Brochure Food for life - · PDF fileEuropean Technology Platform on Food for Life Strategic...

European Technology Platform on Food for Life

Strategic Research Agenda 2007-2020

Brochure Food for life 19/09/07 14:36 Page 2

For more information on the ETP, visit our website http://etp.ciaa.eu

This document was developed by individual ETP Working Groups fol-lowing consultations with stakeholders and it was subjected to anextensive national-, regional- and web consultation process.

AcknowledgementWe would like to convey our thanks to the participants of individualETP Working Groups and all other individual and organisational stake-holders whose inputs, comments and experience have contributed tothis document.


3

Foreword

The European Technology Platform (ETP) Food for Life was created under the auspices of theConfederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU (CIAA) in 2005 to strengthen the European-wide innovation process, improve knowledge transfer and stimulate European competitiveness across thefood chain. The vision of the ETP, published in July 2005, aims at an effective integration of strategi-cally-focussed, trans-national, concerted research in the nutritional-, food- and consumer sciences andfood chain management so as to deliver innovative, novel and improved food products for, and to, nation-al, regional and global markets in line with consumer needs and expectations.

These products, together with recommended changes in dietary regimes and lifestyles, will have a posi-tive impact on public health and overall quality of life ('adding life to years'). Targeted activities will sup-port a successful and competitive pan-European agro-food industry having global business leadershipsecurely based on economic growth, technology transfer, sustainable food production and consumer con-fidence. The ETP unites a wide variety of stakeholders around this common vision including agriculture,food processing, supply and ingredient industry, retail, catering, consumers and academia. The directconnection with consumer needs makes it unusual amongst all other ETPs, and offers a unique oppor-tunity to integrate the natural sciences and humanities.

This document represents the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) of the ETP Food for Life for the comingfifteen years. The SRA has been developed by six different Working Groups focussing on the scientificand technological requirements in Food and Health, Food Quality and Manufacturing, Food andConsumer, Food Safety, Sustainable Food Production and Food Chain Management. A further WorkingGroup has developed an outline for needs in Communication, Training and Technology Transfer, whilstthe Horizontal Activities Working Group has focussed on optimising internal and external contacts andco-operations amongst other responsibilities. The outputs from these Working Groups have been com-bined to focus on key challenges that will need to be addressed if the agro-food industry is to be in abetter position to respond to consumer's likely demands and concerns, now and in the future. A Boardconsisting of high-level representatives from the stakeholders has overseen this work. The Board, like theETP itself, is industry-led but has a composition reflecting the diversity of food chain stakeholders.

The SRA has been subjected to national, regional and web consultations to set priorities and align thesewith national activities. The SRA will form the basis for the development of an Implementation Plan. Inthe course of developing this SRA, good links have been established with other ETPs, especially thoseaddressing agriculture and biotechnology. These links will ensure that the knowledge-based bio-economies of the EU Framework Programme 7 can combine to address effectively the serious challengeof global competition that Europe currently faces.

We are convinced that this SRA represents a unique opportunity for the stakeholders in the Europeanfood chain to increase their competitive strength and ensure the continuing well-being and welfare ofconsumers across Europe. Success will, however, require the long-standing commitment of all thesestakeholders.

Professor Dr Peter van Bladeren Mr Jean Martin Chairman, Board of ETP Food for Life President of CIAA


4

Contents

Foreword 3

Executive Summary 5

Part I. Introduction 6

The consumer, society and public policies 8

The agro-food industry 11

The research community 14

The way forward 16

Part II. Key Challenges 20

Key Challenge 1: Ensuring that the healthy choice is the easy choice for consumers 20

Key Challenge 2: Delivering a healthier diet 23

Key Challenge 3: Developing quality food products 27

Key Challenge 4: Assuring safe foods that consumers can trust 32

Key Challenge 5: Achieving sustainable food production 37

Key Challenge 6: Managing the food chain 42

Part III. Enabling Activities 49

Introduction 49

Stakeholder involvement 49

Actions towards implementation 53

Required infrastructures 57

Supporting activities 59

Societal considerations 61

Annexes 62

Annex 1. ETP Food for Life Board, Operational Committee, Working Groups and Editing Team 62

Annex 2. National Food Platforms and their representatives 65

Glossary 66


5

Executive summary

The European Technology Platform Food for Life hasdeveloped a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) follow-ing an extensive programme of national, regional andweb consultations with its principal stakeholders (con-sumers and society, industry, academia and theresearch community). This SRA represents the prioritiesfor research, communication, training and knowledgetransfer in the food sector for the coming years as abasis for improving the competitiveness of the largestmanufacturing and distributing industry in Europe, aswell as ensuring that European citizens are suppliedwith a healthy, safe, varied, affordable, ethically-pro-duced and environmentally-sensitive food supply.

Knowledge generation and knowledge exploitation areessential in driving an effective innovation agenda.This SRA addresses both of these elements in orderthat the ETP Vision can be fully realised. Researchpriorities have been identified that cover all scientificand technological areas that are relevant to the pro-duction, manufacture and distribution of food withspecific attention being paid to identifying the social(consumer) science studies that are necessary if theconsumer's desires and trust in the food supply are tobe met. The document describes the benefits of thisresearch to stakeholder communities.

The research challenges in six key areas are defined.These are:

1. Ensuring that the healthy choice is the easy choice forconsumers,

2. Delivering a healthier diet,

3. Developing quality food products,

4. Assuring safe foods that consumers can trust,

5. Achieving sustainable food production, and

6. Managing the food chain.

However, successful implementation of the ETP's pro-gramme will require further prioritisation according to:

■ the importance of the societal challenge,

■ the economic impact, and

■ the need for a major, long-term investment in multi-disciplinary, multi-national knowledge generation anddissemination.

When these criteria are applied, three key thrustsemerge; these involve research that will lead to improvedcompetitiveness of the agro-food industry by developingnew processes, products and tools that:

A. Improve health, well-being and longevity,

B. Build consumer trust in the food chain, and

C. Derive from sustainable and ethical production.

Focus on these thrusts, which will lead to a quantumleap in new innovation opportunities, must be encom-passed through a European food research strategy.They must be implemented effectively, and with suffi-cient resources made available to deliver outputs overthe next decade and beyond. These thrusts will beaddressed in detail in a subsequent ETP Food for LifeImplementation Plan but it is already evident that, ifit is to have maximal impact, the research effort mustbe innovation-driven rather than simply research-led.

Given that the overwhelming majority (>95%) ofEuropean food producers are SMEs, who are usuallyunaware of the benefits of engaging and fully partici-pating in R&D activities, there will need to be animprovement in existing structures, and/or new initia-tives undertaken, to engage the interest and involve-ment of the SME sector in public and private sectorresearch activities. The ETP has established an SMETask Force to address this important issue. The chal-lenge of how best to involve the SME sector inresearch activities is being actively considered.

ETP Food for Life has given particular attention to thechanges that are necessary throughout Europe toenhance awareness of the impact that research couldmake on business efficiency, costs of production andmore robust markets. Particular stress has beenplaced on identifying new, effective measures in com-munication, training and knowledge transfer activi-ties, both as a means of ensuring increased consumertrust and understanding of food science and technology,and in engaging the industry.

To achieve the goals of the ETP Food for Life it willbe necessary to encourage change throughout thefood research community of Europe and the nationalorganisations that support the public sector foodresearch base, to ensure it becomes more innovation-driven. Greater flexibility in responding to change isrequired within these institutions. The resources necessary to meet the research, social and economicobjectives identified by the ETP must be effectivelyutilised and duplication of investment by national andEuropean administrations should be prevented. In itsturn, research communities need to become moreaware of their need to engage industry and the con-sumer.



6

Part I. Introduction

The European Technology Platform (ETP) onFood for Life Vision Document was published inJuly 2005 (see etp.ciaa.eu). By that time thedraft Vision had been extensively discussedwith stakeholders, had been subjected to a webconsultation and was revised according to sug-gestions made by stakeholders. Following thelaunch of the ETP, Working Groups were formedfor each of the themes identified in the VisionDocument and a Board and OperationalCommittee were installed (see Annex 1). TheWorking Groups formulated a StakeholdersStrategic Research Agenda (SSRA). This SSRAwas discussed in February 2006 during work-shops in which a large number of stakeholdersparticipated. Following this meeting, again a

web consultation was opened and severalnational and regional meetings were organisedto discuss the SSRA. In 2007 the WorkingGroups met again to revise the SSRA and thisfinal Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) waswritten.

Although the SRA describes a research agendaon food until 2020, it will regularly be evaluat-ed and, when appropriate or new insights occur,updated or adapted. Following the finalisationof the SRA, the Working Groups will work on anImplementation Plan (IP). The final IP will indi-cate the way to put the research challengesidentified into action and the deliverables thatwill contribute to realising the ETP's vision.

Europe. It also highlighted the threat the indus-try is facing if effective and timely measures arenot taken to improve its innovative power in orderto ensure that there is no adverse impact on theEuropean economy. This is a significant chal-lenge given the key importance of this industryacross the European Union.

Within the ETP Food for Life Vision Document acoherent strategy for the future of the food chainwas developed based upon the shared vision ofits diverse stakeholders. Key elements of thisflexible strategy are initiatives in food and health,food quality and manufacturing, food and con-sumer, food safety, sustainable food productionand food chain management. These elementsneed support from an effective input from com-munication, training and technology transfer(Figure 1). This SRA has developed the VisionDocument into a coherent series of key researchchallenges to ensure that the research is con-ceived with perspective of the consumer as themajor driver ('fork-to-farm').

The Vision Document set out some of the issuesthat are considered necessary to sharpen theinnovation edge of the agro-food industry in

ETP Food for Life: history

Vision of the ETP on Food for LifeThe European Technology Platform on Food for Life seeks to deliver innovative, novel and improved foodproducts for, and to, national, regional and global markets in line with consumer needs and expectationsthrough an effective integration of strategically-focussed, trans-national, concerted research in the nutri-tional-, food- and consumer sciences and food chain management. These products, together with recommended changes in dietary regimes and lifestyles, will have a positive impact on public health andoverall quality of life ('adding life to years'). Such targeted activities will support a successful and com-petitive pan-European agro-food industry having global business leadership securely based on economicgrowth, technology transfer, sustainable food production and consumer confidence.

Food Safety

Sustainable Food Production

Food Quality &

Manufacturing

Food &

Health

Food &

Consumer

Communication, Training &

Technology Transfer

Food Chain Management

Figure 1. Schematic presentation of the research areas required toreach the vision of the ETP Food for Life.



7

Introduction

food supply, at prices that they can afford, and ofa quality in terms of variety, consistency andsafety that were unknown in previous genera-tions. Even so market developments have notalways been embraced by consumers, with theresult that many new products, with high associated costs of development and marketing,are launched each year but fail to make anyimpact on the market or engage the consumer'strust. This can be a particular problem with productsthat embrace new technologies. Innovation willbe more successful if the market knows whatconsumers want, what they are willing to accept,and what information consumers need in order tomake better informed decisions.

This ETP has responded to this situation andconsequently has developed, and will drive for-ward, a consumer-friendly research agenda.

The concerns and opportunities of all stakeholdershave been the engine that has powered develop-ment of the ETP Food for Life. In the process ofconsultation, three principal stakeholder sectorshave been identified. These are:

■ the consumers, society and public policies,

■ the agro-food industry (which are overwhelmingly SMEs), and

■ the research community.

This Strategic Research Agenda takes particularaccount of the comments and opinions of each ofthese stakeholder sectors, with special attentionbeing given to consumers and society. This isbecause of the familiarity of every consumer with'food and drink', the increasing demand of socie-ty for foods and diets that optimise health andwell-being and the recognition that, once con-sumers' responses and society's objectives areunderstood, scientists and industry will be betterable to address their needs. The effectiveness ofthis interaction will ultimately determine theimpact of new product development and realisethe potential for innovation.

Whilst the drivers for market change are under-stood, what is not yet clear is exactly how thiscan be achieved. Science and technology providethe basis for innovation through knowledge generation and transfer. In the recent past thishas assured consumers of a constant and varied


8

How will consumers andcitizens benefit?

Implementation of the SRA will ensure:

■ a validation and development that willprovide consumers with a greater choiceof healthy options that are appealing andwill encourage the promotion of healthyageing.

■ safer and more effective consumer productsthat will meet people's needs and improvetheir quality of life, by lowering risks, pro-viding for health benefits and optimisinghealth and well-being.

■ tailor-made, personal nutrition (nutraceu-ticals, functional foods, food ingredientsand supplements) that will provide better,healthier foods that will form part of adiet with improved health attributes.

■ foods designed for special consumergroups, e.g. the elderly, and to promotehealth and prevent diseases.

■ consumer expectations for a more efficientuse of the world's resources, environmentalprotection and animal welfare will be metthrough a more sustainable approach tofood production.

The consumer, society and public policies

Many consumers feel passionately about theirfood, its method of production, its quality (orlack of it), its price and its effect on their health.In no other industrial sector are there so manyfactors contributing to a direct consumerinvolvement in the products delivered. This pro-vides both an enormous challenge and a hugeresponsibility.

Whilst some consumers long for the bucolic daysof old and would prefer to see the clock turnedback on the industrialisation of food production,others accept and welcome the variety of choice,the ready availability of products that, until quiterecently, were seasonal, and the conveniencethat many products offer.

In the past two decades or so Europe has seen adramatic rise in concerns amongst its citizensover the quality, safety and long-term healtheffects of their food. A number of safety issuesthat arose in relation to the food supply chainprovided a legitimate background for consumergroups to demand political actions. As a directresult, food and dietary issues are one of themost important topics of debate throughout theEuropean Union. Despite the security of supply,diversity and increasing affordability of foodproducts, many consumers remain suspiciousabout the effect that the industrialisation of food production has on their health and that oftheir families, and about the role of the scientistin the process. These concerns are difficult todispel as attitudes are formed through complexinfluences.

The goal of any response to innovation must beto ensure consumer's attitudes are not based onirrational concerns or misinformation since thiswill have an adverse impact on innovation. Inthis regard scientists themselves have an impor-tant responsibility since statements have beenmade in the past that have been alarmist andwhich were not accepted by majority expert opinion. Thus the application of new technolo-gies and novel products must go hand in handwith ensuring that they have the consumer'sacceptance and trust. An increased engagementwith consumers will be necessary to addressthese issues.

Together with the heightened interest of con-sumers in the safety of their food, evidence thatdiet is one of the most important environmentalinfluences on healthy development, well-being,

health and longevity, is another dynamic forchange in the market.

Consumers are not just concerned with issuesthat directly affect their health and well-being.They increasingly demand that food producersassure them that their ethical and environmentalconcerns are reflected in the products madeavailable to them. But whilst all of the above fac-tors play a part in putting pressures on the marketfor change, consumers remain very price-sensi-tive and seek solutions that are affordable. Theneed to embrace these diverse consumer con-cerns, yet provide foods that are affordable,places challenging constraints on the marketand on the potential for innovation.



9Opportunities to enhance publichealthThe relationship between diet, health and lifestyleis now a key priority for most EU governments asthey seek to deal with the major increase in obe-sity and the rise of diet-related chronic diseasesamong their ageing populations. Good health isan integral part of successful modern societiesand is closely intertwined with economic growthand sustainable development. Achieving goodhealth means preventing disease as well as curing disease. Since food is the fuel for all lifeit is hardly surprising that it is the most importantnon-genetic contributor to age- and lifestyle-related diseases. The rising imbalance betweenenergy intake and energy expenditure is causingan increase in obesity of epidemic proportionswith all of its adverse consequences on health. Inthe UK alone the incidence of obesity has risenamongst children from 9.6% in 1995 to 13.7%in 2003. Once obesity is established in the youngthere is good evidence that it continues into adultlife with all its associated health-related problems.These lifestyle-related diseases, including type 2diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, hypertension,and a range of cancer types, are becomingincreasingly significant causes of disability andpremature death and will increase to unacceptablelevels, leading to spiralling medical and othercosts unless appropriate measures are taken now.The increasing economic burden that such diseases place upon national governments is onethat cannot be sustained indefinitely.

The food industry has a clear impact on thehealth of consumers through the quality, cost andavailability of its products. Advances in scienceare rapidly producing new, in-depth insights intothe relationship between nutrition and health,which are given wide publicity in the media; this

Personalised health and nutritionNutritional goals have been set traditionally at thepopulation level but genomic technologies arerevealing that the balance between risk andbenefit will vary according to genotype/pheno-type, and that there will be differing requirementsfor different sectors of the population, includingethnic and immigrant groups. Much moreknowledge is required to understand theserequirements but when available it will be possi-ble to offer dietary advice, which is more focussedon the needs of groups of consumers. One conse-quence would be the increasing development ofspecialised food products, including functionalfoods, in addition to those currently classified as'foods for specific nutritional purposes'.

in turn creates a common interest among manystakeholders. At present, the opportunities andbenefits offered by good food and healthy dietsare only just being realised and will be severelyconstrained within Europe unless there is a majorand sustained investment in research to betterunderstand the relationship between diet, healthand energy control. Prevention of disease isbecoming increasingly important to society, andrepresents one of the major targets for the agro-food industry. Particular emphasis should beplaced on preventing life-style related diseasesby delaying their initiation; that is, reducing therisk rather than nuturing it (Figure 2). Otherhealth effects of better diets that are importantfor preventing morbidity (and high costs to healthservices) in large target groups include improvedinfant nutrition (higher nutritional value leadingto improved development of bone and cognitivefunction and avoidance of disease risks in laterlife); avoidance of cramps and allergies; avoid-ance of general, ubiquitous intestinal healthproblems; avoidance of dental erosion; sustainedmobility for the elderly; enhanced sleeping patterns; and less bone fractures.

Unhealthy conditionsHealthy

Popu

latio

n nu

mbe

rs

Target populationfor food industries

& public health care

Target popula-tion for pharma

industries

Introduction

Figure 2. A schematic presentation of improving population health:target areas of the food and pharma industries in public health (Green MR and van der Ouderaa F, Nature Pharmacogenomics, 2003).


10

Even when the public is made more aware of howone can eat 'more healthily', patterns of food pur-chase and food consumption change very little. Itwill be a challenge for the food industry to findnew ways to introduce foods that are tasty andenjoyable as well as contributing to a healthylifestyle. Importantly, this situation offers oppor-tunities to work with social scientists to identifythe key barriers to, and key drivers for, changeand to develop, validate and disseminate suchinformation to all sections of society. Such anintegrated approach involving scientists andtechnologists is a key aim of the EuropeanResearch Area and the food sector is one of thefew where the true impact of such trans-discipli-nary activity can be realised.

Innovation in the European food sector will lead to a market with targeted novel and morepersonalised foods on one side and improved

conventional, biological and traditional food onthe other, offering scientific support for a healthychoice. For a consumer to make a well-informedand healthy choice, education, information andcommunication are required. Consumer sciencemust deliver the answers to question such as:

■ Why does a consumer make certain choices?

■ What does the consumer understand aboutfood?

■ What information does the consumer seek?

■ How can this information be best provided?

There is no doubt that inputs from the consumersciences and humanities is crucial if individualconsumers, society and industry are all to gainbenefits.


What are the benefits for society and policymakers?The agenda described here will ensure:

■ improvements in the health status of European society and thus on the quality of life ofEuropeans.

■ targets for improving healthy ageing can be set knowing that the industry will be able to offerfoods that can contribute to policies to limit the exponential growth in health and social carecosts.

■ better integration of research investments on improving competitiveness and wealth creation.

■ innovation and effective technology transfer will stimulate economic growth.

■ increased sustainability of the European agro-food sector leading to a conservation of resourcesfor future generations.

■ industrial competitiveness is increased in a vital manufacturing sector that will protectEuropean jobs and promote social and economic cohesion.

■ careers in science and industrial research will be stimulated in areas that are of direct benefitto the economy and society.

■ society will better understand, and engage with, science and technology that provides clear andunambiguous health and environmental benefits.

■ development of a dynamic high quality research infrastructure, which will attract internationalfood companies to invest in research in Europe.

■ a scientific basis for the development of regulations and standards will be improved helping toreduce non-tariff barriers to trade.


11

The agro-food industry

The European agro-food industry is the largestmanufacturing sector in Europe. The food anddrink industry itself had a turnover of 836 billioneuros in 2005, transforming over 70% of the EU'sagricultural raw materials and employing 3.8 mil-lion people, the majority (61%) within the SMEsector. The nature of this industry sector is uniqueand creates particular challenges for communica-tion, training, and knowledge transfer. TheEuropean agro-food industry is a leading globalexporter (€ 48 billion in 2005) and affords significant value addition. It also offers scope foreconomic growth within new EU Member States,Candidate Countries and European NeighbourhoodCountries, development of regional economies andexploitation of Europe's rich cultural diversity andtraditions. The agro-food industry is thus central tothe wider, economic development of Europe as itdevelops over the next decades.

The food sector is uniqueThe food sector differs from other manufacturingindustries in a number of important ways, as follows:

■ The sector is overwhelmingly populated bySMEs (99% of companies). Food companiesin Europe are mostly micro (78.9%) and small(16.6%); medium size companies account for3.6% with only 0.9% being multinational;

■ Products are highly diverse and often produc-tion methods are based upon craft rather thantechnology;

■ SMEs often lack the resources, qualified per-sonnel and time for research and innovation.Medium-sized enterprises, in comparison, aremore innovative, adopt new technologies fasterand have some in-house R&D activity;

■ In general, the timescale by which innovationmust produce a return on investment is shortand it is difficult to patent food products;

■ Profit margins in the highly-competitive foodmarkets are low;

■ The food sector has a responsibility for pro-ducing safe foods and preferably also healthyfoods;

■ In many Member States the market is increas-ingly dominated by a few large retailers. Thesupport and involvement of these companiesin this ETP will be vital if the objective of amore sustainable food supply is to be fullyrealised.

The food sector is under pressureThe European food and drink industry's competitive-ness is at risk. New emerging economies, for exam-ple China, India and Brazil, are seeing export growthof value-added products. Over the last decade,Europe's share of the global food and drink markethas declined from 24% to 20%. Since Europe isincreasingly unable to compete on cost alone, effec-tive and rapid innovation will be needed to reversethis decline.

The extent of the challenge facing the European foodand drink sector may be seen from data recently published by CIAA (Benchmarking Report on foodand drink industry competitiveness, 2006).Investment in European R&D in the food sector wasonly 0.32% in 2003, lagging behind Norway, Japan,US and Australia (Figures 3 and 4). In addition, mostinnovation indicators show the food and drink sectorto be below the European manufacturing industry'saverage. In summary, CIAA identified:

■ slow growth in total production value -European growth over the last ten years wassimilar to that of USA but lower than many ofits competitors, especially Brazil (Figure 5),

■ constant growth in value addition - Europe per-forms slightly better than USA but worse thanAustralia, Canada and Brazil,

■ slower growth of labour productivity - since2002 European productivity has slowed andthe gap with USA has widened; between 2000and 2004, European productivity increased by16% compared with 27% in Brazil,

■ a decline of the global export of food and drinkproducts over the last ten years much to thebenefit of exporters such as Brazil.

Introduction


12

Europe's leading position will be threatenedunless timely and effective measures are takento increase R&D investments and improve itsinnovative power in order to compete with thenew emerging economies.

The European Commission has consistentlyurged the food sector to become more competi-tive by increasing its spending on R&D as ameans of introducing new products and pro-cessing techniques to the market. The food anddrink industry, traditionally a sector with lowR&D investments (of which often more than80% is development and less than 20% isresearch), must change its course after a longperiod of incremental innovation ('mixing andstirring'). For ingredient suppliers, the R&Dinvestments are generally higher. Food equip-ment manufacturers are also investing more inR&D and this is helping to secure a strong glob-al performance in this sector.

On the other hand, supermarkets across Europehave been cutting prices, forcing producers toprovide goods for less at a time when input andcommodity costs have been rising. Cost pres-sures will continue and opportunities to passthese on to the consumer through price increaseswill remain limited. This also points to the needfor greater investment in technological solu-tions.

