FOOD SAFETY OF THE SHORT SUPPLY CHAIN Symposium SciCom 2012 Brussels Friday, 9 November 2012 Edited by the Scientific Committee and the Staff Direction for Risk Assessment of the Belgian Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (FASFC) Editors AndréHuyghebaert,ChairScientificCommitteeFASFC XavierVanHuffel,DirectorStaffdirectionforriskassessment,FASFC GilHouins,CEOFASFC FederalAgencyfortheSafetyoftheFoodChain(FASFC) CA‐Botanique FoodSafetyCenter BoulevardduJardinbotanique55 B‐1000Brussels Lay‐out ClaireVerraes,Staffdirectionforriskassessment,FASFC Thecontentsreflecttheviewsoftheauthorsandnotnecessarilytheviewsof theFASFCnoroftheSciCom.Reproductionisauthorizedprovidedthesource isacknowledged. PREFACE Dr.XavierVanHuffel DirectorStaffdirectionforriskassessmentFASFC E‐mail:[email protected] Thetopicofthisyears’symposiumorganizedbytheScientificCommitteeofthe FederalAgencyfortheSafetyoftheFoodChainisspecialinmanyways.Froma riskassessorpointofview‘Foodsafetyoftheshortsupplychain’isavagueissue ofwhichthetermsofreferenceareunclearandaboutwhichdedicatedscientific information is lacking. From a risk management point of view the short supply chain is part of the food chain and its food safety is covered by the existing legislation. Althoughshortsupplyhasalwaysexistedinsociety,subgroupsofconsumersand producershaverediscovereditasanewandattractivechannelforfoodsupplyto whichpositivecharacteristicsareassociatedsuchasauthenticity,quality,income, …andevenfoodsafety.Thislatteraspecthasrarelybeenstudiedorcoveredin scientific symposia. For this reason the Scientific Committee was of the opinion that the subject deserved attention as it is an emerging trend in society with manydifferentfacetsandclosebytheconsumer.Thesymposiumhastobeseen as an excellent opportunity and forum at which risk assessors, regulators, consumers and producers convene to discuss about risks of new trends in the foodchain. The Scientific Committee is grateful to the Food Safety Agency to support the yearly organization of a scientific event and thanks all speakers who have contributedtothissymposium. TABLEOFCONTENTS Preface....................................................................................................................................................................................4 Tableofcontents................................................................................................................................................................5 Listofabbreviations.........................................................................................................................................................6 Programofthesymposium............................................................................................................................................7 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................................9 Session1.Theshortsupplychain:stateofart....................................................................................................12 Definitionoftheshortfoodsupplychain.........................................................................................................13 FASFCpolicyonfoodsafetyintheshortsupplychain...............................................................................17 ShortfoodsupplychaininFlanders...................................................................................................................19 ThepolicyforshortsupplychainsinWallonia.............................................................................................25 FoodsafetyproblemsspecifictotheshortchainselectedcasestudiesfromtheNetherlands28 Session2.Foodsafetyoftheshortsupplychain...............................................................................................32 Microbiologicalsafetyandqualityaspectsinrelationtotheshortfoodsupplychain.................33 Chemicalaspectsoffoodsafetyandqualityintheshortsupplychains.............................................45 Controlofthefoodsafetyoftheshortcircuits:theexperienceofthecellqualityoffarm products(cqpf)supportingtheproducersinwallonia..............................................................................52 Session3.Theshortsupplychainandthesociety............................................................................................58 ShortchannelsinFrance:dotheymeatconsumersconcerns?..............................................................59 Directmarketingfromproducerstoconsumers:economicaspectsandkeysuccesfactors.....66 Summaryandconclusions..........................................................................................................................................75 5 ACW ADL BuRO CAP CARAH CODA‐CERVA DGARNE EC EPASC EU FASFC GAL GAP GMP HACCP HMs ILVO KHK NVWA PCB POPs QCPF SC SciCom SWOT SPW TADzuivel Ulg‐GxABT QA LISTOFABBREVIATIONS GeneralChristianWorkersAssociation LocalDevelopmentAgencies OfficeforRiskAssessmentandResearchCoordinationofthe NetherlandsFoodandConsumerProductSafetyAuthority CommonAgriculturalPolicy CenterforAgricultureandAgro‐industryintheprovinceofHainaut VeterinaryandAgrochemicalResearchCentre GeneralDirectionforAgriculture,NaturalResourcesand Environment(Walloonregion) EuropeanCommission ProvincialSchoolforAgricultureandSciences EuropeanUnion BelgianFederalAgencyfortheSafetyoftheFoodChain LocalActionGroups GoodAgriculturalPractices GoodManufacturingPractices HazardAnalysisandCriticalControlPoints HeavyMetals FlemishInstituteforAgriculturalandFisheriesResearch CatholicHighSchoolKempen NetherlandsFoodandConsumerProductSafetyAuthority PolychlorinatedBiphenyl PersistentOrganicPollutants QualityCellforFarmProducts ShortChain ScientificCommitteeoftheBelgianFederalAgencyfortheSafetyof theFoodChain Strengths,Weaknesses,OpportunitiesandThreats PublicServiceofWallonia TechnologicalAdvisoryServiceforDairyProductsandDairy Farmers UniversityofLiège–GemblouxAgro‐BioTech QualityAssurance 6 Symposium of the Scientific Committee of the Belgian Food Safety Agency FOOD SAFETY OF THE SHORT SUPPLY CHAIN Friday 9 November 2012 Auditorium Pacheco Pacheco Center – Finance Tower Pachecolaan 13 1000 Brussels 9:00 RECEPTION 9:30 Introduction Luc PUSSEMIER Operational director CODA-CERVA – Vice-chair Scientific Committee FASFC Session 1. The short supply chain: state of art Chairs: Els DAESELEIRE (Expert ILVO-T&V – Member Sci Com FASFC) Antoine CLINQUART (Prof. ULg) 9:40 What do we mean by the short supply chain? Mieke UYTTENDAELE Prof. Ghent University – Member Scientific Committee FASFC 10:05 The policy of the FASFC on the food safety of the short supply chain Herman DIRICKS Director-general DG Control Policy FASFC 10:30 COFFEE BREAK 11:00 The short supply chain in Flanders: possibilities and bottlenecks Ann DETELDER Coordinator Steunpunt Hoeveproducten KVLV 11:25 The short supply chain policy in Wallonia Damien WINANDY Director Direction Quality DGARNE SPW - Walloon region 11:50 The food safety of the short supply chain: case studies in the Netherlands Benno TER KUILE Senior advisor microbiology BuRO NVWA – Guest researcher Amsterdam University (The Netherlands) 7 12:15 RECEPTION 12:45 LUNCH Session 2. Food safety of the short supply chain Chairs: Katleen RAES (Prof. HOWEST – Member Sci Com FASFC) Marie-Louise SCIPPO (Prof. ULg – Member Sci Com FASFC) 14:00 Microbiological aspects concerning the food safety of the short supply chain Lieve HERMAN Head of division ILVO-T&V – Member Scientific Committee FASFC 14:25 Chemical aspects concerning the food safety of the short supply chain Luc PUSSEMIER Operational director CODA-CERVA – Vice-chair Scientific Committee FASFC 14:50 The management of the food safety of the short supply chain: the experience of the ‘Quality Cell for Farm Products’ in the guidance of the producers in the Walloon region Marianne SINDIC Prof. University of Liège / Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech 15:15 COFFEE BREAK Session 3. The short supply chain and the society Chairs: Guido VAN HUYLENBROECK (Prof. UGent – Dean) Bruno SCHIFFERS (Prof. ULg / Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech – Member Sci Com FASFC) 15:45 The short supply chain in France: a response to the expectations of consumers? Pierre SANS Prof. National Veterinary School of Toulouse (France) 16:05 The direct sale from farmer to consumer: socio-economic success factors and points of attention Erwin WAUTERS Researcher ILVO-L&M – Guest Prof. Antwerp University 16:25 Summary and conclusions André HUYGHEBAERT Prof. Em. Ghent University – Chair Scientific Committee FASFC 8 INTRODUCTION Dr.ir.LucPussemier OperationaldirectorCODA‐CERVA Vice‐chairoftheScientificCommitteeoftheFASFC E‐mail:luc.pussemier@coda‐cerva.be The annual symposium organized by the Scientific Committee of the FASFC has progressively become a good opportunity to meet the scientists, industrials and riskmanagersinterestedinthescientificaspectsoffoodsafety.Thefirstedition washeldin2005andtodayisthe8theditionofthissymposium.Onecanobserve sometrendsinthedifferentsubjectstreatedovertheyears.Atthebeginning,not only was the methodology of risk assessment felt important (theme of the symposium in 2006) to discuss but also the quality and the valorization of the databasesavailableattheFASFC(themeofthe2007symposium).Fromthefirst year, however, attention was also paid to challenging subjects such as the precautionaryprinciplewhichwasexplainedandillustratedindetailduringour very first symposium in 2005. More recently we have also tackled very specialized topics such as the emerging animal diseases (2008) and the nanotechnology applications in the food chain (2010). These two events were organized jointly with the European Food Safety Authority and the European CommissionandhaveattractedalargeraudiencefromotherEuropeancountries. More recently, however, new accents have appeared as a reaction to some preoccupationsfromtheriskmanagers,thegeneralpublicandtheconsumers.I think more specifically about the communication organized since 2009 around thedevelopmentofabarometerforfoodsafety.Thistoolseemstobeveryuseful for food safety managers in their communication strategy towards the general publicandthemediaanditwasfurtherdevelopedintheyearsafter.Thisconcept of measuring general food safety, based on the pioneer work carried out in Belgium, has been published in high level research literature and presented at international fora where it attracted much attention by other Countries and organizations. ThisyeartheScientificCommitteemakesfurtherstepstorespondtosomeactual preoccupationsoftheconsumersandtheriskmanagers.Indeed,wepresentyou a very sensitive topic that is the food safety in the short supply chains, those chains starting from the producers and reaching the consumers with a minimal numberoflinks. Untilrecently,theshortsupplychainwasnotfelttobeinterestingbythepolicy managers in general and, more particularly, by those responsible for the agriculturalpolicy.Butthingsarechanging.Firstly,theregionalauthoritieshave become aware of the great economic interest of local food production and 9 consumption. Everywhere, initiatives have been taken in order to promote organic baskets and farm markets. And this wave eventually reached the EuropeanAuthorities.InApril2012,indeed,aconferenceonlocalagricultureand the short supply chains for food was organized in Brussels. At this occasion, DacianCiolos,amemberoftheEuropeanCommissionresponsibleforAgriculture andRuralDevelopment,pointedouttheimportanceoftheshortsupplychainsas an answer to the increasing demand for local products. According to the Eurobarometer,indeed,oneintwoconsumersregretthatlocalproductsarehard tofindanddifficulttodistinguishfromotherproducts.Therefore,thefutureCAP (Common Agricultural Policy) has to integrate this new dimension. Some measures have, thus, been proposed in the CAP reform. According to Dacian Ciolos,theissuestosolveare: 1. Theclearidentificationoflocalsupplychainsinordertoensurecredibility andvisibility; 2. The assurance of hygiene and food safety without discouraging the creationofsmallproductionunits; 3. The restoration of the link between consumers in towns and cities and production centers nearby by supporting the initiatives of farmers’ markets; 4. Theencouragementforfarmerstoinvest. In his speech during this Conference on local agriculture and short food supply chains,Mr.Ciolosalsostated:“Itisobviousthatshortsupplyfoodhastoolongbeen overlooked (…) and, despite the lack of recognition and support, available data showthat15%ofEUfarmssellmorethanhalfoftheirproducelocally”. ThisstatementfromtheEuropeanCommissionerforAgricultureclearlyindicates that the potential market of short supply chains on the European Continent is very huge, even though some voices claim that the market share is much less important(only2to3%)andthat“locavores”areromanticsandnostalgicsofthe goodoldtimes. Why is this topic so trendy? Is this a hype that will soon be forgotten? Or is it reallyanewattitudethatwillpersist?Theseareverycomplexquestionsanditis nottheaimofthissymposiumtogiveananswertothem.Letuslimitourselves by mentioning that several factors will help to maintain this trend, such as the willingness to promote sustainable production systems, which are not only environmentally friendly but also in agreement with the financial needs of the producers. Nutritional and organoleptic concerns will also be present because lots of consumers do believe that such products are better for their health and tastier.Ontheotherhand,onecansometimeshearthat,besidestheadvantages, therearealsosomespecificriskslinkedtolocalfoodandshortsupplychains.The aimofthissymposiumisthustoinformriskmanagersandthegeneralpublicin themostcompleteandneutralwayonthestateoftheart. 10 Yet, local food and short supply chains need to be clearly defined. We will immediately start with this difficult task during the first session of this symposium.Alsoinformationwillbegivenduringthissessiononthepoliciesthat areadoptedbyourFederalandRegionalAuthoritiesandwewillalsohearwhat happenswithourcloseneighbors. Lunchtimewillallowustoshiftfromtheorytopracticeasyouwillbeinvitedto taste some local specialities and kitchen products and to interact with other participantsatthesymposium... With the second session, after lunch, we will be atthe core of the theme of this symposium and we will try to get more information on advantages and constraintsofferedbytheshortsupplychainsasfarasfoodsafetyisconcerned. We’ll alsohave the opportunity to get informed onthe effortsspent in order to trainthelocalproducersinaneffectiveway. Finally, during the third session, more insight will be given in the consumers’ behavior and on his motivating to be attracted to this new production and consumption approach. Speakers will also try to discuss how far the producers can meet the consumers’ requirements. Finally, the symposium will end by drawingsomegeneralconclusionsandproposingsomerecommendations. Iwishyouallanenrichingsymposium,tastydiscoveriesandfruitfuldiscussions withalltheinvitedstakeholders. 