Episode #19
In this podcast we discuss the challenge of needing more regulation to ensure our food is safe to eat, while recognising there are less resources for regulators to carry out ‘in-person’ checks.
We explore the potential for new and emerging technologies like blockchain and IoT devices, to help tackle the problem, while making the entire system better, simpler and cheaper.
Dom is joined by two legends from the food regulation and food safety industry – both of whom are officially ‘retired’, but aren’t letting that get in the way of continuing to thought-lead and contribute on the global stage be that advising major companies or the UN and WHO.
John Barnes is a former Senior Civil Servant with extensive experience developing and delivering food safety controls, including relevant legislation and guidance at a national and international level. He retired from the Food Standards Agency in 2015, and now works part-time providing strategic advice at company Board level on national and international food controls.
David Edwards is a food safety and business consultant. He was the joint founder of CMI which was sold in 2007 to NSF International. Currently David is an investor and advisor to food sector businesses and service companies drawing on 40 years experience and knowledge of the global food safety and health and safety standards and regulatory services market.
Both agree the current regulatory system is not fit for purpose. John says the system needs to be modernised as the resources for regulators aren’t there. He outlines three strategic tramlines to enable change:
- using data and technology better
- collaborating more – the private and the public control systems working together and sharing more data
- more transparency between the regulator and the industry
David believe transparency is an under utilised tool by regulators and thinks back to Campylobacter when league tables were reduced to drive positive change by retailers in their food supply chains.
John believes change is necessary but there are obvious weak points. When it comes to meat, veterinary inspections and certificates are the 13 amp fuse in the whole system.
David adds, you can have a really efficient system of digitising all the paperwork that goes with food transport across borders. But the chicane in the system is a really clunky, old fashioned inspection system, where you have to have a veterinary inspector present to sign off masses of paperwork.
He believes there’s a real imperative for regulators to deal with that chicane, streamline it, but he says it can be done, and it is being done.
Listen to the full podcast or read the transcript to see what else they had to say.
SPEAKERS
Dom Burch, John Barnes and David Edwards.
Dom Burch:
Welcome back to the ubloquity podcast with me Dom Burch. This is the podcast where we get to speak to thought leaders and experts from across the sector. And I’m absolutely delighted this week, we’ve got a double header. We’ve got David Edwards and John Barnes. John, David, welcome to the podcast.
John Barnes:
Hi Dom.
David Edwards:
Thanks you Dom.
Dom Burch:
John, let’s kick off. Just give us a little bit of background about you.
John Barnes:
I started as an environmental health officer. And actually, that’s where I first met David. We were both students together in the 1970s, after a period working for local government, I then went out and did some other additional studies, went and did a master’s and MBA, then worked again, alongside David with a company called the Food Hygiene Bureau. But before that, I went then to work in government, first for the Department of Health and then Food Standards Agency, right from its inception. And then subsequently, before I retired a few years ago, I was head of local delivery. When I retired, I then did some work to keep the interest going and also to help contribute I hope. I do work for companies, and also for WHO and UN bodies on public private partnerships to help improve food safety.
Dom Burch:
David follow that!
David Edwards:
yeah, it’s hard to isn’t it, you know, all this stuff about, you know, master’s degrees and post qualification. I mean, my ambitions after training with John were much more brutal I wanted to drive Jaguar, it was really simple. Local government didn’t really entirely suit me, to be honest, I didn’t entirely suit it. So I wanted to go into private practice. And I’d seen that environmental health officers who were doing that were doing rather well for themselves. So we went into business, Tim and I and set up something called Food Hygiene Bureau, which then morphed over time with investment and success into something called CMI. And in 2007 was sold to NSF International, a not for profit. So really, from the mid 80s, I’ve been working as a consultant and building a business in food safety, food regulation, right up until retirement.
Dom Burch:
Here we are, and we come together. And of course, I work at ubloquity, which is a blockchain company that, I guess our bit is, how do we use technology and synthesise it with science, and with IoT devices, and with all these other things that are now in our toolkit, in order to help supply chains operate more seamlessly, with less friction at borders, all that kind of good stuff. And as we come together as sort of three people on this podcast, it strikes me that, you know, from a consumer perspective, people want to know what their food is, and that it’s safe to eat. And increasingly, those requirements, that sort of level of certainty of proof of trust is having to go up because supply networks as they are international systems are more and more complex, there are more more ingredients. But also people’s level of trust has decreased, hasn’t it with every food scare, and every horse meat scandal and every you know, beef being passed off as British, just chips away, doesn’t it at people’s trust in the food ecosystem. And then we’ve got the regulator’s going, well, you know, you want us to let this go through a border, we need to check it. And yet we can’t check things through border because we just don’t have the infrastructure. So there’s the exam question, chaps, how do we go about, you know, solving for some of those big macro issues in the middle of what is an economic downturn. But with all this exciting technology emerging?
