The Way Ahead for Food safety

Standards in food safety have never been higher than they are today.
And according to the recent report State of the Art in Food, the area is set to stay top of the agenda with leading food retailers.
Elsevier Food International, Vol. 5, Number 2, May 2002
Eric Kruidhof

In many ways food safety today can be termed a non-issue, simply because food has never been safer than it is at the moment. Fewer people die from food related diseases than ever before and, fewer people than ever fall ill through consumption of food products. The whole supply chain puts much effort into making and distributing safe products and thus preventive measures are very common. A-brand manufacturers have a lot to lose should anything go wrong, so impose strong quality controls on their suppliers. Investments in food technology and production technology are high. Codex Alimentarius, ISO certification, EurepGAP, HACCP are all regulations enforced or used voluntarily by the food industry. Add to all these measures the fact that consumers, too, are helping safeguard the situation because of their own increasing safety-consciousness.

Occasional irregularities

At a bean factory in Thailand, cleanliness and hygine are vital aspects of the food safety.

Despite all efforts, however, irregularities occur quite often, and in a huge variety. Mad cow disease (BSE), salmonella in chicken, dioxine, PCBs, unauthorised use of drugs and pesticides, glass splinters, swine fever, foot and mouth disease and animal remains in animal feed are all examples of recent problems in food supply. And after September 11th 2001, the possibility of another threat emerged more strongly: bioterrorism.
In addition to all these factors, it could be that 'the last mile' is the most dangerous part of the supply chain. For food related sickness is often caused by inappropriate treatment and handling of (fresh) foods. This could be because:

• the sequence in the shop is not related to food safety
• shopping trolleys have no facilities to cool products products risk remaining at an inappropriate temperature (either in the shop or in a car on the way home to the consumer) for too long during the food preparation process, products such as meat contaminate other products.

Real or supposed causes behind the problems are manifold. Dioxine and PCBs are mostly a consequence of criminal acts. Economically it may make sense to build large production plants that manufacture products for a wide region and source the cheapest materials from all over the world. But when a crisis such as foot-and-mouth disease occurs, a large area will be impacted. Extensive transport of livestock does the same. In general, supply chains are broken and not as transparent as they should be. Meanwhile, the consumer becomes wary.

Unique in 2001
In 2001 a unique situation originated. For the first time in history, governments, agriculture, animal feed suppliers, raw material suppliers, manufacturers, retail and foodservice all suffered severe financial damage to their images because of scandals in the food supply chain. Countries were closed, export of livestock was prohibited, and farmers saw their herds destroyed. For the first time the impact was such that product brands and formulas were at stake. The graph shown at the top of page 72, indicates the parties involved and the type of damage they suffered.
The damage done in 2001 was enormous, but if all paties wait to ensure such situations don't arise again, they must be prepared to dig deep into their pockets. The State of the Art in Food research programme revealed that the cost of food safety measures for the industry is set to double in the future. However, it's possible that the issue of food safety may work in favour of the small manufacturers, particularly those that can claim to 'sell straight from the farm.' Although from our research it's clear that food safety is a top priority for executives, what this means in daily practice is unclear. Only one of the companies in our research programme had a food safety director reporting directly to the CEO. Food safety can seldom be found in annual reports. Interestingly, many retailers and manufacturers note that the importance of food safety in the eyes of consumers creates a new required skill for CEO's in the food business. They must learn to become pro-active in the area of food safety and demonstrate confidence in the food supply, and they need more factual information about the area.

Inadequate measures
To minimise damage and prevent new scandals, all links of the supply chain links reacted in 2001 with radical but inadequate measures. Governments announced agricultural reform and new legislation. Agriculture on ecological basis was intensified. Manufacturers aggravated quality procedures, demanded more certificates and aimed for full traceability. Retailers stressed their guardian role towards the consumer. And the consumer was puzzled, worried, and changed his/her buying behaviour.
The measures were inadequate because they were taken by separate links of the supply chain at a time when mutual co-operation is absolutely necessary.
Furthermore the measures were inadequate because they were aimed at food safety and not on managing perceptions around food. Nevertheless retailers and manufacturers think that consumer perception can be influenced by investments. Those issues mentioned that can influence perception are supply chain traceability, separation of GMO and non-GMO production, online product information in shops, and shop personnel with food safety training.
It is critical that investments in traceability and other technologies are made visible to consumers in order to improve the perception of food safety. Currently most efforts and investments are directed toward the actual production process of making food safer and less toward strengthening consumer perception. The majority of manufacturers and retailers in the research programme agreed that, in the end, the consumer pays for food safety.

Retailers take the lead in food safety
Where food safety is concerned, three powers are in control:

• the consumer and special interest groups such as non-governmental organisations, eg Greenpeace
• governments, in some cases changing from being agriculture to consumer-representative
• retailers that feel they are the primary guardians of the consumer

What's remarkable is that manufacturers playa minor role. It seems that only strong A-brand manufacturers are really visibly active and that, in general, they leave the lead to others. The majority of retailers and almost half of manufacturers agree that retailers should audit manufacturers on food safety. Given the negative impact of unsafe food or poorly handled food safety incidents on the brand value of both the retailer formula and its private label and the retailer's consumer ownership, it is likely that retailers will take greater control over food safety. This will primarily involve fresh food and private-label products, items that are especially important in differentiating the retailer's formula. This approach is less likely to occur with A-brands, as these suppliers take responsibility for ensuring the safety of their branded products. This explains why some manufacturers in our research programme disagreed that retailers should audit manufacturers on food safety (see chart above).