11 SESSION1.THESHORT SUPPLYCHAIN:STATE OFART 12 DEFINITIONOFTHESHORTFOODSUPPLYCHAIN M.Uyttendaele*,L.Herman1,3,E.Daeseleire1,3,A.Huyghebaert3,L.Pussemier2,3 1ILVO 2CODA‐CERVA 3ScientificCommitteeFASFC *Speaker:Prof.dr.ir.MiekeUyttendaele Prof.GhentUniversity MemberoftheScientificCommitteeoftheFASFC E‐mail:[email protected] Developmentsattheconsumerandthefarmerlevelhaveresultedinarenewed interest in short market channels for foods. Consumers are increasingly motivated by health and environmental concerns, which is expressed by an increased demand for high quality foods (with emphasis on freshness, taste, nutritionalqualityandsafety)andsalesdirectfromsource.Theshortfoodsupply chain,offeringlocallygrown(organicandnon‐organic)foodisasegmentseenas a place to buy ‘good food’ but also as means to express consumer values associated with food choices (e.g. resource conservation, animal welfare, the revivalofasenseofcommunity,enjoymentofcooking).Ruraleconomybenefits fromtheincreaseinactivityandprofitsthroughdirectsales(Berlinetal.,2009; Careyetal.,2011).Shortfoodsupplychains‘shortcircuit’theconventionallong and usually more anonymous supply chain which has multiple intermediates involved.Typicalfortheshortfoodsupplychainsisthatthereisafacetofaceor proximateproducer‐consumerrelationandoftentheproducerinvolvedusesthis direct contact with the consumer in marketing his products and exchange informationonqualityattributesandprovenanceonthefoodtotheoverallmore involved and interested consumer who makes his purchases in the short food supplychain. For the FASFC Scientific Committee Symposium on ‘Food Safety of the Short Supply Chain’ on November 9th 2012 the focus is put on activities in the food supplychaininwhichfacetofaceorproximatecontactistakingplacebetween on the one hand grower/producer and on the other hand consumer. It usually includesthefollowingrelationshipbetweenthegrower/producer,theconsumer andtheFASFC: FASFC registered operators (with registered activities at primary production and/or processing) having direct sales of primary and locally processed primary products to consumers. Occasionally one registered FASFCoperator(withregisteredactivityoftradeorretailsales)mayactas anintermediarytostockandtransferorsell(processed)primaryproducts to consumers but without performing any manipulation on these locally grown/producedproducts; 13 FASFC registered operators (with registered activity of food serving operation but without FASFC registered primary production activity) serving (or selling) own grown crops, dairy or processed products to consumers(guests); Non‐FASFC registered individuals or hobby breeders who sell or set availableowngrown/producedproductsathomeatgate. Examplesofthesedirectinteractionbetweenproducerandconsumerfordirect sale or serving of locally produced and/or locally consumed foods in the short foodsupplychainareshowninTable1.Intheshortfoodsupplychaintheactivity ofagriculturalproductionandfurtherprocessingareoftencombinedonthesame site and/or managed by the same owner. Packing, sorting or processing usually takesplaceatthefarmorthepremisesofthehobbybreederorindividual,using mostofthetimeonthesiteharvestedcrops,rawmilkorrawmeatderivedfrom ownlive‐stockorfromagriculturalproductsderivedfromcloseproximity. Table 1. Examples of the direct interaction between producer and consumer in short food supply chain. Modified from Renting et al. (2003) as defined for the FASFC Scientific Committee Symposium on ‘Food Safety of the Short Supply Chain’(November9th2012). Face‐to‐faceorProximate ShortFoodSupplyChains Farmshopsorfarmautomates Farmshopgroups Subscriptionfarming Regionalhallmarks Specialevents,fairs Farmersmarkets Doortodoorselling Farmgateorroadsidesales Pickyourown Boxschemes&collectivefoodbuyingteams Homedeliveries Consumercooperatives Community supported agriculture and urban farming Cookathome Guesthouses,restaurants,daycarecenters’&food serviceoperationscookingmealswithinputsfrom owngardenorcommunitysupportedagriculture Mailorderore‐commercetoprimaryproducer … 14 Thusinthepresentdefinition,theshortfoodsupplychainisexpandedfromthe definition used in agriculture economy and rural development targeting in particularfarm’sdirectsalesandfocusedatprimaryproductionactivitiesandon thesiteprocessing.IntheframeofthecurrentFASFCSymposiumthedefinition of short food supply chain also targets individuals or guesthouses, restaurants, institutional catering facilities, day care centre offering own grown crops dairy, meat and on the site derived food products to guests, visitors and thus also the facetofaceorproximaterelationshipintheframeoffoodserving. Itshouldbenotedthatthereisafrequentblendingoftheconceptsoflocal,small‐ scale and organic, natural or artisanal, traditional and their associated benefits. Often foods traded in the short food supply chain in these face to face or proximate sales are defined by either locality or even the specific farm where theyareproducedandonsomeoccasionstheyarealsoreferredtoas“artisanal” or“traditional”or“terroir”products.Manyoftheseproductsdrawuponanimage of the farm and/or region as a source of quality. Direct linkages are also often createdbetweenfarmingandruralnature,culturallandscapeandlocalresources. However,numerousoftheactualterroirorartisanal/traditionalproductsarenot or not uniquely sold in a direct face to face or proximate contact between producerandconsumerbutalsoviatheconventionalfoodsupplychain(i.e.via supermarkets,independentspecialityordieteticshops).Assuchtheseartisanal, traditionalorterroirproductsarenotautomaticallypartoftheShortFoodSupply Chain. This in particular holds for many of the regional products who have received a recognition of a protected “designation of origin” which are widely marketednationalandinternationally.Thesameholdsfororganicfoodorother ecological or natural characteristics or labels attributed to food which link to bioprocesses(e.g.freerange,natural)whichmaybemarketedandbepartofthe short food supply chain but which are also sometimes internationally sourced andincreasinglyavailableintheconventional(long)supplychain(Rentingetal., 2003). GenerallyspeakingtheShortFoodSupplyChainsappearstobemainlytakenup bymedium‐sizedfarmbusinesses:aminimumproductionlevelisoftennecessary tomaketheactivityviableandgeneratesufficientincometofinanceinvestment, whereaslargevolumesaresometimesatoddswiththespecificanddifferentiated processing and marketing structures involved. Sometimes activities in direct salesorservingoffoodinshortfoodsupplychainsisintegratedwithagritourism. Overall the landscape of short food supply chains is scatteredand evolving and lacksagooddefinition.Thereisalsothefactthatsomeindividualsmaydropin and out of the short food supply chain depending upon seasonality and time or have a hybrid system (partially selling at gate, partially to local shops or also providingdeliverytowholesalers,retailersoragri‐businesses).Theymayevolve when growing in volume from the short food supply chain to the ‘conventional’ supplychain.Thereisoftennostraightforwarddivisionbetweenproductionfor local and non‐local market, nor should there be or is there evidence for a 15 differentiationongoodqualityandsafetyofthesefoodsfrom shortfoodsupply chains as defined above and conventional ‘long’ food supply chain (Ibery and May,2005). In the short food supply chain, the whole production from primary product till endproductanddistribution,isusuallymanagedbythesamepersonorthesame team. Due to the broad range of tasks, specialization towards food safety management is mostly not possible. As a consequence, most short food supply chainoperatorsorproductionunitsarestrugglingwiththecomplexityofthefood safetymanagementrules.However,thepeculiarityoftheshortfoodsupplychain, often related to fresh foods or restricted in the number of processing and transactionstepsandemployeesinvolved,facilitatesefficientcommunicationand control. As such there might be the option for simplified rules and control systems to be put in place. Furthermore guidance, training and networking for exchange of information provided by either public or private organizations to farmersorbusinessintheshortfoodsupplychainmayenhancethecapacityto comply to the relevant food hygiene and other food safety regulations and demandsforassuringsafeandhighqualityfoodstotheconsumer. REFERENCES Carey,L.,Bell,P.,Duff,A.,Sheridan,M.,Shields,M.2011.Farmers’Marketconsumers:aScottisch perspective.InternationalJournalofConsumerStudies35(3),300‐306. Berlin, L., Lockeretz, W., Bell, R. 2009. Purchasing foods produced on organic, small and local farms: a mixed method analysis of New England consumers. Renawable Agriculture and Food systems.24(4),267‐275. Renting, H., Marsden, T.K., Banks, J. 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: exploring theroleofshortfoodsupplychainsinruraldevelopment.EnvironmentandPlanningA.35,393‐ 411. Ibery, B., Maye, D. 2005. Alternative (shorter) food supply chains and specialist livestock productsintheScottisch‐Englishborders.EnvironmentandPlanningA.37,823‐844. 16 FASFCPOLICYONFOODSAFETYINTHESHORTSUPPLYCHAIN Ir.HermanDiricks Director‐generalofthedirectorate‐generalControlPolicyoftheFASFC E‐mail:[email protected] Socio‐economic trends, consumer demands and increasing environmental awarenesshaveentailedchangesinthewaysofpresentingandsupplyingfoodto theconsumer.IntheapproachtowardsfoodsafetyatbothEuropeanandnational level, it is important to anticipate these societal developments. The European Unionasweknowittodayisbuiltondiversitywitheachcountryhavingitsown particularities and specific needs. For this reason provisions with respect to flexibility and subsidiarity have been included in the European hygiene regulations. This means that in some specific cases the member states have the authoritytoadoptdowntheirownnationalruleswhileatthesametimeensuring the achievement of the objectives of the European hygiene regulations. The national authorities have the best understanding of the diversity and the socio‐ economicsituationintheircountryandthereforeareinthebestpositiontoadopt such rules in consultation with the different target groups involved. Flexibility and subsidiarity with respect to direct supply of foodstuffs to final consumers applyto: direct supply, by producers, of small amounts of primary products to the finalconsumerortolocalretailestablishmentsdirectlysupplyingthefinal consumer; directsupply,bytheproducer,ofsmallquantitiesofmeatfrompoultryand lagomorphsslaughteredonthefarmtothefinalconsumerortolocalretail establishmentsdirectlysupplyingsuchmeattothefinalconsumerasfresh meat; hunters who supply small quantities of wild game or wild game meat directly to the final consumer or to local retail establishments directly supplyingthefinalconsumer; supply of food of animal origin from a retail establishment to other retail establishments if such supply is a marginal, localized and restricted activity. TheBelgianFoodSafetyAgencyincludedspecificprovisionsinitscontrolpolicy in order to give small producers the opportunity to benefit from this flexibility and subsidiarity. National rules have been laid down with respect to the abovementionedactivities.Atthemoment,anewlegislativeactwithregardsto direct supply of products of animal origin at the production site to final consumers or to local retailers supplying directly to the final consumer is in preparation.Inaddition,criteriaforflexibilityprovidedinEUregulationssuchas 17 “marginal, local and restricted activity” and “small amounts” have been interpretedinnationallegislation.Forinstance“local“hasbeendefinedassupply withinan80kmradiusoftheproductionsite.Moreflexiblehygienerulesapply to the direct supply of products of plant origin (potatoes, vegetables and fruit) and products of animal origin (milk, eggs, slaughtering of poultry and rabbits, fisheryandaquacultureproducts,wildgame).Theseruleshavebeendeveloped inconsultationwiththestakeholdersconcerned. Inadditiontothesespecifichygieneprovisions,theFoodSafetyAgencyhasalso implemented flexibility with respect to the European requirements concerning HACCPandtraceability.Foodbusinessoperatorswhoonlymarketprepackaged and/or non perishable foodstuffs without performing any kind of processing of these foods do not have to implement the HACCP principles but only need to applygoodhygienepractices.Certainotherfoodbusinessoperatorscanapplya simplified HACCP system if they implement a guide to good practices that has been approved by the Food Safety Agency. These operators do not have to developtheirownHACCPsystem.TheycanrelyontheHACCPplanprovidedin the guide. In addition, the requirements for record keeping are limited to the registrationofnon‐compliances.BesidestheHACCPflexibility,stronglysimplified administrativeprocedureswithregardtotraceabilityareprovided. The Food Safety Agency has taken the initiative to further develop and simplify the approved guides in the sectors directly supplying to consumers (bakeries, butchershops,pubs,restaurants,hotels,dairyfarms,retailandnurseries).These guideswillbemadepubliclyavailableontheFoodAgencywebsitefreeofcharge andsupportfortrainingoftargetgroupswillbeprovided. Severalotherinitiativeshavebeentakentoinformfoodbusinessoperatorsactive in the short supply chain. A brochure on food safety requirements during processingandmarketingoffoodonthefarmhasbeenpublishedrecently. Many other brochures are available to food business operators: e.g. on self‐ checkinginsmallbusinesses,notificationrequirement,traceability,… TheFoodSafetyAgencywebsitecontainsguidelinesonmilkdispensermachines, includinghygienerulesandspecificrisksrelatingtotheconsumptionofrawmilk. Currently, consultations are ongoing with the agricultural sector on the possibilitiesofloweringthesamplingfrequenciesfortheanalysisofwellwater. 18 SHORTFOODSUPPLYCHAININFLANDERS Dr.AnnDetelder CoordinatorSteunpuntHoeveproductenKVLV E‐mail:[email protected] FRAMEWORK Short food supply chain is a sustainable marketing system with a direct relationshipbetweentheproducerandtheconsumer.Inmostcasestheproducer sellsdirectlytotheconsumer.Thereisnorealdefinitionoftheshortfoodsupply chainsystembutthereareanumberofbasicprinciples: Relationship producer – consumer: the farmer sells directly to the consumer; Limited number of links in the chain: the product is not distributed throughwholesaledistributionorthefoodprocessingindustry; Ownership: the producer/farmer can determine the price, production methodandsupply(fairpriceforafairproduct); Local:locallygrownproductsaresoldlocally; Contactwiththeagriculture:consumersrediscovermodernagriculture. Shortfoodsupplychaininitiativescanhavevariousforms.Farmproductscanbe soldonthefarmitself,inafarmshop,throughhomesales,atfarmersmarkets,in a neighborhood store in the immediate surroundings of the farm or through collectivesystemssuchasfoodteams,vegetablesubscriptionsorcooperativesof farmers.Thefarmercanalsosellhisproductsinakioskalongthesideoftheroad ortroughu‐pickfarms. Directsalesthroughlocalmarketsorothershortchainchannelsis,ofcourse,not a new concept. 'Farmers markets' have existed for centuries and were formerly oneofthemainsourcesofincomeforfarmers.Byurbanization,intensificationin agriculture, better preservation techniques and the emergence of supermarkets however many farmers markets disappeared. The food chain is also becoming moreglobalized,consumerfoodsareofferedfromallovertheworld. Farmproductsareproductsofagricultureorhorticulture,harvestedonthefarm and possibly processed and offered for sale directly to the consumer or third parties.Mainlyprimaryproducts,butalsoprocessedproductssuchasbutter,ice creamorfruitjuicecanbeassignedasfarmproducts. 19 The characteristic element of farm products is therefore not only their origin(thefarm),butalsothewaytheyaresold:throughtheshortchain. NUMBEROFSHORTFOODSUPPLYCHAINSELLERSINFLANDERS Short food supply chain marketing in Flanders is mainly the responsibility of farmers. They market their own primary or processed products through their own farm shop, local (farmers) market, internet, small retail businesses, subscriptioninitiatives,… Number of farms in Flanders (data through Ministry of Agriculture and Fishery‐2011) 2011 %in2011 FarmsinFlanders 25982 100.00% FarmsinAntwerp 3914 15.06% FarmsinFlemishBrabant 3045 11.72% FarmsinWest‐Flanders 9065 34.89% FarmsinEast‐Flanders 6872 26.45% FarmsinLimburg 3086 11.88% Numberofshortfoodsupplychainfarmsin2012inFlanders(datathrough theSteunpuntHoeveproducten1/KVLVvzw) %relativetothenumberoffarms Flanders 1321 100.00% 5.08% Antwerp 252 19.08% 6.44% FlemishBrabant 197 14.91% 6.47% West‐Flanders 409 30.96% 4.51% East‐Flanders 290 21.95% 4.22% Limburg 172 13.02% 5.57% 1The‘SteunpuntHoeveproducten’ofKVLVvzw(=AssistantCenterforfarmersstarting anddevelopingtheirshortfoodsupplychainmarketingactivity)isactiveinFlandersand informs farmers concerning the legal framework of starting/developing a short food supplychainactivity(foodhygiene,selfcontrolsystems,foodlaw,marketinglegislation, landmanagement,fiscalmatters,costpricecalculationandprofitability,…) 20 Numberofshortfoodsupplychainfarmsin2011inFlanders(datathrough theFASFC) Selling manufactured Selling primary Total products products Flanders 652 809 1461 Antwerp 88 102 190 FlemishBrabant 76 209 285 West‐Flanders 241 188 429 East‐Flanders 190 202 392 Limburg 57 108 165 Number of short chain food supplier farms/sector in 2011 in Flanders (datathroughtheFASFC) Meat Dairy product Manufacturers Farms Total manufacturers manufacturers of crop selling products primary products Flanders 99 447 106 809 1461 Antwerp 10 66 12 102 190 FlemishBrabant 15 36 25 209 285 West‐Flanders 37 177 27 188 429 East‐Flanders 28 130 32 202 392 Limburg 9 38 10 108 165 MOTIVATIONSFORSTARTINGASHORTFOODSUPPLYCHAINSELLING ACTIVITYINFLANDERS Shortchainsellingofprimaryand/ormanufacturedfoodproductsbyfarmsisan important way of broadening the farming activities. The main reason of initializing the activity of marketing its own products is an economic reason. Getting a reasonable income in Flanders in a farming business is not easy. Enlarging the scale size of the farm/the production is not always an easy or wanted solution so the marketing of own farm products can – for a certain numberoffarms–beagoodalternative. Short chain selling of own farm products can also be a good option when the son/daughterwantstojointheparentsfarmingbusiness. Furthermore some farms are located close to a village centre/city and can thereforeprofitfromtheirlocationclosetotheendconsumer. 