IT IS not possible to have a diet which contains no risk to human health. The Departments of Health and Agriculture, the farming lobby and the media need to come to grips with this reality.

The Irish and British response to the most recent BSE scare was entirely predictable and in accord with the illusion that a risk-free diet or indeed a risk-free life can be provided by an appropriate intervention by a modern, efficient and politically correct government. From the UK we are told that stock is being taken of the practical implications of the most recent BSE developments.

The British agriculture minister, Mr Hogg, has assured us that BSE cannot be transmitted via baby foods, even if he has not extended this assurance to the adult diet.

The Irish Government's response is to assure us that BSE is not really a problem here and, in addition, we have the most advanced methods in the world for dealing with BSE outbreaks. It has been frequently asserted that Irish beef is absolutely safe to eat. It has been asserted that BSE is not transmitted laterally from animal to animal.

On the other hand the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Yates, has been given the go-ahead to start planning the construction of a cattle incinerator costing £30 million. If those offering the unqualified assurances of safety believe there is nothing to worry about, why are we gearing up to spend this vast amount of money on a "white elephant"?

If an incinerator is necessary to allay public fears over BSI then the Department of Agriculture is tacitly accepting that it is not to be believed by the public regarding the near BSI-free status of Irish beef.

If this incinerator is necessary because of the BSI crisis then it looks certain that an enormous amount of animal material will be destroyed because of BSI in Ireland. Why has it been necessary again, on August 1st, for the Minister to announce further tightening of BSI controls if earlier assurances were accurate and reliable?

This is just one more example of how the BSI "crisis" has been punctuated by a series of contradictory responses from officialdom. At the root of the response process is an inability to understand, to communicate or to credit the public with the ability to accept the concept of risk.

As far as the food supply is concerned the public has been led to believe that they can have absolute safety. This is not possible. Even the best food contains naturally occurring toxins and contaminants. The public should be disabused of the idea that they can live in a risk-free zone as far as food is concerned.

RISK is inseparable from the human condition and a guarantee of immortality, attractive though it may be, is not an option. However, the fact that the public has become frightened of the recent developments in the BSI scare is entirely understandable.

Throughout history people feared the unknown. The fear engendered by ghosts and goblins has been replaced by a fear of technology and to some extent by a fear of development.

In the past the supernatural could be used to explain away badly understood phenomena. Now we have come to expect instant rational explanations for observed phenomena.

Those who are charged with communicating with the public on BSE should undertake to treat the public as intelligent beings, capable of rational thought, who will respond in a reasonable fashion to the facts.

They should also accept that, as far as some questions are concerned, there are no answers and the experts or the PR gurus will have to admit that they simply don't know.

In the case of the BSI crisis there are questions that cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. It is not possible to sustain the assertion that BSI poses no risk to human health. All that can be stated is that the evidence supporting such an assertion is very weak. It may change as more information becomes available.

It is not possible to assert and to prove that BSI is transmitted to humans via the consumption of meat from bovines. It is not possible to assert and prove that BSI can be transmitted to humans via milk. Neither can these suggestions be dismissed. The situation is simply that there is not sufficient evidence to support either point of view.

BSI, in addition to being a serious economic issue for the producer, is also a highly emotive one for the consumer. This is why the language of science must become the currency of communication. This has not been the case up to now. Some journalists, or those with a vested interest in the marketing of beef and beef products, have striven either to shock or to give unsustainable assurances.

Both need to be modified by the unemotive and rational language of science; clearly setting out the facts as they are known, avoiding speculation and providing the best quantifiable information honestly in relation to risks.

Based on the history of the problem since it was first described in the UK in 1986, it is likely that this scare will be with us for some time. Now is the time to increase the investment in research so that, at a minimum, the scientific community which has research programmes up and running will have the facilities and the expertise to monitor developments and will retain the confidence of the public when it makes pronouncements on the subject.

In the short term it would be wise if professional communicators were to make some considered statements on the concept of risk and to explain to the consumer that all risks are relative.

Is there much point in the heavy drinking, heavy smoking hang-glider giving up beef because of the risk it poses to his health?