The European food and drink industry also recognises its role in the prevention of lifestyle-related diseases. This implies new and innovativeconcepts of foods and diets, which cannot beintroduced and exploited without substantial andtargeted research investment. The future lies inthe production of value-added, quality foods.

European food companies are well-positioned tolaunch more value-added products due to thefact that they have access to superior technology.This is an important instrument for reinforcingtheir positions and profitability. Consequently,the rate of innovation must increase, supportedby more powerful R&D. Research conducted bymany 'Fast Moving Consumer Goods' companiesshows that step-change innovations have amuch higher impact on value and market sharethan do incremental ones.

However, in order to capture the new, vastopportunities for foods and drinks innovation,especially in the area of healthy foods, invest-ments and technologies are required that arenot widely available in the SME-dominated sector.Effective public-private partnerships are imperativeto prioritise research needs and to poolresources. In other words, individual food com-panies cannot take on the innovation challengealone: a joined-up initiative is required.


— Australia — Brazil — Canada — China — EU25 — Japan

— New Zealand — USAsource: OECD STAN Database, National Bureau of Statistics of China, Canada'sbusiness and consumer site, AFFA, Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade andIndustry, New Zealand's Economic Development Agency, U.S. Department ofCommerce

Evolution of production value in various food anddrink industry (deflated, 2000 = 100)

80

100

120

140

160

200

180

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0’96 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’00 ’01 ’02 ’04’03

— Australia — Canada — Japan — Norway — USA — EU-15

Source: OECD STAN Database,and CIAA calculations

Norway Japan United States

Australia Europeanunion

0.6%

0.5%

0.7%

0.8%

0.9%

0.4%

0.3%

0.2%

0.1%

0

Source: OECD, Research and Development Expenditure in Industry, 2003. EuropeanUnion: based on Industry Output and R&D expenditure of Belgium, Finland, France,Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, UK.

Figure 3. Business expenditure on R&D as a percentage of output in2003.

Figure 4. Food-related R&D in the EU: 0.24%; in the US 0.35%; in Australia 0.4%; in Japan 1.21%.

Figure 5. Production values of the food and drink industry in variouscountries

Business expenditure on R&D as a percentageof output (various f&d ind. - 2003)

R&D intensity worldwide (%)


13

Small and medium sized enterprisesMuch of the research identified in Part II wouldrequire an input of skills and resources that areabsent in almost all SMEs although there are com-panies, especially in the food ingredient sector, thatare highly skilled.

The problems of organising the information flow andimproving the technical skills in the SME sector isespecially challenging and of particular importancegiven their overall contribution in the European foodproduction. Possible solutions to this issue are con-sidered in Part III of this document, partly as a resultof the activity of the SME Task Force.

Introduction

What will be the benefits for industry?Implementation of the SRA will ensure:

■ the multidisciplinary and integrated approach to research that will generate knowledge andtechnologies essential to stimulate the European food and drink industry and ensure the indus-try expands its world-leading position.

■ the industry is able to adopt a safe, socially responsible and sustainable approach to food pro-duction in an economically-viable way that meets the expectations of society.

■ public-private partnerships are promoted for collaboration in research to boost overall researchinvestment and maximise the potential opportunities for exploitation.

■ a stronger EU position in world markets for environmental technologies, which will contribute tosustainable consumption, production, delivering sustainable growth through business opportu-nities and improved competitiveness, while protecting our cultural and natural heritage.


14


The research community

The research community in Europe has been in theforefront of developing the knowledge that hasenabled safe, varied and nutritious food products tobe available at all times. Research is undertakenwithin university faculties and research institutes,as well as in the agro-food industries. ThroughoutEurope though the research focus has varied, withfood science and technology being the main focusand where the research quality is variable, from theexcellent to the routine. It has had an agenda thathas been driven mostly by the research communityitself, rather than one where all the stakeholderswith an interest in food have had an input.

One result of this is the difficulty of distinguishingbetween research excellence per se and excellentresearch that is necessary to stimulate or underpininnovation - the criteria by which individual ETPchallenges and activities must be judged. Althoughexcellent research has been carried out throughoutEurope, this has not resulted in substantial innova-tive power. This is known as the European Paradox.This situation can be attributed to inhibitedknowledge transfer and it is essential to improvethe communication and other processes involved ineffective knowledge transfer between the researchcommunities and the industries and vice versa.

The areas of ETP activity necessitating most inno-vation will require a multi-disciplinary approachinvolving areas that are

■ emerging (consumer sciences, sustainability ofproduction),

■ under-represented (fundamental toxicologyand nutrition), or

■ present in only a few centres (food chain management).

An effective interaction of the physical, biologicaland social sciences is a requirement for deliveryand this poses unique challenges since the skillsrequired cross traditional academic boundaries.For effective advances in the food, nutrition andhealth area there will be a need to devote a con-siderable amount of resources to the area as wellas to ensure appropriate inputs from molecularbiologists, nutritionists, toxicologists and con-sumer scientists. It is clear that Europe as awhole would benefit considerably from a genera-tion of young and enthusiastic professionalsaware of the goals that could be achieved by sucha broad approach. Such young people wouldmake a considerable impact on the EuropeanResearch Area and would also help to deliver thebenefits of a true knowledge-based economy.

Research across the food chain sector involvessupport from a multitude of different fundingagencies both nationally and internationally andthere is not always a close co-operation betweenthem. This dilutes the resources that are targetedon specific scientific challenges, results in aduplication of effort when co-operation would useresources more effectively and efficiently, orleaves gaps that, if filled, would impact on inno-vation. The European Commission has recognisedall of these weaknesses and is attempting toencourage high quality, collaborative R&D.However, much more needs to be done at thenational level to raise the skill base and useresources more effectively. These issues areaddressed in Part III and will be given more focusin the ETP Implementation Plan.


15

Introduction

What will be the benefits for the research community?Implementation of the SRA will ensure:

■ improved communication between researchers and industry, which will stimulate the develop-ment of an entrepreneurial culture in Europe and enhance opportunities for innovation.

■ increased interaction between science and society, leading to a greater understanding of, andengagement with, science by society.

■ formation of cross-functional networks of scientists with an open eye for innovation.

■ a new generation of scientists able to translate fundamental knowledge into industrial applica-tions.

■ well-designed training opportunities with a focus on improved innovation, and enhanced com-munication- and interpersonal skills amongst researchers.

■ an effective integration of food science and technology, and the social sciences, which will contribute to a more dynamic European Research Area.

■ delivery of durable career opportunities for future generations of social and natural scientists, andtechnologists.

■ spreading of scientific and technological knowledge and best practice across the EuropeanResearch Area.

■ greater awareness of the ethical, business and societal context of research.

■ promotion of the excellence of European food research to a global audience.


16


The way forward

The food and drink industry is making a crucialcontribution to the economy of Europe but is inneed of revitalisation to ensure that it continues toimprove on its current performance, and providesEuropean consumers with the products they wish tobuy. To remain dynamic, innovative and competi-tive ETP Food for Life proposes an agenda forknowledge generation and transfer that will ensurethe success of future internal and export markets.This requires a future knowledge base that must beconnected to industry by effective knowledge trans-fer through a multi-disciplinary focus on the keydeterminants of change.

The ETP Food for Life Vision Document, publishedin July 2005, presented a strategy for the future ofthe food chain based upon the shared vision of itsdiverse stakeholders (Figure 6).

The concept of ETP Food for Life is to integratestrategically focussed, trans-national research thatwill deliver innovative processes, products and toolsin line with the needs and expectations of the con-sumer. In considering how best to create theknowledge base and to focus this around innova-tion opportunities, it is clearly sensible to considerthose areas where Europe is already strong in inter-national markets, and where policy issues are forcing an agenda for change that will have to bemet through changes in the production base.

Given the very large number of research topics thathave been identified in this SRA as being of thehighest priority, consideration must be given to howbest they might be implemented. This issue will beaddressed in detail in the subsequentImplementation Plan but there are clearly areaswhere national funding, as well as Europeanfunding, could help implement the SRA.

Successful implementation of the ETP's pro-gramme will require further prioritisation accordingto:

■ the importance of the societal challenge,

■ whether the nature of the challenge is so greatthat no single Member State could be expectedto achieve a successful outcome in the nextdecade,

■ the economic impact,

■ whether there is a need for a major, long-terminvestment in multi-disciplinary, multi-nationalinformation generation and dissemination, and

■ whether the research is necessary to support thedevelopment of European policy objectives.

■ Low health costs■ Healthy ageing■ Improved education on

healthy life style■ Extend higher education

programme along food-health chain

■ Measures of trust■ Improved communication

aébout food and healthissues

■ Involve SMEs in food andhealth area

SOCIAL NEEDS

■ Nutritional systems biology

■ New measures for foodintake and delivery systems

■ New imaging and mini-mally invasive techniques

■ Link databases and data-mining of (non) foodcomponents, intake andhealth parameters

■ Intestinal microbiotafunction and metage-nomics

■ Consumer preference,acceptance and needs

SCIENCE NEEDS

■ Premium taste andpleasure

■ Low salt, low fat foods■ Improved packaging■ Personalised foods■ Increased intestinal and

bone health■ Improved immune and

cognitive functions■ Life style foods for each

life cycle■ Age-related disease

prevention

CONSUMERS NEEDS

Figure 6. The integrated picture: societal-, consumers- and science needs.

When these criteria are applied three key thrustscan be identified where a multi-disciplinaryresearch agenda, appropriate for funding at theEuropean level, must be implemented. Focus onthese thrusts will lead to improved competitive-ness by developing new processes, products andtools that:

■ improve health, well-being and longevity,

■ build consumer trust in the food chain, and

■ derive from sustainable and ethical production.

These thrusts have been conceived with the con-sumer's likely needs and desires as the majordriver ('fork-to-farm' approach) and with priorityEuropean policy objectives taken into considera-tion. Each represents areas where major researchresources are needed now and where the greatestreturn on investment is likely in terms of futuremarket opportunities.


17

Introduction

Figure 7. Healthy ageing.

Processes, products and tools thatimprove health, well-being andlongevityFood and drink, in the right amounts and propor-tions, are crucial for the development, well-beingand healthy ageing of citizens. Europe now has alarge proportion of people living well beyond current retirement ages, and this trend will con-tinue. Future changes in both population demo-graphics and life span demand that Europeanpublic health policies focus on 'healthy ageing' ifcountries are to continue providing the social andeconomic benefits that have been in place sincethe end of the Second World War.

Healthy behaviour is related not only to a higherchance of survival but also to a delay in the dete-rioration of health status. The key challenge forthe long-term will be to influence an individual'sstate of ageing and to deliver a personal regimeof nutrients, lifestyle and advice for healthylongevity or to 'add life to years' (Figure 7).

The availability of new foods that will assist thepopulation to live a healthy and active liferemains a major challenge especially as theknowledge of the differing responses of popula-tion groups to specific foods gathers pace. Thereis a major opportunity to develop foods that meetthe specific needs of population groups ('person-alised nutrition').

One significant barrier to innovative productsbased on information from the food, nutrition andhealth sciences is the lack of understanding ofthe mechanisms underlying the effects of foodintake on health. New and advanced technologiesthat are now available include genomics, post-genomics and high-throughput tools, and novelinsights to be gained as a result of their applica-tion will provide mechanistic explanations foreffects of foods. A better understanding of themechanisms underpinning the physiologicalfunctionality of food components will be requiredto substantiate health claims. The discovery andvalidation of biomarkers based on epidemiologi-

cal studies, cellular- and physiological studies(including the outputs of systems biology) andintervention studies will all be essential elementsof this substantiation process. Key Challenge 2:Delivering a healthier diet (Part II).

However, the effective delivery of this research toimprove consumer health will require importantand complementary inputs from the consumersciences and humanities, particularly in relationto attempts to influence changes in habits andmotivate healthier eating. Key Challenge 1:Ensuring that the healthy choice is the easychoice for consumers.

Whilst it is evident that consumers find consider-able difficulties in changing their habitual dietsthis process will be made easier by extending therange of healthy food products that are availablefor purchase. Even when the public is made moreaware of how one can eat more healthily, patternsof food purchase and food consumption arefound to change little. This observation requiresthe food industry to find new ways to introducefoods that are tasty and accessible and con-tribute to a healthy lifestyle. In addition, this sit-uation offers significant opportunities to workwith social scientists to identify the key barriersto, and key drivers for, change and to develop,validate and disseminate such information to allsections of society. This is particularly importantgiven the numbers of existing and future ethnicminorities, economic migrants and refugeesacross Europe.

It is clear that progress in food and healthresearch will require strong support of many ofthe technologies that are increasingly helping toadvance knowledge across the biomedical andsocial sciences field. It will be important thoughto focus on the application of these technologiesto the priority areas detailed in Key Challenge 2:Delivering a healthier diet. These priorities havebeen chosen because European science is in thelead, the food industry is already exploiting productsbased on this knowledge, or the future opportu-nities for exploitation were felt to be good if morebasic science was undertaken in the areas givenpriority.

The development of a new generation of foodstailored to the needs of consumers will requirethe input of much of the work described in KeyChallenge 3: Developing quality food productsand the effective integration of this challengewith focussed inputs from the humanities.

Add life to years

Age

Wel

l-bei

ng /

appe

aran

ce


18


Processes, products and tools thatbuild consumer trust in the foodchainThe consumer's response to food safety issues isof paramount importance to the competitivenessof European food products. Any evidence, orindeed belief, of a potential risk from food hasthe potential to result in severe disruption as wellas a loss of sales. High standards of food safetywill, therefore, remain important to the industry.

Potential food hazards are usually determined byfully evaluating the risks associated with expo-sure of the consumer to these hazards through aprocess of risk assessment. The determination ofa hazard will always err on the side of safety,which can sometimes result in small, or eventheoretical risks, being highlighted. Consumersseek clear messages, not ones that are qualifiedor difficult to relate to; in turn, the media andpoliticians are also expected to convey complexissues in a simple and direct way. But it is rarelypossible to express issues that relate to foodsafety or nutrition in black or white terminology.

When an individual is told a food is 'safe to eat'they do not understand that there still might beassociated risks, depending on the individual oron the amount of food consumed. If this situationis to be addressed effectively, much better com-munication is needed and an environment oftrust and mutual confidence is required.Consumers need to understand that their food,like every other human activity, poses a balancebetween benefit and risk. The challenge will be tomeasure benefit (which is rarely done, unlikewithin the pharmaceutical sector) and to commu-nicate the concept of risk-benefit in a way that iswell understood.

Whilst it is important to continue to strive tomake food as safe as possible, a balance must bestruck; the more rigorous the scientific data thatare available the better the final judgement. Therelationships between food safety and consumertrust are highlighted in Key Challenge 4: Assuringsafe foods that consumers can trust.

Counterfeiting and fraud is a major issue for thefood and drink industry since it can undermineconsumer trust in the quality and safety of abranded food product, leading to a loss in marketshare. It is essential to build robust systems ofproduct tracing and identification that consumershave trust in. Some of the research outlined inKey Challenge 5: Achieving sustainable food pro-duction and Key Challenge 6: Managing the foodchain will help to tighten controls and provideconsumers with greater assurance.

Processes, products and tools tosupport sustainable and ethical productionThe environmental impact of modern food pro-duction is high. There has been a tendency in thepast to focus on the production of high-yielding,disease-free raw materials, which has led to lessdiversification of available products in the mar-ket. Livestock production has also become lessdiverse and more intensive. This policy hasnonetheless resulted in a supply of food, whichhas been both secure and affordable.

All aspects of food production and the supplychain will have to be much more conscious oftheir future energy and water use and hugepotential cost savings will result if they can bereduced. Nonetheless energy and water use arevital components of safe food production and afine balance between safety and environmentalgoals will need to be struck in order that con-

Legislation and communicationThe increasing tendency to legislate toensure all risks are minimal, places a heavyburden on the food sector and, in particu-lar, upon its ability to innovate and this isespecially true for SMEs. Legislation shouldbe evidence-based but it can be introducedwhen the evidence is still uncertain, orwhen concerns are expressed that are notvalid. These actions fuel consumer's con-cerns and may be heightened if there is afailure to communicate in an appropriateway. There remain many obstacles to effec-tive communication and this is a prioritythat must be addressed. Advances inunderstanding the needs and concerns ofthe consumer, and how best to portray pos-itive messages without being accused ofbias, are critical research needs that affectthe food industry to a greater extent than isthe case for many other production sectors.Effective solutions will only occur if effec-tive interactions with social scientists areestablished in the activities of KeyChallenge 4: Assuring safe foods that con-sumers can trust.


19

Introduction

sumer's trust in the food supply is ensured. Thechallenge now is to apply scientific and techno-logical solutions to ensure that food productionbecomes more sustainable whilst still remainingaffordable to all.

Without well co-ordinated and targeted researchthe opportunity for really important innovationwill be lost. The input from Key Challenge 5:Achieving sustainable food production isfocussed on the research necessary to ensurefood production becomes more sustainable. Atthe same time there will have to be an input fromKey Challenge 3: Developing quality food productsto ensure that processing methods are more flexible as well as more efficient in the use ofenergy and water whilst ensuring food safety. Toensure the latter it will be essential to have aresearch input from Key Challenge 4: Assuringsafe foods that consumers can trust.

The efficiency of the food supply chain is far from optimal with many supply sources and inter-mediaries in the production and distributingprocess. Trends towards greater diversificationmake it imperative that the relevant research out-lined in Key Challenge 6: Managing the foodchain is fully integrated within the research pro-gramme. This work will be especially relevant toSMEs, which will have an important role in ensuringfood diversity in the future.


20


Part II. Key Challenges

Scope

Food and drink brings pleasure to the consumerand, if consumed in the right amounts, theyshould make a major contribution the well-beingand healthy ageing of European citizens.Consumer confidence in foods is of paramountimportance and can be enhanced by appropriatecommunication and public participation thatfacilitates an effective dialogue between food pro-ducers, governments and consumers. Consumersmust be able to trust that their foods are safe toeat and of high quality; they also need to under-stand the information that is given about productsso that they can make an informed food choice.

The objective of this Key Challenge is to enhancethe consumer orientation of the European foodindustry by strengthening the fundamentalunderstanding of food consumer behaviour andbehavioural change, and by increasing the con-sumer's understanding of healthy foods and foodconsumption patterns and their production.

Although (food) consumer science has pro-gressed considerably during the last few decades,a number of areas still require development, inorder that capabilities and competencies candevelop in parallel. This challenge focuses on thecore capabilities structured around the four mainelements of the so-called 'consumer researchcycle' shown in Figure 8.

■ Improved methodologies for measuring andquantifying consumer behaviour;

■ Advanced consumer understanding by integra-tion of the social sciences;

■ Effective and efficient ways of involving andinteracting with consumers, addressing infor-mation provision, education and public con-sultation based on an understanding of whatdrives their (re)actions: this will require thedevelopment of effective communication modelsand practices as well as public consultationmethodologies; and

■ Effective strategies to induce behaviouralchange, which will be quantified throughobservation; this will require an understandingof habit breaking and -formation.

This cycle emphasises both the importance ofbeing more responsive to consumer needs andpreferences, and the strong need to connect or re-connect with consumers through active participa-tion. Whilst acknowledging the need and benefits,the European Commission and national govern-ments have had only limited success in bringingtogether the expertise bases in the natural sciences and humanities. The ETP Food for Lifeprovides an excellent opportunity not only to achievethis (and gain the subsequent added value), but alsoto develop and promote best practice for achievingthese interactions and their fullest integration. Inaddition, it also provides a welcome opportunity toaddress the needs and expectations of all con-sumers and not just those within the mainstreamethnic and cultural populations.

Within each of the other Key Challenges, moreapplied research on consumer science is includedas separate goals; these researches will build onand extend the outcomes of the research pro-posed below.

There are four different goals that need to beaddressed.

Key Challenge 1: Ensuring that the healthychoice is the easy choice for consumers

Understanding

InteractingObserving /Measuring

Inducing behavourial change

Figure 8. The consumer research cycle.


21

Key Challenges

Ensuring that the healthy choice is the easy choice for consumers

Goal 1. Measuring consumerbehaviour in relation to food

Eating behaviour is a complex interaction of foodchoices and habits differ widely across (sub-)cul-tures and cuisines. A key requirement is to developand agree on measures for food-related conceptswith pan-European validity.

Accurate measurement of purchase and con-sumption behaviour, and the theoretical explana-tion of these measurements, is a pre-requisite fortheory development, strategy development andstrategy evaluation. European cross-culturaldiversity adds an extra dimension to this chal-lenge. Measurement takes place in various sub-disciplines, at different levels of abstraction withonly limited integration and synergy occurring.

Major research challenges

1. To improve methodologies to measure variousparameters of the conceptual model of con-sumer science taking into account cross-cul-tural differences.

Deliverable■ Methodology for determining cross-cultural

validity and sensitivity in order to quantifyfood-related concepts across Europe (2015).

2. To develop, align and interrelate differenttypes and levels of information on behaviour toobtain a better understanding of behaviouralpatterns. This requires making better use ofavailable large-scale databases (e.g. scan, pur-chase and consumption panel data).

Deliverables■ Methodology-integrated data sources, syner-

gised to quantify food intake (including epi-demiological data, retailer data bases andconsumer data) (2010),

■ Mapping of European food cultures usinglarge-scale purchase and consumption data,which includes similarities and differencesin large-scale purchase data. This shouldinclude values, attitudes, beliefs, personalityand behaviour, but also different sub-popu-lations, such as low-income consumers andethnic populations (2015).

3. To develop (unobtrusive) methods of measuring behaviour (e.g. observationalresearch including RFID, tags, etc.) that com-plements self-reported measures of attitudeand purchase intent.

Deliverable■ New modelling approaches to understand

the discrepancy between actual versus opti-mal dietary behaviour over time (2020).

Goal 2. Developing integrated modelsof consumer choice processes

Understanding the fundamental processes thatlead to the actual food choice behaviour of con-sumers is the crucial challenge for the researchfield of consumer science. This is a complex taskgiven that consumer behaviour is determined bya variety of influences related to the product, theindividual and the choice context, which requiresan integration of many disciplines, including psy-chology, sociology, sensory science, physiology,neurosciences and economics, amongst others.


1. To develop and test comprehensive models ofconsumer behaviour, thereby integratingknowledge from various disciplines, the role ofadvertising and marketing on food choices, therole of sub-conscious processes in food choicebehaviour, the role of biological (e.g. geneticpredisposition, neuroscience), emotional, andeconomic drivers, socio-economic and culturaldeterminants in family decision-making andethical considerations.

Deliverable

■ A pan-European multi-disciplinary food consumer science resource initiated whichwill overcome fragmentation and build thenecessary critical mass) (2010).

2. To understand the process of repeat choicesand food habit formation as found from eatingpatterns and consumption baskets, includingthe role of critical stages in life where foodhabits are (re-)established.

Deliverables

■ An integrated framework created for theanalysis of food consumer behaviour, whichintegrates the various uni-disciplinaryapproaches to food choice with particularemphasis on understanding the process anddeterminants of repeat purchasing and con-sumption choices (2015),

■ Large-scale scanner databases of actual pur-chase patterns analysed to understand theinfluence of retail and out of home food outletson food consumer behaviour (2015).

3. To understand cross-cultural similarities anddifferences in consumer (food choice) behaviourand particularly in emerging markets and indifferent regions and countries.

Deliverables

■ Demonstration of the feasibility of multidis-ciplinary and cross-cultural analysis of con-


22

sumer behaviour of specific subpopulationsin Europe (e.g. children, adolescents, elderly,as well as immigrant populations reflectingspecific regions and food cultures) throughthree proof-of-principle projects (2015),

■ An improved understanding of the trade-offsbetween personal and societal consumermotivations, including insights and inputsfrom the neurosciences (2020).