21 Shortfoodsupplychainsellingfarmsaremostlysmallscaledwithaverylimited number of people employed (family members). Rather seldom external people areemployedintheproductmanufacturing↔sellingactivity. TYPESOFSHORTFOODSUPPLYCHAINSELLINGFARMS Farmssellingprimarycropproducts:fruit,vegetables,rawmilk; Farmssellingmanufactureddairyproducts:desserts,ice‐cream,cheese,…; Farmssellingmeatproducts:sealedmeat,farmswithownbutchery; Farmssellingmanufacturedcropproducts; Alotoffarmscombineseveraltypesofproducts. FOODSAFETYINTHESHORTCHAINSELLINGACTIVITYONFARMS Food safety is linked to the type of product. Meat and dairy products are more sensitive products than primary products. Therefore the possible food safety risksarenotsimilaronalltheshortfoodsupplychainsellingfarms. Farmssellingprimarycropproducts:fruit,vegetables,rawmilk The production of primary products in Belgium/Flanders is regulated by the Federal Food Law and more and above by quality guides the farmers (IKM,vegaplan,…)havetocomplywithinordertodelivertheirproducts to the milk cooperation, the auction market or wholesalers. Most of the farms sell only a limited percentage of their production directly through shortchainfoodsupplymeans. Thereforetheprimaryproductssoldthroughtheshortchaincomplywith allthequalityandfoodsafetyregulationsastheproductssoldthroughthe regularchain. The production of manufactured products in Belgium/Flanders is also regulatedbytheFederalFoodLaw.Smallfarmbusinesseshavetocomply tothesameregulationsaslargefoodindustries.Onlyonaadministrative leveltheycanprofitfromsomefacilitations. TheSteunpuntHoeveproductenorganizesonafrequentlybasiscourseson ‘Hygiene and autocontrole (self‐checking)’ were the participants learn aboutfoodhygiene,therisksonfoodmanufacturing,riskanalysisandrisk reduction. In collaboration with the ILVO (TAD zuivel) and the KHK, the SteunpuntHoeveproductenadvisesfarmersonregulationsandhelpthem incaseofproblems. The Steunpunt Hoeveproducten underwrites the importance of a self‐ checkingplanandqualitymanual. 22 The Steunpunt Hoeveproducten also encourages the half yearly bacteriologicalcontrolofthefarmmanufacturedproducts(organizationof thehalfyearlylabanalyses).Thebacteriologicallabanalyzeresultstendto beverypositiveforthefarmers/manufacturersoffoodproducts. Examplefordairyproducts Exceedance of enterobacteria: in ice cream, yoghurt and chocolatemousse ExceedanceofE.coli:inbutterandbuttermilk Exceedanceofcoagulase+staphylococci:incheese ExceedanceofListeria:incheese Somefarmersproducedairyproductsbasedonrawmilk.Thiscouldmean ahigherriskforpublichealthbutbacteriologicallabanalysisdonotshow significantlythishigherriskfactor. POSSIBLECONSTRAINTSREGARDINGFOODHYGIENEANDPUBLICHEALTHIN THESHORTFOODSUPPLYCHAIN Smallscale:primaryproduction/manufacturing/sellingarehappeningin1 location so there could be a higher risk of cross contamination. This potentiallyhigherriskiscounteredbythefactthatthebusinessisrunby1 ormaximum2persons,thelimitedvolumeoffoodproductandtheshort storagetimeoftheproducts; Artisanal products: farm manufactured products are often produced following‘oldrecipes’withrespectfortraditionsandgoodtaste; Investmentcapacity:secondhandmaterial,halfautomatedmachines; Useofwellwater:acertainnumberoffarms(10–15%havenoaccessto tapwater); 23 Self checking system and risk analysis: farmers active in de short food supply chain business cannot employ a ‘quality supervisor’ (↔ industry). Developing a self checking manual and risk analysis needs specialized knowledgeandskills.Specifictrainingsessionsandanindependentadvise centre are essential in order to preserve food quality, food hygiene and publichealth. REFERENCES ‘Korte keten initiatieven in Vlaanderen’, een overzicht; Departement Landbouw, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, afdeling Monitoring en Studie; Geertrui Cazaux; april 2010; Rapport, 52 blz. Depotnummer: D/2010/3241/163; www.vlaanderen.be/landbouw. ‘Strategisch Plan Korte Keten’; Vlaamse overheid, Afdeling Duurzame Landbouwontwikkeling; Beleidsdomein Landbouw en Visserij; Maayke Keymeulen; Depotnummer:D/2011/3241294;www.vlaanderen.be/landbouw. 24 THEPOLICYFORSHORTSUPPLYCHAINSINWALLONIA Ir.DamienWinandy DirectorDirectionQualityDGARNESPW‐Walloonregion E‐mail:[email protected] ABSTRACT Wallonia has supported short supply chains for several years using various measures. This marketing method is developing but is still experiencing many obstaclesthatmustbeidentifiedinordertoimplementthetoolsneededforthe developmentofnewprojects. This lecture is a policy overview for short supply chains in Wallonia outlining potential developments and the resources to be implemented so that local producerscandeveloptheirbusinessesbymakingbestuseoftheopportunities onofferandexpandingsalesthroughshortsupplychains. SCOPE Theroleofagricultureisnolongerconfinedtosimplyfeedingthepopulation.It has become multi‐functional and its existence and development affect the economy, the environment, the landscape and regional and sustainable development.Shortsupplychainscontributetothesevariousrolesbyhelpingto supportfarms,andparticularlysmallfarms. Inaddition,moreandmoreconsumersareaskingquestionsaboutthesystemof massconsumption.Theywanttobebetterinformedaboutwherethefoodsthey consume are produced and who is involved in this production. Some are interested in consuming seasonal products, local produce and rediscovering heritagevarietiesoffruitsandvegetables.Thisconsumerquestioningalsocovers the production method, increasingly motivating them to choose food produced usingenvironmentallyfriendly,fairtradeororganicfarmingmethods. Governmentsplayakeyroleinpromotingthisawarenessandinfluencingthese changes. The development policy for short supply circuits proves its value at a localandregionallevelandtheWalloonRegionisnoexceptioninthisarea. GENERALCONTENT 1. In July 2009, in its regional policy declaration, the Walloon government established the policy guidelines underlying its action for the 2009‐2014 period. For agriculture, it set out a major commitment to promote the 25 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. consumption of Walloon products and those produced using organic productionmethods. In order to translate policy issues into operational objectives, the advantages and constraints of the marketing methods in short supply chains for farmers, consumers and society in general must firstly be understood. ThecurrentsituationwithshortsupplychainsinWalloniaisspreadacross awiderangeofpracticalexamplesthathelptoillustratethegreatdiversity of situations and the resulting wealth of product types. The reasons for suchdiversityaregenerallyrelatedtolocalconditions,thepeopleinvolved andthevariedsolutionsthattheychoosetoexplore. The operational strategy implemented by Wallonia is expressed through various support measures and its effectiveness is measured through the resultsrecorded. There are many obstacles to the development of short supply chains and these are far from being removed at present. Accurate identification of these obstacles is essential in defining missing tools and new initiatives that would be useful in helping various individuals and organizations to developtheirprojects. TheconclusionofthispolicyoverviewforshortsupplychainsinWallonia will primarily summarize potential developments and the resources needed to implement them so that local producers can seize all available opportunitiestohelpthemdeveloptheirbusinessesbymakingbestuseof theseopportunitiesandexpandingsalesthroughshortsupplychains. REFERENCES Appétit’Champs:Diagnosticetpropositiondestratégiespourdévelopper,audépartdes collectivités,unefilièred’alimentationdurablesurleterritoiredeNamur,ECORESSPRL ‐January2012. Circuitscourts,CRIOC‐June2010. Circuits courts pour la commercialisation des productions agricoles alimentaires : de quoi s’agit‐il ? Claustriaux J. J., Palm R., Lebailly P., Winandy S. University of Liège/GemblouxAgro‐BioTech‐8December2010. ConsommationetcommercialisationenfilièrecourtedesviandesenWallonieGembloux ‐29November2011. Déclaration de politique régionale 2009‐2014 "Une énergie partagée pour une société durable,humaineetsolidaire"‐12July2009. Typologiecircuitscourts,CRIOC‐June2010. 26 Vade‐mecum de la valorisation des produits agricoles et de leur commercialisation en circuitcourt,PublicServiceofWallonia‐DGARNE‐July2012. 27 FOODSAFETYPROBLEMSSPECIFICTOTHESHORTCHAIN SELECTEDCASESTUDIESFROMTHENETHERLANDS Dr.BennoterKuile SenioradvisormicrobiologyBuRONVWA GuestresearcherAmsterdamUniversity (TheNetherlands) E‐mail:[email protected] Whenitcomestofoodstuffs,theterm“shortchain”istobetakenquiteliterally.It oftendefinessaleattheplaceofproduction,suchasfarmsorsmallworkshops, such as bakers and butchers. The place of production indicates something different from the place of preparation. Restaurants or catering is not by necessity considered short chain, only in the exceptional cases that they are linkedtofarmsanduseproductsoftheirownland.Anothertermoftenusedfor theshortchainis“artisan”,denotingspecialskillsoftheproducerandtraditional preparationprocedures. In the Netherlands there are approximately 25,000 companies that are considered short chain food producers. The mobile group, selling at markets is the largest (11,500), followed by the bakers (3,500) and butchers (1,800). The total number has been steadily decreasing over the years. The short chain is subject to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004, which has been transformed into hygienecodesbytheirtradeorganizations. Examples of farm shops that sell products, in these cases cheese, that are producedonthepremises. 28 In the eyes of the public the short chain is linked to all kind of positive connotations.Theyexpecttheproductstobemorefresh,pure,healthy,natural, nutritious, better tasting and safe than their mainstream “industrial” counterparts. It is questionable whether any or all of these expectations are realistic.Firstofallatermlike“pure”ispoorlydefinedandtasteisverypersonal. Whetherthenutritionalvalueisdifferentdependsonmanyfactors,thelengthof the chain being only one of them and a short chain does not guarantee an increased nutritional value. This presentation will focus solely on the aspect of foodsafety. The mainstream food industry attempts to control the chain from farm‐to‐fork usingsuchinstrumentsasHACCPandGMP.Allmajorcompaniesemployquality managersandfoodsafetyspecialists.Intheshortchainveryfewcompanieshave the size that they can afford the services of professionals dedicated solely to safety. Three examples of mishaps that have occurred in the Netherlands may serveasexamplesofwhatcangowrongasresultofalackofknowledgeinthis area. In2006anunexplainedclusterofinfectionswitharareSalmonellaTyphimurium fagetype560,wasdiscoveredinTwente,anareaintheeastoftheNetherlands. An investigation using among other things the addresses of the people affected disclosedthattheclustercoincidedwiththesalesareaoftwosupermarkets.One of the few specific items that these supermarkets carried exclusively were the productsofanearbycheesefarm.UsingstandardmethodologytheNetherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) did not discover the 29 Salmonella strain in the cheese. It was found, however, in a drainpipe in a cowshed on the farm. No action was taken as this was considered insufficient evidence.Whentheoutbreakcontinued,theNetherlandsInstituteforHealthand the Environment using much larger sample sizes found the strain in a so‐called “old”cheesefromthisfarm.AninvestigationintohowtheSalmonellastraincould haveendedupinthecheese,revealedthatthefarmerdidnotalwayschangehis boots when he walked from the cowshed to the building where the cheese was made.Hedidnotunderstandthelogicoftheruleandthoughtitwasunnecessary andbothersome. A farmers wife who has a hobby making milk‐based deserts decides to start sellingcustarddirectlytocustomersatthefarm.Atfirstshefollowswell‐known recipes, but later she starts to experiment and discovers that lowering the final heating step from 90oC to 80oC improves the taste of the custard. This causes a string of complaints. People got sick because the lowered heating step doesn’t eliminateBacilluscereus.Thehobby‐cookdidn’trealizethattheheatingstepisa safetymeasureaimedateliminatingspore‐formerslikeB.cereus. The local butcher looses customers to the nearby supermarket and decides to increase business by selling homemade ready‐to‐eat dishes. Among these are fried‐rice dishes and a pea‐soup that contains meat. The turnover steadily increasesandtheentrepreneurdecidestoinvestinnewequipment.Hebuyshuge 800 liter vessels, but economizes by omitting the optional cooling system. The soups and rice dishes are not cooled fast enough and during the cooling down period Clostridium perfringens outgrowth occurs. The butcher was not aware of thisrisk. Thereareseveralcommonfactorsintheseandalmostallothermishapsinshort chain food enterprises. The first one is that sufficient knowledge of food microbiologyisnotalwaysavailablewithinthesesmallcompanies.Thissituation isinmanywayscomparabletohomecooking,wherelackofknowledgeleadsto riskysituations,thatcouldhaveeasilybeenpreventedatlowornocosts,hadthe cook the correct insight in food microbiology. A contributing factor may be the natureofHACCPplansandhygienecodes.Theseplansareoftensodetailedand describe procedures, such as receiving and opening a carton box or measuring thetemperatureofproductsinthefreezer,insuchdetailthatthetargetaudience stopstotakeitseriously.Thefoodhandlersandpreparerscannotdistinguishthe essentialfromtheirrelevantrulesandregulatorsarenotalwayskeenenoughon weeding out unnecessary rules. The result is that food producers in the short chain do not realize the risk attached to not exactly following prescribed procedures,astheyhavenoinsightinandknowledgeoftheunderlyingfacts. TheNVWAcommissionedaresearchprojectin2005aimedatpinpointingthese problems. Partially based on the outcome of this investigation a work plan was designedincludingsomenewmeasures.Thefirstonewas,assimpleasitsounds, 30 tomakeasurveytoensurethatallshortchainfoodestablishmentswereknown and their essential data, such as the nature of the business and the address, included in a database. Next they were categorized according to the risk they posed, according to the kind of product and, when available, their track record. Thegroupsweredesignatedas“green”forlowrisk,“orange”formoderateand “red” for high risks. The members of the green group are spot‐checked only, orangeregularlyandmostattentionisgiventotheredcompanies.Intheeventof frequent violations, establishments are closed. An information leaflet on sales from home was drafted an distributed. Start‐up businesses can ask for compliance assistance. An inspector will visit and make recommendations on howtomakesuretheyactinaccordancewithallrules,freeofchargeandwithout theriskofbeingfined.Intheinterestofefficiency,inspectorslimitthemselvesto checkingonlyforobservanceofrulesthataffectfoodsafety. Additionaltraining was given to inspectors of short chain establishments, to make sure that they were able to make the correct judgments on the application of the rules and regulations.Finally,theoutcomeoftheinspectioneffortsaremeasuredbylinking the inspection data to disease load and health complaints associated to short chainproducts. 