WRITTEN QUESTION E-1896/02

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Independence and impartiality of the Scientific Committee

The report on fur farming published in December 2001 by the EU Commission Scientific Committee's subcommittee on animal welfare led to a protest by a majority of members on the expert working party which had drafted the report. The working party maintained that the conclusions, marketed as being scientific, had in fact been twisted into political statements. The expert group spent over two years drafting its unanimous proposal and the Scientific Committee altered the conclusions in principle at a single meeting.

The impression has been given that the objectivity required of the Commission's Scientific Committee, at issue here, means in practice that the Committee's members (a) are not familiar with the field on which they issue scientific reports, and (b) have a negative attitude to the field in question, in this case fur farming. This is what happened in the case of the fur farming report at issue. The chairman and vice-chairman of the sub-committee both stated in public on several occasions that they opposed present-day fur farming on scientific grounds, even though they had never even researched into it themselves. Expert experience in the field is essential, because scientific committees carry out important ground-work which at least provides guidance for directives, and in this case the fur farm directive.

Secondly, objectivity is turned into subjectivity and science into political opinions, if the key people responsible for the report fail to take into account the results of research which do not support their own opinions. The fur farms report was widely criticised and its publication is such as to weaken the credibility of the EU Commission's scientific committees.

It is expected of the members of Commission committees, and sub-committees set up in connection with them, that when they are appointed they will furnish a declaration of their economic interests and political affiliations.

1. Did all the members of the committee furnish the declaration in question?

2. How does the Commission monitor that these certificates contain all the essential information on the members' interests?

3. Does the Commission have any means in practice of ensuring that the interests mentioned in these declarations do not influence the members' committee work in an inappropriate manner?

4. Are these declarations published, and if so, where?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

In accordance with Article 6(2) and (3) of Commission Decision 97/579/EC(1) of 23 July 1997 setting up Scientific Committees in the field of common health and food safety, the members of the Scientific Committees shall inform the Commission each year of any interests, and shall declare at each meeting any specific interests which might be considered prejudicial to their independence.

On 24 March 1998, the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (Scahaw) adopted rules of procedure in accordance with Commission Decision 97/579/EC. These rules of procedure shall ensure that the Scientific Committee performs its task in the best possible way, in compliance with the principles of excellence, independence and transparency, while respecting the legitimate requirements of commercial confidentiality.

All 19 members of the Scahaw have provided a written annual statement of interests as required by the Commission Decision and the rules of procedure. All members of the Scahaw agree that the annual statement should be accessible to the public and communicated or made available to third parties on request.

Additionally at each meeting of the Scahaw, the Subcommittees of Animal Health, Animal Welfare or of a Working Party, members are requested to declare any particular interests which could be regarded as prejudicial to their independence in relation to topics on the agenda for that meeting. This declaration may be made either in writing or verbally and is noted in plenary minutes which are published on the Internet(2) thereby ensuring a high degree of transparency.

According to the current Rules of procedure, members concerned that their interests may be considered as prejudicing their independence shall inform the Chairperson who shall, together with the other members of the Scahaw, of its subcommittees or of the Working Party, decide on the appropriate action, for example, that the member shall not act as rapporteur or as Chairperson, or simply provide information but refrain from influencing the conclusions of the discussions.

The Honourable Member can additionally find further explanations in relation the report on fur farming, in the replies to written questions E-0285/02 from Mr Kyösti Virrankoski(3); P-0077/02 from Mrs Astrid Thors(4) and E-367/02 from Mr Jan Mulder(5).

(1) OJ L 237, 28.8.1997.

(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/index_en.html.

(3) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 174.

(4) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 238.

(5) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 174.