|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Critical control points along the organic food supply chain
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Consumer participation in the chain of organic production: The example of "Selbsternte" in Vienna (Austria)
Christian R. Vogl et al., University for Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), Austria
In Vienna consultants, organic farmers and green-minded consumers have developed a new concept of urban organic farming – called Selbsternte (“self-harvest”; www.selbsternte.at). Organic farmers prepare a part of arable land (the Selbsternte plot) and sow or plant rows composed of 18 – 23 plant species. In mid-May the plots are divided into subplots that contain 2 – 6 m of every sown species and are rented to so called self-harvesters. These self-harvesters not only harvest, but also continue to sow and plant additional plant species and individuals of crops already present at the sub-plots. In 2002 Selbsternte was being practiced at 15 plots in Vienna or in neighboring cities represented by 861 subplots, totaling an area of 68,740 m² and managed by 12 organic farmers for 861 registered self-harvesters.
The motivating factors in establishing Selbsternte plots, as reported by all the farmers, were firstly better relations to consumers and work diversification, and only then were economic ones a consideration. The contribution of Selbsternte to the income varied at the farms between 0 and 30 % of the total farm income. As a main success factor, all of the farmers reported a close relationship between the self-harvesters and the farmers.
Selbsternte subplots can be understood as small experimental stations where self-harvesters merge traditional horticultural techniques with urban ideas on permaculture, sustainable land use and participatory farming. Selbsternte has potential value for the improvement of urban agriculture, but also for the development of organic farming in general.
References
Vogl, C. R., P. Axmann & B. Vogl-Lukasser (2004): Urban Organic Farming in Austria with the concept of Selbsternte (“self -harvest”) – An agronomic and socio-economic analysis. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19 (2) 67-79
Vogl, C. R. & P. Axmann (2002): Selbsternte – A new concept of Urban Organic Farming in Austria. In: Urban Agriculture Magazine, Nr. 6: 12-14.
Source
PLENARY SESSION: Quality Assurance, Lecture 3
|
|
|
The role of standards, certification and regulation
Bo van Elzakker & Jochen Neuendorff, IOAS (International Organic Accreditation Service), Agro Eco BV and GfRS Resource Protection Ltd.
Does the EU regulation guarantee the integrity of the organic product?
The production and processing standards seem to be quite ok, although very detailed. As the level of detail stifles development they may not be a good reflection of what organic means in the longer term. Public confidence in the integrity of the standard setting process would be improved when the private sector, including the directly affected stakeholders, would have a decisive say in the decision making process.
The more detail in the standards, the more to be documented, the more to be inspected. The overall picture, the holistic values of organic farm production and food processing may thus get lost. The annual inspection visit appears to lack teeth to address real problems. The main problems (at this moment in time) are believed to be off-farm, in the trade, in mixed processing facilities. That there are few cases of fraud reported may be because they are not there or because the authorities don’t look for them, or in the wrong places.
The public could question the thoroughness of the supervision activities by the competent authorities. The fact that each country has its own way of monitoring the implementation of the regulation would at least puzzle consumers. What is more important, there appears to be too little intra EU cooperation, both among the authorities and control bodies.
There is a movement to go back to regional products. There is also some movement to go back to truly organic foods i.e. minimally processed. Those two trends significantly reduce the risk of loss of integrity. A move towards dedicated organic processing units would also contribute. These are all elements of the original organic philosophy. However, as organic will grow, international trade and multi ingredient processing in mixed operations will remain a feature to (better) deal with.
An issue that has come up with the increase in paper work and distances is the one of sense of responsibility. The more actors are involved in a chain, the more the product become anonymous, the less the individual operators feel responsible towards the consumer. As long as you have a paper that says that what you bought and sold is organic, you are covered. Any claims that the product might not be really organic are quickly forwarded to the supplier. Interestingly, in the current consolidation phase in most of Europe one sees that buyers try to organise stable, more reliable sources after a period of sometimes temporary gap stopping of supplies. Trading relations again become based on knowing each other, working with each other, trusting each other. This is a welcome trend. The trade must realise that the organic integrity of the product is not guaranteed by the certification body, nor by an authority; it is guaranteed through the quality of interaction between the supplier and the buyer. In that sense we may have come full circle.
Source
PLENARY SESSION: Quality Assurance, Lecture 4
|
|
|
Quality assurance
Connecting Organic Consumers and Organic Producers: A Case Study
Simon Wright, O&F Consulting, UK
In the UK we have seen an increase in sales through those routes to market where consumers and producers are in direct contact (1). Examples here include Farmers Markets and Box Schemes. However 80% of organic sales in the UK are via supermarkets where direct producer-consumer contact rarely happens. Forward thinking supermarkets have addressed such concerns by working to answer consumers questions such as
- Where does this organic food come from ?
- What does the producer look like ?
- How can I find out more about this product ?
- What organic standards does the producer work to ?
This paper will address how this has been done in practice and will consider what else might be achieved in future.
