Nutrition on the Internet

Citation

Stephen Fallows, D. (1999), "Nutrition on the Internet", Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 99 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/nfs.1999.01799dag.001

Nutrition on the Internet

Introduction

I had intended that this article would revert to the general "here-there-and everywhere" format.

However, since the previous two articles that had a particular focus on genetically modified (GM) food were prepared (at the end of 1998) there has been considerable (often ill-informed) media attention placed on this topic. Furthermore, there has been additional material placed on the Internet.

So, I feel that it is useful to add a few updates before moving on to address new issues.

Web Site Reviews

1. Update on the GM Foods Issue

Pusztai Report

The GM issue emerged as a news story in February 1999 when an international group of scientists published a statement that supported the views of the Rowett Research Institute scientist Dr Arpad Pusztai. In late October 1998 Dr Pusztai produced a report that suggested that rats fed on a particular GM potato suffered damage to the brain, immune system and other organs. Dr Pusztai discussed his findings in a World in Action documentary and was suspended from his post; he has now retired after being exonerated in a misconduct inquiry.

Dr Pusztai’s report is now available on the Internet at the following URL: http://www.rri.sari.ac.uk/gmo/index.html

It must be noted that (contrary to many media reports):

• •

  No approvals have been given for the commercial production or sale of GM potatoes in the UK.

• •

  Results such as those reported from Dr Pusztai’s research would be more than sufficient to prevent the sale of the particular GM product.

• •

  If a health hazard is identified with respect to one GM food it should not be assumed that all GM products will carry the same hazard. Similarly, if one or two GM foods are declared to be safe it is not possible to assume that this would also apply to all other GM foods this is why all GM foods are subject to an individual approval process under the EU’s 1997 Novel Foods Directive.

10 Downing Street

In mid-February 1999, the Prime Minister’s official Internet site posted a detailed response to the many media comments and allegations made about GM foods. The responses provided seek to dispel the hype, myth and hysteria. The Number 10 site also includes an opportunity to contribute views to an online debate on the GM issue.

The URL for 10 Downing Street is: http://number-10.gov.uk/

This site is broadly ‘‘pro’’ on the GM food issue.

The Prince of Wales

Prince Charles is a well-known supporter of organic food production and it is not surprising therefore that he challenges the introduction of GM foods.

The Prince’s Internet site includes a statement of his personal views on GM foods. It also hosts a discussion forum in which there is opportunity to contribute views on the GM issue.

The Prince published an article on GM crops in the Daily Telegraph of 8 June 1998.

The URL for the Prince’s Website is http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/forum

The URL for the Prince’s Daily Telegraph article is http:/www/princeofwales.gov.uk/speeches/agriculture_08061998.html

Royal Society

The Royal Society has moved on from its report on GM plants for food use (reviewed previously) to establish an independent expert group ‘‘to review allegations that problems of allergenicity and toxicology may arise in GM plants’’. The outcomes from this group will be published on the Royal Society Internet site in due course.

The Royal Society URL is http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/

The President of the Society, Sir Aaron Klug, has commented that ‘‘the Prime Minister and the Government are right in their determination not to be bullied into abandoning GMOs by emotion and fears, but are steadily trying to find out the facts through trials and experiments’’. (Quotation from speech to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee 23 February 1999 full text available from the Royal Society Website.)

Enforcement of EU Labelling Requirements

As indicated above, since 1997 GM foods are subject to the conditions set out in the EU Novel Foods Directive. However, the two principal GM foods, Monsanto’s GM soya and Novartis’ GM maize, were approved prior to the introduction of the Novel Foods Directive and hence were subject to different conditions. The most important difference was with regard to the requirement to label foods containing the GM ingredient.

The labelling anomaly was dealt with in 1998 in an EU regulation (1139/98) which requires labelling for foods from the two named GM sources. Although EU Regulations are applicable throughout the EU without further national implementation, the details of enforcement in the UK have been the matter of consultation for some months. The outcome of the consultation is manifest in The Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations 1999.

The full text of the regulations has been posted (in portable document format) to the following URL: http://www.maff.gov.uk/food/novel/labelreg.pdf

Media reports

Newspapers and other print media are increasingly available via the Internet. This move does not challenge the convenience of the traditional print version but rather provides a useful research resource. The following list gives the URLs of a number of UK publications that provide full text Web editions:

• •

  The Times: http://www.the-times.co.uk/

• •

  Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/

• •

  Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

• •

  Financial Times: http://www.ft.com/

• •

  The Scotsman: http://www.scotsman.com/

• •

  Belfast Telegraph: http://belfasttelegraph.co.uk/

• •

  New Scientist: http://newscientist.com/

• •

  Economist: http://economist.com/

Each of the above publications covered the GM food issue extensively in mid to late February 1999. Some of these Websites require (free) registration.

2. Other issues

EU veterinary audits of monitoring for residues and an explanation of the European Commission URLs

The European Commission is undertaking audits of the arrangements put in place by EU member states to ensure established limits for the residues of veterinary medicines in live animals and animal products. The national reports follow a standard reporting pattern which allows for comparisons between member states.

Each national report is published on the DG24 Website. The URLs of example reports are given below note that the audit programme is continuing:

• •

  United Kingdom: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/vi/reports/vi_rep_unik_03_en.html

• •

  Finland: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/vi/reports/vi_rep_finl_03_en.html

It will be noted that there are only minor differences in the two URLs cited above (unik is replaced by finl); thus it is possible to construct with relative ease the routes into reports about the situation in other EU member states (Spain is indicated by ‘‘spai’’ while Italy is indicated by ‘‘ital’’ and Sweden by ‘‘swed’’). Thus, if any reader has a particular interest in a specific country it is a simple matter to construct a URL that has a fair chance of success.