John Barnes:
I just want to push back at you there Dom on a couple of things. One, you you’re implying that public confidence and confidence in food is dropping through the floor almost or just being chipped away. Now, that isn’t quite the case. I do accept that the horsemeat incident in 2013 caused some massive concerns. But you know, by being transparent by responding positively, and actually, at the time by industry, and the regulator working together, we’re able to build that trust again, now, trust in the food supply chain, and in, you know, the institutions is quite high at the moment. And I would say that one of the things people overlook is the Food Standards Agency, one of its key indicators, the most critical indicator it has is the level of consumer safety and trust in food, because actually, that confidence and trust sells food, it keeps the wheels moving, they track it incessantly. And that’s why when you say trust is falling through the floor, that’s not quite right. But that’s not to say it isn’t important. And that’s not to say that we shouldn’t do everything we can to keep it there. And the other thing, I think with the pandemic, is it really did focus regulators. I wasn’t there at the time, but I do know, and I’ve spoken to them, it’s really focused them to realise that these incredibly labour intensive systems, complex systems of regulation that they’ve got, you know, it was really difficult to sustain not only during the time of COVID, but actually now after, and so they are actively looking at ways in which everybody can come back and work together again, to actually build confidence. So that’s my start, which is, confidence is key. Absolutely. It’s not at rock bottom at the moment. But clearly, it’s very tenuous, and you want to make sure that if you do drop the ball, people are seen to be working together for the common good.
Dom Burch:
But David, it’s fair to say we can’t keep using the same solutions to solve that problem that is never gonna go
David Edwards:
No, we can’t. I’m not so convinced trust is really away, right? issue. It might be an issue for the Food Standards Agency and government. The real issue is, is the food safe? Right. And that’s where we’ve got a bit of a problem, because we’ve got fraud, and we’ve got unsafe food, and we’re not necessarily getting on top of that. So I’m not so convinced. It’s about consumers having trust, I think it’s about consumers getting safe food, that is what it says it is, which is the sort of FSA’s mantra. The problem we’re getting there is that the regulatory processes that we got internationally, are not fit for purpose, right. And I think the FSA, certainly and other regulators around the world recognise that there’s too much paperwork, it’s all sort of paper driven. In a digital world that’s ridiculous. It’s not very efficient. Just doing lots and lots of inspections, we know isn’t efficient, there are other ways of gathering information and making risk-based judgments. It’s grossly under resourced. Because around the world, lots of regulators, particularly ours have been cut to the bone. So the system of regulation isn’t isn’t fit for purpose. Despite the fact I’ve always worked in the commercial sector, for my professional, most of my professional life, I actually think the regulatory environment is really important. And so our regulators, because unfortunately, you know, there are bad actors. I think trust is an outcome we want. But it’s not the issue.
Dom Burch:
Where is the real issue now, then?
John Barnes:
I absolutely agree with David, the current regulatory system is not fit for purpose. It needs to be modernised the resources for regulators aren’t there, there’s absolutely no way that they’re going to be given enough resources to just do more of the same. What’s happening is a really at the moment doing less of the same. And what we need is probably something different. In terms of your question, which was, what should we do now? I mean, everybody looking at modernising the regulatory process, there are sort of three basic tramlines. One is, it’s about using data and technology better. The second is about collaborating more with each other. So working together, so the private and the public control systems actually working more together and sharing more data. And for everybody, it’s about more transparency, so more transparency between the regulator, and the business and industry, and more sharing of standards with the consumer. And if you look now at what’s going on broadly, most of the changes fit within those sorts of tram lines. And I would say if they’re not, then I think there could be problems, you know, because they are definitely things that everybody government and industry needs to be working on.
Dom Burch:
And David bring that to life for us, right. So there’ll be people listening to this podcast and going right I get, you know, help me understand then I’m a, either an exporter of goods, trying to get them into Europe or across the wider world. And there are certain things I need to go through, right, I need to be able to prove what that food item is. And if it’s a medium or high risk. good. You know, that means bringing vets into the abattoir into the process are all these different checks that have to be held. And the reason those checks are in there for bloody good reason, right? We want to make sure that the food is safe to eat and it really is what it says it is. But that world of bureaucracy and paperwork as you described it in a digital world seems absolutely bonkers. So just bring it to life as to how regulators are going to have to adapt and how organisations also going to have to take more ownership of some of that checking some of that reporting.
