Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

European Parliament cracks down on EFSA

Debates on EFSA’s budget and management board in the Environment and Budget committees of the European Parliament have demonstrated that MEPs remain critical of how conflicts of interest are dealt with by EFSA and by the European Commission.

  • Dansk
  • Nederlands
  • English
  • Suomi
  • Français
  • Deutsch
  • Ελληνικά
  • Italiano
  • Bokmål
  • Polski
  • Portuguese
  • Română
  • Slovenščina
  • Español
  • Svenska

On 27 March, the Budget committee voted on an excellent report by MEP Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE, Romania), proposing to postpone the approval of the 2010 budget of the European Food Safety Authority. Macovei stated that "conflicts of interest could .. have a negative impact on the impartiality of the decision-making process and also on the citizens' trust in the institutions". The vote in Plenary is scheduled on 10 May 2012. 

Corinne Lepage MEP (ALDE), a vocal critic of EFSA, said: "European agencies must immediately put an end to conflicts of interest that undermine democracy, their work and credibility of European decisions. They must define measures much stringency with controls and sanctions, to prevent private interests influence their work to serve the public interest.”

All amendments by Lepage, Parvanova (ALDE) and Staes (Greens), were adopted. Importantly, the amendments ask EFSA to consider participation in ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute, an industry lobby group) task forces by panel members to be a conflict of interests. Many EFSA panel members have such links with ILSI. And EFSA should not only rely on industry studies when assessing the risks of a product, but also take into account independent research.

The decision to postpone the discharge for the food safety Agency in Parma was taken with 15 votes in favour, 7 against and 4 abstentions. The postponement would allow the Parliament to take into account the report by the European Court of Auditors on conflicts of interest at EFSA, expected to be published in the second quarter of this year.

Nor does the Parliament go along with the European Commission’s idea to propose the chief food industry lobbyist for FoodDrinkEurope (FDE, previously called CIAA) and ex-Monsanto employee Mella Frewen as a candidate for the EFSA management board. The EFSA management board composition is entirely in the hands of the EU institutions, and the Parliament is asked for its opinion.

In a unanimous decision, the political groups decided to reject Frewen’s candidacy. Richard Seeber (Germany, PPE) said in ‘Die Presse’: “We reached agreement across all political groups that we don’t support this lady’s candidacy, because we assume that her closeness to Monsanto will inhibit her objectiveness”. Commission spokesman Frederic Vincent said in EU Observer that Frewen was nominated "based on capability”. But Frewen is trained as a marine biologist, not in food safety. In response to a question by Corporate Europe Observatory, the Commission replied that Frewen's employment with Monsanto was not relevant "since it ended five years ago". 

EFSA’s founding regulation states that four members in the board should have a "background in organisations representing consumers and other interests in the food chain". But since EFSA is supposed to be the ‘independent voice of science’ and board members are supposed to act on personal title and in the public interest, nominating someone like Frewen is a completely irrational move.

The European Commission will start a revision of the founding regulation later this year, and a change of management board composition will be high on the agenda of civil society groups.

On 27 March, the Budget committee voted on an excellent report by MEP Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE, Romania), proposing to postpone the approval of the 2010 budget of the European Food Safety Authority. Macovei stated that "conflicts of interest could .. have a negative impact on the impartiality of the decision-making process and also on the citizens' trust in the institutions". The vote in Plenary is scheduled on 10 May 2012. Corinne Lepage MEP (ALDE), a vocal critic of EFSA, said: "European agencies must immediately put an end to conflicts of interest that undermine democracy, their work and credibility of European decisions. They must define measures much stringency with controls and sanctions, to prevent private interests influence their work to serve the public interest.”All amendments by Lepage, Parvanova (ALDE) and Staes (Greens), were adopted. Importantly, the amendments ask EFSA to consider participation in ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute, an industry lobby group) task forces by panel members to be a conflict of interests. Many EFSA panel members have such links with ILSI. And EFSA should not only rely on industry studies when assessing the risks of a product, but also take into account independent research.The decision to postpone the discharge for the food safety Agency in Parma was taken with 15 votes in favour, 7 against and 4 abstentions. The postponement would allow the Parliament to take into account the report by the European Court of Auditors on conflicts of interest at EFSA, expected to be published in the second quarter of this year.Nor does the Parliament go along with the European Commission’s idea to propose the chief food industry lobbyist for FoodDrinkEurope (FDE, previously called CIAA) and ex-Monsanto employee Mella Frewen as a candidate for the EFSA management board. The EFSA management board composition is entirely in the hands of the EU institutions, and the Parliament is asked for its opinion.In a unanimous decision, the political groups decided to reject Frewen’s candidacy. Richard Seeber (Germany, PPE) said in ‘Die Presse’: “We reached agreement across all political groups that we don’t support this lady’s candidacy, because we assume that her closeness to Monsanto will inhibit her objectiveness”. Commission spokesman Frederic Vincent said in EU Observer that Frewen was nominated "based on capability”. But Frewen is trained as a marine biologist, not in food safety. In response to a question by Corporate Europe Observatory, the Commission replied that Frewen's employment with Monsanto was not relevant "since it ended five years ago". EFSA’s founding regulation states that four members in the board should have a "background in organisations representing consumers and other interests in the food chain". But since EFSA is supposed to be the ‘independent voice of science’ and board members are supposed to act on personal title and in the public interest, nominating someone like Frewen is a completely irrational move.The European Commission will start a revision of the founding regulation later this year, and a change of management board composition will be high on the agenda of civil society groups.
 
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Will EFSA become more transparent, and to lobbyists or scientists? After its public consultation on its draft transparency policy, the Authority must now choose.
A presentation explaining the situation at the European Food Safety Authority and why conflicts of interest scandals keep accumulating there.

According to several EU sources, member states’ diplomats in the Committee of Permanent Representatives (Coreper) this morning pre-selected a food industry lobbyist to become a member of the board of the EU Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

EU watchdogs warn member states that they should not appoint food industry lobbyists onto the Board of the EU's Food Safety Authority. Next May 7, member states sitting in the Council of Permanent Representatives (Coreper) will vote to appoint seven members of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
Our correspondence with Pr. Anne Glover, the current Chief Scientific Adviser to the President of the European Commission (CSA), on her role in the European Commission's review of endocrine disrupting chemicals shows how the very existence of her position was used by business-friendly interests to convey key messages to the top of the European Commission's hierarchy, playing a determining role in the massive delay now inflicted to the European Commission's handling of this important public health regulation. We ask that the CSA position is not renewed in the new Juncker Commission.
Will EFSA become more transparent, and to lobbyists or scientists? After its public consultation on its draft transparency policy, the Authority must now choose.
Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) today criticised the plenary vote of MEPs to approve the Jean-Claude Juncker Commission.
A crusade for big business-friendly deregulation, waged during José Manuel Barroso's Presidency of the European Commission, shows no signs of stopping. This neoliberal push to weaken or block new legislation and scrap existing rules, especially environmental and social protection laws, under the misleading banner of tackling “red tape”, promoting “better regulation” or safeguarding “competitiveness” appears likely to expand with Jean-Claude Juncker's new Commission team.

Corporate Europe Forum