Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

  • Dansk
  • NL
  • EN
  • FI
  • FR
  • DE
  • EL
  • IT
  • NO
  • PL
  • PT
  • RO
  • SL
  • ES
  • SV

EFSA criticised by auditors over conflicts of interest

Brussels, 11 October 2012 - The European Court of Auditors (ECA) has sent a highly critical message to four of the EU agencies in a report published today, condemning their failure to manage conflicts of interest adequately.

The Court has carried out an investigation into conflict of interests policies at the European aviation safety agency (EASA), European chemicals agency (ECHA), European food safety agency (EFSA) and the European Medicines agency (EMA). The EASA came out worst in the score report, but significant shortcomings were identified at EMA and EFSA as well.

Nina Holland of Corporate Europe Observatory said:

“This report confirms that there is no effective system in place at the agencies to ban conflicts of interest or to stop staff going through the revolving doors between the agencies and industry. Ongoing conflicts of interest at EFSA and the EMA jeopardise food safety and public health. The agencies have so far failed to take the action which is so badly needed”.

The auditors’ report stands in stark contrast to the praise that recently came from Ernst & Young, hired by EFSA to carry out an evaluation of the agency.

Holland added that EFSA for its part was twisting the Court's message by emphasising the observation that EFSA's system to deal with conflicts of interest seems 'more developed' than that of some of the other agencies. She argued that even though EFSA has recently made some changes to its policy and practices, it was not enough to claim that all problems had been solved.

The report also criticises the presence of industry figures on EFSA’s management board. This threat to EFSA’s impartiality, it says, is worsened by the fact that three of these organisations are at the same time represented on the Stakeholder Consultative Platform. This is a clear message to the EU institutions that are about to start a revision of the EFSA founding regulation, where this could be changed.

The ECA report can be found at: http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/17190743.PDF

Contact:
Nina Holland, Corporate Europe Observatory + 31 6 30285042

Related issues: 
 

More than 80 per cent of the national experts involved in the EU's official assessment of glyphosate refused to have their names disclosed to the public.

Monsanto and the pesticide industry breathed a collective sigh of relief on 12 November 2015. The findings of an investigation into the toxicity of glyphosate by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and EU Member States were in stark contradiction to the March 2015 conclusion by the International Agency for Research against Cancer (IARC), a body of the World Health Organization (WHO), that this agricultural herbicide was probably causing cancer to humans. If validated, this conclusion could cause a partial ban of glyphosate in the EU. [UPDATED on 30 11 2015 16.30 CET]

Open letter to Commissioner Andriukaitis on glyphosate

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".

Commission refuses to act on the recommendations of the European Ombudsman regarding tobacco industry lobbying.

CEO turns the spotlight on another of the interest groups operating within the European Parliament.

At least one developer of new GM crops – Canadian-based Cibus – has attempted to bypass the European policy process by presenting policy makers with a fait accompli: decisions by individual Member States on the regulatory status of new techniques, as well as prematurely-launched trials of new GM crops.

The biotech industry is staging an audacious bid to have a whole new generation of genetic engineering techniques excluded from European regulations. The pending decision of the European Commission on the regulation of these so-called 'new GMOs' represents a climax point in the ongoing below-the-radar attack by industry on GM laws.

The corporate lobby tour

Stop the Crop

Alternative Trade Mandate