Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

  • Dansk
  • NL
  • EN
  • FI
  • FR
  • DE
  • EL
  • IT
  • NO
  • PL
  • PT
  • RO
  • SL
  • ES
  • SV

EFSA's new policy fails to ban experts with industry links

The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) new independence policy allows the possible subversion of scientific advice by industry’s vested interests, Corporate Europe Observatory said following publication of the policy on Wednesday. It is due for approval by the EFSA Management Board when it meets tomorrow in Warsaw.

Corporate Europe Observatory said the policy, aimed at improving EFSA's independence in delivering scientific opinions on food safety, failed to explicitly ban experts with links to industry from sitting on EFSA’s advisory panels, risking serious conflicts of interest.

Nina Holland, campaigner at CEO said: "The policy put forward by EFSA does not explicitly ban experts with industry links. We think there should be clear criteria to make sure scientists who have a conflict of interests do not sit on EFSA’s advisory panels.”

She added that the only notable improvement in the policy was the inclusion of a broader definition of conflicts of interest, which had been called for by CEO.

EFSA has also defended the way in which it deals with revolving door cases, where members of EFSA staff go through the revolving door to work for industry. EFSA claims that the tighter rules now in place mean that the mistakes identified by the European Ombudsman in the case of Suzy Renckens would not be repeated. But CEO has highlighted the case of David Carlander, a scientific officer at EFSA working on guidance for assessing the risks of nanotechnology in food, who went on to become Advocacy Director at the Nanotechnology Industries Association in September.

EFSA reports that its new improved processes to handle revolving door cases can be seen in action with its decision to place restrictions on Carlander's role at NIA. Yet CEO considers that these restrictions are very limited, considering the potential conflicts of interest at stake; a cooling off period of two years would have been a more effective decision in this case.


The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) new independence policy allows the possible subversion of scientific advice by industry’s vested interests, Corporate Europe Observatory said following publication of the policy on Wednesday. It is due for approval by the EFSA Management Board when it meets tomorrow in Warsaw.Corporate Europe Observatory said the policy, aimed at improving EFSA's independence in delivering scientific opinions on food safety, failed to explicitly ban experts with links to industry from sitting on EFSA’s advisory panels, risking serious conflicts of interest.Nina Holland, campaigner at CEO said: "The policy put forward by EFSA does not explicitly ban experts with industry links. We think there should be clear criteria to make sure scientists who have a conflict of interests do not sit on EFSA’s advisory panels.”She added that the only notable improvement in the policy was the inclusion of a broader definition of conflicts of interest, which had been called for by CEO.EFSA has also defended the way in which it deals with revolving door cases, where members of EFSA staff go through the revolving door to work for industry. EFSA claims that the tighter rules now in place mean that the mistakes identified by the European Ombudsman in the case of Suzy Renckens would not be repeated. But CEO has highlighted the case of David Carlander, a scientific officer at EFSA working on guidance for assessing the risks of nanotechnology in food, who went on to become Advocacy Director at the Nanotechnology Industries Association in September.EFSA reports that its new improved processes to handle revolving door cases can be seen in action with its decision to place restrictions on Carlander's role at NIA. Yet CEO considers that these restrictions are very limited, considering the potential conflicts of interest at stake; a cooling off period of two years would have been a more effective decision in this case.
 

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

The official EU assessment of glyphosate was based on unpublished studies owned by industry. Seven months later, the pesticide industry still fights disclosure and, so far, successfully. We obtained a copy of their arguments.

The European Commission proposal on scientific criteria defining endocrine disruptors (EDCs) is the latest dangerous outgrowth of a highly toxic debate. The chemical lobby, supported by certain Commission factions (notably DG SANTE and the Secretary-General) and some member states (UK and Germany), has put significant obstacles in the way of effective public health and environment regulation.

This May is dense on the EU chemicals regulation front. Crunch time for two major files: the European Commission needs to publish the identification criteria for endocrine disrupting chemicals, and together with EU States must decide how, or not, renew the market approval of glyphosate, an herbicide produced and defended by Monsanto. Last week, the Professor Alan Boobis happened to be involved in both.

Demonstrating the problematic symbiosis between corporate interests and EU institutions, the same lobbying consultancies often get hired by both.

Biodiversity collapse, the future of agriculture, politics versus science, EU States and the European Commission shifting blame on each other, industry's capture of the regulatory process through data secrecy, a Commissioner caught between Juncker, EU States, lobby groups, and his own services... The glyphosate saga, coming to an end this week with the European Commission's decision to extend its licence, has been an entry point into many broader problems. Overview.

The official EU assessment of glyphosate was based on unpublished studies owned by industry. Seven months later, the pesticide industry still fights disclosure and, so far, successfully. We obtained a copy of their arguments.

While CEO is not taking a position on the UK referendum, many of our publications are relevant to those who will have a vote, or those who are following the debate.

The current struggle in France over labour law reforms is not just between the Government and trade unions – a European battle is waged. The attacks on social rights stem in no small part from the web of EU-rules dubbed 'economic governance', invented to impose austerity policies on member states.

 
 
 
 
 
-- placeholder --
 
 
 

The corporate lobby tour