col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-12
col-lg-12
col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-12
col-lg-12
videoType
dynamic-media
videoDmUrl
https://delivery-p136806-e1377785.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:b5cf90d7-3eaf-4165-8f23-870ee6eaea8a/play?assetname=WDR2025-Private_Food_Safety_Standards.mp4
keyFrameImage
timestamp

00:00 Welcome everybody,

00:01 uh,

00:01 to the World Development Report

00:03 2025 Standards for Development seminar series.

00:09 Today,

00:09 we're gonna be talking about um

00:12 private food safety standards with uh Spencer Henson,

00:17 who's a professor

00:18 at the University of Guelph in Canada

00:21 and uh has been working in the issue of food standards for

00:25 For decades now and he's one of the,

00:27 the main specialists

00:29 on,

00:29 on the subject and um

00:32 He's gonna do a 30 minute presentation

00:34 focusing on,

00:35 on the proliferation of these private food standards and what it means

00:39 in terms of the governance,

00:41 but also

00:42 on extrapolating

00:44 perhaps to to sustainability standards as well.

00:46 What are,

00:47 what are the lessons.

00:48 So

00:49 over to you,

00:50 Spencer,

00:51 um,

00:51 we'll have a Q&A

00:53 session after he,

00:54 he finishes.

00:56 Um,

00:57 so keep your,

00:57 your questions unless there is something that is,

00:59 is really pressing

01:01 that you need clarification.

01:02 Over to you,

01:03 Spencer.

01:04 Fabulous.

01:05 Thanks so much,

01:06 Chavi,

01:06 and um if there are any fellow Canadians on,

01:09 then happy Canada Day.

01:11 Um,

01:13 let me share my screen.

01:16 OK,

01:17 you can see that OK?

01:21 Yes,

01:22 so you may want to maximize.

01:23 There we go.

01:24 All right,

01:24 wonderful.

01:26 So,

01:27 I am going to talk to you about um the.

01:33 The,

01:34 the nature,

01:34 the evolution,

01:36 etc.

01:37 of private food safety standards,

01:40 um,

01:41 in the context of the agri-food system,

01:43 but particularly with a focus on,

01:46 on food safety.

01:47 This is something that,

01:49 as Chavia said,

01:49 I've worked on for a long time,

01:51 so

01:52 I will try and keep it to 30 minutes cos it's something I can

01:56 talk about for hours,

01:58 um.

01:59 This is an area that is of interest to,

02:04 to many people,

02:05 um,

02:06 not those that are just interested in food safety,

02:09 because in the context of food safety,

02:11 private standards have emerged

02:14 as a dominant mechanism,

02:16 um,

02:16 for governance in,

02:18 uh,

02:19 agri-food value chains in high income countries,

02:23 but also globally.

02:24 Um,

02:25 and the evolution of private food safety standards has

02:29 raised a lot of questions about the role,

02:32 uh,

02:32 of private standards in terms of,

02:36 uh,

02:36 governance of,

02:37 um,

02:38 of,

02:39 of agri-food systems.

02:40 So for example,

02:42 uh,

02:42 whether they allow high levels of food safety to be achieved.

02:45 Um,

02:47 uh,

02:47 with greater efficiency and greater effectiveness,

02:50 um,

02:50 but at the same time,

02:52 there are a lot of concerns about their wider implications,

02:56 implications for the role of the state,

02:58 for democracy,

02:59 uh,

02:59 impacts on power,

03:01 um,

03:02 competitiveness in agri-food value chains,

03:05 uh,

03:05 etc.

03:06 And

03:07 there's a lot of debate over whether

03:10 the lessons from food safety can be

03:13 um

03:14 can,

03:15 can,

03:15 can be applied in,

03:17 in,

03:17 in other contexts,

03:19 so in low and middle income countries,

03:21 for issues like sustainability,

03:24 um,

03:25 etc.

03:26 cos there is no doubt that private food

03:28 standards have emerged as a dominant mechanism for,

03:32 for governance,

03:33 um.

03:34 Uh,

03:34 and,

03:34 um,

03:35 so we're gonna be looking at some of those issues,

03:38 uh,

03:38 in,

03:38 in,

03:39 in this seminar.

03:44 Um,

03:44 some of the key questions that I

03:47 want to address,

03:48 um,

03:49 are,

03:50 you know,

03:50 why did private food standards develop in the first place,

03:54 and what roles do they play?

03:57 Um,

03:58 and

03:59 what are the implications and what are

04:01 the intersections between food safety standards,

04:05 private food safety standards,

04:07 and regulations?

04:09 And then think about the implications,

04:11 the implications for

04:14 something that developed predominantly in high income countries,

04:18 for lower and middle income countries,

04:20 and for

04:21 sustainability and,

04:23 and potentially other

04:24 um er aspects of the performance of um of the agrifood system.

04:33 First of all,

04:34 what are we talking about?

04:35 Well,

04:36 private food safety standards are

04:38 entities of um governance that are elaborated by non-state actors.

04:46 Now those non-state actors can be for-profit entities

04:50 or not for profit entities,

04:52 we,

04:52 we see a variety.

04:54 They're non-regulatory in,

04:56 in,

04:56 in their nature,

04:57 so that means that

04:58 they do not have the force of the state behind them.

05:02 That can compel

05:03 compliance,

05:05 but that does not mean that in the realities of life,

05:09 they are not de facto mandatory.

05:12 In fact,

05:13 they have um emerged as a mechanism

05:17 of um of what is called private governance.

05:21 They are,

05:21 I would argue,

05:22 they're not a mechanism of self-regulation,

05:26 so,

05:26 so,

05:27 you know,

05:28 food processing enterprises,

05:30 adopting these standards,

05:32 applying these standards to regulate themselves.

05:35 They are actually compelled

05:37 to

05:38 um comply with these um

05:41 private standards by their customers.

05:44 So they're actually a mechanism of private governance,

05:46 and they're actually operationalized within a

05:49 system of private contractual relations,

05:52 that is,

05:53 is,

05:54 is highly complex in,

05:55 in nature.

05:58 So

05:58 to give you,

05:59 so this is the sort of setup that we see,

06:02 and I'm gonna use the example of Global GAP.

06:04 Global GAP

06:05 may be a standard that you have heard of,

06:08 it is a,

06:09 the most widely applied global standard for good agricultural practice.

06:14 Um,

06:15 currently around 190,000 farmers across the world

06:20 are,

06:21 um,

06:21 certified,

06:22 comply with the global gap standards.

06:25 Global GAP,

06:26 that is the standard setter,

06:29 has contractual relations with 193 certification bodies,

06:34 totally independent of Global GP

06:37 around the world,

06:38 and it is these bodies

06:40 that

06:41 uh undertake certification

06:43 of farmers.

06:46 Now,

06:46 the farmers themselves have to comply

06:50 because they're required to be certified

06:53 by their buyers,

06:54 predominantly large supermarket chains,

06:57 um,

06:58 food service,

06:59 um chains,

07:00 etc.

07:01 around the world,

07:01 and,

07:02 and also some um food processors.

07:05 The certification bodies

07:08 uh are essentially charged

07:11 uh to,

07:11 with the task of certifying farmers,

07:15 but they themselves have to be accredited.

07:18 Uh,

07:18 and there is a whole mechanism,

07:20 again,

07:21 forms of contractual.

07:22 Relation

07:23 to make sure that these er certification bodies uh are robust,

07:28 and so we have this complex system,

07:30 essentially of contractual relations,

07:33 um,

07:33 that underlie

07:35 this,

07:35 this,

07:35 this system of,

07:36 of,

07:37 of uh private standards.

07:42 Now we see a variety of private food safety standards um

07:47 existing.

07:49 And what is interesting about the whole system is that it's highly dynamic,

07:55 um,

07:55 and essentially we have this marketplace of,

07:59 of food safety standards.

08:00 So these standards in many ways compete against one another.

08:05 We can have individual business standards,

08:07 so we could have,

08:08 for example,

08:09 Tesco,

08:09 one of the,

08:10 the largest food,

08:11 um,

08:12 um,

08:13 retailers in the UK.

08:14 It has its own,

08:16 um,

08:17 food safety standard for,

08:19 um,

08:20 a sub-brand called Nature's Choice.

08:22 Um,

08:23 it has established it itself and applies it,

08:27 requires,

08:28 um,

08:28 um,

08:29 certification amongst its suppliers.

08:32 We can also have collective standards,

08:35 they can be national in focus,

08:38 so using the UK as an example,

08:40 there's a,

08:41 there are a set of standards called um assured food standards,

08:45 again for farmers

08:47 that are established through um involving retailers and,

08:52 and representatives of the agricultural sector

08:54 that applied nationally within the UK.

08:58 We can also have collective standards that are international in focus.

09:02 For example,

09:03 uh,

09:04 International Features Standard,

09:06 is,

09:06 is,

09:06 is an organization

09:08 that essentially represents,

09:10 um,

09:11 supermarket chains in Germany and in France.

09:14 Global Gap would be another example of

09:18 uh a collective standards that are applied internationally.

09:22 And so we have this,

09:23 this,

09:24 this,

09:24 this terrain

09:26 uh of,

09:27 of standards

09:28 that er are in place to govern food safety in food processing,

09:33 in um in,

09:34 in agriculture,

09:35 etc.

09:36 and it's dynamic and competitive er in,

09:39 in nature.

09:43 So,

09:44 I said,

09:45 190,000 farmers across the world are certified to Global GAP,

09:50 around 100,000

09:52 food processing establishments

09:55 are certified to the top five or six

09:59 food safety standards for,

10:01 for processing.

10:02 Why did these things emerge?

10:05 Well,

10:06 you could spend hours in the,

10:08 on looking at this story,

10:10 but essentially,

10:12 it is,

10:12 they have emerged because of a complex interaction,

10:17 uh interplay

10:18 between a a variety of factors.

10:22 Undoubtedly,

10:23 there have been at times quite prominent

10:26 failures in terms of food safety that have raised concerns,

10:30 issues around the robustness of regulations.

10:34 That's raised concerns amongst consumers,

10:36 so the consumers have had heightened interest and,

10:40 and,

10:40 and worries about the the safety of the food they buy.

10:44 This has induced regulatory reform,

10:47 so this is the role of the state.

10:50 Uh,

10:51 stricter food safety requirements,

10:53 um,

10:53 new liability laws,

10:55 new requirements in terms of,

10:58 um,

10:58 of food suppliers being proactive in,

11:01 in ensuring the food that they,

11:03 that they supply is safe.

11:06 But

11:07 At the same time,

11:09 there has been the growing consolidation

11:11 and globalization of agri agrifood systems,

11:14 major food retailers selling

11:17 um er foods under their own brands,

11:20 and this has meant that the regulatory reforms have induced actions on the part of,

11:26 of dominant players within the agrifood um

11:30 system,

11:31 what are often called lead firms.

11:33 That,

11:34 that have led them to

11:36 um

11:37 induce

11:38 the development of,

11:40 of,

11:40 of private um food safety standards.

11:43 So we have this complex interplayer of

11:47 a,

11:47 a whole variety of factors,

11:49 um,

11:50 that has led to the evolution of private food standards,

11:54 um,

11:55 er for food safety as a key er form of governance.

12:00 Now these standards themselves,

12:03 um,

12:04 have evolved over time,

12:06 um.

12:08 So initially,

12:09 what we saw was,

12:10 for example,

12:11 food retailers would say,

12:13 OK,

12:14 if you're a food processor,

12:16 you wanna supply us,

12:17 these are the things you have to do

12:20 before

12:20 we're gonna buy from you.

12:22 Go away,

12:23 these,

12:24 this is our standard.

12:26 And tell us when you've complied.

12:29 Now,

12:29 that self-certification by processors,

12:32 um,

12:33 you know,

12:33 it,

12:34 um,

12:35 well,

12:35 was OK,

12:36 but it didn't give retailers,

12:38 for example,

12:39 the level of assurance they needed.