31 SESSION2.FOOD SAFETYOFTHESHORT SUPPLYCHAIN 32 MICROBIOLOGICALSAFETYANDQUALITYASPECTSINRELATION TOTHESHORTFOODSUPPLYCHAIN L.Herman*,M.Heyndrickx1,K.DeReu1,E.VanCoillie1,M.Uyttendaele2,3 1ILVO 2GhentUniversity 3ScientificCommitteeFASFC *Speaker:Dr.LieveHerman HeadofdivisionILVO‐T&V MemberoftheScientificCommitteeoftheFASFC E‐mail:[email protected] INTRODUCTION A number of microbiological safety aspects are related to food and food production. According to the EU regulation 852/2004 (Anonymous, 2004) the safety of the food chain has to be controlled from farm to fork, each step in the food production chain taking its responsibility to deliver a safe food product to the market. The safety is to be controlled based upon the principles of ‘Good AgriculturalPractices’(GAP),‘GoodManufacturingPractices’(GMP)and‘Hazard AnalysisandCriticalControlPoints’(HACCP).Thisregulationisvalidforallfood production, including the production by the short food supply chain. However, the complexity of legislation, the fact that the persons in charge are engaged in multiplesimultaneousassignmentsandthelackofprofoundknowledgetoassess the risks associated with their products may put a challenge to comply to and implementallfoodsafetyregulations.Acollaborationbetweenallplayersinthe field,includingthescientificworld,ishighlyneeded. In this presentation, a balanced view by means of a SWOT‐analysis (strengths, weaknesses,opportunitiesandthreats)ispresentedonthetypicalcharacteristics of the short food supply chain in relation to microbiological food safety and quality aspects, and in comparison to the more conventional (large scale) production. In this report, results of several scientific advices of the Scientific CommitteeoftheBelgianFoodSafetyAgency(FASFC)areincorporated,showing the increasing topicality of the problem and the increasing demand for knowledgeandguidance. STRENGTHSOFTHESHORTFOODSUPPLYCHAININRELATIONTO MICROBIOLOGICALSAFETYANDQUALITYASPECTS CONTROLOFQUALITYANDSAFETYOFAGRICULTURALPRODUCTS MicrobiologicalhazardsasSalmonella,Yersinia,Campylobacterandverotoxigenic E. coli on farms are related to animal carriage of these pathogens (and for 33 Salmonella sometimes with animal disease) and subsequent excretion in the environment; these zoonotic pathogens can be exchanged between animals and theenvironmentandcanbespreadtothefieldsbycontaminatedirrigationwater and manure. Listeria monocytogenes contamination can also circulate in the environment without animal infection or carriage. Control of these microbiological hazards can be based on i) the knowledge of the animal status concerning disease and carriage of zoonotic pathogens; ii) the analysis of well dedicatedsamplestofollowthestatusatselectedpointsofattentionduringfarm production; and iii) a strict implementation of the best practices and hygiene rules during cultivation, harvest and processing. In the short food supply chain theactivityofagriculturalproductionandfurtherprocessingareoftencombined onthesamesiteand/ormanagedbythesamepersonincharge.Packing,sorting or processing usually takes place at the farm, using most of the time on‐site harvested crops, raw milk or raw meat derived from own livestock or from agriculturalproductsderivedincloseproximity.Assuch,adherencetoGAPand control of its raw materials for microbiological hazards is expected to be an inherentcentralfocuspointoftheshortfoodsupplychain. Areducedriskfortheintroductionofcertainemergingmicrobiologicalhazardsis expected for the short food supply chain production due to its in general local sourcing of inputs (raw and auxiliary materials, feed) in comparison with the globalizedfoodproduction. ON‐SITEPROCESSINGANDDISTRIBUTIONOFFRESHLYHARVESTED AGRICULTURALPRODUCTS Intheshortfoodsupplychainitisintermsoflogisticsmorefeasibletomaintaina short and direct link between primary production (harvest, milking, slaughter) andsubsequentneedofstorageuntilfoodprocessingandthedistributiontothe consumer. In general, this short time frame of storage can be considered as beneficialforthemicrobiologicalqualityandsafetyoftheendproduct.Thiscan bededucedfromthefollowingexamples: 1. Prolonged storage of primary food products at low temperature before processing allows the outgrowth of Gram‐negative psychrotrophic and psychrophilic microorganisms such as Pseudomonas in raw milk. Some Pseudomonas bacteria are capable of producing thermo‐resistant extracellular proteases and lipases, which can cause spoilage and structural defects in pasteurized and ultra‐high‐temperature‐treated milk (products). Outgrowth of Pseudomonas members occurs from the beginningofthedairychain(farmtank)tilltheheatingprocessinthedairy industry and is clearly dependent on the storage time (De Jonghe et al., 2011). On‐farm production does not need long storage of raw food products. 34 2. Scientific studies show that the best way of protecting human infection fromsalmonellosiscausedbycontaminatedeggsisofferedbylimitingthe bacterialoutgrowthbydirectandconstantcoolingoftheeggsafterlay(De Reu,2006a;Messensetal.,2006).Thiswouldbeeasiertoorganizeinthe short food supply chain. In addition, the absence of temperature fluctuations, which may occur more in long food supply chains with multipletransactions,avoidseggshellcondensationandthusalsobacterial eggshellpenetration(DeReuetal.,2006b).Theimmediatecoolingofeggs has been recommended to be included in the Guides for the autocontrol systemforactivitiesasthecollectivenursery(chréche)foryoungchilderen (Sci Com Advice 21‐2011), and the horeca sector (Sci Com Advice 02‐ 2006). 3. Patulinisamycotoxin,producedassecondarymetabolitebyseveralfungal species from which Penicillium expansum is the most important one on apples. Patulin production occurs during storage of damaged apples and patulin contaminates the processed products as apple juice and apple compote (de Souza Sant‐Ana et al., 2008). Reducing the storage time of applesoffersthepossibilitytocontroltheproblem. CONTAMINATIONFROMDIFFERENTMICROBIOLOGICALSOURCESMAYBE MORELIMITED In most cases, the short food supply chain limits processing to the agricultural productsproducedatthefarm;thisincontrarytomostconventionalprocessing units where raw materials of multiple producers are entering the same processing plant. It is expected that in the short food supply chain, the contaminationoftheprocessingareawithapathogenwouldbelimitedtothose strainscirculatingontheownfarmanditsenvironment.Potentialcontamination sources can thus be more limited. This would also favor the strength of any epidemiologicallinkincaseofhumanfoodborneillnessreportedandtracedback to a contaminated farm product. The same may apply to the microbiological qualityofshortchainfoodproducts.Itwasforexampleobservedinsimulations ofthecooledrawmilkchainfromthefarmbulktanktothedairyplantsilothat the overall Pseudomonas diversity was less in a cool stored sample of a single farmmilktankcomparedtoacoolstoredmixedsamplefromdifferentfarmmilk tanks(DeJongheetal.,2011).Thismayhaveconsequencesforrawmilkquality inprocessing,shelflifeandsafety,butmoreresearchisneededtohaveconsistent proofoftheseassumptions. FOODSAFETYCULTUREANDINFORMALSYSTEMSCONTROLLING ADHERENCETOBESTPRACTICES Short food supply chains are responding to a consumer demand for a larger variety of “quality” food products. Producers and consumers in the short food supply chain are concerned on values as taste, nutrition, freshness and in 35 generally quality, and thus intrinsically also safe food and food production. A largeresponsibilityisexpectedfromtheemployeestowardstheirclientsdueto personalcontactandalargercommitment. The adherence on a daily basis to good practices and hygiene is very much influencedbyhumanbehaviorandcommitment.Asaconsequence,theshortfood supply chain may be characterized by an good food safety culture, which is intrinsicallymorepronetoadherencetogoodpracticesleadingtoriskreduction andhighqualityfoodswithoutformalprocedures(Douglasetal.,2011). WEAKNESSESANDTHREATSOFTHESHORTCHAININRELATIONTO MICROBIOLOGICALSAFETYASPECTS INCREASEDPOTENTIALFORCROSSCONTAMINATIONINCASEOF COMBINEDORNEIGHBORINGACTIVITIES:ANIMALANDCROP PRODUCTIONORPRIMARYPRODUCTIONANDFURTHERPROCESSING Intheshortchain,theprimaryproductionismostlylocalizedonthesamesiteas the further processing and distribution of the end products or there is a close contactbetweentheseactivitiesonneighboringfarms.Severalreportsunderline the possibility of end product contamination due to transfer of pathogens from animalsandtheanimalenvironmenttofinishedfoodproductsreadytobeseton themarket. Thiscontaminationcanoccurasapostcontaminationafterpasteurizationaswas the case in theBelgian outbreak of verocytoxin producing E. coliO145 and O26 infections associated with the consumption of on farm produced ice cream (De Schrijver et al., 2008). The pathogenic E. coli strains isolated from the contaminated ice cream were also found from the cows and the calves. Direct contamination from infected animals to end product is also possible. This has been shown in a listeriosis outbreak in Sweden due to the consumption of on‐ farm manufactured fresh goat cheese produced from raw milk of goats with subclinicalmastitisexcretingL.monocytogenesdirectlyinthemilk.Onthisfarm, contamination in the environment caused the cross contamination of the cow milkcheesesproducedatthesamefarmaswell(Eilertzetal.,2004). Crosscontaminationcanalsooccurfromanimalstofreshplantproducethrough contaminatedirrigationwater.Theimportanceofthesafetyofirrigationwaterin theprimaryproductionisillustratedbythelargeE.coliO157outbreakinSweden with locally produced lettuce in 2005 (Söderström et al., 2008). The implicated lettuce was contaminated by irrigation with water from a small stream which becamecontaminatedwiththesamestrainofthepathogenalsopresentincattle at a farm upstream from the irrigation point. The importance of the quality of irrigationwaterinprimaryproductionwasstressedbytheScientificCommittee oftheFASFCintheadviceSciComFASFC28‐2009.Theadviceidentifiedtherisks 36 for food safety and formulated qualitative advices and a proposal for microbiologicalguidelines. The importance of the safety of the processing water was illustrated by the outbreak of campylobacteriosis by the consumption of locally produced and processed peas (Gardner et al., 2011). The peas became contaminated with Campylobacterjejunibywildbirdsgrazingatthefarm’speafields.Shelledpeas, obtained after processing, could have become contaminated due to processing water which was inadequately disinfected. Especially in relation to Campylobactercontamination,allbroilerproducershavetobeawarethatamore ‘natural’ production, with longer breeding periods for chickens, with free range breeding and wild life grazing at the farm is demanding an appropriate food safety control system, based on proper knowledge of the risks and the contamination sources. Campylobacter jejuni contamination of raw milk is an importantsafetyissueincountries(e.g.UK)wherethereisstillalargelocalraw milkconsumptioninruralareas. LACKOFFOODSAFETYKNOWLEDGE In the short chain, the whole production from primary product till end product anddistribution,ismanagedbythesamepersonorthesameteamincharge.Due to the broad range of tasks, specialization towards food safety management is mostly not possible. As a consequence, most short chain production units are strugglingwiththecomplexityofthefoodsafetymanagementrules. Thefoodsafetychallengesfacedatthefarmers’marketsareillustratingtheneed for adequate food safety knowledge. Farmer’s markets often sell their products outdoors and thus potentially exposed to environmental contaminants such as dirt, insects and pollution. Together with this, farmers’ markets may face challenges in relation to food safety similar to other temporary food service establishments as access to potable water, hand washing facilities, general cleaning and disinfection of surfaces, electricity for refrigeration and sufficient coolingcapacity. Theproblemsfacedbyfarmers’marketsareillustratedbythefollowingstudies: Behnkeetal.(2012)investigatedthebehaviorofemployeesinrelationto hand washing in farmers’ markets and their results revealed that proper hand washing between handling different objects including raw and processed products was infrequently practiced. At food markets, in general,manyunpackagedfoodproductsarehandled,veryoftenthesame employees are handling food products and money. In many cases proper handwashingfacilitiesaremissing. Worsfoldetal.(2004)foundthatalmost25%ofsurveyedfarmers’market vendors were unable to correctly assess the risk associated with their 37 wares and that 84 % disagreed with the idea that their products could causefoodpoisoning. GuzewichandRoss(1999)reviewedtheliteratureandfoundthat82%of thereportedoutbreaksimplicatedfoodhandlersasthesourceofinfection and that the majority of the outbreaks associated with food handlers involvedtransmissionofthepathogenbythefoodhandlers’hand.Thisis surely the case for noroviruses, responsible for 17.8 % of all foodborne outbreaksinEuropein2008.Agoodpersonalhygieneandrecognitionof the disease at the human level are the basis to limit the transmission to consumers. Otheralternativemarketinginitiatives,elaboratedintheshortfoodsupplychain suchastheuseofvendingmachinesandwebshoppingareleadingtoaspecific set of precautions which have to be taken to guarantee microbiological safety. Concerning the use of vending machines for selling raw milk on farm, specific requirements were elaborated by the FASFC (Anonymous, 2009), stressing the importance of governance of cold temperature and (restricted) holding time of the raw milk in the vending machine. The FASFC Sci Com stressed in its advice 02‐2012,theimportanceofprovidingsufficientinformationto theconsumeron the microbiological risks related to the consumption of raw milk, especially for vulnerablegroupssuchaselderly,youngchildren,pregnantwomanandimmune‐ compromisedpersons. HIGHRELATIVECOSTFORMICROBIALTESTINGTOCOMPLYTO MICROBIALCRITERIAORFORBASELINEDATAONMICROBIALSAFETY Each system for ensuring food safety includes the demand for a number of necessary analyses. The requested microbial testing is relative expensive for an operatorintheshortfoodsupplychainduetotherelativesmallscaleproduction and the combination of various activities (primary production and processing). Asaconsequence,therelativecostsarehigh.Guidanceandsupportbypublicor private networks may help in the elaboration of a dedicated sampling plan (products to be analyzed, along with frequency of analysis and selection of microbial parameters) to verify food safety and provide guarantees for placing safefoodonthemarket. An example of the complexity of microbiological testing is the microbiological criterion defined for the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in end products (Anonymous, 2005). The criterium defines as end product limit “<100 cfu L. monocytogenes cells per ml or per g” when the producer can proof that L. monocytogenes is not able to grow further in the product. This proof can be delivered on theoretical basis (based on pH and/or aw value, and shelf life). In case there are indications for possible growth, confirmation of no growth by challengetestshastobedelivered(Anonymous,2008a;Anonymous,2008b;Sci Com FASFC 09‐2006). If the theoretical argumentation and/or the challenge 38 proof are missing or insufficiently elaborated, the criterion of “absence of L. monocytogenesin25gormlofproduct”hastobeapplied,whichisthecasefor manyproducersintheshortchain. INCREASINGCENTRALIZATIONANDGLOBALIZATION Ithastobetakenintoaccountthatalsointheshortfoodsupplychainproduction, globalization is introduced e.g. due to import of feed, additives, fertilizers and seeds. Examples of possible introduced emerging hazards are: rare Salmonella serotypes(relatedtofeedandfertilizerimport(Lietal.,2012;Milesetal.,2009; Smith et al., 1982)), antibiotic resistance genes present in pathogens and commensal bacteria circulating on the farm (Sci Com FASFC 29‐2010, 18‐2012) andforexamplepathogenicE.coliintroducedbyseeds.Thelatterbecameclear duringtherecentoutbreakwithEscherichiacoliO104:H4inthespringof2011in Germany and the related cluster in France, which was traced back to on‐farm sprout production and the use of contaminated seeds with origin in Egypt. This outbreakstressedthepossibledrasticeffectsofseedcontaminationandthusthe role of input materials which are not under direct control of the farmer. Investigationoftheoutbreakstrainshowedthatwedealtwithanewpathogenic E. coli strain (indicated as an entero‐aggregative enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EAHEC), an EAEC‐VTEC or an AggVTEC by Buvens and Piérard (2012)), not previously isolated as human foodborne pathogen (Sci Com FASFC 15‐2012). Recently, specific requirements for hygiene in the production of sprouted seeds wereelaboratedbytheFASFC(Anonymous,2012). In the short food supply chain of meat, animals are usually slaughtered in a centralized slaughterhouse which makes also the short chain meat production vulnerable for contamination from multiple sources. For animal products, contaminationofprocessingareasandproductswithmultiplepathogenicstrains are often encountered in slaughterhouses and meat processing plants for pigs and poultry. Multiple Salmonella strains were detected in several pig slaughterhouses and on pig carcasses (Botteldoorn et al., 2003); the same was alsoobservedinpoultryslaughterhousesandbroilercarcasses(Heyndrickxetal., 2007). OPPORTUNITIESANDCHALLENGES An increasing number of cooperative processing initiatives and new marketing formatsarebeingintroducedintheshortfoodsupplychain,whichgiveanextra dimensionbothtotheabovementionedstrengthsandweaknesses.Theycanbe on the one hand regarded as opportunities to improve the specific microbiologicalsafetyissueoftheshortfoodchain,buttheynevercomewithout new challenges on the other hand. Cooperative initiatives lead to a larger scale production when it coincideswith co‐processing of products ofseveral primary producers. To guarantee microbiological food safety in these more complex 39 cooperation initiatives and production units with the possibility of multiple inputsandthuspotentialsourcesofcontamination,amoreadvancedtraceability systemandsystematicmanagementoffoodsafetybaseduponHACCPwouldbe recommended. Many short chain meat producers are looking for small scale slaughterhouses,someofthemsetupascooperativeinitiatives.Mostproducers intheshortmeatchainarealsoaimingtolimitthetransporttimeoftheanimals to the slaughterhouse which may reduce the shedding of pathogens such as Salmonella,andprovidemeatprocessingafterslaughterintheslaughterhousein their own processing plants. These initiatives may limit the multiple contamination sources found in conventional large scale slaughterhouses and processingplants. Thepeculiarityoftheshortchainisofferingalsosomeopportunitiesconcerning product quality characteristics as taste, freshness, nutritional value and microbiological food safety. Generally food processing techniques such as heat treatment are applied to ensure microbiological safety and to prolong the shelf lifeoffoodproducts.Duetothedirectlinkbetweenandcombinationofactivities of primary production, processing and selling, the short chain offers opportunities for i) better control of the quality of agricultural products during production, at harvest and postharvest storage; ii) shortening the time period needed between harvest or processing and sale; iii) direct communication and informal transfer of knowledge internally between employees, but also face to facefromvendortoconsumeronstorage,handlingandpreparationthusenabling the marketing of less intensive processed food products with balanced product quality and microbiological safety; iv) guidance, training and networking for exchanging information provided by either public or private organizations to farmers or businesses in the short food supply chain, which may enhance the capacitytodeliverhighqualityandsafefoodstotheconsumer;andv)simplified rulesandcontrolsystemstobeputinplace. Thisisillustratedbysomeexamples: Intheproductionofprocessedfruitproductsasfruitjuices,amorelimited processing of high quality primary products can lead to an improved preservationofvitamins,anti‐oxidantsandphenolcomponents. TheSciComadvice15‐2011stressedthemicrobiologicalrisksoftheraw milk consumption mainly due to zoonotic agents carried by the cattle. As major benefit of raw milk and raw milk processed products, the superior tastewasidentified.Theshortchainoffersopportunitiestocontroltherisk of zoonotic agents in the raw milk by careful monitoring of the agents at thecattlelevel. 