The feed chain

To ensure feed safety on a global scale the European Feed Manufacturers' Federation (FEFAC) examines every link in the chain.

NGF asks Tony Bell, member of the FEFAC Industrial Compound Feed Committee and AIC Feed Executive Committee chairman, about the current situation concerning GM crops, how this affects the competitiveness of the feed industry, the effects of the current economic downturn and ensuring feed safety.

Since the growing of GM crops started back in 1996, most of the feed industry has given the choice to customers whether they want to exclude GM soybean meal or maize gluten, or pay the additional cost for non GM. The majority of feed - over 85 percent - does contain GM raw materials like GM soya or in the past GM maize gluten.

Going forward, there is concern about the supply, particularly of non-GM soya, because the major soya producers such as the U.S. and Argentina are now producing over 95 percent GM. In Brazil, it's over 50 percent, and the Brazilian soya industry has said that it will produce 80 percent GM within the next two years. The quantity of non-GM soya is therefore falling sharply and in the next two years it will decrease by more than half.

If this happens, supply of non-GM will be insufficient and what there is will need to be rationed, which is normally achieved through price. Previously there was a two or three percent premium when buying non-GM soya and today it's around 10 to 15 percent. We can expect this premium to increase sharply over the next three years because there physically won't be enough non-GM material available.

Farmers in America, Argentina and Brazil who are growing GM varieties believe there are many benefits. If you speak to them, they cite environmental benefits such as fewer pesticides, less herbicides and less soil erosion, Europeans also focus on concerns for the environment, but with concerns over potential problems rather than benefits being seen when grown. 

There is sometimes a blockage with GM as people have an emotional response rather than looking at the science. This is the danger if we don't look at it rationally. Consumers say they don't want GM, but they also say they want value for money, and safe food. Whilst the rest of the world is adopting GM technology, Europe is standing by for political and emotional reasons, not wanting to move forward.

The feed industry uses processed raw materials that are grown in other parts of the world. There is debate about the growing of GM crops in Europe, and this is likely to be an extended discussion. The feed industry is looking to have a competitive livestock industry, but GM issues could turn into a competitive disadvantage, if it restricts imports of value raw materials. What we don't want to see is the EU livestock industry being exported and then we actually end up importing livestock products that have been fed GM raw materials, which are not available to the EU market.

The feed industry is already suffering due to the current economic downturn.

This year it will probably be down by about five percent or six million tons. The sector being hit hardest is the dairy industry, which is not making sufficient returns and therefore a large number of farmers are exiting the industry. In the U.K. we are losing approximately a thousand dairy farmers a year.

In terms of pork production, the industry is also suffering and EU pork orders are down. Poultry production is probably resisting the economic downturn, as consumers are showing a preference for cheaper protein sources.

The longer-term effects of new GM varieties being introduced in the US and South America, but which are not yet approved in Europe, would have a major impact on the industry, as we wouldn't be able to import protein sources, particularly soybean meal due to the EU policy of zero-tolerance for their presence in any imported feed materials. 

This is an important issue at the moment; we now have a situation where the shipping companies are asking if it is worth the risk to import soybean meal from America if minute traces of a non-approved EU GM variety will be found in it. 

There are many new GM varieties being planned to be introduced over the next few years, with benefits claimed in yield, drought resistance, plus nutritional benefits such as fatty acid profiles and vitamin content

Safety is an issue that we take very seriously and the feed industry is clearly at the forefront in developing comprehensive feed safety assurance guidance. In the U.K. for example, we've developed FEMAS and everyone involved in the feed supply chain is independently audited, whether that be a Brazilian processor of soya, a shipper out of Brazil, a storekeeper or hauliers in the U.K. or the commercial feed mills - they are all independently audited to assure standards.

Alexander Döring, Secretary General of the European Feed Manufacturers' Federation (FEFAC) talks about contamination risks and the possibility of a global regulatory framework.

The safety and security of animal food supplies is of paramount importance. What measures do European feed producers take to ensure against the risks of contamination?
AD: Our members in the U.K. and The Netherlands were pioneers in this area. We developed our first European-wide guidelines for good manufacturing about a decade ago using the existing codes in The Netherlands and the UK as a baseline. In 2007, the European Commission assessed our European Feed Manufacturing Guide positively and it has since been adopted by 20 of our national associations. Today, an estimated 90 percent, if not more, of compound feed is produced in the EU according to the guidelines developed here by our professional experts. 

