[continued from previous message]

kind, if the copy genes remain present in the food product, that
information should be given on the label.

This dual approach was adopted in the recommendations of the UK
Food Advisory Committee, accepted by the Government and welcomed by
IFST. It is now also the basis of EU law.

10.With regard to BSE, is British beef safe to eat?

BSE is an extremely serious disease of cattle, the eradication
of which is of primary importance to safeguard herds, and hence
future supply of dairy and bovine meat products for the human and pet
food chains, together with important bovine by-products. For there to
be any risk to humans consuming beef, two conditions would both have
to be fulfilled: that BSE could be transmitted from cows to humans;
and that parts of the animal capable of carrying the infective agent
could enter the human food chain.

As to the first, the emergence in the UK during 1994 to early
1996 of ten anomalous cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) of a
previously unrecognised pattern, reviewed by the UK CJD Surveillance
Unit (CJDSU), led the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
(SEAC), in the absence of other explanation at the time, to the
conjecture that the UK cases were "most likely" to have been caused
by exposure to infected cattle brain or spinal cord before 1989 (at
which time they were banned from the food chain). Since then the
number of cases has slowly increased to over 20, and research has
resulted in some scientific evidence consistent with transmission, at
least to some humans.

As to the second, while the BSE infective agent can be detected
in the brain, spinal cord and retina of BSE-infected cows, extensive
tests have so far failed to detect it in muscle meat or milk of
infected cows. Measures have been taken, and strengthened, to exclude
from the food chain certain parts of the animal (specified bovine
materials, SBM), including all those parts shown to be capable of
carrying the infective agent. These measures require the most
stringent enforcement and heavy penalties for evasion. These
safeguards do not, of course, protect against possible consequences
of having consumed infective SBM in the past.

Having regard to the present scientific evidence, therefore, and
provided that the above measures are fully implemented, consumption
of muscle meat, milk and tallow from British cows, would appear to
involve virtually no risk of causing CJD, i.e. to be safe within the
normal meaning of the term. SEAC has stated that, if there is any
risk to humans, it is extremely small, and no greater for children,
hospital patients, pregnant women or people who are
immuno-compromised than for healthy adults.

As regards animal health, measures have been taken, and
strengthened, to reduce the incidence of BSE in cows and these have
led to a dramatic reduction in new cases and are expected to lead to
the virtual elimination of the disease.

On the basis of present scientific knowledge, no further
animal-related measures are needed.

While that sums up the present state of knowledge, scientists always
have to keep open minds. They have to act on existing knowledge while
recognising that further research will bring new information and
knowledge, which may in turn lead to revised conclusions.

ANSWERS TO GROUP 3 QUESTIONS - ADDITIVES AND PACKAGING
**********************

1.Why are food additives used?

Many foods depend on additives for safety, stability or
preservation. Preservatives inhibit growth of microbes that cause
food poisoning. Ham and bacon would be highly dangerous without the
preservative that also gives them their characteristic colour.
Freedom from separation, or a smooth creamy texture depends on
emulsifiers. Without other kinds of additives many foods would look
less pleasant, or taste less pleasant, or go off more quickly, or
cost more.

2.But aren't additives dangerous?

All additives in the UK and Europe are controlled by law, and
only those are permitted that have undergone stringent tests for need
and for safety in use, and have been been found satisfactory by
independent committees of scientists and medical experts. A similar
situation applies in most other countries. Some people are allergic
to, or intolerant of, particular additives; many more are allergic to,
or intolerant of, substances naturally present in foods, such as
strawberries, fish, nuts, etc.

3.Food colours are only cosmetic -- shouldn't they be banned?

Part of the enjoyment and appeal of food is its appearance,
including its colour. Homemakers, cooks and chefs have always used
colours in cooking to enhance appearance or to compensate for colour
deterioration during cooking. The same applies to some manufactured
foods. For example without colour margarines appear grey and
unpalatable; with colour they are visually attractive and popular.
The colours used are only those that have been tested and found
satisfactory by the same stringent procedures as those for additives
in general. Colour judiciously used adds to the enjoyment of food.
Would you want to return to only black-and-white on TV or on your
computer screen?

4.Why are foods packaged?

Foods are packaged to protect them and keep them in good
condition while they are delivered to stores, stacked on shelves or
stored at home.

5.What function does packaging perform?

The primary packaging of the food contains it; preserves it and
protects it from contamination or damage; carries the identification
and description of the contents; provides visible evidence as to
whether the package has been tampered with; and reduces household
waste by providing only the edible part of foods.

