Catherine Geslain-Lanéelle

Brussels Speaking Notes

Dear Chair, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,

Introduction

To begin with I would like to thank IFAH-Europe and Declan O’Brien in particular for the kind invitation to address your 2012 conference. As EFSA marks its tenth anniversary, it is a particularly timely juncture to describe the organisation’s achievements over the past decade but also to look at some of the challenges that lie ahead. IFAH-Europe has been involved in EFSA’s Stakeholder Consultative Platform since its inception and, after its renewal last week for a further three-year term, we are delighted that you will contribute to it as a member organisation.

I know that you are very proactive in responding to EFSA’s calls for data and information and I would like to thank you for this fruitful cooperation which is crucial in helping us to protect public health.

Background

The European Food Safety Authority was established in 2002 as the EU’s independent risk assessment body in direct response to the food crises of the previous decade. The most dramatic of these was BSE but there was also significant public concern about a range of other food safety-related issued such as Salmonella, dioxins, carcinogens in animal feed, claims on the health benefits of food products and the use of chemicals in the food chain. It was against this backdrop that EFSA was established and its Founding Regulation introduced a new food safety paradigm for Europe with consumer protection at its heart. It enshrined the principle of separating risk assessment from risk management and put science at the centre of decision making. The Authority’s “farm to fork” remit covers all scientific matters that have a direct or indirect effect on the safety of the food supply.

EFSA Ten-Year Achievements

EFSA is marking the ten years since its establishment with a series of events throughout 2012 that are focused not just on lessons learned from our past experience but also on future challenges. Any retrospective analysis of European food safety I believe should acknowledge that the European food safety model introduced in 2002 – and in particular the separation of risk assessment and risk management functions – has been successful in rebuilding the trust of consumers and trading partners in the food supply and in strengthening the overall EU food safety system. Trust is intimately liked with transparency and today’s consumers have ready access to the scientific evidence that underpins the measures taken to protect them. They can track the development of our advice on our website from the receipt of the mandate, through the minutes of the scientific meetings, and finally to the scientific output itself. This level of transparency is needed to build consumer trust and we continue to invest in it as we know that the value of our advice is proportional to the level of trust in EFSA itself. This year we have begun to open our scientific panel meetings to observers and, depending on the outcome of this pilot project, we will decide whether we can extend this practice further.

EFSA’s Panel system has proved to be effective, delivering almost 3000 high-quality and timely scientific outputs. Working with the Member States, European risk assessment capacity has been significantly enhanced and, as outlined in EFSA’s Science Strategy 2012-2016, the plans are in place to ensure that the capacity will be maintained and strengthened going forward to meet any challenges that lie ahead. Cooperation has been a cornerstone of EFSA’s activities since its inception and strong relationships have been built with the national food safety authorities, EU institutions, international risk assessment bodies, stakeholder groups and other individuals or groups who feel they can contribute to the Authority’s work. This integrated system, with EFSA at its core, has produced crucial work such as the EU reports on zoonoses and antimicrobial resistance and, further afield, a harmonised approach to Total Diet Studies, developed with the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO).  EFSA’s Advisory Forum and the national Focal Point network have been instrumental in the better coordination of work programmes at national and European levels; this has enabled clear identification of priorities and allocation of resources; increased coherence in scientific risk assessment methodologies; more effective exchange of information and data; and the early identification of emerging risks.

As a result, the calibre of evidence applied to European risk assessments has improved significantly over the past decade. We have also built networks of scientific excellence – in Europe and beyond – which enable us to tap into the globally available knowledge, data and expertise. The Scientific Network for Risk Assessment in Animal Health and Welfare is a good example of this. It facilitates harmonisation of risk assessment practices and methodologies, enhances the exchange of information and data, and promotes synergistic working practices.    

   The coordination of crisis management in Europe has undergone a step-change: while the Union has continued to experience various food emergencies over the past decade, their impact has been contained, in terms of both public health and economic impact.  Every year we are called upon to provide urgent advice and technical support to Europe’s risk managers and, in collaboration with them, we have developed and tested a set of procedures that Europe can call upon in a crisis. They have enabled Europe to respond effectively to issues such as dioxins in Irish pigmeat, the STEC outbreak in Germany and France last year which had such tragic consequences, and the ongoing “Schmallenberg” virus outbreak for which we published the latest epidemiological report just last week.  

Communication is a critical aspect of crisis management and EFSA has developed a set of comprehensive guidelines that can be applied at both the European and national levels and are tested as part of our annual crisis preparedness exercises.

Animal health achievements: BSE

All of these achievements have been made possible because EFSA has remained true to its core values of scientific excellence, independence in its scientific advice, transparency, and openness. In the animal health area, EFSA has made a significant impact in a number of specific issues, the first of which I would like to mention being BSE. If we recall for a moment the situation in the 1990s, BSE in cattle had become first a European and than a global animal health and food safety crisis with major implications for trade. Public anxiety about variant Creuzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) was high and the European beef market faced collapse. Contrast that with the situation today wherein a 2010 survey showed that only 2% of EU consumers spontaneously indicated BSE as a possible risk associated with food. The number of cases of BSE being reported across the EU has fallen significantly, from several thousands in the early 2000s, to just 44 in 2010. The EU’s coordinated response to BSE has been highly successful and EFSA’s scientific support has been instrumental for risk managers.

