How a groundbreaking regulation aims to transform food safety in Europe—from restoring public trust to ensuring the independence of the science that determines what ends up on our plates.
Imagine buying groceries for your family, glancing at ingredients lists, and wondering: Who decided this was safe to eat? Or reading about controversial pesticides in your breakfast cereal and questioning whether the approval process was truly independent. These everyday concerns strike at the heart of a fundamental question: Can we trust the system that determines what's safe in our food?
For decades, EU risk assessment operated largely behind closed doors, with industry-submitted studies remaining confidential and public scrutiny limited. That changed dramatically with the European Transparency Regulation, which took effect in March 2021. But is this sweeping reform the comprehensive solution Europe needs, or just another bureaucratic layer in an already complex system?
This article explores how this groundbreaking regulation aims to transform food safety in Europe—from restoring public trust to ensuring the independence of the science that determines what ends up on our plates.
Europe's modern food safety system emerged from fire—specifically, the mad-cow crisis of the 1990s that exposed critical weaknesses in how food risks were assessed and managed . This scandal led to the creation of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2002 and established the "farm to fork" approach that continues to guide EU food policy today .
Despite these reforms, lingering public skepticism remained, particularly around industry-funded studies used to approve everything from pesticides to food additives. The system's opacity became a flashpoint in 2017 with the controversial renewal of authorization for glyphosate, a widely used herbicide 2 . Public trust eroded further when citizens discovered they couldn't access the scientific studies underlying such decisions.
Mad-cow crisis exposes weaknesses in food safety systems
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) established
Glyphosate controversy sparks public outrage
Transparency Regulation takes effect
The glyphosate controversy sparked a successful European Citizens' Initiative titled "Stop Glyphosate" that garnered over one million signatures 2 . This direct democratic pressure proved irresistible to EU policymakers. The European Commission responded by proposing what would eventually become the Transparency Regulation, drawing also on findings from a comprehensive evaluation of the 2002 General Food Law 2 .
It represented a fundamental shift from a system where industry studies were routinely kept confidential to one where transparency would become the default.
At its core, the Transparency Regulation operates on a simple but radical principle: the public has a right to know what evidence informs decisions about product safety. Previously, when a company sought authorization for a novel food, pesticide, or food additive, the scientific studies they submitted to EFSA remained confidential. The new regulation turns this practice on its head.
Now, scientific studies and information submitted by industry are published at the start of the risk assessment process in an easily accessible format 6 . EFSA also conducts public consultations on these studies, allowing independent scientists and concerned citizens to examine and contribute additional evidence . This process aims to address the "file drawer problem," where unfavorable studies might be withheld from regulators.
The regulation introduces crucial safeguards to ensure objectivity and independence in the risk assessment process:
The European Commission can request EFSA to commission additional studies for verification in cases of "serious controversies or conflicting results" 2 .
The Commission can perform fact-finding missions to assess laboratory compliance with standards until March 2025 2 .
| Aspect | Before the Regulation | After the Regulation |
|---|---|---|
| Access to Studies | Limited public access; studies often confidential | Studies published at start of assessment process 6 |
| Public Participation | Minimal opportunity for public input | Public consultations on submitted studies |
| Study Commissioning | Companies could choose which studies to submit | Must notify EFSA of all commissioned studies 2 6 |
| Governance | Limited member state representation | All Member States represented in EFSA's Management Board |
The regulation also strengthens EFSA's governance by ensuring that all EU Member States are represented on its Management Board since July 2022 . This change aims to foster broader scientific cooperation and ensure the Authority can draw on the best independent experts from across Europe 2 .
While the Transparency Regulation encompasses many changes, one of its most innovative components is the provision allowing the European Commission to perform fact-finding missions to laboratories to verify compliance with standards 2 . Though specific mission reports aren't detailed in the search results, we can examine how this verification process functions as a natural experiment in regulatory oversight.
The process follows a meticulous protocol:
This methodology represents a significant departure from the previous system, which relied primarily on documentation review without systematic on-site verification.
Though comprehensive public data on these missions is still emerging, early indications suggest they've already had a deterrent effect on poor practices. As one EFSA representative noted, "Knowing that studies might be subject to verification creates a powerful incentive for laboratories to maintain high standards" 2 .
| Product Category | Examples | Key Transparency Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Plant Protection Products | Pesticides, herbicides | Public access to safety studies, EFSA notification of all commissioned research |
| Novel Foods | Insect-based ingredients, lab-grown meat | Pre-submission advice, public consultation on studies 6 |
| Food Additives | Preservatives, colorings | Disclosure of all studies, including unfavorable data 2 |
| Genetically Modified Organisms | GM crops for food/feed | Enhanced public access to application documents 2 |
| Food Contact Materials | Packaging, containers | Mandatory study registration with EFSA 2 |
The implementation of the Transparency Regulation has generated essential new resources for both researchers and the public. These tools collectively create what might be called a "transparency infrastructure" for EU risk assessment.
Researchers, journalists, citizens
Provides comprehensive information on risk assessment from mandate to output adoption 6 .
Businesses, especially SMEs
Offers guidance and support for companies navigating new transparency requirements 6 .
Industry professionals, consultants
Enables knowledge-sharing and question-answering about the new transparency environment 6 .
All stakeholders
Implements Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 for citizen access to EU institution documents 6 .
The Transparency Regulation represents the most significant overhaul of EU risk assessment in nearly two decades. Early evidence suggests it has already made substantial progress in:
However, experts caution that transparency alone cannot eliminate all challenges in risk assessment. Complex scientific judgments will always involve interpretation, and complete transparency doesn't automatically guarantee perfect decisions.
Implementation across 27 member states creates inevitable variations in application and enforcement. Some stakeholders have expressed concerns about:
| Dimension | Strength of Impact | Key Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Public Access to Information | High | Citizens can now access studies from start of process 6 |
| Study Reliability | Moderate-High | EFSA notification of all commissioned studies deters selective reporting 2 |
| Public Trust | Moderate | Too early for comprehensive measurement; public consultations actively used |
| International Influence | Moderate | First comprehensive system of its type; potential model for other regions |
| Business Adaptation | High | Significant process changes required; support tools developed 6 |
The European Transparency Regulation is far more than bureaucratic tweaking—it represents a philosophical shift in how we approach scientific governance. By opening the black box of risk assessment to public scrutiny, the regulation acknowledges that trust in science depends not just on the quality of evidence, but on the transparency of the process itself.
Is it a perfect panacea? Likely not—no single regulation could completely eliminate the inherent challenges of complex risk assessments. But it represents a monumental step toward demystifying the science that affects our daily lives and restoring public confidence in the food safety system.
As the regulation continues to be implemented and refined, its ultimate success may be measured not in bureaucratic checkboxes, but in the gradual restoration of something priceless: public trust in the food we eat and the science that keeps us safe. And in an era of increasing scientific skepticism, that may be the most valuable outcome of all.
This popular science article was developed based on analysis of official EU documents, EFSA resources, and policy evaluations. For those interested in exploring further, the Open EFSA portal provides comprehensive access to the risk assessment process and underlying scientific data.