12:42 So that then led to the evolution of what is called second party standards.

12:46 So the retailers,

12:47 for example,

12:48 began to inspect their suppliers themselves.

12:51 So they would have their standards,

12:53 they would go to their,

12:54 their,

12:54 their suppliers or potential suppliers and check.

12:58 But of course that imposed huge costs on,

13:02 on retailers,

13:03 for example.

13:04 So the retailers got together and then they said,

13:07 well.

13:08 Why don't we

13:10 look at the,

13:11 the establishment of standards that,

13:14 um,

13:14 we,

13:14 we all are happy with,

13:16 that we all,

13:17 um,

13:18 it,

13:18 it would,

13:18 they all meet our requirements,

13:20 and what we will say to our suppliers is

13:23 get somebody

13:25 else to check

13:26 that you,

13:27 that you comply with these standards,

13:29 so.

13:30 Go to somebody else who will audit you

13:32 and will,

13:33 will confirm

13:35 that you actually do meet these requirements.

13:38 And then that led

13:39 to the,

13:41 finally,

13:41 the establishment of what are called third party assurance schemes,

13:45 like the contractual relation that I showed you earlier,

13:49 essentially where we had a system

13:51 where,

13:52 Um,

13:53 there were,

13:54 um,

13:55 third parties were setting food safety,

13:57 uh,

13:57 private food safety standards.

14:00 They had contractual relations with organizations that would certify and audit,

14:05 etc.

14:06 and that's

14:07 the predominant form that we see today.

14:09 That does not mean that these other forms have,

14:13 have,

14:13 have died.

14:14 They haven't.

14:15 There are,

14:16 is still interplays between these,

14:19 between these,

14:19 these different entities.

14:25 So what role do private food standards play?

14:28 I would argue

14:30 that

14:31 they have two

14:33 potentially important functions.

14:35 One is risk management,

14:37 that is

14:38 assuring,

14:39 for example,

14:40 food retailers that the farmers they buy from,

14:43 the food processors they buy from,

14:45 um,

14:46 have robust food safety controls,

14:49 so that

14:50 there are not going to be,

14:51 you know,

14:51 outbreaks of foodborne illness,

14:53 and,

14:55 And or

14:56 um instances of regulatory non-compliance,

14:59 so they have a risk management function.

15:03 And then they have potentially a product differentiation

15:06 function,

15:07 which we see

15:08 in areas outside of food safety.

15:12 Now I would argue that what you've seen predominantly in the realm of food safety is

15:18 minimal

15:19 product differentiation.

15:21 In fact,

15:21 for most private food safety standards,

15:24 you are not allowed

15:25 to even label a product

15:27 that

15:28 that has been produced under conditions that comply with these standards,

15:32 but they're really about

15:34 risk management.

15:36 And for lead firms,

15:39 dominant firms within agri-food,

15:42 um,

15:43 systems,

15:44 when it comes to food safety,

15:46 they essentially,

15:48 um,

15:49 are trying to balance,

15:52 Achieving an appropriate level of risk management,

15:55 that is appropriate level of

15:58 assurance against food safety

16:00 failures

16:01 and cost.

16:04 You know,

16:05 it could well be that the highest level of assurance would be

16:09 achieved when a lead firm is going to check that its suppliers.

16:14 Meet its food safety requirements,

16:16 but that's expensive,

16:17 so it's about a balance between cost

16:21 and risk management,

16:22 and,

16:22 and the whole system

16:24 is really about

16:26 achieving an appropriate balance for particular buyers,

16:31 dominant buyers

16:32 within

16:33 the agrifood system.

16:35 That's really

16:36 what this whole system

16:38 is about.

16:43 Now,

16:45 This has led

16:47 to a lot of very active debates um

16:51 and concerns about

16:54 where does this leave regulations,

16:56 where does this leave international standards.

16:59 If these private food safety standards have become

17:02 so

17:03 pervasive.

17:05 What is the remaining role of regulators in,

17:08 in,

17:08 in national er contexts where private food safety standards uh

17:13 uh have been adopted so widely,

17:15 where this certification is,

17:17 is so widespread?

17:18 What is the role of Codex standards,

17:20 of other standards in terms of

17:22 um of,

17:23 of

17:24 governing food safety?

17:28 How you have to see

17:30 private food safety standards

17:32 is as part of an overall regulatory regime.

17:38 And there are complex interplays between regulations,

17:42 international standards,

17:43 and private food safety standards.

17:45 So for example,

17:46 private food safety standards,

17:48 I would argue,

17:49 have been a response to

17:52 food safety regulations.

17:55 At the same time,

17:57 regulators nationally

17:59 are

18:00 certainly in,

18:01 in Europe,

18:02 er,

18:03 in Canada,

18:04 for example,

18:05 er Australia,

18:07 regulators are beginning to recognize private food safety standards

18:13 in determining

18:14 how they enforce regulations.

18:17 Um,

18:18 so there is a,

18:19 a two-way

18:21 interaction between food safety regulations and private food safety standards.

18:27 Private food safety standards

18:28 uh are

18:30 costly

18:31 and time consuming.

18:34 To establish.

18:35 So the starting point

18:37 for private food safety standards

18:40 is often international standards.

18:42 So for example,

18:43 the,

18:43 the,

18:44 a lot of the principles,

18:45 the guidelines,

18:47 the,

18:48 the,

18:49 the terminologies established by Codex have been critical.

18:54 To establishing food safety standards,

18:56 and arguably,

18:57 private food safety standards wouldn't have developed in

19:00 the way they have without those international standards,

19:03 for example,

19:05 um,

19:05 and so there is a complex interplay between these,

19:09 these,

19:10 these,

19:10 these entities

19:12 within

19:13 the,

19:13 the whole system of governance,

19:15 um,

19:16 for food safety.

19:17 It's a,

19:17 it's a highly complex terrain.

19:24 I've argued,

19:25 and I,

19:26 you know,

19:26 I,

19:26 I've suggested to you there's been a lot of debate about,

19:29 you know,

19:30 the,

19:30 the wider implications of,

19:32 um,

19:33 er,

19:33 food,

19:34 private food safety standards for,

19:36 for the role of government,

19:37 for democracy,

19:38 for accountability,

19:39 etc.

19:40 but.

19:41 Arguably,

19:42 the,

19:43 the biggest concerns,

19:44 certainly within a development context,

19:47 have been about the impacts on low and middle income countries,

19:51 and in fact,

19:52 there have been,

19:53 you know,

19:53 periodically,

19:55 um er

19:57 concerns raised.

19:58 For example,

19:59 within the WTO

20:01 about the impacts of private food safety standards on,

20:04 um,

20:05 on low and middle income countries.

20:07 And the,

20:07 the,

20:08 the concerns are around,

20:10 particularly about compliance,

20:12 that,

20:12 that there's no doubt that a lot of er of,

20:15 of,

20:16 of low and middle income countries have,

20:18 have struggled to comply.

20:20 Um,

20:21 and,

20:21 and,

20:22 you know,

20:22 exporters therein have struggled to comply,

20:26 but then there is a,

20:27 and there have certainly been arguments that there should be accommodation

20:31 for the special needs,

20:33 the special context of lower

20:35 low middle income countries when it comes to these private food safety standards,

20:39 but.

20:40 That then raises issues about um

20:43 whether these standards,

20:45 if

20:45 they accommodate the,

20:47 the,

20:47 the situations of low and middle income countries,

20:50 actually

20:51 provide the level of assurance that

20:54 the lead firms that are adopting them actually are looking for.

20:58 There are a lot of debates about impacts on trade,

21:00 about whether they facilitate trade or they act as barriers to trade.

21:04 There are concerns about the induced restructuring of agrifood value chains,

21:09 about,

21:10 about who,

21:11 who covers the costs of these things,

21:13 who bears the burden of certification,

21:15 whether that benefits um er

21:18 er

21:19 dominant firms within agri-food value chains because of,

21:23 of economies of scale.

21:25 And there are a lot of debates about

21:26 the impacts on vulnerable agri-food value chain actors,

21:30 you know,

21:30 smallholders,

21:32 on,

21:32 um,

21:33 poorer producers,

21:35 um,

21:35 uh,

21:36 etc.

21:37 so.

21:38 This is an area of a lot of,

21:40 of,

21:41 of,

21:41 of debate,

21:42 concern,

21:43 etc.

21:44 um,

21:44 um,

21:45 not all of it,

21:46 um,

21:47 er,

21:48 fully,

21:48 um,

21:49 uh,

21:49 driven by,

21:50 by evidence,

21:51 but,

21:51 but certainly,

21:53 um,

21:53 uh,

21:54 a lot of,

21:54 a lot of these are the issues that we,

21:56 we see

21:57 coming up.

22:02 These are,

22:02 they are beginning to be

22:04 um

22:06 discussions about the implications for food safety

22:09 governance in low and middle income countries.

22:12 As I've said,

22:12 predominantly

22:14 private food standards

22:16 have um emerged

22:19 and have become um most pervasive

22:22 in high income countries.

22:25 But there are certainly now um er

22:30 questions and suggestions that,

22:33 you know,

22:34 they,

22:35 they certainly have implications,

22:36 but maybe

22:37 offer,

22:39 you know,

22:39 valuable opportunities for

22:41 um low and middle income countries where regulatory systems are

22:47 underdeveloped,

22:48 have,

22:48 have,

22:49 have particular weaknesses.

22:52 There's no doubt that private food safety standards can

22:55 be a very significant mechanism of technology transfer.

23:00 There are potentially

23:02 significant public

23:03 good aspects from um,

23:05 from these things,

23:06 so the global gap standards,

23:08 for example.

23:10 Uh,

23:10 are embody a lot of technical expertise,

23:14 of technical knowledge,

23:15 of,

23:15 of experience,

23:17 um,

23:17 and so the standards themselves

23:20 can be a,

23:21 a significant mechanism of,

23:23 of,

23:23 of,

23:24 um,

23:24 capacity development of,

23:26 of,

23:26 of,

23:26 um,

23:27 knowledge transfer.

23:31 Now what we know is that these standards have almost

23:35 universally developed in the context of robust regulatory systems,

23:41 that is what we've seen.

23:43 And so that raises some very interesting questions about

23:47 whether these standards,

23:47 how well private food safety standards

23:51 operate.

23:52 In the context of weak regulatory systems,

23:55 because

23:56 predominantly,

23:57 private food safety standards have not evolved

24:00 as a substitute for strong regulation,

24:04 they have evolved alongside

24:07 strong,

24:08 um regulation,

24:09 and that,

24:09 so that raises,

24:10 I think some,

24:11 some interesting questions about really whether,

24:14 um,

24:15 private food safety standards can plug the gaps where we have weak

24:20 food safety regulations.

24:23 At the same time,

24:23 however,

24:24 it,

24:24 they do raise some very interesting questions about regulatory models,

24:29 about

24:30 models like co-regulation,

24:32 responsive regulation,

24:33 etc.

24:34 so that

24:35 they,

24:35 they,

24:35 they raise,

24:36 I think,

24:36 some,

24:36 some,

24:37 some interesting,

24:38 uh,

24:39 suggestions and questions as to

24:41 how food safety regulations might and should evolve in

24:46 the context of low and middle income countries.

24:50 But at the same time,

24:51 I think,

24:51 you know,

24:52 they,

24:52 there,

24:52 there is some evidence that

24:55 already that we're seeing diversion of resources away from

24:59 um regulatory systems and,

25:01 and development of regulatory capacity,

25:04 um,

25:04 which,

25:05 you know,

25:05 I think it are

25:06 are things we need to keep in mind.

25:10 Finally,

25:13 What about

25:14 um

25:15 areas beyond

25:17 food safety,

25:18 for example,

25:19 sustainability.

25:22 What lessons might we learn,

25:24 um,

25:26 for.

