Keeping illegal substances out of the food supply chain requires the latest most effective testing available, ensuring authorities are empowered to take action on potential problems as soon as possible. At the launch of Fera there were a number of examples of exciting and innovative science currently being developed. I was impressed to hear about the team that has developed and validated a novel rapid, sensitive aptamer-based method for the detection of illegal residues of malachite green (MG) in fish tissue.  

Last week, my colleague stood in for me at the conference on food law and drink held by the British International Institute of Comparative Law.  This was an unusual audience for our messages on how science and analysis are fundamental to the FSA, but I understand that his presentation and the broader keynote address from our Chair, Dame Deirdre Hutton, were well received.  Many of the audience were QCs with considerable experience of the labyrinthine qualities of EU food law and the processes of prosecution and defence under this legislation. 

Sadly I was unable to attend last week's official launch of Defra's new national research centre for food and the environment.  The Food and  Environment Research Agency (Fera) was officially launched at the main laboratories near York, by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Hilary Benn MP.

David Atkins, who attended on my behalf, tells me that both the Minister and  Professor Bob Watson, Defra's Chief Scientific Advisor, spoke compellingly of the huge challenges of food security and climate change that we all face. A new report published recently predicts that by 2080, London will be between 2°C and 6°C hotter than it is now and this will bring greater extremes of flood and drought. They also praised the expertise of Fera scientists who can help address some of these challenges.

What role does ‘anecdotal evidence’ play in science? Truly anecdotal evidence is not evidence in the scientific sense, it’s observation, it’s often subjective, and the effects seen may be due to a number of factors all varying at the same time. Observation can help us towards understanding certain issues, but is a first step towards a testable hypothesis, not an end in itself. 

Therefore, anecdotal reports do sometimes deserve closer examination, especially when a number of unrelated people are reporting similar things. As a science based organisation, the Agency pays close attention to scientific evidence, but sometimes the anecdotal reports we receive are persistent enough to make us feel we need to take a closer look at people’s concerns. 

Food Safety Week starts today and to coincide with it the Agency is launching a new campaign to try and stop the increasing number of cases of listeria food poisoning among older people.

Listeria is a food bug that can kill. Rather worryingly, the number of cases has doubled since 2000, and this increase has been seen primarily in people aged over 60.

One of the key messages of our sat fat campaign earlier this year was that small changes to our behaviour can make a real difference to our sat fat intakes, and thus our long-term health. We circulated tips on the web, leaflets, flyers and daily text messages. Change4Life has taken a similar approach. Looking at Sanjay Gupta’s article in Time magazine this week, it’s clear that it’s a gentle way of encouraging people to start changing their behaviour that’s gaining ground on both sides of the pond. Sanjay discusses research in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine that followed a group of 787 US workers taking part in a study, nearly half of whom were randomly chosen to receive a regular email prompt to either do some exercise, up their fruit and veg intake or cut their sugars and sat fats.

There seems to be some confusion about labels on food.  So just to be clear: Use By means......use by; and Best Before means....best before.  As I've blogged before, the Use By is the important one to ensure your food is safe to eat, whereas Best Before is simply about quality. 

Frustratingly, hazard and risk have very different meanings for scientists, yet the media, when talking about food safety, sometimes use them interchangeably.

The need to distinguish between the intrinsic toxicity of the contaminant – the hazard – and the real risk to an individual according to how much is taken into their body through food, and other routes, is at the heart of the FSA’s food safety remit.  As many of you will know, this is not a new idea. In the 16th century, Paracelsus taught that ‘the dose makes the poison’, and we know that in order to work out what effect a contaminant might have on our health, it is essential to assess the toxicological risks of a contaminant at the levels present in food, taking account of scientific uncertainties, consumption patterns and groups of people who may be especially susceptible. This approach enables us to offer an independent assessment of the risk, setting out all of the evidence, analysis and uncertainties that underpin our conclusions.

Last year was a particularly busy one for us, in terms of our incident work. Across the UK we investigated 1,298 food and environmental contamination incidents. Some of these were high profile, such as the dioxin contamination of pork and melamine contamination of various food products. You can find out more about these and other incidents in our third Annual Report of Incidents 2008, published today. It also explains how to report an incident to us and what action we take to protect consumers.

Last week I finally got to welcome Professor Sir Roger Jowell to the Agency to present the third lecture in my Chief Scientist’s lecture series.  I say ‘finally’ as we had to postpone his original lecture from February because it coincided with the snow storm that all but closed the capital – and of course gave many of my colleagues and their walking boots some excellent exercise as they battled their way in to Aviation House.