Difference between revisions of "European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
m (→‎How the ILSI impacts the EFSA risk assessment of genetically engineered plants)
m
Line 3: Line 3:
 
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>  
 
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 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 that '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"/>
+
The Testbiotech report explains that risk assessment required by EU regulations is premised on the precautionary principle<ref>Directive 2001/18 (2003), [http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/labelling/Reg_1829_2003_en.pdf Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed], accessed 12 January 2013</ref> 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 EU Commission report from 2006<ref>EU Commission (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], accessed 12 January 2013</ref>, observing that '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"/>
  
 
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, as will be outlined in more detail below.<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 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, as will be outlined in more detail below.<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>  

Revision as of 01:25, 13 January 2013

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 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 explains that risk assessment required by EU regulations is premised on the precautionary principle[2] 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.[3] Testbiotech cite an EU Commission report from 2006[4], observing that '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'.[3]

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, as will be outlined in more detail below.[3]

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]

As the Testbiotech report notes, the US-based ILSI maintains it is free from corporate influences[3]:

The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) is a non-profit worldwide foundation established in 1978 to advance the understanding of scientific issues relating to nutrition, food safety, toxicology, risk assessment, and the environment. ILSI also works to provide the science base for global harmonization in these areas. By bringing together scientists from academia, government, industry, and the public sector, ILSI seeks a balanced approach to solving problems of common concern for the well-being of the general public.

Despite such proclamations, the WHO publicly objected to what was perceived as close cooperation between the ILSI and the tobacco industry.[5] The ILSI was at the centre of further controversy over the involvement of Diána Bánáti, a member of the EFSA management board. Bánáti subsequently stood down from the EFSA.[6] It was reported in German media that the ILSI influenced risk assessment for potentially hazardous chemical compounds such as Bisphenol A.[7]

The ILSI Task Force

ILSI, EFSA and the concept of Comparative Assessmnet

Further cooperation between ILSI and EFSA

Resources

Notes

  1. ↑ 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. ↑ Directive 2001/18 (2003), Regulation 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed, accessed 12 January 2013
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Testbiotech (2010), "European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry," Testbiotech report, p3, accessed 9 January 2013.
  4. ↑ EU Commission (2006), Commission proposes practical improvements to the way the European GMO legislative framework is implemented, accessed 12 January 2013
  5. ↑ World Health Organisation (2001), The Tobacco Industry and Scientific Groups ILSI: A Case Study, accessed 12 January 2013
  6. ↑ Sean Poulter (2012), EU watchdog forced out over links to 'Frankenstein food' firms, Daily Mail, 5 May 2012, accessed 12 January 2013
  7. ↑ Nils Klawitter (2010), Efsa-Wissenschaftler spülen Bisphenol A weich, Spiegel Online, 18 November 2010, accessed 12 January 2013

Back to GMWatch Portal

Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=European_Food_Safety_Authority:_A_playing_field_for_the_biotech_industry&oldid=180867"