the powys public procurement project ... · web viewthe powys public procurement partnership has...

PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE

HEALTH AND WELLBEING

THROUGH LOCAL FOOD PROCUREMENT

A HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT

OF THE

POWYS PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PROPOSALS

The Powys Public Procurement Project February, 2003- Health Impact Assessment

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of all those who took part in this exercise – listed in Appendix 2.

In particular, he would like to acknowledge the support and encouragement given by Richard Pitts, Joy Carey, Antony Lewis, Marie Granell and Ben Rolfe who also provided invaluable technical advice and guidance.


INDEX

Page

1. Executive Summary 4

2. Background to the Powys Public Procurement Project

5

3. Background to Health Impact Assessment 5

4. Evaluating the Evidence 8

5. The Link Between Sustainability and Health 9

6. Method 10

7. A Synthesis of the Results 11

8. Summary 15

9. Conclusion 24

APPENDICES

1. Measuring Health and Well-being – the New Challenge

2. Invitees and Attenders at the Health Impact Assessment Workshop

3. Results of Hospitals and Schools Subgroups’ Deliberations

4. Workshop’s Assessment of Priority Impacts

5. The Nutritional Impact of Locally Produced and Processed Food (including organic) and the Impact of Non organic farming

6. Summarised references

7. Powys County Council’s Policy on School Meals Procurement


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A health impact assessment, or more accurately, a sustainable health and well-being assessment (with an in-built inequalities assessment) , was carried out on a proposal to introduce local sourcing of food for three hospitals and two schools in Powys, the Powys Public Procurement Project (PPPP). The assessment framework used was a variant of the health and well-being framework recently developed by the Dyfed Powys Health Authority.

User and other stakeholder involvement was secured by means of a half day workshop at which their views on the likely health impacts of the proposal and their relative magnitude and importance were sought and documented.

These views were subsequently evaluated and three key impacts were identified; the generation of additional local employment, the impact on local road traffic and the nutritional impact of locally produced and processed (including organic) food.

Appraisal of the evidence bases in these areas in the light of the PPPP proposals revealed that the impact on local employment is likely to be positively health and well–being promoting; that the impact on local road traffic could be either health and well-being promoting or reducing depending upon how the local logistics are organised; and that the nutritional impact is likely to be positively health and well-being promoting.

Health and well-being promoting social benefits and other health and well-being / sustainability promoting environmental benefits were also identified.Importantly no significant health and well-being or sustainability negative impacts were identified.

In terms of inequalities the findings were inconclusive although a small contribution to reducing inequalities seems likely.

Overall therefore the available evidence suggests a significant positive impact on the health and well-being of the local population and possibly some reduction in existing health and well-being inequalities . In terms of sustainability the impact is likely to be significantly positive.

The Powys Public Procurement Project 4 February, 2003- Health Impact Assessment

BACKGROUND TO THE POWYS PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PROJECT

The Powys Public Procurement Partnership has been working on a practical ‘action research’ project to demonstrate the potential for locally produced food, including organic where available, to deliver social, environmental, economic benefits and to meet the ‘best value’ needs of public sector catering. The Partnership is concerned to learn from current practice in order to inform policy makers within Wales and throughout the UK of the opportunities and barriers that exist in respect of local food procurement. The Partnership comprises many interested parties in Powys with the active partners including The Soil Association (secretariat), Powys County Council, Powys Health Care NHS Trust, Powys Health Alliance, Dyfed Powys Health Authority and Cardiff University.

The Procurement Project was proposed by the Soil Association following on from their past work with Powys County Council and Powys Health Care NHS Trust, which has led to the establishment of Powys Food Links. It has three main elements each of which involves more than one partner: research into legislation; a health impact assessment; and exploring practical opportunities for the sourcing of local food, organic where available, within 2 local schools (John Beddoes in Presteigne, Llandrindod High) and in 3 local hospitals (Llanidloes, Machynlleth, Bronllys).

BACKGROUND TO HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), some two years ago, published a review of Health Impact Assessment and is currently actively encouraging local authorities, health authorities, voluntary bodies and others, but particularly local authorities, to explore the utility of this approach for adding value to decision making. To assist in this process WAG have established a HIA Support Unit with two members of staff committed to providing practical help with carrying out Health Impact Assessments. One member, Ben Rolfe, has been actively involved in this study.

Health Impact Assessment is a process which is intended to improve the quality of policy development and decision making at all levels. Better Health: Better Wales identified Health Impact Assessment as a way in which local authorities could ensure that their decisions took account of health.

A World Health Organisation working party defined Health Impact Assessment as “ a combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, program or project may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those effects within the population”.

In other words it is a process that considers the wider effects of local and national policies or initiatives and how they, in turn, may affect people’s health. Some of these may be positive, and others could be more harmful. The idea is to ensure that any proposed initiative can be adjusted to ‘add value’ and ensure maximum benefits in terms of its effects on health.


The objectives of a Health Impact Assessment are :

To identify the various ways in which the proposal under consideration could impact for good or ill on the health of the population.

Within the constraints of available information to attempt to characterise the likely impacts, particularly identifying those populations or groups likely to gain or loose from the proposal.

Where possible suggest ways in which the beneficial impacts could be enhanced and harmful impacts mitigated, particularly for disadvantaged groups.

There is no legislative framework for Health Impact Assessment. It is not for example part of the process of determination of a planning application. Under current planning law it is not a “material consideration” for the determination of a planning application.

Health Impact Assessment takes a broad view of health similar to that implied in the definition of health used by the World Health Organisation as being “ a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity”. It follows that the assessment is concerned not just with the risk of death, disease or injury as diagnosed by medical or other healthcare professionals; but with all aspects of health including how people feel mentally and physically and their capacity to fulfil their life roles.Health Impact Assessment is informed by the growing realisation that “non health” issues such as economics, law and order and education have a far greater importance than health services in determining the health of populations.

Looked at another way Health Impact Assessment is the process of drawing up a balance sheet of the positive and negative impacts (health gains and health losses) of a particular policy, programme or project on a defined population or set of populations.

In compiling the balance sheet health gains and losses are determined using a very broad definition of health, more appropriately defined as health and well-being, comprising the following elements:

Disease, disorder and injury (DDI)Health related lifestyle (HRL)Education, skills and training (EST)Income / poverty (IP)Employment and the economy (EMEC)Housing (H)Physical environment ( PE)Community Safety (CS)Social Capital (SC)Geographical Access (GA)Human Biology (HB)Health Care Organisation (HCO)

The above framework is derived from work done by the Dyfed Powys Health Authority in trying to define the concept of health and well-being for a baseline assessment exercise it has just undertaken for the Director of Public Health’s


Annual Report for the year 2002 (APPENDIX 1) Having adopted and promoted this framework it is felt important to use it wherever possible in order to avoid confusion and to achieve a consistent approach.

For the workshop phase of the assessment exercise the following list of health (and well-being) determinants, devised by the Health Impact Assessment Group in Liverpool, was used:

Type Some intermediate factors that determine health

Indi

vidu

al

(Usu

ally

fix

ed)

Age, Sex and Genetics.

Indi

vidu

als’

life

styl

e an

d ca

paci

ties

Lifestyle / behaviour:

Smoking, nutrition and health eating, physical activity, alcohol misuse,other drug misuse, sexual health, propensity to use heath and care services, others.

Capacity:

Skills and knowledge including training and education, others

Soci

al a

nd C

omm

unity

in

fluen

ces

Family:

Structure and function.Parenting, others

Community:

Peer pressure,Social support mechanisms, social networks, neighbourliness. Degree of isolation.Cultural and spiritual ethos, others.

Livi

ng a

nd W

orki

ng c

ondi

tions

Living conditions:

Built environment, civic design and planning, housing, noise, smell, air and water quality, physical view and outlook, public safety, waste disposal, road hazards, play spaces, others.

Work:

Employment, workplace conditions, occupation, income, others.

Services: (access to services and quality of services)

Medical services, caring services, careers advice and counselling, shops and commercial services, public amenities/facilities and other services.

Access to information and communication technology.

Gene

ral

soci

o-ec

onom

ic,

cultu

ral a

nd

envi

ronm

enta

l Environmental:

Biological diversity, sustainability. Transport systems, global climate, others.


It will be seen that the Dyfed Powys health and well-being framework is slightly more extensive than the framework overleaf but that there is in fact a large degree of similarity between the two and it is possible to map each to the other.

In constructing the Balance Sheet it is necessary to specify two characteristics of each line entry. Firstly, who is the major beneficiary or loser. And when will the benefit or loss accrue.

The who question can be broken down into the following components:

Local community (com)Region Nation Global

And for each of these categories a further subdivision exists into socially excluded and others

The when question can likewise be broken down into the following broad categories:

Immediate – within less than 1 year Intermediate – within 5-10 years (int)Long term – within 10 or more years (lon)

So the final balance sheet is in fact a synthesis of a series of balance sheets or put another way a single but multidimensional balance sheet.

EVALUATING THE EVIDENCE

One convention for classifying health related evidence is as follows:

TYPE I EVIDENCE - at least one good systematic review including at least one randomised controlled trial

TYPE II EVIDENCE - at least one good randomised controlled trialTYPE III EVIDENCE - well designed intervention studies without

randomisationTYPE IV EVIDENCE - well designed observational studiesTYPE V EVIDENCE - expert opinion; influential reports and studiesTYPE VI EVIDENCE - hunches and wishful thinking!

The equivalent convention used to indicate the potential benefit to health is :

BENEFICIAL (1) - effectiveness clearly demonstratedLIKELY TO BE BENEFICIAL (2) - effectiveness not so firmly establishedTRADE–OFF BETWEEN BENEFICIAL AND ADVERSE EFFECTS (3) - effects weighed according to individual circumstancesUNKNOWN (4) -- insufficient / inadequate for recommendationUNLIKELY TO BE BENEFICIAL (5) - ineffectiveness is not as clearly demonstrated as for 6 belowLIKELY TO BE INEFFECTIVE OR HARMFUL (6) – ineffectiveness or harm clearly demonstrated


THE LINK BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY AND HEALTH

This report is concerned with the direct or at least fairly direct and immediate or relatively immediate impact on the health of human populations. However the effects of local food procurement on ecology and biological diversity are also relevant for two reasons:

The “canary theory”. Conditions which damage other species living on the planet may also damage human health. Other species may be more sensitive than humans and thus give advanced warning of conditions which may later damage human health. A study demonstrating an association between reduced lichen diversity and lung cancer mortality rates in the Veneto region of Italy lends some support to this theory though it is open to many other interpretations.

