1. European Policy for Food Safety Research and Horizon 2020
C4S Regional Workshop
Moscow
18 March 2014
Dirk POTTIER Scientific officer Unit F.3 – Agri-Food chain Directorate F – Biotechnology Directorate-General for Research and Innovation European Commission

2. Key messages
Guaranteeing food safety along the food supply chain, from primary production to consumers, means dealing with multiple challenges
The complexity of these challenges has to be addressed through scientific research and research policy that will generate new knowledge and promote its innovative use to deliver new technologies and solutions
Adopt an inter-disciplinary approach, with emphasis on the social sciences and humanities in order to make innovation accepted by the consumer and citizen
The presentation shall neither be binding nor construed
as constituting commitment by the European Commission

3. Food System and the EU Climate change
Climate change in particular underlines the need for a long-term, ecosystem-based approach. Not only will habitats and species be affected directly by climate change and sea level rise but they will also be affected by policy and behavioural shifts in sectors such as agriculture, water, transport and energy. A holistic, multidisciplinary and innovative approach is needed on a global scale.
AEA Energy & Environment and Universidad de Politécnica de Madrid
Report to European Commission Directorate - General for Agriculture and Rural Development
Biodiversity (from European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity)
More than 80 % of assessments for amphibians linked to agro‑ecosystems are unfavourable.
• Mammals and invertebrates are the only species groups with favourable assessments (less than 10 %).
• Plants and mammals have the highest percentage of unknown assessments.
Land use
From SCAR
Over the coming decades, land as a global resource will become a source of increased competition from a range of different potential uses. In a recent paper, Harvey and Pilgrim (2011) review the increasing competition for land from in the framework of the ‘food, energy and environment trilemma’ (Tilman et al., 2009), where all demands to expand the area of cultivated land represent high risks of increasing agriculture’s carbon footprint.
In this model, competition for land use in the coming decades is seen as being driven by the objectives of delivering food and energy/raw materials in a post-fossil carbon economy.
The authors conclude that the dual challenge of delivering both food and energy, and doing so in a sustainable manner, calls for a “combined new
green and bioeconomy revolution.
The political shaping of this process will require both sustainability regulation and strongly directed innovation, delivering the means to achieve the ends (Harvey and Pilgrim, 2011).
Additional:
We have attempted to explore the dynamics of competition for land, and identify some of the principal issues at stake for future sustainability of land use. Based on the model represented in Fig. 1, competition for land use in the coming decades was seen as being driven by two major objectives in achieving sustainable economic growth: the delivery of food and energy/materials in a post-fossil carbon economy.
The paper has systematically attended to each of the elements of a complex interaction: growing and changing demand for food; demand for energy and materials derived from biomass in the context of oil depletion; GHG emissions from current agricultural practices and land-use change; and climate
change itself as a constraint on land available for cultivation at high levels of productivity.
The scale of the challenges was examined, as was the significance of current patterns of land-use in contributing to global warming.
The growth of agricultural production cannot continue on current lines and practices without risking major crises, given its significance as a source of greenhouse gases.
A key element of future development will be to meet increasing demands on land by intensification of low-carbon gas emitting agriculture, by all technological means possible.
The growth in demand for food (arising from the need to ‘feed the 9 billion’ and improve standards of nutrition) has been taken as given, resting on arguments and analysis more thoroughly developed elsewhere (IAASTD, 2009; Royal Society, 2009; Godfray et al., 2010; DEFRA, 2009b).
In exploring the demand for land driven by biofuels and biomaterials, evidence was presented that suggests the need for a major shift in policy understanding of innovation.
The shift to bioeconomy alternatives to petro-chemical technologies requires a pro-active, long-term, strategic political direction, promoting innovation from the basic science through to the delivery of goods.
The broader challenge to deliver both food and energy calls for a combined new green and bioeconomy revolution.
