Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2018)179 - Transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)179 - Transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2018)179  |
| date | 11-04-2018 |
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 on general food law (the “GFL” Regulation) provides
for a comprehensive harmonised legal framework. It establishes certain general principles to underpin all future Union and national food law, the most important of which is the risk analysis principle. The risk analysis principle consists of three separate but interconnected components: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. Risk assessment is defined as the scientifically based process consisting of four steps: hazard identification, hazard characterisation, exposure assessment and risk characterisation. Risk management is defined as the process, distinct from risk assessment, of weighing policy alternatives in consultation with interested parties, considering risk assessment and other legitimate factors, and, if need be, selecting appropriate prevention and control options. Risk communication is defined as the interactive exchange of information and opinions throughout the risk analysis process as regards hazards and risks, risk-related factors and risk perceptions amongst risk assessors, risk managers, consumers, feed and food businesses, the academic community, including the explanation of risk assessment findings and the basis of risk manage ment decisions.
Risk assessment at Union level is carried out by an autonomous agency established by the GFL Regulation, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), separately from the risk management function of the Union Institutions, and mainly that of the Commission. Its primary mission is to provide scientific advice at the request of the Commission, Member States and the European Pa rl iam ent and on its own motion. Its mandate is broad and covers all issues impacting directly or indirectly on food and feed safety (including the evaluation of dossiers put forward for the approval of substances ), animal health and animal welfare, plant health, human nutrition, and GMO issues.
As confirmed in the recently published Fitness Check of the GFL Regulation (GFL Fitness Check) , the rigorous implementation of the risk analysis principle throughout the Union law has overall raised the level of protection from potential food safety risks in a number of ways. Indeed, the science-based approach to food legislation, underpinned by the establishment and operation of EFSA at centralised level, has overall improved the scientific basis of measures taken in the area of food law and has further contributed to harmonised views between Member States on key safety issues as well as to the Union product safety recognition worldwide.
The impetus for the GFL Regulation came from a succession of food related crises, notably the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis, foot and mouth disease and dioxin in the late 90s-early 2000s. These put public health at great risk and the resulting market support measures and trade disruption cost a huge amount. They also seriously undermined public confidence in the Union food safety regulatory framework. The political response was to adopt a White Paper on Food Safety in
Food law authorisations cover different subject matters: substances, products, health claims and processes but for the ease of reading, the reference to substances in the text covers all.
Commission Staff Working Document, “The REFIT evaluation of the General Food Law (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002)”, SWD (2018)38 final, dated 15.1.2018.
2
January 2000. This paved the way for a complete overhaul of the regulatory framework, with the focus on the G FL Regulation in 2002. The separation of risk management and risk assessment, with the newly created E FSA responsible for risk assessment, was the single biggest innovation in the GFL Regulation.
In its Communication replying to the European Citizens’ Initiative “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides”3, the Commission also announced the preparation of a legislative proposal “covering transparency in
Contents
- scientific assessments, quality and independence of the scientific studies that are the basis of the Union risk assessment carried out by EFSA and the governance of
- Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the
- Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003
- Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003
- Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 November 2003
- Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on
- Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008
- Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009
- Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on
- Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council adapting a number of legal
- The regulatory regime on food safety needs to be strong to ensure its credibility and
- considered not to be effective enough, thus creating a negative impact on consumers’
- Member States were consulted in a meeting of the Expert Group on the General Food Law on 5 March 2018. The national food safety authorities of the Member States
- consumers and the general public, increasing their confidence in its work. Since duly
- 13 14 15 16
- of the system. The Commission does not see scope to simplify or reduce these steps as this could have a negative impact not only on the perception of the transparency of
scientific assessments, quality and independence of the scientific studies that are the basis of the Union risk assessment carried out by EFSA and the governance of
EFSA”. In parallel, the Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism has been asked
to prepare an opinion on the authorisation process of plant protection products.
These developments took place against the backdrop of public controversy over the approach towards the assessment and management of sensitive substances such as genetically modified organisms, and plant protection products, especially those containing glyphosate or potentially negative health impacts arising from endocrine disruptors.
