Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have caused substantial economic losses by contaminating non-GMO crops and threatening the economic self-determination of non-GMO farmers. After Monsanto v. Schmeiser, biotech IP owners hold most of the rights in the property bundle with respect to bioengineered organisms. This commentary highlights the disequilibrium between these broad patent rights and the lack of legal responsibility for harms caused by GMO products. The authors propose that there is a role for tort law--specifically the tort of cattle trespass--in fairly allocating risk and responsibility. The doctrine of cattle trespass reflects a policy of distributive justice, positing that the unique risks associated with keeping living creatures ought to import liability based on the owner\u27s creation and control of those risks. We suggest that GM canola and its bioengineered kin represent the next generation of livestock, and that biotechnology companies release their transgenic organisms onto the market in the knowledge that these organisms may escape and do harm. As such, biotech creators and patent holders are properly liable when risk ripens into harm