David Edwards:
If I pick up on those three things. They are good themes that John identified the data that the data and technology collaboration more transparency. I mean, just say a brief word on each. Data technology is definitely the way to go. Easier to say harder to do, right? Because everybody has legacy systems, getting all those legacy systems that are in industry, to talk to the government systems and share information is no mean task right. And also, you’ve got innovators and disruptors coming in into play. But the principle is right. And I think certainly, our government and I think American government, sort of recognise that this is the direction of travel, we’ve got to do better, and work with industry to get the systems streamlined so that food can be moved across borders, data can be collected easily by regulators, transparency can be enabled with that sort of technology. I mean, it’s a whole podcast in itself, really the whole technology piece, but I think it’s going in the right direction. So that’s good. The collaboration thing between public and private, always a tricky area, you know, do you stop a policeman and say, Could you check my tires? There’s always a bit of a fear. And I don’t think enough progress has been made on that really, we could debate how we could perhaps accelerate progress on on that issue. Transparency, I think, an underused tool by regulators. I mean, I do remember John probably had better detail this but when there was a problem with Campylobacter in chicken, you know, they sort of got on top of salmonella to a degree but Campylobacter was a problem. And the FSA here in the UK started saying, Well, you know what, we’re going to publish our results, we’re going to sample chickens for Campylobacter. And we’re going to create league tables. And I think if I remember rightly, John will correct me again. The then head of the agency said, Look, if your chickens were green, as a consequence of Campylobacter, you deal with it straight away, and you’ve let this problem build up over the years and you’ve not tackled it. So now we’re going to publish the data to the public to see and lo and behold, when you look at those figures, they’ve got markedly better. So transparency is a good thing for everybody. I think it keeps everybody honest, if I can put it that way. So I think it’s a bit underused, actually transparency,
John Barnes:
That Campylobacter scheme, it’s actually called act, acting on Campylobacter together. So it’s a an example of collaboration, even though I think some of the industry players were sort of more reluctantly drawn into it than others publishing the data. But, you know, it certainly helped improve the level of and reduce the level of Campylobacter on shop bought poultry. So that’s one example. But I think David’s right, you know, these things are easy to say that I’m talking about strategic tramlines. So, you know, yes, you have to put some flesh on the bones but the more that you work together, and the more that you understand what each other’s doing, I think the more trust you can have in each other, and I’m here talking about the industry and the regulators. But, you know, we’ve developed over the, over the years, two distinct systems, really, we’ve developed some incredibly good industry assurance and control systems and food safety management systems. And actually, we’ve probably over the years, it’s a bit tired at the moment had some pretty strong regulation in the UK, you know, pretty reasonable regulation, but they’ve sort of worked distinct and separate from each other, both as individual officers and individuals from industry and in how you might use the information. You know, it’s as simple as local authorities wouldn’t even recognise if a business had a third party, an independent third party audit going on twice or three times or once a year, in order just to feed into whether they might look at a business that hasn’t got that sort of control. You know, it could be as simple as just knowing what was a certified business and what wasn’t. And then there really aren’t those linkups as much as they should be. And that I think, is something that will be altered in the coming years. And there are schemes already in operation in the UK, where the red tractor scheme, for example, is taken into account by local Trading Standards officers in how they might look at certain food processing premises. So that’s just an example of where you put flesh on the bone. There just needs to be more working together and more understanding of what each other is doing and then transferring some of that information across
Dom Burch:
And keeping those strategic tramlines in place which you know which I like there are also now some technology enablers that are coming on stream that are become more, let’s just say mainstream almost. So you know, things like blockchain are beginning to emerge, which means that you can have private companies in the same system, only sharing data that needs to be shared, but not giving away their commercial, special secret sauce, right. And similarly, with government being able to extract the bits of information from a form or from a system or from a legacy database that requires less input, you don’t have to keep on putting the same information in multiple times, and just allowing these little packages of data that are then stored in an immutable way, right? They they are secure. Once they’re written to the blockchain, they can’t be tweaked or adapted, or, or frankly, bad actor come in and go, Oh, I don’t like the look of that. I’ll change that on the database. So it looks a bit better. And then you sort of enhance that then with these IoT sensors. And that could be something as simple as a GPS lock on the back of a waggon that says, this load of meat is still the same load of meat, and nobody’s tampered with it. Or it might be a nano tag that says, and by the way, it’s held at the same temperature, the right temperature, and it has been from the start to the end. As we begin to build up those systems, surely, that’s going to enable us then to be far more smart.
