Footprint Forum: Water - Why Worry? 10th of June sponsored by Unilever Food Solutions
For tickets please visit www.eventbrite.com/event/1301616169
Speakers and panellists include:
Dr Stuart Ballinger – AEA (Water specialist on behalf of WRAP)
Jenny Bashford – NFU (Fresh Water in the UK)
Ian Booth – Technical Director, Reynolds
Dr Llorenç Milà i Canals – Unilever, Safety & Environmental Assurance Centre
Stephen Charles – Managing Director, Vivreau
Samantha Heath – Chief Executive, London Sustainability Exchange
James Lee – Technical Manager, Greenvale
Conor Linstead – Senior Water Policy Advisor WWF
Inder Poonaji – Head of Safety, Health and Environment Sustainability Nestlé
James Stacey – Partner, Earth Capital Partners
We’ve been talking about water scarcity for a while and so far – unless, say, you are a grower in Southern Spain or in drought affected area in Asia – you could argue that we haven’t really felt the impact. Or have we?
For foodservice this question is rather more complex than for most industries because tracking the supply chain is so difficult – water footprints are hard to calculate. Costs of commodities vary for a whole host of reasons, including shortages of water. This is most keenly felt by large scale producers – such as Unilever Food Solutions* who are sponsoring the Footprint Forum.
But whilst there is little debate about whether this problem will go away by itself, there’s not much co-ordinated action to ease the problem and yet it will be felt all the way across the foodservice supply chain as the crisis becomes more acute. What will happen to the supply of Chef’s precious ingredients?Where will suppliers look to make up the shortfall in satisfying the order book? How far will costs rise before food producers are restricted in what they can offer? What reactions will the investment community have when growth slows? What will be the impact on the communities that run dry one, two, maybe three years in a row? What’s our responsibility to ensure they survive?
So it’s vital to keep up to speed with the Global water status and to continue to investigate ways in which water usage can be reduced, but also to ensure that those responsible for large scale water usage can put pressure on the rest of the supply chain to think the same way.
Unlike the ubiquitous nature of carbon footprinting, water has a much more direct affect on the foodservice business. Foodservice can therefore do something more tangible about it and legislation can be more easily framed to ensure compliance.
The Footprint Forum, “Water – why worry?” aims to update its members on water as an issue and explore ways in which the foodservice sector can ensure a sustainable water supply long into the future.
FOOTPRINT FORUM SPECIAL REPORT: PREPARING FOR CHANGE IN THE ETHICAL LANDSCAPE
Consumers that leave their ethics at home when eating out, poor guidance from government, pressure on margins and a confusing array of accreditation schemes and labels has made the ethical landscape a difficult one to navigate for the foodservice sector. Foodservice Footprint’s latest Forum looked at the lie of the land and how companies could prepare for the journey ahead.
In 2008, the Food Ethics Council ran a special edition: ‘The eating out guide’. It came at a time when the catering sector, more than at any other time in its history perhaps, was under close scrutiny. Fast Food Nation. Supersize Me! Jamie’s School Dinners. The sector was being hauled from the food industry’s shadows into the spotlight. Consumers were spending almost as much on eating out, as they were on eating in, and yet foodservice was seen to be dragging its feet on social and environmental issues.
In part, it wasn’t their fault. There was no regulatory push for companies to flag the attributes of the products available – whether in terms of sourcing, provenance or nutritional value. Neither was there much marketing pull, with consumers tending to ‘leave their ethics behind’ when they go out to eat, according to the research at the time. But were things changing? In her contribution to FEC’s guide, Emma Roe, a researcher at Southampton University, suggested they were.
“Historically, the catering industry has had little interest in marketing the implicit quality attributes of the food they serve. However, recently there has been a noticeable trend towards ‘local’, seasonal food on the menu, within catering (especially high-end restaurants) and contract catering (school meals being the most dynamic sector).”
