For a start, the anticipated response to the CriiGen GM maize toxicity study that we reported last week has not been slow to materialise. To refresh your memory, this involved analysing data from rodent feeding trials of three GM maize varieties and seemed to show the possibility of liver and kidney damage, a finding at odds with most other published studies. Predictably, Monsanto immediately moved to damp down the flames and refute the findings, saying that they did not indicate any risk to consumers, a view now shared by the French High Council of Biotechnology and a number of independent toxicologists. In the fullness of time I'm sure EFSA will want to examine this study too and it will be interesting to see what conclusion they come to.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the USA is in the throes of yet another nationwide food poisoning outbreak. This time the culprit is Salmonella Montevideo and the food vehicle is Italian style salami sausage. The manufacturer has issued a recall for 18 different products, one and a quarter million pounds of salami in all, many of which are coated with black pepper, the suspected source of the contamination. This is by no means the first time pepper has been implicated in a Salmonella outbreak, but equally, fermented sausages like salamis have caused outbreaks too. That makes peppered salami a particularly high-risk product in need of a set of effective controls to be sure it is safe. Something clearly went wrong in this case.

The timing of this outbreak couldn't be much worse for Dr Elisabeth Hagen. Who is she? She is no less than President Obama's nominee for the post of USDA Undersecretary for Food Safety, a post left unfilled for the past year and with ultimate responsibility for improving the safety of meat and animal products. Dr Hagen comes with an impressive CV and reputation, but she will need all her experience and skills if she is to make a difference. I don't envy her right now, but I certainly wish her well.

The FDA, along with practically every other food safety regulator around the world, has consistently stated that BPA, which is present in certain types of packaging, is entirely safe at the levels likely to be present in food. At high levels it is an endocrine-disruptor and may be a carcinogen, but the consensus has been that low levels have no effect on health. But last year the Canadian authorities announced that they wanted BPA removed from infant feeding bottles. Now the FDA has decided that it too is concerned about the safety of BPA and would like it removed from some food packaging. The stated reason for the about turn is recent research using what are described as "novel approaches" to look for effects at low dose levels. Although these are not claimed to be at all conclusive, they apparently cast enough doubt on BPA safety to change the mind of the FDA.

And the French research study? Well, that is interesting because it claims to show that feeding rats with GM corn for 14 weeks causes some damage to liver and kidney function. This study was lead by the Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering, or CriiGen, which while not exactly noted for its pro-GM stance, does employ a scientific approach and publishes its results in peer-reviewed journals. I imagine that the methodology of the new study will be closely examined, but whatever the outcome, it will not help the cause of GM crops in Europe.

The common theme here is how a small element of doubt can sometimes override the accepted body of scientific evidence. The FDA has changed policy in response to what amounts to fresh uncertainty and the CriiGen study seeks to inject an element of doubt into the GM debate. But do enough research on any food safety issue, especially a contentious one, and an element of doubt is almost bound to emerge, because complete safety simply cannot be proven. Of course the regulators must respond to new science if it indicates a significant risk to health, but they also have to be mindful of the danger of stifling technological development and imposing unnecessary costs on the food industry. I think it's called a no-win situation.

This seems to be the main concern behind a recently published report from the UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee entitled 'Nanotechnologies and Food', which is very critical of the food industry for "failing to be transparent about its research into the uses of nanotechnologies." Their Lordships take the view that both honesty and transparency are vital to ensure public trust in food safety and new technologies, and worry that being secretive about nanomaterials in food could produce just the type of negative reaction that could seriously restrict development. The reaction to this from the UK food industry has been one of bemusement. Several trade organisations have already pointed out that so little development has been done on nanotech applications for food and packaging that there is little to be secretive about. The general view seems to be that their Lordships have jumped the gun.

While it is true that nanotech products haven't really got off the ground yet, at least in Europe, I think that their Lordships have a point. The history of GM foods shows what can happen if new technologies aren't introduced to the public in the right way and it is surely better to start the discussion in advance of developments rather than wait until more products are on the market. If industry responds positively to this report and it kick-starts a debate, it just might help to reassure consumers that they are not being experimented on and kept in the dark.

We all know that Listeria monocytogenes is an important foodborne pathogen and has been responsible for many serious and sometimes fatal outbreaks of illness over the years. The food industry has learnt a great deal about how to control it in susceptible foods and the regulators too have incorporated measures against Listeria into food hygiene law. Listeria ivanovii on the other hand has always been considered to be a pathogen of sheep, goats and other ruminants that does not infect humans and isn't generally considered to be a problem for food producers. But a newly published report may signal a change to that view. A team of French researchers studied an apparent case of foodborne listeriosis in a kidney transplant patient and discovered that the organism responsible for the infection was a strain of L. ivanovii indistinguishable from one found in sheep and goats, with the likely source being a cheese made from raw goats milk.

So it seems that L. ivanovii could be an emerging foodborne pathogen. But how come this hasn't been reported before? The French scientists found only three other possible cases, but reckon that this is because the species is relatively uncommon in the environment and thus in food. So at first glance it seems that there is nothing much to worry about. That is until one remembers that before about 1985, almost no one had heard of Listeria monocytogenes. It was never thought of as a foodborne pathogen until changes in food processing practice created a niche that it was able to exploit.