TNO Presentation

1
Should more countries be invited to join
SAFEFOODERA? If yes, which countries and in what
way will they be involved?
2
Countries discussed Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Luxemburg,
Malta, Switzerland, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Ukraine Decided to start with the (new) EU
members not yet involved Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic (
Malta, if possible)
3

• Questions to be addressed
• Situation report how is programming of
  government financed food safety research in your
  country organised today?
• Are there any gaps (comparing with other EU
  states)
• What is needed to bridge these gaps?
• Are there special needs?
• Are there any important issues threatening food
  safety in your country today
• Is there anything to say about human resources?
• Define learning activities (what does your
  country expect to learn from joining SAFEFOOERA)?

4

• Order of this presentation
• 1. Overview per country (brief overview only
  details will be in the written report)
• 2. Conclusions
• 3. Recommendations (possibilities to integrate
  individual or groups of countries into the ERA
  Net)

5
Czech Republic
Some general facts 10.3 million inhabitants on
80,000 square km. Share of agriculture in GDP
4.2 Research programming on food
safety Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) responsible
for research on food production and
safety Ministry of Health (MoH) is responsible
for setting limits of contaminants and consumer
safety Ministry of Education (MoE) funds all
research in universities. Four scientific
committees together are responsible for general
food safety research programming the SC on
animal nutrition (MoA), the SC on phytosanitary
and environmental science (MoA), the SC on
veterinary science (MoA) and the SC on food
(MoH). Division responsibilities MoAMoH is
roughly 8020
6
Czech Republic

• Gaps
• The scientific level of the research in food
  technology and safety is OK (international level)
• But
• Results of food research are hard to implement
  in Czech food industry
• Big food industry coming from the West
  uses research results from their
• own research
• SMEs have not enough money to implement
  results
• Lack of young people wanting to go into food
  research
• Needs
• Bridge the gap from research to food companies
• Attract more young people by making Czech food
  safety research more
• internationally involved ( more attractive)

7
Czech Republic
Special problems Allergens are a growing
problem Contaminants (pesticides, dioxins,
PCBs) Learning activities 1. Increased
involvement in international co-operative
projects 2. Harmonisation of food safety research
programming by learning from others 3. Find
out together how to make research better match
with the current practice
8
Slovak Republic
Some general facts 5.4 million inhabitants on
49,000 square km. Share of agriculture in GDP
4.5 , Food industry another 3 Research
programming on food safety MoA is main the
programming and funding ministry MoH is
responsible for detection methods (development)
and limits food safety control Law on new
Agency for Supporting Science and Technology
(MoE) came into force 1 July 2005. The Agency
will start early 2006. Will be a broadly
operating research programming agency Role of the
Agency in food safety research programming still
not clear
9
Slovak Republic

• Gaps
• Lack of involvement in international (and FP6)
  projects
• Lack of young researchers who are attracted by
  more commercial
• studies, or go abroad to the West (human
  resources problem)
• Gap between research and practice is comparable
  with that in the
• Czech Republic (Industries come in from the
  West young brains
• move to the West)
• Needs
• Assistance in interpreting questions from e.g.
  Brussels on new rules and legislation. Especially
  risk assessment (asked EFSA for help)
• Bridge the gap between academia and factory
• Keep young scientists interested to study food
  research

10
Slovak Republic
Specific problems for Slovak food
safety Contaminants are found a bigger problem
than microbes Dioxins in Baltic fish,
Acrylamide Learning activities Obtain more
insight in risk assessment and risk management
(principles and views) Participate in the
discussion on GMO and learn how to use the
international standards in the Slovak
Republic Increase the international involvement
of the Slovak researchers
11
Lithuania
Some general data 65,000 square km, 3.5 million
inhabitants. Agriculture is gt7 of GDP. Dairy,
meat and cereals are equally important. Research
programming on food safety Central programming of
scientific research in food technology and
safety. Ministry of science and education (MoSE)
and ministry of Agriculture (MoA) share
responsibility. MoSE though Programme of
Priority Trends of Lithuanian Research and
experimental development (more fundamental) MoA
through Rural support programme (more
applied) Contribution to food safety research
from MoSE is bigger than that from MoA. The
number of scientists in FS related fields is
about 250
12

• Gaps
• Though involved in 8 FP6 programmes
• - No tradition to co-operate internationally
• - Lack of experience in (big) project management
• Lithuania finds itself a bit underestimated
• City-pull and money pull keeps the younger from
  studying food sciences
• Laboratories and institutes are old fashioned
  and should be updated as
• soon as money is available
• Needs
• Improve international involvement not only
  through FP projects but also in other programmes
• Improve status of food research in general,
  nationally and internationally

13
Food safety issues in Lithuania Influence of feed
quality on meat quality Pollution of raw
materials for foods and feeds (novel
indicators?) Learning activities Lithuania
would like to get information from other EU
members on organisation and management of
programmes Learn how to improve international
interactions Exchange young scientists with other
EU members
14
Latvia Some general facts Same area as
Lithuania. 2.3 million inhabitants (2.5 million
10 years ago). Many (young) people are
leaving. Research programming on food
safety There is no central research planning in
food safety and technology. MoE tenders. The
Latvian Scientific Board (LZP) evaluates. LZP
evaluators come from all scientific areas,
universities and institutes. MoA has own
tenders. Only 1 year projects in applied
research. There is a tendency towards central
research planning Directors of four institutes
formed a commission to set up central planning
most active is the Food and Veterinary Service
(FVS). Its director Mrs Dace Santare applied for
membership of SAFEFOODERA
15

