Transcription

1 DE L I VE RABL E3

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 1 A EUROPEAN NETWORK TO FOLLOW-UP THE REFORMULATION OF FOOD. IDENTIFICATION AND EXCHANGE OF GOOD PRACTICES FOR SMEs AND CONSUMERS - SALUS 1st Project Meeting Helsinki, 6-7 September 2011

12 2 PROJECT TEAM

13 3 MINUTES Participants 1. Tecnogranda, Italy Mr. Dario Vallauri 2. MTT Agrifood Research, Finland Mrs. Latvala, Terhi Mrs. Järvinen Maija 3. Institute of Bioresources, Romania Mrs. Nastasia Belc Mrs. Adriana Macri 4. AGRO-HALL, France Mrs. Lylia Guerouaou 5. Campden BRI Hungary, Hungary Mrs. Erika Horváth 6. State Food and Veterinary Service, Lithuania Mr. Zenonas Stanevicius 7. BOKU - University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Austria Mr. Wolfgang Kneifel Mr. Andreas Hoehl 8. Associazione ISES, Italy Mrs. Dolores Forgione Mr. Carmine Falanga 9. Food Research and Development Institute, Bulgaria Mrs. Pavlina Paraskova- Tabakova Mr. Gabor Zsivanovits 10. Codacons, Italy Mr. Marco Ramadori 11. Emona Nutrition Research & Development Department, Slovenia Mr. Matjaz Cervek 12. Technische Universität Berlin, Germany Mr. Dietrich Knorr 13. Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain Mrs. M. Luisa Bonet

14 4 14. University of Hohenheim, Germany Mr. Lutz Graeve External Experts 1. Pro&Do srl Mrs. Paola Bazzoni 2. UCD Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin Mrs. Dolores O Riordan 3. Inst f Livsmedelsvetenskap lantbruksuniversitet (Department of Food Science) Sveriges Mr. Andres Andrén 4. Department of Agro-technology and Food Sciences, Wageningen University Mr. Matthijs Dekker

15 5 1st PROJECT MEETING 6 SEPTEMBER 2012 HELSINKI (FINLAND) Meeting Venue: Info-center Korona (Viikinkaari 11, Viikki) Room Welcome, Registration and Introduction Mrs. Latvala opened the 1st project meeting and introduced herself. She welcomed the partners in Finland and thanked her colleague Mrs. Järvinen for the support in the organisation of the meeting. Mr. Vallauri introduced himself and welcomed the partner s representatives thanking them for the collaboration and introduced to the participants the external experts selected for this meeting. He thanked Mrs. Latvala and Mrs. Jarvinen for the support and the organisation of the meeting. He also informed the participants that due to an unexpected illness Mr. Gary Tucker from UK (CAMPDEN) was not able to participate in the meeting.

16 6 2. MTT s welcome: Director Dr. Sari Forsman-Hugg Mrs. Latvala introduced the Director of MTT Mrs. Sari Forsman-Hugg. She welcomed the participants, introduced herself and presented the MTT departments, activities, goals and rules in the food research activities in Finland. She thanked all the participants who attended the meeting and she invited them to contribute to the project implementation in the best way. She wished the best for the project and invited the partners to enjoy the country as well. 3. Participants Presentations Mr. Vallauri invited the 3 External Experts (Mrs. Dolores O Riordan, Mr. Andres Andrén and Mr. Matthijs Dekker) who introduced their selves and their experiences in the project fields. He introduced also Mrs. Bazzoni, External Evaluator, selected with a public tender by Tecnogranda to perform and coordinate the external evaluation of the project. Mr. Vallauri introduced the session Partners Presentations asking the partners to be short in their round table presentation to respect the meeting tight schedule. 4. WP 1 - Presentation of the first project year: results, commitment and challenges Mr. Vallauri presented to the external experts the detailed structure and activities of the project and all the activities implemented in the first project year. He also presented the planning for the next months. Then, he showed to the participants some letters received by TECNOGRANDA from a German company named SALUS that sells health products. This company invited TECNOGRANDA to avoid to continue to use the acronym SALUS because the lawyer of this company declared that they registered the acronym SALUS and they did not accept that we continued to use this acronym. Mr. Vallauri showed to the partners the reply prepared by TECNOGRANDA s lawyer. Mr. Ramadori expressed his opinion about this really strange situation and he explained that it is not possible to register as a trade mark a Latin word so, the request of the German company is not valid. Mr. Vallauri thanked him for his contribution and clarification. Mr. Vallauri showed to the participants the updated Work Plan overview (Tasks and Deliverables) and SALUS GANTT. Question 1: Mr. Andrén asked Did you plan to share all the meeting presentations? Reply: Mr. Vallauri clarified that at the end of the meeting, he will share all the participants presentations. 5. Coffee/Tea break 6. WP 4 - Overview of the Analysis of the local contexts Mrs. Macri thanked all the partners for their commitment in the implementation of this really complex WP. She briefly presented to the external experts the methodology used to perform the

