Difference between revisions of "European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry"
Lucy Brown (talk | contribs) m |
Lucy Brown (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GMWatch:_Portal Back to GMWatch Portal]''' | '''[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GMWatch:_Portal Back to GMWatch Portal]''' | ||
| − | Excerpts from the 2010 Testbiotech report '''European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry''' are reproduced below and referenced elsewhere across the [http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GMWatch:_Portal GMWatch Portal]. The original report is available online at [http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/431 Testbiotech] or can be [http://www.powerbase.info/images/9/94/Testbiotech_%282010%29-European_Food_Safety_Authority.pdf downloaded directly]. In summary, the report investigates conflicts of interest within the GMO Panel membership to demonstrate how the Panel's relationship with the biotech industry - and in particular via the influence of a task force of the [[International Life Sciences Institute]] (ILSI) - resulted in comparative assessment being taken as the starting point in the [[EFSA]] guidelines on risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. Comparative assessment, an approach to risk assessment which assumes equivalence between conventional breeding and genetic engineering, has serious implications for the scientific rigour of research into the risks of genetically engineered plants. The authors of the report highlight the potential for further problems given the fact that the databank for such research was set up by the [[ILSI]] - an arrangement which 'does not appear to provide adequate protection from targeted manipulation by industry'. Additionally, the authors found that a document published by the [[EFSA]] to explain why feeding trials are not required to test for potential health impacts of genetically engineered plants 'was partially plagiarized from an [[ILSI]] paper'. The authors suggest that it is 'likely this is only the tip of the iceberg'.<ref>Testbiotech (2010), "[http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/EFSA_Playing_Field_of_ILSI.pdf European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry]," Testbiotech report, p2, accessed 9 January 2013.</ref> | + | Excerpts from the 2010 Testbiotech report '''European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry''' are reproduced below and referenced elsewhere across the [http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GMWatch:_Portal GMWatch Portal]. The original report is available online at [http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/431 Testbiotech] or can be [http://www.powerbase.info/images/9/94/Testbiotech_%282010%29-European_Food_Safety_Authority.pdf downloaded directly]. In summary, the report investigates conflicts of interest within the GMO Panel membership to demonstrate how the Panel's relationship with the biotech industry - and in particular via the influence of a task force of the [[International Life Sciences Institute]] (ILSI) - resulted in comparative assessment being taken as the starting point in the [[EFSA]] guidelines on risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. Comparative assessment, an approach to risk assessment which assumes equivalence between conventional breeding and genetic engineering, has serious implications for the scientific rigour of research into the risks of genetically engineered plants. The authors of the report highlight the potential for further problems given the fact that the databank for such research was set up by the [[ILSI]] - an arrangement which 'does not appear to provide adequate protection from targeted manipulation by industry'. Additionally, the authors found that a document published by the [[EFSA]] to explain why feeding trials are not required to test for potential health impacts of genetically engineered plants 'was partially plagiarized from an [[ILSI]] paper'. The authors suggest that it is 'likely this is only the tip of the iceberg'.<ref name="pagetwo">Testbiotech (2010), "[http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/EFSA_Playing_Field_of_ILSI.pdf European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry]," Testbiotech report, p2, accessed 9 January 2013.</ref> |
| + | |||
| + | The Testbiotech report identifies the [[International Life Sciences Institute]] (ILSI) and the former [[GMO Panel]] chair, [[Harry Kuiper]], as the 'most relevant drivers' in terms of industry influence on [[EFSA]] guidelines.<ref name="pagethree">Testbiotech (2010), "[http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/EFSA_Playing_Field_of_ILSI.pdf European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry]," Testbiotech report, p3, accessed 9 January 2013.</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Testbiotech report explains that risk assessment required by EU regulations is premised on the precautionary principle (Directive 2001/18, see [http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/labelling/Reg_1829_2003_en.pdf Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed]) and should therefore be designed to ensure safety for consumers and environment. The [[EFSA]] is tasked with 'the practical application of these regulations in the context of market applications'. Led by [[Suzy Renckens]], the GMO Unit was established to oversee the [[GMO Panel]], an expert panel originally chaired by [[Harry Kuiper]] of the [[RIKILT]] research institute at [[Wageningen UR]]. Risk assessment guidelines were published by the Panel in 2004, followed by further documents addressing other areas of risk assessment including environmental risk assessment, animal feeding trials, allergenicity risk and monitoring.<ref name="pagethree"/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Testbiotech cite an [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-06-498_en.htm EU Commission report from 2006], observing: 'There has been a lot of criticism from various stakeholders that the work of EFSA is inadequate to fulfil EU requirements.' The authors explain how reports prepared by the GMO Panel have additionally 'failed to gain necessary majorities in the EU Council voting'.<ref name="pagethree"/> | ||
