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

All Eyes on EFSA's new 'independence policy'

Brussels, Wednesday 14 December 2011- The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has today published a new independence policy, aimed at improving EFSA's independence in delivering scientific opinions on food safety [1]. This new policy, developed following a public consultation and stakeholder workshop in October, will be up for approval by the EFSA Management Board when it meets on Thursday 15 December, in Warsaw.

EFSA, which plays a key role in deciding which products and substances are safe to eat, has been under heavy criticism because of apparent conflicts of interest among its staff and experts. Corporate Europe Observatory and other organisations have over documented links between EFSA's management board and some of its expert panels with the agribusiness industry (see table below).

CEO has also criticised EFSA's heavy reliance on industry data and the way in which it systematically excludes independent scientific studies from its assessments.

A draft policy, published by EFSA earlier this year, failed to address many of the conflicts of interest identified, CEO said in response to the consultation.

CEO argues that EFSA has until now failed to recognise the problem posed by conflicts of interest. While the EU institutions are responsible for the membership of EFSA's Management Board, EFSA is responsible for selecting the members of the expert panels, and deciding in which cases there is a conflict of interest.

Nina Holland, campaigner at CEO said:

"Experts who have a vested interest in EFSA decisions because of links to industry should not be allowed to sit on expert panels providing scientific advice. So, for example, someone whose laboratory is funded by Nestlé, should not be allowed on the food additives panel (ANS Panel) as currently is the case, because Nestlé has an active interest in almost all food additives. The new policy must clearly ban conflicts of interest by setting clear criteria for panel members' independence."

CEO will assess ESFA's new independence policy to see whether the radical improvements that are needed have been made.

Last week, the European Ombudsman sided with NGOs, ruling that the EFSA management had failed to act properly in the case of Suzy Renckens, who moved straight through the revolving door into a lobby job with Syngenta after serving on the EFSA GMO Panel.

The European Parliament Environment Committee will discuss EFSA's independence from industry next week, when deciding on the approval of EFSA's 2010 budget (20 December).

For more information please contact:
Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory, nina@corporateeurope.org

Notes:
[1] The Draft Policy on Independence and Scientific Decision-Making Processes incorporating changes resulting from the Public Consultation process will be discussed at the Management Board meeting in Warsaw on Thursday 15 December 2011. The text is available on EFSA website at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/mb111215/docs/mb111215-ax8a.pdf

EFSA’s technical report on the outcome of the public consultation on the draft Policy on Independence and Scientific Decision-Making Processes is online at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/indipendence.htm

Table: Overview of Conflicts of Interest at EFSA (CEO 2011)

Related issues: 
 

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.

The Commission is set to announce its proposal for a new ‘mandatory’ lobby transparency register next week. During the Summer, the Commission made public the input it received via consultation on the topic. Besides a general call from public and civil society to boost transparency systems, they also showed corporate lobby groups and trade associations’ spin, promoting transparency values while recommending limited implementation, loopholes and toothless management.

CEO's immediate reaction to the latest revelations from the team behind the Panama Leaks.

The European Commission is about to propose a regulation on acrylamide, a dangerous contaminant formed in many starchy foods when cooked at high temperatures. But the regulation itself consists in referring to codes of best practices developed by lobby groups representing the food industry.

A new report on the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) reveals how the trade deal could make EU member states vulnerable to costly lawsuits from North American investors that threaten public interest.

 
 
 
 
 
-- placeholder --
 
 
 

The corporate lobby tour