The “ amenity and mental health theory”. People value high quality environments and biological diversity. Their feelings of well-being and of mental and emotional health are damaged if this is threatened.

In view of the clear link between sustainability and health it is considered important to undertake a sustainability assessment as part of the overall health impact assessment.

Thus, this exercise, although billed as a Health Impact Assessment, is in reality rather broader in scope than this term implies. It is in truth a SUSTAINABLE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING IMPACT ASSESSMENT (with an in-built inequalities assessment ).


METHOD

Having identified the requirement for a Health Impact Assessment the PPP Project Team set up a subgroup comprising Joy Carey ( Soil Association), Marie Grannell ( Powys Local Health Group/ Powys Health Promotion Unit ), Richard Pitts ( Local Agenda 21 Powys County Council) Ben Rolfe ( Welsh Health Impact Assessment Support Unit ) and Paul Walker ( Powys Local Health Alliance/ Dyfed Powys Health Authority) to take this forward.

An early decision of the subgroup was to adopt a participative approach as far as possible rather than a solely professional desktop approach. In this way it was felt that the scope of the Health Impact Assessment would be more comprehensive, would be better understood by key stakeholders, would be owned by them, would gain local insight and reflect local priorities.

Ideally, of course, a participative approach would involve representatives of the communities to be affected by the Project, not just those – mainly officers of statutory and voluntary bodies - closely involved in the Project Team.

However, given the inevitable time and resource constraints it was agreed that the Assessment would only involve interested members of the main Project Team plus several officers and others from the main stakeholding organisations and groups. No direct representation of the communities involved was possible, obviously a significant omission.

In the event a half day workshop was held in July, 2002, to which a broad range of stakeholder representatives and others were invited of whom a number attended. (APPENDIX 2)

Following a brief outline of the background to the PPP Project and of the theory and practice of Health Impact Assessment two subgroups were established to look at the Hospitals aspect and the Schools aspect of the Project respectively.

After a structured brainstorming session using the table on page 5 each subgroup identified what it considered to be the priority issues under the various framework headings. These are described and evaluated in detail in APPENDIX 3. The results of the brainstorming sessions from which the priority issues were picked are shown in APPENDIX 4.


A SYNTHESIS OF THE RESULTS

Looking at the results of the subgroups’ separate deliberations ( see APPENDICES 3&4 ) together what conclusions can be drawn in respect of the various health and well-being determinants in turn?

(a) Disease, disorder and injury (DDI)

This particular category was not specifically considered by either subgroup. However, there are some theoretical impacts in this domain including increased road traffic accidents from increased local road traffic, increased farm accidents from increased local farming activity and increased food poisoning from less industrialised and quality controlled food production and processing.

These are areas where there are evidence bases to apply and will be looked at further below

(b) Lifestyle (HRL)

This category was considered specifically at the workshop. There are several aspects of lifestyle that could be affected including physical exercise ( increase for the increased number of people involved in local production and processing) nutrition (see below) and alcohol, tobacco and drug consumption ( all increased because of more money in the local economy).

The one that was considered most important by both subgroups was nutrition. The Schools subgroup also identified “improved behaviour” as another possible impact.Both groups considered that there would be positive, definite and immediate impacts on the main end users of the PPP Project ie patients and hospital staff and school children, though the size of the impact was seen as large for school children but only medium for patients and hospital staff. Other lesser beneficiaries i.e. lesser in extent, likelihood or timing of the impact, included, importantly, the socially excluded as some of these would be hospital patients and the parents of the school children. Neither subgroup considered that the whole community would be affected.

This was clearly seen as an important direct health and well-being impact of the Project and is one where there is an evidence base to be applied – see below.

The schools subgroup identified “improved behaviour” of pupils, teachers and parents as a positive, definite, immediate and large degree impact. This is a much more difficult area to evaluate and will not be considered further.

(c) Education, skills and training (EST)

This category was considered by both subgroups under the heading of Capacity Building.


Possible impacts on education, skills and training relate specifically to skills acquisition and the related training resulting from increased local traditional farming activity and increased food processing activity. There could be an educational impact from the increased knowledge and understanding of food production, technology and nutrition.

Both subgroups considered that there would be a positive impact on capacity / learning opportunity for the whole community, the hospitals subgroup being specific in considering that the impact would be definite, immediate, medium and long term, and of large degree.This is an area where there is almost certainly little in the way of evidence base so it will not be considered further.

(d) Income and Poverty

By increasing employment in the local food production and processing businesses there is likely to be an impact on local income and poverty levels and on the income and poverty levels of those distant communities which may lose employment as a direct result of what happens in Powys. These employment and economic impacts were considered separately by both subgroups ( see below ).

(e) Employment and the economy.

This category of health determinants was considered by both subgroups under the two headings of Work and Macro-economic impacts. The types of additional employment identified included composting, a healing garden, in energy recycling and in administration/management. It was also thought that local employment would become less seasonal i.e. there would be an increase in all year employment.

Improved work opportunities were identified by both subgroups as having positive, immediate and large scale impacts on local food producers and food processors though the hospitals group considered these to be definite whereas the schools group considered them to be probable.Both subgroups saw positive impacts on the local economy with the schools subgroup seeing economic benefits spreading in time more widely across the UK.

This is an important impact where there is an evidence base to be applied and will thus be considered further below.

(f) Physical environment including housing.

This category of health determinant was considered by both subgroups The range of environmental impacts identified included more favourable planning decisions, reduced food miles, increased diversity and improved local image, increased biological diversity if increasingly organic, reduced reliance on fossil fuels, reduced use of packaging, increased opportunities for using alternative energy sources, increased opportunities for better recycling, and increased potential for partnership working with the Centre for Alternative Technology in Powys.


The hospital subgroup saw the main impact as being the more efficient use of resources impacting positively, definitely, in the medium and longer terms to a medium or minor extent on the local population including the socially excluded. The schools subgroup envisaged two impacts, on more favourable planning decision and on environmental sustainability, which would be in the main positive and affecting the whole community as well as local producers and processors but with some negative affects for example on the near neighbours of local producers and processors.These important areas do not have a significant evidence base and thus cannot be considered further.

(g) Community Safety

This category of health determinant was not specifically considered by either subgroup. Possible impacts include an increase in crime locally and thus a decrease in community safety as a result of the increased wealth of the local community. This could of course equally be a reason for expecting less crime. An increase in local community identity and cohesion would also tend to have the effect of reducing crime. The net impact of these countervailing influences is probably a decrease in crime and an increase in community safety.

(h) Social Capital

This category of health determinant was considered by both subgroups under the broad Social and Community Influences and specific headings of Community and Family. Both subgroups believed there would be positive, definite or possible, short medium and longer term, large or medium impacts on strengthening family structure and function

The hospital subgroup saw a positive probable, medium and longer term, medium level effect on the whole population including the socially excluded as a result of the mobilising of community infrastructure by the Project. The schools subgroup saw positive, probable, immediate and longer term medium to large extent effects on the whole population, local producers, children, farming families and Tourist providers as a result of a strengthened sense of identity and from the knock on effects on other groups.

(i) Geographical Access

This category of health determinant was not considered by either subgroup and is almost certainly not relevant to this assessment exercise.

(j) Human Biology

This category of health determinant was considered by both subgroups but was not deemed relevant.


(j) Health ( and social ) Care Organisation

This category of health determinant was considered by the hospital subgroup who identified three impacts viz a paradigm shift for policy development from cure to prevention which they saw as a positive, definite, longer term and large extent impact for the whole community. Better collaboration between the public sector and other services was seen as a positive, definite, short , medium and longer term medium to large extent impact on the whole community and the socially excluded. And the development of the hospital as a health and well-being centre was seen as a positive, definite, longer term and medium extent impact on the local population and hospital patients and staff.


SUMMARY

Looking at the potential health impacts identified at the Workshop it is clear that some comprise good ideas that could well have significant positive health impacts in the future but which are not directly and ineluctably linked to local food procurement. A good example of this is the proposal to transform a local community hospital into a Health and Well-being Centre serving the local community. This is undoubtedly an innovative idea that seems to have a great deal of relevance to the particular array of community hospitals in Powys; and it could have major and positive health impacts particularly on lifestyle issues.

Others are more directly linked to local food procurement but have little in the way of an evidence base to help characterise their likely health impact. Examples of these include some of the social capital impacts such as the strengthening of local identity and strengthening family structure and function.

The three areas where there is clearly a very direct link with local food procurement and where there is a significant evidence base to assist in the evaluation of their likely impact comprise:

1. The generation of additional local employment2. The impact on local road traffic 3 The nutritional impact of locally produced and processed ( Including

Organic ) food.