References
Food and Farming Report 2004, The Soil Association
Source
TECHNICAL SEMINAR 4: Quality Assurance in organic production, Talk 1
|
|
|
Food Quality: Farmer’s Liability or Asset?
Alan Ismond, Washington, U.S.A.
The business of farming can and should be impacted by the quality of the product that is grown and produced. Whether this translates into a financial liability or asset depends on four factors: defining and measuring food quality, correlating food quality with farming practices and costs, correlating food quality and consumer benefit or detriment, and setting food prices that give the consumer a favorable cost to benefit or detriment ratio. For consumers, purchase decisions on the negative food quality side are based on price and perceived risk. On the positive food quality side, the purchase decisions are based on cost and perceived benefit.
On one end of the spectrum, an inferior product may contain life threatening agents such as toxicants or pathogens that can cause consumer illness or death. This can result in immediate financial liabilities and penalties for the farmer and is partly dependent on the traceability of food from farm to table. Another mitigating factor is the consumer acceptance of whether the cause of the problem is considered endemic and the norm, or the result of the farmer’s negligence. The long term negative financial impact to the farmer may be tempered by two factors: the consumers’ willingness to forego food quality in favor of lower food price; and the consumers’ willingness to accept reassurances of food safety and quality by regulatory agencies and governments.
The threshold where food quality becomes a potential asset and a liability occurs when food quality is defined as the absence of life threatening agents. The farmer may benefit in the marketplace by eliminating these tangible negative quality attributes. However, this level of quality does not address the negative food quality attributes such as deficient nutritive content that impacts consumer health in the longer term. At present, this is a complex situation both in defining the acceptable norm for food nutritive quality and the direct correlation and impact on human health. Because of these ambiguities in the market place, the farmer may not incur any liability for this quality deficiency.
On the positive end of the quality spectrum, the farmer should expect that producing high quality foods that maximize consumer health should be an asset. While many consumers understand negative food quality and the consequences, only a minority of consumers fully understand the benefit of buying high quality food. Consumer education or marketing will be needed if food quality as an asset is to result in farmer profitability.
Beyond the financial considerations of food quality, more farmers will need to expand the equation to include the moral and ethical implications in deciding on farming practices and the resulting food quality. Economics alone should not drive this decision given the broad reaching implications that food quality has on human health. Additionally, more consumers will need to invest in their health and well being by making informed food purchases, and be willing to financially support progressive farmers.
References
Kremen, Amy, Greene, Catherine, and Hanson, Jim. April 2004. Organic Produce, Price Premiums, and Eco-Labeling in U.S. Farmers’ Markets, United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Outlook Report No. (VGS-301-01)
Buzby, Jean C., Frenzen, Paul D., and Rasco, Barbara. April 2001. Product Liability and Microbial Foodborne Illness, United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service Report No. 799
OMAF Staff. March 2002. On-Farm Food Safety Programs in Ontario: Background Paper, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/offs/facts/background.htm
Source
TECHNICAL SEMINAR 4: Quality Assurance in organic production, Talk 2
|
|
|
Quality control used for the supply chain for a Danish box scheme
Annette Hartvig Larsen, Aarstiderne A/S, Denmark
Aarstiderne has delivered organic products to the doorsteps of Danish households since 1999, when Thomas Harttung started a small vegetable garden at the farm Barritskov, in the western part of Denmark. The garden supplied fresh vegetables for about 100 local households.
Now Aarstiderne delivers organic produce to the doorsteps of 35.000 Danish households, employs 110 people, provides a sales channel for organic farmers and catalyses the public motion towards healthier food and better environment in Denmark.
As a consequence of rapid growth and of the responsibility one carries as a food company, HACCP was implemented in the winter of 2001/2 in the pack house and in distribution terminals.
The process has been very good in many ways. It has given us focus on food quality, made it possible to grow very fast and maintain quality the same time, and it has given us a system of documentation.
On top of this, implementing and working with HACCP has inspired us to go further with the program. This year Aarstiderne will implement HACCP in the purchase and communication departments as well.
The presentation will seek to address:
- What are the obstacles to implement HACCP?
- How much does it cost in terms of time spend?
- What is the impact on other processes in the company?
- What have we gained from implementing HACCP?
- How to make HACCP a driver instead of a burden?
References
www.aarstiderne.com - english
Source
TECHNICAL SEMINAR 4: Quality Assurance in organic production, Talk 3
|
|
|
Quantifying quality
Food Quality as a social construct
Bertil Sylvander, INRA, France
Having a look back on the last decades, it can be noticed that many research projects are consumer and market oriented. In this framework, the most useful and relevant approaches consider quality as defined by the customers, according to the ISO definition of quality and to the marketing theory (Steenkamp, 1990).
