Analysis: Can EFSA ever cut ties with industry?

MEPs last week said they were “convinced the authority should be endowed with a sufficient budget to hire independent in-house experts with no conflicts of interest”. ©iStock

The consultation for a new policy on independence at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) draws to a close this week and campaigners have told FoodNavigator that the final document won’t be worth the paper it’s written on

“My problem is that they pretend to be independent from the food industry, but they’re not,” explained Martin Pigeon, researcher and campaigner on agribusiness issues at Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO). “You can spend ten minutes looking at a panel and come up with a scandal.”

Pigeon has published a circumscribed list of them. It starts with the Bánáti affair in September 2010, in which the chair of EFSA’s management board, Diána Bánáti, reportedly failed to mention that she was also on the board of ILSI, a non-governmental body largely funded by food, chemical and pharma companies. There was no evidence that the links with ILSI influenced her actions at EFSA, but it did raise a “perception issue”, admitted the authority’s executive director at the time, Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle. Lessons were learned, she said. “Public perception is important; we need trust.”

But since then, EFSA has found itself mired in scandal after scandal; and most involve industry ties that for campaigners – and increasingly the public and politicians – are too close for comfort. Consider the investigation by CEO in October 2013 – and picked up across the world – that showed almost 60% of EFSA experts have “at least one conflict of interest”; experts with conflicts of interest also dominated all but one of the authority’s panels.

Claim and counterclaim

Some have suggested it’s a witch-hunt. In April, the authority’s executive director Bernard Uhl, told Reuters that his team is facing unprecedented criticism after concluding that glyphosate – the world’s most widely used herbicide – was “unlikely” to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans. The European Agency for Chemical products (ECHA) has since agreed with this appraisal. However, it remains at odds with the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer – that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic”

Glyphosate is one of the very few scientific opinions EFSA has issued in the past 15 years that has been challenged (and there have been 8,000 or so of them), Uhl explained in the interview. Those attempting to discredit his agency over the assessment are thus undermining science to pursue a “political agenda”.

Others maintain that there is no smoke without fire. Just last week, an investigation by EU Observer and Dutch magazine OneWorld revealed that EFSA’s glyphosate evaluation relied on scientific evidence that was written or influenced by Monsanto, which uses the chemical in its leading weedkiller Roundup.

EFSA played down the investigation, but with every negative headline trust in the authority erodes further. A 2010 Eurobarometer survey commissioned by EFSA found that 64% of Europeans were confident about the information issued by both EFSA and national food safety agencies. What would the result be today?

Uncertain science

The European Commission is certainly aware of the challenge it faces to restore trust in ‘the system’ following controversies linked to just a handful of substances. In March, a group of green MEPs writing about glyphosate highlighted that the commission had held an internal expert meeting entitled ‘possible improvements to the integrity of academic laboratory testing and reproducibility’. They also noted that the EU’s executive branch “specifically referred to ‘selective reporting of results, pressure of academics to publish, and lack of standardisation of reference measurement procedures and reference materials’.”

There is little doubt some of the issues have become political. The assessments are also fiercely complicated and can be simplified and sensationalised by parts of the media – as the health and food safety commissioner noted in October. “In most of these science-related issues, people tend to look for ‘black and white’ answers where almost always a degree of ‘grey’ — of uncertainty — is inevitable,” said Vytenis Andriukaitis.This uncertainty can sow the seeds of doubt in people’s minds and can be exploited by the media to sensationally highlight certain risks.”

Improved communication and greater transparency would certainly help nip some of the criticisms and controversies in the bud; which makes EFSA’s new policy on independence and scientific decision-making the perfect opportunity to kick-start a new era of openness.

An era of openness

The definition of conflict of interest, cooling off periods and transparency are all up for review; a public consultation is also open until the end of this week (May 5, 2017) and a draft proposal was published earlier this year. But campaigners have told FoodNavigator that they expect very little to change. “EFSA has to demonstrate some basic will [to cut its ties with industry], but I’m not very hopeful,” explained CEO’s Pigeon.