David Edwards:
I absolutely agree Dom. I mean, you really can start using some new technologies that have been around for a while. So they’re sort of validated, but not really yet got into mainstream, but one that I think is very exciting is this thing called stable isotope ratio analysis, which is basically a way of fingerprinting the origin of food. Now, then, if you take that piece of technology, which has now established itself technology, that validates the origin of the food wherever it is in the chain, or wherever it is in the network. And then you link that into a blockchain. So that keeps the information secure and immutable, as you rightly point out, and then you make it accessible to the various parties who might want to look at it, whether it’s a supermarket retailer, technical function that wants to check that they’re getting what they paid for, whether it’s a regulator that says, Well, is this really Scottish beef? Or is it somebody else’s beef that’s just been sort of passed off as Scottish? It’s not just a pipe dream, you know, this is real reality, we can have these systems up and running very, very quickly.
John Barnes:
I agree, Dom, I mean, what you’re saying there is, I hope, and I’m pretty sure it will be something that will be being looked at by regulators, not only in the UK. But worldwide. I mean, I’d go as far to say, it’s not, if we use that type of technology, it’s how it’s going to be used. So because the two systems have been so distinct and separate, for so long, there is a level of lack of trust. And so it will take a while for the systems to come through. Similarly, there needs to be for regulators, a legislative base, that would allow for something like that. I always remember David, he talks about we have these huge systems, and you’re talking about Internet of Things and how we transfer data and it’s all smart. And when it comes to meat, veterinary inspection and certificate, it’s almost like the the 13 amp fuse in the whole system. You know, there are things that are still in place that have to be done that make the digitisation and some of the things you’ve talked about a bit more difficult, but they will come. The fact is, the regulator’s will come online, there are professional vested interests, including in my own profession, and some of those are rooted in, you know, good reasons, which is they’ve controlled the food systems for 100 years almost. And there is a view that you know, can the industry be trusted to almost regulate itself and so, moving from one system more towards another, I think there will be inevitable challenge and delay, but it will come and clearly, necessity is the mother of invention, and and the lack of resources for the regulators. And the complexity of the supply network means that it is inevitable is just as I say how not if.
David Edwards:
Yeah, and to add to that, if I may Dom, you know, you can have this really efficient system of digitising all the paperwork that goes with, with food transport, across borders, and so on and so forth. But at the end of the day, the chicane in the system is this really clunky, old fashioned inspection system, where you have to have a veterinary inspector present to sign off all of this masses of paperwork and I know post Brexit there was some work done where it was it was taking two vets four hours to sign off one lorry load of food, that was going to Northern Ireland. Absolutely crazy. So there’s a real imperative there for the regulators to realise that they need to deal with that chicane, they need to streamline that, and it can be done, and it is being done. The other thing, if I can just briefly come back to you know, John refers to this whole issue of sharing information. I think the problem that industry has with sharing information is trusting how it’s going to be used, when it’s not, as it should be, if you like when your tyres aren’t at the regulation depth, is knowing if I’m going to share this with you, the regulator, I want to be really clear, and understand what the consequences of that are. And if I’m not clear what the consequences are, I’m not going to share it voluntarily. And so I think that’s got to be looked at what what is the nature of the trust that we’re talking about? Because it’s a very broad term? Personally, I think it’s about knowing how the regulator would react, because having dealt with product recalls in the past, the big worry for the producer, is how would the regulator deal with this, if we tell them, you know, can’t we do a load of stuff before we have to tell them, and there was a real tension there, I’m thinking of a real example. And I was saying, though, you really have a moral and legal duty to say about the problem you’ve got, and you need to do it quickly. But I had confidence in the agency that the agency would be reasonable, and they did turn out to be reasonable.
Dom Burch:
I guess the flip side of that, though, is also what are the incentives for industry to move and for people to get that advantage of moving? So if regulators and governments are willing to go, alright, we need to reimagine this veterinary process, right? I mean, public accounts committee identified back end of last year, there’s a critical shortage of vets in the UK right now part of that’s COVID Brexit and, you know, increased demand for export health certificates for a start, but also there’s less people joining. So you’ve got fewer people coming in far more work for the ones who are in there to do and a lot of that work is bureaucratic, as you say it’s kind of clipboard piece of paper, you know, hand wet signature in an abattoir, that technology could satisfy regulators and government satisfy consumer groups and incentivize the abbatoirs and the producers to actually participate. Because it means that they’re going to reduce their costs, they only need to have one visit in person not four, or that visit could be done somehow remotely, but just to the exact same, if not even better standard. You know, I’m thinking about temperature gauges that actually monitor a flock before even gets to an abattoir. So you’re reducing that likelihood of disease coming into an abattoir that you’ve actually got a digital signature. That proves not just that it was signed, but when it was signed, and where it was signed, you know, all these sorts of things that, you know, are already everywhere in the legal profession. They’re already used in lots of other sectors, surely we can find a way of incentivizing that would make the industry actually want to adopt this far more quickly, not just benefit the regulator.
