Episode 29 - Science in action: the people behind food safety

Carlos (00:00)

Sometimes I miss a little of the field work. I was very lucky to be involved in a lot of field work in unique places, and I worked a lot in Arctic ecosystems - in Alaska and Greenland.  

Sometimes you miss a little of that adventure, but regulatory science can be a lot of adventure. And when you're talking to politicians and to policymakers, it can also be wild.

Intro (00:27)

Science on the Menu, a podcast by the European Food Safety Authority.

Ed (00:37)

Hello. Welcome to another episode of Science on the Menu. My name is Ed, and today we're going to be discussing the value of science to society.  

And we're going to be picking up on the theme of World Food Safety Day, which happens every year on June the 7th. The theme this year is Science in Action. So here with me to unpack this is the chief scientist at EFSA, Carlos Das Neves.

Welcome to the podcast Carlos!

Carlos (01:06)

Thank you very much, Ed, and hello to everyone listening as well.  

Ed (01:08)

We're going to be discussing science in action, which is the theme of the World Food Safety Day, which started in 2019 - we’re now a few years into having an International Food Safety Day.  

My first question to you is how important is it to have a World Food Safety Day?

Carlos (01:29)

Extremely important. I know that some people will say there are international days for everything on the list. But I think we all agree that food is really key. It's something we all need. It's something that motivates economies, politics, passions. It's tradition. It's culture, but it's also something that continues to threaten the lives of thousands of people around the world.

We have still, even in Europe every year, food outbreaks and people that die from consumption of food that is not safe.  

This is a good reminder why once a year we should really highlight the importance of the safety of food systems.  

But it's more, I think, today, the 7th of June. It gives us the chance not just to remember this, but to communicate with a broad range of people and stakeholders to raise awareness, to educate.

It's a chance to call for action. And this year, on science, as you mentioned, I guess we will talk about it.  

It's a chance to remember that food is also something that is contributing to some of the big driving events on the planet and it's linked to climate change, it’s linked to changes of consumption penance.

And it’s also linked to something very dear to the United Nations, which is the Sustainable Development Goals, these transformative goals that we will reach by 2030 - fingers crossed - and some of them are really linked to food.  

I think probably the best well known will be the zero hunger, the good health. But food is also life on earth, life in oceans.

It's really a day to come together around something that is key.  

Ed (03:08)

That's a great introduction to what we're talking about here.  

Let's come to the theme: Science in Action. Where does science fit in here? What's the action? Give us a bit the context there for science being in action.  

Carlos (03:21)

I think we will also realize that science is very often linked to discovery, to innovation, to understanding how things work or making new things to work.  

Food has been an example of that over the centuries. It has been evolving with discovering new products and knowing how to handle them, therefore science is almost like an essential ingredient in this big recipe.

And for us, in the topics of food safety, it's really important not just to advance science, but to use it. I think when we think about action it’s really not just to create this knowledge, not just to be curious and discover, but then use it for a greater good, if I can say that, and I think that's the context of in action.

Ed (04:15)

It fits well with our podcast, which is called science on the menu and our goal is to try and talk about how science fits in to the menus that we have, the food that we have on the table.  

Carlo we've talked a lot about science in the broad sense. Can you tell us more what regulatory science is and how that might differ from other science?

Carlos (04:40)

Of course, Ed.  

When we hear about science, I think most people will be immediately driven to discovery, finding new things. It's this curiosity-driven, and hypothesis-driven “What if” and “How does it work? What will happen if?” and this is very important, also for the work we do here in EFSA it’s very important.  

But once you generate this knowledge, when you discover new things, when you know how they work, then in some areas we will have to bring that knowledge together, sit, make sense of it, see how we can use it to then reach conclusions, to make decisions. This is where the word I think also “regulation” comes of course to regulate, to give some order and a way things should be done.

For us in EFSA, regulatory science is very driven by giving advice to policymakers on food: if it's safe or not. Let's remind those listening to us that by food, of course, we also mean not just the food on the table but making sure that our animals and plants are healthy because they can be food and, of course, the ecosystems we live in where everything happens.

For us, regulatory science is this capacity to translate this knowledge that is out there into standardized, well validated, very methodologically, very and I'm not going to say strict, but very demanding approach, so that as far as we're able, to give advice - is it safe or not. But for this let me also be straightforward.

