Skip to main content

Management of links of interest in European Union expertise authorities dealing with plant protection products: comparative analysis and recommendations



To ensure a high level of public health and environmental protection, authorities that deliver scientific expertise to inform decision-makers and the public at large need to be independent from external stakeholders and free of conflicts of interest. This independence requires effective rules for managing links of interest (LoIs) and a high level of transparency, including publication of declarations of interest (DoIs) where appropriate. In the particular case of plant protection products (PPPs) within the European Union, these requirements should apply to all Competent Authorities contributing to the marketing authorization processes.


A comparative analysis of LoIs management procedures was performed on a selection of ten National Competent Authorities from different member states (NCAs). This analysis was based on (i) the identification of 17 criteria aiming at characterizing good practices for LoIs management; (ii) a survey of ten NCAs, based on an analysis of their institutional websites and their responses to official mail requests.


The comparative analysis showed: (i) a frequent lack of transparency of NCAs regarding their procedures for managing LoIs; (ii) a significant heterogeneity between the NCAs’ LoIs management rules, even though they are in charge of comparable missions regarding the marketing of PPPs; (iii) substantial gaps between the LoIs management procedures adopted by several NCAs and the good practices that are promoted by EFSA.

Current limits on their practices regarding LoIs management might open ways for undue external influences on scientific expertise, and ultimately impact negatively the risk management options adopted by national or European authorities. Limitations of this study and its extension for a more thorough overview of the current LoIs management practices are also discussed.


LoIs management and transparency rules need to be improved across NCAs, given their contribution as (co-)rapporteurs or peer reviews participants to the health and environmental risk assessment steps of the EFSA processes. To this end, a common minimum set of rules should be defined by EFSA; recommendations are proposed, based on the best practices implemented by the investigated NCAs. Such progress would contribute promoting high-quality unbiased scientific expertise and enhance EU citizens’ trust.


Over the last decades, the influence of corporate interests on environmental and public health regulations has attracted growing concern and public attention. Scientists, public authorities and NGOs have stressed the need to limit the influence of corporations on scientific expertise [1], especially multinational companies marketing products that are potentially toxic to health and the environment. A growing body of work describes the many forms the influence strategies of those external stakeholders can take (e.g., hiding scientific results, creating artificial scientific debates, promoting alternative research fields) and provides theoretical concepts to analyze this influence, e.g., doubt manufacturing [2,3,4,5], ghostwriting [6, 7], regulatory capture [8, 9], revolving door processes [10,11,12], production of ignorance [13, 14], undone science [15, 16], or funding bias [17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. Problematic corporate influence has been described in various sectors, including, among others, tobacco [24,25,26], chemicals [27,28,29,30], climate change [3, 4], nutrition [19, 31, 32], asbestos [4, 33], and pesticides [11, 34,35,36,37].

In response to these concerns, and to ensure a high level of public health and environmental protection, authorities that deliver scientific expertise to inform decision-makers and the public at large have adopted procedures that are supposed to guarantee their independence. Most importantly, regulatory agencies have promoted procedures aiming at identifying and managing the links of interests (LoIs) of the actors involved in the expertise processes, in particular procedures for disclosing the financial relationships between experts and industries, in order to prevent conflicts of interest. In the European Union (EU), within several public agencies, the application of rules for the management of LoIs (also simply called “interests”) is one of the means used to promote impartiality and, in particular, to reduce the risks of corporate influence. This promotion of LoIs management procedures has been directly linked to that of transparency [38]. Indeed, from the 1990s onward, a movement advocating for more transparency in scientific and public life has been growing in close connection with the rise of the European regulatory agencies system. This movement promotes both expanded access to data of public interest and the unveiling of non-public relationships of officials or experts with private interests (e.g., in the form of disclosure policies).

This article explores how several national expertise agencies take into account the issue of links of interest and the requirement of transparency, based on a particularly controversial case, that of the regulation of plant protection products (PPPs). It analyzes the procedures put in place by a selection of EU expertise agencies involved in the evaluation of active substances and PPPs within the EU, and the accessibility of information on these procedures. A large number of regulations, the main ones being Directive 2009/128/EC and Regulation (EC) 1107/2009, covers the delivery of marketing authorizations (MAs) for PPPs. The regulatory framework determines that the active substances of PPPs be subject to a centralized approval procedure at the EU level. Along this procedure, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) delivers scientific opinions to help the European Commission decide whether to approve (or renew) active substances or not. EFSA's opinion is based on scientific evaluation reports prepared by National Competent Authorities of different member states (NCAs), appointed as rapporteurs. Subsequently, the commercial formulations containing the active substances approved at EU level are subject to a national authorization procedure, which is also based on NCAs scientific evaluations.

