Response to Defra’s Consultation on “Evidence and innovation: Defra’s needs from the sciences over the next 10 years”

Submitted on behalf of IFR by
Dr Nick Walton

October 2004

The Institute of Food Research (IFR) is sponsored by BBSRC and is the UK’s principal independent research provider focused on food. We welcome the opportunity to respond to Defra’s consultation on its science needs over the forthcoming decade.

We have organised our comments in accordance with the questions raised under para. 3.3 of the document.

Have the right issues and trends been identified?

Defra’s science needs are highly diverse; thus, whilst there remains a requirement for science to inform self-contained policy issues, increasingly the emphasis is on predictive modelling of complex outcomes, drawing together evidence from widespread sources. This in turn places increasing emphasis on the processes of determining which information may be relevant, how it should be ranked, whether and how it is available or obtainable and whether it is in a form or of a quality fit for purpose.

Defra’s policy remit requires major risk and uncertainty factors to be identified and accounted, cutting across a range of disciplines and policy areas. In key areas, for example future temperature rises associated with global warming, there are very large margins of uncertainty (para. 6.1). As is made plain, there is also a strong likelihood of under-anticipated factors; these may be directly associated with Defra’s policy remit (e.g. the emergence of new-variant animal or plant diseases), or indirectly linked, for example the rapid rise in diet-related disease, including obesity, in the UK population over the past ten years, or the future implications for consumer lifestyles (e.g. housing demand) of increasing longevity or of shortfalls in pension provision.

Whilst the coverage in the document is quite comprehensive, we feel that – particularly from the viewpoint of a research contractor – more explicit ranking of the issues and drivers as they appeared to Defra could have been attempted (we note and agree with the pre-eminence afforded to climate change). Furthermore, it would have been useful to see what Defra had achieved in relation to specific issues, what initiatives it currently had in place and what its “roadmap” presently included for the future. (In terms of document format, this could perhaps have been done with adjacent columns: a left-hand column for the “issues and drivers” and a right-hand column for past, present and future status and initiatives.)

Are there any other issues that you think will be important over the next 10 years?

We would agree particularly with the need for:

a) initiatives, in partnership as appropriate with FSA and DoH, to research and monitor consumer behaviour in relation to food choice; to promote the consumption of “healthy” foods and their availability at prices affordable by everyone; to research the cultural, social and economic acceptability of fiscal or other options for addressing the causes and consequences of rapidly-growing and unacceptably high levels of diet-related disease;

b) further initiatives to promote efficiency – including energy efficiency - and reduce waste in UK food production, processing and distribution (including LINK and matching funding for EC programmes in this area) and to develop new applications and markets for process by-products;

c) research, in partnership with BBSRC, NERC and EC as appropriate, to determine across-the-board how (for example, by crop diversification) UK and EU agriculture and food production might best anticipate and respond to the probable general and local effects of climate change, including changes in rainfall pattern and water availability and in the incidence of pests and diseases.

Despite the inherent difficulties, the report could have addressed a longer time-frame (20/25 years).

Does the report accurately reflect the main drivers of change over the next 10 years?

The principal drivers appear to be identified, with the provisos above. Looking to the longer term, we would emphasise the importance of modelling the potential impact of large changes in global commodity and food prices (para. 10.4), given a potential scenario that:

i) the UK and EC could be increasingly driven away from overall dependence upon food imports and towards greater self-sufficiency in food production, with knock-on effects on the rural environment, on wildlife and landscape diversity and on rural economies;

ii) consumers could be required to spend an increasing proportion of their (possibly declining) disposable incomes on food, with potentially wide-ranging implications for food choice, for consumer attitudes and behaviour and for nutrition and health;

iii) food producers and manufacturers could come under unprecedented pressure to increase efficiency and to deliver quality (especially nutritional quality) at competitive prices.

Does it reflect the changes likely to be significant in shaping society’s values and expectations over the next 10 years

Please see comments above.

Are there other points that should be raised to help identify evidence and innovation needs and opportunities?

None, beyond the points already raised above.

How could the methodology used in developing this report be improved?

We feel more explicit reference could have been made to consultation and collaboration with FSA, DoH and the research councils in developing future joint programmes. “Joined-up action” is essential in dealing with the issues raised in the report and is helpful to the research contractor planning research response strategies.

How did or will you use the information in this report?

IFR will use it to inform its own research strategy and will be very glad to receive further information about (and to be consulted for views on) Defra’s science needs as they are refined.

We hope the above information is helpful.