Tracking & tracing
When asking which measures should be taken to prevent and control problems, tracking & tracing throughout the supply chain was mentioned by nearly every interviewee. This of course would require an enormous change in the level of co-operation in the supply chain. The key aspect of this change will be the trust that needs to be built between the different parties in the chain. Governments should come up with legislation to enforce tracking & tracing. Standardisation of data and supporting technologies will also be required. Systems will need to be integrated. This presents a technology challenge, because speed is crucial in tracking & tracing. It will take at least five years before integrated tracking & tracing systems will be widespread in use.
The ability to track & trace is necessary for all parties involved in the supply chain and all products. However the severest food safety problems over the last years were with fresh products. So the urgency for action is particularly marked in fresh products.
The ability to track & trace means that the supply chain is transparent for manufacturers, retailers and suppliers. This does not mean that the supply chain is transparent for the consumer, but it is a good starting point. Transparency for the consumer is absolutely necessary to gain and improve consumer trust. However, manufacturers and retailers are still searching for a good definition of transparency.

National food authorities won't do
One of the main conclusions to be drawn from the State of the Art in Food research programme is that there is an enormous need for an independent food safety institute in Europe, similar to the FDA in the United States. In the United States, consumer trust in food and developments related to food (like CMOs) is much higher than it is in Europe. A food safety institute should be organised on a European-wide basis rather than being country based and it must be independent of politics or political interests. National solutions will intensify competition between countries during safety crises and lead to 'closing' borders rather than problem-solving.
In general governments should play an important role in safeguarding food safety and health by defining legislation around food safety. This will help consumers feel more confident that they can trust that the food they eat is safe. We can also expect that new specialised food safety companies, such as control organisations, will be developed. Covernments and consumers will demand benchmarking and real control of individual production processes by external food safety specialists.
Manufacturers and retailers don't think that food safety can only be guaranteed if controlled by an external party. Many in the food industry believe that co-operation among the agricultural sector, manufacturers and retailers is essential in order to assure the safety of the food chain. However, external food safety organisations can be useful, but their job would not be to control but rather to stimulate food safety initiatives and help the supply chain achieve its goals in the area of food safety.

The GMO issue
In general the European consumer does not trust GMOs. A strong anti- GMO movement has grown over the last years. As a consequence manufacturers make GMO -free products. And retailers have adopted a policy of removing GMO products from their stores or at least requiring that they are clearly distinguished from GMO -free products.
Manufacturers and retailers are not convinced that, in the future, genetically modified raw materials will be an important part of the total food supply chain. Opinions are mixed, which show the uncertainty that exists in the food industry regarding the future of GMOs. The main argument against them is that there has not yet been enough research about their potentially harmful effects further down the line. The primary argument in favour of GMO 's is that they will help make better, more nutritious products and that they will help solve the world food problem.
The USA is the only region where the majority of respondents expect that genetically modified raw materials will be an important part of the total supply chain in the future, while respondents in other regions take a neutral position towards GMOs. This reflects the confidence that US retailers and manufacturers have in the American FDA as an organisation they can trust when it comes to determining the safety of GMOs. The FDA has indicated that it does not envisage many risks occuring with GMOs. In addition, the US food industry has also more experience with the benefits of GMOs. So, at this point, genetically modified products have a negative image, particularly in Europe. To change this, governments should take on the role of independent information sources and communicate knowledge and scientific information about GMOs to the public. This has not happened in the past.
The majority of respondents to the survey agree that much more information should be communicated about the advantages of genetically modified food products. For instance, GMOs can lead to cost advantages since less surface area is needed as a result of more efficient production methods. Other possible advantages are that fewer herbicides and pesticides are needed and that the world food problem could be solved or significantly lessened because the yield per acre is higher. Depending on the quality and the openness of communication, consumers in Europe will accept GMOs, but this will take around five to ten years.

The importance of brands will grow
The perception of food safety and brands are strongly related. The next quote underlines this clearly:
"Customers are becoming more challenging and questioning about food safety. And if you are going to reassure them you must have a brand identity."
Justin King, director BU Food, Marks & Spencer.

A consequence of the growing importance of food safety is the increase of business-to-business brands. Manufacturers and suppliers that are already able to guarantee a certain level of control (and thus safety) want to highlight their capabilities. B2B brands will become more prevalent, especially in the fresh food area, where we seldom see A-brands. These B2B brands serve as a kind of guarantee of the total process behind a product, including services and supervision. Therefore an increasing number of retailers and manufacturers actively strengthen control on the supply chain, sometimes enforced by ownership (for example Cargill and Nutreco).
Food safety crises have caused many consumers to return to ecological and natural food products, which are often perceived to be safer that other kinds of items. This increasing interest is also a result of the movement against GMOs. On the other hand discussions have started on the safety of ecological products too. So, though market share of ecological and natural food products continues to grow, it is not expected to exceed ten per cent.
As a general conclusion, State of the Art in Food reveals that though food is safer than ever, too many incidents occur, especially in Europe. The impact of incidents is bigger than ever. As a consequence food safety is high on the agenda of consumers, governments, retailers, manufacturers, the agricultural community and all others involved in food.
Until now no adequate measures have been taken. Food safety measures should be taken in three areas:

• legislation and regulations for food safety on a European level
• strong supply chain co-operation leading to transparency
• a rethinking of global buying and manufacturing strategies based on food safety aspects

All three measures will meet huge roadblocks when first executed. This means that, in the short term only, small steps should first be initiated, both by emancipated consumers and their the first link in the chain: the retailer.