Thus, EFSA’s scientific expertise plays a central role in PPPs regulation. Today, aiming at “building and maintaining trust” in its independence, EFSA set the objective of ensuring “a high level of transparency across all its activities, [including] independence-related processes” [39]. It presents transparency as a “key value” [40] and claims that “openness and transparency of the EU risk assessment process in the food chain contributes to greater legitimacy of the Authority in pursuit of its mission, strengthens confidence in the Authority’s work and, ultimately, ensures its democratic accountability vis-à-vis consumers, business operators and the public” [41]. EFSA also promotes a good LoIs management as a way to improve the reliability of its work. In 2018, following numerous criticisms regarding its LoIs management policy by the European Parliament [42, 43], by the European Court of Auditors [44], and by Non-Governmental Organizations [10, 45], EFSA updated its rules regarding competing interest management [46]. NCAs also play a central role in PPPs regulation. Indeed, as pointed out above, EFSA’s expertise is largely based on their contributions—acting either as Rapporteur states for active substances or during the Peer review process. This raises the question of the rules NCAs adopt in terms of LoIs management and transparency, and of their consistency with EFSA guidelines.

The research presented in this article was conducted in response to preliminary findings by the French Commission for Deontology and Alerts in Public Health and the Environment (Commission nationale de la déontologie et des alertes en matière de santé publique et d'environnement—cnDAspe). The cnDAspe took the initiative, under its legal missions (see Additional file 1), to investigate the expertise process leading to the delivery of MAs for PPPs within the EU. It identified substantial differences between NCAs and gaps compared to EFSA’s good practices [46]. It issued an opinion stating that, in order to create a context that promotes unbiased expertise in support to EFSA, and in view to enhance European citizens’ trust, LoIs management rules should be (i) harmonized across the contributing NCAs, especially with regard to transparency; and (ii) in line with the best available standards [47]. To contribute to this public interest objective, members of the cnDAspe and the first author of this article have undertaken a more extensive comparative analysis of the rules applied among a variety of EU NCAs for PPPs assessment regarding LoIs management. To our knowledge, this type of comparative analysis has not yet been performed to date. Its objectives are: (i) to draw the attention of experts, Authorities, and European elected representatives to the current state of LoIs management in the NCAs supporting EFSA’s remit; (ii) to identify the best practices currently implemented by the investigated NCAs; (iii) to propose a set of minimum common rules, to which EFSA could require the NCAs to commit. These rules would include public access requirements on the NCAs websites, in a transparent manner.

Materials and methods

Seventeen criteria were selected to characterize key LoIs management practices, and were classified into three categories (Tables 1, 2, 3): (1) Organization of the LoIs management: these criteria describe the organization implemented within the investigated NCAs, with regard to LoIs; (2) Accessibility: these criteria describe how accessible are the different components of the LoIs management systems, e.g., DoIs, lists of committee members; and (3) LoIs assessment: these criteria describe how LoIs are evaluated, e.g., intensity graduation, duration of the past periods covered by the DoI. The criteria selection is based on (i) rules now in effect at EFSA [46]; (ii) good practices observed in certain NCAs; and (iii) proposals from members of the cnDAspe. These criteria will be considered as good reference practices in the remainder of this paper.

Table 1 Comparative analysis for the ‘Organization of the LoIs management’ criteria category
Table 2 Comparative analysis for the ‘Accessibility’ criteria category
Table 3 Comparative analysis for the ‘LoIs assessment’ criteria category

Additional file 2 describes the selected criteria in detail. The file presents these criteria in a non-hierarchical way. Yet, it is clear that certain criteria are essential and are minimum prerequisites for LoIs management and transparency. For example, the existence of disclosure policies and the verification of DoIs are essential. Easy and free access to DoIs by the public can also be considered as a minimum requirement for transparency.

Ten NCAs were selected (Table 4) so as to (i) obtain a diverse sample of member states, taking into account the EU regulatory zonal system of authorization for PPPs, divided into three zones: North, Central and South [48]; (ii) include the NCAs that co-produced the draft renewal assessment report for glyphosate, as part of the 2021 renewal regulatory process, because the glyphosate risk assessments have been overtly criticized, especially with regard to potential conflict of interests (CoI) issues [34,35,36].

