Editor's Choice | This Week in BMJ | Press releases
BMJ No 7109 Volume 315 Editorial Saturday 13 September 1997
Food safety: from plough to plateBoth public and industry need a food agency with cloutSee p 625The crisis over bovine spongiform encephalopathy may have been the most serious scare to hit Britain's food industry, but it was not an isolated event. It followed a stream of other concerns-about food additives, irradiation, salmonella in eggs, Escherichia coli, pesticides, genetically modified tomatoes, and the rising incidence of food poisoning. On each occasion ministers, producers, and retailers have struggled to restore consumer confidence. But their efforts have increasingly misfired, being seen as patronising, misleading, and stemming more from a desire to protect profits than to protect the public's health. Now at last it seems clear that the problem is not simply the public's perception that food is unsafe but real failings in the system of safeguards. A fundamental shake up is required, in particular one that separates the conflicting responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, currently charged with both safeguarding the public's health and promoting the interests of Britain's food industry.(1) In a report commissioned by the outgoing Conservative government and published in April, Professor Philip James of Aberdeen University proposed a new Food Standards Agency.(2) Some aspects of the proposals are uncontroversial. But, as was evident at a meeting on food safety in London last week organised by the Transport and General Worker's Union, others still elicit fierce debate. The new agency, as proposed by Professor James, would be independent of government but accountable to parliament, reporting to the Secretary of State for Health. Its first priority would be to protect public health. It would deal with four main aspects of food safety and quality: bacterial contamination, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy; toxicology and pesticides; genetic engineering; and nutritional quality. Modelled on the Health and Safety Commission and its executive, and on food safety bodies in other countries,(1) the agency would coordinate the currently fragmented system of food policy and safety control. Few argue with the agency's need to be independent, free from commercial conflicts of interest, and transparent in its proceedings. But representatives of industry oppose the inclusion of nutritional standards, arguing that healthy eating is a matter of individual behaviour and is already covered by the government's strategy for health, Health of the Nation. In reply, food activists argue that the Health of the Nation targets are far from ambitious and will be met simply as a result of existing trends. In not issuing clear guidance on healthy eating, the government has, they say, bowed to pressure from industry, which fears the impact such guidance would have on its profits. Jeanette Longfield of the National Food Alliance said, "If the Food Standards Agency is just about restoring public confidence in the food supply, it doesn't need to cover nutrition. But if it's about public health, nutrition must be in there." Other issues remain unresolved. Firstly, how will the agency fit into
the complex structures that oversee the international food market? Much
of the regulation controlling food safety in Britain now originates in
Europe; and beyond that is the World Trade Organisation, which works to
ensure that a country's food safety controls are not trade barriers in
disguise. The World Trade Organisation has recently upheld the United
States' view that the European Union's ban on growth hormones in meat
is illegal because there is no scientific evidence to support this. Secondly, how will the agency get enough input for agricultural experts
without reinventing the conflicts of interest inherent in the existing
system? Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, believes that
Professor James' proposals don't put enough emphasis on what happens
to food before it leaves the farm. This, he says, is where the major
problems of food safety originate, resulting from intensive production
methods. He would like to see an integrated ministry of sustainable
agriculture and food standards that builds the bridge between the Food
Standards Agency and the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries,
and Food.
Thirdly, what should be the agency's role in educating and informing
the public about food safety and quality? Suggestions at the meeting
ranged from getting supermarkets and other outlets to provide
computerised information about individual products which could be
accessed via the bar code on the label, to the more ambitious challenge
of educating the public about levels of risk.
Finally, should the agency be responsible for the socioeconomic impact
of food production and retail activities, such as the effects on
communities of agribusiness and out of town supermarkets? Regulation of
the pharmaceutical industry now covers this so called "fourth
hurdle," in addition to the safety, quality, and efficacy of drugs.
The food industry will resist this additional inteference, but for once
the political tide may be against it.
While the agency's exact remit will need to be clarified when the
government considers the responses to the James report this autumn, an
impressive consensus exists over the essentials. After all, the food
scares of the past few years have damaged the industry's health as
much as the public's. The government should capitalise on this
consensus to introduce an agency with clout which will not only restore
consumer confidence but will, in the long term, bring about concrete
changes in the way in which our food is produced and delivered.
Fiona Godlee
References
1 McKee M, Lang T. Food for independence. BMJ
1997;314:459-60.
2 James P. Food Standards Agency: an interim proposal. London:
Cabinet Office, 1997.
|