==How the ILSI impacts the EFSA risk assessment of genetically engineered plants== | ==How the ILSI impacts the EFSA risk assessment of genetically engineered plants== | ||
| − | The authors of the Testbiotech report argue that 'The collaboration between [[ILSI]] and the ''GMO Panel'' has had a marked effect on [[EFSA]],' referencing the claims of the [[ILSI]] itself as to the impact of their task force on [[EFSA]] guidelines for risk assessment.<ref | + | The authors of the Testbiotech report argue that 'The collaboration between [[ILSI]] and the ''GMO Panel'' has had a marked effect on [[EFSA]],' referencing the claims of the [[ILSI]] itself as to the impact of their task force on [[EFSA]] guidelines for risk assessment.<ref name="pagetwo"/> |
===The ILSI Task Force=== | ===The ILSI Task Force=== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 20: | ||
==Resources== | ==Resources== | ||
| − | *The original Testbiotech report, "[http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/EFSA_Playing_Field_of_ILSI.pdf European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry]," 2010, 9 January 2013. | + | *The original Testbiotech report, "[http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/EFSA_Playing_Field_of_ILSI.pdf European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry]," 2010, accessed 9 January 2013. |
| + | *EU Press release IP/06/498, Brussels, 12 April 2006 "[http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-06-498_en.htm Commission proposes practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented], 2006, accessed 12 January 2013. | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
Revision as of 00:40, 13 January 2013
Excerpts from the 2010 Testbiotech report European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry are reproduced below and referenced elsewhere across the GMWatch Portal. The original report is available online at Testbiotech or can be downloaded directly. In summary, the report investigates conflicts of interest within the GMO Panel membership to demonstrate how the Panel's relationship with the biotech industry - and in particular via the influence of a task force of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) - resulted in comparative assessment being taken as the starting point in the EFSA guidelines on risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. Comparative assessment, an approach to risk assessment which assumes equivalence between conventional breeding and genetic engineering, has serious implications for the scientific rigour of research into the risks of genetically engineered plants. The authors of the report highlight the potential for further problems given the fact that the databank for such research was set up by the ILSI - an arrangement which 'does not appear to provide adequate protection from targeted manipulation by industry'. Additionally, the authors found that a document published by the EFSA to explain why feeding trials are not required to test for potential health impacts of genetically engineered plants 'was partially plagiarized from an ILSI paper'. The authors suggest that it is 'likely this is only the tip of the iceberg'.[1]
The Testbiotech report identifies the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) and the former GMO Panel chair, Harry Kuiper, as the 'most relevant drivers' in terms of industry influence on EFSA guidelines.[2]
The Testbiotech report explains that risk assessment required by EU regulations is premised on the precautionary principle (Directive 2001/18, see Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed) and should therefore be designed to ensure safety for consumers and environment. The EFSA is tasked with 'the practical application of these regulations in the context of market applications'. Led by Suzy Renckens, the GMO Unit was established to oversee the GMO Panel, an expert panel originally chaired by Harry Kuiper of the RIKILT research institute at Wageningen UR. Risk assessment guidelines were published by the Panel in 2004, followed by further documents addressing other areas of risk assessment including environmental risk assessment, animal feeding trials, allergenicity risk and monitoring.[2]
Testbiotech cite an EU Commission report from 2006, observing: 'There has been a lot of criticism from various stakeholders that the work of EFSA is inadequate to fulfil EU requirements.' The authors explain how reports prepared by the GMO Panel have additionally 'failed to gain necessary majorities in the EU Council voting'.[2]
Contents
How the ILSI impacts the EFSA risk assessment of genetically engineered plants
The authors of the Testbiotech report argue that 'The collaboration between ILSI and the GMO Panel has had a marked effect on EFSA,' referencing the claims of the ILSI itself as to the impact of their task force on EFSA guidelines for risk assessment.[1]
The ILSI Task Force
ILSI, EFSA and the concept of Comparative Assessmnet
Further cooperation between ILSI and EFSA
Resources
- The original Testbiotech report, "European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry," 2010, accessed 9 January 2013.
- EU Press release IP/06/498, Brussels, 12 April 2006 "Commission proposes practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented, 2006, accessed 12 January 2013.
Notes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Testbiotech (2010), "European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry," Testbiotech report, p2, accessed 9 January 2013.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Testbiotech (2010), "European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry," Testbiotech report, p3, accessed 9 January 2013.
