This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Outdoor gear and apparel company Patagonia aims to stop sourcing packaging materials from endangered forests, according to a Sept. 5 press release from environmental nonprofit Canopy.
In partnership with Pack4Good — a sustainable packaging initiative from Canopy — Patagonia will opt for alternative fiber sources for paper and packaging that don’t rely on logging, per the press release. Currently, paper packaging used fordelivery boxes, hang tags and shoe boxes are responsible for more than 3 billion trees being logged from endangered climate critical forests, according to Canopy.
Alongside Canopy, Patagonia will take “steps to review and develop new, more-responsible packaging materials,” said Patagonia Packaging and Branding Director Jennifer Patrick. Alternativepackaging products use materials like agricultural waste and non-forest alternative fibers.
Patagonia has remained focused on reducing or slashing the environmental impacts from its manufacturing operations. In 2019, the outdoor apparel and gear company vowed to become carbon neutral by 2025 and has since taken several steps to ensure sustainable practices. The year prior, for instance, Patagonia reintroduced wool into its products after implementing a responsible wool standard following an animal cruelty investigation at one of its suppliers.
The retailer has also partnered with Canopy in the past to help shift viscose and rayon textile sourcing practices, according to the press release. In an effort to reduce its carbon footprint, “Patagonia has been using 100% recycled content for all its packaging and catalogues.”
Ending deforestation is a major topic, especially across the apparel supply chain. To date, more than 400 brands have parntered with Pack4Good, according to Canopy’s website. In July, Zara owner Inditex joined the initiative to eliminate materials from endangered forests from its paper packaging. Clothing brand Ganni followed suit a month later.
You have reached the limit to read our content as a guest. Join TFG for free to unlock unlimited access to our industry-leading content. Please sign-up or sign-in to gain exclusive access to our full library of videos, podcasts, expert guides, and comprehensive research data—all at no cost.
Arizona-based Eagle Produce LLC from Scottsdale is recalling 224 cases of whole cantaloupe melon because of the potential for Salmonella contamination.
The fruit was distributed between August 13 and 17 at various retail supermarkets in five states, specifically Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Ohio, Texas and Virginia.
The melons are identified with a red and white sticker with the word KANDY at the top and the UPC number code, 4050.
The recall is the result of routine sample testing conducted by the State of Michigan that revealed the presence of Salmonella in cantaloupe sold at retail.
Salmonella can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in children, the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems.
Healthy people may experience fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.
The company is cooperating with the FDA regarding this recall.
As of the publication of this news release, there have been no reported illnesses attributed to the recalled product. In addition, the recall does not affect any other product or lot code date.
Last year, Sofia Produce, LLC, from Nogales, Arizona, which does business under the name “Trufresh” recalled all sizes of fresh cantaloupes packaged in cardboard containers labeled with the “Malichita” label. The fruit was sold between Oct. 16 and Oct. 23, 2023, and was contaminated with Salmonella, resulting in at least two deaths.
Midland Valley High School is starting the school year with a larger greenhouse, and Agricultural Education teacher Jean Smith says it is time for a change. “It’s twice the size of the greenhouse we had, and the other one pretty much was just falling apart,” she said.
The original 1,344-square-foot greenhouse was replaced with one nearly double its size, a 2,592-square-foot facility with an irrigation system.
Smith said that last year the school wasn’t able to plant ferns because they had no room to grow – a stark contrast between the 200 that have been planted this semester in the new facility.
There are plans to use the greenhouse for plants like geraniums, Gerbera daisies, tomatoes, and peppers. In the space where the previous greenhouse sat, Smith said Midland Valley hopes to start a community garden with cabbage, broccoli, collards, and blueberries. “That’s kind of our intention for this whole area,” she said.
This development marks the first product approved in the country specifically aimed at reducing methane emissions from livestock. South Korea, a signatory of the Global Methane Pledge, has a cattle population of 3.6 million.
The approval aligns with South Korea’s commitment to sustainable agriculture, highlighted by its comprehensive framework to help farmers adopt eco-friendly practices and a newly introduced low-methane feed program, according to dsm-firmenich.
