January 2008

I enjoyed taking part in a fairly good-humoured knockabout with Michael Pollan, Julian Hunt (from the Food and Drink Federation), and Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight on Tuesday to discuss Michael's book In Defence of Food.  As I mentioned earlier, I have a lot of sympathy with Michael's views that we should all eat a mostly plant-based diet and not too much of it. The Agency's eatwell plate shows how this can be put into practice. But I do think that telling people to eat what their grandmothers ate both misses the point that the world has changed (rightly or wrongly, people don't have the time to cook in the way that they used to) and, more importantly, unnecessarily restricts the range of foods from which they can choose.  That's not to say that everything's OK. Far from it.  The problem of obesity and 'overnutrition' is the defining public health issue facing this and future generations.  But the answer is not to look backwards, but for government, the food industry and consumers to face up to the challenges by looking forwards.  For our part, the FSA needs to continue to raise awareness of what constitutes a healthy diet and draw upon good science to help bring about changes in dietary habits and monitor progress towards dietary targets. 

Will Johnny Depp’s latest Hollywood incarnation as Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street, give punters a taste for cannibalism, ponders a reader in today’s Guardian Notes and Queries. And if so, what nutrition information would Mrs Lovatt’s pies have on their packaging? That’s assuming she gets her novel food application through first, of course.

One of New Scientist’s editorials this week highlights that nanoparticles are the new ‘chemicals’, but not the new black, if you’re coming at this blog from a fashion standpoint. The Soil Association, which campaigns for organic food and farming, has announced that it is banning nanoparticles from its certified organic products. However, it’s only banning human-made nanoparticles. Natural ones are just fine apparently.

It’s easy to work out what the advice should be when the science behind an issue is clear cut but much more difficult when the evidence is incomplete or contradictory – as is often the case. For example, one particularly difficult issue the Agency is seeking to address at present is what sort of dietary advice we should be giving to mothers who are concerned that their child might develop a peanut allergy.

The current Government advice is that mothers whose children have a family history of allergic diseases (asthma, eczema, food allergies etc), should avoid eating peanuts during pregnancy and breastfeeding and avoid introducing peanuts into the child’s diet before 3 years of age. This advice is precautionary and was based on the evidence available in 1998, which suggested the possibility that infants could be sensitised to peanut allergens as a result of exposure before birth or during breastfeeding. 

Today’s papers report that ‘just two cups of coffee per day can double the risk of miscarriage’, following the publication of a study in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. The researchers observed 1,063 pregnant women and found that those who had 200mg or more of caffeine per day (two or more cups of coffee per day) had twice the miscarriage risk of women who had no caffeine.

The Food Standards Agency's current advice to pregnant women, issued in 2001, is to keep their caffeine intake to less than 300 mg per day. This is about three mugs of instant coffee, but it’s really important for women to be aware that they must also think about caffeine they’ve had from all sources, including soft drinks, food and medication.

So last week I quoted Michael Pollan’s 'Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants' as straightforward advice that I’d agree with – even if I worried that his comments might be construed as an anti-scientific stance. This week I note a piece in The Guardian that suggests that even the ‘eat food’ bit might not be the trouble-free advice you might suppose. According to Tim Dowling, 80% of people on the planet regularly consume insects.

There has been some interest in the media this week about the possibility of cloned animals being used in food production, which at present are not permitted as food in the UK. This followed the publication of two reports - one from the European Food Safety Authority and another from the US Food and Drug Administration. The FDA concluded that meat and milk from cloned animals pose no additional risk compared with that obtained from existing animals, while EFSA has invited public comments on a similar conclusion. In the Agency we are looking closely at the EFSA report and we will provide comments to help ensure that EFSA reaches conclusions that are based on sound science.

'Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants' is the advice of Michael Pollan in his book 'In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto'. See Consuming Passion, Guardian Unlimited, 7 January 2008. I wouldn't disagree. But I do take issue with his view that 'we should junk the science'. Hardly surprising, I suppose, that I should defend science, but surely the problems with 'overnutrition' and obesity are not just the fault of people in white coats dreaming up new ways to deliver fat, sugar and salt to our children? As a parent, I'm no fan of the weird and wonderful foods that entice our children to eat unhealthily any more than I believe that you can get healthy by popping pills or following faddy diets. But surely science can provide us with evidence to help us understand what constitutes a healthy diet, as well as helping us to understand the wider sociological and cultural issues that are influencing our choices. Perhaps then we can start to reverse the trend that, as a nation, we are getting fatter and fatter. Got any views? Have your say on the blog.

Over the New Year, you might have heard excerpts from Bee Wilson’s book “Swindled – The Dark History of Food Cheats” on BBC Radio 4. The book describes the history of food fraud starting with the appalling, rampant and dangerous adulteration of many common foods, especially in the early 19th century. It relates the achievements of Arthur Hassall, who can be considered the founder of food control in England. He used microscopy to show the heavy adulteration of coffee and spices, as well as the poor state of London’s drinking water. It was his systematic and large study of 2,500 food samples that eventually led to the first overarching legislation protecting consumers from adulterated and dangerous food in 1860, and the establishment of laboratories called public analysts to enforce the legislation.

I've blogged before on acrylamide in food.  This is a substance that we know from studies in laboratory animals has the potential to cause cancer in humans.  It is formed when starchy foods like potatoes and cereals are heated to high temperatures, such as by grilling, roasting and frying. Since acrylamide was discovered in food in 2002 a number of researchers have been attempting to get a clearer picture of  whether it contributes to cancer risk to humans.  A Danish study just published has compared 374 women who developed breast cancer with healthy women controls.