Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 41kWORD 18k
22 January 2019
Question for written answer P-000284-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Francesc Gambús (PPE)

 Subject:  Improved transparency in the drafting of Commission scientific assessments
 Answer in writing 

The scientific assessments carried out by the EU agencies are a vital source of expertise and information for the Members of the European Parliament, who take decisions based in part on conclusions which they assume to be valid because they have been drawn up by scientists and experts in the field in question. During the European Parliament’s January 2019 part-session, however, at which a vote was taken on a report drawn up by the Special Committee on Pesticides, it emerged that much of the content of one of the documents on which the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had based its conclusions had been copied from a report commissioned from a major multinational.

1. What view does the Commission take of the revelations published in the media concerning plagiarism in the drafting of this report(1)?

2. What steps will the Commission take to guarantee the independence of its scientific advisory committees?

3. What review procedures will the Commission introduce with a view to guaranteeing greater transparency in respect of the origin of reports on which its specialised agencies base their decisions?


Original language of question: ES 
Last updated: 13 February 2019Legal notice