Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

EFSA's new policy fails to ban experts with industry links

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

The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) new independence policy allows the possible subversion of scientific advice by industry’s vested interests, Corporate Europe Observatory said following publication of the policy on Wednesday. It is due for approval by the EFSA Management Board when it meets tomorrow in Warsaw.

Corporate Europe Observatory said the policy, aimed at improving EFSA's independence in delivering scientific opinions on food safety, failed to explicitly ban experts with links to industry from sitting on EFSA’s advisory panels, risking serious conflicts of interest.

Nina Holland, campaigner at CEO said: "The policy put forward by EFSA does not explicitly ban experts with industry links. We think there should be clear criteria to make sure scientists who have a conflict of interests do not sit on EFSA’s advisory panels.”

She added that the only notable improvement in the policy was the inclusion of a broader definition of conflicts of interest, which had been called for by CEO.

EFSA has also defended the way in which it deals with revolving door cases, where members of EFSA staff go through the revolving door to work for industry. EFSA claims that the tighter rules now in place mean that the mistakes identified by the European Ombudsman in the case of Suzy Renckens would not be repeated. But CEO has highlighted the case of David Carlander, a scientific officer at EFSA working on guidance for assessing the risks of nanotechnology in food, who went on to become Advocacy Director at the Nanotechnology Industries Association in September.

EFSA reports that its new improved processes to handle revolving door cases can be seen in action with its decision to place restrictions on Carlander's role at NIA. Yet CEO considers that these restrictions are very limited, considering the potential conflicts of interest at stake; a cooling off period of two years would have been a more effective decision in this case.


The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) new independence policy allows the possible subversion of scientific advice by industry’s vested interests, Corporate Europe Observatory said following publication of the policy on Wednesday. It is due for approval by the EFSA Management Board when it meets tomorrow in Warsaw.Corporate Europe Observatory said the policy, aimed at improving EFSA's independence in delivering scientific opinions on food safety, failed to explicitly ban experts with links to industry from sitting on EFSA’s advisory panels, risking serious conflicts of interest.Nina Holland, campaigner at CEO said: "The policy put forward by EFSA does not explicitly ban experts with industry links. We think there should be clear criteria to make sure scientists who have a conflict of interests do not sit on EFSA’s advisory panels.”She added that the only notable improvement in the policy was the inclusion of a broader definition of conflicts of interest, which had been called for by CEO.EFSA has also defended the way in which it deals with revolving door cases, where members of EFSA staff go through the revolving door to work for industry. EFSA claims that the tighter rules now in place mean that the mistakes identified by the European Ombudsman in the case of Suzy Renckens would not be repeated. But CEO has highlighted the case of David Carlander, a scientific officer at EFSA working on guidance for assessing the risks of nanotechnology in food, who went on to become Advocacy Director at the Nanotechnology Industries Association in September.EFSA reports that its new improved processes to handle revolving door cases can be seen in action with its decision to place restrictions on Carlander's role at NIA. Yet CEO considers that these restrictions are very limited, considering the potential conflicts of interest at stake; a cooling off period of two years would have been a more effective decision in this case.
 
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.

Polluters in Peru blog

Heard by the European Parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Bernhard Url, EFSA's director, said that the EU had "enough scientific capability around [...] without a chief scientific adviser".
An analysis of the revised independence policy of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). More reworded than revised, actually.
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.
A new draft EU directive currently looked at by the European Parliament wants to protect companies' "trade secrets", but uses definitions so large and exceptions so weak that it could seriously endanger the work of journalists, whistle-blowers, unionists and researchers as well as severely limiting corporate accountability. We publish a joint statement together with several other groups for the directive to be radically amended.
In the face of a disastrous Lima Outcome for local communities, their environments and the climate, many of the climate justice groups attending COP20 released a joint statement in response to what countries had agreed to, as well setting our own agenda.
The UN climate talks in Lima, COP20, have had the pervasive influence of business all over them. Yet despite this, business is still not happy with the influence it has on the talks and wants a greater role.
As the UN climate talks – COP20 – wrap up in Lima, CEO took part in a press conference to reflect on what two weeks of negotiations mean for climate justice and the road to Paris. Organised by the Institute of Climate Action and Theory, CEO was joined by with Michael Dorsey (board member of Sierra Club) and Jagoda Munic (Chair of Friends of the Earth International).

Alternative Trade Mandate

Corporate Europe Forum