in conjunction with Art. 37 para.1 [Ordinance of 10 September 2008 on the handling of organisms in the environment (Release Ordinance)] Verordnung vom 10. September über den Umgang mit Organismen in der Umwelt (Freisetzungsverordnung, FrSV, SR 814.911). Cf. also Kohler, Stefan, Freisetzungen von gentechnisch veränderten Organismen in der Schweiz, (St. Gallen: Vdf Hochschulverlag 2005), at pp.132 et sqq Google Scholar.

28 Cf. Art. 6 para. 2 Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC.

29 Cf. Art. 6 para. 1 Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC.

30 Gómez-Galera, Sonia, Twyman, Richard M., Sparrow, Penelope A.C. et al., “Field trials and tribulations – making sense of the regulations for experimental field trials of transgenic crops in Europe”, Plant Biotechnology Journal (2012), at pp. 1–13 Google Scholar, DOI 10.1111/j.1467–7652.2012.00681.x, at pp.2 et sqq.

31 FOAG, “Gesuche und Bewilligungen für GVO-Erzeugnisse”, 20 December 2010, available on the Internet at <http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/lebensmittel/04858/04863/04883/index.html?lang=de> (last accessed on 12 July 2012); [Appendices of the Ordinance of the FOAG of 1 February 2005 on GMO animal feed lists] Anhänge der Verordnung des Bundesamtes für Landwirtschaft (BLW) vom 1. Februar 2005 über die GVO-Futtermittellisten (SR 916.307.11).

32 Art. 37a GTG.

33 Swiss Federal Council Dispatch of 1 June 2009 [regarding the amendment of the Swiss Federal Law on Gene Technology in the extra-human field] zur Änderung des Gentechnikgesetzes (GTG), in Federal Gazette, BBl 2009 5435, at pp. 5436 and 5441.

34 Art. 36 para. 2 FrSV.

35 Art. 36 para. 3 FrSV.

36 Errass, Öffentliches Recht der Gentechnologie im Ausserhumanbereich, supra note 4, at p. 195. See also Swiss Supreme Court Judgment of 12 March 2003, BGE 129 II 286, para. 4.3.3.

37 Seiler, Recht und technische Risiken, supra note 11, at p. 85; Wolf, “Zur Antiquiertheit des Rechts in der Risikogesellschaft”, supra note 11, at p. 391.

38 Cf. Swiss Supreme Court Judgment of 12 March 2003, BGE 129 II 289, para. 4.3.2.

39 FOEN, decision on granting a permit regarding the field release trial B07001 of 3 September 2007, Section B.2.2.1.2, Para. 4, available on the Internet at <http://www.bafu.admin.ch/biotechnologie/01756/08902/08924/index.html?lang=de> (last accessed on 12 July 2012).

40 SECB, opinion to the field release trial B07001 of 20 July 2007, no. 4.3. It seems noteworthy here, that minimum distances to avoid hybridization are also to be adhered to with regard to the preservation of sorting accuracy in conventional plant breeding, e.g. in wheat. However, as regards oat, spelt, barley and soft wheat it is sufficient to clearly separate neighboring fields of different sorts, e.g. by one plough share (approx. 3 ft. gap). Thereto appendix 3 no. 2.3 [Ordinance of 7 December 1998 on seeds of field and forage crops as well as vegetable varities] Verordnung des EVD vom 7. Dezember 1998 über Saat- und Pflanzengut von Acker- und Futterpflanzen- sowie Gemüsearten (Saat- und Pflanzengut-Verordnung des EVD, SR 916.151.1).

41 Swiss Supreme Administrative Court Judgment of 10 November 2008, A-6728/2007, para. 3.4.

42 DFG, Grüne Gentechnik, supra note 15, at pp.85 et sqq.

43 That is, just those inhabitants who were immediately and evidently more severely threatened by the effects of a nuclear power plant than the general public – in normal operation state as well as in the eventof accident – were entitled to appeal. Cf. Federal Council, Decision No. 96 in VPB 42 of 22 February 1978, para. 4; See also Decision No. 89 in VPB 44 of 14 May 1980, para. 3; Decision No. 54 in VPB 46 of 29 April 1982, para. 2; Swiss Supreme Court Judgments of 19 May 1995 BGE 121 II 176, para. 2c and 18 November 1994, BGE 120 IB 379, para. 4d.

44 Cf. Federal Council, Decision No. 96 in VPB 42 of 22 February 1978, para.4

45 Hettich and Walther, “Schutz vor der Gentechnologie”, supra note 23, at p. 77. This question, which implicitly challenges the suitability of solely considering the airborne pollen range, has also been raised by the Swiss Supreme Administrative Court. See Judgment of 10 November 2008, supra note 41, para. 3.4.