17 7 research and then, presented to the participants the results of the WP 4 Analysis of the local contexts participating in the project. Question 1: Mr. Knorr SALUS project is dealing with the food reformulation, but I think that also the communication with the consumers and SMEs is fundamental, what do you think about that? Reply: Mr. Ramadori highlighted the add value of the right communication to the SMEs about the health benefits of the food reformulation. However, Mr. Vallauri reminded that the target of the project is the food reformulation. Question 2: Mrs. Bonet asked for an extension of the deadline to send the comments, changes or revisions to Mrs. Macri. Reply: Mr. Vallauri suggested 15 September and all the partners agreed with his proposal. Mr. Vallauri also invited the partners to send the list of the national authors and the acknowledgments by the 15 September Reply: Mrs. Macri fixed as final deadline to release the final report the 30 September Question 3: Mr. Falanga suggested to upload on the project website both the full and short report. Reply: all the partners agreed with Mr. Falanga s suggestion. Question 4: Mrs. O Riordan asked to Mrs. Macri Why did you decide to analyse the local contexts? What are the goals of this WP? Reply: Mrs. Macri explained that it is very important for the project to have a picture (state of the art) of the contexts participating in the project for a better planning of the implementation of WP 6, WP 7 and WP8. From the analysis of the local contexts, Mrs. Macri highlighted that there are no funding mechanism that will motivate SME s to reformulate their products. Mrs. O Riordan suggested to include the consumers in the project dissemination activities, because according her experiences it is important to inform them and to influence their behaviours/choices. Mr. Vallauri clarified that the original proposal was focused also on consumers but during the negotiation phase all these activities were deleted by EC/EAHC. Question 5: Mrs. O Riordan asked to Mrs. Macri How do you want to link this WP with other WPs? Reply: Mr. Vallauri explained that this WP is the fundamental step to perform WP5 and WP6 considering the needs and the specificities of the local contexts. Question 6: Mr. Andrén Why have you excluded retailers? Reply: Mrs. Macri explained that the project target group was: Universities and/or Research, technical staff from ministries of health and representatives from food manufacturers, professional associations and catering industry representatives and Nongovernmental organizations. Furthermore, the reformulation activities will deal only with the company. Mr.

18 8 Vallauri added that the project starting point was the White Paper on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity related health issues so what the partners have to investigate with the project is the state of the art of the reformulation and the identification of best practices (in terms of major reformulations) to transfer this knowledge to European SMEs. Mr. Stanevicius pointed out that the retailers are the distributors and not the producers so they are out of the project. He also added that SALUS project led to the collection of many information and now all the partners have to find the best way to disseminate it. Question 7: Mr. Falanga asked We have a report of more than 300 pages but in the project budget we have the money only to translate 80 pages, how we will manage it? Reply: Mrs. Macri replied that according her experience, also in other EU projects, it is possible to have a short version of the report with the conclusions, key findings and figures in more or less 80 pages. Mrs. Macri asked to the partner Do you agree to translate only these 80 pages? Reply from the floor: All the partners agreed with Mrs. Macri s suggestion. Mrs. Macri informed the participants that the short version of the report would have been delivered in the next week. Mrs. O Riordan suggested to include also a brief description of the methodology applied to perform the analysis. Mrs. Macri confirmed that she would have included this section in the report. Mr. Vallauri suggested to use the results of WP4 to prepare the 1 st Scientific Publication of the project. He also invited BOKU and University of Hohenheim to decide who would have prepared the 1st and who the 2nd Scientific publication. Question 8: Mr. Kneifel suggested to publish a book instead of a Scientific publication. Reply from the floor: the partners did not agree with this suggestion. Mr. Kneifel suggested to decide for this article later. The partners agreed to rethink about this issue. 7. WP 5 - Identification and exchange of good practices: validation of criteria and methodology Mr. Stanevicius presented to the participants the developed methodology (by SFVS team) to perform the identification and exchange of good practices. In particular, he presented to the participants the objective of WP 5 and the methodology to identify good practices and analyse them. He presented to the participants 5 different questionnaires (templates): A questionnaire collect data on the definition of good practices in the food reformulation (Template 1). A questionnaire on good practice campaigns in food reformulations (Template 2. Form for collecting information on good practice campaigns in the food reformulation conducted in the last 5 years that have given positive results).

