Now that the new Commission has been appointed and the normal business of EU decision-making can resume, one of the first challenges to be taken up again is the need to develop a new food safety regime in Brussels. Tina Garrity reports

A crucial element within any new regime would be an improvement to the way in which scientific advice is generated and utilised. In 1997 the Commission re-organised and streamlined its existing scientific procedures by setting up nine scientific committees within a system called DG SANCO, based in DG24. The system has largely been judged a success and is certainly an improvement on the pre-BSE system. However, with the present composition of the committees coming up for renewal in October 2000 and with the Parliament calling for a review of the committees' working methods, the Commission has decided to look again at the system and to see what role scientific advice should play in its new regime.

The Commission began by commissioning three leading experts, Professors Fritz Kemper, Gerard Pascal and Philip James from the UK, to review the current system. They were asked firstly to analyse the different purposes of EC scientific advice and their potential lines of conflict, secondly to look at how that advice is generated and to suggest improvements (eg better recruitment methods, greater openness of procedures) and thirdly, to present options and recommendations for a new system. In doing so, they were asked to examine four models: an independent agency, an inter-institutional office, an independent Commission service and, as now, a directorate within one of the main directorates-general.

Elements considered
The expert team spent several months meeting Commission officials and others. On 4 and 5 November 1999 they held an open hearing for interested parties to put forward views. They also considered a large number of written submissions. Attendees from the UK included the British Retail Consortium, the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Consumers Association. In December 1999 the experts published their report. In it they outlined the background to current concerns, in particular the problems experienced by the Commission in gaining public confidence in the scientific system and in securing Parliamentary involvement. They also looked at the difficulties committees face in needing to draw upon the valuable technical input offered by industry while still retaining a sense of impartiality. They considered the pressures placed upon committees by commercial interests wanting simplified, fast-track evaluation and authorisation procedures and they examined models already in existence such as the American FDA system.

European Food and Public Health Authority
In the end the three experts concluded that what was needed was a European Food and Public Health Authority. Although much of the current concern within the EU has focused on the particular problem of food safety, the experts stress that current scientific advice actually covers many areas in addition to food safety. These other public health issues, they say, are in health terms "a greater burden on society than the effects of poor food safety which has dominated thinking so far". Their vision is of a new Brussels-based authority, independent from the political and economic interests of the Commission's directorates-general, which can deal with all public health, environmental and food issues except drugs which would remain with the EU Medicines Agency.

The food section of the authority, which would be tasked with examining a range of issues from globalisation to new technologies, would consist of a multidisciplinary (ie not dominated by classical toxicology) steering committee and several sectoral committees. These would interact with other groups dealing with environmental and public health problems. One key development would be the establishment of a monitoring system for acute food poisoning, which would allow for a series of public health analyses to be undertaken, similar to the service provided by the Centers for Disease Control in the USA.

A public health remit is important, they suggest, because public health has many dimensions which require analysis in relation to the health impact of actions by other sectors. They cite the issue of tobacco farming and the need to reduce smoking as an example. The use of science to create more intelligent policies is required, they suggest. Many current public health approaches are naïve, they claim. Issues such as the growing impact of poor health amongst the elderly, the health needs of immigrant communities, the need for better dietary advice, the problems of social exclusion and the remarkable decline in physical activity amongst Europe's citizens would all benefit from scientific analysis at EU level, they say.

As for environmental issues, they see the European Environment Agency largely as a data gathering body. Scientific analysis of environmental problems, eg water and air quality, are currently examined within DG SANCO and this should continue over into the new authority, with the establishment of some interactive processes between the EEA and the committees.

Structure
The proposed authority would have a nine member executive board with three figures of major international repute appointed by the Commission Presidents, four representatives of the "stakeholders" sector (two from the environmental/consumer/public interest sector, two from industry) and two scientists appointed by the scientific community. It would report to the Commission, the Council and the Parliament. To get round Parliament's concerns about being excluded from the scientific process, the experts suggest that the relevant parliamentary committee designate one of its expert secretarial staff to participate. Busy parliamentarians would not find the exhaustive analysing and redrafting of reports which takes place a conducive environment, they suggest. However, given the Parliament's predilection for holding public hearings into issues such as BSE, the experts say the committees should accustom themselves to exploiting such opportunities to explain their work.

The day-to-day work of the authority would be done by the existing scientific committees. Reports of the committees would be open to scrutiny by the board but it would not be able to veto their publication. The authority's director would be a high status EU official, appointed by the Commission on a five-year term, after consultation with the Council and Parliament. A crucial change would be an expansion of the committee secretariat, which at present is small and of variable quality. A number of options for doing this are examined. In addition, the authority would require several special units:

• a legal/regulatory unit would deal with the problem of translating scientific advice into relevant legislation
• a risk evaluation unit would assist in identifying potential and emerging health risks and in dealing with crisis management
• a communications unit would be appointed to present the committees' work in a better format than that used for the scientific opinions currently published on the internet
• a research policy unit would ensure that any areas needing more research were dealt with effectively
• a surveillance unit would ensure committees got up-to-date, quality assured data from the member states
• a liaison unit would organise links between the national scientific institutions and the authority
• a resources unit would deal with the administration of the authority, including the provision of library and document management facilities.

Recruitment of committees
In terms of recruitment, the experts recognise that world class European scientists are unlikely to volunteer for the EU scientific committees because they are either too busy or are unaware of current recruitment methods. They suggest adopting the US system of appointing experts (including non Europeans) either on one-off or on part-time contracts, with higher fees for exceptional scientists. A probation system would help to weed out scientists unwilling to attend regularly or unable to work in a consensus environment. More attention would be paid to having a breadth of expertise on each committee whose remits in turn would be better defined, perhaps by involving the stakeholders more at the start. As far as making the whole system more open is concerned, the experts envisage a system whereby the EU would pay for the attendance at principal committee meetings of consumer, environmental and other public interest groups when their attendance would be otherwise prejudiced. Industrial interests wanting to attend would have to pay their own costs. Different forms of hearing and debriefing should be tried to see which proved most effective. Finally, the committees would need to talk to external groups involved in specific issues but should be wary of allowing such groups to hijack or pre-empt their proceedings, says the report.

Whether or not a European Food and Public Health Authority will ever see the light of day remains to be seen. For the moment the Commission is committing itself only to a European Food Authority, though in doing so it has taken account of the experts' report, it says in its food safety white paper.* One thing is certain - with the almost instantaneous publication of both the experts' report and the food safety white paper on the internet, the Commission is at least trying to achieve greater openness in the field of food safety and consumer protection.

A European food and public health authority - the future of scientific advice in the EU. December 1999. http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/sc/future_food_en.html

* COM (1999) 719 final. White paper on food safety. Brussels, 12 January 2000. http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/library/pub/pub06_en.pdf