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

2. SAFEFOODERA WP6 – External Communication Objective To establish links with stakeholders to facilitate pan-European dissemination and exploitation of project results.

3. 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 Commissions ERA-NET organisation.

4. Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success Working together is success Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success Working together is success Henry Ford

5. SAFEFOODERA Stakeholder Group meeting with scientists Lisbon, 23 - 24 November 2006 Objectives of the meeting

6. 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

7. The first joint pilot call – topics selected To coordinate food safety aspects of ongoing national/regional programmes Emerging risks Pat. free production Zoonosis Country Bask-country xx Cyprus xx Denmarkxxx Germanyx x Finlandxxx Netherlandsx x Norwayxxx Portugalx x Icelandxxx Swedenxxx UK xx

8. 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

9. The provisional strategic topics were selected by The provisional strategic topics were selected by Funders and decribed by Scientists 1. Emerging risks 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 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 3. Contaminants - Health risks from natural- and environmental contaminants in the food chain. 3.1 Process induced risk 3.1 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. Pathogens 5. 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

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

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

12. 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) Topics selection by Funders: Step 1 to Step 3 - going from 70 to 12 topics Roadmap (RM1) for selection of topics for pilot calls. The role of Funders and Scientists to be discussed

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

14. Funders Scientists Funders Funders / Scientists Roadmap (RM2) for selection of topics for pilot calls. The role of Funders and Scientists to be discussed

15. 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 Roadmap (RM2) for selection of topics for pilot calls. The role of Funders and Scientists to be discussed

16. Priority theme Short -list Sum of scores (the lower score the better) Countries with possibilities to participate in writing call text Zoonosis A5218 Emerging Risk B5916 Pathogen free production systems B6212 Food allergens B7813 Persistent organic pollutants A7913 Risk Assessment B9011

17. Roadmap (RM3) for selection of topics for pilot calls. The role of Funders and Scientists to be discussed 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

18. 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?

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. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Group 1 Ola Eide - C Gun Wirtanen - R Franz Ulberth Geert Houben Brion Duffy Tim Hogg Elisabeth Borch Hartmut Waldner Joes Empis Marta Sabec Paradiz Agostino Macri Group 2 Harmen Hofstra - C Monica de Prago - R Huub Lelieveld Antonio Conti, Amedeo or Logrieco Theresa Aymerich Eva Gelencser Truls Nesbakken Oddur Mar Gunnarsson Alisdair Wotherspoon Karen Verveeken Lucjan Szponar