Workshop outputs: 2012 ǀ 05 ǀ 01

HORIZON SCANNING FOR FSA EMERGING RISKSIDENTIFYING INFLUENCERS AND WEAK SPOTS

FIONA LICKORISH, HAYLEY SHAW, JULIA CHATTERTON & JOÃO DELGADOCENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FUTURES AND RISKS

THE SESSIONS

1. UNDERSTANDING THE FOOD CHAINS

2. DEVELOPING AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FOOD CHAINS

3. IDENTIFYING WEAK SPOTS

4. IDENTIFYING COMMONALITIES IN INFLUENCERS AND WEAK SPOTS

5. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

WHAT DO THE FOOD CHAINS LOOK LIKE?

4THE PAPRIKA FOOD CHAIN

Harvesting, selection &

sampling of peppers

Washing with water

Peduncle removal

(optional)

Drying (sun or hot

air)

Peduncle removal &

slicing

Magnetic separator

Cleaning- partial seed

removal

Pre-crushingGrindingCooling (2-

3 days)

Mixing with or without

oil

Sifting, granulating

, mixingPackaging Storage

(refrigeration)

Sterilisation, drying, cooling

Export (via Spain?) by ship (temp,

moisture control?)

Storage in UK

warehouseRepackaging

Transport to

Distributor

5THE UK SHELLFISH (MUSSELS) FOOD CHAIN

Ropes set in areas with

natural mussel growth (50%

Shetland)

Mussel Spat settle on the

ropes (Spring/ Summer)

Harvesting (2-3 years)

Classification by FSA on E.

Coli and sanitary survey

Weekly biotoxin

monitoring of area

Chilled transport to

processor /distributor

Feed on natural

plankton

Washing (depuration) * & grading

(by size)

*Not all mussels will undergo depuration

QC checks (HACCP if supplying multiples)

PackagingChilled

storage & transport

Retailer

Chilled transports to

sellers

Packaging

ProcessingRetailer Packaging

WHAT ARE THE FACTORS INFLUENCING

THE FOOD CHAIN?

ARE THEY HIGH, MEDIUM OR LOW RISK?

7METHOD: ORGANISING INFLUENCERS THROUGH PESTEL

PESTEL

Political

Economic

Social

Technological

Environmental

Legislative

• Two groups were present at the workshop, each of which investigated a distinct food chain:

1. Paprika food chain2. UK Seafood chain (mussels

from Scotland and England)

• The PESTLE approach was used to identify political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legislative influencers on the food chain, which may affect food safety.

• The following slides detail all influencers identified in the workshop.

High risk/ opportunity influencers are highlighted in red.

8INFLUENCERS FOR UK SHELLFISH

POLITICAL• Removal of subsidies for Scottish growers could introduce risk-taking

behaviour to cut costs• Localism agenda could lead to inconsistencies across the market • Changes in governance affect seabed management (e.g. crown estate vs.

private management), and may introduce planning difficulties• Reduced local authority budgets• Agency influences industry (e.g. response to FVO mission)• Deregulation and local authority responsibility leads to local anarchy (e.g.

with respect to production sites)

ECONOMIC• Depuration lead time (where required) - retail influence due to short

shelf life• Fuel prices affect distribution networks• Cost of labour force affects risk-taking behaviour• Export market fluctuations (e.g. UK/ worldwide competition, and

barriers to new market entrants) lead to behaviour changes• Possible economically-induced risk-taking grower behaviour:

• Growing and harvesting from unclassified sites (leads to food safety and environmental impact concerns)

• Unsafe growth practices, and export to countries with less stringent controls

9INFLUENCERS FOR UK SHELLFISH

SOCIAL

• Market drives the requirement for improved standards – leads to less supply due to lag time

• Local tourism affects demand for shellfish (i.e. restaurant demand)• Local agendas and branding for local growers shifts demand to

specific areas (e.g. via perception of quality)• Media profile of British shellfish is raised (e.g. via celebrity chefs)• If sudden growth in demand (fashion) for raw mussels, increases risk

at consumer-end

TECHNOLOGICAL

• New detection methods (i.e. for metal and toxins) reduce turn-around time for testing, and therefore reduce cost and promote good practice in the industry.

• Balance of safety benefits of depuration in England, to the marketability of products from Scotland

LEGISLATIVE

• Increased requirements for testing may improve practice and safety

10INFLUENCERS FOR UK SHELLFISH

ENVIRONMENTAL

• Climate change limits opportunity to grow/ harvest • Climate change alters water temperatures and affects plankton growth• Climate change increases algal toxins• The introduction of disease and non-native species during growth

leads to poor yield pre-harvesting• PCBs/ Dioxins/ heavy metals/ chemical contaminants are

introduced during growth either via incremental release or pollution events (e.g. high rainfall and overloaded storm drains lead to a surge of contaminated water being released near to growth sites).

