Now that the clocks have gone back, what better way to spend the longer evenings than in your own home with the family, watching the brand new FSA part-funded TV programme ‘Family Supercooks’. You can see it tonight on the Good Food channel at 9pm. The programme centres around 12 families who compete against each other to cook a three-course meal using their own recipes and the Agency will have the chance to get its scientific and evidence-based advice out to an estimated five million viewers. Working in partnership with a TV programme is a first for the Agency, but encouraging people to eat more healthily and having the opportunity for our nutritionists’ to input on healthy eating messages and tips seemed like a good food combo! If you don’t have the Good Food channel, more information about the programme plus featured recipes are available on eatwell.gov.uk, but try to tune in over the next couple of weeks and let me know what you think. I might have to dig out my apron!

I usually like to keep my blogs short and to the point, but following a critical article about the Agency's salt policy in The Times earlier this week, I felt this needed a more detailed response. As Chief Scientist, my job is to ensure that the Agency draws its conclusions and bases its advice on the totality of evidence. So it concerned me when I read this selective view of science in relation to such an important public health issue.

The article in question highlighted some studies that suggest there are no benefits to reducing people’s consumption of salt. It describes findings from a study that argues public policy to reduce salt intake is unrealistic because our appetite for salt is controlled by our central nervous system. The study analysed 24-hour urinary sodium excretion (the most accurate way to measure salt intake) from previously published surveys, which included data for 20,000 people in 33 countries and reported that salt intake ranged from 7 to 12 g a day. From this the authors concluded that salt intake is controlled within the range defined by these surveys. It’s a very odd argument that because usual intakes of salt are within a certain range this is how much we need. It’s not surprising so many populations have intakes within this range, in some ways diets across the world are similar, for example bread, breakfast cereals, savoury biscuits, tinned vegetables, soups, and ready-prepared meals form a large part of the diet, and can all be high in salt – in fact, most of our salt intake (about 75%) comes from foods we buy.

The Times article mentions a study in the British Medical Journal in 2002 that concluded that while salt avoidance was helpful to those on medication for hypertension, there were no clear benefits for anyone else. This may be a reference to a systematic review by Hooper et al (2002) which assessed the long-term effects of advice to reduce dietary salt in adults with and without hypertension. This review found that the significant reductions in blood pressure observed at six and 12 months were not sustained over time. The findings reflect the difficulty in making substantial changes to the diet and complying with dietary advice, rather than the effectiveness of decreased salt intakes on blood pressure reduction.

The Times article also states that a Cochrane review concluded ‘there is little evidence for long-term benefit from reducing salt intake’– but the study could only assess the short-term effects! And although they couldn’t assess the long-term effects, the review authors acknowledge that reduced sodium intake in those with elevated blood pressure has a ‘useful effect to reduce blood pressure in the short term’.

The article also includes the views of a dietitian, who states that salt reduction is only important for people with high blood pressure. Well, the 2006 Health Survey for England showed 31% of men and 28% of women had high blood pressure – and it’s likely that lots more might also have high blood pressure that hasn’t been diagnosed. Because the risk of high blood pressure is so widespread, the population as a whole may be at a relatively high risk of cardiovascular disease. This just adds weight to our advice high blood pressure is a serious public health problem in the UK.

But in fact the evidence shows, the risk from cardiovascular disease is not restricted to people with high blood pressure. A large study (Prospective Studies Collaboration, 2002) that combined the results of 61 studies of blood pressure and mortality with data for one million adults with no history of cardiovascular disease, found a relationship between increasing blood pressure and risk of death from cardiovascular disease. This is another reason why the Agency agreed a public health approach to reducing salt intake was needed.

Additionally, the DASH sodium trial, a rigorous and large randomised controlled trial in which salt intake was tightly controlled, demonstrated that blood pressure was reduced in response to decreasing salt intakes for people both with high blood pressure and normal blood pressure.

Contrary to these robust published trials, another scientist is quoted in The Times claiming that results from a randomised clinical trial showed that people with a lower salt diet suffered significantly more cardiovascular deaths and hospitalisations than people with a higher salt diet. We’ve looked and have been unable to find such a trial.

The Agency recognises that we do need some salt in our diet as it is one way of obtaining sodium, which is an essential nutrient. Our recommendation is to reduce consumption of too much salt and cut down intakes to an appropriate level, i.e. no more than 6g a day for adults. This is still one and a half times more than the recommended nutrient intake for sodium (equivalent to 4g a day salt) and substantially more than the amount of salt required to maintain the sodium content of the body, but we have to set a realistic initial target.