Table 4 Investigated competent authorities

In addition, EFSA and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) were also examined, as European-level Competent Authorities, to provide an indicative benchmark (Additional file 2).

For each NCA investigated, the selected criteria were filled in (i) on the basis of the information available on the NCA institutional website, collected with a systematic method including searching predefined keywords with the NCA website search engine (see Additional file 2). The free online translation tool Google Translate was used where necessary; (ii) distinguishing between three types of individuals (‘actors’ of the expertise processes): external experts (EE), internal experts (IE), and management officers (MO).

Then, each NCA was sent the retrieved results specific to the information available on its website, with an official letter from the cnDAspe (Additional file 1), requesting the NCA to (i) provide relevant information not found online, if deemed appropriate; (ii) correct possible misunderstandings and inaccuracies. The cnDAspe letter specified a time limit of one month before publication of the results online [47]. The corrections made were traced, noting whether they were justified by a NCA internal document sent to the cnDAspe, or only by a formal letter signed by an authoritative person within the investigated NCA (Additional file 2).


For the ten selected NCAs, the retrieved information is detailed in Tables 1, 2, 3 (for ECHA and EFSA, see Additional file 2). The overall data collection was carried out between February and December 2022; the collection period specific to each NCA is mentioned with each set of results.

EFSA and five NCAs replied to the cnDAspe letter: Anses (France), BfR (Germany), Ctgb (Netherlands), KEMI (Sweden), and Nébih (Hungary). None of these NCAs called into question the approach and the method used by the cnDAspe. Needs for corrections or additions were mentioned (Additional file 2) in a small number of cases: of the five responses received (corresponding to 5 NCAs × 17 criteria = 85 filled-in criteria in total), corrections or additions were made for 7 filled-in criteria (approximately 8%).

The BfR considers that EFSA's DoIs good practice is not relevant for its agents, mostly civil servants, who are subject to specific German legal obligations (not detailed in the BfR response), a stand that may be challenged, EU-level requirements being considered as minimum requirements to be applied in each Member State. This disagreement was also traced (Additional file 2).

Three main findings can be drawn from the comparative analysis:

(i) A frequent lack of transparency on the part of NCAs regarding their procedures for managing LoIs: LoIs management procedures are often absent from agency websites. Overall, the result "nf" (not found) represents 67% of the tables data, this proportion reaching 52% for the NCAs that replied to the cnDAspe letter. These proportions suggest, as a whole, a low level of transparency and a limited effort to remedy it, even in the case of specific questions directly asked by a public entity officially commissioned on LoIs management. Illustrative is the response letter of one of the investigated NCAs, for which none of the criteria could be filled in, stating that “We have no comments on the results […] before the publication”. This situation can be reasonably considered as not responding to the "high level of transparency across all activities" [39] mentioned by EFSA, and as unfavorable for “building and maintaining trust” in the independence of the studied NCAs and for ensuring their “democratic accountability” [41].

(ii) A significant heterogeneity between the NCAs’ official procedures on LoIs management rules. Discrepancies relate to significant issues, e.g., check on the accuracy of the DoIs content; audits of the implementation of the LoIs management rules; duration of the past period considered for the LoIs analysis when hiring or accrediting new experts; staff obligations before accepting a new activity. This heterogeneity also applies to transparency practices, e.g., accessibility of the list of members for all expert committees and governance bodies, and of the corresponding DoIs; accessibility of the criteria for LoIs analysis. More specifically, the list of members for all expert committees and governance bodies could be found only for three NCAs out of ten, and the criteria for LoIs analysis was found for only one NCA. This situation is not compatible with the similar functions NCAs play in the EU MA process for PPPs, where free movement of authorized products is a key principle. This heterogeneity might have an influence on PPPs risk regulation and, ultimately, on the level of protection provided to people (workers, operators, residents, by-standers, consumers) and to the environment. This level of protection should not vary substantially depending on which NCAs were selected to participate to the regulatory risk assessments.

(iii) Substantial gaps between the LoIs management procedures adopted by several NCAs and the good practices promoted by EFSA [46]. For instance: the DoIs of the external experts could be found for only three NCAs out of ten; the DoIs of the management officers could be found for only two; the explicit mention of a check on the accuracy of the DoIs content could be found for only one. However, these procedures are part of the good practices promoted by EFSA.

