Belgium’s health authority endorses new gene-editing rules, clashing with French opinion

Belgium’s national health agency has endorsed a European Commission proposal to loosen rules on gene-editing techniques, underscoring its potential to improve sustainability in agriculture in a report published on 21 March.

The Superior Health Council concluded that New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), which allow targeted and rapid modifications to the genome of plants, can contribute to a “climate-robust, sustainable agricultural production,” leading to higher yields.

The Health Council’s conclusions are much more favourable than those of France’s food safety authority, which opposed the EU proposal to ease regulations on gene-edited crops earlier this year.

The Belgian report highlighted that these gene-editing methods align with the EU’s environmental ambitions, including a target to achieve a 50% reduction in pesticide use by 2030, as they can make crops more resistant to pests and diseases.

“Although this is an important goal, only a few efficient alternatives are provided for sustainable crop protection,” the text said. “After all, farmers (and society) need economically sufficient yields,” it added.

The agency also backed the Commission’s proposal of splitting NGT plants into two tracks in its draft legislation.

Under the new rules, plants that are indistinguishable from those obtained through conventional breeding (NGT 1) would be exempt from tight rules for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), while those with more “complex modifications” (NGT 2) remain subject to such requirements. 

NGT 1 plants, the report added, should not be subjected to additional labelling and traceability requirements, except for seeds, as suggested by the Commission.

The agency underlined that, while NGT plants undergo genetic changes, they are “very different” from traditional GMOs, since they are not transgenic, i.e., they do not contain genes from other plant species.

Therefore, the report concluded that “the hazards of NGT1 plants” are “similar” to those conventionally bred plants. 

Scientific dispute

The Belgian agency’s report takes a much more supportive position than that of France’s food safety authority Anses, whose critical assessment of the proposed NGT legislation has stirred controversy.

French newspaper Le Monde reported that the government had withheld the release of the study, published on 6 March but dated 22 January, to avoid influencing European negotiations on the new NGT rules.

Anses’ report challenged the EU proposal to ease regulations on gene-edited crops, citing “potential risks” associated with the techniques.

For example, they suggested that an “unexpected change in the plant’s composition” could lead to “nutritional, allergenic, or toxicity problems.”

In contrast to the findings of the Belgian agency, Anses argued that risks linked to NGTs are similar to those identified for GMO plants.

The French agency had previously published an opinion on the NGT regulation in December, stating that the Commission’s criteria for classifying NGTs into two categories lacked scientific grounding — a conclusion echoed by the Belgians.

Dr David Spencer, a plant biologist and science communicator, told Euractiv that, while the two agencies consider that the division proposed by the Commission is arbitrary, they reached different conclusions.

“For the Belgians, the possibilities clearly outweigh the possible disadvantages [of NGTs],” Spencer explained. “This is a more progressive form of considering a new law.”

Meanwhile, he argued, Anses “denies the fact that possible disadvantages and side effects are also present within traditional breeding methods.” 

“For instance, random mutagenesis leads to unforeseen mutations,” Spencer added.

[Edited by Angelo Di Mambro and Zoran Radosavljevic]

Read more with Euractiv