Scientists and Government – The Champions of Health

Good afternoon, Vice-Chancellor, fellow speakers, students and academics.

I am delighted to be here with you this evening. To be with so many people from such a wide spectrum of the scientific world - embracing medicine, technology, engineering and politics.

Indeed, to join your company, as I was recently given an honorary doctorate by Cranfield University of which I am hugely proud.

Cranfield’s mission is to 'transform knowledge into ingenious solutions in science and technology'. Your focus is squarely on the 'appliance of science' which mirrors much of my role as the Chair of the Food Standards Agency - to apply the best science to the best public food policy.

Science is at the very heart of what all of us here today do.
I’m particularly pleased to see so many young people at this post-graduate conference. You represent the future of ground-breaking science. You will be the pioneers of tomorrow.

British scientists, like you, have transformed our world. From Harrison’s chronometer to Faraday’s electric motor, Bell’s telephone to Logie Baird’s television.

Because of science, life expectancy has doubled in the last 200 years. Small pox has already been eradicated. Polio soon will be.

British science and innovation has touched every aspect of our lives.

But there is always more to be done to ensure that science continues to further improve the world we live in.

In particular, as the Chair of the Food Standards Agency, what we can do to improve the safety and quality of the food we eat.

What you do as scientists is use the best science to deliver the incredible diversity, quality and convenience of the food that we have in this country today.

It’s the role of the Food Standards Agency to work in partnership, in co-operation and, I hope, mutual respect with you, to apply that science to ensure the future health of the nation.

But that can be a complex proposition. Many of you here will remember the 1980s and early 90s being a pretty disastrous period for the British food industry.

That time is remembered by many as a series of food safety problems, one after the other, with BSE obviously the most damaging. The handling of those incidents caused consumer trust and confidence to drain away.

The Agency was set up in 2000 to put this right. 'To protect public health from risks ….which may arise in connection with the consumption of food and otherwise to protect the interests of consumers in relation to food.'

Trust is one of the factors that brings customers through the doors of the country’s shops and supermarkets every day. And it has given the food industry stability to innovate and prosper over the past few years.

And it’s trust in the Agency that has provided that market stability.

It is our most precious asset – our brand, if you like.

In our latest survey, 66 per cent of the public believe we tell the truth. That trust is not a given. It has to be earned every day.

Without trust, the public will not accept the science that supports the advice that we give on food.

So the rest of what I will say relates to earning and maintaining trust. And because trust is a product of what you do, not what you say, I’m going to talk about what the Food Standards Agency does. Also because that reflects some of the challenges facing science and scientists.

• the science of food safety
• the science of food fraud
• the science of choice

But first, the scientific framework within which we operate.

The Food Standards Agency was established as an evidence-based organisation, with an eminent scientist – Sir John, now Lord Krebs – at the helm.

Since then we have continued to grow and develop. Our Chief Scientist is Andrew Wadge and almost half of the current staff is qualified scientists, the majority with higher degrees. Combining science with policy.

We have a network of independent scientific advisory committees, with 140 independent scientists, to advise us. Their role is to challenge us. To tell us how it really is.

Crucially, this a includes new Social Sciences Committee – in recognition of the increasing importance of the behavioural sciences to the Agency’s business.

And a new, overarching General Advisory Committee on Science, which will take an overview on scientific issues, challenge our approach, advise, audit, and scan the horizon – among other things!

So Science – which so many of you in this audience are dedicated to - is a shared passion and the bedrock of the Agency.

It provides us with the evidence and the parameters within which we make judgements. But it cannot tell us what is appropriate level of risk or regulation, or the level of risk the public are willing to bear. That is the broader judgement with many considerations to take into account.

Let me turn to the way in which we use science.

I’ll start with food safety, as it will always be the Agency’s top priority – our bread and butter work.

And let’s look at the facts of food borne illness. 500 people in the UK die each year from it and 250,000 become ill, some seriously. The Agency is determined to reduce those figures not least because, besides the human cost such as children whose lives are devastated by e-coli, the cost of food poisoning to the economy, according to the latest figures, was £1.5 billion. (2006)

Since we were set up, the Agency has taken a lead in making food safety regulation more risk-based, with science a fundamental part of that assessment.

Let’s take food colours - which have been our recent high-profile story.

For some time that there has been concern that children were being affected by artificial colours in food and drink.

Indeed, for some time it has been difficult to pick up a newspaper or magazine without reading about it!

Because of this, we commissioned research to assess the risks.

Scientists at Southampton University looked at two groups of children, to assess the effects of six commonly used artificial colours in children’s food and also the preservative sodium benzoate.

The study, was reviewed by the independent Committee on Toxicity and published in The Lancet. It received a great deal of media coverage.

The research showed that certain mixtures of artificial colours, together with sodium benzoate, are associated with an increase in hyperactivity in some children.

Because these additives give colour to foods but nothing else we believe it is sensible, in the light of these findings, to remove them from children’s food and drink products.

Of course, these colours are not the only cause of hyperactivity. We know that other factors have an influence such as premature birth. So it is not completely clear cut.

And the UK Food industry has already taken great strides to address this issue. This shows that science is often inadequate but, at some point, we need to make a judgement about accumulating evidence.

And it is the Agency's duty to put consumers first.

Therefore, we have advised the Government that there should be voluntary action to remove specific artificial colours from food and drink by 2009. In addition, there should be action to phase them out in the European Union.

Another area where the Agency works closely with scientists is in, what is often called, “food forensics”. Through our Food Authenticity Programme we are able to harness modern analytical techniques to guarantee that food – is exactly what it says on the label.

As in criminal forensics, we can find out what is in our food, how it was produced, where and by whom.

