PFAS Contamination in Europe: Generating Knowledge and Mapping Known and Likely Contamination with "Expert-Reviewed" Journalism.

While the extent of environmental contamination by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has mobilized considerable efforts around the globe in recent years, publicly available data on PFAS in Europe were very limited. In an unprecedented experiment of "expert-reviewed journalism" involving 29 journalists and seven scientific advisers, a cross-border collaborative project, the "Forever Pollution Project" (FPP), drew on both scientific methods and investigative journalism techniques such as open-source intelligence (OSINT) and freedom of information (FOI) requests to map contamination across Europe, making public data that previously had existed as "unseen science". The FPP identified 22,934 known contamination sites, including 20 PFAS manufacturing facilities, and 21,426 "presumptive contamination sites", including 13,745 sites presumably contaminated with fluorinated aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) discharge, 2911 industrial facilities, and 4752 sites related to PFAS-containing waste. Additionally, the FPP identified 231 "known PFAS users", a new category for sites with an intermediate level of evidence of PFAS use and considered likely to be contamination sources. However, the true extent of contamination in Europe remains significantly underestimated due to a lack of comprehensive geolocation, sampling, and publicly available data. This model of knowledge production and dissemination offers lessons for researchers, policymakers, and journalists about cross-field collaborations and data transparency.

Tip of the Iceberg? Country- and Company-Level Analysis of Drug Company Payments for Research and Development in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Creating new therapies often involves drug companies paying healthcare professionals and institutions for research and development (R&D) activities, including clinical trials. However, industry sponsorship can create conflicts of interest (COIs). We analysed approaches to drug company R&D payment disclosure in European countries and the distribution of R&D payments at the country and company level. METHODS: Using documentary sources and a stakeholder survey we identified country- regulatory approaches to R&D payment disclosure. We reviewed company-level descriptions of disclosure practices in the United Kingdom, a country with a major role in Europe's R&D. We obtained country-level R&D payment data from industry trade groups and public authorities and company-level data from eurosfordocs.eu, a publicly available payments database. We conducted content analysis and descriptive statistical analysis. RESULTS: In 32 of 37 studied countries, all R&D payments were reported without named recipients, following a self-regulatory approach developed by the industry. The methodological descriptions from 125 companies operating in the United Kingdom suggest that within the self-regulatory approach companies had much leeway in deciding what activities and payments were considered as R&D. In five countries, legislation mandated the disclosure of R&D payment recipients, but only in two were payments practically identifiable and analysable. In 17 countries with available data, R&D constituted 19%-82% of all payments reported, with self-regulation associated with higher shares. Available company-level data from three countries with self-regulation suggests that R&D payments were concentrated by big funders, and some companies reported all, or nearly all, payments as R&D. CONCLUSION: The lack of full disclosure of R&D payments in countries with industry self-regulation leaves considerable sums of money unaccounted for and potentially many COIs undetected. Disclosure mandated by legislation exists in few countries and rarely enhances transparency practically. We recommend a unified European approach to R&D payment disclosure, including clear definitions and a centralised database.

Accessibility and quality of drug company disclosures of payments to healthcare professionals and organisations in 37 countries: a European policy review.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the accessibility and quality of drug company payment data in Europe. DESIGN: Comparative policy review of payment data in countries with different regulatory approaches to disclosure. SETTING: 37 European countries. PARTICIPANTS: European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, its trade group and their drug company members; eurosfordocs.eu, an independent database integrating payments disclosed by companies and trade groups; regulatory bodies overseeing payment disclosure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Regulatory approaches to disclosure (self-regulation, public regulation, combination of the two); data accessibility (format, structure, searchability, customisable summary statistics, downloadability) and quality (spectrum of disclosed characteristics, payment aggregation, inclusion of taxes, recipient or donor identifiers). RESULTS: Of 30 countries with self-regulation, five had centralised databases, with Disclosure UK displaying the highest accessibility and quality. In 23 of the remaining countries with self-regulation and available data, disclosures were published in the portable document format (PDF) on individual company websites, preventing the public from understanding payment patterns. Eurosfordocs.eu had greater accessibility than any industry-run database, but the match between the value of payments integrated in eurosfordocs.eu and summarised separately by industry in seven countries ranged between 56% and 100% depending on country. Eurosfordocs.eu shared quality shortcomings with the underlying industry data, including ambiguities in identifying payments and their recipients. Public regulation was found in 15 countries, used either alone (3), in combination (4) or in parallel with (8) self-regulation. Of these countries, 13 established centralised databases with widely ranging accessibility and quality, and sharing some shortcomings with the industry-run databases. The French database, Transparence Santé, had the highest accessibility and quality, exceeding that of Disclosure UK. CONCLUSIONS: The accessibility and quality of payment data disclosed in European countries are typically low, hindering investigation of financial conflicts of interest. Some improvements are straightforward but reaching the standards characterising the widely researched US Open Payments database requires major regulatory change.

Pharmaceutical industry self-regulation and non-transparency: country and company level analysis of payments to healthcare professionals in seven European countries.

The European pharmaceutical industry uses the alleged efficacy of self-regulation to question the need for transparency laws similar to the US Physician Payment Sunshine Act. We conducted a comparative analysis of 20 large companies' payment disclosures in seven European countries in 2017-2019. The data was extracted as part of eurosfordocs.eu, a novel transparency project that scrapes and integrates publicly available databases and disclosures. Our analysis of EUR 735 million showed marked differences in country payment patterns. For example, payment totals per registered doctor were substantially larger in Spain and lowest in Sweden. There were significant country and company differences in individualized data completeness. Only 19% of totals were reported with recipient names in Germany, compared to Ireland (59%), the United Kingdom (60%), Italy (67%), Switzerland (73%), Sweden (79%) and Spain (100%), with little or no improvement over time. Payment data in Spain was particularly difficult to extract. Thus, in no country did self-regulation generate comprehensive individualized data allowing for building an accurate picture of financial relationships between the industry and healthcare professionals. We conclude that the cultures and policies of countries and companies create structural problems of data inaccessibility and incompleteness within the self-regulatory framework. Therefore, this study supports calls for a Europe-wide "Sunshine Act" to achieve real transparency of drug company payments.