Mark van Nieuwland, senior vice president at dsm-firmenich, stated that the company will collaborate with the entire beef supply chain—from farm to consumer—to launch Bovaer, supporting South Korea’s environmental and climate goals.
South Korean market drawng attention from innovators
Last year, US-based CH4 Global announced a partnership with multinational conglomerate Lotte International to introduce its methane-reducing technology for ruminants to the South Korean market. The target launch is set for 2025, with Lotte spearheading commercialization efforts while CH4 Global focuses on manufacturing and product supply. The partnership aims to advance regulatory approval through close consultation with the South Korean government and further studies.
Chinese market entry sought
Also known as 3-NOP, Bovaer is already commercially available in 65 countries, including EU member states, the UK, the US, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and most of Latin America. Authorities are currently reviewing an application for registration of the additive in Japan.
Late last month, dsm-firmenich announced that preparations were underway for it to enter the Chinese dairy market with Bovaer.
The company reported that it was teaming up with China Modern Dairy Holdings, a large dairy integrator, to tailor its offering and go-to-market model for China.
Having launched a methane emissions control action plan in November 2023, China is aiming to significantly reduce methane emissions across various sectors, including agriculture.
According to van Nieuwland, dsm-firmenich is on schedule to submit its Chinese registration dossier for the feed supplement later this year, with the goal of securing approval in the near future.
Registration in the Chinese market would represent a significant step forward in the global effort to reduce agricultural methane emissions and promote sustainability in dairy farming.
Reducing enteric methane emissions from dairy cattle is a key obstacle for the dairy industry globally. Methane lasts about a decade in the atmosphere and is 27x more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat—so smaller reductions create greater impact on temperature.
Grocery distributors and food manufacturers have their processes down to a science. But like any good scientist, they also know it’s crucial to keep improving and make their processes even more effective. Every pallet touch point is important, as is every square foot of space in a facility and, above all, the well-being of every employee.
This is why manufacturers, distributors and retailers must evaluate their equipment choices with a critical eye. “It can be tough to make a change from your last buying cycle, or even your last two or three buying cycles,” says Kurt Spyke, director of national accounts and strategic product for Big Joe Forklifts. “But operators and managers know their day-to-day challenges, and with the right partnerships and equipment, they can meet those challenges and do their jobs even better.”
Food industry leaders who value continuous improvement should take a closer look at Class 3 walkie equipment for their facilities. These walk-behind vehicles improve multiple business functions, and while they may not always seem like the obvious solution, what you don’t know may surprise you.
Class 3 walkies increase operational efficiency
Vehicle downtime is a significant issue for grocery distributors, food manufacturers, and any warehouse moving goods from place to place. Whether it’s a forklift, motorized cart or anything in between, vehicles need to remain in service with minimal maintenance so operations run efficiently. This is where Class 3 walk-behind vehicles have a distinct advantage over many forklifts. Class 3 models such as Big Joe’s PDSR are powered by a lithium-ion battery, which outperforms vehicles powered by combustion.
“Few things have changed the material handling industry more than lithium-ion batteries,” says Spyke. “Big Joe’s Class 3 products outperform gas powered vehicles, as they require little to no maintenance, and their cost and charging time have come down now that the technology has matured.”
Not only do battery-powered walkies stay in operation longer, they also increase the available space in a facility. “You’re literally buying back real estate because you no longer need eyewash, washdown or safety areas that are required for lead-acid battery users,” Spyke explains. Class 3 walkies operate longer, have fewer components and make better use of space, meaning they are extremely efficient in any warehouse setting.
Walk-behind vehicles save money
Those efficiencies translate to cost savings, as well. Battery-powered vehicles, of course, save on fuel, but they also have lower maintenance costs by the nature of their long-lasting batteries. “Imagine a pie chart showing the ownership cost of a vehicle — 80% of the cost is parts and labor maintenance,” says Spyke. “
These savings are particularly valuable for small and midsized locations where a Class 1 forklift is unnecessarily large and expensive. Class 3 walk-behinds provide the same picking and stacking capabilities, but with a smaller footprint. The PDSR, for example, features a pantograph mechanism for lifting and lowering products, and it can reach up to 189 inches in height. With standard power steering it’s easy to maneuver and less costly than a larger vehicle with the same functions.