This study also aimed at proposing a common minimum set of rules that EFSA could require the NCAs to commit to. We present our proposal in the Discussion section, as a logical consequence of our analysis on how the NCAs actually implement good practices.


This section will successively discuss the main results of the comparative analysis, the limitations of the study, and recommendations to improve the management of LoIs in the EU and to strengthen the confidence of citizens in their institutions and expertise agencies.

The main results of this study are associated with significant issues regarding deontology and effectiveness of EU public policies. First, investigated NCAs significantly lack transparency on their LoIs management practices, which should be an essential component of their working process. A large amount of basic information on LoIs management turns out not to be easily available on their institutional website. The low number of responses received by the cnDAspe, an independent and public body, officially mandated by the French authorities to make proposals for improving deontology practices in expertise processes, is surprising and worrying. Those observations obviously do not meet the legitimate expectations of the general public regarding transparency. Secondly, our work shows high degree of heterogeneity in NCAs practices, which might result in significant differences in the conclusions of expertise processes. These differences may limit the achievement of the EU's objective of ensuring a high level of human health protection in all its policies and actions [49]. An illustration of this issue is that of the renewal of glyphosate in 2017, which was marked by serious doubts of interference by industrial interests [50]. Because NCAs opinions and evaluations play a central role in PPPs regulation, poor LoIs management at the national level may yield negative consequences on the EU MA process for PPPs in general; it weakens the expertise of EFSA, whose work depends in part on that of the NCAs. Finally, our work suggests that essential procedures for assuring absence of CoI might not be implemented in certain NCAs, as per the best practices detailed in EFSA guidelines [46]. This situation weakens the expertise of EFSA, because of the contribution of the NCAs as (co-)rapporteurs or peer reviews participants to the health and environmental risk assessment steps of the EFSA processes, and raises concern vis-à-vis possibilities of external inappropriate influences on PPP regulation.

The research presented in this article has several limitations. First, it is based on a simple method of data collection: to understand how NCAs manage LoIs, we gathered information by exploring their websites in a first step. This approach has several shortcomings: websites are not always up to date; English versions of websites do not always exist and are sometimes more limited than their national counterparts; the use of translation applications for website exploration when necessary is less effective in finding the information needed. However, this method has several advantages: it is easily reproducible; it gives a general picture of the information that is readily available to the public who understands the language in which NCAs’ websites are written (or in English, when NCAs have English version of their websites). In addition, mail exchanges, with the support of an official public body (cnDAspe), gave the NCAs the opportunity to provide complements and corrections to the data retrieved from their website, leading, if necessary, to more accurate characterization of the LoIs management rules. We cannot rule out the hypothesis that some NCAs might have in-depth but non-open access LoIs management rules. Yet, none of the response messages contested or challenged the method adopted by the cnDAspe and the way it had converted the information it could retrieve. The main criticism received came from the BfR, and did not relate to the method, but to the applicability of certain criteria to BfR’s type of organization and personnel. We view the few corrections requested by the responding NCAs, all based on information not available online, as an indirect evidence of reliability of the data presented in this paper.

Secondly, the research analyzes the procedures that NCAs declare have in place to manage LoIs, but it does not inform on NCAs actual practices. This has two main implications. On the one hand, practices might deviate from adopted procedures. A qualitative survey, using interviews and observations, would allow an assessment of possible implementation gaps; we have not conducted it, but it is worthwhile being considered. The article shows, however, that even with regard to formal procedures, there is room for improvement in the ways NCAs manage LoIs and transparency. On the other hand, formal procedures for managing LoIs are sometimes unclear or difficult to interpret. As a result, some of the criteria used were sometimes difficult to include in the analysis and in the comparison tables, e.g., in case of incomplete data with an unspecified scope. However, most of the criteria were clear and the uncertainties do not question the main conclusions of the study. Overall, our work may be viewed as an indirect and approximate analysis, yet informative, of the existing LoIs management rules in each NCA taking part to the EU MA process for PPPs. It could be completed subsequently, taking into account the other NCAs involved in the PPP regulatory processes and additional relevant criteria.