40 REFERENCES Anonymous2004.Regulation(EC)No852/2004oftheEuropeanparliamentandofthe council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs. http://eur‐ lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:139:0001:0054:en:PDF. Anonymous 2005. Commission regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs. http://eur‐ lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:338:0001:0026:EN:PDF. Anonymous2008a.GuidancedocumentonListeriamonocytogenesshelf‐lifestudiesfor ready to eat foods, under Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs, Commission of the European Communities, SANCO/1628/2008 ver. 9.3 (26112008). http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/salmonella/docs/guidoc_listeria_monocytoge nes_en.pdf. Anonymous 2008b. Technical guidance document on shelf‐life studies for Listeria monocytogenes in ready‐to‐eat‐foods, CRL for Listeria monocytogenes, version 2 – November 2008. http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/salmonella/microbio_en.htm. Anonymous 2009. Automaten voor de distributie an rauwe melk: hygiëne‐eisen. http://www.favv.be/dierlijkeproductie/dierlijkeproducten/omzendbrieven/_document s/2009‐11‐16_bijlageomzendbriefeisenmelkautomaten_NL.pdf. Anonymous 2012. Omzendbrief betreffende de verplichte specifieke hygiënemaatregelen voor de productie van kiemgroenten. http://www.favv.be/plantaardigeproductie/plantaardigeproducten/_documents/2012_ 07_03_Omzendbrief_Kiemgroenten_Versie1_R08_v4_NL_FINAL.pdf. Behnke,C.,Seo, S., Miller,K. 2012.Assessingfoodsafetypracticesinfarmers’markets. FoodProt.Trends32:232‐239. Botteldoorn, N., M. Heyndrickx, N. Rijpens, K. Grijspeerdt and L. Herman. 2003. Salmonella on pig carcasses: positive pigs and cross contamination in the slaughterhouse.J.Appl.Microbiol.95:891‐903. Buvens, G., Piérard, D. 2012. Infections with verotoxin‐producing Escherichia coli O157:H7andotherserotypes,includingtheoutbreakstrainO104:H4.ActaClinBel67: 7‐12. DeJonghe,V.,Coorevits,A.,VanHoorde,K.,Messens,W.,VanLandschoot,A.,DeVos,P., Heyndrickx, M. 2011. Influence of storage conditions on the growth of Pseudomonas speciesinrefrigeratedrawmilk.Appl.Environ.Microbiol.77:460‐470. 41 DeSchrijver,K.,Buvens,G.,Possé,B.,VandenBranden,D.,Oosterlynck,O.,DeZutter,L., Eilers,K.,Piérard,D.,Dierick,K.,VanDamme‐Lombaerts,R.,Lauwers,C.,Jacobs,R.2008. Outbreakofverocytoxin‐producingE.coliO145andO26infectionsassociatedwiththe consumptionoficecreamproducedatafarm,Belgium,2007.Eurosurveillance13:1‐4. De Reu, K. 2006a. Bacteriological contamination and infection of shell eggs in the productionchain.PhDthesis,UniversityofGhent,250p. De Reu, K., Grijspeerdt, K., Heyndrickx, M., Messens, W., Uyttendaele, M., Debevere, J., Herman,L.2006b.Influenceofeggshellcondensationoneggshellpenetrationandwhole eggcontaminationwithSalmonellaentericaserovarEnteritidis.J.FoodProt.,69,1539‐ 1545. DeSouzaSant’Ana,A.,Rosenthal,A.,deMassaguer,P.R.2008.Thefateofpatulininapple juiceprocessing:areview.FoodRes.Int.41:441‐453. Douglas A., Powell, Casey J. Jacob, Benjamin J. Chapman. 2011. Enhancing food safety culturetoreduceratesoffoodborneillnessFoodControl22,817‐822. Eilertz,I.,Danielsson‐Tham,M.L.,Hammarberg,K.E.,Reeves,M.W.,Rocourt,J.,Seeliger, H. P., Swaminathan, B., Tham, W. 2004. Isolation of Listeria monocytogenes from goat cheeseassociatedwithacaseoflisteriosisingoat.FoodbornePathog.Dis.1:154‐159. Gardner,T.J.,Fitzgerald,C.,Xavier,C.,Klein,R.,Pruckler,J.,Stroika,S.,McLaughlin,J.B. 2011.Outbreakofcampylobacteriosisassociatedwithconsumptionofrawpeas.CID53: 26‐32SciCom FAVV 18‐2012. The contribution of the food chain to the transfer of antibiotic resistance to humans. http://www.favv.be/wetenschappelijkcomite/adviezen/_documents/ADVIES18‐ 2012_NL_DOSSIER2007‐08.pdf; http://www.favv.be/comitescientifique/avis/_documents/AVIS18‐ 2012_FR_DOSSIER2007‐08.pdf. Griffith, C.J., Livesey, K.M., Clayton, D.A.. 2010. Food safety culture: the evolution of an emergingriskfactor?BritishFoodJournal112,4,426‐438. Guzewich,J.,M.Ross.1999.Whitepaper:evaluationofrisksrelatedtomicrobiological contaminationofready‐to‐eatfoodbyfoodpreparationworkersandtheeffectivenessof interventions to minimize those risks. Food And Drug Administration, Center for Food SafetyandAppliedNutrition. Heyndrickx, M., Herman, L. Vlaes, L., Butzler, J.‐P., Wildemauwe, C., Godard, C. and De Zutter, L. 2007. Mutiple typing for the epidemiological study of the contamination of broilerswithSalmonellafromthehatcherytotheslaughterhouse.J.FoodProtection70: 323‐334. 42 Li,X.,Bethune,L.A,.Jia,Y.,Lovell,R.A.,Proescholdt,T.A.,Benz,S.A.,Schell,T.C.,Kaplan, G., McChesney, D. G. 2012. Surveillance of Salmonella prevalence in animal feeds and characterization of the Salmonella Isolates by serotyping and antimicrobial Susceptibility.FoodbornePathog.Dis.,June26inpress. Messens, W., Grijspeerdt, K., Herman, L. 2006. Eggshell penetration of hen’s eggs by SalmonellaentericaserovarEnteritidisuponvariousstorageconditions.Br.Poult.Sc.47: 554‐560. Miles, J.M., Summer, S.S., Boyer, R.R., William, R.C., Latimer, J.G., Mc Kinney, J.M. 2009. Internalization of Salmonella enterica serovar Montevideo into greenhouse tomato plantsthroughcontaminatedirrigationwaterorseedstock.J.FoodProt.74:849‐852. SciCom FAVV 02‐2006. Scientific evaluation of Guide for the introduction of an autocontrol system in the catering sector. http://www.favv.be/home/com‐ sci/doc/avis06/ADVIES_02‐2006.pdf; http://www.favv.be/home/com‐ sci/doc/avis06/AVIS_02‐2006.pdf. SciCom FAVV 09‐2006. Evaluation of a protocol for challenge tests for Listeria monocytogenes. http://www.favv.be/home/com‐sci/doc/avis06/ADVIES_09‐2006.pdf; http://www.favv.be/home/com‐sci/doc/avis06/AVIS_09‐2006.pdf. SicComFAVV28‐2009.Thequalityofirrigationwaterusedinprimaryplantproduction and food safety. http://www.favv.be/wetenschappelijkcomite/adviezen/_documents/ADVIES28‐ 2009_NL_DOSSIER2008‐02.pdf; http://www.favv.be/comitescientifique/avis/_documents/AVIS28‐ 2009_FR_DOSSIER2008‐02.pdf. SciComFAVV29‐2010.Adviceonindicationsforthefoodrelatedtransferofantibiotic resistance from animals to humans : study of resistance profiles and phage types of Salmonella Typhimurium from pigs and poultry, pork and broiler meat and humans. http://www.favv.be/wetenschappelijkcomite/adviezen/_documents/ADVIES‐_29‐ 2010_NL_Dossier2007‐08.pdf; http://www.favv.be/comitescientifique/avis/_documents/AVIS29‐ 2010_FR_Dossier2007‐08.pdf. SciCom FAVV 15‐2011. Advice on the risk‐benefit evaluation of raw cow milk consumption and the effect of heat treatment on these risks and benefits. http://www.favv.be/wetenschappelijkcomite/adviezen/_documents/ADVIES15‐ 2011_NL_DOSSIER2010‐25.pdf; http://www.favv.be/comitescientifique/avis/_documents/AVIS15‐ 2011_FR_DOSSIER2010‐25.pdf. 43 Sci Com FAVV 21‐2011.Adviceontheevaluationoftheautocontrolguideforthefood safety in collective host community of early childhood. http://www.favv.be/wetenschappelijkcomite/adviezen/_documents/ADVIES21‐ 2011_NL_DOSSIER2011‐20.pdf; http://www.favv.be/comitescientifique/avis/_documents/AVIS21‐ 2011_FR_DOSSIER2011‐20.pdf. Sci Com FAVV 02‐2012.Adviceonaprojectofroyaldecreeonthehygienicconditions related to the direct supply by an animal keeper or by another producer of primary products, or a hunter of small quantities of some foods of animal origin to the final consumer or of wild game to the retail that delivers directly to the final consumer. http://www.favv.be/wetenschappelijkcomite/adviezen/_documents/ADVIES02‐ 2012_NL_DOSSIER2011‐30.pdf; http://www.favv.be/comitescientifique/avis/_documents/AVIS02‐ 2012_FR_DOSSIER2011‐30.pdf. SciComFAVV15‐2012.Prevention,detection,fasttracingandmanagementofoutbreaks of human pathogenic Verotoxin producing Escherichia coli in the food chain. http://www.favv.be/wetenschappelijkcomite/adviezen/_documents/ADVIES15‐ 2012_NL_DOSSIER2011‐18.pdf; http://www.favv.be/comitescientifique/avis/_documents/AVIS15‐ 2012_FR_DOSSIER2011‐18_000.pdf. SciComFAVV18‐2012.onthecontributionofthefoodchaintothetransferofantibiotic resistance to humans. http://www.favv.be/wetenschappelijkcomite/adviezen/_documents/ADVIES18‐ 2012_NL_DOSSIER2007‐08.pdf; http://www.favv.be/comitescientifique/avis/_documents/AVIS18‐ 2012_FR_DOSSIER2007‐08.pdf. Smith, H.W., Tucker, J.F. 1982. Salmonella organisms in garden fertilizers of animal origin.J.Hyg.89:125‐128. Söderström, A., Osterberg, P., Lindqvist, A., Jönsson, B., Lindberg, A., Blide‐Ulander, S., Welinder‐Olsson,C.,Löfdahl,S.,Kaijser,B.,DeJong,B.,Kühlmann‐Berenzon,S.,Boqvist, S., Eriksson, E., Szanto, E., Andersson, S., Allestam, G., Hedenström, I., Ledet‐Muller, L., Andersson, Y. 2008. A large Escherichia coli O157 outbreak in Sweden associated with locallyproducedlettuce.FoodbornePathog.Dis.5:339‐349. Worsfold,D.,P.Worsfold,Griffith,C.2004.AnAssessmentoffoodhygieneandsafetyat famersmarkets.Int.J.Environ.HealthRes.14:109‐119. 44 CHEMICALASPECTSOFFOODSAFETYANDQUALITYINTHE SHORTSUPPLYCHAINS L.Pussemier*,L.Herman1,3,X.VanHuffel2,A.Huyghebaert3 1ILVO 2FASFC 3ScientificCommitteeFASFC *Speaker:Dr.ir.LucPussemier OperationaldirectorCODA‐CERVA Vice‐chairoftheScientificCommitteeoftheFASFC E‐mail:luc.pussemier@coda‐cerva.be ABSTRACT Many chemicals may impact food quality and safety during the progress of the ingredientsthroughoutthefoodchain.Someofthosechemicalsareundesirable in food but they can enter the food chain at several critical steps whilst, on the otherhand,someusefulorbeneficialchemicalscanbelostduringsomespecific steps of the food chain. Those two phenomena can lead to potential negative impacts on public health. The first group of hazardous chemicals is made of i) environmentalpollutants(POPs,heavymetals),ii)agriculturalinputs(pesticides, veterinarydrugs,fertilizers),iii)toxiccompoundsofwhichtheentryinthefood chain depends on some specific crop management practices or weather conditions(mycotoxins,toxicweedsorseeds),iv)contaminantsthatarespecific totheprocessusedforfoodpreparation(acrylamide,benzene)orcontaminants that are released from technological aid agents (dioxins, metals), and v) contaminants that can be released from several materials in contact with food (plasticizers, heavy metals, chemical constituents released by several packing materials).Ontheotherhandthebeneficialfood(micro‐)constituentsthatcanbe lost belong to the group of vitamins, essential elements, plant antioxidants, etc. Local foods stemming from the short food supply chains may differ from their long chain counterparts in several ways that will be analyzed in more detail in thispresentation. INTRODUCTION Whendealingwithfoodsafetyandfoodquality,itisimportanttopresentawhole picture and not focus or restrict ourselves to some particular hazards or traits. Firstofall,itisnecessarytolookatallparametersabletoinfluencethepresence (orabsence)ofharmful(orbeneficial)chemicalsfrom“stabletotable”bylooking successively at the production environment, the mode of crop production (conventional,organic,etc.)aswellasatthechemicalsoriginated(ordestroyed) duringfoodprocessing,storageandpackaging.Inaddition,itisalsoimportantto 45 beabletodiscriminaterelevantfromnon‐relevanttraitsandtocriticallyanalyze whataretherealconsequencesonfoodsafetyandonfoodquality.Also,knowing whatisgoodorlessgood,itmaybeveryusefultoadaptourbehaviorandhabits inordertoextractthebestfromeachsituationandavoidtheworstcases.Finally, it also worth considering that health is not only determined by negative or positivedeterminantssuchascontaminantsandmicro‐nutrientsbutalsobythe wayoflivingincludingthewell‐beingandphysicalactivity,forinstance. HARMFULANDBENEFICIALCHEMICALSTHROUGHOUTTHEFOODCHAIN Local food and feed are produced in the local production environment. In some cases, the quality of the local environment can be bad for several reasons including the quality of soil, air and water used for crop production or animal rearing.Hence,HeavyMetals(HMs)andPersistentOrganicPollutants(POPs)can accumulate in the food chain. A well‐known example is cadmium in vegetables and some animal products (kidneys from bovines) near non‐ferrous metal productionsitesintheCampineregion(Vrommanetal.,2008;Waegeneersetal., 2009).Onthe contrary, the local environment (soils) in Western Europe canbe relatively poor in some useful nutrients such as selenium so that the exclusive intake of local food could be somewhat low compared to recommended dietary allowance values (SHC, 2009). The bad environmental quality of water and sediments from local rivers can lead to contamination of wild fish such as eels (BelpaireandGoemans,2007). Thecontaminationofsomeanimalproductsbyenvironmentalcontaminantscan also be influenced by the mode of production as it can be seen from the contaminationofeggswhenthehensarerearedinfreerangesystems(SciCom advice2002/35).Agriculturalinputswillbeusedinadifferentwayaccordingto the mode of production. Organic crops will contain less synthetic pesticides residues and sometimes also less nitrates (Pussemier et al., 2006). Food processing andcooking will, on the otherhand, contribute to pesticide residues dissipation, hence reducing the human intake of those chemicals (Claeys et al., 2011). The crop production management associated to bad weather conditions can in turn lead to other kinds of contaminations. Hence, at harvest, cereals can be contaminated by several Fusarium toxins, especially under non plough conditions, in some crop rotation favoring cereals, and when rainy conditions occurduringandafterthefloweringofwheat,forexample.Noneffectivesorting of apples in order to discard the rotten fruits is also a very dangerous practice leading to the production of apple juice contaminated by patulin (Baert et al., 2006;Gillardetal.,2009).Abadmanagementofcropproductionmayalsoresult inthepresenceofundesirableweedsrichintoxiccompoundsthatwillindirectly oraccidentlycontaminatethecrop,andsothefoodorfeedtobeproducedwith such raw materials. A last example is the greening of potatoes (and their 46 subsequent contamination by solanine) when the tubers are not thoroughly coveredbyasoillayerduringthegrowingofthecrop. When the harvest is done, there are still some other occasions that can lead to further alterations of the chemical composition. First of all, the longer the fresh producewillbestoredorprocessedthehigherwillbethedepletionorlossesof vitamins and other useful micro‐nutrients. On the other hand some other contaminants can appear during storage, processing and cooking. One can mention ochratoxin A (bad storage conditions), additives (to extend the preservation), chemical contaminants such as benzene and acrylamide (process contaminants)(SciCom,2010;SciCom,2008). Last but not least, the packaging of food ingredients and foodstuffs as well as other materials which can come in contact with food (kitchen utensils) can further lead to contamination. Special care must be taken with the short chains becausetheprobabilitythatnon‐foodgradematerialswillbeusedishigherhere. Forexample,recycledpaperorcardboardmayposeproblemsaswellastheuse ofhandicraft‐maderecipients(ceramics,forexample). INWHICHWAYDOLOCALFOODANDSHORTSUPPLYCHAINSINFLUENCETHE CONTAMINATIONRISKSBYCHEMICALCONTAMINANTS? The impact of local food on the occurrence of specific harmful effects has been illustrated in some limited cases. The problems linked to the presence of POPs (dioxins,PCBs,etc.)arewelldocumentedforeggs(freerangehensbelongingto private owners; Goeyens et al., 2008), wild fish (especially eels; Belpaire and Goemans,2007),heavymetals(especiallycadmiuminvegetablesandinkidneys ofbovines;Vrommanetal,2008,Waegeneersetal.,2009).Asfarasmycotoxins areconcerned,thecaseofpatulininapplejuice(handicraft‐madeandorganic)is welldocumented(Baertetal.,2006;Gillard,2009).Astothecerealmycotoxins (Fusarium toxins), it seems that the picture is much more complex and that the situationcanvarydramaticallyfromoneyeartoanotherandfromonelocationto another(Larondelleetal.,2005;Pussemieretal.,2006).Pesticidesandnitrates, whilstgenerallythemostfearedbytheconsumers,doactuallynotrepresentan important health risk since the levels of residues left at harvest are very low (Claeys et al., 2008) and also since those residues levels will further decrease afterfoodprocessing(Claeysetal.,2011).Noclearcutinformationisavailableon theotherkindsofcontaminants. INWHICHWAYDOLOCALFOODANDSHORTSUPPLYCHAINSINFLUENCETHE CONTENTOFBENEFICIALORGANICMICRO‐CONSTITUENTANDESSENTIAL ELEMENTS? Some of the short food supply chains are characterized by the fact that fruits, vegetables,breadandanimalproducts(milk,cheese,meat)aremadefromfresh 47 ingredients or are minimal processed so that they are rich in vitamins, antioxidants,fibersandessentialelements.Thosepropertiescanevenbeslightly more present when the food products originate from the organic production system(FoodStandardsAgency,2009;Pussemieretal.,2006). ATENTATIVEBALANCEOFDELETERIOUSANDBENEFICIALEFFECTS Takingintoconsiderationthebestdocumentedcasesdescribedintheliterature, itispossibletoprovideaglobalpictureofthesituationasillustratedinFigure1. The way by which the local food and the short supply chains will influence this global picture depends on each specific situation. A historical pollution of the local environment will impact more specifically situations illustrated by arrows a)andb). The presence of toxins, on the other hand, will depend on crop management practices as well as on weather conditions during the summer whilst pesticide residues will be under control if good agricultural practices are respected and, more especially, if the organic production mode is implemented. For the short supply chains products that are sold fresh or after minimal processing, the situations represented by the arrows d‐f) will be less encountered, which is a clearargumentforthepromotionoftheseproductionanddistributionchains. 