Class 3 vehicles solve labor challenges
Another crucial advantage of a Class 3 walkie is that these vehicles do not require operator certifications. Even new employees can quickly be trained to operate these vehicles safely. As labor shortages persist in the grocery and manufacturing sectors, walk-behind stackers like the PDSR or Big Joe CB 30/35 can enhance warehouse productivity, even when certified forklift operators aren’t available.
These battery-powered walk-behind vehicles also create a safe environment for workers because they move at lower speeds and have no particulate emissions from fumes or exhaust creating a cleaner environment. As midsized coffee roaster Baronet Coffee found, these vehicles provide safety and efficiency in a 50,000-square-foot facility, and since they’re easy to learn to operate, most employees can run them.
Operable in small spaces yet able to reach high, side shift and maneuver heavy loads, Class 3 walk-behinds offer the best of both worlds — heavy-duty capability plus simple, safe operations.
Do what you do — but better than before
In an industry where margins are tight, labor is constrained and failure is not an option, operators and managers must explore all available solutions to find the right one for their business. By reducing downtime and maintenance costs while increasing facility space usage and workforce capabilities, Class 3 walk-behind vehicles tackle multiple challenges facing the food industry. “These vehicles are like a Swiss army knife for moving product,” Spyke says. They allow industry leaders to keep doing their jobs but to do them even better. Learn more about Big Joe’s Class 3 walk-behind solutions for your operation
THE Australian beef producer’s share of retail dollar spend on beef has tracked sideways, after hitting all-time historical lows back in the December quarter.
The recent release of June 2024 quarterly Consumer Price Index data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics provides the opportunity to update the quarterly producer share of retail dollar calculation (see details below) published jointly by Episode3 and Beef Central.
As can be seen on the graph above, the recent recovery in saleyard cattle prices during the second quarter has helped maintain retail beef market share for producers, currently sitting at 35 percent for the second quarter, down marginally from 35.2pc in the March quarter, due to sideways movements for both saleyard and retail beef prices.
March was the best result seen for producer share since the second quarter of 2023, but a long way off the long-term trend line growth seen since the late 1990s.
Back in December the beef producer share of retail $ dropped to its lowest point since the data-set began back in 1998, at just 25.8pc. Back in 2022-23 when cattle prices approached record levels, the producer share index soared to almost 60pc.
In the graph above comparing the saleyards cattle price index versus the retail price index (1998 providing the benchmark at 100 for both), the saleyard index was little changed in the June quarter, having lifted 30pc between December and March from 271 to 352. Retail beef prices mirrored the sideways movement seen at the saleyard with the index increasing by just 1 point over the June quarter from 258 to 259.
Background to the producer share of retail prices calculation
In collaboration with analyst Matt Dalgleish from Episode 3, Beef Central last year launched a new quarterly series looking at trends in the beef producer’s typical share of the retail consumer’s spend on beef products.
A similar analysis was compiled by MLA for four years, before being discontinued by the industry service delivery company back in December 2016. The project was originally launched as a result of producer requests during the 2012 MLA annual general meeting.
Beef Central sought, and gained MLA’s blessing to resurrect the discontinued series, based on clear reader interest. The same formula is used to compile the new set of results as originally used by MLA (see explanation of the calculation below).
Episode 3 and Beef Central now jointly publish a quarterly report, soon after ABS quarterly retail beef price data is released.
The exercise sees national saleyard cattle prices in carcase weight terms being converted into an estimated retail weight equivalent and compared to average retail beef prices, as reported by ABS .
About the producer share of retail spend calculation
The beef producer share of the retail dollar is calculated using a range of assumptions:
The national saleyard trade steer indicator is used as the benchmark livestock prices, representing animals suited for the domestic market. Livestock prices are collected by MLA’s NLRS.
