By Brian Johnson - 15th May 2006
The European Food Safety Authority has fought back against criticism of its GM risk assessment methods and rejected accusations that it is biased towards the biotech industry.
Acting executive director Dr Herman Koëter said that much of the criticism was down to a “misunderstanding of EFSA’s role”.
The Parma-based authority had come under fire from both Brussels and EU member states over the reliability of its GM crop risk assessments.
National capitals, particularly those opposed to GM crops, have also attacked the authority for ignoring their unease over the long term effects of GM crops.
In response, Koëter said, EFSA met with member states’ representatives on Monday to iron out differences and to strengthen cooperation in GM risk assessments.
“We learned a lot today, we had a fruitful exchange of views,” Koëter told journalists at a press conference.
“Obviously member states would appreciate closer involvement with EFSA.”
But said Koëter, it appeared that it was not common knowledge that “we already work closely with member states”.
He reiterated EFSA’s role saying its task was limited to providing science-based evidence on GM, not to approve the introduction of GM crops, but accepted that the GM issue was inherently political.
“There is political pressure on us, but [risk assessments] have to be dealt with scientifically.”
The chair of EFSA’s GMO panel, Dr Harry Kuiper, rebuked any suggestion of biotech industry bias.
Kuiper said that two important issues, the long term aspects of GM crops and ‘uncertainty’, were raised by member states during Monday’s meeting.
“The heart of any assessment is focused on the long term aspects and uncertainty. They are essential aspects of risk assessment procedures.”
Kuiper accepted that assessments were based on data supplied by the companies putting forward the GM application, “but we look very critically at the information supplied. The quality of methods used is a key issue,” he said
Koëter said that he was happy to open up the risk assessments to national scrutiny.
“It’s more work, but we are happy to explain how a panel comes to its conclusions. It’s important that everyone is happy with the risk assessments.”
Koëter promised that EFSA would start building up a network with experts in member states, but warned that countries that take a more political view should not mask their views with quasi-scientific arguments.
“Unfortunately, politics creeps into science – it’s unavoidable.”
And Koëter rounded on the science behind GM coexistence, a policy vigorously pursued by staunch anti-GM member states including current EU presidency holders, Austria.
“The coexistence question has not been addressed by EFSA. It’s essentially an economic issue, not a scientific one.”
“We would not shy away from addressing a scientific assessment of coexistence.”
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.