The outer packaging (e.g. paperboard cartons) is an essential
means of transporting to retail stores large quantities of the packs
for stacking on shop shelves.

6.Do we really need the protection that packaging is said to provide?

Yes. Food safety absolutely requires it. Moreover, a World
Health Organisation study has indicated that in developed countries
with sophisticated storage, packaging and distribution systems
wastage of food is estimated at only 2-3%. In developing countries
without these systems wastage is estimated at between 30% and 50%

7.Is packaging wasteful of materials and energy?

Of course the production of anything, including packaging
materials, uses raw materials and energy. However, both packaging
material manufacturers and food manufacturers operate in an intensely
competitive environment, causing continual search for ways to
minimise packaging costs without compromising the protection or
presentation of the product.

Packaging also reduces the amount of material entering the waste
stream. Most packaged fresh and processed foods have had the
non-edible material (e.g. husks, peels, vegetable tops, bones of
animal or fish, etc) removed during preparation. As a result, those
materials are used for animal feed or other purposes instead of going
into domestic waste. Likewise, energy is saved by not having to
transport that inedible material through the distribution and retail
chain to the consumer.

8.Can packaging and energy usage be reduced without compromising the
protection it gives to the food?

Here are four examples

In 1970, the weight of a metal can for baked beans was 68.9 g.
In 1990 the same size can weighed 56.6 g.

In 1950, a glass milk bottle weighed 397 g. In 1990, the same
size bottle weighed 245g.

In 1983 a 1.5 litre PET plastic soft drinks bottle weighed 66 g.
In 1990, the weight has been reduced to 42 g.

In 1950 a tinplate beer can weighed 91 g. In 1990 an aluminium
beer can weighed only 17 g, and was fully recoverable for recycling.

9.Why are there so many different types of packaging materials?

Most food products can be packed in a variety of alternative
ways. Manufacturers choose the most appropriate type of packaging for
a product, depending on the nature and requirements of the product,
the degree and nature of protection needed, the method of
distribution, the shelf-life and the environmental impact.

10.Why are some packages difficult to open?

the design of a package is inevitably a compromise between, on
the one hand, the essential protection of the contents, in some cases
requiring extra robustness or an airtight seal, and on the other hand,
easy and convenient use, including ease of opening. A really
well-designed pack is one that strikes an effective balance between
these two requirements. While there are some packs that are more
difficult to open than others, when an occasional pack is encountered
that is virtually impossible to open, it is usually the result of a
temporary maladjustment of a packaging machine (for example, forming
much too tight threading of a metal cap on a bottle) rather than a
design fault. Manufacturers are increasingly having their attention
drawn to the special 'openability' problems encountered by customers
with physical disabilities, and efforts to improve matters in this
direction will benefit all users

11.What about recycling of packaging?

The '3 R's' of current environmental packaging law and practice
are Reduce, Re-use and Re-cycle. These are the main ways of
minimising municipal waste disposal. As far as re-cycling of food
packaging is concerned is concerned, the major materials have to be
considered and dealt with separately.

Glass, tinplate and aluminium, when recovered by re-cycling, can
give similar performance to that provided by the virgin materials.
Re-cycling all three reduces overall energy usage (particularly with
aluminium). Re-cycling schemes are now in operation for the recovery
of both tinplate and aluminium containers. Glass containers (eg. milk
bottles) if sound can be returned and re-used; but broken glass
('cullet') is returned to the glassworks for re-cycling. Paper and
paperboard can be recovered and re-cycled for newsprint, tissues, and
some grades of paperboard.

Various plastic materials present a variety of recovery and
re-cycling problems. About half of all consumer goods are packaged in
plastic of one kind or another, yet, because of the lightweight
character of plastic packaging, it represents only 15% by weight. Its
light weight is of course economical of materials and energy for
transport of goods packed in plastic. Most individual plastic
packages (without counting the weight of contents) weigh less than 10
g, and some of these are contaminated with food residues such as
yogurt, fats, cream and similar products. The light weight makes it
more difficult to collect and transport for re-cycling. Lightweight
films, bags, pouches, etc made of plastics or plastics/paper
laminates are probably better incinerated to recover energy.

12.What about returnable, refillable systems?

There are several requirements for a re-fillable system to work.
Consumers must be made aware of which containers are returnable; the
operation is local, centred around each filling plant with a radius
of about 50-80 kilometers; the transport system for delivery and
returns is preferably controlled by the filling plant; the cost of
returning the empty container and of washing and handling it, must
not exceed the cost of a single-trip container; the containers must
be suitable for return by the consumer via conveniently sited bottle
banks.