However, recent developments (food fears and environmental concern are some of them) lead scientists and managers to question this assumption. It is noticed that product attributes refer more and more to the production techniques and more generally to the technical, economical and social conditions which prevail upstream in the food chains (Becker, 2000). Such concepts as organic farming, environmentally friendly products, fair trade, animal welfare, trust in careful producers, etc.. become crucial factors for the sectors’ future. In the same time, supply chains become more and more complex, consisting of unequal production structures, supply chain lengths, diverse technical requirements from the players in the chains. This leads to new sources of uncertainty in the system.
In this framework, this presentation will state that the classical definition of “quality as defined by the customers” must be broadened towards “quality as a social construct” (Sylvander, 2002). This approach addresses such questions as how different quality definitions can be observed according to different structures at a given level of the supply chain (requirements from different types of baggers or flour processors for example), and at different levels (gaps between grain shippers, processors, baggers and consumers’ types for example). Those gaps leads to the need of negotiations, where biotechnical scientists, social scientists and governmental agencies play an active role (Sylvander, 2004). Indeed, according to this idea, technical definitions, concerning for example Juran’s “fitness for use” or governmental safety parameters can be discussed on a societal basis, even if the criteria and measurements keep obviously an objective basis. The recent crisis reinforce this thesis, which consist of stating that quality is a social construct.
Finally, the presentation will propose a conceptual model distinguishing between the designed quality, the achieved quality and the perceived quality. The gap between the first and the second deals with coordination and uncertainties in the supply chains, the gap between the second and the third deals with asymmetry of information and the gap between the first and the third deals with learning. Having this model in mind, it is meant that players in the chain may process the negotiations on a sound basis.
References
Becker T. (2000), « Consumer perception of fresh meat quality: a framework for analysis », British Food Journal, 102 (3), pp. 158-176.
Steenkamp J.-B.E.M. (1990), « Conceptual model of the quality perception process », Journal of Business Research, 21, pp. 309-333.
Sylvander B., Biencourt O., Negotiating standards for animal products : a procedural approach applied to unpasteurized milk , in Bingen J., Busch L., (Editors) : Agricultural Standards: The Shape of the Global Food and Fiber System. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004
Sylvander, B. Avis sur la notion de qualité, CNA, Avis n°36, 2002, 47p., http://www.agriculture.gouv.fr/alim/part/AvisNotionqualit%E9250302.pdf
Source
TECHNICAL SEMINAR 5: Quantifying quality in organic foods, Talk 1
|
|
|
FoodPicture a new screening method for the characterization of organic food
Johannes Kahl et al., University of Kassel, Germany
The growing market of organic food products demands for product oriented quality control. One major concern is the differentiation of organically from conventionally grown food. In addition to standard methods of analysis, several screening methods are applied. The FoodPicture method is a biocrystallization screening technique which is based on the crystallographic phenomenon that when adding organic substances to an aqueous solution of dehydrate CuCl2, reproducible patterns are formed during crystallization (MORRIS&MORRIS 1939, KLEBER & STEINIKE-HARTUNG 1959, ANDERSEN ET AL. 2001). The effects of additives on the morphological features are not a mono causal phenomenon, but a complex interaction involving chemical structure, hydrophilic properties of the additives, and colloidal properties of the crystallization solution (MORRIS&MORRIS 1939, SELAWRY 1957, BECKMANN 1959). A favoured field of successful application of the method are comparative studies of the effects of different farming systems on the crop and product quality, as a complement to chemical analysis of minerals, vitamins etc. Recently initial efforts have been made to standardize the method, including optimization of crystallization technique and development of computer software for image analysis of the patterns (ANDERSEN ET AL. 1999, MEIER-PLOEGER ET AL. 2004). The biocrystallization method was validated according to the requirements of ISO 17025 for the statistically proofed discrimination of products from different farming systems (defined field trials, e.g. DOC-trial at FIBL/CH, MAEDER ET AL. 2002) and also from different single production factors. A systematic assessment of the factors influencing the result was carried out as one of the criteria for the determination of the performance of the method. This includes a control system for the crystallisation process and a computer based laboratory documentation system. Furthermore the method parameters repeatability and reproducibility are determined for the samples used. Intercomparisons were carried out together with laboratories in Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark.