Goal 3. Promoting effective inter-action with consumer groups andconsumers directly through commu-nication and public participation

Adequate understanding of consumer behaviourwill form the basis for how consumers can best beinformed (communication) and how they can beactively engaged (e.g. public participation) regard-ing new developments in the food production area.This requires that communication and publicinvolvement are organised in a way that optimallyaligns to consumer interests and consumer levelsof understanding and learning. Communicationwith the consumer and public participation areareas where important progress is required to allowconsumers to make informed choices, to activelyinvolve them in developments in the food area, toenhance transparency and, ultimately, to increaseconsumer confidence in food.


1. To quantify and understand how consumersprocess information in the field of food and nutri-tion as a result of information content and format,consumer education and learning processes.

Deliverable■ Consumer needs, expectations, knowledge

and attitudes with regard to information onfood and food production mapped in a pan-European context (2010).

2. To develop better tools for communicationwith the consumer, including insights fromsemiotics and persuasive and interactive com-munication through different media.

Deliverable■ A set of validated methods, models, prac-

tices and tools for effective consumer infor-mation and education regarding food andnutrition in a multiple actor context (2020).

3. To develop effective tools for public participa-tion in food and nutrition issues that optimiseinformation and optimise transparency andconsumer confidence in the food industry.

Deliverable■ Validated models and methods for effective

public participation and engagement withconsumers from different backgrounds onnew developments in food and the foodindustry (2015).

Goal 4. Developing strategies toinduce behavioural change in orderto improve consumer health andsocial responsibility by making thehealthy choice the easy choice

One of the most important public and commercialpolicy goals in food and nutrition is to inducebehavioural change in consumer choices in such away that long-term personal-, public- and societalinterests are better served by those choices (e.g.better personal diets, public health and well-being). For most consumers, these choices arebased upon taste, convenience and affordabilitybut some consumers also include longer-termaspects such as safety, sustainability, ethics andpublic health. Many of the existing choices aredeeply rooted in habits and cultural practices.


1. To understand the process of food habit for-mation and change and the key motivationsthat trigger or hamper change particularly inrelation to unhealthy eating behaviour.

Deliverable■ Intervention strategies, integrating legisla-

tion, education/information and market/marketing influences, for inducing long-termbehavioural change towards better dietaryhabits (2015).

2. To understand consumer trade-offs betweenpersonal and societal motivations, includinginsights from neuroscience, marketing andother disciplines. This includes analyses ofchanges in meal patterns and consumptionhabits over time and foresight studies to iden-tify emerging needs in consumer behaviour.

Deliverable■ Foresight or scenario studies on emerging

issues in consumer behaviour from joint con-sideration of consumer trends with scientificand societal developments (2020).



23

Key Challenges

Delivering a healthier diet

ScopeThe objective is to develop new andeffective food-based strategies to opti-mise human health and to reduce therisk or delay the onset of diet-relateddiseases. The nutritional sciences nowstand at an important turning point. Inthe past, nutrition was above all aquestion of ensuring food intake andremedying dietary deficiencies, and was largelybased on observational research. With recentadvances in genomic- and molecular technologiesand know-how, a new paradigm is created on theinteraction between nutrition and health. The ability to link the impact of food to health at acellular level, as well as at a whole body level, creates a new horizon for the food industry andoffers benefit to the individual consumer.

The effective exploitation of such technologiescan change general nutritional guidelines intomore targeted, nutritional advice and may in thelong-term lead to more personalised nutritionalguidelines for high-risk groups. Furthermore, thebenefits can be made visible on food products byhealth claims based on sound scientific evidence,which is required as part of a legislative frame-work developed in Europe.

Consumers are becoming increasingly aware of therelationship between food intake and health, andalso the relationship of inappropriate diets withmajor chronic diseases such as obesity, type 2 dia-betes, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, sarcopenia(muscle wasting) and osteoporosis. Ensuring foodsprovide for healthy ageing must be one of the keytopics in the research efforts for the coming years.Leveraging knowledge for the prevention of diet-related health disorders and generating knowledgeon the impact of nutrition on the quality of life ofindividuals at all ages will also lead to innovationand breakthroughs, thereby increasing the compet-itive advantage of the EU food and drink industry.

To reach this milestone of improved daily quality oflife at all ages, a new food concept is needed,

(1) ETP Food for Life is linked with the EU Platform for Action on Diet, PhysicalActivity and Health, http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/ life_style/nutrition/platformdatabase/we/dsp_search.jsp, through the involve-ment of CIAA, the Confederation of the food and drink industries of the EU.

which includes nutritional value, foodsafety and emotional values of tasteand convenience. Physical activity isan integrated part of a healthy lifestyleand close contacts will be maintainedbetween ETP Food for Life and theEuropean Platform on Diet, PhysicalActivity and Health1.

The progress in life sciences from thelevel of DNA up to systems biology and incorporatingthe technical sciences (for example imaging, nan-otechnology) provides an opportunity to focus on afew emerging areas which in the past lacked thenecessary technologies to generate knowledge onthe interaction between diet and quality of life(Figure 9). This is particularly true for the functionof the brain. Cognitive decline with ageing and diseases such as Alzheimer's and dementia, areemerging areas for nutritional research.

A common factor in most, if not all, of the cur-rently important diet-related chronic diseases islow-grade chronic inflammation. Intestinal andimmune function is strongly related to nutrition,starting at the first contact of ingested food withinthe gastrointestinal tract. Until now it has beendifficult to study this important interaction due toa lack of valid biomarkers and diagnostic tests.Given the recent advances in life science tech-nology, a more focussed research approach willhave the potential to deliver great breakthroughsthat will lead to diet-induced immune modulationand improved quality of life.

One of the major nutrition-related health threatsfor the coming decade is obesity with all its relatedmetabolic impairments, such as type 2 diabetes,cardiovascular diseases and metabolic syndrome.Arguably, obesity will be the greatest challenge forthe food industry in the coming years. Therefore,the need for improved knowledge of the metabolicfunction at all ages associated with obesity andrelated diseases must have the highest researchpriority.

To reach these goals in the coming years a numberof nutrition-related infrastructures are requiredand specific enabling technologies must bedeveloped (these are addressed in Part III).

This research challenge will focus on studying andvalidating mechanisms underpinning research onnew breakthrough areas and identifying and vali-dating biomarkers.

Key Challenge 2: Delivering a healthier diet

Metabolic functions

Intestinal- & immune functions

Brain functionsInfant

Elderly

Figure 9. Priority research areas in food and health.


24


Goal 1. Understanding brain function in relation to diet

It is well established that diet can have both apositive and a negative impact on our physicalhealth and performance. Although significantlyless scientific data are available, there are clearindications that the same holds true for our men-tal health and cognitive abilities. Several studiesindicate that diet can influence brain and cogni-tive development in utero and in neonates,infants and young children. Food intake can alsoaffect brain function (in all age groups) in termsof cognitive processes, mood-, and brain per-formance. Reciprocally, brain function can affectcomponents of food intake such as type of foodand amount of energy consumed. Although therelationships between brain function and nutri-tion are still relatively poorly understood, it isgenerally accepted that the former does impactsignificantly on overall health and well-being.


1. To chart the scope of diet and individual nutrientsto influence brain health and performance. Tointerpret these results and maximise theimpact, mapping will be required of the under-lying mechanisms through which dietary components are capable of modulating braindevelopment, cognitive performance and preventing depression and ageing-associatedcognitive decline.

Deliverables■ Diet and cognitive function: understanding

the impact of nutrition on brain and cognitivedevelopment in utero and in neonates, infantsand young children (2015); achievement ofhealthy ageing by nutritional strategies inchildhood (2020); establishing the relation-ship between nutrition and learning abilitiesand other cognitive attributes (2020),

■ Mood and optimal performance: mappingthe impact of specific food ingredients onmood and mental performance throughbuilding an understanding of the mecha-nisms underpinning these effects (2015),

■ Understanding of the molecular and cellularmechanisms behind neuro-protective effectsby dietary compounds (2020),

■ Prevention of cognitive decline and otherdisturbances of brain function (e.g. hearingloss): mapping the scope of diet to reduce orprevent the decline in cognitive functioningwith ageing and charting underlying mecha-nisms which may eventually lead to adecline of incidence of Alzheimer disease ordementia (2020).

2. To increase understanding of the neural path-ways controlling functions such as food intake,hunger and satiety so as to provide powerfulnew insights to combat the obesity epidemic.

Deliverables■ Brain conditioning: understanding of how

early exposure to dietary components leadsto taste perception and food preferenceslater in life (2010),

■ Nutrition and inter-organ signalling with akey emphasis on the brain: understandingthe mechanism of gut-central nervous sys-tem interaction (2010),

■ Food intake regulation and hunger/satiety:identifying the brain pathways that regulatehunger/satiety (2015); identifying dietarycomponents that can help control foodintake (2020).

Goal 2. Understanding effects ofdiet-gut interactions on intestinaland immune functions

An optimal immune system is pivotal for a person'shealth, preventing acute and chronic disorders anddetermining how the body reacts to and copes withenvironmental stimuli and physiological and psy-chological stresses. Food is an important factorable to affect immune reactions in either a nega-tive (e.g. allergy) or positive manner (e.g. prebioticsand probiotics). The immune system is intimatelyinvolved in several pathophysiological processesincluding cancer development. The humanimmune system controls the so-calledinnate/native immune functions (such as the intes-tinal barrier function) and the acquired or adaptiveimmune functions (like inflammatory regulators).

The intestine, which possesses a metabolic activityequivalent to the liver, is regarded as the key organable to maintain health and influence resistance todisease and immune function in relation to food.The intestinal tract is the primary site for foodintake and is colonised from birth by a microbialcommunity that contributes to food conversion,produces host-active compounds and stimulates avariety of relevant functions, including theimmune system. It has proven difficult to define a'healthy intestine', because of its complexity, thelarge inter-individual variability and the activeinteractions between the host, its microbes andthe diet. However, recent applications of innova-tive holistic systems and subsystems approaches,including metagenomics, have provided tools fordetermining microbial activity and its impact onintestinal function in health and disease.


25

Key Challenges

Delivering a healthier diet

An emerging body of knowledge now pointstowards the benefits of several bioactive food com-ponents, including microbes and their con-stituents, interacting with the immune system andthe intestine. There is recognition of the impor-tance of chronically increased inflammatory activityin the body, partly due to immune deregulation, as a key detrimental factor in the development ofobesity-related disorders, chronic inflammatorydisorders (including rheumatoid arthritis, chronicobstructive lung disease and chronic inflammatorybowel disease), functional bowel diseases, and theageing process. It has been demonstrated that dietis able to affect these and other inflammatoryprocesses (not induced by immune activation) bymeans of, for example, prebiotics and probiotics,fatty acids and antioxidants.


1. To enhance the knowledge and study themechanism of the relation between theimmune system and other organ systems suchas the brain, the endocrine system and theintestine and their relation to physical activity.

Deliverables■ Knowledge and tools to positively modify

systemic inflammatory activity by diet-gutinteraction, especially with regard to theintestinal system such as Irritable BowelSyndrome and metabolic disorders such astype 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases andthe ageing process (2010-2015),

■ Improvement of the allergome databases ofplant- and animal-derived food, knowledgeof allergen post-translational modificationsand allergenicity modulation, and persistenceafter cooking; detection of allergens derivedfrom human gastrointestinal or hepaticmetabolites (2015).

2. To study foetal and neonatal nutrition in rela-tion to immune (de)regulation during later lifeby metabolic/immunologic imprinting.

Deliverable■ Determination of a healthy diet in terms of

type and timing of introduction of specificdietary constituents with regard to the mother,before and during pregnancy and lactation,and with regard to the newborn during earlylife, in order to optimise immune functionand decrease the risk for allergy (2015-2020).

3. To identify and validate minimally invasivebiomarkers of the immune system and relatedsystems in order to achieve and accelerateprogress. The limited availability of widelyaccepted and effective pre-clinical model sys-tems for screening purposes must also be

addressed to improve mechanistic under-standing and stimulate scientific progress,innovation and regulatory decisions.

Deliverables■ Identification of dietary factors that improve

the barrier function of the intestine (includingthe impact of intestinal microbes) and theresistance to infections (common, foodborne, etc.) and its inflammatory sequalae(2010-2015),

■ Development of biomarkers of intestinal andrelated functions to define and improveintestinal health; improvement of e.g.abdominal comfort, digestive function, sys-temic immune function and decreased riskcancers of the gastro-intestinal tract, in par-ticular colorectal cancer (2010-2015).

Goal 3. Understanding the linkbetween diet and metabolic function (obesity and associatedmetabolic disorders)

Obesity rates have risen three-fold or more since1980 in many areas of the world. Currently at least300 million of the world's one billion overweightadults are clinically obese. Obesity occurs whenenergy intake is greater than energy expenditure,therefore physical activity, diet-induced thermo-genesis and food intake regulation must all beaddressed to reduce the prevalence of obesity.

Obesity plays a central role in the metabolic syn-drome, which includes hyperinsulinemia, hyper-tension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes and anincreased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovasculardisease. In order to develop preventive strategies itwould be important to identify biomarkers(including polymorphisms) of early metabolicchanges utimately leading to metabolic syndrome.There is today a growing body of evidence that obesity is associated with a chronic low-gradeinflammation, and a focus on better understandingof low-grade inflammatory pathways could be crit-ical in the mechanisms underlying obesity and itscomplications. However, triggers of the inflam-matory process and other related diseases inhumans have yet to be clearly identified.

Some of the metabolic alterations linked withageing, such as decreases of insulin sensitivity,bone quality (e.g. mineral density), and musclemass (sarcopenia), and increase of body- and vis-ceral fat are associated with increased systemicinflammatory activity. Dietary measures that couldcounteract these ageing-related metabolic disor-ders would offer a real breakthrough in an ageingsociety. Furthermore, recent publications indicate


26


a link between obesity and the energy-harvestingcapacity of gut microbiota, and provide new tar-gets for intervention linked to a 'healthy intestine'(see Goal 2).

Maternal and post-natal nutrition is not only centralto the growth and development of infants but mayalso condition health later in life (programming/imprinting). The alarming increase in the incidenceof overweight and obesity reported in children hasrenewed interest in determining the influence ofthe maternal and infant diet on the risk of develop-ing excess fat mass and metabolic disorders later inlife. The relationships between early nutrition andincreased obesity risk are poorly understood and not well established in humans. Researchshould deliver dietary recommendations for bothmothers and infants and provide the basis for opti-mising nutrition during the critical period of rapiddevelopment both in utero and post-weaning.


1. To understand the genetic background of indi-vidual metabolic profiles in relation to bodyweight control and the risk for development ofco-morbidities such as type 2 diabetes andmetabolic syndrome with increasing weight.

Deliverables■ Early biomarkers of metabolic syndrome

(2010-2015),

■ Knowledge of individual variations in metabolicenergy efficiency, including the contributionof gut microbiota, and in susceptibility tohigh energy intake and sedentary lifestyle(2020),

■ Identification of food components alleviatingchronic low-grade inflammation associatedwith obesity and determination of theirimpact on the prevention of insulin resistanceand metabolic syndrome (2015-2020),

■ Knowledge on the contribution of epigeneticevents on chronic diseases later in life andthe contribution of nutrition (2020),

■ Understanding drivers (diet, genes) that regulate habitual levels of physical activity(2010-2015).

2. To develop effective food ingredients anddietary strategies to prevent (re-)gain ofweight.

Deliverables■ Intervention strategies to align research on

exercise physiology/physical activity andobesity/metabolic syndrome (2010),

■ Specific food components for regulatingfood intake and increasing diet-inducedthermogenesis (2015),

■ Greater insights into the effects of mealcomposition, size and frequency on appetiteregulation and energy intake (2015).

3. To define the effects of diets and nutrientsearly in life for health outcomes in later years.

Deliverable■ Maternal and infant dietary recommenda-

tions for optimal metabolic health (2020).

4. To tackle the nutrition-related wasting diseasesin the elderly population and understandingthe role of nutrition in healthy ageing.

Deliverable■ A dietary strategy to counteract ageing-asso-

ciated muscle wasting (sarcopenia) anddecrease of bone quality (2015).

5. To develop risk-benefit (disease) models andscenario studies on obesity and on nutritionand healthy ageing.

Deliverable■ Models and studies indicating how the inci-

dence of obesity can be decreased and thatof healthy ageing supported (2010).

Goal 4. Understanding consumerbehaviour and effective communi-cation in relation to health andnutrition

The translation of scientific insights into consumer-relevant innovations requires understanding of theconsumer's perception and his relation to food,nutrition and health. Consumers need to be moti-vated to move towards a healthier lifestyle and takeadvantage of the scientific progress made withinthe life sciences. Among other challenges this willrequire transparent and consumer-aligned commu-nication of the importance of nutrition and thedesirability of specific food products being incorpo-rated in healthy eating patterns. Building on a fun-damental understanding of how food choice habitsare formed, how they can be changed and on thekey motivations that trigger or hamper positivebehavioural change, intervention strategies arerequired to break unhealthy habits and developthem into healthier food lifestyles. In the nextdecades, breakthroughs are expected, particularlyin the fields of (nutri-)genomics and cognitive neu-roscience, and in the fundamental understandingof the biological and cognitive drivers of eatinghabits and lifestyles. This, together with improvedunderstanding of food-related consumer behaviour,will make it possible to develop product and com-munication strategies that, together, will make itmuch easier for consumers to live a healthy life.


27

Key Challenges

Developing quality food products


1. To understand the process and key determi-nants of behavioural change, such as foodhabit-formation and -breaking.

Deliverable■ Effective intervention strategies for habit-

breaking and behavioural change towardhealthier food choices (2020).

2. To understand consumer knowledge of nutri-tional concepts and responsiveness to com-munication formats, including health schemes(e.g. pyramids etc), health claims, simplifiedlabelling (e.g. sign posting) as well as targeted,more personalised food recommendations(e.g. from advances in nutrigenomics).

Deliverable■ Improved knowledge of consumer under-

standing of nutritional concepts and com-munication formats, incl. health schemes(e.g. pyramids), claims and labelling (e.g.signposting) (2015).

3. To understand the perception and determi-nants of a 'healthy food lifestyle', analysingthe cross-cultural and subpopulation groupdifferences.

Deliverables■ A quantified model for consumer interpreta-

tion of (un-)healthy food lifestyles and itsinteraction with other lifestyle factors(2015),

■ A quantified model for determinants of (un-)healthy food choice habits (2015).

4. To understand the role of biological determi-nants in food choice (including the role ofgenomics and brain functions).

Deliverable■ A quantified framework model for the role

and relative importance of biological deter-minants in consumers' food choice, includingbrain functions and genomics, together withthe identification of potential interventionroutes to affect these biological determi-nants (2020).

ScopeThe concept of food quality in Europe haschanged significantly over the years and will con-tinue to do so. From the guaranteed availability offood, via uniform quality, food safety and changingproduction methods and processes, food is nowincreasingly associated with enjoyment, healthand anticipated well-being. Changes in societyand demographic trends (such as increasing par-ticipation of women in the workforce, decreasingfamily sizes and increasing number of house-holds, the ageing society and increases in propor-tion and integration of ethnic groups in many EUMember States) will impact significantly on thechoice of foods, the ways in which food will beprepared, and where it will be consumed.

Although manufactured foods are safer than ever,excessive food intake, in conjunction with adecrease in physical activity has led to an increaseof lifestyle-related diseases in European society. Inthe medium- to long-term, lifestyle-related diseases will increase to unacceptable levelsunless appropriate measures are taken now toreduce intakes of energy and salt. Since taste isthe most important enabler that facilitates the

intake of healthy products, the challenge facingindustry is the production of tasty foods that:

■ are consistent with health status and a healthylifestyle,

■ address the consumer's preferences, and

■ ensure repeat purchases.

Convenience is an important factor of interest toconsumers. Grazing, eating on the move and easeof container-opening for children and the elderlyare all demands that, when met, increase the con-venience and enjoyment of food. It is also notablethat food is increasingly being consumed awayfrom home, in canteens, catering establishmentsand restaurants.

Key Challenge 3: Developing quality foodproducts


28


Changes in eating habits and a clear demand forimproved quality food create opportunities for theagro-food industry to add value to their produceand to develop novel foods. Although diversity willbe of key importance for future food productionand product developments, by itself it will beinsufficient to create the required innovations.Increased R&D investments are necessary todevelop new processing equipment, processinglines and manufacturing systems.

On the one hand, exporting traditional, regionalproducts from the rich and diverse European cuisinewill be enhanced and supported through a longerproduct shelf life that will be obtained with newmild preservation technologies. On the other hand,new products on the market will be based increas-ingly on novel ingredients and processes. New (natural) ingredients could be produced byimproved, mild separation technologies, or by novelbioprocessing schemes. New structures and textureswill be produced as a consequence of responses todevelopments in micro- and nano-technologies.

A challenge for the European food and drink indus-try will be to provide the consumer with the righttype of food at the right time and in the rightplace. Innovative processes, value-added prod-ucts, new marketing concepts, novel ways of selling products and novel ways for the productionand supply chain to co-operate to create productstargeted at consumer needs will ensure that theconsumer is provided with safe products and products possessing the required sensory charac-teristics, at maximum convenience, and at anaffordable price. In addition, environmental issuesrelated to sustainable food production, minimisa-tion of waste production and use of non-renewableraw materials will have increased priority.

To respond successfully to these opportunities, thefood industry will need to adapt and incorporatemodern production philosophies, such as leanmanufacturing and agile manufacturing, whichhave proven successful in other market sectors andwhich allow producers to remain at the forefront ofmarket change. Overall, attention must be paid tothe complete process line and production plant aswell as to ways of optimising their individual ele-ments. In this manner, 'quantum leaps' may beachieved that would both secure niche marketsand exploit uncontested market situations.

Close contacts will need to be established betweenthe ETP Food for Life and those addressing, for example, Textiles and Automobiles2, which aresectors that have already benefited from minimisingprocessing steps that fail to add value for the con-sumer. For the same reason, establishing close linkswith the ERA-Net on Manufacturing is also a priority.

Goal 1. Producing tailor-made food products

The creation of tailor-made food products thatencompass all consumer preferences, acceptanceand nutritional needs, requires a completeredesign of the way food is presently produced.Food in 2020 will be tailor-made to the specificPreference, Acceptance and Needs (PAN) of con-sumers. Consumer science will deliver reliabledata on consumer preferences and acceptancesand provide a basis for new product development.Nutritional science will deliver the needs withrespect to energy intake and also identify anyneed to fortify foods with e.g. bio-ingredients,and suggest appropriate levels of fortification.

The PAN concept (Figure 10) developed here,should evolve in the long term to a completelyreversed engineering approach, in which the totalproduct development is modelled back throughthe chain from consumer to raw material. Thisinnovation will lead to faster product develop-ment and more flexible processing possibilities.

However, for this revolution to achieve maximumimpact, an increased understanding is requiredon the dynamics of sensory perception fromreceptor to the brain, including cross-modalinteractions of the senses, flavour release andstructure breakdown. In addition, an improvedunderstanding of quality has to be delivered frommultidisciplinary studies into the relationbetween the compositional and structural fea-tures on different levels of scale and attributes ofthe product and the gastrointestinal, (oral) physiological and neural effects in the body.Engineering food structure, a better knowledge

(2) such as the European Steel Technology Platform, ESTEP,cordis.europa.eu/estep/ and ETP Future Textiles and Clothing, ECTP, www.textile-platform.org.

Figure 10. Schematic presentation of the food production process.

Qual

ity s

ensin

g; fe

edba

ck /

feed

forw

ard

cont

rol

Consumer level

Product levelProcess

levelIngredient

level

Preferences, Acceptance and Needs (PAN)

Tailored packaging

Tailored food products

Structure / Formulation

Translational Process Design

Choice for processing:Integrative process designMiniaturised / Distributed

Raw material from:Bioprocessing

Separation of metabolites...

Sensory perception


29

(including prediction) of ingredient interactionsand the complex reactions in food will all be necessary to deliver the compositions and struc-tures desired and demanded by the consumer.