13.Why does packaging contribute so much to household waste?

It is only when the package is emptied and needs to be disposed
of that we notice it. People are seldom aware of the role of the
packaging in protecting the product in distribution and until it is
opened for use.

A UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution found that
total packaging (not just food packaging) contributes 1% of the total
of all solid wastes. Total household waste contributes only 4% of all
solid wastes.

A study of waste by the US Chamber of Commerce indicated that
the relationship between food waste and packaging waste was clear; as
packaging use (and subsequent disposal as waste) increases, food
wastage decreases.

14.Do packaging materials affect the food in them?

The packaging material has both to preserve the food and to
protect it from deterioration, outside contamination or damage during
distribution and storage; and the packaging material in direct
contact with a food must not itself harm, or be harmed by, the food.
The packaging material for a particular food must therefore be
carefully selected with these considerations in mind. Most countries
have developed strict controls, based on extensive testing, for the
use of "food contact" materials; and these help to ensure that a
correct choice is made.


ANSWERS TO GROUP 4 QUESTIONS - SCIENCE AND FOOD
*****************************

1.What is food science? What is food technology?

*Note. The answers given are the same as the KEY DEFINITIONS
given at the beginning of this section, but are repeated here for
convenience

Food science --

is a coherent and systematic body of knowledge and understanding
of the nature and composition of food materials, and their behaviour
under the various conditions to which they may be subject.

Food technology --

is the application of food science to the practical treatment of
food materials so as to convert them into food products of the kind,
quality and stability, and so packaged and distributed, as to meet
the needs of consumers for safe, wholesome nutritious and attractive
foods.

Thus, food science integrates the application to food of several
contributory sciences. It involves knowledge of the chemical
composition of food materials (for all food consists entirely of
chemical substances); their physical, biological and biochemical
behaviour; human nutritional requirements and the nutritional factors
in food materials; the nature and behaviour of enzymes; the
microbiology of foods; the interaction of food components with each
other, with atmospheric oxygen, with additives and contaminants, and
with packaging materials; pharmacology and toxicology of food
materials, additives and contaminants; the effects of various
manufacturing operations, processes and storage conditions; and the
use of statistics for designing experimental work and evaluating the
results.

Likewise, food technology draws on, and integrates the
application to food of, other technologies such as those of steel,
tinplate, glass, aluminium, plastics, engineering, instrumentation,
electronics, agriculture and biotechnology.

2.Wouldn't our food be even better without scientists and technologists
interfering with it?

No. It is the scientists and technologists, working in
universities and research establishments, in industry, as consultants
to industry, and in enforcement and government agencies, who extend
the frontiers of knowledge about the properties and behaviour of food;
apply increasing knowledge to the development of the present (and
future) wide variety of safe and attractive foods; design and operate
quality assurance systems to ensure that quality and safety are
maintained during the manufacture, distribution and retailing of
foods; operate surveillance systems to ensure that legal, quality and
safety requirements are being met.

3.Why do scientific experts often disagree?

Personal opinions vary in every walk of life, but scientists
disagree far less than the media suggest. However, at the 'cutting
edge' of scientific research, there can be genuine disagreements on
the validity or interpretation of available information and on how
new research findings may affect previous interpretations. Scientists
are accustomed to debating these matters, and it is in the course of
thrashing out these differences and highlighting gaps of knowledge
where further research is needed, that scientific knowledge advances.
It requires objective judgement, without, on the one hand, undue
zealotry or, on the other hand, defence at all costs of entrenched
positions of past orthodoxy.

4.Doesn't hindsight show that the experts always "got it wrong"?

No. Hindsight shows that the experts nearly always "got it
right". It's simply that we only notice the rare instances where they
did get it wrong. And in those instances, we have to ask why.
Sometimes the scientists were in fact right, but human error occurred
in applying that knowledge. Sometimes it was that the knowledge
available at that time was insufficient. Scientists are not
magicians. Twenty years ago they knew only a fraction of what we know
now; which in turn is only a small fraction of what we will know in a
few years time. Research brings new knowledge all the time and at an
accelerating rate.

However, our profession is the repository of existing knowledge
in the field of food science and technology, and includes the
researchers expanding the boundaries of that knowledge and the
experts applying it for a safe, wholesome, nutritious and attractive
food supply for the public benefit.