We need a lot of this exploratory science because regulatory science is looking into pathogens - in food bacteria, viruses – it’s looking at the chemicals that we can consume in food, or which may be used in production, pesticides and other contaminants that could pose a danger to us. It is, for example, helping to develop standards, put limits on how much you can consume of A of B of C, and it's also looking even to technologies, and I think out of my head, for example, how to package, the way we package, and we can serve food.

So, all that knowledge - once created - we try to make sense of it and then we provide advice so that politicians or those that can regulate, can legislate, can take a final decision.  

Ed (07:01)

My children actually ask me sometimes “Dad, where are the laboratories at EFSA, we want to see them” and it's always a big disappointment to them when I say “Well, actually there's no one in white coats here and we don't have laboratories”.

Carlos (07:15)

No, that’s true.  

Here in EFSA we don't have laboratories, exactly because our job is not this creative part of science so much. We are still very involved, now let's also make this clear. We're very involved and working very close with the active science across all of Europe.  

And they are in the labs that your kids want to visit. They are producing this knowledge. But here in this building, and by this building, I mean not just my colleagues, of course, who work in EFSA, but all the other regulatory experts, scientists that all around Europe join us in this sense-making and the sense-making is very often around the table. Well, more and more around the computers, and around this knowledge that is produced, and we try to use it in the best possible way.  

Ed (08:00)

What I'm going to do now Carlos is I'm going to take you on a little journey around the building of EFSA.

We went with a camera to go and find out what scientists here were doing at that moment, I can confirm no one was in white coats. We're going to see what they're doing right now.  

Carlos (08:17)

I'm curious. Let's see.  

Ed (08:18)

So let me open this up.  

Scientist 1 (08:22)

Yes. I'm working on this, report on the MRL application. So now I'm performing the calculation to check if the residues for this pesticide molecule are safe for consumer.  

It's a bit of work. I’ve been doing this for already a couple of months and hopefully it will be published very soon. That will be a big relief, but now I really need to finish before the deadline, so thank you.  

Scientist 2

At the moment, we are working on a scientific opinion on the welfare of beef cattle. I find this work very relevant because we have about 30 million beef in the EU, and there is no basic legislation protecting their welfare.  

So, I'm very glad to see it all coming together, and I'm very excited to see these results published.

Scientist 3

We are working on the food additives and food flavouring data collection. This year will be the first one doing this data collection under the monitoring program.  

In September, we are going to start with the scientific annual report for these substances. It will be really good to refine the exposure assessment of these substances.

Scientist 4

It’s a big improvement also to monitor the use of those substances in Europe.  

Scientist 5

Hi. I'm currently working on a scientific opinion on the safety of DHA - long chain omega 3 fatty acid. And we're hoping to derive a tolerable upper intake level. This is the maximum, total, chronic intake of a nutrient that is judged unlikely to pose an adverse health effect.

This is important at the moment because there are several novel foods coming on the market, with, marine algae, which would serve as a source of DHA. Thanks for stopping by.

Scientist 6

Oh, hi!

I was working, scientific opinion in welfare of horses and donkeys. We are doing research in things such as risks to welfare on breeding, on genetic selection, on mutilations, and also the way horses and donkeys are kept. Now I'm going back to work.

Scientist 7

Hey, hi Ed! How are you getting on?  

I'm here working on the latest African swine fever report. The countries send us the data, we analyse it and see how the situation is. Actually, we are about to publish it. So happy about that!

Scientist 8 (the “trainee”)

Sorry, I’m collecting the data on wildlife. You tell me, how many wild boars were dead last year in Europe?

Scientist 7

Sure, one second. Ed, I need to leave you! I need to attend to this new trainee. Okay. See you later. Ciao!  

Ed (11:20)

I think we heard different experiences and the final experience there, the “new trainee” is Angel. He's been here for quite some time.  

Carlos (11:20)

Yeah, he's been training for a while!  

(laughs)

Ed (11:32)

But I'd like to ask you: we caught different colleagues there at different moments, some of them were quite keen to get back to their work - they had their deadlines. Does this match with the idea of regulatory scientists and what you would have in mind, what people are doing on a daily basis?  

