Although the Australian researchers Warren and Marshall proved that H. pylori was a cause of human gastric infections more than 20 years ago, how infection is transmitted has been something of a mystery, as has the environmental reservoir for the pathogen. The fact that it cannot easily be isolated from environmental samples has led to the assumption that transmission must be mainly person-to-person. But the new research found strong evidence that H. pylori can exist in a viable non-culturable, or VBNC, state for up to six days when present on spinach leaves and could still be infective. In other words, it is possible that H. pylori is in fact a foodborne pathogen and might conceivably be present - going undetected - on fresh produce and other foods. The most likely vehicle would be human faeces, with contamination occurring mostly via water in much the same way that pathogens like Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 get onto vegetables in the field.

This is of course pure speculation at present, and these tentative findings need to be confirmed and investigated further, but it would help to explain why two thirds of the world's population carry H. pylori in their stomachs. It wouldn't be the first bacterium to emerge rather unexpectedly as a cause of foodborne disease - Listeria being the best known example - and it probably won't be the last.

The 2008 report certainly provides some encouraging news. For example, reported cases of the Europe's number one foodborne pathogen, Campylobacter, were down over 2007, though not by much, and the number of reports of human salmonellosis fell by a handy 13.5%. The incidence of Salmonella infections is falling in humans and in animals and the report suggests that this could be a result of new measures to reduce the prevalence of the pathogen in laying hens. Listeria infections were down too, although human VTEC infections bucked the trend and went up by almost 9% over the previous year.

So is some real progress being made? Well maybe, but a glance at the data on which the report is based reveals a problem. For instance, just take a look at the figures for cases of Campylobacter infection. There were about 190,000 reported cases across the EU in 2008, but nearly 140,000 came from just three countries, Germany, the Czech Republic and the UK. These three make up about 30% of the EU population, so it seems odd that their inhabitants suffer nearly three quarters of the reported cases of Campylobacter infection. The answer to this riddle is that they almost certainly don't. What we are seeing here is the result of wide differences in the effectiveness of zoonoses surveillance and notification systems around Europe. Some countries are much better than others in identifying and recording cases and even the best are inevitably under-reporting - perhaps by a factor of ten or more. So the true level of Campylobacter infection in the EU is anyone's guess. On the other hand you can only work with the data that you have. The current reporting system is a lot better than nothing, but the figures need to be interpreted with caution.

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.