the Food Standards Agency some while ago but it was not widely followed up. There is, from time-to-time, a flurry of critical comment on the


amount of human food that goes unused, ending up as waste, together with pictures of vast mounds of foods that the supermarkets have thrown out as being past their sell-by date. Such are frequently linked to pictures of starving millions and to highlighting the contrast between the world’s rich and poor. In March this year, the European Former Foodstuff Processors


Association (EFFPA), an organisation formed early in 2014, arranged a stakeholder meeting on the potential to use an increased amount of what it describes as ‘food losses’ in feed manufacture. I understand that the meeting included delegates from the food and feed sector, along with regulatory experts and a representative from a food safety and assurance scheme. Much of the food which is no longer suitable for human


consumption can be used for animal feed purposes and the amount processed can be doubled in the EU. In addition, the European Commission sees the appropriate processing of former foodstuffs destined for human use as an important contribution towards reaching the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations on reducing food waste. However, feed safety should be maintained at all costs, a view to which the feed industry will readily subscribe. Foodstuffs become unsuitable for human consumption for a


variety of different reasons such as production errors leading to broken foodstuffs or surpluses that are caused by logistical challenges of daily delivery. In addition, surpluses can arise as the result of the discontinuation of a food product line or when a promotion has run its course. What potential materials are involved? The former foodstuffs


sourced by EFFPA members are generally energy-rich materials. EFFPA wants to turn these former foodstuffs, such as bread, biscuits, chocolates, pastry, cakes etc., into valuable ingredients for livestock diets and maintains that this could be made easier through regulatory frameworks. However, no animal proteins are actually or potentially used in that animal proteins such as meat, together with household waste and catering reflux, are not allowed in feed for food producing animals. Former foodstuff processors typically purchase the food losses


from food manufacturing facilities and, for the last few years, have also started to source surplus bread from the retail sector. Attention was also paid at the meeting to the prospects for


developing future innovation in processing technology and sourcing capacities, more efficient safety assurance scheme auditing procedures and a streamlining of the regulatory interface between food and feed production; elements that could further stimulate the processing of former foodstuffs into feed for food-producing animals. Summing up the results of the meeting, Paul Featherstone,


EFFPA President, said that the meeting had provided ‘an excellent podium to present our business activity to a wide audience’, adding that he hoped it would stimulate the food industry’s conviction that


PAGE 14 MAY/JUNE 2017 FEED COMPOUNDER


having their former foodstuffs transformed into animal feed could be part of ‘a safe, sustainable business strategy that contributes to food waste prevention’. The United Kingdom Former Foodstuffs Processors


Association was founded in February 2014, hot on the heels of the European Association and currently has thirteen members. In the UK, over 650,000 tonnes of former foodstuffs are processed annually into animal feed. This is clearly an important area for the feed industry viewed


from a number of different points of view. More in this column in due course.


STARTING GUN At the end of March, Theresa May duly fired the starting gun on the Brexit talks, starting a countdown of two years before, under rules laid down in Article 50, the UK departs from the EU, whether a political deal has been agreed or not. But that does not mean that the British, including those working


in the food and agriculture sector, should wait until 2019 before they act on Brexit says Michael Aubrey, a partner and joint leader of food and agribusiness at UK law firm Mills & Reeve and who is speaking at this year’s Agrimoney Live which takes place on 23 – 25 May. Obvious, you may think but, clearly, where the talks will lead the UK, and what agreements the UK will be able to make with what, after all, is its biggest trade partner is difficult to predict. Mr Aubrey says that the key issue is the uncertainty. Indeed, that


is all the more reason for farmers and agribusiness leaders to take a look forthwith at the potential ramifications. It may be worth dealing with some matters and completing some deals during the pre-Brexit period. Mr Aubrey suggested that people should consider whether it is worth progressing matters now, while we know the rules that we are dealing with. He says that when the UK is outside the EU, the agribusiness sector ‘will have a huge amount of completely new legislation to deal with’, so if agreements are to continue post-Brexit then it is important to build in flexibility. Mr Aubrey suggested that, for instance, landowners who no


longer wish to carry out farming operations themselves, might prefer contracting arrangements rather than tenancy agreements, saying that these provided more flexibility for both parties and also enable the landowner to retain more control. He recalls the problems caused by the change in farm subsidy arrangements almost fifteen years ago, when the area-based Single Farm Payment was introduced replacing, as it did, schemes such as the dairy premium and arable area payments which were based on production. In addition to attracting complaints of unfair subsidy from among World Trade Organisation members, the reform raised the question of whether subsidies should be attached to the land or to the person farming it – self-evidently an important question in some arrangements. This sparked ‘confrontation’ between landowners and tenants; however, such tension was avoided by landowners who farmed through contracting arrangements. Mr Aubrey warned that farmers and food producers believe that,


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68