Converting the carcase weight price to an estimated retail weight equivalent price is achieved using a retail meat yield for beef of 68.7pc.
The indicative retail meat prices are calculated by indexing forward actual average beef prices during each quarter, based on meat sub-group indices of the Consumer Price Index, provided by ABS. These indices are based on average retail prices of selected cuts (weighted by expenditure) in state capitals.
The producer share is calculated by dividing the estimated retail weight equivalent livestock price by the indicative retail price.
Click the links below to read earlier reports in this series:
Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, at a press conference on the publication of the final report of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture, 4 September 2024. Image credit: European Commission
Consumer health and the financial stability of farmers are at the heart of a new EU policy framework, which stretches across the entire food chain, from agriculture to consumers, on the path to a more sustainable future for the planet.
Conceived by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in September 2023, the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture has finally put forward its recommendations – 14 in total addressed in a 110-page document entitled ‘A shared prospect for farming and food in Europe.’
The aim is to unite farmers, manufacturers and grocers in the EU’s 27 member states toward achieving a comprehensive set of objectives laid down by the Commission (EC). Those agriculture and food industry players currently tend to have disparate agendas, creating a roadblock to a common policy and strategy.
Discussions toward achieving common and fair goals, though not yet set in stone, began in January and brought together 29 “major stakeholders from the European agri-food sectors, civil society, rural communities and academia”.
What does the framework entail?
In a rather large nutshell, some of the key aims include: fostering healthy diets through plant-based foods; the reformulation of foodstuffs by manufacturers to make them healthier; more transparent planet-friendly and animal-welfare labels; protecting children from unhealthy food marketing; and making food affordable for low-income consumers to promote health.
It all starts with farmers, with the Dialogue recommendations seeking to ensure their survival in the transition away from, or at least a reduction in, animal meat consumption through aid programmes and support. The framework also aims to help in achieving targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from livestock.
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles
on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Company Profile – free
sample
Your download email will arrive shortly
We are confident about the
unique
quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most
beneficial
decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by
submitting the below form
By GlobalData
Professor Peter Strohschneider, who chaired the panel, said an agreement has been reached “on a shared conceptual consensus for the future of farming and food in Europe, through a new culture of mutual understanding and communication”.
Or as von der Leyen framed it, a “move beyond a polarised debate and create trust among very diverse stakeholders”.
Strohschneider, who once chaired Germany’s Commission for the Future of Agriculture, added: “These joint perspectives, agreed by a diverse and representative group of stakeholders in this sector, form a holistic and societal approach to addressing the EU’s environmental, climate, economic and socio-political goals.”
Key parameters
“Making healthy and sustainable choices [the consumer]; governance change and new culture of cooperations; reducing GHG emissions in agriculture; [and] creating pathways for sustainable animal farming in the EU” are four key parameters for food among the 14 recommendations.
It was recommended within the guidelines that the EC should, by 2026, form a so-called ‘EU Action Plan for Plant-based Foods’ with an aim “to strengthen the plant-based agri-food chains from farmers all the way to consumers.”
Also, within the healthy choice framework, and given the “significant scientific advancements on nutrition”, EU member states should, when they haven’t already done so, adopt “food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) with a view to integrating sustainability and develop strategies to foster” healthy eating.
In terms of finance, an Agri-food Just Transition Fund (AJTF) should be formed, the Dialogue forum suggested, in order to “finance a successful transition of the European agri-food sector”.
Funding projects for the EU agriculture sector would include moves to sustainable farming, and financing “innovative technology projects” for environmental initiatives such as cutting GHG emissions, pollution, water consumption and fostering biodiversity.
To encourage collaboration among the players in the agri-food chain, or a “new culture of cooperation” – one of the other 14 pillars – the Dialogue committee has recommended all those participants, as well as civil society organisations and scientists, form a joint European Board on Agri-food (EBAF).
It should be tasked with identifying “strategies necessary to the implementation and further development of the Strategic Dialogue’s conceptual consensus in order to make agri-food systems more sustainable and resilient”.