19 9 A questionnaire on examples of good practice in manufacture of reformulated food (Template 3. Form for collecting information on good practice in manufacture of reformulated food conducted in the last 5 years that have given positive results). Evaluation criteria of the information supplied on good practice campaigns in food reformulations conducted in the last 5 years that have given positive results (Template 4). Evaluation criteria of the information supplied on good practice in manufacture of reformulated food in the last 5 years that have given positive results (Template 5). The partners commented these templates and Mr. Stanevicius collected all the inputs from the floor. Question 1: Mr. Vallauri asked Should we have to select one product or a panel of products?. Reply: Mr. Stanevicius clarified that in the Technical annex, the methodology was not described in depth so the partners were able to decide about it. Mrs. Bonet suggested to work on precise food group. Mr. Kneifel suggested to coordinate the questionnaires for WP 5 and WP 6 to avoid any overlapping in the data and information collection. He also suggested not to bother SMEs with many and similar questionnaires to avoid the lack of participation of SMEs in the survey. Mr. Knorr suggested to work on 3 categories: salt, sugar and fat. Mrs. Bonet and Mrs. O Riordan suggested to analyse the campaign starting from the data and information collected with WP4. Mr. Stanevicius invited the participants to consider also the confidentiality of the information and data about the reformulated food, so please consider how to guarantee the confidentiality to the SMEs. Mr. Vallauri suggested to include in the analysis also large companies, but remembering that SMEs are the project target group. Mr. Falanga expressed his doubts about the participation of the large company in the survey. Furthermore, he had some doubts about the transferability of the practices from the large company to SMEs. 8. Q&A panel: All participants All the questions were reported under the relative sections. 9. Lunch The partners had a break of about 1 hour. 10. WP 6 - Organization of the follow-up of the food reformulation among SMEs

20 10 Mr. Hoel presented to the participants the aims and the proposed methodology to perform the follow-up of the food reformulation among the SMEs in the participating countries. In particular, he presented the invitation letter text for the SMEs and the tool to perform the follow-up (questionnare) of the major reformulation identified at national level. Mr. Hoel also asked to the partners to define the deadlines and to approve the invitation letter for the SMEs. By the way in some countries there were two or more partners he suggested to identify a national contact point in charge of the coordination of the local activities. This is the list of national contact points selected and approved in the meeting: COUNTRY PARTNERS NATIONAL CONTACT Italy TECNOGRANDA, ISES, Codacons TECNOGRANDA Finland MTT MTT Romania IBA IBA UK Campden BRI Campden BRI France Agro-Hall Agro-Hall Hungary CBHU CBHU Lithuania SFVS SFVS Austria BOKU BOKU Bulgaria CANRI CANRI Slovenia Jata-Emona Jata-Emona Germany TUB, UHOH TUB Spain UIB UIB Comments from the floor Mr. Hoel presented the software (SurveyMonkey and Moodle) to analyse the questionnaires results. All the partners agreed to use SurveyMonkey.

