Regarding the publication of Dovilé Rimkute, ‘Organizational reputation and risk regulation: The effect of reputational threats on agency scientific outputs’ (Public Administration, 96(1), 70–83)
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12535 |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Regarding the publication of Dovilé Rimkute,
‘Organizational reputation and risk regulation:
The effect of reputational threats on agency
scientific outputs’(Public Administration,
96(1), 70–83)
Public Administration recently published the article, ‘Organizational reputation and risk regulation: The effect of repu-
tational threats on agency scientific outputs’(Public Administration,96(1), 70–83). The variation in the scientific risk
assessments between the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the French Agency for Food, Environmental
and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) and, in particular, the differences reported in the past on bisphenol A
(BPA) risk assessment is taken as an example by D. Rimkute, author of the article, to document the theory of ‘bureau-
cratic reputation’.
ANSES appreciates the opportunity given by Public Administration to clarify some important points relating to
ANSES and its work which are either missing or wrongly reported in the publication.
ANSES is an independent public agency in the field of food, environmental and occupational health and safety.
As far as ANSES’activities on BPA are concerned, ANSES has concentrated its activities on risk assessment and pro-
ducing opinions and reports with recommendations following several requests since 2009 from the French ministries
for environment and health. These activities were performed by a dedicated working group of independent scientific
experts selected following an open call for candidates published on the ANSES website. The group included scientists
in the field of endocrinology, toxicology, toxicokinetics and exposure assessment. ANSES’opinions and reports rely
on experts’scientific work on the basis of transparent standard bibliographic review procedures similar to the work
performed by the EFSA and not with an a priori protectionist approach as stated in the article. ANSES has published
several reference documents on how it conducts expert assessments, including one on ‘Fundamental principles and
key points of collective expertise at ANSES’.
1
It is not correct to say th at ANSES carried out onl y a ‘hazard assessment rather than a risk assessment’
and that ANSES ‘did not asse ss the likelihood of BPA r isks’. A first report was published in September 2011
(https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/CHIM-Ra-BisphenolA.pdf) in which the effects of BPA on human health
were assessed. A furt her report was publish ed in March 2013 (htt ps://www.anses.fr /fr/system/files/
CHIM2009sa0331Ra-0-An.pdf) focusing on health risks related to BPA exposure. In the 2013 report, exposure
assessment was base d on a probabilistic ap proach. Regretful ly the author’s assumptions and statements do not
rely on a close reading of ANSES BPA opinions and reports but refer only to ‘ANSES 2011 Dossier de Presse’
(press file) which is cl early insufficient f or an accurate analysi s of ANSES’work on BPA carried out from 2009
to 2017.
1
Available on ANSES website: https://www.anses.fr/en/content/conducting-expert-assessments
This article is linked to Rimkute paper. To view this article, visit https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/padm.12535
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12535
Public Administration. 2019;97:235–236. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 235
To continue reading
Request your trial