Autonomous food authority would be a major benefit for consumers

OVER the 40 years during which I have worked in food production, I cannot remember a time when consumers were so concerned about food safety as they are today.

This is a strange situation, given that (apart from BSE, which is a new problem and very much a British problem) food leaving farms today is of only cheaper, it is also more disease free and residue free than at any me in the past. So why have we such unwarranted and misplaced concerns today?

Aspiring politicians, environmental groups, the animal welfare lobby and others have found easy access to the media, with exaggerated scares or imaginary scares. Such stories are newsworthy. The facts are not.

The salmonella in British eggs scare is a fine example of what I mean. The whole controversy helped to transform Edwina Currie into an internationally known figure, but it did enormous damage to an excellent industry by undermining consumer confidence. A sense of proportion is needed in the food debate.

Despite the scares about fertilisers, pesticides etc, each succeeding generation is growing taller and stronger and living longer. Going back to organic farming is all very well for the minority who can afford to pay a premium price for what they perceive to be a better product. But it is not feasible to feed today's world population with yesterday's methods.

Agricultural chemicals are like medical drugs: very beneficial when used properly but very dangerous when not correctly used.

Just because a substance is present does not mean it is harmful. Indeed most, if not all, the essential nutribeats in our diet, especially minerals, are beneficial at one level (the normal level in our food), and poisonous at higher levels. Table salt is a good example.

Other examples are iodine, chlorine, magnesium, potassium, sulphur, etc., and many others, essential in very minute quantities. Chlorine, added to our water to make it safe and flourine, to prevent tooth decay, are both poisonous if swallowed pure. Thus, it is the level of concentration that determines the safety.

THE lack of understanding of this, allied with the increased sophistication of measurement technology which over the years has enabled scientists to detect ever smaller quantities of a substance, has given rise to concerns about the wholesomeness of "our food.

In 1950, trace amounts of chemicals, both man made and natural, could be detected at one part per million. Any level below that was considered zero and not present. By 1965, scientists could detect one part per billion. By 1975, it was one part per trillion. So the concept of zero presence is now virtually meaningless.

The fact that something cannot be detected, as in the past, does not mean it is not there, and the fact that it is there does not necessarily mean it is harmful. Furthermore, humans consume 10,000 times more naturally occurring toxins (substances produced by plants to deter pests) than man made pesticides.

Research in Britain showed a mismatch between real food hazards and perceived food hazards. Top of the list of perceived hazards were additives and pesticides, whereas they were bottom of the list of real hazards. Indeed, zero additives can sometimes be dangerous, as elimination of preservatives such as NaCI (salt) in bacon and hams and could ad to problems with CI botullnum. Also, the replacement of acetic acid in salads with yoghurt or soft cream could give rise to bacterial problems above 20" C.

Two British scientists, Sir Richard Dell and Dr Richard Peto, in a landmark study of the causes of human cancer, found that additives were a negligible risk and even that some evidence suggested that they may exert a beneficial role.

The number one problem with food in the world today is microbial contamination, and in that regard salmonella infection of animal products is the most important.

IN THE US, bacteria in food causes over six million cases of illness annually, mainly in food of animal and fish origin. In Britain, the number of reported cases of bacterial food poisoning increased fourfold between 1965 and 1985. The majority of cases was caused by poor handling of food in the home and in large catering establishments, e.g. canteens, restaurants, hospitals, etc.

Meanwhile, consumers continue to worry about additives and residues, which are of minor significance compared with microbial contamination, thus taking the focus off the real problem.

Overall, public confidence in food will only be restored when decisions about what is safe or not safe are I taken out of the political arena. The US example - where the Food and Drugs Administration, an autonomous scientific body, decides on food safety - is worth following.

The FDA saved US citizens from the tragedy of thalidomide in the 1960s by not approving its use. It also protected them from angel dust in the 1980s and 1990s by permitting the use of World Health Organisation approved growth promoters, when Europe banned them against the advice of every scientific body consulted.

Political and commercial considerations should play no part where human health is concerned. If consumers were convinced that decisions in relation to BSE were based solely on consumer safety, their reactions would be entirely different to the unjustified but understandable reactions we have seen in recent months.

The Minister for Agriculture, Mr Yates - the current president of the EU farm council - could do European consumers and producers a valuable service if he pushed for the establishment of an autonomous regulatory authority for the EU, similar to the FDA in the US.