References
Andersen, J.-O., Henriksen, C.B., Laursen, J., Nielsen, A.A., 1999: Computerised image analysis of biocrystallograms originated from agricultural products. Computers and electronics in agriculture 22, 51–69
Andersen, J.-O., Kaack, K., Nielsen, M., Thorup-Kristensen, Kr., Labouriau, R., 2001: Comparative study between biocrystallisation and chemical analysis of carrots (Daucus carota L.) grown organically using different levels of green manures. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 19, 29–48
Beckmann, H., 1959: Über Keimbildung, Einkristallwachstum und Auffächerungswachstum von CuCl2ּ2H2O in rein wässrigen und eiweißhaltigen
Lösungen. Dissertation Universität Bonn
Kleber, W. and Steinike-Hartung, U., 1959: Ein Beitrag zur Kristallisation von Kupfer(II)-Chlorid-Dihydrat aus Lösungen. Zeitschrift für Kristallographie 111, 213-234
Maeder, P., Fließbach., A, Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., Niggli, U., 2002: Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming. Science, 296, 1694-1697
Meier-Ploeger, A., Busscher, N., Kahl, J., 2004: Ganzheitliche Untersuchungsmethoden zur Erfassung und Prüfung der Qualität ökologischer Lebensmittel: Stand der Entwicklung und Validierung, Abschlußbericht Projekt 02OE170, Bundesprogramm Ökolandbau
Morris, D. L., Morris, C. T., 1939: Specific effects of certain tissue extracts on the crystallisation pattern of cupric chloride. J. Phys. Chem. 43, 623–629
Selawry, A., Selawry, O. (Hg.), 1957: Die Kupferchloridkristallisation in Naturwissenschaft und Medizin. Fischer-Verlag, Stuttgart
Source
TECHNICAL SEMINAR 5: Quantifying quality in organic foods, Talk 2
|
|
|
Possibilities and limitations of using isotope & multi-element techniques for distinguishing between different agricultural practices
Alison Bateman & Simon Kelly, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, UK
Authentication of organic foods is currently based on production standards, inspections and product traceability rather than the difficult route of analytical checks. Conventional (non-organic) producers or their wholesalers may be tempted to mislabel produce as ‘organic’ in order to obtain higher returns. The potential for using nitrogen isotopes to discriminate between organically and conventionally grown crops is based on the hypothesis that the application of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers will result in conventionally grown crops having lower nitrogen-15 values than crops grown under organic regimes. Results are presented from “proof of concept” experiments in which crops were grown either with a synthetic chemical fertiliser or with animal manure.
For the nitrogen isotope approach to be successful at discriminating more widely between crops grown under organic and conventional agricultural regimes, the influence of chemical nitrogen fertilisers on crop nitrogen-15 content must predominate over other factors, e.g. variability in the nitrogen-15 content of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers, variability in the nitrogen-15 content of fertilisers that may be applied in organic systems, soil type etc. Nitrogen isotope data are presented from a survey of organically and conventionally grown vegetables from across the UK and EU. The nitrogen-15 compositions of these commercial crops incorporate the influence of these other factors and any remaining differences in the isotope values between the organically and conventionally grown crops can be assumed to be predominantly due to fertiliser influence. In addition, the determination of the multi-element composition of these crops has shown differences in some element concentrations between the organically and conventionally grown crops.
Source
TECHNICAL SEMINAR 5: Quantifying quality in organic foods, Talk 3
|
|
|
Improving standards and regulation
Overview of the EU FP6 project “Organic Revision” (www.organic-revision.org)
Erik Steen Kristensen, DARCOF, Denmark
Originally, organic farming was a localised, self-regulating agricultural practice driven by distinct ethical values. In the last decades organic agriculture has undergone significant growth and development, and now it exhibits organic industries and international trade. Today there is a large number of different standards, labels and certification bodies, and this is confusing for consumers, traders and the organic farming industry. The EU regulation 2092/91 can therefore be of high importance for the credibility and harmonisation of organic standards.
The overall objective of this research project is to provide recommendations for development of the EU regulation for organic agriculture.
The project will identify the basic ethical values and value differences in organic agriculture and develop a procedure for balancing and integrating the basic values in revisions of the EU regulation (WP2). It will also establish an organic standards database that enables comparison of national and international organic standards with the EU regulation, and analyse the exposed differences (WP3). It is expected that these outcomes will help identify trade barriers, provide a better understanding of the ongoing development of organic agriculture and how it can be regulated, enable regionalisation of the organic production and support harmonisation as well as simplification of the EU regulation so that it may constitute a better basis for communicating in a transparent way with consumers, producers, policy makers and other stakeholders.
The project will provide specific recommendations on the derogations of the use of conventional feed (WP4) and seed (WP5) in the EU regulation. It will assess the availability of organic seeds and propagation materials and develop information exchange and decision criteria for the seed regime. It will also survey the supply and demand of organic feeds and feed additives and develop evaluation criteria for specific feed and feed additives, thus ensuring animal welfare as well as the credibility of organic agriculture. This is expected to reduce the dependency on inputs from conventional production in organic farming systems. Implementation of the results will be by means of web-page and 3 workshops in close collaboration with the Commission (WP6).
Source
TECHNICAL SEMINAR 9: Improving standards and regulation, Talk 1
|
|
|
Database of national and international organic standards
Otto Schmid, FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Switzerland
In the EU project “OrganicRevision”, which started in March 2004, a public web-based database of differences between the major organic standards of Europe and other relevant standards in relation to EEC Reg. 2092/91 is built up. This tool can be used by stakeholders and policy makers. It is a response to a recommandation of the European Action Plan for Organic farming. One of the key objectives is to use the database for the identification of specific areas where harmonisation, regionalisation or simplification may be implemented in EEC 2092/91. The work is coordinated by FiBL and AIAB Italy.