Background context
We are all being told one way or another that we are overweight, or even obese, perhaps consuming too many unhealthy foods such as ultra-processed stuff, and sugar- and salt-laden foods. Diets contain not enough fruit and veg and too much meat some would say, with environmental consequences for the latter. As a consequence, there are concerns about the burden on health services from conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure and cholesterol, and heart disease, culminating in early deaths.
Food manufacturers, although not in generalised terms, have been accused of putting sales and profits before health, and are increasingly being urged to reformulate recipes along health and nutrient-intake guidelines.
Taxes have even been implemented or proposed to encourage them to do that. And consumers, too, are targeted with the removal, in some cases, of multiple-buy offers from stores and sweets and other goodies removed from checkouts.
Some food labelling systems have been criticised for lacking transparency or even for being misleading, with Nutri-Score in Europe getting increasing flak – Danone has recently backed away.
Farmers’ plight
On the environmental front, endeavours to lower greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately meet various net-zero targets – for governments, food manufacturers, grocers and farmers – were emphasised.
Farmers in the EU have long claimed they are and have been squeezed on price from food retailers, with some quitting or going out of business as profit margins evaporated. And, as the world grapples with climate change, they have recently been hit with floods, drought and wildfires.
The Ukraine war has hurt too, with fuel and fertiliser prices going up.
Earlier this year, protests by farmers erupted across the EU in demonstration of their plight, with a key thrust of their anger vented at the bloc’s so-called Green Deal, creating an added financial burden without funding to meet the objectives.
Meanwhile, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) tends to favour large-scale farmers over small counterparts in terms of the size of the subsidies proffered to keep meat and other goods competitive with overseas imports.
The Dialogue’s mandate, when talks began, was to find solutions to some of these grievances, including providing farmers with a “fair standard of living” and ways “to support agriculture within the boundaries of our planet and its ecosystem”.
Professor Strohschneider said in the Dialogue presentation: “We all want a thriving food and farming sector across our continent, that rewards our farmers, citizens and precious natural heritage. With this report, we have a very solid foundation for the development of a new vision for food and farming in Europe.
“All too often, agricultural production and its natural preconditions have become entangled in a lose-lose constellation.
von der Leyen and Peter Strohschneider, chairman of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture, present the final report, 4 September 2024. Credit: Dati Bendo / European Commission
“With a view to the equal necessity of food and natural resources, it is clear, however, that this lose-lose situation cannot be resolved in either direction alone – neither through the promotion of environmentally incompatible food production, nor through environmental protection that ignores the socio-economic conditions of farming, nor through a mere postponement of one or the other.”
The Dialogue report’s executive summary concluded: “The transition must be designed in such a way that it leads to agri-food systems that are more resilient, sustainable, competitive, profitable, and just.”
What about food?
Under the ‘making the healthy and sustainable choice the easy one’ directive, the aim is to improve access to healthy diets, making them “affordable and attractive” for consumers in the EU.
Noting a trend in the bloc toward plant-based options over animal-based products, the trend should be encouraged and supported with the adoption of an EU Action Plan for Plant-based Foods.
Non-profit organisation ProVeg international said the plan would represent a “seismic shift” toward what it called “climate-friendly food” and such a plan would likely drive development of the category and take-up by consumers.
“The EU is listening to the science and is aware of the significant impact of climate change and how food can impact greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, water usage, and human health,” Jasmijn de Boo, the global CEO of ProVeg, said.
“It is heartening to know that a serious recommendation has been made to promote climate-friendly, plant-based foods that will give nature a fighting chance to recover.”
Some countries within the EU are already taking strides to foster growth and development in plant-based foods.
The German government allocated €38m ($41.9m) this year to foster growth in plant-based, precision fermentation and lab-grown meat proteins.
The European Commission has also committed €50m to an accelerator to develop food made using precision fermentation and algae, adding to a sector investment of more than €100m through Horizon Europe, according to GFI.
