Sir; Examination of the White Paper on food safety makes it hard to understand how consumers' quality of life will be enhanced by its provisions. The proposals merely summarise the contents of the Green Paper and set out some half baked new thoughts. The establishment of an independent food authority responsible for all aspects of food safety, including control and enforcement, is urgently needed. It would have been greatly welcomed because it would have taken food safety out of the hands of politicians. Even if the establishment of such a body were not possible, the resources that will be spent on setting up a toothless food authority would have been much better spent on enlarging the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). This would have allowed the FVO to try and achieve common enforcement standards across the EU, at least. Just as disappointing are the White Paper's proposals for food safety to be founded on risk analysis. Risk analysis will result in responsibility for food safety remaining with the food industry, enforcement remaining with the national authority of the member state and harmonisation of enforcement falling to the European Commission. In short, it is clear that nothing will change. The proposals in the White Paper are desperately underwhelming and merely attempt to paper over cracks that, in the case of food safety, are fast becoming chasms. At the moment, the EU's best hope of achieving food safety lies in the hands of responsible manufacturers and retailers who actively police food and food ingredients for their products. Sadly, the only people whose lives will be enhanced by the White Paper's proposals are members of the Commission. The tragedy of the situation is that the overriding considerations of food policy will continue to be for politics and trade rather than for safety. Hilary Ross Senior solicitor Paisner & Co {{LETTERS }}