An Incomprehensible Refusal

May 26, 2008
Ministers Laurette Onkelinx (Public Health) and Paul Magnette (Climate and Energy) turn down the request, even if it concerns research of sustainable technology deemed to be safe, and though the Ministers explicitly acknowledge the scientific quality of the Biosafety Advisory Council’s opinion.

The Ministers offer three arguments for the refusal:

1. The file contains no specific assessment protocol for the effect on microbes in the ground, and for the risks of the poplars reacting strangely to diseases and climate stress. 
2. In the development of the trees, a 'marker gene' is introduced for resistance against an antibiotic. This would be an infringement of the legal requirement to extinguish the use of such genes by the end of 2008. 
3. The pubic expressed more than 40 comments on the development of agrofuels. The Ministers find these to be legitimate and therefore do not wish to give permission as long as there is no framework to offer replies to these requests.

The Ministers’ arguments can be challenged one by one:

1. If this protocol was already required prior to submission, then it being absent in the permit request should have made the file inadmissible. Now, the file is declared admissible, upon which the rules of the game are suddenly changed. In addition, these risks have already been investigated in other field tests, among others in France. 
2. The Royal Decree, and the European Directive 2001/18/EG, on which the RD is based, both discuss antibiotics resistance markers “that may have negative effects on health and environment”. According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the marker that is at stake falls outside of this category. What’s more, this marker is even allowed for large-scale applications on the market, and should therefore certainly be allowed for a well-defined small-scale field test.
3. To put question marks behind the benefit of biofuels is, in general, both interesting and valuable. This, however, does not in any way affect the question whether this field test is safe for our health and environment – which is exactly what the Ministers should assess. Following the rationale behind this objection, one could just as well refuse to grant a person who has successfully completed five years of study to become a lawyer his or her degree on the grounds that “some people think there are enough lawyers around”.

May 27, 2008
VIB promptly expresses its disbelief about the refusal (see press release). And VIB was not alone to do so. Flemish Minister of Science Policy and VIB’s Minister of Tutelage, Patricia Ceysens, calls it a 'boycott of the Flemish innovating environment policy'. In Flemish Parliament Minister-President Peeters answers to interventions by Fientje Moerman 'that this is not the proper way in which the federal government should operate' and that 'the decision should be reverted'.
The refusal constitutes a severe blow to the scientific research into the sustainable production of bio-ethanol. The VIB research in this field may very well be called of world class, yet paralyzing the program will rapidly annihilate this international scientific lead position. 

June 20, 2008
The Biosafety Advisory Council feels ridiculed by the Ministers’ first two refuting arguments. The Council sends an additional report to the Ministers, in which the validity of the two objections is contested.

The Calvary Continued...
Read here.

print friendly