The database will be built on experiences with existing databases and software. The database will be hosted by DARCOF (DK) and allow for decentralised web-based updating by the different Member States, inspection/certification bodies and label organisation. It will also allow for public input of suggestions for additions, changes or derogations to the regulations. When finalized, the database will contain data on differences between the EEC 2092/91 and selected (minimum 15) major organic standards covering the various regions of Europe and international and national organic standards that are important for the world trade with organic products (i.e. IFOAM Basic Standards, Codex Alimentarius Guidelines, USDA and Japanese Regulation). National representatives of the IFOAM EU regional group will be responsible for filling in the relevant data.
A report on the comparison of the EEC Reg. 2092/91 and selected national/ international organic standards as well as special case-study areas will be an outcome of the project (see www.organic-revision.org)
References
Schmid O. (2002): Comparison of EU Regulation 2092/91, Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for Organically produced Food 1999/2001 and the IFOAM Basic Standards. In the Reader “IFOAM Conference on Organic Guarantee Systems”. 17.-19. February 2002 in Nuernberg Germany. 12-18
Schmid, O. (2000): Comparison of European Organic Livestock Standards with national and international standards - problems of common standards development and future areas of interest. In: Diversity of livestock systems and definition of animal welfare. Proceedings of the Second NAHWOA Workshop. Cordoba 8-11 January 2000. Edited by M. Hovi and R. G. Trujillo. EU funded Concerted Action Project. University of Reading (UK). 63-75.
Source
TECHNICAL SEMINAR 9: Improving standards and regulation, Talk 2
|
|
|
Research into values of organic producers and principles of organic agriculture
Susanne Padel & Hugo Alrøe, Llanbadarn Campus, UK & DARCOF, Denmark
One of the objectives of the Organic Revision project is to identify the basic values and differences of organic agriculture in Europe. Organic farming aims to work with natural systems, which are site specific, and often builds on local cultural traditions, so it may have differing practices in different regions. This contrasts with the aim of the EU regulation to harmonise rules and promote trade. As part of the Organic Revision project a series of focus group interviews will be carried out with different types of participants in five countries (AT, CH, NL, IT, UK). The objectives are to identify the range of values held among organic producers and other organic stakeholders, and to explore differences between regions and between early and more recently converted producers. Together with other parts of the project (establishing an organic standards database, case studies of contested topics and value conflicts) and in close co-operation with the IFOAM task force on Rewriting the Principles of Organic Agriculture, the results will feed into the development of a procedure for balancing and integrating the basic ethical values of organic agriculture in the further developments of EU Regulation 2092/91 and other organic standards.
References
Organic Revision (2004-2007) Project website at <http://organic-revision.org>.
IFOAM (2004) Special Feature on Principles of Organic Agriculture, Ecology and Farming No. 36. Available online at <http://ecowiki.org/IfoamPrinciples/EcologyAndFarming>
Source
TECHNICAL SEMINAR 9: Improving standards and regulation, Talk 3
|
|
|
Improving efficiency and integrity of supply chains
Costs and benefits of improved quality control
Matthias Stolze, FiBL, Switzerland
It is relatively easy to suggest new procedures at various stages in the supply chain that will improve the quality and safety of organic products. But new procedures often carry costs that will make the resulting product more expensive. Since price is a very important quality aspect for most consumers, any increase in price carries a large risk to the producer.
It is therefore crucial to assess the costs of a suggested improvement, and as far as possible focus on improvements that either do not require additional inputs or investments, or where additional costs are compensated by reduced losses or other savings, directly due to the improvements or due to reduced need for other costly control methods, at the same or another step in the supply chain.
The presentation will describe the factors influencing the efficiency of European organic supply chains following a systemic approach (Hennessy 2002). A company here is seen as a part of a network of suppliers and customers. The ability of an enterprise to create value depends on its network position (Cooper et al. 1997). It seeks to fulfil the goals of providing high customer value with an appropriate use of resources, and building competitive chain advantages.
References
Hennessy D.A., J. R. a. H. H. J. (2002). Systemic Failure in the provision of Safe Food, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development: 26.
Cooper, M.C.; D.M. Lambert and J.D. Pagh (1997). Supply Chain Management: more than a new name for logistics, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1-14.
Source
TECHNICAL SEMINAR 10: Improving efficiency and integrity of supply chains, Talk 1
|
|
|
Recent developments & future prospects for organic vegetable supply chains in the UK
Natalie Geen & C Firth, HDRA, COH, Ryton Organic Gardens, UK
The organic vegetable market has always been one of the most important sectors in the UK organic food market. Additionally, organic vegetables are often an important ‘entry point’ commodity for consumers trying organic food. This is thought to be because of consumers’ concern over pesticide applications on conventional vegetables and the perception of organic vegetables as fresh and unprocessed.
