13 
being advocated for genetic engineering by Representative James 
Florio. 17 / 
Another tort theory might also be applied -- liability 
without fault. 18 / Legislatures as well as the courts might 
impose this doctrine; as early as 1977, a United States Senator 
had proposed legislation requiring strict liability for recombi- 
nant DNA activity. 19/ Such a bill was again introduced in 
November of 1983. 20/ 
b. The Current Regulatory Structure Insures 
Adequate Environmental Expertise 
EPA's next concern -- that the current regulatory scheme 
does not contemplate adequate evaluation of environmental issues 
-- is also of doubtful validity, given changes in the 
17 / H.R. 4303, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 
18 / This doctrine is commonly referred to as strict liability. 
It generally applies only to abnormally hazardous activi- 
ties. See W. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts 505 
(4th Ed. 1971). Despite the predominant viewpoint that the 
fermentation process is not abnormally dangerous, any 
serious, widespread injury might demand the opposite con- 
clusion. Alternatively, a court might find that reserach 
or production that complies with the Guidelines is not an 
abnormally dangerous activity, but that otherwise it is. 
19 / This bill was introduced by Senator Dale Bumpers. See 
Swazey, Sorenson and Wong, Risks and Benefits, Right and 
Responsibilities: A History of the Recombinant DNA 
Controversy , 51 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1019, 1068 (1978). 
20/ See H.R. 4303, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (introduced by Rep. 
Florio and co-sponsored by Rep. Eckart). This bill 
combines enterprise liability with strict liability. 
[ 713 ] 