What Roe’s research had also identified was the use of specific logos on menus that indicated some ethical status was “increasingly evident in a range of eating establishments, perhaps most notably in the branded chain restaurants, pubs and, cafes”. She singled out the Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance logos as two that were enjoying a growing presence in high-street and in-house branded catering outlets.
Two years on and those big labels continue to grow; eight out of every 10 people recognises the Fairtrade logo, according to new research by consumer group, Which?. Meanwhile, the Rainforest Alliance (as reported in FF10), will be buoyed by its presence on packs of Tetley. The tea maker is just the latest in an ever-lengthening line of brands that is seeking to improve its ethical credentials. The trouble is, the line of ethical labels and schemes available to choose from has also lengthened.
An investigation by The Daily Telegraph found there are up to 80 different ethical and food assurance schemes, and over a dozen of them are separate organic schemes. This can make life confusing for shoppers, but for the foodservice industry it could be stalling progress. If people are already leaving their ethical values behind when they go out to eat, do they really want a menu peppered with a range of logos?
Currently, the evidence we have shows that information on menus is important, not least because people want to know why they are paying a premium for certain ethical values (like organic or locally-sourced). Many consumers also want to be reassured that the companies are acting responsibly – a steak from a local farm, for instance, will show an interest in provenance and the local economy. Of course, false claims help no-one.
In September last year, Hampshire County Council investigated 50 dishes from 30 different pubs, restaurants and butchers. They found one in four were sold with an incorrect origin claim. In one, Hampshire lamb, was actually from New Zealand. As Mintel warns in its 2010 report – ‘Impact of the recession on eating out habits’ – this can damage the sector as a whole. For those once removed from consumer-facing activity, such as the contract caterers, the warning is the same.
So where does this leave the foodservice sector of 2011? The ethical landscape is cluttered and difficult to navigate, leaving some disillusioned and many, no doubt, confused. Others are trying, it seems, to fool customers with their marketing of ethical values. There is undoubtedly a lack of direction. So, Foodservice Footprint, in association with BaxterStorey, recently brought together some of the big ethical certification schemes, key industry players and leading ethical food experts to see where we go from here. In a lively debate, coordinated by leading Radio 4 presenter, Edward Stourton, there was plenty for the industry to chew over.
Panel:
Wolfgang Weinmann (WW) – Cafedirect, head of strategic development
Ian Bretman (IB) – Fairtrade, director of strategy and innovation
Toby Middleton (TMi) – Marine Stewardship Council, UK & Ireland country manager
Leigh Grant (LG) – Freedom Food, chief executive
David Clarke (DC) – Red Tractor Assurance, chief executive
Bill Vorley (BV) – International Institute for Environment and Development, principal researcher
Anil Alim (AA) – BaxterStorey, procurement & supply chain director
Tom MacMillan (TM) – Food Ethics Council, executive director
Steve Pugh (SP) – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Caroline Fry (CF) – CH&Co, board director
Karin Kreider (KK) – ISEAL Alliance, scaling up director
Discussion
A lot has happened in the past 20 years when it comes to ethical sourcing, labelling and certification – it’s a multi-billion pound sector. So, what’s the current lie of the land for the foodservice sector?
Ian Bretman: I can recall having conversations 20 years ago with major retailers about our label and they said ‘don’t be stupid – the market for that [ethical labels] is being catered for in church halls’. It is very, very different nowadays.
Toby Middleton: Our label, MSC, is more mature in retail than foodservice. In foodservice it is more fragmented and the brands are not often consumer-facing, so it’s been more difficult to gather momentum. The consumer is the same, it’s just the way [he or she] digests information and makes choices is different. But I expect the trend [for MSC] to grow in foodservice because consumers are thinking more dynamically about how they are choosing products.
Wolfgang Weinmann: We have come a long way and we are in a much different, much better place now – and a lot of progress has been made in terms of ethical production. You have to start at the production level, but there needs to be investment across the supply chain. Labels have created a level playing field, but we do have a proliferation of labels and standards ranging from third party certification schemes to those that are [designed by companies themselves].