• 0157 (E.coli) is introduced during growth• Extreme weather events may damage or cause the loss of ropes• Seasonality drives price/ availability• Poor water quality effects in growth areas causes a time lag due to need

for longer washing cycles (particularly in England – not necessary in Scotland due to improved water quality)

• Poor water quality during washing process introduces or fails to remove contaminants

• Storage in water post-cleaning reintroduces contaminants/ causes cross-contamination

• Reduced food supply (plankton) affects yield• Norovirus may be introduced due to poor water cleanliness• Handling during packaging/ processing/ retail introduces contaminants

11INFLUENCERS FOR PAPRIKA

POLITICAL

• The stability of the supplying country, and the trust instilled in these partners may affect safety

• The introduction of zero tolerance schemes (e.g. New Zealand) may stabilise safety

• Stability of Middle East and changes in diets throughout emerging economies may increase demand

• Standardised procedures (e.g. the Beijing declaration) increase monitoring

• Low political will to accept standards• The acceptance of GM peppers may improve resilience and

quality of crops and reduce cost pressures throughout the chain• Terrorism could affect the food chain (most likely from sifting ,

granulating and mixing stage onwards)• Product checking in the EU is minimal past entry into Spain, meaning

there is risk at import to the UK• Relations between countries may affect import to the UK• Food availability becomes a human rights issue, and may lead to

trade sanctions• WTO changes could cause a switch in supply between countries

12INFLUENCERS FOR PAPRIKA

ECONOMIC

• Availability of sterilisation technology• Competition induced due to increasing quality drives export trends• Cost pressures of the final product influence cost cutting and

risk taking through the chain (particularly in third countries)• E.g. introduction of environmental contaminants through use

of poor quality water for washing/ absence of washing procedure/ roadside drying/ lack of sterilization

SOCIAL

• Peer reference may promote good/ poor practice throughout production

• Social acceptance of GM peppers may improve resilience/ quality of crops and reduce cost pressures through the chain

• Centralisation of the washing process may cut costs for growers and increase the chance of controlling washing

• Sociological change leads to the acceptance of GM crops• Consumer habits will shape demand for paprika products and

influence exports

13INFLUENCERS FOR PAPRIKA

TECHNOLOGICAL

• Technology availability for sterilization (biological and chemical) is a key driver

• Introduction of technology for testing may reduce risk (as in the EU), but add time and financial cost

• Poor quality packaging• Web-based purchasing may increase the risk to consumers• Variability of testing techniques lead to inconsistent standards (and

may be exploited by growers)

LEGISLATIVE

• Legislation affects protectionism• Presence/ absence of a legal definition of “paprika” may affect it’s

contents• Consistencies/ inconsistencies between food laws and trade laws may

affect safety

14INFLUENCERS FOR PAPRIKA

ENVIRONMENTAL

• Pesticide contamination may occur during growth• Pesticide, herbicide and biocide contamination may occur during

sterilization• Flooding may cause contamination of water/ soil during growth• Tsunami’s, earthquakes, floods could wipe out crops• Mixing of peppers at harvesting may cause cross-contamination• Washing products with contaminated water may compromise safety• Human handling may introduce biological contaminants throughout• Road-side drying may introduce environmental contaminants

(driven by cost pressure)• Climate and humidity during storage may encourage biological growth• Home grown or food miles issues may affect where we import from

WHERE DO THESE FACTORS INFLUENCE THE FOOD CHAINS?

16PLOTTING THE INFLUENCING FACTORS ONTO THE UK SHELLFISH CHAIN

17PLOTTING THE INFLUENCING FACTORS ONTO THE PAPRIKA CHAIN

WHERE ARE THE WEAK SPOTS IN THE CHAINS?

19METHOD: IDENTIFYING WEAK SPOTS

• By observation and using all the influencers identified, participants found spots in the Food Chains where more than one factor impacted on the chain(s) – the potential ‘weak spots’.

• Delegates were asked:

• Are these areas ‘weak spots’? If so, why?• Are there enough checks/regulations in place to

deal with multiple influencers at one point on the chain?

• Are there any areas where there may be fewer influencers, but where lack of checks could make this a ‘weak spot’?

• After 30 mins, in a plenary session, group facilitators presented the outputs and invited to comment on / additions to the ‘weak spots’ identified.

• The weak spots identified are as follows.

20WEAK SPOTS FOR UK SHELLFISH

• The growth stage was deemed to be a weak spot due to the number of risks inherent. For example, pollution events (e.g. storm drainage) and other causes of chemical contaminant or disease introduction could affect the mussels early on.

• Harvesting was also deemed to be a weak spot. The current lack of technologies to test the mussels quickly and cheaply was said to encourage non-compliance in the industry, and increase the likelihood of contaminated stock filtering through the chain. New technologies were therefore considered important influencers of food safety.

• In addition, during periods of high price, growers harvest early, reducing quantity of next years stock. This may lead to reliance on foreign (possibly more risky) producers to fulfil demand.

• Post-harvesting processes were also considered to be weak spots, due to the lack of prior testing and resultant possibility of bioaccumulation.

