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

Two-thirds of scientists advising the EU on controversial substances have industry links

ezran, via www.freeimages.com

New research on the safety assessment of four controversial chemicals shows that two thirds (67%) of the scientists involved had at least one, and some many more, conflicts of interest due to their links to industries impacted by the assessments. The substances assessed included endocrine disrupting parabens and DNA-damaging titanium dioxide – in nano-form. All are already widely available on the market.

A new report by Corporate Europe Observatory released today, Chemical conflicts, reveals the inadequate independence policies of the Scientific Committees under DG SANCO, the European Commission's department in charge of consumer issues. The Committees assess the risk to humans and the environment of chemicals found in a huge range of everyday items, from shampoo to baby bottles. Their opinions guide European Commission regulators, who decide which chemicals are safe and at what levels, and which should be banned. Not correctly regulating such chemicals could potentially cause great harm to human health and the environment, but any regulation could also have serious commercial implications.

Corporate Europe Observatory's Pascoe Sabido said:

“Judging the potential risk of substances like endocrine-disrupting parabens can have a huge impact on whether we enjoy a healthy life, a healthy environment or even the healthy development of an unborn baby. But these assessments don't just affect public health, they also help dictate the financial fortunes of companies involved in producing and using the substances. This means that the independence of the scientists providing the expert advice needs to be above and beyond any suspicion of industry influence – which is not the case”.

Having gone through the annual declarations of the interests of all 57 members involved in the scientific committees' opinions on the four substances examined (parabens, nano titanium-dioxide, nano silver, and mercury dental amalgams), two thirds (67%) of the scientists were found to have links with industries with a direct or indirect interest in the assessed chemicals. Declarations include well-known corporations such as pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, chemical behemoth DuPont, and consumer goods heavy-weight Unilever.

The most common conflict within the declarations forms was working in a consultative or advisory role for industry, meaning direct payment to the expert – or in some cases their research institution – for services to those companies whose products were regulated following the scientific committee opinions.

Sabido said:

“A narrow conflict of interest policy and insufficient resources for screening and cross-checking has seriously undermined the independence of the Scientific Committees. To ensure the assessments produced live up to public expectations, DG SANCO needs to seriously examine how its processes and procedures can be reformed. This includes immediate changes, like broadening their definition of a conflict of interest, as well as longer term goals such as increasing the involvement of independent public scientists in risk assessment and ultimately ending all links between industries and the safety assessment of the products they produce.”

The authors assessed not just how well DG SANCO lived up to its principle of independence, but also of excellence and transparency. Interviews with DG SANCO, scientists serving in the Committees, scientists following the Committees' work and public interest groups highlighted some worrying flaws. 1. Recommendations for fully meeting all three principles are provided in the report.

  • 1. These flaws include: a lack of diverse scientific disciplines; stopping scientists drafting opinions from expressing minority opinions; huge variation in the level and quality of stakeholder dialogues; inconsistent and/or non-transparent ways of collecting and using evidence.
Related issues: 
 

It's make or break for the European Commission's advisory groups, known formally as Expert Groups. First Vice President Frans Timmermans, the man in charge of transparency, plans to bring out new horizontal rules to make the groups more balanced and more accountable in a matter of weeks, but will he listen to the concerns of the public?

A coalition of civil society groups working on lobbying transparency and ethics regulations have called on European Commission Vice President, Frans Timmermans, to wait until the European Parliament and the public have had a chance to comment before introducing new rules on advisory groups, formally known as Expert Groups

Comments on the European Commission's new Scientific Advice Mechanism by Corporate Europe Observatory and the Fondation Sciences Citoyennes

In closing her investigation into DG AGRI's 'Expert Groups', the European Ombudsman has called for more transparency as well as structural measures to ensure groups are more balanced.

An Open Letter to Heads of State and Government of the European Union

You have probably never heard of AMISA2. But it turns out that AMISA2 and its predecessor AMISA have had staggeringly regular high-level access to senior EU decision-makers for decades. It is a quiet but persistent presence operating in the shadows of the Brussels bubble.

A revised Emissions Trading Directive is like red meat for the hungry pack of lobbyists that work the corridors of Brussels’ political institutions. Even minor differences in how pollution permits are handed out can result in profits or savings of millions of euros to big polluters.

Read our submission to the EU lobby transparency register consultation and find out why the present, voluntary system just isn't enough.

The corporate lobby tour

Stop the Crop

Alternative Trade Mandate