SAFEFOODERA Stakeholder Group meeting with scientists Lisbon, 23 - 24 November 2006.

SAFEFOODERASAFEFOODERA

Stakeholder Group meeting with scientistsLisbon, 23 - 24 November 2006

SAFEFOODERA WP6 – External Communication

Objective

To establish links with stakeholders to facilitate pan-European dissemination and exploitation of project results.

Dialogue with stakeholders to Facilitating pan-European dissemination and exploitation of project results.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The scientific community (Lisabon, 23 – 24 November 2006)

SAFE Consortium membership, complemented with other institutes to be selected.

2. The Food Industry (Copenhagen, 14 – 15 December 2006)

Tthe Confederation of the food and drink industries of the EU (CIAA).

3. The Retail and Food Service sectors (January 2007)

Representatives from The Confederation of National Associations of Hotels, Restaurants, Cafés and Similar Establishments in the European Union and European Economic Area (HOTREC), the European Federation of Contract Catering Organisations (FERCO), the European Modern Restaurant Association (EMRA), Eurocommerce and the International Committee of Food Retail Chains (CIES).

4. The Consumers (February 2007)

The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC)

5. The Commission and EFSA (Berlin, March 2007)

The management board of EFSA and the Commission’s ERA-NET organisation.

““Coming together Coming together is a beginning. is a beginning.

Keeping together Keeping together is progress. is progress.

Working together Working together is success” is success”

““Coming together Coming together is a beginning. is a beginning.

Keeping together Keeping together is progress. is progress.

Working together Working together is success” is success”

Henry FordHenry FordHenry FordHenry Ford

SAFEFOODERASAFEFOODERA

Stakeholder Group meeting with scientistsLisbon, 23 - 24 November 2006

Objectives of the meeting

SAFEFOODERA and the European Steering Committe (ESC)

The members of SAFEFOODERA-ESC are funding bodies from countries that are willing to coordinate the food safety aspects of their ongoing national/regional programmes

The first joint pilot-call was launched on October 1, 2006

The first joint pilot call – topics selected

To coordinate food safety aspects of ongoing national/regional programmes

Emerging risksPat. free production

Zoonosis

Country

Bask-country x x

Cyprus x x

Denmark x x x

Germany x x

Finland x x x

Netherlands x x

Norway x x x

Portugal x x

Iceland x x x

Sweden x x x

UK x x

To improve the process of launching future SAFEFOODERA calls

1. Discuss the role of Funders and Scientists in the roadmap (RM) used by SAFEFOODERA to select topics for the first pilot calls.

2. What are your suggestions for an improved roadmap for future calls?

The 1st objective of the meeting

The provisional strategic topicsThe provisional strategic topics were selected by were selected by Funders and decribed by Scientists

1. Emerging risks1. Emerging risks - A potential food or feed borne or diet-related hazard that may become a risk for human health in the (near) future.

2. Risk analysis in food safety2. Risk analysis in food safety - Methodologies in protecting the consumers against health risks and misleading information, including crisis management, consumer perception and risk/benefit analysis.

3. Contaminants3. Contaminants - Health risks from natural- and environmental contaminants in the food chain. 3.1 Process induced risk3.1 Process induced risk - Health risks from chemical pollution formed during processing of foods.

4. Traceability 4. Traceability - Documented and harmonised routines for recall of food products from the value chain - Development of reliable traceability methods and systems.

5. Pathogens5. Pathogens - Pathogen free production systems - From reactive to preventive and predictive actions.

Roadmap (RM1) for selection of topics for pilot calls.The role of Funders and Scientists to be discussed

Funders and Scientists

Funders

Funders

Funders


Evaluation criteria used by Funders : Step 1 to Step 3 - going from 70 to 12 topics

1) Relevance of society 2) Interest of stakeholders 3) Real or potential food safety problem 4) Need for SAFEFOODERA coordination 5) Community interest

SAFEFOODERA WG Topics - Scored Gross list

Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

Topics /Subtopics

Strategic Topic

subtopic nº SUM

Emerging Risk 2 23 24 22 28 26 123Pathogens 66 Decontamination (WS1) 25 25 21 25 23 119

Pathogens 56 Campylobacter (Q) 24 25 24 21 24 118

Pathogens 60 Pathogen free production systems (Q) 24 26 22 23 23 118

Pathogens 57 Salmonella (Q) 22 25 25 20 25 117

Data management (Q) = procedure to use/exchange all the available data & information (WS1)

Community interest

Relevance for society

Interest of stakeholders

Real or potential

food safety problem

Need for SAFEFOODERA coordination


Shortlist A containing priority themes with high project or

activity frequency

Shortlist B containing priority themes with low project or activity

frequencyAnalytical tools (1033) Pathogen free production chains

(42)

Standardisation (500) Fraud reduction (77)

Data management & exchange (300)

Foodborne viruses (23)

Zoonosis (221) Emerging risks (50)

Persistent organic pollutants (200) Risk assessment (102)

Food allergens (87)

Mycotoxins (127)

Topics selection by Funders: Step 1 to Step 3 - going from 70 to 12 topics


The 12 topics of the short list were further described in shortdocuments by Funders in cooperation with Scientists under

the following common headings:

