FSA must be more transparent

The General Advisory Committee on Science (GACS) must ensure the Food Standards Agency's (FSA's) advisory committees operate transparently, with explicit risk assessment policy guidance, according to a leading academic.

GACS was set up by the FSA to inform its future scientific direction and attempt to reinforce public understanding and trust in its scientific advice.

Speaking at a public forum following the inaugural meeting of GACS last month, professor Erik Millstone, professor of science policy at the University of Sussex, said it wasn't about whether the public had trust in what scientists say about food. "More importantly, do we trust FSA advisory committees?"

GACS has 16 independent members, including the chairs of the FSA's nine scientific advisory committees. GACS is chaired by the eminent scientist professor Colin Blakemore. Blakemore said: "We are not just going to be a frozen part of the [FSA] structure; we are going to probe and test."

However, Millstone called on the advisory committees to follow the advice offered in the FSA's Report on the Review of Scientific Committees published way back in 2002. This stated that committees needed to ensure proceedings of all their meetings were properly documented - including differences of opinion and any assumptions and uncertainties inherent in their conclusions, said Millstone. "Not selectively report uncertainties, which is the general practice."

Millstone argued that science should not dictate policy. He also dismissed "official orthodoxy" of risk assessment followed by risk management and then risk communication. Instead he argued in favour of the "co-evolutionary" model, in which science and policy making mutually influence each other. This model was accepted last July by all members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission - including the UK, said Millstone. Codex is an international body, which sets food standards.

"Science never operates in a political vacuum," argued Millstone. "It's about framing the questions the scientists should answer; it is not about responding after the scientists have spoken."