Between the 1950s and 1980s, we saw tremendous improvements in the safety of the food we eat in Europe. What we can call the 'first wave' of food safety measures came with the pasteurization of milk and milk products and the introduction of rigid and effective hygiene systems in the production chain, mainly from the dairy and the abattoir to the supermarket. // The 'second wave' of food safety measures came with the widespread introduction of HACCP, the hazard control system for the production chain. Yet, since the early 1980s, we have seen a marked increase in the reports of food-borne diseases, resulting from chemical or pathogenic contamination. // The number of confirmed cases of human disease caused by Salmonella has increased significantly since 1985—as much as five-fold in some European countries. For Campylobacter the increase has in some countries been even higher. Even though some of this could reflect better reporting, I believe everybody would agree that these problems are of a size that warrants action. // This situation, and associated loss of public confidence, suggests that something has gone wrong. We need a 'third wave' of food safety measures. This third wave must be a focus on the direct risk to humans. We need to begin with the epidemiology of food-borne diseases and track them back through the food chain, all the way to the farm. This represents a tremendous challenge for the governments of Europe. // It means building up the capacity—and making effective use of expertise in assessing risks to human health. It means building up capacity for epidemiological tracking and mapping of food-related diseases, something that until now has held a rather low priority among most health authorities. It means improving our data collection efforts for both the pathogens in the food and human disease, so that the data are comparable both along the whole food chain and between regions and countries. We always have to remember that food chains are international. // And it will mean that officials concerned with agricultural productivity, and officials responsible for the health of populations, work together. Not only must they communicate. They must collaborate closely so that they can quickly trace back each incident of suspected food-borne disease to its source, analyze the size and geography of the problem and suggest both short and long term remedial measures. // This all calls for political action. People—both as consumers and producers—expect their government officials to work together for the common good. They demand this of those who represent them in government. Not only do they expect their politicians to make sure that government works in the primary interests of those who consume food: they also expect politicians to take action based on expert evidence. This calls for political courage, and for openness in government processes, so that risk assessment and analysis are transparent and available for public scrutiny. Only then can public health be maintained, and—at the same time—consumer confidence be restored. // This will mean a restructuring of agricultural ministries so that they move beyond a primary focus on economic issues. They need to represent the interests of the whole community— producers, processors and consumers. This kind of transformation will make for a healthier base for the future of the industry: this is already taking place in several European countries. The current efforts of the European Commission to strengthen and focus the scientific advice for food safety are an important contribution to the reforms already taking place in several countries. // It will also mean that ministries of health have to take interest in, and give priority to, action to monitor and prevent food-borne illness. They would need