EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE QUALITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC OUTPUTS OF THE EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) instituted a three stage review of the quality of scientific outputs in areas covered by EFSA’s Scientific Directorates, and its Scientific Committee and Advisory Forum Unit. Following the Self- and Internal- reviews, a call for expressions of interest resulted in the formation of the External Review Working Group (ERWG) via a selection process. Comprised of 23 experts, the ERWG met in Parma (Oct. ’09) to agree on, and fine tune, operating procedures and timelines for the review of the areas of activity: i) Chemical risk assessment and connected fields (2 groups), ii) Nutrition and novel foods, iii) Biological risk assessment and zoonoses data collection, iv) Animal health and welfare, v) Plant health, vi) Genetically modified organisms, and vii) Risk assessment methodologies and emerging risks. A total of 35 scientific outputs, which were pre-determined by EFSA, generated by 16 out of 17 Science Units were reviewed. Theses were subdivided into 7 areas of activity which led to 8 External Review Subgroups (ERS) with each output being assigned a rapporteur. In practice, the ERS were subdivided into a total of 16 units. At the ERS level each output was reviewed by the rapporteur using the pre-determined template prior to a collation of reports by the ERS Chair to generate the Unit Report for each of the 16 areas. During the second meeting of the ERWG in Brussels (Nov. ’09) in depth discussions were held and reported to the EFSA Secretariat and Unit Heads. The assembled ERWG jointly prepared the final key sections of the review report including the recommendations and discussion. The major outcome of the review was that a high proportion of the outputs were well constructed, transparent and easily understood, and this best practice should be promulgated in line with EFSA Transparency Guidance [EFSA Journal (2009) 1051, 1- 22]. Notwithstanding this result, the ERWG provided five major clusters of recommendations to EFSA. In synopsis, these relate to the following key aspects of the outputs: i) Terms of Reference (TOR), ii) Structure, iii) Clarity of the pathway, from each TOR through to conclusion, iv) Considerations of uncertainties and limitations, and v) Page 3 Levels of proofreading. In summary, the majority of outputs reviewed were of high quality with the remainder failing to fully adhere with the EFSA Transparency Guidance.