25:28 Sustainability,

25:29 as an example,

25:31 from

25:31 what we've seen

25:33 in,

25:34 um,

25:35 in the food safety sphere.

25:37 So,

25:38 you know,

25:39 what are the,

25:39 the,

25:40 the,

25:40 the,

25:41 the positives and the negatives

25:43 that are,

25:43 that we've observed when it comes to private food safety standards,

25:47 um.

25:48 What can we learn from

25:51 the uh

25:52 the,

25:52 the,

25:53 the the the,

25:54 the widespread development and adoption,

25:56 um,

25:57 and evolution

25:58 of private standards for food safety when it comes to areas like sustainability,

26:03 where we have not seen that.

26:06 I think

26:07 there's some very important

26:09 um principles and lessons.

26:11 First of all,

26:13 the role of regulations versus standards.

26:15 In a lot of areas like sustainability and,

26:18 and other areas,

26:20 predominantly,

26:22 how standards are seen is as a mechanism

26:26 that essentially er provides means of differentiation.

26:32 Um,

26:33 when it comes to

26:34 businesses that are already,

26:37 you know,

26:38 high performers,

26:39 for example,

26:39 with respect to sustainability,

26:41 and what regulation does is essentially set the foundation.

26:45 What it does is to move the average within,

26:48 within the system,

26:49 or

26:50 lay down a,

26:51 a minimum that we,

26:53 that we want to see.

26:55 Now that sees standards and regulations as distinct entities.

27:00 Now what we,

27:01 we know from private food safety standards is that that's not

27:05 actually what what what exists.

27:07 That regulations and standards are,

27:10 are very closely aligned and,

27:13 and attuned to one another.

27:15 And maybe seeing regulations and standards in that way,

27:19 uh,

27:19 is important when it comes to sustainability.

27:24 Secondly,

27:25 is

27:26 the evolution

27:27 of standards

27:29 where

27:30 regulations and international standards are not so well developed.

27:35 That's what we see with sustainability.

27:37 We don't have

27:39 a a whole portfolio of international standards

27:43 like we see um for food safety,

27:45 for example,

27:45 they've developed,

27:46 been.

27:47 Developed by um Codex Alimentarius,

27:49 we do not see

27:51 such well developed

27:52 national regulations.

27:54 What that means is the transaction costs of developing

27:58 standards,

27:58 private standards for sustainability are potentially extremely high.

28:04 Um,

28:04 and the question comes,

28:06 who is gonna bear those costs?

28:09 Another key thing that comes out of food safety

28:13 is the key role of lead firms.

28:17 That lead firms,

28:18 supermarket chains,

28:20 food service chains

28:22 within high income countries,

28:24 some large food processing,

28:26 um er operations

28:28 have been

28:29 critical

28:30 in terms of driving the development of private

28:34 food safety standards,

28:35 cos it's these firms that have adopted them

28:37 and essentially required compliance by their suppliers.

28:43 Then there's the importance of legitimacy.

28:45 The reason why private food safety standards have evolved,

28:48 and,

28:49 and have been so critical,

28:51 um,

28:51 in,

28:51 in,

28:52 in,

28:52 in governing food safety,

28:54 is because they are seen as legitimate mechanisms on the,

28:58 in the context of food safety.

29:01 Uh,

29:01 Amongst lead firms,

29:02 and that legitimacy and how it's established and how it,

29:05 um,

29:06 is maintained,

29:07 uh,

29:08 is,

29:08 is a critical,

29:10 um,

29:10 piece of the jigsaw

29:12 that we have to remain mindful of,

29:14 for example,

29:15 in the area of,

29:16 of,

29:16 of,

29:17 um,

29:17 sustainability.

29:19 And then finally,

29:20 there's the role in technology transfer,

29:22 there is no doubt that,

29:24 um,

29:25 That private food safety standards have,

29:27 have been a critical

29:29 mechanism of

29:31 transferring expertise and capacity

29:34 between high income countries and low and middle income countries,

29:37 uh low and middle income countries in the context of the of,

29:40 of global er agrifood value chains.

29:44 So I'm gonna leave it

29:46 there,

29:47 um,

29:48 thank you very much,

29:49 um.

29:50 I'm happy to answer any questions,

29:52 um,

29:53 if you've got,

29:53 if you disagree with anything,

29:55 if you uh have your own um

29:57 um perspectives,

29:59 that would be,

30:00 that would be great.

30:01 Thanks so much.

30:03 Thank you,

30:03 Spencer.

30:04 Thank you very much.

30:05 Um,

30:05 you stick on time,

30:06 50 minutes.

30:08 Uh,

30:09 OK,

30:09 so let me open to,

30:11 to questions

30:13 to the colleagues,

30:13 but,

30:14 um,

30:15 perhaps I can start with,

30:16 with one question myself,

30:18 um,

30:19 so.

30:21 11 issue though,

30:22 once you,

30:23 so once you establish this sort of

30:26 risk management and um

30:29 The kind of burden of proof as well to to a lot of these big buyers

30:34 uh in agro industry.

30:36 And you start developing private standards,

30:39 right?

30:40 I think

30:41 my concern is how much of the,

30:43 what you have seen in the last 10 years perhaps

30:46 is less on

30:49 the risk part.

30:51 And more into

30:53 the protectionism,

30:55 uh,

30:55 lead firms

30:57 in

30:57 captive investments in the value chain.

31:00 So it starts,

31:01 in,

31:01 in other words,

31:02 it starts like we need to manage this risk.

31:05 Consumers are also becoming more sophisticated.

31:08 There is a need,

31:08 a need for product differentiation.

31:10 But then you start seeing also

31:13 the benefits of all these private governance

31:17 in terms of uh having captive investments and

31:22 and these relational contracts that are very exclusive.

31:25 So how much

31:26 you see in the last 10 years a shift towards more

31:29 the value chain,

31:30 uh,

31:30 some competition issues rather than than food safety.

31:34 Yeah,

31:35 yeah,

31:35 I mean that,

31:35 that,

31:36 I mean that's uh

31:38 certainly

31:40 amongst the concerns that,

31:42 that,

31:42 that are raised,

31:44 um,

31:45 and,

31:45 um,

31:46 and there is no doubt

31:48 that these are mechanisms that are

31:52 used by

31:54 lead firms

31:55 to

31:56 one,

31:56 reallocate costs within

31:59 the agrifood system.

32:00 You know,

32:01 so essentially they push the costs

32:04 onto their suppliers,

32:06 you know,

32:06 through

32:07 third party certification

32:09 that then get dissipated in the system,

32:12 you know,

32:12 and some may be passed back to them through the prices that they pay,

32:16 but a lot of it gets dissipated and absorbed elsewhere.

32:20 I think there is the important issue here of

32:24 what is the collective interest of lead firms.

32:28 Because they have a collective interest in

32:32 er avoiding food safety problems.

32:36 Um,

32:36 you know,

32:37 so they have an individual interest in,

32:39 no doubt,

32:40 in what they supply

32:42 being seen as safe and,

32:45 you know,

32:45 ideally safer

32:47 than their competitors,

32:49 but at the same time,

32:51 they have an interest in,

32:53 in general,

32:54 in food being seen as safe,

32:57 because,

32:57 uh,

32:58 you can't,

32:58 you,

32:58 you know,

32:58 consumers don't always

33:00 correctly,

33:01 you know,

33:02 associate,

33:03 you know,

33:04 What made them sick,

33:06 you know,

33:07 you know,

33:07 um,

33:07 you know,

33:08 uh,

33:08 and,

33:09 you know,

33:09 so,

33:09 so that's an issue

33:11 within the system.

33:12 There's,

33:12 there's no doubt,

33:13 but

33:14 it is very interesting that

33:17 what we are seeing in the last 10 years,

33:21 uh,

33:21 maybe even more recently,

33:23 is a backtracking in the system,

33:26 so

33:26 that you undoubtedly are seeing some of the lead firms,

33:31 and certainly the,

33:33 The,

33:33 the dominant global players,

33:35 like some of the,

33:36 the,

33:36 the large um food service chains,

33:40 backtracking from,

33:42 um,

33:43 third party certification,

33:45 and,

33:46 uh,

33:47 adding on their own individual requirements again.

33:50 Um,

33:50 and so it's,

33:51 it's again,

33:52 it's this,

33:52 this balance between

33:54 this being

33:55 between the two.

33:57 The other thing I think it's important to,

33:59 to recognize here is that,

34:02 Yes,

34:03 you can certainly see that um these are mechanisms of power.

34:08 But there's also

34:10 what is important for

34:12 lead firms,

34:14 is the ability to be able to switch between suppliers.

34:18 Um,

34:19 and

34:20 one of the benefits of third party certification is that

34:24 you have,

34:26 to the extent that you accept a,

34:28 uh,

34:28 a wider group of standards,

34:31 you have the ability to switch.

34:34 Between suppliers more easily

34:36 than

34:37 if you,

34:37 if you only apply your own standard,

34:40 you know,

34:40 and,

34:41 and then you can,

34:42 you know,

34:42 you,

34:42 you,

34:43 you are naturally restricting your supply base,

34:46 so it's,

34:46 it's a,

34:47 it's,

34:47 it,

34:48 it's complex,

34:50 is,

34:50 is,

34:50 you know,

34:50 is,

34:51 is what I would argue.

34:52 Mhm.

34:54 Thanks.

34:54 Uh,

34:55 so I think there are a couple of questions.

34:57 Uh,

34:57 Xby with a new start,

34:58 and then Artaba,

35:00 let's take 2 or 3 questions.

35:03 Uh,

35:03 sure.

35:03 Thank you.

35:04 Um,

35:05 thank you,

35:05 Spencer.

35:05 So,

35:06 actually,

35:07 um,

35:07 my question relates to,

35:09 um,

35:11 More,

35:12 more the regulation rather than the private standards.

35:14 So,

35:15 so,

35:15 you know,

35:16 we've been tracking,

35:17 uh,

35:18 how countries

35:19 set,

35:20 uh,

35:20 maximum residue levels,

35:22 uh,

35:22 for various commodities,

35:23 and this is,

35:23 you know,

35:24 across,

35:24 uh,

35:25 the whole gamut of,

35:26 of countries.

35:26 So from low income countries to high income countries,

35:30 and by and large we find that

35:31 they do,

35:33 they do follow,

35:34 uh,

35:34 codex when,

35:35 whenever,

35:36 whenever possible,

35:37 and so.

35:38 So this is,

35:39 you know,

35:39 as far as

35:40 how they set standards,

35:41 but,

35:42 but I'm,

35:42 I'm,

35:42 you know,

35:43 the question is really

35:44 how they go about

35:45 conforming with set standards.

35:47 I mean,

35:48 you know,

35:48 take a country like,

35:50 well,

35:50 take any,

35:50 any low-income country,

35:52 right?

35:52 I mean,

35:53 you know,

35:53 there,

35:53 it's typically,

35:55 you know,

35:56 agricultural production is done by smallholder farmers.

36:00 I mean,

36:01 you know,

36:01 there's very little,

36:02 uh,

36:03 capacity in terms of labs that can actually test.

36:07 So,

36:08 so

36:09 what,

36:09 you know,

36:09 what they,

36:10 how do they,

36:11 you know,

36:11 I mean,

36:12 of course you could,

36:13 you could restrict the number of pesticides that get into the country because

36:17 probably they're not produced,

36:18 uh,

36:18 in,

36:19 in country,

36:19 but then also there's the application,

36:21 right,

36:21 because,

36:22 you know,

36:23 part of the MRL is that you don't put too much stuff and,

36:26 and of course this requires,

36:27 uh,

36:28 uh,

36:28 you know.

36:29 Uh,

36:29 uh,

36:29 uh,

36:30 uh,

36:30 you know,

36:30 um,

36:32 machines or whatever,

36:33 uh,

36:33 you know,

36:33 that are,

36:34 that are calibrated for,

36:36 you know,

36:36 for,

36:37 you know,

36:37 when you spread the pesticide or whatever,

36:39 and so,

36:39 and,

36:40 you know,

36:40 we know that a lot of these farmers don't need,

36:42 don't have these,

36:43 these tools.