This can be done by analysing biological isotopes in the food derived from water, feed or fertiliser that are absorbed by plants or animals. This allows us to verify whether, for example, if salmon is wild or farmed – a big consideration for the pockets of consumers when the price of wild salmon can be two or three times greater.

The same technology can be used to distinguish pasture-fed UK and Irish beef from maize-fed Brazilian beef.

Another development now being used by food standards enforcement teams is DNA technology. The new lab-on-a-chip system is a powerful tool – the size of your palm – that verifies species of animals and varieties of plants by their DNA. This can now be used to authenticate fish, meat, Basmati rice, durum pasta and detect fruit juice contamination.

This is particularly important in times of scarcity since some brands eg. Basmati rice, command a premium price.

Supporting the right, and the ability, of consumers to make choices is also important. But, as a sweeping generalisation, choice is more often an option when it comes to diet and health than food safety.

Of course consumers do make choices in relation to safety, for example when choosing to eat raw eggs, or drink unpasteurised milk.

But there is a distinction to be made here – between risks where people can make a choice, and risks where they can’t.

And generally, the choices we make about what we eat, and what we feed our families, are highly personal. Governments meddle in these food choices at some risk.

But there are perhaps two reasons which justify the entry of government into this sensitive field:

• first, there is a general responsibility on government to safeguard a healthy population
• second, the costs of diet-related illness are already substantial and growing considerably

The risk to the economy of an increased non-working population - affecting tax revenues, pension contributions, and welfare payments – was estimated in 2002 by the House of Commons’ Health Select Committee at about £7 billion a year.

And this is set rise, to £45.5 billion by 2050.

Because if current rends continue, by then, 60% of men will be obese, 50% of women and a quarter of young people and children.

Like many of the other big social problems facing Government – anti-social behaviour, alcohol abuse, sexual health – the solutions are subtle and often intangible. You can’t order people to eat lettuce. And any choice that requires counter intuitive behaviour today for a better tomorrow is difficult.

But how far do we go? And where do responsibilities lie?

One of the Food Standards Agency’s primary roles is to give simple, clear, comparable information to consumers. But it has to be done in a way that takes account of our increasingly busy lives, while allowing us to make our own decisions.

However, we have to recognise that the science of nutrition is still in its early days, compared with some other sciences. Nutrition is complex, and you can’t easily control all the variables – the main variable of course being people.

We work with the best scientific expertise around – but it cannot just be about the ‘hard’ sciences. It is also about behaviour.

What drives people to make the choices that they do?

Why are we reluctant to change, even in the face of compelling evidence?

That’s why it’s so important for the physical and social sciences to work closely together. To understand what drives behaviour. So we can influence it.

As the Agency, too, works hard to ensure support, consensus, and good partnerships.

Indeed, it is the approach we have adopted with our dietary initiatives – all of which have progressed on a scientific basis, forming hypotheses, testing them out, revising and adapting with new knowledge.

And this is reflected in our nutrition strategy. It is three-pronged. First, to encourage the food industry to reformulate its products so that it produces healthier food. Such as the work we undertook with Heinz to reduce salt levels in soups and baked beans.

Second, to create market demand by educating the public about what to look for if they want to eat more healthily.

Third, to ensure good front of pack labelling that allows people to see at a glance what levels of sugar, fat and salt are in their food before they buy it.

I believe we have achieved a great deal through this approach.

For example, the latest evaluation of our salt campaign shows that since we started in 2003, average salt intake has gone down by 5%. And the number of people looking at food labels for salt content has increased by 50 per cent.

That is an excellent result. People are not just being made aware of a health issue; they are actually being helped to make informed choices. Though this decrease sounds small, every 0.5% reduction saves 3,500 lives a year.

At the same time, food labelling has undergone something of a revolution, with every major retailer now voluntarily using one or other of the two main types of front-of-pack nutrition labelling.

These let people see at a glance exactly what they are buying before they toss it into their shopping trollies.
Information about sugar, calories, saturated fat and salt. Giving them what they need to make decisions for themselves and their families.

In particular, the Food Standards Agency’s traffic-light labelling recommendations have been a real success – Sainsbury’s report that 79% cent of customers say it influences what they buy.

Some restaurants are also coming on board. Yo Sushi, the Japanese chain, has introduced a traffic-light system for all their dishes. Again giving people clear information on which to base choices.

So the big picture here is the dramatic change that has been made by the food industry generally in re-formulating food as well as clarifying nutritional information.

I hope I have shown you how important it is to base policy on good science. I’d like to conclude with some challenges. Those I foresee for the Agency and, by extension, you as scientists of today and those of tomorrow.

The first of these lies in food safety: the new complexities presented by an increasingly global food chain; the challenges of new sciences such as nanotechnology including potential developments – such as 'active' packaging that tells us how good the food inside it is - as well as the handling of issues such as the application of GM in new fields. GM food still worries people.

The second is the question of the nation’s diet and health. Encouraging the industry to produce the right products and giving consumers the information they need to make healthy choices. The continuing challenge, however, will be where responsibilities lie and the best way to achieve our goals.

The third is the need to guard against food fraud. In an increasingly globalised food economy the variety of foods and choices we now have are enormous. But so too is the potential for fraud. An area in which the FSA will continue to be vigilant.

And now, the challenge to the scientific community. Which is one that we share.

For we share a common impetus.

That of improving the lives of people in Britain and beyond.

To make us healthier. To provide the best scientific evidence possible on which to base the nutritional advice the Food Standards Agency relies on.

More generally, I hope I have illustrated that we need to combine science with talking to the public. Most people are sensible about risk provided that they feel properly consulted and helped to understand the science.

Indeed, it is very important for all scientists to feel they have an obligation to explain their science. The communication of science is a skill that should be recognised and rewarded.

I look forward to continuing to work with you.

Thank you.