This approach has gradually been taken up by our whole supply community. Farmers and home-mixers, who produce their own feed, are also developing adapted codes for their own operations.

What are the contamination risks that the feed industry has to deal with on an annual basis?
AD: A couple of years ago the sector entered the EU-wide rapid alert system and 2002 was the first year that feed-related incidents were recorded. There have been very positive developments since, if you compare it on an annual basis. Feed alerts compared with total food alerts account for around six percent, which clearly demonstrates good results. 

There are classical risks known for food, which for years have been linked to micro-organisms - Salmonella in particular - in imported but also home-produced products. We also see a number of alerts linked to contaminants such as mycotoxins and dioxins. 

The other alert regards unauthorised GM turning up in the system. As a result of the BSE heritage there are still alerts related to the presence of animal protein residues in some consignments of vegetable products. These are very well known risks and going forward we are awaiting the enforcement of our metrics and guidelines. 

Recently our focus is turning to what we call 'emerging risks' - things that you do not necessarily expect to be in your feed, but which may turn up because of changes in food processing technology of our suppliers or, most recently, as you well remember, related to downright fraud, like the melamine contamination in China.

We live in a global marketplace. Can regulations that cover individual nations or regions be sufficient, or is a global regulatory framework required to address issues of safety and security? What are the challenges of creating such a framework?
AD: We are still at fairly early stages concerning international harmonisation, but we strongly promote the idea. We are a member of the International Feed Industry Federation and together we have been promoting the harmonisation of feed safety standards for a couple of years, ever since we entered the CODEX Alimentarius system as observers. The first CODEX task force on animal feed safety adopted a global code of practice for animal feeding in 2005, which not only covered industrial feed, but also home-mixing and grazing. 

So there are all-encompassing guidelines for safe feed production. To support this work, the FAO will shortly produce a joint manual with the International Feed Industry Federation to actually facilitate the employment of these codes at a national level and mainly in developing countries. CODEX also just established a second electronic working group to examine references for a future task force on animal feed safety and this was done on the recommendations of the previous FAO/WHO expert group on feed safety, and feed safety impacts on food safety. 

What we really welcome is the growing worldwide consensus on the importance of feed safety and the importance of developing international feed safety standards. So there is a movement and recognition of a need to move in that direction. It's going to be a rather long haul and we don't expect a global regulatory framework to appear overnight.

In collaboration with our international partners we organise annual feed regulator conferences just to help the process along and to tackle some of the obstacles that stand in the way of a more comprehensive, global feed safety regulatory framework.

Is there a timetable for when you might achieve a global framework?
AD: One of the key problems - going back to science, which is hopefully always the basis for any regulatory decision - is that we currently do not have an accepted international guideline on feed safety risk assessment. If countries are performing risk assessments on feed safety differently, this results in different risk management decisions which are hampering trade in feedstuffs. 

There is a big gap here and we hope that science, through stimulation by CODEX, can fill this gap. If a generally accepted risk assessment guideline can be introduced things could develop rather quickly.

What is going to be your main area of interest in the next few years and what big projects are you currently working on?
AD: As an organisation we really favour the establishment of a new CODEX task force on animal feed safety, which will hopefully be decided next year by CODEX and which we will definitely support with our expertise.

At the European level, we have more or less closed the cycle of modernising and harmonising European feed legislation. An area where we will be very actively involved is the newly adopted regulation on the marketing and use of feed. We are currently awaiting its publication in the official journal. 

We are also looking to additional self-regulation tools - including a code of practice for good labelling - which can facilitate the process further and help to establish a common set of rules, not just in Europe, but also on a worldwide level.

About FEFAC

The European Feed Manufacturers' Federation (FEFAC) was founded in 1959 by five national compound feed associations from France, Belgium, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands.

FEFAC is the only independent spokesman of the European Compound Feed Industry at the level of the European Institutions. Membership consists of national associations from EU Member States as full members and of an increasing number of observer members from non-EU countries.