21 11 Mr. Hoel invited SALUS partners to decide how to share the questionnaires among the partners. Mr. Falanga presented to the partners the section of the website that will host the questionnaire to perform the follow-up ( and the functioning of the registration form. Mr. Falanga suggested to prepare the simplest and easiest questionnaire for the SMEs to avoid to bother them. Mrs. Horváth suggested to add to the questionnaire the following question Did you reformulate your products? Are you reformulating your products? Yes or No + brief description. All the partners agreed with her. Mr. Dekker suggested to describe better, in the invitation letter, what SALUS means with reformulation. Mr. Graeve invited the partners and WP Leaders (5-6) to work together to merge and coordinate the questionnaires of these WPs. Mr. Vallauri suggested to contact the SMEs with the letter and a phone-call. All the partners agreed with his suggestion. Question 1: Mrs. Bonet asked Would be possible to prepare different questions for the different products? Reply: Mr. Kneifel We would try to do it. Question 2: Mrs. Forgione asked How do you want to share the 1000 questionnaires among the project countries? Reply: Mrs. Guerouaou replied We should share the questionnaires on the basis of the size of country population. All the partners agreed with this suggestion. It was agreed among the partners that a table with a target number of questionnaire to be collected by each participating country will be elaborated and circulated, based on the country population. Question 3: Mrs. O Riordan asked How do SMEs receive the survey results? Reply: Mr. Falanga explained that the website page that will host the questionnaire has on the right side a form that each company could fill in to receive the results of the project. Question 4: Mr. Dekker asked Do you want to collect also data about the sales and earnings? Reply: Mr. Hoel explained that these figures will be considered in the questionnaires revision. Mr. Ramadori invited the partners to include in the questionnaire the privacy disclaimer (considering the different national laws).

22 WP 2 - Dissemination of the project results: general overview and future activities Mrs. Guerouaou presented to the partners all the results achieved in the framework of this WP. Furthermore, she presented the Dissemination plan tools prepared for the interim and final report. Mrs. Guerouaou suggested to prepare the annual e-magazine including the information already sent with the newsletters and to include some articles about the food reformulation in EU. All the partners agreed with her suggestion. 12. WP 3 - Internal and External Evaluation of the project: general overview and future activities Mrs. Bazzoni presented to the partners the External evaluation of SALUS, in particular: Objectives Main external indicators Activities and key moments Outputs Role of partners and external experts. Mrs. Latvala presented to the participants the Internal evaluation of SALUS and the evaluation plan elaborated to perform this WP. Mrs. Latvala and Mrs. Bazzoni had the opportunity to coordinate their work to avoid any overlapping in the WP implementation. 13. Coffee/Tea break The partners had a break of about 15 minutes. 14. WP 7 - Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of the major reformulations identified Mr. Vallauri presented to the partners the goals and activities of this WP. In particular, he pointed out that the WP aims to analyse the Cost-Effectiveness of the major food reformulations at European and International level. In particular, the analysis will be targeted on the specific needs of SMEs. He also presented to the partners the TECNOGRANDA s responsibilities and the partners involvement in the WP implementation. Question 1: Mrs. Stanevicius asked How do you want to provide technological information (in terms of reformulation) to SMEs? Reply: Mr. Kneifel We should try to analyse also the technological implication and to deliver these crucial information to the company. A SME when decide to reformulate a food product the first aspect that investigate is the economic (cost for technology). Mr. Andrén suggested also to analyse all the marketing aspects.

23 CODACONS: actions and lawsuits to protect consumers health Mr. Ramadori presented to the participants his experience in terms of health consumers protection, in particular, he presented the JUNK FOOD project and the recent proposals of law from the Italian Ministry of Health to introduce a tax on the soft drinks. 16. Q&A panel: All participants All the questions were reported under the relative section. 17. Meeting closure Mrs. Latvala tanked all the participants in the meeting and inform them that the second meeting day had been opened by three speeches of Finnish experts working in the project fields. 1st PROJECT MEETING 7 SEPTEMBER 2012 HELSINKI (FINLAND) Meeting Venue: Info-center Korona (Viikinkaari 11, Viikki) Room 3 1. Welcome to the Workshop about the food reformulation in Finland and comparison with the EU experiences come from the project Mrs. Latvala opened the second meeting day introduced the speakers of the first part of day. She stressed the importance to compare the Finnish experiences in the project field with the experiences of SALUS participating countries. 2. Nutrition recommendations and Nutrition Council in Finland Mrs. Raija Kara (Secretary General at National Nutrition Council) presented to the participants the National Nutrition Council history, activities and members. In particular, the main goal of the Council is to revise general Finnish nutrition recommendations on the basis of the Nordic nutrition recommendations. The main tasks are: - - to monitor and develop the nutrition of the population by issuing other nutrition recommendations, if necessary, and by making proposals for specific measures and monitoring the implementation of such measures and their impact on public health; to take initiatives and provide statements as well as express opinions on issues related to the nutrition of the population and public health with regard to the entire food chain. Question 1: Mr. Dekker What kind of recommendations do you use? Reply: Mrs. Kara Nordic Recommendations.

