Activities of Michèle RIVASI related to 2021/2128(DEC)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2020
Amendments (12)
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Welcomes the contribution of the European Food Safety Authority (the 'Authority') to the safety of the Union food and feed chain, and its considerablebelieves that the Authority should increase its efforts in providing risk managers with comprehensive, independent and up-to- date scientific advice on questions linked to the food chain, communicating clearly to the public on its outputs and the information on which they are based, and cooperating with interested parties and institutional partners to promote coherence and trust in the food safety system;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Recalls that, in 2020, Parliament adopted nine objections to the import of genetically modified crops for food and feed; highlights that one reason for these objections are gaps in the risk assessment undertaken by the Authority's Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms; urges the Authority to address and close these gaps as a matter of urgency; highlights, furthermore, that the Parliament adopted numerous objections related to the renewal of active substances and to the extension of approvals of active substances; stresses that these objections have very regularly questioned the scientific conclusions of the Authority on the active substances concerned;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Recalls the judgment of the Court of Justice of 1 October 2019 in Case C- 616/171a stating that “it is the duty of the competent authorities, in particular, to take account of the most reliable scientific data available and the most recent results of international research and not to give in all cases preponderant weight to the studies provided by the applicant.” _________________ 1aJudgment of the Court of Justice of 1 October 2019, Criminal proceedings against Mathieu Blaise and Others, C- 616/1, ECLI:EU:C:2019:800, paragraph 94
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Deplores that, despite Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council1b providing that known cumulative and synergistic effects need to be taken into account, the Authority still does not have an operational and science- based methodology to assess and prevent such effects; insists that the assessment of cumulative and synergistic effects must be a precondition for any pesticide approval; underlines that the protection of European citizens and the environment from cocktail effects is a core commitment of the with the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability; further stresses that the strategy proposes the establishment of a Mix Assessment Factor (MAF) as the appropriate tool to assess these effects; calls for the immediate implementation of an MAF to pesticides; _________________ 1aRegulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 1). 1bRegulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 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)
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5c. Considers that it is the role of the Authority to actively look for high-level experts and convince them to take part in its work, by acknowledging the relevance and reliability of their peer-reviewed research when conducting its own scientific analysis;
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Invites the Commission to grant the Authority, in duly justified cases, the option of hiring contract agents in excess of the establishment plans, for a limited period of time and without exceeding the Authority’s agreed annual budget envelope; considers that such flexibility would speed up the reduction of the cumulated backlog of work that has arisen owing to a lack of human resources; insists that those contract agents obviously need to comply with the Authority’s independence rules;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Regrets that the new independence policy has not led to any tangible change in the Authority’s policy to select experts and in the working groups composition; exposes for instance that in the context of the working group on the bee guidance revision, only 25% of the experts were scientists publishing on bees and pesticides and that among the experts heard by this working group, 50% of them presented an evident conflict of interest due to their affiliation to "contract research organisations”;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6b. Considers that, four years after the updating of the Authority’s independence policy, its limits in addressing properly the main independence loopholes have become evident; stresses that the Authority's scientific conclusions are sometimes openly contradicted by high- level scientists; notes with concern that these continuous controversies around conflicts of interest severely undermine the scientific reliability and credibility of the Authority; recalls that the Authority has under its mandate matters of crucial interest for the health of European citizens as well as the protection of the environment;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6c. Calls for a post 5-year independent review of the Authority's independence policy and for appropriate action to be taken on the basis of the conclusions drawn, including a comprehensive reform in 2022; recommends in this context the evaluation of all the industrial interests (in the remit of the Authority and beyond) of board members and experts, the extension of the cooling-off period to 10 years, the implementation of the 25 % threshold of tolerated research funding to expert’s all cumulated funding and for the extension of the scope of private funding to the public-private partnerships; considers the Authority’s independence policy should also apply to all hearing experts and speakers in open conferences;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6d. Asks the Authority to publicly commit to carry out an independent and transparent risk assessment of glyphosate, taking into account all available scientific evidence from peer-reviewed independent literature reporting adverse effects of the substance on human health and the environment; calls on the Authority to timely publish its risk assessment opinion over the course of 2022 to avoid any extension of the approval of the substance after its expiration mid-December 2022;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Paragraph 6 e (new)
6e. Deplores the Authority's general lack of transparency towards stakeholders; calls for the creation of a public database to monitor the risk assessment of all substances, such as suspected endocrine disruptors;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. RecommendConditions, based on the facts available, that discharge be grantede grant of discharge to the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority in respect of the implementation of the Authority's budget for the financial year 2020, to new commitments in terms of independence policy and management of conflict of interests.