Yesterday's news about mineral oils from newsprint migrating into foodstuffs via recycled cartonboard has, predictably, generated a slew of headlines that food manufacturers - and this industry - could do without. "Cornflakes cancer scare" in the Daily Mail, "... ink cancer link" in the Mirror, "Cancer linked to cereal packets" in the Daily Express, "Top cereal brands drop 'toxic' cardboard boxes" in Metro.

I'm sure we will see new, improved grades of recycled cartonboard that don't contain newsprint pulp as a result of the research, as well as a flurry of activity around the use of suitable inner liners in the meantime. But with 'scares' of this type I always think it would be useful if the exposure levels being discussed could be put into some sort of human-legible context. For example, if one were to eat a diet consisting only of cornflakes that had been packaged in boxes made from the offending type of recycled materials, the exposure to carcinogens would be the equivalent of standing by the pedestrian crossing at Hammersmith Broadway for 'x' minutes during rush hour. Or, say, smoking a certain numer of cigarettes. That would help me, as a non-scientist, understand the sort of risk levels involved.

The fact that Swiss food safety experts responsible for the study have concluded that people eating a balanced and varied diet have no need to worry, doesn't of course make such a good headline.