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 accused of conflicts of interest

Four board members at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have close links with the food industry, creating a potential conflict of interests, according to new research by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) published today [1].

CEO warns that the links could compromise the independence of the agency which is responsible for assessing the safety of food in the European Union – including controversial genetically modified food and feed and pesticides.

The new research reveals that board member Milan Kováč is a director of the International Life Sciences Institute Europe (ILSI Europe) – an industry-funded body which promotes the understanding of science from an industry perspective; and also a member of the scientific advisory board of the food industry-sponsored think tank, the European Food Information Council (EUFIC).

Board member Matthias Horst is the director general of the Federation of German Food and Drink Industries, representing big food interests including Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Kraft, Mars and Unilever.

Jiří Ruprich, another board member, is  a member of the scientific committee at the Czech Danone Institute – a not-for-profit body funded by French food giant Danone that promotes “nutritional research” to health and education professionals.

Board member, Piet Vanthemsche is a leading member of COPA, the European Farmer’s union and voice of industrial agriculture, and also holds an executive position with an Agri Investment Fund, with interests in the meat industry and GM animal feed, the report reveals.

As board members, all four are responsible for estabishing EFSA’s budget, work programmes and appointing the excecutive director and experts who give scientific advice.

Corporate Europe Observatory research coordinator Olivier Hoedeman said: “These corporate links raise very serious questions about EFSA’s independence. These EFSA board members face very real conflict of interests. How can they be trusted to act in the public interest in running an independent food safety regime when they have such close links to the food industry – and are sometimes paid to promote the very same products the Agency is supposed to assess?”

The latest allegations come after the director of EFSA, Diana Bánáti was called on to resign from EFSA because of concerns over a conflict of interests related to her work with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). She stepped down from the board of ILSI as a result in October 2010 [2].

Corporate Europe Observatory is calling for a change to EFSA's founding regulation which appears to create a situation where board members are allowed to hold blatant conflicts of interest. CEO believes the European Commission must revise the regulations and introduce strict ethics rules and procedures to avoid conflicts of interests for EFSA’s board members, employees and external experts.

Contact: Olivier Hoedeman, Tel. +32 (0)2 893 0930, Mobile: +32 474 486545, email: olivier@corporateeurope.org

Notes:
[1] Serial conflicts of interest on European Food Safety Authority’s management board, Corporate Europe Observatory, 23 February 2011.
[2] EFSA Management Board statement, 21 October 2010.

 

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.

In the run up to the UK referendum on EU membership on 23 June, Corporate Europe Observatory has tabled a series of freedom of information requests to find out how UK finance lobbies have been influencing the referendum negotiations and the Capital Markets Union. But the Brexit-Bremain referendum seems to be a freedom of information black hole.

From the day a referendum on UK membership of the EU was first announced in 2013, the financial sector started using Cameron’s re-negotiation process to promote its deregulatory agenda. Sometimes lobbying was required, but more often the UK government did its work for them. 

A new report on carbon market reform has kicked off debate on the issue in the European Parliament. It promises new loopholes for the oil industry and other polluters.

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.

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 the end of its first phase tomorrow, has been an entry point into many broader problems. Overview.

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.

The corporate lobby tour