Is the fact there are lots of labels creating confusion?
Caroline Fry: I think the danger is that if we continue to increase [the number of labels and schemes] then interest in ethical issues could fall. It’s tough. We haven’t ever gained or lost a job based on our sustainability – it often comes down to price. You need a balanced view for commercial and environmental sense.
In retail, the labels are designed to help customers choose which products to buy. But in catering, if it won’t win you contracts, then is there any need to consider a certification scheme?
CF: There were a couple of people in the company who mattered that believed in it. Our customers have become more interested in it. A lot of our clients also expect it; it might not win or lose [contracts] but they expect it. When it gets down to the shortlist it’ll be about price – sustainability will have been washed out by then because it’s expected.
Leigh Grant: The ethical market has grown and grown and this has created a marketing opportunity. However, Freedom Food isn’t a marketing ploy – we are looking to make a marked improvement. When you speak to consumers, over 50% say they have a right to know the provenance of their food. In fact, over 30% say they would boycott a restaurant if they didn’t know. The industry needs to react to this. Around two thirds of all eggs used in restaurants, pubs and cafes, whether whole, or in liquid form in products such as quiches and cakes, are still sourced from hens kept in battery cages. This compares to less than half of whole eggs produced for boxes sold in supermarkets that come from caged hens. We also have our 'Simply Ask 'campaign that encourages people to think about the welfare credentials of the food they order when they eat out.
David Clarke: It’s important that a label has something underpinning it. The truth is that there are a lot of labels across the sector, many are single issues and say they are very important. Our [Red Tractor] label is a composite label.
There are indeed a lot of single issue labels, arguably issues that resonate with consumers. But how do foodservice companies go about choosing what’s best for them?
IB: Which one should you choose? Well, I think you should make an informed choice. There are three or four schemes that work with coffee farmers, but there is collaboration between us. The market element [that provides] is a good thing.
WW: A brand will use a label that matches the brand identity. In our case, we wanted to make an impact in relation to smallholders [who grow coffee] so Fairtrade was the one for us. Of course, these schemes cost money for the producers, so it’s nonsensical for them to sign up to lots of different ones.
Tom MacMillan: Looking at all the labels, the question many might have is whether you could pull those together and wrap them into an omni-label. I think there’s a strong appetite [to go in that direction] but when you aggregate these things you lose the detail.
Bill Vorley: The real risk in all this for foodservice companies is ‘initiative fatigue’. How much can the consumer sub-contract trust to the brand, or company, rather than individual labels? For instance, could the route be ‘pure and honest’ label? (see boxout)
WW: I think the labels are a good starting point for producing ethical or sustainable products, and it’s unthinkable 20 years ago that we would be where we are today on awareness, but labels don’t provide all the answers. There needs to be investment through the supply chain.
TM: Yes, labelling is only ever going to be the tip of the iceberg. The Government has a crucial role to play too. Businesses want well-thought through legislation.
Legislation can often be a driver for change – could it be used effectively alongside labels?
Steve Pugh: The role of legislation is a two-edged sword. It increases trust but sometimes our opaqueness means it is not always easy to follow. We might not need to introduce legislation that quickly, but of course there could be pressure from Europe. We’re stepping back.
TM: I’m not saying the role of government is to introduce more labels. Labels are a very good means of moving forward the leading green businesses. Where labelling doesn’t help so much is in terms of the laggards. To eliminate the worst practice we need better regulation and fiscal measures. One of the questions businesses ask themselves is whether there is a commercial opportunity here too. For some, there is, but for many in the foodservice sector, there’s perhaps not so great an opportunity. For foodservice, the drivers can hinge on persuasion from institutional customers, and the state is a big, big customer.
SP: We’ve just published some government buying standards and we’d like the industry to use those.
Karin Kreider: We are really seeing companies not just using the standards for a marketing win, but because it is a vehicle to better relationships with their suppliers.
So, where do we go from here?
