Chemical industry turns again to flawed study. Under attack since May for relying on flawed studies to justify the use of toxic flame retardants in furniture and household products, the chemical industry has turned to a familiar tactic: It has begun pointing to a new scientific paper.
Efsa management board adopts external recommendations. The European Food Safety Authority’s Management Board has adopted a number of recommendations made by the consultant Ernst and Young as part of an external evaluation of the agency’s ability to provide independent, high quality scientific advice to EU policy-makers. “No major changes” needed, apparently.
Suspicions of undue industry influence over regulation of endocrine disruptors. Concerns are being raised about the composition of an expert committee established by EFSA to provide an expert opinion on the definition of endocrine disruptor. “There is a very high risk that the experts who will discuss the issue of endocrine disruptors are in cahoots with the industry that has no interest that is retained a broad definition of endocrine disruptors,” says one MEP. (In French)
EFSA increasingly isolated over conflicts of interest. The European Food Safety Authority is fighting a rearguard action to preserve its credibility in the face of increasing criticism of the success of its policies designed to ensure its independence. (In French, Google Translate does a decent job if you need it.)
Science under pressure as pesticide makers face MPs over bee threat. The debate over neonicotinoid insecticides has reached a crucial point, with MPs grilling chemical firms, out-of-date rules failing to protect nature and a row over scientific research. Although this article concerns neonicotinoid pesticides, the challenges are universal in chemicals regulation.