"We already have high standards of food safety," said Sir John Krebs, the FSA's new chairman. Deputy chairman Suzi Leather is quoted as saying "food scares have largely been about the handling of technical scientific advice".
This is nonsense. I don't believe she said it.
If things are so rosy, why have an FSA or an EU food authority? Is the FSA seriously telling us that 18 years of food scandals have been a storm in a teacup, hyperbole without substance?
The FSA and the European Food Agency both have serious jobs to do and need to bone up on food policy. A key task for them will be to decide whom they work for.
At Thames Valley University, we apply the carrot test. In the early 1990s, MAFF found carrots routinely exceeded pesticide residue safety levels so it altered the safety level. Result? The Chief Medical Officer advised people to peel carrots.
That story symbolises what must change.
A culture of "productionism" rules. Routine adulteration is legal. Think added water, not just cosmetic additives. Modern food supply is astonishingly complex. Many firms and people are highly committed to good quality. But, if the FSA takes a risk communication approach, I suggest readers of The Grocer join me in campaigning for its closure now.
Most people I know in the UK food industry admit privately that food poisoning has been a scandal for too long. They know too that new technologies and the lengthening supply chain have created opportunities for breakdown and poor standards. Now is not the time to allocate blame. We want the FSA to be a clean start but it will only work by being partisan for the public, health and consumers.
Two thoughts. First, the EU food agency might make it obsolete by 2002. Second, Sweden took three decades to exorcise salmonella. My genuine good wishes to Sir John and his team.
{{NEWS }}
No comments yet