BSE will continue to be a challenge in the years to come and we must strive to prevent any potential re-emergence of BSE in Europe. The European Commission has adopted a strategic document – the TSE Roadmap II – which outlines future measures until the year 2015 and the process is informed at all stages by EFSA’s scientific advice.

Salmonella

Salmonella was until 2005 the most common cause of foodborne disease in the EU with about 300,000 human cases reported annually, with likely significant underreporting. It is a zoonotic organism – transmitted between animals and humans – and its economic burden for the EU is estimated to be as high as Euros 3 billion a year. Between one-third and one-half of all human infectious diseases have a zoonotic origin and it is estimated that 75% of new human diseases over the past 10 years have originated from animals or animal products.  In 2003, the EU set up comprehensive control measures for zoonoses coordinated amongst the EU institutions, with Salmonella as a priority. Enhanced Salmonella programmes in poultry were implemented in all Member States and targets were set for reducing the pathogen in poultry flocks.

To support the programme, EFSA advises on the risks for public health from infected animals and provides recommendations and advice on control and reduction measures. The coordinated approach has been very successful: human Salmonella cases have been reduced by almost one-half in the EU in the five-year period 2004 to 2009. In parallel, the prevalence of Salmonella in poultry has decreased significantly, especially in laying hen flocks; this is considered to be the main reason for the decline of Salmonella cases in humans since eggs are considered the most important source of human infections in the EU. EFSA also analyses the results of EU-wide baseline surveys on the prevalence of Salmonella in food and food-producing animals, and, along with the European Centre for Disease Prevention, we prepare EU Summary Reports to provide up-to-date data on the current situation in Europe.

Antimicrobial resistance

Data collection is fundamental to EFSA’s risk assessments and we monitor and report data on the occurrence of a number of chemicals including veterinary drug residues in food. Our reports have shown that, while non-compliance (i.e. maximum limits exceeded) is relatively low, the most frequently reported class of non-compliant veterinary medicines are antibacterials.

Data such as these, along with the joint EFSA-ECDC report on antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic bacteria, make an important contribution to the fight against antimicrobial resistance, a key public health issue in which EFSA is playing a prominent role.  The Commission launched an Action Plan to combat antimicrobial resistance in 2011 and for its part EFSA uses the full range of expertise in its various Scientific Panels and Units to provide scientific support and advice to risk managers on reducing the emergence, spread and transfer of antimicrobial resistance in the food chain.

Risk communication

Risk communication is an integral part of the risk analysis process, jointly shared between risk assessors and risk managers. Among the lessons learned from the BSE crisis was the need for effective and timely risk communication to maintain public trust. EFSA’s Founding Regulation acknowledges that the success of the Authority in rebuilding public confidence is predicated on communicating on risks in an open and transparent way based on the independent advice of its scientific panels. It mandated EFSA to communicate food and feed safety advice to its principal partners, stakeholders and the public at large in a clear, consistent and timely manner.

Scientific results cannot always be converted into simple guidelines and advice that non-scientists can easily understand, particularly in the diverse, multicultural environment of the EU. Furthermore, as the complexity of our risk assessment increases, we are challenged to communicate the uncertainties, data gaps and limitations of risk assessments. To inform and enhance its communication practices, EFSA analyses public perception of risks linked to food, contextualises risk, and works with the key actors including national authorities, stakeholders and media to reach its target audiences. 

Challenges

As well as the existing ongoing threats caused by our “old friends”, the biological hazards, many other challenges lie ahead in relation to animal product safety, driven by the growing demand for animal protein. As the global population rises, the sustainability and security of our animal production systems require increasing attention. Climate change is also a factor: rising global temperatures are already facilitating the northern movement of West Nile Virus and other vector-borne diseases such as the “Schmallenberg” virus.

With the continuing globalisation of the European food supply, the risk to Europe of emerging foodborne diseases and pathogens should not be underestimated and Europe must remain vigilant.

To address these challenges, it is important that we cooperate with the key actors in the food chain and that we have access to the data we need from all sources, including industry. EFSA’s independence has been challenged, mainly by those who claim conflicts of interest between our experts and industry. As all those engaged in EFSA’s work will acknowledge, we have a very comprehensive and robust set of policies and procedures on declarations of interest which are rigorously implemented and regularly reviewed. As well as strengthening our existing procedures, the increased clarity and transparency provided in our new 2012 implementing rules provide an additional layer of protection for our scientific experts to facilitate their valued input. EFSA’s use of industry data has also been called into question but, as your members will know, we do not merely accept data but also define the standards and validate data once received. The bottom line is that, to protect consumers, we must engage with all actors in the food chain and we will continue to do so in the most effective and appropriate manner.         

Conclusion

I would like to conclude by reiterating that animal health is a critically important part of our mandate which is of fundamental importance to European public health. Later this year we will organise two events – one scientific and one institutional – to mark our tenth anniversary and I hope to have the opportunity to welcome many of you to those events in Parma.

I look forward to working with you in the context of EFSA’s Stakeholder Consultative Platform and I wish the conference every success.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Published: 10 July 2012