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.

More than 80 per cent of the national experts involved in the EU's official assessment of glyphosate refused to have their names disclosed to the public.

Monsanto and the pesticide industry breathed a collective sigh of relief on 12 November 2015. The findings of an investigation into the toxicity of glyphosate by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and EU Member States were in stark contradiction to the March 2015 conclusion by the International Agency for Research against Cancer (IARC), a body of the World Health Organization (WHO), that this agricultural herbicide was probably causing cancer to humans. If validated, this conclusion could cause a partial ban of glyphosate in the EU. [UPDATED on 30 11 2015 16.30 CET]

Open letter to Commissioner Andriukaitis on glyphosate

Heard by the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Bernhard Url, EFSA's director, said that the EU had "enough scientific capability around [...] without a chief scientific adviser".

CEO turns the spotlight on another of the interest groups operating within the European Parliament.

The voice of the Dutch Government has been loud and clear in Brussels on the issue of cisgenic plants. The Dutch have waged a sustained campaign to have new GM techniques – and in particular cisgenesis – excluded from EU GMO regulations. Several Dutch ministries, the Dutch Parliament, the Dutch Permanent Representation in Brussels, and Dutch MEPs have energetically pursued this goal.

At least one developer of new GM crops – Canadian-based Cibus – has attempted to bypass the European policy process by presenting policy makers with a fait accompli: decisions by individual Member States on the regulatory status of new techniques, as well as prematurely-launched trials of new GM crops.

The biotech industry is staging an audacious bid to have a whole new generation of genetic engineering techniques excluded from European regulations. The pending decision of the European Commission on the regulation of these so-called 'new GMOs' represents a climax point in the ongoing below-the-radar attack by industry on GM laws.

The corporate lobby tour

Stop the Crop

Alternative Trade Mandate