HL Deb 09 June 1964 vol 258 cc875-6WA
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Which additives or contaminants of food are permitted at a level higher than one hundredth of the known minimal chronic toxic dose; what is the permitted fraction in each case; and what are the reasons for exception from the normal rule.

LORD ST. OSWALD

There is no such normal rule.

As I told the House on 6th May in answer to a Question by the noble Lord, in relating the maximum daily tolerated dose producing no ill effects in animals with the daily intake for man, a safety factor of 100 is commonly employed by scientists. This is, however, only one of a number of considerations which the Food Standards Committee takes into account in framing its recommendations.

The expert advice on which the Food Standards Committee bases its reports to Ministers is given in the light of the assessment made by the Food Additives Sub-Committee and its Pharmacology Panel of all the evidence available; but it is not expressed mathematically in relation to the minimum chronic toxic dose.

As examples of cases where the factor of 100 does not apply I may cite the regulations which control the presence of sulphur dioxide and arsenic in food. The permitted levels of sulphur dioxide, which is an important food preservative, take into account the the fact that the quantity in the food when consumed will have been appreciably reduced by oxidation and volatilisation. With arsenic there would be obvious difficulties in applying such a rule since in some shellfish, for example, this is a naturally occurring contaminant.

House adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.