Much organic vegetable growing in the UK, between 1970-1990, was pioneered by small-scale growers. These growers often farmed in the southwest of England and Wales and marketed through wholesale outlets to specialist health food shops or directly by methods such as box schemes. In fact the vegetable box scheme was popularised by organic growers in the early 1990s. In these food chains quality was principally determined by taste and freshness rather than cosmetics.
The entry of supermarkets into the organic market and the general shift in consumer shopping behaviour towards greater use of supermarkets was important in expanding the volume of organic vegetables sold. However it lead to the multiplication of the criteria by which the ‘quality’ of organic crops are assessed through the inclusion of aesthetics and economic efficiencies. These specifications, sometimes conflicting with original organic quality determinants, have threatened supply chain integrity and efficiencies. For example, central distribution systems meant ‘food miles’ rose; price and continuity of supply requirements led to high reliance on imported produce and the need to keep organic and conventional produce separate resulted in extensive packaging. As competition intensifies between the supermarkets they seek to cut costs and prices further which can lead to less security for growers. Those growers who try to maintain organic integrity by marketing through other outlets have faced strong competition from supermarkets.
This paper will examine a range of supply chains for organic vegetables and the latest market trends, which is part of DEFRA funded research at HDRA. It will assess case studies of established and progressive market outlets, such as farm shops, box schemes, farmers markets and public procurement, against economic, environmental and social criteria, to identify successful practice and contribution to supply chain integrity and efficiency.
References
Firth, C., N. Geen, et al. (2003). The UK organic vegetable market 2001/02, HDRA, Ryton Organic Garden, Coventry.
Pretty, J. N., C. Brett, et al. (2000). "An Assessment of the Total External Costs of UK Agriculture." Agricultural Systems 65: 113-136.
Smith, E., Marsden, T. (2004). "Exploring the limits to growth in UK organics: beyond the statistical image. " Journal of Rural Studies 20: 345-357.
Source
TECHNICAL SEMINAR 10: Improving efficiency and integrity of supply chains, Talk 2
|
|
|
Developing local supply chains, Feeding Our Future
Gary Stokes, Ashlyns Organic Farm, High Laver Hall, UK
Since 1997 we have gradually converted Ashlyns Organic Farm from a conventional arable unit into a diverse organic business. From August 2005 we will be farming 600 Ha of fully converted land incorporating many different enterprises including arable (mainly for seed production), root crops, grassland, and a wide range of vegetables to supply our two shops, box scheme, and wholesale/farmers markets.
In September 2003 I was approached by a school to supply them with baking potatoes which led me to explore a whole new market for us as farmers – public procurement. In December 2003 Essex County Council decided to return the control of catering budgets back to the schools. This decision was met with some scepticism at first, but now many schools are realising they have a great opportunity to address the quality of meals supplied by outside caterers.
We are already supplying six schools with fresh organic produce and it has encouraged us to launch our “Feeding Our Future” project. We are applying for a Rural Enterprise Scheme grant to help us establish a producer’s co-operative to guarantee continuity of supply, a preparation kitchen to add value and saleability of our products, and to set up a marketing/training facility.
For this project to succeed it is imperative that we build strong relationships with each school and help them with all of the implications involved with running an independent school meal service. There are many issues to be addressed including logistics, sourcing, politics, and the need to re-educate people about seasonality and the value of a good food culture.
Ashlyns is a Soil Association demonstration farm, which has enabled us to establish ourselves as a visitor attraction and hold regular events. We employ two education officers and regularly receive over thirty school visits a year which we intend to expand further, due to the importance of educating children as to where their food comes from. Our aim is to link to all schools in Essex and London whether or not we supply them with produce.
We acknowledge the difficulties that lay ahead, but recognise the need to feel passionate about a child’s right to have access to fresh, traceable, healthy food (preferably organic). After all, we are also securing our next generation of organic customers from an early age!
Source
TECHNICAL SEMINAR 10: Improving efficiency and integrity of supply chains, Talk 3
|
|
|
Conclusion and recommendations on quality assurance
Presentation by Dr. Patermann, European Commission, on 6th and 7th Framework Programmes (pdf-file)
|
|
|
Chairman’s summary of session on Quality assurance
Dr Richard Stanley, Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Association (CCFRA), United Kingdom
The plenary presentations, which preceded the technical sessions introduced the idea that consumers have concerns about the biography of food products. This concept was further explored by the three presenters in technical session 4.
The consumer oriented quality assurance activities of a major UK retailer were described. This included the level of detailed information which is provided on the packaging of organic products which allowed the consumer to identify the grower or producer of the foodstuff.
A perspective from the USA was given, this encouraged us to consider the positive asset which organic food provides to the organic producer and the industry in general when quality is good. However the traceability systems, which clearly connect the producer to the consumer become a liability if the food supplied is of poor quality. The need to maintain standards at all stages of the organic supply chain was emphasised.