The main objectives of this initiative are to update the GFL Regulation so as to:
• tighten and clarify the rules on transparency, especially with regard to the scientific studies used as the basis for risk assessment the EFSA carries out;
• increase the guarantees of reliability, objectivity and independence of studies the EFSA uses in its risk assessment, in particular in the context of authorisation applications;
• improve the governance of and strengthen the scientific cooperation of Member States with and the ir invol v e m ent in the EFSA;
• strengthen the ability of EFSA to mainta in a high level of scientific expertise in the different areas of its work, especially its capacity to attract excellent scientists to be members of its Scientific Panels; bearing the related financial and budgetary aspects in mind too, and,
• develop a comprehensive and effective risk communication strategy, involving the Commission, Member States and the EFSA throughout the risk analysis process, combined with open dialogue amongst all interested parties.
Problems that the initiative aims to tackle
The GFL Fitness Check and recent public debates have shown that certain aspects of the current legislative framework need to be addressed. In particular:
• Citizens demand that the risk assessment process in the area of food law (and the decision-m aki ng based on it) be more transparent. Transparency and confidentiality rules currently vary depending on the sub-area of regulation concerned.
• Many stakeholders and citizens complain that the EFSA’s evaluations of
authorisation applications are essentially based on studies, data and information generated (and paid for) by the applicant for authorisation. Current procedures are based on the principle that it is for the applicant to prove that the subject
C(2017) 8414 final.
3
matter of an authorisation procedure complies with Union safety requirements given the scientific knowledge in its possession. This principle is based on the premise that public health is better protected when the burden is on the applicant to prove that a particular food or feed is safe prior to its placing on the market, instead of the public authorities having to prove that it is unsafe. Moreover, public money should not be used to commission costly studies (several thousand to several million Euros) that will eventually help the industry to place a product on the market. This principle remains valid, but the concerns on the transparency and independence of industry-generated studies and data should be addressed.
Risk communication was also found not to be effective enough. Evidence has pointed to occasional divergences and, in very few occasions, conflicting communications amongst Union and national risk assessors and risk managers, which may have an adverse impact on public perception as regards the assessment and management of risk related to the agri-food chain. Divergences between Union and national risk assessors, however, do not necessarily question the work of the different scientific bodies. These can be explained by a variety of factors including for instance: the legal framework to which the question refers, the type of question put to scientific bodies by the relevant risk managers and how these are framed, whether the assessment relates to a hazard or a risk, the methodologies followed, or the data, which are utilised. The reasons underlying differences in the assessments and conclusions of scientific bodies should be better communicated to the public in order to facilitate their understanding. Furthermore, scientific divergences related to food and feed safety are particularly high on the public agenda, whether these are real or perceived, especially where other societal choices are at stake, such as the protection of the environment or consumers’ right to choose the type of foods which they eat. EFSA is currently empowered to communicate on its own initiative in the fields within its mission, without prejudice to the Commission’s competence to communicate its risk management decisions. However, given the limits of its competence, EFSA’s risk communication activities cannot address questions on issues other than science, notably the risk management decisions informed by its scientific advice. It is therefore necessary to ensure a more comprehensive and continuous risk communication process throughout the risk analysis process, involving Union and national risk assessors and risk managers combined with open dialogue amongst all interested parties.
The EFSA’s effectiveness depends on its capacity to attract and pool expertise from Member States. The following factors have an impact on this:
– Difficulties in attracting new experts due to insufficient recognition of
scientists’ career, inadequate financial compensation in particular for their employers and excessive demand on their time.
– Dependence on a small number of Member States that provide more than
two thirds of the EFSA’s Scientific Panels’ experts and difficulties in receiving sufficient support from many Member States for its scientific work (e.g. by providing studies, or data).
