Over the last decade, several concerns arose regarding the transparency of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In particular, controversies related to the re-approval of glyphosate in 2016 and the revelation of the ‘Monsanto papers’ in 2017 increased the public attention on the relationship between industry and regulatory agencies like EFSA. As a reaction, the EU legislator enacted Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 (the so-called Transparency Regulation) which aims to improve the transparency and sustainability of EU risk assessment in the food chain. This Regulation amends the General Food Law Regulation and applies as of March 2021. The Transparency Regulation enshrines new rules concerning access to documents which strengthen the transparency of, inter alia, agendas, participant lists and minutes of the Management Board, the Advisory Forum, the Scientific Committee and the Scientific Panels and their working groups. The Regulation also aims at enhancing confidentiality and risk communication in line with a new ‘proactive approach’ to transparency. Taking stock of the way in which EFSA has implemented it, the paper will analyse EFSA’s transparency policy and its most recent measures adopted to enhance transparency in line with this reform. Based on these findings, it will identify potential needs, if any, for revision of rules and policies on the transparency of EFSA and make recommendations for their improvement.

Science for the Citizens or Science by the Citizens? – The Role of Citizen Science in Light of the Dieselgate and Glyphosate Saga

The need for solid science has never been greater than in the current era of constant economic, environmental, and societal challenges. The technocratic decision-making of the EU, just like the related epistemic and democratic worries about these processes, increased debates on subjective and politicised science. Several scandals shed light on the eroding capacity and legitimacy of the Single Market’s scientific decision-making, especially the recent scandal of Dieselgate and the still ongoing glyphosate saga. Both scandals related to the citizen-collected evidence of diesel engine air pollution, just like the harmful nature of glyphosate as an active substance. The new rise of citizen science can be seen in NGOs' and public participation's identification of these market deficiencies. Additionally, due to their ambiguous nature, the post-crisis policy steps also led to the further intensification of citizen science. Even if the two related policy areas of the EU’s food sector and transportation are relatively diverse, they are also characterised by similar concerns of scientific decision-making, which analysis should be extended to the changing role of citizen science.

The purpose of this paper/research is twofold: (i) to describe the pre-crisis and post-crisis involvement of citizen science with the comparison of these two relatively diverse policy areas of the EU’s food sector and transportation; (ii) to explore the sector-specific elements of the citizen science, while potentially identifying some cross-sectoral lessons to be learned.

The new rise of citizen science cannot and should not be seen as the mere expression of public mistrust towards national or even EU-level institutional efforts, as it could also lead to further policy innovations. These alternative sources of scientific decision-making might facilitate regaining the public trust in certain areas, could complement the public actors' efforts in analysing the ever-changing environment and identify potential threats to market access processes. The well-targeted cross-sectoral analysis of citizen science could substantially contribute to adaptation schemes and techniques to be applied in the EU’s other policy areas.

Defining policy problems plays an increasingly important role in the design and implementation of public policy; most of all, it is at the base of evidence-based policy, which is becoming common practice in many areas. Evidence-based and informed policymaking promises to increase the effectiveness of policies, leading to solid science through improved policy planning based on sound data and the rapid adaptation of policies. However, how problems are defined is rarely objective; rather, they are mostly used strategically by internal or external evaluators or policymakers to highlight the saliency of a policy or program and politically by policymakers to legitimatize a political decision.

This paper emphasizes the importance of problem definitions, which are also politically sensitive for all the actors involved in rulemaking. We argue that in the case of glyphosate regulation in the EU, the definition of the problem has been used as a polysemic construct, and this plurality of meanings eroded the capacity of EU policymakers to regulate the chemical product effectively. This paper contributes to the track by emphasizing the vital role of problem definitions in shaping EU decision-making. It explores how problem definition impacts risk assessment, risk management, and the changing nature of EU policies. Additionally, the paper suggests ways to address concerns related to expertise and knowledge, promoting accountability and diversity in the EU's scientific decision-making process.