WITH public confidence in the safety of what we eat hammered by a flood of food scares over BSE, E.coli and salmonella, the announcement by the government of a New Food Standards Agency is a step that is patently overdue.

However, what is vital is that confidence in our food is strengthened by confidence in this new watchdog at the outset.

And though Agriculture Minister Dr Jack Cunningham has pledged that the agency will be truly independent and given powers to enforce safety "from plough to plate," it is essential that its structure and funding are not seen to undermine this promise.

For the problem with the present set-up, with Dr Cunningham's ministry having the dual role of protecting consumers along with the interests of food producers, is that efforts to improve food safety are seen to be compromised.

Ending that duality by setting up a separate, powerful food safety agency is right.

But two concerns arise immediately.

Where, to begin with, are the new agency's officials coming from?

Trading standards officers complain that they have been struggling for years with underfunded resources to police food hygiene at local level and they accuse Ministry officials of failure to enforce standards.

If, therefore, the same officials are to be decanted into the new agency, the change will be merely cosmetic.

It must not be.

Secondly, it is suggested that the agency will be funded by a new licensing system for food manufacturers and, possibly, retailers.

If so, the agency's independence could be immediately compromised if the people it polices are its paymasters.

There should be no dilution at all of the agency's independence or powers.

Otherwise, the public will conclude that what is a necessary step has been turned into a window-dressing exercise.

Only a fall in the disgraceful number of food poisoning cases will prove that it has been set up the right way.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.