These will be considered in detail in turn

1. The Generation of additional local employment

In addition to the local economy study carried out by a student on placement with the Soil Association, other economic benefits were identified in the Flair Report.1 ‘The local food sector is showing its potential to encourage new community and business enterprise. As the number of success stories grows and market outlets for local products increase, it becomes easier and therefore more appealing, for new enterprises to enter the sector’. Examples of this trend include:

• Generating greater employment opportunities at a local level - 26% of local food businesses have created jobs during the last 12 months compared to 8% of non-local food businesses2

• Securing employment at a local level - Farms in the South West producing food which is sold locally, employ an average of one additional employee per farm3

• Creating increased commercial opportunities - By early 2002, 395 Farmers’ Markets were in operation across the UK4

1 Appendix 1 note 262 Appendix 1 note 43 Appendix 1 note 54 Appendix 1 note 6


• Support for local agricultural services and suppliers - 25% of local food usinesses have increased the value of their local purchases during the last 12 months5

• Diversification of the farm and local economy - At least 2,143 enterprises are currently listed in local food directories

• Making greater use of co-operation and collaboration between businesses – Nearly twice as many local food businesses are involved in collaborative ventures compared to non-local food businesses6

And some relevant comparative economic impacts:

If the population of Bridport spent £1 a week on local food, it would save £795,132 a year on the environmental costs of intensive farming practices and food miles 23

If the population of Bridport and its catchment area spent 36p a week ……the multiplier effect of this would produce £1,206,872 for the local economy 17

This evidence is of Types IV and V and the putative health benefits are of Types 2 and 3

References

3 Boyde, T. 2001. Cusgarne Organics: local money flows. New Economics Foundation, London

4 Delow, E. & Watson, S. 2002. Flair 2001: The National Survey. The Foundation for Local Food Initiatives, Bristol

5 Devon County Council. 2001. Local Food & Farming Briefing. Policy Unit Exeter

6 National Association of Farmer’s Markets – April 2002 survey by Foundation for Local Food Initiatives

7 Couzens, C. & Watson, S. 1999. Dorset Local Products Feasibility Study. Charles Couzens Associates. Bruton.

17 Derived from: Boyde, T. 2001. Cusgarne Organics: local money flows. New Economics Foundation, London

23 Derived from: Pretty, J. 2001. Some Benefits and Drawbacks of Local Food Systems. Briefing Note TVU/Sustain Agrifood Network, London.

25 Eat the View – www.eat-the-view.org.uk

5 Appendix 1 note 46 Appendix 1 note 4


2. The impact on local road traffic

Transport issues comprise a key part of the debate surrounding local food procurement. There are a number of research projects currently looking at the relative benefits of a variety of distribution scenarios i, improving the evidence base significantly. The workshop identified the key potential impacts of a move to local procurement as, on the positive side fewer lorries on local roads. Additionally, reduced ‘food mileage’ resulting in less reliance on fossil fuels with gains in terms of lower CO2 emissions; further opportunities exist for exploring the use of alternative energy leading to increased benefits in this area. On the negative side, an increase in the number of ‘fast moving’ smaller vans with rises in traffic frequency, noise and fumes were identified.

Whilst there is good evidence to characterise the health impacts of various changes in road use, there is very little evidence to suggest exactly what these changes are likely to be i ii. The following evidence is based on the assumption that the impacts identified above hold true.

Climate Change

A reduction in ‘food miles’ is like likely to result in a reduction in CO2 emissions, there is good evidence in the literature to support a hypothesis that curtailing global warming is likely to improve healthiii. However it is important to note that although light vans have a number of environmental benefits (road wear, amenityi) they are considerably less efficient ‘per food mile’ than HGV’s. Additionally refrigeration of unseasonable produce may lead to higher CO2 emissions than long distance transport. Although more detailed modelling would be required to accurately characterise CO2 emissions, significant benefits may be realised by prioritising the substitution of certain ‘high mileage’ foodstuffs for local produce.

Although not inevitable, any significant increase in traffic frequency on local roads would be likely to have negative health impacts iv both from injury rates and pollution.

Injury

A shift from motorway transport to smaller local roads could have an impact in injuries as these roads have far higher rates per km travelledv. It is worth noting that certain groups suffer disproportionately from road accidents, pedestrians, cyclists, children and the socio-economically disadvantaged being most at riskvi vii . Multiple deliveries to schools also pose an additional risk.

Pollution

Although light vans can be up to 5 times more polluting i the research that does exist concludes that “for lower volume product and lower population market areas, smaller vehicles do have the potential to reduce transport batch size and distance”. This may offset any benefits from long distance HGV based transport in terms of pollution, CO2 and injuries i. Those with chronic heart and lung conditions are at increased risk from atmospheric


pollution; there is also some evidence that those in less affluent areas suffer a disproportionate burden of traffic pollution vii. Some studies suggest that noise pollution can have a detrimental effect on the performance of school childrenvii.

Mitigation and opportunities

Experience from France is that the introduction of a consolidation stage or stages between the point of production and the point of delivery improve the efficiency of such local trading schemes. Furthermore promoting the use of LPG fuel, and eliminating key ‘high mileage’ foodstuffs (e.g. beans from Kenya) would make the transport related health benefits more significant.

It is debatable whether any small traffic increases resulting from the proposal would have significant impacts, however cumulative impacts from many similar projects may require closer scrutiny. Appropriately timed deliveries and reduced delivery frequency (from consolidation points) would help

Conclusion

The effects of traffic are difficult to quantify. It is unlikely that there will be any noticeable increase in illnesses attributable to effects of traffic. On the other hand it is likely that most will experience increased awareness of heavy good vehicles in the environment including because of the increased noise and vibration and, in some cases, because of community severance; and some will feel that their mental well-being has been diminished.

Transport issues comprise a key part of the debate surrounding local food procurement. There are a number of research projects currently looking at the relative benefits of a variety of distribution scenarios7. The workshop identified the key potential impacts of a move to local procurement as, on the positive side fewer lorries on local roads. Additionally, reduced ‘food mileage’ resulting in less reliance on fossil fuels with gains in terms of lower CO2 emissions; further opportunities exist for exploring the use of alternative energy leading to increased benefits in this area. On the negative side, an increase in the number of ‘fast moving’ smaller vans with rises in traffic frequency, noise and fumes were identified.

The key health impacts here are those resulting from global warming, increased traffic frequency (specifically small vans) and injuries resulting from a move from motorway and trunk road based distribution system to one using local roads. There is good evidence in the literature to support a hypothesis that curtailing global warming is likely to improve health8 and that increasing traffic on local roads is likely to damage health9 both from

7 Wise Moves Modelling Report Robert Mason and David Simons FSP with Clive Peckham and Tully Wakeman EAF June 2002. In Press.

8 Health Effects of Climate Change. G Donaldson, RS Kovats, WR Keatinge and AJ McMichael. Department of Health 2002.

9


injury rates (small roads have far higher raters per km traveled10) and pollution (small vans on local roads can be up to 5 times more polluting1).

The evidence base for the likely changes to transport patterns by the proposal is limited111. The research that does exist concludes that for lower volume product and lower population market areas, smaller vehicles have the potential to reduce transport batch size and distance, this may offset the benefits from long distance HGV based transport in terms of CO2 and injuries. The infrastructure needed to support this would be one, or a series of consolidation points between production and the point of delivery1. Without this, health benefits from local procurement mediated by transport issues may not be significant.

This evidence is of Types IV and V, and the putative health benefits are of Types 2 and 3.

3. The Nutritional Impact Of Locally Produced And Processed (Including Organic ) Food.

Current orthodoxy is that there is no evidence to indicate that organically grown green crops are significantly different in nutrient content to conventionally grown ones; that animal and fungal products may differ in nutrient content according to their feed/cultivation; that organically grown crops can be contaminated with micro-organisms and chemical additives; and that locally grown food may well be fresher but that frozen imports can still be of better quality than local grown produce that has deteriorated in storage. However, there is a growing body of evidence12 to suggest that with appropriate quality control measures applied at the production, processing and storage stages, locally grown including organic produce can deliver added value in terms of microbiological and chemical safety and in terms of nutrient content. At a slightly more mundane level, fresh local produce, if it really is fresh, probably tastes better and assuming suitable preparation this probably applies also to the prepared dishes in which it is incorporated. This may well make the food more palatable and more satisfying.

This evidence is of Types IV and V, and the putative health benefits are of Types 2 and 3.

?Brand, Pilkington, Joffe and Anderson. Informing transport and health impact assessment in London. NHS Executive .2000.

10 Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2001 Edition Table 4.16 Road accidents and accident rates: by road class and severity: 1990-2000. Department for Transport 20011

1

11 Eating oil – Food in a challenging climate. Elm Farm/Sustain 2001.1

12 See Appendices 4 and 5


OTHER POSSIBLE IMPACTS

1. Social benefits

Social capital (eg. trust, mutuality, co-operation, collaboration), education, skills and training have been identified in the Flair Report13, though these are more difficult to measure. ‘The local food sector also fosters local identity and pride in people’s local community. This leads to increased confidence and co-operation amongst community members, encouraging more community-based enterprise’. Examples include:14

• Improved diet and health through increased access to nutritious food - Over 50% of local food businesses believe that their involvement in the sector has improved their local community ’s access to fresh produce

• Revitalising local services, including local shops - 55% of local food sales are through existing local shops and markets

• Encouragement of skills transfer and training - Those involved in the local food sector are nearly four times more likely to have received training than those involved in comparable non-food enterprises

• Increasing social contact between people, including the socially excluded - 74% of local food businesses have direct contact with all or some of their customers compared to 35% of non-local food businesses

• Increased understanding of the links between food, the environment and health - 35% of local food businesses provide information on the health benefits of eating fresh food compared to 13% of non-local food businesses

• Increased opportunities for community involvement in food production - A quarter of local food businesses involve local people in their enterprise activities compared to just 10%of non-local food businesses.

2. Potential non-transport related environmental benefits

‘Local food enterprises have the potential to reduce energy use in production, whilst achieving national and local biodiversity objectives and regional and more local landscape objectives.’ Examples of this proposition in the Flair Report include:15

• Encouraging farmers to adopt more environmentally-friendly production systems - Local food producers are significantly more likely to be certified organic than non-local producers

• Enhancing the viability of traditional farming systems that benefit the environment - Traditional breeds and old varieties are present on nearly twice as many local food enterprises compared to non-local food businesses

• Enhancing and conserving the local distinctiveness of landscape character - Local marketing and branding initiatives link products to the protection of the landscapes from which they originate

• Conservation of air, soil and water, including reduced levels of pollution and waste - More than twice as many enterprises involved in the local

13 Appendix 1 note 414 ibid15 ibid


food sector are involved in waste reduction practices compared to those outside the sector.

3. The real cost of food – the bigger picture

The negative externalities and hidden costs of agriculture have been documented in recent years. Professor Jules Pretty of Essex University has found that the total UK annual costs in the 1990’s were £1.54 billion. These costs resulted from pesticide removal from water; soil, nitrate and phosphate removal; Cryptosporidium removal; losses of biodiversity, hedgerows, stonewalls; off-site costs of soil erosion and carbon losses; bacterial outbreaks in food; effects of greenhouse gases on climate; BSE; antibiotic resistance, acute and chronic pesticide effects on human health. These extra costs were in effect a hidden subsidy from the public to polluters.

