“Slight” conflict of interest huh?
NYT
23 Oct 2013 -
LONDON — One scientist who advised Europe’s food safety regulators about animal feed additives sits on the board of a foundation backed by the dairy industry.
Another who gave advice on food contaminants received research support from lobbyists for the American and European chemical industries.
A third scientist who headed an advisory panel on nutrition and dietetic products presided for years over the management board of an industry-backed research group.
Nearly 60 percent of the scientists used as consultants by the European Food Safety Authority, or E.F.S.A., have direct or indirect ties to industries regulated by the agency, according to a report from the Corporate Europe Observatory, an advocacy group that criticizes corporate influence on public policy.
The authority oversees food safety in the 28-nation European Union, a role similar to that of the Food and Drug Administration in the United States, or at least the “food” part of it. While the European agency has long been assailed as relying on scientists with perceived conflicts of interest, it says it has taken steps to address the issue.
But consumer advocates say those steps have not gone far enough.
“Everyone eating food in Europe is affected by its decisions,” said the report, which was provided in advance to The New York Times and the French newspaper Le Monde. “A much clearer, simpler and stricter independence policy needs to be set up and rigorously implemented.”
Asked to respond to the report, the agency said in a statement its “opinions are the outcome of collective deliberations, with each expert having an equal say.”
“No one expert,” the agency continued, “can unduly influence the decisions of the panel.”
The agency also emphasized steps it took last year after earlier criticism over the conflict issue. “According to the rules, experts with previous industry experience must wait two years before becoming a member of one of E.F.S.A.’s scientific groups,” the agency said. “Also, those that hold consultancy positions for industry are forbidden from working as an E.F.S.A. expert.”
Part of the challenge for European agencies is that they lack the size of their American counterparts and thus do less of their work in house.
The Food and Drug Administration has more than 14,000 employees. It roughly overlaps with both the European Food Safety Agency and the European Medicines Agency, which together have about 1,200 employees. The European agencies also have narrower responsibilities and rely more on outside researchers and the patchwork of regulators in member countries.
Not every industry tie described in the report appeared to be significant. And they were largely disclosed in public filings made by the scientists themselves, although the report cited some instances where those filings were incomplete.
But there were more than enough overlapping interests to raise questions about the robustness of the agency’s previous efforts to address the issue.
Kristen Sejrsen, chairman of the scientific advisory panel on additives and products used in animal feed, also serves on the board of a research foundation set up by the Danish Agriculture and Food Council, “which represents the farming and food industries of Denmark,” according to his disclosure report filed with the food agency.
The research foundation is financed “partly from public funds and funds collected from dairy farmers as a production levy,” according to the report.
Mr. Sejrsen had no comment.
Ilaria Capua, a virologist who was recently elected to the Italian Parliament, runs a unit of a lab whose research is financed by pharmaceutical companies. She is also a member of the food safety agency’s animal health and welfare advisory panel.
Ms. Capua, who has taken a leave from her medical work and has attended only one panel session, said of the report, “of course the best scientists will have relationships with industry.”
Referring to the disclosure requirements, she said: “From a scientist’s point of view they are very complicated. On the other hand, we need to be transparent and make sure that everything is declared so if anybody has any doubt, they can check the report and make sure nobody has pushed a recommendation because of the conflicts of interest.”
Alex Bach, a researcher on the safety agency’s animal feed panel, had 24 different ties to industry, the most of any panel member tracked in the report. He left in June, shortly after the Corporate Europe Observatory discussed his industry ties with the food safety agency. He researches how the nutrition of the cows affects its health and the quality of its milk.
“There is a maximum of activities you can do with industry, and I was at the borderline,” he said in an interview. “Like everything in life, there are positives and negatives. If you want a good expert, that expert is likely to have connections to industry. That’s the way it works in Europe, with budget cuts everywhere.”
The food safety agency said that “national and European research policies encourage, and in some cases oblige, researchers in the public sector to work with the private sector in order to fund their research and promote the transfer of knowledge and its applications.”
But Martin Pigeon, a researcher at the Corporate Europe Observatory, said the notion that there were no scientists free of industry entanglement was a fiction, noting that many already worked for the food safety agency. “It’s not true that such people don’t exist,” he said, “They do.”