48 49 49 Examples of well documented cases with potential significant health impact are indicated with arrows a‐ b, f (i.e. contamination of vegetablesbycadmiuminpollutedareas(a),dioxinsineggsfromfreerangehens(b)andacrylamideinchips,coffeeandbiscuits(f)). Examples of well documented cases with no clear health impact are indicated with arrows c‐e and g (i.e. patulin in handicraft‐made applejuice (c), phthalates in canned food(d), bisphenol A inpolycarbonate bottles(e),andlossofvitaminsandotherorganicmicro‐ nutrientsinvegetablesstoredatroomtemperature(g)). Figure1:Chemicalchangesinfoodaccordingtothepositioninthefoodchain. CONCLUSIONS In terms of food safety and food quality, there can be some slight differences between the foodstuffs distributed via the conventional (long) chains and the foodwhichcanbedirectlyobtainedfromthelocalproducers.Sometimesthiscan lead to less safe situations (presence of environmental contaminants or toxins stemming for non‐appropriate crop management techniques) but this is mostly anexceptionthatcanbeavoidedbyagoodeducationoftheproducerandofthe consumers. On the other hand, contaminants stemming from more complex processesandlong‐termstorageofthefoodstuffswillgenerallybelesspresentin theshortsupplychain(especiallyintheorganicproduction)ifappropriatefood‐ gradematerials(utensils,packaging)areselectedtohandlethefood.Inaddition, by buying fresh and less processed products, the consumer will improve the nutritionalqualityofitsfood.Lastbutnotleast,self‐productionofvegetablesand fruit will be even better for the health of the consumer thanks to some extra physicalactivityrequiredfortheirproduction. REFERENCES Baertetal.(2006)OccurrenceofPatulininorganic,conventional,andhandcraftedapple juicesmarketedinBelgium.J.ofFoodProtec.69(6):1371‐1378. Belpaire and Goemans (2007) Eels: contaminant cocktails pinpointing environmental contamination.ICESjournalofMarineScience,64(7):1423‐1436. Gillard et al. (2009) Quantification of patulin in Belgian handicraft‐made apple juices. WorldMycotoxinJournal.2(1):95‐104. Goeyens et al. (2008) Contaminatie van eieren afkomstig van kippen gehouden bij particulieren.ReportoftheCONTEGGstudypublishedby“Contractueelonderzoek‐FOD Volksgezondheid,VeiligheidvandeVoedselketenenleefmilieu”,Brussel(58p). Claeys et al. (2008) Exposure assessment of the Belgian population through fruit and vegetableconsumption.FoodAdditives&Contaminants,25(7)851‐863. Claeysetal.(2011)ExposureofseveralBelgianconsumergroupstopesticideresidues throughfreshfruitandvegetableconsumption.FoodControl22:508‐516. Food Standards Agency (2009) Organic review published (available at www.food.gov.uk/news/neewsarchive/2009/jul/organic). Pussemier et al. (2006) Chemical safety of conventionally and organically produced foodstuffs(2006)1714‐21. 50 SciCom(2008)Advice25‐2008oftheScientificCommitteeoftheFASFConacrylamide. ExposureoftheBelgianpopulation,contributionofdifferentfoodstuffandmethodology fordefiningactionlimits(dossierSciCom2007/37). SciCom(2010)Advice09‐2010oftheScientificCommitteeoftheFASFConcarcinogenic and/or genotoxic risks in food: process related contaminants (dossier Sci Com 2007/09bis). SHC (Superior Health Council) (2009). Nutritional Recommendations for Belgium, n°8309. Vromman et al. (2008) Cadmium in the food chain near non‐ferrous metal production sites.FAC(partA)25:293‐301. Waegeneers et al. (2009) The European maximum level for Cd in bovine kidneys is in Belgiumonlyrealisticforcattleupto2yearsofage.FAC26(9):1239‐1248. 51 CONTROLOFTHEFOODSAFETYOFTHESHORTCIRCUITS:THE EXPERIENCEOFTHECELLQUALITYOFFARMPRODUCTS(CQPF) SUPPORTINGTHEPRODUCERSINWALLONIA Prof.ir.MarianneSindic Prof.UniversityofLiège/GemblouxAgro‐BioTech E‐mail:[email protected] INTRODUCTION In 1993, the European Union, in order to guarantee food hygiene and safety, proposed to standardize food legislations of all Member States. All foodstuffs in free movement in Europe were concerned, regardless their production phase. The Council Directive 93/43/EEC on the hygiene of foodstuffs was adopted, it replacedtheanalysisonfinishedproducts(slowness,sampling,cost)byamore preventive approach. This new approach is based on the application of Good Hygienic Practices and the HACCP principles. Their aim is to reduce potential health risks by identifying hazards and defining critical control points at the differentstepsofproduction. Its transposition into Belgian law may create difficulties for many small and mediumenterprisesbecauseitinvolvespolicyandbehaviorchange,andrequires adifferentapproachtoproduction. Aware of the potential consequences that this regulation may produce on the viabilityoftheseenterprises,theDepartmentoffoodtechnologyoftheGembloux Agricultural University took the lead and launched in 1995, with the support of the Walloon Region, the French‐Speaking Community and the Federal funds, some projects in order to help artisans and farmers to comply with this legislation. Since 2003, farmers have been obliged to comply with new infrastructure requirements and to implement procedures based on the HACCP principles.Hazardanalysisandassessmentofassociatedriskintheirownfarms requiremethodologicalandtechnicalknowledgeandinvestigationsthatfarmers cannotachieveeasily.Inreactiontothissituationthatmayendangerthesurvival ofmanyfarms,theGemblouxAgro‐BioTechoffersconcreteandpracticalsupport inordertoadaptthemethodtotherealityofthefield. BACKGROUNDOFTHECQPFPROJECT Withthesedifferentprojectsimplementedtosupportfarmersinvariousaspects such as dairy technology, administrative assistance and implementation of HACCPprograms,theWalloonRegionwantedtoputtogetherthedifferentskills 52 withinacommonprojectinordertooptimizesupporttofarmers.Thisledtothe creationofthe«CelluleQualitéProduitsfermiers»(CQPF)in2006.Thisproject providesa”one‐stopshop”packageofservicesforfarmerswhowanttodiversify theiractivitiesbytransformingtheirrawmaterials.Onthisbasis,thisprojectis addressed to every single actor who works in the field of transformation and valorizationofrawmaterialsfromtheWalloonagriculture. MISSIONANDTYPEOFSUPPORT Providing local self‐made products represents a good means to improve the profitability of the farms by increasing the added value of raw materials. In addition,producersconsideritasawaytoclawbackapartoftheprofitmargin that is currently obtained by food processing and distribution industries. The project supports those already in business and those who are considering a diversification activity or retraining. On the other hand, many economic developmentstakeholdersinWallonia(GAL,ADL,Créa‐Job,...)alsobenefitfrom theexpertiseacquiredbytheactorsoftheCQPFproject. The mission of the “Cellule Qualité des Produits fermiers” is defined in a frameworkconventionsignedbytheWalloonMinisterofAgriculture.Whichaim istohelpproducers/processorsonthefarmtobringthequalityoftheirproducts into compliance with legal and/or market requirements. Food safety is consideredasapriority. Theactionoftheprojectmustallowa“one‐stopshop”approach:inotherwords toallowthefarmertofindinonesingleplacetheanswerstoanytypeofquestion: about his diversification activity, or about starting such an activity, or about sustainability/developmentofsuchanexistingactivity. Thesupporttodiversificationprojectsisdividedin3polesofactivity: Foodsafety/hygienesupport,providedbytheULg‐GxABT Atechnologicalsupport,providedbyCARAHandEPASC Aneconomicsupport,providedbyACW Saveurs Paysannes, also partner of the CQPF project, conducts special studies related to short marketing circuits. The coordination of the project is provided within the ULg‐GxABT (Laboratory Quality and Safety of Food Products) by ProfessorMarianneSindic. Theoriginalityoftheprojectliesinthestronginteractionsbetweenthedifferent expert teams, related to the problems encountered. For example, a hygienic problemonadairyproductcanbelinkedtoalackoftechnologicalmasteryofthe process.Thetechnologicalteamisneededtosolvetheproblem,inadditiontothe food safety/hygiene team. More generally, the direct or indirect involvement of 53 multiplepartnersisarealassettoprovidethefarmeranintegratedsupportthat coversthemajorityofrequiredactions. FOODSAFETYSUPPORT ConcerningFoodsafety,differentservicesareproposedthroughdifferentphases: Designphaseofadiversificationproject: Advice concerning design of food premises (advice and verification of hygienicmeasures,verificationofthecompliancewithregulation); Informationandtrainingtobasicsoffoodhygiene; Information about food safety assurance systems (interpretation of legislation,productspecifications,productlabel,…). Diversificationprojectstart‐up: Supportforadministrativeactions(toobtainFASFCauthorizations); Implementation of self‐control involving basic hygiene measures, HACCP andtraceabilitysystem.Thissupportisrealizedduringseveralmeetings; Information linked to self‐control of food safety assurance systems (interpretationoflegislation,productspecifications,productlabel,…). Follow‐up: Microbiologicalandchemicaltesting(outsourcedservice); Interpretationoftestingresults; Microbiologicalcontaminationproblemssolving; UpdatingthedocumentationrelatedtoFoodsafetyassurancesystem. Sinceitscreationin2006,theCQPFhasinformedandsupportedmorethan1000 producers.Forexample,intheyear2011,thedifferentfollow‐upsrealizedbythe Foodsafetyteamaredividedasfollows: TheDairysectorrepresented68%ofinterventions:cheese,butter,yogurt, icecream,etc.; Meat sector (11 %): butcher on the farm, small slaughterhouses, cutting plants,preparationofpackagesofmeat; Vegetable sector (12 %): fruits and vegetables processing (canned soups, jams,wine,oil,juice,...); Cateringsector(2%)restaurantsonthefarm,makingmeals. 54 SOMEPECULIARITIESOFLOCALFOODPRODUCTIONINACONTEXTOFSHORT MARKETINGCIRCUIT Transformation for a short marketing circuit is mainly characterized by the followingelements: Acraftproductionsystem,withlimitedproductionvolumes(noproduction automation,norautomaticcleaningsystem,norasepticlines,...); A desire to distance from standardized industrial products. In the dairy sector,theproductsaremostlymadewithrawmilk; The number of employees working in the farm on this type of projects is limited. It rarely exceeds the legal limits allowing flexibility in the implementationofthefoodsafetyassurancesystem; Afarmerproducer/processorhaslimitedfinancialresourcestomanageits system: he has no QA manager, nor own laboratory performing the analyzesatalowercostthanoutsourcing,...; The implementation of a food safety assurance program has been mandatorysince2003onafarm,whiletheproductionoffarmproductsis ancestral. With these programs new constraints appear which causes producersmisunderstanding; Adirectrelationshipwiththeconsumerisakeyfactorintheproductionof aqualityproduct,bothfromanorganolepticandhygienicpointofview; Productionvolumessignificantlylowerthanthoseencounteredinthefood industry; Transforming raw materials, with a few or no intermediaries. The productionchainisthereforeshortenedandthetraceabilitylesscomplex. MICROBIOLOGICALTESTRESULTS TheFoodsafetyandhygieneteamoftheCQPFensures,asmentionedabove,the Implementation of basic hygiene measures, HACCP and traceability system in accordance with the EU and the Belgian food legislation. The EU Regulation 853/2004laysdownspecifichygienerulesforfoodofanimaloriginandtheEU Regulation 2073/2005 gives the microbiological criteria for foodstuffs. These regulations state that microbiological tests have to be carried out regularly to ensureproductssafety. Microbiological results accumulated over a period of 6 years will be presented. Theseresultswereobtainedduringthefollow‐upoffarmersproducingrawmilk products, for three dairy products: cheese, butter and yoghurt. Results concerningmeatproductswillalsobepresented.Wecomparedtheresultswith safety standards set by the European legislation. All the tests have been performedinaccreditedlaboratory. 55 DIFFICULTIES Diversificationofactivitiesintheagriculturalworldreflectstheneedtoimprove farm incomes, to increase its profitability, but also to ensure its viability considering the increase of production costs. Transformation of primary productioncangeneratehighermarginsthanthoseofthesaleofrawmaterials, and can therefore generateadditional income. We should identify, however, the difficultiesencounteredonthegroundbydistinguishingoldandnewprocessors. Concerningtheolderones,manyfarmshavebeenproducingrawmilkbutterfor years. The arrival of new legal constraints (HACCP and hygiene programs and requirements),thenecessitytoupgradeorevenrebuilttheirfacilitiesaswellas theobligationtoperformmicrobiologicaltestshavescaredanddiscouragedalot ofsmallproducers.Conceptssuchasmandatorynotificationandpossibleproduct recall also raised doubt in the minds of many producers who, through direct sales,aremuchmoreexposedtotheircustomersandtotheirreactions. Concerning new diversification projects, the investments to be made are more and moreimportant, and so itbecomesmore andmore difficult torecoup their investment. In addition to the costs and the time required to obtain access to some professions or skills, the cost of the tests and of the implementation of HACCP programs have to be considered. All this, before they get any financial return. Regulation is also complex and multiple when a diversification project is to be launched: building permits, environmental permits, upgrading premises, tax obligations, … This requires an important human and financial investment and adequateandappropriatesupport. CONCLUSIONS Thankstothepresenceonthefieldandtotheavailabilityofengineersinvolvedin theproject“CelluleQualitédesProduitsfermiers”,theysucceededinsupporting farmerswhoweremotivatedandeagertoreachthelegalfoodsafetystandards and to produce high quality products. Hundreds of small‐scale producers have beensupported,morethanhalfbelongtothedairysector. This action has been recognized both nationally and internationally (Prix économique de la Province de Namur, drafting of guides for the application of HACCPprinciples,...)itrepresentsaninnovativewaytosupportartisans. In order to support these structures there are still a lot of needs. We have observed a growing demand of farmers: training basics of food hygiene (legislations,hygienicmeasures,HACCPprinciples,…),implementationofHACCP programs, food technology, design of production facilities, microbiological 56 problems solving. The expressed needs on the ground show the usefulness of CQPFeveryday. Theultimatepurposeofthisprojectistoallowproducerstomakethetraditional andlocalproductsdurableandmaintaintheirorganolepticcharacteristics.Thisis the reason why traditional production techniques should be maintained, ensuring, at the same time, food safety. The sustainability of the project combining hygienic, technological and economic support lies more than ever in the agenda. We hope that the support provided by the Walloon Region will continueintheinterestofourproducers. 