GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
        • Notícias em Português
        • Nieuws in het Nederlands
        • Nachrichten in Deutsch
      • Archive
    • Resources
      • GM Myth Makers
      • Gene Editing
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
      • GM Booklet
      • GM Book
    • Contact
    • About
    • Search
    • Donations
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
  • Resources
    • Non-GM Successes
    • GM Myth Makers
    • Gene Editing
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
    • GM Booklet
    • GM Book
  • Donations
  • Contact
  • About
  • Search

INTRODUCTION TO GM

GMO Myths and Facts front page.jpg

GENE EDITING MYTHS, RISKS, & RESOURCES

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

Plenty of independent scientists for agency science committees

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 30 June 2013
Twitter

There is no excuse for failing to employ independent scientists on EFSA expert panels

GMWatch comment
30 June 2013

For several years, NGOs and public interest scientific groups have criticised the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for employing too many scientists with conflicts of interest with industry on its expert panels which give scientific opinions on risky products like GMOs, food additives and pesticides. For example, see
http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/431
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/conflicts-on-the-menu
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/europes-pesticide-and-food-safety-regulators-who-do-they-work-for

In response to the criticisms, EFSA has maintained that experts without links to industry are hard to find. EFSA's executive director Catherine Geslain-Laneelle said: “If we exclude everyone who receives money from industry, we won’t have many experts left.”
http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/1309.efsa-expert-independence.html

NGOs that are critical of EFSA have remained sceptical of this claim. And a study conducted in the US (where if anything, industry influence on academic research is greater than in the EU) confirms that they are right to be sceptical.

In a mailed survey of 3,080 academic life science researchers conducted in 2007, the researchers found that:
* 52.8 percent had some relationship with industry, but...
* Almost half (47.2%) reported no relationships with industry.
* There was a steady, if small, decline in the proportion of faculty with industry funding from 1995 to 2006.
* Non-clinical scientists (those who are not involved in conducting clinical trials of drugs) have significantly fewer connections with industry than clinical scientists. So over 50% of scientists in non-clinical areas like GMOs and pesticides have been absolutely free (for the 3 years prior to the survey) of industry connections.

We conclude that there is no excuse for failing to employ independent scientists on EFSA expert panels.

The study (open access):
Zinner, D. E., et al. (2009). Participation of academic scientists in relationships with industry. Health Aff (Millwood) 28(6): 1814-1825.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/28/6/1814.full.pdf+html

Menu

Home

Subscriptions

News Archive

News Reviews

GM Book

Resources

Non-GM Successes

GM Myth Makers

GM Myths

GM Quotes

GM Booklet

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

Donations

Content 1999 - 2025 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design