The political shaping of this process will require both sustainability regulation and strongly directed innovation, delivering the means to achieve the ends.
The shift to a bioeconomy and sustainable agriculture involves a paradigm change from the petro-chemical technological model of the world that has characterised the previous epoch.
Land, water and climate as a global resource provides different regions with widely contrasted agricultural potentials.
The shift to sustainable agriculture for food and energy is likely to re-shape the geopolitical environment of the world.
Flows of food and energy/materials will be re-drawn, and different regions will pursue different innovation pathways as a consequence of their diverse political objectives and natural endowments.
In sum, two broad conclusions can be drawn from this paper.
Firstly, however uncomfortable and challenging, mitigating the competition for land can only occur provided that the complexity of the dynamics is fully addressed. Each of the contributing factors explored above (energy and food demand; petro-chemical depletion; the various sources of anthropogenic climate change involved in land use) cannot be treated in isolation.
Secondly, recent history and current developments strongly underscore the importance of long term political strategy driving forward the shift to a sustainable intensification of land use, combining regulation with effective long term, but urgent, promotion of science and innovation to deliver the goals of sustainability.
More info:
The EIS recognises three big evidence challenges for Defra, government and society:
— Sustainable food supply: fair prices, choice, access to food and food security through open and competitive markets; continuous improvement in the safety of food; a transition to healthier diets; and a more environmentally sustainable food chain.
— Climate change adaptation and mitigation: climate change cuts across almost all of Defra's policy responsibilities, including farming and food, animal and plant diseases, ecosystems, water management, floods and conservation.
— Protecting ecosystem services: the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment not only recognised the multiple benefits that ecological systems provide but also highlighted that policy and planning decisions must take into account an ecosystems approach to be truly sustainable.
  The big challenges are intertwined: food production affects and is affected by ecosystem services and climate change (both mitigation and adaptation).   The CSA and his team have worked with policy and specialist teams across Defra to categorise programmes by their evidence needs, as well as external stakeholders across government and in the private sector. The EIS shows the clear priorities for Defra's evidence spend and provides the basis for managing competing demands in tough economic times.
The EIS' Objectives
  Defra needs to change its approach to evidence and innovation in order to meet the Department's demanding policy objectives in the context of an increasingly difficult economic climate. The EIS identifies five strategic areas Defra needs to focus on to deliver such a significant change:
— prioritise investments between programmes;
— sharpen the Department's focus to deliver our evidence and innovation where we need it most;
— increase co-operation using partnership working with other government departments and research councils to share the investments, knowledge and expertise;
— develop and organise the right skills, expertise and capabilities; and
— refine our processes, eg, integration of evidence throughout the business cycle.
  The EIS identifies a number of practical ways Defra can deliver each of these objectives. It also recognises that the big challenges will require a focus on interdisciplinary working, understanding and influencing behaviours, and innovation.
What next?
  The next stage is implementation where working together with partners will be key. The recommendations will be delivered by the Evidence Programme, areas across Defra and organisations such as the Research Councils, other government departments and non-governmental organisations. Since the publication of the EIS the Evidence Programme has been working within Defra to develop detailed implementation plans including key milestones and performance indicators. Defra will provide regular updates on its website as the work progresses.
Food waste
Around 90 million tonnes of food waste are generated in the EU each year
The principle source of data on food waste generation was EUROSTAT, which provides data
for Manufacturing, Household and ‘Other Sectors’ for all MS with few exceptions. An
estimate of food waste for these three sectors is presented by MS using both EUROSTAT
and available national data. The base year is presented as 2006, the year for which the
