pandemic (8)

Supply Chain Resilience Report 2021

9937545498?profile=RESIZE_710xThis report draws from a depth of data and in person interviews that will allow readers to more fully understand how the pandemic impacted global supply chains, how different companies reacted and the lasting changes that will be with us for years to come. It also analyzes other ways in which supply chains were disrupted and how the impact of these events was compounded by the pandemic

Key Points:

  1. More organizations than ever are now using technology to assist with supply chain management and mapping: More than half (55.6%) of organizations are now using technology to help analyse and report on supply chain disruptions.
  2. The number of supply chain disruptions organizations encountered in 2020 was higher than
    any other year in the report’s history.
  3. COVID-related disruptions were more likely to occur beyond tier 1.
  4. Solving the logistics puzzle has been a key challenge to organizations during 2020 – and is set
    to continue into 2021.                                                                                                                 
  5. Senior management are now more engaged with supply chain issues.
  6. Organizations are now more likely to interrogate the BC arrangements of critical suppliers.
  7. More due diligence should be carried out pre-contract.

Read full report.

Read more…

9390422268?profile=RESIZE_710x

KEY FINDINGS

1 Despite vital emergency measures in place, more people are food insecure now than before the pandemic.
• Pre-pandemic, we saw a rising trend in levels of household
food insecurity. But Covid-19 has left more people than
before struggling to afford or access a nutritious diet.
Emergency interventions appear to have prevented the
situation from worsening in recent months but turning off
the tap of support risks seeing elevated levels of hunger
and deprivation becoming the new normal.
• Despite community and voluntary sector groups heroically
stepping in to help millions of vulnerable people, our
evidence shows too many food insecure households have
struggled to access support. Reliance on overstretched
food banks and food aid charities is not a sustainable
safety net for individuals and families who can't afford a
decent diet.


2 Households with children have been hit hard, with many
children still falling through the cracks in support.
• Households with children have consistently found it harder to put food on the table, particularly lone parents, large families, and low-income families. Recently, slight improvements in levels of moderate/severe food insecurity among households with children suggest targeted policy interventions have mitigated a significant deterioration. But children reporting experiences of mild to severe food insecurity had not improved this January (2021) compared to six months ago.
• Free School Meal vouchers have represented a vital lifeline for eligible children and their families during Covid, but a series of issues with provision during school closure left many eligible children unable to rely on a regular, quality meal. Many children not currently eligible for Free School Meals face the daily stress of not knowing where their next meal comes from. An increased number of children reported they or their families visited a food bank
this Christmas compared to during the summer holidays. 


3 Existing support schemes have made a difference, but gaps have meant many people still struggle to eat adequately.

• Covid-19 has deepened the financial hardship faced by lowincome households and has also created a newly vulnerable group who were financially stable pre-Covid. Households are balancing on a financial tightrope, increasing debt and using up savings to survive. With household budgets on a shoestring, the end of the Furlough Scheme and the proposed cut to the £20 uplift to Universal Credit can only increase the challenges faced by individuals and families already struggling to pay their food bills.


4 Covid-19 has dramatically widened inequalities in food security and nutrition.
• Exposure to food insecurity is not equal across all households. Throughout the crisis, BAME communities have consistently encountered disproportionately higher levels of food insecurity compared with white ethnic groups. Comparing our data to before the pandemic, inequality in food insecurity has widened between those from BAME backgrounds and white ethnic groups.
• Adults with disabilities have also consistently been more acutely affected by food insecurity during the pandemic compared with those without disabilities. Our most recent data show people with severe disabilities have five times greater levels of food insecurity than those without.
• Despite undertaking essential work like stocking our grocery shelves, food sector workers have reported much higher levels of food insecurity than the general population.

Read full report.

Read more…

9388938677?profile=RESIZE_584xPurpose of assessment
This assessment is intended to support the FSA in understanding changes in the food system related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as they relate to the FSA mission. It is limited in scope to understanding the implications for the work of the FSA and so does not consider the wider societal impacts. It builds on key findings from existing research and analysis undertaken throughout the period of the pandemic.


