Reporting research

Posted by Andrew Wadge on April 25th 2007 in Science in Government

The aim of all of our work is safe food and healthy eating for all. I've talked about this before, and while that's a clear goal, the science to support the decisions we make on behalf of consumers is rarely clear cut.  More often than not, decisions need to be taken in the face of uncertainties or major gaps in our scientific knowledge. 

We spend between £20m and £25m a year to provide a stronger evidence base for our actions and to ensure that our strategic aims are being met.

Each year we publish a report summarising the scientific work funded by the Agency. 

Those of you that have read previous Annual Research Reports will notice that we have adopted a new, more accessible format this year. 

Projects commissioned by the Agency are now grouped according to the Agency’s four strategic themes – Food Safety, Eating for Health, Choice, and How We Deliver . 

Each themed area of the report contains a selection of project summaries which demonstrate the breadth of the Agency’s research portfolio, highlighting work in key strategy areas and showing how the information obtained from some of our projects has been used. 

Tables giving details of all the projects funded by the Agency over the past year are also featured in the report.

I do recommend that you look through our latest report if you're interested in the work we commission, or want to find out the Agency’s current research on a certain topic. And, of course, if you have comments, post them to the blog.

add new comment

Pesticides and use of scientific evidence

Posted by Andrew Wadge on 02/05/2007 - 15:42

Thanks Alvaro and Miss Pamela for your postings. I'll reply to both together, if that's OK, dealing with the points raised by Pamela first.

The public does have a right to expect that residue levels in food are safe and don't exceed legal limits. The Pesticides Safety Directorate has responsibility for the authorisation and monitoring of pesticides. and it's the Agency's role as a watchdog to oversee that process in terms of approval and surveillance.

The safety of pesticides is carefully evaluated before approval and when acceptable residue levels are set there is consideration of the variability in people's response to that chemical by the use of appropriate safety factors.

Our over-riding concern throughout is that consumer safety isn't compromised.

However, we also know from our own research that people want to reduce pesticide residues further than the current safe levels, so we're working in partnership with the food industry to help deliver that.

You say in your post that you eat organic food. You're one of a growing number of people who do. As an Agency we're signed up to a strategic aim to support consumer choice.

That means having a dynamic and vibrant food sector, and the organic market is very much part of that sector. Earlier this year we sponsored the City Food Lecture, where we discussed some of the values that underpin people's food choices. I posted a blog on this at the time. Thanks again for responding, Andrew.

Alvaro, the research we commission is to fill knowledge gaps to inform future policies.

We have a limited budget and need to prioritise the work we fund. We certainly wouldn't fund work if the answers are already known.

In doing so we consider research recommendations made by the independent scientific advisory committees that advise us, consumer concerns, potential impacts on health, and other factors, such as whether anyone else is likely to fund the work.

The Agency’s research on mixtures of pesticides is actually a good example. Because people are concerned that pesticides are assessed individually, whereas we may be exposed to mixtures of residues in food, we sought the advice of the independent experts of the Committee on Toxicity.

They advised that the risks from mixtures were likely to be small, but made a number of research recommendations.

We have funded a programme of research to address the recommendations. There are currently 17 ongoing projects.

Use of scientific evidence

Posted by Alvaro (not verified) on 28/04/2007 - 20:19

Andrew
I am afraid that I shall have to concur with Miss Pamela on her comments that the sponsorship of scientific research to justify your view on different issues has little to do with the objectivity and independence that should guide scientific research on any issue.

I certainly do not know as much about the scientific community as you do , but it is not clear to me that pumping money into research where you know beforehand were you want to get does not seems the right way to get to balanced and sensible decissions.
After saying that like Miss Pamela , I am gone with the wind ..... just tried to make a brief point.

pesticides

Posted by miss pamela (not verified) on 26/04/2007 - 13:15

I just read that the FSA says the level of pesticides used on crops in the UK is not harmful, so that's OK then for those who like pesticides in their body, I prefer to have NONE and do not trust a body which is there to promote pesticides, so, we vote with our purses and choose organic, which is, without doubt, the best. I would like to know what causes cancer, my liver to swell from time to time, allergies but its no use asking the FSA, they will only say that what they do is fine.