most recent EUROSTAT data is available.
On this basis, the study estimates annual food waste generation in the EU27 at
approximately 89Mt, or 179kg per capita (please see below table).
Certain national studies covered retail and food service sector food waste, providing more
detail than EUROSTAT’s ‘Other Sectors’. A further estimate of food waste was then made,
breaking down food waste by Manufacturing, Household, Retail and Food Service sector
data. This approximate percentage breakdown is presented below, and more detail can be
found on page 63 of the report. Please bear in mind that agricultural food waste was not
included in the scope of this study.
This breakdown is not intended to draw a comparison between household and
manufacturing sector data, as the reliability of estimates for certain sectors differs. A crosssector
comparison would be more instructive when data available for all sectors is
considered more robust. Households produce the largest fraction of EU food waste among the four sectors
considered, at about 42% of the total or about 38Mt, an average of about 76kg per capita.
Manufacturing food waste was estimated at almost 35 Mt per year in the EU27 (70kg per
capita), although a lack of clarity over the definition of food waste (particularly as distinct
from by-products) among MS makes this estimate fragile.
Once again, the main estimate of this study relies more heavily on EUROSTAT data to
estimate manufacturing, household and ‘other sector’ food waste. A further estimate on
the breakdown between retail and food service sector food waste (in place of ‘other
sectors’) relies more heavily on extrapolations, at times from a limited number of sources.
According to this further estimate, the following sectoral detail can be presented:
Wholesale/Retail sector: close to 8kg per capita (with an important discrepancy
between MS) representing around 4.4 Mt for the EU27
Food Service sector: an average of 25kg per capita for EU27, at 12.3 Mt for the EU27
overall. There is a notable divergence between the EU15 at 28kg per capita (due to a
higher trend of food waste in the restaurant and catering sector) and 12kg per capita
in EU12.
Food which ends up as being discarded by households represents 25% of food purchased
(by weight), according to studies completed by WRAP. For the UK, the avoidable portion of
this food waste represents a total annual loss per household of approximately ￡480 or 565
Euros1.
Important limitations accompany this work of quantification, resulting from the variable
reliability of EUROSTAT and national data. Methodologies for collecting and calculating the
food waste data submitted to EUROSTAT differs between MS, who are free to choose their
own methodology. Limitations in the reliability of EUROSTAT data, due to a lack of clarity on the definition and methodology, may be significant. Implications may involve the inclusion
of by-products, green waste or tobacco in the data disclosed in some instances.
Additionally, data is missing for some sectors in some MS, and the ‘Other Sectors’ category
is too broad to give a clear insight into the Wholesale/Retail and Food Service sectors. It
was not possible to confirm that by-products were not included in some instances in
Manufacturing sector data. These issues have been ameliorated using national studies,
plausibility checks and informed assumptions as far as possible in an effort to present the
best available data; however, these limitations nevertheless present an important issue for
data reliability. Food waste data is synthesised in table on page 12 for each MS in
manufacturing, household and ‘other sectors’; please see table 12 on page 62 of the main
report for the sources or assumptions used.
As such, in the European Union, for example, 42% of total food waste is generated by households; 39% by the production and processing sector, 14% by the food service and catering sector, and 5% by the retail/wholesale sector (European Commission, 2010).
From FUSIONS:
• About 90 million tonnes of food is wasted annually or 180 kg per capita per year in Europe, excluding agricultural food waste and fish discards • About a third of the food for human consumption is wasted globally - around 1.3 billion tons per year, according to FAO • A third of the world's entire food supply could be saved by reducing waste – or enough to feed 3 billion people; and this would still leave enough surplus for countries to provide their populations with 130 per cent of their nutritional requirements • 4600 kilocalories per day of food are harvested for every person on the planet; of these, only around 2000 on average are eaten – more than half of it is lost on the way
The presentation shall neither be binding nor construed
as constituting commitment by the European Commission
Source: “Food 2030”, DEFRA, 2009

