If you are in food a sensible approach to nutrition is elementary, says Henny Swinkels

Interview with Henny Swinkels, director Corporate Affairs VanDrie Group

Bron: Meat&Co mei 2007

A sensible approach to nutrition is, in his eyes, elementary. “If you’re in the food industry, you are involved in one of the most essential things in life,” says Henny Swinkels, Director of Corporate Affairs of the VanDrie Group. As far as he’s concerned, we could all stop and think about that more often.

So let us do so.

“FOOD SECURITY IS A MAJOR CONCERN”

“Food security is a major concern. European agricultural policy was based in principle on a structural food shortage. The change came in the ’90s and we went from a shortage to a surplus situation. There was discussion about a common agricultural policy. This no longer concerned food security alone, but also matters such as food safety and animal welfare.

“Food security is safeguarded quite well in Europe for the next decades, but globally, the situation is totally different. Therefore, apart from the treatment of animals, accommodation, transportation, research and the like, the main point for me is the functional use of animals. One hundred percent conversion of all proteins and fats. As a producer, you are under obligation to use expensive proteins for meaningful purposes. And the most meaningful is consumption.”

“BIOFUEL COULD WELL BE THE FLOP OF THE CENTURY”

“At the moment, everyone’s attention is focused on biofuel. How can we continue to meet our energy needs? We now use raw materials which could be useable as food for animals and humans. To me, that’s the wrong way around. It could well be the flop of the century. How can it be right that we use our primary foodstuffs for running our cars, for example? You can do that with the leftovers of food after processing, but what we are doing now is incomprehensible to me. Forty per cent of the world’s population is starving and we are using agricultural products for something as banal as fuel. Prime crop production should be used for humans and animal consumption.”

“THE IMBALANCE MUST BE CORRECTED”

“I was recently in India. A country with a billion inhabitants. More than 60% of the world’s ICT comes from India. It’s an amazing culture, but families living in the interior have to live on a dollar a month. We can’t keep this up in the long term. It’s a consequence of the imbalance that needs to be corrected.

“Our children should be able to thank us for what we do and decide now."

"Managing, to me, is about guiding towards the future, and less about talking about history. We don’t think and manage enough. The social acceptance of a business such as the VanDrie Group demands that we also take care of our responsibilities in that regard. That’s an investment in depth. In my job I now spend more time in external meetings than internal ones, but the combination yields synergy advantages for both.”

“THE PRODUCER IS STUCK BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE”

“People feed themselves because they like food. Nowadays we satisfy our hunger several times a day. We graze more. One of the consequences is that producers are now called to account on their perceived responsibilities. For example, with regard to large portions which can cause obesity. Of course, nutrition is an important cause, but so is lack of exercise. There are too many computer kids. There is a relationship with nutrition, but this is not main cause. As we will never win the battle, we have to play along with it. We must, however, keep pointing out the other factors. We have a major responsibility, but that doesn’t mean we are responsible for everything. I have some questions to ask. Shouldn’t we produce the products the consumer is asking for? Who is in fact our customer? The citizen?

“We don’t know, so for convenience’s sake we make the producer responsible. But the producer is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He wants to produce what the market demands, but it has to be responsible and, in particular, cheap. If the producer meets all the requirements set by the environment, the same environment, whoever that is, will say it should be a little less salty for example, or that it is too expensive. As producers, we are not victims, but we are being pushed and shoved from all sides.”

“WE HAVE NOT BEEN DEALING WITH MEAT IN THE RIGHT WAY”

“With regard to the threat of food shortages, we must work on the idea of ‘making sure it’s affordable’. I think that we have gone too far in focusing exclusively on ‘cheaper, easier and more’. We blame the consumer, but it’s our own fault. We forget that meat is a valuable item with a high food value and a long history, and a high cost price. We forget to convert the true added value meat gives to our lives into a higher value. Meat is built on purchase history. I see the meat sectors of the future as marketers, as converters of high-quality proteins. Now, meat is a purchase item throughout the chain, right down to the consumer. That’s where the bottleneck is.

“We don’t convert scarcity into profit, while other sectors do. The consumer sees the safety of meat as something to take for granted, and will not pay extra for it. This spiral which links meat and cheapness must be broken. Meat is a valuable and scarce commodity with a high vitamin and mineral content, and demands high compensation. Realistic compensation, which could double the price of a portion. It’s necessary to sell meat with a more emotional, valuable character. It’s important that the consumer and producer realise that meat is something valuable. We can break the spiral by making use of social developments. Taking any just criticism on board and valuing the animal by selling it with greater care and attention. I would claim that there is not a product in the whole supermarket that is produced with so much attention, emotion and care. I don’t blame retail, but the whole of society. We have not been dealing with meat in the right way. If we can’t raise the value of meat to a substantially higher level, the sector will collapse into chaos.”

“A GOOD COMMUNICATIONS PLATFORM WILL COME AGAIN”

There are several aspects to the expectations with regard to food safety. I am in full agreement with the line ‘supervising the supervisors’, but also with dealing with the people who are consciously involved in turning food into a risk product and in doing so, damaging the entire column. There must be a single agency in Europe that determines that food in Europe is safe. In addition, we could put a second sticker on a product with the extras. With quality products, there is almost always information on what it contains, or may contain. With meat, we are told what it may not contain. Isn’t that strange? We classify gold in terms of carats. Meat is also gold in our hands, but we treat it like it was a throwaway item. Therefore, we will have to set up a proper communications platform soon. I don’t yet know how, of with whom, but I am absolutely certain it will happen. If we think that meat is a mechanical product and neglect the relationship between man and animal, and the respect that goes into craftsmanship, that is the end of the sector. Then we will still be producing black-and-white televisions in the era of widescreen and flat screen TV.”