Raymond O'Rourke, food lawyer at Mason Hayes & Curran in Dublin, Ireland. O'Rourke, the author of 'European Food Law', while generally positive about the European Food Safety Authority, shared his concerns about the new European body for food safety.
"Conflicting scientific advice is one of my primary concerns," said O'Rourke. "The only way that countries can agree on conflicting scientific advice seems to be through 'gentleman's agreements'. This is an area where regulations have proven to be weak and we have just witnessed such an example between France and the UK over the beef imports.
"Despite being cleared by the European Commission, the French blocked all British beef because, according to their scientists, this was the move to make. The UK was locked out of the French market for two to three years and it will probably take another six to nine months to get back into that market,"added O'Rourke.
"My fear is that the legislation needs to be stronger and that because it is not, we could see EU countries spending eighteen months to get to the European Court of Justice [as was the case with France]. We could see test cases in the future that might undermine the EU advice and a return to 'gentleman's agreements'.
A concern which seems perfectly valid. After all, surely a principal remit of the new European food regulations was to avoid repeating past errors.
When FoodNavigator.com spoke with the European Consumers Organisation (BEUC) earlier this month, its food policy advisor, Beate Kettlitz, expressed disappointment and concern over the composition of the new EFSA management board. Despite promises of strong consumer representation, ultimately only one representative was chosen for the fourteen-person board.
"I agree with BEUC over the composition of the management board - it appears to be top heavy with government officials," said O'Rourke. " There is a dearth of consumer representation, despite the fact that four were initially nominated. Independence must be a key concern and there does seem to be an overlap between the advisory forum and the management board.
[Along with the management board, the executive director, and the scientific committee and panels, the advisory forum is a key component of the EFSA. It is composed of representatives from member states.]
"One question that springs to mind when looking at the management board composition is: 'Will they bat for their country or for good scientific advice?' Of course it is still early days, so we do not know," added O'Rourke.
Moving on to the thorny issue of location. Which postal address will the EFSA have? Italian, Finnish, French…? The choice of location has been dogged by petty bickering between member states concerned, in particular Italy and Finland. As yet, the EFSA still lacks a home and as a temporary measure is currently working out of Brussels. At a press conference in mid-September, European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection David Byrne made a bid for Brussels.
According to a news report in the Helsinki paper the Helsingin Sanomat, David Byrne believes that the best location for the European Food Safety Authority is Brussels. He reasons that it is in the interest of all consumers, including Finns, that the people who work with food safety issues are in close proximity to the decision-makers of the union.
"I have always felt that Brussels would probably be a better location than Helsinki," said O'Rourke, in agreement with Bryne. "However, I would have preferred that the Council of Ministers decide on Brussels, instead of Byrne. "
For O'Rourke, his choice on the location lies at a practical level. "I believe that Brussels would be the best place from the view of risk communication, another of my concerns.
In my opinion, you want ministers to actually read the information the scientists have prepared. From experience I know that they will not read a ten page, turgid report. In order to use the authority to its maximum, risk assessors need to be able to mingle with ministers. Science, and its associated ideas, must be communicated at a relatively basic level to 'lay people' in order that the right information clearly, efficiently and simply reaches the right people, " argued O'Rourke. "At a purely pragmatic level, this is why I believe that if the EFSA were in Brussels, this would be the best way to relay scientific risk assessment information to the ministers. They could then return to their own countries with a concise idea of the scientific findings," he continued.
"If the authority was literally 'on the ground' it could do a lot of work," O'Rourke added.
The ultimate decision on the authority location should be taken in the next few months. Arguably, despite strong bets on Helsinki and Parma, Brussels may now be square in the lead as the hot favourite.
As mentioned above, risk communication, and in particular the interaction between risk assessors and risk managers, is a key concern for Raymond O'Rourke. " The recent BSE crisis in Europe is a perfect example of a complete breakdown in risk communication. Under the new legislation the EFSA is committed to being open and transparent. But risk communication, far more complex than simple reports, is beyond being open - it's about getting the information 'out there'.
Originally, the budget for risk communication was small, but now it is considerably bigger and I think that if the EFSA really wants to 'cut its teeth', it should be on communication. Hopefully, the management board will work along the lines of the UK Food Standards Agency, Ireland or Sweden, who communicate all information and risks found, even if no solid opinion has been reached," O'Rourke concluded.
From consumer organisations to lawyers, the food industry to politicians, expectations are high. All will be closely watching the first infant steps of the European Food Safety Authority because, in the words of Raymond O'Rourke: "Now is the time to get it right."