Sustainable Decision Making For Future Foods

1. Sustainable Decision Making For Future Foods How this research came about…… Nigel Larsen Plant & Food Research Dec 2008

2. A brief history of nearly everything… • The history of scientific endeavour provides many examples of non-acceptance and resistance to new technology as a result of factors like: • Moral, ethical viewpoints • Religious beliefs • Cultural traditions and beliefs • Fear of the unknown • Distrust of motives • Safety concerns • Fear of not being in control of perceived risks • A mismatch between what scientists feel they should be free to explore and how the findings from that exploration might eventually be used • Mismatched “good intentions”

3. Some high profile examples… Sterilisation of food using irradiation The debate over immunisation Genetic modification of plants and animals - in our food chain - in our general environment Cell phone towers Electromagnetic fields from high voltage power lines Anti-biotics and growth hormones for animals in the food chain

4. How does this social context impact on science…? Can result in the “general public” and scientists not seeing eye to eye “Education” and “scientific facts/evidence” are not necessarily a fix as people will believe what they are comfortable with believing based on how they interpret the “evidence” e.g. evolution vs creation e.g. climate change debates Division can lead to years of “wasted”/delayed science effort, inefficiencies and extra compliance costs to do the science May result in the science never being used for applications as originally intended However, and equally as important, these debates, issues and divides could potentially lead to constructive evolution of the science and an acceptable common ground

5. How does this social context impact on business…? Working with scientists earlier may help with insights into what is around the corner and allow you to shape future research directions Talking with community interests earlier and knowing what aspects of these technologies are acceptable/unacceptable will help inform your decision making Knowing what future food technologies may mean for your business will help you develop investment, product development and marketing strategy Putting business strategy in the context of the government’s strategic and regulatory environment around new technologies will also help inform decision making However, investment in a technology application that is unacceptable to customers will cost both the investment $’s and future customer streams

6. So why did we want to go down the path of a programme like this? PFR sees itself as being one of the leaders in developing new food science and technology for NZ and also as a gateway for the introduction of new science from across the world We are starting to research and develop new technologies (e.g. intragenics and nutrigenomics) or an interest in new technologies (e.g. nanotechnology) that could have potential applications in the production and processing of food There may be other technologies from across the globe that could impact on our food industry and we need to be aware of these (e.g. via the EU Go-Global programme) and know how to deal with them

8. So why did we want to go down the path of a programme like this? ….. cont’d NZ’s food industry is very important to our economy and standard of living Therefore it is important for us all to understand the pathways to applications of new technologies in the food industry Our government agencies, food industry and consumers want to be able to understand the issues and have input into research strategies from a very early stage It is important for our science organisations and food industry to understand what will be acceptable/not acceptable and to develop their food research strategies and commercialisation pathways accordingly Hence it is important for all of you, as end users, to be involved

9. During the last 18 months we…… Decided that it was important for our emerging food research programmes to develop consultative and engagement processes to help guide us But we couldn’t do this on our own We looked around for potential research partners and joined forces with Gerald Midgley and Karen Cronin who have been developing leading-edge methods in the social sciences We submitted a proposal to the Foundation for Research Science & Technology that was accepted The new programme (Sustainable Decision Making for Future Foods) began 1 July 2008 And that is how the research came about and why we are here today

10. What do we want to achieve? Synergies between PFR & ESR PFR – knowledge of the physical sciences and technologies ESR – knowledge of the social sciences and methodologies Bringing our respective wider networks together Year 1. Set up & communication - Research Advisory Group, End User Group, Stakeholders Group Year 2. Scoping the technologies & public engagement methods, and what has been done before Year 3. Stakeholder engagement – identification of issues, options and risk acceptance profiles for a range of future food technologies Year 4. Strategy development, knowledge transfer and evaluation

11. Acknowledgements Chris Downs (ex CFR) for laying the groundwork for this programme Tracy Williams for helping to put the proposal together and for keeping us aware of FfRST’s requirements in a proposal Karen Cronin for science leadership, writing the programme and programme leadership Gerald Midgley for his input and advice during the formation of the programme and now that it is up and running The Foundation for Research Science & Technology for funding the programme under contract C02X0801