46 The latter consideration has been brought up by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in a recent judgment on pollen of genetically modified corn (MON810) in honey. Cf. Case C-442/09, paras.100 et sqq. According to Errass, the same would apply for Swiss Law. Cf. Christoph Errass, “Honig mit gentechnisch veränderten Pollen: Ein Urteil des EuGH und die Folgen für die Schweiz”, Jusletter 17 October 2011, para.10. See also Art. 12 para. 1 GTG; Art. 22 para.1 e contrario [Ordinance of 23 November 2005 on foodstuffs and commodities] Lebensmittel- und Gebrauchsgegenständeverordnung vom 23. November 2005 (LGV; SR 817.02); Art. 19 [Ordinance of 26 October 2011 on the production and putting into circulation of animal feed] Verordnung vom 26. Oktober 2011 über die Produktion und das Inverkehrbringen von Futtermitteln (Futtermittel-Verordnung, FMV, SR 916.307).

47 See Art. 6a and 7 [Ordinance of the Federal Department of the Interior on genetically modified foodstuffs of 23 November 2005] Verordnung des EDI über gentechnisch veränderte Lebensmittel vom 23. November 2005 (VGVL, SR 817.022.51). The above mentioned threshold value for traces of unauthorized GMO in organic products (0.5% per ingredient) is not to be confused with the higher threshold value (0.9% per ingredient) for mixing authorized GMO with conventional organisms within the flow of goods (e.g. mixing seeds, grains, etc.).

48 Cf., e.g., Swiss Supreme Court Judgment of 10 September 1997, BGE 123 II 376, paras. 2 and 4a (Ideological nuisance through the authorisation of GM-soy as a food product); Judgment of 28 March 1995, 1A.98/1994, para. 2c (line-of-sight obstruction through planting); Judgment of 31 January 2008, 1C.262/2007, paras. 1.2 and 2.4 et sqq. (running a soup kitchen); see also Hettich and Walther, “Schutz (vor) der Gentechnologie”, supra note 23, at p. 78. With further references to ideological nuisance in the law concerning the respective interests of neighbours Arthur Meier-Hayoz (ed.), Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Privatrecht, Vol. 4, Art. 648 ZGB at paras.72 et sqq.

49 E.g. German Federal Constitutional Court Judgment of 24 November 2010, BVerfG, 1 BvF 2/05, para. 137.

50 German Federal Constitutional Court Judgment of 24 November 2010, BVerfG, 1 BvF 2/05, para.142. However, cf. Case C-236/01, Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA v. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri [2003], at paras. 106 et sqq., where the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held, that “protective measures adopted under the safeguard clause may not properly be based on a purely hypothetical approach to risk, founded on mere suppositions which are not yet scientifically verified ”, but require a “risk assessment […] as complete as possible”.

51 Hettich, Peter, “Pharmarecht als Risikorecht”, in Hettich, Peter and Kohler, Stefan (eds.), St. Galler Tagung zum Pharmarecht, (St. Gallen: Schulthess 2010), at pp.15 et sqq Google Scholar.

52 European Commission, EUR 24473 – A Decade of EU-funded GMO reserach (2001–2010), (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2010)Google Scholar.

53 European Commission, A Decade of EU-funded GMO reserach (2001–2010), supra note 52, at p. 15.

54 European Commission, “Commission publishes compendium of results of EU-funded research on genetically modified crops”, Press release of 9 December 2010, available on the Internet at <http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1688&format=HTML&aged=0&langulan=DE> (last accessed on 12 July 2012); European Commission, supra note 52, at pp.16 et sqq.; DFG, supra note 15, at p. 91; cf. also Economist Online, “Green Genes – The shameful destruction of a crop trial”, 4 August 2008, available on the Internet at <http://www.economist.com/node/11871937> (last accessed 12 July 2012). See also Gómez-Galera, Twyman, Sparrow et al., “Field trials and tribulations”, supra note 30, at p. 11; Fagerström, Dixelius, Magnusson and Sundström, “Stop worrying; start growing”, supra note 5, at p. 496.

55 Clive James, “Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010”, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), Brief No. 42, 22 February 2011, available on the Internet at <http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/42/executivesummary/default.asp> (last accessed on 12 July 2012).

56 FOEN, “Decision on permit B00003”, 30 October 2003, available on the Internet at <http://www.bafu.admin.ch/biotechnologie/01756/08902/08928/index.html?lang=de> (last accessed on 12 July 2012).