On the positive side, wetlands help with flood protection, waste treatment and nutrient amelioration. Sound landscape management makes the countryside accessible and is key to the rural economy. These hidden factors do not find their way to influence the cost of food to the consumer. Pretty, Ball and Morison have calculated that the actual cost of weekly food basket is in fact 11.8% greater than what the consumer actually pays. To calculate this figure, they took into account the agricultural externalities (see above), sea/river/air transport domestic transport to retail, transport from the shop to home, farm subsidies and waste to landfill.

Organic farming, localised food systems, more sustainable transport and composting would all help to avoid these extra costs. Pretty et al have calculated that the extra cost of 11.8% (based on conventional farming, national road and car transport, and landfill) could be reduced to 5.5% if production was organic and transport was by car on national roads. It could be further reduced to 1.1% if all agriculture was organic, people were able to walk or cycle to the shops and that food-related waste was composted.


SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

The Powys Public Procurement Partnership was clear from the start of its work that the interpretation of the word health was going to go beyond the mere absence of disease & infirmity. A whole range of non-health issues, all of which could impact upon human health across the time spectrum was included in the Assessment. However it was also acknowledged that the needs of sustainable development as a term included issues that went beyond even the broadest interpretation of the word ‘Health’.

Whilst the incentive to become more sustainable is not a particularly altruistic one (sustainability is after all concerned primarily with making sure we have what is necessary for human survival) there are many ethical reasons why society and in particular policy-makers have a duty to consider these wider issues from the point of view of different, and in some cases purely altruistic perspectives. The needs of the natural environment and in particular biodiversity is one example of this, as it is argued by many that we have a duty of care towards the variety of life that goes beyond any reasons of purely self-interest.

It is for this reason that we attempted to incorporate into the Assessment concerns that related to the wider sustainability agenda. In effect we used the model of a Health Impact Assessment to identify and examine all of the concerns within the broadest definitions of ‘health’ and ‘sustainability’.

The decision to do this was guided by the aspiration that the work would be of concern to policy makers and campaigners from a very wide cross section of interests. This is partly reflected in the make up of the partnership itself. The Health sector is obviously interested in all things to do with the broad interpretations of health, (in line with its new responsibilities as from April 2003). A County Council however is interested, in the wider interpretations of sustainable development not least because as a democratically elected agency it has to represent the widest constituency of interests. This is all in line with its responsibilities towards Local Agenda 21 and indeed its statutory duties towards ensuring the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of its area, as stated in the Local Government Act 2000 and acted upon in numerous Community Strategies across the Country.

Nationally, too, it is expected that both politicians and policy makers will be interested in discovering the widest possible impacts of public agencies purchasing local and organic food in line with the national duty (in Wales) to promote sustainable development (section 121 of the Welsh Assembly Act 1997).

In all of these respects the power of food as an issue that delivers tangible and significant impacts across the whole spectrum of sustainable development (from employment to environmental quality, from health and nutrition to social capital) underlines the huge significance of this work. It is hoped that this work will help policy makers to identify the ways in which food can be turned into an opportunity, arguably the most potent single opportunity, to deliver positive impacts upon our economic, social and environmental concerns.


Specific impacts on biodiversity and the wider environment include :

Air and water quality

Depending on the outcomes decided in the Workshops (if there are overall + or – impacts upon air and water quality) then biodiversity will be impacted similarly

Waste disposal

Increases in Composting may lead to increases in invertebrate populations with corresponding benefits for many higher animals that rely upon them (-e.g. Frogs known to benefit from compost heaps)

Biological diversity

On farms where greater diversity of farming activity is occurring, there’ll be less intensive grazing so Sheep ranching reduced which could have very significant positive effects for a number of species mentioned in the Powys BAP (e.g. Marsh & High Brown Fritillary butterflies, Fairy Shrimp). Also Brown Hares rely on mixed farms so would benefit from reduction of livestock farming if this resulted in increase of root crops in particular which I understand are diminishing.

Tree Sparrows are recognised to be suffering with the loss of more traditional farms and ‘mixed-farm’ practices, as are other birds such as the Linnet, Yellowhammer, and Skylark. The RSPB Report on Organic Farming suggests there could be yet others.

General policy climate

The Tir Gofal scheme now over subscribed, so would (probably) need extra resources from the Assembly to deal with the extra demand from farmers wishing to enter the local/organic sectorOrganic Conversion grants may also need extra resources to meet additional demand


CONCLUSION

Overall, therefore, it is considered that the Powys Public Procurement Project will have a significant positive impact on the health and well-being of the local population and possibly result in some reduction in existing health and well-being inequalities.

In terms of sustainability the impact is likely to be significant and positive.


APPENDICES


APPENDIX 1


APPENDIX 2


INVITEES TO AND ATTENDERS AT THE HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP ON 9 TH JULY 2002.

INVITEES

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

ATTENDERS

Kevin Morgan, Selyf Morgan, Adrian Morley, Lavinia Vaughan, Suzanne Davies, Richard Pitts, Antony Lewis, Paul Walker, Joy Carey, Simon Brenman, Marie Grannell, Ben Rolfe


mailto:[email protected]


























APPENDIX 3


RESULTS OF HOSPITALS AND SCHOOLS SUBGROUPS’ DELIBERATIONS

A. HOSPITALS SUBGROUP

Looking at the individual health determinant categories in turn the Hospitals subgroup reported as follows :

(a) Disease, disorder and injury ( DDI)

This particular category was not specifically considered at the workshop. However, there are some theoretical impacts in this domain including increased road traffic accidents from increased local traffic, increased farm accidents from increased local farming activity and increased food poisoning from less industrialised and quality controlled food production and processing.

(b) Lifestyle ( HRL )

This category was specifically considered at the workshop. There are several aspects of lifestyle that could be affected including physical exercise( increase for the increased number of people involved in local production and processing), nutrition (see below), and alcohol, tobacco and drug consumption ( all increased because of more money in the local economy). The one that was considered most important at the workshop, unsurprisingly, was nutrition where the consensus view was as shown below:

Improved nutritional quality

Who: +/- High/Short Medium Low/Long

All

Impact size

Probability

Timescale

Service users, staff patents rels

Impact size █████

Probability █████

Timescale █████




Soc excluded





In summary it was felt that locally produced and processed food would impact on Lifestyle as follows :

Positively, definitely, immediately and to a medium extent on the direct beneficiaries i.e. patients and staff;

Positively, definitely, in the longer term and to a medium extent on the relatives of patients ( and staff)

Positively, definitely, in the longer term and to a medium extent on the socially excluded.


This category was considered at the workshop under the lifestyle heading (see below )

Possible impacts on education, skills and training relate specifically to skills acquisition and the associated training resulting from increased local traditional farming activity and increased food processing activity. There could be an educational impact from the increased knowledge and understanding of food production, technology and nutrition.The workshop formed the following consensus on capacity building, learning opportunities and consciousness raising :

Capacity / learning opportunity – raising consciousness

Who: +/- High/Short Medium Low/LongAll



Timescale █████ █████ █████

Enhancing + maintaining physical activity Consciousness raising Clinical governance Stress reduction (employment)

In summary it was felt that locally produced and processed food would impact on education, skills and training as follows : Positively, definitely, to large effect and in the short, medium and

longer terms on the whole local community including the socially excluded.



This category was considered at the workshop , employment and economic impacts were considered separately. By increasing employment in the local food production and processing businesses there is likely to be an impact on local income and poverty levels and on the income and poverty levels of those distant communities which will lose employment as a direct result of what happens in Powys.

(e) Employment and the economy.

This category of health determinants was considered under the two headings of Work impacts and Macro-economic impacts. The types of additional employment identified included composting, a healing garden, in energy recycling and in administration / management. It was also thought that local employment would become less seasonal i.e. there would be an increase in all year employment.

The consensus reached on work impacts was as follows :

Increasing work opportunities and quality of work – (a) production - services, (b) skills:Increasing work opportunities, work implications


all skills ops

Impact size ██████

Probability ██████

Timescale ██████ Skills



Timescale ██████

Diversity of work opportunities, would be very inclusive, include socially excluded

The Project was considered to be compatible with some National and European policies e.g. CAP; but not compatible and potentially in Conflict with others e.g. GATT.


In summary it was felt that locally produced and processed food would impact on Employment and the Economy as follows :

Positively, definitely, immediately and to a large extent on the whole working population including the economically active socially excluded

Negatively in the short and medium terms (through the establishment of an inevitably intrusive bureaucracy particularly in the early set up phase)

Positively in increasing the local Gross Domestic Product. Though not considered at the workshop it is likely that this positive impact would definitely occur, would be fairly immediate in effect and long lasting and would affect the whole community including the socially excluded.

(f) Physical environment including housing.

This category of health determinant was considered at the workshop. The range of environmental impacts identified at the workshop included reduced food miles, increased diversity and improved local image, increased biological diversity if increasingly organic, reduced reliance of fossil fuels, reduced use of packaging, increased opportunities for using alternative energy sources, increased opportunities for better recycling, and increased potential for partnership working with the Centre for Alternative Technology in Powys.

The consensus reached on the most important aspect of environmental (Environment and Sustainability) impact was as follows:

Efficient use of resources – minimising external costs


All



Timescale █████ █████

Socially excluded



Timescale █████ █████

Relative contributions of lifestyle factors, healing gardens etc have greater impact for socially excluded.


In summary it was felt that locally produced and processed food would impact on the Physical Environment as follows: Positively, definitely, in the medium and longer terms and to a

medium extent on all the local population Positively, definitely, in the medium and longer terms and to a minor

degree on the socially excluded

(g) Community Safety.

This category of health determinant was considered at the workshop. Possible impacts include an increase in crime locally and thus a decrease in community safety as a result of the increased wealth of the local community. This could of course equally be a reason for expecting less crime. An increase in local community identity and cohesion would also tend to have the effect of reducing crime. The net effect of these influences in probably a decrease in crime and an increase in community safety.