Improving the management of LoIs in EU expertise agencies is just one of many actions [51,52,53,54] (e.g., maintaining public funding for research to reinforce regulatory expertise, protecting scientific editors from industry influence, etc.) that need to be taken to achieve the goal of protecting regulation from undue corporate influence [2, 3, 13, 55,56,57]. Addressing the weaknesses shown by our study—i.e., lack of transparency, heterogeneity, gaps with good practices—is nevertheless very important. Not only would it reinforce the quality of the EU expertise system, but it could also contribute to improve public confidence in European institutions on the subject of environmental health and food safety. Pesticide residues in food top the list of food safety-related concerns among Europeans [58]. Yet, as for information on that topic and other risks [58, 59], between a quarter and a third of European citizens (2019: 35%; 2022: 28%) do not trust the European institutions. Authors have suggested there is a link between this distrust and lack of transparency [45, 60]. Before considering the option of “coping with mistrust” [61], the EU should continue its efforts to enhance public confidence. Along with other evolution (e.g., public engagement [62]), increasing transparency and robustness of LoIs management could help.

In order to consolidate LoIs management in the NCAs that contribute to EFSA’s work on PPP, the authors of this paper state that a common minimum set of good practices should be targeted. It could include some of the LoIs management rules already in place in some NCAs: (i) taking into account a 5-year period for LoIs analysis, as implemented at Ctgb; (ii) including regular frequentation relationships (e.g., cohabitants, close family members, close colleagues, co-members of advocating associations, etc.) in the scope of the persons considered by DoIs, as implemented at the Italian Ministry of Health; (iii) managing LoIs according to their degree of intensity, as implemented at Anses; (iv) auditing the LoIs management rules once per year by an external independent entity, as exposed by the Italian Ministry of Health; (v) requiring the regular update of the DoIs, with a yearly minimum frequency, and in case of significant change, as implemented at Ctgb. In this latter case, a maximum time limit of 15 days could be specified, as implemented at the Italian Ministry of Health; (vi) checking the accuracy of the DoIs content, e.g., against the information presented in the resume transmitted by the examined person, and against public information available on the Internet, as implemented at Anses on samples of DoIs; (vii) requiring a prior agreement before a member of senior staff could accept a new activity, as implemented at Ctgb, with a 3-year minimum period before accepting a new activity associated with a ‘major’ LoI, as implemented at the Italian Ministry of Health; (viii) ensuring an open access on the Internet to the criteria used for analyzing expert’s and staff”s LoIs, and to the list of members of all expert committees and governance bodies, as implemented at Anses. Insofar as these rules are already adopted in some NCAs, one may consider that they could be applied in all NCAs because they have comparable missions. Improving harmonization based on common minimum rules under the auspices of EFSA is essential. Subsidiarity should not be opposed to such endeavor given the consequences of local weaknesses on the EU-level protection of health and the environment. This harmonizing approach is promoted in other EU MA processes. For instance, the European Medicines Agency's LoIs management rules apply to all competent Authorities taking part in the MA process of innovative medicinal products. This example shows the feasibility of such a harmonized approach.

Moreover, our investigation led us to identify interesting LoIs management rules that have not been adopted by EFSA so far. Two examples: (i) adopting an approach more sensitive to the intensity of LoIs. Some agencies adopt an approach distinguishing three-level of intensity [63, 64]—"major" interests, "minor" interests, and “no interest”. From this perspective, “minor” LoIs do not preclude participation in the expertise process, but all other participants should be informed of such links. Such a tuned approach could contribute to preventing the pool of available skilled experts from drying up in some cases; (ii) expanding the definition of funding sources of scholars involved as external experts; their declaration of interests could “include all resources of private origin, regardless of the form and channel, direct or indirect” [65]. Such a change would address the European Parliament's repeated requests on this matter [66].


Effective LoIs management, meeting the best available practices aiming at preventing conflicts of interest and including a high level of transparency, is key to promoting high-quality unbiased expertise and “trust in the trustworthy” among EU citizens. Consequently, regarding the expertise procedures for PPPs’ health and environmental risk assessments and marketing authorizations, the EU LoIs management rules should be (i) more homogeneous between the different National Competent Authorities; (ii) better in line with reference good practices, in particular with regard to those adopted by EFSA; (iii) and more transparent, with open access on the Internet to the main documents related to the LoIs management, e.g., analysis criteria, management rules, public declarations of interest, audit reports.

Allowing verification by external independent entities is also likely to promote trust in the independence of the scientific expertise in support of EFSA.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.