57 Sunstein, Cass R., “Probability Neglect: Emotions, Worst Cases, and Law”, 112 Yale Law Journal (2002), at p. 104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (also arguing as an analogue that mandatory labels of genetically modified food might be criticized on the ground that they suggest a danger that does not in fact exist). Cf. also Timur Kuran and Cass R. Sunstein, “Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation”, 51 Stanford Law Review (1999), at p. 707, arguing that if alarmist information is more salient, and thus more readily recalled, the public may end up exaggerating the gravity of certain risks (availability cascade).

58 FOEN, “Decisions on permits B07001 and B07002”, 3 September 2007, available on the Internet at <http://www.bafu.admin.ch/biotechnologie/01756/08902/08924/index.html?lang=de> (last accessed on 12 July 2012). Unlike in its decision on permit B00003 of 30 October 2003, the FOEN in 2007 abstained for example from imposing pollen tents, fly screens or framing with sheet metal.

59 The article at hand assesses risk from a strictly natural scientific angle in order to allow for rational, science-based decision-making. Therefore, other factors, e.g. ethical or philosophical questions are not being considered in the risk assessment. For a general discussion on the relationship between expert opinion and popular concerns see Sunstein, Cass R., Risk and Reason, Safety, Law and the Environment, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002), at pp.53 et sqq Google Scholar. See also Galera, Twyman, Sparrow et al., “Field trials and tribulations”, supra note 30, at p. 11.

60 Consenting Kempken and Kempken, Gentechnik bei Pflanzen, supra note 15, at pp.185 et sqq.; Chawla, Introduction to Plant Biotechnology, supra note 15, at pp.521 et sqq.; DFG, Grüne Gentechnik, supra note 15, at p. 92.

61 Though possible measures to practically implement co-existence are being examined in scientific studies (cf. e.g. Messéan, Antoine, Angevin, F., Gomez-Barbero, M. et al., New case studies on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops in European agriculture, European Commission (ed.), (Sevilla: Publications Office of the European Union 2006)Google Scholar; Kathrin Pascher, Marion Dolezel, Koexistenz von gentechnisch veränderten, konventionellen und biologisch angebauten Kulturpflanzen in der Österreichischen Landwirtschaft – Handlungsempfehlungen aus ökologischer Sicht, Federal Ministry of Health (ed.), (Vienna 2005)) all proposals to prevent undesired hybridisation – besides separating or cleaning harvesters and choosing cultivars with different points of anthesis – result in the adherence to certain field separation distances (depending on the plant species up to several kilometers), including possibly extensive monitoring. This leads to vigorous discussions even in countries much larger by surface area than Switzerland, such as the U.S. Thereto Economist Online, “Rows over GM crops – Seeds of Change”, 6 January 2011, available on the Internet at <http://www.economist.com/node/17855118> (last accessed on 12 July 2012). In the European Union, the recent ECJ ruling regarding pollen of genetically modified corn (MON810) in honey raises major questions concerning the implementation of co-existence. Cf. Case C-442/09, paras. 100 et sqq. For an overview on the coexistence policy in the European Union see Varela, Justo Corti, “The New Strategy on Coexistence in the 2010 European Commission Recommendation”, 4 EJRR (2010), pp.353 et sqq Google Scholar. In Switzerland the following authors dealt with the co-existence issue: Dahinden, Manuela, Kohler, Stefan, Sautter, Christof, Koexistenz und Froschungsfreiheit als Nagelprobe für die Grüne Gentechnologie, (Zurich: Idea 2011)Google Scholar; Epiney, Astrid, Waldmann, Bernhard, Oeschger, Magnus, Heuck, Jennifer, Die Ausscheidung von gentechnikfreien Gebieten in der Schweiz de lege lata et de ferenda, (Zurich/St. Gallen: Dike 2011)Google Scholar; Errass, “Honig mit gentechnisch veränderten Pollen”, supra note 46, at paras.7 et sqq.

62 Sunstein, Cass R., Laws of Fear – Beyond the Precautionary Principle, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005), at pp.31 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar. (citing studies of WHO, which estimated 35’000 famine victims due to the refusal); Bohannon, John, “Zambia Rejects GM Corn on Scientists’ Advice”, 298 Science (2002), pp.1153 et sqq CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.; Huffman, Wallace E., “Consumers’ Acceptance of (And Resistance to) Genetically Modified Foods in High-Income Countries: Effects of Labels and Information in an Uncertain Environment”, 85 American Journal of Agricultural Economics (2003), at. p.1113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 European Commission, A Decade of EU-funded GMO reserach (2001–2010), supra note 52, at p. 9.