12
In addition, unlike in the case of other Union Agencies, EFSA governance has not yet been brought in line with the Common Approach on Union decentralised agencies, including with regard to the composition of its Management Board.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
As far as transparency and confidentiality aspects are concerned, it is necessary to amend not only the General Food Law Regulation but also the following eight additional sectoral legislative acts covering the food chain, i.e. Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council4, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the
European Parliament and of the Council6, Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 European Parliament and of the Council7, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 European Parliament and of the Council8, Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 European Parliament and of the Council9, Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 European Parliament and of the Council10 and Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 European Parliament and of the Council11.
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, Directive 2001/18/EC, Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 are currently included in the Commission’s horizontal alignment legislative proposal adopted in 201612. As explained in the Explanatory Memorandum of the latter proposal, the Commission did not include in its horizontal alignment legislative proposal, amongst others, Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004, Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, as it is reflecting on whether there is a more appropriate way to structure these acts as concerns individual authorisations/setting of values/listing of specific substances based on the specific criteria set out in those acts, bearing in mind the improved approach adopted by the co-legislators in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 and the ongoing REFIT
deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council
Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p.
1).
on genetically modified food and feed (OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p.
1).
on additives for use in animal nutrition (OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 29).
on smoke flavourings used or intended for use in or on foods (OJ L 309, 26.11.2003, p.
1).
materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and
89/109/EEC (OJ L 338, 13.11.2004, p.
4).
establishing a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings
(OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p.
1).
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives
79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p.
1).
novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 (OJ L 327, 11.12.2015, p.
1).
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council adapting a number of legal
acts providing for the use of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny to Articles 290 and 291 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, COM(2016)799 final, dated 14.12.2016.
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
reviews of Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. These reasons are still valid. The present proposal provides one empowerment for a delegated act in the context of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, which is in the process of being aligned.
• Consistency with other Union policies
Targeted changes are proposed to align the composition of the Management Board of EFSA and the procedure for the external evaluation of EFSA to the Common Approach set out in the annex to the 2012 inter-institutional joint statement on Union decentralised agencies.
Since some specific changes of EFSA’s functioning (pre-submission advice,
composition of the Panels) are proposed, care has been taken to take into account procedures followed by other scientific agencies with special attention to European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and European Me d icines Agency (EMA).
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The proposal is based on Articles 43, 114, and 168(4)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
• Subsidiarity (for non - e xcl usive competence)
The GFL Fitness Check has clearly shown that a high level of protection of public health and consumers’ interests across the Union in the area of food is best achieved through Union action. In particular, the systematic implementation of the risk analysis principle at Union level has raised the overall level of protection of human health across the Union and minimised differences in approach between Member States to key food safety risks. T his in turn ensures that there is a common understanding of and approach to food safety that promotes both the effective implementation and enforcement of legislation and facilitates the operation of the internal market in a key sector of the European economy. Member States appreciate that the challenges in relation to food safety, in an environment with very high levels of trade and a complex food supply chain, require a strong Union regulatory system. Business and civil society stakeholders are of the same mind. There are still strong memories of the damage caused by successive food safety crises prior to the GFL Regulation which undermined the credibility of the Union to ensure that food is safe. Moreover, as indicated in the GFL Fitness Check, food and feed safety measures have the greatest effect when taken at Union level.
• Proportionality
Given the problems identified above, the purpose of this Regulation is to introduce changes to the existing legal framework which are limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve the objectives set up for the initiative in order to improve citizen and stakeholder confidence in the transparency and susta in abi lity of the Union approach towards food safety, notably in relation to risk assessment.
In particular, the increased level of transparency and accountability of the studies EFSA uses to assess risks could not be achieved without opening up those studies and the data they use to public scrutiny. In addition, the current rules on confidentiality vary according to the sub-area concerned, thus not ensuring a consistent way to manage transparency. It is proportionate to harmonise these rules
while preserving, where needed, the specific balance of interests in sectoral legislations. Appropriate provisions are included to protect the rights of commercial appl icants.