Key Judgements
1. Behaviour changes brought about by COVID-19 restrictions and health practices are likely to have led to a temporary drop in the incidence of some food borne diseases (para 1).
2. The adoption of an increasing range of online platforms by consumers and food businesses during the pandemic will almost certainly remain and present challenges to food regulation and its enforcement (paras 2-4).
3. It is highly likely that people’s lives when it comes to food have become increasingly varied and will continue to present a more diverse risk environment for the FSA to deal with after the pandemic. This is particularly driven by the longterm trend towards increasing food insecurity (exacerbated by COVID-19) and the underlying economic divergence (paras 5-12).
4. There is almost certainly an increased appetite for government intervention to ensure food safety and availability. This is not universal, but experiences during the pandemic are likely to have shifted public attitudes, presenting an opportunity for interventions (paras 13-14).
5. Although there is likely to be increased vulnerability to food crime in some consumer groups due to COVID-19 related changes, there is very little evidence of this being exploited (paras 15-17).
6. The response to the pandemic forced a reconfiguration of FSA activities, leading to changes in working practices, and a renewed focus on intelligence and risk led activities (paras 18-21).

Read full board paper.

Read more…

9096189680?profile=RESIZE_400x

 

This study provides a preliminary quantitative and qualitative analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on European agriculture and the agri-food supply chain in light of the responses deployed by the European Union and its Member States to mitigate its effects.

KEY FINDINGS
• Overall, during the pandemic, the EU agri-food supply chain has demonstrated a high degree of resilience. The
value of the output of the agricultural industry declined by 1.4% in 2020 compared to 2019, although, when
compared to the 2015-2019 average, it grew by 2.9%. Nonetheless, sectors highly dependent on the food service
(e.g. wine, beef and veal) have faced major difficulties. Flowers and plants and sugar have also suffered
considerable financial losses.
• The EU response was highly effective in preserving the integrity of the Single market. Conversely, measures
adopted under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) had mixed results having been implemented partially or
inconsistently across Member States (MSs).
• The costs of the crisis for the EU agri-food sector will be borne primarily by MSs. National financial support - namely
in the form of State aids (estimated EUR 63.9 billion) and other instruments – has been significantly higher than
EU support (EUR 80 million in private storage aids).
• To better respond to future crises, policy responses should be designed following a ‘food systems approach’.
Moreover, the reasons behind the limited impact of CAP measures during the pandemic should be better
investigated. Consideration should also be given to the decoupling of the CAP crisis reserve from farmers’ direct
payments to reinforce EU financial capacity during crises. Finally, because of the economic consequences of the
pandemic, food assistance programmes for the most deprived are needed.

Read more…

Food in a Pandemic report published

8676946872?profile=RESIZE_584x

The Food in a Pandemic report, commissioned by the FSA and produced by Demos as part of Renew Normal: The People’s Commission on Life after Covid, looks to understand how a new food environment created during the pandemic has impacted the public’s behaviours and preferences. The research included: a nationally representative survey of 10,069 UK adults, a nationally representative online deliberative method called Polis with 1,006 UK respondents, a series of four deliberative workshops, and an open access survey of 911 adults.

Key findings on the public’s experience during the pandemic 

Food insecurity 

The report shows that people have stepped in to help prevent new forms of food insecurity caused by people self-isolating by offering informal forms of support such as shopping for others   

Findings also show there is a public appetite for the government to take action to help feed those without the means to feed themselves. People also tend to be more supportive of preventative actions for food insecurity, such as ensuring well-paid jobs are available to all. Just under two thirds (63%) agreed in the Polis that ‘it is the government’s responsibility to make sure no-one goes hungry’. 

UK food supply 

It’s reported a significant proportion of the population have bought food more locally or grown more food during the pandemic, reflecting a wider move towards individual self-sufficiency. Many of those who have made this move expect it to continue after the pandemic. 

78% of those surveyed supported the UK keeping its current food quality standards, even if food is more expensive and less competitive in the global market. A similar proportion (82%) also supported maintaining the UK’s current animal welfare standards, when presented with the same trade-off against prices and competitiveness. 

Diet and eating habits 

There has been a complex shift in people’s diets during Covid-19, with more home cooking. Although a third (32%) of respondents in the poll reported eating more healthy main meals, a third (33%) ate more unhealthy snacks. 

Some of the restrictions and public health advice, such as stay at home, might have encouraged more healthy eating. Those who have cooked more or eaten healthier main meals tend to expect this change to continue. However, this is likely to be somewhat dependent on the other changes, such as continued flexible working.  

Read full report.

 

Read more…

Woman checking vegetables in garden allotment

Food fraud poses a serious threat to the food system. How can we fight against it and be confident that the food we are buying is authentic and safe?

Top Takeaways from this blog

  • Food fraud in EU Member States increased by 85% between 2016 and 2019 (1) and the COVID-19 pandemic is predicted to have increased cases even further (2).
  • All types of food fraud are detrimental to the reputation of the agrifood industry and cause harm to consumers and legitimate businesses.
  • Innovation and collaboration are crucial for the agrifood industry to share best practice and create solutions for food fraud mitigation and prevention.
  • Technologies and digital traceability systems such as blockchain can help to track a food product’s journey through the supply chain and pinpoint the origins of food fraud.
  • Raising awareness about how to identify food fraud, through initiatives such as EIT Food’s Future Learn education courses, is a great way to reduce risks and increase consumer confidence. 

