“UK Food Standards Agency proposals for re-structuring how it regulates foodborne risks: an analysis and critique” by Eric Millstone Emeritus Professor of Science Policy, University of Sussex, Brighton.
The UK Food Standards Agency mentioned is The Food Standards Agency (FSA) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and The Food Standards Scotland (FSS).
There proposals are Streamlining Authorizations: Accelerating the approval process for regulated products (e.g., novel foods, cell-cultivated products) to facilitate market entry and Intelligence led Inspections: Moving away from routine, rigid inspections toward a more risk-based, localized approach for local authorities, designed to reduce burdens on "compliant" businesses.
Professor Eric Millstone states the following in the abstract of this article “Official food policy-makers are expected both to ensure that they have a well-functioning system of food supply, processing, distribution and consumption while also ensuring that their citizens are protected from unsafe and unhealthy foods. It is evident that the implications of those two responsibilities can and sometimes do conflict; which historically has prompted the question: should those two policy responsibilities be institutionally co-located, or institutionally separated? The UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) was created in response to the policy failures revealed by the Mad Cow Disease saga. Previously one UK ministry had been responsible for both agendas, but the tension between them had been so severe that they contributed to turning the saga into a deep crisis. Responsibility for ensuring UK food safety was subsequently separated from the food industries’ sponsoring ministry, and transferred to the FSA. A recent set of proposals from the FSA recommends that the agency should expand its responsibilities by also endeavouring to promote the commercial interests of the food industries. Implementing the proposals risks undermining public confidence in the FSA and the safety of the UK’s food supply. The significance of the proposals goes beyond the UK as it illustrates a pivotal and ubiquitous axis of contestation in food policy-making, it illustrates ways in which food policy governance can be malleable rather than rigid, and explains how a combination of forgetfulness and economic re-prioritisation risks undermining food safety and public trust in policy-making”.
Professor Erik Millstone article below that was published in ScienceDirect link below.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919226000692
In Artificial Intelligence (AI) terms of definition of Professor Erik Millstone article appears to be arguing the following in his critique of the UK Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) restructuring proposals (specifically the Regulating Our Future / Market Authorisation Modernisation (MAM) initiatives)
Professor Erik Millstone’s critique of the UK Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) restructuring proposals specifically the Regulating Our Future / Market Authorisation that they represent a dangerous shift. He contends that by attempting to co-locate consumer protection with the promotion of commercial interests, the FSA risks repeating the institutional failures that prompted its creation.
Millstone also appears to highlight that the FSA's mandate has increasingly favoured deregulation and economic support for the food industry over the robust protection of public health. He also appears to expresses concern that commercial pressures undermine food safety standards.
A foundational critique is the erosion of the boundary between independent scientific risk assessment and political/economic risk management. Millstone appears to point out that decisions regarding what constitutes an acceptable level of risk are increasingly influenced by corporate lobbying rather than purely objective, precaution-driven science.
He highlights that vested industry interests hold disproportionate power in shaping these regulations, specifically concerning innovative or highly processed foods.
By relaxing systemic oversight and devolving responsibility, Millstone suggests these reforms risk facilitating "forgetfulness" in governance. This creates an environment where food safety standards could slip, ultimately damaging consumer confidence in the regulatory system.
Opinion.
I hope that AI captured accurately the basic terms of his argument above.
Having being trying to help reduce foodborne illness for nearly 30 years, I agree that what Professor Erik Millstone is saying, is absolutely accurate.
When the FSA was launched in 2000 at Kensington Town Hall in London, there was hope that something good could happen in relation to food safety. (We were there at the launch). That hope didn’t last long as when we met the founding Chairman and Deputy Chair a few months later, they were instructed by our lawyers that we would be launching a judicial review to obtain a tax funded research report from Reading University, that previously the FSA had failed to give us. At the meeting they produced the report but the two most important pages were missing. Shortly after this meeting our Lawyers obtained the missing pages.
Over the years since the Agency was formed, we have corresponded with them in relation to consultations, policies etc and also met with them, but we have seen no significant reduction the number of confirmed cases of foodborne illness.
Professor Erik Millstone also states in his paper “Understanding why the FSA and the FSS introduced the MAM proposals is less straightforward. The issue is not: is there for example evidence of corporate influence in the Board and advisory committees of the FSA? That is an established fact. Millstone & Lang” This argument, I believe, can be backed up when you look at some of the connections to the food industry, on the Board and on scientific committees.
The FSA have clearly forgotten the reason they were set up for in the first place, which was because Government let the meat industry feed the brains of dead animals and introduced it into the food chain which the consumers bought from supermarkets etc. This caused 178 to die in the UK 233 in total worldwide and a massive slaughter of animals.
What the FSA is doing, is to start to reintroduce things that are unacceptable and have caused problems previously. This I believe works on the basis that over a period of time the public will have forgotten about such issues. It also, I believe, comes from an arrogance of not learning from past mistakes and believing that now you can do better than what was done in the past.
Now the FSA are saying that they not only want to be a Regulator, but they also want to be an Authoriser. This would mean having their foot in two camps and marking their own homework, which was why the FSA was originally formed.
Also, their idea that large supermarket chains can mark their own work is yet another recipe for disaster in terms of food safety. The reality is that the FSA is only one major foodborne outbreak away from collapse. The more you remove the safety margins, the risk increases until the inevitable happens and unfortunately it will be human beings who suffer because of it.
I honestly can’t see any more the need for an FSA Board as I don’t believe they are effective or in the interest of the public and the responsibility should fall to an elected representative (Government Minister) as the Board cannot be removed democratically at the ballot box, if they are not doing their job.
I believe the Minister should be responsible for food safety and to end any confusion the department should be called the Food Safety Agency which hopefully should crystalise what their role should be. All other matters such as authorisation of products should be the responsibility of another Minister in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The major advantage of having ministerial governance is that they can be removed at the ballot box if the public are not satisfied with what they are doing.
Also we note the reluctance of the FSA and the UK Health Security Agency to publish the names of companies involved during outbreak investigations and reports whilst claiming to be transparent.
Salmonella cases rise to the highest figure in a decade.
There were 10,406 confirmed cases of Salmonella in 2025 in the latest yearly figures, which is the highest in a decade.
Listeria monocytogenes case also rose slightly in 2025 to181 confirmed cases. “Listeriosis cases were highest among people aged 80 and over. In 2025, there were 141 non-pregnancy-associated cases, of which 28 people died (19.9%). A further 40 cases were pregnancy- associated, accounting for around one in five of all cases. Of those pregnancy- associated cases with known outcomes, nearly a third (31.4%) resulted in stillbirth or miscarriage”.
As you can see Listeria has a very high mortality rate and can have very sad outcomes in pregnancy.
