>>food needs good science - Colin Gutteridge, md, RSSL, provider of science outsourcing to fmcg sector
Amid the media feeding frenzy that accompanies takeover talk such as Morrisons and Safeway, one can almost be persuaded that the only figures that matter in the grocery business are share price, number of outlets and market share. Provided a business produces figures that keep the City happy, everything else is mere detail.
While no one would deny sound finances are important, the food industry is in many ways a special case. Its products, and hence its business, are vulnerable in ways that are hard to predict. This is because the ingredients are so complex, so difficult to define and so hard to control that there is potential for error at every point in the supply chain. And an error in the manufacture of a ready meal could prove fatal.
While universities have no problem in filling places for business studies and accountancy courses, the applications and placements for food technology courses are in rapid decline.
Anyone familiar with technical management in the food industry will tell you that the industry’s commitment to science has been on the decline for years. While it was normal for most sizeable food companies to employ experts in their manufacturing technologies, these experts have not been replaced as they have retired and the industry has dumbed down technical management.
The following figures should have us all worried: applications for courses in food science have dropped from 409 in 2000 to 263 in 2002. The number of acceptances fell from 85 to 51. Similarly, applications for courses in food technology have fallen from 186 (42 acceptances) in 2000 to 91 (17 acceptances) in 2002.
A 10% fall in share prices is trivial by comparison, because ultimately every retailer relies on food scientists for the survival of their businesses. This is no idle claim. The grocery trade would cease to exist without the support of science and technology. It is only through the knowledge of food scientists that we are able to produce, store and supply such a wide range of products that are safe, palatable, authentic, fresh and affordable. Remove any one of these characteristics from the products on sale and watch the food industry collapse.
New issues are always emerging. Consider acrylamide or BSE or GM ingredients or
newly recognised dangerous pathogens such as E. coli O157. These raise big questions that the food industry needs good science to address. That’s without addressing long-standing issues such as dioxins, veterinary drug and pesticide residues and many more that can jeopardise product safety.
This relationship between food science and the viability of a food business is a two-way street. The retailers’ drive to secure lower prices has already forced some unscrupulous suppliers to cut corners. A few are even tempted to find ways of passing off inferior goods. So now we have chicken meat injected with other proteins and ongoing issues about the authenticity of natural
products. We’ve had rogue traders selling condemned meat into the food chain. It’s down to food scientists to find ways of keeping our food, including the retailer’s own brands, legal, decent and honest.
There are, then, many reasons why the boardrooms and buyers in retail need to be more aware of the science issues that affect their business. We should all pay as much attention to the scientists who understand the products on which our businesses are built as we do to the latest share price.
If we don’t stand up now and reinvent the science base of the UK food industry, the innovation and certainty of safety that underpins its success will be compromised.
Amid the media feeding frenzy that accompanies takeover talk such as Morrisons and Safeway, one can almost be persuaded that the only figures that matter in the grocery business are share price, number of outlets and market share. Provided a business produces figures that keep the City happy, everything else is mere detail.
While no one would deny sound finances are important, the food industry is in many ways a special case. Its products, and hence its business, are vulnerable in ways that are hard to predict. This is because the ingredients are so complex, so difficult to define and so hard to control that there is potential for error at every point in the supply chain. And an error in the manufacture of a ready meal could prove fatal.
While universities have no problem in filling places for business studies and accountancy courses, the applications and placements for food technology courses are in rapid decline.
Anyone familiar with technical management in the food industry will tell you that the industry’s commitment to science has been on the decline for years. While it was normal for most sizeable food companies to employ experts in their manufacturing technologies, these experts have not been replaced as they have retired and the industry has dumbed down technical management.
The following figures should have us all worried: applications for courses in food science have dropped from 409 in 2000 to 263 in 2002. The number of acceptances fell from 85 to 51. Similarly, applications for courses in food technology have fallen from 186 (42 acceptances) in 2000 to 91 (17 acceptances) in 2002.
A 10% fall in share prices is trivial by comparison, because ultimately every retailer relies on food scientists for the survival of their businesses. This is no idle claim. The grocery trade would cease to exist without the support of science and technology. It is only through the knowledge of food scientists that we are able to produce, store and supply such a wide range of products that are safe, palatable, authentic, fresh and affordable. Remove any one of these characteristics from the products on sale and watch the food industry collapse.
New issues are always emerging. Consider acrylamide or BSE or GM ingredients or
newly recognised dangerous pathogens such as E. coli O157. These raise big questions that the food industry needs good science to address. That’s without addressing long-standing issues such as dioxins, veterinary drug and pesticide residues and many more that can jeopardise product safety.
This relationship between food science and the viability of a food business is a two-way street. The retailers’ drive to secure lower prices has already forced some unscrupulous suppliers to cut corners. A few are even tempted to find ways of passing off inferior goods. So now we have chicken meat injected with other proteins and ongoing issues about the authenticity of natural
products. We’ve had rogue traders selling condemned meat into the food chain. It’s down to food scientists to find ways of keeping our food, including the retailer’s own brands, legal, decent and honest.
There are, then, many reasons why the boardrooms and buyers in retail need to be more aware of the science issues that affect their business. We should all pay as much attention to the scientists who understand the products on which our businesses are built as we do to the latest share price.
If we don’t stand up now and reinvent the science base of the UK food industry, the innovation and certainty of safety that underpins its success will be compromised.
No comments yet