| European Food Standards Agency chooses industry studies over independent science on pesticides |
|
1 March 2011 The newly published guidance on the use of science in pesticide approvals by European Food Standards Agency (EFSA)[1] downgrades work by independent scientists in favour of industry studies. EFSA classifies good laboratory practice[2] (GLP) studies by industry as having the highest level of reliability; research carried out by independent scientists will be classified lower. The new classification is based on a study from 1997[3] published in an industry owned journal and authored by employees of BASF, which describes itself as “the world’s leading chemical company”. Their findings classify industry studies based on Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)/GLP-type guidelines as ‘reliable without restriction’, and non-OECD/GLP studies (usual in independent science) as less reliable, or even as unreliable. Criteria for reliability are derived from a non-peer-reviewed article by a spokesman of the industry lobby group, the American Chemistry Council (Becker, 2009[1]). EFSA claims to have been attempting to “pragmatically integrate best practices in evidence synthesis with the structure of existing Guidance documents to avoid unnecessarily increasing the effort needed to prepare and appraise dossiers.” Dr Hans Muilerman of PAN-Europe said: “It is unacceptable that EFSA keeps favouring industry tests and undermining a democratically established law. The Parliament and Council must reject the guideline and re-open the consultation, taking on board truly independent scientific advice.” Vito A. Buonsante, Health and Environment lawyer at ClientEarth, said: "European citizens expect independent studies from renowned scientists will be considered in assessments of chemicals they might be exposed to. This guidance throws a shadow on the independence of the scientific advice that EFSA is supposed to provide.” The European Parliament and Council, while developing the new Regulation on pesticides, decided to include independent scientific outputs in order to guarantee that the negative effects from toxic chemicals documented in the scientific literature would be taken into account when deciding if a pesticide could be used in the food we eat. Up to now, independent science has been seen as being of limited use by regulators, who generally ignore it. However, several reviews that compare industry tests and similar independent studies show that industry studies are much more likely to demonstrate a favourable outcome for industry products. Taking into account independent science would balance industry tests and possibly uncover manipulation.
|