The assessment of the impacts outlines how the proposal achieves the best balance in meeting the objectives laid out by the initiative, ensuring benefits for citizens, stakeholders and Member States, while not significantly impacting on industry and innovation. The consultation carried out demonstrates an overall support of sta keholders to the initiative.
effectiveness. Problems in relation to safety have a huge impact on consumers’
confidence and consequently on market stability, trade flows and the climate for innovation.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
The GFL Fitness Check, completed on 15 January 2018, concluded that the systematic implementation of the risk analysis principle in Union food law has increased overall protection of public health. Setting up the EFSA has given Union measures a sounder scientific basis. It has made major progress on increasing its scientific capacity of expertise, boosting the quality of its scientific outputs, expanding its collection of scientific data and developing and harmonising risk assessment methodologies. It has also strengthened the cooperation with national and international scientific bodies as well as the exchange of information between Member States, the Commission and EFSA itself. This has resulted in a mutual understanding of risks, minimised duplications of work and limited the number of scientific divergences between the EFSA and other risk assessment bodies. The EFSA also regularly fine-tunes and strengthens its strict policies on independence, transparency and openness.
Nevertheless, the following challenges have been identified: national differences in the implementation of the GFL Regulation at Member State level have been observed, creating in some instances uneven playing field for businesses; a perceived lack of transparency of the risk analysis process; risk communication is, overall,
confidence and on the acceptability of risk management decisions; certain limitations in EFSA’s capacity to ensure in the long-term sufficient expertise and to fully engage all Member States in scientific cooperation; lengthy authorisation procedures in some sectors.
This proposal is addressing those challenges directly linked to the GFL Regulation and EFSA.
• Stakeholder consultations
Member States were consulted in a meeting of the Expert Group on the General Food Law on 5 March 2018. The national food safety authorities of the Member States
(meeting of the EFSA Advisory Forum on 6 February 201813) and the Scientific Committee of EFSA (15 February 2018) were also consulted.
European stakeholder organisations representing farmers, cooperatives, the food industry, retailers, consumers, professionals and civil society were consulted at an ad hoc meeting of the Advisory Group on the Food Chain, Animal and Plant Health on 5 February 201814.
A public consultation on the initiative in all Union official languages was launched on 23 January 2018 and ran until 20 March 2018; 471 replies were received (318 from individuals and 153 from organisations).
The contributions received from citizens and stakeholders confirmed the importance of the aspects of the Union food safety risk assessment model this proposal addresses and the need to ensure that the proposal strengthens all those aspects, while safeguarding the principles on which the Union food safety system is based.
In drafting the proposal, contributions have been taken into account for measures in four specific areas: the publication of studies supporting industry applications of regulated products while protecting confidential and personal data; guarantees in the Union to verify the reliability, and independence of the evidence ta ken from industry
studies; making risk communication more efficient; and strengthening EFSA’s
sustai nability and governance while ensuring the independence and excellence of the expertise made available to the Authority by the Union Member States.
The results of all consultation activities are summarised in the synopsis report .
• Collection and use of expertise
Extensive consultation and data collection (including external studies, extensive surveys, case studies and workshops as well as in-depth interviews with relevant stakeholders) has taken place on the issues this proposal addresses in the context of the GFL Fitness Check16.
• Im pact assessment
As explained in the Roadmap , no impact assessment was carried out for this initiative, as the measures that are to be introduced by the proposal will mainly concern the transparency and the way the Commission as risk manager and the EFSA as risk assessor will gather and manage the evidence needed to perform their tasks on the basis of unchanged criteria. Such measures are therefore not expected to have significant socio-economic and environmental impacts that are clearly identifiable ex ante.
A number of impacts were however considered during the preparation process as follows:
Transparency: The proposal aims at strengthening the transparency of the risk assessment process. T his should give EFSA greater legitimacy in the eyes of
www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/event">https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/event
https://ec.europa.eu/food/expert-groups/ag-ap/adv-grp_fchaph/wg_2018_en
Commission Staff Working Document, Synopsis Report, SWD(2018)97, [dated 11.04.2018].