The trend for addition of bioactive compounds tofoods so as to benefit consumer health has beenstrong during the past decade and, in all likelihood,will expand further in the future in parallel withan increased knowledge base on the impact ofindividual food constituents on human health.External contacts will be necessary to most fullyexploit the diversity of plant raw materials andincorporate their components within traditional,novel and ethnic foods. Ultimately, the PANapproach could be used to identify quality targetsfor plant scientists, agronomists and breeders. Inaddition to plants, other dietary sources of bioac-tive compounds will be explored, including thoseof animal and microbial origin.


1. To develop and apply novel processes for theimplementation of the PAN profiles throughinnovative product functions.

Deliverables■ Assessment tools and diagnostics for PAN

profile evaluation from consumer, nutritionand health science (2010),

■ Models for PAN patterns as a function ofquality and well-being factors to produce adiversity of foods for specific consumergroups, PAN relationship to food manufac-turing and packaging concepts, predictiveand operational methodologies and toolbox-es for PAN patterns (2015),

■ Understanding the dynamics of a) sensoryperception from receptor to brain, includingcross-modal interaction of the senses,flavour release and breakdown of structureand b) the gastrointestinal mechanics, nutri-ent interactions and availability (2015),

■ Improved knowledge and global databasesregarding individual, target group and regionrelated variation of PAN profile to food com-position and structure. New tailor made, per-sonalised foods targeted at specific con-sumer groups (2020).

2. To develop convenient, tailored personalisedfood products to meet all consumer preferences,acceptance and needs.

Deliverable■ New tailor made, personalised foods targeted

at specific consumer groups (2020).

3. To identify bioactive food constituents fromplant, animal and microbial sources, and beneficial micro-organisms and theirmechanisms of action.

Deliverables■ In vitro assays and biomarkers to predict in

vivo functionality of bioactive components(2015),

■ New product functions arising from newingredients or from processing via biotech-nology, separation technology or nanotech-nology, Understanding and predicting a)impact of bioactive compounds in food andbeneficial micro-organisms on humanhealth, b) effect of food matrix formulation(structure, components) on the activity,delivery and transfer of bioactive compoundsand beneficial micro-organisms (2015),

■ Targeted delivery of bioactive compoundsand micro-organisms with beneficial proper-ties (2020).

4. To develop environmentally friendly sustain-able food processes, such as better utilisationof side streams and innovations to avoidexcessive packaging.

Deliverable■ Food technology innovations enabling environ-

mentally-friendly and sustainable productionwith a special focus on better utilisation of side streams and minimal use of non-renewable and non-biodegradable materials(2020).

Goal 2. Improving process design,process control and packaging

In order to improve the competitiveness of theEuropean food industry, innovations in processdesign and process control are required. In addi-tion, the consumer demand for convenience foodswith a long shelf life and a fresh appearance will increase. Mild preservation technologies thatachieve this goal, together with appropriate packaging concepts, will enable industry to complywith this demand and stimulate the export possi-bilities of traditional and regional products, andcontribute to the growth of the European economy.

Pressure to reduce the time of food processing willincrease, and one response to this will be to developmodels that incorporate increasing flexibility.Advanced mathematical modelling will also have arole to play in optimising production lines andplants, and can even extend to the food supplychain. Such 'supply chain engineering' approachesare likely to be increasingly adopted in diverse

Key Challenges



30

manufacturing sectors and it will be important toidentify, capture and adapt emerging best practice. This will require, in addition to sustainedattention on mild manufacturing:

■ the development of new food products, based oncompletely new processing routes, using newcomponents from plant and animal resourcesand from biotechnology and processing,

■ new, efficient and sustainable processes thatdeliver personalised quality products, based oncascades of existing unit processes and on out-put demands,

■ increased flexibility, through redesigning pro-cessing and logistics. Food process design willneed to exploit a lean manufacturing approach inorder to optimise user value and minimise losses.The introduction of agile manufacturing willincrease the likelihood of competitive advantage.

Robust and reliable quality sensing systems mustbe researched and developed over differing timescales to assess quality throughout the life historyof a food product. In-line, preferably non-destruc-tive, and integrative quality sensors are prerequisitefor modern process control. It will be essential toadapt read-outs of such quality-sensing systems togenerate useful parameters for the design of newprocesses and for the creation of new food systems.An important new area will be the development ofquality sensors to be used by consumers; one routewill be through integrated sensing systems con-tained within the packaging.

With rising demands of consumers for quality,health, security and convenience, and with regula-tory requirements for environmental protection, significant needs and opportunities for novel foodpackaging concepts are emerging. Optimisationand improvement of conventional packaging is stillimportant to reduce use of expensive products andminimise wastage of packaging and packagingmaterials. The development of recyclable or bio-degradable packaging materials is also anticipatedso as to offer new and environmental-friendly packaging solutions.

Simultaneously, new concepts such as bio-degradable active and intelligent (A&I) packagingwill offer numerous innovative solutions forextending shelf life and maintaining, improvingor monitoring food quality and safety. A&I packaging will be developed that incorporatesactive or intelligent components intended torelease or to absorb substances into, onto or fromthe packaged food or the environment surroundingthe food, or to provide the information on theproduct and/or the conditions for its use. A&Ipackaging will be combined with new mildpreservation methods to provide optimal path-ways for quality enhancement and for in-packageprocessing and in-home preparation of foods.


1. To provide improved PAN functions through theredesign and optimisation of food processingand packaging, in order to increase competi-tiveness and sustainability.

Deliverables■ New PAN function-driven sustainable food

processing in synergy with new packagingtechnologies, point of use processing systemsdeveloped for timely delivery of freshly pro-duced personalised food (2015),

■ Process optimisation through combinationsof new and conventional technologies withrespect to process structure property relation-ships in new and traditional foods (2015),

■ Process optimisation through combinationsof new and conventional technologies withrespect to process structure property relation-ships in new and traditional foods (2015).

2. To introduce scaleable and flexible food manu-facturing techniques and their intelligent in-line control.

Deliverables■ High resolution, spectroscopic in-line sensors

yielding complex food structure informationand for in situ control of process variables,such as pH under high pressure or tempera-ture in pulsed electric fields (2015),

■ Application of artificial intelligence methodsfor data mining, pattern recognition and soft-ware sensors (2015),

■ Application of integrated and pervasive sensor networks throughout the food chainrecording fluctuations of quality and safety(2020).

3. Risk-benefit balanced innovative, sustainable,and safe food packaging for implementationinto integrated food chain concepts.

Deliverables■ Production, use and disposal of eco-friendly

packaging, and tailor-made packaging forperishable, diverse and complex foods suchas fresh, living, composite or traditional foods(2015),

■ Novel intelligent packaging including the useof nanotechnology for monitoring food qualityand safety during transport, storage and pro-cessing, from producer to consumer, such asusing tags as miniaturised analytical toolswith wireless communication (2015),

■ New active packaging reducing food degrada-tion and for controlled delivery of functionalcomponents (2020).



31

Key Challenges


Goal 3. Improving understanding of process-structure-property relationships

Knowledge on process-structure-property relation-ships will increasingly allow the creation of tailor-made food products by new processing technolo-gies. By 2020 available knowledge on phenomena,mechanisms, driving forces and kinetics responsi-ble for changes in physical, chemical, biologicaland structural properties will allow foods to beproduced through processes that are flexible andeasily adaptable to PAN patterns. Rules for struc-ture/formulation-property functions and structure-processing functions, and tools for translationaland precise process design and processing inorder to adjust PAN profiles within processed foodsystems will then be available. Mathematicalmodels will be available to calculate how thestructure-function relations at different levels ofscale will evolve during processing in order todeliver the desired characteristics.

Major research challenge

1. To understand relationships of food structuresfrom molecular via nano- to macro scale withrespect to product and process design, and todevelop new processing principles for improvedPAN profiles.

Deliverables■ Quantitative methods developed to assess

process-structure-property relationships,such as extrusion based cereal structure pro-cessing for satiety profile adjustment (2015),

■ Structure-property functions and their rela-tionships with formulation and processing(2020).

Goal 4. Understanding consumerbehaviour in relation to food qualityand manufacturing

Increased consumer understanding can serve tobetter communicate new developments in foodquality and manufacturing and help to build uptrust for new technological opportunities. Anunderstanding of how consumers react not only todifferent product qualities, but also to differentproduction technologies, will enable the foodindustry to align both food quality and food manufacturing processes to consumer wishes anddemands. Co-operation with technologists (product), consumer scientists (behaviour) andmarketing (developing the concept) is crucial indevelopment of better methods to turn the engi-neering approach around to a consumer-led process.


1. To integrate consumer-orientation in new productdevelopment, and to understand consumerresponses to new products, processes andpackaging technologies across different targetgroups.

Deliverables■ New methodologies for the effective incorpo-

ration of consumer understanding into newproduct development (2015),

■ Quantitative models of how product, processand packaging features affect consumerresponses (2015),

■ Regained consumer trust in processed food,in terms of food safety issues and improve-ment of the quality of the food (2020).


32


ScopeEurope has an absolute necessity for a safe foodsupply; it is an imperative for health, social, andeconomic reasons. That the food produced andconsumed in Europe is now safer than ever is adry fact rather than a particularly useful state-ment. In spite of this, recent food safety criseshave created a high degree of concern among con-sumers. Consumer perception has evolved to a high level of awareness and a much reducedcertainty, a combination which has led to a generalised lack of confidence.

Food safety is a major public health and economicissue for Europe both for foods consumed withinthe EU and those that are exported. The totalcosts attributable to failures in food safety arenotoriously difficult to estimate and should cer-tainly include costs associated with the conse-quence of the diseases themselves as well as losses of product and consumer confidence. Forinstance, the annual costs of Salmonella out-breaks alone have been estimated to be around 2billion $ for USA. This gives some idea of the economic losses for a single pathogen. This figuredoes not take into account the considerable costsof measures set in place to control this pathogenin the food chain, including analyses, specificmanagement and hygiene measures, research andsurveillance.

In many cases it is far from certain that controlmeasures required by regulators or by distributorsand retailers are adequate for the protection ofhealth. Such a situation represents a cost burden,supported by producers and consumers, whichdoes not necessarily contribute greatly to a reduc-tion in morbidity. To adequately protect the healthof the consumer and, at the same time, ensurecompetitiveness of the food industry it is essentialto have effective and targeted control measures.This is one of the reasons that makes food safetyan essential element of a competitive strategy forthe European industry. The capacity of EUMember States to contribute to the maintenanceof a safe food supply in an increasingly scienceand technology-driven society, is intrinsicallylinked to its scientific resources in areas relevantto food safety. The desired model of a united, butdiverse, continent requires that food traditions beboth preserved and modernised. Competitivenessis essential within all parts of the EU food indus-try and at all levels; therefore, the science appliedto support it must respond to the needs of thesector as a whole.

That food safety concerns are more and more cen-tred on the consumer and his or her perception ofhow safe the food supply is a healthy state ofaffairs. The food sector has a very clear interestand responsibility in addressing food safety chal-lenges. Properly identified, co-ordinated and exe-cuted research programmes will, when success-fully communicated, form the basis of thisresponse.

The European food and drink industry's responsemust be to develop an integrated and holisticapproach to food safety (Figure 11). Safety is notguaranteed only by 'safe' product manufacture;the total chain has to be taken into account.Designing safety into foods requires the integra-tion of know-how and interventions along the'research to market' continuum.

Research, which addresses the European foodindustry's needs over the coming years in relationto food safety, will be applied through this inte-grated, holistic approach. At the same time, thereshould be a focus on those aspects of under-standing, development, application/implementa-tion that will exert the biggest impacts on allevia-tion of food-borne diseases. Such well-focussed

Key Challenge 4: Assuring safe foods thatconsumers can trust

Raw

Mat

eria

ls

“Saf

ety

Des

ign”

Consumer Use

Supply Chain

Product Manufacture

Process Design

Product Design

Safe Use

Safe Distribution

Safe Product

Safe Process

Safe Formulation

}Figure 11. Safety by design.


33

Key Challenges

Assuring safe foods that consumers can trust

research will provide a framework for rapid incorporation into practice in a manner, which willbring maximum impact.

The research broadly follows three lines:■ improved understanding of hazards and their

risks at different steps in the food chain, i.e.creating the knowledge base needed to supportthe rational application of control measuresand the development of new methods and systems;

■ tools to further secure the food chain, e.g. thedevelopment of systems and technologies forcontinuously improving the safe productionand supply of foods;

■ understanding of the human factor, i.e. con-sumer perception of risks and the need forcommunication.

Among the different hazards, contamination of food with pathogens or with the plethora ofchemical agents, which may be present naturallyor inadvertently, affords the greatest challenge tothe food industry.

There is a major challenge to understand biologicalhazards individually, in combination, and in thecontext of their multiple environments through-out the food chain. This includes their behaviourin complex ecosystems and (in the case of pathogenic micro-organisms) their interactionwith the host, both animal and human. Thisunderstanding should be extended to a full evaluation of the risks resulting from exposure ofthe consumer to these hazards (risk assessment).Complementary to this, is the evaluation of risksversus benefits of food products, and their nutri-tional, economic and social significance for thepopulation.

Goal 1. Predicting and monitoringthe behaviour and fate of relevantknown and emerging biologicalhazards

Knowledge is required about the nature andbehaviour of food-borne pathogens and otherundesired micro-organisms, to facilitate decisionson metrics (i.e. food safety objectives, perform-ance objectives, etc), enable adequate controlmeasures and their validation, and support riskassessment. It is important for the European foodsector that such knowledge is generated, analysedand integrated with information available today.The overall aim is to efficiently and effectively con-trol relevant microbes and to minimise their risk tothe extent possible, in line with the national andinternational standards. To achieve this it is essen-tial that the characteristics and ecology of

pathogens and their complex interactions alongthe food chain are described as fully as possible.This knowledge will reinforce the basis for thedevelopment of tools and approaches for control.


1. To describe and understand how micro-organisms respond to the various environmentalstimuli and stresses which the food matricespresent and to predict the effects and eventualconsequences that these might have on resistance and persistence.

Deliverables■ Scientific data describing the ecological

behaviour of priority food pathogens at different stages of the food chain, includingprimary animal and plant sources; resistanceand resistance development will be of par-ticular relevance (2010),

■ Database on the 'omic' description of organisms and microbial communities andfactors relevant to ecological behaviour ofpathogens (2015).

2. To enhance understanding of behaviour and virulence traits of food-borne pathogens and themechanisms of emergence: using epidemiologi-cal and typing data, monitoring virulence traitsand better describing mechanisms of virulenceand emergence of virulence, and the effects ofthe food chain on these characteristics. Reduceor limit and, if possible, replace animal testing.

Deliverables■ Biological models for studying virulence and

microbial behaviour in infection including;functional mammalian cell culture systems,artificial organs, both cell culture based andmechanical (computer aided). Validated proto-cols to study microbial behaviour in suchinfection models (2015),

■ Methodology for studying microbial behaviourin model systems (2018),

■ Identification of emerging pathogens and theircharacteristics (2020).

Goal 2. Predicting and monitoring thebehaviour and fate of relevant knownand emerging chemical hazardsincluding toxins of biological origin

Chemical contaminants include crop protectionagents, veterinary pharmaceuticals, persistentorganic pollutants (POPs), packaging contaminants,process contaminants such as heat-generated


34

toxicants, heavy metals, and biological toxins; theyrepresent known and potential health hazards tohumans, most commonly by long-term exposure,through the consumption of contaminated foods.

The manner in which these hazards are currentlycontrolled is sub-optimal for two main reasons:firstly, there is a large knowledge gap as to theimportance of specific hazards at the quantities atwhich they occur in foods, and secondly, detectionand monitoring are often complex and expensive.

The risk of chemicals need to be evaluated considering the entire food chain, giving a particularattention to the conditions of agricultural practice,which is a main source for contamination of food-stuffs with biological and chemical hazards. Thereis a need to develop knowledge on the occurrenceof chemical agents as well as their complex inter-actions in various foods, and to develop an innova-tive and holistic approach to food safety.

Efficient control of chemical hazards within foodsafety assurance schemes requires new knowledgeabout the risks they represent and new tools fortheir management.


1. To generate data and knowledge on chemicalcontaminants in food and strategies for reduc-tion; generating and interpreting data on the fateof chemicals in the food chain (role of primaryproduction, processing, persistence, biotransfor-mation, destruction, accumulation of metabo-lites, recontamination) and improving exposureassessments for key potential hazards, includingthe migration of chemicals from packagingmaterials into food. Such knowledge will be bothvaluable per se and essential to support themodelling activities proposed in Goal 3.Development of measures to avoid biologicaland chemical contamination in agricultural pro-duction and to reduce formation of heat-inducedcontaminants (which is important for ensuringoptimal sensory characteristics), for example,using novel food preservation technologies.

Deliverables■ Data on a) the dynamics of prioritised chemical

hazards (e.g. structural changes, interactionswith other molecules, heat-induced forma-tion of chemicals from inoffensive pre-cursors and migration from packaging) andb) the levels at which they occur in specificproduct types (2015),

■ Knowledge on the technological, economical,legislative and social impacts of agriculturalpractices to support strategies for the manage-ment of priority chemical hazards (2015).

2. To describe and understand the effects of chemical hazards in humans; new approaches to

hazard characterisation for the determination ofchemical risks, including improving the risk esti-mation at very low levels of exposure; identifyingchemical hazards and their health effects on humans and determining the levels at whichchemical hazards have adverse effect on humans;interaction between toxicants; bioavailability ofchemical contaminants; development of artificialorgan- and cell culture-based procedures to deter-mine toxicological effects in order to limit and, if possible, replace animal experiments; andgathering and analysis of epidemiological data(special care will be taken to gather and analysein a population-disaggregated manner includinggender).

Deliverables■ Data allowing effective hazard characterization

for determining the risks of priority chemicalhazards including risks at very low levels ofexposure (2012),

■ A set of well described exposure biomarkersand a database of epidemiological dataorganised in a population-disaggregatedmanner (including gender) (2018),

■ Robust and reliable alternatives to animal testing for key toxicological endpoints, basedon artificial organs and cell culture to deter-mine toxicological effects so as to limit andpossibly replace animal experiments (2020).

3. To develop new methods to support chemicalfood safety; development and validation of ana-lytical techniques and sampling plans for chemical contaminants, of non-destructive tech-nologies for on-line monitoring of chemicalresidues and for off-line screening, based on aholistic approach, to evaluate the 'total toxiccharge', including both targeted and untargetedcompounds. This includes novel biomarkers ofexposure to key contaminants and analyticaltools for multi-residues exposure scenarios.

Deliverable■ Validated analytical techniques and sampling

plans for priority chemical contaminantsincluding a) reference/precision techniques,for research and anticipation, and confirmato-ry purposes, b) rational/accessible and simpletechniques for direct field application, and c)in-line methods for continuous safety manage-ment in food processing (2015).



35


1. To gather and generate relevant data on foodcomposition and consumption patterns includingethnic and traditional foods, where possible in acontinuous way building on existing initiativessuch as EuroFIR; and on epidemiological, analytical and toxicological or physiological dataon chemical and biological contaminants.

Deliverable■ Databases on food composition and consump-

tion patterns including ethnic and traditionalfoods (2010).

2. To develop and validate appropriate sciencebased quantitative risk assessment tools andmodels (in vitro, in vivo, in silico) based on thegenerated data for those areas with the biggestimpacts on reducing food-borne illnesses;refinement of data required for risk assessmentof food allergens and tools to analyse such data.

Deliverable■ Tools, protocols (including user-friendly soft-

ware) and their application for comparativerisk analysis (2012).

3. To develop and validate scientific approaches tocarry out risk versus benefit evaluation along thefood chain.

Deliverable■ Validated approaches to carry out risk and

benefit evaluation along the food chain (2015).

4. To develop and design tools based on models(see above and see Goals 1 and 2), for the evaluation of the individual and combined effectsat every stage of the integrated food chain.

Deliverable■ alidated tools/models/software for the design

of safe products and processes (2016).

Goal 4. Developing tools to ensuresecurity of the food chain

The aim is to further improve the safety of com-petitive foods in the market place by developingand making available tools for prevention and con-trol of specific hazards, traceability, authenticityand food defence (adulteration and bioterrorism)at appropriate points in operational food chains.This will provide the technologies on which har-monised, focussed and cost-efficient managementactivities and safety policies can be implemented.The understanding and knowledge generated fromthe research needs identified in Goal 1, above, willbe employed in the development of technologiespresented here.

Key Challenges

Assuring safe foods that consumers can trust

Goal 3. Improving risk assessmentand risk-benefit evaluation

Quantitative risk assessment is the knowledgebase for building a food safety strategy. The toolsbeing developed within this area (including pre-dictive modelling) are important competitiveinstruments that underpin innovation in thedevelopment of novel products. Research in thisarea will be important both to further develop thescience and to make these tools more widelyavailable within the food industry. The approachwill need to address the increasing complexity offood products and it is certain that the trend willbe towards risk-benefit assessment.

The European Union already possesses, atnational and regional levels, highly credible public organisations with responsibility for foodsafety and which are capable of identifying theirown R&D needs to support their legislative andcontrol functions. The food industry has a historyof healthy 'antagonism' with these official foodcontrol institutions and the rationality in the current legal and control environment has beengreatly influenced by this. It will be important forthe food industry to continue to identify and promote its own research into aspects of foodsafety, which may influence the development andapplication of control measures.

The challenges here deal with risk (pertaining tonegative effects), benefit (pertaining to positiveeffects) and communication. European societywill need to approach these research challengesin a well-integrated manner. Applying risk-benefitanalysis in a holistic way is the means to evalu-ating the real impact of the total of a food (ordietary pattern) to human health and well-beingin its many forms, as an alternative to focussingon the individual toxicological characteristics ofeach molecule. Elements of this overall task aredealt with in other key challenges of this ETP.

The food sector needs to:

■ evaluate the risks and benefits associated withconsumption of specific foods, food categoriesincluding traditional foods, and based on con-sumption patterns (knowledge),

■ integrate this knowledge into appropriate risk-benefit assessments, and

■ communicate this information in an appropriateform to the various stakeholders of the foodchain (knowledge and skills).

The overall objective is to build a 'science and skills' base that successfully supports thedevelopment and communication of risk-benefitanalyses on specific raw materials, food productsand product categories, and to develop furtherknowledge on consumption patterns.


36

4. To develop new logistic approaches for strengthening safe distribution of foods, includingabuse detection and approaches for the preven-tion of food adulteration and bioterrorism.

Deliverable■ Efficient and safe distribution of foods (2020).

Goal 5. Understanding andaddressing consumer concernswith food safety issues

Despite the fact that, in objective terms, food hasprobably never been safer, consumers continue toexpress concerns with the safety of their food.This has at least partly to do with the fact thatconsumers do not have direct first-hand insightin the safety of food products and food produc-tion systems. For such assessment they must relyon information provided by others and so thetrust or confidence that they have in actors andinstitutions is an important factor in their per-ceived confidence in the food provision system. It is generally accepted that zero risk is not pos-sible and increasingly the focus shifts towardsrisk-benefit approaches, which in turn brings newchallenges for risk communication. An under-standing of the way in which consumers perceiverisks, and also of the role of various stakeholders,including the media, is a prerequisite for suc-cessful risk communication.


1. To identify and quantify determinants of con-sumer trust and confidence in the food provi-sion system (including trust in actors andinstitutions) for an understanding of consumerconfidence and its changes over time (moni-toring).

Deliverable■ Quantification of the determinants of con-

sumer confidence in food provision systemsand similarities and differences acrossEurope (2010).

2. To understand consumers' perception of riskissues, particularly in the context of risk-benefit trade-offs and the amplification of riskperceptions beyond the available scientificevidence.

Deliverable■ Effective prediction of how public percep-

tion of risk develops through interactionsbetween consumers, media and stakeholders(2010).

The detection and prediction of hazards in foods have also advanced considerably inrecent years. This has permitted a more preciseevaluation and validation of existing and noveltechnologies, speeding up both their develop-ment and time-to-market. The success of themodelling approach to hazard behaviour demon-strates the wisdom of investing in tools, whichaddress the complexity of modern foods.