In 2023, Denmark’s government launched its Action Plan for Plant-Based Foods, building on a sector investment of around $168m in 2021. Meanwhile, in Spain, officials in Catalonia have invested a total of €19m since last year, including in R&D for alternative proteins and a dedicated research hub, GFI said.
It has been advocated that funding from governments, as well as public and private partnerships, is vital if plant-based food and proteins are to have any chance of competing on a level playing field with animal meat, let alone enabling the category to become more mainstream or even mass market.
Animal meat subsidies in the EU agriculture sector are a key stumbling block. The Strategic Dialogue forum has recognised that and is proposing funding for farmers to support them in the transition, noting average consumption of meat in the EU currently exceeds dietary recommendations.
“It is important to use the Agri-food Just Transition Fund (AJTF) to support those affected. While also reinforcing the positive externalities that the sector already provides, this support should facilitate a smooth adaptation process, helping farmers, producers, and workers,” the Dialogue text reads.
“As this transition will impact the income and economic viability of livestock farmers and producers, policy interventions, therefore, should address not only consumers but also food providers, producers, manufacturers, and retailers.”
Consumer associations, NGOs, health organisations and educational establishments should work with EU member states to encourage sustainable and healthy diets to reduce environmental impacts, the recommendations urged. To get there, an awareness campaign should be launched across the bloc.
It’s great to see the report recognise that food innovation can coexist alongside our culinary traditions.
Seth Roberts, The Good Food Institute
Seth Roberts, a senior policy manager at the European division of non-profit organisation the Good Food Institute, welcomed the directive for public-private funding partnerships in plant-based foods, which he suggested would help foster growth and innovation.
“It’s great to see the report recognise that food innovation can coexist alongside our culinary traditions, as well as acknowledge the importance of boosting research investment,” Roberts said.
“The Strategic Dialogue points to what EU food policy needs – more progress and less polarisation – and we hope that policymakers will now get to work to build a secure, healthy and sustainable future food system for Europe.”
EU food labelling legislation should also be reviewed, the report recommended, to provide consumers with science-based and transparent information pertaining to sustainability and animal welfare.
To shield children from foods high in fat, sugars and salt, it was suggested the EC should look into the effectiveness of preventive measures on marketing campaigns with a view to issuing feedback by 2026 followed by legislation, if necessary.
Similarly, food manufacturers should “step up efforts and be better incentivised to implement policies and collaborative initiatives where feasible, to improve the nutritional composition and environmental impact of food”.
What happens next?
Subsidies for the EU agriculture sector under the CAP should also be reviewed in what the Dialogue proposals suggested was to come up with a policy that is “fit for purpose” and to encourage a transition to sustainable food consumption.
The report recommended: “The current policy needs to be changed to meet current and future challenges and to accelerate the ongoing transition of agri-food systems towards more sustainable, competitive, profitable, and diverse futures.”
Funding for farmers is an essential that runs through the policy recommendations document and also includes backing for GHG goals.
Policies should entail: “The promotion of integrated resource management practices, including water and nutrients; support in the form of grants covering costs for installing new renewable energy systems on farms, reducing emissions and enhancing energy independence; investment in methane-reducing technologies, including to research and develop such technologies in livestock farming.”
The recommendations set out are intended to “guide the work” of the EC under a second five-year term for President von der Leyen, starting in 2024, in “shaping its Vision for Agriculture and Food”.
In conclusion, the report said: “It will be important for the EC in its various portfolios, the European Parliament, the Member States of the Union, and the organised interest groups of the agri-food system to adopt the shared considerations and recommendations.
“They must develop and concretise them further and translate them into bold and swift decisions for the benefit of the EU farming community, food system, and rural areas, and ultimately for the benefit of the European society.”
Sign up for our daily news round-up!
Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.
THE Alliance will become the Premier Alliance from next February, with Ocean Network Express (ONE), HMM and Yang Ming Marine Transportation as partners, and the world’s largest containerline helping plug gaps on Asia-Europe tradelanes.