4. Priorities of EU Funded Food Safety Research:
EU research
Food safety
Priorities of EU Funded Food Safety Research:
Promote innovation and provide answers to future challenges to support societal change
Scientific support for regulatory aspects and policy making
Explore new opportunities for research
Assuring chemical and biological safety and improving quality in the European food supply
This presentation shall neither be binding nor construed
as constituting commitment by the European Commission

5. The new way forward HORIZON 2020 What is Horizon 2020 What is New
Research and Innovation programme of the European Commission for a 79 billion euro ( )
WP 2014 – 2015 has been approved and first call launched
What is New
Seamless integration of different strands of R&I into one single programme
Research Closer to the market
Innovation
Overarching – cross-thematic approach
Three Priorities
Excellent science
Industrial leadership
Societal challenges
This presentation shall neither be binding nor construed
as constituting commitment by the European Commission

6. Consumption Production Food Chain Global drivers
Societal Challenge 2
Food security, sustainable agriculture, marine and maritime research and the bioeconomy
Proposed Funding: 4 million euro
Sustainability
Security, resilience
Consumption
Production
2.1 Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry
2.2 Sustainable and competitive agri-food sector for safe and healthy diets
Food Chain
2.3 Unlocking the potential of aquatic living resources
2.4 Sustainable and competitive bio-based industries
Global drivers
This presentation shall neither be binding nor construed
as constituting commitment by the European Commission

7. Informed Consumer Choices
HORIZON 2020
2.2 Sustainable and competitive agri-food sector for safe and healthy diets
Informed Consumer Choices
Preferences, attitudes, needs, behaviour, lifestyle and education
Communication between consumers and the food chain research community and its operators
Impact on diet related diseases (obesity, anorexia)
Social Innovation
Innovative models and methodologies
Sustainable eating behaviour
This presentation shall neither be binding nor construed
as constituting commitment by the European Commission

8. HORIZON 2020
2.2 Sustainable and competitive agri-food sector for safe and healthy diets
Safe diets
Chemical and biological hazards throughout the total food, feed and drinking water supply chains
Risk and exposure assessment
Monitoring
Control
Tracing
Development of improved food safety standards
This presentation shall neither be binding nor construed
as constituting commitment by the European Commission

9. Address critical issues: Address the sustainability concerns:
HORIZON 2020
2.2 Sustainable and competitive agri-food sector for safe and healthy diets
Agri-food industry
Include all stages:
Food design
Packaging
Process design and control
Waste reduction and by-product valorisation
Address critical issues:
Affordable and high quality foods
Traceability
Logistics and services
Socio-economic factors
Resilience against environmental and climate risks
Limitation of negative impacts on the environment
Address the sustainability concerns:
Coping with
social,
environmental,
and
economic change
This presentation shall neither be binding nor construed
as constituting commitment by the European Commission

10. SC2: Sustainable Food Security Call
1. Sustainable food production systems
SFS /2015: Sustainable terrestrial livestock production
SFS /2015: Sustainable crop production
SFS /2015: Resource-efficient eco-innovative food production and processing
SFS : Towards a gradual elimination of discards in European fisheries
2. Safe food and healthy diets and sustainable consumption
SFS : Assessing the health risks of combined human exposure to multiple food-related toxic substances
SFS : Biological contamination of crops and the food chain
SFS /2015: Authentication of food products
SFS : Proteins of the future
SFS : Tackling malnutrition in the elderly
SFS : Innovative solutions for sustainable novel food processing
3. Global drivers of food security
SFS : Sustainable food and nutrition security through evidence based EU agro-food policies
Examples of topics:
SFS Call – Details:
1. Sustainable food production systems
SFS /2015: Sustainable terrestrial livestock production
SFS /2015: Sustainable crop production
SFS /2015: Resource-efficient eco-innovative food production and processing
SFS : Towards a gradual elimination of discards in European fisheries
2. Safe food and healthy diets and sustainable consumption
SFS : Assessing the health risks of combined human exposure to multiple food-related toxic substances
SFS : Biological contamination of crops and the food chain
SFS /2015: Authentication of food products
SFS : Proteins of the future
SFS : Tackling malnutrition in the elderly
SFS : Innovative solutions for sustainable novel food processing
3. Global drivers of food security
SFS : Sustainable food and nutrition security through evidence based EU agro-food policies
The presentation shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting commitment by the European Commission

11. Conclusions
Through policy interaction, coherent investment in research and innovation and stakeholder engagement:
Europe is and will be open for business and international cooperation and offers attractive research career opportunities
Improve the desired resilience, sustainability and productivity of the agro-food supply chain
Continue to reinforce safety along the food feed and drinking water supply chains
Guarantee food security for European citizens and worldwide
This presentation shall neither be binding nor construed
as constituting commitment by the European Commission 11

12. Next Steps Fine-tuning of WP 2014-2015 (bi-annual work programme)
End of 2014: launch of second call
More info on Horizon 2020 at:
More info on the Bioeconomy at:
This presentation shall neither be binding nor construed
as constituting commitment by the European Commission

13. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
This presentation shall neither be binding nor construed
as constituting commitment by the European Commission 13