New techniques for detection of hazards or theircontrolling parameters are constantly beingsought to improve food safety assurance.Successful new approaches frequently repre-sent new opportunities for surveillance, tracingof sources of hazards and many other areas ofresearch, which have a direct impact on foodsafety at a societal level. Research on new orimproved measurement of hazards will have amultiplier effect and these lines of study shouldalways be advanced wherever they show genuinepromise. Advanced technologies for safety inter-ventions throughout the food chain will providenew options for control over the safety of rawmaterials, processes and finished products.Their development, validation and implementa-tion must cover all aspects of food production.

Development and agreement on validation con-cepts and models is a crucial pre-requisite tosuccessful acceptance of the outputs of this typeof research and must be addressed in the drawingup of EU-wide initiatives. 'Validation' must notonly include technical performance but alsoaspects of regulatory- and consumer acceptance.


1. To develop technologies for reduction or elimination of hazards at the level of primaryproduction.

Deliverable■ Technologies for improving practices in

primary production, including breeding andselection of intrinsically safe plants and animals for foods (from 2015).

2. To develop novel technologies for reduction or removal of chemical and biological hazardsduring processing.

Deliverable■ Robust and flexible processing technologies

that assure food safety (2015).

3. To develop effective methodologies for trackingand tracing of microbes, contaminants and aller-gens along the food chain

Deliverable■ Validated technologies for tracking and tracing

(2012).



37

3. To understand the way the European consumers prefer risks to be communicated to them (by whom, frequency, modality) innormal times as well as in case of incidents orcrisis.

Deliverable■ Insight into the preferences of European

consumer's for risk communication (2012).

4. To develop effective consumer communicationstrategies and messages on risk-related issues(including communication of risk-benefit andcost-benefit analyses, and uncertainties).

Deliverable■ A set of effective risk communication strate-

gies for the public (2020).

Key Challenges

Achieving sustainable food production

ScopeConsumers are increasingly motivated to purchasefoods that conform to production criteria that areenvironmentally-friendly and to their ethical prin-ciples while still being affordable. In addition thereare overall societal pressures for food productionand supply to be more sustainable. Over the pastthree generations, food production systems inEurope have developed with a focus on security ofsupply with low prices to the consumer, whilst atthe same time seeking to reduce environmentalimpact and maintaining economic returns to ruralcommunities.

However a number of factors contribute to theunsustainability of existing European food produc-tion and supply system. These include:

■ Heavy reliance on an input of nonrenewableresources such as fossil fuels,

■ Contribution of food production to environmen-tal problems, such as the diffuse distribution ofnitrogen and phosphorous in the aquatic envi-ronment,

■ Reduction of farm work and changes in demography of rural populations,

■ Environmental impact of chemical use in agriculture,

■ Socio-economic impact of trade barriers, and

■ Uneven distribution of revenues to the differentactors in the food production system.

The recent expansion of the EU has brought aboutan increasing diversity of food production systemsaffording the opportunity to utilise this diversity tocreate and support a variety of sustainable global,regional and local food production systems.

Considerations of sustainability will need to guidefuture developments in European food productionand must be an integral part of all developments.

Given the highly interlinked nature of food produc-tion and the many aspects of 'sustainability' thatneed to be addressed, it is important to embrace aholistic view of European food production and supply systems. The agricultural production ofnon-food systems must also be included in con-sideration of sustainablity. The transition towardsmore sustainable European food production andsupply systems must also go hand-in-hand withstrengthening the competitiveness of the stake-holders in the European food system. To achievethis, synergies must be created between economicgrowth, environmental protection and fair socialconditions. To achieve this it will be necessary to:

■ understand the sustainability of food productionand supply in Europe,

■ develop scenarios of future European food production and supply,

■ develop sustainable processing, packaging anddistribution systems,

■ ensure sustainable primary food production inEurope, and

■ understand consumer's attitudes and behaviourtowards sustainable food production issues.

Key Challenge 5: Achieving sustainablefood production


38


In developing the responses described below, closecontacts will be developed with the otherKnowledge-based Bioeconomy ETPs Plants for the Future, Global Animal Health, Biofuel andSustainable Chemistry which address sustainabilityissues ithroughout their Strategic ResearchAgendas.

Within this ETP sustainability development isdefined as: “an environmentally sound, economi-cally viable, and socially acceptable develop-ment”.

Goal 1. Progressing the sustainability of food productionand supply in Europe

The ETP Food for Life aims to substantially con-tribute to more sustainable food production,processing, storage, distribution and consumerhandling of foods. Several analytical approach-es are available. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)has been developed to identify and quantify theenvironmental impacts of individual productsand services with a system analysis perspective.

The food chain is a complex inter-linked system,requiring a system analysis approach forassessement of sustainability, including evalua-tion of social (e.g. fair working conditions, ruraldevelopment and gender equality) and economic(such as fair distribution of revenues along thefood chain) dimensions of the studied systems,as well as the environmental impacts. Input/outputanalysis is likely to be another useful approachand will need to show both the social- and envi-ronmental consequences of alternative foodsupply systems. These analytical assessmentmethods must also be developed to show clearcomparisons between different scenarios,including imports of foods into Europe, so as toreveal the consequences of different supply andconsumption patterns.

Models must be constructed to identify sustain-ability indicators, which can then be validatedand used for comparing different scenarios.These indicators should then be used to moni-tor progress towards sustainability in differentfood chains. To support multi-criteria decisionprocesses, models should be developed that canbe optimised to show the effect that positivechanges in one indicator might have on another.The system analysis should also study the possibilities involved in sustainable utilisationof biological materials for food and non-foodapplications. These models will also providedata for inclusion in public databases ofEuropean food and biological material chains,to be used in improvement analysis and scenariodevelopment.


1. To develop a methodology for describing theessential parameters of sustainability of thefood supply system using system analysis-based sustainability indicators.

Deliverable■ A range of regional and commodity food

chains will have undergone system analysisof sustainability; appropriate sustainabilityindicators will be developed (2010).

2. To develop dynamic modelling tools to determine and demonstrate the sustainabilityfrontiers of different food production systemsin order to drive innovation into more sustain-able solutions.

Deliverable■ Sustainability indicators will be quantified

for many food chains and applied to showthe scope for improvement; (this informationwill have been used to guide development inthe other goals of this theme) (2015).

3. To formulate models to describe food and bio-logical raw material chains in Europe in orderto show the sustainability of different supplychains in the context of the whole Europeansystem.

Deliverable■ Dynamic modelling tools will have been

developed and used for the rapid identificationof more sustainable production and processingsystems for a range of food products at differentregions in Europe, as well as systems for sus-tainable use of biological materials for bothfood and non-food applications (2020).

Goal 2. Developing scenarios offuture European food productionand supply

Scenarios are 'possible futures', intended toprovide insight into the consequences of multi-factorial change, e.g. demographics, economy,environment and world trade, often based onprojections of societal futures and quality of lifeissues. Scenarios are a well established way tostructure “What if?” questions. While scenariosare widely used, there have been few applica-tions to the European food production system.The need for such scenarios is becoming moreevident as changes in European food consump-tion, and thus production, are expected to bemore dramatic in the future. The followingexamples highlight how scenarios can elucidate'possible futures':


39

Key Challenges


■ Global climate change is projected to have multiple impacts on primary food production,populations and markets, including changes inthe suitability of certain areas for particularcrops. A comprehensive picture of the effects ofclimate change on the sustainability of the foodproduction system is still elusive.

■ Dependency on fossil fuels. The European foodproduction system depends heavily on fossilfuels, with both production and distribution sen-sitive to fuel prices. The effect of energy pricesand fuel availability on the sustainability of theEuropean food supply system must be explored.

■ Political boundary conditions such as the eco-nomic compensation to farmers through theEuropean CAP (Common Agriculture Policy) andthe CFP (Common Fishery Policy) and globaltrade agreements also influence the sustainabilityof the European food supply system. The conse-quences of alternative policies should be studiedusing scenario techniques. These studies will becarried out in close co-operation with thosedescribed under Key Challenge 6 (Managing thefood chain), and in consultation with the KeyChallenges 1, 2 and 3 (Food & Health, FoodQuality & Manufacturing and Food & Consumer).


1. To identify relevant factors in the future that willaffect or improve the sustainability of Europeanfood production systems, and use them to buildscenarios, integrating demographics, economy,policy and trade and environmental change.Scenarios of a global and 'top down' characterwill be undertaken where expert assessments aremade based on existing knowledge and methodsfor analysis and prediction. Comparision with'bottom up' scenarios based on participation andinterviews with stakeholders are also required.

Deliverables■ A number of scenarios will be developed illus-

trating the consequences of different futures,based on the present food production systems(2010),

■ Future food production scenarios will be possible on the basis of a few relevant generalscenarios (2010),

■ New and alternative highly sustainable foodproduction systems will have been identified.(2015).

2. To use scenarios to study “What if?” alternatives,for a number of food production systems and policyoptions, using a 15 to 100 year perspective.

Deliverable■ Radically novel food production systems will

have been proposed (2020).

Goal 3. Developing sustainableprocessing, preservation, packag-ing and logistic systems

Industrial food production focuses on economicefficiency, reliability, safety and consistency tomeet market demands. Current systems of manu-facturing, preservation, storage, processing, packaging, transportation and distribution, andretail show limits in their sustainability, in wastefuluse of natural resources through extensive losses,and waste creation along the food chain. Valuablefood raw materials are wasted and the consequenceis overproduction in the primary sector. Policy ormarket circumstances may favour unsustainablepatterns of production and consumption.

Reduction in uses of energy, water and materialswill require close links between raw material pro-duction, processing, packaging and waste manage-ment. The development of viable processes andstrategies for converting and adding value to foodindustry by-products, into compounds suitable foragro-, biotechnology-, or food industry applicationsusing the biorefinery concept, will be important forincreasing sustainablity.

A reliable cold chain is of major importance tofood safety and quality. Food refrigeration isfacing a number of sustainability-related chal-lenges, which require special attention.Identification of the potential for improvementthrough sustainability analysis will be an impor-tant driver for innovation that is directedtowards new and novel technological solutionsfor food processing, packaging and transporta-tion. As food industries are highly complex andspatially-distributed, research into more sus-tainable food production systems must explicitlyaccount for this complexity.

The 'Industrial Ecology Approach' aims torestructure production systems into clusters ofindustrial firms with output-input connectionsas stocks and flow of materials, energy andinformation, according to the principles ofecosystems. Such an approach applied to thefood chain will include analysis of interlinkednetworks of primary food production, food pro-cessing, distribution and packaging. It will alsohelp to identify possiblities for innovative newagro-, biotechnology-, and food industries.


1. To develop methods for value chain analysis ofentire food chains explicitly incorporating theassessment of economic, environmental andsocial factors.

Deliverable■ Methodologies will be developed for coupled

value chain and sustainability analysis (2010).


40


2. To develop viable approaches and innovations toreduce energy, water and material use in foodprocessing and packaging; improve utilisation offood raw materials and reduce waste throughoutthe production chain by developing systems forreprocessing of adding value to food waste tofood or feed, using the 'biorefinery' model.

Deliverables■ Improvement potentials for highly wasteful

processing, packaging and transportationoperations will be identified and solutions willbe identified (2010),

■ New scientific approaches will underpin thesustainable management of biological rawmaterials in food production systems andclearly established methods for improvingtheir sustainability, including options for non-food uses will result (2010),

■ Novel multi-dimensional food production andchain systems will be developed which willstrengthen the economical viability of ruralareas based on research on sustainable foodproduction (2020).

3. To build different industrial systems, includingfood primary production and food industries in'industrial ecology' relationships, exchangingmatter, water and energy and economic valuein inter-industrial networks.

Deliverable■ Highly integrated sustainable village sys-

tems, including food production systems willbe developed and implemented (2020).

Goal 4. Ensuring sustainable primary food production in Europe

Within the next few decades, primary food pro-duction in Europe will experience major environ-mental, social and economic changes. Theseinclude climate change, changing internationaltrade relations and regulations, and large-scaleshifts in global food production and demand. Thefuture knowledge-based bio-economy will alsobring about an increased competition for land forproduction of biological raw materials for food,feed, fuel, forestry and green chemistry. The societaldemands on improving the sustainability, and theenvironmental impact of primary food production,will force a continued adaptation to these changestowards more sustainable systems.

In this industry-driven ETP the view of the primaryproduction is principally that of a raw material sup-plier within the food chain. Other aspects of primaryproduction, such as improving plants, animal wel-fare and alternatives to traditional fishing are

addressed in other ETPs (Plants for the Future,Global Animal Health, Sustainable Chemistry, andAquaculture). This ETP will focus on analysing andpromoting the sustainability of primary productionsystems in a food chain perspective.

While additional research will expand knowledgeto further enhance traditional food production,radically different primary food production systems may provide additional sources of food tothat derived from traditional food production.These should be analysed in terms of their sustainability in order to target effectively furtherresearch into the most promising approaches, asexemplified below.

Biotechnology may, beyond its present role, beused to produce desired crop biomass in a targetedway, and to provide plants with better taste andnutrition besides intrinsically better productionproperties. Further fine-tuning of production systems through precision farming and other high-tech solutions could increase the efficiency of primary food production. Alternative systems forprotein supply from animal and plant sourcesshould be evaluated, including ethical issues e.g.animal welfare.


1. To identify and analyse the major environmental,social and economic pressures of primary food production (crop, livestock and fish) constraining the sustainability of the food chainand investigate options for alleviating thesepressures and analyse the implications for sustainability.

Deliverable■ The knowledge base required to optimise

existing primary food production systems andidentify novel systems and assessment of theirsustainability will be achieved (2010).

2. To identify novel primary food production systems and evaluate their sustainability.

Deliverable■ The fully integrated management and

assessment of sustainable primary food production systems (both established andnovel) will have been achieved (2015).

3. To analyse and optimise sustainable biologicalproduction systems of food, feed, fuel, forestryand green chemistry including aspects oflandscape and quality of life issues.

Deliverable■ Sustainable management of man-nature sys-

tems for biological raw material production,including primary food production systemswill have been established (2020).


41

Key Challenges


3. To analyse purchasing motives, related to ethical convictions, of different consumergroups in different European regions.

Deliverable■ A quantified model of how (groups of) con-

sumers understand, value and behave inresponse to more sustainable food productsand production systems will have beendeveloped (2010).

4. To analyse dietary sustainability, develop andvalidate measures for quantifying the level ofsustainability of shopping baskets/food con-sumption patterns and understand consumerexpectations, attitudes and responsiveness tosustainable products, production systems andcorporate social responsibility.

Deliverables■ An enhanced consumer responsiveness to

sustainability in food products and food pro-duction systems will have been proposed(2015),

■ Future sustainable protein supply in theEuropean food production system will havebeen analysed and solutions proposed(2015).

5. To develop appropriate materials for educatingand informing stakeholders about sustainablefood production (to maximise consumer preference for products derived from sustainablefood production systems).

Deliverable■ Research will have lead to a more general

public acceptance and preference for foodfrom sustainable food production systems(2020).

Goal 5. Understanding consumersand their behaviour regarding sustainable food production

To succeed in the market, sustainable food pro-duction must meet consumer expectations andpreferences. But consumers need to be informedabout these other values of food. Food supplysystems have become global and agricultural pro-duction is increasingly striving for economic effi-ciency and reduction of pressure on resourcessuch as biodiversity, land, energy and water.

Consumers appreciate products originating fromall over the world all year round. A diet with forexample more meat exerts considerable pressureon resources, for animal husbandry and fisheriesuse disproportionate quantities of resources. Atpresent almost half the world's grain harvest ispresently fed to animals. Consumers are con-cerned by how far their food is transported andunder what conditions animals are kept or plantsare cultivated. There is also increasing consumerawareness about the ethical dimensions of foodproduction, including sustainability and this isinfluencing purchase decisions in the more affluent societies.

In view of the increasing complexities of foodchoices, research is needed into value-relatedpurchasing motives and into how sustainabilityand other food values can become one of thesemotives. Effectively harnessing multidisciplinaryresearch into the production of sustainable dietswill by itself be innovative and will also provide amodel for other areas of activity.


1. To analyse and monitor the sustainability ofemerging lifestyle trends (including food wastegeneration, energy and water use) and foodconsumption patterns.

Deliverable■ The influence of lifestyle trends on sustain-

ability of the food production system will beanalysed (2010).

2. To understand how consumers are prepared topay for, or deny themselves (e.g. in terms ofconvenience and taste), food products pro-duced in a sustainable manner, and howresponses differ between different consumergroups (according to gender, age, region,socio-economic grouping).

Deliverable■ The effect on consumer actions of future

socio-economical policy options of sustain-able food production will be known (2010).


42


ScopeThe food sector as a whole is faced with major chal-lenges that arise from changes in the sector's eco-nomic and non-economic environments, fromchanges in lifestyles, from global increases in foodconsumption, and from a diminishing productionbase due to, e.g., the loss of arable land or its diver-gence for non-food production alternatives.

The challenges cannot be met by any individualenterprise but require concerted actions and co-ordination of initiatives. Food Chain Management(FCM) provides support for the identification andrealisation of 'best' concepts for such actions andco-ordination needs. This support, in turn, providesenterprises with the means for improving their ownand the sector's competitiveness, sustainability andresponsibility towards the expectations of its cus-tomers and the society.

In meeting its challenges the sector needs to inno-vate in organisational relationships that reachbeyond innovations in process improvement bybuilding on the innovation potential inherent inenterprise networks and their flexibility inresponding to customers' and consumers' demands.There is an urgent need to adjust the trend towardsincreased process integration along the value chainto the organisation of a flexible and responsive network approach by utilising the potential of technological change, of information and commu-nication systems, and of institutional change.

Food Chain Management support is towards theactors that represent the food value chain, suppliers,primary producers, processors, manufactures, and retailers which have consumers as the finalcustomers. Its support can focus on operationalimprovements or on strategic development perspectives (Strategic Food Chain Management)that involve major investments and long-term com-mitments. A specific strategic development perspective concerns the investment in sector-wideinfrastructures such as electronic networks fortracking and tracing in food safety control. Suchinfrastructures could serve and benefit the sectoras a whole but are beyond the investment capabilityof any single group, especially if their benefitdepends on participation of a majority of enterprises,including SMEs which might take time to materialise. For the infrastructures to become feasible and to deliver the envisaged benefits notjust for enterprises and the industry but for societyas a whole the investment in conceptual design,organisational agreements, and financial responsibil-ities require complementary engagement of groupsfrom outside the value chain including research andpolicy, i.e. a Food Chain Management view that integrates policy and management initiatives alike.

Specific issues the food sector and its individualactors need to deal with for timely and appropri-ate response to the sector's challenges.

■ To adapt rapidly through changes in resourceuse, products, processes, services, and gover-nance structures to changing scenarios (mar-kets, policy, resource availability etc.) andtheir requirements within a sector organisationthat is difficult to co-ordinate as its enterpris-es are rarely confined to well-structured chain relationships with established communicationand co-ordination mechanisms but are usuallypart of an open enterprise network whereenterprises may change their suppliers andcustomers at will.

■ To overcome the sector's structural problemwith its large number of SMEs. Their ability toinnovate and interact successfully with thelarge and multinational enterprises, especiallyin agricultural supply industry and retail,depends on co-operation initiatives and theprovision of external co-ordination support.

■ To focus on changing consumer needs. Thesedepend on a continuous adaptation of newdevelopments in technology, production, management, communication, organisation orco-operation and on the establishment of trustbetween all stakeholders along the food valuechain including the consumer.

The challenge for Food Chain Management is tointegrate and balance the interests of all stake-holders, including enterprises, consumers, andsociety as a whole considering of all of the rele-vant factors for successful integration e.g. eco-nomic efficiency, environmental control, processorganisation, food safety, marketing or transac-tion rules, etc.

Four interrelated strategic research initiatives havebeen identified as decisive for the sector's ability to

Key Challenge 6: Managing the food chain


43

Key Challenges

Managing the food chain

meet its future challenges and to overcome itsinherent development problems. They focus onserving:

■ consumers through the provision of quality anddiversity in food they can afford and trust,

■ food chains through better transparency foradvancements in governance, trust, efficiency,and innovation dynamics,

■ SMEs through better integration into the globaland regional value chains, and

■ the sector through better understanding of thedynamics in those critical success factors thatwill improve competitive performance and sus-tainability in times of globalisation and change.

These initiatives involve a three-stage approach:

1. Analysis of external scenarios, the analysis of development needs and development oppor-tunities,

2. Identification (engineering) of problem solutionsthat could serve Food Chain Management initiatives, and

3. Estimation of costs and benefits for differentstakeholders including enterprises, consumers,and policy.

Because of the sector's complex enterprise infra-structure and the difficulties in reaching sectoragreements, pilot and demonstration activities arerequired to facilitate acceptance and implementa-tion (Figure 12).

ConsumerFood manufacturerFood systems

supplierApplied food technology

Third party foodingredient supplier

Food premixer

Food service

Food retailer

Animal geneticsprovider

Food industry co-products

Farm informationmanagement

Financial service /risk management

High value foodingredient / Traits

(plant biotech based)

Feed manufacturer

Feed supplementsupplier

Third party supplementsupplier

Mineralsupplier

Logisticsprovider

AgChem pro-ducer

Seed provider

Trait provider

Grain merchant

Farmer

Third party premixer/basemixer

Feed premixer /basemixer

Applied nutritionknowledge

MME producer /processor

Slaughter / processor

MME integrator

Oilseed crusher

Figure 12. The value chain: focus of Food Chain Management.

Goal 1. Serving consumer needsfor affordable food of quality anddiversity

The food sector faces three strategic develop-ments regarding its production base that putpressure on its capacity to innovate. They are: a)increasing demand for bio-energy, b) limits in theavailability of water and c) diminishing produc-tion resources (e.g. land for agricultural use).Furthermore, food production will be affected bypressure from a growing world population and thedesire for an increased consumption of meat.Possible changes in climate might aggravate theconsequences. At the same time, consumersexpect a steady increase in quality and in thediversity of food. Without innovations, con-

sumers' need for affordable food without compro-mises in quality, and which continues to retaintheir trust, cannot be served in the long run.

Consumers' perception of food quality is adynamic variable. It might focus on products,processes, process management or on manage-ment issues such as fairness in trade, workingconditions, environmental consciousness, or theorigin of products. Its understanding depends onlifestyles, cultures, etc. New types of efficientand responsive co-ordinated production, distribu-tion, and communication networks (logistics net-works) must emerge that can support thesechanging demands, taking into account varyingquality parameters, organisational conditions anddifferent requirements of market segments. Thismay include, e.g. new organisational structures


44


for flexible chain-encompassing distribution andlogistics systems that utilise advanced technolo-gies for communication, control, or tracking andtracing, developments in quality preservation,new packaging and processing technologies ororganisational innovations like parallel chainsthat could provide opportunities to better servethe needs of consumers.

Diversity in food is a strength of the Europeanfood system. This places the European food sector in a good position to further diversify e.g.in the production of tailor-made foods thatspecifically relate to people's age, health status,activity, or any other criteria. However, Europe'sstrength in food diversity is not yet adequatelyintegrated into the emerging global food system.New business-to-business relationships arerequired that are highly responsive to dynamicconsumer and market demands and at the sametime cost-effective. This poses challenges forinnovations in chain encompassing production,distribution and communication networks thatcan efficiently compete with classical systems incommodity markets.

The continuous provision of affordable qualityfood from a decreasing production base can besupported through process improvements involving,e.g. reductions in losses, delivery on demand toavoid over-supply (just-in-time), the efficientintegration of new technological developments(in, e.g., production, analytical methods, logistics, or communication) and through aninstitutional environment that supports success-ful adoption of different principal technologicaldevelopments. The analysis of 'best practice'experiences can serve as a basis for suitableprocess reorganisations and institutional infra-structures on which innovations in technology,manufacturing, organisation, and managementcan build.

Efficiency and flexibility are at the core of qualityassurance in scenarios with changing consumerdemands. Research on the identification of sepa-rable functions in production and trade and onthe standardisation of interactions allows the formulation of models for the re-bundling offunctions into new types of efficient, flexible, andresponsive logistics networks that could reducecurrent inefficiencies, lower costs and increasethe creation of value and product differentiation.New flexible enterprise relationships are requiredthat support the re-bundling of functions acrossenterprise borders for better serving changingconsumer needs (Figure 13).


