Sir John Krebs

Question: How would you assess the first four year’s of the Food Standard Agency’s existence?

Sir John Krebs: We are four years old and I see us now as being firmly on the map.  I think that has resulted partly from things that we have done and partly from the way in which we have done them.

For me, the most important achievement of the Agency is the reduction in foodborne illness. Through a big effort right across the food industry, we have reduced foodborne illness by 20 per cent over the last four years. That is a significant achievement which really has made a difference to people’s lives.

We have also made a good start on work in relation to salt.  Last year we had a report from our expert group, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, which showed that people are eating too much salt. The average salt consumption of adults is about 9.5g per day, and the target that medical experts suggest is 6g. Too much salt results in high blood pressure and that results in strokes and heart disease. 

The problem from getting from 9.5g to 6g is that most of the salt we eat, probably three quarters of it, comes added for us – it is hidden salt in food you buy in a restaurant or from a supermarket. We have started, with the Department of Health, to persuade the food industry to reduce the salt content of things like bread, soups and sauces.

In terms of labelling, an increasing number of people suffer from food allergies. I’ve talked to parents whose children are allergic and it is very difficult for them to make sensible choices because often the labelling system isn’t very clear.

So we have been pressing for a better system for labelling allergens and earlier this year the European Commission agreed to have a more comprehensive system for labelling 12 major allergens that a lot of children are now affected by.

And the final area I would mention is the whole area of how food is promoted and advertised to children.  The basis for doing this is that we know children’s diets on the whole have too much salt, too much sugar and too much fat – they are eating too much of the wrong sort of thing.

We are looking at the way in which the food industry promotes food to children – particularly confectionary, snacks that are high in salt and fat, sugary drinks – and whether that has an influence on children’s diets.  We think it does, and so we are looking at whether something can be done to rebalance the messages so that children aren’t always bombarded with messages that say “eat more sugar, salt and fat”. That should be balanced with messages that say "eat other things that are an important part of a balanced diet".

In terms of the way in which we work, I think one of our hallmarks has been to be very transparent and honest about uncertainty.

I think one of the things we have been pioneering on is taking the courage in our hands to say to the public: "Actually, we don’t know.  Here is our advice in the meantime, here is what the scientists are doing to try and resolve the issue, but we don’t have certainty in the scientific assessment of this particular risk."

Question: Has this transparency helped you maintain the independence of your advice to the public in the face of the pressures you face from the media, politicians, the industry and campaigners?

Sir John Krebs: One of our guiding principles is that we are an independent voice, so we are not under the influence of any particular political direction, industry, pressure groups, green groups or consumer groups. 

So independence is very important to us, as is being honest about the uncertainties. One of the effects of that is people are beginning to develop not only a recognition of us, but also a level of trust.

Trust is a very ephemeral, difficult concept to grasp but we do an annual poll measuring our progress.  The last survey found that 75 per cent of the population recognise the Food Standards Agency and about 60 per cent say we are an organisation they would trust. 

Question: Is there genuinely less public confusion and suspicion about food safety now compared to when the FSA was established?

Sir John Krebs: If you look in the media, which is one mirror of what the public thinks, then concerns over food safety have gone down over the last few years.

And if you look at our annual survey of public opinion, concerns about issues like BSE or food poisoning have gone steadily down.

There is still a lot to do, but yes, I think we have made progress in producing an environment in which there is more stability, more confidence in the system that governs food safety.

Question: The FSA has to work with the four UK rural affairs departments, four health departments, four education departments, all the local councils and local health authorities.  Is that structure too complex, should it be simplified?

Sir John Krebs: The environment is complicated, and not just because we are a UK-wide body operating in an area that is devolved.  There is a paradox that we operate across the UK and have to work with four different administrations across the countries.

But also it is complicated because we have to deal with many stakeholders.  Most of the things we have achieved have been achieved by working with others, such as local authority enforcement officers, the food industry, medical and health professionals, European players such as the Commission and other member states.

