Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

Five demands for change at EFSA

  • Dansk
  • Nederlands
  • English
  • Français
  • Deutsch
  • Ελληνικά
  • Italiano
  • Portuguese
  • Español
  • Svenska
November 13th 2012
Printer-friendly versionSend by emailPDF version

Signed by several European civil society networks and organisations, this list of demands for the reform of EFSA was published on Monday 12 November during a conference of farmers, scientists and citizens held in the premises of Parma's University, Italy, and delivered to EFSA during a demonstration in front of its headquarters the following day. (summary - full version downloadable in the pdf below)


1. Prevent conflicts of interest
EFSA's independence policy should effectively exclude people with conflicts of interest from its scientific panels, working groups, scientific committee and staff. Also, the management board should be free from people with industry interests.

2. EU laws should be overhauled so that products are tested by independent bodies, not industry

3. A code of scientific practice should be established for EFSA
Currently it is often not clear how EFSA arrives at certain opinions and conclusions: for example, which scientific evidence it has taken into account and why. Scientifically rigorous, transparent and replicable methodologies for EFSA’s risk assessment work should be established.

4. Improve transparency and accountability
EFSA must make accessible all data and information on which it bases risk assessments. All industry data, and EFSA’s decision-making processes on the data, must be available on the internet. Currently this is not the case for instance for pesticides.

5. Ensure wider participation
EFSA must broaden the area of scientific expertise of its experts. EFSA experts should be paid out of public funds for their safety assessment work, but industry must cover the cost. A system must be established to include different types of input into the risk assessment, including societal, economic, ethical and environmental factors – though this should not be the task of EFSA.

 

Signatories

Friends of the Earth Europe, IFOAM EUGroup, Greenpeace European Unit, Pesticide Action Network Europe, Réseau Environnement Santé (RES), HEAL (Health and Environment Alliance), Sociedad Española de agricultura ecologica/Sociedad Española de agroecologia (SEAE), Corporate Europe Observatory, Earth Open Source, European Professional Beekeepers Association (EWIV), Food&Water Europe, ASEED Europe, BUND – Friends of the Earth Germany, Cancer Prevention and Education Society (CPES), Ecologistas en Accion, Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, GMWatch, Platform Aarde Boer Consument, Polish Forum of Organic Agriculture, Union Nationale de l'Apiculture Française, XminY solidarity fund

Attached files: 
Signed by several European civil society networks and organisations, this list of demands for the reform of EFSA was published on Monday 12 November during a conference of farmers, scientists and citizens held in the premises of Parma's University, Italy, and delivered to EFSA during a demonstration in front of its headquarters the following day. (summary - full version downloadable in the pdf below)1. Prevent conflicts of interestEFSA's independence policy should effectively exclude people with conflicts of interest from its scientific panels, working groups, scientific committee and staff. Also, the management board should be free from people with industry interests.2. EU laws should be overhauled so that products are tested by independent bodies, not industry3. A code of scientific practice should be established for EFSACurrently it is often not clear how EFSA arrives at certain opinions and conclusions: for example, which scientific evidence it has taken into account and why. Scientifically rigorous, transparent and replicable methodologies for EFSA’s risk assessment work should be established.4. Improve transparency and accountabilityEFSA must make accessible all data and information on which it bases risk assessments. All industry data, and EFSA’s decision-making processes on the data, must be available on the internet. Currently this is not the case for instance for pesticides.5. Ensure wider participationEFSA must broaden the area of scientific expertise of its experts. EFSA experts should be paid out of public funds for their safety assessment work, but industry must cover the cost. A system must be established to include different types of input into the risk assessment, including societal, economic, ethical and environmental factors – though this should not be the task of EFSA. SignatoriesFriends of the Earth Europe, IFOAM EUGroup, Greenpeace European Unit, Pesticide Action Network Europe, Réseau Environnement Santé (RES), HEAL (Health and Environment Alliance), Sociedad Española de agricultura ecologica/Sociedad Española de agroecologia (SEAE), Corporate Europe Observatory, Earth Open Source, European Professional Beekeepers Association (EWIV), Food&Water Europe, ASEED Europe, BUND – Friends of the Earth Germany, Cancer Prevention and Education Society (CPES), Ecologistas en Accion, Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, GMWatch, Platform Aarde Boer Consument, Polish Forum of Organic Agriculture, Union Nationale de l'Apiculture Française, XminY solidarity fund
 
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.

Similar entries

Independence of EFSA's GMO risk assessment challenged

Munich/ Brussels, 21.3.2012 Testbiotech, supported by Corporate Observatory Europe (CEO), is today filing a new complaint with the EU Ombudsman questioning the independence of the chair of the panel of experts tasked with assessing the risk of new genetically engineered plants entering the European Union [1].

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

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.

EFSA: conflicts of interest on board

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is responsible for assessing and communicating food safety in the European Union, for everything from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to pesticides. However EFSA has recently been criticised because its scientific assessments of new GM crops and pesticides rely almost exclusively on corporate research data. Some EFSA experts have also been accused of being too close to the food and drink industry .

Campaigners Demand Change at EFSA

Parma, 13 November – Campaigners today demonstrated outside a conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), held at its headquarters in Parma, Italy. Farmers, NGOs, students and local activists gathered to denounce the industry-capture of our food safety system that EFSA plays a key role in.
 

NGOs demand dismissal of two EFSA experts who failed to declare food industry links

New research has today revealed further conflicts of interest among experts advising the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) about the safety of food additives, including aspartame [1]. Research by Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and Réseau Environnement Santé/French Network on Health and Environment (RES) found that two of the new experts appointed by EFSA to the panel responsible for looking at food additives have failed to declare consulting activities for the food industry-funded think tank and lobby group International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI)

Pages


The Brussels Business: Who runs the EU?

Corporate Europe Observatory

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) is a research and campaign group working to expose and challenge the privileged access and influence enjoyed by corporations and their lobby groups in EU policy making.

Read more

Creative Commons License
All content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Corporate Europe Forum