1. Stakeholder Group meeting with industry Objectives of the meeting
SAFEFOODERA
Stakeholder Group meeting with industry
Copenhagen, December 2006
Objectives of the meeting

2. The Staircase to the Future
2008 “A European platform
for protecting consumers
against food health risks”
The Staircase to the Future
Transnational Activities
External communication
External communication
Joint Activities
External communication
Strategic Activities
External communication
Information Exchange
2004 ERA-NET
SAFEFOODERA

3. Food safety projects/activities Management activities
Information exchange
and regions
Questionnaires
Food safety projects/activities
Management activities
Emerging risks

4. Provisional topics

5. Emerging risks

6. To improve the process of launching future SAFEFOODERA calls
The 1st objective of the meeting
To improve the process of launching future SAFEFOODERA calls
Discuss 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?

7. Roadmap for selection of topics for pilot calls.
The provisional strategic topics were selected by Funders and decribed by Scientists
1. 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 safety - Methodologies in protecting the consumers against health risks and misleading information, including crisis management, consumer perception and risk/benefit analysis.
3. Contaminants - Health risks from natural- and environmental contaminants in the food chain.
3.1 Process induced risk - Health risks from chemical pollution formed during processing of foods.
4. Traceability - Documented and harmonised routines for recall of food products from the value chain - Development of reliable traceability methods and systems.
5. Pathogens - Pathogen free production systems - From reactive to preventive and predictive actions.

8. Roadmap for selection of topics for pilot calls.
Funders and Scientists
Funders
Funders
Funders

9. Roadmap for selection of topics for pilot calls.
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

10. Roadmap for selection of topics for pilot calls.
Topics selection by Funders: Step 1 to Step 3 - going from 70 to 12 topics
Shortlist A containing priority themes with high project or activity frequency
Shortlist B containing priority themes with low project or activity frequency
Analytical 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)

11. The 12 topics of the short list were further described in short
Roadmap for selection of topics for pilot calls.
The 12 topics of the short list were further described in short
documents 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

12. Roadmap for selection of topics for pilot calls.
Funders / Scientists
Funders
Funders
Funders
Scientists
Funders
Funders

13. Roadmap for selection of topics for pilot calls.
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 level
3) Risk reduction at National/ Regional level
4) Cost/benefit ratio
5) Knowledge management / Research capacity

14. Sum of scores (the lower score the better)
Priority theme
Short-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 62 12
Food allergens 78 13
Persistent organic pollutants 79
Risk Assessment 90 11

15. One group for each topic Finally, the Funders accepted the call text
Roadmap for selection of topics for pilot calls.
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

16. The first joint pilot call was launched on
1 October 2006
To coordinate food safety aspects of ongoing national/regional programmes
Emerging risks
Pat. free production
Zoonosis
Country
Bask-country x
Cyprus
Denmark
Germany
Finland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Iceland
Sweden UK

17. WS2: The 2nd objective of the meeting
What is the optimal Research Infrastructure in Emerging Risks from industry/funders point of view,
to improve food safety research
and to deliver effective education and training.

18. The SAFEFOODERA platform - *Country expansionEU
Information exchange database
*The virtual transnational food
safety programme of Europe
> 2300 projects registered
topics known - content unknown
Emerging risks
Pathogens
Chemical contaminats
*Diet&health
*National experts
EFSA
Strategic activities
Need for tailored information
*Optimal conditions for Training
*Optimal conditions for Research
Joint activities
The food safety conference
”The food safety journal”
Transnational activities
Transnational calls
Joint activities
Harmonised
food safety training

19. 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).

20. Research infrastructures must provide a range of unique support services for
research 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).

21. 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

22. Five research infrastructures seems presently to be insufficiently taken in
account 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

23. Consider the issue of research infrastructures of European added value
in the context of future coordination of food safety research, education and training.
What are the main field of research infrastructures that are needed to improve food safety research, education and training?
What are the main existing research infrastructures facilities capable of
improving the European capacity in food safety research, education and training?
What are the main obstacles to share research infrastructures in food safety research, education and training at the European level?
What are your suggestions for a better or optimal common use of these research infrastructures?
5. Will future food safety research, education and training have a demand for networking of distributed facilities, “virtual” centres and clusters of expertise, and therefore for management?

24. Future co-operation of Pan-European Networks in Food Sciences, Safety and Technology: Beyond SAFEFOODERA
Network of national and EU Funders
All EU MS and AMS +
Network of scientific research institutes and universities
members in all EU MS and AMS +
Funders
(bureacrats)
Scientists
Optimal conditions for Research and Training
The Retail
and Food
service
sector
Consumers
Industry
CIAA

25. Group A
Industry:
Marino PETRACCO ILLY
Hans Elbek PEDERSEN DANISCO
Willy GEERAERTS BARRY-CALLEBAUT
Geoff THOMPSON DANONE
Gunna WÜRTZEN SRA
Beate KETTLITZ CIAA (C)
Safefoodera:
Philippe Verger INRA
Maria Landgren VINNOVA
Hartmut Waldner BVL
Harmen Hofstra SAFECONSORTIUM (R)
Oddur Gunnarsson NICE
Mads Peter Schreiber NICE
Group B
Industry:
Lisbeth MUNKSGAARD LMN (C)
Herwig BERNAER BARRY-CALLEBAUT
Miroslav KOBERNA Czech Federation
Sue O’HAGAN UNILEVER
Roon VAN HOOIJDONK CAMPINA
Richard STADELER NESTLE
Safefoodera:
Alisdair Wotherspoon FSA (R)
Boris Antunovic CROATIAN FOOD AGENCY
Marcel Mengelers VWA
Sabine Bonniek BVL
Ola Eide NICE