Abstract
The Belgian regulations for GMOs are to a large extent dictated by the EU regulatory framework for GMOs. The implementation of the relevant European Directives concerning GMOs and the application of the related Regulations is a mixed competence between the regions and the Federal Government. The implementation of Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, is a task for the federal authorities in as far as it deals with the “placing on the market of genetically modified organisms as or in products within the Community”. The regional authorities are involved as far as it deals also with “carrying out the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms for any other purposes than placing on the market”. Regional competencies are e.g. involved in the authorisation of field experiments, because there may be risks to their environment and biodiversity. The implementation of Directive 2009/41/EC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms is mainly a competence of the regions, because the laboratories in which these activities take place are seen as so-called “classified installations” that require a regional environmental permit. The decisions made by different administrative bodies are based on a common scientific evaluation system comprising the Biosafety Advisory Council (BAC) and the Biosafety and Biotechnology Unit (SBB), based on the Cooperation Agreement of 25 April 1997 between the Federal State and the Regions on the administrative and scientific coordination concerning biosafety.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Data BEMEFA.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
E. DE PUE, L. LAVRYSEN & P. STRYCKERS, Milieuzakboekje 2014, Wolters Kluwer Belgium, Mechelen, p. 20–27.
- 6.
D. MISONNE et al., Legal constraints on national measures to promote environment-friendly products, Brussels, Belgian Science Policy, 2004, p. 13.
- 7.
Ibid., p. 14.
- 8.
W. XIANG, Risk Governance of GMOs in the EU and China, Dissertation, Ghent University, 2013, p. 118–121.
- 9.
- 10.
W. XIANG, op. cit., p. 121–125.
- 11.
More information can be found on the following website: http://www.biosafety.be/
- 12.
Royal Decree of 2 September 2005 appointing the members of the Biosafety Advisory Council, Belgian Official Journal, 6 October 2005. The Council is composed of 12 active and 12 deputy members. Half the members represent the various relevant federal and regional ministers, the other half are representatives of the scientific communities. For more info, see http://www.bio-council.be/
- 13.
Belgian Official Journal, 24 February 2005.
- 14.
Belgium has in fact been condemned by the European Court of Justice for delays in the transposition of the Directive into domestic law: ECJ, C-417/30, 30 September 2004, Commission v. Belgium.
- 15.
The Federal Council for Sustainable Development, a multi-stakeholder advisory council, was also divided on this issue. While the representatives of environmental groups and development cooperation organizations, consumer organizations, trade unions and some representatives of the scientific community supported the idea, a case-by-case ethical assessment was dismissed by the representatives of the employers’ organizations. See: Federal Council for Sustainable Development, Opinion of 15 October 2002, www.frdo.be
- 16.
Belgian Official Journal, 20 September 2007.
- 17.
E. DE PUE, L. LAVRYSEN & P. STRYCKERS, op. cit., p. 834–836.
- 18.
E. DE PUE, L. LAVRYSEN & P. STRYCKERS, op. cit., p. 836–841.
- 19.
- 20.
The applications for approval are subject to administrative fees: Art. 5 of the Royal Decree of 13 November 2011. The Royal Decree has for its legal basis Articles 132a – 132d of the Act of 20 July 1991, which contains also the provisions concerning supervision and penalties: E. DE PUE, L. LAVRYSEN & P. STRYCKERS, op. cit., p. 831 and 835.
- 21.
In its opinion, the Federal Council for Sustainable Development had pointed out that the provisions in the preliminary draft Royal Decree should specify more accurately in which cases the precautionary principle applies. According to the Federal Council, once every possible kind of harm and the probability of such harm have been identified, the resulting situation allows a conventional risk assessment. This situation does not fall within the scope of the precautionary principle. The conditions for the risk assessment are therefore applicable. On the other hand, the precautionary principle applies in cases that are characterized by scientific uncertainty (or ignorance). In those cases, (any provisional) scientific knowledge is inadequate to determine every possible risk of serious or irreparable harm or damage.
- 22.
Articles 15–18 of Directive 2001/18/EC and the Royal Decree of 21 February 2005; in addition, there are also so-called differentiated procedures for special cases (e.g. GMOs that meet the criteria of Annex V and with which sufficient experience has been gained in the context of release into certain ecosystems).
- 23.
More particularly: Federal Public Service (FPS) Health, Food Chain Security and Environment - Service Denrées alimentaires, Aliments pour Animaux et Autres Produits de Consommation (http://www.biosafety.be/gmcropff/EN/CADREN.html).
- 24.
This agreement is deemed to have been given if the territorially competent regional Minister has not communicated any written objection to the authorization to the competent authority within ten working days after receipt of the opinion of the Biosafety Advisory Council.
- 25.
E. DE PUE, L. LAVRYSEN & P. STRYCKERS, op. cit., p. 1274–1275.
- 26.
Ibid., p. 1329–1330.
- 27.
Ibid., p. 1298–1300.
- 28.
- 29.
Belgian Official Journal, 4 May 2009.
- 30.
B.Vl.Reg. van 15 oktober 2010 houdende de vaststelling van algemene maatregelen voor de co-existentie van genetisch gemodificeerde gewassen met conventionele gewassen en biologische gewassen, BS 30 November 2010.