https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/general_food_law/fitness_check_en
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiative/151777/attachment/090166e5b7579aa2_en
17
justified confidential information is protected, incentives for innovation should remain unchanged. The proposal will not impinge on any intellectual property right which may exist over documents or their content, nor on any regulatory protection set out in Union sectoral legislation covering the agri-food chain rewarding investments (the so-called “data exclusivity rules”). Compliance costs for businesses will not increase because existing rules already require applications including studies to be submitted to the relevant regulatory authority, e.g. the Commission, EFSA and the Member States, followed by confidentiality claims. The main identified costs fall on EFSA, since it will have the main responsibility of taking a decision, within tight deadlines to avoid making the authorisation procedures longer, on all confidentiality claims made by applicants in the context of authorisation procedures, in cases in which an opinion of EFSA is to be provided.
Governance and greater Member State involvement in the Management Board:
The proposal will align EFSA’s governance with the model used for other Union agencies in line with the inter-institutional Common Approach on Union decentralised agencies, thus increasing the global consistency of the Union agencies’ Management Board model. This should have a positive impact since experience from other Union agencies demonstrates that this model ensures efficient supervision of the functioning of agencies and coordinated views between the Union and national level. As for other agencies, EFSA independence is appropriately safeguarded by the criteria for nomination that privilege members with a profile of risk assessor and the strong provisions on independence and on transparency since the rules providing that the members of the Management Board have to act independently in the public interest and make an annual public declaration of interests remain unchanged. In addition, the role of the Management Board is focussed on administration and finances.
Governance and greater Member State involvement in nominating Scientific Panel experts: the benefit of greater Member State involvement in this aspect of EFSA’s work is expected to be to ensure it has access to a sufficiently large pool of independent and excellent experts meeting its needs in the different disciplines areas it deals with. This in turn is expected to have a positive impact on the sustainability of the Union risk assessment system. The risk that some Member States might not have enough experts to be able to provide the EFSA with valuable candidates is alleviated by the possibility for EFSA to select and appoint additional experts of its own accord and the possibility for Member States to appoint experts who have the nationality of other Member States. This risk is also addressed by the better financial compensation of Member States contributing to EFSA’s work by sending experts or providing preparatory work. Provisions in relation to the nomination, selection and appointment of experts include strict criteria on independence, thus providing appropriate safeguards. The involvement of the EFSA Executive Director in the selection process is an additional guarantee that the independence criteria will be met. In particular, the Executive Director, whose function is to defend EFSA’s independent point of view and interests, selects the experts proposed for appointment to the Management Board from the large pool of experts nominated by Member States. The selection process by the Executive Director involves checking that the experts it proposes are in line with EFSA’s policy and rules on independence and it is expected that the Executive Director, given its specific role, will be vigilant on this key issue for EFSA.
With regard to the reliability and robustness of studies submitted by industry in the context of authorisation procedures, the following impacts were in particular considered:
The measures establishing a register of commissioned studies and the measure providing for a consultation on submitted studies will bring benefits by ensuring that EFSA has access to as much evidence as possible on a substance submitted for its assessment. The register of commissioned studies will have a positive impact on the objectivity of the evidence submitted by industry since it will provide additional guarantee that applicants submit all studies they have performed on a substance -whatever their results. In particular EFSA will be able to cross-check the information on the studies performed (the laboratories being an external source of information). The consultation on submitted studies will identify other available relevant scientific data or studies on a substance subject to authorisation thus strengthening EFSA’s evidence base and diminishing its reliance on only industry studies. The impact on the timing of authorisation is minimal since the notification of commissioned studies takes place at the pre-submission stage and the risk assessment will run in parallel of the consultation on submitted studies
The notification of commissioned studies creates a minimal burden. The consultation on submitted studies does not create additional burdens since the obligation to submit studies to EFSA, Commission and Member States already exists. There is only a very limited risk that notification by laboratories, meaning only Union laboratories, could have negative impacts on their competitiveness vis-à-vis non-Union laboratories, or that the overall effectiveness of the measure may be undermined by applicants deciding to carry out studies in laboratories outside the Union to circumvent the notification obligation. This is because companies going to laboratories outside the Union would take the risk to be perceived as evading the rules.