Read full blog, which refers to the Food Authenticity Network as a "great example" of what is being done to mitigate and prevent food fraud.

Read more…

8425356096?profile=RESIZE_710x

A study of the grain trade during 2020 indicates that policies to protect supply chains must be enacted to avoid supply chain shocks such as COVID-19 and locust swarms exacerbating food insecurity in global regions that rely on food imports.

Food insecurity is complex — there is no silver bullet of policy or market intervention that can lead to a situation where all people at all times will have continuous access to healthy, affordable diets. And though global food systems are interdependent and also complex, food insecurity in many regions has been precipitated by pestilence, environmental disaster and conflict. Pestilence is a fatal epidemic or pandemic disease affecting humans, crops or livestock that impacts food supply and production; insect and rodent plagues remain a major threat to human food security1,2,3,4,5. Recently, swarms of locusts larger than any recorded in recent decades detrimentally affected more than 330,000 hectares of land from Ethiopia to India6, whilst the COVID-19 pandemic — and the controls implemented to curb infection rates — affected food production and supply3.

In times of crisis, the demand for staple foods increases in ways that can destabilize local and global supply chains and cause social unrest3,7. In this issue of Nature Food, Falkendal et al.8 quantify wheat, rice and maize supply chain disruption from 2020 locust swarms and COVID-19-related effects on food prices, stock levels, international trade and export restrictions. The study considers two dimensions of food security, first outlined nearly a quarter of a century ago at the World Food Summit in 1996, namely: physical availability of food (production output, stock levels and trade dynamics) and economic and physical access to food (the ability to buy food, for example, ratio of prices to income, and accessible marketing channels). The authors frame their argument in terms of stability and the socio-economic shocks (political instability, unemployment and drastic loss of income) that the COVID-19 pandemic brings with it that will lead to greater food insecurity in the short and medium term.

In their model, Falkendal and colleagues find that export restrictions and precautionary purchasing in response to COVID-19 could destabilize global grain trade, leading to many low- and middle-income countries that rely on grain imports potentially experiencing further food insecurity that exacerbates the effects felt from shocks such as COVID-19 and locust swarms. Thus, protectionist measures initiated by governments, institutions or market actors to secure national food security will affect those who are food vulnerable, and consumer support policy measures should be introduced to mitigate the risk of food insecurity. The authors call for incremental rather than blunt, binary ‘borders open or borders closed’ food security policies, and a need for mutually agreed solutions to address food insecurity — rather than unilateral national decision-making based primarily on self-interest. Whether altruist or self-serving food security policies are implemented by governments and market actors will be demonstrated in practice over the coming months.

The impact of economic stabilization policies following the 2007 economic crash highlights how individuals and households can transition instantly from a higher standard of living into a situation where they must survive with less, raising the question as to what is the minimum standard for an acceptable life9. In the UK, the last time minimum standards with regard to food for an acceptable life were determined was the food rationing legislation on 15 September 194110 — the Hansard report makes challenging reading when comparing the proposed austere diet to our typical food consumption in the UK. The UN Sustainable Development Goals also determine the dynamics of an acceptable life, and multi-level consensus building and action is essential to safeguard food supply – especially if, as a global community, we seek to deliver the two targets of “no poverty and zero hunger”. Despite having policy and technological tools to reduce the impact of many human, zoonotic and plant diseases, collective strategic risk at local, regional and global levels cannot be ignored. Falkendal and colleagues have shown that a proactive strategy and a co-ordinated collective response with shared goals and co-operative actions is necessary as the combination of the COVID-19 pandemic and natural events such as locust swarms arise in order to ensure that the grain trade remains stable, equitable and accessible to all.

Download PDF.

 

 

 

 

Read more…

7545478692?profile=RESIZE_710x

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) has published its annual International Food Security Assessment, which shows that the worldwide coronavirus pandemic has made food security worse.

The annual report determines how much access people in 76 low and middle-income countries have to food. The answer to that question requires tracking incomes, food prices, and other economic factors including agriculture production and market conditions.

“In the 76 low- and middle-income countries examined in the report, the number of people considered food insecure in 2020 was estimated at almost 761 million people or 19.8 percent of the total population. The shock to GDP from COVID-19 is projected to increase the number of food-insecure people by 83.5 million people in 2020 to 844.5 million and increase the share of the population that is food insecure to 22 percent.”

Read full article.

 

Read more…