36:44 So,

36:44 so I guess the question is how,

36:46 yes,

36:47 you can set the MRL,

36:48 and this is again,

36:49 this is regulation,

36:50 right?

36:50 So as you say,

36:51 this

36:52 sort of establishes a floor,

36:53 if you will,

36:54 for every producer

36:55 that wants to sell domestically,

36:57 right.

36:58 Um,

36:59 but,

36:59 but how is that enforced,

37:00 or,

37:00 you know,

37:01 how,

37:01 how,

37:02 you know,

37:02 how,

37:03 yeah,

37:03 given,

37:04 given the,

37:05 given the,

37:05 the,

37:05 the,

37:06 the,

37:06 the way the,

37:07 you know,

37:07 given the,

37:08 the production structure,

37:09 if you will,

37:10 right,

37:10 given the,

37:11 the,

37:11 you know,

37:11 the,

37:12 the,

37:12 the firm size distribution and whatnot.

37:15 Yeah,

37:16 OK,

37:16 shall we,

37:17 shall we get a couple more questions,

37:18 or you wanna answer?

37:19 No,

37:20 no,

37:20 sure,

37:20 then I can.

37:22 Artabas,

37:22 do you wanna make the question instead of me reading?

37:24 I think it's gonna be more effective.

37:29 Hi,

37:30 everyone.

37:31 And thank you,

37:31 very interesting,

37:33 uh,

37:34 talk,

37:34 uh,

37:34 Spencer,

37:35 and,

37:35 uh,

37:36 quite,

37:36 uh,

37:36 thought-provoking as well.

37:39 Um,

37:39 so I,

37:40 I guess one thing you mentioned that,

37:42 uh,

37:42 stuck with me

37:43 as standards as technology transfer,

37:47 and I think

37:48 when we look at our work in the development,

37:50 we really,

37:51 uh,

37:52 in terms of

37:53 capacity building for farmers and,

37:56 um,

37:57 you know,

37:57 trying to,

37:58 um,

37:58 improve the agricultural productivity

38:01 in developing countries,

38:03 we really focus on

38:05 Um,

38:06 on things that could improve the production

38:10 and,

38:10 um,

38:11 I guess promoting standards,

38:13 uh,

38:13 as something like Global Gap

38:16 or others,

38:17 uh,

38:17 could be one way of,

38:19 um,

38:19 you know,

38:19 linking farmers to markets and building their capacity,

38:23 improving productivity,

38:24 but then,

38:25 Really surprised to hear that there are only 180,000 growers globally,

38:32 uh,

38:33 that are part of the global gap.

38:36 And,

38:36 um,

38:37 as you mentioned,

38:38 this is one of the biggest,

38:39 uh,

38:40 standards scheme.

38:42 So

38:43 why are we not seeing more adoption of standards?

38:47 Um,

38:48 are they more barriers to entry as opposed to technology transfer?

38:53 Or,

38:54 um,

38:54 uh,

38:54 and what can be done,

38:56 um,

38:57 especially by the World Bank,

38:58 uh,

38:58 to really promote this,

39:00 uh,

39:01 in a way of development and,

39:03 uh,

39:04 producer capacity building.

39:05 Thank you so much.

39:08 Why,

39:08 why don't you answer these two and then we move to,

39:11 to the next question,

39:12 otherwise,

39:13 yeah.

39:14 Yeah,

39:15 I mean the MRL uh

39:18 issue is the one that comes up,

39:20 you know,

39:20 so often,

39:21 you know,

39:22 and.

39:25 I mean,

39:25 it,

39:26 I mean it's complex because.

39:29 None of these,

39:30 the,

39:31 you know,

39:32 so,

39:32 so Global GP,

39:33 for example,

39:35 um,

39:35 doesn't lay down,

39:37 you know,

39:37 limits on pesticide residues.

39:40 You know,

39:40 it is,

39:41 so,

39:41 so you have standards that are

39:44 laying down,

39:45 you know,

39:46 principles and practices when it comes to good agricultural practice.

39:50 Yeah,

39:50 so that's,

39:51 it's a system.

39:54 Where the MRLs come is where a lead firm,

39:58 a retailer in Europe,

40:00 for example,

40:01 may have a list and say,

40:03 we don't want any of these pesticides,

40:05 OK,

40:06 uh,

40:07 and so there is no MRL,

40:09 you know,

40:09 the limit is the limit of determination,

40:12 and of course,

40:13 the better laboratory you have,

40:15 you know,

40:16 the better you are at detecting,

40:17 so the limit of determination gets less and less and less and less and less.

40:21 Um,

40:22 you know,

40:22 and so.

40:24 Um,

40:26 So,

40:27 you know,

40:27 so it can be that,

40:29 you know,

40:30 yeah,

40:30 different dominant buyers will have a,

40:32 you know,

40:33 different limits and,

40:34 you know,

40:35 etc.

40:36 um,

40:37 now,

40:37 and of course,

40:38 you know,

40:39 the European Union,

40:40 for example,

40:41 will have.

40:43 Its own regulations when it comes to

40:46 um uh MRLs and approved,

40:49 you know,

40:49 active ingredients,

40:50 etc.

40:51 which will,

40:53 will,

40:54 will,

40:54 will,

40:54 will um deviate from Codex,

40:57 you know,

40:58 I mean one of the,

40:58 the concerns that's always

41:00 put,

41:00 and I think this is a big challenge for international standards,

41:03 is,

41:04 you know,

41:04 the Codex process by its nature takes time.

41:07 And it takes time,

41:09 because it is supposed to be an international process,

41:12 where,

41:13 and the more,

41:14 you know,

41:15 low and middle income countries have a voice,

41:17 the longer it takes.

41:19 You know,

41:20 I mean,

41:21 inevitably,

41:22 um,

41:23 and so you always have that problem of,

41:25 you know,

41:26 you know,

41:27 international standards that are inclusive,

41:30 where

41:30 voices that in the past,

41:32 you know,

41:32 were muted and now,

41:34 you know,

41:35 you know,

41:36 are now louder,

41:37 and there's no doubt that low income countries are playing a,

41:40 a more active role.

41:40 Um,

41:42 but the Codex process by its nature,

41:44 you know,

41:44 is,

41:45 is slower,

41:46 and regulatory processes are.

41:48 There is,

41:48 you know,

41:49 a retailer

41:50 in Europe,

41:51 for example,

41:52 can define tomorrow,

41:54 the things that it wants to see

41:56 or not see

41:58 in the produce that it buys,

42:00 and it can change them overnight.

42:02 Um,

42:03 uh,

42:03 now,

42:04 what stops them doing that is the fact that

42:07 it's com it's,

42:08 um,

42:08 suppliers of course have to be able to comply.

42:11 You know,

42:11 so,

42:12 you know,

42:12 and the last,

42:13 the one thing they do not want

42:14 is empty supermarket shelves.

42:17 You know,

42:17 so,

42:18 you know,

42:18 they,

42:19 they themselves have,

42:20 have a,

42:20 have,

42:21 have a,

42:21 a,

42:22 there's a balance there,

42:23 you know,

42:24 so,

42:24 but,

42:25 you know,

42:25 I think,

42:26 I mean there is no doubt that,

42:27 you know,

42:28 that,

42:28 that regulations are important here

42:31 within low and middle income countries,

42:33 because the regulations will determine,

42:36 you know,

42:36 in the vast majority of low and middle income countries,

42:39 all of these pesticides,

42:41 for example,

42:42 are imported.

42:43 You know,

42:44 there may be some that are more generic and that are traded,

42:48 you know,

42:49 uh,

42:49 regionally,

42:50 but a lot of them are imported,

42:51 so import controls are important,

42:53 you know,

42:54 um,

42:54 systems of,

42:55 of approval are important

42:58 because they can at least weed out,

43:00 you know,

43:01 the,

43:01 the,

43:01 the,

43:01 the things that are,

43:03 are the biggest problem,

43:05 um,

43:05 but,

43:06 you know,

43:06 I mean that,

43:07 but yeah,

43:08 I mean it,

43:08 it,

43:08 it's,

43:09 it's a,

43:09 it's,

43:09 it's complex,

43:10 there's,

43:10 there's no doubt,

43:12 um.

43:12 Um,

43:13 and,

43:14 um,

43:15 uh,

43:15 and understanding the role of these different parts of the jigsaw is,

43:19 is,

43:19 is,

43:20 is,

43:20 is,

43:21 is important,

43:22 um.

43:23 So,

43:24 to that I think is that on,

43:26 on MRLs,

43:27 um,

43:28 the 190,000 for global gap,

43:30 OK,

43:31 I mean this,

43:31 this is complicated because

43:34 these,

43:34 these,

43:35 these are around 190,000 farmers are

43:41 directly

43:42 um certified to the global gap.

43:45 Family of standards,

43:47 but there are a lot of other standards as well,

43:50 so you can have

43:52 a national,

43:53 like Canada gap,

43:54 Canada has its own,

43:56 good agricultural practice standards

43:58 that are benchmarked to global gap.

44:01 OK,

44:02 so there are

44:03 these benchmark standards.

44:05 Um,

44:06 under what is called the Global Food Safety Initiative,

44:09 OK,

44:10 and so,

44:11 you know,

44:11 a,

44:11 a farmer certified to Canada G GAP,

44:14 OK,

44:15 is not certified to global GP,

44:18 but essentially they are seen as equivalent,

44:21 so the numbers get

44:23 bigger,

44:23 OK,

44:24 so,

44:25 um,

44:25 um,

44:26 with,

44:26 you know,

44:26 with,

44:27 within,

44:27 within the system,

44:28 um,

44:29 and of course,

44:31 This is number of producers,

44:33 this is not farmed area,

44:36 you know,

44:36 I mean,

44:37 so

44:38 for

44:40 some very important global commodities,

44:42 you know,

44:43 that are traded internationally,

44:46 a far greater proportion of the supplied,

44:50 um,

44:50 quantities and the farmed area are certified to global gap.

44:55 You take aquaculture,

44:57 for example,

44:58 you know,

44:58 a,

44:59 you know,

44:59 a farm.

44:59 More significant proportion

45:01 of

45:02 the,

45:03 the pro of the global production

45:05 of

45:06 um of,

45:07 of commodity that's going into into into international trade

45:11 is produced under a global gap standard

45:15 or

45:16 something that is benchmarked to it.

45:18 So,

45:19 so I think it's important to recognize,

45:21 you know,

45:21 the,

45:22 the,

45:22 the,

45:23 the

45:23 production area,

45:24 the production volumes as well as the total numbers.

45:31 Uh,

45:31 Martin,

45:32 you have

45:33 to hang up.

45:36 Yeah,

45:36 hi,

45:36 Spencer.

45:37 Um,

45:37 very interesting.

45:38 Um,

45:39 so,

45:39 um,

45:39 I have two questions.

45:40 So I think the first one,

45:41 it's,

45:41 it's really about,

45:42 um,

45:43 compliance,

45:43 um,

45:44 and,

45:44 and,

45:44 and you paid a lot of,

45:45 um,

45:45 allegiance to it,

45:46 and I think it's something that needs,

45:48 um,

45:48 some unpacking here.

45:49 So what are we talking about in compliance?

45:52 Why do we observe,

45:53 uh,

45:53 very low compliance,

45:55 uh,

45:55 you know,

45:55 um,

45:56 especially from the poorer countries?

45:57 Is it,

45:57 is it still a question of regulations,

46:00 poor institutions,

46:01 and how can this be made better?

46:04 Um,

46:04 the second question,

46:05 you also talked,

46:06 um,

46:06 the second question is also related to the fact that,

46:09 you know,

46:09 you spoke about the importance of big firms,

46:11 you know,

46:11 big traders

46:13 really as

46:14 good actors in pushing

46:16 this private food

46:18 standards.