64 Economist Online, “How to live with climate change –It won’t be stopped, but its effects can be made less bad”, 25 November 2010, available on the Internet at <http://www.economist.com/node/17575027> (last accessed on 12 July 2012).

65 Cf. Parry, Martin, Canziani, Osvaldo, Palutikof, Jean, van der Linden, Paul and Hanson, Clair, “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”, in IPCC/WMO/UNEP (eds.), Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007)Google Scholar.

66 European Commission, A Decade of EU-funded GMO reserach (2001–2010), supra note 52, at pp.7 et sqq.; DFG, Grüne Gentechnik, supra note 15, at pp.38 et sqq.; Paarlberg, Robert, “The Global Food Fight”, 79 Foreign Affairs (2000), at pp.30 et sqq CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.; Roos, Jonas, Hopkins, Richard, Kvarnheden, Anders and Dixelius, Christina, “The Impact of global warming on plant diseases and insect vectors in Sweden”, 129 Eur J Plant Pathol (2011), at pp.9 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.; Varshney, Rajeev K., Bansal, Kailash C., Agarwal, Pramod K. et al., “Agricultural biotechnology for crop improvement in a variable climate: hope or hype?”, 16 Trends in Plant Science (2011), at. pp 363 et sqq CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

67 Federal Department of Economic Affairs (FDEA)/FOAG, Government report on Agriculture 2011, (Bern: 2011), at p. 14.

68 European Commission, A Decade of EU-funded GMO reserach (2001–2010), supra note 52, at pp.7 et sqq.; European Commission, Press release of 9 December 2010, supra note 54.

69 Gerhard Schmid and Markus Schott, “Kommentar zu Art. 64 BV”, in Ehrenzeller, Mastronardi, Rainer and. Vallender (eds), Die Schweizerische Bundesverfassung, supra note 16, Art. 64 BV at para. 4, with reference to Schwander, Verena, Grundrecht der Wissenschaftsfreiheit: im Spannungsfeld rechtlicher und gesellschaftlicher Entwicklungen, (Bern: Haupt 2002)Google Scholar.

70 Similarly German Federal Constitutional Court in its Judgment of 24 November 2010, BVerfG, 1 BvF 2/05, at paras.148 et sqq.

71 Murswiek, Dietrich, Die staatliche Verantwortung für die Risiken der Technik, (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1985), at p. 23Google Scholar; Hettich and Walther, “Schutz (vor) der Gentechnologie”, supra note 23, at p.82.

72 Preuss, Ulrich K., “Risikovorsorge als Staatsaufgabe”, in Grimm, Dieter (ed.), Staatsaufgaben, (Baden-Baden: Suhrkamp 1994), pp. 523–551, at p. 543Google Scholar.

73 Schmid and Schott, “Kommentar zu Art. 64 BV”, supra note 69, Art. 64 BV at para. 5; WBK-N, Report of 23 June 2005 regarding the parlamentary initiative of a [Constitutional framework Article concerning Education]”Bildungsrahmenartikel in der Bundesverfassung”, in Federal Gazette, BBl 2005 5479, at p. 5512.

74 To the definition see e.g. Errass, Christoph, “Innovationsfördernde Regulierung als Aufgabe des öffentlichen Rechts?”, 111 ZBl (2010), pp. 203–235, at pp.206 et sqq Google Scholar.

75 Swiss Federal Council Dispatch USG, supra note 8, at pp.2402 and 2427; Official Bulletin of the Federal Assembly, National Council’s spring session 2003 of 5 March 2003, at pp.92 et sqq.; Official Bulletin of the Federal Assembly, Council of States’ spring session 2003 of 13 March 2003, at p. 192. Cf. as well Kohler, Freisetzungen von gentechnisch veränderten Organismen in der Schweiz, supra note 27, at pp.105 et sqq.

76 Hansjörg Seiler, “Kommentar zu Art. 29e USG”, in Helen Keller – Vereinigung für Umweltrecht (eds), Kommentar zum Umweltschutzgesetz, 2nd ed., (Zurich: Schulthess 2003), Art. 29e USG at para.30.

77 Cf. e.g. Sections C.1.c/dd and C.1.d/uu of the decision on permit B07001 by the FOEN of 3 September 2007 and the related decisions of 6 February 2008 and 6 February 2009 respectively.

78 Cf. also 7 CFR 340.3 (U.S.), which, instead of the usual permit system, allows for a notification procedure when fulfilling certain conditions. The notification per se consists of a two-sided form (an example and the prerequisites to participate in the notification procedure are available on the Internet at <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/notification_guidance_0810.pdf> (last accessed on 12 July 2012)); see also Hettich and Walther, “Schutz (vor) der Gentechnologie”, supra note 23, at pp.84 et sqq.

