Nestlé's Peter Blackburn gives his view on how the UK food supply chain is making life better for consumers and explains why it must work closer together Everybody from farmers and producers through to retailers have one thing in common: their commitment to serving the needs of consumers and to making life better for them. But it's not easy. Consumers want more choice, variety, convenience and innovation. They want greater availability. They want better nutrition and more information. They want safety, sustainability and fairness throughout the food chain. And they want the whole lot on special offer, thank you very much. But even though the consumer has changed very fast and has made many demands in recent years, the UK food chain has responded extremely well. The UK consumer has never before been offered such an array of good, safe, convenient food and drink, at competitive prices, in fantastic retail environments. If only that was the end of the story. But, sadly, it isn't. No one in the food chain, or in government, or representing the consumer, would stop there. Regrettably, Rip off Britain' has become an accepted catchphrase. The recent findings of the Competition Commission inquiry have confirmed what those of us in the industry have long argued: that UK consumers are offered a fair deal. But the public perception is that they are not ­ and perceptions are important. BSE has cast a long shadow and left serious concerns in consumers' minds about food safety. Their confidence in the food chain has been badly shaken, and in my opinion will take a generation to recover. The reality we face is that many UK consumers do not trust the safety of the UK food chain; not only the safety of the food itself, but also the governmental mechanisms for assessing and ensuring food safety. Scepticism towards new technologies such as irradiation and genetic modification has spilled over into outright hostility. Perhaps this is not surprising. The lack of trust in the food chain finds its expression in a rejection of new technologies and new ideas, which might prove dangerous if mishandled. Yet the reality is that food has never been safer and people have never lived longer. The same lack of trust is one of the reasons why organic products are becoming more popular. Sir John Krebs of the Food Standards Agency has made it clear that the idea that organic food is safer food, or more wholesome food, or even more environmentally sustainable food, has no particular basis in science. But who can blame the UK consumer for buying these products if it helps make them feel safer? Let me be absolutely clear. I am in no way opposed to organic food, far from it. But organic food is not necessarily better or safer than non organic food by any objective measurements. In practice, if the UK consumer wants more organic food, then that is what the UK food chain will provide. The consumer is King. That said, the dramatic rise in professional consumerism is not without its problems. The constant calls for more legislation, the constant criticism of big companies and of government, goes too far on occasions. When confrontation and suspicion start to define the relationship between those who seek to represent the views of consumers, and those who aim to supply their needs, then we should beware. It is difficult to believe that either party can serve the real interests of consumers by adopting this approach. One outcome certainly is that government is called upon to intervene and legislate while being criticised for burdensome bureaucracy. I passionately believe that the UK food chain is providing consumers with more choice, better value, higher quality and greater safety than at any time in the past. But the widespread perception of the UK food chain in the aftermath of the BSE crisis and other problems is that it is not safe, does not act in the interests of the consumer, and does not offer good value. This fundamental mismatch between the reality of the UK food chain, and the perception that our consumers have of it, affects everyone in the industry, and must be addressed. I think we should acknowledge that, as an industry, we have not done a good job of communicating with our consumers, or at times with each other. We must all work together to communicate to our consumers the reality about the UK food chain, acknowledging of course that there are genuine issues and concerns which must be, and are, being addressed. Only by tackling these openly and honestly, and by communicating with them clearly and persuasively, can we regain consumers' trust. This is the biggest challenge which we, as partners in the UK food supply chain, face. And we should tackle it together with confidence because we have been on the defensive needlessly and for far too long. At the heart of the issue is the loss of confidence in food safety. In reality, tremendous steps have been taken during the past 10 years to improve food safety standards and practices which were already stringent. So it could be argued that the public's loss of confidence in the safety of the food chain is wholly disproportionate. But it is real nonetheless. The work and future success of the Food Standards Agency will therefore be vital for the future of the UK food chain ­ and I support its core values of being open, accessible and independent. Looking further afield, the creation of a European Food Authority may also lead to a substantial improvement in the EU decision making process in the food area. It is a mistake to view food supply chain issues only through the eyes of European consumers. The developing world has different needs and is looking for advances in food science to help them overcome severe problems. So viewed from a global perspective, it is clear that we must seize the unique opportunities offered by modern science. Our ability to meet the challenges ahead will depend on a more sophisticated and rational reaction to new technologies. This includes genetically enhanced crops. The longer term problem of providing an adequate and safe supply of food for all of the world's consumers can only be tackled by the responsible application of advances in science and technology. Take the example of vitamin A deficiency. It looks today as if Professor Potrykus' Golden Rice, which provides increased vitamin A through genetic modification, could be a means of overcoming this serious problem. We need to think long and hard before rejecting a technology that offers such important potential benefits to people in developing countries. Food and environmental safety must, of course, be the overriding consideration. But we do have a responsibility to continue to consider the scientific case for the safe application of new technologies such as GMOs, however uncomfortable that feels in the current climate. Food safety dominates consumers' concerns but there are other issues that are very important ­ particularly ethical trading. It is absolutely right that we should be concerned about the poverty and hardship faced by farmers in developing countries. And we should welcome and support initiatives to address this problem. But it is concerns over food safety that have led to there being a fundamental mismatch between the reality of the food chain and consumers' perceptions about it. Genuine concerns about food safety have become blown out of proportion and the debate risks becoming divorced from scientific reality and become emotive and political. Bringing reality and perception back into line will require all the partners in the food chain to work together and to ensure honest, transparent communication, particularly with consumers. I genuinely believe that the partners in the food chain are united in recognising this need to work together and to communicate powerfully. While the UK food chain is providing consumers with more choice, better value, higher quality and greater safety than at any time in the past, BSE casts a long shadow. Consumers are concerned about food safety and many other food chain issues. Many of these concerns are very real and must be addressed. Others are fuelled by a lack of understanding of the realities of the food chain. All the partners in the UK food chain must therefore unite and work together towards a common aim ­ the widest understanding of how our food gets from the plough to the plate. And we must recognise also that the UK food chain is inextricably linked to the international food chain and part of a wider world. We must put the interests of the consumer first in everything we do and say. We must recognise their concerns and act upon them in order to regain their trust and restore their confidence. But we must also speak with a single, powerful voice to explain the realities of food production, and to communicate the strengths and benefits of the UK food supply chain. We must unite and we must communicate. - Peter Blackburn is chairman and chief executive of Nestlé UK and president of the Food and Drink Federation. This article is based on a speech given to the first City Food Lecture, supported by the Worshipful Companies of Butchers, Farmers, Fruiterers and Poulters, and the City of London, and sponsored by Sainsbury. {{FEATURES }}