The sodium content of the blood is tightly regulated over a narrow physiological range. This means if we consume more salt than we need, the excess must be excreted by the kidneys to maintain the sodium content of the body. However, there is an upper limit to the rate at which sodium can be lost from the body. Intakes above this point can cause an increase of sodium in the body and this causes water to be retained in the body. This might not matter in the short-term, but if the amount of salt that exceeds the capacity for excretion is large, or if it’s maintained over a long period of time, it can lead to tissue damage and the development of higher blood pressure.

The Agency’s advice to consume no more than 6g of salt a day is based on independent expert advice from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) and this is based on a wide range of published scientific evidence (approximately 200 studies). We’re not alone on this – the 6g intake target is consistent with advice from the world’s leading scientific bodies, including the World Health Organization and the Institute of Medicine in the US.

Agency advice is based on the totality of the available evidence, guided by independent experts, rather than the views of one or two individual scientists. The benefits of salt reduction are clear. The scientific consensus is that excessive salt consumption increases the risk of high blood pressure which, in turn, increases the chance of cardiovascular disease. That’s why the Agency will continue to campaign for a reduction in the salt intakes of the UK population, which are still considerably greater than the 6g a day target.

I appreciate presentation of alternative views; considering all the available evidence ensures we can be confident our advice is based on sound science. But this article highlights how damaging it can be when only one side of an argument is presented and the full body of scientific evidence is not considered – is this bad science or sensationalist journalism?

Throughout this year the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has had a series of events showcasing the vital role of chemistry in food. It’s therefore not surprising that they chose food as the theme of Chemistry Week. Chemistry Week aims to increase public understanding of the importance of chemistry in our everyday lives and this year runs from 7 to 15 November. Chemistry plays a vital role in putting healthy food on our plate from farm to fork, including helping find solutions to global food shortages, testing the safety and capability of new technologies, developing intelligent sensors to detect when food has passed its ‘use by’ date, and discovering new environmentally friendly packaging materials. You can find out more about how chemistry impacts the Agency’s work – whether it’s as a result of chemicals that make up our food or those that accumulate in food as a result of human activities or natural processes – in my third Annual Report. The report was launched at the RSC in London in September and sets out progress in the Agency’s science over the past year, highlighting how it drives and underpins our advice and policy. With RSC events taking place throughout the UK, from functional foods to the chemistry of curry, you won’t need a lab coat to see how much chemistry affects our everyday lives.

If you’ve read the papers or watched the news over the weekend, you may be forgiven for thinking you now have the green light to consume 400 extra calories a day.

This was the way that the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition’s (SACN) draft report on Energy Requirements was widely reported in the media. It’s unfortunate that this is the way many journalists interpreted the draft report, as it’s simply not true, and is an irresponsible message considering the levels of obesity in this country.

SACN, in its draft report, has estimated that people’s energy requirements are higher than previously calculated in 1991. This is because there is now more evidence available, based on a more accurate way of measuring energy expenditure, and SACN’s conclusions were based on this new evidence.

The draft report stresses that this should not be interpreted to mean that people need to eat more, such as an extra cheeseburger as quoted in some media. Given the high, and increasing number of, people who are overweight and obese in the UK (about 60% of the population), it is clear that many people take in more calories than they need.

Although the media got a bit overexcited about the draft report, the fact is that the Agency’s advice remains unchanged. That is, that people should maintain a healthy body weight, and for most people this means eating less and exercising more. Guidance to industry and food providers on calorie labelling also remains unchanged.

There were accusations from some quarters about the Agency wanting to ‘sweep this report under the carpet'. It’s difficult to see where this claim came from, considering that we published a story on our website on 5 November, with a link to the full draft report.

Once the scientific consultation is complete and SACN has considered all comments and finalised its report, it will then be the job of the Agency and health departments to carefully consider it. Again, this will all be made publicly available via our website.