So it is a very complex environment and I think that is one of the challenges, but it is also one of the enjoyments that we do work in a very complex stakeholder environment.

Question: You’ve set out new priorities in your strategic plan for 2005 to 2010; how are they changing over the next five years compared to the focus of the last four years?

Sir John Krebs: We’ve just launched the strategic plan for consultation over the next three months.  It builds on the first four year plan so it is not tearing up the script and starting all over again.

But there is a slight shift in emphasis, with three new areas: food safety, eating for health and choice. Our perception is, and all our stakeholders have been telling us, that we should put more emphasis on eating for health.

We won’t neglect the important areas of maintaining and monitoring food standards, foodborne illness or contamination, but we aim to really up our game in diet and health.

Question: What more needs to be done on basic food safety?

Sir John Krebs: We’ve met our target of a 20 per cent reduction in foodborne illnesses, but we would like to go further. 

One of the ways in which the food supply has got safer in the last few years is that the contamination of food with salmonella has gone down hugely, particularly in chicken and eggs. But there are other bugs out there, such as campylobacter, that we want to focus on now, and we are targeting the poultry industry to set in place mechanisms to reduce the level of contamination in chickens.

We are also working with the catering sector because increasingly we all eat out.  Sometimes restaurants are very good, but sometimes they are a bit dodgy and we’ve all seen the television programmes about "restaurants from hell".

What we are trying to do is get a very simple, effective educational package for all restaurants, from the big guys down to the very small ones, that will enable them to improve their hygiene practices. This will also enable local enforcement officers to work with the catering businesses to make them more effective in terms of hygiene and therefore protect the public.

Question: The strategic plan puts a lot of emphasis on education.  Should issues to do with food safety and diet be given a more prominent role in the national curriculum?

Sir John Krebs: We would like to see more emphasis on food as a whole in education, and luckily for us the Department for Education and Skills is very much signed up to this.

One of the things we are doing with the DfES is working to identify a set of core competencies that every child should have by the time they leave school.

This would cover a basic knowledge of things like food hygiene, diet and nutrition, food preparation and so on.

Our plan is not to argue for a separate module in the core curriculum but to identify where these core competencies could be embedded.  It may be in science or other areas, but all kids should come across basic information about food as part of the preparation for life.  It is just as important as learning to open a bank account or learning about health.

Question: The strategic plan replaces the previous target of a 20 per cent reduction in foodborne illness with a commitment to "further significant reductions".  Does this reflect uncertainty about how far it is actually possible to reduce incidents of food poisoning?

Sir John Krebs: Life is not risk free.  You take a risk when you cross the road or travel by train or drive a car.  We must acknowledge that food is the same, it can never be absolutely risk free.

When we set the initial 20 per cent target for reducing foodborne illness, a lot of the experts said "you must be mad, it will never be achieved".  But together with all the stakeholders we have done it.

We want to move further.  It is hard to say how much further, but we want to see progress.

Question: Turning to the issue of healthy eating, how difficult will it be to make progress on your targets given the range of lifestyle, social and economic factors which are likely to have an impact?

Sir John Krebs: It is a very complex area because most people would accept that diet is a lifestyle choice. We are not talking about replacing individual choice and responsibility, but about creating an environment in which people can make the right choices for their health, and where choosing the healthier option is the easier choice.

Question: While there are examples of best practice in this area in the public sector, is it true to say that much of the quality is uneven?

Sir John Krebs: There are some examples of public sector activity at local level that have been hugely successful. One of our aims for the future is to work with local governments to get examples of best practice disseminated more widely across the country.

Question: Promoting healthy eating will be reliant on industry cooperation, do you think you are likely to get that?

Sir John Krebs: When I talk to the captains of industry, the really big players in the food industry, they recognise that the world has changed and that diet and health is now a very big issue. For them it is not a threat, it is a new opportunity, and I hope that over time others will recognise this and move towards producing and selling food that contributes to a healthier diet.