Conflict(s) of interest


Declaration(s) of interests


External expert


European Food Safety Agency


European Union


Internal expert


Link(s) of interest


Marketing authorizations


Management officer


National Competent Authority


Not found


Not concerned


Plant protection products


  1. French Standardization Association (AFNOR) (2003) Norm NFX 50–110. Quality in expertise activities - General requirements of competence for an expertise activity

  2. Goldberg RF, Vandenberg LN (2021) The science of spin: targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health. Environ Health 20(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2011) Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing USA

  4. Michaels D (2008) Doubt is their product: how industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  5. McGarity TO, Wagner WE (2010) Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research. Harvard University Press

  6. Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, et al. (2011) Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. Br Med J 343:1

  7. Sismondo S (2018) Ghost-managed medicine: Big pharma's invisible hands. Mattering Press

  8. Vogel SA (2012) Is it Safe?: BPA and the Struggle to Define the Safety of Chemicals. California: University of California Press

  9. Carpenter D, Moss DA (2013) Preventing regulatory capture: Special interest influence and how to limit it. Cambridge University Press

  10. Corporate Europe Observatory, Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, GMWatch, et al. (2016) Conflicts of interest at the European Food Safety Authority : enough is enough!

  11. Novotny E (2022) Glyphosate, roundup and the failures of regulatory assessment. Toxics 10(6):321

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Meghani Z, Kuzma J (2011) The “revolving door” between regulatory agencies and industry: a problem that requires reconceptualizing objectivity. J Agric Environ Ethics 24:575–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Frickel S, Moore K (2006) The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power. University of Wisconsin Press

  14. Proctor RN, Schiebinger L (2008) Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford University Press

  15. Frickel S, Gibbon S, Howard J et al (2010) Undone science: charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Sci Technol Human Values 35(4):444–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hess DJ (2016) Undone science: Social movements, mobilized publics, and industrial transitions. MIT Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289(4):454–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, et al. (2017) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane database of systematic reviews

  19. Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M et al (2007) Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med 4(1):e5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Krimsky S (2019) Conflicts of interest in science: How corporate-funded academic research can threaten public health. Simon and Schuster

  21. Bero L (2013) Industry sponsorship and research outcome: a Cochrane review. JAMA Intern Med 173(7):580–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B et al (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326(7400):1167–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Relman AS (1984) Dealing with conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 310(18):1182–1183

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Proctor RN (2012) Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition. University of California Press

  25. Barnes DE, Bero LA (1998) Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 279(19):1566–1570

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bero LA (2005) Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Rep 120(2):200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Markowitz G, Rosner D (2013) Deceit and denial: The deadly politics of industrial pollution. Univ of California Press

  28. Elliott KC (2011) Is a little pollution good for you?: incorporating societal values in environmental research. Oxford University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Harremoës P, Gee D, MacGarvin M, et al. (2013) The precautionary principle in the 20th century: Late lessons from early warnings. European Environment Agency (EEA)

  30. Michaels D (2020) The triumph of doubt: dark money and the science of deception. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  31. Babor TF (2009) Alcohol research and the alcoholic beverage industry: issues, concerns and conflicts of interest. Addiction 104:34–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bes-Rastrollo M, Schulze MB, Ruiz-Canela M et al (2013) Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 10(12):e1001578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. McCulloch J, Tweedale G (2008) Defending the indefensible: the global asbestos industry and its fight for survival. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  34. Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) (2017) The Monsanto papers and glyphosate. Public hearing - 11 October 2017. European Parliament

  35. Foucart S, Horel S (2018) Risks associated with glyphosate weedkiller resurface. Nature 555(7697):443–444

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Krimsky S, Gillam C (2018) Roundup litigation discovery documents: implications for public health and journal ethics. J Public Health Policy 39:318–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Prete G, Jouzel J-N, Dedieu F. (2021). For science, by science: The emergence and circulation of conflict of interest as a protest repertoire to fight against pesticides Conflict of Interest and Medicine (pp. 201–218): Routledge

  38. Hauray B, Boullier H, Gaudillière J-P, et al. (2021). Introduction: Conflict of interest and the politics of biomedicine Conflict of Interest and Medicine (pp. 1–28): Routledge

  39. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2017) EFSA’s policy on independence

  40. European food Safety Authority (EFSA). Transparency. Retrieved from

  41. Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority (2021) Decision of the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority laying down practical arrangements concerning transparency and confidentiality. ver. 2 - 18.01.2021.

  42. European Parliament (2018) European Parliament decision of 18 April 2018 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2016 (2017/2159(DEC)).

  43. European Parliament (2012) Second report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2010. 1.10.2012 - (C7‑0286/2011 – 2011/2226(DEC)).