As I write this, some of my colleagues are at a conference in Amsterdam, working with their counterparts from all over Europe to review and refine procedures to assess the safety of new foods and technologies, such as nanotechnology. Innovations in food technology are often the result of highly sophisticated scientific research, and while the end products can look like a ploy to increase profits for the food industry, (especially when, as in Times 2 article on Wednesday, we’re talking about pizza that can help us lose weight), the outputs are usually more practical, for example, the discovery of pasteurisation of milk is considered one of the major public health achievements of the 19th century. To further such advances, the Agency has funded a number of horizon-scanning projects over the years to look at what’s currently being developed by industry and universities. Although some of the technologies mentioned in the Times article, such as the radical sounding microencapsulation and high pressure processing could be viewed as novel foods or processes, many aren’t actually all that new. Microencapsulation has been used in probiotics for a number of years, and the safety of high pressure processing, as an alternative to heat pasteurisation, was evaluated for use in the EU a decade ago. It’s the Agency’s job to ensure all novel foods are safe before they are placed on the market, and there’s a well established regulatory framework in place to prevent people from having the wool pulled over their eyes, as Mr Renton puts it. The UK is very active in this area and the Agency is very open about the products it reviews under this Regulation, inviting the public to highlight any concerns they may have. And thanks to work underway in Europe, claims about the health benefits of these new foods will only be allowed if they are underpinned by robust scientific evidence.

I was delighted to welcome Professor David Spiegelhalter to the Agency yesterday to give the fourth in our series of Chief Scientist lectures. David is not only a distinguished statistician, but also the Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge. As a Bayesian statistician, he told us his philosophy was informed by two principles, firstly that probability does not exist and secondly all models are wrong, but some are more useful than others. It's always encouraging in my experience when professors are willing to show some humility about their models!

What interested me was the different ways he has been experimenting with visually representing risks, for example using bar charts of icons, and pictures of smiley and sad faces to illustrate the numbers of people who, on average, will get bowel cancer over a lifetime (5 in 100) and how the risk changes if you eat bacon sandwiches (an extra 1) etc etc. It would be great to see how consumers react to these visual methods and how this might inform the way that we in the Agency communicate risk.

For those of you who haven’t heard David speak on the subject of risk, you can see him on the following link: www.youtube.com

The Agency is committed to a science- and evidence-based approach in all that we do, and this is reaffirmed both in our new strategy and our new science and evidence strategy (which we will publish early next year – watch this space!).

Independent expert advice is absolutely essential to this approach, and I welcome this week's publication of a set of principles that aim to ensure effective engagement between the Government and those who provide independent expert advice. The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills is inviting comments on these principles as part of a consultation on the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser’s guidelines for the use of scientific analysis in policy making, which runs until 9 February 2010.

As I have said before, the journey from science advice to policy decision-making is complex, and needs to take into account wider issues beyond the confines of science.  So I think it is really helpful to have this discussion now, and to try to develop a shared understanding of how this complex process should work.  The Agency will be responding to this consultation and I will ask the independent General Advisory Committee on Science (GACS) for its views, to inform our response.

Of course, what ultimately matters is how we live up to our principles in practice – in my view the best guarantee of that is to operate openly and transparently.  What do you think?

Christmas is always a good time to reflect on another year passing, so here are some of my thoughts:

Most amusing–Ben Goldacre’s description of the Daily Mail’s Sisyphian project of categorising the whole of the inanimate world into those things that cause cancer and those that protect you from cancer! As Camus might have said, this one will roll and roll...

Most sensible advice–‘Solely the dose determines that a thing is not a poison’. Paracelsus, or to give him his full name, Auroleus Phillipus Theostratus Bombastus von Hohe, is still the Godfather of toxicology after all these years!

Best news– publication of the Science Review of the FSA, in which the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor John Beddington, described our approach to science as ‘impressive’.

Most predictable– the response to the publication of a report that concluded that there are no important differences in nutrition content between organic and conventionally produced food. Predictably, we were criticised for our approach to science – see above!

Most disappointing– the lack of progress in reducing campylobacter in chicken. Our survey published this year found that 65% of fresh chicken on sale in this country contains campylobacter, which is a major source of food poisoning.

Biggest challenge– (apart from Sheffield Wednesday avoiding the drop....sorry Tim!) is making real reductions in campylobacter in chicken – this is a key priority for us in our new strategic plan as we need to prevent so many people getting ill unnecessarily.

Most encouraging– your continued response to this blog.

Biggest hope for 2010– (apart from Tottenham Hotspur going from strength to strength) is that we can encourage people to drop the dogma and engage in open debate informed by evidence.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the highs and lows of 2009 and what challenges might be facing us in 2010.

I hope you all enjoy a period of feasting and merriment, unbounded (at least temporarily) by the usual strictures from my nutritional colleagues!