24 14 Question 2: Mrs. Paraskova Do you have figures about low cholesterol products consumption? Reply: Mrs. Kara We have just an estimation about the decrease of consumption of this products. 3. School meals in Finland Mrs. Marjaana Manninen (Finnish National Board of Education) presented to the participants the Finnish experience in the preparation and delivering of school meals. In particular, she highlighted that school meals are an integral part of national core curricula for basic and pre-primary education, before- and after-school activities as well as schools student welfare services and food education. Local and school-level curricula define the central principles of arranging school catering. The curricula also describe the objectives for education in health, nutrition and manners. The health-related and social role of school meals, the objectives of nutritional education and learning of manners as well as the recreational aspect of lunch breaks will be taken into account when arranging school meals and any snacks that may be offered during the school day. Pupils have the opportunity to participate in planning and implementing school meals, which fosters involvement and community spirit. Regular meals constitute significantly to children and young people s wellbeing, their ability to learn and to their healthy growth and development. Meal breaks should allow pupils and students to enjoy their meals in a calm, enjoyable and unhurried manner. Breaks must also give pupils and students a chance to interact with others and take a break from teaching. Question 1: Mr. Knorr Do you have evidence about a correlation between the students schools results and their meals? Do you know if the teachers inform students about the benefit of a good nutrition? Reply: Mrs. Manninen Unfortunately we have no evidence of this. The Finnish teachers inform young people of the benefit of healthy food. Question 2: Mr. Falanga What is the role of the parents in the choice of the measls? Reply: Mrs. Manninen Parents are involved in this process and they are also invited to vote for the meals provided to their children with regular open days in the schools.. Question 3: Mr. Graeve Are the parents involved in the meals preparation? Reply: Mrs. Manninen No only professionals prepare the meals. In schools we regularly organise course about food education involving also the parents Question 2: Mr. Ramadori Did you ever have a problem with the quality of food? Reply: Mrs. Manninen Yes but just one time with carrots. 4. Heart Symbol (Sydänmerkki) as a sign of healthy food Mrs. Anna Kara (Finnish Heart Association) presented to the participants the Finnish Heart Association. The Finnish Heart Association is a public health and patient organisation promoting heart health. The Association provides information on health, encourages towards a healthy

25 15 lifestyle and supports rehabilitation. The Finnish Heart Association comprises over individual members, 19 regions, 238 local societies and the nation-wide organisations for young heart patients), heart or lung transplanted patients and cardiomyopathy patients. The goal of the Finnish Heart Association is that, in 20 years' time, cardiovascular diseases will no longer be a significant health problem among working-age adults and that people experience more healthy and active years in their lives. Mrs. Kara presented the Heart Symbol to the project partners. The symbol was introduced on 2000 to help Finnish consumers to make better choices at groceries stores. Hearth symbol is and easy to notice addition to the nutritional information in food packages, the symbol is well known by the Finnish consumers. For food industry it is an effective means of marketing products that have been given the right to use this symbol. Use of Heart Symbol products is recommended by National Nutrition Council in the dietary guidelines for consumers. Question 1: Mrs. Belc Who does support this initiative? Reply: Mrs. Kara The Ministry of Social Affairs. Question 2: Mr. Wolfgang Did EFSA approved this logo? Reply: Mrs. Kara We are waiting for the approval from EFSA. Question 3: Mrs. Macri Who will verify the rules respecting? Reply: Mrs. Kara The Ministry and an External Agency. Question 4: Mr. Dekker How many companies adopted your logo? Reply: Mrs. Kara More than 100. Question 5: Mr. Kneifel Is it possible to use this logo outside Finland? Reply: Mrs. Kara Yes, it is possible. 5. Q&A panel: All participants All the questions were reported under the relative section. 6. Closing of the Workshop Mrs. Latvala thanked the experts for their participation in the meeting and the very interesting speeches. 7. Lunch

