Improving Risk Assessment in the European Food Safety Authority: Lessons From the European Medicines Agency.

The recent Regulation (EU) 2019/1381, published on the 6th September 2019, aims to improve the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain by amending the General Food Law Regulation (EC 178/2002) and a number of other regulations related to the food sector. This Regulation is introduced as a response to the Fitness Check of the General Food Law Regulation as well as a response to public concerns expressed by a European Citizens' Initiative on glyphosate and pesticides. This article evaluates the amendments introduced by Regulation 2019/1381with respect to the institutional and regulatory environment in the food chain and more specifically concerning the risk assessment procedure. For this purpose, we perform a comparison of the institutional and organizational characteristics of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) in relation to the processes of risk assessment and risk evaluation, especially the processes surrounding genetically modified foods and pesticides, and how these characteristics affect the politicization of these processes. We conclude that the risk assessment process followed by EFSA would have benefitted and become more effective and less politicized, if the recent Regulation 2019/1381 had introduced some of EMA's institutional structures and methods on risk evaluation.

Responsible decision-making for plant research and breeding innovations in the European Union.

Plant research and breeding has made substantial technical progress over the past few decades, indicating a potential for tremendous societal impact. Due to this potential, the development of policies and legislation on plant breeding and the technical progress should preferably involve all relevant stakeholders. However, we argue here that there is a substantial imbalance in the European Union (EU) regarding the influence of the various stakeholder groups on policy makers. We use evidence from three examples in order to show that the role of science is overlooked: 1) important delays in the decision process concerning the authorization of genetically modified (GM) maize events, 2) the significance attributed to non-scientific reasons in new legislation concerning the prohibition of GM events in EU member states, and 3) failure of the European Commission to deliver legal guidance to new plant breeding techniques despite sufficient scientific evidence and advisory reports. We attribute this imbalance to misinformation and misinterpretation of public perceptions and a disproportionate attention to single outlier reports, and we present ideas on how to establish a better stakeholder balance within this field.