(h) Social Capital

This category of health determinant was considered under the specific heading of Community. Specific positive issues identified at the workshop included the promotion of local cultures and of seasonal themes, the maintenance of the family pattern of farming and the maintenance of family values.

The consensus on the most important impact of community aspects of social capital was as follows:Mobilising existing community infrastructure - farmers markets, league of friends,


All

Impact size █████ Probability █████

Timescale █████ █████ █████

Widest

comm

unity

Impact size Probability

Timescale

Producer groups


Timescale

vol sector

Impact size

Probability

Timescale

Also socially excludedEg.Farmers markets, meetings, social-ness


The consensus on the most important impact on the family aspect of social capital was as follows:

Family centred services


Service Users



Timescale █████ █████ █████

Suppliers



Timescale █████ █████ █████

2 sectors affected – hospitals. Positive effect on social inclusion, family businesses

In summary it was felt that locally produced and processed food would impact on the community and family aspects of social capital as follows:

a. Mobilizing community infrastructure Positively, probably, over the short, medium and longer terms and to a

medium extent on the whole population including the socially excludedb. Family centred services Positively, definitely, in the short, medium and longer terms and with large

effect on service users Positively, definitely, in the short, medium and longer terms and with large

effect on all categories of suppliers Positively, definitely, in the short, medium and longer terms and to a

minor degree on the socially excluded.


This category of health determinant was not considered at the workshop and is probably not relevant in the current context

(j) Human Biology.

This category of health determinant was considered at the workshop but was not deemed relevant.

(k) Health (and social) Care Organisation.

This category of health determinant was considered at the workshop under the broad rubric of Living and Working conditions under the heading of Services. The workshop reached a consensus on the three most important impacts as follows:


Opportunities for 'shop fronts' in hospitals/health and well being centres:Organic cafes in hospitals


Svice users+ staff




Local resdns




Socially excluded




The second key impact was identified as follows:

Collaboration between public sector services - health and education:Collaboration partnership, networking politics


All

Impact size

Probability

Timescale

Staff of govt orgs



Timescale ██████ ██████ ██████

Wider cty Impact size

Probability

Timescale

Socially excluded


Timescale Build in positive discrimination, who are the beneficiaries? Difficult to differentiate between.


The third important impact was identified as follows:

Paradigm shift for policy development


All




Socially excluded




vested interests




Shift from curative to preventative; learning opportunities; promoting health and well-being. Political agenda of inequalities mustn't be lost

In summary it was felt that locally produced and processed food would impact on Health (and Social) Care Organisation as follows:a. Organic cafes in hospitals and shop front hospital/health and well-being centres Positively, definitely, in the long term and to a medium extent on

hospital patients and staff Positively, definitely, in the long term and to a medium extent on the

local population generally Positively, definitely, in the long term and in large measure on the

socially excluded.b. Collaboration between public sector and other services Positively, definitely, in the short, medium and longer terms and to

medium effect on staff working in the public sector locally Positively, definitely, in the longer term and to a large degree on the

socially excludedc. Paradigm shift for Policy Development Positively, definitely, in the longer term and to large degree on the

whole community Positively, definitely, in the longer term and to large degree on the

socially excluded Negatively, definitely, in the longer term and to large degree on

vested interests locally and nationally


B. SCHOOLS SUBGROUP

Looking at the individual health determinant categories in turn the Schools subgroup reported as follows:

(a) Disease, disorder and injury (DDI)

This particular category was not specifically considered at the workshop. However, there are some theoretical impacts in this domain including increased road traffic accidents from increased local road traffic, increased farm accidents from increased local farming activity and increased food poisoning from less industrialised and quality controlled food production and processing.

(b) Lifestyle (HRL)

This category was considered specifically at the workshop. There are several aspects of lifestyle that could be affected including physical exercise (increase for the increased number of people involved in local production and processing) nutrition (see below) and alcohol, tobacco and drug consumption (all increased because of more money in the local economy).

The two that were considered most important at the workshop were nutrition and “improved behaviour” where the consensus views were as shown below:

Better nutrition from fresh organics food for kids


All

Impact size

Probability

Timescale

Kids




Teachers




Parents




Level of support depends on degree of support fresh food no harmful chemicals on them? – unclear


Improved behaviour


All

Impact size

Probability

Timescale

Kids




Teachers




Parents




Less smoking + alcohol + drugs + sexual health Pester power on families Future generations more healthy as a result Less choice and diversity Eating healthier - feel good factor - take more care of bodies More custom for producers Improved fertility Less use of curative services Improved health resistance

In summary it was felt that locally produced and processed food would impact on Lifestyle as follows:a) Improved nutritional quality Positively, definitely, immediately and to a large degree on the pupils Positively, probably, in the longer term and to a medium extent on

the teachers Positively, probably, in the longer term and to a small extent on the

parents of pupilsb) Improved behaviour Positively, definitely, immediately and to a large degree on the pupils Positively, definitely, immediately and to a large degree on the

teachers Positively, definitely, immediately and to a large degree on the

parents of pupils.



This category was not specifically considered at the workshop. The Schools subgroup did however briefly consider capacity building in the local community and reached a consensus that “ Skills + knowledge (would be) increased”.


This category was not considered as such at the workshop. By increasing employment in the local food production and processing businesses there is likely to be an impact on local income and poverty levels and on the income and poverty levels of those distant communities which will lose employment as a direct result of what happens in Powys. These employment and economic impacts were considered separately at the workshop (See below).

(e) Employment and the economy

This category of health determinant was considered at the workshop under the two headings of Work impacts and Macro-economic impacts. The consensuses reached at the workshop on these impacts was as follows:

Provides new farm work opportunities, strengthens existing jobs e.g.. Mechanics:More work for producers

Who: +/- High/Short Medium Low/LongAll

Impact size

Probability

Timescale

Local producers




Processors




Possibly better under economy?

Buying local food strengthens local economy Seasonal, low paid workWider range of new jobs, some highly skilled Encourages use of smaller machinery + no chemicals - reducing risk

of accidentsMore back troubleBenefited farmers income


Opted out schools make profits and thus further increase quality of food provision and new jobs

Improved morale, motivation at work

Macro-Economic Impact

Local food becomes higher value added with less money leaking out,

More robust local economyWider ripple effect across UK

In summary it was felt that locally produced and processed food would impact on Employment and the Economy as follows:a) On work opportunities Positively, probably, immediately and to large degree on local

producers Positively, probably, immediately and to large degree on local

processors b) On the macro-economy Positively on the local economy and later more widely across the UK

(f) Physical environment including housing

This category of health determinant was considered at the workshop under the headings of Living Conditions and Environment / Sustainability.

The consensuses reached on the these two dimensions were as follows:

Living conditions School gardens developed Knock on effects of getting more sustainability e.g.. Safer routes to

schools Knock on effect of improved cultural identity - e.g.. Improved building

design Improved kitchens in design of new houses, schools kitchens. Demand for more allotments


More favourable planning decisions on new land use / building developments e.g.. Polytunnels, processing units


All

Impact size

Probability

Timescale

Producers


Probability ████ *

Timescale ██ ██

Neighbours




Processing

Impact size ███**



*Depends on support positive member support** but as a cooperative

More local Traffic, noise, fumes Changed physical outlook of landscape Less packaging and waste More green waste and need for composting Less risk of foot and mouth - using only local livestock Fewer big lorries More little fast moving vans More play spaces. E.g.. On visits to farms

Environment / Sustainability

Improved management of farms and therefore countryside Increased Biodiversity (with no use of chemicals) Changed balance of local economy from new crops Full life-cycle costs of system internalised therefore more efficient

use of resources Reduced number of large vehicles, increase number of smaller

vehicles Potential risk of pollution from concentrated manures Lower food miles decrease effect on global warming Increased fruit trees - effect on global warming Greater interest in global warming issues therefore more local

action Control use of GMO's


In summary it was felt that locally produced and processed food would impact on the Physical Environment as follows:

(i) Through more favourable planning decisions on new land use etc

Positively, probably, in the medium and longer terms and to a large degree on local producers

Positively, probably, in the medium term and to a large degree on the local processors

Negatively, probably, in the longer term and to a medium extent on the neighbours of local producers and processors

(i) On Environment / Sustainability Positively locally and wider afield Negatively locally Positively on balance

(g) Community Safety

This category of health determinant was not considered at the workshop. Possible impacts include an increase in crime locally and thus a decrease in community safety as a result of the increased wealth of the local community. This could of course equally be a reason for expecting less crime. An increase in local community identity and cohesion would also tend to have the effect of reducing crime. The net impact of these countervailing influences is probably a decrease in crime and an increase in community safety.

(h) Social Capital

This category of health determinant was considered at the workshop albeit under the broad rubric of Social and Community Influences and under the specific headings of Community and Family. The consensuses at the workshop on the two most important impacts of community aspects of social capital were as follows:


Knock on effects to other groups (WI, YFE, Toddler Groups)


All




Producers




Schools




Others




Dependent on support and priority given

New links forged with community (through reconnection) Peer pressure (parents and kids) could encourage healthy eating Mutual support, reciprocity, neighbourliness lower degree of

isolation Possible increased isolation of those not involved


Strengthened sense of identity (historic + present) Stronger sense of local ethos and culture:Strengthened sense of identity

Who:+/- High/Short Medium Low/

Long

All

Impact size

██ ██

Probability

█████

Timescale █████ *

Kids

Impact size

█████

Probability

█████


Farmers

Impact size

█████

Probability

█████


Tourist providers

Impact size

█████

Probability

█████


Dependant on support resources etc.

Strong sense of otherness, outsiders (e.g.. Halal food etc.

