Those of you who follow such things will know that there has been a bit of a spat in EFSA (the European Food Safety Authority) recently, with the chairman having been criticised for her links with the food industry, and now resigning to lead an industry-funded body. Meanwhile, a candidate for board membership has been dropped because of her own industry links. It may come as something of a surprise that people aren’t chosen on the basis of suitability for the job, but this case highlights the current trend for those appointed as advisers or to other official positions to be squeaky clean and free from any possible taint of association with vested interests.
Perhaps the situation with EFSA is not so surprising. Food, after all, is as much an emotional as a rational issue. All of us want good, safe, affordable food, but there’s also a lot of cultural and philosophical baggage which goes along with it. And the Authority deals with at least two issues which are both high profile and controversial: genetic modification and traces of chemicals, including pesticides, both of which attract plenty of activist attention.
First, some more detail. Diana Banati is an experienced public scientist, being Ministerial Commissioner for food safety and international scientific research co-operations and Chief Scientific Advisor at the Ministry of Rural Development in her native Hungary. She first joined the EFSA management board in 2006 and was elected for a second term in 2010. In October of the same year, she was elected as its chairman. At this time, she stepped down from her position as a director of ILSI Europe (International Life Sciences Europe), the same organisation she has recently joined as Executive and Scientific Director.
Activist organisations at the time suggested that Dr Banati should have stepped down from EFSA instead, because of her then links to what they described as a ‘pro-GM lobby group’ (see EU food safety chief forced to quit GM lobby role in the Ecologist). In fact, ILSI (an international organisation, organised regionally) includes both academic and industry scientists, although funding comes largely from industry (where else, with public funds being limited?). It does serious work on a variety of food issues, with task forces set up to work on a range of topics, including consumer science, allergies, nutrition and mental performance and risk assessment of chemicals in food. It is, by most reckoning, an entirely respectable body.
With a rather poor sense of timing, EFSA has also become involved in controversy over the candidacy of Mella Frewen, director of FoodDrinkEurope, as a board member (Mella Frewen dropped from list of nominees for the board of the food safety authority). Originally proposed by the Commission, her candidacy was criticised by the Parliament and her name not included on the final list of candidates put forward by the Council. That she used to work for Monsanto is something which doubtlessly was also held against her.
The message is clear: close association with industry is a conflict of interest which cannot be tolerated. So does that mean that no interest groups can be represented? Well, not exactly. The EFSA vice chair is Sue Davies, chief policy adviser of Which? the UK consumer lobby group. Among the other members, Matthias Horst is director general of the Federation of the German Food and Drink Industry and Sinikka Turunen has had a career in the Finnish consumer movement. There is nothing wrong with any of these being board members, but it seems that the line is drawn at any links with big business, whatever an individual’s other merits. Which is a pity, considering that there are many very able people in the private sector who could bring their expertise to bear in a useful way.
This is one example of an unfortunate tendency for NGOs (unelected and unaccountable) to attack the messenger when they don’t like the views being expressed, which has considerable influence on some MEPs and policymakers. Rather than argue on the evidence, they try to discredit their opponents by casting doubts on their credibility. Only total ‘independence’ will do in their eyes and yet, ironically, they fail to see that their own partisanship makes them no more reliable or credible.
I can only think that they start from a point of view which is ‘correct’; any deviation from this must therefore be for some ulterior motive, since the truth is self-evident. Hence, for example, the accusation that any scepticism about dangerous man-made climate change must be part of some shadowy but powerful conspiracy funded by ‘Big Oil’ and other vested interests. In practice, after Exxon-Mobil was castigated by the Royal Society for funding groups which did not agree with the mainstream IPCC view of global warming, multinational oil companies have chosen to distance themselves from this particular debate. Some of their actions may have been greenwashing (did BP really believe in the message of Beyond Petroleum?) but they have certainly run scared of any activities which could be construed as sympathising with global warming sceptics.
Meanwhile, few people question the funding or motives of environmentalist groups (indeed, why should we; their statements should be looked at critically in the same way as any others, whoever pays them). But it will probably have surprised some people to learn that, since 1997, the EU has contributed approximately €100 million to environmentalist lobby groups, particularly the European Environmental Bureau, but also Friends of the Earth and the Climate Action Network (See EU Taxpayer Funded Environmentalism from the Taxpayers’ Alliance). EU’s taxpayers’ money is being spent on groups which then influence policy in particular directions. To its credit, Greenpeace takes no money from governments.
Too often, it seems, the private sector is being excluded from making a legitimate contribution because of sensitivity about conflicts of interest, while those in the public sector or the powerful green lobby are regarded as independent. Let’s be clear: however objective we try to be, we all have biases and preconceptions. But it doesn’t mean we don’t have something to add to the debate. As long as all memberships and affiliations are clear, we should be prepared to listen to anyone who has the competence to contribute.
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
______________________________