Experts linked to industry dominate the new GMO panel

In July, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) appointed new experts for the GMO Panel, which is responsible for the assessment of genetically engineered organisms. Research conducted by Testbiotech has found that the panel now includes a large number of researchers involved in the development of genetically engineered plants, some of whom have links to industry, and are actively lobbying for the deregulation of new genetic engineering techniques (NGT).

The panel is responsible for the risk assessment of genetically engineered plants and for developing risk assessment guidelines. Testbiotech has previously uncovered a number of cases of conflicts of interest in the panel. It has now taken a closer look at the official declarations of interest submitted by the newly appointed experts.

The research shows that almost half of the 16 panel members are involved in the development of transgenic or NGT plants. In a number of cases, there were or are collaborations with industry, such as Syngenta and Corteva (formerly Pioneer/DowDuPont). Five experts on the panel have also applied for patents on transgenic or NGT plants, often together with companies. The chair of the GMO Panel even advises industry on EFSA risk assessment.

No improvement at EFSA

The findings show that EFSA's independence from industry has not improved since 2012, the beginning date for research (published in 2017) by Corporate Europe Observatory, which found that nearly half of all experts sitting on EFSA's scientific panels had conflicts of interest with industry. From 2012-15, 11 out of 19 members (58%) of the GMO Panel had such conflicts of interest. From 2015-18, likely due to heavy pressure being applied on EFSA by NGOs and the European Parliament, there was a slight improvement, with 8 out of 18 (44%) having conflicts of interest.

But as stated by Martin Pigeon, researcher and campaigner on agribusiness issues at Corporate Europe Observatory and author of the report on the research, "the norm should be zero".

EFSA's defence doesn't stand up

In an article about the findings in the French daily Le Monde, EFSA defends itself by asserting that it is “unrealistic” to rely on experts “with no experience or understanding of how GMOs and NGTs are developed and used”.

However, GMWatch offers a simple solution to this frequently used excuse of EFSA. EFSA should adopt the system used by IARC (the International Agency for Research on Cancer), in which experts from the regulated industry are called to give information and evidence on the potential carcinogenicity of industry products, but due to their inherent conflicts of interest, are not allowed to vote on the classification of the substance under examination or to write the report on the substance. People with conflicts of interest are simply banned from any decision-making role, and this is the model that EFSA should follow to assess the risks of GMOs.

On this question, Testbiotech says, “Although specialist knowledge about the development of genetically engineered plants is certainly relevant to their risk assessment, the GMO Panel at EFSA, in the past, has never been so one-sidedly staffed by developers of genetically engineered plants. This inevitably reduces the number of experts on the panel whose competence lies in crucial areas, such as ecology, and biases the risk assessment in favour of developers and against the public interest.”

Testbiotech continues, “In addition, close cooperation with industry creates obvious conflicts of interest that EFSA has not adequately assessed as part of the selection process. Panel chairs are subject to particularly strict rules regarding conflicts of interest, so the careless handling of the chair’s advisory activities seems particularly incomprehensible.

“Testbiotech is also concerned that many panel members are active in organisations such as EPSO, EU-SAGE and ARRIGE, which are currently lobbying for the deregulation of NGT plants. Further research also revealed that some panel members support lobby organisations, even though this is not mentioned in their declarations of interest.

“Overall, the analysis shows that pro-GMO activists and developers of genetically engineered plants have gained considerable influence in the risk assessment of GMOs in the EU. From Testbiotech’s point of view, it will be hardly possible to conduct independent risk assessment – or to further develop adequate risk assessment guidelines.”

The findings raise questions regarding the selection process and the independence policy of the authority, including its management, which is responsible for the appointment of the experts. According to Testbiotech, the composition of the panel shows the signature of the outgoing executive director, Bernhard Url.

During the discussions on the regulation of NGTs, Testbiotech warned that Url has allowed EFSA to be turned into a kind of service institution for the EU Commission and the interests of industry. Testbiotech concludes, “When filling the new executive director position, strict attention must be paid to competence and independence. In addition, the composition of the GMO Panel urgently needs correction.”

UK GMO advisory panels stuffed with people with conflicts of interest

Research by GMWatch in 2022 found that 100% of members of the UK government's GMO advisory body, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), had potential or actual conflicts of interest with the industry.

We followed this up with a 2023 report that found that a large majority – seven out of eleven, or 64% – of the members of a new GMO regulatory subcommittee (the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) PGT Subcommittee on products of genetic technologies destined for food and feed purposes) tasked with evaluating the safety of GM foods and animal feed had potential or actual conflicts of interest.

Our findings were published soon after the publication of a paper by Profs Erik Millstone and Tim Lang on conflicts of interest in UK food regulatory institutions, including those with responsibility for GMOs: the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the ACNFP, and ACRE. Millstone and Lang found that each of them included members declaring interests at some point, with some panels having more experts with conflicts of interest than without.

The authors found that on the FSA's Science Council, the proportion declaring conflicts of interest has been rising, and in November 2022 there was a six-to-five majority with such conflicts.

Of the FSA's five topic-focused committees, all had majorities with conflicts of interest at some stage. At the ACNFP, the “parent” committee of the ACNFP PGT Subcommittee, the proportion of people with conflicts of interest has risen in recent years, with nine out of 16 members (56%) declaring such conflicts in 2020, 11 out of 19 members (58%) in October 2021, and a peak of 14 out of 21 members (67%) in November 2022.

Conclusion

Expecting people with vested interests in GMO development to make objective decisions on the risks posed by GMO technologies and products is like asking a scientist contracted to a junk food manufacturer to advise on food policy. The difficult questions will not be asked and a favourable decision for the developer company will be predetermined. It appears that when it comes to our food and farming futures, successive governments have turned their backs on the public interest and placed the GMO industry in the driving seat via expert panels stacked with GMO industry dependents, allies, and insiders.


Main source: Testbiotech