The consensus at the workshop on the most important impact on the family aspect of social capital was as follows:

Strengthening family structure and function

Who:+/- High/

ShortMedium Low/

Long

All

Impact size

Probability

Timescale

Farming

families




Rural com

muniti

es




Disadva

ntaged fam

ilies





Ensuring Continuity Increased awareness to parents / parenting skills Changed routine in families + or - ? Kids not moving away

In summary it was felt that locally produced and processed food would impact on the community and family aspects of social capital as follows:a) Knock on effects to other groups e.g. WI Positively, probably, immediately and to medium extent on whole

population Positively, probably, immediately and to large degree on local

producers Positively, probably, immediately and to large degree on local

schools Positively, probably, immediately and to a small extent on othersb) Strengthened sense of identity Positively, probably, in the medium term and to a medium to low

degree on the whole population Positively, possibly, in the longer term and to a medium extent on

children Positively, probably, in the longer term and to large degree on

farmers and farm workers Positively, definitely, immediately and to large degree on Tourist

providersc) Strengthening family structure and functiond) Positively, possibly, in the longer term and to a medium extent on

farming families Positively, possibly, in the longer term and to a medium extent on

rural communities Positively, possibly, immediately and to a medium extent on the

socially excluded


This category of health determinant was not considered at the workshop and is probably not relevant in the current context

(j) Human Biology

This category of health determinant was considered at the workshop but was not deemed relevant

(k) Health (and social) Care Organisation

This category of health determinant was not considered by the Schools subgroup


Services

Might attract new people to the area and therefore increase population - this may improve access to services

Might make services more vulnerable Improved career opportunities, therefore wider range of careers advice Increased market opportunities for local food (Local shops, tourism

businesses) More businesses to local support industry - increase demand for

information on local food using Internet etc.


APPENDIX 4


APPENDIX 5


THE NUTRITIONAL IMPACT OF LOCALLY PRODUCED AND PROCESSED FOOD (INCLUDING ORGANIC).

1. EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ORGANIC FARMING

Over the last couple of years, several reports have been published on the effects of different farming systems which favour organic farming directly or indirectly. These provide essential evidence that was previously lacking on the scale and range of benefits to be gained from widespread organic farming.

1. THE ENVIRONMENT

Environmental and resource use impacts of organic farming in Europe, Stolze, Piorr, Haring and Dabbert , 2000

This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming, organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower, and energy efficiency is usually higher.

The Biodiversity Benefits of Organic Farming, Soil Association, 2000

The Soil Association published this report in May 2000. It reviewed all the known studies that compared the levels of wildlife on organic and conventional farms (9 fully, 14 briefly). It found clear evidence that overall organic farms support substantially higher levels of wildlife in lowland areas, particularly of those wildlife groups which are declining. Examples include 40% more birds in a three year study of 44 farms by the British Trust for Ornithology, twice as many butterflies and five times as many wild arable plants. This backed up the observation by the organic sector that organic farming addresses the main causes that conservationists have identified as behind the current dramatic decline in farm wildlife.

2. HEALTH

Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains. The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001, 161-173. V. Worthington, 2001

This US study of April 2001 quantified for the first time the difference in nutrient levels between organic and conventional food. It reviewed all the available comparative studies on crops produced with organic matter and inorganic fertilisers (41 studies) and found in all cases that the organic crops had higher levels. The results were statistically significant for Vitamin C (27% more), magnesium (29%), iron (21%) and phosphorus (14%).


[Four studies, including a comparison of official UK Government data, have found that mineral levels in food have fallen by substantial amounts since the adoption of non-organic farming methods of food production.]

Organic farming, food quality and human health, Soil Association, 2001

This report of all aspects of food quality in relation to health showed that on the basis of the available evidence, organic food is healthier than non-organic food because it is safer and more nutritious. It minimises possible dietary toxins such as pesticides, artificial additives and GMOs. Comparative studies show that it contains on average more minerals and vitamin C than non-organic food. Moreover, important improvements in health have been observed in animal feeding trials, such as better fertility and growth.

[Reviews of the comparative research on nutrient levels previous to the above two had been inconclusive. They included many invalid studies and attempted to find consistency between the results, rather looking for overall differences.]

3. ANIMAL WELFARE

Farm Assurance Schemes and Animal Welfare – Can we Trust Them?, CIWF, 2002

This report by Compassion in World Farming provides a comprehensive assessment and endorsement of the welfare benefits of organic farming. CIWF compared the Soil Association’s standards against 15 criteria for animal welfare. They achieved 11-14 out of 15 for the five different livestock categories. In comparison, farm assurance schemes achieved only 4-7.

Farming animals for food: towards a moral menu, Food Ethics Council, 2000

In December 2000, the Food Ethics Council published its report on farm animal welfare. It concluded that systems like organic farming are the ideal and certainly preferable to ‘hi-tech’ approaches in their impact on animal welfare.


4. FEEDING THE WORLD

The Real Green Revolution – Organic and agro-ecological farming in the South, N. Parrott and T. Marsden, Greenpeace, 2002

This report on organic farming and agro-ecological approaches in the Southern hemisphere shows a range of positive outcomes: dramatic increase in yields, greater diversity of crops, reduction in pests and diseases, and improvements in general nutritional content. Examples of yield increases are: Tigray, Ethiopia (yields from composted plots 3-5 times more than chemically treated plots), Brazil (maize yields increased 20-250%); and Peru (increases of 150% for a range of upland crops).

Reducing Food Poverty with sustainable agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence. 'SAFE-World' Research Project. J.N. Pretty and Rachel Hine, 2000

This report also highlighted the capacity for organic farming to feed the developing world. A review of over 200 food production projects in different countries involving simple, organic type techniques showed that they resulted in major yield increases, ranging from 46-150%.

2. THE IMPACT OF NON ORGANIC FARMING

1. ECONOMIC COSTS OF NON-ORGANIC FARMING

An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural Systems 65 (2000), 113-136. J.N. Pretty et al, 2000

This report on the ‘external’ costs of farming, in September 2000, showed that the indirect costs of non-organic farming to the taxpayer are amounting to over £2.3 billion annually in the UK. This is because of the cost of addressing the negative effects on the environment and health. It indicates major potential for economic savings with widespread organic farming.

2. PESTICIDES

Journal of Neuroscience, 15.12.2000

In December 2000, a study on two common agro-chemicals highlighted the fact that the safety of pesticides has not been established. The study found that brain damage similar to Parkinson’s disease resulted in rats when both chemicals (maneb and paraquat) were used, while there were no effects from either chemical alone. Moreover an epidemiological study found a geographical correlation in the US between deaths from Parkinson’s disease and the use of these chemicals.


[Multiple pesticides residues are found in about 14% of every day foods in the UK. While the health effects of individual pesticides are tested before approval, several agro-chemicals are often used on a crop but the effects of mixtures are not tested.]

3. INTEGRATED CROP MANAGEMENT

Link Integrated Farming Systems, HGCA project report 173, 2000

This study of ICM (Integrated Crop Management) published in February 2000 showed that the limited reductions in agro-chemical use attained though ICM may have little or no effect on wildlife. Despite reductions of pesticides and fertilisers of c. 20%, there was no significant difference in the numbers of invertebrates (beetles, spiders and earthworms) between the conventional and ICM sites after five years.

4. GMOs

Genetically engineered food: still unlabelled and untested, Greenpeace, 2001

This survey of the scientific literature on GMOs found that at this time there had been only three published studies of the health effects of consuming GMOs, and none of these animal feeding trials were longer than 70 days. Other published studies that have been used as evidence of safety by the Government and biotechnology companies were in fact only tests of the health effects of the modified protein, not the whole GMO, i.e. most existing ‘safety’ studies have not tested the side effects of the engineering process which is the main health concern.

[Tests of the health effects of the consumption of GMOs are not required before their approval. In comparison with the above findings, the Government has often stated that GMOs are ‘rigorously tested’. Monsanto has stated that there have been “exhaustive safety studies, which are published in peer-reviewed, scientific journals” (Agricultural Biotechnology Myths, spring 2000).]

Agriculture: Towards 2015/30, Technical Report, FAO, April 2000

This United Nations report shows that GM crops are not needed to feed the world’s growing population. Several forward projections to 2030 when the world’ population is expected to be over 8 billion, found that, leaving aside GM crops, the potential of current agricultural resources and technological knowledge are already sufficient to ensure that total crop production “will exceed population growth”.

GM, 28.4.2002, document.docEvidence to strengthen the case for public procurement of local and local organic food


APPENDIX 6


SUMMARISED REFERENCES

1. Health and Diet

1.1 Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables, and Grains.

V. Worthington: The Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2001, 161-173., 2001

This US study of April 2001 quantified for the first time the difference in nutrient levels between organic and conventional food. It reviewed all the available comparative studies on crops produced with organic matter and inorganic fertilisers (41 studies) and found in all cases that the organic crops had higher levels. The results were statistically significant for Vitamin C (27% more), magnesium (29%), iron (21%) and phosphorus (14%).

[Four studies, including a comparison of official UK Government data, have found that mineral levels in food have fallen by substantial amounts since the adoption of non-organic farming methods of food production.]

1.2 Organic farming, food quality and human health

Soil Association: 2001

This report of all aspects of food quality in relation to health showed that on the basis of the available evidence, organic food is healthier than non-organic food because it is safer and more nutritious. It minimises possible dietary toxins such as pesticides, artificial additives and GMOs. Comparative studies show that it contains on average more minerals and vitamin C than non-organic food. Moreover, important improvements in health have been observed in animal feeding trials, such as better fertility and growth.

[Reviews of the comparative research on nutrient levels previous to the above two had been inconclusive. They included many invalid studies and attempted to find consistency between the results, rather looking for overall differences.]

1.3 Diet and the prevention of cancer

Cummings & Bingham: BMJ 1998;317:1636-1640 ( 12 December )


Summary points

Up to 80% of bowel and breast cancer may be preventable by dietary change

Diet contributes to varying extents to the risk of many other cancers, including cancers of the lung, prostate, stomach, oesophagus, and pancreas

Generally, fruit, vegetables, and fibre have a protective effect, whereas red and processed meat increase the risk of developing cancer

Other lifestyle factors that increase risk include smoking, alcohol, and overweight

Risk is decreased by physical activity There is no evidence that vitamin supplements help to prevent cancer

1.4 Cancer Prevention in Primary Care: Diet and Cancer

J Austoker: BMJ 1994;308:1610-1614 (18 June)

Overall, the accumulating evidence is sufficiently strong to justify public education about the importance of increasing the consumption of fruit and vegetables, especially raw and lightly cooked vegetables and salads . Reductions in the intake of total and unsaturated fat should relate to prevention of coronary heart disease and not specifically to cancer, although a reduction in the intake of fat could conceivably lead to a reduction in the incidence of colorectal cancer.

