It's been a busy week and this is my first full day back in the office. I've spent an away day working on leadership behaviours with my heads of division and team leaders, then a day at the Federation of Bakers annual conference, where the Agency's Chair Deirdre Hutton praised the Federation for their work on salt reduction. And of course then there was yesterday's FSA Board Meeting in Nottingham.
There has been a buzz of anticipation all week about the Board discussion on whether to recommend to ministers the mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid. Of course, this was of considerable interest to the bakers and millers at the FoB conference. Coming just a day before the debate, I could not predict what the Board would recommend, but I was able to talk about the process by which this issue was addressed. And in many ways I think the folate issue is an exemplar of how the Agency works.
The starting point for folate and other issues is the science. In the other substantive item for discussion at the Board meeting, I presented my Annual Report on Science in the Agency. We have a good story to tell, with a strong level of in-house expertise, access to 140 independent experts via our scientific advisory committees and a research budget of about £20m to fund work to plug gaps in our knowledge and, importantly, track our progress towards meeting key strategic targets on food safety and dietary health.
I am delighted for all of the scientists in the Agency that the Board recognised what a strong position we are in – one that I want to build on over the next year. The strength of our work on science does not rest on one individual, but is based on good people and good processes. And the fact that we conduct our work in an open and transparent manner, engaging with consumers, food industry, academics and others, helps build trust in what we do, even if people disagree with our conclusions. I firmly believe that the Agency's science is in a stronger position now than it ever has been.
Moving back to folate, I recommend that you look at the Board paper. It sets out clearly all of the arguments and the results of our consultations with experts, ethical advisers, business sectors and consumer groups. The debate focused firstly on the science: is there good evidence that mandatory fortification will help reduce the incidence of Neural Tube Defects (NTDs)? The answer is yes. The debate then moved on to a discussion about possible adverse effects. We are rarely in the position of having a complete picture of the risks and benefits on any issue and folate was no exception. But although there are some uncertainties about possible adverse effects, the weight of evidence on benefits was much stronger than on any theoretical risks. As always, however, we will continue to monitor the science for developments.
The recommendation for mandatory fortification is something that could really make a positive difference to people’s lives, as has been demonstrated by the reduction in NTDs in countries such as the US, Canada and Chile. Because, as the Board Members pointed out, when we talk about science and broad issues of public health, we do have to remember the very human side – and the emotional impact of developmental problems in pregnancy can't be underestimated.
I'm sure that readers of the blog will all have their own views – so do respond with what you think.