1. To determine opportunities for innovations andimprovements in the organisation of processes(in production, logistics and management)along the value chain.

Deliverables■ Specification of 'best practice' process

organisation alternatives from productionagriculture to food deliveries at the retailstage (through, e.g. the reduction of waste)that will allow the potential for furtherimprovements to be identified (2010).

■ Specification of 'hot spots' in process organisations that will allow improvements inthe delivery of food through appropriatelyfocussed developments and innovations andthe elimination of development and innova-tion barriers in processes and institutionalenvironments (2013).

■ Specification of a priority 'landscape' for theinitiation of activities that reduce barriersand support process development, processinnovation, and institutional change (2015).

2. To analyse and model organisational networkalternatives that combine efficiency andresponsiveness to changing consumerdemands for quality and diversity.

Deliverables■ Identification and analytical analysis of

functions along the food value chain thatcould be separated for individual processoptimisation 'in their own right' together withthe specification of possible linkages withother functions for the creation of valuechains and the formulation of appropriatestandards for connectivity (2010).

■ Identification and analysis of 'best practice'experiences in the realisation of separablefunctions, of major weaknesses in thosefunctions that ask for developments andinnovation, and of regulations or barriers

ConsumerFood manufacturerApplied foodtechnology

Third party foodingredient supplier

Foodpremixer

Foodservice

Foodretailer

Farm informamanagemen

Financial srisk mana

H din ts

based)



Minera

Logisticsprovider

AgChem pro-ducer

Seed provider

Trait provider


emixer / Applied nutritionknowledge

Sla cessor

integrator

Oi

d systemssuppliergy

Third par

ationnt ri

(plant

Thirdsupplie

alsupplier

Farmer

Feed premixbasemixer

laughter / proce

MME i

Oilseed crusher

High value foodngredient / Trait

t biotech baant biote


Food industryco-products

service /gement

Feedmanufacturer

suppGrain

merchant

MME producer /processor

FoFoods

Figure 13. The improvement focus of Goal 1 for better serving consumers.

Logistics and Management


45

Key Challenges


from institutional, legal, cultural or any otherenvironment that might limit the efficientintegration of functions into value chains(2015).

■ Design of generic simulation and optimisa-tion models that support flexible adjust-ments of global production and logistics net-works in case of changing customer and con-sumer demands or in case of disruptions indeliveries or distribution networks (2020).

Goal 2. Serving transparency needsfor advancements in chain gover-nance, efficiency, innovationdynamics, and trust

Strategic advancements in the competitive strengthof food value chains and their adherence to society'svalues build on a number of critical success factors,of which 'appropriate' transparency, i.e. transparen-cy that fits the different needs of the various stake-holders stands out as decisive. Focussed informa-tion and communication concepts that serve thedifferent transparency needs are the key for the dissemination of knowledge, for innovation, for riskcontainment, for appropriate co-operation and co-ordination within the value chain, for appropriateintegration of SMEs in chain activities, and for theestablishment of trusted relationships betweenenterprises, consumers and the society.

Transparency follows the production and distribu-tions paths along the value chain. As such, it builds(and depends) on information infrastructures thatmonitor process activities and allow the trackingand tracing of products and services throughout thevalue chain. Transparency has a backward and aforward perspective depending on the stage of thevalue chain from where the value chain is looked at.For the consumer, transparency is based on a back-ward perspective. However, for enterprises it mighthave both, a backward and a forward perspective.In its risk containment strategies it might not onlywant to know the production history of its products

(backward perspective) but the distributional activities of its enterprise customers (forward perspective) to understand its potential risk in recallsituations, especially if consumers are involved.

The ability for tracking and tracing is a pre-conditionfor the identification of many other food qualityissues. Its implementation requires a consistent sys-tem approach that in order to be effective requires abroad acceptance by the food sector, including its SMEs. It involves sector agreements on many different issues, including content and format ofcommunication, data ownership, managementorganisation, system organisation, technology,access, rules, decision authority, etc. While systemsfor tracking and tracing are the basis for any furtherdevelopment of quality-based communication net-works, the dynamics of these innovations need to besupported by complementary quality communica-tion that allows the efficient exchange of informa-tion on quality innovations within the food valuechain and, eventually, with the consumer.

Transparency may be served through an institutionalenvironment that finds its expression in businessnorms, technology standards, communicationagreements, information networks, codes of prac-tice, legislative frameworks and societal rules. Totake food safety and quality as an example, itsunderstanding has many dimensions and might dif-fer between cultures, regions, or products or alongthe value chain. It might focus on products,processes, process management or on managementissues such as fairness in trade, working condi-tions, environmental consciousness, or the origin ofproducts. This makes co-ordination of trade relationships and harmonisation of policies, qualitysystems, standards, information networks and communication agreements a prerequisite fortransparency and balanced development.

Transparency along the value chain of enterpriserelationships and process activities needs to sup-port the objectives of the different actors in a variety of ways. This support includes e.g. improve-ments in efficiency or flexibility, the ability to deliver guarantees of various kinds, including guarantees for food quality, for food safety or forcontinuing deliveries in case of failures in foodsafety or quality, in risk control, and for the sus-tainable generation of trust. This wide array oftransparency needs shows the complexity and variability of transparency needs which need to beunderstood and integrated into a transparency mapwhich serves as a basis for the development ofappropriate transparency schemes and systems.

Limitations in actual implementations of sectortransparency together with dynamically changingneeds require the design and delivery of referencemodels for the establishment of flexible transparen-cy systems that match current transparency needs.They must be flexible to adapt to changing require-ments and sector infrastructures (Figure 14).

ConsumerFood manufacturerFood food

technology

d party foodingredient supplier

Foodpremixer

Foodservice

Foodretailer

Animal geneprovider

Foo industryco-products


rvice /risk management

High value foodingredient / Traiant biotech bas

manufacturer

eed supplementsupplier


Minerali

Logisticsprovider

AgChem pro-ducer

Seed provider

Trait provider

Grainmerchant


remixer /er


MME producprocesso

cessor

E integrator

Oils

Food systemssupplier

Third party

ationent r

(plant bi

Feed prembasemixer

proc

MME

Thsupp

alsupplier

G

Oilseed crusher

FarmerF

Financial servirisk manageme

n Financial servicrisk managemen

ont r

err

MM

cer

/

MME

/SlSlaughte

rer

eticsr

neticser

lietechn

sed)

edtechno

dtssed)

AppAppli)

Fe

FeedFeedF d

ood

anuf

Figure 14. The improvement focus of Goal 2 for better transparency.

Information/Communication Infrastructures


46



1. To understand and map tracking/tracing andtransparency needs of enterprises, chains, andconsumers (transparency needs).

Deliverables■ Identification and analysis of tracking and

tracing needs across enterprise and countryborders and specification of contents andstandardisation needs in content and commu-nication (2010).

■ Identification and analysis of 'best practice'transparency experiences (including thosewith local and regional scope) and the feasi-bility of transfer to the sector level (2013).

■ Identification and analysis of a 'transparencymap' that builds on tracking and tracing needsand capabilities, best practice experiences,and analytical approaches and specifies thedifferent layers of transparency needs relatedto the focus of transparency, the different cul-tures (countries), the different stages of thevalue chain, and the different consumergroups (2015).

2. To design reference models (blueprints) fortracking, tracing and transparency networksthat serve value chains and consumers (sys-tem design).

Deliverables■ Reference models (blueprints) for integrated

and flexible networks for tracking, tracing andfood quality transparency that serve differentuser groups and transparency needs, identifyorganisational, managerial, technological, andeconomic alternatives, outline flexible devel-opment paths and specify suitable informationsources (2015).

■ Reference models (blueprints) for flexiblemulti-layer transparency networks that buildon tracking, tracing and quality assuranceneeds but add transparency layers supportingchain efficiency, chain governance, and inno-vation dynamics (2020).

Goal 3. Serving SME needs for bet-ter integration into value chainrelationships

For SMEs, organisational and managerial integra-tion concepts are key issues for improving com-petitiveness given the complexity of food marketsnow and in the future. Food Chain Managementsupport builds on the identification of integrationneeds and barriers, and the initiation and manage-ment of integration initiatives and SME networks

that allow SMEs to participate in the food sector'sinnovation dynamics, and become an integral partof future food value chain developments on aregional and global level.

However, little is known about the integrationneeds that relate to different scenarios, valuechain organisations, regions, cultures, etc.Integration could focus on many different functionsas planning, quality management, research, logis-tics, knowledge, sales, procurement, informationmanagement, marketing, packaging, production,etc.

For SMEs, horizontal integration and the partici-pation in horizontal networks is usually the base onwhich efficient vertical integration can build.However, while horizontal integration couldstrengthen the ability of SMEs to become success-ful partners for vertical co-operation requirements,as, e.g. in quality improvement initiatives, the ability of SMEs to cope with the challenges of vertical integration may still differ. As a conse-quence, the food sector will need to develop differ-ent levels of integration, resulting in a segmenta-tion of markets with different levels of excellenceand regionalisation (local, national, or global).SMEs with lower levels of management excellencemight remain outside the emerging global foodchain developments and remain restricted to localor regional markets with different integration needsand barriers but also different needs for support.

Integration support initiatives require informationon what are the integration needs in various func-tions, their importance for different food chainscenarios, the possible levels of integration, andthe consequences for performance and innova-tion support. However, integration needs usuallyhave to face integration barriers, which preventedintegration in the past. There is a need to under-stand these barriers and how they might be overcome. This knowledge allows the develop-ment of reference models for the utilisation ofintegration opportunities and development pathsfor their realisation.

Integration needs to build on operational co-operation concepts that may involve manydetailed issues such as the organisation of internalinformation and communication systems, co-ordi-nation procedures for resource utilisation, integratedlogistics designs for vertical relationships, collabo-rative planning approaches, risk management procedures, etc. Research needs to identify andanalyse economically feasible SME co-operationoptions, which could support the most commonintegration needs. An evaluation of possible performance gains, and of the innovation potentialof co-operation alternatives, should allow realisticproposals to be formulated.

Innovation builds on knowledge, knowledge genera-tion, and knowledge exchange in networks.


47

Key Challenges


Innovation results from the combination of knowledge, the identification of suitable compre-hensive utilisation concepts (technology, informa-tion, management, logistics, marketing, etc.) andtheir realisation in the food sector environment.The challenge for research is the design of a knowledge concept that supports the generation ofinnovation and builds on knowledge about discoveries, new product developments, patents,new managerial concepts, new technologies, newcommunication potentials, etc. with potential rele-vance for food production and distribution (Figure 15).


1. To better understand integration needs and inte-gration barriers.

Deliverables■ Specification of horizontal and vertical

integration needs, of barriers for successfulrealisation and of opportunities for policy andthe institutional environment to facilitate inte-gration through a reduction or elimination ofbarriers (2010).

■ Specification of 'best practice' horizontal andvertical integration experiences with theirapproaches for overcoming barriers and therole of institutional environments (2013).

■ Specification of reference models (blueprints)for suitable organisational integration alterna-tives (and paths towards their realisation) thatbest cope with potential barriers and possibleinstitutional environments for different foodchain scenarios (products, regions, stage ofthe value chain, etc.), and for their integrationinto global or regional food chain activities(2015).

2. To model and deliver suitable approaches forfunctional co-operation (e.g. collaborativequality planning) in SME networks.

Deliverables■ Specification of 'best practice' functional co-

operation concepts (2015).

■ Specification of reference models (blueprints)for suitable and 'optimal' functional co-opera-tion alternatives (related to financial feasibility,transition costs, benefits, etc.) for differentintegration scenarios (e.g. institutional envi-ronment), different chain relationships(regional, global) and different regions andproduct lines (2020).

3. To model and support knowledge communitiesfor SME innovation support.

Deliverables■ Specification and mapping of SMEs' knowl-

edge needs and 'best practice' experiencesin knowledge exchange in global or regionalfood chain activities (2015).

■ Specification of reference models (blueprints)for knowledge generation and disseminationnetworks that identify sources of knowledge,requirements for their utilisation, and organi-sational, managerial and technological imple-mentation alternatives (2020).

Goal 4. Serving sector needs for better understanding the dynamics incritical success factors for competi-tive performance and sustainabilityin times of globalisation and change

Successful competitiveness and long-term sus-tainability depend on benefits exceeding costs.The indicators for their determination can vary intimes of change as can the critical success factorsfor performance and sustainability. This reducesthe competitive advantage of the established pro-duction and distribution organisation. A currentexample is the emergence of competitive bio-energy production.

Any improvements in food chain activities build onthe perceived anticipation of a positive balance ofbenefits over costs. However, there are differentperceptions and priorities for society (policy) andfor enterprises. From a society's point of view, benefits may involve monetary and non-monetaryelements. From an enterprise view the profitabilitymust be evident. This has consequences for sectordevelopments and enterprise activities. In princi-ple, enterprises have to focus on those critical success factors that improve their profitability.However, they cannot neglect society's view onbenefits and costs and the dynamics in society'sperformance indicators to remain sustainable inorder to avoid regulations and other limitations onan enterprises' decision flexibility. The considera-tion of society's views is, therefore, one of the criticalsuccess factors for the sector's sustainability in acompetitive environment.

ConsumerFood manufacturerFood

party foodingredient supplier

Foodpremixer

Foodservice

Foodretailer




a c a service /risk management

High value foodingredient / Tra

plant biotech ba

Feedmanufacturer



Minerasupplie

Logisticsprovider

AgChem pro-ducer

Seed provider

Trait provider

inhant


premixer /xer

lied nutritionknowledge

MME produceprocess

r

E integrator

Oilsee

ood systemssupplier

Third party fooingre

at oent

(plant

Feed prembasemixer

MME

sual

supplier

Oilseed crusher

Financial servic

Gramerc

formation

Farmer

Gra

Financial service

ach

nformaation

App

cesso

tegra

etics

cer /or

SlSlaughter / proc

M

Applk

or

ntegrat

netics

ucero

laughter /

MM

Applied foodtechnology

dtssed)

Thi

odaias

Thir

Figure 15. The improvement focus of Goal 3 for SME support.

SME Cooperation and Support


48


In determining their long-term development paths,enterprises and chains need to find a balancebetween improvements in their monetary benefit-cost balance to assure general competitiveness intheir markets, and society's consideration of thebenefit-cost balance to assure acceptance andsustainability. It will be essential to understand therelevance and dynamic developments in those critical success factors and indicators that determineperformance from the view point of enterprises,chains and society (Figure 16).

Comparative benchmarking studies within the foodsector, as well as across sectors, are required tounderstand the complex interdependenciesbetween chain organisation alternatives and theirperformance in economic and non-economic (e.g.quality, environmental consequences, etc.)aspects. Benchmarking research does focus on thebasic functions chain organisation alternativesbuild on and identify 'best practice' referencemodels, the critical success factors for success indifferent dimensions of interest (quality, environ-ment, etc.) and the related performance indicatorsfor their evaluation. Cross-sector benchmarkingstudies attempt to identify so-called 'best of class'examples for organisational functions irrespectiveof the products under consideration.

Results from benchmarking studies can be com-bined with modelling results and linked to per-formance indicators to produce performancemaps, which support evaluation of alternatives andthe decisions required for their realisation.


1. To understand and utilise success factors forfood value chain performance.

Deliverables■ Specification of a dynamic framework of

critical success factors and performanceindicators for performance evaluation of hor-izontal and vertical organisational alterna-tives in food value chains (2010).

■ Identification of 'best practice' referencemodels (blueprints) for value chain organisa-tion and development linked to different performance views (economic, non-economic,etc.) and their development over time(2013).

■ Specification of 'performance maps' that a)link performance indicators to organisationalalternatives and organisational developmentpaths derived from 'best practice' referencemodels as well as from reference modelsdetermined through modelling research andb) provide support for decisions on valuechain developments (2015).

ConsumersFoodFood manufacturernmanufacturernFoodd

logy

party foodoingredient supplier

Foodpremixer

Foodoservice

Foodretailer

nimal geneticsprovider


Farm informman

service /management

HighHigh valuevalue foodfoodingredient / Trai

plant biotech bas

Feedemanufacturera

Feed supplementpsupplier


Minerasupplie

Logisticssprovider

AgChem pro-ducer

Seed provider

Trait provider

Grainamerchantc


premixerm /xer


MME producer /processore

S essocessocessorr

E integrator

Oilsee

ood systemsysupplier

Third party fooingre

(plant

Gra

sual

supplier

Oilseed crusherFeed prem

basemixer

S c

MME

ddts

ucts

se

ddi

ucts

sApplied foodtechnology

sed)

dology

se

pliete

AAp

A

Ap

Anmmanagemen

Financial serrisk man

onent

m

F

FarmerF

g nf

agmaaf

agmaaor

geati

tformge

ationt

SlS ceSlaughterSlaughter // procprocS cesccSla occghter / pr

Figure 16. The improvement focus of Goal 4 for sustainable performance.

Performance: efficiency, environment, governance


49

Enabling Activities

Part III. Enabling Activities

In addition to the Key Challenges described inPart II there are a number of complementary andunderpinning activities that must be undertakenif ETP Food for Life is to deliver the anticipatedbenefits to stakeholders in an effective and timelymanner.

The European Commission has emphasisedrepeatedly the importance attached to the princi-ple of subsidiarity where a prime function ofEuropean research and training activities is tomore effectively co-ordinate the investment inresearch resources by individual EU MemberStates so as to:

■ avoid duplication and optimise synergy,

■ enhance the complementarity and added-value of national and European activities,

■ improve the skill base of European scientistsand technologists, and

■ provide an environment in Europe where inno-vation is promoted and embraced.

The activities presented below have been developedaccording to these criteria and may be divided into:

■ actions necessitating stakeholder involvement,

■ implementation of new networks involving thepublic and private sectors,

■ construction and exploitation of infrastructures,

■ underpinning activities required to optimise theoverall performance of the ETP, and

■ societal considerations.

Introduction

Communication

Background and opportunity:

Stimulating societal awareness on science andtechnology should focus on all stakeholders with adirect or indirect agenda on food issues and to thepublic at large. Sound information about the foodsector and its products will contribute to a morepositive attitude in society and, as a result, to sus-tained support to science and innovation.

In order to most effectively exploit the potential forinnovation in the food sector, a coherent communi-cation strategy must be developed, which embracesall stakeholders. This strategy must recognise thatthe nature and aims of communication with thesestakeholder groups will differ and that a singlecommunication channel will be ineffective.

The expectations and priorities of different stake-holders towards innovation and related R&Dactivities differ significantly. The priorities ofthese stakeholders, their requirements andshared interests must all be identified so thatconfidence and trust between all can be built andmaintained, especially that between industry, theresearch community and consumers. An effectivecommunication strategy must, therefore, createtrust and confidence. This will be an on-goingand long-term process and its ultimate impactwill depend upon the ETP being seen as an industry-led initiative that is open and trans-parent, and responsive to the needs and concernsof society.

The communication system of ETP Food for Lifemust ensure that all interested food businessesand other stakeholders obtain the necessary

Stakeholder involvement


50


information about the main trends and researchresults in a manner that is both fit for purpose andtimely, and in addition, receive encouragementand support for their innovation activities. It is vitalthat scientific advances in for example, the foodand health area can indeed be used to developnew products. This challenge is especially dauntingconsidering the limited resources and capacity forinformation absorption of most SMEs, and theirnecessary focus on shorter-term business results.

ETP Food for Life will support, and partly under-take, activities that will empower SMEs in differ-ent countries to obtain clear, concise and reliableinformation on trends, opportunities and researchresults in their respective areas of activity. Theseactivities, developed through the SME Task Force,will be undertaken through the communicationactivities of the ETP together with more focussed,national efforts exploiting the network of nationalfood platforms.

To address the current state of innovation in thefood and drink sector, ETP Food for Life mustestablish a regular and effective exchange betweenindustry and the research community to focus scientific efforts on the innovation needs of indus-try. This process requires scientists talking and lis-tening to industry, and vice versa, a real dialogue isneeded. ETP Food for Life will provide the basis forinformation, proposals for action and messages,but these will need to be amended to address localneeds and conveyed in the national language.

There is no single communication system that canachieve this goal. Effective communication acrossEurope and across stakeholder communities canonly be assured through a number of complemen-tary and integrated activities, covering Europe-wide, regional and national events. Best practicefrom one country or region should only be extendedafter demonstration of its effectiveness and/oradaptation for broader use. Subsidiarity considera-tions demand that the majority of initiatives beimplemented and funded at national level and beharmonised with, and integrated into, the specificactions of the national food platforms which willensure that exchanges of experience and bestpractices are effectively achieved.

The main messages for individual governmentsand policymakers must emphasise the importanceand opportunities of the food and drink sectoracross Europe, because of its:

■ creation of employment, both full- and part-time,

■ contribution to improving the quality of life,thereby delivering health benefits to society andreducing spiralling welfare and social costsassociated with ill health, and

■ generation of sustainable economic growththrough innovation.

To respond to these opportunities, the ETP Foodfor Life communication strategy will be imple-mented at three levels:

1. European wide initiatives, which are general in character and address food-related issues andinnovation within the context of the global economy and the positive effects of individualfoods and the overall diet on quality of life andpublic health. Such initiatives would be targetedat high-level representative bodies, such as theEuropean Parliament, individual Directorates ofthe European Commission, European FoodSafety Authority, regional associations for busi-nesses and entrepreneurs, food trade unions,consumers' associations. Effective communica-tion would also be established with Europeanassociations of professionals active in the sector,including scientists and technologists. The keyaim would be to communicate and explain theEuropean dimension of the ETP Food for Life.

2. National communication initiatives, which willbe identified and managed within the frame-work of the national food platforms since theseare better suited to the needs and expectationsof companies and consumer bodies. Measureswill be implemented to ensure that the corecontent of the SRA is most responsive to thecommunity of food businesses and that theirongoing needs are addressed. National bodiesrepresenting science and technology at nationallevel would be engaged via their involvement innational food platforms.

3. Subsidiary communication actions, which relateto specific issues (nutritional content of givenfoodstuffs, GMOs, differences in food safetyissues related to different types of products)and requiring a rapid response. Such communi-cation will need to be prepared and disseminat-ed on a case-by-case basis.

These initiatives include the following activities:

■ Consumer-oriented communication actions,which are aimed at securing a steady and con-tinuous relationship with the consumers viathe 'umbrella role' of the consumer associa-tions. It is also aimed at assuring an importantsocietal dialogue with governmental and non-governmental bodies with a direct or indirectagenda on food issues.

■ Company-oriented communication actions,which will serve to exchange reliable informa-tion and the use of appropriate communicationtechnologies including direct contact on thenational level. This will establish the ETP andthe national platforms as 'partners of trust'.


51

Enabling Activities

■ Researcher-oriented communication actions,which entail the establishment of measures tomotivate food researchers to see their work ina larger societal context, and where their success ultimately will be determined by theirability to understand and support the interestsof companies and consumers.

Goal:

To establish an effective dialogue with con-sumers, food businesses, researchers and otherstakeholders; to create a better awareness of theimportance of innovation in the food industry forbusiness success, competitiveness, enhancedquality of life and improved public health; toimprove the innovation culture in the researchcommunity and to improve mutual understanding,trust and respect between researchers and indus-try, and to establish new, efficient methods forstructuring of existing fragmented information toSMEs and make it available in an easily-under-standable format.

Scope:

■ promoting channels of communication anddiscussion among stakeholders in the wholefood chain (through seminars, technologydays, workgroups for technology evaluations,technology assessment, etc.),

■ encouraging effective national links betweenpolicy makers, scientists, technologists andfood and drink companies,

■ demonstrating the importance of R&D activi-ties, technology transfer initiatives andincreased training for the sector's workforce toreduce the vulnerability to competition of theEuropean food sector, especially SMEs,

■ establishing a web-based 'benchmarking facility'where companies can compare their experi-ences with providers of information, supportand training, providing encouragement of bestpractice,

■ stimulating and exploiting new methods andformats for the effective diffusion of awarenessfor consumers and the food producers,

■ optimising trust and confidence between allstakeholders.

