Comment

The EFSA experience – remits, scientific boxes and frustrated NGOs

Is a human face what we really want from a scientific advisory board?

The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) insistence on keeping well within its scientific box is both a source of frustration and comfort for onlookers.  

It’s no mean feat to ignore all context when you’re discussing such contentious issues as infant formula. Yet, sat in the meeting room at the organisation’s base in Parma, Italy, as EFSA's NDA (Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies) panel debates the exact wording of this sentence or the exact order of that section and a jet-lagged panel member stifles a late-afternoon yawn, you’d be forgiven for thinking contention never set foot through EFSA’s doors.

As I sat in that open plenary meeting last week I couldn’t help feel the NGO’s frustration as for the umpteenth time we were told, “this does not fall within EFSA’s remit” and again the difference between EFSA and the European Commission was explained.

This focus on the science and nothing but the science and a refusal to engage with policy wrangling is, I think, what makes EFSA both so frustrating and, dare I say it, reassuring for the associations, companies, NGOs government bods and trade press that follow its every movement.

Drawing a line

I can see how confusion between EFSA and the Commission might arise and clarification might sometimes be needed, but just because an issue is not within its remit does it mean it can’t engage with it? Panel members are after all experts in their fields with a wealth of experience and a plethora of different backgrounds. As somebody with an interest in the sector, I’d like to hear their opinion, even if that opinion won’t hold weight on paper.

We’re not all scientists. Some of us want a reason with warm blood in its veins, not black and white data and convoluted statements. God knows the issues debated are hot-blooded enough – EFSA decisions on safety and claims and recommended intakes can mean big business for some and big losses for others, and let’s not forget that it’s not all commercial. We’re talking about the foundations of public health policy, so EFSA’s take affects us all in Europe and there are not-for-profit stakeholders like NGOs and pressure groups in the mix too.

Be careful what you wish for

But, as we reach out to this organisation – distant both in location and ethos – should we ask ourselves if a human face is what we really want from a scientific advisory board?

As the panel’s chair said, there should be a clear line between scientific and moral judgement. It is of no relevance who funded the research, one panel member said. There is no evidence to support the effects of DHA omega-3 in infant formula beyond infant development, another added, a few years after EFSA approved a DHA claim for infants. There will always be a disappointed party and their decisions may not always be particularly fashionable, but better that than the curbing or ignoring of contrary data.

Still, it is quite annoying when someone won’t get out of their scientific box and onto the scientific soapbox and answer your question isn’t it? The panel may look at data as if it exists in a vacuum, and they may well be right to do that, but once that decision leaves those four EFSA walls its impact is far more elastic and perhaps we'd like to hear what they think about that. 

Related News

EFSA wants your views on its openness...

EFSA extends consultation on ‘Open EFSA’

EFSA: “While it is still possible to also send paper copies of technical dossiers to EFSA, the electronic copy is now considered as the formal submission."

EFSA takes 'e' path to cut red tape for health claims and more

Who will be the next NDA chair?

10 new faces as EFSA names health claims panel for 2015-2018

The food industry has been portrayed as "the grand satan trying to poison the European community", says EFSA chair at plenary.

We can't have both open doors and open discussions, says temp EFSA chair

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

EFSA denies conflict of interest allegations

EFSA chiefs back independence amid transparency debate

EFSA chiefs: 'It is important EFSA understands the context of its scientific opinions'

Jones presented food industry concerns about data sharing at EFSA's transparency meeting this morning...

Industry concerned about data abuse as EFSA fans transparency wings

NGO threatens EFSA with court action

Show us the documents: NGO threatens EFSA with court action

EFSA rejects ‘secret studies’ allegations

EFSA rejects ‘secret studies’ allegations

EFSA chief resigns after 7 years

EFSA chief resigns after 7 years

Dr Url: “I commit myself to working with staff, scientific experts, European institutions, member states and stakeholders to uphold EFSA’s core values and to work towards more open risk assessment and further building trust.”

EFSA confirms Bernard Url as new chief

Comments (2)

Ken - 04 Jul 2014 | 10:27

Burden of Evidence

If nothing else, the rejections of EFSA are teaching the dietary supplement industry at large what constitutes adequate evidence and what does not. It never fails to amaze onlookers at the number of flimsy evidence being presented to EFSA from companies one might have thought would know better. In the capacity of challenging the industry to require essential evidence for claims, EFSA is to be applauded. The US FDA is undoubtedly evaluating their model and taking note.

04-Jul-2014 at 22:27 GMT

John Efstathiou - 07 Jul 2014 | 12:32

EFSA's mission

I agree with the author's comments. I truly believe that EFSA needs a new mission statement in other words the reason for its existence.

07-Jul-2014 at 00:32 GMT

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.