The specific obligations in the case of renewals of authorisations: The obligation to notify EFSA of planned studies and to systematically carry out consultation on these planned studies with the EFSA issuing systematic advice on the content of the intended application are expected to have a positive balance of effects. Since they concern the authorisation of a substance already on the market for several years and given that they address planned studies, the experience from the similar procedures under ECHA shows that there is public knowledge and in some cases new data that can be usefully shared concerning the substance at issue. Such obligations avoid the unnecessary repetition of studies on vertebrates and enlarge the evidence base of EFSA, without jeopardising the competitiveness of the relevant applicant. Indeed, the notification of planned studies represents a relatively small burden for the applicant. It is also proportionate given that the applicant can get useful advice on the content of its intended application following the consultation on the planned studies and this at an early stage of the process. The impact on the duration of the authorisation procedures is minimal since this procedure is at the pre-submission stage and it may have a positive impact in reducing the length of authorisation procedures, as concerns may be raised and addressed early on in the process. The impact in terms of costs and resources needed is mostly on EFSA.
The pre-submission procedure ensures an additional involvement of EFSA, to ensure that the applicant is aware of and can adhere to the applicable requirements relating to the content of authorisation applications. It addresses industry demands (in particular SMEs) for further support in the preparation of the authorisation application. This should also lead to more adequate and complete evidence being
submitted and thus improve the efficiency of the risk assessment process in EFSA. It will help applicants in particular small and medium sized enterprises in understanding how to prepare authorisation applications. EFSA’s independence will not be affected to any extent since the scope of the advice that EFSA provides is limited to what the relevant provisions are and what the required content of the application at stake is. Furthermore, the EFSA staff will provide the advice without the involvement of the Scientific Panels. EFSA provides the advice in a transparent way since it makes it public.
There should be no negative impact for innovation from the measures on the reliability and robustness of studies. As indicated, the measures create small additional burdens for applicants since they are limited to the notifications of commissioned studies in all cases and of planned studies in the case of renewals, given that the submission of studies in authorisation application is already foreseen in existing legislation. The potential impact of revealing the business strategy of a company by the notification of commissioned studies on a new substance has been neutralised since this information is made public only when the studies included in the corresponding authorisation application are made public so at a time where such a publication cannot have the effect to reveal a business strategy. In addition, the confidentiality regime established by the proposal provides that any information revealing the business strategy of the applicant is confidential. The impact for innovation (divulging business strategy) is not significant for the notification of planned studies in case of renewals since the substance is already known and the date of renewal is set up in legislation The pre-submission procedure will help the SME’s access to innovation and is at the request of the applicant except for renewals which represent a specific case and a limited number of applications. It will not divert positive investments for innovation to defensive investments, since the measures are limited to providing transparent information on studies that in any case the applicant has to carry out in accordance with already existing legislation. Enhanced transparency is expected to contribute to strengthening a climate of consumers’ confidence that is beneficial for stimulating innovation and for the Union product safety recognition worldwide. The impact on the timing of authorisation is minimal as detailed for each measure.
Globally, all these measures will also contribute to an increased involvement of stakeholders in the risk assessment system and thus to a more effective risk communication.
With regard to additional controls on the conduct of studies, the two measures proposed (audit/controls by Union inspectors and possibility to commission ad hoc studies in exceptional circumstances with the aim to verify evidence used by EFSA in its risk assessment), will provide additional assurances on the quality and objectivity of the studies used by EFSA for its risk assessment while not impacting on innovation since limited to specific or exceptional cases.
Auditing by the European Commission: This will strengthen the guarantees on the quality of the studies EFSA takes into consideration in its risk assessments, in particular with regard to the reproducibility of results. The risk of duplicating with activities Member States carry out under OECD agreements is addressed since the Commission auditing programme will be complementary to and coordinated with OECD Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) auditing programmes, which currently audit each Member State monitoring authority every 10 years. The lack of legal basis to audit the monitoring authorities of non-European Union countries is dealt with by
coordinating activities with the Member States and OECD GLP programmes and by seeking to conclude bilateral international agreements. There are no negative impacts in the duration of authorisation procedures since this is a parallel activity. The Commission will bear the limited costs.