Carlos (11:49)

When I listen to these examples at first it’s good because you get suddenly a quick snapshot of some of the things happening. So, even for me is good.  

But what you realize from all these testimonies is a combination also of the skills which are essential to do this regulatory work. First, extremely deep knowledge of the science, I mean, and you hear your colleagues on many topics. We heard pesticides, nutrition, animal health and we are very lucky.  

I think Europe is very lucky that we have the best of the best. And whether it is in this building or all the other scientists that work with us across the member states, we have the best brains on board.  

But they do more. They're not only doing their science, but they also have a very good knowledge of the regulation, the legislation in place, the checks that need to be followed to make sure that we give the advice. They know the methodologies, the models.

And it's this art of combining these two things - we heard there Lucien saying that he had to go and finish the modelling, which takes a few months. So it’s also a work of endurance. But this combination of skill sets is also unique of a regulatory scientist. 

Ed (12:57)

Let's come to you, Carlos. Your title is Chief Scientist.

It sounds almost like you are the head of the tribe, if you like. The chief of the scientist tribe that are here.

Explain to us a little bit what does a chief scientist at an EU agency do? What is a chief scientist?  

Carlos (13:14)

No, I mean as a chief scientist, this role, which is also not unique to EFSA, it exists in a few other agencies and in a few member countries is really perhaps, devoted to, I would say, four different types of things at a high senior managerial level, so usually very close to the directors or to the ministers when these roles are in countries.  

And one role is to provide high level advice on topics linked to science, to the directors, to the ministries – it depends where you are. In my case, to the Executive Director of EFSA to make sure that I can quickly also try to connect the dots around the house with the help of colleagues, with the help of the tribe and provide the Executive Director with the needed information on science, on challenges.

A lot of the work of the chief scientist is also linked to ensuring that, scientifically, EFSA has the knowledge and the tools it needs. And this is - to illustrate what I mean - for example, to be prepared on what might be the challenges of tomorrow. Make sure that if tomorrow something arrives at the house, we have the science we need or we know where we can collect it, we have the tools and the methodologies to be able to do our work.

This is what we call the preparedness, to be prepared. That's another type of work that is very linked to the chief scientist.  

Then we have a third area, which is perhaps the one which I am blessed in having a great tribe, which is to be the ambassador as well. A lot of my work is also to be out there communicating, sometimes defending, but most of the times communicating and sharing some of the great work we have just seen on the videos with a broad range of audience, which links to that is a sort of a work that is ambassador and a networker.  

Ed (15:00)

You don't miss this direct contact with the animals that a vet has on a daily basis?  

Carlos (15:05)

Well, no. These days I think that I get my cats that’s as wildlife as it gets.

But no I think it was a natural progression. Sometimes I miss a little of the field work. I was very lucky to be involved in a lot of fieldwork in unique places, and I worked a lot in Arctic ecosystems in Alaska and Greenland. Sometimes you miss a little of that adventure. But regulatory science can be a lot of adventure.

And when you're talking sometimes also to politicians and to policymakers, it can also be wild.  

Ed (15:32)

We've talked very positively about regulatory science, regulatory scientists. It's not always seen that way by society and by people outside. I hear criticism that regulatory science is slow, there's lots of burden, it's bureaucratic. “You're not keeping pace with innovation in the outside world, or you're not keeping pace with academic research and new areas of science”.

What would you say to those kinds of criticisms?  

Carlos (16:06)

It's not just that science is moving quicker and quicker, but things are getting more and more complex. We are more and more asked to see things in context. Don't look just at the animal or just at the chemical that can be in the food, in us, in the environments, in the ecosystems.

This transdisciplinary bringing things together, I think it's a game changer, I think it’s the way it should be done. But it's complex and it can slow us down.  

Another reason that sometimes slows us down is that we harness the knowledge that is available, and if there is not enough knowledge available, we have a problem and sometimes we have scientific gaps, sometimes we have data gaps.

There is not enough data, and this makes it harder to go quick. We're also sometimes slower because we have, over the years, built a process that is also trying to be inclusive. We have in the process of providing these opinions space for all stakeholders to be heard. We have public consultations. We receive the comments, the complaints, the doubts of citizens, of companies, of NGOs, and we need to incorporate this.  

It takes time, but I think it's a price worth paying. This transparency, this inclusiveness is worth paying. And last but not least, of course there are also legal demands that are complex to handle.  