26 16 The partners had a break of about ½ hour. 8. Wrap-up and Evaluation of the meeting Mrs. Latvala and Mrs. Bazzoni managed this session informing the partners how to fill in the questionnaires. A parallel session with the External Experts will be arranged. 9. Next tasks, meetings, envisaged milestones Mr. Vallauri presented to the participants the next project tasks and deadlines. 10. SALUS administrative aspects Mr. Vallauri and Mr. Falanga organized this session to refresh all the administrative aspects of the project and to fix the next deadlines in terms of administrative practices. 11. Closing and goodbye, end of the meeting Mr. Vallauri and Mrs. Latvala as hosting partner thanked all participants and external experts for their active collaboration. At the following link you will find all the power points presentations mentioned in the report except the presentation of Mrs. Manninen that for confidentiality reasons did not give us a copy of her presentation.

27 17 Agenda 1st PROJECT MEETING 6 SEPTEMBER 2012 HELSINKI (FINLAND) Meeting Venue: Info-center Korona (Viikinkaari 11, Viikki) Room :00-09:30 Welcome, registration and introduction Facilitated by Ms. Terhi Latvala (MTT) and Dario Vallauri (TECNOGRANDA) 09:30-09:40 MTT s welcome: Director Dr. Sari Forsman-Hugg 9:40-10:00 Participants presentations - External Expert - Partners 10:00-10:30 WP 1: Presentation of the first project year: results, commitment and challenges -Presentation by Dario Vallauri (TECNOGRANDA) 10:30-10:45 Coffee/Tea break 10:45-11:30 WP 4: Overview of the Analysis of the local contexts -Presentations by Adriana Macri (IBA) 11:30-12:15 WP 5: Identification and exchange of good practices: validation of criteria and methodology -Presentation by Zenonas Stanevicius (SFVS) 12:15-13:00 Q&A panel: All participants 13:00-14:00 Lunch 14:00-15:30 WP 6: Organization of the follow-up of the food reformulation among SMEs - Presentation by Andreas Hohl (BOKU) 15:30-16:00 activities WP 2: Dissemination of the project results: general overview and future 16:00-16:45 -Presentation by Lylia Guerouaou (AGRO-HALL) WP 3: Internal and External Evaluation of the project: general overview and future activities -Presentation by Terhi Latvala (MTT) and Mrs. Bazzoni 16:45-17:00 Coffee/Tea break 17:00-17:30 WP 7: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of the major reformulations identified -Presentation by Dario Vallauri (TECNOGRANDA)

28 18 17:30-18:00 CODACONS: actions and lawsuits to protect consumers health -Presentation by Marco Ramadori (CODACONS) 18:00-18:15 Q&A panel: All participants 18:15 Meeting closure 1st PROJECT MEETING 7 SEPTEMBER 2012 HELSINKI (FINLAND) Meeting Venue: Info-center Korona (Viikinkaari 11, Viikki) Room 3 09:00-09:30 Welcome to the Workshop about the food reformulation in Finland and comparison with the EU experiences come from the project -Presentation by Terhi Latvala 9:30-10:15 Nutrition recommendations and Nutrition Council in Finland -Presentation by Mrs. Raija Kara (Nutrition Council in Finland) 10: School meals in Finland -Presentation by Mrs. Marjaana Manninen (Finnish National Board of Education) 11:00-11:45 Heart Symbol (Sydänmerkki) as a sign of healthy food -Presentation by Mrs. Anna Kara (Finnish Heart Association) 11:45-12:15 Q&A panel: All participants :30 Closing of the Workshop 12:30-13:00 Lunch 13:00-14:00 14:00-15:00 15:00-16:00 16:00-16:30 Wrap-up and Evaluation of the meeting -Presentation by MTT and Mrs. Bazzoni Next tasks, meetings, envisaged milestones SALUS administrative aspects -Presentation by Dario Vallauri (TECNOGRANDA) Closing and goodbye, end of the meeting