1) Identification of problems 2) Formulation of the knowledge question 3) Strategic interest as a Pan-European project 4) Approach proposed to the problems


Funders

Scientists

Funders

Funders

FundersFunders

Funders / Scientists


Evaluation criteria used by Funders: Step 3 to Step 4 - going from 12 to 3 topics

1) National/ Regional relevance 2) Risk reduction at European level3) Risk reduction at National/ Regional level 4) Cost/benefit ratio5) Knowledge management / Research capacity

Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5

Subtopics

ShortList SUM

Emerging Risk B 76 79 67 63 77 362

Zoonosis A 79 70 68 72 72 361

Pathogen free production systems (Q) B 75 70 60 70 63 338

POPs A 69 71 63 66 64 333

Food allergens B 66 68 61 66 68 329

Risk Assessment B 68 66 56 62 72 324

Micotoxins B 68 67 59 61 59 314

Analytical Tools (Q) A 66 60 52 68 65 311

Data management and Exchange A 63 60 57 64 63 307

Knowledge management/

Research capacity

National /Regionalrelevance

Risk reductionEuropean

level

Risk reduction

National/Regional level

Cost/benefitratio


Priority themeShort-list

Sum of scores (the lower score the better)

Countries with possibilities to participate

in writing call text

Zoonosis A 52 18

Emerging Risk B 59 16

Pathogen free production systems

B 62 12

Food allergens B 78 13

Persistent organic pollutants

A 79 13

Risk Assessment B 90 11


Groups composed of Scientists from countries with possibilities to participate in writing the call text further

developed the selected topics.

One group for each topic

Finally, the Funders accepted the call text before the call was officially launched

The 2nd objective of the meeting

WS 1: What is the optimal Research Infrastructure from scientists/funders point of view to improve food safety research?

Definition of Research Infrastructures

Research infrastructures are tools,“single-sited”, “distributed” or “virtual””, that provide essential services to the scientific community:

Communication networks, databases, biological archives, libraries, research vessels………

Research infrastructure play a key role in the creation of knowledge, in the diffusion of knowledge and its application and exploitation.

Research infrastructure could be an established link between stakeholders to facilitate pan-European dissemination and exploitation of food safety results.

Optimal use of research infrastructures of pan-European interest is one of the priorities of the Standing Committee for Agricultural Research (SCAR).

Research infrastructures must provide a range of unique support services forresearch that are critical to delivery:

unique data management

interpretation and handling capacities

‘knowledge management infrastructures’ (such as statistics, design technologies, epidemiology, risk assessment expertise, data archives, and ‘social science’ infrastructures)

unique support facilities (such as high-level containment and experimental/housing facilities and expert trained support personnel).

An infrastructure of pan-European interest may be defined as having one or several of the following characteristics:

it is required for research of high added value at the European level

it is expensive in terms of investment and/or running costs

it is required in the long term

it is required at the European level, but not justified at a national one

it is required by several fields of research

it is required for an efficient use of common resources

Five research infrastructures seems presently to be insufficiently taken inaccount at a European level:

Long term experiments and observatories

Technological centres for process studies

Facilities to study animal diseases

Human nutrition research centres

Infrastructures that support research and deliver training

1. What are the main field of research infrastructures that are needed to improve food safety research?

2. What are the main existing research infrastructures facilities capable of improving the European capacity in food safety research?

3. What are the main obstacles to share research infrastructures in food safety at the European level?

4. What are your suggestions for a better or optimal common use of these research infrastructures?

5. Will future food safety research have a demand for networking of distributed facilities, “virtual” centres and clusters of expertise, and therefore for management?

Consider the issue of research infrastructures of European added value in the context of future coordination of food safety

The 3rd objective of the meeting

WS 2: What is the optimal infrastructure that delivers effective education and training in food safety from

scientists/funders point of view

1. What are the main field of research infrastructures that are needed to develope an effective education and training in food safety research?

2. What are the main existing research infrastructures facilities capable of improving the European capacity in education and training in food safety research?

3. What are the main obstacles to share research infrastructures in education and training in food safety research at the European level?

4. What are your suggestions for a better or optimal common use of research infrastructures for education and training in food safety research?

Consider the issue of research infrastructures of European added value in the context of future coordination of education and training in food safety research

Group 1

Ola Eide - CGun Wirtanen - RFranz Ulberth Geert Houben Brion Duffy Tim HoggElisabeth Borch Hartmut Waldner Joes Empis Marta Sabec Paradiz Agostino Macri

Group 2

Harmen Hofstra - CMonica de Prago - R Huub Lelieveld Antonio Conti, Amedeo or LogriecoTheresa Aymerich Eva GelencserTruls Nesbakken Oddur Mar Gunnarsson Alisdair Wotherspoon Karen Verveeken Lucjan Szponar

SAFEFOODERA Stakeholder Group meeting with scientists Lisbon, 23 - 24 November 2006.

Documents

selection of topics

topics selection

meeting slide

food chain

role of funders

topics roadmap rm1

scientists funders roadmap

food allergens