From next year there is set to be the biggest overhaul in liner alliances in a decade, with Mediterranean Shipping Co (MSC) ditching Maersk in the 2M vessel sharing agreement to largely go it alone, and Germany’s Hapag-Lloyd subsequently exiting THE Alliance to join the Danish carrier in what will be called the Gemini Cooperation. The liner switches had left the remaining members of the all-Asian THE Alliance as the smallest grouping on the main east-west trades.
Today, the three Asian carriers reaffirmed they will remain partners for at least another five years through to the end of the decade, while unveiling a new branding, Premier Alliance,
“Collectively this new tripartite alliance will offer strong, reliable and highly dependable end-to-end direct port container services to its customers on both the transpacific and Asia-Europe trades,” Jeremy Nixon, CEO of ONE, shared his thoughts on this new collaboration and ONE’s business outlook going forward.
More headline-grabbing, however, is the news that the three carriers have negotiated a slot exchange deal with MSC on the Asia-Europe trades on nine services, helping plug the gap in size.
In the wake of Hapag-Lloyd’s departure from THE Alliance, the Asian trio had been canvassing potential new partners.
A senior executive at Taiwan’s Wan Hai Lines admitted recently that his company had been approached to join a shipping alliance, without revealing which grouping had made the approach.
From February next year, the main east-west trades will see MSC largely operating solo, the Premier Alliance brand commence, the Gemini Cooperation start, while existing liner group Ocean Alliance, made up of CMA CGM, COSCO, Evergreen and OOCL, has agreed to continue their vessel-sharing agreement until the end of March 2032.
The idea that meat infected with African swine fever (ASF) might be getting into the country unchecked and circulating freely is a terrifying one for the pig sector.
According to Lucy Manzano, head of Dover Port Health Authority (DPHA), the ASF threat is now coming as much from commercial meat imports due to the flawed implementation of the Border Target Operating Model (BTOM), as it is from illegal meat imports.
This, she believes, is largely down to the previous government’s decision to build a brand-new border control post (BCP) 22 miles inland at Sevington to carry out sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks for goods arriving at Dover Port and via Eurotunnel, rather than at the point of entry at Dover, where a perfectly good BCP already exists.
“The implementation of the BTOM at the Short Straits is not working effectively or consistently,” Ms Manzano told Pig World.
“We are aware that illegal imports of commercial meat are coming through in significant and concerning volumes and without appropriate intervention at Sevington.
“In addition, IT systems continue to work ineffectively and do not communicate with each other as required or expected – and Port Health controls in place at Sevington are not identifying and controlling consignments as they should be.
“We are being notified of goods being called for examination that don’t arrive, or do arrive and are turned away, or arrive and then sit there for long periods of time and have then been told to leave without checks at all.”
She said the inherited imported food system now operating at the Short Straits was based on flawed Defra data assumptions – a poor understanding of the type of food and the volumes coming through – and not opening a BCP at the border in Dover.
“As such, controls aren’t working as they should, the impact of which is a big hole in this critical border, which means meat is getting in unchecked or, if it is, checked in a very inconsistent and ineffective way,” she said.
Defra has stressed that it is operating a risk-based approach that will see a significant reduction in the number of checks at Sevington.
It has also said the checks are being gradually phased in since April, although it has given no further indication of how it will up the frequency.
But in a recent letter to Defra secretary Steve Reed calling for action to address the situation, the UK Livestock Chain Advisory Group (LCAG), a coalition of 26 farming and meat industry bodies, said less than 10% of about 100 physical checks that should be taking place each day are happening.
British Meat Processors Association chief executive Nick Allen said only around 2% of goods coming through are being checked at Sevington. “How is that effective as a control?” he said.
This is partly due to the option of auto-clearance at the BCP, which means loads can be auto-cleared two hours prior to arrival.
Loads are auto-clearing through Sevington even if they’re entering via a different port as they know no physical checks will take place, according to LCAG.
Ms Manzano added: “Goods that should categorically not have come in have done so and with commercial papers.
“Our work has and continues to identify that commercial meat from ASF-restricted areas is clearly coming in at the straits without the checks required – exactly as we said would happen at the very beginning and warned the previous government of.”
