What the horsemeat scandal tells us about food traceability

Early in 2013, the United Kingdom and then the whole European continent were startled at the discovery of a major food safety scandal. Some beef lasagne manufactured by a major industrial food company was proved to be made up to 100% horsemeat. Not only is this story revealing the risk that has threatened consumers for a while. As a matter of fact, it also suggests how little we know about the processed food we eat.

On the very first week of February 2013, Findus withdrew its beef lasagne from the European market. A few days before that the British Food Standard Agency made out that those products marketed as beef meat actually contained horsemeat. Findus might have been suspected of deceiving consumers at first. But it did not take long before the manufacturer actually apologised for putting those products on the market and started an investigation about them.

In the United Kingdom, the horsemeat scandal made a really clear point in consumers’ mind. People need to know what is inside their plate and incorrect advertisement is not to be tolerated. The story has highlighted how easily the trust between producers and consumers could be sapped. But this is not the only lesson of it. In a way, one might consider Findus a victim among a lot of others, caught in an extremely complex system which makes it almost impossible to control what a business sell before a consumer buys it!

Findus’ investigation established that the incriminated food products were prepared by a French supplier called Comigel based in Metz, in the North of France. Comigel had worked for Findus since 2011 and had prepared the products in Luxemburg. The meat Comigel used was bought from another French society, Spanghero, set in south of the country. As a customer of a French supplier, Comigel expected to buy French-gown meat from Spanghero. But Findus taught Comigel that Spanghero’s meat actually came from Romania.

In Romania, the whole industrial chain of Findus discovered that the slaughterhouses which provided meat to Spanghero processed beef meat as well as horse meat. That discovery allowed Findus to reassure consumers since the slaughterhouses were certified by the European Union and allowed to produced beef and horse meat that was destined to human consumption. However, the investigation showed that no less than five intermediaries, including supermarkets, had taken a part in selling those products to consumers. And none of them really knew what was inside the products until the scandal burst out!

Findus withdrew its contaminated products from the marking. And yet this story still has lessons to teach. The fact is that organisation of the global food industry today makes efficient traceability a very difficult goal to reach. Of course, producers like Findus are not completely blind and are able to control what their products are made of. But the horsemeat scandal illustrates that systemic factors tend to make information about the products uncertain.

Besides, a lot of companies around the world use the long complex industrial food chain to keep some secret. Let us think about Coca-Cola. Do people really know what is inside of their favourite soda? Of course they don’t since Coca-Cola makes a point of keeping its recipe unique. That the structure of food industry be inclined to opaqueness is not necessarily a danger. Nobody has ever died from drinking Coke, neither has anybody from eating Findus’ lasagne. Yet one question remains without an answer: which independent institution today controls that traceability standards are respected in the food industry and prevents major food-related sanitary scandals from happening?

In many regards was the horsemeat scandal an important phenomenon. It both illustrated the fundamental need for transparency on the food market and how difficult traceability was to establish in the food industry. Revealing the flaws of a system, this story might very well be the call for a new start in the food industry.

Why the GMO debate is taking a new turn in the UK

Remarkable shifts have occurred in the GMOs debate since the beginning of 2013. GM crops found new advocacy. In the meantime, the opposition remains strong and do not hesitate to undermine the technical interest of GMOs for agriculture along with insisting on health risks.

Would British people mind eating GMOs? The answer to such a question is most definitely yes. In January 2013, the UK Food Standard Agency made out that 67% of the public wish a food product to be labelled if it comes from an animal that was fed with GM plants. Whereas the public remains highly suspicious towards GMOs consumption, the government gave sign of sympathy to GM technology.

A shift has been occurring in the United Kingdom regarding the debate on GMOs. In January 2013, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affaires Owen Paterson promoted genetically modified food. During a speech at the Oxford Farming Conference he insisted on the many interests of GMO and claimed the government owed “a duty to the public to reassure them that it is a safe and beneficial innovation”.

