The UK’s former food safety tsar has accused its leading regulator of becoming a “pale imitation” of an evidence-based policy maker.
In a lacerating attack Professor Chris Elliott OBE, writing together with Queens University Belfast biology professor Brian Green, claimed the Food Standards Agency (FSA) failed to thoroughly investigate cancer links from nitrites in processed meats, such as bacon and ham.
In a position paper published today the pair say the conduct of the regulator risks “undermining public trust” in its ability to protect food safety.
The intervention comes a week after FSA bosses insisted there was “no clear evidence” that removing nitrites from processed meats reduces the risk of cancer, 10 years after a report by WHO scientists, whose findings are backed by Elliott and Green, warned of their dangers.
Elliott, who led the British government’s independent review of food systems following the 2013 horse meat scandal – which led to the establishment of the National Food Crime Unit within the FSA in 2015 – and Green, whose 2022 study found that mice fed a diet of processed meat containing nitrites developed 75% more cancerous tumours in the duodenum than mice fed nitrite-free pork, wrote in New Food Magazine that the UK’s “non transparent” safety review posed major questions over the regulator.
Last month, the FSA published a blog linking to a literature review carried out by the consultancy RSM, which it used to rule out risks from nitrites in meat, despite the contrary evidence from the WHO report, Green’s more recent research, and other studies.
“For those of us who have spent much of our careers working to keep food safe, there are few things more frustrating than regulators taking the easy road when the scientific evidence demands their action,” says today’s statement.
The pair add: “Keeping stuff out of our food that may be harmful, be it pesticides, drugs, mycotoxins or other nasty chemicals, is a vital role for the FSA and they ordinarily do it very well.
“But seemingly a very different stance on another class of chemicals has been taken, given the inaction to date and the FSA’s recently published partial review on the safety of nitrates and nitrites as food additives in processed meats.
“At first glance, the report appears an earnest attempt to reassure the public that everything is under control, that there’s nothing to see here.
“On closer inspection, a cacophony of weaknesses becomes apparent.”
They accuse the FSA of a “highly selective approach”, which uses an “incomplete evidence base” and fails to include some of the most important studies published around the potential risks.
“This all points to a deeply worrying unwillingness to grasp what the data, in its totality, actually means for human health. When we compared this side-by-side with the comprehensive, rigorous and transparent work of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the FSA’s approach feels like a pale imitation of true scientific risk assessment.”
The position paper contrasts EFSA’s research into nitrites in processed meat. Its most recent comprehensive re-evaluation, published in 2023, set stricter, lower maximum levels for nitrites in the EU.
“EFSA didn’t simply skim selected parts of the literature; they dissected it all in minute detail,” the paper says. “Toxicology data, animal studies, human epidemiology, genotoxicity, carcinogenic potential – all were carefully scrutinised to ensure sound, evidence-based conclusions were reached.
“This is how an effective food safety science process is conducted: it’s transparent, comprehensive, data-driven, and above all leads to evidence-based policy that puts the consumer first.”
Turning their lens on the FSA, the pair add: “We are left with a document that allows a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care to state: ‘The Food Standards Agency have made it clear that the link between nitrates and nitrites and cancer remains inconclusive’. This may help reassure ministers, but believe us, it does nothing to reassure anyone with an understanding of the underpinning science.”
Today it was also announced that Conservative shadow cabinet minister Andrew Bowie was joining the Coalition Against Nitrites, which is leading the campaign for action by the government and the FSA, as a supporter, joining senior figures from other parties already on the group, also comprising leading global experts from France, Italy and the US.
Last week the FSA’s acting chief scientific advisor Professor Rick Mumford said whilst there was no clear evidence if nitrites were causing the cancer links with meat, it recommended people cut down on processed meat, because there was clear evidence that eating too much increased the risk of bowel cancer and other illnesses.
“We know that processed meat increases the risk of cancer, but the exact cause of these risks remains unclear. We commissioned this rapid review to look specifically at human studies and new science published since EFSA’s work on nitrates carried out in 2017 and 2023,” says Mumford.
”Our review, which is part of ongoing wider FSA work on hazards and risks in the food chain, was scrutinised by the independent Committee on Toxicity (COT), and was conducted by a team including scientists experienced in this type of evidence assessment.
“Nitrates and nitrites occur widely in our diets naturally, and in terms of additives we already have clear maximum levels. The review looked at the available evidence in depth, including international assessments, and the conclusions reflect the current state of scientific knowledge on this issue.
“There is no evidence that removing nitrates or nitrites makes processed meat safer. Our advice is simple: to reduce health risks, it’s best to limit your consumption of all processed meats.”
No comments yet