Brussels, 06/10/2009 (Agence Europe) - How the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) performed in 2009 and the planned priorities for 2010 were at the heart of the speech by EFSA Executive Director Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle to the new European Parliament environment, health and food safety committee, which is chaired by Jo Leinen (S&D, Germany). Her full replies to MEPs' questions were welcomed by Leinen.
The EFSA work programme for 2009-2013, which was adopted in December 2008, is in its implementation phase. For 2010, EFSA is planning two key initiatives for which Geslain-Lanéelle called for the support of Parliament: 1) data collection and analysis of food and animal feed safety: she says there is “an urgent need for comprehensive pan-European food consumption data” to assess the risk to which consumers are exposed; 2) emerging risks: the first annual report on the ability to predict these risks within the context of increasingly global challenges that require global cooperation will be published early in 2010.
“EFSA is there to provide scientific advice; it has no competence in risk management. Dialogue with you is crucial because it has an impact on legislation,” Geslain-Lanéelle said. EFSA covers the whole food chain, and also animal welfare, plant health and nutrition. Why does it cover animal welfare and the threats to the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)? “Because food safety and the environment are closely linked,” she said.
In 2009, evaluation focused largely on human food and animal feeds, GMOs, pesticides, novel foods, and health claims made for foods. Over and above the opinions which have just been published on 500 health claims (see EUROPE 9990), EFSA will publish opinions on 1,200 health claims in July 2010. As an indication of its increased influence, in 2009, EFSA published over 1,000 scientific outputs, compared with 500 the previous year, hence the importance of having sufficient resources to fulfil its task, Geslain-Lanéelle said. In order to provide quality and meet deadlines, EFSA has put in place fast-track procedures for urgent requests. These procedures were used, for example, with melamine detected in foodstuffs. The EFSA opinion, which was delivered within a matter of days, meant that decisions could be taken quickly, she stated. With regard to GMOs and cloning, issues which provoke widely differing views, EFSA is reviewing the make up of its consultative platform, support for which is “crucially important”.
Richard Seeber (EPP, Austria) asked why EFSA had never issued an unfavourable opinion on any GMOs. In her answer, Geslain-Lanéelle qualified things: there had never been an unfavourable opinion, it was true, but of 98 requests for authorisation, 8 were withdrawn by the applicants after EFSA, suspecting that there were dangers, asked for further information. “These withdrawals show that the applicants themselves felt that the cases had little chance of success. In 95% of cases we call for further information,” she said. To Linda MacAvan (S&D UK), who wanted to know about where things stand on establishing nutrient profiles, Geslain-Lanéelle said that, having published an opinion, EFSA was currently assisting the Commission in deciding on the feasibility of the various possible ways of setting out these profiles.
With EFSA's main priority being food safety, was it not going beyond its remit when asked by the Commission to intervene as a biodiversity judge on bees, asked Chris Davies (ALDE, UK). “Animal health is, indeed, part of our mandate,” Geslain-Lanéelle replied. EFSA is working on a cooperation project with member states to gather and analyse data which will help them identify the reasons for the serious decline in bee numbers. Asked by Corinne Lepage (ALDE, France) about the follow-up provided to the conclusions of the December 23008 Environment Council calling for better management of scientific uncertainties, she replied that EFSA was improving the transparency of its activities. This is being done through holding conferences with all stakeholders, by including minority opinions in published scientific opinions, by indicating EFSA reservations when there are not sufficient data and by increased cooperation with national authorities in preparation for consideration of requests for authorisation. To the strong criticism of the approval given to the renewal of the authorisation for GM maize MON 810, Geslain-Lanéelle said that it was for member states to ensure the monitoring of GM crops. “EFSA implements formulated recommendations on updating the environmental risk assessment and long-term impact of GMOs. We are working to improve our methodology,” she said. (A.N./transl.rt)