The possibility to ask the EFS A to exceptionally commission studies: This is an additional tool where scientific evidence upon which EFSA relies needs to be verified. It ensures that action can be taken at Union level where there are exceptional circumstances of serious controversies or conflicting results. The risk of this tool being disproportionally used to unnecessarily commission studies is limited: it is to be triggered by the Commission since it will be financed by the Union budget and only in exceptional circumstances. There is no risk of public authorities
becoming responsible for providing evidence on the safety of substance for EFSA’s
assessment, since the principle that it is the responsibility of the industry (applicants) to provide such evidence during the risk assessment process remains. There is no risk of duplication with the actual capacity of EFSA to commission scientific studies necessary for the performance of its mission (Article 32 of the GF L Regulation) as this is to be considered as a risk management tool.
Alternatives considered:
The option having Member States requesting EFSA to commission studies in exceptional circumstances as well as the option having EFSA commissioning such studies on its own motion were not chosen in the end for reasons of proportionality (public financing) but also because the EFSA and Member States can already signal to the Commission specific reasons to make use of this specific tool.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
As announced in the Communication replying to the European Citizens’ Initiative “Ban glyphosate and protect people and the environment from toxic pesticides”, this
proposal is a targeted revision of the GFL Regulation (and other measures adopted in that framework) in order to improve transparency in risk assessment, reliability, objectivity and independence of studies used by EFSA in its risk assessment, risk communication, and governance of EFSA. As this is a revision of an existing piece
of legislation falling under the Commission’s Regulatory Fitness and Performance
Programme REFIT, the Commission has looked at opportunities to simplify and reduce burdens. Given the targeted nature of this revision, focussing on transparency, the main simplification aspect concerns the introduction of a pre-subm iss ion advice which should provide support to applicants, in particular SMEs, to better understa nd the specifications on content of applications.
Other simplification aspects include the har m onisation of the confidentiality rules across different sectors providing a similar baseline to all ind ustry applicants in terms of predicta bility.
On transparency, the measures envisaged (i.e. proactive disclosure of nonconfidential data, register of commissioned studies, voluntary pre-subm iss ion procedure, pre-notification of, and advice on planned studies in case of renewals, consultation of third parties on submitted studies) provide a robust fram e work which
is proportional to the objective of enhancing citizens’ confidence in the transparency
of the system. The Commission does not see scope to simplify or reduce these steps as this could have a negative impact not only on the perception of the transparency of
the system but also on ensuring that the evidence presented for EFSA s assessments is com plete.
• Fundamental rights
To determine what level of disclosure strikes the appropriate balance, the public interest in ensuring greater transparency in the risk assessment process is weighted up against the commercial interests at stake. T his means taking into account the general objectives of the GF L Regulation, namely a high level of protection of
human health and consumers’ interests and the effective functioning of the internal
market. To this end, the proposal sets out a cross-sectoral list of information items whose disclosure might be considered to significantly harm the commercial interests at stake and should therefore not be disclosed to the public. The proposal also stipulates that personal data be protected taking into account the applicable Union legislative framework on the processing of such data.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The main objective of the proposal is to make studies used in risk assessment more transparent and address the demands of society for a more transparent and independent risk assessment process and more effective risk communication. By
strengthening the EFSA’s governance and making risk assessment more sustainable,
it will ensure that EFSA will continue to play a fundamental role in the Union food safety system and to contribute to the health and wellbeing of Union citizens and to an innovative and competitive Union agri-food industry.
To address these issues, the Commission has come up with a wide ranging and ambitious proposal requiring a significant increase in the resources available to the EFSA to enable it to discharge its existing and proposed new responsibilities.
Member States that provide the E FSA with expertise also need to receive more com pensati on.
5. OTHERELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The GFL Fitness Check has also highlighted the need to establish a more comprehensive monitoring system of the implementation of Union food law, so as to provide policy makers and the public with more solid data and evidence base to regularly assess the relevant impacts. It underlined that this lack should be addressed in future policy development, for instance by making better coordinated use of existing reporting requirements. Although in principle a revision of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 could be used as an opportunity to set up a more comprehensive monitoring system of the implementation of Union food law, the targeted scope of this proposal is too limited to accommodate the e sta blishment of such a syste m.
Transitions measures are provided. The proposal at hand provides for a periodic overall evaluation of the agency, to be commissioned by the Commission, as per the Common Approach on Decentralise d Agencies.
Detailed
explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
1) The proposal ensures that scientists and citizens have access to key safety related information being assessed by EFSA at an early stage of the risk assessment. In particular, the new provisions provide that all supporting data and information relating to applications for authorisation are to be made public by EFSA upon receipt (as applications will be submitted either directly to EFSA or forwarded to EFSA by Member States or by the Commission), including supplementary information, except for duly justified confidentiality information. In that respect, the proposal sets outs which type of information is to be considered confidential. The transparency provisions are without prejudice to any existing Intellectual Property Rights and data exclusivity provisions set out in Union sectoral food legislation. The process to be followed for the processing of confidentiality claims is also set up.
2) It will help to improve citizens’ confidence in the credibility of scientific studies and consequently confidence in the Union risk assessment system. The proposal will provide for a series of measures to ensure that EFSA has access to the broadest relevant scientific evidence possible related to a request for authorisation and to increase the guarantees of reliability, objectivity and independence of studies used by EFSA in its risk assessment. First, it will establish a Union register of commissioned studies on substances subject to a food law authorisation system, to be managed by EFSA. The second measure sets out a pre-submission procedure, by which EFSA can provide advice to an applicant (without entering into the design of the study) and this advice will be made public. In the case of renewals, the pre-submission procedure foresees that studies planned by a potential applicant will have to be notified to EFSA and, after public consultation on these planned studies, the Authority will systematically provide advice to the applicants. The third measure provides that at the stage of submission of authorisation application, when all studies are made public according to the new provisions on transparency, a consultation of third parties will be launched with the aim to identify whether other relevant scientific data or studies are available. The fourth measure provides for controls and audits by Commission inspectors in relation to studies. Finally, the proposal introduces the possibility for the Commission to request EFSA to commission studies in exceptional circumstances (e.g. controversies) for the purpose of verification.
3) Better Involving Members States in EFSA’s governance structure and Scientific Panels and thus support the sustainability in the long-term of EFSA risk assessment without touching on its independence. It aligns the composition of EFSA’s Management Board with the Common Approach on decentralized agencies by including representatives of all Member States. It will also address the findings of the GFL Fitness Check that identified challenges to EFSA’s capacity to maintain its high level of scientific expertise by providing for an increased involvement of Member States in the nomination process of Panels’ members. The proposal respects the needs of EFSA for independence, excellence and multi-disciplinary expertise. In particular, the existing strict criteria on independence are maintained and specific provisions require Member States to set up specific measures ensuring that the experts have concrete means to act independently as required by the proposal. The proposal also provides for a better organisation of the Panels’ work.
4) Strengthen risk communication between the Commission/EFSA /Members States and public /stakeholders. It is proposed to lay down in legislation the objectives and general principles governing risk communication, taking into account the respective roles of risk assessors and managers pursuant to Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and, based on these objectives and general principles,
to draw up a general plan on risk communication (“general plan”). The general plan should identify the key factors that need to be taken into account when considering the type and level of communication activities needed, ascertain the tools and channels for the relevant risk communication initiatives taking into account the relevant target audience groups; and, establish appropriate mechanisms to ensure coherent risk communication.
It is proposed to empower the Commission to draw up this general plan for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 by means of delegated acts.
In parallel to the legislative measures, the Commission will also continue to provide support to food safety via its Research and Innovation policies and contribute to strengthening coordination, cooperation and cohesion of food safety research and innovation activities in the Union and its Member States in particular when building the forthcoming ninth European Research and Innovation Framework Programme.