The Food Standards scientific committees are recruiting experts, consumer representatives and anyone who can survive a meeting where “evidence” may trigger several hours of debate about its preferred format. The Food Standards Agency seeks chairs, full members, associate members and lay members for its Scientific Advisory Committees and Science Council. The plain glass jar has applied for every position. It lists “being repeatedly examined” as leadership experience.
The vacancy notice seeks knowledge of allergens, toxicology, microbiology, animal feedingstuffs, genetics, statistics and social science. It also welcomes expertise in food distribution and production. At last, a system has recognised that food can take a complicated journey from farm to plate. A napkin cannot manage every stage.
Food Standards scientific committees seek consensus
Chairs must guide multidisciplinary groups towards consensus. They must also ensure that every member gets heard and no view gets ignored. This sounds reasonable until the room contains specialists in chemical contaminants, behavioural science and the ancient national dispute over whether something counts as lunch.
The plain glass jar has offered to chair the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. It lacks the relevant qualifications. However, it has spent years getting opened, inspected and returned to a shelf while people debate whether its contents technically qualify as soup.
This is not food science. It is public administration with a lid.
Full members must challenge the assumptions behind scientific advice. Associate members contribute while they build experience. Lay members bring a consumer perspective. The Food Standards scientific committees therefore want experts, future experts and someone willing to say that a product may be safe but should not look like that.
A Food Standards scientific committees vacancy notice with its own risk assessment
The notice also values people who can explain complicated evidence clearly. That may prove the boldest requirement. Britain has perfected a process that invites a simple answer to a stakeholder meeting, gives it a temporary badge and sends it home carrying three unresolved questions.
The jar has submitted a twelve page application. It claims that its label qualifies as peer review. Its rejection letter praised its enthusiasm. It also suggested that the jar return after acquiring a body, a CV and a defensible position on soup.
The committee will seek scientific judgement. The jar will seek a larger chair. At least one of them has already been thoroughly bottled up.
Source: GOV.UK.
