Council of State Suspends Refusal of VIB Poplar Field Trial Ghent

05-Jan-2009 - Belgium

The Council of State has consigned the federal ministers Magnette and Onkelinx’ decision to refuse a permit for a field trial with genetically modified poplars to the wastepaper basket. These poplars are intended for the sustainable production of biofuels. The Council of State rules that the refusal causes severe damage to VIB as an institute, and that the arguments used are not legal.

The refusal has now been suspended, awaiting a verdict to all intents and purposes. In its fight against the wrong suffered, VIB feels very much reinforced by the ruling of the Council of State, Belgium’s highest juridical court. However, this does not mean that the modified poplars can now be moved to the field. The suspension of the decision is an important step in the legal battle. VIB reckons that the next step will indeed be the nullification of the refusal. The ministers then will be forced to come up with a new decision, taking into account the Council of State’s verdicts.

The concerned poplars possess a modified wood composition, which makes them more suitable for the production of bio-ethanol. When they are grown in a greenhouse, they yield up to 50% more bio-ethanol than non-modified poplars. VIB requested a permit for a field trial, but this request was denied. The field trial, however, is necessary to investigate whether the poplars, when cultivated in realistic practical circumstances – exposed to the seasons, weather and wind, insects and plagues, a genuine soil – will also yield wood that can be converted more easily into bio-ethanol.

VIB has an international reputation to defend in this field of research. At the exact time the field trial was blocked by the Belgian ministers, VIB received 1.6 million dollars from the American Global Climate and Energy Project, managed by Stanford University, for further research. Arguments rebutted The ministers had used three arguments for their refusal. First: 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. The Council of State replies that the experts of the Biosafety Council explicitly have stated to have enough data to assess the riscs involved. Secundly, the ministers argue that 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. Here too, the Council of State follows the Biosafety Council, which explicitly said that the gene involved poses no risk to public health nor environment. Thirdly, the ministers stated they could not grant permission while there is a public discussion on the relevance of biofuels. This argument has nothing to do with safety, replies the Council of State.

The Council of State adds that the refusal of the filed tests “can endanger the further financing and even existence of VIB”, that the investment in ten years of top research “treatens to become nullified”, and that the refusal of the field test can have negative consequences for the Belgian biotech-sector and for the investments in that sector.

Other news from the department politics & laws

Most read news

More news from our other portals

Fighting cancer: latest developments and advances