21WEAK SPOTS FOR UK SHELLFISH

• Washing, storage, packaging and transport were also considered weak spots due to the potential for cross-contamination e.g. during washing, or as a result of re-immersion in water.

• Whilst not specific to any one point in the chain, climate change was considered an exacerbating factor throughout, with particular consequences at weak spots (i.e. introduction of disease at growth).

• Finally, growth, transport, and processing were also noted as weak spots, due to the voluntary nature of HACCPs and resultant lack of traceability at these points.

22WEAK SPOTS FOR PAPRIKA

• Note: The group were not keen to identify areas as “weak spots”, rather, they deemed that these were “Critical Control Points”

• The group noted that a key area of the chain requiring intervention was on import. There was some discussion to suggest that many of the growing conditions and external politics are difficult to control. However, ensuring the proper checks on entry to the UK was more likely to control food safety.

• It was noted that if technologies were available to ensure the removal of ALL contaminants from paprika (biological and chemical), then this would also become a critical control point. It was felt that whilst irradiation may remove biological contaminants in the future, toxins may still remain. CERF suggest that sterilization is therefore a weak spot.

• Clusters of influencers were also placed around harvesting, washing, drying, and packaging/ repackaging.

• Whilst not a weak spot, it was noted that any cost pressures/ economic factors may encourage growers/ handlers to take more risks (e.g. washing with poor water, not washing at all, drying at the road). Cost factors may therefore exacerbate risks seen at weak spots, or more generally throughout the chain.

DEVELOPING COMMONALITIES

BETWEEN THE FOOD CHAINS

24METHOD: DEVELOPING COMMONALITIES BETWEEN THE CHAINS

• Working as a whole group, participants looked across both food chains to try and identify if and where there are any commonalities:

• In the influencers on the chains• In the points of the chains where

influencers can impact

25DEVELOPING COMMONALITIES BETWEEN THE CHAINS

• Economic factors were considered to drive the quality of growing and processing throughout both food chains. For example, the affordability of testing for UK shellfish was deemed to influence the rate of testing, and other economic drivers could potentially lead to emergence of illegal/ unclassified sites. Similarly, economic pressures were thought to induce cost-cutting and risky behaviour in the paprika chain.

• Technology was a factor for both chains. For shellfish, the lack of quick and cheap testing technology was a barrier to safety. For paprika, technologies which could remove both chemical and biological contaminants were deemed lacking.

• Climate change, pollution events, terrorism, and concerns over pests and diseases were also common to both chains.

• A lack of control across the whole of the process chain was also a common theme. With shellfish this was due to a lack of technology and high cost of surveillance, With paprika low control was typically introduced due to the fact that most of the food chain occurs in foreign soil.

FACILITATION: LESSONS LEARNT

27LESSONS LEARNT

Recommendations for future workshops:

• Inclusion of food chain experts to help guide discussion• Inclusion of experts from across the PESTLE spectrum

(particularly economists or social scientists)• Consider smaller group sizes to promote richer

discussion (7-8 max)• Avoid rating all influencers as “high”, “medium” or “low”

risk/ opportunity. Facilitators noticed that participants tired of this. We would suggest using sticky dots and asking individuals to vote on their top 2(+) most influential factors in the chain.

• Ensure “growing” stages are included in food chains• Provide more information to support the definition of

“influencers” or key factors. People seemed to focus on detail (perhaps due to the detailed nature of the chains) and struggled to identify “big picture” influencers.

• Better define “risk” in the context of the work (i.e. risk of what to whom – is it the risk of unsafe food affecting humans we are most concerned with?)

28OTHER IDEAS

Hayley has used softwares such as UCINet and Netdraw to visualise and analyse networks in the past. Joao has also used these for visualisation.

The software allows you to map interactions in one mode (e.g. between all network stages) or two mode (e.g. between all network stages and all influencers).

An example is provided below. Nodes or links can be sized and coloured by category/ level of risk.

Analysis is rapid (providing data is in the correct format) and could beused to identify critical control points for the FSA.

29OTHER IDEAS

Online software such as Sourcemap may enable the FSA to map food chains by geographical location. The map below shows the production process for Nutella. Overlaying these maps may be particularly interesting in identifying high risk areas, or those which we are heavily reliant on. The maps could have additional benefits in understanding the typical food miles associated with a range of products.

For more information or to book a meeting, please contact:

Fiona Lickorish:Principal Research Fellow - Horizon Scanning and Futures

e: f.lickorish@cranfield.ac.uk t: +44 (0) 1234 750111 (x2782)

Hayley ShawKnowledge Exchange Managere: h.shaw@cranfield.ac.uk t: +44 (0) 1234 750111 (x2540)

Julia ChattertonResearch Assistante: j.chatterton@cranfield.ac.uk t: +44 (0) 1234 750111 (x2734)

João DelgadoTheme Leader: Large Scale Futures ResearchE: j.delgado@cranfield.ac.uk t: +44 (0) 1234 750111 (x2706)

30CONTACT DETAILS

Cranfield UniversityCentre for Environmental Risks and FuturesHorizon Scanning and Futures