I'm just trying to illustrate the reasons why we are slow. But I don't want to leave it there. I don't want people to think that we're not trying to keep up this pace, and we're trying to do a lot of different things. And I would just highlight two or three, which I think are essential.  

First on this is that we need the science and the data. We are always trying our best at all times to engage with the research in the world that is out there with the academic institutions, and we have scientific networks, we have research calls, so we put out money, to close these gaps. We have traineeships, we have organized conferences and workshops. We try to keep this research environment around food safety alive, healthy and up to speed inside the house.  

We're also trying to streamline processes. And here, of course, taking advantage and harnessing the possibilities of new technology - artificial intelligence, new data streams - this can speed us up. We’re also looking into some of these more bureaucratic processes. How can we and our daily procedures and processes be more efficient, be more agile? So, there are these internal efforts. And last but not least, we are also trying to share more and more of these needs and of this reality with the outside world, because perception is also key.

Ed (18:53)

We've talked about the big picture. We talked about the more focused picture of what's going on here. We've talked about, active science, what it is. What I'd like to do now is talk a little bit about the future science as part of progress in society. I think the main crucial thing of science, the question to ask is, is it making our lives better or are our lives better?

And to do this, there needs to be research and innovation.  

You published a report you co-published with others, a report on gaps in research. And I’d be curious to know the results of that. The main conclusions and some of the gaps that you found.

Carlos (19:38)

We had six big topics that we tried to cover very briefly, but the curious ones for each of these topics, there are in-depth reports giving you all the details. Omics, the technology of omics, the genomics, the transcriptomics, the proteomics, which is a game changer.  

Microbiome, especially on the gut. There's also the environmental component, but the gut microbiome a lot of - this is an example – science, exploratory science done that is missing translation. We focused on these new approach methodologies. And for those not so familiar, this is an attempt to reduce, for example, the use of animals for testing, so we need other solutions, in vitro options. And these methods need to be developed. They need to be validated. They need to be verified, it’s a big process.  

Then we looked into three types of assessments which are of growing interest because they are becoming more and more relevant and happening more often. One linked to aspects of allergenicity - quite relevant in all our novel foods opinions.  

The topic of aggregated exposure, the way you aggregate the exposure to different, multiple chemicals. And we are able to see one by one, but what about when you need to see the big picture. And last but not least, of course, environmental risk assessment, understanding that, the use of chemicals and the use of other products, contaminants, have an impact or may have an impact on the tomatoes, on the animals, on us, but also on the environment.

And then for the curious ones or for the ones who have the money to solve some of these problems, you can go to the specific reports and there we get very specific ideas of project one, project two, project three - we are trying to do a few ourselves in EFSA with the help of the member states. But those with more money and more resources, can now chip in.

This is sort of a shopping a menu. It's science on the menu actually: a menu with a lot of good scientific ideas. I would recommend to the funders to not be shy. Eat extensively, choose as many as you want.  

Ed (21:46)

That sounds like an expensive menu. Is it only a question of money, or is there other elements that need to happen for these gaps to be filled?

Carlos (21:57)

I mean, for some of these gaps, there will be a need for money in order to create the knowledge.

Very often linked with money it's the problems also of available resources, the expertise and the brains behind and we need the people in the coats in the labs to do the work, but we also then need the people able to translate, to do this translation from exploration to regulation. And this editorial is really, an appeal to everyone in Europe to team up and help on this, which is not just EFSA’s project, it's Europe's project.  

Ed (22:09)

I think that's a really good place to end the conversation Carlos, a glimpse also of what is coming, perhaps in the future.

So I'll end it there. Thank you very much for your time and for giving us all this interesting insight into the world in which we work. And also, for a reflection on this important day, June the 7th, World Food Safety Day. Will you mark it in some way?  

Carlos (22:51)

Yeah, I will be also attending a national event.

We also try to collaborate with the member states to organize national events. This year, I will go to my country, to Portugal for the first time to join the World Food Safety Day.  

Thanks very much for the discussion. And to all of those listening happy World Food Safety Day. Team up!

Ed (23:14)

Okay. Well, thank you Carlos, to all our listeners: thank you for joining us. Please join us again next time for another episode of Science on the menu. For now, goodbye.