EFSA hands over names attached to expert comments

'We made a big step forward,' said PAN Europe

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has handed over details of which working group members made what changes to a draft document on pesticides following a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling – but it will be keeping EFSA staff details to itself.

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe and environmental activist law firm ClientEarth won the case this summer, overturning a September 2013 ruling by the EU General Court and annulling a December 2011 decision by EFSA to keep the details confidential. 

PAN Europe wanted to see tracked Word document changes for guidance documents published by EFSA’s panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) and the Pesticide Steering Committee (PSC) with names for each suggested change.  

EFSA sent those documents for panel and working group members in a letter dated 28 October 2015.

However, it has decided not to extend this to EFSA staff or member state representatives.

PAN Europe told us it was “happy for now” with this outcome but had sought advice from its lawyers about whether it should challenge this second point.

“We made a big step forward,” said PAN Europe’s chemicals coordinator Hans Muilerman.
A spokesperson for EFSA told us its decision sat within the remit of the ruling. 

It said its EFSA staff had “work obligations and status that differ from scientific experts” and they were already subject to internal and external checks and controls.

“This statutory framework regulates aspects relating to staff behaviour, independence, working conditions and rights and obligations. Moreover, the transfer of personal data of EFSA staff was not included in the scope of the Court ruling, which only concerned external scientific experts.”

For the member states representatives, which contributed through the Pesticides Steering Committee, only the name of the member state was given not the individual. 

“These comments were submitted to EFSA on behalf of the member state, and cannot be considered as the personal position of the member of the network. These individuals were not experts working for EFSA, and therefore were not included within the scope of the judgement of the Court.”

At the time of the ruling EFSA told us it could be possible the ECJ case is used to request information for other documents. 

Defending its initial rejection of the information request, EFSA told us in the summer it fully supported the principle of increased transparency and openness in its work, but in this specific case it believed it had legitimate reasons to protect the identity of data subjects.

It said the ruling could inhibit scientists' ability to freely discuss issues.

EFSA's executive director Dr Bernhard Url echoed this sentiment last month when he spoke with us about transparency. 

"I think that science needs parts of the process in a closed room and then many steps of the process in an open atmosphere. But I think it also needs a protected room where they can speak completely freely, openly and challenge each other. That’s also science,” he said. 

Related News

"Staffing is set to be reduced by 10% over the five year period 2013-2018 and then remain stable until 2020, and the budget over the next five years will, at best, remain stable." © iStock.com / Piotr Adamowicz

EFSA budget plateaus despite growing workload

“It seems clear that member state offices in Brussels are wide open to corporate lobbyists.” © iStock.com / Rawpixel

Backroom Brussels? Report calls for EU lobbying clampdown

ECJ case is 'a critically needed' check on government actors and measures, says food lawyer

EFSA loses right to keep experts secret

“I think that science needs parts of the process in a closed room and then many steps of the process in an open atmosphere," says EFSA executive director

EFSA’s Bernhard Url: Science should reserve one private room for open debate

'We would have access to thousands of scientists that usually don’t work with EFSA,' says EFSA boss

New tech on EFSA’s horizon: Crowdsourcing and cyber assistants

'It was confrontational to say the least,' EMA senior medical officer says of making big pharma reveal its big clinical data

Could EFSA follow EMA in its open trial data policy?

Comments (1)

G.A. Charbon (retired prof. applied Farmacology.Physician - 05 Nov 2015 | 10:26


Failing adequate supply in the menu. Supporting evidence of organ blood supply, treatment.

05-Nov-2015 at 22:26 GMT

Submit a comment

Your comment has been saved

Post a comment

Please note that any information that you supply is protected by our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Access to all documents and request for further information are available to all users at no costs, In order to provide you with this free service, William Reed Business Media SAS does share your information with companies that have content on this site. When you access a document or request further information from this site, your information maybe shared with the owners of that document or information.