********************** END OF FAQ *****************************************

------- End of forwarded message -------

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

[continued from previous message]

kind, if the copy genes remain present in the food product, that
information should be given on the label.

This dual approach was adopted in the recommendations of the UK
Food Advisory Committee, accepted by the Government and welcomed by
IFST. It is now also the basis of EU law.

10.With regard to BSE, is British beef safe to eat?

BSE is an extremely serious disease of cattle, the eradication
of which is of primary importance to safeguard herds, and hence
future supply of dairy and bovine meat products for the human and pet
food chains, together with important bovine by-products. For there to
be any risk to humans consuming beef, two conditions would both have
to be fulfilled: that BSE could be transmitted from cows to humans;
and that parts of the animal capable of carrying the infective agent
could enter the human food chain.

As to the first, the emergence in the UK during 1994 to early
1996 of ten anomalous cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) of a
previously unrecognised pattern, reviewed by the UK CJD Surveillance
Unit (CJDSU), led the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
(SEAC), in the absence of other explanation at the time, to the
conjecture that the UK cases were "most likely" to have been caused
by exposure to infected cattle brain or spinal cord before 1989 (at
which time they were banned from the food chain). Since then the
number of cases has slowly increased to over 20, and research has
resulted in some scientific evidence consistent with transmission, at
least to some humans.

As to the second, while the BSE infective agent can be detected
in the brain, spinal cord and retina of BSE-infected cows, extensive
tests have so far failed to detect it in muscle meat or milk of
infected cows. Measures have been taken, and strengthened, to exclude
from the food chain certain parts of the animal (specified bovine
materials, SBM), including all those parts shown to be capable of
carrying the infective agent. These measures require the most
stringent enforcement and heavy penalties for evasion. These
safeguards do not, of course, protect against possible consequences
of having consumed infective SBM in the past.

Having regard to the present scientific evidence, therefore, and
provided that the above measures are fully implemented, consumption
of muscle meat, milk and tallow from British cows, would appear to
involve virtually no risk of causing CJD, i.e. to be safe within the
normal meaning of the term. SEAC has stated that, if there is any
risk to humans, it is extremely small, and no greater for children,
hospital patients, pregnant women or people who are
immuno-compromised than for healthy adults.

As regards animal health, measures have been taken, and
strengthened, to reduce the incidence of BSE in cows and these have
led to a dramatic reduction in new cases and are expected to lead to
the virtual elimination of the disease.

On the basis of present scientific knowledge, no further
animal-related measures are needed.

While that sums up the present state of knowledge, scientists always
have to keep open minds. They have to act on existing knowledge while
recognising that further research will bring new information and
knowledge, which may in turn lead to revised conclusions.

ANSWERS TO GROUP 3 QUESTIONS - ADDITIVES AND PACKAGING
**********************

1.Why are food additives used?

Many foods depend on additives for safety, stability or
preservation. Preservatives inhibit growth of microbes that cause
food poisoning. Ham and bacon would be highly dangerous without the
preservative that also gives them their characteristic colour.
Freedom from separation, or a smooth creamy texture depends on
emulsifiers. Without other kinds of additives many foods would look
less pleasant, or taste less pleasant, or go off more quickly, or
cost more.

2.But aren't additives dangerous?

All additives in the UK and Europe are controlled by law, and
only those are permitted that have undergone stringent tests for need
and for safety in use, and have been been found satisfactory by
independent committees of scientists and medical experts. A similar
situation applies in most other countries. Some people are allergic
to, or intolerant of, particular additives; many more are allergic to,
or intolerant of, substances naturally present in foods, such as
strawberries, fish, nuts, etc.

3.Food colours are only cosmetic -- shouldn't they be banned?

Part of the enjoyment and appeal of food is its appearance,
including its colour. Homemakers, cooks and chefs have always used
colours in cooking to enhance appearance or to compensate for colour
deterioration during cooking. The same applies to some manufactured
foods. For example without colour margarines appear grey and
unpalatable; with colour they are visually attractive and popular.
The colours used are only those that have been tested and found
satisfactory by the same stringent procedures as those for additives
in general. Colour judiciously used adds to the enjoyment of food.
Would you want to return to only black-and-white on TV or on your
computer screen?

4.Why are foods packaged?

Foods are packaged to protect them and keep them in good
condition while they are delivered to stores, stacked on shelves or
stored at home.

5.What function does packaging perform?

The primary packaging of the food contains it; preserves it and
protects it from contamination or damage; carries the identification
and description of the contents; provides visible evidence as to
whether the package has been tampered with; and reduces household
waste by providing only the edible part of foods.