46:19 And,

46:19 and I observed that in many developing countries,

46:22 we are observing really different mega trends.

46:24 So,

46:24 one key trend is really the,

46:25 the,

46:26 the

46:27 The,

46:27 the development of um

46:28 supermarkets,

46:29 right?

46:29 So we're getting a very strong

46:32 push um in supermarkets in many um

46:34 very urban cities,

46:36 but relatedly we're also getting really strong farmer groups,

46:39 right?

46:39 Um,

46:39 what is your impression about these groups,

46:41 um,

46:42 and this,

46:42 um,

46:43 and this um supermarket revolution?

46:44 Can they play a role as well,

46:46 you know,

46:46 in ensuring compliance and pushing this to the next level?

46:49 Thank you.

46:51 Um,

46:53 so by compliance,

46:55 do you mean,

46:57 uh,

46:57 certification to these private standards?

47:02 Right,

47:03 right,

47:03 OK.

47:04 No,

47:05 I mean,

47:07 Initially,

47:08 I mean let's,

47:08 let's take,

47:10 let's take Global Gap as an example,

47:12 OK,

47:12 let's take,

47:13 you know,

47:13 good agricultural practice standards,

47:15 so farmers,

47:17 OK,

47:17 rather than those in food processing or whatever.

47:21 Initially

47:23 They,

47:24 I mean,

47:25 Global Gap was a,

47:27 a,

47:28 an initiative of

47:30 very large European retailers.

47:34 So that's why it developed,

47:35 and it predominantly

47:37 it's you know well well it's initial focus was compliance by European farmers.

47:45 And then over time.

47:47 Uh,

47:48 it got applied to the global supply chains,

47:52 so it began to bring in,

47:55 um.

47:57 Producers in other parts of the world.

48:01 Big,

48:02 you know,

48:03 produced crops,

48:03 tropical beverages and things like that and whatever,

48:07 and then fruits and vegetables and

48:09 etc.

48:10 so it,

48:11 so it gradually evolved,

48:13 and as it has done that,

48:16 Um,

48:17 it has involved.

48:20 At the end of the day,

48:24 I would argue,

48:26 you know,

48:26 that the,

48:27 the lead firms,

48:28 the supermarket chains,

48:29 etc.

48:30 you know,

48:31 the,

48:32 as and of itself,

48:33 they don't really care about farmers in low and middle income countries.

48:38 Now,

48:38 in a perfect world,

48:39 you know,

48:39 they don't want to exclude them,

48:41 and they certainly don't want bad press with being seen to do that,

48:46 but what matters to them

48:48 is filling the shelves with

48:50 product that meets their food safety requirements.

48:54 And so

48:57 Now,

48:57 at the same,

48:58 so they want to be able,

48:59 they want a reliable supply.

49:02 Of course that's gonna vary by season,

49:04 you know,

49:05 so they're gonna have to go around the world for some of these commodities,

49:09 and buy from different parts of the world at different times of the year.

49:13 Um,

49:14 so they want assurance about

49:16 things like pesticide residues and etc.

49:20 antibiotic residues in aquaculture,

49:23 raw products and whatever,

49:24 so they,

49:24 they,

49:25 and of course they want.

49:27 To be able to get it at a price,

49:29 you know,

49:30 that is,

49:30 you know,

49:31 acceptable to them,

49:32 they want reliability of supply,

49:35 particularly with fresh produce,

49:37 so that they get every day,

49:40 a reliable supply of

49:42 fresh produce from wherever else it,

49:44 wherever it is in the world,

49:46 OK.

49:48 Um,

49:48 they wanna be able to switch

49:50 sources of supply,

49:52 um,

49:53 you know,

49:53 by time of year,

49:55 um,

49:56 by cost,

49:57 etc.

49:57 so they want flexibility

49:59 within their supply chain,

50:01 but at the same time,

50:03 they wanna be able to,

50:05 um,

50:05 you know,

50:06 meet their requirements in terms of assurance when it comes to food safety.

50:11 So they're managing a number of different things,

50:13 and doing all of this

50:15 at

50:16 minimum cost to them.

50:18 So they're balancing the,

50:20 these,

50:20 these,

50:21 these different

50:22 elements of the,

50:23 of the mix.

50:25 And

50:27 So

50:29 Some,

50:29 I mean,

50:30 there's certainly,

50:31 there have been um.

50:33 Uh,

50:34 there are examples where some countries

50:38 have developed their own standards,

50:41 China,

50:41 for example,

50:42 Kenya,

50:43 for example,

50:44 uh,

50:45 Vietnam,

50:45 etc.

50:47 Um,

50:47 so there's Viet Gap,

50:49 for example.

50:50 There's Kenya Gap,

50:52 OK,

50:53 that are

50:55 based on

50:57 global gap,

50:58 for example,

50:59 you know,

50:59 that's the technology transfer

51:01 element.

51:03 But

51:05 All of this,

51:05 it's not just about the standard,

51:07 it is about

51:09 the,

51:09 the system of certification.

51:12 Yeah,

51:13 is,

51:13 is,

51:14 you know,

51:14 so it isn't that,

51:15 you know,

51:15 just saying,

51:16 well,

51:16 you know,

51:17 what are,

51:17 what are,

51:17 what are the things that farmers have to do,

51:20 it's,

51:20 it's about,

51:21 you know,

51:21 what system is in place to make sure they do it on an ongoing basis.

51:26 And that's where the auditing and the certification

51:29 comes into,

51:29 it comes into the mix.

51:32 Global Gap over time

51:34 has

51:35 has technical working groups in different parts of the world.

51:39 Um,

51:39 you know,

51:40 so,

51:40 and it does that because,

51:42 you know,

51:43 the,

51:43 the context is different in.

51:46 You know,

51:47 East Africa,

51:47 for example,

51:48 or,

51:49 you know,

51:49 East Asia or Southeast Asia

51:52 to Europe,

51:52 you know,

51:53 the hazards are different,

51:54 the pests are different,

51:56 etc.

51:57 um,

51:57 you know,

51:58 so,

51:58 you know,

51:59 it,

51:59 it,

51:59 it is,

52:00 there's no doubt the system has evolved,

52:03 um,

52:04 but,

52:05 at the end of the day,

52:07 um,

52:07 you know,

52:08 the.

52:10 The system will accommodate the special needs

52:13 and circumstances of smallholders in Kenya,

52:16 for example,

52:18 um.

52:20 But only to the extent that,

52:23 you know,

52:24 uh.

52:25 The level of assurance is maintained for those who adopt these standards,

52:30 so it's,

52:30 it's a balancing act,

52:32 you know,

52:33 here,

52:34 um,

52:34 and yes,

52:35 you can accommodate the special needs of low and middle income countries,

52:39 of smallholders,

52:40 etc.

52:41 That's great if you can find a way of doing that,

52:44 OK.

52:45 That will also meet the needs of

52:48 the businesses that are acquiring it.

52:50 Now,

52:50 in Global GP,

52:51 for example,

52:53 um,

52:54 one of the big things that,

52:55 that,

52:56 that accommodations that came in was group certification of smallholders.

53:01 Initially,

53:02 every farmer had to be certified.

53:05 Now,

53:05 that doesn't work for smallholders,

53:07 so group certification came in.

53:10 Um,

53:10 but there is a holder of that group's cert,

53:14 um,

53:14 um,

53:15 certification,

53:16 which is often the exporter.

53:18 So there are again issues there.

53:19 So there have been accommodations,

53:21 OK,

53:22 but no doubt,

53:24 you know,

53:24 these things are challenging to,

53:27 to comply with,

53:28 there's,

53:29 there's no doubt about that,

53:30 and that's made even worse by the fact that there is a global shortage of auditors.

53:36 Um,

53:37 and so auditing is expensive.

53:39 Um,

53:39 often these auditors come in and they don't tend to fly economy.

53:44 You know,

53:44 so they,

53:45 they will come into a country and will be certifying.

53:49 Um,

53:49 so the cost can be,

53:51 can be expensive,

53:52 there's no doubt,

53:53 you know,

53:54 but it,

53:54 it's a,

53:55 it's an

53:56 interesting balancing act

53:57 here,

53:58 cos at the end of the day,

54:00 All of these standards and the associated certification

54:04 only have value to the extent that they are accepted

54:08 by the buyers.

54:14 Yeah.

54:15 Um,

54:16 any more questions?

54:17 So I have 11 final question on,

54:19 on my end,

54:19 which is

54:21 if you could talk a little bit about the,

54:23 the CODexplatarium

54:25 initiative,

54:26 right,

54:26 um,

54:27 and

54:28 I think on,

54:29 on the one hand

54:30 it kind of seems that it's clear that having some sort of,

54:34 of reference of international standard for sustainability would be

54:39 Very useful,

54:40 but on the other hand,

54:42 once you see on the work that we're doing on MRLs,

54:45 the comparison with Codex MRLs.

54:49 You wonder

54:50 how relevant they are,

54:52 right,

54:52 because what we see actually is that

54:55 it's primarily low income countries that are adopting the codex

54:59 while

55:01 developed economies,

55:02 advanced economies,

55:02 they expand the list,

55:04 uh,

55:05 never ending,

55:05 no,

55:06 so how do you see

55:08 the relevance for the experience of sustainability.

55:13 It's very interesting because

55:15 uh

55:16 when people talk about codex,

55:18 etc.

55:19 um,

55:20 one of the things they instantly start talking about is MRLs.

55:23 Now these,

55:24 these quantitative limits.

55:26 I would argue

55:27 that by far the

55:29 biggest value of the codex system.

55:33 Is actually in the,

55:35 in

55:36 uh its basic principles,

55:37 it's guidelines,

55:39 etc.

55:39 So for example,

55:40 Codex lays down basic principles of food hygiene.

55:45 They are referenced in every private food safety standard.

55:50 It lays down terminology,

55:52 methods of analysis,

55:54 etc.

55:56 Just

55:57 Codex has laid down now

55:59 basic principles for

56:02 the national assessment and recognition of,

56:06 um,

56:07 third party,

56:08 a voluntary third party assurance,

56:10 um,

56:11 for food safety,

56:12 for example.

56:14 And,

56:14 and,

56:14 and it's these more

56:17 basic things.

56:19 These basic principles and terminologies and,

56:22 and methods and,

56:23 you know,

56:23 it's language,

56:24 etc.

56:25 that,

56:27 I would argue private food safety standards.

56:32 wouldn't exist without,

56:34 and then there's the wider system,

56:36 the,

56:36 the ISO and IEC frameworks for auditing,

56:41 for accreditation,

56:42 etc.

56:43 There are international standards that are the bedrock

56:47 of this whole system of certification,

56:50 etc.

56:51 and,

56:51 and again,

56:53 The system wouldn't exist without those things,

56:55 and so I think that

56:57 the,

56:57 the planetarius idea,

57:00 you know,

57:00 in,

57:01 if it's focus is on basic principles and language and systems,

57:07 um,

57:08 and a terminology,

57:10 that can play a fundamental role in reducing the transaction costs

57:16 with establishing,

57:18 You know,

57:19 of,

57:20 um,

57:20 third party of,

57:21 of,

57:21 of private standards,

57:23 um,

57:23 and I would argue that for Codex,

57:27 the MRLs are important,

57:29 but actually the

57:30 biggest value has come from,

57:33 not from those quantitative limits,

57:35 but in,

57:36 in the more fundamental stuff

57:38 that

57:39 is routinely accepted by regulators.

57:42 And by those who established private food safety standards,

57:46 and that,

57:46 you know,

57:47 that,

57:47 I,

57:47 I would argue they wouldn't exist without that,

57:50 um,

57:51 because it,

57:51 they have fundamentally reduced the costs,

57:55 uh,

57:55 of,

57:55 of doing these things.

