February 2008

As a postscript to yesterday’s ‘Science or Belief’ posting, I attended a lecture by Professor Alan Sokal last night, organised by Sense about Science.  Prof Sokal wrote a spoof article 'Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity', which was published in a journal called 'Social Text' in 1996.  It caused outrage among those who hold the view that the truth or falsity of a statement is relative to an individual or a social group.  Sokal argues that science then becomes comparable to other ways of viewing reality, such as religion, myths, or astrology.

Last night’s Horizon programme on BBC2 raised some very interesting points about some of the health claims made by the food industry. Friendly bacteria, so-called superfoods, and the organics industry all came under the spotlight. It was good to see the programme focusing on the science behind these claims, and interesting that in most cases the science did not appear to back them up.

The Agency has always been keen to ensure that people are not being misled by the various claims made about food. In fact, new European rules were introduced last year aimed at making it easier for people to understand what all these terms mean. In future, any claims made about the nutrition and health benefits of a food will have to be backed up by the science.

With the issues of obesity ever prevalent in the media, it was good to hear recently that as a measure to help tackle the problem, the Department for Children, Schools and Families has decided to introduce compulsory cooking lessons to the core curriculum, in England.  The aim is to ensure every 11-14 year old is given practical cooking lessons by 2011, teaching them how to turn cheap, fresh ingredients into healthy meals. This will build upon the ‘Licence to Cook’ programme, available from September 2008, which is an entitlement for all secondary school pupils to learn how to cook. Both programmes are integral measures in the Government’s current Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives strategy for England. 

I called in on the review of our food allergy and intolerance research programme yesterday.  We carry out formal reviews of our research programmes every five years, where we ask a panel of independent experts help us evaluate the success of the programme against the stated aims and objectives.  I used to head the division that funded this work, so it was interesting for me to see how it's getting on.  I was impressed with the progress we have made on estimating the prevalence of food allergy and intolerance in the UK using different cohort groups.  Reported adverse reactions to foods are common, but diagnosed rates using skin prick tests and double blind placebo controlled methods are much lower (eg, about 1.5% for peanut allergy in young children), although in population terms this is a significant number.  The work done on gaining a better understanding of the immunological aspects of food allergy, such as the role of peanut-specific T cell responses and the role of IgG, was also impressive.

Some of my colleagues here recently hosted a seminar looking at the analytical tools used to combat food fraud.  It particularly showcased emerging technologies and methods, funded and developed by the Agency’s authenticity programme, which are used to detect fraud and so protect consumers. Levels of interest in this area are indicated by the large and varied attendance – over a hundred people came, including representatives of the Agency, local authorities, public analysts, consumer organisations, industry and the media. 

Since the Second World War, British politics has principally been dominated by the debate about which politicians would make us more prosperous. But in recent years it has become increasingly clear that a key driving force is how we can maintain or improve our current lifestyles in the face of environmental change.

Sustainable development is cropping up more and more in conversations and meetings around the FSA, and like everybody else we have a duty to ensure this issue informs all of our activities and policies. Indeed, we have an action plan that ties in with the Agency’s current strategic plan to take our work forward.

As regular readers will know, I’ve previously blogged on the view that nutrition advice is always changing.  So here’s another example which doesn’t quite deliver what it says on the label.  An article in a recent Guardian, g2, asks if fruit really is good for us. Aida Edemariam investigated whether the rise in availability of pre-prepared fruit a good thing.  The article raised several points covering sustainability, health claims and food safety, but one aspect that particularly caught my eye was that fruit is not particularly nutritious.  It is true to say that most fruit, and indeed vegetables, mainly contain water.  But they also contain fibre and vitamins and minerals that help keep the body healthy.

The media picked up on the difficult issue of advice on oily fish in the Associate Parliamentary Food and Health Forum report this week, but I was more pleased to see the large number of references to FSA nutrition research findings in the report. 

The Agency has always prided itself on being evidence-based in its decision making and continues to strive to achieve the highest standards in this area.