15 Amendments of Corinne LEPAGE related to 2011/2226(DEC)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Recalls that the current Chair of the Management Board failed, in 2010, to declare her membership of the board of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI); notes that ILSI is financed by firms in the food, chemical and pharmaceutical sectors; asks the Authority to take measures to prohibit its experts and staff from being ILSI members;
Amendment 2 #
Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. ...Calls on the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority dischargeto inform the discharge authority by the 30 June 2012 of the measures taken and of the improvements made in all the areas of concern and decides to postpone the 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 2010;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Has addressed already in the past csertainious shortcomings in connection with Conflict of Interest, Declaration of Interest and transparency; would like to specify that the former Chair of the Management Board failed, in 2010, to declare her membership of the board of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), even though the ILSI is financed by undertakings in the food, chemicals and pharmaceuticals sectors; considers it noteworthy, however, that the members of the EFSA Management Board are not appointed by the Executive Director (ED) and can hence not be dismissed by the ED;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Observes that the European Ombudsman, on 7 December 2011, concluded that the Authority had not carried out as thorough an assessment of a potential conflict of interest arising from the move of a Head of Unit of the Authority to a biotechnology company as it should have done, and called on the Authority to improve the way it applies its rules and procedures to avoid future 'revolving door' cases involving staff members;
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. Regrets the omissions from declarations of interests and of breaches of Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in several areas (notably GMOs and sweeteners) which have recurred since 2008; considers that such incidents seriously undermine the Authority's credibility ;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Has also taken serious note of 'revolving door' cases and the need to establish and implement respective measures to avoid such incidents, which undermine the Authority's credibility; is convinced that such actions need to be accompanied by a set of consequences enforced when those rules are not respected; points out that the European Ombudsman considered that the Authority had failed to deal correctly with a potential conflict of interest linked to the fact that in 2008 the head of its 'genetically modified organisms' unit was recruited by a firm specialising in biotechnologies less than two months after leaving the Authority, with no cooling-off period, and that in response Parliament and the Ombudsman called on the Authority to improve the way it applies its rules and procedures in order to prevent further 'revolving door' cases;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 c (new)
Paragraph 4 c (new)
4c. Urges the Authority to take practical steps to counter the problems it encounters, which shall include: - explaining how the Authority will assess the severity of the potential conflicts of interest identified ; - drafting proposals to tackle the problem of the 'revolving door' system, which allows senior experts to move to the private sector to take up a post in the area they were 'controlling' as a civil servant and similar moves from the private sector to the Authority; considers that it should draw up guidelines, pursuant to Article 16 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, to be implemented by the Authority's staff ; - implementing penalties for deliberate omissions from declarations of interests.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. ICalls ofn the opinion, on the basis of the data available, that discharge can be grantedAgency, therefore, to inform the discharge authority by June 2012 of the measures taken and the improvements made in respect of all these areas of concern and considers that 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 2010 should be postponed until the abovementioned problems have been resolved.
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is firmly convinced that necessary steps have to be taken should cases of non- compliance with existing rules occur; believes that, in such cases, the Authority has to draw up an action plan, accompanied by a precise timetable, aiming to remedy the shortcomings and its implementation should be monitored by the European Parliament and the European Parliament or the European legislator has to address these problems by changing the existing rules and regulations to eliminate possible loopholes;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Takes careful note of all new policies, rules, implementing measures and actions which have been set up since 200711 to avoid and mitigate Conflict of Interest amongst scientific experts and staff; is determined to monitor the effect of these actions; will continue to invite the Executive Director for an exchange of views on a regular basis, to foster the exchange of information also through the appointed contact person from amongst its members and by visiting the Agency every two years; recalls that the last visit took place in May 2012;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)
Paragraph 16 a (new)
16a. Considers that, while a dialogue with industry on product assessment methodologies is legitimate and necessary, this dialogue should not undermine the independence of the Authority nor the integrity of risk assessment procedures; asks therefore the Authority to consider as a conflict of interest the current or recent past participation of its Management Board, panel and working group members or staff to International Life Science Institute (ILSI) activities such as taskforces, scientific committees or chairs for conferences;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18a. Considers that product assessment should not be based solely on industry's data, but should duly take into account independent scientific literature published in peer reviewed journals; stresses that extra caution should be paid to industry influence in the elaboration of guidelines and assessment methodologies, which should not favour industry-sponsored studies on speculative grounds and which should be elaborated in an open, transparent and balanced manner;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)
Paragraph 22 a (new)
22a. Welcomes that the Authority has adopted a new definition of conflicts of interests, based on the OECD definition, but warns that further improvements are necessary to strengthen the Authority's policy on independence; stresses in particular that the criteria that define a conflict of interests should be clarified and widened, and include current and recent past activities;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37a. Encourages the Authority to improve the openness and transparency of the risk assessment process, to better take into account independent peer-reviewed scientific litterature and to provide detailed justification when it rejects diverging views; encourages the Authority to increase dialogue and cooperation with external experts and national agencies, especially when they hold diverging views on a specific risk assessment process