Anil Alim: I think a lot of the accreditation schemes have been designed around retail – and retail was blazing the trail a few years ago. What would help us is if the schemes understood more about the challenges for us in foodservice. Caterers work very differently to retailers; we take the products from the farm but we combine them to make meals. The bureaucracy can make it harder for us to follow [some schemes].
CF: Perhaps [the schemes] could also do a better job at marketing their brands. Everyone might know Fairtrade, but some still don’t understand it. About 90% of our customers didn’t understand Red Tractor. People also only take, on average, 17 minutes for lunch so they won’t read labels, where the food comes from, nutritional information and so on.
TM: I think we might see less product-specific [initiatives] and more about an overall approach – like the Kitemark approach.
BV: It’s also about how much of [that trust element] consumers can sub-contract to the brand, rather than individual labels.
Final word...
For too long foodservice, especially those companies that are not consumer-facing, have been able to hide behind their clients – a ploy that has arguably left them lagging behind the grocery sector in the ethical stakes. Agreed, the landscape is a confusing one, with many accreditation schemes and labels – some notforprofit, some designed for profit – some with very different goals, and some with very similar ones. Consolidation in the ethical schemes would help, as would a clearer direction from government.
How legislation can play a part in all this created some intriguing exchanges; Defra seemed content to stand on the sidelines for the moment though. But, as FEC’s Tom Macmillan suggests, the policy makers sometimes need reassuring that people, at times, want regulation to make life easier. Does the foodservice industry want a steer from government in the form of legislation? Or, can government encourage progress and offer more direction through its own, vast, tendering process?
The fact that many tenders came down to price was unsurprising – especially in the current climate. Sustainability was seen as ‘expected’, but was this just a token tick in the box? Should the final stages of tendering come down to who offers the best balance between commercial and environmental reasoning? Again, there was confusion as to who should take the lead on this.
What is clear, is that there will be mounting pressure on companies and brands to have answers to the inevitable questions about how fair and sustainable their supply source is and why they have chosen specific certifications. That the choice is too confusing will not be an excuse for inaction. Consumers might not want a menu full of labels – indeed, labels alone will not change behaviour – but they are likely to rely on restaurants, caterers and fast food outlets to act responsibly. A label and third party-accreditation can reassure consumers of that, but it can’t be the final destination.
This sector has immense buying power, from the fast food chains to the institutions and firms that use contract caterers, and that provides it with considerable leverage to support and develop ethical products and services. In the past, many have chosen, as Dr Roe pointed out in her report in 2008, not to wield that power. In the future, they may not have the choice. The question is whether they continue to wait in the shadows for regulation or take the spotlight and make change happen.
To become a member of Footprint Forum and for membership details, please email events@footprint-forum.com
The venue and date for the coming Footprint Forum will be announced shortly. The members and guests will be debating the issue of Water from a global and domestic perspective. The implication for the foodservice industry from an agricultural, manufacturing, supply and industrial use will be uncovered.
For more information please email events@footprint-forum.com
Halal: Maintaining Perspective Outside the Media - Report Out Now!
Halal in the spotlight!
Even snowy conditions couldn’t keep Government officials, global meat producers, Muslim groups dealing with Halal Accreditation and other industry representatives from this special Footprint Media Roundtable to discuss the hot topic of Halal.
It’s been almost two months since the Mail on Sunday (MoS) published its Halal expose: ‘Britain goes Halal... but no-one tells the public’.The paper’s investigation was based on the vague labelling laws surrounding Halal meat. It claimed that schools, hospitals, pubs and famous sporting venues are “controversially serving up meat slaughtered in accordance with strict Islamic law to unwitting members of the public”.
Indeed, the MoS piece featured a series of spokespeople – from companies like Whitbread to venues such as Wembley – caught, it seems, responding ‘on the hoof’ to the accusations. Almost overnight this became a live issue for the foodservice industry.