57:58 So I think,

57:58 I think actually could play a very fun,

58:00 really fundamental role,

58:02 but the problem is,

58:03 Chavier,

58:03 I think that,

58:04 you know,

58:04 this is,

58:05 er,

58:06 food safety is far less political

58:09 than sustainability.

58:10 I mean,

58:11 you,

58:11 you look at the,

58:12 you know,

58:12 the deliberations in Codex on sustainability,

58:16 I mean,

58:17 I'm not sure,

58:17 it's been shut down,

58:19 but you know,

58:20 you know,

58:20 I,

58:20 I think it's,

58:21 it's not going to rear its head in Codex probably

58:24 for some time now,

58:25 that's Codex Alimentarius,

58:27 um,

58:28 you know,

58:28 because this is an area where,

58:30 you know,

58:31 there may not even be fundamental agreements on what sustainability is,

58:36 you know,

58:36 so,

58:37 yeah.

58:38 OK.

58:40 OK,

58:41 thanks very much.

58:41 So we are 1:30.

58:43 Uh,

58:44 it has been a great,

58:45 uh,

58:46 seminar,

58:47 Spencer.

58:48 Thank you very much,

58:49 and,

58:49 uh,

58:50 thanks everybody,

58:51 colleagues for participating.

58:52 There will be more seminars,

58:53 so please

58:55 stay tuned.

58:56 Thank you.

58:56 And,

58:56 and,

58:56 and just to say,

58:57 Chad,

58:58 if anyone has any questions,

58:59 whatever,

59:00 please email me,

59:01 OK,

59:02 at,

59:02 and,

59:02 at,

59:03 at,

59:03 um,

59:04 you know,

59:04 at,

59:04 at any time.

59:05 I'm happy to talk about this.

59:07 Thank you.

59:08 Thanks very much.

59:09 Take care,

59:10 everyone.

59:10 Thanks so much.

59:11 Bye.