There may be some dyed-in-the-wool companies that don’t want to change, but over time they will be seen as the dinosaurs rather than the creative innovators for the next generation.

Question: Is there a stick that can be used to bring those "dinosaurs" into line?

Sir John Krebs: There is always the option of using a stick alongside a carrot.  The carrot is clear – here is a new opportunity to not only exhibit corporate social responsibility but also generate money from the market.

And ultimately in the background there is the possibility of further legislation, maybe on labelling or composition, but I see that as a long way down the track.

I think the first step is to work with the industry, to bring them on side and see how they can be part of the solution.  Most of the industry players I have talked to want to be part of the solution and see it as their contribution to the future.

Question: On the subject of choice, is food labelling becoming more useful to consumers now or is it still a list of confusing numbers?

Sir John Krebs: People are confused by labels, but this is an example where you can’t just talk of consumers as a single entity.

When I go shopping - and my wife would say that is not often enough - I notice that probably most shoppers do not look at labels.  They just want to grab stuff, get it into their basket and get out of the supermarket.

But for those who do want to read the labels, either because they want to look for allergens, or maybe nutritional information or the country of origin, the situation is still very confusing.

It is not that there isn’t enough information, there are masses of logos and claims and propositions on labels.  But often the very basic stuff you want to know is not there or is not clear.

For example, if you buy a processed meal and want to know what percentage of the daily recommended fat or salt intake it contains, it is not easy to find that out.

I think there is a lot of work to be done, not to make labelling more complex but to make it simpler and more relevant for those who want to use it, recognising that there will always be some consumers who aren’t going to be interested anyway.

Question: On one of the key issues of the moment, genetically modified crops, the strategic plan includes a commitment to asses the new labelling regulations, but shouldn’t the FSA be taking a more proactive approach to calming public fears and looking more closely at cross-contamination issues that could have an impact on labelling?

Sir John Krebs: When we talk about consumers being worried about GM, I think it is a certain group of consumers.

Two years ago we did a survey in which we asked people, without prompting, to list their food safety concerns.  GM was rated way, way down at the bottom.

I think there is a small group of consumers who are very concerned about GM, but many are less concerned.

Our job is to ensure that the science that underpins the safety assessment of GM is absolutely first class.

We also have got to ensure is that there is a system of choice, because some people do want to avoid GM and it is fair that they should have a labelling system that will give them that option.

So our commitments are to vigorous science for assessing the safety and to have a labelling system that works and gives people the choice that they want.

Question: The FSA has set out its new targets, but is there a risk to its credibility if they are not met?

Sir John Krebs: We thought quite hard about targets in this review and we have been bold in setting measurable targets for things like reducing salt in the diet and reducing saturated fat in the diet.

There is a always a risk that we may not achieve all the targets, but I think it is important that we set ourselves stretching targets and that we strive to achieve as many as possible.

I am confident we will achieve many of them and I don’t think it will undermine our credibility if we don’t achieve 100 per cent of the targets in the five years of the plan, as long as we have made significant progress in the right direction.

Question: How have you personally found the challenges faced by the FSA in the wake of issues such as the BSE problem?

Sir John Krebs: I think it is the most interesting and fun job I have ever done.

Question: Has your background at Oxford University and in academia helped to inform your approach to the issues the FSA has faced?

Sir John Krebs: A lot of the work we do is rooted in science, most of it is rooted in science.

What I’ve learned in this job is the limitations of science, both in terms of the completeness of science for assessing risk, but also the limitations of science as a way of explaining to the public what is going on.

I think a real challenge for the FSA is to put the scientific evidence-based policies in a framework and in a language that the public empathises with and recognises.

Question: What is your message to politicians and officials in Whitehall and Westminster?

Sir John Krebs: The FSA is proving its worth.  It is showing that it is an independent organisation, it is showing that it is putting the consumers’ interests first and it is setting new standards of openness, transparency and honesty.