The outer packaging (e.g. paperboard cartons) is an essential
means of transporting to retail stores large quantities of the packs
for stacking on shop shelves.

6.Do we really need the protection that packaging is said to provide?

Yes. Food safety absolutely requires it. Moreover, a World
Health Organisation study has indicated that in developed countries
with sophisticated storage, packaging and distribution systems
wastage of food is estimated at only 2-3%. In developing countries
without these systems wastage is estimated at between 30% and 50%

7.Is packaging wasteful of materials and energy?

Of course the production of anything, including packaging
materials, uses raw materials and energy. However, both packaging
material manufacturers and food manufacturers operate in an intensely
competitive environment, causing continual search for ways to
minimise packaging costs without compromising the protection or
presentation of the product.

Packaging also reduces the amount of material entering the waste
stream. Most packaged fresh and processed foods have had the
non-edible material (e.g. husks, peels, vegetable tops, bones of
animal or fish, etc) removed during preparation. As a result, those
materials are used for animal feed or other purposes instead of going
into domestic waste. Likewise, energy is saved by not having to
transport that inedible material through the distribution and retail
chain to the consumer.

8.Can packaging and energy usage be reduced without compromising the
protection it gives to the food?

Here are four examples

In 1970, the weight of a metal can for baked beans was 68.9 g.
In 1990 the same size can weighed 56.6 g.

In 1950, a glass milk bottle weighed 397 g. In 1990, the same
size bottle weighed 245g.

In 1983 a 1.5 litre PET plastic soft drinks bottle weighed 66 g.
In 1990, the weight has been reduced to 42 g.

In 1950 a tinplate beer can weighed 91 g. In 1990 an aluminium
beer can weighed only 17 g, and was fully recoverable for recycling.

9.Why are there so many different types of packaging materials?

Most food products can be packed in a variety of alternative
ways. Manufacturers choose the most appropriate type of packaging for
a product, depending on the nature and requirements of the product,
the degree and nature of protection needed, the method of
distribution, the shelf-life and the environmental impact.

10.Why are some packages difficult to open?

the design of a package is inevitably a compromise between, on
the one hand, the essential protection of the contents, in some cases
requiring extra robustness or an airtight seal, and on the other hand,
easy and convenient use, including ease of opening. A really
well-designed pack is one that strikes an effective balance between
these two requirements. While there are some packs that are more
difficult to open than others, when an occasional pack is encountered
that is virtually impossible to open, it is usually the result of a
temporary maladjustment of a packaging machine (for example, forming
much too tight threading of a metal cap on a bottle) rather than a
design fault. Manufacturers are increasingly having their attention
drawn to the special 'openability' problems encountered by customers
with physical disabilities, and efforts to improve matters in this
direction will benefit all users

11.What about recycling of packaging?

The '3 R's' of current environmental packaging law and practice
are Reduce, Re-use and Re-cycle. These are the main ways of
minimising municipal waste disposal. As far as re-cycling of food
packaging is concerned is concerned, the major materials have to be
considered and dealt with separately.

Glass, tinplate and aluminium, when recovered by re-cycling, can
give similar performance to that provided by the virgin materials.
Re-cycling all three reduces overall energy usage (particularly with
aluminium). Re-cycling schemes are now in operation for the recovery
of both tinplate and aluminium containers. Glass containers (eg. milk
bottles) if sound can be returned and re-used; but broken glass
('cullet') is returned to the glassworks for re-cycling. Paper and
paperboard can be recovered and re-cycled for newsprint, tissues, and
some grades of paperboard.

Various plastic materials present a variety of recovery and
re-cycling problems. About half of all consumer goods are packaged in
plastic of one kind or another, yet, because of the lightweight
character of plastic packaging, it represents only 15% by weight. Its
light weight is of course economical of materials and energy for
transport of goods packed in plastic. Most individual plastic
packages (without counting the weight of contents) weigh less than 10
g, and some of these are contaminated with food residues such as
yogurt, fats, cream and similar products. The light weight makes it
more difficult to collect and transport for re-cycling. Lightweight
films, bags, pouches, etc made of plastics or plastics/paper
laminates are probably better incinerated to recover energy.

12.What about returnable, refillable systems?

There are several requirements for a re-fillable system to work.
Consumers must be made aware of which containers are returnable; the
operation is local, centred around each filling plant with a radius
of about 50-80 kilometers; the transport system for delivery and
returns is preferably controlled by the filling plant; the cost of
returning the empty container and of washing and handling it, must
not exceed the cost of a single-trip container; the containers must
be suitable for return by the consumer via conveniently sited bottle
banks.