Training


Training is one of the main tools for transfer of knowledge and a key component in increasingcompetitiveness. At a time of rapid advances intechnology and changing consumer demands, life-long learning will increasingly be needed through-out the whole professional career pathway.Although training is perceived by all actors in thefood sector as crucial to maintain the competitive-ness of companies, and such activities are organisedand promoted by the trade associations and acade-mia, the investment of the food industry in trainingfor its workforce is lower than is necessary and thisdeficiency is even more apparent within SMEs. Theproportion of companies employing internal orexternal training as a key component of a clearinnovation strategy is particularly low.

The training of a significant proportion of the work-force can be made more attractive to food compa-nies by exploiting innovative forms of trainingdeveloped over the last decade. Distance- and e-learning schemes are highly effective for deliveringvalue-for-money: they are flexible enough foremployees who have limited time and resources,and can be adjusted to the particular needs of thecompany concerned. Such courses can also lead toformalised expertise qualifications, which havebeen shown to be an added attraction to membersof a workforce. Finally, work-based learning rendersthe work environment more receptive to the futureuptake of innovation and development.

To increase the capacity for innovation develop-ment of food SMEs, their staff must be trained ininnovation management, skills to convert outputs ofcommercially viable R&D projects to new products,processes, services and business skills, includinginformation, knowledge and resource management.Evidence indicates that the majority of SMEs pre-fer to learn from each other, which suggests thatthe use of collective research activities that offerthe opportunity of learning through exchange of views with other industry personnel and with scientists should be promoted.

Recent experience of an approach using 'Techno-Science Mediators' (TSMs) have shown encouragingresults. TSMs are specifically-trained mediators,skilled in technology audit and communication andwho are able to increase innovation awareness within companies. This model may be seen to be apromising 'new frontier' in the link between thedemand from the companies, new efficient trainingformats and technology transfer programmes.However, via the benchmarking facilities its fitnessfor purpose will be continually compared with otherstructures to ensure an optimal supply of optionsfor the companies.


52


To secure a future to this triangle (company needs,training initiatives capable of serving the compa-nies, efficient and pervasive technology transfer),some meta-initiative can be useful. This objectivecan be achieved by networking the best availablepractices in Europe with the help of a new virtualorganisation that can (provisionally) be calledEuropean Foundation for Advanced Food Trainingand Technology Transfer (EFAFTTT). It will be aresource of skills and advice for the European sys-tem of food research and implementation commu-nities, which mixes company employees, scientistsand engineers. It will function as a Think Tank,combining the European Union's best competen-cies and the main task would be to exercise a co-ordinating and stimulating role on training andtechnology transfer practices in Europe. EFAFTTTwould secure a two-way dialogue with existing expe-rience and resources in diverse parts of Europe.

The network of national trainers co-ordinated viathe European Foundation for Advanced FoodTechnology Transfer and Training, will be responsi-ble for the training of internationally accreditedTechno-Science Mediators who at the national levelwill represent the link and dialogue between theneeds of food companies and the deliverables fromthe research community.

Goal:

To stimulate the development of effective training programmes to establish and maintainthe skills base for high quality and innovativefood production.

Scope:

■ building up a virtual organisation for creatingand diffusing new, quality-assured formats foreffective training linked to the innovationprocesses; this is the core task of theEuropean Foundation for Advanced FoodTraining and Technology Transfer,

■ developing and defining a training curriculumfor groups of specialised personnel, so-calledTechno-Science Mediators, to promote newtraining techniques closely associated withnational programmes of technology transfer,

■ elaborating on improved training methodsbased on best practices as documented fromthe companies' feedback and achievements,

■ ensuring that the training and technology transferprogrammes for industry and researchers areregularly updated and systematically extendedwith new research results,

■ stimulating and guiding national training initiatives.

Technology transfer


Technology transfer at its simplest is the conversionof existing knowledge into an appropriate format sothat it can be used by the industry to develop newproducts, processing and services. Because theEuropean food and drink industry has a clear needand high potential for innovation, a credible partnersupporting innovation and delivering its associatedsolutions should be the driver for its future success.Yet the reality is that the appropriateness of knowledge available from the research communityto industrial application is far from optimal and asubstantial variation can be observed between dif-ferent countries, regions and (receiving) companies.Large companies usually have specialised staff tomanage this activity, but SMEs need external help.

To deal with this situation it will be of crucial impor-tance to explore the effectiveness of existing models of technology transfer and potentials forimprovements. Within Europe, such models areavailable in, for example, Austria, Denmark,France, Norway, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlandsand the UK. Each possesses strengths and weak-nesses and all are designed for operation withintheir own cultural context. An evaluation of existingbest practice should be carried out, includinganalyses and further improvements of the feedbackobtained from benchmarking, with the aim ofdeveloping a generic model of practice capable ofadaptation at national and regional level.

Based on these activities, initiatives for theimprovement of technology transfer will belaunched. The introduction of the Techno-ScienceMediators will ensure successful technology transfer to support company-oriented innovationand the link to research.

Adapted to country specific needs, national foodplatforms will have the important role to act asnational technology transfer centres, being thepartner of trust for the food industry on site. Inaddition, these centres will close the trianglebetween consumers, research and innovationproviders and companies.

Goal:

To significantly enhance the innovation culture of the food and drink sector in Europe by identi-fying weaknesses, proposing solutions based onsound experience, and benchmarking results.

Scope:

■ developing and promoting appropriate measuresand mechanisms for technology transfer andtraining, including on-the-job options, basedon benchmarking,


53

Enabling Activities

■ developing R&D and industrial partnershipsfor training and technology transfer,

■ encouraging personnel transfer and exchangeat all levels of the food chain,

■ providing training and dissemination servicesto stakeholders in the agro-food sector.

SME 3 Task Force


The structure of the food and drink industry sectorin Europe and its relatively poor record for innova-tion require that measures be identified, developedand implemented for overcoming existing barriersto knowledge transfer amongst SMEs, and thateffective benchmarking of such measures isemployed on an ongoing basis. Experience and bestpractice from other sectors and from outsideEurope must be obtained and evaluated, andadapted for use in Europe.

Goal:

To develop recommendations for measures andactivities supporting the improvement of the

competitiveness of food SMEs by systematicallyidentifying, adapting and exploiting tailor-mademechanisms for enhancing the innovation capacities and capabilities of SMEs, increasingtheir participation in research and exploitation ofresearch results, and providing assistance andsupport in targeting efforts to achieve these aimsacross ETP Food for Life.

Scope:

■ identifying the hurdles and constraints ofintensive involvement of SMEs into the inno-vation process and participation in R&D programmes,

■ collecting best practices and successful modelsof innovation support and knowledge transfer,

■ providing assistance to national food platformsin consultations with national funding bodieson harmonisation, impact assessment and promoting participation of SMEs in innovationactivities,

■ exploring the possibility of the Risk-SharingFinance Facility to support projects.

(3) Given the nature of the food and drink industry sector, this term is used toinclude MSEs, medium-sized enterprises.

(4) Markets for new research and innovation intensive products/systems/solu-tions for which Europe can provide the initial marketplace and European busi-nesses have the potential to become global leaders. Putting Knowledge intoPractice: A broad-based Innovation Strategy for Europe, COM (2006)502,13/9/06.

EC-oriented activities

Lead markets 4


The European Commission's initiative on LeadMarkets will be developed through a series ofpilot actions. ETP Food for Life has respondedpositively to the initial consultation and will seekopportunities to develop and promote thisapproach within the European agro-food sector.

Goal:

To identify, facilitate and promote areas ofresearch and related activities that are recognisedas being of crucial importance to the creation ofnew international markets, or the maintenance ofexisting markets, and ensure future EU competi-tiveness.

Scope:

■ dentifying areas of research where the EU hasparticular strengths and where increased andfocussed investment would create exploitationopportunities within a reasonable time scale,

■ identifying strategic areas in the EU whereinsufficient funding investment is limitingprogress for future exploitation opportunities,

■ highlighting organisational, structural and regulatory issues that constrain efficiencyimprovements and are likely to impede futurecompetitiveness.

Actions towards implementation


54


ERA-NETs and MirrorGroup5


The funding of research and training activities bythe European Commission represents only around7% of the total figure, the remainder being pro-vided by individual EU Member States, COST,ESF, EFSA, etc. A key ETP deliverable is to moreeffectively integrate public and private financing(this will be presented within the ImplementationPlan) so as to minimise duplication and optimisetrans-national opportunities for value addition.

Currently the only ERA-NET that is directly rele-vant to ETP Food for Life is that addressing foodsafety6, which has been in operation for severalyears and, therefore, offers a model relevant toother areas of activity. It is proposed to build onthe experience available from this network andthe contacts that have been established betweennational funding bodies, in order to make a con-vincing case to the European Commission forfuture ERA-NETs to be established in the areasof:

■ Food, Nutrition and Health, and

■ Sustainable Food Production and Food ChainManagement.

Should these arguments be accepted, ETP Foodfor Life will work with interested parties to developthe most effective proposals and will establish aclose, and mutually-beneficial, dialogue.

The Mirror Group is a network of national publicsector bodies funding agro-food research; its aimwill be to exchange information on the targets ofstrategic funding, outcomes of non-confidentialprojects and best practice; to identify and min-imise duplications of effort; to identify opportu-nities for developing a common funding agenda,and to manage the resulting programme ofresearch so as to gain the greatest added-valuefrom integration with funding from the EuropeanCommission, industry and other sources7.

Goal:

To establish and support an active network of representatives of national food platforms tofacilitate two-way communication between theseand the ETP, promote trans-national contactsbetween stakeholder communities, develop anddisseminate best practices, identify commonopportunities and challenges at regional level,facilitate the creation of an effective Mirror Groupand promote the benefits of specific food-relatedERA-NETs.

Scope:

■ responding to opportunities for ERA-NET andERA-NET Plus formation and identifying andpromoting topics suitable for future ERA-NETs,

■ working with existing and future ERA-NETs orERA-NET Plus.

■ inputting into discussions on the updating anddevelopment of the Implementation Plan andcollating information on national funding foragro-food research,

■ presenting information on national food strate-gies, national best practices and disseminatingsummarised results of completed projects,

■ integrating and co-ordinating ETP activitieswith local, national or regional initiatives andactivities in the agro-food sector.

European Institute ofTechnology


The European Institute of Technology (EIT)8, hasbeen proposed by the European Commission as ameans to promote knowledge transfer and innova-tion by establishing a critical mass of excellence;integrating the individual elements of the Triangleof Knowledge (education, research and innovation);developing a pole of attraction for the world's besttalents; providing a catalyst for change acrossEurope and creating and promoting a EuropeanEducation and Research Area.

Whilst specific details of the EIT are still to befinalised, Knowledge and Innovation Communities9

(KICs) have been proposed as mechanisms bywhich strategic operational activity, performanceand integration of innovation, and research andeducation activities will be delivered.

(5) ERA-NETs are networks, which bring together representatives of nationalfunding bodies to discuss the detail of national funding programmes andstrategies, share results and best practices, identify potential overlaps and, inthe longer term, open up national funding to international competition (ERA-NET Plus actions). Taken together, their objective is to develop andstrengthen the co-ordination of public research programmes conducted atnational and regional level. Details to be found at http://cordis.europa.eu/co-ordination/fp7.htm.

(6) http://wwwsafefoodera.net.

(7) Terms of reference for the Mirror Group of the ETP Food for Life, seehttp://etp.ciaa.eu.

(8) The current (July 2007) vision of the EIT foresees, by 2015, 10 KICs, 4000-5000 scientists, 6000 Masters students, 4000 PhD students and an annualbudget of €1.5-2 billion.

(9) Knowledge and Innovation Communities are joint ventures of partner organ-isations selected by the EIT to carry out at the highest level an integrated pro-gramme of education, research and innovation activities in a specific field.


55

Enabling Activities

The size, national or regional importance and glob-al competitiveness of the food and drink industrymake a compelling case for a KIC on FoodTechnology and Health. It will be necessary forstakeholders to agree and promote the require-ments for such a KIC in order that appropriately-qualified personnel are in place at the earliestopportunity to address the challenges identified inthis SRA.

Goal:

To ensure that a convincing case is made for afood-related KIC. The barriers to effective inte-gration of education, research and innovation willbe identified and cost-effective means of over-coming these will be identified and built into abusiness model, including tangible indicators ofsuccess.

Scope:

■ planning a structured programme of activities,and a supervisory group, to identify barriers toeffective integration of education, researchand innovation and produce an organisationaland business case to overcome these,

■ consulting with stakeholders on the trainingand career development requirements for avibrant and innovative food and drink sector,

■ identifying and ensuring opportunities for syner-gy and added value between the ImplementationPlans for the ETP and the KIC.

Links with the new generation of researcher,technologist and entrepreneur


Europe must match its promotion of knowledgetransfer by stimulating societal awareness in science and technology. In this way society will bepositively engaged and an environment created inEurope for durable, well-paid career developmentin food and related sciences and technologies.This environment, the European Research Area,ERA, will provide challenging opportunities forEurope's young people and attract the most ableyoung scientists to Europe. ETP Food for Life has recently responded to the policy proposalsregarding the ERA, which were included in theEuropean Commission's Green Paper10.

A new generation of European scientists is neededwho are not only familiar with the most recentscientific and technological skills, but are also

aware of the wider industrial and societal contextof their activities and who are, in addition, goodcommunicators, able to work within and extendthe ERA, capable of enthusing their peers and fullyresponsive to the trans-national, trans-disciplinary,trans-sectoral nature of 21st century science.

ETP Food for Life will work closely with profes-sional bodies to promote and underpin the qualityof those engaging in European food science andtechnology. Training and career developmentactivities are assuming a greater and broaderimportance within national and trans-nationalprojects and networks, and new career opportunitiesin managing trans-national R&D projects, disseminating their outcomes and optimisingknowledge transfer to industry demand well-trained and enthusiastic personnel.

It is crucial that account be taken of the concernsand interests of the young people that will formthe new generations of scientists working inindustry and academia who will deliver the bene-fits foreseen in this SRA. Links will be estab-lished with networks of young researchers,through professional bodies such as EFFoST andEuChemMS11, and early-stage researcher net-works such as Young-Train12 having interests inthe agro-food sector to:

■ promote and encourage young people withinthe food chain area,

■ acquit them to most efficiently respond toEurope's future challenges and opportunities,and

■ ensure that they are effective partners in, andbeneficiaries of, Europe's knowledge-basedbio-economy.

Goal:

To ensure that the opinions and concerns of thenext generation of Europe's agro-food professionalsare reflected in the activities of ETP Food forLife.

Scope:

■ developing effective networks with nationaland regional networks of young professionals,

■ encouraging young professionals to consideran entrepreneurial career,

■ promoting the activities of Europe's young foodprofessionals.

(10) Green Paper: The European Research Area: New Perspectives, COM (2007)161final 4.4.2007.

(11) European Federation of Food Science and Technology and EuropeanAssociation of Chemical and Molecular Sciences, respectively.

(12) http://www.young-train.net.


56


ETP-driven activities

National Food PlatformsBackground and opportunity:

In addition to delivering inputs that haveinformed this SRA, the consultations on theSSRA held between April 2006 and January2007 have resulted in national food platformsbeing initiated in almost all European countriesas well as Russia, Ukraine and Israel13. Addedbenefits will be gained by their active networking.An initial meeting of this network has been heldand priority issues identified. National platformswill provide a fast-track mechanism for linksbetween the ETP and national stakeholders.

Goal:

To establish and support an active network of representatives of national food platforms tofacilitate two-way communication between theseand the ETP, promote trans-national contactsbetween stakeholder communities, and developand disseminate best practices, identify commonopportunities and challenges at regional level.

Scope:

■ promoting the activities of and benefits fromnational food platforms so as to encouragetheir formation in additional countries,

■ developing agreed best practice to be used as a model to assist the formation of newnational platforms,

■ obtaining national feedback so as to betterfocus and target ETP proposals, positionpapers, etc.,

■ establishing and maintaining a regular nationaldialogue between the food industry, theresearch community and other stakeholders,

■ identifying and exploiting regional issues,

■ enhancing technology transfer with emphasison SMEs,

■ promoting, organising and conducting pre-competitive research projects.

Public-private partner-ships and financing Background and opportunity:

Central to the concept of ETPs is the need toeffectively encourage public and private invest-ments in R&D and innovation and to respondmost effectively to opportunities provided by theEuropean Investment Bank (EIB) and, specifically,to exploit the Risk Sharing Finance Facility(RSSF), newly introduced by the EuropeanCommission and the EIB.

Quantitative estimates of the financial needsrequired to deliver the SRA will be set out in theforthcoming Implementation Plan; however, it isalready evident that wide-ranging contributions(for example, from EUREKA and EU StructuralFunds) will be needed to support an industry sector composed overwhelmingly of SMEs. Theexperience and best practice of other ETPs willprovide a necessary input in optimising overallfinancing. A workshop bringing together repre-sentatives of public-private partnerships in thefood and health area was organised in January2007 and its outputs will feed into the ongoingdiscussion.

Goal:

To develop EU-wide networks of significant public-private partnerships in the food and nutri-tion area.

Scope:

■ providing and promoting examples of bestpractices of public-private partnerships,

■ optimising interactions between public-privatepartnerships,

■ increasing the scale of public-private partnershipoperations via strategic alliances, collaborationsand joint funding initiatives,

■ providing a EU dimension to public-privatepartnerships.

(13) A list of these, with contact details is presented in Annex 2.


57

Enabling Activities

Building research infra-structures and enablingtechnologies


There is a pressing need to invest more in healthand nutrition research infrastructures and todevelop enabling technologies if Europe is toremain a global centre of excellence for nutritionresearch. Breakthroughs will be created by sharingideas across disciplines and sectors, exploitingbest practices and databanks, and establishingstructured and effective processes to build trustand consensus across national borders. Theanticipated outcomes will include the develop-ment of more effective nutritional interventionsand dietary recommendations, and the develop-ment of more rigorous approaches to risk-benefitanalyses, which will address nutritional as well astoxicological issues.

Goal:

To ensure investment in health and nutritionresearch infrastructures and to develop enablingtechnologies required to carry out high qualityresearch in Europe.

Scope:

Investment should be targeted at:

■ establishing a European Nutrition ResearchCouncil, which would bring together diverseresearch strengths across European research.A key objective would be to best integrate thehumanities and social sciences. The EuropeanNutrition Research Council could lead to a virtual European Nutrition Institute.

■ fostering cross-disciplinary research centres,which would address the need for:

• integration and collaboration (includingpublic-private partnerships),

• multidisciplinary approaches,

• dietary surveys across Europe,

• models of risk-benefit analyses of foods of,in particular, innovative products.

Particular support should be given to foodresearch institutions in the newer Member Statesand Candidate Countries so as to build true inter-disciplinary relationships, develop critical mass,and improve their management structures. Thislatter could be achieved by building on the existingco-operation and twinning initiatives of theFOODforce network of publicly-funded Europeanfood research centres.

■ developing, maintaining and exploiting facilities(including databases, biobanks, standardisedprotocols, research networks devoted to datahandling, imaging and metabolomics, and aEuropean stable isotope standard repository formetabolic nutrition studies). Nutrition research,like all biological sciences, provides a wealth ofdata and results; this is partly driven by the'omics' revolution and systems biologyapproach, and partly by the availability of ITinfrastructures. However, there is a danger thatinappropriate analysis of the very large datasetsemerging from such research will obscure keyassociations and, thereby, limit opportunities tooptimally profit from these developments. Toaddress such a possibility a number of keyobjectives must be addressed, such as:

• ensuring an optimal availability andexchange of relevant data, results and infor-mation through dedicated formats, stan-dards, IT-infrastructures and protocols,

• closely interacting with mainstream organi-sations, primarily the EuropeanBioinformatics Institute, to optimise usageof generic developments and data,

• facilitating the application of 'omics' toolsthat will be required to study the biologicaleffects of food components, and to under-stand their optimal levels of intake,

• establishing and maintaining relevant data-bases and knowledge networks targeted atthe needs of nutrition research, including anutritional phenotype database, a nutritionalmetabolomics database, a gene-diet inter-action database, and a whole body imagingphenotype database,

• facilitating, co-ordinating and promotingthe development of dedicated bioinformaticssolutions for nutrition research,

• providing training in these areas in order tofacilitate optimal implementation byEuropean scientists.

To address these objectives, there should be closecontacts with the European NutrigenomicsOrganisation, which was established in 2004 toproduce a sustainability model for these purposes.

Required infrastructures


58


■ fostering prospective cohort studies and buildingthem into public nutritional databases. TheEuropean Prospective Investigation of Cancer(EPIC) study, which is supported by Europeanand national funds, involves collecting data onfood consumption data and as well blood sam-ples and physical data of over half a millionpeople in ten European countries. By studyingvery many people in different countries withvarying diets, using carefully-designed and validated questionnaires, EPIC should producemuch more specific information about theeffect of diet on long-term health than waspreviously possible.

This 'virtual' centre of food epidemiologyneeds to be broadened to reflect an interest inall issues in relation to diet and health, notjust cancer. Links to the European ClinicalResearch Infrastructure Network (ECRIN)would be beneficial, especially if a commonnetwork emerged on which to build a specialistfocus on diet and health issues. Such a facility would require a long-term financialsupport.

■ exploiting standardised and updatedEuropean food tables. The investment inEuroFIR, an FP6 Network of Excellence,which seeks to build a global food composi-tion information system must be continued.Accurate and complete food composition dataensure the correct assessment and validationof safe and healthy foods. Researchers andindustry have to rely on authoritative foodcomposition databases to comply with regula-tory demands and to have a reasonable basisfor further food development. Such sourcesneed to be maintained and developed furtherand an improved access to the relevant datacreated. This will make an essential contribu-tion to a positive development of the food sec-tor towards novel and/or healthy food choicesor constituents with putative health benefits.

EuroFIR has developed a BASIS databank onboth the composition and biological effects ofnon-nutrient bioactive compounds with puta-tive health benefits, which is a uniqueresource for Europe and should be maintainedand updated continuously. An expansion ofthe work should also address additional objec-tives, such as:

• harmonising standardised European fooddatabank systems, linked through the inter-net and maintained at the European level,

• promoting the standard for exchange ofnutritional composition data in food ingre-dients and composite recipes as a newEuropean Standard,

• adoption of certified processes and proto-cols for increased data quality on food databy national compilers in all EU countries,

• linkage of food databank systems with foodintakes and epidemiology databases (thesame should apply to consumer behaviour,including that of minority populations,regarding selection of foods that use bioac-tive compounds),

• expanding the classification of Europeanfoods and using LanguaL (a food descrip-tion system) to ensure international har-monisation,

• linking food nutritional information withdata on origine, post-harvest treatment andprocessing,

• linking European food databank systemsand methodology of measurement with similar databases in other countries, espe-cially those that export substantial quantitiesof major foodstuffs to Europe.

■ initiating scenario studies. These studies,also described as foresight studies, providechallenging visions of the future to ensure theeffective targeting and focussing of researchstrategies by providing evidence to informactions by governments, business and acade-mia. They focus around key issues where scientific research is expected to providesolutions to a problem and ask feasible 'whatif' questions. In addition they frequentlyaddress the policy framework that will beneeded for a successful outcome, and theirresults will inform policy development

Education


A striking feature of food and nutrition researchis its multi-disciplinary nature. A successfulimplementation and outcome for researchinvestment demands an effective interaction ofthe physical, biological and social sciences. Thisposes unique challenges since the skillsrequired cross traditional academic boundaries.For this reason education of the young in thechallenges, opportunities and excitement of acareer in the food sector is crucial. In addition,there will be a continuing requirement to retainthose employed in the food and drink industriesto better support innovation and exploit knowledge transfer.