• Gaps
• - The lack of bi-lateral contacts is a heritage
  from Soviet times
• Lack of human and financial resources (economy
  grows but financing
• of research projects is still a big problem)
• Lack of knowledge of English
• Needs
• General need for education through co-operation
  in management and
• programming.
• Would motivate young people to stay
• Would improve the position of English among
  scientists

16

• Specific Latvian issues
• Dioxins in Baltic fish (research is needed to
  find the origin and to solve the
• problems)
• Mycotoxins (aflatoxin) in raw materials
• Learning activities
• - Exchange of views, expertise and young
  scientists with other EU countries
• Get involved in internationally co-ordinated
  scientific programmes
• Participate in international networks (like
  SAFEFOODERA)

17
Estonia
Some general facts 47,000 square km, only 1.45
million people of which a third lives in the
capital, a third in other cities and a third on
the country side. Agriculture is 3.5of GDP and
declining (15 in 1991) Research in food
safety There is no food safety research programme
in Estonia. Groups in Talinn and Tartu
Universities do food safety related research.
There is co-operation with Turkku University in
Finland The small agricultural university of
Tartu is specialised in plant breeding, crop
protection, processing etc. (no food
safety) Money for all research is granted
(annually) on the level of the government, not of
a single ministry, though MoE executes
governments decision.
18
Estonia
Specific interests for food safety in Estonia The
Estonian Food Act and food safety requirements
have been harmonised with the rules of the EU.
The Veterinary and Food Board, under the
supervision of the MoA is responsible for 17
control laboratories that perform the controls on
microbiology, contaminants etc. The Veterinary
and Food Board does not have influence on the
choice of the projects to be granted by the
government. Novel dairy foods (probiotic
yoghurts) are developed by Estonias dairy
industry. Research on risks versus benefits of
these products is one of the few food safety
project granted by the Government Gaps, needs
and learning activities were not specified
19
Conclusions

• 1. Considerable differences exist in the way
  food safety research is programmed, organised and
  funded
• There is not a clear division Baltics vs former
  Czechoslovakia
• It seems that the Czech Republic is first in the
  race
• Estonia seems to have other priorities than
  programming food (safety) research
• The five countries in general are lagging behind
  compared with main-stream SAFEFOODERA members
• All countries expressed wish to join SAFEFOODERA
  except Estonia
• Some countries asked for concrete help in
  defining and interpreting food safety scientific
  as well as regulation issues

20
Recommendations

• Start follow up actions to involve these
  countries in SAFEFOODERA activities
• Why?
• A. The gap between the five and SAFEFOODERA
  will widen if they are not taken on board soon.
• B. They asked for it.
• Discuss the results of this consultation with
  responsible persons in the Commission and ask
  them to reflect on effective follow up actions
• Possible ways to incorporate these countries in
  the SAFEFOODERA structure are given on the next
  slide

21
Recommendations II models

• 1. A new work package. The five new countries
  could be invited to join SAFEFOODERA and form a
  new work package in which they run a separate
  programme of the same four steps of the ERA Net
  general structure. Information from the other
  work packages would then be transferred in extra
  seminars to the new members work package in
  order to allow them to run a comparable programme
  in a shorter period of time. This model would
  require extra money from the Commission.
• 2. Incorporation in the existing structure.
  This would demand
• some extra activities from the
  management structure and from
• the other SAFEFOODERA members. One could
  think of the
• organisation regional assistance e.g.
  the organisation of seminars in which
  the Czech and Slovak Republics would be
  assisted by Poland and Hungary to make up for
  the time lost by not being in from the
  start. The Baltic States could be assisted
  helped in a comparable way by e.g. the
  Nordic countries in extra seminars or
  workshops. This model would also imply extra
• money

22
Recommendations III models 2

• A separate project for the newcomers. A
  separate project proposal (an SSA) could be
  written by the SAFEFOODERA management, around the
  five countries involved, possibly with the
  addition of Malta, Luxemburg or a candidate
  member state. Two things could be combined in
  such an SSA. The newcomers would run a
  comparable programme as SAFEFOODERA. The
  SAFEFOODERA Net and the newcomers SSA together
  could lay the basis of an ERA Net Plus for the
  Seventh Framework Programme.
• Visiting members. The five countries could be
  invited to participate as visitors
  participating in the discussions, but should not
  be asked to run the full or a comparable
  programme in a much shorter period of time. They
  could be paid from the project only for travel
  and subsistence. This model would require no
  extra funding.
• A combination of the above mentioned elements
• .

23

• Final remark
• All of the above possibilities should lead to
  an even stronger and better ERA Net in Food
  Safety in the existing Framework Programme and
  lead to a strong and successful proposal for an
  ERA Net Plus, i.e. a common call for proposals
  with a topping of Brussels money in the
  Seventh FP.