For the new year, I've made a resolution not to comment on the proliferation of fad diets and detoxes surrounding us in the media (I think we can use our common sense on this). Instead I want to look forward to 2030 and the UK cross-government strategy for food research and innovation, which was launched on Tuesday by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser.
 
This strategy sets out how the Government plans to maximise the contribution of research and innovation to meeting its goals on food. A key element of this will be strengthening partnerships between funders, and this chimes really well with our science and evidence strategy, which has partnership as one of its key themes.

Of course there are already good examples of where funders are coming together to share information and develop collaborative approaches, including the Microbiological Safety of Food Funders Group. But, I hope, the strategy will provide added impetus to developing new collaborative approaches, such as the multi-partner food security research programme and the coordinated programme on campylobacter research, both of which are referred to in the strategy. And we’ll be continuing to look for more opportunities to strengthen our collaborative work, so watch this space...

I welcome the report from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee into nanotechnology, which was chaired by Lord Krebs, a former Chair of the Agency.  New and emerging technologies can bring about risks as well as benefits for consumers, so what we need is open debate, not dogma.  Our priority in the FSA is protecting consumer interests, so I fully support the need to develop a research capability in the UK so that we can assess the potential effects of nanomaterials on health; we're working with other research funding bodies to co-ordinate the necessary research.

One of the recommendations in the report is that it would be useful to have a public register of nano-derived foods. I agree it would be useful to have this and we would be happy to coordinate it, but it will require openness and cooperation from the food industry and support from consumer groups to ensure that any register provides the information that consumers need. If you have any views you'd like to add to the debate, I'd be interested in hearing them.

Hats off to the BBC for two excellent programmes on food last night, which compliment the Government's food strategy 2030 that was published this week.  Jimmy Doherty's investigation into farming in Brazil tackled the issues of how you use science to help increase food production in a way that's sustainable and good for consumers, farmers and the environment.  The sight of fleets of combine harvesters across endless prairies harvesting soybeans, followed immediately by a phalanx of seed drillers planting the next crop may not be everyone's idea of farming, but feeding a growing population will take innovation, and Doherty was able to move beyond the tired old argument that intensive farming is always bad.  I will certainly be watching the next three episodes.

I also enjoyed Susan Jebb's trawl through the BBC archives to look at how our relationship with food has changed.  The changing fashions, hairstyles and accents were as striking as our changing diets –  a particular favourite was the two rather louche marketing men in 70's shirts and ties devising a processed egg and bacon meal in the shape of an egg –  I must have missed that one when it hit the market!  The arrogance with which they talked about housewives was almost as breathtaking as the amount they used to smoke back then.  It was left to Professor Andre McLean, one of my former toxicology tutors, to sound a note of caution when he said that changes in dietary habits, particularly in consumption of saturated fats and sugars, were being introduced with no thought given to how this might impact on health. We are, of course, now seeing the results with the growing levels of obesity in the UK.

Does anyone want to take a guess at what food fashions or new food challenges might be in 2030?

As I sat eating my toast yesterday morning while listening to the radio and scanning the paper, I was somewhat concerned by the stories being thrown around on food and health – one calling for a ban on butter and the other for a ban on trans fats. My concern was less about the science being reported to justify such bans and more about what I would be able to spread on my toast in future if we banned all foods that were perceived by some to be ‘mad, bad and dangerous to eat’!

And if we banned butter and trans fats (which occur naturally in animal products), on the same grounds it follows that we would also have to ban cheese…  And why stop there, what about chocolate, pastries, cakes and biscuits?

But the truth is, there are very little trans fats in any of our foods these days, including our spreads, and while butter should be eaten sparingly, because it contains high amounts of saturated fat, the world would be a poorer place if it ceased to exist.

It’s not that we don’t take these issues seriously, but a ban’s not a practical solution. In 2007 SACN (the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition) conducted a full independent scientific review looking at the health impacts of trans fats and whether the UK should act to restrict their use. It concluded that levels of artificial trans fats in foods are now very low and the amounts we eat are below the limits set. This is because the food industry has voluntarily been reducing levels or removing them all together, including many fast-food restaurants changing cooking oils.
 
Consumer intakes of trans fat are now at very low levels – just 1% of food energy, which is half the recommended maximum intake. And, there’s currently no evidence to show that further reductions would result in a reduced risk of coronary heart disease in the UK.

