A survey as part of an evaluation of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has revealed people believe the agency has the best expertise in biological hazards and contaminants.

The European Commission’s evaluation of EFSA’s performance from 2017 to 2024 included a public consultation from January to April 2025. The full evaluation is due by March 28, 2026.

There were 188 feedback submissions. A total of 59 respondents were from industry and 48 were public authorities. Responses came from 21 EU and nine non-EU countries. This included 42 from Belgium and 25 from Italy. Four came from the United Kingdom and two from the United States.

The majority of respondents reported being directly involved with EFSA’s activities. Of these, most described their involvement with EFSA as risk managers or applicants.

Dr. Nikolaus Kriz was recently nominated as EFSA’s next executive director for a five-year term from September 2025. Kriz joined EFSA in 2017 and is currently head of the risk assessment services department. He will replac Bernhard Url.

Biological hazards and contaminants in the food chain were considered as topics wher EFSA has the best knowledge. Overall, 86 percent and 85 percent of respondents respectively rated the agency’s expertise in these areas as excellent or good.

EFSA’s risk assessment and scientific advice was considered generally reliable and of high quality, but clear and actionable, and timely to a lesser extent.

Largely positive view of performance
Nearly half agreed or strongly agreed that EFSA provides objective, reliable, easily accessible and rapid communication on food safety risks to target audiences.

Almost half of submissions rated EFSA’s overall performance between 2017 and 2024 as good, while 16 percent judged it as excellent, 18 percent as fair, and 14 percent as poor. The most common reasons for negative results related to delays and timeliness.

Risk assessments were said to be EFSA’s most relevant activity, with 73 percent considering them very relevant, and another 12 percent saying relevant.

Less than half of participants agreed that EFSA supplies clear and robust scientific advice in emergency situations.

EFSA has four objectives. The one deemed most important was “providing independent, robust, timely and actionable scientific advice”, with 89 percent considering it very important and 10 percent saying it was quite important. Just over a third said EFSA meets all four objectives very well or well.

An analysis of feedback found 42 percent of respondents considered that EFSA, in assessing risks and providing scientific opinions, is appropriately balanced. Almost a quarter said EFSA is a little too cautious, and a further 20 percent that the agency is much too cautious.

According to a third of responses, EFSA has been adaptable or very adaptable to emerging challenges, such as new food technologies or supply chain threats, while nearly a quarter considered it somewhat adaptable, and 12 percent not very adaptable or not adaptable at all.

The most significant challenges identified by respondents for EFSA’s future included maintaining independence while safeguarding scientific integrity; and the narrowing pool of unbiased experts due to conflict of interest policies.