  44. European Court of Auditors (ECA) (2012) Management of Conflict of Interest in Selected EU Agencies, Special report no 15

  45. Robinson C, Holland N, Leloup D et al (2013) Conflicts of interest at the European Food Safety Authority erode public confidence. J Epidemiol Community Health 67(9):717–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Decision of the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority on Competing Interest Management. (2018). European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

  47. French National Commission for Ethics and Alerts in Public Health and Environment (cnDAspe) (2023) Comparative analysis of the management of links of interest by the competent authorities for risk assessment and delivery of marketing authorisation of pesticides in the EU Member States.

  48. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. OJ L 309, 24.11.2009. Annex I, (2009)

  49. Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART THREE: UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS - TITLE XIV: PUBLIC HEALTH - Article 168

  50. Robinson C, Portier CJ, Čavoški A et al (2020) Achieving a high level of protection from pesticides in Europe: problems with the current risk assessment procedure and solutions. Eur J Risk Regul 11(3):450–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lexchin J, O’Donovan O (2010) Prohibiting or ‘managing’ conflict of interest? A review of policies and procedures in three European drug regulation agencies. Soc Sci Med 70(5):643–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Birchall C (2015) ‘’: Delimiting transparency. Eur J Soc Theory 18(2):185–202

  53. Jasanoff S (1990) The fifth branch: science advisers as policymakers. Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  54. Boudia S, Jas N (2014) Powerless science?: Science and politics in a toxic world. Berghahn Books

  55. Grandjean P, Ozonoff D (2013) Transparency and translation of science in a modern world. Environ Health 12(1):70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mie A, Rudén C, Grandjean P (2018) Safety of Safety Evaluation of Pesticides: developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl. Environ Health 17(1):77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Woodruff TJ, Rayasam SDG, Axelrad DA et al (2023) A science-based agenda for health-protective chemical assessments and decisions: overview and consensus statement. Environ Health 21(1):132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Food safety in the EU. Special Eurobarometer Wave EB97.2. (2022). European Union.

  59. Food safety in the EU. Special Eurobarometer – Wave EB91.3. (2019). European Union.

  60. Expert Group "Trust at Risk? Foresight on the Medium-Term Implications for European Research and Innovation Policies (TRUSTFORESIGHT)" (2017) Trust at Risk: Implications for EU Policies and Institutions. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

  61. Agacinski D (2018) Expertise and democracy - coping with mistrust. Executive summary. France Stratégie

  62. Smith A, Parrino L, Vrbos D et al (2019) Communicating to and engaging with the public in regulatory science. EFSA J 17(S1):e170717

    Google Scholar 

  63. European Medicines Agency (EMA) (2022) European Medicines Agency policy on the handling of competing interests of scientific committees’ members and experts.

  64. Working Group of Quality Managers (WGQM) (2015) Guide to Managing Declarations of Interests. Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA)

  65. French National Commission for Ethics and Alerts in Public Health and Environment (cnDAspe) (2022) Critical Analysis of the EFSA’s Rules for Managing Interests.

  66. European Parliament resolution of 14 May 2020 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Food Safety Authority for the financial year 2018 (2019/2078(DEC)), (2020)

Download references


The authors would like to thank the French Commission for Deontology and Alerts in Public Health and the Environment (Commission nationale de la déontologie et des alertes en matière de santé publique et d'environnement—cnDAspe) for the opportunity to use its data for this article.


Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



GK acquired, analyzed, interpreted the retrieved data regarding LoI management rules, and drafted the article. GP made substantial contributions to the analysis and interpretation of the results, and to the writing of the manuscript. SD made substantial contributions to the interpretation of the results and substantively revised the manuscript. DZN was a major contributor in designing the study, analyzing and interpreting the data, writing the manuscript, and administrating the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. The authors of this paper contributed in their personal capacities rather than as representatives of the cnDAspe or other bodies; their views do not necessarily reflect the decisions or the stated policy of their institutions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Zmirou-Navier.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Template of the letters sent by the cnDAspe to the investigated competent authorities, including a short notice on the cnDAspe’s remit.

Additional file 2.

Selected criteria, filled in for the investigated competent authorities; detailed method used for data collection.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karr, G., Prete, G., Duboc, S. et al. Management of links of interest in European Union expertise authorities dealing with plant protection products: comparative analysis and recommendations. Environ Sci Eur 35, 96 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: