Quantcast
Channel: Roller Site
Viewing all 90 articles
Browse latest View live

Food on the box

0
0

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?


Mad, bad and dangerous to eat… What next?

0
0

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.

Your views matter

0
0

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.

Lose ‘lbs’ not ‘£s’

0
0

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.

Green champion challenges Agency

0
0

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.

Nutrition Research Review

0
0

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.

The supersized Last Supper

0
0

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?

Risky reporting

0
0

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.


Guest blogger: Eating healthy food

0
0

'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

Making chicken safer

0
0

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.

Normal service is suspended

0
0
You won’t need to read this blog to know that the Prime Minister announced the general election today. During the general election campaign the Food Standards Agency websites will continue to provide essential information as normal but, like all Government department websites, we are subject to restrictions during the pre-election period. To meet the Cabinet Office guidelines, I will not be publishing blogs during this period, although we will continue to give factual responses to your queries where we can. See you in May…

Trust me, I’m a scientist…

0
0

With the election period over I’m pleased to be blogging again.

Although our communications have been quiet and the papers have been flooded with election news, I've noticed there’s still been a trickle of food stories covering the usual breadth of topics, including a raft of foods tipped for their supposed cancer prevention properties.

And although I’m a little reluctant to quote the Guardian quoting the Times, I was interested to read an article at the end of last week about the ever changing list of foods that may either cause or prevent cancer and about people’s frustration that scientists always appear to be changing their mind. This in itself is not surprising, but it's also nothing new the Guardian was quoting an article from 1927.

The article also considers the results of a YouGov survey, which showed 52% of people think scientists are always changing their minds about cancer, and that 46% say they don’t trust news coverage about cancer. I am confident that one of the key strengths in the Agency’s advice is that it’s based on the best available science and evidence, so this article raises some interesting challenges for us.

How do we make sure important messages and research findings don’t get lost amongst the media spin? And how can we work best with the public and the media to improve people’s trust in science?

Campylo–what?

0
0

The media spin about food that Andrew wrote about here earlier this week is one of the things I worry about as the Food Standards Agency’s Chief Executive – which is why I’ve grabbed the blog to add my thoughts. I worry particularly when we talk publicly about complex risks at our open Board meetings, as we did last week. We discussed at some length a bug that most people have never heard of, but which poisons more than 300,000 people every year and kills about a hundred. ‘Campylo-what?’

So I was pleased that we didn’t provoke a bunch of ill-informed headlines about a ‘new’ food scare. Campylobacter has for a long time been the major cause of foodborne illness  in the UK – one in every three people with food poisoning can blame campylobacter – but it’s high on our agenda as it’s bucked the generally downward trend  for food poisoning over the past few years.

Science provided the solution that broke the back of our salmonella problem in poultry – a vaccine for laying flocks and a range of other measures for broiler flocks. We don’t yet have comparable solutions for campylobacter, although as our recent international meeting showed there are some interventions that are effective elsewhere in the world that we could implement immediately.

If Andrew were writing this he could talk about the direction our research will take. Fine: but come on, we know enough now to be clear about ‘what works’ throughout most of the supply chain. One of the great advantages we have in the UK is a retailer universe that is rationalised, smart and very clear with their suppliers about what they want. What we want I think they want and I know consumers deserve: clean fresh poultry. My challenge is that they should, with revised specifications and financial incentives, help us to control campylobacter infection and make a substantial cut in that 300,000 figure.

Of course, we need to know more about the microbiology of campylobacter to understand what biosecurity measures work best and what washes or processes or treatments cut contamination most effectively and safely, and are acceptable to consumers. But I think we know enough to push suppliers to do what has been done in other countries to significantly reduce campylobacter, using known simple biosecurity measures.

Science doesn’t give you instant answers. Sometimes data are contradictory or inconclusive. And it really doesn’t help when research gets reported out of context and out of proportion. But a combination of science and commercial pressure is where we’ll find the best available plan to tackle the 'campy' problem that has gone on for far too long.

Nanofoods – size matters

0
0

Having taken a swipe at media spin a few days ago, it’s good to finish the week flagging up a bit of media sense – no prizes for guessing it comes from New Scientist. Its editorial joins the chorus for more openness and honesty in discussions about nanofoods, particularly from the companies developing them.

New Scientist warns, as we have, that the food industry is jeopardising the future of nanofoods by failing to trust consumers with the scientific facts as we currently know them. If this is relatively new territory, I’d steer you to our latest issue of Bite, which is devoted to nanofoods, then to the excellent Lords Select Committee report Nanotechnologies and Food and the government response. The response tasks the FSA with ensuring there is open dialogue and clear, accessible information for consumers, and we’ll pick up the pace on this with the new coalition government.

There’s also an interesting point well made in the New Scientist editorial about the emphasis on size when categorising a branch of science, as is happening with nanotechnologies. I was reading about the giant bowl of hummus that has just reclaimed the Guinness World Record for Lebanon and it struck me that we don’t refer to processing individual chickpeas as ‘millitechnology,’ so why ‘nanotechology’ for any and all particles that fall into the nanoscale, and which can range in diameter over three orders of magnitude?

The nanotechnologies brand is helpful for focusing attention, but it is a rather simplistic term that covers a wide range of very different functions, processes and products, which are all put at risk if the 'brand' is tarnished by a lack of trust.

Is it time to focus less on the nanotechnology 'brand' and more on individual functions, properties and uses of nanotechnologies?

The data behind the review

0
0

The Agency published a scientific review of organic food last July, which found that there are no important nutrient differences or nutrition-related health benefits from eating organic food, compared with conventionally produced food.

We knew this report would be of interest and its findings continue to be discussed almost 12 months on. So it’s good to see another paper from this review being peer reviewed and published in a leading scientific journal

To coincide with this, we are publishing all the detailed raw data from the studies included in the systematic review on nutrient content, so people can see for themselves what information the team at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine based their conclusions on.

I’m sure that this is a subject that will continue to arouse strong opinions, but our job is examine whether these opinions are backed up by sound science. The Agency will consider new peer reviewed information as it becomes available, to ensure consumers get the information they need to make choices based on the most up-to-date scientific evidence. 


Babies are sweet enough

0
0

Personally I’ve always loved the flavour of honey, so I often opt for it when I fancy something sweet.  But the recent case of infant botulism in a 15-week-old baby who'd been fed honey concerned me. Although honey wasn’t definitely the cause of the botulism, it showed that health warnings to parents about feeding honey to babies aged less than a year aren’t being followed.
 
Infant botulism occurs when babies under a year old ingest spores of Clostridium botulinum.  Due to the immaturity of the baby’s gut flora, the spores are able to germinate and produce a toxin in the intestinal tract.

Bearing in mind how incredibly rare the illness is – only eight cases had been reported in the UK until the end of 2008 – some might say it’s barely worth worrying about, or that by highlighting the issue we’re being unnecessarily scaremongering.

But the illness can sometimes be fatal. So why bother taking the risk, especially when there are other important reasons not to give honey to a baby?  For the first six months babies only need breast milk or infant formula, and as far as those precious milk teeth are concerned honey is no less damaging than sugar, despite it being thought of as ‘natural’.  It’ll also encourage a sweet tooth in just the same way. 

Honey may well be a nice treat for us grown-ups, but when it comes to babies there’s no doubt that it’s best to just steer clear.

It's a man thing

0
0

I saw some sobering figures recently that show heart disease kills more than one in five men, and half of all 40-year-old men will develop heart disease sometime during the rest of their life. This is obviously an important issue that shouldn’t be ignored.

That’s why the Agency is supporting Men’s Health Week, which begins today (14 June) and is organised by the Men’s Health Forum. The aim of Men’s Health Week is to communicate healthy lifestyle messages to men, both in terms of healthy eating and physical activity. And it’s a great opportunity for us to deliver our healthy eating messages in a partnership that appeals to men.

We previously worked with the Men’s Health Forum to promote our advice in the popular ‘Living Healthily Haynes Mini Manual’. Looking through this healthy eating guide, it’s clear that just small changes in daily habits could have a big impact on improving men’s health, so it’s good to have the opportunity to remind men of its existence. We’ve also got healthy and safer eating advice for men on our eatwell website.

Public health: Let’s look at the bigger picture

0
0

The Daily Mail, in not one but two rather sensational articles, calls for a ban on artificial trans fats in food. But to put the dangers of trans fats into perspective, as a nation we consume less than half the recommended maximum average intake in the UK (advised by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN)), so they’re not a cause for concern for the population as a whole.

The danger with this kind of alarmist reporting on one small part of the diet is that it could result in attention, and resources, being diverted from more important issues. What we shouldn’t forget is that the evidence clearly shows we’re eating far more saturated fat, which has a much greater impact on public health and is the cause of more premature deaths than trans fats.
 
The UK food industry has already voluntarily removed partially hydrogenated vegetable oils from lots of their products, which is the main source of artificial trans fats. So while we’re encouraging food businesses to maintain the reduction of artificial trans fats in food and to look for ways of reducing saturated fat, our focus should be on the bigger picture and helping to save more lives by getting people eating a healthier diet – lower in saturated fat and salt and with more fruit and vegetables.

Maybe we should be thinking of adding sensationalist journalism to the list of public health issues that need to be tackled!

Bags, bugs and basic food safety

0
0

It’s good to see a newspaper ‘debunking’ a media health scare for a change, as The Times did on Tuesday with ‘Bugs lurk in your bag for life’. Like many others, I try to do my bit for the environment by reusing shopping bags, so I was equally concerned to see headlines last week proclaiming that reusable bags may harbour ‘killer bugs’.

Several newspapers reported on the study from the University of Arizona, which, having tested the bags of 84 shoppers, found traces of E.coli on half of them. As all E.coli strains originate in the gut of warm-blooded animals, the presence of E. coli can indicate a general lack of hygiene but not necessarily the presence of a deadly pathogen. However, journalists appeared to have jumped to the conclusion that the researchers had found E.coli O157, one of the strains capable of causing serious human illness.

You don’t need scientific research like this to tell you that it isn’t a good idea to leave food in the boot of a car during hot weather, or that these conditions would cause not only the bacteria that maybe on the bags to multiply, but any harmful bugs on the foods being stored in those bags as well. Keeping food cold is a key way to maintain its safety.

It is also worth noting that the work was funded by the American Chemistry Council, the largest chemistry trade body in the US, and that the news of the study was released – possibly entirely co-incidentally – at the same time as the state of California debates whether or not to ban plastic bags.

However shaky the science and reporting, and whatever bug is involved, this study does reinforce some important basic food safety messages – not least the need to take care that your shopping does not leak over your reusable bags!

If you take care of your bags by cleaning them regularly – and, if you are worried about leaks, pack raw meat in a separate bag – there’s no need to stop using your bag for life or doing your bit for the environment. You can find out more about keeping food safe at eatwell.gov.uk/keepingfoodsafe/

 

 

 

Kicking out campylobacter

0
0

In Andrew’s absence this week, I’d like to hijack the blog and draw your attention to a new research initiative. We are commissioning a range of new research to tackle the food bug campylobacter, which causes about 300,000 cases of food poisoning a year. It is the biggest cause of food poisoning in the UK and this is why we are making it our top food safety priority for the next five years.

Our aim is to better understand the science around campylobacter and more easily identify solutions for reducing the worrying levels of the bacteria on raw chicken. There is no one ‘magic bullet’ to solve the problem of campylobacter, but a better understanding of the science will allow us to work out which combination of solutions are best for the UK.

The various pieces of research will look at the organism itself and the effect it has on its host, coupled with developing a better knowledge of the impact of various potential interventions.

We are working closely with research partners and the food industry to tackle this problem and this research will help underpin all of our future action. In the meantime, there is action we can all take to avoid food poisoning from campylobacter: if food is prepared, handled, and cooked properly, avoiding cross-contamination with other food, then bugs will not have a chance to spread and cause harm.

Viewing all 90 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images