Out and about

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.

I’m in Brussels today, which is an appropriate place for me to blog about a story running in today’s papers that claims the EU wants to scrap food labels saying 'Made in Britain'.  The basis of these articles seems to be a European Commission consultative document produced in 2004, which has since been scrapped.

The media’s reporting of science has been a topic for discussion on this blog, following the World Cancer Research Fund report earlier this month, and today’s coverage highlights the importance of getting accurate information into the public domain.

Last week I was touring various parts of the UK– on Tuesday I was at our office in Aberdeen, talking to scientists about Continuing Professional Development.  On Thursday I was at Leeds Castle in Kent with the Agency’s Chair and Deputy Chair and the Chairs of our independent Scientific Advisory Committees (SACs) for our annual event. It is a chance for the Chairs to share experiences of providing scientific advice to the Agency, carry out horizon scanning activities as well as sharing best practices.

I’m blogging from Belfast, where I attended yesterday’s open Board meeting and presented my first annual report as Chief Scientist, and the Research and Survey Programmes Annual Report.

The Chief Scientist’s report outlines how we use science in the Agency and includes some interesting historical data in the Changing Times, Changing Risks section, including developments in food technology since 1800.

I attended the World Seafood Congress in Dublin earlier this week and gave a presentation on the risks and benefits of fish consumption. 

I drew heavily upon the advice of our independent experts on nutrition and toxicology. They weighed up the evidence on the developmental benefits to the fetus and infant, and cardiovascular benefits to adults, of consuming long chain omega 3 fatty acids in oily fish, against the developmental risks to the fetus of mercury and dioxins. 

I spent last night with Aretha Franklin, Sherpa Tenzing, Sherlock Holmes, Steve Redgrave, Bob Geldof and Marie Curie. Well, the Agency equivalents of them - winners, in fact of the FSA's first staff awards. There was some healthy cynicism from staff when we launched the scheme, and not too many groans when the different categories were given the quirky names listed above.

I've blogged in the past about my interest in organisational development, and the work I led to develop the FSA's vision of Safe Food and Healthy Eating for All. That's why I volunteered to be a judge. The awards were all about recognising teamwork (the Steve Redgraves), communication with a passion (the Arethas), motivation and leadership (the Bobs) and the best use of evidence and information (the Sherlocks).

I attended – and chaired a session – at a meeting of scientists in Cambridge yesterday to discuss 'Foodomics? Why we eat, What we eat and What’s Next on the Menu'.  It was a fascinating day, starting with an overview from Susan Jebb from the MRC Human Nutrition Research, who argued that the big issue in food is obesity. She pointed out that in evolutionary terms, we have been more concerned with hunger than satiety and that our response to the former is much greater than to the latter. Somehow we can always fit in that extra portion!

I visited LGC this morning and was really impressed with their extensive analytical chemistry facilities. They provide analytical services for a wide range of customers - the FSA included.

The state-of-the-art 'time of flight' spectrometers are a little different from my day and can now measure contaminants or residues at much lower levels. We all want data as soon as possible to make decisions affecting food safety, but even more important is that it is accurate, as unnecessary food recalls can be expensive for food businesses and damaging to consumer confidence.

I spent the day in the Cotswolds on Wednesday,- at one of the world's largest  food research organisations - the Campden & Chorleywood Food Research  Association (CCFRA).
 
The CCFRA hosts an open day once a year for its members, partly as  a shop window for its services (which include some cutting  edge research into food safety, authenticity and product  development).

But the day is just a much about having a family  get-togther. At least that's what it feels like. And the chance to get back into the lab again is always fun.
 
Everyone pitches in. All the CCFRA staff get involved in the arrangements, and  the food company members stump up with the refreshments, from  the biscuits with morning coffee to the mints after lunch. For  some reason, I found it more reassuring to have my poached  salmon served by a food chemist, rather than someone fresh out of the  microbiology lab.
 
Earlier in the day I heard our Chair, Dame Deirdre Hutton, deliver Campden's  prestigious annual lecture.

We’ve been thinking a lot recently about how to handle and prevent food incidents. This is when we’re given information that requires us to intervene because the safety or quality of food could be threatened in some way.

Last year we dealt with 1300 incidents. More recent ones we’ve handled include a recall of cakes and biscuits because they may contain bits of plastic, and a fish product sold in a small number of specialist shops with a label that said ‘keep in a cool dry place’ when it should have been frozen.