With consumer media only serving to heighten the confusion, Footprint was asked to bring the parties concerned together for a Footprint Roundtable. The idea? To cut through the confusion and provide guidance on how to tackle this issue head on.
Delegates battled through the snow induced chaos to gather at the Coopers Hall in the City of London, generously donated for the event by contract caterer CH&Co. The parties represented included EBLEX (English Beef and Lamb Executive), Defra, Universal Halal Agency, British Poultry Council, Freedom Foods, European Halal Development Agency (the only accreditation to be ratified by the Olympic Committee), Local Government, as well as global meat producers, contract caterers, and procurement agencies.
The timing couldn’t have been better: the first authoritative study of the Halal red meat industry had arrived hot off the press from EBLEX that very morning. The report is valuable – and certainly worth a read (for a copy of which please do contact editorial@foodservicefootprint.com). For the first time it’s given the foodservice industry the basis for an understanding of the Halal market. Footprint Roundtable, similarly game-changing, offered the first opportunity for us all to sit down and discuss the issues at hand.
This was a chance for everyone to convene, quiz, challenge and communicate. This was a chance for our industry to face this challenge as a team. This was a chance for voices to be heard. This was also a chance for the other side of the story to be told. After all, the challenge for foodservice is not only about preventing Halal being supplied to those who don’t want it, but also supplying it to those that do.
Alas, three hours, 22 people and a round table does not a future policy make. But, we got the bull running and found some UK direction. Not least, we had general agreement on what can be done to reassure foodservice customers. It all boils down
to whether their concern stems from a religious perspective or through concerns over animal welfare.
The first thing to understand is the law. Halal had hit the headlines because there is no UK labelling scheme for meat slaughtered in this way. We’ve already had stories about meat being labelled that wasn’t actually Halal. This time, the papers used the notion of secrecy and poor labelling laws, combined it with the idea that Halal meat was from animals that were not stunned pre-slaughter, and arrived at a scare-story about lots of people unwittingly eating Halal.
Everyone agreed that the media never helps a situation like this. There’s been a plethora of coverage and comment, ranging from the radical to the (relatively) reasonable. But one thing remains constant: confusion.
Here are the facts. There is currently no UK labelling scheme for Halal. However, there is the Animals Slaughter and Killing Regulations, which require that animals be stunned prior to slaughter. There is a caveat: where there is a religious need for the animal not to be stunned that the animal be rested at the point of killing for a period of not less than 20 seconds post cut.
Some Muslims argue that only meat that is not pre-stunned can be Halal. This is a debate that those present agreed would not go away anytime soon. But supporters of ‘no stun’ are fading. Many Muslim countries now slaughter using stunning, including Malaysia which has its own standard – Malaysia being very much a beacon of halal best practice. All New Zealand meat is pre-stunned. The majority of Halal meat in our country is pre-stunned too – the same as any other UK slaughter method.
Acceptance of pre-stunning is based on the animal still being alive when slaughter takes place. For that reason, Halal differs from non-Halal in just one way: the knife is held by a Muslim who recites a blessing as the animal is slaughtered.
So, if your customers are asking for non-Halal meat on grounds that Halal meat isn’t pre-stunned, you can reassure them 100 per cent by offering to source accredited meat from schemes like the Red Tractor, EBLEX’s Quality Standard Mark or the RSPCA’s Freedom Foods. The animal may have had the blessing, but it will definitely have been pre-stunned.
Of course, if your customers want Halal, and they want to be sure it is pre-stunned, then you can source meat with a recognised Halal certification label alongside, say, the Red Tractor. There are sources of information that can help you develop your strategy, and a good place to start is EBLEX’s video on the process (which was shown at the start of the Footprint Roundtable). Defra, the Universal Halal Agency and the Muslim Council of Britain also have information on their websites. Use those for guidance, rather than what’s in the papers.