- 31.
B.Vl.Reg. van 15 oktober 2010 houdende de vaststelling van specifieke maatregelen voor de co-existentie van genetisch gemodificeerde maïsgewassen met conventionele maïsgewassen en biologische maïsgewassen, BS 30 November 2010; B.Vl.Reg. van 10 November 2011 houdende de vaststelling van specifieke maatregelen voor de co-existentie van genetisch gemodificeerde aardappelgewassen met conventionele aardappelgewassen en biologische aardappelgewassen, BS 23 December 2011; B.Vl.Reg. van 10 November 2011 houdende de vaststelling van specifieke maatregelen voor de co-existentie van genetisch gemodificeerde suikerbieten met conventionele suikerbieten en biologische suikerbieten, BS 23 December 2011.
- 32.
A.G.w. du 7 mars 2009 relatif à la coexistence des cultures génétiquement modifiées avec les cultures conventionnelles et les cultures biologiques, BS 27 March 2009.
- 33.
Art. 30 and 31.
- 34.
Art. 5 of the Ordinance of 3 April 2014 concerning co-existence of GMO crops with conventional and organic cultivation, BS 13 May 2014.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
B. KEIRSBILCK, The New European Law of Unfair Commercial Practices and Competition Law, Oxford and Portland, Hart Publishing, 2011, 702 p.
- 38.
B. KEIRSBILCK, op. cit., 455–457.
- 39.
B.A. KOCH, “General Report” in B.A. KOCH (ed.), Liability and Compensation Schemes for Damage Resulting from the Presence of Genetically Modified Organisms in Non-GM Crops. Reports, April 2007, 45–53, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/liability_gmo/full_text_en.pdf; V. WILCOX, “Summaries of the Country Reports” in B.A. KOCH, op. cit., p. 129; B. DUBBUISSON & G. GATHEM, “Belgium” in B.A. KOCH (ed.), Liability and Compensation Schemes for Damage Resulting from the Presence of Genetically Modified Organisms in Non-GM Crops. Annex I. Country Reports, April 2007, p. 32–50, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/liability_gmo/annex1.pdf
- 40.
B. DUBBUISSON & G. GATHEM, loc. cit., p. 33.
- 41.
B. DUBBUISSON & G. GATHEM, loc. cit., p. 33; W. XIANG, op. cit., p. 175–182.
- 42.
Royal Decree of 3 August 2007 concerning prevention and remedying of environmental damage due to the placing on the market of GMOs and products containing GMOs, Belgian Official Journal, 20 September 2007.
- 43.
Brussels Capital Region: Ordinance of 13 November 2008 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, Belgian Official Journal, 14 November 2008; Flemish Region: Decree of 21 December 2007 supplementing the Decree of 5 April 1995 containing general provisions concerning environmental policy with a Title VX Environmental Damage, transposing Directive 2004/35/EC, Belgian Official Journal, 12 February 2008; Walloon Region: Decree of 22 November 2007, amending Book I of the Environmental Code with regard to the prevention and remediation of environmental damage, Belgian Official Journal, 19 December 2007; E. DE PUE, L. LAVRYSEN & P. STRYCKERS, op. cit., 123–142.
- 44.
Belgian Official Journal, 22 March 1991.
- 45.
B. DUBBUISSON & G. GATHEM, loc. cit., p. 40. The Belgian Act has not implemented the exception of “primary agricultural products and game” being “the products of the soil, of stock-farming and of fisheries, excluding products which have undergone initial processing” provided for in directive 85/374/EEC. The exception, provided initially in the Belgian Act, was deleted by the Act of 4 December 2000.
- 46.
A product shall not be considered defective for the sole reason that a better product is subsequently put into circulation; B. DUBBUISSON & G. GATHEM, loc. cit., p. 35.
- 47.
B.A. KOCH, loc. cit., 55–56; V. WILCOX, loc. cit., p. 130; B. DUBBUISSON & G. GATHEM, loc. cit., p. 39–40.
- 48.
Supra § 1.3.
- 49.
When talking about ‘functioning authorisation systems’ the authors refer to systems whereby decisions are taken within the legal time limits, whereby decisions are taken on the basis of the criteria laid down in the regulations, while safeguarding basic requirements for public information and confidentiality.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
Case T‑164/10, Pioneer Hi-Bred International vs the European Commission.
- 53.
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Interinstitutional File 2010/0208 (COD), 28 May 2014, 10271/14, p. 1–2.
- 54.
- 55.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/envir/144116.pdf. The Belgian and Luxembourg delegations abstained.
Acknowledgments
The authors warmly thank Dr. Adinda De Schrijver and Dr. Katia Pauwels of the Belgian Scientific Institute of Public Health, and Ir. René Custers of the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology for their useful suggestions on the sections 1–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lavrysen, L., Maes, F., van der Meer, P. (2016). Policies and Regulations in Belgium with Regard to Genetic Technology and Food Security: Country Report – Belgium. In: Norer, R. (eds) Genetic Technology and Food Safety. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23995-8_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23995-8_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23993-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23995-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)