In Helsinki...

Posted by Andrew Wadge on December 1st 2006 in Out and about

I've spent the past two days in Finland, meeting other national food agencies in Europe, the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to exchange ideas and information on current food safety and nutritional issues. 

In the UK we're fortunate to have a well-developed network of scientific advisory committees, which provide us with independent expert advice on a range of food issues.  Other Member States aren't in such a fortunate position, so we discussed a draft EFSA strategy on Co-operation and Networking on Scientific Issues with other EU Member States.

The aim is that all food risk assessments across the EU will be carried out to the same high standards, which will help the process of restoring public confidence in how food safety is managed within the EU.  After all, food safety issues don't recognise national borders, so it is important for us in the UK to work together with colleagues in other countries.  Any comments? Post them on the blog.

add new comment

Why doesn't the EFSA heed European policy on protecting childre?

Posted by Max Wallis (not verified) on 12/12/2006 - 14:58

Saying we already set standards to protect children shows the FSA has not taken on board the messages of the child health community – that ‘children are not little adults’ but uniquely susceptible to harm in the foetal and infant stages. Dose-effect data in children, necessary for determining protective standards, are often limited or non-existent.

For example, why do we talk about dioxin as a carcinogen? It is - but in adults. Dioxins are far more potent as endocrine disrupters and developmental toxins. However, this does not fit standard toxicology.

We don’t know what thousands of chemicals in common use are doing to child development. Results from REACH are years or decades away; tests on children are not possible. Hence the Ministerial declaration at Budapest (June 2004) in adopting CEHAPE:

“We are increasingly concerned about the effects on children’s health of unsafe and unhealthy environments. We understand that developing organisms, especially during embryonic and fetal periods and early years of life, are often particularly susceptible, and may be more exposed than adults, to many environmental factors, such as polluted air, chemicals, contaminated and polluted water, food and soil…..”

The declaration committed us to “aim at chemical-free environments” for children (CEHAPE Priority Goal IV ). We don’t see that goal reflected in practice of the FSA and its European counterpart.

The European science community in the PINCHE** project have recently published a series of reviews in Acta Paediatrica backing up this goal. Because of limited data and limited knowledge of mechanisms in child development, policy aims need to reduce the body burden of accumulating chemicals in children.

    Policy and science in children’s health and environment: Recommendations from the PINCHE project
      Peter van den Hazel et al., Acta Paediatrica, 2006; 95 Suppl 453: 114-119).

      ** Policy Interpretation Network of Children’s Health and Environment

Why doesn't the EFSA....

Posted by Andrew Wadge on 06/12/2006 - 11:09

Thanks for your post, Max. You make a very good point. Risk assessments aim to protect the most sensitive groups of the population (children and other vulnerable groups) by establishing guidelines for intake of chemicals in food, and in some cases from other sources, that are without appreciable risk, even if someone ate them every day all through their life. If children are the most sensitive subgroup, then the guideline aims to protect children.

We do base our policies on the best available evidence and advice of independent scientific advisory committees, including the network of UK-based committees, the expert panels of the European Food Safety Authority and Word Health Organisation committees. These committees apply internationally accepted principles of risk assessment, as did CEHAPE.

Why doesn't the EFSA

Posted by Max Wallis (not verified) on 03/12/2006 - 23:11

Why doesn't the EFSA strategy pay heed to the WHO-EU programme Children's Environment and Health Action Plan for Europe which the UK etc. agreed at the Budapest Ministerial meeting two years ago. That accepted the environmental link of several adverse health effects and said developing organisms, especially during embryonic and foetal periods and early years of life, are often particularly susceptible.

Of the four priorities in the Community Action on Public Health programme in the EU’s Sixth EAP, namely childhood respiratory disease, neurodevelopment disorders, child cancers, endocrine disrupting chemicals, three of the priorities relate to environmental chemicals whose main source is food.

The FSA’s Science Strategy hedges on the definite CEHAPE statements [saying only (s.38) “Risks may be higher for potentially vulnerable groups such as children”]. Why not use the direct language – that children and foetuses are susceptible and vulnerable to environmental pollutants?

Why doesn't the FSA ensure the interests of children are explicit and high on the agenda of such bodies as EFSA in conformity with our CEHAPE and Sixth EAP commitments?