Coming from Owen Paterson, such a statement is not a big surprise. The Secretary was already famous for calling British consumers opposition to GM food a “complete nonsense”. What is surprising however is that Mark Lynas, one of the earliest anti-GM food campaigners, expressed a favourable opinion along with Owen Paterson. “My conclusion is very clear”, said Mark Lynas at Oxford Farming Conference’s attendance, “the GM debate is over. It is finished. […] over a decade and a half with three trillion GM meals eaten there has never been a single substantiated case of harm”.

The government seems to have taken a pro GMO stand that even former opposition representatives will follow. But is the british market willing or even ready to accept GMOs in the shelves of its supermarkets? Judging by the reaction the Oxford Farming Conference triggered, nothing could be less certain.

Such a twist in the british GM debate was not likely to go unnoticed. British citizen remain mostly opposed to GM food consumption. Anti-GMO organisations know it and pointed out again very well as a reaction to the Secretary of State’s speech at Oxford. The Economist for instance reminded its reader of a poll published by the British Science Association in March 2012 which showed that “the share of people expressing some level of concern about GM foods had fallen, but only by five points from 2003 to 2012, to 47%”. It looks very much like GMOs harmlessness remains to be proven to British.

Why is there such a gap between people’s feeling and the government’s ideas? According to GeneWatch UK, private interests are clearly interfering with the regular course of politics regarding GMOs in the UK. “It is clear that ministers have done a dodgy deal with the GM industry to promote GM crops in Britain” said GeneWatch UK’s Director, Helen Wallace. As early as the 4^th of January 2013, GeneWatch UK points out that “All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture is being used by Monsanto and other GM companies to lobby on behalf of their business interests”.

GM industry might very well try to convince of the usefulness of their products. Beyond lobbying consideration, the recent twist in the debate about GMOs however seems to have raised a new fundamental question. On one side, some leaders argue that GM crops will help farmers staying competitive. Such crops might indeed help them grow food in spite of very harsh conditions like the ones british agriculture faced in 2012. On the other side, organisations like the Soil Association that opposes GM crops claim that only diversifying cultures and methods will enable farmers’ businesses to go unarmed through extreme environmental shifts. In that scope of analysis, highly specific GMO’s are everything but a good solution for national agriculture.

It is therefore hard to say where the current debate will takes us and why. However, nobody can deny today that something has changed in the way the debate was held both in its form and its substance. Mark Lynas might very well think the GM debate is over, but in many regards the topic has not been so hot in many years.

CliMates: youth in the international debate about environment

Sustainable development has a lot to deal with Humanity’s future. In this regard, new generations are main stakeholders in the debate on environment. As a matter of fact, youngsters and their opinions about development are seldom directly taken into account by governance all around the world. Hopefully things will change for the better in the future since an international students think tank, called CliMates, was created in 2011 to share the new generations’ view on environmental and development issues.

CliMates started in 2011 and its central organization committee is based in Paris with many local committees located in every country members are from. CliMates now gathers up about 170 students from 35 different countries in the world. Members of CliMates have a special definition for their organization which they call a “think-and-do-tank”. Doing and not just thinking seems to be the heart of that project since CliMates is a network for young scientists as much a lobby with an aim to take part in international negotiations to push solutions forwards.

With help of a few experts in development and environmental science like Nobel Prize Jean Jouzel and IPCC member Rik Leemans, students from all around the world turned CliMates into a real international organisation in less than a year. This achievement is welcome news in the world of international politics since it gives youngsters a voice in a debate that affects them more than any other.

CliMates held its first international conference in October 2012. On that occasion the think tank illustrated its originality by publishing the CliMates Call for Action. The document promotes a politically neutral approach, an attachment to innovation and academic research along with local actions. In a way CliMates sent a clear signal that climate change and environmental development are not simply a theoretical argument for the new generation but major concerns that must be address with pragmatism. Members of CliMates want those questions to be raised and tackle and they hope to be part of it.

