8/3/2019 Programme [111109] Independence of Science in Regulatory Decision-Making

1/2

MEPs Corinne Lepage and Antonya Parvanova (ALDE)Independence of science in regulatory decision-makingInvitation to a conference-debate

9 November 2011European Parliament - Room ASP5G1Language: English with interpretation into French15.0017.30 hours

Draft programme

15.00: Opening by MEPs Corinne Lepage and Antonya Parvanova15.15: Dr Fiorella Belpoggi, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Centre,Ramazzini Institute, Bentivoglio, Italy: The cases of aspartame and the fungicidemancozeb as examples of the problem of independent science being ignored inregulatory assessments15.30: Dr John Fagan, Director, Earth Open Source, London, UK: The horizontalproblem (BPA, GMOs, glyphosate)15.40: Claire Robinson, Researcher, Earth Open Source: Proposals to putindependent science at the centre of regulatory decision-making15.45 EFSA (tbc)16.00: Dr Eric Poudelet, DG SANCO, Director for safety of the food chain

16.15: Debate17.15: Summing up by MEPs Corinne Lepage and Antonya Parvanova17.30: End

The public is reassured by industry and governments that risky products likepesticides, chemicals, and genetically modified foods are strictly regulated. Butapprovals for such products depend on a few limited studies, paid for by thesame companies that stand to profit from the products approval and sale. Aswell as having an inherent bias, industry studies are often old and outdated.Often, they are unpublished and commercially confidential, meaning that theycannot be evaluated by independent scientists or the public.

At the same time, regulators ignore or dismiss large numbers of peer-reviewedindependent studies in their assessments of risky products even though suchstudies are less likely to be biased, are of better quality, and use the latestscientific methods and insights. Regulators rely instead on small numbers ofindustry studies that are claimed to show safety. This has been the case withaspartame, genetically modified foods, bisphenol A, and glyphosate/Roundup.

In sum, science has separated into two diverging strands: industry science andindependent science. While billions of Euros of taxpayer money is poured into

8/3/2019 Programme [111109] Independence of Science in Regulatory Decision-Making

2/2

independent research, it is still not properly taken into account in regulatoryassessments.

The EU Parliament and Council have made progress in addressing the problem.They passed a new pesticide regulation stating that assessments will no longerrely solely on industry studies. The regulation forces regulators to take account ofindependent science.

But an EFSA Guidance has compromised the new regulation, enabling industryto dismiss any independent study it wishes on the grounds that it is not relevantor reliable. The loopholes in this Guidance are reinforced by the draft datarequirements of DG SANCO, which, if adopted, could undermine the intent of thenew regulation to protect public health and the environment.

Independent scientists and civil society groups are fighting to make the voice ofindependent science heard in public health and environmental regulation. Buteach individual or group is fighting their own corner no one is addressing thebigger picture. This is in spite of the fact that the crisis in independent sciencecrosses over into many areas that directly affect the public from food quality topublic health and environmental sustainability.

This conference-debate will draw the different threads of the issue together andcome up with ways we can place independent science back where it belongs atthe centre of regulatory decision-making.