On the plus side, the new draft does include a two-year cooling-off period for “all managerial roles, employment and consultancies, even of an occasional nature”. However, this still leaves a gaping loophole, Pigeon explained: EFSA will only assess experts’ interests according to the specific mandate of the panel they want to join or are already a member of.

This also puts it at odds with the European Parliament, which has repeatedly demanded a comprehensive cooling-off period for experts. Indeed, last week MEPs on the committee for budgetary control called on EFSA to incorporate into its new independence policy a two-year cooling-off period for all material interests related to the companies whose products are assessed by the authority and to any organisations funded by them”.

The committee also said it “regrets” that the authority has not included research funding in the list of interests to be covered by the two-year cooling-off period and called on EFSA to “swiftly implement the measure in line with the discharge authority's repeated requests”.

An EFSA spokesman told FoodNavigator that the authority has a “robust system in place to safeguard its independence” and “welcomes all contributions” to its policy review process.

Some would argue that a more contributions from the EU’s coffers wouldn’t go amiss either.

The European Border Agency, Frontex, has double the budget EFSA has, Pigeon explained, and is “paying the price of political priorities”. This lack of resources explains why it is industry experts that often end up sitting on panels (positions are unpaid). MEPs last week said they were “convinced the authority should be endowed with a sufficient budget to hire independent in-house experts with no conflicts of interest”. This would help develop a public interest ethos, cut ties with industry and remove EFSA from the public microscope. “The independence of experts that will look at data offered by industry is the only credibility EFSA has left,” said Pigeon. “It has to get that right.”

Related News

Thumbs down: EFSA panel rejects claims for joint functioning and sperm DNA damage

Thumbs down: EFSA panel rejects claims for joint functioning and sperm DNA damage

UPDATE: EFSA maintains guidance on vitamin K

UPDATE: EFSA maintains guidance on vitamin K

EFSA to implement updated rules on conflicts of interest

EFSA to implement updated rules on conflicts of interest

Anti-GM protesters 'storm' EFSA headquarters

Anti-GM protesters 'storm' EFSA headquarters

EFSA says it needs more time to consider and address feedback

EFSA postpones deadline for aspartame safety review

EFSA holds meeting with NGOs on genetically modified organisms

EFSA holds meeting with NGOs on genetically modified organisms

EFSA invited CEO to its headquarters in Parma, Italy to discuss its policy

EFSA denies conflict of interest allegations

Related Products

See more related products

Comments (3)

Dieter E - 05 May 2017 | 03:25

to Stella H Howell

This all fake facts! Fresh produce spoils rapidly in my home! The nutritional value is confirmed by indeoendent authorities. Which were the 'false documents' a so-called ethical person refused to sign? Please return to the truth.

05-May-2017 at 15:25 GMT

Stella H Howell - 04 May 2017 | 11:14

Food is Not Food - What have you done to our Food?

What is it which you eat which is safe? Try this test. Take a Blackberry, Cherry, Grape, Tomatoe. Potatoe, Banana Leave one in your fridge and one at ambient temperature. They will not rot but instead becomes hard like brick. All natural nutrition has been removed. Seeds have been removed. What happens when you eat these 'bricks'. Can the enzymes in your body cope? Does a large food manufacturer own a department or a university? They manipulated results whereby furans and toxins identified in food were not disclosed. They were paid for this and the ethical member in the team was not paid because the ethical one refused to sign false documents.

04-May-2017 at 23:14 GMT
MORE COMMENTS

Submit a comment

Your comment has been saved

Post a comment

Please note that any information that you supply is protected by our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Access to all documents and request for further information are available to all users at no costs, In order to provide you with this free service, William Reed Business Media SAS does share your information with companies that have content on this site. When you access a document or request further information from this site, your information maybe shared with the owners of that document or information.