The independence of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) from industry was questioned on Thursday 7 June by the European Parliament’s PEST special committee which wondered how these two European bodies could reach convergent opinions on glyphosate which differed from that of the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
The EFSA opinion on draft pesticide assessment reports and the ECHA classification of active substances were debated with the respective directors of the two bodies Bernhard Url and Björn Hansen, and Professor Christopher J. Portier (Switzerland). It was contended that the raw data on the carcinogenicity of the active substance glyphosate was disregarded by the two EU bodies (see EUROPE 12034).
The three-hour long hearing gave EFSA and ECHA the opportunity to explain their procedures which, they said, complied strictly with EU legislation, and to acknowledge that there was room for improvement, there being no perfect process, according to Url. The MEPs felt that the lack of lack of transparency of the raw data that form the basis of the risk assessment (particularly of ecotoxicology data) and of the classification of pesticides was one of the main issues to be resolved.
“We shall bring forward recommendations to improve the procedure and find a better balance between publication of raw data from scientific studies and the rights of companies so that the European Parliament can come to a position”, said Éric Andrieu, chair of the PEST committee and deputy leader of the S&D Group in Parliament, after the hearing. The primacy of business confidentiality and of the industry’s right of ownership when human health and protection of the environment and biodiversity were at stake was criticised by S&D, Greens/EFA, GUE/NGL and EFDD MEPs.
“There have been allegations that the EU’s scientific assessment system is biased. That is not the case. The European system is the safest system and it works”, stated the EFSA executive director. The proof of that, he said, is that of the 54 pesticides assessed over a number of years, EFSA and IARC delivered similar results in 29 cases, and differing results in 25 cases. In 14 of these 25 cases, the European classification was tougher and, in 11 cases, the opposite was true, as for glyphosate. “Up until glyphosate, no one was troubled by the differences. These differences do not help politicians decide either”, he observed.
He said he placed a great deal of hope in the reform of the EU’s general rules on food (Regulation 178/2002) proposed by the Commission on 11 April to enhance the transparency and independence of EU scientific assessments, in response to the citizens’ initiative “Stop glyphosate”.
Professor Portier, who recommends that, in future, the European bodies conduct their own assessments and publish all the raw data, said that the differing findings could be the result of when the assessment was carried out but, he opined, the most important thing is transparency. “The epidemiological data can be applied if there are various studies on the same subject. If we have access to the data, it’s possible. The lack of transparency leads to a loss of trust”, he stated.
“74 studies were confidential, including the ecotoxicology studies on rats and on plants. These are the studies on the effects of the substance on life. What’s confidential about them?” queried Michèle Rivasi.
“European law protects the right to intellectual property and business confidentiality. If Parliament wants something else, change the law!” retorted Url. The revision of Regulation 178/2002 makes provision for the publication of raw data with certain exceptions to protect investment in innovation.
Björn Hansen said that ECHA published 99.9% of ecotoxicology data because the REACH regulation stipulates data sharing with a view to cost sharing but full studies cannot be published. “If the legislation were to be amended, we would publish everything.” (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)