The session ended with a success story from Denmark. An organic box scheme had grown to become a large organic food distribution company. In order to maintain the high standard of service when the small operation was scaled up, the company had introduced a HACCP study to implement controls at critical points. This had helped the company to be more confident about the quality of the service provided when the volume of business expanded.
The discussions which followed agreed that there is a need for good planning and detail when setting up effective quality assurance procedures.
Different strategies are needed to satisfy the different aspirations of consumers. Some consumers will place more emphasis on organic status, others on fairtrade, animal welfare or food quality considerations.
It was suggested that farmers have a moral obligation to produce healthy food.
Questions were asked about the need for a HACCP approach to the organic certification process to ensure that it is consistently applied to all producers.
It was agreed that greater attention to quality assurance procedures was required in situations where the production unit included both organic and non organic activities.
|
|
|
Chairman’s summary of session on Quantifying quality
Prof. Eduardo Rosa, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Portugal
Within the title of this session we can identify two major terms “quality” and “quantification of quality”.
Defining quality of a product is clear a complex exercise since at least 2 major systems can be identified: the production system with all the inputs (agricultural practices and environment) and the post-harvest system which can be rather complex according to the definition of quality should be broadened toward“ quality as a social construct” in which there are interactions between the designed, achieved and perceived quality. In this respect, it is requested more flow of information between the actors though the chain making sure that the quality is characterized in each step and that this information is passed to the next actor in the chain.
Regarding the methodology for quantification of quality, two tables were presented with new methods (biocrystalization and isotopes and multi-element techniques). These methods were seen as very useful in comparing organic versus conventional foods. They allow for a clear discrimination between the 2 growing systems. In these respect they can be used in the process of authenticity and for detecting fraud. It must be stressed the interesting view of the biocrystalization method which uses a systematic approach claimed as a very important methods for the evolution of quality in organic food.
However, when we look for individual compounds (minerals, primary metabolites, secondary plant metabolites and xenobiotics) traditional methods are still the best tools. For a comprehensive analysis of food we rely on the traditional methods (i.e. HPLC-MS).
|
|
|
Chairman’s summary of session on Improving standards and regulation
Erik Steen Kristensen, DARCOF, Denmark
In the last decade organic agriculture has undergone significant growth. Today, the sector is exhibiting organic industries and international trade together with a large number of different standards, labels and certification bodies.
The expansion has produced a need for simplifications of organic rules and more transparency in the regulation. Furthermore, there is need for a better understanding of how regulation can support the values behind organic agriculture and support communication between producers and consumers.
In this relation, the EU Commision has funded the research project Organic Revision with the objective to provide recommendations for the development and revision of the EU regulation for organic agriculture.
|
|
|
Chairman’s summary of session on Improving efficiency and integrity of supply chains
Robert Duxbury, True Food Values, United Kingdom
We have witnessed considerable developments in food supply chains over the last few decades, resulting in a global food market of unsurpassed complexity. Most developments and improvements in the way food is supplied is motivated by efficiency because the supply chain comprises a myriad of small, medium and large businesses who are all obliged to operate to an economic model that is cost focussed. However, food is such a fundamental part of our lives that its integrity is always of critical concern. Because the food market is so intensely price driven, it is inevitable that conflicts between efficiency and integrity will arise and need to be addressed. These conflicts become no more apparent than in the organic supply chain, where consumer trust is paramount to the continued success of the organic market, but where consumer perceptions of how organic food is produced is often challenged by the reality of the balances between integrity and efficiency.
This workshop provided the opportunity to explore these issues through presentations by three very different speakers, each with a unique perspective of the organic supply chain.
Gary Stokes of Ashlyns organic farm in Essex presented a very practical, grass roots commentary on how his particular business has developed alternative supply chains as a result of market changes. The need to run an efficient business whilst addressing integrity issues is explained in great detail. A new business project called ‘Feeding Our Future’ is to supply locally produced food to schools through the establishment of a producer’s co-operative to guarantee continuity of supply, a preparation kitchen to add value and product saleability and setting up a marketing/training facility.
Points raised:
- The need for more accurate information for consumers about organic food and farming. The power of information and the need to tell the story is key.
- The importance of education in schools. Encouraging schools to use organic food not only provides pupils with quality fresh produce, but it cultivates future organic consumers.
- Ashlyns illustrate a degree of independence for its supply chain, relatively free from supermarket dominance. ‘Actor Freedom’, such as co-operatives, allow greater empowerment and self determination for organic producers – a key issue that participants were interested in.
- Interest as to whether diversification of business activity, such as the example of Ashlyns, can assist in improving efficiency.
- Can retailers represent the same level of food integrity as farmers ?
The second workshop presentation from Chris Firth and Natalie Geen of HDRA outlined the ‘Recent Developments and Future Prospects for Organic Vegetable Supply Chains in the UK. A description of how supermarkets dominate the organic supply chain elicited discussion about the efficiencies of a system that is geared so much towards the visual uniformity and cosmetic perfection of fresh produce. The resultant inefficiencies from supermarket specifications, that see large amounts of vegetables discarded due to failure to meet grading requirements, was raised as an issue of high concern. This was mirrored by a comment regarding the organic meat supply chain where supermarket requirements for specific cuts of meat give rise to inefficient use of the whole carcass.