1.5 Healthy eating: clarifying advice about fruit and vegetables

C Williams: BMJ 1995;310:1453-1455 (3 June)

Consumers need health information which is clear and unambiguous. Advice to "eat more fruit and vegetables" gives consumers no guidance on the quantities involved. Popular advice is to eat "five portions a day." This paper provides a rationale for determining which foods are included within this advice--for example, processed foods such as baked beans are but potatoes and nuts should not be. It also describes how much of the most commonly consumed fruit and vegetables constitutes a "portion." A bowlful of salad, for example, is needed to make up a portion but an apple or banana on its own will count.

1.6 Dietary habits and mortality in 11 000 vegetarians and health conscious people

Key, Thorogood, Appleby, Burr: BMJ 1996;313:775-779 (28 September)

Key messages


This study examined dietary factors associated with mortality among 11 000 health conscious people followed for an average of 17 years.

After smoking was adjusted for, daily consumption of fresh fruit was associated with a 24% reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease, a 32% reduction in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, and a 21% reduction in all cause mortality compared with less frequent consumption.

1.7 Ecological study of reasons for sharp decline in mortality from ischaemic heart disease in Poland since 1991

Zatonski, McMichael, Powles: BMJ 1998

Key messages

Among former socialist countries Poland has undergone unusually rapid social and economic changes since 1988-9, including aspects of diet.

Mortality from heart disease declined sharply during 1991-4 after long term increases; mortality from stroke declined less strongly.

This study investigated what has changed in Poland to reduce the risks of fatal events in people with established ischaemic heart disease.

Candidate dietary explanations were the substitution of unsaturated for saturated fats and increased consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables.

1.8 Eating fruit and vegetables protects against the common chronic diseases of adulthood

Gillman: BMJ 1996;313:765-766 (28 September)

The health benefits of fruits and vegetables are remarkably consistent across epidemiological studies. Perhaps the most convincing evidence relates to the risk of cancer. Data from various case control and cohort studies strongly indicate that diets rich in fruits and vegetables reduce the incidence of several common neoplasms, especially of the respiratory and digestive tract. The epidemiological data are in accord with biological mechanisms, as known phytochemicals can alter almost every stage of carcinogenesis. Fewer data exist about cardiovascular disease, but recent observational studies show inverse associations of intake of fruits and vegetables with cardiovascular mortality and the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke. The results of these observational studies complement evidence from cross-cultural studies, such as the Seven Countries Study, in which mortality from all causes and cardiovascular diseases were lowest in countries with traditional plant based diets.

1.9 Socioeconomic determinants of health: The contribution of nutrition to inequalities in health

James, Nelson, Ralph, Leather: BMJ 1997;314:1545 (24 May)


Social class differences in health are seen at all ages, with lower socioeconomic groups having greater incidence of premature and low birthweight babies, heart disease, stroke, and some cancers in adults. Risk factors including lack of breast feeding, smoking, physical inactivity, obesity, hypertension, and poor diet are clustered in the lower socioeconomic groups. The diet of the lower socioeconomic groups provides cheap energy from foods such as meat products, full cream milk, fats, sugars, preserves, potatoes, and cereals but has little intake of vegetables, fruit, and wholewheat bread. This type of diet is lower in essential nutrients such as calcium, iron, magnesium, folate, and vitamin C than that of the higher socioeconomic groups. New nutrition al knowledge on the protective role of antioxidants and other diet ary factors suggests that there is scope for enormous health gain if a diet rich in vegetables, fruit, unrefined cereal, fish, and small quantities of quality vegetable oils could be more accessible to poor people.

1.10 Daily Mail 17th July 02

US Scientists have found a direct link between junk food and soaring rates of child asthma sufferers. In a study of the diet and lungs of 2,500 11 to 19 year olds Dr Frank Gilliland and his colleagues, at the University of Southern California, found a direct link between low consumption of magnesium and potassium and a reduction of the amount of air youngsters were able to expel in one breath

1.11 Daily Mail 18 July 02

Gene transfer is a reality and GM food poses a serious risk to human health experts at Newcastle University warned yesterday. Researchers found that eating GM foods can change the genetic make-up of the digestive system and could put people at risk of infections that are resistant to antibiotics. Out of 7 volunteers who ate one meal containing genetically modified soya, it was found that three had traces of the modified DNA in naturally occurring bacteria in their small intestines. This is the first time this transfer has been identified in humans. Research leader Professor Harry Gilbert played down the dangers but confirmed that 'surprising’ levels of GM DNA transfer were found. Geneticist Dr Michael Antoniou, of Guy's Hospital, London, said the results indicated the need for an extensive GM foods testing programme. In response the Food Standards Agency tried to reassure consumers that GM foods are safe. Government experts have assessed the results and ruled that humans are not at risk.

1.12 Sunday Herald 21 July 02

The amount of fresh food contaminated by pesticides in breach of safety limits is steadily increasing, according to a new report . Yet the agricultural industry is campaigning against plans to cut the use of pesticides on farms. The latest results from the European Commission's Pesticides Residues Monitoring Programme show that the proportion of fruit,


vegetables and cereals containing more pesticides than the maximum residue limit was 4.5% in 2000. This compares to 4% in 1999 and 3% in 1996. The European Commission (EC) survey, which analysed 3700 samples from 18 countries, also uncovered an increase in food contaminated with traces of more than one pesticide. The proportion rose from 14% in 1999 to 15% in 2000, with a record 2.8% of samples having four or more pesticides. The 'cocktail effect' on our health of such mixtures of pesticides is under investigation by the Food Standards Agency. Scientists such as Dr Vyvyan Howard of the University of Liverpool believe that combinations of pesticides could be more dangerous than previously thought. Pesticide residues were detected in 35% of all fruit, vegetables and cereals in Europe, though most were below the maximum residue limits. Yet in spite of all this the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), which represents the agrochemical industry, is fighting to preserve existing levels of pesticide use. Farmers should use chemicals 'as little as possible but as much as necessary', said a spokesman. But the industry's approach is forcefully rejected by environmentalists. 'Despite having profited handsomely from years of selling pollution and contamination, the chemical companies are doing everything in their power to keep Europe's farmers on the pesticide treadmill,' said Kevin Dunion, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. 'As consumers become aware of the environmental and health impacts of pesticides they are increasingly voting with their purses and choosing organic produce instead.


2. Protection of the environment

2.1 Environmental and resource use impacts of organic farming in Europe

Stolze, Piorr, Haring and Dabbert : 2000

This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming, organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower, and energy efficiency is usually higher.

2.2 The Biodiversity Benefits of Organic Farming

Soil Association: 2000

The Soil Association published this report in May 2000. It reviewed all the known studies that compared the levels of wildlife on organic and conventional farms (9 fully, 14 briefly). It found clear evidence that overall organic farms support substantially higher levels of wildlife in lowland areas, particularly of those wildlife groups which are declining. Examples include 40% more birds in a three year study of 44 farms by the British Trust for Ornithology, twice as many butterflies and five times as many wild arable plants. This backed up the observation by the organic sector that organic farming addresses the main causes that conservationists have identified as behind the current dramatic decline in farm wildlife.

2.3 Pesticides

Journal of Neuroscience: 15.12.2000

In December 2000, a study on two common agro-chemicals highlighted the fact that the safety of pesticides has not been established. The study found that brain damage similar to Parkinson’s disease resulted in rats when both chemicals (maneb and paraquat) were used, while there were no effects from either chemical alone. Moreover an epidemiological study found a geographical correlation in the US between deaths from Parkinson’s disease and the use of these chemicals.

[Multiple pesticides residues are found in about 14% of every day foods in the UK. While the health effects of individual pesticides are tested before approval, several agro-che micals are often used on a crop but the effects of mixtures are not tested.]


2.3 BBC News Online 24 July 02

Serious water pollution incidents increased by 50% in England and Wales last year with farmers responsible for more than a quarter of them, the Environment Agency says. There is particular concern about pollution from farms, which accounted for 27% of the most serious offences. In one incident, silage waste leaked into a river in Leicestershire. This wiped out the river's population of native brown trout, which cannot be replaced because of their unique genetic make-up. The farmer involved was fined £1,600 plus £2,000 in costs. The Environment Agency is expected to repeat its claim that fines imposed by the courts often do not match the environmental damage done.

2.4 BBC News Online environment 30 May, 2002

By Alex Kirby

After a 21-year study, Swiss scientists have given a ringing endorsement to organic farming methods. They found organic yields were on average 20% smaller than those from conventional agriculture. But the ecological benefits more than made up for this, and the organic crops proved more efficient users of energy and other resources. The scientists conclude that organic production is a viable alternative to conventional ways of farming. They are from the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture and the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture. They report their findings in Science magazine. The team, led by Paul Mader, compared plots of cropland grown according to both organic and conventional methods and planted with potatoes, barley, winter wheat, beet, and grass clover.

Over the study period, which began in 1978, they compared normal organic production, another organic approach called biodynamic farming, based on the work of Rudolph Steiner, and two conventional farming methods. Crop rotation, varieties and tillage were identical in all the plots. One of these used mineral fertilisers and farmyard manure; the other did not use the manure. Although organic yields averaged 20% less than those from the conventional plots, the input of fertiliser and energy was reduced by between 34% and 53%, and pesticide use by 97%. Overall, the team found, the organic systems used resources more efficiently, producing more for each unit of energy and other inputs they consumed. The scientists also found that the organic soils housed a larger and more diverse community of organisms. These included soil microbes, which govern the nutrient cycling reactions in soils, and mycorrhizae, root-colonising fungi which help plants to absorb nutrients. The researchers said the fungi were at least partly responsible for the more stable physical structure of the organic soils. Insects were almost twice as abundant and more diverse on the organic plots. Species found included pest-eating spiders and beetles. Earthworms were also more common, and the weed flora was more diverse, with some specialised and endangered species


among those found. The researchers also found that the organic soils decomposed more efficiently, releasing nutrients and carbon to be absorbed by plants and microbes.