Some of those members took part in the negotiations during the Rio Earth Summit in 2012. Their CliMates Call for Action was taken up to Doha’s summit in November 2012. Within a few years, CliMates has become recognized as a creative force in international negotiation. Within CliMates, students can do much by marshalling collective thoughts and using their network. They might not make it to the IPCC yet, but they surely aim at playing a greater part in the international debates in the future.

Vinod Khosla: a pioneer investor in the CleanTech market

Credit: James Duncan Davidson/O'Reilly Media, Inc.

Many think that resource-efficient and clean technology is the future of industry. It is too early to say how such technology is going to replace some of today’s most profitable industry. However, CleanTech’s potential is more and more highly regarded by investors. Among them, Vinod Khosla is a pioneer. Now at the head of his own venture capital business, he leads the way in the field of CleanTech investment.

Vinod Khosla graduated from the Indian Institute of Technology with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. His passion for technology led him to the USA where he got a master’s degree in biomedical engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University and a MBA from Stanford University later on.

When he created Sun Microsystems in 1982 with some associates, Vinod Khosla had already founded a business in India and one  another in the Silicon Valley. His experience helped to make Sun Microsystems a significant player in the development of open systems and open source software. The business was to become reknowned in the computing industry.

Indian-born Vinod Khosla personifies success for business managers that have grown up in developing countries. Top-class education and remarkable business achievements allowed him to build his reputation as a world class manager and investor. After he had made Sun Microsystems famous throughout the world, Vinod Khosla focused on his investments.

Even before he joined the CleanTech sector, Vinod Khosla was a brilliant and inspired investor. When he was working at Kleiner Perkins Caufield&Byers, his name became associated with exceptional discoveries in technology as early on he made an investment in fiber optic network companies Cerent and Siara Systems. Both companies were later sold, making Vinod Khosla more than $15 billion. In the late 1990’s, after scoring substantial profits in internet technology, he became interested in the CleanTech industry.

           

He was still working for the venture capital firm Kleiner when he became familiar with the biofuel industry and made his first steps on the CleanTech market. When opening his own venture capital business, Vinod Khosla invested several million dollars in biofuel and eco-friendly technology start-ups. He experienced a few setbacks but his firm made its way. Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair joined the business as a senior adviser and Khosla Venture became a frequent business partner for investors such as Bill Gates.

For the last ten years, Vinod Koshla has been actively investing in the CleanTech industry. He had a part in revealing some of the most talented businesses and most promising technologies. Throughout his career, Vinod Koshla has illustrated how profitable CleanTech is and contributed to make it a credible new industry and target for investors. He has been a source of inspiration for businesses as well as for investors. The next few decades will tell if the work he has achieved in the last 10 years has also initiated a long lasting trend on financial markets.

World Bank calls an international response to global warming

In November 2012, the World Bank released a report calling for tackling the issue of global warming. Pointing out the risks of a 4°C temperature rise on Earth, this report is a significant step towards a wider mobilization.

The reality of global warming has been debated about a long time before political leaders around the world finally agreed on a consensus. Doubt about what is now recognised as one of the biggest danger of our century is no longer an option. The World Bank made a strong statement in this regard by releasing an alarming report. This document is entitled “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided” and highlights the shape of the world to come if global warming is not controlled in the present years. Needless to say, the World Bank’s conclusions are gloomy. The 4°C temperature increase could very well be reached by 2100, and such an option would shattered most opportunity for global development

A further step in the recognition of global warming

“Turn Down the Heat” was realized by Climate Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research on the behalf of the World Bank. Its President, Jim Yong Kim, commented on the report’s release, saying his hope was that “this report shocks us into action”. Such a statement illustrates how seriously global warming is considered at the top of the world economic governance.  