Another feature of the majority of the foodresearch institutions in Europe is their focus onthe characterisation of food materials and con-stituents, and their quantification. The vastmajority of such institutions are unable to provideall of the skills necessary in a single institution.This is an excellent argument in support of trans-national co-operation and of the EuropeanResearch Area itself. There is a general lack of


59

Enabling Activities

skilled input from clinical scientists, molecularbiologists, nutritionists, toxicologists and socialscientists and for diet and health-related worktheir input is essential.

The ETP Food for Life welcomes training initia-tives14 focussed around the skill areas that arejudged to be weak in Europe. A particular priority in this regard is the need to train scientiststo be effective communicators with other stake-holders, including industry and consumers.Attention to these aspects should be given in thecurricula of the education of scientists in thefood sector. In addition there is a dearth of properly trained and equipped young people totake advantage of the opportunities for projectmanagement within FP7. Finally, Europe needsto train, identify and support young entrepre-neurs who will be key to Europe's vision of inno-vation, and who will be to the fore in deliveringthe benefits of the European Research Area toindustry and society.

Goal:

To ensure the availability of work force in the foodsector in the future.

Scope:

■ attracting young people to choose a career inthe food sector,

■ improving the innovation culture and aware-ness and including food and nutritionalaspects into curricula of the scientist educa-tion in the food sector,

■ developing skills for communication with otherstakeholders.

Links with other ETPs


The importance of cross-platform interactions as ameans of raising awareness and efficient overallstructuring has been emphasised in the ThirdStatus Report of European Technology Platforms(EUR 22706; March 2007). A number of ETPswith interests complementing those of ETP Foodfor Life have been established within theKnowledge-based Bio-economy (KBBE) area15. ETPFood for Life will support measures to bring togetherrepresentatives of these ETPs to discuss commonissues, share knowledge and exchange best practice. Such meetings allow participants toshare a common position and promote a commoncause, for example, in approaches to the EuropeanCommission and the European Parliament.

In addition to KBBE ETPs, there are others16, whichmay have some relevance to ETP Food for Life,such as Future Manufacturing Technologies(MANUFUTURE); Water Supply and SanitationTechnology Platform (WSSTP); NanoMedicine; andthe Innovative Medicines Initiative (InnoMed).

One issue common to all ETPs is the need toexploit optimally public-private funding partner-

ships. As is evident from Part II, the food andhealth sector has a very significant interface withthe pharmaceutical sector; these sectors sharecommon interests in topics such as risk-benefitanalysis, the exploitation of nanotechnology and'omic' technologies, nano-manufacture and thesafety of nano-particles. In addition, food researchhas produced a plethora of information about col-loids and gels having relevance to targeted deliveryof pharmaceuticals.

A joint workshop will be organised in 2008 that willbring together leading figures from the food andpharma sectors to discuss such common interestsand available knowledge, and to identify the mosteffective mechanisms for ongoing knowledge trans-fer and co-operation. This activity provides a focusfor links with ETP Nanomedicine and theInnovative Medicines Initiative17.

Supporting activities

(14) The current draft of call 2B (2008) of the Food, Agriculture and Fisheries,and Biotechnology pillar of the FP7 Co-operation pillar includes a calladdressing the requirements for food researchers of the future. Fisheries, andBiotechnology pillar of the FP7 Co-operation pillar includes a call addressingthe requirements for food researchers of the future.

(15) These are Plants for the Future, Global Animal Health, Farm AnimalBreeding and Reproduction, the Industrial Biotechnology component ofSustainable Chemistry, Forestry, Biofuels and Aquaculture.

(16) Information on individual ETPs: http://etp.ciaa.eu/asp/nat_food_platforms/nat_foodplatforms.asp.

(17) The Innovative Medicines Initiative is a candidate for a Joint TechnologyInitiative, JTI, based on Article 171 of the EC Treaty.


60


Goal:

To identify cross-platform issues with KBBE andother ETPs, agree common strategies and sharebest practices.

Scope:

■ participating in KBBE ETP meetings,

■ establishing bilateral links with ETPs havingcommon interests,

■ identifying best practices in working together,

■ establishing and exploiting a network of ETPHorizontal Activity/Issue Groups.

Links with FoodNational Contact Points(NCPs)


During the recent process of national consulta-tions, the ETP engaged with a number of FP6and FP7 National Contact Points, a number ofwhich are involved in the ongoing activities ofnational food platforms. There is a mutual benefitin such co-operation, affording effective nationalcommunication channels to the ETP, andenabling NCP personnel to be better informedabout the programme of the ETP.

Call 2A of the Food, Agriculture, Fisheries andForestry, and Biotechnology theme of the Co-operation pillar includes the opportunity toestablish a trans-national network of KBBENCPs. ETP Food for Life will seek to be active-ly involved, using its own funding, to facilitatecommunication and information exchange. Thiswill assist the ETP in developing effective linksin countries that have not established nationalfood platforms and with countries outsideEurope.

Goal:

To promote the activities of the European foodand drink industry sector and support nationalactivities in the KBBE area.

Scope:

■ establishing effective contacts with KBBENCPs,

■ facilitating links between NCPs and nationalfood platforms.

Links outside theEurope Union


The ETP's Regional Consultation Meeting forCentral and Eastern European Countries co-spon-sored by the Central European Initiative (CEI)involved EU Member States (Austria, CzechRepublic, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia andSlovenia), Candidate Countries (Bulgaria, Croatiaand Romania), Belarus and Ukraine. Russia hasestablished a number of national technology platforms, including one on addressing food.

Establishing links with countries on the peripheryof the current European Union (CEI and EuropeanNeighbourhood States) are necessary because overthe next 15-20 years it is likely that many of thesewill develop closer economic and political linkswith the European Union. The anticipated shift ofsignificant primary production eastward will have asignificant impact on activities designed to promote sustainable production and effectivelymanage and regulate these longer and more com-plex food chains.

Given the extent of global competition, ETP Foodfor Life must be outward-looking to most effective-ly capture and exploit new developments and activities within its global competitors. The ulti-mate rationale of the ETP is to address theEuropean Paradox, whereby the continent's basicresearch is the equal or better of that anywhere inthe world but it largely fails in its ability to transferthis knowledge effectively to industry for the development of new products and services that willbenefit the local and regional economy, and society.

The ETP must take account of countries andregions where such knowledge transfer is muchmore efficient so as to identify key elements of theinnovation process, adapt these (as appropriate)and transfer them to the European environment.One such country is New Zealand, which has ahighly innovative and, hence, successful dairy andmeat sector.

Goal:

To ensure that ETP Food for Life is best placedto capture global best practice, identify potentiallead markets and establish mutually-beneficialrelations.

Scope:

■ engaging in science-led discussions on regu-latory, standardisation and other issues,

■ exchanging of experience,

■ identifying and sourcing strategic researchneeds.


61

Enabling Activities

Gender


Women continue to be under-represented in manyareas of European science and technology. Whilstthe situation in the food and health area is betterthan some others, women are not well representedin positions of responsibility in the academic andindustry sectors of the food and drink area. The vastmajority of Europe's entrepreneurs are men. There isa pressing need to ensure real equal opportunities formen and women in national labour markets and ETPFood for Life will work with other organisations toattract the best young people into research andentrepreneurial activities, remove barriers to women(reconciling the demands of professional, private andfamily life) and promote gender issues as a key totranslating the vision of the European Research Areainto a reality for all.

Goal:

To identify and promote areas and activities wheregender aspects have a key role to play and to raiseawareness of the importance of gender issues within the ETP.

Scope:

■ disseminating the importance of gender equalityand other issues at national level, throughnational food platforms and other channels,

■ ensuring that gender issues are effectivelyaddressed in all activities initiated by ETP Foodfor Life.

Ethics


There is a very strong ethical framework to theactivities of ETP Food for Life, which extendsbeyond the issues of innovative technologies andgrowing public concern for sustainability and ethical production. Together with ETPs and organ-isations addressing ethical issues across theplant, food and pharmaceutical areas, ETP Foodfor Life will support and promote broad publicdebates at national and regional level and ensurethat young researchers, in particular, are madeaware of the wider, ethical context of agro-foodproduction. In these activities the ETP will demon-strate and promote the importance of an ethical inputinto planning and execution of research, therebycontributing to the necessary interaction betweenscience, technology and the humanities.

Goal:

To develop, promote and monitor an ethicalframework for activities conducted by ETP Foodfor Life and to facilitate engagement betweenETP Food for Life, national food platforms andcivil society organisations.

Scope:

■ promoting the engagement of civil societybodies within ETP Food for Life and nationalfood platforms,

■ ensuring that society has a greater role indetermining the agenda of research (society-driven research),

■ promoting an ethical framework for Europeanresearchers, engineers and industry,

■ supporting activities leading to a reduction orelimination of the use of animal testing.

Societal considerations


62


Annexes

The ETP Food for Life Board

Chair

Professor Peter van Bladeren; Vice-President for Research, Nestlé (CH)

Treasury & Secretariat

Until 1 July 2007: Ms Daniela Israelachwili, General Director of CIAA(BE)

From 1 July 2007: Ms Mella Frewen, General Director of CIAA (BE)

Dr Virginie Rimbert, CIAA Manager, ETP Secratariat (BE)

Members

Dr Didier Bonnet, Director of Cargill European Technology Centre (FR)

Ms Kelly Duffin-Maxwell, Vice-President for R&D, Kraft Foods (DE)

Professor Michael Gibney, University of Dublin (IE)

Dr Jürgen Kohnke, President of FEI (DE)

Dr Jan Maat, Chairman Operational Committee (NL)

Professor Brian McKenna, President of EFFoST (IE)

Dr Lisbeth Munksgaard, Director of the Centre for Advanced FoodStudies (DK)

Dr Hans Elbek Pedersen, Vice-President of Danisco A/S (DK)

Mr Daniele Rossi, General Director of Federalimentari, Italy (IT)

Dr Alphons Schmid, Chairman of Food Policy Committee,Eurocommerce (NL)

Mr Pekka Pesonen, Secretary General, Copa-Cogeca (BE)

Dr Andras Sébok, General Manager, Campden & Chorleywood Hungary(HU)

Professor David White, Chairman of FOODforce & Director of theInstitute of Food Research, Norwich (UK)

Advisors

Dr Herman Koeter, Acting Executive Director, EFSA (IT)

Mr Jim Murray, Director, BEUC (BE)

Guests

Dr Christian Patermann, Programme Director Biotechnology,Agricultureand Food Research, DG Research, European Commission (BE)

Dr Paola Testori, Director DG Sanco, European Commission (BE)

Annex 1. ETP Food for Life Board, OperationalCommittee, Working Groups and Editing Team

The ETP Food for Life Operational Committee

Chair

Dr Jan Maat, Unilever, Vlaardingen (NL)

Members

Dr Michele Contel, Progetto Europa PE, Rome (IT)

Professor Roger Fenwick, Institute of Food Research, Norwich (UK)

Dr Harmen Hofstra, SAFE Consortium, Brussels (BE)

Professor Dietrich Knorr, University of Technology, Berlin (DE)

Professor Thomas Ohlsson, SIK, Gothenberg (SE)

Professor Wim Saris, DSM Delft & University Maastricht (NL)

Professor Gerhard Schiefer, University of Bonn (DE)

Professor Hans van Trijp,Wageningen University & Unilever, Vlaardingen(NL)

Professor Willem M. de Vos, TI Food & Nutrition, Wageningen andHelsinki University (NL/FI)

ETP Food for Life Working Groups

Food and Consumer

Chair

Professor Hans van Trijp,Wageningen University & Unilever, Vlaardingen(NL)

Facilitator

Ms Beate Kettlitz, CIAA, Brussels (BE), [email protected]

Members

Ms Maria Alvado, Madrid (ES)

Dr George Chryssochoides, Agricultural University of Athens (GR)

Ms Laura Fernandez/Ms Laura Smillie, Brussels (BE)

Ms Barbara Gallani, Brussels (BE) - observer

Professor Klaus Grunert, School of Business, Aarhus (DK)

Dr Peter Leathwood, Nestlé, Lausanne (CH)

Ms Noëlle Vontron, EuroCommerce, Brussels (BE)


63

Annexes

Food and Health

Chair

Professor Wim Saris, DSM Delft & University Maastricht (NL)

Facilitator

Dr Jacqueline Castenmiller, Food and Consumer Product SafetyAuthority (NL), [email protected]

Members

Professor Nils-Georg Asp, University of Lund (SE)

Professor Robert-Jan Brummer, Wageningen Centre for Food Sciences& University Maastricht (NL)

Dr Irene Corthesy, Nestlé Research Centre, Lausanne (CH)

Professor Hannelore Daniel, Technical University of Munich (DE)

Dr Beatrice Darcy-Vrillon, INRA, Paris (FR)

Dr Gerd Harzer, Kraft, Munich (DE)

Dr Ian Johnson, Institute of Food Research, Norwich (UK)

Professor Berthold Koletzko, University of Munich (DE)

Professor Ian Macdonald, University of Nottingham (UK)

Dr Gert Meijer, Unilever, Vlaardingen (NL)

Dr Moïse Riboh, Danone, Palaiseau (FR)

Food Quality and Manufacturing

Chair

Professor Dietrich Knorr, Berlin University of Technology (DE)

Facilitator

Dr Catherine Stanton,Teagasc, Moorepark (IE), [email protected]

Members

Professor Andrzej Babuchowski, University of Warmia and Mazury &First deputy Minister of Agriculture in Poland, Olsztyn (PL)

Dr Fred Beekmans, NIZO Food Research, Ede (NL)

Professor Pedro Fito, Universidad Politecnica de Valencia (ES)

Dr Tim Foster, Unilever, Vlaardingen (NL)

Dr Natalie Gontard, University of Montpellier (FR)

Professor Marc Hendrickx, University of Leuven (BE)

Dr Maria Saarela, VTT, Helsinki (FI)

Dr Heribert Watzke, Nestlé Research Centre, Lausanne (CH)

Professor Erich Windhab, ETH, Zürich (CH)

Food Safety

Chair

Dr Harmen Hofstra, SAFE Consortium, Brussels (BE) & TNO, Zeist (NL)

Facilitator

Dr Tim Hogg, ESB-UCP Porto & FIPA Lisbon (PT), [email protected]

Members

Professor Diána Bánáti/Dr Eva Gelencser, Central Food ResearchInstitute, Budapest (HU)

Dr Rafael Garcia-Villar, INRA, Paris (FR)

Dr Margarita Garriga/Dr Massimo Castellari, IRTA, Barcelona, Spain (ES)

Professor Mike Gasson, Institute of Food Research, Norwich (UK)

Dr Geert Houben, TNO, Zeist (NL)

Professor Mogens Jakobsen, Faculty of Life Sciences, University ofCopenhagen (DK)

Professor Antonio Logrieco, ISPA, Bari (IT)

Dr Balkumar Marthi, Unilever, Vlaardingen (NL)

Dr Yasmine Motarjemi, Nestlé, Lausanne (CH)

Dr Günar Özay, Tübitak, Marmara Research Centre, Gebze/Kocaeli,Turkey (TU)

Dr Laura Raaska, VTT, Helsinki (FI)

Dr Begoña Villarreal, AZTI-Tecnalia, Bilbao, Spain (ES)

Professor Marcel Zwietering, Wageningen University (NL)

Sustainable Food Production

Chair

Professor Thomas Ohlsson, Swedish Institute for Food & Biotechnology(SIK), Gothenberg (SE)

Facilitator

Dr Kerstin Lienemann, Research Association of the German FoodIndustry (GFP/FEI) - EU Liaison Office, Brussels (BE), [email protected]

Members

Dr Harry Aiking, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit,Amsterdam (NL)

Dr Prem Bindraban, Wageningen University and Research Centre (NL)

Professor Roland Clift, Centre for Environmental Strategy at theUniversity of Surrey (UK)

Professor Kostadin Fikiin, Technical University of Sofia (BU)

Ms Maryline Guiramand, Guiramand & Co, Versoix/Geneve (CH)

Dr Nick Hedges, Unilever, Bedford (UK)

Professor Chris Noell, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University,Copenhagen (DK)

Dr Bruno Notarnicola, Università degli Studi di Bari (IT)

Dr Frank de Ruijter, Plant Research International, Wageningen (NL)

Dr Alfons Sagenmüller, Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim-am-Rhein (DE)

Mr Edward Someus, Terra Humana, Budapest (HU)

Dr Christof Walter, Unilever, Bedford (UK)

Food Chain Management

Chair

Professor Gerhard Schiefer, University of Bonn (DE)

Facilitator

Dr Melanie Fritz, University of Bonn (DE), [email protected]


64


Members

Professor Filippo Arfini, University of Parma (IT)

Mr Klaus Bergulf, Danish Agricultural Advisory Service (DK)

Dr Michael Bourlakis, Brunel University (UK)

Professor Julian Briz, Polytechnic University of Madrid (ES)

Mr Lieven Callewaert, Groupe Glon, Pontivy (FR)

Professor Xavier Gellynck, Gent University (BE)

Professor Hans Lingnert, SIK, Gothenberg (SE)

Professor Peter Raspor, University of Ljubljana (SL)

Dr Jacques Trienekens, Wageningen University (NL)

Dr Birgit Walz-Tylla, Bayer Crop Science (DE)

Communication, Training and TechnologyTransfer

Chair

Dr Michele Contel, Progetto Europa PE, Rome (IT)

Facilitator

Mr Julian Drausinger, Lebensmittelversuchsanstalt LVA/FIAA, Vienna(AT), [email protected]

Members

Dr Siân Astley, Institute of Food Research, Norwich (UK)

Dr Eduardo Cardoso, Portuguese Catholic University, College ofBiotechnology, Porto (PT)

Mr Karl Christensen, Newcastle University (UK)

Dr Amedeo Conti, ISPA, Bari (IT)

Mr Jeremy Davies, Campden & Chorleywood, Gloucestershire (UK)

Dr Edite Kaufmane, State Horticulture Plant Breeding and ExperimentalStation, Dobele (LV)

Dr Helena Ljusberg-Wahren, Lunds University (SE)

Professor Paolo Masi, University of Naples Federico II (IT)

Dr Federico Morais, Federación Española de Industrias de laAlimentación y Bebidas (FIAB), Madrid (ES)

Mr David Napper, Euroteknik, Ltd / EFFoST, Leics / Aabenraa (UK/DK)

Dr Bert Vermeire, University of Ghent (BE)

Dr John Williams, EU-COST, Brussels (BE)

Horizontal Activities

Chair

Professor Roger Fenwick, Institute of Food Research, Norwich (UK),[email protected]

Professor Willem M. de Vos, TI Food & Nutrition, Wageningen andHelsinki University (NL/FI), [email protected]

Facilitator

Dr David Lindsay, Murcia (ES), [email protected]

Members

Dr Csaba Ábrahám, Szent István University, Gödöllö (HU)Dr Kirsten Brandt, University Newcastle upon Tyne (UK)Professor Charles Daly, University College Cork (IE)Dr Catherine Esnouf, INRA, Paris (FR)Dr Dóra Groó, Hungarian Science and Technology Foundation, Budapest(HU)Dr Esben Laulund, Chr. Hansen, Hørsholm (DK)Mr Huub Lelieveld, Bilthoven (NL)Professor Tiina Mattila-Sandholm, Valio, Helsinki (FI)Dr Kitti Németh, Food Research Institute, Bratislava (SK)

Editing Team

Dr Jacqueline Castenmiller

Professor Roger Fenwick

Dr David Lindsay

Dr Jan Maat


65

Annexes

Country Representative E-mail address

Austria Mr Julian Drausinger [email protected]

Belgium (Flanders' Food Platform) Ms Katelijne Strubbe [email protected]

Belgium (Wagralim Platform) Ms Anne-Christine Gouder de Beauregard [email protected]

Bulgaria Prof. Ivan Minkov [email protected]

Czech Republic Mr Miroslav Koberna [email protected]

Denmark Mr Rasmus Anker Moller [email protected]

Finland Prof. Tiina Mattila-Sandholm [email protected]

France Ms Francoise Gorga [email protected] Christophe Cotillon [email protected]

Germany Dr Kerstin Lienemann [email protected]

Greece Mrs Vasso Papadimitriou [email protected]

Hungary Dr András Seb”ok [email protected]

Ireland Prof. Charlie Daly [email protected]

Israel Dr Sam Saguy [email protected]

Italy Ms Maria Cristina Di Domizio [email protected]

Latvia Dr Arlita Sedmale [email protected]. Edite Kaufmane [email protected]

Lithuania Ms Joana Baceviciene [email protected]

Norway Dr Marit Risberg Ellekjaer [email protected]

Poland Mr Lech Michalczuk [email protected]

Portugal Mr Pedro Queiroz [email protected]

Romania Ms Adriana Macri [email protected]

Russia Dr Olga Legonkova [email protected]

Slovakia Dr Kitti Nemeth [email protected]

Slovenia Ms Petra Medved [email protected]

Spain Dr Federico Morais [email protected]

Sweden Prof. Thomas Ohlsson [email protected]

Switzerland Dr Jean-Claude Villetaz [email protected]

The Netherlands Dr Kees de Gooijer [email protected]

Turkey Prof. Guner Ozay [email protected] Ilknur Menlik [email protected]

Ukraine Dr Nadya Boyko [email protected]

Annex 2. National Food Platforms and their representatives


66


A&I Active and Intelligent (packaging)

AFT Advanced Foundation for Food Training

CAP Common Agriculture Policy

CEI Central European Initiative

CFP Common Fishery Policy

CIAA Confederation of the Food and Drink Industriesof the EU

DALY Disability-Adjusted Life Year

ECRIN European Clinical Research InfrastructureNetwork

EFAFTTT European Foundation for Advanced FoodTraining and Technology Transfer

EFFoST European Federation of Food Science andTechnology

EIB European Investment Bank

EIT European Institute of Technology

EPIC European Prospective Investigation of Cancer

ERA European Research Area

ESF European Science Foundation

ETP European Technology Platform

EuChemMS European Association of Chemical andMolecular Sciences

EU European Union

FCM Food Chain Management

FP Framework Programme

IP Implementation Plan

IT Information Technology

KBBE Knowledge-Based Bio-Economies

KIC Knowledge and Innovation Community

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

NCP National Contact Point

PAN Preference, Acceptance and Needs

R&D Research & Development

RFID Radio Frequency Identification

RSSF Risk Sharing Finance Facility

SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprise

SRA Strategic Research Agenda

SSRA Stakeholders Strategic Research Agenda

TSM Techno-Science Mediator

Glossary

Agro-food industry: industries related to agriculture andfood.

Agro-food sector: the sector of the economy that pro-duces agricultural and food products.

Bio-economy: all industries and economic sectorsthat produce, manage and otherwiseexploit biological resources (and relatedservices, supply or consumer indus-tries), such as agriculture, food, fish-eries, forestry, etc.

Biological material: any natural material that originatedfrom living organisms containing car-bon and being capable of decay.

Biotechnology: technologies for cultivating, modifyingor deriving products from living organ-isms.

Commodity food: agricultural products of value and ofuniform quality, produced in largequantities by many different producerse.g. wheat, milk, beef, coffee. The priceof commodity foods is determined onthe basis of an active market.

Commodity food chain: interaction of all participants responsi-ble for production, processing, refining,trading and consuming of an (agricul-tural) product.

Non-food: biological (raw) materials used forapplications others than food.

Primary sector: production of agricultural raw materials(= primary products) for other indus-tries. The primary sector involves thechanging process of natural resourcesinto primary products.

Regional food chain: interaction of all participants responsi-ble for production, processing, refining,trading and consuming of an (agricul-tural) product, whole process is limitedto a region.

Sustainability: an environmentally sound, economicallyviable and socially acceptable develop-ment.

For a more detailed glossary please refer to:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/biosociety/library/glos-saryfind_en.cfm


CIAA AISBLAvenue des Arts 431040 BrusselsBelgium

Phone: +32 2 514 11 11Fax: +32 2 511 29 [email protected]

Published in September 2007


Brochure Food for life - · PDF fileEuropean Technology Platform on Food for Life Strategic...

Documents

Transcript of Brochure Food for life - · PDF fileEuropean Technology Platform on Food for Life Strategic...