THE announcement that a Food Safety Board is to be instituted is but another part of a well-established response to the current series of crises in food safety. When new and alarming evidence of further problems in the food chain is released, the reaction of those most immediately involved is depressingly predictable.

In short, comforting statements are made, followed by promises of some further initiative intended to assuage public fear. Admittedly, the present response is the most spectacular and elaborate. It is also the most expensive.

The challenges that face the new board are truly enormous. It will be charged with responsibility for ensuring the maximum achievable standards of food quality for the home and export market. The consumer and the exporter will be critical and demanding.

A change in eating habits and a rejection of many of our food products will be the consequence of failure by the agency to live up to expectations. Time is not on its side - many consumers have already made up their mind.

The mindset which allowed the abuse of antibiotics - as outlined in a Consumer Association report last week - will not be easily, changed. The abuse of growth promoters, or "angel dust", is extensive. The numbers of farmers before the courts is clear evidence that this dangerous alchemy of chemicals and firming will not easily be curbed.

The new board must address effectively the need for a change of attitude in the various Government departments and agencies. Here the consumer is not king. For instance, the Department of Agriculture has proven itself unable to publish regularly, and on time, an annual report on the levels of pesticide residues in food for human consumption.

Provision of a veterinary examination pre-mortem and post-mortem should be routine, not the subject of a demarcation dispute between the Department of Agriculture and local authorities.

If the board is to police food safety, effectively it must have the capacity to set and enforce standards on the use of contaminating chemicals such as antibiotics, herbicides and pesticides. It must ensure that these chemicals are only available to the general public by way of licence or prescription.

It must be able to determine "whether food hygiene regulations are adequate, effectively applied and if those who work in food production and distribution have sufficient training to guarantee standards of safety.

The capacity of the new board will be greatly determined, by its budget, the quality of its senior personnel and its independence from existing agencies and interest groups. On the personnel side, the pool of such talented and independent people is small in this country.

Realistically, it is reduced even further when one excludes people who have been influenced irreversibly by their experiences as defenders of the system. Little useful purpose will be served by amalgamating various parts of the system, which have been involved in implementing the present controls.

The Government's decision to establish a FSB is a tacit acknowledgment that the status quo is unable to face up to the new challenges posed to the food industry by mounting consumer concerns.

Those who combine the technical capacity, vision, independence of mind and a philosophy that puts consumer interests first are in very small supply in Ireland. Those who have any experience of, working in this environment are limited. Appointing tired people from the current system to key positions in the new board will not inspire confidence.

If there is a logic to setting up a Food Safety Board, it is that it must be totally independent of the vested interests which have dominated farming and food for the past 50 years. The mentality that allows the farming lobby to insist that more of their people should be on An Bord Bia has to be resisted, because it is not in the national interest. It is not even in farmers' interests.

The new board can do without Department representatives, those "safe" people who hold the departmental line and report back to the Department on how their interests are being handled at the board. This approach has no place on a board which will have to insist on standards and referee the activity of the farmers and the produce/processors, as well as Government Departments.

The manner in which the board is funded is also crucial. To ensure public confidence the board must be, and be seen to be, independent of any Government department. If it is to be successful, the board must be able to carry out and/or commission research. It is hard to see much research being conducted with a mere £2 million annual budget.

The board must have responsibility for producing an annual report. To ensure the board's independence its report should be debated in the Dail, ideally through a health and food safety or a science and technology committee. These committees are now long overdue.

The board will have to confront, successfully, the culture of the short cut and soft option. It will also have to address unrealistic expectations about food safety amongst the general public - a risk-free diet is just not an option at the moment. It will have to have an effective strategy to deal with new, unexpected food scares that will come out of the blue with attached levels of consumer panic.

In each case resistance will be strong.

If the right people, proper, structures and sufficient money is provided then the agency will have some teeth. Otherwise the response to the next and further scares will be more of the same useless initiatives devised for the PR priorities of those who are looking for quick-fix solutions.