However, readers should note that it is pure coincidence that ‘‘_03_’’appears in both the URLs cited above. The ‘‘3’’ merely denotes the fact that this is the third report relating to veterinary inspections for the named country. For example, the ‘‘_03_’’ report for Spain is concerned with surveillance in respect of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies. The URL can be dissected further to suggest routes to other materials. The ‘‘/vi/’’ and ‘‘vi_rep_’’ elements of the address indicate that the item is concerned with veterinary inspections (vi). An equivalent convention applies to phytosanitary inspections (concerned with plant health matters) – in this case the ‘‘v’’ is replaced by ‘‘p’’. For example the following URL links to a phytosanitary inspection of Sweden: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/pi/reports/pi_rep_swed_01_en.html

The above conventions are not limited to inspections of EU member states for example ‘‘_usa_’’ refers to inspections in the USA while ‘‘_ icel_’’ refers to inspections in Iceland and ‘‘_uae_’’ to inspections in the United Arab Emirates.

Finally, throughout the EU Web network there is a recognition of the need to provide equivalent information in each of the 11 recognised languages. While not every document is made available in each language the following convention is used: the language of each document is indicated in the last two letters prior to ‘‘.html’’:

• •

  en ­ English;

• •

  fr ­ French;

• •

  de ­ German;

• •

  es ­ Spanish;

• •

  da ­ Danish;

• •

  he ­ Greek;

• •

  it ­ Italian;

• •

  pt ­ Portuguese;

• •

  fi ­ Finnish;

• •

  sv ­ Swedish;

• •

  nl ­ Dutch.

The simple substitution of ‘‘en’’ for ‘‘fr’’ in most of the EU URLs will change the language of presentation to French rather than English. The rule is not perfect as documents are not always published in all languages; it will work in most instances for the principal EU languages English and French. It will work in many instances with Spanish, Italian and German but is less reliable with the other EU languages since there is often delay in translation of major documents and minor items may not be posted in translation.

Evaluation of the official foodstuffs control system

The previous item referred specifically to the programme of inspection audits conducted in respect of procedures to control veterinary residues in animal products and made reference in passing to the equivalent phytosanitary audit inspections. A third set of audits is made under Article 5 of EU Directive 93/99/EEC on the official control of foodstuffs. The reports from the first batch of the second round of national audits are available on the Web. The easiest access route is via the following URL: http://europan.eu.int/comm/dg24/afh/afh06_en.html

This offers links to the audit reports completed to date.

BSE inquiry update

The Philips Inquiry into the UK outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is (at the time of writing) moving into its second phase. To conclude phase 1, the Inquiry has published a series of draft factual accounts. These documents are intended to provide summaries of the materials presented to the Inquiry so far and to provide the basis for discussion in phase 2. Documents are available on the following topics:

• •

  The Southwood Working Party.

• •

  The Tyrrell Committee.

• •

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.

• •

  Central Veterinary Laboratory (Part 1).

• •

  Early days.

• •

  Slaughter and compensation.

• •

  The ruminant feed ban.

• •

  Introduction of the specified bovine offals ban.

• •

  Government and Southgate.

• •

  The introduction of the animal SBO ban.

• •

  The ‘‘touch’’ test.

• •

  The ELISA test.

• •

  Central Veterinary Laboratory (Part 2).

The URL to access the above documents, others that might be added to the list and the BSE Inquiry generally is http://www.bse.org.uk

The Food Directory

The Food Directory was established by the Food Foundation as a Web-based source of information for children and their teachers. Marks & Spencer support the Food Directory database. It aims to provide an authoritative and comprehensive source on nutrition, cooking and other food skills, and the use and appreciation of food and drink.

The Food Foundation is a registered charity and its initial development and day-to-day running costs have been underwritten by BBC Worldwide Publications.

The Food Foundation Web-site currently includes a summary of research into the attitudes to food and cooking and sources of information for young people in the UK. Tesco sponsored this work.

The URL for this site is http://www.fooddirectory.co.uk

IFST Position Statement organic foods

In line with its established practice, the Institute of Food Science and technology has posted the text of its latest Position Statement that considers organic foods to its Web site. The Position Statement is organised as follows:

1. 1.

   Introduction and definitions.

2. 2.

   Background:

   • •

     brief history;

   • •

     the contemporary organic consumer;

   • •

     market growth

3. 3.

   Legislation:

   • •

     EU legislation;

   • •

     USA legislation;

   • •

     certification procedures.

4. 4.

   Production, quality and safety:

   • •

     guiding principles for organic food manufacture;

   • •

     quality and safety in production;

   • •

     microbiological safety;

   • •

     agricultural chemical residues;

   • •

     nutrition;

   • •

     flavour.

5. 5.

   Future prospects:

   • •

     market development;

   • •

     can organic farming feed the world?;

   • •

     implications for the mainstream food industry.

6. 6.

   Conclusions.

The URL for this document is http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/hottop24.htm

If you have identified a Web site likely to be of interest to readers of Nutrition and Food Science please contact the author of this series of articles as follows: by email to stephen.fallows@luton.ac.uk; by fax to 01234 766926 or 01582 743237; by post at the University of Luton.

Dr Stephen FallowsReader in Educational Development,University of Luton