79 Swiss Supreme Court Judgment of 10 August 2009, BGE 135 II 338, at paras.5 et sqq.

80 See Gómez-Galera, Twyman, Sparrow et al., “Field trials and tribulations”, supra note 30, at pp.10 et sqq.; European Union Joint Research Centre, List of summary notifications (SNIFs) circulated under Art. 9 of Directive 90/220/EEC and Art. 11 of Directive 2001/18/EC, available on the Internet at <http://mbg.jrc.ec.europa.eu/deliberate/doc/snifs.pdf> and <http://gmoinfo.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> (last accessed on 12 July 2012).

81 See Gómez-Galera, Twyman,. Sparrow et al., “Field trials and tribulations”, supra note 30, at p. 8.

82 Art. 14 paras. 4 and 4a [German Federal Law of 1 July 1990 on the regulation of gene technology] Gesetz zur Regelung der Gentechnik vom 1. Juli 1990 (Gentechnikgesetz – GenTG) and § 11 [Ordinance of 24 October 1990 on application documents and application procedures according to the German Federal Law an the regulation of gene technology] Verordnung vom 24. Oktober 1990 über Antrags- und Anmeldeunterlagen und über Genehmigungs- und Anmeldeverfahren nach dem Gentechnikgesetz (Gentechnik-Verfahrensverordnung – GenTVfV).

83 Cf. § 11 GenTVfV. The provision embodies into law the Commission decision of 4 November 1994 (94/730/EC) establishing simplified procedures concerning the deliberate release into the environment of GMP.

84 Cf. § 11 GenTVfV.

85 Rhinow, René, Schmid, Gerhard, Biaggini, Giovanni, Uhlmann, Felix, Öffentliches Wirtschaftsrecht, 2nd ed., (Basel: Helbling Lichtenhahn 2011)Google Scholar, para. 40, at subpara. 35.

86 Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), “Zerstörungsaktion in Gentech-Versuchsfeld” [destructive action on GMO trial field], 14 June 2008, available on the Internet at <http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/zuerich/zerstoerungsaktion_in_gentech-versuchsfeld_1.759006.html> (last accessed on 12 July 2012).

87 Forschungsanstalt Agroscope Changins-Wädenswil (ACW), “Zwischenfall beim Feldexperiment mit gentechnisch verändertem Weizen in Pully” [incident during field release trial with GM-wheat in Pully], Press release of 25 June 2009, available on the Internet at <http://www.agroscope.admin.ch/aktuell/00198/00199/00344/04683/index.html?lang=de&msg-id=27717> (last accessed on 12 July 2012); Blick, “Gentech-Weizenfeld von Unbekannten sabotiert” [Trial field with GM-wheat sabotaged by unknown intruders], 7 July 2009, available on the Internet at <http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/gentech-weizenfeld-von-unbekannten-sabotiert-75259> (last accessed on 12 July 2012).

88 Cf. Gómez-Galera, Twyman, Sparrow et al., “Field trials and tribulations”, supra note 30, at pp.6 et sqq., mentioning a variety of experimental field trials all over Europe which have been destroyed by activist. See also Economist Online, “Green Genes – The shameful destruction of a crop trial”, 4 August 2008, available on the Internet at <http://www.economist.com/node/11871937> (last accessed on 12 July 2012); Ian Sample, “Anti-GM activists urged not to trash wheat field”, The Guardian, 1 May 2012, available on the Internet at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/01/anti-gm-activists-wheat-rothamsted> (last accessed on 12 July 2012).

89 Thomas Bernauer ,Theresa Tribaldos, Carolin Luginbühl and Micahel Winzeler, “Government regulation and public opposition create high additional costs for field trials with GM crops in Switzerland”, in Transgenic Research (2011), DOI 10.1007/s11248–011–9486-x. (figures derived from his own research at Agroscope).

90 Staatssekretariat für Bildung und Forschung SBF (ed.), “Schweizer Roadmap für Forschungsinfrastrukturen – Schlussbericht”, 30 March 2011, p. 47, available on the Internet on http://www.sbf.admin.ch/htm/dokumentation/publikationen/forschung/11.03.30.NFO.RoadmapForschungsinfrastrukturen_d.pdf (last accessed on 12 July 2012). See for the concept also Hettich and Walther, “Schutz (vor) der Gentechnologie”, supra note 23, at p. 86.

91 Gómez-Galera, Twyman, Sparrow et al., “Field trials and tribulations”, supra note 30, at p. 11.