3. Contribution to the local economy

3.1 An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture

J.N. Pretty et al: Agricultural Systems 65 (2000), 113-136, 2000

This report on the ‘external’ costs of farming, in September 2000, showed that the indirect costs of non-organic farming to the taxpayer are amounting to over £2.3 billion annually in the UK. This is because of the cost of addressing the negative effects on the environment and health. It indicates major potential for economic savings with widespread organic farming.

3.2 How cheap is non-organic food?

Soil Association: Living Earth No.214 April-July 2002

Non-organic food has hidden costs because they are not included in the final retail price of the product. These hidden costs include taxes paid towards farming subsidies; as 97 per cent of farming is non-organic, this means the lion's share goes there.

The average family of four in the European Union pays £16 per week to subsidise agriculture. The annual cost to UK taxpayers is £3.3 billion.

Another cost we cannot see on the till receipt is the clean-up bill for agrochemical pollution and disasters like BSE.

BSE has cost the taxpayer over £4 billion – more than £200 per household - and this excludes the cost of caring for people with CJD. The Soil Association has found no recorded cases of BSE in any animal born and reared organically.

Pesticide manufacturers pass on the cost of cleaning up pesticides to farmers, who pass it on to water companies, who pass it on to consumers via water bills. In effect the polluter gets a hidden subsidy. The non-polluter, the organic farmer, receives no such subsidy. The yearly cost of removing pesticides from the UK water supply is £120 million.

Each time a farmer applies a kilogram of pesticide-active ingredient, it costs £7.57 to clean it up. In Germany some water companies have realised that it is cheaper to pay farmers to convert to organic farming than to clean up the water pollution of industrial farmers.

We pay three times for our food: once over the counter, twice in farming subsidies and finally in cleaning up agricultural disasters.

In contrast, organic farming benefits the quality of the soil, air, water and landscape. Organic farming has only one-third of the hidden costs of non-organic agriculture and would reduce the external costs by £1.6 billion.


3.3Institutional Markets for Sustainable Agricultural Products: Developing a Model for Linking Farmers with Colleges and Universities in the (US) North Central Region

Also Known As: “The College Food Project”, Madison, December 15, 2000

The College Food Project seeks to understand the opportunities and barriers to marketing to colleges and universities and develop marketing linkages between such institutions and local farms. Barriers such as liability issues, convenience, cost, approved vendor restrictions, and lack of consumer (student) demand do exist. However, where there is demand and committed food service personnel, barriers can be overcome. Self-run food services appear to have more flexibility to buy from local farms than contracted food services, and marketing co-operatives or local distributors make local buying more convenient for both buyers and farmers. The project has generated or increased local buying at six institutions to date and helped at least 20 growers sell to institutions.

3.4 ‘Local Food Links in the South West of England’

F3 - the Foundation for Local Food Initiatives: Commissioned by Devon County Council, March 2001

An evaluation of the four food link projects in the South West and a survey of over 70 local food businesses looked at

The contribution of local food businesses to sustainable development; The efficacy of food link projects in supporting the development of the

sector.

The study shows the local food sector is making a significant contribution to sustainable development, economic prosperity and social cohesion in rural areas. The local food sector is lessening the detrimental impact of the food system on the environment by reducing food transport, packaging and increasing environmental land management and in a small way beginning to restore the environmental, social and economic assets of the region.

The survey and case studies show that a move into the local food sector increases direct consumer contact. This stimulates positive feedback and encourages the farms to be managed in an environmentally sound way. Local food businesses are therefore increasing job satisfaction and responding to, or sharing consumer interest in, environmental land management, especially organic production methods. Local purchasing and selling also reduce transport, which in turn reduces pollution generated by these businesses. There is also great potential to increase the financial capital flowing into, and being retained in, an area as a result of local sales and purchases. A farm’s policy of sourcing goods and services locally is instrumental in achieving this local multiplier effect and supporting the local economy.


Considering the 4 projects together, they used the following resources: 6 full-time staff; Revenue costs totaling £180,000 per year; Grants to businesses of £70,000 per year (Somerset (£10,000/yr) and

Devon (£60,000/yr)).

This investment in the sector has resulted in some significant outcomes: Estimated 150 new jobs; Increased confidence of rural businesses with over 50% expecting an

increase in turnover next year; Estimated £9 million of expenditure retained in the local economy.


APPENDIX 7


POWYS COUNTY COUNCIL’S POLICY ON SCHOOL MEALS PROCUREMENT

Further to our meeting of earlier in the week the following points may further assist in understanding the context and issues surrounding the Council’s Purchasing Policy in respect of food.

Scale

75000 meals per week79 kitchens/delivery points

450 Kitchen staff48 Direct suppliers based in and around Powys3500 Invoices per week

Food Categories

a) Milk - £135k p.a. - 30 suppliersb) Bread - £35k p.a. - 9 suppliers c) Fruit/veg - £140k p.a. - 6 suppliersd) Dried goods - £850k p.a. - 2 supplierse) Frozen Food - £689k p.a. 1 supplier

Operations

The above arrangements have been put in place in accordance with E.U. Procurement Directives and Council Contract Standing Orders as appropriate.

Food is ordered by kitchen staff via a pre printed order pad with each line item pre approved by the Catering Manager. Any substitutes require authorisation prior to supply. Approval/authorisation, is based, on food nutritional content and other food safety considerations (e.g. additives, peanuts etc).

Categories d) and e) invoiced via disk thereby reducing overheads in invoice re- conciliation and processing. Payment via disk has resulted in reducing HQ establishment by two posts. Usage data is readily access via the disk.

The school meals service is a separate Trading Unit and is required to break even every financial year.

E.U. Law prevents a local authority or other public sector bodies from awarding contracts solely on the basis of the locality of the supplier and/or product. However, where we can we do select British produce e.g. currently joints of beef, lamb and pork are British as are whole chickens. Fruit and vegetables are sourced via local suppliers, as is bread and milk following the tendering process.


Apart from legal and financial barriers there are also operational barriers preventing us moving further towards direct local purchasing. These include :-

a) Resources - the catering organisation does not employ food buyers. Contracts are put in place by the Corporate Procurement Unit. Product is called off a pre-determined list by kitchen staff on a tick box basis.

b) Availability - standard menus are costed and set for three terms in advance and circulated to parents to aid them in their menu planning in the evening. Therefore availability of product on the day required is an essential part of the contract.

c) Consistent Quality - the organisation with its limited HQ resources is able to monitor a relatively small member of suppliers in terms of quality (and availability). A larger number of smaller suppliers would require more resources in order to ensure quality of product and service.

d) Delivery Windows - kitchens require deliveries within tight delivery schedules (often within a specific hour of the morning) in order to prevent interruption of meal preparation. Fewer deliveries during that time is safer.

e) Purchasing Leverage - the award of larger contracts provides the Council with the opportunity to obtain competitive trading terms (particularly in the area of retrospective rebates and discounts) and ensures the Council maximises its purchasing power. Suppliers are willing to deliver to smaller schools (e.g. 2 loaves of bread) in the knowledge that they are also contracted to the larger schools from which they derive their profit. Income from free school meals is the lowest in Wales, therefore the Catering Service is under constant pressure to control its costs. Increased food costs would have to be recovered from cuts elsewhere, or by increasing the price of meals.

f) De skilling and reduced hours in kitchens - this policy has been pursued for several years in order to secure the viability of the school meals service which is a fine balance to open competition (CCT). The standardisation of food and food deliveries greatly assists in this. Staff moving from kitchen to kitchen to cover for absence deal with the same supplier base and understand a common menu/product specification and supplier system.

g) Criminal Records Bureau - Contracts for services delivered to those Council premises where there may be vulnerable people (e.g. schools, day centres etc.) require provisions in respect of the Protection of Children Act 1999. Checks via the Criminal Records Bureau are carried out in respect of each supplier and are time consuming and expensive. A multiplicity of suppliers increases the cost and administration in this regard.

The Council recognises that local SME play an important role in economic activity in Powys. We are keen to do business with those SME’s who provide


goods and services which are demonstrably competitive in terms of price and specification.

As far as our Food Contracts are concerned, having regard to the issues highlighted above, the majority of SME’s producer who wish to tap in to Council contracts should look at becoming “second tier” or “third tier” suppliers.

For example, second tier suppliers are those who supply directly to the County Contracted Supplier e.g. fruit and vegetable wholesaler/retailer.

Whereas a third tier/fourth tier supplier would pursue business with, for example, a supplier to the Council’s wholesale distributor of frozen food/dried goods.

The Council could then received proposals from the Council’s contracted distributor, in respect of product improvement or nomination which may include locally produced products.

Under the current circumstances the Council is not in a position to deal with a proliferation of local SME’s in respect of its good/food distribution contracts. It is therefore recommended that SME’s move up through the supply chain as described above.

Mike GreenProcurement Manager

i i Wise Moves Modelling Report Robert Mason and David Simons FSP with Clive Peckham and Tully Wakeman

EAF June 2002. In Press.ii Eating oil – Food in a challenging climate. Elm Farm/Sustain 2001.iii Health Effects of Climate Change. G Donaldson, RS Kovats, WR Keatinge and AJ McMichael. Department of

Health 2002.i

iv Brand, Pilkington, Joffe and Anderson. Informing transport and health impact assessment in London. NHS Executive .2000.

v Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2001 Edition Table 4.16 Road accidents and accident rates: by road class and severity: 1990-2000. Department for Transport 2001

vi I Roberts, R Norton, R Jackson, R Dunn, and I Hassall Effect of environmental factors on risk of injury of child pedestrians by motor vehicles: a case-control study BMJ 1995; 310: 91-94.

i

vii Watkiss et.al. Informing transport health impact assessment in London. NHS Executive London. 2000.


the powys public procurement project ... · web viewthe powys public procurement partnership has...

Documents