Animal production and food: real problems and paranoia

The scientific and technological expansion of British agriculture between the mid 1930s and mid 1980s can be attributed primarily to the provision of favourable and stable prices and only secondly to government support of research and development. These conditions have changed. Most government-funded research in agriculture is now directed to the new biological sciences, molecular biology and transgenics. It is uncertain whether those at the frontiers of biotechnology are aware of the limits and constraints placed on animal production. Equally, it is uncertain whether the commercial supply services to agriculture will be prepared to meet the costs of transferring this new technology into production. These real problems facing agriculture are amenable to rational solutions. Of greater concern are food scares whipped up by pressure groups and government responses taken in the absence of, or in defiance of, scientific evidence.

Two examples are considered, one trivial, the other deadly serious. The first involves the recommendation that pregnant women ‘should not eat liver’ based on an unpublished report of a single case of birth defects. The second example chosen for discussion is the alleged causal relationship between the intake of saturated fatty acids (SFA) and coronary heart disease. The inadequacy of the simple distinction between saturated and unsaturated fats is briefly reviewed in the light of new knowledge relating to specific SFA, monounsaturates and the distinction between polyunsaturates of the linoleic and linolenic series. Evidence from large epidemiological studies is marshalled to demonstrate that there is no good case to support the conclusion of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA, 1984) that the nation's diet should be changed to reduce the proportion of saturated fats. The Department of Health is invited to recall COMA to reconsider their recommendations in the light of new evidence.