John Barnes:
Dom I totally agree, there is a new operating model being looked at now for meat, which moves to a number of those things that you just sort of suggested there, by the Food Standards Agency, they definitely are looking at that. I think I probably before I go forward, I’d go one step back, both myself and David, perversely enough, we’re both actually qualified meat inspectors. And I think we both know, the inadequacy of the current system, you know, slicing and dicing into carcasses to look at problems and issues that were a problem 30 years ago isn’t the way forward, you already alluded to it, having data about the illness, disease zoonosis, and having all sorts of data accompanying these animals, because the problems that we have with products of animal origin tend to be microbiological, at the moment, if you’re looking at Campylobacter, you know, and that’s about having information following the flocks throughout the chain, the sort of checks that we have now just really aren’t keeping up to date with that. And then when you couple with it, that it’s those checks that are slowing down, as you say, the sort of wet certificate slowing down the whole process. It has to be modernised and it will be modernised. Recognising you talk about incentives. I think that if industry are going to sort of invest in very good systems, very good remote technology and be able to and willing to share that information they need to be, as David said, it shouldn’t be on a gotcha basis. You know, if you share something that’s wrong, you should have confidence that you’re going to be recognised for sort of doing broadly many, many things right. And you are part of the solution in sharing the data, not the problem. And the other thing is, you’re absolutely right. There are very simple ways that are used in systems already. whereby if these businesses have good systems in place, good food safety management controls, that should be recognised by the frequency or intensity of the regulatory interventions, it’s just a question of putting some more flesh on the bone in relation to that, in more of the sort of food sectors where currently it doesn’t operate at all.
Dom Burch:
David, what’s your thoughts and sort of one eye on the future, right, and perhaps with a kind of positive eye on the future, because we were all aware of the risks and the concerns that sit around this sector.
David Edwards:
I’ve always been, you know, in life being an early adopter of technology, and I think it can really make a fundamental difference, right. So we can dramatically improve the efficiency of the inspection process, we haven’t even talked about remote inspections, using, you know, wearable tech, to do inspections remotely with one inspector being able to get round many, many premises in a day rather than drive from one to the other. So the technology I think, will be really good. One elephant in the room, there are also professional jealousies, you know, there, the veterinary profession, bless them are sort of holding on to that inspection responsibility that they have, I think they need to embrace the technology. And there are circumstances where we can use lower cost resource. I totally, except under the control and guise of a veterinary inspector. But we can then make them very much more efficient, because some of the jobs they’re doing are really not justified by five years worth of, since my daughter’s a vet, I know how painful it is to qualify as a vet. Some some of the tasks that they’re asked to do at the moment in the Import / Export world at particularly, are just so mundane, that they don’t need to be done by people that have that expertise. And that would massively increase the efficiency and reduce the cost, you know, and talk about what what does industry want what he wants better, faster, cheaper, doesn’t it always better, faster, cheaper, one of those three or any combination, and we can get there, we can get to better, faster, cheaper, right across the board.
Dom Burch:
John, final thoughts from you?
John Barnes:
I think that what would be great is seeing industry take a step toward the regulator more, and not sort of move away from them and just hope they never see them. But to say, look, we’ve got the systems like you described Dom, we’ve got this, we’d love to operate a pilot to see if you could have confidence in what we’re doing. Let’s look at how we can share information.
Dom Burch:
Brilliant. Well, listen, gentlemen, I’m gonna leave it there. I know that somebody has an important birthday, of a partner that they need to celebrate. And I don’t want to be the reason they got into trouble today. But in the meantime, David Edwards, John Barnes, thank you so much coming on to ubloquity’s podcast. As I say, I look forward to welcoming you back in the months ahead. Because I think we all know, there’s some really exciting stuff happening behind the scenes, not quite for the public’s consumption, but certainly work underway where we are going to bring together Technology Science and regulators to try and solve this, this issue. But in the meantime, John, David, thank you so much for coming on.
John Barnes:
Thanks Dom.
David Edwards:
Thank you.