13.Why does packaging contribute so much to household waste?

It is only when the package is emptied and needs to be disposed
of that we notice it. People are seldom aware of the role of the
packaging in protecting the product in distribution and until it is
opened for use.

A UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution found that
total packaging (not just food packaging) contributes 1% of the total
of all solid wastes. Total household waste contributes only 4% of all
solid wastes.

A study of waste by the US Chamber of Commerce indicated that
the relationship between food waste and packaging waste was clear; as
packaging use (and subsequent disposal as waste) increases, food
wastage decreases.

14.Do packaging materials affect the food in them?

The packaging material has both to preserve the food and to
protect it from deterioration, outside contamination or damage during
distribution and storage; and the packaging material in direct
contact with a food must not itself harm, or be harmed by, the food.
The packaging material for a particular food must therefore be
carefully selected with these considerations in mind. Most countries
have developed strict controls, based on extensive testing, for the
use of "food contact" materials; and these help to ensure that a
correct choice is made.


ANSWERS TO GROUP 4 QUESTIONS - SCIENCE AND FOOD
*****************************

1.What is food science? What is food technology?

*Note. The answers given are the same as the KEY DEFINITIONS
given at the beginning of this section, but are repeated here for
convenience

Food science --

is a coherent and systematic body of knowledge and understanding
of the nature and composition of food materials, and their behaviour
under the various conditions to which they may be subject.

Food technology --

is the application of food science to the practical treatment of
food materials so as to convert them into food products of the kind,
quality and stability, and so packaged and distributed, as to meet
the needs of consumers for safe, wholesome nutritious and attractive
foods.

Thus, food science integrates the application to food of several
contributory sciences. It involves knowledge of the chemical
composition of food materials (for all food consists entirely of
chemical substances); their physical, biological and biochemical
behaviour; human nutritional requirements and the nutritional factors
in food materials; the nature and behaviour of enzymes; the
microbiology of foods; the interaction of food components with each
other, with atmospheric oxygen, with additives and contaminants, and
with packaging materials; pharmacology and toxicology of food
materials, additives and contaminants; the effects of various
manufacturing operations, processes and storage conditions; and the
use of statistics for designing experimental work and evaluating the
results.

Likewise, food technology draws on, and integrates the
application to food of, other technologies such as those of steel,
tinplate, glass, aluminium, plastics, engineering, instrumentation,
electronics, agriculture and biotechnology.

2.Wouldn't our food be even better without scientists and technologists
interfering with it?

No. It is the scientists and technologists, working in
universities and research establishments, in industry, as consultants
to industry, and in enforcement and government agencies, who extend
the frontiers of knowledge about the properties and behaviour of food;
apply increasing knowledge to the development of the present (and
future) wide variety of safe and attractive foods; design and operate
quality assurance systems to ensure that quality and safety are
maintained during the manufacture, distribution and retailing of
foods; operate surveillance systems to ensure that legal, quality and
safety requirements are being met.

3.Why do scientific experts often disagree?

Personal opinions vary in every walk of life, but scientists
disagree far less than the media suggest. However, at the 'cutting
edge' of scientific research, there can be genuine disagreements on
the validity or interpretation of available information and on how
new research findings may affect previous interpretations. Scientists
are accustomed to debating these matters, and it is in the course of
thrashing out these differences and highlighting gaps of knowledge
where further research is needed, that scientific knowledge advances.
It requires objective judgement, without, on the one hand, undue
zealotry or, on the other hand, defence at all costs of entrenched
positions of past orthodoxy.

4.Doesn't hindsight show that the experts always "got it wrong"?

No. Hindsight shows that the experts nearly always "got it
right". It's simply that we only notice the rare instances where they
did get it wrong. And in those instances, we have to ask why.
Sometimes the scientists were in fact right, but human error occurred
in applying that knowledge. Sometimes it was that the knowledge
available at that time was insufficient. Scientists are not
magicians. Twenty years ago they knew only a fraction of what we know
now; which in turn is only a small fraction of what we will know in a
few years time. Research brings new knowledge all the time and at an
accelerating rate.

However, our profession is the repository of existing knowledge
in the field of food science and technology, and includes the
researchers expanding the boundaries of that knowledge and the
experts applying it for a safe, wholesome, nutritious and attractive
food supply for the public benefit.

********************** END OF FAQ *****************************************

------- End of forwarded message -------

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)