The report is making a simple point. Considering the past and present trends of global warming, there is a 20 per cent chance that the Earth’s temperature will rise by 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degree Fahrenheit) by 2100. These conclusions are echoing those of many researchers on the subject. For instance, they match the findings of Pricewaterhouse Coopers which stated in a previous report that limiting global warming below 4°C would require quadrupling the rate of decarbonisation.

The World Bank’s recent report includes a collection of the most up to date scientific data about climate. It confirms the risks that were pointed out by the World Development Report on climate change in 2010. “Turn Down the Heat” was released before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued his own report about climate change for year 2013/2014. There is no doubt however that both of these publications will draw similar conclusions.

It is a significant symbol for world governance that an institution such as the World Bank publishes a report like Turn Down the Heat. It strands for an official acknowledgement of the emergency regarding the stake of global warming. With such a report, the World Bank simply calls countries in the world to act against climate change for their own safety.

A “doomsday scenario”

Calling to action is probably a weak word for what the World Bank aimed at triggering with this report. This document shows what Jim Yong Kim himself called a “doomsday scenario”. “Turn Down the Heat” makes a list of the different issues that would be induced by such a rise in the world’s temperature. All of them are of course a source of concern for the environment, but some of them in particular are a direct threat for human life.

Concerning water for instance, the report anticipates harder drought in Southern Europe, Africa, Southern America as well as Australia. Northern Europe, Northern America and Siberia on the contrary would be subject to wetter weather conditions. Overall water distribution on will suffer from greater geographical disparity. Such a phenomenon is expected to have a massive impact on some of the biggest human settlement and richest ecosystem on Earth. For example, the World Bank mentions the Ganges’ flow will increase by 40% because of a 4°C temperature increase whereas the Mississippi’s and the Amazon’s could decrease by 40 to 80%

The water issue also has significant consequences over food supplies worldwide. The World Bank provides a reminder of the fourth report by IPCC stating that global food production might increase along with the Earth’s temperature rising between 1 and 3°C. But the production is expected to drop in case of higher temperature rise. “Turn Down  the Heat” confirms the plausibility of this scenario, explaining that “drought-affected areas would increase from 15.4% of global cropland today, to around 44% by 2100”. Besides, salinity of aquifers might increase in some areas due to sea-level rise on coastal lands.

According to the World Bank’s report, the issues that Humanity would have to face on the Earth which temperature has raised by 4°C would simply be too huge to handle. Drought, starvation and poverty could no longer be controlled. The aftermath of this is crucial since it would most likely result in conflicts and wars and shatter decades of struggle for development in the world. “A 4°C warmer world can, and must be avoided,” said Jim Yong Kim. Along with him, developing countries already seriously anticipate the risk since global warming puts them in the first line.

Towards collaboration between developed and developing countries?

The aftermath of a 4°C rise of the Earth’s temperature would hit developing countries most badly. “Turn Down the Heat” emphasizes on the unequal impacts of such a temperature rise. South Asia, the Middle East, northern and eastern Africa are quoted among the most vulnerable areas to the adverse consequences of uncontrolled global warming. Those who have less are also those who have the most to lose in this regard and the World Bank expressed his deepest concern that climate change might destroys years of efforts and developing the poorest countries in the world.

Even though global warming was first triggered by most developed countries, the emergency is now so important that the World Bank wish developing countries to get involved in climate change policies. Any isolate attempt would undoubtedly fail to control global warming. “Only early, cooperative, international actions can make that happen” concludes the report.

Countries’ perception of global warming’s stake is changing slowly around the world. Both developed and developing countries now knows that this industry-induced worldwide catastrophe might destroy their attempt to reach satisfying levels of development. “Turn Down the Heat” is an alarming report issued by the World Bank. It also is a further step toward a better tackling the issue of global warming. The World Bank has sent a message: neither countries nor companies around the world should underestimate their responsibility in this phenomenon. And all economic actors have their part to play for solving it. Let us hope this message will be heard. Our future on Earth depends on it.