FDF also welcomes the introduction of lay members to the Committees to address the perception of greater transparency and direct consumer involvement. However, it is important to retain the primary role of the Advisory Committees as the provision of independent expert scientific advice to ministers. The importance of individual members being appointed for their individual expertise cannot be over-emphasised. This expertise must be in those areas of science encompassed by the Committee's remit. Indeed, the need is more for an individual who can audit the process of scientific evaluation and assessment to ensure its rigour and objectiveness.
Much expertise resides within the food industry itself.
There is no reason why this should not be exploited within the Advisory Committee structure. Such an expert would clearly be identified, as is the case in the FAC, and while providing expertise it would also help to broaden industry's understanding of the concerns of other parties. This would seem of itself undesirable in inhibiting the Committee's access to direct expertise of food processing and technology. There is a growing perception that any individual with direct or indirect commercial interests, such as industrial employment or ownership of shares in relevant companies, should automatically be barred from membership of the Advisory Committees because of conflicts of interests and the risk of actual or perceived bias. Moreover, with research funding increasingly being derived from industry, there are few relevant academic institutions and departments not in receipt of industry funding, which arguably could exclude many well-qualified academics.