Points raised:
- An example of how EU directives can also contradict the integrity of the organic supply chain was raised in respect of restrictions in the use of manures on farms, which could compromise organic standards.
- The current EC Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Grading Standards gives a one dimensional and singular focus on visual quality. It was proposed that these Standards need to be reviewed in terms of other quality attributes that will arise from the QLIF project and that further criteria such as nutritional composition and integrity of the fresh produce supply chain should be added to these requirements.
- Concerns about food miles need to be addressed more through organic standards and a suggestion that the importation of organic food contradicted organic principles was hotly debated.
- It was noted that supermarkets are not the only route to market and more direct marketing methods and increasing, giving consumers access to a wider selection of produce and sources than can be supplied through supermarkets. The organic sector’s promotion of these alternative markets creates potential for new ways of working. However, the requirements for food safety and integrity remain critical to maintain consumer trust.
- Fierce competition between supermarkets results in driving down of prices. This is compounded by the slow down of the organic market introducing further challenges to producers as they seek new ways to sell their products. However, the organic vegetable market remains strong and provides further opportunities for UK growers due to the trend to reduce import reliance.
- Defra sustainable farming project generates financial advantage for local economies. The need to ensure the efficiency of sustainable production systems is critical and needs further research.
Finally Matthias Stolze from FIBl in Switzerland discussed ‘Costs and Benefits of Improved Quality Control’ and how this relates directly to the QLIF project, which he is closely associated with.
Points raised:
- Consumers need continuous reinforcement of the trust they place in the organic supply chain and this relates directly to their expectations and perceptions of what organic food and farming is. This is a need that the Organic HACCP project ultimately seeks to address, in terms of identification of issues related to food safety, assurance, integrity and efficiency. The organic sector can act as a sounding board for some of the issues we all share as a result of concerns about the integrity and efficiency of the conventional food chain.
- The issue of costs was raised as a major concern since price is so critical to consumer uptake.
- It was proposed that there should be a tie between the outputs of the organic HACCP & QLIF projects – encouraging benchmarking of quality measurements and justification for cost of organic food. Thus the true value of organic food must be made more transparent so it can be understood by consumers.
|
|
|
Chairman’s summary on conclusions and recommendations
Kirsten Brandt, University of Newcastle, United Kingdom
Consumers of organic food are interested in a broad range of qualities: Authenticity, taste, localness, health benefits, animal welfare, fair trade relations, safety from pathogens and poisons, affordability, benefits for the environment, minimal content of pesticide residues, food additives etc. These are not seen as separate issues, but are all symbolised by an image of dedicated, honest farmers, processors, retailers etc., who collaborate to produce food they are proud of, and therefore are willing to sign up to a consistent and idealistic set of uncompromising standards and inspections.
Consumers are also aware that it is not possible to fulfil all these wishes at the same time, as long as it is clear that all are doing the best they can to provide the best qualities at a reasonable price.
For most of these qualities it is evident from the presentations of the workshop and of the other parts of the Conference that research and development is providing new or improved tools to improve or enhance this quality: New methods for testing of organic origin, better assurance of good taste, supply chain organisation methods such as box schemes to improve contact between producer and consumer, better understanding of effects of food production methods on health etc. etc. While there is still very much work to be done, for all aspects except one the needs for research and development are quite clear, targeted efforts are underway or being planned on how to deliver this, and the industry is eager to implement the results as soon as they become available.
This exception is the efficiency of the procedures for certification and inspection in organic supply chains. The methods used today have developed gradually in response to changing views and needs in the organic community and outside it, often as a series of compromises between many different competing interests. The increasingly complex set of detailed definitions and derogations are frustrating for everyone involved. There is substantial risk of future significant damage to the organic industry, of on one hand scandals if procedures are unable to prevent violations, on the other hand loss of competitiveness if procedures become unnecessarily costly.
There are other aspects of food quality and safety where the knowledge on control and optimisation is still rudimentary, for example regarding health benefits, but in those cases the need for research aimed at obtaining this knowledge is clearly recognised, and some activities have been initiated.
In contrast, there does not seem to be any ongoing or planned research and experimentation aimed at testing the efficiency of different concepts of certifications and inspections, which would logically be a prerequisite for improving and eventually optimising them. It is not even evident that those involved are expecting such efforts to be initiated anytime soon. This could be done in a variety of ways, from advanced research combining psychology, economics, modelling and other disciplines, to simple schemes allowing a limited number of certifiers to experiment with modified procedures under a set of conditions that are defined to ensure proper assessments and applicability.
So the overall conclusion of the workshop is that efficiency of the procedures for certification and inspection in organic supply chains is the one key topic where new, independent research and development is urgently needed.
|
|
|