Wednesday, September 28, 2005

The provision of scientific advice to the Commission on food safety

© 2004-2005 William Charteris
www.billcharteris.com
www.imperialconsulting.net

Science and technology play an increasingly influential role in almost every aspect of modern life, including the formulation of policy and regulatory decisions, particularly on sensitive issues involving consumer health and safety. Almost every aspect of modern political governance is impacted to a greater or lesser degree by science with the result that policy issues are becoming increasingly complex and increasingly dependent on the use of expert scientific advice to inform policy-making at all levels.

EFSA became operational in 2003. In May 2003, the five Scientific Committees that had provided the Commission with scientific advice on food safety were transferred to EFSA. At the same time, the Scientific Steering Committee’s TSE/BSE responsibilities were transferred to EFSA. The Scientific Committees and the eight permanent Scientific Panels fulfill EFSA’s risk assessment and communication responsibilities, being responsible for providing expert scientific opinions to the Community Legislature and to the Commission in the policy areas of health, research, environment, and agriculture. They are all statutory, fixed-term advisory bodies that are governed by Codes of Practice and formal guidelines.

The scientific opinions of EFSA are not legally binding on Community institutions but must be taken into account when drafting a Community measure. In addition, EFSA must exercise ‘vigilance’ in order to identify at an early stage any potential source of divergence between its scientific opinions and those issued by national food agencies. Moreover, EFSA has a duty of co-operation within the EU such that when a conflict exists, it is ‘obliged to co-operate’ either to resolve differences or arrive at a consensus. Clearly, EFSA has not been entrusted with the power to act as the ultimate body of scientific advice in the EU, the practical consequences of which may be far reaching. The introduction of a mere duty of co-operation seems to fall short in providing an effective answer to the fundamental question of the relationships between EFSA and the national authorities responsible for food safety issues. In this regard, the institution of an EFSA Advisory Forum, as a mechanism for exchange of information between national authorities and EFSA, is unlikely to prove decisive in overcoming the difficulties arising from divergent European and national scientific opinions. Accordingly, it will fall to the ECJ, and not EFSA, to solve these conflicts by striking a legally acceptable balance between European and national values (incl. risk perception).

The role of scientific advice depends greatly upon the purpose for which it is sought, and the functions which it fulfils. Consequently, a diversity of approaches has been developed for its delivery. This diversity has been further broadened by the disciplinary areas which it addresses and by the governmental and cultural contexts in which it operates. As the use of scientific advice to policy making has increased, the problematic nature of providing and dealing with it has been highlighted causing concern over its utility and validity. While in the past the opinions of experts may have been readily accepted by both policy makers and the public, this is no longer the case. In addition, the greater involvement of society and the increased profile of ethical considerations place enormous pressure on “experts” to deliver the ‘right’ advice.

In the UK and Canada in particular, these problems have stimulated the development of guidelines for the generation and use of scientific advice. In the EU, however, the vast majority of all types of scientific advisory organizations have no formal policy response for the provision of scientific advice. However, the Commission has initiated the development of a common system of scientific and technical reference for EU policy implementation within the context of the ERA, requiring an alignment of methods and greater comparison and harmonization of results across the EU. One concrete action in this direction is the recent adoption of guidelines on the collection and use of expertise in the light of the TSAS Report. These guidelines address the quality of advice, the issue of openness, and the effectiveness of advisory procedures. This initiative on scientific advice is taking place within the wider debate on European governance and increasing engagement throughout the EU. Good governance is seen to be underpinned by five principles: openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness, and coherence.

This abstract is taken from a paper entitled 'A critical review of the evolution of scientific advice to the Commission on food safety since the formation of the European Economic Community', which was published on December 6, 2004. The paper comprises 2,500 words and 33 references. Individual copies of the paper may be requested by e-mail from the author.


0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home