57 SESSION3.THESHORT SUPPLYCHAINANDTHE SOCIETY 58 SHORTCHANNELSINFRANCE:DOTHEYMEATCONSUMERS CONCERNS? Prof.dr.PierreSans Prof.NationalVeterinarySchoolofToulouse(France) E‐mail:[email protected] INTRODUCTION Short circuits are undergoing a significant development in France: the forms of exchangebetweenproducersandconsumersdiversifyandtradingvolumesgrow. Thiscommunicationaims: 1. toclarifywhatweconsiderasashortcircuitinFranceandtogivean updatedoverviewoftheirplaceinFrenchagriculture; 2. to identify the expectations of consumers who use this mode of supply; 3. tohighlightadaptationsofsanitaryregulationsincaseofSC. DEFINITIONANDIMPORTANCEOFSHORTCHANNELSINFRANCE DEFINITION Theshortchain(SC)isdefinedas"awaytomarketagriculturalproductseither through direct sales from producer to consumer, or by indirect sales provided that there is only one intermediate" (Collective, 2009). Therefore, this recent definition defines the SC in terms of close relationships (interaction between producers and consumers). However, it is often accompanied by geographic proximity(proximity–orlocal–shortchannels),thedistancechosenbetween50 and 100 km depending on authors (Aubry and Chiffoleau, 2009). This last dimensionistakenintoaccountbysafetyregulationsregardingSC(seebelow). ThereisawidevarietyofsellingformswithintheSC(Figure1and2). 59 Figure1.Directsale. Figure2.Oneintermediarysale. IMPORTANCE Data from the last French census of agriculture (2010) are useful to view the importanceofSCintheagriculturallandscape:21%offarmerssoldthroughSC in 2010 (against 16 % in 2005 and 15 % in 2000). Vegetable and honey producersaremostengagedinthistypeofdistribution(approximately50%of them).TheimportanceofSCvariesbyregion(Figure3and4):FarmersinSouth‐ EasternFrancemoreoftenusethistypeofsalethanthenationalaverage. 60 Figure3.Numberoffarmssellingatleastoneproductthroughshortchannelsby region. Source:GeneralCensusofAgriculture,2010 Figure 4. Share of farms selling at least one product through short channels by department. Source:GeneralCensusofAgriculture,2010 Finally,withinthedifferentsellingformstroughSC,farmsellingisthemost popular(Table1). 61 Table1.RelativeimportanceofSCsellingforms(exceptwine;rankingregarding turnover). Type Sellingform %offarmsinvolved 1strank* 2nd** 3rd** Direct Farm 50% 31% 23% Direct Openmarket 19% 19% 10% One intermediary Retailer 13% 16% 18% Direct Roundselling 6% 7% 7% Producers collective Direct store 5% 8% 8% One intermediary Supermarket 4% 5% 7% Direct Boxschemes 2% 4% 5% Direct Fair 1% 4% 7% One intermediary Restaurants 1% 4% 8% Direct Mailorder 0.5% 2% 4% One intermediary Catering 0.3% 1% 3% *:rankingbyturnover **:percentageoffarmssellingmorethanoneproductinshortchannels Source:GeneralCensusofAgriculture,2010 WHYDOFRENCHCONSUMERSBUYINSHORTCHANNELS? Thanks in particular to consumer focused research, conducted in the context of programsdedicatedtoSC1,webetteridentifyconsumermotivationstobuyinSC. MerleandPiotrowski(2012)proposethreemainreasons: Lookingfortastyandauthenticproducts.Consumersassociatethisspecial tastewiththefreshnessoftheproducts,particularproductionsystemsand therespectofseasonalityproduction; Reducing safety hazards: recent food crises have heightened consumer sensitivity to food safety hazards. Buying local products is seen by some consumers as a way to reduce the risk by assuming that production methodsarelessintensiveandguaranteesaferproducts; 1 See for example, projects Coxinel (http://www.psdr‐coxinel.fr/spip.php?rubrique64) or Liproco(http://liproco‐circuits‐courts.com/). 62 Makingsensebythewayofcivicengagementandcreatingsociallinks.The purchase of products and SC is motivated by the desire to support local agriculture (and/or small farms), to defend production practices but also tointeractwiththeproduceronhisjob.Itisawaytopromotesustainable agriculture regarding its three dimensions: environmental, economic and social. Hedonism and citizen commitment are therefore strong forces to purchase SC products. The creation of geographical and/or relational proximity (Praly et al., 2009; Herault‐Fournier et al., 2012) generates and maintains confidence in the products (and their production system) purchased by consumers (Vincq et al., 2010). It overcomes the constraints that this type of supply chain can have (narrow range of products, distance, restricted opening hours, contractual engagement,sometimeshigherprices,...). SHORTCHANNELSANDFOODSAFETY As a foodstuffs producer, a farmer selling through SC has to comply with European Commission (EC) regulation on foodstuffs hygiene (especially regulations(EC)No852/2004&853/2004).However,duetothecharacteristics oftheseoperators,Frenchfoodsafetyauthoritiesimplementedspecialrulesfor theirapproval. In case of direct delivery to consumer (no intermediary), a simple registration (insteadofapproval),managedbytheDepartmentpublicauthority,isrequired. Producersthatprocessprimaryproductsbeforesellingthemmustcomplywith the recommendations of Good Practice for Hygiene guidelines. Specific rules regarding transport have to be respected. For example, in the case of meat products,an isotherm vehiclecan beused for saleif the distance between farm andmarketplacedoesnotpass80km(asthecrowflies).Beyondthisdistance,it isnecessarytobeequippedwitharefrigeratedvehicle. In the case of a sale to an intermediary, producer is considered as a retailer. Regardinganimalproducts,heshallnotoperateunlessthecompetentauthority hasapprovedhisestablishmentwiththeexceptionofthosecarryingoutonly:(a) primary production; (b) transport operations; (c) the storage of products not requiring temperature‐controlled storage conditions; or (d) some retail operations.Nevertheless,evenformeatproducts,derogationtoapprovalcanbe delivered by French authority if sale to an intermediary is a marginal, localized andrestrictedactivity.Concretely,3conditionsareimposed: themaximumamountforeachcategoryofproductsoldtootherretail establishmentsdoesnotexceedafixedquantity; for each product category, this quantitydoes not representmore than 30%ofthetotalproductionoftheestablishment(forthiscategory); 63 the distance between seller and purchaser establishments does not exceed80km(asthecrowflies). The French competent authority has made some effort to consider the specific characteristicsofSC.Informationandfarmerstrainingprogramsarecarriedout in recent years. They aim to promote the development of SC business through new areas (catering for example) guaranteeing a high level of food safety to consumer. CONCLUSION ShortchannelsareundergoingasignificantdevelopmentinFrance.Duetotheir diversityandspecificcharacteristics,theymeettheneedsofagrowingsegment of the population seeking proximity with producers and authenticity. Thanks to updated and more complete data coming from the recent General Census of agriculture,itshouldbepossibletohaveabetterviewoftheeconomicrealityof these channels and to continue supporting producers involved in SC marketing onimportanttopics(logistics,processingplantapproval,marketingtools,...).By strengtheningtheactivityandskillsofproducers,SCshouldimprovetheirability tomeetconsumersdemand. REFERENCES Aubry C. et Chiffoleau Y. (2009) Le développement des circuits courts et l’agriculture périurbaine: histoire, évolution en cours et questions actuelles. Innovations Agronomiques,5,53‐67. Chaffotte L. et Chiffoleau Y. (2007) Vente directe et circuits courts: évaluations, définitionsettypologie,Cahierdel’Observatoiren°1,INRA,Montpellier,fév.2007,8p. Collectif (2009) Rapport du groupe de travail «Circuits courts de commercialisation». Rapport au Ministre de l’agriculture, 24 p. Disponible au: http://agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport_du_gt_circuits_courts0409.pdf. Delpal F. et Hatchuel G. (2007) La consommation engagée s’affirme comme une tendancedurable.CredocConsommationetmodesdevie,n°201. Herault‐Fournier C., Merle A. et Prigent Simonin A.H. (2012) Comment les consommateurs perçoivent‐ils la proximité à l’égard d’un circuit court alimentaire. Management&Avenir,n°53,p16‐33. Journal Officiel de la République Française (JORF) Arrêté du 27 avril 2007 modifiant l’arrêtédu8juin2006relatifàl’agrémentdesétablissementsmettantsurlemarchédes produitsd’origineanimaleoudesdenréescontenantdesproduitsd’origineanimale. 64 Journalofficieldel’Unioneuropéenne(JOCE)Règlement(CE)N°853/2004duParlement Européen et du Conseil du 29 avril 2004 fixant des règles spécifiques d'hygiène applicablesauxdenréesalimentairesd'origineanimale. Merle A. et Piotrowski M. (2012) Consommer des produits alimentaires locaux: commentetpourquoi?DécisionsMarketing,67(àparaître). PralyC.,ChazouleC.,DelfosseC.,BonN.etCornéeM.(2009)Lanotionde«proximité» pouranalyserlescircuitscourts.XLVIèmecolloquedel’ASRDLF,Clermont‐Ferrand,17 p. VincqJ.L.,MondyB.etFontorbesJ.P.(2010)Laconstructiondelaqualitéfiabledansles réseauxalimentairesdeproximité.Economierurale,n°318‐319,p5‐19. 65 DIRECTMARKETINGFROMPRODUCERSTOCONSUMERS: ECONOMICASPECTSANDKEYSUCCESFACTORS E.Wauters*,K.Mondelaers1,M.Crivits1 1ILVO *Speaker:Dr.ErwinWauters ResearcherILVO‐L&M GuestProf.AntwerpUniversity E‐mail:[email protected] ABSTRACT This paper presents a theoretical exploration of the farm economics of direct marketingchannels,takingintoaccountbothincomeandrisk.Itsummarizesthe availableempiricalliteratureonthefarm‐economicimpactofsellingthroughan alternativemarketingchannel.Itsmajorconclusionisthatthequestionifandto what extent direct marketing improves farmers’ income and income stability is anempiricalone.Empiricalevidenceismixed,butconfirmstheconclusionsfrom our theoretical elaboration, where we show the importance of (1) considering marketing costs, especially fixed marketing costs, associated with different marketingchannels,astheymightbesubstantialandoffsetthehigherpriceand (2) the importance of scale of sales as marketing costs are incurred for all products supplied, regardless of whether they are sold and unsold products mightshiftfarmersfrombeingexposedtopriceriskstoseveremarketrisks,with comparable results on income. Good managers with the required skills and passion, though, should be able to exploit direct marketing channels in a profitablemanner. INTRODUCTION Direct marketing from producers to consumers has received considerable attention in recent years. Surprisingly, whereas direct marketing started as a reaction of, mostly, small‐scale farmers to the increasing price squeeze (difference between prices and costs) and the market power of retailers and merchantsinconventionalmarketingchannels,mostattentioninthelastdecade was going to the socio‐ecological aspects of direct marketing. Direct marketing channels have been associated with ecological benefits such as a reduction in carbon emission, a reduction in energy and pesticide use. The fact that a large share of direct marketing farms produce under an organic or other ecological label has probably contributed to this. Socially, direct marketing channels are thought to benefit farmers’ pride, enhance the development of social capital, reinforceproducer‐consumerbondsandbuilduptrustandimage.Further,direct marketing channels fill up structural holes (Burt, 1992) of the conventional 66 channels. These structural holes in conventional channels are formed when certain producer and consumer demands with respect to, for instance, authenticity,socialcontact,diversity,taste,becomeunfulfilled,inpartduetothe tendencyof conventional marketing channels towards efficiencyand uniformity (VanderPloeg,2011). Recently, attention has shifted again to the potential of alternative marketing channelstoprovideanadditionalsourceofincome,toprotect–small–farmers fromtheforcesoftheconventionalmarket,toincreasemarginsovercostsandto protectfarmersfromvolatileinternationalcommoditymarkets. This paper presents the economics of alternative marketing channels from a theoretical ad empirical point of view. Whereas some of the theoretical considerations are based on general farm economics, most of the elements specifically related to alternative marketing channels are based on foreign literature. To the best of our knowledge, economic analyses of alternative marketing–withtheexceptionoftheanalysisbyDeRegtetal.(2010)–haveyet tobecarriedoutinBelgium.Vecchio(2009)alsonotesthat,whilethereisalotof literature from the U.S. (see Brown, 2002), economic studies on European farmers’marketsisverylimited. ECONOMICSOFDIRECTMARKETING:THEORETICALCONSIDERATIONS IMPACTONINCOME Wefirstpresentasimpletheoreticalmodelreflectingthechoicebetweenadirect (d) and conventional (c) marketing channel, for the very simple case of one productwithtotalproductionQandtwomarketingchannels,thedirectandthe conventionalchannel: , Where NR is net return, Pd and Pc output price in the direct and conventional channel,QdandQcoutputallocatedtothedirectandconventionalchannel,Ccand CdmarketingcostsperunitproductforbothchannelsandCallotherproduction costs(independentofthechoiceofchannel).Marketingcostscomprisenotonly purecostsofmarketingtheproduct,butall‘production’coststhatareimpliedby choosingaparticularchannel.Solvingthefirstorderconditionsyields 67 where and are the marginal marketing costs (cost for one unit of additionaloutputsold)forthedirectandconventionalchannel.Thisshowsthat the economic desirability of selling through direct marketing channels depends on the price differences and on differences in marketing costs. Often the advantages with respect to price are highlighted, while the differences in marketingcostsareneglected. Several aspects might cause marketing costs per unit of sold product to be substantial. First of all, labor requirements can vary considerably across channels. Producers often‐times fail to account for labor costs associated with severaltypesofdirectmarketingchannels.Farmers’marketorstaffedfarmshops oftenrequiresignificantlaborhours. Second, whereas marginal costs normally tend to decrease as the volume increases, several marketing costs have a fixed nature, i.e. they do not change when sales through that particular channel change. Costs such as promotion, sanitary requirement, taxes, market entry fees, shop maintenance are all costs that remain unchanged when the level of sales decrease. Hence, when sales are low, average and marginal marketing costs per unit sold are high, potentially offsettingthehigherpricereceivedatdirectmarketingchannels.Acertainscale ofsalesisnecessarytocoverthefixedmarketingcosts,whichiscontrarytoone of the often mentioned advantages of direct marketing, that direct farming may allowfarmerstobeginfarmingatvolumesthatmightotherwisebetoosmallfor conventionaloutlets. Whereasthissimpletheoreticalmodelclearlyshowstheimportancetoconsider not only the difference in price received but also the difference in marketing costs,itisdeficientforafulldetailedanalysisforthreereasons.First,themodel failstoaccountforthefactthatQdishighlyuncertain(notallproductssupplied tothedirectmarketingchannelsaresold),which,combinedwiththeperishable natureofmanyoftheproductstypicallymarketedthroughshortcircuitchannels, mayimposehighadditionalcosts,asmarketingcostsareincurredforallproducts supplied,regardlessofwhetherthey’reactuallysold.Inacase‐studybyHardesty (2007),upto20%oftheproductssuppliedtoafarmers’marketwasleftunsold, a major marketing cost of this particular channel. Second, the model fails to account for factors such as the producer’s level of risk aversion, lifestyle preferencesandotherattributesthatmayaltertheoptimalchoice.However,as wedealwiththemereeconomicaspects,thisisbeyondthescopeofthispaper. Third,themodelalsoneglectspotentialimpactofchoosingadifferentmarketing channel on C, the cost of production considered independent of the choice of marketingchannel.