a move to a sustainable supply chain, a win for all. hans muilerman, henriette christensen, pan...
TRANSCRIPT
A move to a sustainable supply chain, a win for all.
Hans Muilerman,Henriette Christensen,
PAN Europe
www.pan-europe.info
• 32 not-for-profit members in 19 European countries
• Bring together mainly health, environmental & consumer organizations
• Working to replace use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound alternatives
• Goal of productive + sustainable farming (IP), minimizing agrochemical inputs & adverse health & environmental impacts
• Extended network in Brussels (Commission, Parliament, Council) where we successfully lobbied the pesticide package
Who we are & what we do
Food is pleasure and fun
……….. but what about reality?
The PAN-Europe message to you is:
• There is still a big gap between consumer expectations on food growing/food quality and the reality in the supply chain
• We advise you to try to bridge this gap more (we see great opportunities); a real change is needed
• Moving to a higher level of food sustainability could even be more profitable for all in the chain
Examples of a real change can be observed in the market
Reality (1), what about the environment ? (Eurostat 2006)
Reality (2), actual MRL’s exceeding health standards (EFSA opinion 2008)
Active substance Number of MRL’s lowered
Maximum factor lowered MRL
Methomyl 38 50
Methamidophos 3 50
Fenarimol 3 25
Oxydemeton-methyl 7 10
Pirimiphos-methyl 14 100
Procymidon 20 500
Carbendazim 8 5
Fenamiphos 11 5
Ethephon 4 100
Benfuracarb 5 10
Vinclozolin 30 800
Reality (3), low doses unsafe for the unborn (many scientific studies in literature)
• Effect 1: Developmental neurotoxicity:Adverse effects for doses ranging from 0,05-1 ppm (cf. residue detection limit same range)Examples: Chlorpyriphos, Carbaryl, Diazinon, Aldicarb
• Effect 2: Endocrine disruption:Adverse effects for doses ranging from 0,01-1 ppm(cf. residue detection limit same range)Examples: Quinalphos, Trifluralin, ETU/mancozeb
• Effect 3: Combination toxicity:Adverse effects of ppm-range combinedExamples: group Organophosphates, group Triazines, group
Endocrine Disrupting chemicals.
New rounds, new opportunities
• EU decided in 2009 to a system-change in crop production to IPM (pesticide package)
• EU-member states to implement this obligation in 2014 for every farmer through National Action Plans
• Revision CAP-money: could it be connected to IP?• Global GAP discussing implementing IPM in the
certification system• Many retailers adopt own policy on residues and
supple chain management
Supply chain analysis; topics for improvement
FARMERS
TRADERS
RETAILERS
CONSUMERS
Not feeling enough respected for their achievements or not paid enough
Professional skills not fully used(chain management, IP)
Stuck in a never ending price war and having only limited consumer trust
Having the uncomfortable feeling not being in control of the food they are buying;
worries about risks
PAN proposal
• Move to a higher level of performance on IP (Global GAP+) and residues: no price competition with standard products anymore for those retailers choosing to use this higher level of performance;
• Chain leader (retail) to send a clear message to other chain parties: real IP-products will be rewarded;
• Best farmers and best traders for the job identified (dedicated IP-chain)
• Communicate better products to the consumer (and earn more)
• Joint lobby to connect CAP-money to real IP-farmers
How we see this change happen
1. More consumer trust by more sustainable, healthy, residue-free and traceble/regional products
2. Premium products for a higher consumer price
3. Best & innovative retailers take the lead and design real IP-chains, offering IP-products
4. Reward and inspire IP-farmers (respect, pay more, CAP-money)
5. NGO’s could help convincing consumers
On technics change needed:
IP ladderExample potatoes
Step 1: wide crop rotation
Step 2: mechanical weeding
Step 4: use decision-support
Step 3: resistant varieties
Step 7: use plant strenghteners
PHASE I: IP
PHASE II: Residue control, best by prevention
NGO’s could actually help on consumer trust
W H O D O E S P E O P L E T R U S T ?
0 2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0 1 0 0
G o v e rn m e n t
C o m p a n ie s
M e d ia
R e l. o rg a n is a tio n s
T ra d e u n io n s
S c ie n tis ts
D o c to r
E n v iro n m . O rg a n is a tio n s
F rie n d s
F a m ily
P e rc e n ta g e o f p e o p le w h o s a idth e y " o fte n " o r " a lw a ys " tru s te dX to te ll th e m th e tru th a b o u t r is k s( M O R I, c o m m . b y IK E A , 2 0 0 0 ).
Conclusion:
1. Change is possible: Better, healthier and more sustainable products can be put on the market
2. If we help convincing consumers choosing for real IP-products you could get a premium
3. More value for the complete supply chain (and more fun)
4. More trust from society on activities in the supply chain
5. Our CAP-campaign to connect Brussels legislation and money to a sustainable and healthy supply chain is useful for creating IP-chains
Great opportunities out there, but …..
• Who takes the challenge?
– (PAN-Europe is ready for it!)