Illegal meat checks
Meanwhile, Dover Port Health Authority, in conjunction with UK Border Force, continues to carry out checks for illegal ‘personal imports’ of meat at Dover Port.
“We have teams down there now, as we speak, on the tourist lanes carrying out ASF checks for, technically, personal imports, but they are largely not what we would consider personal imports.
“This is predominately illegal meat deliberately brought in, often in very large volumes, from those ASF-infected areas,” Ms Manzano added.
About 100t of illegal meat has been seized at Dover over the past two years, but it is widely acknowledged that this represents just the tip of the iceberg.
Yet Defra told DPHA in December that it was cutting its budget for this work from £3.2m to £1.2m in 2024-25, starting in April, and then to nothing in 2025-26. Despite this, the requirement for Dover Port Health to complete ASF controls has been extended to Coquelles, in France.
Funding of this critical work remains unconfirmed. “We are fully committed to completing these extended checks, and working with the new government, but we can’t do this critical work for GB biosecurity without the funding required to deliver the service,” Ms Manzano said.
“We have put forward funding models to be able to effectively control the risk at Dover and Coquelles. We await responses from the new government.”
Government help
DPHA has also written to Mr Reed calling for an urgent review of how the BTOM is operating at the Short Straits and the biosecurity value it is delivering for GB at this critical border.
“The current system is failing. It is absolutely not operating in the best interests of GB biosecurity and, as the Port Health Authority, it is our responsibility to be really clear about what is and isn’t working and to help the new government identify what needs to change, and to make some really swift adjustments to plug those holes,” Ms Manzano added.
The authority, and wider industry, is hopeful, that as parliament returns to full swing in the autumn, they will see some action from Defra ministers.
After all, food security minister Daniel Zeichner showed an active interest in the situation while in opposition and, since the election, Defra ministers have identified addressing border control flaws as a major priority.
“We are hoping that as they return in September, they move forward quickly with a review and start to unpick what is happening here now,” Ms Manzano said.
“We have lost sight of the purpose of border controls – it is not a documentary process. It is about keeping the bad things out. We want to see consistent and transparent checks of biosecurity value, carried out at the point of entry at Dover, our greatest line of defence. The move to Sevington is exposing us to entirely unnecessary and needless risk.
“It must be addressed before it’s too late and, as the port health authority at the border, we cannot sit back and ignore what is happening, especially when there are relatively simple solutions that could be activated quickly to secure this border and GB biosecurity.
“Dover Port Health’s objective is to keep GB safe and fix these glaring holes. If we don’t, the outcome could be catastrophic for us all, but especially for the UK pig industry.”
Ms Manzano’s comments reinforce the sentiments of the LCAG call to action for Defra ministers to address the risk posed by both commercial and illegal imports.
“I’d like to think Steve Reed, Dan Zeichner and co are listening here,” Mr Allen said, adding that the expectation is that ‘things will start to happen in early autumn’.
Key priority
A government spokesperson said: “Protecting UK biosecurity is one of our key priorities, and we are working with BCPs and traders to ensure checks are carried out effectively and swiftly. The UK has never had an outbreak of ASF.
“We are not complacent and suspected illegal meat products are routinely checked at the border to ensure they don’t reach our shores.”
Defra made it clear that it will continue to monitor and review the impact of the new controls, and work with industry, trade partners and enforcement agencies to try and minimise disruption and costs to trade, while protecting biosecurity.
It indicated it will work with the Animal and Plant Health Agency, Port Health Authorities and BCP operators to ensure BCPs operate effectively and are resourced appropriately, and that it remains committed to agreeing an appropriate funding model with DPHA to tackle illegal imports, with a focus on the ASF safeguard measures.
Defra remains confident, however, that BCP capacity, including staff resource, is sufficient for the current volume of checks, which it says are operating 24/7 and carrying out the inspections required.
Checks are intelligence-led and based on biosecurity risk, with the risk of legitimate commercial loads not attending Sevington mitigated by ‘robust, data-backed enforcement options’, it said.