While you may be able to reassure customers concerned about Halal on welfare grounds, it’s trickier if they are asking for non-Halal for religious reasons. Muslims may represent only 3 per cent of the UK population, but they eat 20
per cent of the lamb, and the demand for Halal here is set to rise further. We also source from countries where Halal is commonplace (New Zealand and Thailand). Hence, buying non-Halal will probably push your costs up (one reader said by 40 per cent in their case). Equally, if your customers want accredited Halal meat, then they will have to be willing
to pay the price. According to the EBLEX report, Muslims are happy to take the word of another Muslim on the issue of
whether the meat is Halal or not. This lays the system open to abuse, but if Halal is requested, then your customer should either put their trust in the certification of the meat you supply or specify what they require.
Waitrose is pushing for Government to lead on a consistent approach to labelling for Halal, to include retailers, butchers, restaurants and the food production and catering industry as a whole. This would ‘take into consideration the current situation which allows the term Halal to be used for meat that has been pre-stunned before slaughter and that which has not’. A global standard for Halal would also help (as EBLEX’s report concluded). But as yet there isn’t one. There are discussions on labelling laws progressing in Brussels, with the European Parliament this summer voting to introduce regulations that mean meat will be labelled specifying the method of slaughter used. However, it’ll take some years to transpose into UK law.
For this reason Footprint Roundtable proved so dynamic. It tackled the issues head on, parking elements that have been ongoing and were likely never to be resolved (for example the stun versus no stun debate among the Muslim community).
Halal is a complex issue, of that there is no doubt and certainly within the context of foodservice. But if the progress at our first meeting was anything to go by, there is no reason for the industry to stand still. Consumer choice should be at the heart of everything you do; your customers can, after all, choose from myriad ethical ‘labels’ including organic, vegan, non-GM and low carbon, so they should be able to choose between Halal and non-Halal. At the moment, it will cost the operator more to do so. However, once the situation is explained, as we’ve outlined, there may be less costly ways forward until universal labelling laws are agreed.
Footprint Forum was conceived in 2008 as an organisation dedicated to creating a transparency to the environmental issues confronting the foodservice industry through interaction and debate.
Comprising representatives from all areas of the foodservice process, from growers and producers, through to delivery end operators and consumers, Footprint Forum is run by its membership to represent the current and future interests of member firms in relation to environmental issues.
Footprint Forum has developed strong working relationships with government, associations, NGO's as well as the major suppliers and operators in hospitality. These relationships enhance and support the traditional relationship which organisations maintain with their own suppliers and customers by using the membership’s collective voice to focus the delivery on generic green issues affecting all levels of the supply chain – from farm to fork.
In line with its commitment to represent new industry trends in environmental issues, Footprint Forum is always seeking to monitor the environmental developments which affect the industry.
Who can join Footprint Forum?
Membership of Footprint Forum is open to all stakeholder groups in the foodservice supply chain including farmers, growers, producers, suppliers, distributors, operators, media, associations and government at national and local level.
Member firms can be located anywhere within the UK. To be eligible for membership you should be any of the aforementioned, of any size, yet with a proven track record and/or interest in green issues within the hospitality sphere.
What does Footprint Forum membership give me?
Corporate Membership entitles the prime contact a defined number of delegates, nominated by the prime contact, and access to any of the following group meetings:
General Meetings: These are beneficial to all members but particularly for those unable to attend the special interest meetings, as they provide an update on recent activity and raise issues of general interest.
Special Interest Groups (SIGs): There are a number of Special Interest Groups including a Producers SIG, Suppliers/Produce SIG, Suppliers/Equipment SIG, and Operators SIG. Meetings can also be convened at the demand of the members, focused on a particular subject or supplier. These are called Market SIGs and usually attract a specific subset of the total membership. The Special Interest Groups structure is one of the major benefits of Footprint Forum membership.
Most meeting agendas include an open forum in which members may discuss issues relevant to that particular group, and it is quite common for a supplier/s to be invited to present to delegates.
Footprint Round Tables: Typically a key number of foodservice representatives and stakeholders are convened to discuss urgent topics in order to reach consensus that can be broadcast to the industry at large.