showAllTimestamps
no
transcript
Welcome everybody, uh, to the World Development Report 2025 Standards for Development seminar series. Today, we're gonna be talking about um private food safety standards with uh Spencer Henson, who's a professor at the University of Guelph in Canada and uh has been working in the issue of food standards for For decades now and he's one of the, the main specialists on, on the subject and um He's gonna do a 30 minute presentation focusing on, on the proliferation of these private food standards and what it means in terms of the governance, but also on extrapolating perhaps to to sustainability standards as well. What are, what are the lessons. So over to you, Spencer, um, we'll have a Q&A session after he, he finishes. Um, so keep your, your questions unless there is something that is, is really pressing that you need clarification. Over to you, Spencer. Fabulous. Thanks so much, Chavi, and um if there are any fellow Canadians on, then happy Canada Day. Um, let me share my screen. OK, you can see that OK? Yes, so you may want to maximize. There we go. All right, wonderful. So, I am going to talk to you about um the. The, the nature, the evolution, etc. of private food safety standards, um, in the context of the agri-food system, but particularly with a focus on, on food safety. This is something that, as Chavia said, I've worked on for a long time, so I will try and keep it to 30 minutes cos it's something I can talk about for hours, um. This is an area that is of interest to, to many people, um, not those that are just interested in food safety, because in the context of food safety, private standards have emerged as a dominant mechanism, um, for governance in, uh, agri-food value chains in high income countries, but also globally. Um, and the evolution of private food safety standards has raised a lot of questions about the role, uh, of private standards in terms of, uh, governance of, um, of, of agri-food systems. So for example, uh, whether they allow high levels of food safety to be achieved. Um, uh, with greater efficiency and greater effectiveness, um, but at the same time, there are a lot of concerns about their wider implications, implications for the role of the state, for democracy, uh, impacts on power, um, competitiveness in agri-food value chains, uh, etc. And there's a lot of debate over whether the lessons from food safety can be um can, can, can be applied in, in, in other contexts, so in low and middle income countries, for issues like sustainability, um, etc. cos there is no doubt that private food standards have emerged as a dominant mechanism for, for governance, um. Uh, and, um, so we're gonna be looking at some of those issues, uh, in, in, in this seminar. Um, some of the key questions that I want to address, um, are, you know, why did private food standards develop in the first place, and what roles do they play? Um, and what are the implications and what are the intersections between food safety standards, private food safety standards, and regulations? And then think about the implications, the implications for something that developed predominantly in high income countries, for lower and middle income countries, and for sustainability and, and potentially other um er aspects of the performance of um of the agrifood system. First of all, what are we talking about? Well, private food safety standards are entities of um governance that are elaborated by non-state actors. Now those non-state actors can be for-profit entities or not for profit entities, we, we see a variety. They're non-regulatory in, in, in their nature, so that means that they do not have the force of the state behind them. That can compel compliance, but that does not mean that in the realities of life, they are not de facto mandatory. In fact, they have um emerged as a mechanism of um of what is called private governance. They are, I would argue, they're not a mechanism of self-regulation, so, so, you know, food processing enterprises, adopting these standards, applying these standards to regulate themselves. They are actually compelled to um comply with these um private standards by their customers. So they're actually a mechanism of private governance, and they're actually operationalized within a system of private contractual relations, that is, is, is highly complex in, in nature. So to give you, so this is the sort of setup that we see, and I'm gonna use the example of Global GAP. Global GAP may be a standard that you have heard of, it is a, the most widely applied global standard for good agricultural practice. Um, currently around 190,000 farmers across the world are, um, certified, comply with the global gap standards. Global GAP, that is the standard setter, has contractual relations with 193 certification bodies, totally independent of Global GP around the world, and it is these bodies that uh undertake certification of farmers. Now, the farmers themselves have to comply because they're required to be certified by their buyers, predominantly large supermarket chains, um, food service, um chains, etc. around the world, and, and also some um food processors. The certification bodies uh are essentially charged uh to, with the task of certifying farmers, but they themselves have to be accredited. Uh, and there is a whole mechanism, again, forms of contractual. Relation to make sure that these er certification bodies uh are robust, and so we have this complex system, essentially of contractual relations, um, that underlie this, this, this system of, of, of uh private standards. Now we see a variety of private food safety standards um existing. And what is interesting about the whole system is that it's highly dynamic, um, and essentially we have this marketplace of, of food safety standards. So these standards in many ways compete against one another. We can have individual business standards, so we could have, for example, Tesco, one of the, the largest food, um, um, retailers in the UK. It has its own, um, food safety standard for, um, a sub-brand called Nature's Choice. Um, it has established it itself and applies it, requires, um, um, certification amongst its suppliers. We can also have collective standards, they can be national in focus, so using the UK as an example, there's a, there are a set of standards called um assured food standards, again for farmers that are established through um involving retailers and, and representatives of the agricultural sector that applied nationally within the UK. We can also have collective standards that are international in focus. For example, uh, International Features Standard, is, is, is an organization that essentially represents, um, supermarket chains in Germany and in France. Global Gap would be another example of uh a collective standards that are applied internationally. And so we have this, this, this, this terrain uh of, of standards that er are in place to govern food safety in food processing, in um in, in agriculture, etc. and it's dynamic and competitive er in, in nature. So, I said, 190,000 farmers across the world are certified to Global GAP, around 100,000 food processing establishments are certified to the top five or six food safety standards for, for processing. Why did these things emerge? Well, you could spend hours in the, on looking at this story, but essentially, it is, they have emerged because of a complex interaction, uh interplay between a a variety of factors. Undoubtedly, there have been at times quite prominent failures in terms of food safety that have raised concerns, issues around the robustness of regulations. That's raised concerns amongst consumers, so the consumers have had heightened interest and, and, and worries about the the safety of the food they buy. This has induced regulatory reform, so this is the role of the state. Uh, stricter food safety requirements, um, new liability laws, new requirements in terms of, um, of food suppliers being proactive in, in ensuring the food that they, that they supply is safe. But At the same time, there has been the growing consolidation and globalization of agri agrifood systems, major food retailers selling um er foods under their own brands, and this has meant that the regulatory reforms have induced actions on the part of, of dominant players within the agrifood um system, what are often called lead firms. That, that have led them to um induce the development of, of, of private um food safety standards. So we have this complex interplayer of a, a whole variety of factors, um, that has led to the evolution of private food standards, um, er for food safety as a key er form of governance. Now these standards themselves, um, have evolved over time, um. So initially, what we saw was, for example, food retailers would say, OK, if you're a food processor, you wanna supply us, these are the things you have to do before we're gonna buy from you. Go away, these, this is our standard. And tell us when you've complied. Now, that self-certification by processors, um, you know, it, um, well, was OK, but it didn't give retailers, for example, the level of assurance they needed. So that then led to the evolution of what is called second party standards. So the retailers, for example, began to inspect their suppliers themselves. So they would have their standards, they would go to their, their, their suppliers or potential suppliers and check. But of course that imposed huge costs on, on retailers, for example. So the retailers got together and then they said, well. Why don't we look at the, the establishment of standards that, um, we, we all are happy with, that we all, um, it, it would, they all meet our requirements, and what we will say to our suppliers is get somebody else to check that you, that you comply with these standards, so. Go to somebody else who will audit you and will, will confirm that you actually do meet these requirements. And then that led to the, finally, the establishment of what are called third party assurance schemes, like the contractual relation that I showed you earlier, essentially where we had a system where, Um, there were, um, third parties were setting food safety, uh, private food safety standards. They had contractual relations with organizations that would certify and audit, etc. and that's the predominant form that we see today. That does not mean that these other forms have, have, have died. They haven't. There are, is still interplays between these, between these, these different entities. So what role do private food standards play? I would argue that they have two potentially important functions. One is risk management, that is assuring, for example, food retailers that the farmers they buy from, the food processors they buy from, um, have robust food safety controls, so that there are not going to be, you know, outbreaks of foodborne illness, and, And or um instances of regulatory non-compliance, so they have a risk management function. And then they have potentially a product differentiation function, which we see in areas outside of food safety. Now I would argue that what you've seen predominantly in the realm of food safety is minimal product differentiation. In fact, for most private food safety standards, you are not allowed to even label a product that that has been produced under conditions that comply with these standards, but they're really about risk management. And for lead firms, dominant firms within agri-food, um, systems, when it comes to food safety, they essentially, um, are trying to balance, Achieving an appropriate level of risk management, that is appropriate level of assurance against food safety failures and cost. You know, it could well be that the highest level of assurance would be achieved when a lead firm is going to check that its suppliers. Meet its food safety requirements, but that's expensive, so it's about a balance between cost and risk management, and, and the whole system is really about achieving an appropriate balance for particular buyers, dominant buyers within the agrifood system. That's really what this whole system is about. Now, This has led to a lot of very active debates um and concerns about where does this leave regulations, where does this leave international standards. If these private food safety standards have become so pervasive. What is the remaining role of regulators in, in, in national er contexts where private food safety standards uh uh have been adopted so widely, where this certification is, is so widespread? What is the role of Codex standards, of other standards in terms of um of, of governing food safety? How you have to see private food safety standards is as part of an overall regulatory regime. And there are complex interplays between regulations, international standards, and private food safety standards. So for example, private food safety standards, I would argue, have been a response to food safety regulations. At the same time, regulators nationally are certainly in, in Europe, er, in Canada, for example, er Australia, regulators are beginning to recognize private food safety standards in determining how they enforce regulations. Um, so there is a, a two-way interaction between food safety regulations and private food safety standards. Private food safety standards uh are costly and time consuming. To establish. So the starting point for private food safety standards is often international standards. So for example, the, the, a lot of the principles, the guidelines, the, the, the terminologies established by Codex have been critical. To establishing food safety standards, and arguably, private food safety standards wouldn't have developed in the way they have without those international standards, for example, um, and so there is a complex interplay between these, these, these, these entities within the, the whole system of governance, um, for food safety. It's a, it's a highly complex terrain. I've argued, and I, you know, I, I've suggested to you there's been a lot of debate about, you know, the, the wider implications of, um, er, food, private food safety standards for, for the role of government, for democracy, for accountability, etc. but. Arguably, the, the biggest concerns, certainly within a development context, have been about the impacts on low and middle income countries, and in fact, there have been, you know, periodically, um er concerns raised. For example, within the WTO about the impacts of private food safety standards on, um, on low and middle income countries. And the, the, the concerns are around, particularly about compliance, that, that there's no doubt that a lot of er of, of, of low and middle income countries have, have struggled to comply. Um, and, and, you know, exporters therein have struggled to comply, but then there is a, and there have certainly been arguments that there should be accommodation for the special needs, the special context of lower low middle income countries when it comes to these private food safety standards, but. That then raises issues about um whether these standards, if they accommodate the, the, the situations of low and middle income countries, actually provide the level of assurance that the lead firms that are adopting them actually are looking for. There are a lot of debates about impacts on trade, about whether they facilitate trade or they act as barriers to trade. There are concerns about the induced restructuring of agrifood value chains, about, about who, who covers the costs of these things, who bears the burden of certification, whether that benefits um er er dominant firms within agri-food value chains because of, of economies of scale. And there are a lot of debates about the impacts on vulnerable agri-food value chain actors, you know, smallholders, on, um, poorer producers, um, uh, etc. so. This is an area of a lot of, of, of, of debate, concern, etc. um, um, not all of it, um, er, fully, um, uh, driven by, by evidence, but, but certainly, um, uh, a lot of, a lot of these are the issues that we, we see coming up. These are, they are beginning to be um discussions about the implications for food safety governance in low and middle income countries. As I've said, predominantly private food standards have um emerged and have become um most pervasive in high income countries. But there are certainly now um er questions and suggestions that, you know, they, they certainly have implications, but maybe offer, you know, valuable opportunities for um low and middle income countries where regulatory systems are underdeveloped, have, have, have particular weaknesses. There's no doubt that private food safety standards can be a very significant mechanism of technology transfer. There are potentially significant public good aspects from um, from these things, so the global gap standards, for example. Uh, are embody a lot of technical expertise, of technical knowledge, of, of experience, um, and so the standards themselves can be a, a significant mechanism of, of, of, um, capacity development of, of, of, um, knowledge transfer. Now what we know is that these standards have almost universally developed in the context of robust regulatory systems, that is what we've seen. And so that raises some very interesting questions about whether these standards, how well private food safety standards operate. In the context of weak regulatory systems, because predominantly, private food safety standards have not evolved as a substitute for strong regulation, they have evolved alongside strong, um regulation, and that, so that raises, I think some, some interesting questions about really whether, um, private food safety standards can plug the gaps where we have weak food safety regulations. At the same time, however, it, they do raise some very interesting questions about regulatory models, about models like co-regulation, responsive regulation, etc. so that they, they, they raise, I think, some, some, some interesting, uh, suggestions and questions as to how food safety regulations might and should evolve in the context of low and middle income countries. But at the same time, I think, you know, they, there, there is some evidence that already that we're seeing diversion of resources away from um regulatory systems and, and development of regulatory capacity, um, which, you know, I think it are are things we need to keep in mind. Finally, What about um areas beyond food safety, for example, sustainability. What lessons might we learn, um, for. Sustainability, as an example, from what we've seen in, um, in the food safety sphere. So, you know, what are the, the, the, the, the positives and the negatives that are, that we've observed when it comes to private food safety standards, um. What can we learn from the uh the, the, the the the, the widespread development and adoption, um, and evolution of private standards for food safety when it comes to areas like sustainability, where we have not seen that. I think there's some very important um principles and lessons. First of all, the role of regulations versus standards. In a lot of areas like sustainability and, and other areas, predominantly, how standards are seen is as a mechanism that essentially er provides means of differentiation. Um, when it comes to businesses that are already, you know, high performers, for example, with respect to sustainability, and what regulation does is essentially set the foundation. What it does is to move the average within, within the system, or lay down a, a minimum that we, that we want to see. Now that sees standards and regulations as distinct entities. Now what we, we know from private food safety standards is that that's not actually what what what exists. That regulations and standards are, are very closely aligned and, and attuned to one another. And maybe seeing regulations and standards in that way, uh, is important when it comes to sustainability. Secondly, is the evolution of standards where regulations and international standards are not so well developed. That's what we see with sustainability. We don't have a a whole portfolio of international standards like we see um for food safety, for example, they've developed, been. Developed by um Codex Alimentarius, we do not see such well developed national regulations. What that means is the transaction costs of developing standards, private standards for sustainability are potentially extremely high. Um, and the question comes, who is gonna bear those costs? Another key thing that comes out of food safety is the key role of lead firms. That lead firms, supermarket chains, food service chains within high income countries, some large food processing, um er operations have been critical in terms of driving the development of private food safety standards, cos it's these firms that have adopted them and essentially required compliance by their suppliers. Then there's the importance of legitimacy. The reason why private food safety standards have evolved, and, and have been so critical, um, in, in, in, in governing food safety, is because they are seen as legitimate mechanisms on the, in the context of food safety. Uh, Amongst lead firms, and that legitimacy and how it's established and how it, um, is maintained, uh, is, is a critical, um, piece of the jigsaw that we have to remain mindful of, for example, in the area of, of, of, um, sustainability. And then finally, there's the role in technology transfer, there is no doubt that, um, That private food safety standards have, have been a critical mechanism of transferring expertise and capacity between high income countries and low and middle income countries, uh low and middle income countries in the context of the of, of global er agrifood value chains. So I'm gonna leave it there, um, thank you very much, um. I'm happy to answer any questions, um, if you've got, if you disagree with anything, if you uh have your own um um perspectives, that would be, that would be great. Thanks so much. Thank you, Spencer. Thank you very much. Um, you stick on time, 50 minutes. Uh, OK, so let me open to, to questions to the colleagues, but, um, perhaps I can start with, with one question myself, um, so. 11 issue though, once you, so once you establish this sort of risk management and um The kind of burden of proof as well to to a lot of these big buyers uh in agro industry. And you start developing private standards, right? I think my concern is how much of the, what you have seen in the last 10 years perhaps is less on the risk part. And more into the protectionism, uh, lead firms in captive investments in the value chain. So it starts, in, in other words, it starts like we need to manage this risk. Consumers are also becoming more sophisticated. There is a need, a need for product differentiation. But then you start seeing also the benefits of all these private governance in terms of uh having captive investments and and these relational contracts that are very exclusive. So how much you see in the last 10 years a shift towards more the value chain, uh, some competition issues rather than than food safety. Yeah, yeah, I mean that, that, I mean that's uh certainly amongst the concerns that, that, that are raised, um, and, um, and there is no doubt that these are mechanisms that are used by lead firms to one, reallocate costs within the agrifood system. You know, so essentially they push the costs onto their suppliers, you know, through third party certification that then get dissipated in the system, you know, and some may be passed back to them through the prices that they pay, but a lot of it gets dissipated and absorbed elsewhere. I think there is the important issue here of what is the collective interest of lead firms. Because they have a collective interest in er avoiding food safety problems. Um, you know, so they have an individual interest in, no doubt, in what they supply being seen as safe and, you know, ideally safer than their competitors, but at the same time, they have an interest in, in general, in food being seen as safe, because, uh, you can't, you, you know, consumers don't always correctly, you know, associate, you know, What made them sick, you know, you know, um, you know, uh, and, you know, so, so that's an issue within the system. There's, there's no doubt, but it is very interesting that what we are seeing in the last 10 years, uh, maybe even more recently, is a backtracking in the system, so that you undoubtedly are seeing some of the lead firms, and certainly the, The, the dominant global players, like some of the, the, the large um food service chains, backtracking from, um, third party certification, and, uh, adding on their own individual requirements again. Um, and so it's, it's again, it's this, this balance between this being between the two. The other thing I think it's important to, to recognize here is that, Yes, you can certainly see that um these are mechanisms of power. But there's also what is important for lead firms, is the ability to be able to switch between suppliers. Um, and one of the benefits of third party certification is that you have, to the extent that you accept a, uh, a wider group of standards, you have the ability to switch. Between suppliers more easily than if you, if you only apply your own standard, you know, and, and then you can, you know, you, you, you are naturally restricting your supply base, so it's, it's a, it's, it, it's complex, is, is, you know, is, is what I would argue. Mhm. Thanks. Uh, so I think there are a couple of questions. Uh, Xby with a new start, and then Artaba, let's take 2 or 3 questions. Uh, sure. Thank you. Um, thank you, Spencer. So, actually, um, my question relates to, um, More, more the regulation rather than the private standards. So, so, you know, we've been tracking, uh, how countries set, uh, maximum residue levels, uh, for various commodities, and this is, you know, across, uh, the whole gamut of, of countries. So from low income countries to high income countries, and by and large we find that they do, they do follow, uh, codex when, whenever, whenever possible, and so. So this is, you know, as far as how they set standards, but, but I'm, I'm, you know, the question is really how they go about conforming with set standards. I mean, you know, take a country like, well, take any, any low-income country, right? I mean, you know, there, it's typically, you know, agricultural production is done by smallholder farmers. I mean, you know, there's very little, uh, capacity in terms of labs that can actually test. So, so what, you know, what they, how do they, you know, I mean, of course you could, you could restrict the number of pesticides that get into the country because probably they're not produced, uh, in, in country, but then also there's the application, right, because, you know, part of the MRL is that you don't put too much stuff and, and of course this requires, uh, uh, you know. Uh, uh, uh, uh, you know, um, machines or whatever, uh, you know, that are, that are calibrated for, you know, for, you know, when you spread the pesticide or whatever, and so, and, you know, we know that a lot of these farmers don't need, don't have these, these tools. So, so I guess the question is how, yes, you can set the MRL, and this is again, this is regulation, right? So as you say, this sort of establishes a floor, if you will, for every producer that wants to sell domestically, right. Um, but, but how is that enforced, or, you know, how, how, you know, how, yeah, given, given the, given the, the, the, the, the way the, you know, given the, the production structure, if you will, right, given the, the, you know, the, the, the firm size distribution and whatnot. Yeah, OK, shall we, shall we get a couple more questions, or you wanna answer? No, no, sure, then I can. Artabas, do you wanna make the question instead of me reading? I think it's gonna be more effective. Hi, everyone. And thank you, very interesting, uh, talk, uh, Spencer, and, uh, quite, uh, thought-provoking as well. Um, so I, I guess one thing you mentioned that, uh, stuck with me as standards as technology transfer, and I think when we look at our work in the development, we really, uh, in terms of capacity building for farmers and, um, you know, trying to, um, improve the agricultural productivity in developing countries, we really focus on Um, on things that could improve the production and, um, I guess promoting standards, uh, as something like Global Gap or others, uh, could be one way of, um, you know, linking farmers to markets and building their capacity, improving productivity, but then, Really surprised to hear that there are only 180,000 growers globally, uh, that are part of the global gap. And, um, as you mentioned, this is one of the biggest, uh, standards scheme. So why are we not seeing more adoption of standards? Um, are they more barriers to entry as opposed to technology transfer? Or, um, uh, and what can be done, um, especially by the World Bank, uh, to really promote this, uh, in a way of development and, uh, producer capacity building. Thank you so much. Why, why don't you answer these two and then we move to, to the next question, otherwise, yeah. Yeah, I mean the MRL uh issue is the one that comes up, you know, so often, you know, and. I mean, it, I mean it's complex because. None of these, the, you know, so, so Global GP, for example, um, doesn't lay down, you know, limits on pesticide residues. You know, it is, so, so you have standards that are laying down, you know, principles and practices when it comes to good agricultural practice. Yeah, so that's, it's a system. Where the MRLs come is where a lead firm, a retailer in Europe, for example, may have a list and say, we don't want any of these pesticides, OK, uh, and so there is no MRL, you know, the limit is the limit of determination, and of course, the better laboratory you have, you know, the better you are at detecting, so the limit of determination gets less and less and less and less and less. Um, you know, and so. Um, So, you know, so it can be that, you know, yeah, different dominant buyers will have a, you know, different limits and, you know, etc. um, now, and of course, you know, the European Union, for example, will have. Its own regulations when it comes to um uh MRLs and approved, you know, active ingredients, etc. which will, will, will, will, will um deviate from Codex, you know, I mean one of the, the concerns that's always put, and I think this is a big challenge for international standards, is, you know, the Codex process by its nature takes time. And it takes time, because it is supposed to be an international process, where, and the more, you know, low and middle income countries have a voice, the longer it takes. You know, I mean, inevitably, um, and so you always have that problem of, you know, you know, international standards that are inclusive, where voices that in the past, you know, were muted and now, you know, you know, are now louder, and there's no doubt that low income countries are playing a, a more active role. Um, but the Codex process by its nature, you know, is, is slower, and regulatory processes are. There is, you know, a retailer in Europe, for example, can define tomorrow, the things that it wants to see or not see in the produce that it buys, and it can change them overnight. Um, uh, now, what stops them doing that is the fact that it's com it's, um, suppliers of course have to be able to comply. You know, so, you know, and the last, the one thing they do not want is empty supermarket shelves. You know, so, you know, they, they themselves have, have a, have, have a, a, there's a balance there, you know, so, but, you know, I think, I mean there is no doubt that, you know, that, that regulations are important here within low and middle income countries, because the regulations will determine, you know, in the vast majority of low and middle income countries, all of these pesticides, for example, are imported. You know, there may be some that are more generic and that are traded, you know, uh, regionally, but a lot of them are imported, so import controls are important, you know, um, systems of, of approval are important because they can at least weed out, you know, the, the, the, the things that are, are the biggest problem, um, but, you know, I mean that, but yeah, I mean it, it, it's, it's a, it's, it's complex, there's, there's no doubt, um. Um, and, um, uh, and understanding the role of these different parts of the jigsaw is, is, is, is, is, is important, um. So, to that I think is that on, on MRLs, um, the 190,000 for global gap, OK, I mean this, this is complicated because these, these, these are around 190,000 farmers are directly um certified to the global gap. Family of standards, but there are a lot of other standards as well, so you can have a national, like Canada gap, Canada has its own, good agricultural practice standards that are benchmarked to global gap. OK, so there are these benchmark standards. Um, under what is called the Global Food Safety Initiative, OK, and so, you know, a, a farmer certified to Canada G GAP, OK, is not certified to global GP, but essentially they are seen as equivalent, so the numbers get bigger, OK, so, um, um, with, you know, with, within, within the system, um, and of course, This is number of producers, this is not farmed area, you know, I mean, so for some very important global commodities, you know, that are traded internationally, a far greater proportion of the supplied, um, quantities and the farmed area are certified to global gap. You take aquaculture, for example, you know, a, you know, a farm. More significant proportion of the, the pro of the global production of um of, of commodity that's going into into into international trade is produced under a global gap standard or something that is benchmarked to it. So, so I think it's important to recognize, you know, the, the, the, the production area, the production volumes as well as the total numbers. Uh, Martin, you have to hang up. Yeah, hi, Spencer. Um, very interesting. Um, so, um, I have two questions. So I think the first one, it's, it's really about, um, compliance, um, and, and, and you paid a lot of, um, allegiance to it, and I think it's something that needs, um, some unpacking here. So what are we talking about in compliance? Why do we observe, uh, very low compliance, uh, you know, um, especially from the poorer countries? Is it, is it still a question of regulations, poor institutions, and how can this be made better? Um, the second question, you also talked, um, the second question is also related to the fact that, you know, you spoke about the importance of big firms, you know, big traders really as good actors in pushing this private food standards. And, and I observed that in many developing countries, we are observing really different mega trends. So, one key trend is really the, the, the The, the development of um supermarkets, right? So we're getting a very strong push um in supermarkets in many um very urban cities, but relatedly we're also getting really strong farmer groups, right? Um, what is your impression about these groups, um, and this, um, and this um supermarket revolution? Can they play a role as well, you know, in ensuring compliance and pushing this to the next level? Thank you. Um, so by compliance, do you mean, uh, certification to these private standards? Right, right, OK. No, I mean, Initially, I mean let's, let's take, let's take Global Gap as an example, OK, let's take, you know, good agricultural practice standards, so farmers, OK, rather than those in food processing or whatever. Initially They, I mean, Global Gap was a, a, an initiative of very large European retailers. So that's why it developed, and it predominantly it's you know well well it's initial focus was compliance by European farmers. And then over time. Uh, it got applied to the global supply chains, so it began to bring in, um. Producers in other parts of the world. Big, you know, produced crops, tropical beverages and things like that and whatever, and then fruits and vegetables and etc. so it, so it gradually evolved, and as it has done that, Um, it has involved. At the end of the day, I would argue, you know, that the, the lead firms, the supermarket chains, etc. you know, the, as and of itself, they don't really care about farmers in low and middle income countries. Now, in a perfect world, you know, they don't want to exclude them, and they certainly don't want bad press with being seen to do that, but what matters to them is filling the shelves with product that meets their food safety requirements. And so Now, at the same, so they want to be able, they want a reliable supply. Of course that's gonna vary by season, you know, so they're gonna have to go around the world for some of these commodities, and buy from different parts of the world at different times of the year. Um, so they want assurance about things like pesticide residues and etc. antibiotic residues in aquaculture, raw products and whatever, so they, they, and of course they want. To be able to get it at a price, you know, that is, you know, acceptable to them, they want reliability of supply, particularly with fresh produce, so that they get every day, a reliable supply of fresh produce from wherever else it, wherever it is in the world, OK. Um, they wanna be able to switch sources of supply, um, you know, by time of year, um, by cost, etc. so they want flexibility within their supply chain, but at the same time, they wanna be able to, um, you know, meet their requirements in terms of assurance when it comes to food safety. So they're managing a number of different things, and doing all of this at minimum cost to them. So they're balancing the, these, these, these different elements of the, of the mix. And So Some, I mean, there's certainly, there have been um. Uh, there are examples where some countries have developed their own standards, China, for example, Kenya, for example, uh, Vietnam, etc. Um, so there's Viet Gap, for example. There's Kenya Gap, OK, that are based on global gap, for example, you know, that's the technology transfer element. But All of this, it's not just about the standard, it is about the, the system of certification. Yeah, is, is, you know, so it isn't that, you know, just saying, well, you know, what are, what are, what are the things that farmers have to do, it's, it's about, you know, what system is in place to make sure they do it on an ongoing basis. And that's where the auditing and the certification comes into, it comes into the mix. Global Gap over time has has technical working groups in different parts of the world. Um, you know, so, and it does that because, you know, the, the context is different in. You know, East Africa, for example, or, you know, East Asia or Southeast Asia to Europe, you know, the hazards are different, the pests are different, etc. um, you know, so, you know, it, it, it is, there's no doubt the system has evolved, um, but, at the end of the day, um, you know, the. The system will accommodate the special needs and circumstances of smallholders in Kenya, for example, um. But only to the extent that, you know, uh. The level of assurance is maintained for those who adopt these standards, so it's, it's a balancing act, you know, here, um, and yes, you can accommodate the special needs of low and middle income countries, of smallholders, etc. That's great if you can find a way of doing that, OK. That will also meet the needs of the businesses that are acquiring it. Now, in Global GP, for example, um, one of the big things that, that, that accommodations that came in was group certification of smallholders. Initially, every farmer had to be certified. Now, that doesn't work for smallholders, so group certification came in. Um, but there is a holder of that group's cert, um, um, certification, which is often the exporter. So there are again issues there. So there have been accommodations, OK, but no doubt, you know, these things are challenging to, to comply with, there's, there's no doubt about that, and that's made even worse by the fact that there is a global shortage of auditors. Um, and so auditing is expensive. Um, often these auditors come in and they don't tend to fly economy. You know, so they, they will come into a country and will be certifying. Um, so the cost can be, can be expensive, there's no doubt, you know, but it, it's a, it's an interesting balancing act here, cos at the end of the day, All of these standards and the associated certification only have value to the extent that they are accepted by the buyers. Yeah. Um, any more questions? So I have 11 final question on, on my end, which is if you could talk a little bit about the, the CODexplatarium initiative, right, um, and I think on, on the one hand it kind of seems that it's clear that having some sort of, of reference of international standard for sustainability would be Very useful, but on the other hand, once you see on the work that we're doing on MRLs, the comparison with Codex MRLs. You wonder how relevant they are, right, because what we see actually is that it's primarily low income countries that are adopting the codex while developed economies, advanced economies, they expand the list, uh, never ending, no, so how do you see the relevance for the experience of sustainability. It's very interesting because uh when people talk about codex, etc. um, one of the things they instantly start talking about is MRLs. Now these, these quantitative limits. I would argue that by far the biggest value of the codex system. Is actually in the, in uh its basic principles, it's guidelines, etc. So for example, Codex lays down basic principles of food hygiene. They are referenced in every private food safety standard. It lays down terminology, methods of analysis, etc. Just Codex has laid down now basic principles for the national assessment and recognition of, um, third party, a voluntary third party assurance, um, for food safety, for example. And, and, and it's these more basic things. These basic principles and terminologies and, and methods and, you know, it's language, etc. that, I would argue private food safety standards. wouldn't exist without, and then there's the wider system, the, the ISO and IEC frameworks for auditing, for accreditation, etc. There are international standards that are the bedrock of this whole system of certification, etc. and, and again, The system wouldn't exist without those things, and so I think that the, the planetarius idea, you know, in, if it's focus is on basic principles and language and systems, um, and a terminology, that can play a fundamental role in reducing the transaction costs with establishing, You know, of, um, third party of, of, of private standards, um, and I would argue that for Codex, the MRLs are important, but actually the biggest value has come from, not from those quantitative limits, but in, in the more fundamental stuff that is routinely accepted by regulators. And by those who established private food safety standards, and that, you know, that, I, I would argue they wouldn't exist without that, um, because it, they have fundamentally reduced the costs, uh, of, of doing these things. So I think, I think actually could play a very fun, really fundamental role, but the problem is, Chavier, I think that, you know, this is, er, food safety is far less political than sustainability. I mean, you, you look at the, you know, the deliberations in Codex on sustainability, I mean, I'm not sure, it's been shut down, but you know, you know, I, I think it's, it's not going to rear its head in Codex probably for some time now, that's Codex Alimentarius, um, you know, because this is an area where, you know, there may not even be fundamental agreements on what sustainability is, you know, so, yeah. OK. OK, thanks very much. So we are 1:30. Uh, it has been a great, uh, seminar, Spencer. Thank you very much, and, uh, thanks everybody, colleagues for participating. There will be more seminars, so please stay tuned. Thank you. And, and, and just to say, Chad, if anyone has any questions, whatever, please email me, OK, at, and, at, at, um, you know, at, at any time. I'm happy to talk about this. Thank you. Thanks very much. Take care, everyone. Thanks so much. Bye.
showAllTranscripts
no
duration
PT59M11S
scene7File
worldbank/WDR2025-Private_Food_Safety_Standards
scene7Domain
https://worldbank.scene7.com/
scene7FileAvs
worldbank/WDR2025-Private_Food_Safety_Standards-AVS
title
WDR2025-Private Food Safety Standards
description
WDR2025-Private Food Safety Standards
showTimestampAndTranscript
yes
col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-3
col-lg-3
col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-7
col-lg-7
  • add-style
  • lp-body-content
In this World Development Report 2025 seminar series, Spencer Henson (Professor, Dept. of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Guelph) discusses "Lessons from Private Food Safety Standards as a Governance Mechanism for Agri-Food Value Chains" with chair Xavier Cirera, Senior Economist, Markets, Competition and Technology Global Unit, World Bank.
lp-heading-top-medium
lp-heading-bottom-medium
col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-2
col-lg-2