And, although trans fats are talked about as evil chemicals lurking in our foods, it’s in fact sat fats that we should be taking more action on. As a nation we are all eating much more saturated fat than we need to, which is having a negative effect on our health – intakes are currently more than 13% of our food energy and above the current guidelines of less than 11%. This is precisely why the FSA is running campaigns to raise awareness of  saturated fat and help  people cut down – phase two launched yesterday promoting 1% fat milk.

So, rather than a ban, I’d encourage people to check out our campaign advice, take more responsibility for their choices and maybe cut back on the takeaways, cakes and biscuits.

When we’re gathering evidence to develop new policies, we understand how important the public’s views are in contributing to this. I was therefore interested to read the latest annual report of British Social Attitudes, which was published by the National Centre for Social Research yesterday.

This year the Agency funded some questions in the survey to find out more about people’s views on food technologies, including GM, and this will form part of a package of social science work in this area.

The key thing the survey found was that levels of concern about new food technologies vary across the country and are strongly linked to the level of knowledge about new products and technologies. In relation to GM, while opposition has fallen since 1999, public approval has not risen. Rather, the public are less able to agree or disagree about the merits or otherwise of GM foods.

Over the coming year the Agency will be opening up a debate on GM, which will help provide people with information they need to develop their own views.

If you’re interested in finding out more, we’ll be publishing a full report of the food technology questions in the coming months.

Despite the absurdity of Hannah Sutter’s proclamation in Saturday’s Daily Mail, that government advice to ‘exercise more and eat fewer calories’ is making people fat, I felt I had to respond. 

She claims that our advice to base meals on carbohydrates isn’t right for the sedentary lifestyles we lead today. She explains exactly how the white rice, pasta and bread we are filling up on is converted into fat around our middles, whilst providing very little in the way of nutrients. 

Well yes, if we stuff ourselves with pasta and don’t take any exercise, then of course we’ll put on weight.  Any energy that we take in – not just that from carbohydrates – will be stored as fat if we don’t burn it off. That’s why we recommend people eat less and move more. The problem is that people aren’t eating the right amount of food for how active they are.

However, I should also point out that we advise people to choose wholegrain over refined carbohydrates, because they contain more nutrients and provide a slower energy release.

Interestingly, the Mail failed to point out that Hannah Sutter, a lawyer and not a scientist by trade, has a vested interest in this subject – she has her own website selling a weight loss programme based on the theory of ketosis. This is yet another example of a fad diet that won’t lead to established healthy eating habits because it’s unrealistic and difficult to stick to for any length of time. 

Government advice to eat a healthy balanced diet based on a range of foods, in roughly the right proportions, is however realistic for the long-term.  I’m surprised that Ms Sutter didn’t consider that perhaps it’s the people who aren’t following government advice are ones who are getting fatter.

It was a pleasure to have Jonathon Porritt, a distinguished commentator on sustainable development, come to talk to staff and present us with some challenges!
 
Jonathon questioned at what point food security issues impinge on the Agency’s values for diet and nutrition and he also challenged the Agency suggesting we should promote less meat consumption. He also called for a more integrated approach to dietary advice that was not just based on nutrition.

I agree that it’s important to make it easier for consumers to make informed choices, and while our priority lies with protecting consumer interests, we also aim to give people information that will allow them to make decisions about the issues that matter to them.
 
We’re now taking this further and leading on a cross-government project to bring together all advice on food – so not only will people be able to find out how many portions of fish they should be eating, but also which species are more sustainable, and get the facts on food miles. We are also working on cross-government research initiatives that will enable a more integrated approach.

I’d be interested in hearing what issues are important to you when you’re choosing what food to buy.

Yesterday we published a strategic review of our nutrition research portfolio. It was conducted by an external, independent panel of experts who have taken a close look at current work and made recommendations going forward.

As I’ve said so many times before, good science is the backbone of everything we do and on which we base all our nutrition advice, messages and recommendations.

For this reason, it’s crucial that future nutrition research meets our evidence needs and is aligned to our strategic priorities. It goes without saying that it must also be of best possible quality and value for money.

I was very pleased to see the long list of quality research highlighted in our portfolio. This represents the Agency’s commitment to relevant and high quality science.

One area to be highlighted as an ‘invaluable investment’ is the Agency’s National Diet and Nutrition Survey. This large scale study, which is now running as a rolling programme and reports each year, looks at the population’s diet - identifying vulnerable groups and looking at trends.

As a result of the panel’s recommendations, I’ll soon be setting up a group which will help ensure the development of a co-ordinated UK nutrition research. This group will include people from Government departments, agencies and funding councils.

We are extremely proud of all the nutrition research we commission and produce. As Chief Scientist here at the Agency, it’s extremely gratifying for me to see the immense value of our nutrition work being recognised externally.

An interesting piece of research appeared yesterday, suggesting that the size of food portions have grown dramatically over the past millennium.

Having studied 52 famous biblical paintings of the Last Supper scene, researchers have found that the bread and plates put before Jesus have progressively grown in size – by up to two thirds. This apparently suggests that a culture of serving bigger portions on larger plates has developed over the past 600 years.

The rising levels of obesity in the UK are, among other factors, sometimes attributed to increasingly ‘supersized’ portions. This research suggests that our perception of what constitutes a ‘normal-sized’ meal may have changed over a very long period of time – in part, probably due to the increased availability and abundance of food.

A balanced diet together with regular activity is the key ingredient to maintaining a healthy weight. We at the Food Standards Agency believe that manufacturers, retailers and caterers should endeavour to offer their customers a choice of portion sizes wherever possible but ultimately it’s up to people themselves to decide whether or not they choose a smaller and/or healthier option.

There’s a Dan Brownite feel to all this and as I read the paper I was again struck by our constant fascination with the way artists have depicted this dramatic New Testament scene. Why do we keep coming back to it?

I’m sitting at a conference talking about the huge issue of campylobacter – a food bug that’s making 300,000 people seriously ill every year. There is no uncertainty about the risks to people’s health from this bug, nor of the scale of the problem. Meanwhile in today’s Independent seven whole pages are dedicated to bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical that a minority of scientists say might be of risk to some people’s health.

It is frustrating that the media’s focus so often ignores the real risks we are facing, while creating a disproportionate alarm over potential hazards. 

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that low-dose effects of BPA in rodents have not been demonstrated in a robust and reproducible way, and so cannot be used as pivotal studies for risk assessment. Similar conclusions on studies of low dose effects have been published since that opinion.  EFSA is currently reviewing these and the UK has been actively involved. 

 The Agency was set up with the specific aim of protecting public health, and it simply wouldn’t be in our interest to ignore evidence that our scientists believe showed people’s health was being put at risk.

'Food is any substance, composed of carbohydrates, water, fats and/or proteins, that is either eaten or drunk by any animal, including humans, for nutrition or pleasure'
Wikipedia, the free enyclopedia

There are many aspects of food; nutrition, food poisoning, food hygiene. To me, food nutrition is having a balanced diet and sticking to the eatwell plate. The eatwell plate is displayed in many schools. Sometimes I find it more difficult to eat healthily than others. I’m a big fan of chocolate but I always try to eat healthily. On an average day I will have about 4 of my 5 a day and lots of carbohydrates. I normally have cereal with milk in in the morning and a sugary snack in the evening. I try to include protein in my diet as well.

Food hygiene is an important issue. I know that you must not mix cooked meats and uncooked meats to avoid salmonella and you should cook your meats very well. Washing your hands before cooking is something I always do.

By Edward Parker Humphreys, aged 11

I’ve been both interested and encouraged over the past couple of days, hearing what other countries have been doing to reduce levels of campylobacter in chicken. Along with many of my colleagues, I’ve been at an international conference we’ve been hosting in London.

Levels of campylobacter in UK chicken are too high. Around 65% of shop-bought chicken has this food bug and it makes about 300,000 of us ill every year. Our aim is to work with industry to develop a range of new interventions targeted at different points along the food chain and, as always, we are taking an evidence-based approach to develop these. Finding out what has worked in other countries is the obvious first step.

There is no shortage of possible treatments that can reduce campylobacter contamination of chicken, but finding the ones that will work for the UK is what we are working on. While some approaches will present regulatory problems, others may not be very palatable for consumers.

In the USA and New Zealand, a number of antimicrobial treatments are in use successfully. Not all are currently permitted in the European Union but we should keep an open mind because this could change. One such treatment involves washing the chicken in lactic acid, already a common component of food, which has potential benefits for food safety. Other countries have used methods such as steam treatment and freezing – but would we consider the treated chicken to be ‘fresh’?  I’ve also been hearing about the pros and cons of saline washes and ‘cold pasteurisation’– irradiation in other words.

Over the next year we will be researching and exploring attitudes to find the methods that are acceptable to everyone – producers, processors, retailers and consumers. And we will be working closely with industry. Their trial and evaluation of different interventions is key – they are the ones who will ultimately be putting them into practice, after all.