“C”consistsofnormalproductioncostssuchaslabor,seeds, pesticides, feed, fertilizer, energy, etc. While the model considered these costs independent of the choice of marketing channel, changes might occur. The necessitytomaintainalargediversityofproducts,forinstance,candecreasethe 68 efficiencyofeachindividualproductthroughafailuretoprofitfromeconomiesof scale. Further, the very same necessity might cause the farmer to be obliged to maintaindiverseproductioninfrastructure,whichincreasesthefarmsfixedcosts. In comparison to conventional sales channels, the type of transaction in direct saleschannelsdifferssubstantially,asthereisashiftfrombusinesstobusinessto businesstoconsumertransaction.AccordingtoWilliamson(1985),transactions differinthedegreetowhichrelation‐specificassetsareinvolved,theamountof uncertaintyaboutthefutureandaboutotherpartiesinvolved,thecomplexityof trading arrangements and the frequency with which transactions occur. In the caseofdirectselling,relation‐specificassetsaremoreimportant,astheyneedto be developed between the direct selling farmer and each individual customer. The uncertainty also differs considerably, as elaborated in the next paragraph. The complexity of the trading arrangements increases with the number of productssupplied.Typically,directsaleschannelsoffermoreproductscompared to their conventional counterparts. For the same amount of products sold, the frequency of transactions also has to increase considerably, as conventional productsaresoldinbulktobuyers,incontrasttothedirectsaleschannelwhere onlysmallamountsarepurchased.Asaconsequence,transactioncosts,whichare costs relating to the search for information, negotiation, monitoring and enforcementofthetransaction,increasesignificantly. Learning effects can cause marketing costs to decrease over time, as producers gainmoreexperience,e.g.theycanreducelaborcostsrelatedtostaffingafarm shopwhenlearningaboutpeaktimesinsales. DIRECTMARKETINGASARISKMANAGEMENTSTRATEGY Uematsu and Mishra (2011) note that, even if direct marketing has a potential negative impact on income, farmers may still choose to continue their direct marketing strategies because it is a potential risk management instrument that protectsfarmersfromunexpecteddecreasesinoutputpricesanddiversifiestheir income. Indeed, farmers who sell their products through direct marketing channels have much more control over the price of their products. However, it mustbenotedthat,throughdirectmarketing,farmersareshiftingfrompricerisk tomarketrisk.Indeed,severalcircumstancesmaycausefarmerstosellmuchless than they anticipated, effectively causing incomes to decrease, just as would be thecasewithpricerisks.Usingconventionalmarketingchannels,pricesformost outputs and inputs are highly uncertain and production (yield) is uncertain as well (due to for instance weather conditions and pests). Sales, however, are in most cases certain; conventional marketing channels will, normally, buy all produce. In direct marketing channels, the relative certainty of output price is oftenconsideredtheonlydifference.However,anequallyimportantdifferenceis theuncertaintyofsales.Whenpricesarecertain,butsalesarehighlyuncertain, grossrevenuemightbeequallyriskyindirectmarketingchannels(Figure1). 69 In addition, in direct selling, the farmer applies an individual risk management strategy, in contrast to farmers selling in the conventional channels, often applying a collective risk management strategy. In direct selling, a shock in one product category (e.g. a bad harvest) is absorbed by offering different product categoriestothecustomer,spreadingtheriskacrossdifferentproducts.Second, the risk of losing a single buyer is spread across many other buyers. In conventional sales channels, only one product is marketed by many suppliers. Shocksarehenceabsorbedcollectivelythroughthepricemechanism. Production Production Sales Sales Price/unit Price/unit Gross revenue Gross revenue Costs Costs Profitability Profitability Figure1.Priceriskinconventionalmarketingchannels(left)versusmarketrisk indirectmarketingchannels. Anothermechanismthat alters the nature of the risk involved is trust.Theway trustisachievedindirectmarketingisalsofundamentallydifferentcomparedto conventional sales channels. Given the increasing distance in conventional channels between producers and buyers, eventually consumers, public and private institutions such as certification, traceability and labeling needed to be devised to create the necessary trust. In direct marketing, these institutions are replaced by the farmer, who materializes the trust ‘in persona’. The short distance between producer and customer creates trust, which is seen as one of thecornerstonesofdirectselling.Giventheabsenceofmore‘objective’measures oftrust(suchasacertificateissued)comparedtotheconventionalchannel,the directsellingfarmerishoweververysusceptibletochangesinthistrust.Asingle shock(forexampleafoodscare)candestroythetrustbaseofthecustomers.As thisisthecornerstoneofdirectselling,theadverseeffectsonprofitabilitycanbe substantial. In conclusion, the theoretical farm‐level impact of direct marketing is unclear. The analysis, however, clearly shows the importance of (1) considering marketing costs for each channel, especially fixed marketing costs; (2) consideringthescaleofsales,assuppliedproductsthatareleftunsoldrepresent 70 amajormarketingcostandinducesashiftfrompricerisktomarketrisk,rather thanreducingrisk. ECONOMICIMPACTOFDIRECTMARKETING:THEFACTS Alltheoreticalconsiderationsregarded,thequestionifandtowhatextentdirect marketing contributes to farm profitability remains an empirical one. Good managersundergoodcircumstancesshouldbeabletodevelopaprofitabledirect marketing business. In this section, we summarize the available empirical literatureontheeconomicimpactofdirectmarketing.Itmustbenotedthatfarm economicanalysesoftheimpactofdirectmarketingarescarce. Several studies have investigated the specific marketing costs associated with different channels. A major conclusion from most of these studies is the importanceofmarketinglaborcosts.Significantcostsofdirectmarketingandon‐ farmprocessing,especiallythoserelatedtotimeandlabor,canpresentobstacles to expansion of local food sales (Biermacher et al., 2007; Lawless et al., 1999). Interviews with farmers in New York (LeRoux et al., 2010; Uva, 2002) and California (Hardesty, 2008; Kambara and Shelley, 2002) indicated that shortage of labor related specifically to marketing activities is consistently reported by farmers as being a barrier to direct marketing. In Belgium, this finding was confirmedbyDeRegtetal.(2010)whofoundthat,whenavalueonownunpaid laborwasset,netprofitoffarmprocessingwasnegative. Verhaegen and van Huylenbroeck (2001) performed a qualitative analysis of costsandbenefitsofparticipationindirectsalechannels,andfoundthatallcosts were compensated for by higher price, revenue and reduced uncertainty. Tegtmeier and Duffy (2005) surveyed a large number of community supported farmsandfoundthatnetreturnstolandweremuchhigherthanforconventional soy, corn and wheat growers. However, over half of the surveyed population responded negatively to the question whether CSA provided them with a fair wage. KEYFACTORSFORECONOMICSUCCESS Based on the theoretical considerations and the evaluation of the empirical literature, a number of key factors for economic profitability may be identified. Here,weconcentrateoninternalkeyfactors,orkeyfactorsthatcanbecontrolled by the farm manager: (1) type of direct marketing; (2) scale of sales; (3) managerialability;(4)passion,attitudeandeffort. DIVERSIFICATIONOFMARKETINGCHANNELS Severalauthors(e.g.Hardesty,2007;HardestyandLeff,s.a.)showthatmarketing costs, and hence the profitability of direct marketing may vary a lot across 71 differentmarketingchannels.LeRoux etal.(2010),usingacase‐studyapproach in the U.S., provided a ranking of alternative marketing channels. Community supported agriculture ranked first followed by selling to local restaurants and groceries; farmers’ markets ranked last. This does imply that farmers should choose the best marketing channel for their business; rather – and especially given the perishable nature of most crops and the uncertainty of farm sales – farmers should adopt a feasible mixture of alternative marketing channels. Diversification in marketing channels – one of which may include the conventional channel – may offer the largest return, taking into account associatedrisk. SCALEOFSALES Marketingcosts(allcostsassociatedwithaparticularmarketingchannel)canbe substantial and a lot of these cost items included in marketing costs (e.g. labor, sanitary and hygiene requirements, promotion, building maintenance, market stand, entry fees to markets) have a fixed character (they do not vary with varying sales), so maintaining a minimum scale of sales is crucial for the profitabilityofdirectmarketing. MANAGERIALABILITY Asinallsectors,economicperformanceofalternativemarketingvariesalotwith managerial ability. Decisions have to be made based on reliable budgets, risks havetobemanagedandfarmersshouldhaveanideaonminimumsales.Further, to market farm products directly to consumers, farmers need a whole array of new skills previously not needed, such as selling, marketing and social skills (Jervell,2003). FARMCHARACTERISTICS Farm characteristics have their impact on the profitability of direct marketing through an indirect impact on the size of marketing costs. The location of an individual farm, for instance, greatly determines costs, such as transportation, promotion,associatedwithdirectmarketing. PASSION,ATTITUDEANDEFFORT Whencomparingtheeconomicperformanceoffarms,andtryingtoexplainthese differenceusingwholeseriesoffarmandfarmercharacteristics,thereisalways some share of the difference left unexplained. Scholars agree that some of that share is attributable to a mere difference in passion, attitude and effort. We believe that is definitely the case for the farm‐level economic impact of alternativemarketing.Laborrequirementaresignificantsuchthattheimpactof reducedeffortcanbesubstantial. 72 CONCLUSION Direct marketing has the potential to increase farmers’ profitability and allow smaller farmers to maintain their farm business. However, success is not guaranteed and direct marketing may impose high additional costs to the farm business.Thequestionwhetherdirectmarketingisprofitableisanempiricalone andhastobesolvedbyeachindividualfarmerseparately.The limitedavailable evidencesuggestsprofitabilityisdependentonthechoiceofmarketingchannel, farmcharacteristics,scaleofsales,managerialabilityandpassion. REFERENCES Biermacher,J.T,Upson,S.,Miller,D.C.,Pittman,D.2007.EconomicChallengesofSmall‐ ScaleVegetableProductionandRetailinginRuralCommunities:AnExamplefromRural Oklahoma.JournalofFoodDistributionResearch38,1‐13. Brown, A. 2002. Farmers' market research 1940‐2000: An inventory and review., AmericanJournalofAlternativeAgriculture17(4),167‐176. Brown,C.,Miller,S.2008.Theimpactsoflocalmarkets:areviewofresearchonfarmers marketsandcommunitysupportedagriculture(CSA).AmericanJournalofAgricultural Economics90(5),1298‐1302. Burt,R.S.1992.StructuralHoles:TheSocialStructureofCompetition.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress. De Regt E., Deuninck J. & D’hooghe J. 2010. Economische rendabiliteit van hoeveproductie: een verkenning, Beleidsdomein Landbouw en Visserij, afdeling MonitoringenStudie,Brussel. Jervell,A.M.2003.Addingvaluethroughdirectmarketing–managementdimensionsof different marketing channels. Farm management. Proceedings ofNJF seminar No. 345, October2‐4,2002. Hardesty, S. 2007. Producer returns in alternative marketing channels. Small Farms Program,DepartmentofAgricultureandResourceEconomics.UniversityofCalifornia– Davis. Hardesty, S.D. 2008. The Growing Role of Local Food Markets. American Journal of AgriculturalEconomics90,1289‐1295. Hardesty, S., Leff, P. s.a. Determining marketing costs and returns in alternative marketingchannels. Kambara, K.M., and C.L. Shelley. 2002. The California Agricultural Direct Marketing Study,CaliforniaInstituteofRuralStudies,Davis,CA. 73 Lawless, G., Stevenson, G.W., Hendrickson, J., Cropp, R. 1999. The Farmer‐Food Buyer Dialogue Project, UWCC Occasional Paper No. 13, University of Wisconsin‐Madison CenterforCooperatives,Madison,WI. Leroux, M.N., Schmit, T.M, Roth, M., Streeter, D.H. 2010. Evaluating marketing channel optionsforsmall‐scalefruitandvegetableproducers.RenewableAgricultureandFood Systems25(1),16‐23. Tegtmeier, E., Duffy, M. 2005. Community Supported agriculture (CSA) in the United States:aregionalcharacterization.LeopoldCenterforSustainableAgriculture. Uva,W.L.2002.AnAnalysisofVegetableFarms’DirectMarketingActivitiesinNewYork State.JournalofFoodDistributionResearch33,186‐189. Van der Ploeg, J.D. 2011. Newly emerging nested markets: a theoretical framework. Presentation at the III Colloquium on family farming and rural development, Porto Alegre,Brazil,November17,2011. Vecchio,R.2009.EuropeanandUnitedStatesfarmers’markets:similarities,differences and potential developments. Paper presented at the 113th EAAE Seminar “A resilient European food industry and food chain in a challenging world”, Chania, Crete, Greece, September3‐6,2009. Verhaegen,I.,VanHuylenbroeckG.2001.Costsandbenefitsforfarmersparticipatingin innovative marketing channels for quality food products. Journal of Rural Studies 17, 443‐456 Williamson, O.E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York, NY: Free Press. 74 SUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONS A.Huyghebaert*,X.VanHuffel1,C.Verraes1,L.Pussemier2,3 1StaffdirectionforriskassessmentFASFC 2CODA‐CERVA 3ScientificCommitteeFASFC *Speaker:Prof.em.dr.ir.AndréHuyghebaert ChairoftheScientificCommitteeoftheFASFC Prof.em.GhentUniversity E‐mail:[email protected] Foodchoicesare,inadditiontofoodsafetyandnutritionalvalue,alsoinfluenced by other quality attributes such as freshness, sensorial properties, minimal processing,authenticity,sustainability,animalwelfare,ethicalvalueandothers. The perception of the quality or the image, is to a large extend determining for the preference for a particular food. However, it is evident that economical factorsalsoplayaveryimportantrole. In an environment where food security is not one of the first concerns of consumers,perceptionofthequalityplaysaroleinthedevelopmentsthatwere reviewedinthesymposiumoftoday. Forsomeyearsthereisgrowinginterestinlocalfoodproductionandinthelocal short supply chain. Consumers are looking for authentic and sustainable food products, associated with a better safety and with other recognized quality factors.Theshortsupplychainhasalsoabetterimageintermsofsocialcontacts withlocalproducers,ecologicalbenefitssuchasareductionincarbonemission, energyexpenditureanduseofpesticidesandfertilizers. For farmers, the short supply chain provides additional income. This particular system is also beneficial for the image of agriculture, especially in an urban context.Adirectcontactbetweenthelocalproducerandtheconsumerisatypical characteristicofthisdistributionsystem.Themarketingofthelocalfoodisvery oftenaccompaniedbyanexchangeofinformationabouttheproductanditsway ofproduction. Theshortsupplychainissupportedbymanyauthoritiesandisbecomingmore and more popular. However it is striking that food safety aspects were almost neverdebated.ForthisparticularreasontheScientificCommitteewasorganizing this symposium with the objective to contribute to a better information of consumers,producersandpolicymakers. Whendebatingabouttheshortsupplychainoraboutlocalfoodproductionitis importanttoclearlydefinethesubject.Dependinguponthecontextofthedebate, 75 arangeofdefinitionshasbeenproposed.Forthepurposeofthissymposiumthe shortsupplychainwasdefinedas“directsaleoffoodproductstotheconsumer withnoorlimitedintermediatesteps”. Producers, as well as for the conventional market as for the short supply chain, havetocomplywithEuropeanandnationallegislation,basedupontheprinciples ofGAP,GMP,GHPandHACCP.Howeversomeflexibilityisforeseenformember statestoimplementtheEuropeanregulationsinregardtotheshortsupplychain. In Belgium, food sold via the short supply chain is subjected to the same legal safety standards as products from the conventional chain. No particular control actionsareorganizedfortheshortsupplychain. Fromascientificpointofview,itisgenerallyacceptedthattheshortsupplychain is somewhat vulnerable to food safety problems. Very often one person is in charge of several tasks including the food safety requirements. Regional initiatives have been taken in order to comply with the relevant legislation: “Steunpunt Hoeveproducten” in Flanders and “Cellule Qualité des Produits fermiers” in Wallonia. In the Netherlands, the NVWA commissioned a research project to control and support producers. In France there are special rules for shortsupplyproducers. Asforotherfoodsupplysystems,theshortsupplychainisfacedwith,intermsof food safety and quality, particular threats and opportunities. The short storage time,inadditiontothesmallvolume,isconsideredasanadvantagewithregard to microbiological hazards. There is however a particular risk due to the possibility of cross contamination as production is usually combined with distribution. A similar observation applies for chemical hazards. The quality of the local environment and the agricultural practices play a determinant role. It canhoweverbeexpectedthattheshortchainandtheminimalprocessingfavor thenutritionalquality. Theshortchainoffersdefinitepossibilitiesforabetterincomefortheproducer. Properties of the products like freshness, taste, image and ethical values are of utmostimportance. Itishoweverintheinterestofconsumersandofproducersofshortsupplychain foodstomaintainandtofurtheroptimizethesafetyofthefoodstuffsinorderto preservetheexcellentimageofthefoodsconcerned. 76
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz