Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Development of new food products : an impact assessment approach Edinburgh, Melanie J. 2004

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2004-901785.pdf [ 9.17MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0091761.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091761-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091761-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091761-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091761-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091761-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091761-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0091761-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0091761.ris

Full Text

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW FOOD PRODUCTS: AN IMPACT ASSESSMENT APPROACH By MELANIE J. EDINBURGH National Diploma: Microbiology, Technikon Natal, South Africa, 1988 National Higher Diploma: Food Technology, Technikon Natal, South Africa, 1994 Bachelor's Degree of Technology: Food Technology, Technikon Natal, South Africa, 1995 Master's Degree of Technology: Food Technology Technikon Natal, South Africa, 1997 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Resource Management and Environmental Studies) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MAY 2004 Melanie Edinburgh, 2004 ©  Abstract Food Product Development (FPD) is a complex process. The design and development of food products is accomplished by following one of a variety of FPD frameworks. Common to all these frameworks is the disconnection between food and humankind, nature, and culture. This issue accentuates an array of socio-economic and environmental concerns. Understanding consumers, and the food industry, is prerequisite to this research which proposes that in order for a new food product to be successful, it should be safe, and nutritious, and also, socially acceptable, environmentally beneficial, and economically feasible. To address this, several FPD frameworks were assimilated into a Collective framework, which was then reviewed in the context of the related concerns. Concerns are translated to impacts, Impact Assessment particular Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), served as an analytical tool for the assessment, prediction, and mitigation of potential impacts prior to development. A critique of Impact Assessment was presented prior to the synthesis of EIA and the Collective FPD framework, leading to the creation of an Enhanced FPD framework. This framework is incomplete without Industry guidelines, which comprise Guiding strategies and an Economic framework designed appropriately for new FPD by food scientists, and other professionals within the food industry. The Guiding strategies are designed to appropriate the social and environmental concerns of consumers central to the Economic framework. Cost Benefit Analysis is an important tool of this Economic framework. The argument is that the Industry guidelines must be passed through an economic filter in order for them to be effective. The economic filter first ensures that the food product results in positive internal profits for the company. The filter then deals with external social costs such as impacts on health, and the environment. A case study is included to illustrate the achievements of the newly proposed Enhanced FPD Framework. A new food product designed for a rural African market, illustrates how this new framework addresses the identified concerns. The proposed framework recognizes that new food products can be similar and yet designed for different consumers in different locations.  ii  Acknowledgements Dear Lord, I give You my PhD research for You gave it to me. Thank You for my past, and my future. I know how far I have walked - with You beside me every step of the way. Lord, please bless those who taught me more than I knew I could learn, for their wisdom and thoughtfulness, kindness, love, and generosity. Bless my RMES Department at UBC, My Committee Members, My Examiners, My family, and My friends. Bless all those who You sent my way to encourage me throughout my time in Canada. Lord, please bless Canada too. Lastly, I pray that my work honours You. To You I give all the glory, Yours forever, Melanie Jane  iii  Table of Contents Abstract  page ii  Acknowledgements  page iii  Table of Contents  page iv  List of Figures  page vi  List of Tables  page viii  Chapter One: Introduction 1.0:  Background  page 1  1.1:  Problem Statement  page 6  1.2:  Premise of the research  page 11  1.3:  Research Questions  page 12  1.4:  Methodology  page 12  Chapter Two: The Food System 2.0:  Introduction  page 18  2.1:  The Food System  page 20  2.2:  The Linear Interpretation of the Food System Model  page 24  2.3:  Food Science  page 26  2.4:  Food Product Development (FPD)  page 27  2.5:  Phases of Food Product Development  page 29  2.6:  2.5.l:Generic FPD Framework  page 29  2.5.2:Five existing Frameworks of Food Product Development  page 32  Critique of Food Product Development  page 42  2.6.1:Comparison between Generic Framework & the Collective FPD Framework  page 42  2.6.2:Concerns within the food industry & FPD  page 44  Chapter Three: Enhancement of the FPD using Impact Assessment 3.0:  Introduction  page 53  3.1:  Impact Assessment  page 54  3.l.l:Impact Assessment Definition  page 54  3.1.2:Impact Assessment Process  page 57  3.1.3:Variations on Impact Assessment  page 57  3.1.4:Additional Considerations  page 59  Enhancement of the FPD Process  page 63  3.2.1 illustrative Example  page 73  3.2:  iv  Table of Contents continued. Chapter Four: Industry Guidelines for FPD 4.0:  Introduction  page 77  4.1:  Logic-based Approach to Constructing the Guiding strategies  page 81  4.2:  The Guiding strategies  page 86  4.2.1:Team Management of the Enhanced FPD Framework  page 86  4.2.2:Guiding strategies  page 86  4.2.3:Guiding strategies for the Maintenance Phase of the  page 92  Enhanced FPD Framework 4.3:  Generic Economic framework for the Enhanced FPD Framework  page 93  Chapter Five: Case Study 5.0:  Introduction  page 98  5.1:  Establishing the need for a paradigm shift  page 100  5.2:  Industry Guidelines for FPD Case study  page 107  5.2.1: Guiding Strategies for the Enhanced FPD Framework Case Study  page 107  5.2.2: Economic framework  page 119  Chapter Six: Discussion & Conclusion 6.0:  Introduction  page 125  6.1:  Discussion  page 125  6.2:  Conclusion  page 131  6.3:  Implications  page 133 page 140  Bibliography Appendix Appendix 1-1: Detailed list of objectives attributed to FPD  page 143  Appendix 2-1: The different types of new food products  page 144  Appendix 3-1: Table 3-1 Characteristics of conventional EIA, SIA, EHIA, SEA & CEA  page 148  Appendix 4-1: Guiding Strategies  page 149  Appendix 5-1: Factory Manufacture of case study Bakery mix  page 166  Appendix 5-2: Costing for Manufacture of Bakery mix  page 167  v  List of Figures Chapter One: Introduction Figure 1-1: Simplistic illustration of the steps in the Food Product Development process  page 2  Figure 1-2: Before the Food Industry  page 8  Figure 1-3: Inclusive of the Food Industry  page 9  Figure 1-4: Food Product Development enhanced with Impact Assessment (IA)  page 10  Figure 1-5: Conceptual Framework  page 17  Chapter Two: The Food System Figure 2-0: Roadmap of Chapter Two  page 19  Figure 2-1: Food System Model (FSM)  page 21  Figure 2-2: Linear interpretation of the Food System Model (FSM)  page 24  Figure 2-3: Generic FPD framework (Fuller, 70)  page 31  Figure 2-4: Compilation of FPD using Saguy, Graf & Fuller  page 35  (Saguy & Graf, 1990; Fuller, 1994) Figure 2-5: Compilation of FPD using Saguy, Graf, Fuller & Rudolph (Rudolph, 2000)  page 38  Figure 2-6: Compilation of FPD using Saguy, Graf, Fuller, Rudolph & Pyne (Pyne, 2000)  page 39  Figure 2-7: Collective FPD Framework  page 41  Figure 2-8: Final FPD Framework  page 44  Chapter Three: Enhanced of the FPD framework using Impact Assessment Figure 3-0: Roadmap of Chapter Three  page 54  Figure 3-1: Stages of EIA  page 57  Figure 3-2: Enhanced FPD Framework  page 66  Chapter Four: Industry Guidelines for FPD Figure 4-0: Roadmap of Chapter Four  page 80  Figure 4-1: Relationship between the Economic framework, Enhanced FPD Framework,  page 93  & Guiding strategies Figure 4-2: Steps within the Economic framework  vi  page 95  List of Figures continued.  Chapter Five: Case Study Figure 5-0: Roadmap of Chapter Five  page 100  Chapter Six: Discussion and Conclusion Figure 6-1: Existing FPD Paradigm (FPD Process & FPD Framework)  page 126  Figure 6-2: Enhanced FPD Paradigm  page 127  Figure 6-3: Enhanced FPD Paradigm with Bakery mix for African community  page 130  vii  List of Tables Chapter Two: The Food System Table 2-1: Explanation of the terms within the Food System Model  page 22  Chapter Three: Enhancement of the FPD framework using Impact Assessment Table 3-1: Characteristics of Conventional EIA, SIA, EHIA, SEA and CEA  page 148  Table 3-2: The use of EIA & Comparison of Project Cycles, &  page 62  Phases in Mine development, & FPD Table 3-3: Variations of EIA used within Projects, Programmes, Plans, Policies  page 63  Table 3-4: A comparison of the Phases within the existing 8t Enhanced FPD Frameworks page 67 Table 3-5: Phases, Steps & Stages within EIA & the Enhanced FPD Framework  page 72  Chapter Four: Industry Strategies for FPD Table 4 - 1 : Guiding strategies relating to the Enhanced FPD Framework  page 85  Table 4-2: Details within the Economic framework  page 96  Table 4-3: Comparison of Existing FPD & Enhanced FPD Frameworks  page 97  Chapter Five: Case Study Table 5-1: Quantifying Impacts relating to Product B  page 121  Table 5-2: Comparison of Additional costs of Product B  page 122  Table 5-3: Comparison of existing FPD & Enhanced FPD Frameworks  page 123  (With implementation of the economic feasibility assessment)  viii  Introduction 1.0  Background  In the overall context of human society and the hierarchy of human needs; food, air, and water represent the most fundamental physiological level of our existence . 1  Humankind's relationship  with these basic elements is connected, not only to our bodies, but also to our souls; for food is more than just sustenance.  Food connects our most elemental human-selves with the physical  world outside of us, and the natural environment that supports these needs. Furthermore, food distinguishes cultures from one another, so who we are can be linked to our food. Thus, the same ingredient (i.e., raw material) may be prepared differently in alternate cultures, depending on the types of utensils (tools) available, the season and accessibility to that ingredient . A popular dessert in North America, for example, is sweet pumpkin pie whereas, in 2  South Africa, pumpkin is a savoury vegetable that accompanies the main meal. Food not only defines cultures but also represents comfort, companionship, and communication (Pimentel, 1999, Suzuki, 1997).  For example, the celebration of Thanksgiving  dinner centres on fellowship and the sharing of a banquet among family and friends, and is not intended to be eaten alone. Moreover, food is a special commodity, closely tied to nature for its production, and culture for its survival; thus, food is a complex entity of food webs and food supply chains within a dynamic system (Friedmann, 1993) . 3  Investigation of this dynamic food system has led to the  development of numerous fields of research with many specialists contributing to the fundamentals of food. Though not inclusive, these fields of research include, microbiology, biotechnology and engineering, geography and environmental/resource management, law, business, nutrition and health promotion, agro-ecology, agricultural economics and anthropology and sociology. One interdisciplinary field of research that exemplifies this human relationship with food is Food Science.  The subject of food has diversified to such an extent that related fields only  accentuate the complexity of food to a point where food microbiology, toxicology, chemistry, analytical biochemistry, food technology, physics, education, biotechnology, foodservice, food process engineering, nutrition and dietetics, food marketing and management, food quality  Conceptualised from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory (Maslow, 1943). Where food in particular, includes a variety of resources such as raw ingredients like eggs or processed and packaged items like bread. Utensils or tools, i.e., bowls, pots, ovens etc. The ecological term of food webs represents the hierarchy of natural interrelated environmental food chains, with, for example, humankind on top and snails on the bottom while the marketing term, food supply chain, represents natural resources or ingredients, like tomatoes, that through a series of stages of adding value at each stage (or chain) are manufactured and produced into safe, wholesome and packaged food product, like ketchup. 1  2  3  1  assurance and Food Product Development (FPD) have evolved into comprehensive research organisations. The chemical, biological and physical characteristics of food are investigated in many of these fields, but in no other division of Food Science is the intricacy so comprehensive than in that of food product development.  FPD epitomises the food science industry and related food  companies because many diversified and related fields are utilized in the development of a new food product.  Moreover, the science behind the development of new food products and the  reformulation of existing products includes a comprehensive range of specific and non-specific objectives. All these objectives have the related intent to produce safe foods, with an extended shelf life during which they remain wholesome (Shapton & Shapton, 1991).  A detailed list of  objectives attributed to FPD is noted in Appendix 1-1. Accordingly, the objectives of the food industry are achieved through a series of steps, activities, and stages elaborated in this research as the "FPD Process". The steps involved are illustrated in Figure 1-1. Within the FPD Process, raw materials may come from a variety of different sources, such as the environment (i.e., water) and/or finished processed products (i.e., white flour). Food Product Development (FPD) Process  Raw Materials  \ Formulation  \  Product Process  \  Production  I  Finished Product Customers aTd Consumers Note: Customers purchase food products and may then further process these products or supply them directly to Consumers. Consumers are end-household users. Figure 1-1: Simplistic illustration of the steps in the Food Product Development (FPD) Process  2  Formulation is the recipe of raw materials recorded in the appropriate bulk quantities, with the conversion of all measurements to metric. The formulation is tried and tested in a number of combinations to ensure the ingredients are blended in the most profitable proportions, with optimum quality. Product Process is a specific step highlighted to include research of different cooking processes possible to produce the desired finished product. The step evaluates the ways in which the consumer may manipulate the preparation of the product and includes all safety issues pertaining to consumption of the product.  This step is excluded in the existing Food Science  literature; however, it illustrates the importance of consumers' role in both creative contributions and consumer-abuse trials. For example, a product, such as dough, may be baked in an oven; boiled and then baked; or fried to make bread, brioche, or pan pizza, respectively. According to life style or necessity, it may be baked in many different types of ovens, from an old brick oven to the most innovative (i.e., convection/microwave combination).  The safety issues pertaining to  brick ovens include proper cooking of the product and smoke inhalation. Production is the step by which the formulation is processed and then packaged. A simple production process would include a powdered end product, as in iodized salt or self-raising white flour. It may also include several processing steps, where the ingredients are combined and then baked, cooled and packaged such as biscuits. The finished product is again analysed against strict quality control and microbiological standards inclusive of shelf life testing. Consumer-abuse trials comprise different interpretations of the instructions in which the food scientist changes the steps and/or sequence of the steps in order to determine all the possible outcomes of using the new product. In addition, recipes for other products are designed using the finished product by differing the temperature, oven and/or tool. Consumer taste panels and trials are also performed to develop a detailed portfolio for the product in order to analyse future consumer complaints, as well as, target potential marketing avenues . 4  The bold arrows in Figure 1-1 depict the systematic process within the FPD Process and the dotted arrow depicts the unique link between the FPD Process and Consumers and Customers. So complex is the development process that certain food products may repeat several steps within the FPD Process before reaching the consumer. Due to the nature of the food, companies may produce food products for other customers and food-related companies. These customers and  An excellent example includes the many different ways in which the Mars Bar, a popular candy in the U.K., has been re-invented. It is eaten whole, melted for chocolate sauce, reformulated into an ice-cream bar and even deep-fried in batter in many Fish & Chip shops.  4  3  companies, in turn, produce foods for the consumers (i.e., yeast used for baking and brewing purposes) . 5  In general, the FPD Process is the practice of developing new food products from raw materials.  When applied this process is completed through five phases described within this  research as the "FPD Framework". There are indeed many variations of this FPD Framework used throughout the industry.  Within the FPD Framework, a concept is screened, developed,  commercialized, and maintained. Eventually, the packaged finished product is marketed, via the food-marketing route to other customers, food-related companies, and consumers, thus completing the FPD Process using this comprehensive FPD Framework. The production of new food products via the FPD Process incorporates further subdivisions in the field of food research, many of which represent professional careers: consumer behaviour analysis, food and sensory evaluation, process development, shelf-life and food quality management, processing management, pilot plant production, custom processing and co-packing, nutritional analysis and food information and advisory services (Saguy and Graf, 1990). An important complexity of FPD includes isolating the type of consumer, for which the new food product is being designed. Different consumers need and prefer not only different products, but also a wide variety of different products.  FPD in association with other divisions evaluates  consumer behaviour and food-related preferences.  Research has shown that demographics and  psychographics predetermine many food-related decisions  6  (Solomon, 1996).  Customers and  food-related companies include both retail and foodservice. Consumers represent both urban and rural-based household consumers.  Furthermore, understanding the issues of age, gender and  ethnicity of the consumer become crucial when designing successful food products. Outlined by several examples, consumers represent an age range of infant to elderly, where children generally prefer wild colours, tasty, tangy, and flavourful contrasting tastes of sweet and sour, and older consumers prefer safe, convenient, healthy and wholesome foods. In the case of gender, women overall require a different diet to men, concentrated in certain minerals such as calcium, iron and folic acid (Hollingsworth, 2002a).  An example of this is high active instant dried yeast, a recent development that was made specifically for the bakery and brewing industry. The process becomes involved due to food products rarely consisting of only one ingredient. Initially in this example, one company, manufactures sugar from cane/beet and processes all grades of sugar, one of which is then sold to another company that processes the yeast fermentation to produce high active instant dried yeast, which in turn is sold to the bakery and brewing industry. Only after a considerable amount of success in the production of alcoholic beverages and bakery goods, was this product repackaged to include the consumers' market. 5  Demographics'include issues of age, gender, income and ethnic group while psychographics include issues of broadmindedness, creativity, dominating and efficient characteristics.  6  4  Geographical dimensions of countries, and regions within countries may maintain many ethnic groups, all of which as consumers have a wide range of food preferences to support their ethnic and religious beliefs. In South Africa, the large Indian, Portuguese, German and English communities retained many of their cultural preferences in food. However, due to the available food choices and interconnection with other cultures within South Africa, there are now distinct traditional differences from their original countries.  Similarly in North America, the immigrant  populations, now Canadians and Americans have retained much of their original culture.  For  example, Commercial Street in Vancouver is typical of this diversity, noted in the range of restaurants supporting different ethnic groups. So too, the geographical boundaries of rural and urban communities often distinguish between wealth, and the availability of food. In Canada, rural could mean better health with less city-related pollution caused by industries and over-crowding. In South Africa, rural communities represent a large proportion of the poor, uneducated, and malnourished population, with the majority of the day taken up with the collection and preparation of the basic food 'staple'. Although, with exception, some affluent, educated and well-travelled consumers choose to remain in the isolated rural communities with their food choices representing an urban style. In an interesting article edited by Neil Mermelstein and titled "Look into the Future of Food Science and Technology" (Hinds, 2002) future predictions of FPD includes "focus on convenience foods, nutraceutical, and functional foods, and products that target particular age groups. Trends for convenience food will fall into two main categories: meals-on-the-go and quick-and-easy meals".  With predictions of "a proliferation of food flavours" as well as "flavourful and exotic-  flavoured food being developed for mature consumers", Hinds predicts, "flavour fortification of traditional foods [will be] designed to appeal to various age groups. New flavours will be added to current functional foods that have inherent off-flavours.  Production of a wider variety of ethnic  foods will increase and will be enhanced by international Internet trading" (46-55). Furthermore, the development of the foods and the influence of consumers' consumption have been, in many instances, extremely successful and so lucrative that it has reached the point where many food companies are multibillion-dollar businesses owning a selection of food-related subsidiary companies. The economic dimensions of these profitable food businesses cannot go without mention for there are many costs pertaining to such an endeavour. Consequently, due to the incredible monetary success noted in food and food-related industry, foods can now be designed in the 'state of the art' research and development laboratories in one country, be processed in another country and then sold in another or more effectively sold worldwide . 7  There are many international renowned products and these include: Coca-Cola soda drink (pop) and MacDonald's hamburgers. 7  5  These above-mentioned  issues present major concerns for the science of food  development and food design because the North American market requires a whole set of food science and marketing parameters. These parameters are different from successfully introducing new products into isolated rural African communities. The role of FPD is to support all consumers, from a retail customer in a North American city to a consumer in the African savannah.  1.1  Problem Statement  Humankind's connection with food, nature, and culture, has changed dramatically in this modern technological age, to the point where there are now distinct disconnections of food between, humankind, nature, and culture.  Children often believe, for example, that dairy products come  from the containers in the fridge bought from the supermarket and find it difficult at first to connect these products to their original source of cows grazing on the farm. Moreover, the environmental impacts of increased water use, energy utilisation and land filling associated with milk production are not apparent from the appearance of the milk in a 8  bottle. Furthermore, the perception that milk is nutritious for consumers is true in most cases, but not all. Consumers able to digest the milk sugars with the enzyme lactase naturally present in their digestive tracts gain all the nutritional benefit of consuming milk proteins, but this is not the case for lactose intolerant consumers who lack this enzyme. Despite the many technological breakthroughs in food production that promote better health and environmental stewardship, there is a growing concern that these disconnections of food exist and are not only increasing, but also are detrimental to future connections. The actual reasons for this loss of connection are debated, a result of identifying the symptoms of the problem but not identifying the problem. Moreover, in the dimension of food, these disconnections can be attributed to a loss of consciousness as to what food represents to humankind. As a result, foods and especially new food products have been introduced without sufficient research of the consequences to remote areas of different cultures, fragile environments, and insecure local economies.  In these communities, each product will have health promotional, nutritional,  environmental, and economic feasibility concerns attached. These concerns need to be seen in the cultural context for which they were originally designed. In general, it is no longer sufficient for foods to be just safe and nutritious . 9  In the modern context, foods must also be socially  acceptable, environmentally benign, and economically feasible. Furthermore, there is not only the concern of disconnection, but also the concern that these disconnections are studied in isolation. Research into food has lead to many different and  8  9  As well as the contentious issues of global warming and climate change. Safe foods consist of foods that are safe with regards to texture properties, analytical components and microorganisms.  6  specialized fields of research all investigating food in one way or another, be it understanding human behaviour towards food or complex biochemical functions.  Nowhere is this lack of  connection as acute as in fields of Food Science and Food Product Development. When viewed from the perspective of the food industry as a whole, the challenges for the field of FPD are compounded by market driven forces. In North America, the most significant challenge for the market place is saturation ; whereas, the challenge for a poor rural African community would be 10  the lack of information about consumer needs and preferences. Another symptom of these disconnections can be attributed to the process of producing safe food products. In the process of FPD, from the initial design to the raw ingredients, through to the production and consumption by the household consumer, the emphasis has been on issues of food security . This Yeductionistic' focus has been imperative because as each food product life 11  cycle is extended so the potential for pathogenic damage is increased . The quantity of safe, 12  nutritious, and high quality foods has had to increase to meet the needs of the ever-increasing world population.  With the intention of increasing the quantity, foods have become more  processed, preserved and packaged, to enable these food products to remain wholesome throughout the greater storage times and longer transportation distances now required. In order for new food products to be safe and nutritious, as well as socially acceptable, environmentally benign and economically feasible, the current (i.e., existing) FPD Framework(s) are missing important connections. These disconnections underlie many of the complications of the food system, food industry, and FPD; moreover, these disconnections are accentuated by the food industry and time, as represented by the following three illustrations. The stage prior to the development of the modern food industry (and FPD) is illustrated in Figure 1-2, the stage inclusive of the food industry is illustrated in Figure 1-3, and in Figurel-4, the enhanced (future) stage of the food industry (and FPD) is depicted. Figure 1-2 is used to show the overall dimension of food and the disconnections (arrows) of food between humankind, nature and culture and it symbolises the complex linkages between food, consumers, human health, natural resources and the environment.  Where humankind  signifies the diverse array of potential consumers, nature signifies the surrounding physical environment. Culture signifies the complexities of humankind and their relationships with food and other consumers, inclusive of religion, values, and beliefs surrounding food.  Here, within the  Driven further by international Internet trading (Margaret Hinds, Food Technology 2002, 56 (1): 52). In FPD the all-encompassing issue of food security involves understanding the potential risks of contamination throughout the life cycle of the product. Food security in North America refers more to the general availability of food for all consumers. The definition of pathogenic is associated to bacteria that when digested in high quantities of actual bacteria or bacteria producing toxins, depending on the type of bacteria, death especially in the elderly or very young could result. 1 0  11  12  7  relationship between humankind, nature, and culture, the arrows illustrate a strong connection to food.  Historically, humankind caught and harvested only enough food to survive.  Culture was  linked to the way in which food was stored; for example, First Nations people would fish and dry enough food for the winter; whereas, in Africa, where food was more plentiful year round there was no need to preserve in such quantities.  Humankind  Figure 1-2: Before the Food Industry Representing the relationship between food, humankind, nature and culture  In Figure 1-3, Food Science and FPD are predominant in the present food industry and are largely responsible for the increasing disconnections of food between humankind, nature, and culture.  With the introduction and ever-increasing success of this industry, the FPD Process  nesting within the food industry, contributes to this success and to the disconnections. As stated previously, these disconnections are presently visible, and the question posed is; what can be done to improve the overall FPD paradigm? Notably, the paradigm here would include the FPD Process and FPD Framework(s) used within the process. One possibility to improve the FPD paradigm is that government policy could require that environmental, social, and economic targets be met during the development of new foods. The food introduced into rural communities, for example, would have to meet certain governmentregulated requirements regarding environmental degradation, overall nutritional content, and  Of course, not all bacteria in foods are detrimental and understanding the use of bacteria, yeast and moulds in foods and the preserving attributes of these in the industry has been the foundation of the science of food.  8  Humankind  Figure 1-3: Inclusive of the Food Industry Representing the relationship between food, nature, and culture. Here the connections are distorted, humankind is further removed from nature and culture health promotional aspects as well as promote economic feasibility. Unfortunately, there are no such policies, and current guidelines are insufficient in addressing comprehensive economic assessments relating to new food products. Food product developers are specialists in the design of safe, nutritious, and economically feasible food products. In most cases, economic feasibility goes well beyond simply ensuring that operating and capital costs associated with the new food product are covered. In order to ensure profitability, food manufacturers are constantly striving to lower costs without compromising the product's quality, safety, and overall consumer appeal. An important premise of this thesis is that food product developers are primarily interested in the minimization of financial costs, which are internal to the company. External costs such as the public cost of health care associated with high-fat foods, the environmental cost associated with foods produced with excessive packaging, and the cost imposed on communities that arise when traditional lifestyles are impacted, are given little weight in the corporate boardrooms, unless these external costs find their way back to the company in the form of reduced profits. This thesis initially deals with FPD independent of cost, profit and general economics. The various FPD frameworks do not explicitly address economic considerations, so it is logical within this thesis to defer the discussion about economics until later in the thesis. Cost Benefit Analysis is an important tool of Impact Assessment, so it is only after the point that Impact Assessment has 9  been used to enhance existing models of FPD that the attention in this thesis turns to economics. At that point the argument is made that the industry guidelines, which emerge from the enhanced FPD framework, must be passed through an economic filter in order for them to be effective. The economic filter first ensures that the food product results in positive internal profits for the company (i.e., the product is economically feasible). The filter then deals with external social costs such as impacts on health, the environment and communities. It is here that Cost Benefit Analysis is used to value alternative product attributes such as product design, and nutrition by giving high weight to those attributes with relatively large net social benefits, and low weight to those attributes with relative small net social benefits.  Humankind  Food industry Food science  FOOD Enhanced  Nature  FPD + IA  Culture  Figure 1-4: Food Product Development (FPD) enhanced with Impact Assessment (IA) Thus re-establishing the connection between humankind, food, nature, and culture with the Food Industry  In concert with government regulation, industry guidelines for the food industry and FPD can be enhanced. Specifically, these guidelines should guide the decision-making process within FPD.  Such guidance would increase the awareness of the food scientist, nutritionist, health  promoter, environmentalist, anthropologist, sociologist, economist and rural entrepreneur of the consequences of producing products with the limited goal of maximizing the overall success rate of these new and improved foods. Changing the paradigm of FPD would be of considerable benefit to food-related industries, and food-related research.  10  Certainly, the different fields of research  need to work together to achieve this objective. This proposed change is represented in Figure 14 where current FPD has been enhanced to account for and re-establish the connections of food. In this research, the enhancement of FPD is through the accompaniment, where appropriate, of an environmental process known as Impact Assessment (IA) and in particular, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). At a conceptual level, this process is an ideal framework for the enhancement of FPD because of the world-renowned success of IA. Moreover, the overall success of IA is attributed to the reduction and removal, where possible, of potentially significant (negative) impacts before the development stage. comprehension  of  social,  environmental,  By using the IA procedure within FPD, the  and economic  feasibility  concerns,  and the  interrelationships between each are addressed.  1.2  Premise of the research  From the preceding discussion the premise for this research is summarised below: 1.  Foods produced should be safe and nutritious, as well as socially acceptable, environmentally benign and economically feasible when accounting for the social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns associated with their development;  2.  Geographical regions and consumers in regions are distinct, in terms of both their relationship to food, and the impact of food on their external natural environment. There is a perception that there are distinctive geographical zones known as 'worlds' where the divisions are not only between geographic borders, climate, and culture, but also between opportunities for economic and material growth, health benefit, education and employment, security of self and relatives, and life expectancy. Generally, the first 'world' is represented by the 'developed' and the third 'world' by the 'developing' or 'underdeveloped'.  And within the third 'world', there  exists a fourth 'world' represented by the 'rural population'; 3.  The current FPD paradigm is failing to account for the significant impact of food production and consumption on the environment and various connections between health and food; currently food scientists do not have the tools to measure all these impacts through research;  4.  It is possible to formulate a general set of Industry guidelines which, if followed by food scientists, could promote foods that are more safe, nutritious, socially acceptable, economically feasible. These Industry guidelines would improve the current FPD paradigm, by enhancing the awareness of potentially significant impacts previously excluded in FPD. Nevertheless, within FPD many impacts may remain unnoticed throughout the product life cycle, as in the current situation.  On a cautionary note, misinterpretation and/or misuse of information  throughout of this process will subject this enhancement tool to failure (i.e., due to companies with vested interests, and food scientists obtaining inaccurate information to quantify the  11  impacts, etc). The criteria within the Industry guidelines must account for the uniqueness issue described in the second premise.  1.3  Research Questions  Many questions arise in relating issues such as healthy diet, food security, and environmental degradation to the food industry and the relationship humankind has with food. General questions including how the FPD paradigm interrelates new foods with the surrounding  physical  environment; how the environment interacts with the social connection and vice versa; and how economic feasibility of new food products, which interplays with both environment and social concerns, are considered crucial in this research. Hence, the main research questions are: 1. What are the deficiencies in the existing FPD paradigm (FPD Process and FPD Framework) that causes the paradigm to fail to account for negative impacts of food production and consumption on human health and the environment? Chapter Two is devoted to addressing this question. 2. What type of tool can be used to characterize and critically appraise the shortcomings of the current FPD paradigm? The question of appropriate framework is discussed in Chapter Three. 3.  A major premise of this research is that industry guidelines may be developed, which if followed correctly by the food scientist, would potentially ensure that significant impacts discussed in the first question (see above) are addressed. What are the general characteristics of these industry guidelines? Chapter Four is devoted to characterizing these guidelines.  4.  How could these Industry guidelines be structured to ensure that food scientists voluntarily adopt the guidelines given the economic constraints that face the food industry? What tradeoffs are made when the significant impacts associated with the new food product are identified? These questions are addressed in Chapters Four, and Five.  5. The use of an economic Cost Benefit Analysis is used as a specific tool for guiding decisionmaking in FPD. What are the most important elements of such an analysis? This question is discussed in Chapter Four, and Five.  1.4  Methodology  The specific steps undertaken to address the previous research questions are summarized as follows: A. Illustrate how the FPD paradigm fits into the overall Food system; B. Synthesise various FPD Frameworks into one single framework Framework) and then critique this new FPD Framework;  12  (i.e., Collective FPD  C.  Use Impact Assessment to enhance the new FPD Framework(s) (i.e., the Enhanced FPD Framework);  D. Present the Enhanced FPD Framework; E.  Create Industry guidelines for the food industry by developing Guiding strategies which are relevant for the Enhanced FPD Framework;  F. Develop an Economic framework for the food industry and Enhanced FPD Framework, using information extrapolated from the Guiding strategies to complete the economic analysis and; G. Develop a case study to illustrate the application of the Enhanced FPD Framework, Guiding strategies, and the Economic framework with a Cost Benefit Analysis of the case study product.  A.  Food Product Development (FPD) and the overall Food System:  A conceptual framework that incorporates the overall dimension of food and the connection humankind has with food, nature, and culture is presented.  The framework symbolizes the  complex linkages between food, and humankind. The framework explicitly shows how the FPD paradigm is nested within the food industry and how this process relates to the set of linkages described above.  The conceptual framework that forms the basis for the research is given in  Figure 1-5. For ease of understanding the complex process of FPD within the food industry, Figure 1-5 divides the framework into three dimensions: macro, meso and micro.  Macro dimension: Here the issues include investigating humankind as food consumers and understanding the conceptual relationship between social, environmental and economic issues relating to food concerns. It also includes emphasizing the food industry within a global context and how humankind perceives food, nature, and culture.  Meso dimension: This intermediate dimension is subdivided into four parts.  Part (a)  includes investigating the fields of food research in conjunction with Food Science and FPD and understanding how the food industry is represented in a Food system and the role of FPD within this. Part (b) includes investigating the existing FPD Framework(s). Part (c) includes investigating the Impact Assessment (IA) framework, in particular, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to establish a foundation for enhancing the FPD paradigm.  Part (d) includes creating a set of  Industry guidelines for FPD. These include (i) Guiding strategies for the food industry based upon the criteria established in IA, to allow for the inclusion of social, ecological, and economical principles within FPD. Industry guidelines also include (ii) a generic Economic framework that supports the Enhanced FPD Framework, designed in the conclusion of Part (c) and the Guiding strategies Part (d).  Micro dimension: Here different food products (i.e., examples) are interwoven within this research. The distinctive case study is a unique Bakery mix (South African patent number 96/4887 13  issued March 1997). It is an essential case study as it reviews the diverse nature of food, and new food products. Moreover, it typifies the complexity of food product development, because the FPD Process (i.e., Figure 1-1) crosses both local and international boundaries (i.e., food products designed in one country may be produced in another and sold in yet another). There is a concern in this research, nonetheless, that introduction of new food products into a community be done with prior investigation of the consequences.  Thus, this research  centres on Food Product Development and includes discussions of food products in Southern Africa, Europe, and North America, and with examples of urban and rural situations. There are several reasons for this, the first being to substantiate the complexity of the food industry and this research; the second being to support the arguments posed where within diverse communities, the conflicts of FPD are addressed and the third, to highlight the author's experience in designing a new food product. This product is a complete powdered Bakery mix with several potential target markets; moreover, the one emphasized in this research is the more isolated, rural market of South Africa. To explain the difficulties of this food research, the author's experience is pertinent. She spent her childhood living in four countries, and experienced and enjoyed many different food products unique to the country living in at the time. Globalization now accommodates for unique, culturally different products purchased out of season, (i.e., all year around).  Growing up, she  travelled southern Africa, parts of northern Africa, Europe, and United Kingdom. The author trained initially as a microbiologist, specialized in food microbiology, then while working fulltime, she qualified in Food Science and Technology. While employed as a consultant for an international food inspection company located in the South Africa, she managed the food division laboratory.  Changing positions, she lectured in Food Science and Technology, Food  Microbiology and in particular, Food Product Development, where students gained recognition for their new food product designs.  The author specialized in FPD and designed a unique food  product for the retail and rural market. Part of the lecturing experience was to supervise students working in the food industry and to work closely with the management of food industry companies to improve the curriculum and rapport between industry and the research institution. She started a non-profit organisation for research, titled Foodworks, for the industry where students worked their training year. The author travelled  throughout  South  Africa,  consulting  with  food  companies on  the analytical,  microbiological, and technical aspects of food as well as working with isolated rural communities on initiatives to improve basic nutritional needs.  14  B.  Existing frameworks of Food Product Development (FPD) with critique  As indicated above, the crucial fields of research in this investigation is Food Science, and in particular, Food Product Development.  One essential framework understood by the author, and  based upon the work of Saguy and Graf (1990) was initially considered deficient when selectively critiqued for the relating concerns of this research. This deficiency, however, was based on the author's assumption that this particular FPD Framework (i.e., the one she was taught, was experienced in and lectured herself) was universal. Whether there were other, pertinent FPD Frameworks in Canada or elsewhere in the world that included these deficiencies thus required further investigation. The purpose of this section is to complete a literature review on the current dynamics of the FPD Process before assuming the concerns of this research were not being addressed. In order to resolve this assumption, several FPD Frameworks were critiqued, where different authors, from different disciplines, and even from different countries, designed these frameworks.  At the start of this research, the literature  available on FPD was limited. Therefore, the five different frameworks chosen were considered either fundamental and/or the latest editions (2000).  To review these five frameworks, a  compilation process was designed where one framework (i.e., by Saguy and Graf (1990)) was compared to another, and then these were combined.  This combined framework was then  compared to yet another and combined again, until all the frameworks were analysed.  The  resulting compilation, the Collective framework is critiqued in the context of the problem statement and research concerns.  C.  Impact Assessment (IA)  A method through which the deficiencies in the current FPD Process can be identified and quantified is Impact Assessment (IA). Impact Assessment and in particular, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a management tool for multifaceted decision-making when planning projects. The results of the EIA enable managers to foresee and address potential problems before they occur. Currently, many of the consequences of producing new foods are excluded from the FPD Framework. Therefore, the EIA process has been modified in this research for specific use within the context of FPD in order to address these consequences.  The positive concepts of EIA are  transplanted within FPD. Thus, the EIA process has been selected because the objectives of an EIA are similar to those in this research.  Although unsuccessful EIA projects do exist in the  construction industry, the objectives are based on the measures of successful development.  In  addition, FPD can be viewed as an engineering project, similar to building bridges, highways and mines. Wherein "the life cycle of any project [mine, bridge or highway] can be broadly divided into four phases: planning and design, construction, operation and decommissioning" (Ridgeway, 15  1999). In FPD, these phases relate to the generic stages of planning; screening, development, commercialisation, and maintenance. Thus at a conceptual level, the practical steps of EIA have been used to enhance the Collective FPD Framework and derive the Enhanced FPD Framework. D.  Industry guidelines for FPD  Industry guidelines consisting of Guiding strategies and an Economic framework improve the Enhanced FPD Framework. The Guiding strategies enhance the current FPD Process to account for and minimise significant impacts associated with new food products.  Accounting for and  addressing these negative impacts is particularly important because the present process of Food Product Development fails to adequately do so.  As an example, decisions relating to the  introduction of new food products, particularly in Southern Africa, have in the past lead to mistrust, ineffective decision choices, and escalating environmental degradation linked to poverty.  The  decisions did not account for ethical differences of those impacted or the risk potential for those involved. The Economic framework improves the Enhanced FPD Framework by investigating the costs and benefits associated with FPD and the newly designed food product.  Relevant  information for this framework within the industry may be extrapolated from the Guiding strategies. E.  Case Study  Once developed, the Enhanced FPD Framework and Industry Guidelines are applied using a case study food product, which in this research is a powdered cereal based Bakery mix. This Bakery mix is an excellent choice for testing the Guiding strategies and Economic framework because it was designed for use in both local and international regions; hence, impacts can be assessed in both 'developed' and 'developing' countries. The geographical regions selected in the case study are Vancouver, Canada (i.e., as a comparison of first 'world', North America) and Ndumu, South Africa (i.e., representing third and fourth 'world'). The focus is on the rural community, Ndumu, in Kwa-Zulu land, South Africa . 13  In this research first, third, and fourth 'worlds' are illustrated because of the variety of geographical borders that new food products may cross to reach consumers. South Africa is included here due to the unique situation where all these 'worlds' are evident. Furthermore, these 'worlds' imply the diverse nature of consumers, and their values, beliefs, and religions, but also the consumer's economic situation. First 'world' implies rich and affluent consumers, while fourth 'world' implies rural and poor. "South Africa has always been hard to classify in part because it represents a microcosm of the world capitalist system. There exists on its territory zones that correspond to all four constituents 'worlds' that make up that world system. There is an overwhelmingly white section of the population whose popular culture and standard of living seem to belong to the 'first' (advanced capitalist world). Much of the urban black population belongs to the modern, industrializing 'third' world, while rural Africans do not differ much from their counterparts in 'fourth' world Africa" (Marais, 1998). 13  16  MACRO LEVEL  Humankind  Culture  Nature  MESO LEVEL  Understanding Food in the context of the Food industry & FPD  Investigation of Impact  FPD Process enhanced by EIA resulting in an Enhanced FPD  Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)  Framework  Industry Guidelines for FPD MICRO LEVEL  Set of Guiding strategies designed to aid  in the decision-making process of FPD + Economic framework for the Enhanced  FPD Framework Utilizing information extrapolated from Guiding strategies Case Study  Implementations of a small community owned bakery incorporating unique Bakery mix  Figure 1-5: Conceptual framework  17  Chapter Two: The Food System 2.0  Introduction Within the Food Science literature, the food industry is explained as a complex, multi-dimensional system' (McWilliams, 2001). Yet, what makes the food industry so complex? Do the disciplines within the industry, and those relating to the development of new food products contribute to this complexity? How important is this issue of complexity in Food Product Development (FPD)? The noted disconnections of food have evolved into social (includes nutrition and health), environmental, and economic feasibility concerns, as discussed in Chapter One. Where are these concerns evident in the complex food industry and FPD? Does the fact that FPD is performed using a variety of different frameworks contribute to these identified concerns?  In addressing the above-mentioned questions, the purpose of this chapter is to review the food industry in the context of FPD, taking into account the inherent complexity of the food industry. The review includes evaluating the reasons behind the development of new food products and identifying what actually constitutes a new food product.  As part of the critique, the FPD  Framework used to design and produce new food products is evaluated firstly in the context of a Generic FPD Framework and then against five existing working frameworks.  In order to  summarize the current view of FPD in the literature, these five frameworks are progressively combined into one Collective FPD Framework, which is also assessed against the Generic FPD Framework. The generic framework should be viewed as an ideal, highly general approach to FPD that serves as a useful benchmark. This chapter assesses the extent to which the evolving concerns are addressed within the food disciplines and within the design of new food products.  Moreover, this chapter aims to  establish what these concerns are in relation to social acceptability, relevance of new food products in different markets, and the environmental concerns relating to food production.  Finally, the  intent of Chapter Two is to understand the economic feasibility concerns within the food industry and FPD because existing FPD framework(s) exclude this explicitly. (This thesis will address this in later chapters, Chapters Four and Five). A roadmap highlighting the objectives of Chapter Two is described below in Box 2 (Figure 2-0).  18  Box 2: Roadmap of Objectives 1. To evaluate the food industry as a whole using a Food System Model adapted for the food industry (Figure 2-1); 2. To analyse the Food Science discipline within the food industry using a linear version of the Food System Model adapted for the food industry (Figure 2-2); 3. To describe FPD, the design of new food products, and the definition of these new products. 4. To analyse the FPD Frameworks in the literature, from the simple to more complex of versions, beginning with a Generic FPD Framework adapted from Fuller (1994); 5. To critique FPD by synthesizing five existing frameworks into a Collective FPD Framework and comparing this against the Generic FPD Framework, resulting in a Final FPD Framework; 6. To critique the Food System, the Food System Models, the food industry, and in particular FPD in relation to the 'disconnections' identified in Chapter One; 7. To describe what each disconnection means in relation to social acceptability and relevance, (i.e., nutrition, and health promotion) environmental concerns relating to FPD and the economic feasibility of balancing social and environmental concerns; 8.  Relate these 'disconnections' to the overall success rate and, profitability of FPD.  Figure 2-0: Roadmap of Chapter Two  19  2.1  The Food System The purpose of this chapter is to introduce to the current Food System, and disciplines of Food Science and FPD. This section describes the food industry within the context of a Food System Model (FSM) (Figure 2-1). The FSM is a useful model as it illustrates the flow of resources throughout the multi-dimensional food industry. It is these resources, which constitute all ingredients required for FPD. In addition, the terms describing the FSM and the food industry are explained in this section (Table 2-1). 14  Before examining the process of food product development, it is useful to describe the Food System and the food industry within this system in the context of the FSM (Figure 2-1). The FSM was created by modifying two existing models of the economics of resource utilization: the Materials Balance Model and the Circular Flow Model . 15  To meet the current demand for food and new food products, the food industry has become a multi-dimensional system. In the FSM, nature represents all natural resources such as soil, minerals, and water, in addition to other resources, such as seeds, eggs and vegetables. Within the food industry, as shown in the Food System Model, nature provides the initial and continual flow of resources that ignites the food system (Figure 2-1: step 1). These natural resources flow to consumers to be consumed directly (i.e., domestic garden products) or indirectly through customers who utilize the natural resources in manufacturing food products, which are ultimately consumed by the consumer. As a result of this consumption and production, residuals are produced which are then disposed of in nature (steps l a and lb). Driving the food system flow is the consumers' demand for food products and foodrelated services (steps 2 and 3). The consumer not only pays for the products and services but 16  also supplies the labour and expertise for food-related companies and food manufacturing. Steps 4 and 5 show the flow of food products from customers of food-related companies to household consumers.  Information for this section was drawn from Food Science literature of Hotchkiss & Potter (1995), McWilliams (2001), Fuller (1994) & Saguy & Graf (1990). The Circular Flow Model illustrates the real and monetary flows of economic activity through the factor market and the output market. The Materials Balance Model positions the circular flow within a larger schematic to show the connections between economic decision-making and the nature (Callan & Thomas, 2000). Food-related services include the hotel and restaurant industry and catering institutions. 14  15  16  20  Government and Legal Agencies  Research Institutions  Steps: 1. la. lb. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  Natural resources drawn from nature Residuals from consumer consumption Residuals from customer production Supply of resources (Labour & Expertise) Demand for resources Supply of food and services Demand of food and services Reuse, recycle and recovery Reuse, recycle and recovery  Figure 2-1: Food System Model (FSM)  21  Overall Category Nature  Food System Terms Category Definition Natural resources used in food industry. Resources are changed via 1° production & then 1° & 2° (etc.) processing  Primary resources  Soil, minerals, water,  Secondary resources  Seeds, eggs  Tertiary resources  Produce - vegetables  Subsidiary products  Fertilisers, pesticides, packaging Consumers including those in their homes; hotels, restaurants or hospitals. Producers; distributors; food and food-related companies Agribusinesses; farmers; fishers; and ranchers  Consumers  Household end consumers  Consume and utilise food and food-related services  Customers  Food companies related to the food and food service industry Producers: Growers and Processors (Process first stage)  Purchase for and pn behalf of consumers  Distributors: Retailers and wholesalers Food-related companies Related to food production industry  Produce wide range of produce: seeds, eggs, vegetables, grains cereals, and dairy. Add value to produce and food products via convenient locations Food service industry Functional division Raw material production  Output markets  Examples  Manufacturing Distribution & Marketing Products and subsidiary products Labour & Expertise Universities, colleges, anc research companies  Supermarket chains Hotels, restaurants, hospitals FPD related food companies Food companies such as Flavour Houses and additive suppliers Packaging companies Advertising companies Transportation New food products and fertilisers  Factor markets Research Institutions Government and Research inspection companies Law Agencies Note: Within this table, the primary (1°) production and subsequent processing stages are different to the primary (1°), secondary and tertiary resources found in Nature. In the production and processing processes, resources are changed. Table 2 - 1 : Explanation of terms within the Food Systems Model  22  As mentioned previously, residuals flow directly from consumers into nature due to consumption, and directly from customers due to processing and production (Figure 2-1: steps l b & lc). These residuals from both consumers and customers may be redirected into the system by replenishing it through recovery, recycling and reuse of the resources required in food production and food-related services (Figure 2-1: steps 6 & 7). Consumers represent household end-consumers, who have the monetary resources to acquire food products and food-related services, and thus continue the flow of supply of resources through the food system.  The  complexity of the food industry is a result of the available diversity of food products and foodrelated services. As the consumers represent the social dynamics of the food industry, the ethnic, gender, religious, political and class related issues further diversify the demand for these food products and related food services. The demand is also complicated because it is based on the consumers' knowledge of food and technology used to produce the food and even though these factors should lead to a certain choice preference, this is not always the case. Customers' account for a wide variety of different companies who are all connected to the multi-dimensional aspects of the food industry with each customer performing specific roles. Customers include producers, distributors, food companies, and food-related companies. The producers include growers and processors such as agribusinesses ranging from fishers, ranchers, and farmers.  Distributors service the roles of retailers and wholesalers, in the form of local,  national, and international storage and transportation; distribution; logistics; export and import controls.  Though not exclusively, food and food-related companies account for the issues  pertaining to the food service industry, food safety and food security, food quality control and quality assurance, food technology and food microbiology, food consultants and nutritionists, health promoters, dieticians and toxicology, food engineering, industrial ecology, marketing, advertising, risk assessment, resource management and environmental sciences, economics, business management, finance and commerce.  The food companies related to actual food  production may comprise the following four divisions: functional; raw material production; manufacturing; and distribution and marketing. Output markets store and distribute the food products and food-related products.  17  For  the purpose of the food system, output markets are the processes through which food products and food-related services flow from companies (customers) to consumers. Factor markets play an important role in supplying the necessary labour and expertise to the food industry. Government represents the legal regulation, law enforcement and legislation standards relating to every stage of food manufacturing and consumption. Issues of quality control, quality assurance, packaging, labelling, and ingredient regulation of all food products are subject to critical  1 7  Factor market and Output market play a minor role in this thesis.  23  analysis by governing bodies. Research institutions concentrate on all aspects of food research from medical to governmental policy in the interest of nature, customers and consumers' well being. The 'industry-university synergy', through an increased level of communication necessitated by the industry, provides the research required to improve the system. In summary, the Food System Model (Figure 2-1) is a process that begins with nature, supporting all natural and primary resources for production and processing of food products and residuals from consumption and production. Consumers supply monetary resources to drive the flow of the relevant resources to the development of new food products.  2.2  The linear interpretation of the Food System Model (Figure 2-2)18 The purpose of this section is to further explain the complexity of the food industry, Food Science and FPD, through use of a closed linear version of the more general FSM discussed above. What is gained from examining the Food System using this model is that the feed-back-loop concept is shown.  Raw Materials initially from  Nature  Food Products re-enter the cycle (lo.-.  Customers & foodrelated companies  Industrial Waste  Residuals Production  Food Products •For Consumers & customers  Industrial Waste  Solid waste  i Residuals /consumption Further processing  Process through 1° 2 , 3" stages J  Figure 2-2: Linear interpretation of the Food System Model The linear version of the FSM represented in Figure 2-2 focuses on the process flow of developing new food products within the specific divisions of Food Science and FPD. Figure 2-2 shows that the flow throughout the Food System begins with the food industry drawing upon a variety of natural resources. With the addition of natural primary (1°) resources, secondary (2°) resources are changed into food produce, through the course of primary (1°) production. Referring to Table 2-1, natural primary (1 °) resources include soil, minerals, and water as well as the products of  Information for this section was drawn from Food Science literature of Hotchkiss & Potter (1995), McWilliams (2001), Fuller (1994), Saguy & Graf (1990) and United Nations: Principal stages of the food supply chain (2000). 18  24  direct photosynthesis.  Secondary resources (2°) include seeds and eggs.  Subsidiary products  needed in these processes include fertiliser, pesticides, fodder, and packaging.  Many aspects  determine, not only the combination of these resources, but also the successful outcome of such combinations. These aspects may include new technologies designed and then used within the development of new food products.  19  The foods grown or reared from these combinations of  resources and food-related disciplines form the basis of all ingredients known to food scientists. FPD is essentially combining these ingredients or processing them further into food products with the use of processing technology. The production and processing criteria within the food system consider both customers and consumers.  Primary production produces fruits, vegetables and grains that may then be  followed by 1°, 2°' and even 3° processing, depending on the desired type of new food product. The primary products of animal and vegetable matter are either connected to the consumers through direct demand (i.e., eggs or milk) or through processing (i.e., pate or cheese). Processing changes produce into food products through a series of stages.  The individual ingredients of  bread, for example, have gone through many production and processing stages, prior to the actual product development.  Each processing stage continues drawing upon natural and subsidiary  resources until the desired end product is manufactured. Thus, consumers may demand new products at any stage of the process. Primary production takes place in farms, small dairies, abattoirs, and grain mills. Primary, 2° and subsequent (3°, 4° etc.) processing take place in a variety of industries, utilising a wide range of food preservation methods, including brewing, canning, freezing, drying and packaging (Potter & Hotchkiss, 1995). The Food System, with reference to both Figures 2-1 and 2 - 2 , sets in motion the flow of food resources throughout the food industry, from raw materials to new food products. All foodrelated disciplines operate collectively, satisfying the household consumers' demand for food products and related services with the goal of attracting the consumers' supply of resources in monetary terms. The complexity of this system is due to the extensive array of industries involved, as resources continue to flow through the system until the desired food product is produced. Adding to the complexity is that food products, though ending with household consumers, may not always take a direct route.  Further processing stages may include producing, distributing, storing,  transporting, and/or further packaging and marketing not only for the domestic, but also global  Ohmic Heating is a new technology developed at the Campden Research Centre in the United Kingdom in the early 1990's. Based on resistance (and ohms) the food is cooked and preserved such that when the food is packaged, the product may be stored at room temperature where previously, similar products would for safety have had to be refrigerated. 19  25  consumers. Products may also be routed into food catering where bulk versions are demanded in hotels, restaurants, and institutions, prior to reaching the household consumer market.  2.3  Food Science The purpose of this section is to present a brief overview of the Food Science discipline in the context of the  food industry, the FSM (Figures 2-1 and 2-2) and  FPD. Food Science investigates the food industry and typifies the scientific understanding of the human body and the digestive system, nutrients within the food, as well as an extensive understanding of the functionalities of food ingredients, their interactions, processing changes and deterioration processes. In our busy lifestyles of today, our body systems are under different stresses than in the past, and hence our ability to handle daily living requires a range of skills. These skills include managing our eating habits, the nutritional contents of our diet and food choices. All food-related issues lie directly within the Food Science discipline and hence require not only a thorough understanding, but also a sense of responsibility. Food Science serves the consumer and supports the need for safe, nutritious, and delicious food for healthy development even in ever-changing lifestyles. The question 'do we eat to live or live to eat?' represents the overall context for food scientists. In referring to the Food System Models (Figures 2-1 and 2-2) Food Science investigates the scientific and physicochemical links associated with the flow of resources throughout the system, to ultimately benefit the consumer. Food Science is concerned with food in relation to nature, household consumers, and customers.  In the linear perspective of the model,  specifically (Figure 2-2) scientists are interested in the flow of raw materials, energy usage, manufacturing, and product use. Furthermore, the food industry relies on the discipline of Food Science for information, research, and expertise (McWilliams, 2001). Whether aimed at supply oriented, demand oriented or footloose industries (Connor & Schiek, 1997) and depending on whichever functional division whether raw material production, manufacturing, distribution and/or marketing (Potter & Hotchkiss, 1995) Food Science supports the links between food, nature, customer and consumer. Moreover, several perspectives enhance the continual motion within the FSM; namely, research perspectives, physical perspectives, nutritional and food supply perspectives.  The  research perspectives include the research process, sensory evaluations and objective evaluations. The physical perspectives investigate physical aspects of food preparation.  The nutritional  perspective includes carbohydrates such as monosaccharide, disaccharides, and sweeteners, 26  starch, fibre and plant foods; lipids including fats and oils; proteins including milk and milk products, meat, fish and poultry, eggs; and the dimensions of baking and baking applications. Food supply perspectives include food safety concerns and controls, food preservation and food additives (McWilliams, 2001). More importantly, concentrated within the FSM and links between food, customer and consumer, Food Science contributes to a greater understanding of the related issues between these three links, whether it includes for example, quality control and assurance or fortification. Better understanding leads to greater benefit to consumers due to the combination of processing technology, food research and nutritional related issues. In the future, it is envisioned that Food Science will focus,on links (i.e., the food, humankind, culture and nature links) that address and potentially resolve issues of obesity, food safety and food-related terrorism, as well as nutraceuticals, and functional foods (Hinds, 2000 & Hollingsworth, 2002b). In summary, the food scientists' role within the food industry is complicated and varied, because ultimately Food Science covers all aspects of producing food. This research role may begin with agricultural concerns about seasons and harvesting fields of produce, such as wheat, and lead to the minute detection of Aflatoxins, which is a toxicological active mould that may be present in stored processed grain.  Responsibility ranges "from the agricultural realm into the  technology of producing products for wholesale and retail markets, and the preparation of food in many types of commercial and institutional venues as well as in the home" (McWilliams, 2001).  2.4  Food Product Development (FPD) The purpose of this section is to classify FPD in the context of the food industry and new food products. The different types of new food products (Appendix 2-1) are analysed.  From paper-generated ideas to successful food and food-related products that have for years been supported by generations of consumers , the process of producing new food products combines 20  many specialties within the food industry. Food product development is fundamental to the food industry due to "the motivation of food companies to profit, in order to survive" (Fuller, 1994). In the food industry, "the consequences of product development have a direct impact on competitiveness... [And] mean the difference between falling behind a leading competitor in the  Examples of such well-known products are Kellogg's cornflakes, Cadbury's dairymaid chocolate and local brand names of bicarbonate of soda.  2 0  27  marketplace and being the competitor who provides the leadership..." (Wheelwright & Clarke, 1995). The major focus of [food companies/customers] and the bulk of its assets "are tied up in how it delivers value to its customers" (Wheelwright & Clarke, 1995). When a company is saddled with "old products, the wrong products, or even the right products at the wrong time, the value [it provides to customers, and therefore the value of the company itself] is severely limited". Thus, "if the firm does food product development badly, its assets -  particularly its equity with its  customers-will wither and erode" (Wheelwright & Clarke, 1995). The ultimate achievement for the food scientist is to have consumers co-opt into their lifestyles, values, and beliefs the newly designed food products and the attached brand product names. The process of development, however, is fraught with much difficulty and with the high rate of failure resulting in a costly venture (Fuller, 1994).  "It requires intimate blending of  research findings, science, technology, imagination, experience, skill and ... art" (Segall, 2000) to ensure success. Ideally, the FPD process is the choreographed series of events that include "a process of initiation and advance, error, iteration, adaptation, and reiteration directed towards an elusive goal of a nearly perfect manifestation of the product concept" (Segall, 2000). Even when the blending of these factors is choreographed to near perfection, product failures still occur. There are several reasons why this product development is difficult. All products have life cycles and necessitate eventual replacement. The management of a company may adopt a policy that requires an aggressive growth programme to satisfy long-term business goals. marketplace changes, food products need to respond to these changes.  As the  New technologies and  knowledge promote new food products to suit the changing marketplace and consumers lifestyles. Changes in government legislation, health programs, agricultural policy, and scientific findings promote the need for newer/ improved food products (Fuller, 1994). Moreover, the food processors are faced with increasingly difficult challenges, and "these include increasing competition from both existing and new types of competitors, heightened pressure on both wholesale and retail shelf space, pressure to shorten development cycles and get to market more quickly, increasingly complex technical challenges...^ and increasingly regulatory complexity in areas such as labelling, food preservation, and so on." (Lord, 2000). However, when successful, what results from this complex product development process are new food products. Based on a review of the literature there are many different definitions of new food products that further complicate the food industry. A simple definition of a new product may be "a product not previously marketed or manufactured by a company" (Fuller, 1994), or "a product not previously marketed or produced by the organization for which it is developed or made available" (Segall, 2000). A more broadened 28  version of a new product may be "the development and introduction of a product not previously manufactured by a company into the marketplace or the presentation of an old product into a new market not previously explored by a company" (Fuller, 1994). "Some products are really new in the most obvious meaning of the word, some are modifications of existing products, others are imitations or copies of competing or already existing products, and still others may be minor modifications in shape, size, colour, or packaging. In some cases, this can even include products already available in the marketplace and obtained fully market-ready from sources outside one company and introduced, without modification or with only simply packaging or other modification, into another company's marketing and distribution network" (Segall, 2000). According to Fuller (1994), these new food products have been categorised using the following classification: "line extensions, repositioned existing products, new form of existing products, reformulation of existing products, new packaging of existing products, innovative or added-value products and creative products" (Fuller, 1994). Another set of definitions by Hoban (1998), and discussed by Segall are described as: classically innovative, equity transfer, line extensions, clones, temporary, conversion, and private labels (Segall, 2000). These two classifications have been synthesized into a list comprised of seven definitions of a new food product as presented in Appendix 2-1.  2.5  Phases of Food Product Development An overview of the phases within the process of FPD is now presented. The conceptual framework for this section is a Generic Framework based on Fuller's Idealized representation of activities flow in product development" (Fuller, 70). Five overlapping FPD Frameworks, beginning with foundational and ending with the most complicated, are synthesized into one Collective Framework (Figure 2-7) as a syncretism of the FPD literature.  2.5.1  Generic FPD Framework The FPD process is complex and "although no guarantees can ever be offered for a new  food product's success, the implementation of a carefully orchestrated plan significantly increases that probability" (Rudolph, 2000).  One such ideal plan or framework, is the "idealized  representation of food product development" by Fuller, shown in Figure 2-3 (Fuller, 1994) . It is 21  this orchestrated plan, that represents FPD "as a progression from the intangible - the product  Note that Figure 2-3: the Generic FPD Framework is rotated 90 degrees to the original version by Fuller (1994) for ease of explanation and further comparison with the five individual working FPD Frameworks. 21  29  idea embodied in a product statement or concept - to the tangible - the actual product with all the attributes stated in the concept, ready to be tested in the marketplace" (Fuller, 1994). The Generic Framework of Figure 2-3 is ideal as it depicts the overall responsibilities of the food scientists and related disciplines within FPD. The importance of each activity within these responsibilities, the boundaries of what each activity includes and the interconnections between responsibilities are illustrated. Replication of such responsibilities is more easily defined here than in many other frameworks depicting FPD and for the purpose of this research, Figure 2-3 represents the Generic Conceptual FPD Framework. In more detail, the centre-flow of Figure 2-3 depicts the responsibility of the food scientists, where the process begins with the design of a product based on a concept statement formulated into a tangible food product prototype.  Food scientists use marketing research and  sensory and consumer evaluations to continually guide refinements to the prototype. The domain on the right-hand-side of Figure 2-3 depicts largely the responsibility of the marketing department.  Activities such as, preliminary product safety and shelf stability testing  may require further alterations to the early stages of the prototype development. The domain on the left hand side is largely the domain of the engineering and production departments where engineers and food scientists design processes for new products, incorporating the necessary changes determined by the food scientists (Fuller, 1994). "As development progresses from top to bottom, in [Figure 2-3] there is, at any point, a constant interplay between the other two flows.  Each shapes and moulds the other streams"  (Fuller, 1994). In scrutinizing Figure 2-3 "all of development, from idea generation, to test market, and even to a national launch, must be viewed as one long, on-going screening process. Each stage of development brings further data which, when translated into information, provides development teams with more refined tools with which to screen. Rather inappropriately, screening is depicted in many papers and texts describing product development as a series of sequential stages in development, usually the second stage after idea generation" (Fuller, 1994).  [Crucial to the  understanding of the framework and process of food product development is the concept that] ..."screening is not a stage in development; it is synonymous with development" (Fuller, 1994). For example, each phase of FPD may be revisited in order to verify the prototype. Until recently, "most authors divided new food product development into several distinct phases. Very few authors agree on the numbers, the order, or the names of the phases. This is not a problem in analysing the process of new food product development; however, when the developers interpret the phases as a sequence, a one after-the-other cascade from ideas through to a final finished product, they [may] misinterpret the process.  30  Concept Ideas  Process  Product  Design  Design  Bench top Product  Pilot Process  1r  Plant Process  w  Pilot Plant  Subjective  Product  Testing  Commercial  Consumer  Plant  Preference  Production  Testing  Market Test  Figure 2-3: Generic FPD Framework (Fuller, 70)  31  The phases do not start, proceed, and then finish, with the next phase then beginning. The phases are not, strictly speaking, sequential: they often overlap and are concurrent. Projects might even return to the conceptual phase for a complete rethinking of the concept statements as new information arises" (Fuller, 1994). In summary, Figure 2-3 represents the generic conceptual plan of FPD, a plan that may be considered too general to be in actual operation.  While companies may follow this plan, the  activities within FPD may also be performed in a more in depth variation. Versions of these more detailed FPD frameworks are presented in the next section (Section 2.5.2).  Since there are  similarities and differences within each, these frameworks are synthesised into one comprehensive framework, as an attempt to unify the differing viewpoints of FPD within the literature (syncretism).  This comprehensive framework is presented as the Collective FPD Framework  depicted in Figure 2-7.  2.5.2 Five Existing Frameworks of Food Product Development There are many different ways to approach FPD. The approach foundational to this thesis is based on Saguy and Graf (1990) . This section begins with a brief description of this approach. 22  The next step is to merge the Saguy and Graf (1990) approach with Fuller's (1994) interpretation of FPD (Figure 2-4). Following this, the work and interpretation of Rudolph (2000) is incorporated into the combined framework (Figure 2-5). Then the work and interpretation of Pyne (2000) is incorporated into the combined framework (Figure 2-6).  Lastly, the work of Segall (2000) is  incorporated and in doing so a Collective FPD Framework that provides a summary of the current literature emerges in Figure 2-7.  Saguy and Graf Framework (1990) The phases of FPD presented by Saguy and Graf, in 1990, in the book "Food Product Development: From Concept to Marketplace" are considered by many to be the foundational 'tried and tested' set of phases from which to develop new food products.  They believe that FPD  projects may contain different characteristic phases, and corresponding divisional activities, management involvement and creative design depending on the circumstances and context.  A  well-recognised distribution of phases for FPD includes: Screening, Feasibility, Development, Commercialisation, and Maintenance (Saguy & Graf, 1990). The Screening phase comprises several activities: idea generation, prototype development, and technology screening and consumer feedback.  The Feasibility phase is where prototype  Also central to the author's knowledge of FPD, throughout her Bachelor of Technology Degree and her experience working in the South African food industry since 1989. 2 2  32  products are scrutinized for overall feasibility in terms of: technology assessment, manufacturing scenarios, financial evaluation, and risk analysis.  Other feasibility issues include: consumer  research, marketing, manufacturing, and logistics. Within the Development phase, the prototype becomes a taste-able, chewable, and digestible product; whereby, the intangible becomes tangible.  Relating  to  the  food  development,  multidisciplinary  teams  collaborate  on  multidimensional levels and as a result, a technical plan is facilitated . 23  Formulation of the product includes: scientific translation, sourcing of ingredients, production  process,  and  regulatory  compliance.  Food  engineering,  equipment  design,  identification, and resolution of scale-up issues, product/process/packaging interactions, shelf life studies, tolerance testing, and documentation are all integrated within the Development phase. In the  Commercialisation  phase,  the  start-up  procedures,  equipment  shakedown,  process  optimization, confirmatory shelf-life study, quality approval, labelling information and store audits are addressed . The final phase, the Maintenance phase, includes: product quality improvement 24  where customer satisfaction, consumer trend analysis, and product quality improvement result from, among other things, customer complaints. Quality improvement focuses on product flavour, ingredient sourcing, and reformulation, processing packaging and physical characteristics. The primary goal during product development is to attain the highest possible quality and to gain consumer acceptance, but with increasing profit margins as long-term survival in the competitive marketplace is not assured. Profit improvement includes cost savings of the formulation, the process, and the packaging. Thus, the basic set of phases presented by Saguy and Graf (1990) comprise: Screening, Feasibility, Development, Commercialisation, and Maintenance.  Compilation of Saguy and Graf (1990), and Fuller (1994) Gordon Fuller's 1994 publication entitled "New Food Product Development: From Concept to Marketplace" presents a FPD Framework (Fuller, 1994) that synergistically enhances the Screening and Development phases presented by Saguy and Graf (1990). As represented in Figure 2-4, Fuller accentuates that the Concept (idea generation) phase should be separate from the Screening phase. Moreover, the Concept phase flows into a more comprehensive Screening phase with combined issues of screening and feasibility.  In the top  portion of Figure 2-4 (i.e., the Screening phase of FPD), feasibility, consumer research and  These teams include a wide range of related disciplines from food scientists to marketing, management, finance and risk analysis, engineers, operations, quality assurance and control, microbiology, nutritionists, consumer research, advertising, packaging, regulatory affairs personnel, and patent attorneys. Labelling information in FPD is specific to the printing key line.  23  24  33  financial risk are rearranged by Fuller to emphasize these issues. Another enhancement, Fuller highlights both product progression and data flow throughout the progression of FPD. The centre-flow of Figure 2-4, the Development phase, is now separated into bench top and pilot plant activities.  Bench top activities involve laboratory procedures, while pilot plant  activities involve engineering and processing. Within the bottom portion of Figure 2-4, production, consumer trials, and test market are distinctly categorised, though now under the category of Development and where appropriate, Commercialisation. Thus, the diverging issues include emphasis within the phases, to incorporate initial company objectives, perceived needs of the consumer, idea generation, and feasibility within the Concept and Screening phases.  An important note of interest is that the Maintenance and  Commercialisation phase are not addressed directly (as in the scheme presented by Graf and Saguy); rather, Fuller addresses production, consumer trials and test markets in separate phases. In the compilation, these phases are included in the Development phase. Converging issues of Screening and Development enhance the flow of the FPD process. At this stage in the compilation, the modification to the basic FPD framework represented by Fuller is noted in Figure 2-4 (i.e., highlighted italics and shading) where separate phases of Concept, Screening, Feasibility, Development and Commercialisation are established to better define the process of FPD.  Compilation of Saguy, Graf, Fuller, and Rudolph (2000) In Marvin Rudolph's recent publication entitled "The Food Product Development Process" (Rudolph, 2000), a set of FPD phases that emphasize the 'product' within the FPD process is presented.  The three phases presented are: product definition, product implementation, and  product introduction. The first phase, phase I, highlights the strategic plan, market opportunity assessment, business plan and product definition.  Phase II, product implementation, includes  issues of prototype development, market strategy, and testing, scale-up, and trial production. Prototype development includes benchmarking and product optimization.  The final phase of  product introduction, phase III, includes product introduction and product support. In comparing the foundational set of phases by Saguy and Graf, similarities exist between these frameworks; moreover, Rudolph's phases can be incorporated within the phases of Concept, Screening, Feasibility, Development, Commercialisation, and Maintenance. Thus, comparing the above-mentioned compilation of Figure 2-4 with Rudolph's FPD Framework, (represented in Figure 2-5), emphasis is on the product and marketing the product and not the process. These components from Rudolph's FPD Framework have been italicized in Figure 2-5 in order to show what has been introduced into the Collective Framework.  34  CONCEPT PHASE  Idea generation  v  I Company objectives Perceived needs of the consume/  SCREENING PHASE  Prototype development Technology assessment Manufacturing scenarios/ Marketing/ Logistics Financial risk evaluation/Consumer research & feedback/Feasibility DEVELOPMENT PHASE  Production Consumer trials Test Markets Bench Top Product  Pilot Plant Product  Technical plan Production process Food engineering Formulation/Sourcing ingredients Equipment design Shelf life studies Scale up issues Tolerance testing Product/Process/Packaging interactions Documentation Regulatory compliance COMMERCIALISATION PHASE  Process optimization (start up, equipment shake down) Confirmatory shelf life testing Quality approval Labelling MAINTENANCE PHASE  Product quality improvement (formulation, process & packaging, consumer/customer satisfaction, trend analysis, complaint analysis) Profit improvement  Figure 2-4: Compilation of FPD using Saguy, Graf, and Fuller (Saguy & Graf, 1990 Fuller, 1994)  35  To explain Rudolph's framework further, his phases all represent issues pertinent to the progress of a new product. Once the product is developed through the integration of consumer perceptions, business objectives and product definition requirements, emphasis is placed on the company being in a position to market the new product. In phase I: product definition is a method used to integrate multiple and often conflicting objectives (Rudolph, 2000). This method is based on Quality Functional Deployment (QFD) and throughout the food industry, this graphical representation of the interrelationships between customers' wants and associated product characteristics is being used to assess "product requirements... identify and understand requirement trade offs, and predict the impact of specific product features.  Additionally, it provides a team-building tool for interdisciplinary product  planning and communication. It is a method that is an important part of the process to develop successful products that fit the strategic and tactical needs of business" (Rudolph, 2000). In some instances, greater attention to the product is noted where the product is "envisioned as a skier racing in a three-phase giant slalom". This strategy focuses those in FPD to start the product race and finish through this "milestone structure" (Rudolph, 2000). Diverging issues of Figure 2-5 include the implied (Saguy, Graf and Fuller) and noted within phase I, the documentation of strategic plans, market opportunity assessment, business plans, and product definition. Where within phase I, the company's vision, direction, markets served, market positioning, competitive environment, regulatory hurdles are highlighted (Rudolph, 2000).  In researching the consumer's perceptions, the market opportunity is documented to  include the process in which to meet this opportunity. Highlighted within phase II is prototype development" and market strategy which forecasts long-run sales based on market-test analysis used to predict trial and repeat purchase intent (Rudolph, 2000).  Here within the scale up and trial production, Rudolph highlights the risks  associated with new food product development, and the "total quality program that continuously identifies, analyses and controls risk" (Rudolph, 2000).  Unfortunately, risks are not highlighted  enough within the process of FPD. Revealed within phase III, product introduction phase, the product is revealed to consumers in its final form, and although similar to the Commercialisation phase, phase III in this framework is led by sales and supported by marketing and distribution. Highlighted here are the market forces where in the previous frameworks the business element is implied. The test market is thus built upon, synergistically, and is the foundation of the product introduction phase. The last divergent issue includes the complementary milestone, finish: product support phase, which "builds product success and repeat business because of valuable feedback to other functional areas" (Rudolph, 2000). In Rudolph's framework, this is included in phase III; however,  36  in this compilation using Saguy, Graf, and Fuller in Figure 2-4, it is presented within the Maintenance phase. Convergent issues are within phase II: the product implementation and phase III: product introduction as these phases are synonymous with the Development, Commercialisation and Maintenance phases, respectively.  In phase II, prototype development, benchmarking, product  optimisation, scale up and trial production, and some market strategy and testing are similar to the activities within the Development phase of the previous compilation (i.e., Figure 2-4). Of phase III, production introduction, is synonymous with the Commercialisation phase and product support, with the Maintenance phase. These divergent and convergent issues are illustrated in Figure 2-5.  Compilation of Saguy, Graf, Fuller, Rudolph, and Pyne (2000) Alvan Pyne, in the article entitled "Innovative New Food Products: Technical Development in the Laboratory" (Pyne, 2000) uses a similar design to that of Rudolph to discuss the FPD Framework.  Pyne highlights the importance of setting the stage with project/product planning,  marketing research, technical feasibility, and selection of team members, and defining the budget (Pyne, 2000). Throughout these phases, the divergent issues highlighted in Figure 2-6, includes the activities within phase I: prototype development, where synergy of chefmanship and Food Science, chefs prepare the prototype and work in conjunction with the food scientist on initial formulation; shelf life considerations, product safety and the testing of prototypes. Within phase II, diverging issues include: panel testing and within phase III include process options and product specifications. Divergent issues in phase IV include toll processing and test market production in an existing plant. Phases II, III, and IV, described as bench level formulation, process development and test market production, respectively, are synonymous the Development phase.  In addition, within in the Commercialisation phase, technology skills and  product transfer, product audit and follow up, time constraints; project planning and budgeting are now included. Moreover, within the Maintenance phase where issues of ongoing development, disposition of the product development team and government regulations are included and thus conclude the divergent issues. The synergistic issues of combining Figure 2-5 with the work of Pyne are included within the Concept and Development phases, where emphasizing issues within these phases improve upon the coherence of the FPD Framework (i.e., issues such as regulatory compliance, and shelf life studies). All these activities enhance the compilation of Figure 2-6: Compilation of FPD using Saguy, Graf, Fuller, Rudolph, and Pyne (Pyne, 2000).  37  CONCEPT PHASE: Product Definition Company objectives Perceived needs of the consumer Idea generation  Phase;! Product definition Strategic plan Marketing opportunity assessment Business plan  i \ I  SCREENING PHASE Prototype development Technology assessment Manufacturing scenarios/ Marketing/ Logistics Financial risk evaluation/Consumer research & feedback/Feasibility DEVELOPMENT PHASE: Production Consumer Trials Test Market  Product Implementation  Phase II Prototype development Benchmarking'ana'productoptimization Market strategy and testing Trial production Bench fop Product  \•'. |  Pilot Plant Product  Technical plan Production process Food engineering Formulation/Sourcing ingredients Equipment design Shelf life studies Scale up issues Tolerance testing Product/Process/Packaging interactions Documentation Regulatory compliance COMMERCIALISATION PHASE: Process optimization Confirmatory shelf life testing Quality approval Labelling MAINTENANCE PHASE Product quality improvement Profit improvement  Product Introduction •  ;  \  :  >'-"-' PhaselU Product introduction  J L / Phase III : '-finish: Product Support-.  ! !  Figure 2-5: Compilation of FPD using Saguy, Graf, Fuller & Rudolph (Rudolph, 2000)  38  CONCEPT PHASE Idea generation Phase! Company objectives Prototype development Perceived needs of the consumer Synergy of chefmanship and Food Science Product definition Initial formulation Shelf life considerations Strategic plan Marketing opportunity assessment Product safety Business plan Testing of prototypes SCREENING PHASE Prototype development Technology assessment Manufacturing scenarios/Logistics Financial risk evaluation/Consumer research & feedback/Feasibility DEVELOPMENT PHASE Production Consumer Trials Test Market Prototype development! Benchmarking and product optimization Market strategy and testing Trial production Product implementation Pilot Plant Product Process options  ' i j  Phase II, III &'IV Bench level formulation , Process development  j  Test market production Toll processing  j -  Bench Top Product -Taste panel testing  Technical plan Production process Formulation/Sourcing ingredients Food engineering Equipment design Shelf life studies Scale up issues Tolerance testing Product/Process/Packaging interactions Documentation Regulatory compliance COMMERCIALISATION PHASE Process introduction & optimization Confirmatory shelf life testing Quality approval Labelling /Store audits  i j !•••••  MAINTENANCE PHASE Product quality improvement Profit improvement Finished Product Support  Commercialisation Technology skills & product transfet Product audit/Time constraints Budget Product refinement Disposition of product development team Government regulations  Figure 2-6: Compilation of FPD using Saguy, Graf, Fuller & Rudolph & Pyne (Pyne, 2000)  39  Compilation of Figure 2-7: Saguy, Graf, Fuller, Rudolph, Pyne and Segall (2000) The final author in this analysis of FPD Frameworks is Stanley Segall, with his publication entitled "New Food Products: Technical Development" (Segall, 2000). Segall outlines the factors that contribute to the generation of ideas, from market analysis to distribution channels, internal resources, and consultants, consumers and suppliers.  In addition, the management position,  highlighting both management review and approval is clearly stated throughout this process of new food development. Management reviews of the project proposal (i.e., new product idea) are complete with marketing, sales, production supply, financial and research and development (R&D). Furthermore, the product proposal for the new product includes a designated product development team, recommendations, marketing plan, budget, and target timetable. In essence, Segall highlights the relevant activities.  In the other frameworks, these  activities are implicit within the workings of framework and referred to more as categories.  To  reiterate, Saguy and Graf (1990) concur that in "relating to food development, multidisciplinary teams collaborate on multidimensional levels and as a result, a technical plan is facilitated. They believe that FPD projects may contain different characteristic phases, and corresponding divisional activities, management involvement and creative design depending on the circumstances and context".  However, in describing a model FPD framework, the categories of screening, feasibility  etc. and not activities within these categories were highlighted.  In the framework designed by  Segall (2000), these activities are stated and positioned according to their perceived importance. Divergent issues continue in the designation of the final two phases: implementation and launch phase and the post launch phase, which correspond to the commercialisation and maintenance phases,. respectively.  Moreover, the objectives of the idea generation phase to  "evaluate, initiate, and review" the proposed ideas becomes the formal mechanism for their systematic evaluation (Segall, 2000).  Within the development stage, the objectives, "inform,  initiation, and iteration" lead to the pilot plant operation and project completion details. Further divergent issues within the commercialisation phase include the Final Pro Forma marketing plan and sale samples and materials necessary to manufacture trial samples. Convergent issues flow from the concept phase to the development phase, emphasising the evaluation, feasibility and screening, development, ingredients, packaging, label information, processing sensory evaluations, and regulatory issues. With these issues, the final compilation is complete.  Thus, the "network diagram of a representative food product development project"  (Segall, 2000) reviewed lies synergistically upon the five basic phases and completes the comprehensive compilation noted in Figure 2-7: Compilation of FPD using Saguy, Graf, Fuller, Rudolph, Pyne and Segall (Segall, 2000), referred to as the Collective FPD framework.  40  CONCEPT SCREENING PHASE  Idea generation Market analysis Company objectives Distribution channels Perceived needs of the consumer ; ,: J , Internal resources Product definition Consultants & Suppliers Strategic plan & Business plan Upper management review Prototype development & testing •>-i:,:,;^, . Project proposal to management Technology assessment Initial formulation Manufacturing/Marketing/Logistics Product safety Financial risk evaluation/Consumer Synergy of chefmanship and Food Science research & feedback/Feasibility v  DEVELOPMENT PHASE  Production Project Proposal Consumer Trials Upper management Review & Approval Test Market Product for consumer tests - finalise prototype Prototype Preparation Budget Product Optimization Target timetable Toll processing & production in existing plant Pilot Plant Product Bench Top Product Process options Taste panel testing Technical plan & Production process Food engineering Formulation/Sourcing ; Nutrient analysis ingredients j Summary evaluation Equipment design Shelf life studies ( Label information Scale up issues Tolerance testing Product/Process/Packaging interactions Documentation Regulatory compliance COMMERCIALISATION PHASE: Implementation and Launch  Process optimization Confirmatory shelf life testing Quality approval Labelling /Store audits Technology skills/training Product transfer/time constraints Budget  Commercial production and product final pro forma marketing plan, Product approval & feedback Final formulations " . Package design Purchase ingredients & package materials Promotional^materials/samples 7  MAINTENANCE PHASE: Post Launch  Product quality improvement & refinement Profit improvement Finished Product Support Disposition of product development team Government regulations  Product maintenance and improvement Awareness trial and usage test  Figure 2-7: Collective FPD Framework  41  2.6  Critique of the Food Industry and Food Product Development The FPD process is evaluated in the context of the food industry. The Generic Framework designed by Fuller (1994) ideally represents the activities within this FPD process (Figure 2-3). The purpose of this section is to compare the Collective FPD Framework (Figure 2-7) presented in the above-mentioned section (Section 2.5.2) with this Generic Framework. The Collective Framework is not complete until this Final FPD Framework compilation is presented in Figure 2-8. The overall critique of FPD (Section 2.6.2) is then reviewed in reference to the food industry and the Final FPD Framework to address the social, environmental, and economic feasibility concerns related to food. Explanation of these concerns relevant to FPD is presented with examples of each. Finally, the congruency of the disciplines within FPD and the food industry is assessed.  2.6.1  Comparison between the Generic Framework and the Collective FPD Framework Initially  the Generic  Framework presented  in Figure  2-3, showed the idealized  representation of activities flow in product development (Fuller, 1994). The compilation in Figure 2-7 is a combination of ideas and issues from five existing frameworks that collectively describe the FPD process.  However, until the Collective Framework is superimposed upon the Generic  Framework of Figure 2 - 3 , the essential understanding that ..."screening is not a stage in development; it is synonymous with development" (Fuller, 1994) the developmental phases will be misinterpreted finished product.  "as a sequence, a one after-the-other cascade from ideas through to a final The phases do not start, proceed, and then finish, with the next phase then  beginning, the phases are not, strictly speaking, sequential: they often overlap and are concurrent" (Fuller, 1994).  Fuller's process is accurately described "as the continuing interplay of market  research, technology, and financial efforts of companies to produce the right products at the right prices" (Fuller, 1994). In Figure 2-8, which comprises Figure 2-7 overlain on Figure 2-3, the main issues are addressed succinctly, with directional flow and correlations between different processes, activities, divisions, and phases. The comprehensiveness of each phase is more complete, as each phase has been elaborated upon, adding understanding and clarity. One further critique noted in this representation is that the arrows flow both ways, to emphasize the continual ..."evolving process" (Fuller, 1994). The five analyzed frameworks capture the FPD process; nevertheless, the emphasis is different in each one. By compiling these different views, a comprehensive framework evolves.  42  CONCEPT SCREENING PHASE Idea generation Company objectives Perceived needs of the consumer Product definition Strategic plan & Business plan Prototype development & testing Technology assessment Manufacturing scenarios/ Financial risk evaluation/Consumer research & feedback/Feasibility Distribution channels Internal resources Consultants & Suppliers Upper management review Project proposal to management Initial formulation Product safety Chefmanship DEVELOPMENT PHASE Production/ Consumer Trials/ Test Market Prototype Preparation Product Optimization Toll processing Project Proposal Upper management Review & Approval Finalise prototype Budget Target timetable Nutrient analysis Bench Top Product Pilot Plant Product Taste panel testing Process options Technical plan & Production process Sourcing ingredients Food engineering Shelf life studies Equipment design Tolerance testing Scale up issues Product/Process/Packaging interactions Documentation/ Label information Regulatory compliance Summary evaluation  Concept ideas *  Process Design  Pilot Process  43  Product Design  Bench top Product  Objective Testing  Pilot Plant Product  Subjective Testing  Continued... COMMERCIALISATION PHASE Process optimization Confirmatory shelf life testing Quality approval Labelling /Store audits Technology skills/training Product transfer/time constraints Budget Commercial production and product Final pro forma marketing plan Product approval & feedback Final formulations Package design Purchase ingredients & package materials Promotional materials/samples  A Plant Process  MAINTENANCE PHASE Product quality improvement & refinement Profit improvement Finished Product Support Disposition of product development team Government regulations Product maintenance and improvement Awareness trial and usage test  A Commercial Plant Production  A Consumer Preference  Market Test  Figure 2-8: Final FPD Framework This in practice may not be followed exactly; however, in theory the comprehensive compilation of phases and activities within the FPD process exemplifies the complexity of producing successful new food products.  2.6.2 Overall Concerns within the Food Industry and FPD The illustrative syncretism of the FPD process (Section 2.5) touches on the complexity of the food industry. Moreover, this complexity contributes not only to the poor success-rate of the new product, but also to the limitations associated with the development of new food products . 25  The significance of investigating this complexity is linked to the disconnections of food. Furthermore, the results of this investigation also reveal a concern that the food-related disciplines lack cooperation between the various disciplines.  2 5  These two concerns may be related, though it is beyond the scope of this research to ascertain.  44  This premise of disconnection is ascertained through the food system (Section 2.1), Food System Models (Figure 2-1 and 2-2), the food industry (Section 2.3) and in particular FPD (Section 2.4). Generally in each section, the themes of disconnections and incongruence are elaborated upon. Finally, this critique is supported by examples of these limitations. Within the food system, shown through use of the / ^ ( F i g u r e s 2-1; Section 2.1), the disconnections involving nature are represented in the flow of natural resources drawn from nature to consumers; residuals from consumer consumption; residuals from customer consumption; and the demand of resources by customers. In reference to Figure 2-1, these concerns include steps 1, l a , lb, and 5, respectively. The disconnections involving culture are related to consumers, their supply of resources and their demand for foods and services; research institutions; and government. Again, in reference to Figure 2-1, these concerns include steps 2 and 5. In addition, the ideal food system should be inclusive of all food-related disciplines working together towards a common objective. This purpose being to research all the aspects necessary to produce socially acceptable, environmentally benign, and economically feasible new food products, without compromise on human health or the environment. Within the food industry, the disconnections involving nature (as noted in Figure 2-2; Section 2.2) are related to the flow of raw materials, energy, and industrial waste and link between food, and culture to consumers. As a result, the relationships between the disciplines are more exclusive within the food industry. Within Food Product Development, the disconnections of food are even more prominent. Here the food-related disciplines are limited to mainly food engineering, marketing and Food Science and though supposedly congruent, from experience this does not appear to be true (Fuller, 1994) . 26  The central and left-hand-side domains (Section 2.5.1, Figure 2-3, pg 29-31) highlight the disconnections of food and nature. Overall, from concept idea, product and process design, through to the end product, the demand for natural resources and energy for commercial production takes precedence. Unrestrained resource drain (limited only by availability and price) and increased landfilling are collective symptoms of this separation. Though these disconnections of food and culture occur more on the right-hand side of the figure, it also occurs throughout the product design, from concept idea through to the end product.  Food scientist and technologists, nutritionists, engineers and marketing compose the core managerial team involved in the development of foods. This involves an intricate process of communication, project management as well as creative, scientific knowledge. The strength of the food industry is based on these specialized fields, and the ability to manufacture the enormous quantity of safe food products available daily in the marketplace. This is an immense achievement when considering the individual ingredients within some of these products are as diverse in chemical composition, as the geographic location where they are sourced. No ingredient or food product is without risk of 2 6  45  In further detail, these overall disconnections within FPD are demonstrated in the complex frameworks, in particular the frameworks of Figure 2-7 and 2-8 (Section 2.5). Throughout the phases noted in these frameworks, concerns relating to nature and culture are limited. In fact, no category is mentioned regarding the awareness of either the choice or quantity of natural resources used, thus 'promoting' disconnections of food and nature. In addition, no category is mentioned regarding  health promotion and population nutrition thus 'endorsing' further  disconnections of food and culture. Understandably, there is an impression conveyed in the literature that the extent of the disconnection is due to a lack of awareness of the concerns, maintaining the status quo and concentrating on other priorities within the development. However, this does not reflect how all food companies operate, though personal experience in the food industry has revealed an exclusion of these concerns.  The educational paradigm of FPD is reflective of the basic  understanding of those employed presently in the industry; thus, changing this paradigm to be inclusive of these concerns would enhance FPD and the food products.  Social concerns throughout the FPD paradigm relate to social acceptability of new food products. For the purpose of this research, social acceptability is used to highlight the concerns of overall nutrition, health promotion and compatibility of new food products . 27  By overall nutrition of the diet, any new food product introduced should enhance the nutrition of the diet, individually, and within a community. This goes beyond the fact that the food product is considered nutritious (i.e., the sum of the individual nutrients). To enhance the overall nutrition of the diet, the formulation must include the correct combination of ingredients, each of high quality and specific nutritional value, in the correct proportions, and be culturally specific. Moreover, the new food product needs to be compatible with the other 'staple' products already consumed within the community. As an example, when introducing a desirable food item (i.e., bread) into a poor, malnourished, rural African community, brown bread or fortified white bread, would be more socially acceptable than plain white bread. White bread may be nutritious, and acceptable however, within the above-mentioned community, fortified bread would be more beneficial to the overall nutrition of the community's diet.  contamination. However, these strengths highlight microbiological, textural, and analytical safety of foods only and do not include the broader concerns relating to food, humankind, nature, and culture. Concepts taken from Population Health and Health Promotion, such that Population Health is an approach to health that aims to improve the health of the entire population and to reduce inequalities among population groups (Health Canada, 2003). Health Promotion is the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health (Ottawa Charter, 1986). 2 7  46  Furthermore, social acceptability refers to the new food product being relevant to the lifestyle of the community, and the health of the individual.  Such a product would show  compatibility\x\ more ways than just taste, and convenience, it would 'fit' the community's lifestyle. For the most part, the food industry understands a food product being packaged differently depending on geography, and climate, as packaged food products successfully travel across the world.  Socially acceptable in this instance goes beyond the physical factors to include more  personal health related compatibility issues. Continuing with the example, for this rural community, bread fortified with Vitamin A, when consumed in the correct quantities, would reduce mortality and morbidity rates in children, increase physical work capacity and improve cognitive effects, as well as improve eyesight within the community (Popkin, 1998). However, in another community where foods rich in Vitamin A are consumed daily, this particular fortified bread may be detrimental to the individuals due to excessive quantities of Vitamin A being consumed.  Moreover, when rice is the 'staple' food,  introducing a bread product without prior education, could be detrimental to the overall nutrition of the community. The reasons for this may include the consumption of excessive amounts of carbohydrates and/or the fact that the product is not culturally accepted. Thus, the social acceptability of a new food product includes cultural acceptability and issues of religion, ethnic backgrounds, traditions, local availability of native foods and convenience, but also diet, and in particular, the nutrition provided by the diet. Food scientists research the nutrients of a new food product and understand extensively not only the functions of each ingredient, the interactions throughout the product life cycle, but also the metabolism of the consumer consuming the food that is providing the nutrition to the diet. In addition, investigation of the dangers of nutrient toxicology throughout the development process ensures nutritious products are designed. Thus, the issue here is not whether the food has sufficient nutrients, but whether the new food product enhances the overall nutrition of the diet. Social acceptability of the new food product includes concerns of population health and health promotion. Where, population health is an approach to health that aims to improve the health of the entire population and to reduce health inequities among population groups (Health Canada, Population Health Approach, 2003). Health is the holistic application of food in our culture where the prerequisites for health include peace, shelter, education, income, a stable ecosystem, sustainable resources, social justice, equity, and food, health promotion enables individuals to increase control over, and to improve, their health.  Moreover, health promotion strategies are adapted to the local needs, and  possibilities of different countries and regions to account for differing social, cultural, and economic systems (Ottawa Charter, 1986).  47  The health promotion aspects of FPD require further investigation.  Health promotion  implies the need to advocate, mediate, and enable individuals and communities to reach healthy lifestyles. Incorporating health promotion into the food industry and FPD, food scientists could advocate, and mediate a sense of health promotion through the new food products developed to enable consumers, to achieve not only healthy lifestyles, but also equity in health (Ottawa Charter, 1986). Importantly, social acceptability is community (i.e., individually) specific. Both concerns of overall nutrition and health promotion should be synchronized within the FPD process. Historically the tendency has been in FPD and nutrition to focus on individual consumers. Now FPD needs to take a health promotional perspective, and be more connected to the determinants of health (i.e., poverty, gender, and education) of communities and their lifestyles. Choices made by consumers regarding their lifestyles, in the context of these determinants of health, predetermine the products they are willing to purchase (Health Canada, Population Health Approach, 2003). The exclusion of these concerns from FPD however, is due to a variety of reasons; such as, priority of biotechnology, gene modulation related to foods, food security issues, and emphasis on market saturation of new products.  Recently, research has led to the consideration of  nutraceuticals and functional foods, products formulated to add nutritional benefit to the product. In the future, nutrition will be a function of nutrient-gene interactions in functional genomics . 28  Although these new technologies may be on the right path towards social acceptability, further investigation is necessary before advertising the health benefits of these new functional foods. These concerns are exacerbated by the challenge of not only initiating new research, but also, meeting local dietary needs and preferences when custom, and superstition supersede scientifically based nutritional evidence. Moreover, nutrition and health are in direct relationship with ecological principles and the environment. One cannot have one without the other, and all the best functional foods eventually contaminate the environment (e.g. amongst other additives like pesticides, antibiotics, and growth hormones, which contaminate the water supply). Environmental concerns throughout the FPD paradigm, include both food resource and energy use. In this research the discussion of environmental-food resource concerns result from the depletion of natural resources, and later, in environmental degradation (increased landfilling).  In addition, industry, with its excessive energy use throughout the development  Functional genomics will establish rapid methods for screening genes that will be used to develop food tailored to human polymorphisms associated with chronic disease (Watkins, 2002).  2 8  48  process, is not receptive to environmental warnings of 'reduce, recycle and reuse' thus, creating environmental-energy use concerns . 29  In energy terms, the input-output energy ratios are investigated in isolated conditions of food engineering with the intent to save energy to increase the companies' profit margins. The 30  overall awareness of industrial ecology, resource drain, choice of ingredients and management of by-products, as well as energy concerns, is a shortfall in FPD. From experience, the product is designed without these criteria, and only after development when the costs are known are these concerns partially, if at all, addressed. The degree of addressing these concerns depends on the food companies' mandate, and more often than not, excludes the benefits for the consumer. In justification, the priorities of concerns are distorted by the preferred market saturation of the new product. The agricultural concerns of where the raw materials are sourced (in the local or international market) and the availability and/or scarcity of these materials are not considered. Food scientists source raw materials on supplier's vicinity, relative to the FPD laboratory/factory; reliability of delivery; availability and price of the suppliers' products, and do not look beyond to the impacts on agriculture in FPD. Indeed, food scientists prefer to leave this area of research to the agriculturalists. In addition, there is a lack of awareness of agricultural concerns, like drought and insect infestation, which limits the raw food ingredients . Water is an important example of a 31  resource ingredient that many food scientists take for granted. From experience, communication between food scientists and agriculturalists is limited, especially in the initial design stages of a new food product. Taken to the extreme, food scientists developing a new food product should consider local availability of raw materials as much as possible. In South Africa, for example, the corn harvest in comparison to the wheat harvest is superior, so new products requiring a carbohydrate ingredient should be inclusive, where possible, of powdered corn, or a combination of wheat and corn. The choice of available local ingredients, quantity of local resources and management of the resource drain are considered within the new FPD paradigm formulated in this research. At the other end of the FPD paradigm, environmental degradation is the resulting effect of the utilisation of resources. The focus in FPD has generally not extended further than that of the consumer and the delivery of safe foods to the supermarket shelf. Packaging to preserve the new product should be benign to the natural environment, where at all possible. In the past, packaging  Concepts taken from Natural Resource Economics and Environmental Economics, where Natural Resource Economics is a field of study concerned with the flow of resources from nature to economic activity and Environmental Economics is concerned with the flow of residuals from economic activity back to nature (Callan & Thomas, 2000). For example, processing concerns because of heat transfer, preservation processes, refrigeration, freezing, evaporation dehydration, fuel utilization. Food scientists do study the food production harvesting and post harvesting concerns, but this is not elaborated upon within FPD and choice of ingredients. 2 9  30  31  49  has promoted safety, durability, and marketing attractiveness of the product.  New technologies  and packaging materials of biodegradable quality have not been researched extensively to establish more sustainable practices.  The food industry supporting incredible amounts of  packaging has not endorsed a change within the packaging industry.  Food safety has been an  excuse for ever-increasing landfilling, and the more packaging the more landfilling. Past research into packaging materials has promoted an excellent understanding of the atmosphere surrounding the product, in controlled and modified atmosphere packaging and so has extended the shelf life of all packaged products by days and even months. This is commendable; however, researching further into reducing the amount of packaging required per product and even the waste within the production is now warranted. Moreover, when recycling has been promoted, the connection between packaging material and environmental protection has been for the benefit of the company and not convenience for the consumer. Recycling glass bottles for example saves the company money, which increases their profit margins. Whether this cost is filtered into reducing the product cost and benefiting the consumer is debatable.  Research into the choice and quantity of raw materials used in the  necessary packaging for food safety is lacking. Again, communication between food scientists and packaging scientist, from experience, is limited. Reducing packaging material, researching new technologies into the use of other materials and recycling, ultimately reducing the current status quo practice is considered within the new FPD paradigm. Furthermore, the  environmental-energy uses concerns beginning with solar energy and  photosynthetic plants includes basic resources like water and fossil fuels, which supports modern food production. Obviously, without these power sources, food could not be processed. However, in most instances the energy utilisation for a new product is done often after the product is developed.  The choice of energy utilization should also be considered.  Fossil fuel versus  electricity, gas versus electricity depending on the location of production and consumption, should be included within the new FPD paradigm.  From experience, communication between food  scientists and project engineers is also limited to development and typically occurs once the product is complete. The issue here of disconnection is one of holism and sustainability because energy concerns have not been considered in the past in the screening stage or throughout the development process of new products. Food characteristics, functionality of ingredients and safety, have been the focal point of the current existing FPD process. Where possible, food companies and institutions have reacted to the issues of consumers' needs and concerns for changing natural environment; however, the reaction has usually been after some damage has taken place. Being proactive in the design of  50  foods is to be inclusive of environmental concerns especially concerning the global concerns that are now emerging. Issues of environmental-energy use and the consequences of the damage done on a global perspective needs to be placed in balance with the new technologies designed purposely to counteract this. The required new inventions are those that reuse, reduce, and recycle resources and energy. The extent of the global issues pertaining to the environment can be noted in many North American cities, though these issues are not as acute as the environmental concerns noted in small rural African communities where these external factors pose major problems. Similarly on the consumer side, in the small rural African communities issues of food safety, quality and food design take on a different priority. Health is influenced significantly by the environmental-food resource and environmentalenergy use concerns. Greater resource utilization and environmental degradation today may lead to nutritional deficiencies and thus health impacts in the future. As well, the social responsibility of producing foods for a specific consumer can no longer be done out of context of environmental, social and economic feasibility concerns, as they contribute to the issues of poverty and poor nutrition, especially in the developing countries. Governments have limited resources to deal with societal issues so when more resources are devoted to environmental problems, less resources are available to deal with nutritional deficiencies. In general, routine management decisions made by customers, and food companies, are generally guided by more immediate company demands to the point where social responsibility to the environment and/or promotion of healthy, nutritious food products are far removed. More specifically, food companies are largely driven by economic considerations. Indeed, the food industry is concerned with the economics of designing and processing foods, managing the details of the business of food, and staying one step ahead of the competition.  However,  within the food industry currently, economic considerations include financial aspects only (i.e., considering material and labour costs, depreciation and profit margins).  Economic concerns throughout the FPD paradigm highlight economic feasibility concerns . 32  In this research, the discussion of economic feasibility concerns is used to highlight  the lack of social and environmental accountability of FPD. The disproportionate emphasis on private costs and benefits has come at the expense of identifying crucial points within the disconnections of food between humankind, culture, and nature. There are many issues, such as health benefits, that do not enter into the overall assessment of private costs and benefits.  3 2  Concepts from Natural Resource Economics and Environmental Economics are included (Callan & Thomas, 2000).  51  Consequently, these externalities, nutritional, health promotional and environmental aspects of food development, are generally undervalued in a food company's decision-making process. In this research, the economic assessment of the relevant impacts is inclusive of both private and external costs. Private costs include financial costs (i.e., business plan and those costs directly related to the food product) and external costs include the costs related to both the social and environmental impacts. Social costs account for the nutritional and health related impacts and environmental costs account for the food resource and energy use related impacts. In summary, few incentives and market-based mechanisms exist for the food industry to deal with these externalities. The institutions that promote FPD through the creation of lecturing material, textbooks, and FPD frameworks exclude these issues. Many food-related companies' act responsibly, but only once the new products have been produced. For example, introducing new products into a rural African community compared with a North American city have different outcomes and consequences. Designing solutions includes understanding these concerns and the disconnections of food.  The connections are all-inclusive, adding to the complexity of the  economic externality concerns . 33  In conclusion, the objectives of this chapter were to illustrate the complex characteristics of the food industry, food science, and FPD. In relation to understanding the disconnections of food and the social, environmental, and economic feasibility concerns, the objectives were completed by understanding new food products and the compilations of six FPD frameworks used to develop these products. Furthermore, the concerns (i.e., deficiencies) of FPD were identified. The reason for these deficiencies included a variety of issues, such as, food security, and profit driven market saturation.  Fields within the food industry work more in isolation and thus the  overall assessment of these concerns is presently excluded.  Externality is the spill over effect associated with production or consumption that extends to a third party outside the market (Callan & Thomas, 2000).  3 3  52  Chapter Three: Enhancement of the Food Product Development using Impact Assessment 3.0  Introduction  In the previous chapter, a number of deficiencies were identified in the development of new food products. These deficiencies included the social acceptability and health promotion of new food products, as well as the environmental management of resources and energy throughout the FPD paradigm. Indeed, an issue to consider is whether these FPD deficiencies warrant attention when safe, wholesome food products, designed within the FPD Framework, currently satisfy millions of consumers each day, particularly in North America. Moreover, the majority of consumers within the first world North America live in luxury when considering other consumers, living specifically within third world countries. How does the FPD paradigm address these different locations as well as the affluence among consumers, when new foods designed in research laboratories in North America, are marketed worldwide? Furthermore, how can the FPD paradigm be enhanced with a sense of sustainability and holism in the design and market of the new food products anywhere in the world? In how much detail would the current FPD paradigm be altered? The purpose of this chapter is to investigate Impact Assessment (IA) as an appropriate tool for the enhancement of FPD (Section 3.1). The Impact Assessment protocol is based on variations of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA); thus, an overall approach to IA is proposed, with reasons detailed within this chapter.  From this investigation, the integration of IA within the Final FPD  Framework (Section 3.2) is presented. The resultant FPD Framework is entitled the Enhanced FPD Framework. A roadmap highlighting the objectives of Chapter Three is described below in Box 3 (Figure 3-0).  53  Box 3: Roadmap of Objectives  1. To provide an overview of IA and its potential to enhance FPD (Section 3.1); 2. To explain the systematic process of EIA (Section 3.1.1); 3. To present variations of IA such as Social Impact Assessment (SIA) (Table 3-1); 4. To address additional considerations highlighted in Table 3-2 and Table 3-3; 5. To present the Final FPD Framework with IA (Figure 3-2, Table 3-4 & Table 3-5, where Figure 3-2 presents the Enhanced FPD Framework, Table 3-4 presents the Phases, Stages and Steps within the Enhanced Framework and Table 3-5 presents each Phase in more detail (comparing EIA and FPD).  Figure 3-0: Roadmap of Chapter Three  3.1  Impact Assessment There is more to address in FPD than the difficulty of meeting the related concerns. The tool chosen to enhance FPD needs to address not only these concerns, but also deal with them in a practical and flexible way by understanding the dynamics of any project or plan involving humankind. Unsuccessful EIA projects within the construction industry still occur (McKillop & Brown, 1999). This research superimposes concepts of EIA into FPD. Additionally, there are limitations of this tool in regards to the role of the food scientists, dynamic interactions, and unexpected outcomes associated with consumer behaviour. Although food scientist in general understand that within the development of new food products many unexpected outcomes may occur, human error cannot be avoided. The purpose of this section is then to a) present a variety of existing IA models, b) explain why IA is the preferred tool for the enhancement of FPD, and c) critique the IA process, and the limitations, prior to synthesis of the Final FPD Framework with IA protocols. Components and concerns are synonymous throughout.  3.1.1 Impact Assessment Definition A method through which the deficiencies in the current FPD process can be identified and quantified is Impact Assessment (IA). Impact Assessment and in particular, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a project management tool for multifaceted decision making in project planning and implementation (Modak & Biswasl999).  54  Many of the consequences of producing new foods are for the present, excluded from the FPD Framework, and with the correlation of Impact Assessment objectives being similar to the objectives of this research, EIA and related IA tools, provide a useful framework for meeting the research objectives of this thesis.  For this reason, the EIA process is modified for specific use  within the context of FPD. Understanding that EIA is one process where the consequences of implementing a project may be assessed before the project initiation. Although the IA model has not been applied previously to product development, its inherent attributes are strikingly similar to those required in FPD. IA provides tools by which FPD may be assessed more holistically because, unlike other models, social, environmental, and economic feasibility concerns are integrated within IA. This chapter addresses the synthesis of the FPD Framework and IA protocols, so that these above-mentioned concerns relating to FPD are minimized, and where possible eliminated, prior to the development of the new food product.  Before investigating the 'symbiosis' of these  ideas, several prerequisites are considered and addressed within this chapter. Inherently, IA, in particular EIA, is a management tool for multifaceted decision making in project planning with "the primary objective ... [being] to ensure that potential problems [which typically occur in projects] are foreseen and addressed at an early stage in the project's planning and design" (Modak & Biswas, 1999).  Initially established in the USA in 1970, and now  internationally recognised, there are currently many definitions of the EIA process . 34  The current success of the EIA process is the result of meeting its objectives, which happen to be ideal attributes needed to address concerns that have evolved from FPD. The main EIA objective is "To identify and predict the impact on the environment and on man's health and well-being of legislative proposals, policies, programmes, projects and operational procedures, and to interpret and communicate information about the impacts" (Glasson, 1994).  In effect, the  definition of EIA "is a process, a systematic process that examines the environmental consequences of development actions, in advance" with emphasis "on prevention" (Glasson, 1994). "It is essentially a multifaceted decision making process; an early warning process" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). "The aim of EIA is to balance the environmental interest in the larger scheme for development issues and concerns" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). Overall, the primary objective of EIA  A comprehensive review of the following books pertaining to the definition of the EIA process was carried out; "Conducting Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries" (Modak and Biswas, 1999), "Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, (Glasson, Therivel and Chadwick, 1994), "Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment" (Morris and Therivel, 1995) as well as articles in the "Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management".  55  is "to assist to identify, predict and evaluate the foreseeable environmental consequences of proposed development projects, plans and policies" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). "To  achieve this objective,  the  assessment should  provide  information on  the  environmental, social and economic benefits of proposed activities, which should then be presented clearly and systematically to the decision makers" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). "Specifically, Environmental Impact Assessment identifies the sources of impacts from the project activities and [moreover]; •  Recognizes the environmental components, which are critical to the change or the impacts;  •  Predicts the likely environmental impacts of projects on the identified environmental components either using quantitative, qualitative, semi-quantitative, or hybrid methods;  •  Reduces unacceptable impacts and enhances the positive contributions of the project by recommending mitigation measures;  •  Explores technology, or design and presents to decision makers and other concerned agencies the results of impact identification, prediction, and assessment with options of suggested measures of mitigation and monitoring;  •  Ensures that public and private enterprise [consumers and customers] consider the environmental effects of the decisions they make with regard to implementation of the project or programme" (Modak & Biswas, 1999).  In essence, "all development projects have far reaching impacts" (Modak & Biswas, 1999) and unfortunately in many cases, projects, especially developmental projects, implicate more than just environmental concerns.  Environmental concerns inevitably touch on issues surrounding  poverty, with social issues in the forefront, and economic issues in the background. Environmental components, physical and socio-economic in nature with scale/space in local, regional, national, international and time related dimensions, makes for the types of impact correlations of short- to long- term operations daunting to evaluate, assess and protect (Glasson, 1994).  Without  balancing the impacts of the proposed project versus no project, the cost of the impacts will go unheeded. In this research, the enhancement of FPD is through the implementation, where appropriate, of Impact Assessment (IA) and in particular, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). At a conceptual level, IA is an ideal tool for the enhancement of FPD because of world-renowned success with similar projects, the practical systematic design, and variations within IA.  Ideal, as  the overall success of IA is attributed to the reduction and removal, where possible, of negative impacts before development. It is understood that in practice there are limitations attributed to the implementation of EIA as agency problems associated with information transfer, and hidden 56  motives for increased profit margins are unavoidable.  Food scientists understand that many  impacts remain unnoticed well into the product life cycle and with IA, added awareness of potential impacts is made in the Concept/ Screening Phase, and throughout the Maintenance Phase, where products are systematically audited for product performance. It is common for food scientists to recall products from supermarket shelves when negative impacts appear and/or impacts require further investigation. This becomes a costly endeavour for food companies, and by incorporating IA, it is proposed that many of these impact recalls will be avoided. Again this will be subject to the design flaws of the Enhanced FPD framework In summary, projects, such as building bridges, highways and mines, and FPD, have similar project life cycles where "the life of any project can be broadly divided into four phases: planning and design, construction, operation and decommissioning" (Ridgeway,  1999).  In  particular, to FPD, these four phases relate to the Concept planning (includes Screening), Development, Commercialisation, and Maintenance Phases.  With the inclusion of IA, the  combinations of components are addressed within this systematic process, with a focus on concerns related to food, nature, culture, and humankind.  3.1.2  Impact Assessment Process This impact assessment process is a cyclical process, as illustrated in Figure 3-1 (adapted  from Glasson, 1994, Figure 1.1). The process varies within each country and each project, though the following steps within the project cycle remain the same: A  Project Screening Scoping Consideration of alternatives Description of development action Description of environmental baselines Identification of the main impacts  B  Prediction of Impacts Evaluation and assessment of the significance Mitigation  C  Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Figure 3-1: Stages of EIA  Review (of EIS) Decision-making D  Post-Decision Monitoring Auditing  E  Public Consultation and Participation 57  For this research, the legal ramifications of the EIA process are recognised as important to the impact assessment process, but of less importance to the FPD Framework and synthesis. Within Figure 3-1, Step E - Public Participation is of particular interest because the public (as consumers) is considered central to the whole process. The five principles in managing an EIA include focusing on the main issues; involving the appropriate persons and groups; linking information to decisions about the project; presenting clear options for the mitigation of impacts and for sound environmental management; and providing information in a form useful to the decision makers (Modak & Biswas, 1999).  3.1.3  Variations on Impact Assessment Since the conception of the standard EIA model, the IA concept has been modified in  various ways in an attempt to counteract limitations associated with practical implementation. Limitations based on finding comprehensive ways to understand one isolated project, in one isolated location, where the concerns are assessed in one set time frame.  Finding ways to  understand interactions among different components such as social, environment and economics, without giving priority over one and excluding another made way for new variations of IA.  All  these variations are based on the Environmental Impact Assessment protocol and are mentioned below. Social: Social Impact Assessment (SIA), defined as "intended to identify and quantify the impacts on human populations resulting from changes to the natural environment" and is "predicated on the notion that decision makers should understand the consequences of their decisions before they act, and that the people affected will not only be appraised of the effects, but also have the opportunity to participate in designing their future" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). Health: Health Impact Assessment (HIA) "aims at studying upstream health determinants in an integrated way rather than concentrating on single risk factors. HIA's overall objective is to provide decision-makers with sound information on implications on health of any given policy. Scientific knowledge on the adverse effects of several environmental factors on the population is in some cases substantial, but often regulatory policies fail to reflect such knowledge adequately. Systematic assessments of health effects are needed to inform the development of policies and to include health in other sectors' agenda. Legislation and legally binding agreements at the international level make provision for HIA in policy making, but commonly agreed tools for carrying out HIAs are not yet available" (International Health Impact Assessment Consortium, 2003). Environmental Health Impact Assessment (EHIA), defined to "include the identification and appraisal of those environmental factors which may affect human health... which is influenced not  58  only by the physical environment, but also social and economic factors, to include geology, vegetation, demography, economics, pollutants as well as the availability of health services" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). EHIA is essentially an adaptation of the typical activities in an EIA study to systematically include attention to health impacts (Modak & Biswas, 1999). Risk assessment: Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA).  Defined is "a qualitative and  quantitative evaluation of environmental status performed in an effort to define the risk posed to human health and the environment by presence, potential presence, or use of specific pollutants. ERA should be conducted when it is determined that a management action may have consequences to either humans or the environment. ERA is comprised of two related disciplines; that is, human health risk assessment (HHRA) and ecological risk assessment (EcoRA)" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). Strategic assessment of plans, programmes, and policy levels: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).  Defined as "the formalized, systematic and comprehensive process of  evaluating the environmental impacts of a policy, plan or programme and its alternatives..." as an "extension of project EIA" (Glasson, 1994). Emphasis is placed not only on the project level, as in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), but also, at beyond the project level. Regional concerns: Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) known also as Cumulative Impact (Environmental) Assessment is defined as "the accumulation of changes in environmental systems over time and across space in an additive or interactive manner" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). CEA is "predicting and assessing all other likely existing, past and reasonably foreseeable future effects on the environment arising from perturbations which are time-crowded; space-crowded; synergisms; and or indirect" (Glasson, 1994). "CEA is the process of systematically analysing and assessing cumulative environmental change...and can be guided by an approach that recognizes the components of sources, pathways, and effects and distinguishes attributes specific to each component" (Modak & Biswas, 1999).  CEA assesses regional impacts, in a "process of  systematically analysing and assessing cumulative environmental change. The practice of CEA is complex because of the need to consider multiple sources of change, alternative pathways of accumulation, and temporally and spatially variable effects" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). Integrated approach: Integrated Environmental Assessment (IEA) an extension of EIA based on biophysical, social, and economic impacts (Glasson, 1994). Integrated Environmental Assessment (IEA) "in widening the scope [of EIA] will lead to integrated environmental assessment, with decisions based on the extent to which various biophysical, social and economic impacts can be traded. IEA differs from traditional EIA in that it is consciously multi-disciplinary, does not take citizens' participation or the ultimate users of EIA for granted and recognizes the critical role of complexity and uncertainty in most decisions about the environment" (Glasson, 1994).  59  More in depth description of select variations on the theme of IA are addressed in the Appendix, Table 3-1: Characteristics of Conventional EIA, SIA, EHIA, SEA, and CEA, which has been adapted from Table 9.1 of (Modak & Biswas, 1999).  3.1.4  Additional Considerations • '  -'  In relation to product development within the food industry, it is difficult to assess the impacts of developing new foods collectively; however, when individual projects are isolated and assessed according to the direct and indirect impacts over time and space, consequences may be understood more clearly. The overall depth of development within similar projects, policies, programmes, and plans is another consideration deemed important in the synthesis of IA and FPD. To explain, in Impact Assessment, "a policy is generally defined as an inspiration and guidance for action, a plan as a set of co-ordinated and timed objectives for the implementation of the policy, and a programme as a set of projects in a particular area, (...). "In theory these are tiered: a policy provides a framework for the establishment of plans, plans provide frameworks for programmes, programmes, lead to projects"(Glasson, 1994).  Furthermore, research into the connection within these variations is  established in EIA being linked to projects while SEA being linked to policies, programmes, and plans (Glasson, 1994). Within the food industry, projects relate to the design and production of individual new food products within FPD.  Policies, programmes, and plans relate to the establishment of  government controlled food programmes, and food related policies. In this research, FPD is the primary focus, however, the wealth of the proposed Enhanced FPD Framework is that in future, Food Scientists, and FPD with the design of new food products, could relate more closely to government related policies, such as food subsidies. Benefits of SEA could then be extrapolated into the Enhanced FPD Framework, when and where deemed necessary! Hence the dichotomy of any project is to balance the correlated advantages of social versus environmental impacts, while still assessing the economic viability (Glasson, 1994), and to utilize management tools such as IA to ensure consequences, directly, due to inclusion of certain foods and food related processes, are balanced towards holistic development. An overall understanding of IA is supported by the relationships between the different IA variations: the social dimensions in SIA and the health promotional aspects in EHIA, the risk assessments relating to health and the environment, in HHRA, and EcoRA. The relationship of EIA in projects, SEA in programmes, plans and policies and CEA in the accumulation of changes in individual EIA projects, over time are identified. The IEA approach to EIA is also documented, where the integrated approach balances out social, economic, and biophysical (environmental)  60  impacts through specific assessment of each before "decisions based on the extent to which various... impacts can be traded (Glasson, 1994). Other considerations include the appropriate timing and process flow, management, information extraction and legislation. Literature however, warns of the dangers of implementing IA incorrectly into the product life cycle. Within the EIA process, mistakes have been made due to the lack of relevant information, legislative emphasis and insufficient coordination of information and decision-making regarding the main impacts. In cases where the EIA process had not been implemented correctly concerning timing, project decisions were hindered and the community and the environment were damaged (McKillop & Brown, 1999). Moreover, as noted previously, disadvantages have been considered within the process in order to  counteract  the  negative  issues and  improve the overall  FPD concept.  Recommendations are such that within the life cycle of any project, the EIA process is "the key tool in the planning and design phase of a project" (Ridgeway, 1999) and "EIA should therefore be initiated as early as possible and should also include a provision to cover the monitoring of project implementation and operation and eventually an audit of the project" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). "As EIA is a process of gathering and presenting information in a form that provides a focus for the public scrutiny of a project and aiding decision making, it is clearly most utilised in the planning and design phase of a project" (Ridgeway, 1999). In relation to project orientation, actual integration of EIA into the planning process may be done in three different ways, described as sequential, concurrent or integrated. Of the three, the integrated version is considered to have maximum potential for effectiveness with minimum delays in project implementation, and with environmentally sound project projections. Here the EIA process is considered "as a management tool on a par with engineering studies and economic planning" and simultaneously EIA is considered within the planning phase" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). Being aware of the management process within IA is equally important and in terms of management of information, the EIA process is not considered to be "a useful tool for managing the implementation of the required action. This is because EIA as a process is not management focussed and lacks the framework elements that are common to modern management systems, namely: plan, do, check and review" (Ridgeway, 1999). "Even though EIA has been remarkable in its achievements it has always had an awkward relationship with the planning and design process" (Ridgeway, 1999). To compensate for these managerial concerns and promote EIA usefulness, it is recommended that the information produced be remodelled to feed directly into the development of an Environmental Management System (EMS). Thereby ensuring that the audit  61  and review role of this management report is used efficiently to ensure recommendations from the EIA process are implemented throughout the life of the project. The proposed solution involves capitalizing on the advantages of the report, thereby emphasizing the way in which relevant information is documented.  Most EIA reports include  descriptive and analytical information, as well as recommendations for mitigation, spread throughout the EIA report.  For an effective management report, mitigation recommendations  need to be summarised according to design, management and monitoring (Ridgeway, 1999). "Since the advent of EIA; however, a wide range of management tools have evolved" (Ridgeway, 1999) and "the "tool-kit" of processes/techniques for environmental management include: environmental audits; life cycle analysis (LCA); economic assessment, usually through cost-benefit analysis (CBA); and environmental design (ED)" (Modak & Biswas, 1999 & Ridgeway, 1999). In essence, a review of the main considerations, in which to be cognisant of when implementing Impact Assessment and when synthesising IA and FPD, is presented in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. Hence, these main considerations include: •  In generic project planning, IA tools and in particular EIA tools, were recommended by Ridgeway (1999) to be implemented within the Planning and Decommissioning phases in order to enhance development; When McKillop and Brown (1999) evaluated the EIA performance within large-scale mining projects, it was determined that EIA failed to address the social and environmental concerns associated with these mines.  The implementation of EIA was performed  incorrectly and with excessive focus on legalities.  Had Ridgeway's above-mentioned  recommendation been followed, these concerns would most likely have been detected before development and so improved the outcome; Phases of generic project planning, and mine development mirrors the Phases of FPD; Simply implementing EIA is not enough; the process by which management addresses the outcomes of the EIA is also necessary. For example, consistent impact monitoring during the project's life cycle or rectifying identified environmental concerns must be followed through. •  The use of EIA is most suited to projects such as FPD, while SEA and CEA are utilised when developing policy, plans, and programmes which ultimately lead to project development; In the overall assimilation of IA and FPD, it is wise to base the initial framework on EIA because FPD. is considered a project in itself.  However, it is wise to understand the  benefits and strengths of other variations of IA (i.e., SEA and CEA) so that in the future or  62  if necessary, these other variations may be incorporated into the proposed Enhanced FPD Framework.  Project Cycle & Use of EIA (Ridgeway, 1999)  Planning/Design  Initial EIA  Construction  Impact Monitoring Impact Monitoring  Operation Decommissioning  Generic Phases of Mine Development (McKillop & Brown, 1999)  Follow-up EIA (reassessment/ rectification)  Phases within FPD (Chapter Two)  Exploration Phase Evaluation Screening Feasibility Development  Concept/Screening  Exploitation  Commercialisation  [Decommissioning]  Maintenance  Development  Table 3-2: The use of EIA & Comparison of Project Cycles & Phases in Mine and Food Product Development Level  Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4  Issue  Policy Plans Programmes Project (i.e., FPD)  Impact Assessment Tools  SEA (Strategic Impact Assessment) SEA SEA EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment)  Table 3-3: Variations of EIA used within Projects, Programmes, Plans, & Policies (Glasson, 1994)  3.2  Enhancement of the FPD process The purpose of this section is to present the Enhanced FPD Framework. The Final FPD Framework designed in Chapter Two, Figure 2-8 is enhanced with IA. Here the relevant attributes of IA (Section 3.1) are integrated, where appropriate into the new FPD Framework. The result is presented in Figure 3-2: Enhanced FPD Framework. The significance of the Enhanced FPD Framework is described initially in Table 3-4 where the Enhanced Framework is compared to the current existing framework. Thereafter each enhanced phase of the new FPD Framework is explained in Table 3-5. An illustrative example using the Enhanced FPD Framework is presented in Section 3.2.1.  63  The existing FPD framework(s) are enhanced with Impact Assessment; furthermore, IA is integrated within the Concept and Maintenance Phases of the Final FPD Framework. Figure 3-2 represents the synergy of FPD and IA in presenting the new Enhanced FPD Framework. An overall approach designed around the IA process with consideration of the known design flaws is an important prerequisite (Section 3.1). The process to evaluate and predict impacts prior to the launch of a product, with the combination of the different IA variations and together with the concerns regarding timing, incorporation style, and management review of relevant information sum up this overall approach to understanding IA. The resulting synergy of Figure 3-2 is explained in further detail in Table 3-4 and Table 3-5. The significance of the new Enhanced FPD Framework is in the additional Stages and Steps within the Concept and Maintenance Phases.  The combination aids in the identification of  impacts and concerns, and decisions made to reduce and remove, where possible, these impacts and concerns, before the launching of the new food product into the marketplace. Furthermore, the Concept and Maintenance Phases now account for potential social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns previously mentioned in Chapter Two. Within this synergy however, there are several details to consider regarding the dynamics of the new framework.  Essentially, the Enhanced FPD Framework has potential to  include, where appropriate, counter measures to reduce and remove impacts from food production. It is important to note where appropriate because each new product designed is unique. Subsequently, each product has different impacts and concerns, with different degrees of importance attached to each (i.e., quality versus quantity). Table 3-4 presents the new Stages and Steps within the Concept and Maintenance Phases of FPD. As the process of FPD is already complex, a practical, flexible step-by-step method, inclusive of the nature of food development, and with prior understanding of the stresses, timelines, costs, demands and expertise required for successful food development was essential in the proposed design. Further complicating an already complicated framework is not the purpose of the Enhanced FPD Framework. It is important to note too that the proposed Steps within each Stage are cyclic, even though written in systematic fashion.  Central to this process is the public, consumer  consultation, and participation. At every step, consumer influence and satisfaction is proposed. Moreover, within the Enhanced FPD Framework (Figure 3-2, Table 3-4 and Table 3-5) it is important to note that as the new product design is enhanced within the Concept Phase, these design attributes should flow through the Development and Commercialisation Phases to continually include awareness of the related social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns; thereby, further enhancing the whole FPD Framework. Within the Maintenance Phase, identification and decision-making around these concerns is then reiterated. 64  Finally, the legal concerns of IA and the presentation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are acknowledged as important but not included within the Enhanced FPD Framework.  EIS is similar in documenting the proposed project plan detailing all the new  developments for the food product.  However, the legal ramifications of FPD are different to  those in IA projects. For both the above reasons Stage C (Step 9) of IA is excluded for now in the new Enhanced FPD Framework. Step D is included due to the importance of auditing once the product is produced, and because maintaining and continually improving the product, where possible, is the norm within the current FPD framework. Important in the synergy of the Enhanced Framework are Steps 1 through 10, regardless of Stages A, B, D, and E. Further research into this enhancement may include integration of FPD related legal issues. In Tables 3-4 and 3-5, the details of each stage and step within each phase of FPD are documented. The relevant issues of EIA and FPD are compared within each Phase and Steps within each Stage (Stages A- E and Steps 1-10). A criticism of the proposed Enhanced FPD Framework is further complication of an already complex process. However, as each step is clearly laid out and explained, it is made evident that identification of many of the impacts and concerns may be generic to all new food products. Moreover, the food scientist already operates within a team of other scientists, engineers and managers, so including environmentalists, nutritionists and health promotion scientists should not over-complicate the process, but aid in addressing the concerns pertinent to the new product, prior to development. It is envisioned that the Enhanced FPD Framework will improve the success rate of the new foods produced because consumer concerns will be at least minimised, and the product will suit the consumer and their situation more effectively. As this is difficult to substantiate, general examples of FPD concerns and impacts relating to a food product are described. Referring to the FPD column in Table 3-5, each Stage and all ten Steps are discussed.  65  cu  CU  >  > Ol tj c  Ul cu 4-1  Obj Te  •& 3 1-  .oi  :h top duct  O CU  y b tr. ir  tj c  4-»  TJ 'ui  Q. 0) U  Q. Q  c  CU CQ  o  4—fc.  Plant duct  LO  I  in ro cu  Ol  c tj 4-» cu Ul  o  CL  CL  o  i_  CL  u I j= ui c 10 cu Ol u Ul p cu  oi  ,S2 o  51 P  Q. Q  CTI  CD  4-t u  cu  ro > o  ro Ol  cu E in o u cu  c  CU  CD >*r  1-2  > ° ti w  CL  '4-t 1^ "o  CO  >  ro  aJ  06  > cu cu ro > c  Ul  a) iu  _U1  >  cu ro i_  P  cu E  ^  Q. cu o c: ui C L c CU 3 cu 4-> c ro y cn _c: u g=a Dl O iS * ro C L 3 ^cu  Ul u Ul CU Ul ui Ol ui ro c  >• = "Sj Ul Ul ~ o Ol >.T3 -a "Q. Ul , . CU o 3 £-.2 CU j=! c cu L n . L .y Q. ro > t i a i >> o 4= -Q -Q — ro o. cu 3 ro ±i CU OJ A3 ~ 0) -d & = C U T3 O H * S a Cir; w3 i - t— i_ CU c O CU C L Ul CL I— 51 L L . Q • E U a. •= a. o  o  c  <  E  o cu ro E c cu  o  S"8| JET cu . E  c  c  'ui 3 c CQ  CL  0)  j—*  CU _C  i o_  c  c  E  Ul C  o  u  <- wi o ti  o Ol  UJ  'c  <  X Q.  tc  U  UJ  o  t  1  U ro LO Ol cu tj  UJ UJ  c  cu cu  c p 'Q. U I  cu O  c  c  u o a. L0 U H N P l  E ro c ro  <<<  > ro 4-t  Ul  ro X J ro u ro C L (C +J c cu y •a <u ~  tj  Ul  'tu 3 T3  2  -C  u  CL  <  .9-  c ro  _ 3 T3 .y ro ui < ro  oE E£ro o3.EES oi cu o  CL  £  E ^ Lo  M  ••o  CL  in to co co  UJ  ro  <  X 0. H Z UJ  S CO rH  oa G UJ  Z  QL O  u  zo u  _i UJ  > 66  4-*  ro  cu cu  4J  i - ro ro N CL  cu b  E oi  c  g  c  g '4-t  o E.  3 S3 O  06 Ol  cu  O O L _  L _  75  O  a. a. I—  cu  CL  ro 3 o Ol  c *_ ro C L  xi Ul ro 4-t ro a CU ro  E 4-» E CU c & ai cu cu Q. = ro oi Q- . E 3 ro 3 L L . ca h-  67  I ft  0  4-1  in  10  0> l_> O  Q.  c o cu >  CU  ro c i_  > o  2 LL Q  Q. 0  CL 01 U  c o u  0  cu g ro ro u «c 4-* 1= o c cu cu ^ oi e cu E c 'c c cu CU cu 'o. lO cn "cu cu o c in ro ro a. <j u o ca ro u cu LO E CO u ro fN m < |2 < < 1_  g  ro  10  ro a. oi u cc 4-»  c  cu g tiro ti a.  TJ  E 1 CL  co.  —  .  I T T  cu l/l  ro cu  E c  o ro ai oi T - !  LU  vo rs ca ca  E  00 oa  O CU > CU  ro to ro "u i_ 0  E E o  c o u Q u cu TCUJ TCUJ 4-* •a E 4-1 o SS ro 4-1 0 s° TJ l/l c c <CUu ro oi (J cu c CU E 10 E l/l lO E cu 10 lO cu 10 l/l l/l c o o < l/l u ti < tiro o oo ro CL I CL l/l  CL  s  0  CL  ro  l/l  o 3 0 E  u c re  c cu  g  _  TH  a  LU  E E  .2  £  ro cuto LO  =  10  CL  CU  4-1  CO  625 LU  I  <  l/l CU Ol  ro ro < '»-JCt.:F 0  E 0 E£ o ro cD  U  ro ro  0 cu o  CL ^ i_ JS •2 <u = £  CO  M—  o c o  '4->  G  M  >  TJ  0 - 0 ^ cu — 8 S Q.  Ul  cu  ct:  ro  IN  >_ 0  4-1  a. re  o S. i- O l  o  3  0 u  cu  g  E  ro  2 LL.  LL  re c  c ui 0 E "y CL O cu CU > E E "ro  Ol  CU  c 'c cu  \8  CO  CL  u  cu i_ u  0 Q  o  c  ,„  .  TJ  CU "O 0 U u 0) l/l  co= = S& ft 2  0  ±3  E to ro ro  0 ro ro  0 E a. o  Lu .y  CL  ro M_ 8 Eo c roI I  TJ  « >  LU  u 0 w re  c  cu  c j ro  i i i  c  0  ,11  c J3 oi o u ro  g oi c 'c 0 cu  ic5i  c cu E CL  ro i/i  "ro 'u CU  o E  cu E > cu 3 Q  ro cu 10  68  ro tJ  «"§f  t. TJ cro ^c c ^ ro £ S 0aj o c  ro ™ W £ S £ cu to o x: cu  5: s  cu  w  OJ  Dl  re  |K  «?•  cu VI  re  2  >  5  TJ >-  <n  C L  CL  cu  E cu  Ol ro c ro  O  —  cu  5 O 'c ~ •a o c Dl cro sz o 'to iE SJ c ro cu >10 to ro ro t3 E c E 3 o TJ 2 sz O > u ro c cu  cu  o  LU  i _  "re*  E — cu m cu  -c o c  g 'tj 3  •a cu  cu  cu ro Q  cu CL  CL LL.  XI  XJ  .cu  to o  cu  4-1  SS  CL  2 Q.  cu  & "8 to  CU  £  e sz  -a "ro CU j_, o ^ Q.  ±3  i.  &  ^  cu  > u O u c ro  5  .i ro r3 1  «  ro  C  CL  O CL  to  C L  .E  W cu  *4J >  tj  ro cu  4ro CL  CU  3 X>  XJ  CU i _  cu  .E  c g  Tj  P XJ  & 3 oi xi c •i_ £ tiro cS % >~ CQ  ro.  E cu in  * -  5  tj  ro a. E c o ro CU u  CU cu  X)  c ro u  CL  Q  c  s.  cu  XI  E  cu  <  in cu  •sr.I  I-H UJ  c If  o to 3 U  V  4-1  ctf u  <JJ Ot  JS IV) <*o 10 c o  "E  cu  XJ  cn cn  2  Q.  to to C uU  2  C  CL  CU  ro 4-J c ro u c igi i" 'in >ro 4-> c  3 CT  CL  CL  tj  cu  '2" CL  XJ  CU to O O CL  « ^ £  5 XJ  ro 'u o 10 l/l ro  <  4-1  V) c3  I—I  cu  sz  w  4-t  cu Q. OJ u  c  i3 Q.  Q. OJ u  c o u  C  4-1  c  ^  OJ OJ u  W  to cu cu  XJ •g u cu Q  B  x: 4-*  2  "ro  & o CU ro  i _  ro  CL i —  «roa.  CL  «  «  CL  CL  CL  ro o  CU  10  ti  E  ro 4->  cro u  i _  Ol sz c 4-t  in  CU XJ  '4-t  o  4-J*  i-i <c cOl 'in c. u c3  o25  CL  XJ  c ro  cu  xcu> XJ <u cu  tr in in C U u O  cu  ro 4->  ro  o tr cu E  H  cn^ cn cn  in ro ro XJ _g 5 in ro u CU IO in cu "Q. > CQ u CU cu ro XJ a _cy  CL  CL  c  '5. o u  (A i i  CM <  1  69  CU 4-> x:  4-t  sz ro u o. x: E oi 4-* c c c ro ro u u if: c «= 'tr cu 'c .gi XJ gi 'in 'in  ro ro Ol tr ro E XJ tr o XJ c ro c Q. ro ro u >E jc XJ cu XJ 'tr tr cu gi 3 cn cn 3 'in cn cu in x: cu — o J3 3 tr in cu 'to cu XJ to 2 £ S < XJ  HH  XJ  p  CL  <  ro <~ u x:  ro ro x: u E x:  in xT cu 'in ^> XJ c in c o cu ro in C u c iU ~a ro ro XJ 4-* ro in ro CU ^ .i cu xi 3 in in ccu xi XJ XJ 'in 3 XJ to o tr O ro ro sz J2 4-t ro cu cu V) U E tn CU C > Ol '§• 4-t c cu ro x: tr i O cu 4-* u CO ro  cu •g  XJ  0)  u re  cu  CL  QL  OJ  Ol  c  4J  c cu E cu Ol ro  i : cu  8  =  w  Iw  in  Ol cu tr o c ro 10 c o Ei o 10 to U2 ro cg (cu_) cu in .ii cu in l/l o .S2 XJ u XJ u U| cu IU E in c in -H XJ XJ vi c !s = ro ro E cu cu >L U a; > "ro E o CU o ro E c oi 5 cu c E 'c c XJ ro cu 2 cu 2 '> 'ro u o 'y in Q . c c ro cu  w a.  V)  to cu u 10  E o  cu  XJ  c ro ro  c ro u jc 4-t 'c ro gi 5 toi Q.  E  tr o  u E 2 o ^_ CU o 4->  CL  f~  Ol c 'tr ur cu CL-  CTi cn 1-4  sor  ,i  E. o c c ro o u  p  ro > o E  t—  in ro  4-1  c *tn ro u to if: 'tr gi 'tn Q . DCe:  a  2  y  I—I  Q  CL  oug hout  E  CL  sz  nues  8.  ro cu  to to cu u  cu > ro  tr ro <j jc 'c gi 'to  acts c  '•3 5 5v  «  CL  c c o E o u •a c ro <u  cne most  O  cu u o c ro 8  E CL O CU < > CU  c ro u to to JC o 'c Q. gi CU to  X)  ntifyi  W «—  Q  ess of  OJ  cu  :ance.  | U J  c •a c ro c o ro u ic c  eai  CU > ro cu 4-> 'u CO ro o  CU > ro cn cu c  ignifi  c ro c  j=  •C  O  5 cu c  u  are n  OJ  1_  ui  12 o 3 cu E  c  CL  E o — (TJ o CU o (TJ  0 , O)  0  I  "2  c o u  (A  re  < LU  fi  (TJ  V)  w"  "4J  CU  >  4-» (TJ  to Q eel 0. LL  |(/)  ui  > c <u X ) ti E (TJ CL 4-« Ul 0 _0o cu > Ul X? cu cu  g- 2  JS  0  c o  CL  cu  ti ti 3 TJ T3 O O 1 CL  Ol CU .2 > (TJ c .0 . =  le u  C  1—  J3> 0  x> 'ui (TJ  .0  4-1 CL  o Ul _CU (TJ U Ul Ul"  01 c  T J U  c  o. 0  4-1 U)  ca  0 ot  JS I to  <*o c 0 Q  4J  (A CL  40-1 V) c3 1/1 0 Ol  IJS I to  w" 0 w re  o c o  2  C  cu  4-f  M—  o  c (TJ  2 Ul T J  c  ( C  c ro  T J  Ul  cu  3 Ul  ,l-o« u 0 u > c c 43 o re 0 ro u uI c ui 'c I 0 01 ro 2 x: "ui < re 0 Ul  4-> Ul Ul  Ul l/l  <  x:  3 o ui  o TJ c  c  (TJ  uT aj  c" ro > JTJ <u  Ul Ul  <u u  CL  c o 4J ITJ U  o  (TJ >  T J  cu  T J C (TJ  ui  o CL o  J3  <301  c Ol o c Q . o O UU )l (TJ  CJ3  c cu E CL  <u o > 0 0 > cu c  T J  E o c o u  cu  c 0 E  CL  % cu  C U oi Ol Ul c O CL ui cn I_ 3 a 0 c ui o CL ro U l JS 0 SU2l ui CU oi J T J c Ul "4— f c _3 ui (TJ ui c 0 C u o (TJ Ul JS ti u u c (TJ a; ro Ul CU ? % c O _3 C L G 4-1 (TJ U 0 c O ro o - C  T J  ( J  T J  CU  U  T J  T J  T J  U  M  ro  .01  F  4-<  ^  Ol 01  Ul  ro ro U3) 3 in UI >-  (TJ  CL  CJ  c 0  4-» CL  b 0 Ul  Q  CJI C T J  Q  C  0 >  Q.  U_  CL  c "3 o c S £ "E ro (TJ  CL  3 0  E cu E x: o o ^JS cu 3 > <u u 0 •g 0 (J 3 t: T J != ro o l2 ro C L  u u o  > Q0  <  4->  c 0 E  03 I I  70  ro c 0 E CL o S J 0  4-1  T J T J  CU ui O CL O i_ CU  4J m  4-1  0 u 3 T J 0  QJ S  E  CL T J  j_, 4-*  3 o  ro  01 cu (J  c 0 3  ro Ul Ul 0 c u u c cu c Ol 8 0 ic T J 0 > 'c ro gi "ui >~ cu o ro Ul cu 0 E x: Ol  Ul  CL  2  4-1  J3 c • « ^ E <T> c cn > c o c o 0) ro ro  ti 3  T J  CL  c ro Ul c: i_ 0 u c o u  E o c o u 0 T J c ro "ro 'u o Ul  IE 43 c 0 0 c 0 u re  ti CU c "£? O i_ cn  10  ( J T J <D 4-1 JTJ  T J  V  3 o c  D  u c o u 1  o ti (TJ Q .  0  c o  T J  <u  T>  ro cu 3 C >*cu u u T J o Ul Qj O C E c ZD o T J c 1. p 0 u cz T I o u O T J  —-  8  ro O  5  T J  06  4->  ro " o Ul  c 0> T J E c ui JB 2 c c '> cuu 0U l c cu 0 CL "ro o tj 'u u 0 B o Ul O c o 'ui T J c ro 0) (TJ  T J  CU  O c 0  (TJ  Q  I— CL  (TJ  c  oJ ui (U T J _3 > (TJ U 'ui ti C _3 3 T3 c Ua O J2 c o CL E c o ti  Ul  0 tiO  TJ  UI  15 CU 3> E u ui o  CL  (0  JZ  Q_ LL.  T J  Ul  0  Q  o c  CL  3 o  c , to o5 .1 o 4-> (TJ 0 T J U cu c T J Ul o 0 O Ul > > 0 4-* u 4-" T J (TJ "ro (TJ 'ui c c i_ c o o 0 iri 0 u 4-1 (TJ (TJ 0 Ul (TJ Ol COL c c T J o c 0 U J3 c o c o >« CL JTJ l/l" o 0 Ul" Ul > 0 c o CU 4-1 UU ll u 0 cu u o  £g I I  "ro  C _ro  U)  1—  W  0  (TJ  SI c o _3 Ul  X )  o  (TJ  £  cu _cy 1_  3 10 c  o  T J  c o u  T J  ro 0 ui 0  act  Q CL  ILU  &  0 c 'ui 3  0>  X )  Ul  Ul  lop  u c ro  E u E o 01 c o '0 u xi 0 T J uT C c i_ (TJ 0 u c o 0) u E  01 c 3 U u o  Ul Ul  0  ro 01 0) +j ro >- ti 'u 3 G o 3 ui 4-> 3 ro c B 2 4-> ro o 3 1 x: O 0 y cC L 4-» fi ro 2 5 0 (TJ Ul (TJ E CU b= O CL  > C  1-  T J  T J  CL  0  o  u c re  CU  ai TJ a; 3 o c  •C C LU  0  l-c  TJ C  '•5 3 0 S §• E S  E  . **  Ul  TJ  o x  CU  E TT  ro JB -a" c a> cu ui  tz  cu  cu at  JS  Iw vT  cu re  fi .§ ro J_I  E  C  "0  cu &  x  c  4->  CU  =  gi "Ul  ii  o fi  < LU  c  (A Q.  to c3  w  cu  ti  cu  'p  1  _  JS  cu  cu O l O 4-> Ul O l  c  E c o i— '> c 0)  cu c  "cu Ul  "ro i— cu > o  0  cu  JB  cu  CL  TJ CU  1_  u  cu  3  ti  CL  tz  cu U) cu  c ro  1  o  CU  £  Ul  3  1cu oi  oi  fi ** ro  4-*  ro x  TJ  4-*  CL  E  O l tz  3  cu E c  cu O  O  E ro '> c  cu  cu  4-i tz  G IC  Ul u  'tz  g i 'ui  ti ro ro CL i_  2 ro  ro 4-J tz  u  o CL  a  4-1  to ca V)  0  Ol  4-1  £ 8 43 x C  fll  «  2  0  re  V)  re  Ul  s ^  JS  v»"  Ul  C  hH  : LO <  CL  ro £  J2  CJ  •§  % c TJ O  £ CU  _ >cu ro  > •43 ro ± i  > P  CT  ro  CU . y  cu  T J  cu  ui Ul  CU (J  X)  ro i_  3 O  > .CD Ul 1—  cu >  TJ  ro  CL < t-H  LU CU  c 3 P  U u ro  2 tz  p 4-» Ul  c g  ti TJ 0 L— Q. M— P  ti CU  X?  p  cu  X  CL  E  c  J2 if  P  ro E  L—  cu u TJ  TJ  £ I  VO  03  tz  o  £J  u _cy  ro  oi -£3  CL  Ul  cu  cn tz  'cu  XI  3  TD S O  ti  3 TJ O L-  ui tz 'ro O i ro  ui P  CU tz  3  cu >  cu  ti  3 TJ O  P  CL CU tz  p  cu  T3  cu '•*->  c  cu  TJ  2 I  P tz  Ul  3  Ul  i— CU  >  c g  cu «= U3 tz  (JJ Ul tz  o 'ui  c  cu E  TJ i_ CU  TJ c  ro  ti ro P  ti  cu  i  4J  'c oi ro E  3 p x TJ  TJ  2 CL O  ro  ro £  X 4—1  3 P  ui ro  tj —  E  id"  i  TJ CU  c  71  o  *^ TJ  CU  ro x u  cu  xi >ro E tz .gi 'ui  fi ro ro CL  E  cu >  ro oi cu  4-1  tz  4-»  c ro u <c  TJ  cu  'tz g i 'ui  ^  _uj  TJ O  E  "ro y 4-J  U)  cu  ti ro i o  ro ti Q. E  8  cu CL  ro . y 'ui >-  Ul  CU  TJ P  E "ro u  Ul Ul  "c: g p Ul 'i—  ro  c p J2 CJ  ro E  cu  3  O l tz ro  u ro  O l  UI  ro  cu  U  cu cu  CL  cu  TJ 3  o  O l tz  CL  i  cu  CL  cu Ii -  p  c  u  3 J2  TJ  Ul  8  cu  x u c  fi  a TJ CU i— cu  c  TJ  ti  >-  ro  tz ro  o  cu  Ul  H  J3 u re  U)  c ro  TJ  T J  cu  CL CL  c  2 2  ro jy  4--  tz  | I E  ui Ul _ro  CU  .sz  T:  TJ  ui"  o  c  T3 p  TJ  <u  ro 3  tz  sz  Ul tz  .>.  .2  TJ  cu  'l—  c  tz ro  cu  CU  TJ  ro oi  4->  CU  ti  c  TJ  TJ  3  TJ  ui  u  TJ  ro  D l  CL  ro x x  a;  ro  cu  T J  E  vt  2 CL  X) TJ  c  cu  1 fiE =  ro  to u 'S 'E  E  _o  tz  JS c o  ro  CL  ro  Dl  I  CL  ti  E o  CL  E  3  CL  1_  cu  0 i_  -CU  Ul  CL  c  cu  2 fi | 00 Q. V)  CU  2 ro  1  X3  ro E  cu  TJ  _3  .UJ  ro  4-> Ul  cu  U  TJ  tz  O  Ul  E  cu u  TJ  p  X 4->  p  c JS ro xi  TJ  p E  c u oi  o  ro c ro Ul" T3  o p E  JS c cu E !_  cu  ccn n  p  c p  p  _ro CJ  CL  XI  ro  U) Ul  •o  • cua  cu  to l_  cu  c in  |UJ <3J  tj (0  o  CU  cu  E  c  o  4-t  c c ti cn T=Ji 'to C O T>J CU C L T J E O cu O cu X)  CL  ro tc3 4-J _ 1_ < 'cgi TJ 10 (A  E  E  a. re OJ  'in  a.  (A  cu JS w c(Au re a.  to  T>  o x: 4-* cu E cu E ro  to  TJ  c ro to c i_ cu u c o u  CU c ro  TJ  ro > cu cu  <u Ol  LS (A  w c O  'E  |(= Q  TJ  TJ  c  cu cu  X)  cu > ro  ro c <  s  'c ,gi 'io  to CU ro CL u in o1_ CU C L E  8  to u  cu cu cfc! ro  TJ  to 1  3  c ro cu  >c ro  TJ  CL  <u > cu cu  U  o c cu E  IO  3  o x: cn 3  o  I—  cu  l/l in to cu ro u u & y to "E CU o c o u ro cu 'u TJ c ro u ui c TJ 3  cu E  cu  4-*  TJ  4-t C toU U o C c CL o O E  TJ  c ro  io cu > o  > c c o  o >-  CL  CU E .  TJ  E cu a;  u 3  cu 10 cu >  TJ  ro  CU 4-1 £=  ; TJ  ro '4-t u ro •g tc cn O 'c > gi ro 'io  IN  E  M  in re  ro T ro C CU  4->  3  TJ  ro E  c o 'in 'u CU  TJ  ro CU 2 ro cy c cn O <U >  •s 2c  4-)  E ro cu  cu E cu E •g  o to 'to in c JP. in ou (J3  8 3  U  cu  OJ  c o 43 re oi  *•o  (A (A OJ (A  cu  4->  (A  E 3  (A C  o u  E  re  c o u  3  OJ  (A  i _  re  c  cu  3  ro > ro  cu  fl ro  o in IO c 4-t cu u ro o 10 c D l cu c E cu c 3 IO  re  A  •  oo ca  •  LU  C  o 3  O  (A  t  u  72  c o  'S3 re JS Q . c o  TJ  cu  cu  VI  "E  10  cu JS CL E o  o cu E ro  u 2 ro c cro ~ cu x: > u ccu ro u c  £  s so  u  _ J3 T  c  to  4-t u to cu. o c o u cu ro —  T10 J  ro - •Q cu o TJ c CU Ol O CU cn c  4-1  c ro o to c io IO  CJ"  4-1  cn cn  tc IO CU c cu cu CO 3  IO IO  Q. OJ  lis lu>  ro g.  to co (J  i  4-t  fl cu ro 10  w  e* u OJ Ol  tj !c  TJ  IO  2 s"' CU ""CU sz y  w  5  cu £= cu 1 u — cu O x:  aro  _3  ui 10 ro  LU  8 <*  4-»  CL  ro cu u c: in ou  5 c  cu  o  <  (A Q. QJ  he  (0  Q LL.  OSS  4J  XI c p 4-"  ro  cu  u c ro  CL  io c  cu 'u o  cu >  TJ  fica  '§  cu 1  rtic  CL  an  c re  me  u  re a  OJ u  I LU  io c g 'in  u cu  o  XJ  3 in a  <u  ft o3 «n  OJ  2  LL  Q Q. LL  OJ  JS I  cn c  E  to in  OJ (A  re LC Q.  < UJ  c  lie  ro  ti ro CL  E  CU x:  c  o u cu  in a.  0)  to ca  M  uO  in c  c  CO  cu cu  io cu  ro  XI  cu cu  cu  c  o  cu  o  E re  CO  Q  0. LL  •=  XI  sz  OJ u  o  CU  4-»  E  XI  cu  «  c re j= c  XJ  LU OJ  cu  XJ  ro u  o io  IO  ro io OJ xi ro  cn cn c  o  io io _ro  in c  o  XI  cCuL  £  flro s CL  .i g  ro CL  E c  XI  io  u  'io  OJ  OJ  10  3  cu.  ro  (=  3  ro x: CL  IO  c  cu cu c > ro E CL o > "ro _gu e "<j c> o cu Ol 10  cu  Ol  CU c  3  E  1L\ Im O  X)  o x: oi  o c o u cu  OJ Dl  I  & ro _3 ro >  sz g  I ro  Q  X J  cu  O l {Z 'l_  ti  ro CL  ro E Q.  E o u  c  cu > o >  E  IO  sz  oi c  •+J  XI 3 <  cu c  2  >  sz  cu cu  x:  o  ro c &  XI  <3cu cu cn E CL _cu ti cn CL  E  cu  <e ro i _ 3  O  u =o5  ro CL  E  CL  B CO  68  c  o in io  LU  CO  IO  cu  cu  ro O l  3  LO  10  io  ro ro  10  in ro  cu >io cu o XJ  ^_ t3  O  ro sz  o  E c  o  Ol  J3 o u in io c  •= sz  XJ  IO  io  E ro  OJ Q.  ,y sz  cu  XJ  IO IO  cu 10 IO  IO  cu 3 IO  ro ro cu  XI  XJ 3  ro  XI  cn sz  'o. o u  di t= 'tz  cu ro cu cu 2  ••=  u  LO  E  oi c  c ro sz  c  CU  i I  5 8 s  a  §  .i  cu  o c o  XJ  E  cu io ro  X)  ti XI  cu  ro ro o. ' o. u E t: c ro u «c 'c gi 'in  XJ c re  < hH  LU  C  c ro  o ti '+o-» ro c ro oi o cu XcJu CL _ro 3  IO  ro  Ol c  cu  10  cu JS 13 cu  cu  SZ  cu >  is S c  i _  w  JS  cn c:  625  X)  •o cu cu  ' i _ ro >  4-1  +J LO  O io  TJ O l  CU  ro  CL  3  E Xro J 10 sr. 10 ro CU 10 10  CL  CL  Q  XI  OJ  io  Q.  ro CL i _  Ul  a. 13 to ca in  OJ  oi JS (A V I  OJ  in re  a;  E 3 10 SZ  o u  in m _0J  re in  Q.  Dl  OJ  4-1  (A  ca  C  .2 xi UJ  Ul  "o  JS  J!I  OJ , Ol  I (A <n OJ  in re  C  43  In O  3  re  C O I  c E  * S rH  Q  O  E  OJ  E  Q. O  OJ > OJ  Q  OJ u  c re c OJ  4-1  c  "iS  Z  73  3.2.1  Illustrative Example An illustrative example of an infant-formula, ideal for working mothers, was designed for  infants who needed added nourishment from breast milk. Universally, it was considered a new innovative product; however, the negative impacts associated with this product became evident in isolated communities in Southern Africa, (Latin America, and Asia).  Several multinational  companies headquartered mainly in the United States, Switzerland, and England produced this infant-formula and used massive media campaigns to diffuse (i.e., successfully market and sell) the innovation of bottle-feeding to poor parents in developing countries (Rogers, 1995). Today infant-formulations are more suited to the rural African lifestyle, although finances, education and health monitoring are important criteria for recommending such a product into the rural African market  Highlighting some of these negative impacts associated with the infant-formula in  Southern Africa, the complexities of FPD, and the proposed enhancements of the Enhanced FPD Framework summaries this chapter. Within Al-Screening, a new food product idea is presented and the Enhanced FPD Framework is proposed in order to improve the potential success rate, and address social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns of development. In PQrScoping, all the relevant impacts and concerns are documented including the social acceptability of the new product, the environmental impacts on local resource drain and finally the economic feasibility of balancing the social and environmental concerns as much as possible. Once the lists are drawn up, each concern is analysed and placed into three different categories. These categories include those impacts and concerns that are significant and those that are not, and those difficult to categorize. Once this is done, all the concerns with unclear significance are grouped with the significant. The insignificant concerns and impacts are then excluded. In KS-Alternatives are addressed and considered crucial to the success of any new product. Alternatives were always addressed in the existing FPD process, but now in more detail. One alternative could be the nutritional value of the ingredients used within the new product, or the choice of packaging material used though more seriously an alternative may be not to develop the new product at all. Having identified the significant impacts, the success of the development seems reduced and using the existing FPD Framework, it was these concerns that eventually limited the potential market of the product. With the Enhanced Framework, steps are taken to reduce the impact of the product. In M-Baseline identification, each impact is identified in more detail, considering how negatively significant the impact is and would be if no product were ever introduced onto the market. At this point, complicated projections are included as understandably future concerns are difficult to document. For many impacts and concerns, information may be extrapolated from other sources. For example, if the health of a consumer population is a concern, introducing a  74  new product may be of significant impact for those suffering from a particular disease.  Of  course, this is a subjective argument since a population is not uniform. However, national health statistics in Canada indicate that certain diseases are on the increase and are linked to food consumption. Comparing projections of the disease, without the new product, versus with the new product, are important. There may be little difference in the projections. The example of an infant-formula milk-based product aids in the explanation of the health impact of new products. In this case, the health of a lactose-intolerant population group being presented with this new food product containing milk powder was seriously jeopardised. Being lactose intolerant meant that the infants could not digest the milk proteins and subsequently suffered from diarrhoea and malnutrition. Many cases were even more serious due to the formula being a powder formulation requiring sterile boiled water to mix with the powder. The population in this example was African where water needed for the formulation was a scarce commodity, as was education, and finances. In many cases, the water was not boiled, and the formula not mixed in the correct quantities, which resulted in the death of many infants. This was horrific, thus, it is important to understand the complete picture. Listing all the impacts of social acceptability may have prevented this food product from ever being introduced. In this case, the impacts of product introduction were compared to no introduction, and in Africa, many children were dying and still die from malnutrition.  This product was designed with good  intentions, to aid in this reality. Not all the potential impacts were investigated before development.  In this step,  understanding that the infant mortality rate is high regardless of the introduction of an infant milk-formula is important.  Listing the impacts is not the only process; dealing with the most  significant is, and so the process continues. In  B5-Impact identification, all the impacts are documented together with the  identification of how significant each one could potentially be relative to the introduction of the new product.  Understanding that there could be many impacts is key to impact identification.  Checklists and matrices are already utilised in FPD in designing new food products to suit consumers. Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is one tool used, though now impacts such as social acceptability, and environmental concerns are included. In ^-Prediction  of the impacts over time and space is presented.  Actual tests are  performed to obtain the relevant information. Soil and water quality samples may be collected and predictions made.  In the example of the infant-formula, evaluations of diet, detailed  assessment of surveys and questionnaires (in the relevant African languages) and blood tests of the population should have been performed. prior to the launch of the product.  Lactose intolerance would have been identified  Understanding the overall consumer situation (i.e., physical  environment and economic status) would be included, with soil and water samples taken in the  75  general location of where the product would be introduced.  Of course, where this would be  impossible, information extrapolated from other research could be used.  Most importantly,  understanding the consumer market would be highlighted. In Bl-Evaluation of each impact now that more information is known about the impact is performed. Predictions of the impact in order to simplify the number of significant impacts are performed. Having a list of potential impacts with different social, environmental or economic basis is impractical without more information on each, and predicted significance. Cost benefit analysis is one method used to assess the significance of these complicated impacts, by assigning a monetary figure to the potential impacts all concerns may now be compared. In the example of the infant-formula launched in Africa, the most significant impacts would have been the population health and environment, water quality, and poverty rates of the consumers. (Understanding that CBA would only be a tool where values and monetary attachment to potentially significant impacts are difficult). In B8-Mitigation occurs, and here the object is to avoid, reduce and compensate for any significant impact. Mitigation within FPD in the example of powdered infant-formula would have, after understanding the significant impacts of social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns, changed the design and development of the product, before launching it in Africa. Having understood the impact on population health, water shortage and safety, education, and poverty, the infant-formula could have been designed as a complete product, with liquid included.  It could have been packaged in a can or aseptic carton to increase safety,  labelled in the African language with simple pictures to increase understanding and it could have been produced with the enzyme lactase already added, or a non-dairy formulation could have been used.  The increased private costs induced by the company to balance the external  opportunity costs and benefits would have become a private benefit over time, as the consumers health would never have been jeopardised. Consumer consultation and participation in Stage and Step, E9 is central to assessing all concerns and if in the case of the infant formula, the consumers were consulted first and throughout the development process, impacts would have been mitigated more effectively. Stage and Step, D10, monitoring and auditing are crucial as relevant research into these significant concerns may change in the near future. FPD needs to change with the new research. In summary, the Enhanced FPD Framework has additional stages and steps within the Concept, and Maintenance Phases.  In the Concept Phase, the question of which  prototype should be developed will be answered more efficiently in future, because of the assessment of potential impacts.  Moreover, the monitoring and auditing process in the  Maintenance Phase will improve the overall success of the Enhanced FPD Framework and  76  new food products developed. In the illustrative example of the infant-formula, assumptions are difficult because the initial design was many years ago. There may have been other impacts that would have been mitigated before development, had the product been designed with the use of the Enhanced FPD Framework. Using this example of infant-formula is difficult because it includes an ethical component where many feel that this particular product should not have been launched in the first place. The point of including this example is not to argue whether companies where ethical or not, but rather to show that even in an ideal situation, the impacts of launching this product were sever. By using the Enhanced FPD Framework, impacts would be reduced to residual impacts before the launching of the product.  This ideal situation  would be infant-formula fed to children, not as a substitute to breast milk, but as an added supplement for children weaned off breast milk and being introduced onto solid foods. Current research on breastfeeding and complementary feeding practices in low socioeconomic urban and rural areas, (Kwa-Zulu Natal, South Africa) showed that long-term malnutrition was evident within preschool children (Faber, Oelofse, Kriek, Benade, 1997). When mothers identified the food products they fed to their children after a period of breastfeeding, many indicated expensive, high calorie, high salt, but with low nutritional value foods as the most convenient.  The question here is not to dispute the incredible  benefits of breastfeeding, but to show that in many cases infant-formula when used correctly is more beneficial for children that potato crisps and carbonated pop drinks and/or ground cooked maize meal (corn).  Dating back to when the infant-formula was first  introduced (even without being designed more appropriately for the rural situation) this formulation would still have been more beneficial than the chosen maize meal given to children at the time (Faber, Oelofse, Kriek, Benade, 1997). In this instance, the illustrative example infant-formula would have been designed to fit the rural African consumer (child) more appropriately with the use of the Enhanced FPD framework. In conclusion, the objectives of this chapter were to understand Impact Assessment and the related tools before integration of IA (i.e., key stages and steps) into the FPD paradigm. It is the concepts of IA that are useful to FPD. The practical limitations of IA in regards to the role of food scientists, dynamic interactions, and unexpected outcomes associated with consumer behaviour are considered currently (in varying degree) within FPD. As the  Enhanced  FPD framework is designed with the  concepts of IA in the  Concept/Screening Phase and the Maintenance Phase practical limitations of introducing IA into the industry will apply and in fact, cannot be avoided. The role of the food scientist does not change with the Enhanced-FPD Framework. The food scientist's skills however, to  77  detect impacts before development is now improved. Of course, it is not possible for food scientists to detect using the Enhanced FPD Framework, every possible impact that may occur within the life cycle of the product. Food scientists and those involved within the FPD process will inevitably be associated with agency problems such as imperfect information, and opportunistic behaviour with motive to earn higher profits despite the external costs, etc. Dynamic interactions and unexpected outcomes associated with consumer behaviour are already inherent in the current FPD paradigm. Moreover, food scientists understand the implementation process and the financial costs of introducing new foods onto the marketplace. New ideas for food products normally fail within the Development Phase and do not proceed into the Commercialisation Phase, unless all the criteria within the food science, engineering and marketing departments are met.  (Generally, there is a  miscommunication issue between these departments that complicates FPD and not the food product itself). It costs a food company an incredible amount of money for a food product to reach the launching stage. However, no food company will wittingly launch a product with known flaws, because the cost of failure far out weighs the company's decisions to take the food product back to the design stage. The food company cannot afford to continue investing in a food product with known impacts and will rather move on to the next idea. The investments are high at this point, but less than the costs incurred due to a failed product launch. Here is where the construction industry and the food industry differ.  In the  construction industry EIA is now compulsory in many countries worldwide, and the costs involved in assessing, predicting, and mitigating impacts, whether done correctly or not, is incredible. Once past the development phase, many companies believe that they cannot afford not to complete the project regardless of the known impacts because of the investments already made. Still on a cautionary note, agency problems do and will occur, and  it will be an  important  implementation issue to  highlight  the dangers  of  misinterpretation for whatever reason. The  ultimate goal (though presented as positive and naive) would be by  incorporating IA into the FPD paradigm, the percentage of new food product designs and developments would increase. Impacts to consumers and their physical environments will be reduced and managed more effectively by food scientists. Environmental Impact Assessment and the Final FPD Framework were used as templates to form the Enhanced FPD Framework, where EIA enhanced FPD. The Enhanced FPD Framework was designed to counteract the concerns identified in the previous chapter.  78  Chapter Four: Industry guidelines: Guiding strategies and Economic framework for FPD 4.0  Introduction The Enhanced FPD Framework, though not perfect, reduces many deficiencies (i.e., social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns) identified in the existing FPD framework(s). Essential to the Enhanced FPD Framework is the resolution between the activities of FPD and the noted concerns that lead to negative impacts. For the most part, positive impacts are recognised within the food industry; however, the negative impacts and indeed potentially significant impacts are not. Understanding these impacts is central to this research and will be explained within this particular chapter. Significant impacts are typically interconnected with one usually more outstanding than the other(s), depending on the new food product proposed. Few new product ideas have the same combination of potential negative impacts. Moreover, consumers differ in many ways, from age, gender, and religion, to their residing geographic location. Depending upon the target consumer market, should it matter where consumers reside? Does this then affect the development of new foods? The new framework was developed with the consideration of these abovementioned issues in mind. Understanding what signifies an impact, how these impacts influence the design of new products, and how to alleviate these impacts before development, should then improve the overall success rate of the new food product proposed. Nevertheless, how can one FPD Framework address and balance all the relevant costs of these concerns?  To substantiate the use of the Enhanced FPD Framework, Industry guidelines for FPD have been designed. These Industry guidelines support the Enhanced FPD Framework with the use of Guiding strategies and  an  Economic framework.  Essentially the  Guiding  strategies  concentrate on the social and environmental aspects of this research and the Economic framework identifies a way to account for the costs of these impacts. Using the Enhanced FPD Framework, the Guiding strategies and Economic framework, food scientists, and others involved in FPD may develop foods that are socially acceptable, environmentally benign, and economically feasible.  79  The Guiding strategies support the series of Phases, Stages, and Steps within the Enhanced FPD Framework.  For example, the Guiding strategies support the Concept,  Development, Commercialisation and Maintenance Phases, of the A1-A4, B5-B8, D10 and E l - 8 Stages and Steps, and highlight potential problems that may result from the development of the new food product. Within each, there are a series of questions designed to deal sensibly with the combination of potential social, and environmental, concerns within FPD. Additionally, once these questions have been answered, these strategies facilitate the decisions required regarding the management of successful new food products, based on the identification and mitigation of potentially significant impacts.  Simply, the Guiding strategies identify the adverse significant  impacts that require mitigation before the development of the new food product. The Economic framework supporting the Industry guidelines is used to test the Enhanced FPD Framework by accounting for all important costs and benefits of new food product(s) developed.  In comparing the Enhanced FPD Framework with the existing FPD  Framework(s) and the design of the new proposed food product(s), this Economic framework substantiates the Enhanced FPD Framework, by justifying the additional costs of FPD. To promote sustainable FPD, all important external costs and benefits must be accounted for, in addition to the usual financial analysis currently undertaken in the food industry. Industry guidelines that comprehensively take into account the concerns relating to new product development are necessary, because in the assessment of impacts, no new product is the same. Moreover, consumers differ around the world and companies prioritize significance to certain impacts and concerns, over others. The Industry guidelines are for those working in the food industry, designed for the successful development of new food products. Initially, a logic-based approach to constructing these Guiding strategies is presented (Section 4.1). The reason for this approach is that these guidelines are not only more than just a series of questions that require answers within the Enhanced FPD Framework but they also account for the interconnection between relevant impacts, activities, and concerns. Additionally, all significant impacts are based upon the activities within FPD (i.e., the Phases) and the components (i.e., social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns) influenced by the development. The FPD activities are identified in Chapter Two, from overall product and initial idea, to raw material choice and target consumer. In FPD, the components relate specifically to the concerns and disconnections identified in Chapter One and Two: the social (including nutrition and health), environmental (including resource use, and energy use) and economic external concerns (including the overall costs and benefits). To clarify, impact equations are developed to explain the relationship between the impacts and FPD (Refer to equation 4a, 4b and 4c).  80  The identification and management of FPD related impacts are/may indeed be complicated and so to provide direction in each Phase within the process, and to ultimately improve the new product, the Guiding strategies include a series of questions. The choice of questions as opposed to rules and chronological statements is because statements and opinions lead to reactive focus on the problems rather than solutions (Goldberg, 1998). The aim of these strategies is to focus upon identification of significant impacts and on mitigation of these impacts. Due to the diverse array of possible impacts, these questions are categorized according to FPD activity and relevant component. Table 4-1, entitled Category of Strategies Relating to the Enhanced FPD Framework, presents the breakdown of these strategies. Due to the importance of the Concept Phase, the strategies attributed to these phases are presented in more detail. The Guiding strategies are presented in Section 4.2. First, the team management issues relating to FPD are presented. Then an abridged version of the Guiding strategies is presented highlighting the Concept and Maintenance Phases of the Enhanced FPD Framework.  An  abbreviated version is presented (i.e., with examples of the pertinent questions) to highlight the versatility of the Enhanced FPD Framework and Guiding strategies. To explain, these strategies are designed for a wide application of new products, target consumers, and related concerns. Moreover, food scientists may use these Guiding strategies for product ideas not yet developed, new products, or even to enhance existing products. Importantly, food scientists may use any section of the strategies to enhance the new product, depending on the current phase of development of the new product. (In addition, the many definitions of new products, as described in Chapter Two, and the five phases of a product's development accounts for the combination of possible variables wherein the strategies could be used). Furthermore, food scientists unaware of the resulting impacts of FPD, having utilised the Enhanced FPD Framework and strategies, may now enhance the design, process, and production of the new food product based on this new information. Currently, the notion that impacts and in particular, adverse negative impacts result from FPD, is excluded from within the food industry. Where impacts are understood, the components and activities that result in adverse impacts are studied in isolation. The more comprehensive version of these strategies, including a detailed series of questions, is presented in Appendix 4-2.  These strategies begin with team issues and then  highlight each Phase within the Enhanced FPD Framework. Each Phase is discussed generally, in relation to the Impact Equation 4c, and then in more detail. Questions incorporate FPD activities and the different components.  81  A roadmap highlighting the objectives of Chapter Four is described below in Box 4 (Figure 4-0).  Components and concerns, questions and strategies are synonymous throughout this  chapter. Box 4: Roadmap of Objectives 1. To present a logic-based Approach to Constructing the Guiding strategies explaining the activities and components that result in adverse impacts within any project, such as FPD (Section 4.1); 2. To present (Table 4-1) Guiding strategies Relating to the Enhanced FPD Framework; 3. To present an abridged version of the actual Guiding strategies (Section 4.2), first, the team management of the Enhanced FPD Framework (Section 4.2.1) and second, the Guiding strategies (question-based) pertinent to the Concept Phase (Section 4.2.2) and then the Maintenance Phase of the Enhanced FPD Framework (Section 4.2.3); 4. To present the generic Economic framework for FPD (Section 4.3); the Relationship between the Economic framework, Enhanced FPD Framework and Guiding strategies (Figure 4-1); Steps within the Economic framework (Figure 42); Details within the Economic framework (Table 4-2) and the Comparison of Existing FPD and Enhanced FPD Framework (Table 4-3).  Figure 4-0: Roadmap of Chapter Four  82  4.1  Logic-based Approach to Constructing the Guiding strategies The purpose of this section is to set the foundation for the Guiding strategies. Presenting the activity-component, Impact Equation, where Equations (4a, 4b and 4c) illustrate the activity/component reaction. Understanding the potential impacts is a prerequisite to the Guiding strategies. Table 4-1: Category of Strategies Relating to the Enhanced FPD Framework, describes an impact awareness list relating to the questions that need answers within each Phase of the Enhanced FPD Framework.  At present, the existing FPD frameworks does not comprehensively involve a multifaceted decisionmaking process to anticipate, analyse, and disclose consequences (i.e., adverse impacts) associated with the complete process of developing new food products for the marketplace. Moreover, the existing frameworks, and the plans, programmes and policies associated with food development, concentrate primarily on the production of food with the focus on research and development (R&D), production, and the marketing potential. Alternatively, "Impact Assessment is a multifaceted decision-making process. A process to anticipate, analyse, and disclose consequences associated with  proposed  [food  product  development] activities with respect to established policies for protecting and enhancing the natural and anthropogenic environments" (Modak & Biswas, 1999).  "Environmental Impact  Assessment is based on the understanding of how the natural world functions and how social technological and economic forces interact with environment and resource issues.  An  understanding of the natural processes allows the prediction of the consequences of development" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). The Final FPD Framework developed in Chapter Two is improved by the incorporation of Impact Assessment (IA), which resulted in the Enhanced FPD Framework, described in Chapter Three. By utilizing the Enhanced FPD Framework, the development of new food(s) may include an early warning process to balance consequences related to the dissimilation of food products into the marketplace.  Combined into the impact-based framework, the concerns of new food  development will be foreseen and addressed before the product, Commercialisation Phase. Basic understanding of the consequential adverse impacts due to FPD is based on the project-environment  interaction equation proposed by Prasad Modak and Asit Biswas in  "Conducting Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). Modak and Biswas (1999) suggest that impacts are interactions within a project (i.e., similar to those projects which develop a new food product through the Enhanced FPD Framework) and the surrounding physical environment, where impacts are essentially changes to this environment. The activity-component impact equation is characterized as: 83  (4a): [Project] + [Environment] - » {Changed Environment}  Essentially a 'project' consists of a number of activities and 'environment' consists of several components. [Project]  =  The sum of the activities and components equals the degree of impact.  (Activity)i,  (Activity) ...(Activity) 2  (Component^...(Component),,.  n  and the [Environment]  =  (Component)!,  Hence, the impact relationship becomes, (Activity)i,(Component)j  -> (Impact),;, where (Impact),; denotes the impact on the ith component due to the jth activity as depicted in: (4b): (Activity)i * (Component); - » (Impact)^  Relating to FPD, and Equations 4a and 4b, the activities required to produce the new food product and the components of social, environmental, and economic concern, as a result of this production, equals the impact.  The impact is essentially the issue requiring further  investigation (Modak & Biswas, 1999). Additionally, the activities within FPD (i.e., the Phases within Concept, Screening, Development, Commercialisation and Maintenance) also include activities such as employment, food production location, water supply, waste disposal, and transportation logistics.  The FPD  activities are identified in Chapters One, Two and Three and include those activities required to produce the overall product from initial idea and raw material choice to target consumer(s). Components for this research relate to the disconnections of food, humankind, nature, culture mentioned in Chapter One, and the social, environmental, and economic feasibility concerns associated with FPD discussed in detail in Chapter Two.  These components focus on  social acceptance (i.e., nutrition) and social relevance (i.e., health) of the new food product. In addition, components include the environmental concerns of resource drain and increased landfill (i.e., damage to the physical environment due to by-products of FPD) and energy use throughout FPD. In addition, the economic feasibility of accounting for these external costs and benefits in relation to private costs and benefits of the new FPD proposed related to assessing all the costs involved. Though positive impacts occur, the object of this Chapter is to further investigate the significance of undesirable impacts and to reduce and remove these impacts before new product is developed.  This includes prediction and assessment of the potential impacts and mitigation  measure to ultimately reduce them before production. Undesirable impacts and mitigation measures are both costly, but evaluation of the predicted adverse impacts to determine warranted mitigation should reduce the cost of the impact. 84  Mitigation measures in FPD cases would lead to a reformulation of the product.  Understanding  mitigation within the activity-component Impact Equation is depicted as follows:  (4c) (Activity)j * (Component)j -> (Impact)^ - » (Prediction and assessment)  Mitigation measures -> (Residual Impact)^ Consideration of the possible activities and components that make up FPD is key to utilising this equation.  Using Equation 4 c , Guiding strategies are formulated where "the  principles of the guidelines are to focus on the main issues, involve appropriate people, link information to the appropriate decisions, use clear options and information useful to decision makers" (Modak & Biswas, 1999). These Guiding strategies are presented in the style of questions to focus action rather than reaction on an extensive set of requirements relating to potential impacts and the diverse significance of new food products (Goldberg, 1998). Table 4-1: Category of Strategies Relating to the Enhanced FPD Framework, presents the breakdown of these questions and importance of each Phase, Stage and Step within FPD. Due to the importance of the Concept/Screening Phase, the questions attributed to these sections are presented in more detail.  All questions are based upon the prior identification of significant  impacts. All significant impacts are based upon activities carried out within the FPD project and upon components influenced by the development. Within FPD, each activity relating to a potential impact is identified. Each component, whether social, environmental, or economic, is identified. The activity-component Impact Equation aids in evaluating the residual impact of FPD after identification, prediction, and mitigation of the concerns has been completed (Equations 4a, 4b  and 4c). To clarify, Table 4-1 shows the sequence of questions posed within the Concept/ Screening Phase (Al) relating to the social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns (i, ii, iii) and the activities of FPD (op, rm, f, p, pd, fp, c). Impacts equal reactions of concerns (components) and FPD activities. The activities of FPD are the same in each category, but the components may be different.  This is because each new food product will be manufactured  through the same development phases, but may produce an array of different concerns. Beginning with the social (i) concern of overall nutrition (i, a) the questions address the impacts resulting from nutritional concerns of the general overall product idea (op). The impacts resulting from the nutritional concerns (i, a) in relation to the choice of raw materials (rm), formulation (f), the actual FPD process (p), production (pd), and finished product (fp) before the product reaches the consumer (c) are then addressed. So, one component or concern is evaluated through all the activities of FPD, from raw materials to consumers. This process is repeated for all  85  the social related concerns (i), then the environmental (ii) and then economic feasibility concerns (iii).  '  '  Within the social component, overall nutritional concerns are targeted throughout the overall product development and the raw materials that formulate the product.  Health concerns  focus on the overall product and consumer awareness focuses on issues of employment and empowerment of consumers using the proposed product. Environmental components include the concerns of resource utilisation of raw materials and the degradation of the environment due to the disregard of these raw materials once the product is consumed. As well as the utilization of energy resources that are as important. Each decision is weighed by realistic evaluation of the costs and benefits (i.e., the private costs versus external costs and private benefits versus external benefits).  This economic  assessment (highlighted in italics) is then utilised in the Economic framework (Section 4.3) that includes financial analysis pertinent to the development of the new product. It is important to note that A*(Description of Action) is not included in the Enhanced FPD Framework as already in FPD each new product produced will have a project development action plan.  Moreover, the legal ramification of C9 (i.e., Legal statements associated with the  development of the new food product) is not included in this Enhanced FPD Framework. The food industry is not subjected to government approval in the development of new foods. However, in the future, there may be a need for more control and even though it is beyond the scope of this thesis to investigate the legal issues, C9 is included in the structure of the strategies.  86  Concept (and Maintenance) Phases, Stages and Steps of FPD Stages A, B, D, E & Steps 1-10  Activities * Components = Impacts (Equation 4c)  FPD Activities Components/Concerns Overall product idea (op) Social (i) Raw materials (rm) Nutrition (i, a) Formulation (f) Health Promotion (i, b) Process (p) Consumer Awareness (i, c) Production (pd) Finished product (fp) Consumers (c) Raw materials Environment (ii) Formulation Resource use (ii, a) & degradation Process Energy (ii, b) Production Finished product Consumers Economic Feasibility (iii) Raw materials Process Identifying all the aspects that Production would go into an economic Finished product feasibility assessment Consumers As above (rm) (p) (pr) As above (i) (ii) (iii) where A2—Scoping (fp) (c) where applicable appropriate As above where appropriate A3—Alternatives As above This exists in FPD - not necessary to repeat A*~Description of Action As above where appropriate A4—Baselines As above A5—Impact identification As above where appropriate As above As above where appropriate B6—Prediction As above As above where appropriate B7—Evaluation As above As above where appropriate B8—Mitigation As above Not a issue in FPD though it may in future C9—Legal statements As above where appropriate D10—Monitoring As above El-8—Consumer participation Consumer participation is crucial in Steps 1 - 8 Note: Under Components (Concerns) the Social and Environmental Impacts are investigated before being translated (where appropriate) into the Economic framework and the economic feasibility assessment. Maintenance Phase is similar with less emphasis on Al—Screening. Concept Phase  Al—Screening In more detail than other phases  Table 4-1: Guiding strategies relating to the Enhanced FPD Framework  87  4.2  The Guiding strategies The purpose of this section is to present the Guiding strategies. These strategies support the Enhanced FPD Framework and encompass not only the relevant phases, but also a wide range of thought-provoking questions. The comprehensive strategies are constructive, functional, and flexible for those involved in FPD. A comprehensive version is provided in Appendix 4-2. Presented next is a simplistic version of the strategies, with the first part of this section introducing a review of the team management. The second part includes the Guiding strategies proposed for the actual Stages and Steps within the Concept Phase of the Enhanced FPD Framework (Section 4.2.2). The last part includes the Guiding strategies as they relate to the Maintenance Phase of the Enhanced FPD Framework (Section  4-2.3).  4.2.1 Team management of the Enhanced FPD Framework The management of the FPD team is considered crucial to the success of the Enhanced FPD Framework. Evaluation questions of this team management are presented in Appendix 4-1. Examples of such questions evolve around understanding the purpose of the team and whether there is sufficient expertise within the team for the successful development of the new proposed food product. The team supporting the Enhanced FPD Framework may include nutritionists, health promotion scientists, environmentalists, agricultural economists, and anthropologists, depending on the new food product and of course the potentially significant impacts.  4.2.2 Guiding strategies There are several major Stages and Steps (Stages A-D, Steps 1-10) within these Guiding strategies. Each Stage is presented with a definition of the Stage in italics, followed by several examples of pertinent questions that support the strategies. These questions are based on FPD activities and/or related components such as, questions relating to the overall product, or raw materials relevant to the nutrition of a population.  88  CONCEPT PHASE A l — Screening This Screening Stage is based on an assumption that all new food products have the potential for adverse negative impacts on the related components of product development.  The positive  impacts are for the most part understood within the food industry, for example wholesome, convenient ready-to-eat, user-friendly food products. Focus is now placed on the potential impacts not fully understood before the launch of the new product; consequently, these impacts require further investigation. The Enhanced FPD Framework is a model by which the potentially significant impacts of developing a new product may be recognised and then relevantly addressed and mitigated for, before the launch of such a product.  As in all development, there are numerous potentially  significant impacts that could halter the development process (i.e., factory location, raw material source and grade).  These impacts are essentially damaging for the consumer and impacts  haltered by food scientists involved in FPD. The Screening Stage and subsequent Stages represent the process by which these impacts are first identified and then assessed and evaluated for importance. Once importance is allocated to each impact, the mitigation process may take place, with the ultimate intention of reducing these impacts before development of the new product. The questions within this section related to the overall possibilities aid in understanding principles like environmental concerns, which for the most part are excluded from the current FPD process.  A2—Product Development Scoping Scoping seeks to identify, from the beginning, from all the possible impacts and alternatives that could be addressed, which are significant. Initially determining which are potentially significant, which are not significant and which are unclear in significance. Refining the process of identifying the most significant of impacts continues throughout the new Enhanced FPD Framework.  Strategies relating to Scoping include identification and assessment of the impacts in order to group them as accurately as possible. The relevant questions to aid in this assessment would identify the potentially significant impacts specific to the new product and the activities within the FPD process that contribute to these impacts. The significant impacts of developing new food products, impacts not investigated previously are assessed.  It is important to understand the principle decision-makers in this  89  planning phase i.e., food developers, food engineers, marketing personnel, local authorities, stakeholders and consumers and the roles each play in the determination of the significant impacts.  A3—Consideration of Alternative Impacts Here consideration of alternatives within the FPD process relative to the potential impacts where alternatives include investigating the different types, scales, locations and even operational conditions of FPD.  Investigation of the alternatives may include an important note that one  alternative is a 'no action'option where the product is not developed. Here the idea never goes further in the Screening Phase. It may however, be filed for further research at another stage.  Technologies supporting new ideas are constantly being  improved and the product in question may need support of a new technology for it to be successful. Strategies to determine alternative impacts include questions investigating the design of the new product and alternative activities and possible resultant impacts of FPD. impacts of this proposed FPD need alternative solutions?  For example, which  Do the alternatives change the new  product idea? Discussion of the alternatives includes consideration of other approaches to the proposed product development. Moreover, type refers to type of product, scale refers to scale of production, local or national, locations refers to location of production and market, and operation conditions refers to the conditions required for development and production of the new product. The alternative solutions should not alter the new product; hence, the alternatives should improve and enhance the concept. For example, an alternative process within the development should enhance the health promotion of the product.  Where excessive use of packaging is a  significant impact, the alternative packaging should protect the product from contamination as well as be environmentally benign. Reuse of the packaging material after the consumption of the new product is another alternative.  A4--Social, Environmental Baselines Investigating the relevant components of social and environmental concerns is necessary for understanding the resultant impacts and alternatives. Present and past research is accessible to determine component baselines, that is, at which level the components should remain above in order not to result in a negative impact.  90  Water quality is one example where the amounts of microbes, toxins, and/or phos  (the baseline quantities) are pre-determined. Baseline studies require a brief overview of th  economic environments for the proposed product development, following the product desc with the detailed focused studies in subsequent impacts. Strategies investigating the social and environmental concerns include questions on the types of components and the baselines for each of these components. Understanding that there may be sub-elements to these components and what they are.  A further important question includes,  what is the methodology used to capture the required information? A  list of the  sub-elements;  objectives;  required  information;  methodology  and  findings/measurements are recommended (Glasson, 1994) and the data on environmental conditions vary in availability and in quality (Glasson, 1994). A5—Impact Identification  Impact identification brings together project characteristics related to FPD activities (  baseline characteristics related to components (A4) with the aim of ensuring that all pote significant impacts (adverse or favourable) are identified. Several methods are utilised. Strategies to identify these impacts include for example, questions concerning the method(s) considered more suitable for identification of significant impacts. Regarding checklists, matrices, quantitative methods, networks and overlay maps, which method is most beneficial for the determination of the most significant impacts? Presently in FPD checklists and matrices in the form of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) is used. Enhancing this tool to include these impact considerations would be ideal. B 6—Prediction of Impacts  The object of prediction is to identify the magnitude and other dimensions of identified ch  with the development of the new product, in comparison with the situation without the product. Strategies for the prediction of impacts include determining what to predict and how to predict the impacts, thus, the questions surround the design of the new product, and all-alternative activities and resultant impacts of FPD. For example, what are the direct and indirect impacts? Is there a simple cause and effect diagram associated with the impacts?  91  There is a tendency in practice to use less formal predictive methods, as simple methods suffice. The development of more complex methods can be very time-consuming and expensive. Computer-based simulation or mathematical methods are useful when large numbers of simple calculations are required; there are complex links between the elements; the affected processes are time-dependent (Glasson, 1994). Uncertainty within decision-making can be handled several ways. Issues of probability and confidence in predictions should be addressed (Glasson, 1994).  B7--Evaluation of Impact Significance  Prediction of the impacts proceeds with the assessment of the relative significance. Methods used to determine the significance of impacts are debatable. The use of Cost-Benefit analysis is one method proposed. Strategies to evaluate impact significance include questions on the determinants of environmental, social, and economic significance.  For example, what is the use and value which society has  assigned to the particular impact? A variety of methods are utilised in the assessment of the impacts caused from the design and production of the new food. Determining which method to use depends on the significance, the magnitude and likelihood of the impact and its spatial and temporal extent, the likely degree of affected recovery, the value placed on the social nutrition and health, environment and economic feasibility, the level of public concern, and political repercussions (Glasson, 1994). B8—Mitigation  Mitigation is the predicted measures to avoid, reduce, and if possible remedy significant adverse impacts. Within FPD, planned measures are integrated and coherent to ensure that they are effective in removing or reducing the effect of the potential impacts. Mitigation methods should not conflict with each other and should not shift a problem from one medium to another. Implemented mitigation measures are of little value unless backed with monitoring procedures. Strategies for mitigation include questions on the methods used to avoid impacts of FPD.  For  example, do the proposed mitigation measures avoid or reduce impacts at the source? Do these mitigation measures repair impacts? The actual decisions are made using several methods. Increasing the sophistication of the methods used may interfere with the process of consumer participation and decision-making. Understanding the different methods, the advantages, and disadvantages of each and recognising  92  the potential use for these methods together with the ultimate aims of the Enhanced FPD Framework need account for consumers' interests.  DIO—Monitoring after the decision  Monitoring of the Enhanced framework for the development of new food produ systematic collection of a potentially large quantity of information over a long information should include: indicators, casual underlying factors, opinions relati and the equity of impacts. A monitoring programme is recommended. Strategies for monitoring impacts after residual impacts include, for example, questions on what are the mitigation measures recommended for each significant impact. Is there a summary of the significant impacts identified in the Enhanced FPD Framework? Mediation of the  relationship between the social,  environmental,  and economic  components and the process activities is required throughout the product life cycle. The terms and conditions for new FPD are in the Enhanced FPD Framework.  Follow-through of the product  development implementation and follow-up is important, especially for products with long duration life cycles where impacts need to be monitored on a regular basis. Such monitoring may improve the project management and contribute to the auditing of both impact predictions and mitigation measures. Monitoring and auditing can provide essential feedback into the Enhanced FPD process. El-8~Consumer consultation and participation  Integrated consumer participation is within Stages A, B and Steps 1-8. (In the  include Stage C and step 9, but for now, legal ramification of new FPD is exclude  Development of foods products is assessed through consumer evaluatio marketing departments, sensory taste-panel testing, questionnaires, and surv consumer and customer participation beyond the present FPD process aids in relative significance of any likely impacts. Assuring the enhanced framework pro truthful and complete, monitoring is performed on a regular basis to ensure th development. Strategies involving consumers and customer participation include questions that identify the potential consumers and customers affected by the proposed new FPD process. For example, is there the provision of accurate, understandable, pertinent, and timely information about the  93  development and the likely impacts? Is there dialogue between those responsible for the decisions and those influenced by them? In summary, there are advantages and disadvantages of consumer and customer participation.  Being aware of cultural and ethnic differences will improve the communication  between the food scientist and the consumer involved, in particular when the consumer decisions include a small, rural community isolated from modern development where chiefs and tribal law are considered together with the laws of the state. At every Phase, E10 is relevant from Screening and scoping to mitigation.  4.2.3  Guiding strategies for the Maintenance Phase of the Enhanced FPD Framework The second section of the strategies includes the enhancing of the Maintenance Phase and  the post-launch phase. Here the same Stages and Steps (A - E, 1-10) are utilised in this Tollowup' procedure to FPD. The same strategies within each Phase are addressed, with a purpose of auditing and reassessing the impacts of the new food product, in order to confirm where possible, minimal or no impacts remain, and rectifying those identified. In summary, strategies for the Enhanced FPD Framework presented in Chapter Three are discussed.  These strategies follow Impact Assessment procedure with the Stages and Steps  corresponding to both Impact Assessment and FPD. Actual details within Environmental Impact Assessment are discussed in general.  Moreover, each Stage and Step within the Concept and  Maintenance Phases of the Guiding strategies are discussed in detail. This is for practicality and flexibility, so that those in the food industry and food scientists, in particular, may use these strategies on any product and at any stage of development.  94  4.3  Generic Economic framework for FPD The Economic framework completes the research into the disconnections of food. Addressed within the food Economic framework are the social, environmental, and economic feasibility concerns of the food industry, and in particular Food Product Development. Above all, through the Economic framework, the economic feasibility concerns relating to the private and external costs and benefits are considered. Figure 4-1 presents the Relationship between the Economic framework, Enhanced FPD Framework, and Guiding strategies. Figure 4-2 illustrates the Steps within the Economic framework, and Table 4-2 describes the Details within the Economic framework.  In conclusion, Table 4-3 documents the Comparison  between the Existing FPD and Enhanced FPD Frameworks.  Enhanced FPD Framework (i.e., Section 3.2 and Figure 3-2)  \  Guiding strategies -  Economic framework - to  questions designed to support the steps within the Enhanced FPD Framework  evaluate the economic performance of the Enhanced FPD Framework  Figure 4-1: Relationship between the Economic framework, Enhanced FPD Framework & Guiding strategies.  The Economic framework is used to enhance the economic merits of the Enhanced FPD Framework. As illustrated in Figure 4-1, the Economic framework is designed as a separate entity from the Guiding strategies to highlight its use as another decision-making tool that food scientists and food companies may use in the design of new food products.  The Economic framework  substantiates the Enhanced FPD Framework by identifying all the private and external costs and benefits and computing the Total Net Benefits attributed to FPD and the new food products. Economics is a central pillar of existing FPD but only the financial component is considered. Thus, the economic feasibility assessment highlights the differences of using the Enhanced FPD Framework to assess the same product designed using the existing FPD framework(s). Practically, these differences are analyzed through the investigation of the potentially significant  95  impacts (i.e., Guiding strategies) and determination of the costs and benefits (i.e., Economic framework) associated with the new product. In essence, the impacts that require mitigation are assigned costs and benefits. Furthermore, the Economic framework is designed to allow a dynamic element in the economic feasibility analysis. Food products have distinctive product life cycles, moreover, these products may be improved upon over time, depending on the target market and consumer. By continually computing the Total Net Benefits of the new food product and the improvements made over time, the dynamic assessment will represent these changes. The new product with associated residual impacts is preferred over the initial design. In comparing FPD frameworks, through use of the Enhanced FPD Framework the overall impact of the product is accounted for and where possible, reduced. Through the process of substitution, elimination, reduction, recycling, and reuse of ingredients, and energy, the overall impacts are reduced before the new food product is developed.  Importantly, the social and environmental  impacts may be reduced, but the overall price of the new food product may increase. Any food product prototype must be socially acceptable, environmentally benign, and economically feasible.  If not socially acceptable, the product will fail regardless of other two  requirements. Alternatively, the significant impacts in many food products are interconnected and one is usually highlighted over the others, depending on the new food product proposed. The Guiding strategies are for the identification of the significant impacts in all food products designed through the process of FPD. For example, when a food product is being reformulated and improved upon, and the food scientist(s) may want to enhance the original product already considered profitable, and considered desirable by consumers. Moreover, the food scientist(s) may want to improve the product environmental impact or economic impact (i.e., understand the Total Net Benefit), and consider the product already socially acceptable on the basis that it is profitable and considered desirable to consumers. Profitable does not necessarily mean socially acceptable!  It no longer means environmentally benign or  economically feasible either. The purpose of the Economic framework is to illustrate this point. However, comparing products already purchased (i.e., enjoyed by consumers) and assessing whether these products feature in the definition of socially acceptable, is considered important, but beyond the scope of this research. The Economic framework accounts for more than the financial analysis already applied by many in the food industry. Alternatively, financial feasibility within existing FPD frameworks (i.e., the feasibility phase) includes a financial assessment of the necessary prototype in the Concept Screening Phase of the existing frameworks as noted in Chapter Two.  Moreover, the Economic  framework takes into consideration the array of different possibilities in the developmental process 96  of producing new foods (i.e., the functional properties of the food; company's objectives; government policies regarding safe foods etc.). Throughout the Guiding strategies, economic feasibility is addressed and questions within the Concept Screening Phase initiate an understanding of the relevant economic feasibility concerns associated with FPD and new food product(s).  These economic-related concerns  highlighted within the Guiding strategies are then integrated, wherever appropriate, into the Economic framework. The steps within the Economic framework are described in Figure 4-2. This framework is based upon Cost Benefit Analysis; moreover, investigation into other appropriate methods to base the Economic framework upon led to the consideration of Environmental and Social CBA (ESCBA).  Generic Economic framework 1.  Define impacts  2.  Identify impacts  3.  Quantify impacts  4.  Weighing Costs & Benefits of impacts to calculate Total Net Benefits a.  Weighing costs & benefits between different income groups & in time  5.  Sensitivity and Risk analysis  6.  Modification of the new food product and policy recommendations  Figure 4-2: Steps within the Economic framework In the article "Hard Methods for Soft Policies: Environmental and Social Cost-Benefit Analysis" by Arild Angelsen and Ussif Rashid Sumailia (1996), the principles of ESCBA are established. Discussion of the disadvantages of the ESCBA method over other methods is in this article (i.e., value judgements). Furthermore, Cost Benefit Analysis is an accepted method of assessment within the Impact Assessment literature.  Decisions regarding different or multi-dimensional issues are difficult  without the use of a common denominator.  Within CBA, a monetary value as the common  denominator is assigned to the costs and benefits of the potentially significant impacts. Hence, a more realistic comparison of the impacts is achieved.  The advantage of this is ease of  understanding and assessment so decisions consider the consequences (i.e., potentially significant impacts). There is a need to assess the economic merits of the Enhanced FPD Framework against the existing FPD framework(s). The generic Economic framework accomplishes this as presented  97  Economic framework Private Costs (PC) &  External Costs (SC + EC) &  Private Benefits (PB)  Benefits (SB +EB)  Total Net Benefits  Food product profit  Social impacts:  Environmental  Sum of:  financial i.e., business  the Costs &  impacts: the Costs &  [PB - PC] + ([SB -  plan  Benefits of these  Benefits of these  SC] + [EB - EC]) >  [PB - PC]  impacts  impacts  o  [SB - SC]  [EB - EC]  Table 4-2: Details within the Economic framework  in Figure 4-3. FPD should continue when the sum of the net private costs and benefits and the net external costs and benefits are greater than zero (0). There is a potential bias, however, with the design of this framework that is inherent in such a process of verification (i.e., designing the Enhanced FPD Framework, and Guiding strategies and then designing the Economic framework that confirms the Enhanced FPD Framework). The purpose of the illustrative case study (i.e., a new food product analysed in Chapter Five) is to eliminate potential biases within the Enhanced FPD Framework. Information within the Guiding strategies regarding potentially significant impacts may be used in the overall assessment of the new product, as it was designed using the current FPD framework versus the same product as it was designed using the Enhanced FPD Framework. Within these key points, the Economic framework defines the alternatives identified within the Enhanced FPD Framework and the Guiding strategies. Table 4-2 demonstrates the differences between products designed using the existing FPD frameworks, against the Enhanced FPD Framework.  Presented within the left column, is the activity-component Impact Equation (i.e.,  equation 4a, in Section 4-1). Presented in the middle column is the process flow of a new product (i.e., Product A) as it is designed through the existing FPD framework(s) and the right column presents the process flow of the same product as it is designed through the Enhanced FPD Framework, Guiding strategies, and Economic framework. The two products produced are A and B, respectively. The difference between these two products substantiates the Enhanced FPD Framework and economic feasibility assessment. Furthermore, in this research Product B is considered superior to Product A. Based on a hypothesis that the same product designed using these different frameworks will result in product  98  Impact Equation  Existing FPD Framework (Chapter 2)  Enhanced FPD Framework (Chapter 3)  New food product (i.e., Product A)  New food product (i.e., Product A) New product designed with Industry guidelines: Guiding strategies & Economic framework ALL potentially significant impacts identified & filtered to establish main impacts  Equation 4c: Activity * Component= Impact  No appreciation of the impact equation; Impacts considered on an ad-hoc basis depending on the target market  Prediction & assessment of impacts  If environmental and social related impacts are considered they are in isolation of each other; Financial analysis takes precedence over other impacts; economic assessment incomplete  Prediction & assessment of these impacts; Economic feasibility assessment of main impacts is achieved using Economic framework;  Mitigation Residual Impacts  No mitigation New product designed with changes made to prototype based on financial analysis (i.e., profit margin)  Final Product  Product A  Mitigation of main impacts New food product designed inclusive of residual impacts; Calculated Net Total Benefit & financial and economic analysis complete Product B Economic assessment of main impacts are compared to Product A  Table 4-3: Comparison of Existing FPD & Enhanced FPD Frameworks  A and B, where B will result in residual impacts, and be more socially acceptable, environmentally benign and economically feasible. In summary, the Enhanced FPD Framework, and Industry guidelines are illustrative at this point. To demonstrate the worth of these frameworks a case study is presented in Chapter Five, where a new food product, a complete Bakery Mix, is used to demonstrate the difference in these two approaches. In conclusion, the objectives of this chapter were to understand potentially significant impacts in relation to FPD, and to illustrate how the Enhanced FPD Framework, identifies, assesses, and mitigates fOr such impacts. The Industry guidelines for FPD consisting of Guiding strategies and Economic framework were presented as supplementary to the Enhanced FPD Framework. The Guiding strategies investigate social and environmental concerns, and the Economic framework analyses these concerns in relation to an economic feasibility assessment.  99  Chapter Five: Case Study 5.0  Introduction The Enhanced FPD Framework is now complete with the inclusion of Industry guidelines, which include Guiding strategies and Economic framework. Every stage (A-E) and step (1-10) within the Concept phase and Maintenance phase is presented. Guiding strategies, through comprehensive open-ended questions (Al-screening) increase the awareness of all possible negative impacts associated with FPD and proposed new food product. However, as these negative impacts are often too diverse and numerous to manage efficiently, the strategies assist in identification (A2, A3, A4, A5) prediction and assessment (B6, B7) of the significant impacts. Mitigation (B8) strategies reduce these impacts, which results in an enhanced FPD process and new product. Consumer participation and monitoring are included throughout the overall development process. The Economic framework is used throughout the development to assess the overall costs and benefits of the new product. Impact Assessment has been used internationally for twenty years while the Enhanced FPD Framework is still in the 'blueprint' design stage as of this thesis. The Enhanced FPD Framework and Industry guidelines need substantiation through realistic use within the food industry. Yet, how would the introduction of a case study, with potentially significant impacts, verify the Enhanced FPD Framework and Industry guidelines? What case study or unique new food product would be suitable? Practically, it would be impossible to document the design and development of a unique new food product through the Enhanced FPD Framework . 35  Moreover, how would a new food product developed using the existing FPD framework(sf  6  compare against the same product developed using the Enhanced  FPD Framework? Would the inclusion of the Industry guidelines be evident and beneficial? If a new food product could be used as a case study, would the significant impacts be subjective or would previous experience suffice?  An initial idea for a new product may take 6 months to several years to develop into a marketable food product. Following this process would be beyond the scope of this thesis. Existing FPD framework(s) were discussed in Chapter Two and include the Generic Framework and the five working frameworks currently used in the literature. 3 5  3 6  100  Would issues like market location and consumer diversity be successfully addressed? The food industry is in business of securing profit, so how would the success rate of this product be compared? The case study was chosen because the external costs associated with FPD are comparatively large. Consequently, the social benefits of using the enhanced FPD Framework rather than the existing frameworks are likely to be comparatively large. The purpose of the case study is to show the need for change in the development of new food products by describing the present status quo, and to illustrate that if these changes were indeed made, sustainable progress could result.  In showing the need for change, the case study  community within South Africa is described. The present situation, portraying the daily constraints and influences within this rural community,.where the impacts of introducing new food product(s) are compounded due to the isolation of the community and the diverse array of developmental factors.  Multifaceted developmental factors exist in tension with cultural complexities.  As  described in Section 5.1, these complexities include tribal law interlinked with the governing legal system, lack of education and prevailing superstition, poverty and malnutrition, gender sensitivities and the lack of social structure (i.e., modern medical and health services).  Moreover, this case  study represents a worst-case scenario highlighting existing food product(s) introduced without an understanding of the consequences. The second purpose is to validate the Industry guidelines for FPD and show the usefulness of the Enhanced FPD Framework. The new product is a complete Bakery mix and although not all products have the potential to initiate development opportunities, this product includes the promotion of a small rural Bakery concept. The Bakery mix previously designed for a diverse, multicultural market (i.e., consumer and customer) was formulated following the existing FPD framework of Saguy and Graf (1990).  By taking the product concept (i.e., Bakery mix)  through the Enhanced FPD Framework and Industry guidelines, the concept is enhanced (Section 5.2).  The Framework and guidelines are used in 1) predicting and assessing the impacts  associated with implementation, and 2) mitigating decisions to reduce these impacts so that the Bakery mix concept is socially acceptable, environmentally benign and economically feasible model. A roadmap highlighting the objectives of Chapter Five is described below in Box 5 (Figure 5-0).  101  Box 5: Roadmap of Objectives Pre-Industry guidelines  Use of  Post Industry guidelines  No change  1996 Bakery mix  INDUSTRY  Change Bakery mix formulation  without Bakery  formulation  GUIDELINES:  now accounting for costs &  mix  benefits  Bakery mix but no bakery Bakery mix without Industry guidelines With Bakery mix and bakery 5.1: The need for the paradigm shift  Guiding  Proposed area of case study research  strategies & Economic framework  5.2: Application of Industry guidelines for FPD (i.e., Guiding strategies & Economic Framework)  Figure 5-0: Roadmap of Chapter Five  5.1  Establishing the need for a paradigm shift, Screening Phase The purpose of this section is to describe the developmental concerns and potential impacts of introducing a new food product, a complete powdered Bakery mix, into a rural South African community, Ndumu. The product idea is described as well as its significant impacts on this rural community. Research presented includes that of the author's experience working in the community prior to studying in Canada. Although it has been four years since visiting Ndumu, the developmental concerns have remained the same, and in many instances worsened due to the increased unemployment, crime and disease.  To date the overall developmental concerns of a rural community, Ndumu, in the Matenjwa District of Ingwavuma, situated in South Africa on the border of KwaZulu-Natal, Mozambique and Swaziland are described. Like that of several snapshots, many issues are described, highlighting the diverse range of developmental concerns for any rural African community including Ndumu. Previous development initiatives in rural communities of South Africa have resulted in rural to urban migration; over-population;  tribal discontentment;  family-structure  disintegration;  poverty; limited opportunities for education, unemployment, alcohol abuse, poor health; and disenchantment with the current laws and governing politicians.  These concerns have all  contributed to environmental degradation, excessive drain of local resources, and pollution. The environment in many rural areas of South Africa, even without formal rural communities, is fragile with extreme weather conditions of drought and floods resulting in uncertain agriculture prospects, and subsequent lack of sustainable support for the growing rural population. Land ownership disparities that in the past did not support rural black farmers further  102  complicate the issue of preserving sustainable lifestyles. Consequently, the lack of an essential subsistence diet, water, education, employment and the human dignity that accompanies westernised needs and values has caused many rural people to search for employment elsewhere . This search resulted in a mass-migration to the neighbouring cities. 57  The relocation perpetuated a deteriorating environmental cycle; consequently, reducing the carrying capacity of the surrounding rural and urban environments.  The prevailing social  related consequences due to this relocation of many and the compounding affects of the damaged local environments are still unknown. The health promotional concerns relating to malnutrition, unemployment, poor education and the destruction of family units within the rural areas are continuously being researched . 38  In the past, environmental issues were sidelined due to the perceived importance placed on economic independence.  However, no community can successfully develop without the  integrated care of the local environment and the social well being of the community. Establishing community-initiated projects in preference to aid-based subservience is crucial to the well being of all South Africans . 39  When promoting community skills-building and autonomy, there is a need for placing emphasis on social and environment-related issues during future development projects. Long-term economic and social endeavours require the incorporation and/or reprioritisation of environmental issues in order to remain feasible. Local incentives that are culturally realistic and beneficial are required. Creating opportunities for rural people to remain or return to their rural communities has become a developing ideology, and in fact, is part of the problem this research proposes to address. The consequences of all development endeavours need to be assessed, as the process of development, even sustainable development of people and places, create costs as well as benefits . 40  As opposed to African, any outside influence, be it from the Northern hemisphere, where different cultural norms exist. Unfortunately, problems still exist, with new problems arising from the AIDS epidemic and high crime rates linked to unemployment and water ownership. Based on personal observation with working in Maputoland, with the community of Ndumu, University of Natal, P E A C E Foundation and Makatini Agricultural Research Centre. Sustainable development in this thesis refers to "the management of the Earth's resources such that their long-term quality and abundance are assured for future generations (Callan & Thomas, 2000). The idea was first given prominence in the environmental debate b the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development, led by Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Articulated in the commission's report is a growing concern about environmental degradation and the depletion of natural resources, an emerging crisis caused by industrial, technological, and economic activity, fed by over consumption in the industrialized world and exacerbated by rapid economic growth in developing countries. The commission called for a global commitment to "sustainable development' defined as economic and social activity that meets the present needs of the world's population "without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Rohmann, 1999). 3 7  3 8  3 9  4 0  103  Many look at the benefits and exclude the costs, until the consequences of imparting foreign ideals outweigh the good intentions of transferring knowledge and technology.  These  costs have been too high in creating positive change in rural communities of South Africa.  The  precise explanation for unsuccessful rural development initiatives in the past are unknown, and although theorised upon, remain as yet unsolved. Moreover, there are interconnections between the social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns regarding the introduction of new food products into communities, more noticeably in rural communities. When the social connection of food is removed, environmental damage may result. When environmental damage prevails, social relationships with others and the local environment changes and this then often attributes to a failing in the potential of the community to consume nutritious foods. Balancing of the costs of protecting the environment and improving health within all communities is crucial in the introduction of a new food product. Alternatively, the community of Ndumu is beginning to show signs of damage resulting from  western influence. Western style food products, and in particular sweets and candies, are  sold by the local shopkeeper . Without prior knowledge of the community's needs, this has led to 41  developmental concerns, such as balancing of the community's overall nutritious diet and packaging related pollution. Before any western influence, the community's basic diet consisted of tubers, berries, corn and meat. With increasing western influence, more food products have been added to their diet so that presently, the average diet consists of a range of foods, from ground corn meal, vegetables and meat, in canned, dried and fresh forms. Spread throughout the community, garbage (unwanted packaging) is evident.  It is  blowing in the wind, along the side of the dirt road and up against fences and buildings. Lack of accountability for the increased amounts of packaging within this community has become an issue. Provision has not been made for educating rural consumers about the environmental damage that waste packaging can produce. More importantly, no provision has been made for supplying waste removal and assimilation. Although this gives opportunity for recycling endeavours unique to the community, the safety measure for health regarding waste has also been excluded until recently. Furthermore, the increased amount of sweets and candies in the children's diet is resulting in a change in tastes and preferences with a reliance on foods that may not contribute to a balanced diet without education. Even then, increased tooth decay results due to the children  41  The shop supports the community and represents issues of modernisation and globalisation.  104  being unaccustomed to the increased sugars and having no western-styled dentist in Ndumu. Other social concerns such as cultural appropriateness have also been neglected . 42  The development initiatives in the past have failed, for many reasons, to understand the interconnection of social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns.  Having mentioned a  few social and environmental side effects, the economic concerns are by no means less important. Economic concerns are as complicated because economics includes both a macro-economic and micro-economic perspective, including the balancing of costs between the evident social and environmental concerns, and the positive economic growth for the community. Entrepreneurial-based initiatives are at present the best possible strategy for improving rural African community development. There are many positive attributes to this, but without the community-based growth, be it improved education, nutrition, or affluence, not being specific to the community's needs results in failure. Development that has social relevance and community appropriateness in connecting the social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns make the difference between failure and success of past initiatives. The bakery development and dissimilation of the Bakery mix is an important issue as it includes all the existing FPD knowledge and developmental ideology. Potential impacts of the Bakery concept and Bakery mix surround the introduction of a bakery as the food enterprise, as a justification to sustainable development in this community. A bakery is unique to other forms of food production processes due to the space requirements making it neither costly, nor difficult to build. One well-lit, aerated room, protected from insects, constitutes the basic building requirements. Technological requirements are minimal requiring only an industrially designed oven and working surfaces to mix and knead the bread.  Mixing and  kneading may be done by hand, and though an industrial kneader would improve the process, it is not essential. Energy requirements are minimal due to the climate, nature of the ingredients and possible incorporation of solar ovens.  Firewood and cooking the bread dough by fire is the  traditional version, though research is needed to establish the-cost effectiveness regarding the environment and the human health issue of burning wood versus other power generating options (i.e., solar, natural gas, fuel oil, hydrogen, hydro-electricity, nuclear etc.). The effects of poverty, malnutrition, environmental degradation, pollution, and limited availability of resources within the community are examined with the introduction of a bakery and complete Bakery mix proposal.  Products like soap brands that are introduced and advertised on huge notice boards in the rural communities, when water is scarce and washing does not include baths filled conveniently with hot running water. 4 2  105  The actual new food product includes a complete powdered cereal Bakery mix that was developed in 1994 using an existing FPD framework (Saguy and Graf, 1990). The unique product was never launched, the process pausing at the commercialising phase. The product was designed for several potential markets, one being the rural African market, where the product could accompany a rural Bakery concept. Nevertheless, before commercialisation of the Bakery mix and development of the Bakery concept, all the impacts both positive and negative needed further investigation. Too many products and technologies are being introduced into rural African communities in particular, without prior thought to the consequences, especially the negative consequences. It was important that this bakery product be made to suit the entrepreneurial-based initiatives previously mentioned. Importantly, in order for the new food product to be a success, it would have to become co-opted into the community's lifestyles, thereby benefiting their social, environmental, and economic constraints where at all possible. It was important too, that through the FPD process, a social connection within the chosen market be made. The socially constituted Bakery concept is proposed as an alternative solution to the problems that at present exist in rural communities of South Africa. The goal is to assess the implementation of a small unique bakery and the consequences concerning social community, environmental, and economic feasibility concerns.  Indeed, assessing whether the bakery could  become a catalyst in promoting self-reliance within the community is proposed by linking tradition and culture with suitable sustainable development. The questions that then arise include, for example, determining whether a Bakery mix and bread made from it could be implemented successfully to enhance the rural children's diet and their community's social, environmental and economic needs? Could the formula be enhanced with medicinal properties knowing that the majority of the children suffer from local parasites? Could the children receive enough fortified bread to improve their current mental and physical growth rates?  The overall formulation of the Bakery mix was designed to be adaptive to consumer's needs. The overall number of different products that could be made utilising the Bakery mix was dependent only on the preparation and cooking process, as research was extensive on end-product variations.  Previous versions included low fat, low salt (sodium chloride), potassium chloride,  sugar, sugar-free, fat-free, fortified and non-fortified (with vitamins, functional foods, and nutraceuticals ) raising agents of both chemical and biological nature, versions of differing flour 43  from wheat to percentages of rice flour, corn flour, potato flour, non-gluten flour, rye, brown,  Nutraceuticals are ingredients with beneficial properties known to aid in strengthening the immune system such as selenium, anti-oxidants, probiotics and prebiotics. 4 3  106  whole wheat and versions with the addition of indigenous nutraceuticals and local indigenous drought adapted sorghum. The range also included products like pizza dough and doughnuts, pancakes and rolls that required manipulation of the dough, making this product unique. Whether the dough was fried or baked, with added ingredients changing the end-product so rolls, for example, could then be baked plain or made into cinnamon buns, with the addition of currants and syrup. Manipulation of the versatile dough was the key to the numerous variations. Bread was only one of those variations, and different bread trials proved successful in formulating breads to suit the rural and retail markets. Important to mention is the uniqueness of the market for white bread in rural communities.  For some reason still unknown, the rural  communities of South Africa favour white bread, far more than brown or whole wheat.  The  affiliation with white bread is special in these households, where white bread is often a luxury. In the rural situation, bread made in a black caste-iron container cooked over fire and burning wood coals, was very successful. In the retail market, bulk versions for small industrial bakeries, bread machines as well as, home use in ovens were all successful variations of the same Bakery mix. Product development formulation trials to enhance the nutritional properties were experimental. One successful trial of incorporating dried vegetables and powdered Soya protein changed the few slices of bread into a balanced meal with the correct proportions of proteins, fats and carbohydrates, ideal of the rural community where malnutrition and hunger are the norm. The bread mix designed for the community is cereal based and in the initial phases mixes specific to the rural community (i.e., a mixture of wheat flour and corn flour, known as mealie meal) were proposed. As the community develops and more food crops are grown, the Bakery mix could then be adapted to include locally grown milled grain. (In the long-term, implementation of small community established flourmills across South Africa are endeavours proposed to increase the local economy.  Any Bakery mix contains a high percentage of wheat, which is heavy and  expensive to transport so incorporating locally grown grains containing vital gluten would be more beneficial. A note of caution would include having assurances in place to ensure the milled grain was not contaminated, an assurance that it is available when the original complete Bakery mix is introduced).  107  The actual formulation and uniqueness of the Bakery mix needs only the addition of hand hot , not warm, liquid. 44  The liquid is not limited to water, though water is preferred.  Understanding the rural environment, drought conditions and the difficulty in some rural areas in obtaining water, the Bakery mix could suit a wide range of liquids. The versions of bread made with different liquid additions were formulated with the intention to use liquids readily available when water was scarce such as locally made pineapple beer, sour milk, goat's milk, and soda water.  Attention to choice of liquid is also linked to lactose intolerance and the African  predisposition to this disorder. The quantity of powdered mix-to-water formulation was designed around the average enamelled tin cup used by the majority of the African communities to drink tea and other liquids. Once the liquid is added to the Bakery mix, the mixture is manipulated into dough and kneaded for ten minutes. The dough is then shaped and allowed to prove to double in size. The dough is then baked. The basic equipment for the baking process is relatively simple, comprising large smooth tables that can be well cleaned and sanitised, one for making the dough and the other for cooling the bread; an average sized tin cup; bread pans (where necessary) and an oven (or in some cases a big black cast iron pot and fire wood). Specific to the complete Bakery mix, the bakery room need not be huge, though well aerated, with enough room to fit bakers, equipment and non-food supplies comfortably. There needs to be adequate washing facilities for hands and equipment, and separate storage space for cleaning chemicals and ingredients.  The microbiological hazards of manufacturing bread are  important. Whenever humans and food are together, the potential for food poisoning and the deadly consequence cannot be ignored; however, the basic bread ingredients are quite safe. Flour, which is grown and harvested preferably in a way that prevents the formation of, or processed to remove any Aflatoxins, is the main ingredient. Sugar, salt, yeast, fat and emulsifier stored correctly in sealed containers, will not on their own cause food poisoning. Although these prospects for the community of Ndumu are in the future, investigation of appropriate technology, which adapts to the community is intended. It is important to note that although these formulations were tried and tested, the actual formulation and bakery design appropriate for this specific community was never finalised. A business plan developed for the commercial production of the Bakery mix was never implemented; however, the agreement included producing the Bakery mix in the Food Technology Department of Technikon Natal in Durban. (This business plan is referred to later in the Economic framework).  "Hand hot' is the easiest way to explain without insulting consumer's intelligence, the temperature of the water, which needs to be hotter than warm, but not boiling, and just bearable by hand. Thermometers, measuring cylinders and scales are not regular utensils for many living in rural communities. 4 4  108  Hence, from packaging to water recycling ideas, nutrition and incorporation of local ingredients, the FPD process was extended to meet the consumers' needs without understanding the depth of the consequences of such an endeavour.  5.2  Industry Guidelines for FPD Case Study The purpose of this section is to incorporate Guiding strategies (Section 5.2.1) and an Economic framework (Section 5.2.2) for the Bakery mix case study product.  5.2.1  Guiding Strategies for the Enhanced FPD Framework Case Study The purpose of this section is to where possible mitigate the potentially significant impacts (noted previously in Section 5.1) of launching the Bakery mix into the rural community of Ndumu.  The current Bakery mix product is evaluated against the Enhanced FPD framework and Industry guidelines. Initially, the different formulations of the Bakery mix were designed as an exercise in food product development. Impacts were considered only on the basis of consumer acceptability driven by target market share and profit orientation. The product as designed, is taken through the Industry guidelines to highlight the importance of assessing impacts before the launching phase is carried out. It is important to note that the community requested the introduction of the Bakery mix and Bakery concept.  The cost of the bakery and initial layout costs come from the present  initiative of the South African government to pay for a meal (i.e., lunch) for every student. The ranges of students' ages are between 6 years to 21 years. This is because attending school is a luxury for many in Southern Africa and children work until their younger siblings can physically take over their responsibilities and only then do they attend school. Unfortunately, the downside of this is that in order to meet the daily dietary needs of these older students more food is required.  This community chose to build their bakery and use the funding for the operation,  salaries and Bakery mix. Other communities use the money to purchase lunches already made and packaged for the children. Thus, throughout the case study, issues of how the community could afford such a product and Bakery concept are excluded from the discussion due to the proposed government subsidy.  109  CASE STUDY CONCEPT PHASE E l - 8 — C o n s u m e r participation  Consumer participation, Stage E is inclusive of steps 1-8 so that at every step the consumers best interests are considered.  Moreover, their viewpoints regarding the new food product, where  possible, are included in the FPD process. In the case study, Stage E is discussed here due to the acknowledged importance of consumer participation. The initial introduction of the Bakery mix and Bakery concept into the community of Ndumu was through contact with the University of Natal, Social Work Department, and the regional newspaper. Even though the elders of this community (i.e., tribal Chief, and school Headmaster) accepted the proposed development, the product was never launched into the community.  Al—Screening for Bakery mix and Bakery in a Rural South African Community  Based upon the earlier discussion (Section 5.1) the current Bakery mix, Product A formulation, has the potential for adverse impacts on the related components of product development. The positive impacts are for the most part understood within the food industry (i.e., calories, nutrients). Focus is now placed on the potential impacts not fully understood prior to the launch of the new product; consequently, these impacts require further investigation.  Explanation through the impact equation (4c) and with reference to Table 4-1: {Component: social (i), environmental (ii) or economic (iii)}j * {(FPD Activity}j -> (Impact^ -H> (Prediction and Assessment) -> Mitigation measures -> (Residual Impact^  For this stage, information from Section 5.1 outlines the overall issues pertinent to the Bakery mix and Bakery concept. Section 5.1 is the Screening Phase appreciating the overall picture and the interconnected concerns of the rural community. In understanding the above-mentioned equation, all the issues discussed in Section 5.1, are relevant. The FPD activities account for the present formulation of the Bakery mix, designed in an R&D laboratory and developed in a pilot plant to its present state of formulation.  The  components are as mentioned in Table 4-1, social, environmental and economic feasibility. These aspects together, result in potential impacts.  110  A2—Scoping for Bakery mix and Bakery Concept Scoping seeks to identify, from the beginning, all the possible impacts and alternatives that may arise, which are significant. For the purpose of this case study, the main impact is presented first in each section, followed by subsequent impacts. From section 5.1 an exclusive list of potentially significant impacts are described within the three main categories of concerns. (The note in brackets discusses the preferred impact). Within the social category of nutrition and health, the list of potentially significant (i.e., negative) impacts to introducing the Bakery mix (i.e., Product A) include: •  Compromising the nutrition of the community's overall diet. (The new food product needs to enhance the nutritional diet already existing within the community to be socially acceptable and socially relevant);  •  Changing tastes and preferences of the community for the worst due to the bread consumed, the community suffering due to loss of interest in consuming their local grown and culturally accepted foods (i.e., being sensitive to the values and beliefs of a non-westernised culture);  •  The community losing their social connection to their food (i.e., in this community the preparation and cooking of the food are as important as the consuming);  •  In health promotion, the negative impact of the Bakery mix and bread made from it, if given in aid increases the reliance on others to further develop the community and a subservience to aid relief; In the introduction of the Bakery concept, failure to profit the community financially by providing employment within the community (i.e., that the Bakery would be felt as a community endeavour, a benefit for all in the community and so supported by all in the community);  •  Failing to empower the community, especially the women and in a way as to respect the more dominate male role in this particular community. Emphasizing both men and women work together, equally sharing in the success (i.e., sensitivity to gender relationships).  Within the environmental category of resource (i.e., raw materials) and energy utilization, the list of negative impacts of the Bakery mix and Bakery concept include: •  The over use of resources and degradation of the surrounding landscape, and the unsustainable use of energy for the production, transportation and preparation of the Bakery mix and concept (i.e., use and choice of packaging materials suited to the community as one example of this issue);  •  Scarcity of water within the community due to the bakery operation and bread production. (Within the community, water is a scarce commodity and the bakery development could 111  make this worse due to the production [and cleaning] associated with the bakery. Even the making of the bread in rural households would require water); Insufficient research into the most appropriate energy source for the community whether it be firewood, electricity solar, coal, or oil; •  Damage of local flora and fauna, soil, agricultural quality, geology and geomorphology; water quality; air; climatic factors; and landscape due to development of bakery and use of Bakery mix within;  •  Excessive drain on the communities limited services due to the production of the bakery, whether it includes the incorrect use of cleaning materials in the bakery, water wastage and pollution, or increased packaging discarded around the community from the Bakery mix and bread made from it.  Within the economic category and assessment of the Total Net Benefit of the Bakery mix, the list of negative impacts of the Bakery mix include: •  Incorrect accounting for these costs when evaluating the remediation of the impact; Only accounting for the private costs and benefits, (i.e., financial costs) and excluding any understanding, or assessment of the external costs and benefits (I.e., Total Net Benefit) of the Bakery mix.  A3—Consideration of Alternative Impacts of Bakery mix and Concept  This concerns the consideration of alternatives within the FPD process relative to the poten impacts. One alternative could include the 'no action' option, where the Bakery mix is nev launched into this rural market. Another option is to enhance this formulation to account fo impacts before being launched. Alternative options for all the main impacts are discussed. Here, investigation of the impacts relates to the  FPD activities, which include the development of  the overall product and the assessment of the raw materials, formulation, process, production, and finished product as it reaches the consumer. In the no action option, the impacts are severe enough that no bakery is established and no bread made from the Bakery mix is introduced within the community. A variation of this option includes the Bakery mix being manufactured elsewhere into bread and bread related products and then transported and sold into the community Different formulations, choice of raw materials, types of processes, production energy sources, location of bakery, differing scales of development, and bakery site layouts include a few of the possible alternative options.  112  The alternative options to the negative impact on the overall nutrition of the community's diet being compromised include: Investigation of the choice of raw materials within the Bakery mix formulation, to ensure all are compatible with the consumer's nutritional requirements (i.e., changing the formulation to contain no milk products due to the lactose intolerance of the community); Investigation of suitable additions to the formulation, locally available products that would ensure the product is nutritionally enhanced (i.e., addition of eggs or Soya protein to the Bakery mix to improve the protein contents); •  Investigation of the formulation, so that it suits the local conditions of Ndumu and the taste preferences of the community (i.e., altering the formulation to include a powdered spraydried fat that would enhance the nutritional content, and improve the product taste. Spraydried fat as opposed to other versions commonly used, like vegetable shortening, is less likely to go rancid in the increased humidity and heat of Ndumu);  •  Investigation of the process by which the product is made in the consumer's home (i.e., ensuring the nutritional content of the bread is not jeopardised by cooking over the fire versus in an electric oven); Investigation of the dry mix production process to ensure the process does not hinder the nutritional content of the powdered mix product when produced (i.e., designing an efficient proprietary ribbon blending [mixer] operation that would protect the individual ingredients and not damage the nutritional content of the individual ingredients).  The alternative options to the environmental impact of excessive resource (i.e., raw materials) and energy utilization include: Investigating alternatives to the amount of water required within the community, for the formulation of the bread and the cleaning of the bakery. Training customers to minimise water use (i.e., reuse and recycling of water for the cleaning operation); Investigation of the packaging materials used in the bulk formulation of the Bakery mix (i.e., to ensure the packaging material is reusable, recyclable, and still protective of the product); •  Investigation of the product raw materials to ensure where possible, locally grown ingredients may be used (i.e., changing the formulation to include locally grown flour and ground corn flour where possible); Investigation of the process by which the product is being made to ensure sustainable use of resources (i.e., investigation of the better energy source, firewood, solar or electricity);  •  Investigation of the production and transportation process to ensure sustainable choice or raw materials and energy options are being utilised (i.e., designing the factory to be inclusive  113  of all the energy saving possibilities suited to the African environment, water and electricity saving processes); •  Investigation of all choices of raw materials and energy sources to ensure that the nutritional content of the product remains the same (i.e., the environmental choices are subject to the nutritional properties of the product).  The alternative options to the economic feasibility assessment (of calculating the Total Net Benefit of the impacts) includes: •  Understanding the importance of accounting for the private and external costs and the private and external benefits when evaluating of remediation of the impacts as in the past this issue was excluded;  •  Incorporating the Economic framework.  A4—Social, Environmental Baselines Investigating the relevant components of social and environmental concerns is necessary for understanding the resultant and alternatives impacts. Present and past research is accessible to determine component baselines, that is, at which level the components should remain. Information for this section is taken from Section 5.1 and past experience. The nutritional baseline determinations to assess the extent of the negative impact on the nutrition of the community's diet being compromised include an extensive process of evaluation. blood tests, questionnaires, and surveys would be performed.  Here  Alternatively, research findings  extrapolated from similar evaluations will give an idea of the present state of the community's health. More simply, the average caloric consumption within the community may be used as the baseline, together with the nutritional content of the Bakery mix, to determine the overall nutritional benefit. From experience, the nutrition baseline is borderline malnutrition. The average consumer within Ndumu is malnourished. This malnutrition extends into the poverty and lack of education prevalent within the community. The environmental baseline determinations to assess the protection and sustainable use of resources within the community and production include extrapolation of data already known about the community and overall energy requirements. Careful planning of the production process to change the energy requirements include energy saving light fixtures, and water saving concepts like using the water that circulates in the jacket of the ribbon blender to clean the factory before and after production. The average energy usage rate necessary to produce the Bakery mix, and one loaf of bread from this Bakery mix, including transportation costs to Ndumu is required. This overall 114  quantity may then be reduced where possible using alternative energy sources.  Concerning  excessive landfilling practises, the choice of packaging materials is important especially when there is a limited waste removal service in Ndumu. A5—Impact Identification of Significant Impacts  Impact identification brings together project characteristics related to FPD activities (A3) and baseline characteristics related to components concerns (A4) to ensure no significant impact is excluded in the investigation. The Enhanced FPD Framework has several steps to ensure all possible significant impacts are identified throughout development of the product. In practice, all the methods mentioned (i.e., in Chapter Four and in the IA literature) would be suitable, though from experience in FPD a detailed checklist would be beneficial for the determination of the most significant impact. This is a crucial stage in the evaluation process, as impacts may initially seem severe until an understanding of what makes up the impact shows otherwise. Thus, the concern or activity may be within the level of acceptability, thus determining the impact less significant. For the scope of this thesis, the main impacts are still the same, such as, nutrition of the new product; thus, enhancing the community's diet; and sustainable environmental use of resources and energy. B 6—Prediction of Impacts  The object of prediction is to identify the magnitude and other dimensions of change, which may result, with the development of the new product and comparing situations with and without the Bakery mix (i.e., comparison to background conditions). This is an important stage too, as naturally occurring impacts may complicate the determination of significant impacts. During the investigation, water quality and quantity within the production may be a significant impact if the community experiences a season of drought. Moreover, on average, the daily nutritional content within the community may remain the same or improve regardless of whether the Bakery mix is implemented. Ultimately the introduction of this new product needs to improve the overall nutritional content of the community. In determining what to predict and how to predict the impacts, the questions surround the design of a new product, and all-alternative activities and resultant impacts of FPD.  Here the actual  impact assessment is beyond the scope of this thesis, though the importance of this stage is not diminished. As noted throughout this case study, there are many potentially significant impacts that require further investigation, before successful mitigation. Impacts of different components 115  and concerns makes it difficult to compare however, this stage aids in the comparison by refining the impacts of significance. For this case study, the potentially significant impacts remain the same, such as, overall nutrition of the community and sustainable use of resources throughout the development of Bakery mix and Bakery concept. B7—Evaluation of Impact Significance  Once the impacts have been predicted, there is a need to assess their relative signi Methods used to determine the significance of impacts are debatable. Analysis (CBA) is one method proposed.  The use of Cost-Be  Questions below crystallize understanding  significant impacts. 1.  What are the determinants of environmental, social and economic significance? Determinants of social: added nutritional benefit from bread made from Bakery mix Determinants of environmental: water quality and quantity; packaging; energy use Determinants of economics: highlighting the costs and benefits  2.  What is the use and value which society has assigned to the particular impact? At present, the use and value assigned to nutrition and water, as examples are extremely high. The problems facing a community like Ndumu however, are as the community begins to integrate more 'westernised' development, every issue is as important as the next. Water, education, employment and sanitation are such issues that highlight not only the previous rural isolation, but also the desire within the community for the community to develop.  3.  What are the magnitude, spatial extent and duration of the anticipated change of the impact? The magnitude, spatial extent and duration for the anticipated change of improved overall nutrition should lessen over the years if the development is successful and all children are fed a balanced meal at school, throughout school going years. The difficulty is improving the overall nutrition of the diet'm the community as many are under the poverty line, and though the children may receive food at school, it may be their only meal in the day. Poor nutrition and balancing the deficit can take half a lifetime to correct especially if poor nutrition resulted in malnutrition, seasonal hunger and even famine in the first five (5) years of a child's life. Alternatively, the magnitude, spatial extent, and duration of an impact, such as increased water use, could increase exponentially over the years unless the impact of water use is managed correctly. Education is key, as is inventive ways within production and clean up of both the Bakery mix and bread made in the rural bakery.  Initial use of water must be  minimal and throughout the life cycle of the bakery, water use would have to be, where.  116  possible, recycled.  Unfortunately, other developmental initiatives (i.e., new buildings and  roads) compound the increase use of water. 4.  What is the resilience of the component (i.e., social, environment and economic) to cope with the change? The resilience of the impact of poor nutrition could potentially continue to harm the community for years to come, due to the advantages a well-balanced diet has on overall health.  In particular, the advantages of micronutrient fortification, of reduced morbidity;  increased physical and work capacity; and improved cognitive effects show the importance of counteracting poor nutrition as quickly as possible (Popkin, 1998). In the impact of increased nutrition, education and development of the community, the resilience on the physical environment is poor. Unfortunately as the nutrition and education improves within the community the potential for environmental damage increases. Unless the management of packaging and waste removal is improved, along with the education of the community to deal with the increase in waste, the physical environment will be damaged. Moreover, the impact of increased water use, if unsustainable, will be detrimental to the community. 5.  What is the confidence of prediction of the change? At this point, the confidence of prediction that the change due to increased development would be detrimental to the community and physical environment is very high. The evidence of this is seen in previous development initiatives in many other communities in Southern Africa; moreover, communities that have been damaged due to unsustainable practices.  Thus, in establishing a CBA, the potentially significant impacts are compared relative to one another and assigned relevance.  The top ranking impacts are then mitigated before the  launch of the new product. For the main impacts discussed in this illustrative case study, the costs and benefits of introducing the Bakery mix and Bakery concept are analysed. The purpose of this, as mentioned in Chapter Four (Section 4.3) is to assign a monetary value to the potentially significant impacts. Once this analysis is complete, the main impacts are identified and for the purpose of this case study, these main impacts are estimated (i.e., based on experience designing the initial formulation and working in the rural community). To elaborate, the social costs of introducing the Bakery mix include the cost of improving overall nutrition within the community (i.e., nutrition of the diet) especially for school attending children. Correctly understanding the community's present diet, the deficiencies of this diet and designing foods to compensate for these differences establish these costs. Main impact identified: nutritional content of Bakery mix does not meet the socially relevant and acceptable criteria of the community. 117  The environmental costs of introducing the Bakery mix include the added cost of appropriate technology designed to save water in the production of the Bakery mix and bread and improving the packaging to be more suited to the community.  The main illustrative impacts  identified are water scarcity and packaging. The enhanced formulation includes these ideas, tested but not finalised in the Bakery mix and it is important to establish the economic feasibility assessment of the introduction of the Bakery mix before the mitigation measures are instituted. B8--Mitigation Mitigation is the predicted measures used to avoid, reduce and if possible remedy significant adverse impacts. From the above assessment (and for the purpose of this case study) the main potentially significant impacts include nutrition, water scarcity, and packaging. Understandably, in practice more assessment would be preformed to substantiate these findings. Mitigation methods should not conflict with each other and should not shift a problem from one medium to another. Thus, the mitigation of the main impacts includes addressing the product formulation choice of liquid added and packaging. Previously the main formulation of the Bakery mix and bread included white flour, yeast, salt, sugar, fat, and enzyme complex providing nutrients, carbohydrate, protein and fats.  With an nutritional content of 1493.54 Kilojoules per lOOg consisting of: 8.27g of  protein; 1.66g of fat; 72.5g of total carbohydrates (sugars); Vitamin B12; Thiamine, Riboflavin; Niacin; Vitamin B6; Folic acid and Vitamin C.  The bulk packaging included Low Density  Polypropylene bag (LDPE) and 25KG paper sack and 300mls of hand hot water was required for mixing. The new mitigation measures include researching balanced diet options (i.e., added micronutrient fortification) to enhance the nutritional content of the formulation and the health of the community. In addition, these measures include researching alternative forms of liquid for the production of the bread, whether incorporating goat's milk or local pineapple beer as options. Researching alternative ways to capturing rainwater, like recycling the plastic bag used to store the Bakery mix (i.e., once empty and clean) to save rainwater for the bread. Moreover, production processes need further investigation for water saving initiatives, and education for the bakers to clean with minimal amounts of water. This would include the use of more natural cleaning chemicals (i.e., vinegar and salt) to sanitise surfaces and equipment. Alternative packaging choices of plastic bag (i.e., with plastic tap attached for water collection and storage) and square cardboard box (i.e., with handles for easy carrying and reuse) could be recycled within the community in a variety of ways. From use in the school (i.e., both teachers  118  and children) as well as for storage, packaging could be recycled (i.e., due to their usefulness, cardboard boxes of good quality are treasured items in rural communities). Furthermore, the added nutritional benefits of goat's milk (i.e., as a replacement to water) does not conflict with the overall goal of improved nutritional content of the Bakery mix, improved overall nutrition of the communities diet and improved health. The emphasis on the change in packaging from sacking to plastic container, and cardboard box does not conflict with these nutritional concerns. Finally, within the mitigation phase there are several questions on the methods used to avoid negative impacts of FPD. Below these questions are answered briefly within the context of the Bakery mix and Bakery concept. 1.  Do the proposed mitigation measures avoid or reduce impacts at the source? Answer is - Yes, the deficiencies in the nutrition of the community are enhanced by the product, and the environment is not damaged beyond sustainable practices of water use and the introduction of unwanted non-recyclable packaging;  2.  Do these measures abate impacts on site, in the development laboratory, factory or consumer households? Answer is - Yes to all;  3.  Do these mitigation measures repair impacts? Answer is - Changes in formulation abate the impacts;  4.  Do these measures compensate in kind, or by other means of compensation? Answer is - No;  5.  Do these measures enhance the present FPD framework? Answer is - Yes; the enhanced formulation is an improvement on the initial design.  D10—Monitoring after the decision Monitoring of the Enhanced FPD Framework used for the Bakery mix and concept, implies the systematic collection of a potentially large quantity of information over a long period. Such information should include: indicators, casual underlying factors, opinions on the impacts, and the equity of impacts. A monitoring programme is recommended. In conclusion, mediation of the relationship between the social, environmental and economic components and the process activities is required throughout the Bakery mix life cycle. The formulation of the Bakery mix (i.e., Product A) is enhanced to account for the mitigated impacts and is thus now labelled Product B. Product B is inclusive of Vitamin A and is packaged differently from Product A. The monitoring of these mitigated aspects in the Bakery mix is essential to the success of Product B.  119  Monitoring the whole Enhanced FPD process The above mentioned auditing process is continued even after the enhanced Bakery mix and Bakery concept is launched within the rural community of Ndumu.  As impacts become less  significant, the process of assessment and prediction continually ensures significant impacts are accounted for and the design of the Bakery mix and Bakery concept change accordingly.  120  5.2.2 Economic Framework The purpose of this section is to assess the initial Bakery mix (i.e., Product A designed with the existing FPD framework) against the mitigated version of Product A, (i.e., Product B designed with the Enhanced FPD Framework, and Industry guidelines) using the Economic Framework. Illustrative examples are used to explain the steps within the Economic framework based on the initial evaluation in Sections 5.1 and 5.2. Appendix 5-1 and 5-2 address the costing of manufacturing the bulk Bakery mix. Following the steps within the generic Economic framework (i.e., designed in Chapter Four in Section 4.3; Table 4-2) Product A and B are compared using an assessment of the costs and benefits associated within the private, and external (social and environmental) impacts of FPD. Assumptions of this research include:  •  The business plan calculations and associated agreement of the initial Bakery mix (i.e., Product A) designed in South Africa are relevant for this research. Analysis is done in South African Rand. Inflation is included at a rate of 1.28 since 1998. (Refer to Appendix 5-2 for details).  •  Illustrative examples used adequately explain the importance of the Economic Framework and are appropriate examples (i.e., Vitamin A fortification to mitigate the social concern of improving the nutritional content of the Bakery mix to enhance the communities overall diet, and to also attribute to the health aspect of the community).  Economic feasibility assessment of Product A Step l:Define Impacts:  Following the existing FPD frameworks (i.e., Chapter Two) impacts are defined on an ad-hoc basis, based on perceived consumer needs and market research in the Concept/Screening Phase.  Step 2 & 3: Identify and Quantify Impacts:  Within a Micro-business enterprise at the research institution in Durban, South Africa, the selling price based on fixed costs; manufacturing costs; distribution costs, gross profit percentage, and costs of manufacturing the product in the research institution resulted in a calculation of: R140.90 per 25Kg of Bakery Mix, which relates to R2.82 per 500g (loaf of bread).  Here ends the economic feasibility assessment of Product A.  121  Economic feasibility assessment of Product B Step 1: Define Impacts: Taking the initial Bakery mix through the Enhanced FPD Framework and Industry guidelines (Section 5.2.1) key impacts were identified.  Hence, from the Guiding strategies the enhanced  Bakery mix (i.e., Product A formulation changed into Product B formulation) accounts for the mitigated impacts. Step 2: Identify Impacts: Preliminary assessments of the market and non-market impacts are: In the case of the social related impacts, the illustrative example used to emphasize the nutritional and health concern is Vitamin A fortification; o  The impacts here include: •  The cost of the Vitamin A premix; increased time in mixing; increased risk of macronutrients (quality and quantity);  change in packaging to  protect  macronutrients; •  Socially conscious customers reputation; as consumers live longer they potentially buy more products;  •  Reduced  morbidity;  improved  school  attendance,  concentration  and  performance; increased physical work capacity, improved work output; and improved marginal productivity of labour; improved cognitive effects and increased future productivity and potential earnings and improved job satisfaction; better health; less medical expenditure due to improved health (Popkin, 1998); •  In addition the bakery option, the non-market impacts include better collective community control; less reliance on aid; improved business skills and entrepreneurship.  In the case of the environmental impact of resource use, the illustrative example used is the choice of packaging. o  The impacts here include: •  The cost of the additional packaging; cost of the research and development to improve the packaging; added protection of the Bakery mix.  •  The recycling and reuse of the packaging material; the removal of the discarded packaging material; the capture of rainwater using the packaging; the storage use.  122  •  New packaging impacts must be less than the original sack quality (i.e., packaging with prolonged shelf life and added protection from pests and rodents).  Step 3: Quantify Impacts:  These impacts are assigned monetary values to the costs and benefits to complete this assessment of Product B. Bakery mix -Product B (Illustrative examples of Vitamin A fortification & Packaging Choice per 25 Kg) Benefits  Costs Private  [R2.75 for the Vitamin premix  Better reputation; possible  (Company)  & R20.00 for packaging] amounts to  higher selling price  R22.75. (Consumer)  Personal utility gain from  Possible higher purchase price  fortification; Reuse of packaging amounts to R8.85 External Social  Higher prices covered by Government  Improved nutrition, health &  subsidy, however additional cost of 25 Kg  education; [improved cognitive  Bakery mix would increase by R19.15.  effects; reduced morbidity;  (Addition of R16.40 for packaging as  increased physical work  Product A packaging was R3.60 and  capacity];  Product B was R20.00 so the difference is  Perceived product quality,  R16.40 and;  employment (Popkin, 1998).  R2.75 for Vitamin A costs) Environment  Less garbage lying around in the  None  streets; Less resource drain. Table 5-1: Quantifying Impacts of Product B  123  Step 4: Weighing costs and benefits to calculate to Total Net Benefits  Comparing Product B with Product A, the additional costs of Product B, amount to R19.15 per 25Kg Bakery mix. This is an additional cost of 38c per loaf of bread. The benefits in monetary terms of these changes amounts to at least R8.85 due to the reuse benefits associated with the new packaging. It is then the company's decision and/or government's decision whether the improved nutrition, improved health; better reputation and employment benefits associated with Product B are enough to cover the remaining RIO.30. Step 5: Sensitivity and Risk Analysis  This step is considered important but, beyond the scope of this thesis. Step 6: Modifications of the new food product and policy recommendations  Comparison of the existing FPD framework(s) and the Enhanced FPD Framework is represented in the tables below, Table 5-2 and Table 5-3. Policy recommendations are addressed in the following chapter.  Costs Product A  Benefits  Company  None  continues  as  previous  reaping current benefits Product B  Product B at extra cost of R19.15  Benefits accounted for amount to  per 25Kg of Bakery mix.  R8.85 for improved packaging; Benefits nutrition  associated and  with  health  improved  benefits  of  Vitamin fortification; Employment opportunities within the rural bakery Table 5-2: Comparison of Additional Costs of Product B  In summary, the food industry's classic approach to market based economics is exclusive of social and ecological costs associated with new food product development. As food scientists, economists and ecologists begin to work together more closely; these externalities are, and will be incorporated, by the use of the Enhanced FPD Framework and within the economic feasibility assessment of the Economic framework. The intent of this thesis is to indicate how to enhance  124  this process of assessing the true costs involved. As determined by this illustrative case study, these true costs are as far as possible accounted for. In conclusion, the objectives of this chapter were to present a case study new food product, which could be measured against the Enhanced FPD Framework, and Industry guidelines.  Impact equation and CBA Assessment and prediction of impacts Mitigation Residual Impacts  Existing FPD framework  Enhanced FPD Framework  New product idea (i.e., Product A) By assessing the activities of FPD No assessment or prediction of against the social, environmental and impacts economic feasibility concerns, predictions of the impacts are made No mitigation Mitigation of main impacts New product designed with changes New food product designed inclusive made to prototype based on financial of residual impacts; analysis only (i.e., profit margin) Financial and economic analysis complete  Final Product  Product A @ R140.90 per 25Kg of Bakery mix  Product B @ R160.05 per 25Kg of Bakery mix  External Costs  Not accounted for - financial assessment only  Additional cost of R2.75 for Vitamin A premix and R16.40 for packaging equals R19.15.  External Benefits  Assumed beneficial to consumers (and customers) as present  Improved nutrition and health benefits; entrepreneurial employment opportunities for making bread; Reuse of packaging at a cost of R8.85.  Costs Benefits  Product A @ R2.82 per loaf of bread  Product B @ R3.20 per loaf of bread  Table 5-3: Comparison of the existing FPD & Enhanced FPD Frameworks (with implementation of the economic feasibility assessment)  125  These objectives were completed through use of a unique Bakery mix. As shown by the guiding strategies the bakery mix did indeed have potentially significant impacts unaccounted for in the original design. Adapting the formulation reduced these impacts. The Economic framework then analysed these impacts to determine the true costs of producing the bakery mix. The true costs showed the enhanced bakery mix to be more expensive; however, these additional costs were balanced against the new benefits associated with the product.  126  Chapter Six: Discussion and Conclusion 6.0  Introduction This chapter presents the discussion, conclusion, and future implications of this research. This thesis has provided the foundation for establishing a paradigm shift in the way food scientists and the food industry should produce new foods and reformulate existing foods for new markets. Nevertheless, it is difficult to change the status quo without proof of success, and even then, change is difficult. There are many reasons why the food industry should change to account for the impacts of producing new foods, impacts that have previously been excluded from the equation.  A new food production framework is suggested. It is yet to be  established whether the success rate of new food product development will improve with the Enhanced FPD Framework proposed. Remaining tasks include implementing the Enhanced FPD Framework into the industry. Assessing the new products designed for lessons learnt using this Framework and then, improving the Framework, as necessary. (FPD Paradigm refers to the FPD Process, presented in Chapter One, and the FPD Framework(s) used to perform this process, presented in Chapter Two).  6.1  Discussion The purpose of the discussion is to summarize the differences between the existing FPD and the Enhanced FPD Frameworks. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 highlight these differences and Figure 6-3 presents the case study illustration of the Bakery mix.  The FPD Paradigm is the prevailing process by which new and reformulated food products are currently developed for consumers. Utilising the FPD framework(s) as described in Figure 6-1, step one (1.) is the process by which the primary product reaches the customer(s).  At present, the  main concerns of the food industry are price of the product, its marketability, and safety. Distinctions between consumers are made in an attempt to extend the marketability of the new product.  Unfortunately, this is often done after the new food product has already been  developed.  45  A new food product is designed with one consumer market in mind, but once developed other potential markets are investigated to increase the profitability. Focus solely on profitability is a problem.  4 5  127  This is also true for the second step (2.), where the customer changes the primary product in some way, to add value . Sometimes no actual changes to the product are even necessary, as 46  value may be added in the form of convenience of location, as noted in supermarket chains . This 47  systematic process may continue as described previously in Chapter Two.  The importance of  reassessing this process flow is that traditionally FPD was focussed on steps (1.) and (2.) (the vertical line) with vested interest to determine whether consumers would indeed purchase the new product according to predictions and market analysis. Issues of inputs and outputs, components and impacts (represented by the horizontal line) are considered in relation to the cost of the product and company profit. The disadvantage is that reasons to reduce these inputs are not emphasised with respects to the social, environmental, and economic feasibility concerns associated with the activities of Food Product Development.  The  focus of FPD is primarily to secure profit and while food security is a priority, the individual and synergistic combinations of these concerns are presently not addressed. The result of assessing only steps (1.) and (2.) has effused the disconnection issues consumers now experience with their food and hence catalyzed the need for mitigating the potentially significant impacts associated with the FPD paradigm.  FPD Paradigm with existing FPD framework(s)  1. Primary Product (price)  t  Energy input  Customers  solid waste as  as described in Chapter  Industrial &  2. Secondary Product (price)  described in Chapter Two  Two Consumers (Households)  Further 3° and 4° products & consumers Figure 6-1: Existing FPD Paradigm (FPD Process & FPD Framework)  A marketing terminology of value-added describes the systematic process whereby value is added at each step of the processing stage of the new food product.  4 6  128  Figure 6-2 represents the proposed version of this research, where the impacts and components associated with the activities of FPD throughout the steps 1., 2., Q, X, Y, and Z are now accounted for (both the horizontal and vertical lines) prior to the launch and throughout the life cycle of the new product.  By an in-depth understanding of the process as explained in  Chapters Two and Three, and the application of the Industry guidelines designed in Chapter Four and implemented in Chapter Five, the overall enhanced FPD paradigm emerges.  FPD Paradigm with Enhanced FPD Framework  1. Primary Product Components Social, Environmental Economic feasibility Inputs - labour, energy, water,  Q  Components Inputs Health nutrition  Customers  Impacts related to activities & components Outputs - wastes & pollution,  Same and/or different Location  Impacts Outputs - wastes & pollution, Z  Same and/or different Location  X  2. Products  Consumers  Y  Further 3° and 4° products & consumers  Figure 6-2: Enhanced FPD Paradigm It is important to re-emphasise that the FPD paradigm produces foods for consumers, regardless of whether this process includes customers; however, satisfying all customers' needs is paramount to the continual satisfaction of the consumers . This comprehensive process is further 48  Supermarket chains purchase bulk products and distribute them locally. Customers are consumers as well. If the customers are content with the product they will purchase the product add value and re-sell to consumers.  4 7  4 8  129  complicated by the fact that food products may cross local, regional, and international borders, to reach the diverse range of consumers, be they in the first, third or even a fourth 'world' geographical locations. Moreover, with globalization and free trade, these differences could mean changes from the 'westernized' to non-westernized' values and beliefs. v  The Enhanced FPD Framework addresses these differences by determining the potentially significant impacts specific to the new food product, and target consumer.  For example, each  location comes with a detailed combination of consumers' ethnic, cultural, and gender related impacts. Moreover, transportation logistics as an important support industry increases costs and target markets, with resulting additional potential impacts. Figure 6-3 illustrates a bakery concept for a rural African community, Ndumu, as a case study.  Highlighted here in both the horizontal and vertical planes are the components and  resulting impacts, which are now accounted for through use of the Enhanced FPD paradigm. To reach this point in the research an analysis and synthesis of a wide range of disciplines and concepts has been necessary.  To reiterate, Chapter One illustrates (i.e., conceptual  framework) how currently the food industry is poorly perceived with the flow of modernization distancing humankind, customers, and consumers from their food source.  The all-evident  disconnections are accentuated by the symptoms related to the relative disregard for culture and nature. This is often: 1)  Culture specific in relation to population health statistics which emphasises diet related illnesses like heart disease, diabetes and cancers; and  2)  Nature specific in the ever-perpetuating environmental damage of resource over-use and degradation and ever increasing energy use. The accountability of the food industry and in particular, the FPD paradigm associated with these disconnections is described. Chapter Two analyses the food industry using a complex food systems model (FSM)  simplistically described to illustrate the diverse implications of FPD and the important role of the food scientists. FPD is not a precise science as many versions of the same framework have been developed in recent years.  This is highlighted by the depth of knowledge, expertise, and  (teamwork) coordination involved in delivering a successful food product to the customers and 49  consumers.  No longer based on company reputation and consumer trends, FPD is a complex  process shown by the assimilation of varying frameworks currently in operation.  In order to  change the status quo to include the issues of disconnection and accountability, the FPD paradigm is evaluated.  4 9  Supermarket shelves  130  Chapter Three describes an important way to account for these concerns of social, environmental, and economic feasibility in the Food System, and FPD. Impact Assessment (IA) is used to reduce impacts associated with project developments, which have similarities in the food industry.  The, practical use of this assessment approach, however, may be flawed if not  implemented correctly.  For example, in the mining industry engineers face many challenges  implementing IA. If too much emphasis is placed on legal ramifications, project impacts may go unnoticed, and the overall success of the development is reduced. As a result, an overall approach to the IA decision-making tool is described in relation to enhancing the FPD Framework.  Only after comprehensive review of the FPD and IA is it  appreciated that in combining product development with IA, the FPD Framework is enhanced. The sum is greater than the individual parts. Chapter Four is a synthesis of Chapters One, Two and Three. It is understood that all projects have beneficial and adverse impacts regardless of natural occurring impact taking place without the proposed project. Assessing, evaluating, and investigating alternative options for the basis of mitigation reduce these serious impacts. Monitoring over time to ensure these impacts remain in residual state is recommended.  New Industry guidelines representing FPD are thus  proposed. Within the Guiding strategies, questions based on systematic evaluation techniques are clearly laid out for practical use, and within the Economic framework, a case for economic analysis is presented and then applied in Chapter Five. Chapter Five represents an illustrative case study where specific impacts pertinent to an isolated rural community in South Africa are addressed. The Enhanced FPD Framework is applied to a complete Bakery mix and the formulation, raw materials choice, process and production through to the finished product is assessed for impacts on the social appropriateness, ecological sustainability, and economic feasibility criteria. The Industry guidelines are preliminary at this stage.  When used to evaluate the reformulation of the Bakery mix to reduce key significant  impacts, these impacts are mitigated.  The result is a Bakery mix with enhanced nutritional  content, and ease of use, with an environmental adapted process and possible new choices of packaging. These advantages are weighed against the cost implications.  131  Enhanced FPD Paradigm  Location  1. Primary Product Bakery Mix  Components  Social: nutrition, health promotion, employment, Environmental: resource use, energy use Economic: feasibility Inputs - labour, nutritional ingredients, energy, water, finances O  Primary Customers BAKERY  2. Products Bread & bread related  Impacts related to activities & components Consumers and or customers COMMUNITY  Inputs  Y  Outputs - poor health, poverty unemployment wastes & pollution, over-use & degradation of resources, lack of finances  Same and different Location  X  Components  Social: nutrition, health promotion, employment, Environmental: resource use, energy use Economic: feasibility  Impacts related to activities & components B  Outputs - poor health, poverty unemployment wastes & pollution, over-use & degradation of resources  Same and different Location  Z  j Consumers Mothers making sandwiches for school  Further 3° and 4° products & consumers  children  Figure 6-3:  Enhanced FPD Paradigm with Bakery mix for African community  132  6.2  Conclusion From the preceding research, specific and overall conclusions are presented on the state of the food industry and FPD; Impact Assessment; the Enhanced FPD  Framework, Industry guidelines, Guiding strategies and Economic framework; and illustrative case study. In the following section the main conclusions are stated, and appropriate explanations for these conclusions are provided.  The state of the food industry and FPD: •  The food industry and Food Product Development is comprehensive; o  Food products are complex; •  Nutrients and interactions among ingredients are complicated, the functionalities of these require in-depth understanding;  •  Phases of FPD for one product to reach the consumer are multifaceted (i.e., Concept; Development, Commercialisation and Maintenance);  o  The diversity of disciplines integrated with the food system are numerous (i.e., food science; engineering; marketing; nutrition and health promotion);  o  The numerous objectives within each discipline that are essential if one successful new food product need to be developed;  o  The  diversity  of consumers (i.e.,  age, gender;  religion; ethnic;  culture  backgrounds); • o  Including economic backgrounds (i.e., affluent versus poor);  The range of different locations consumers may reside in (i.e., first, third or fourth 'worlds');  o  Number of food-related illnesses associated with the production and consumption of foods,  •  The food industry is driven by market saturation and profit;  •  From experience and the literature, existing FPD framework(s) have not confronted the issue of social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns; o  FPD is taught with a reductionistic focus and not examined as a whole system;  o  One universal FPD framework does not exist; instead, several versions are noted in the literature. Food companies often follow their own FPD framework; •  The issue of disconnections of food between humankind, culture and nature are noted individually, studied in isolation, but not understood collectively;  133  •  These concerns are integrated and dependent upon the food product produced and the relevant consumer;  Interdisciplinary teams within the food industry are not the norm;  Impact Assessment:  •  Impact assessment is a useful tool to integrate social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns, collectively; o  IA has been successful worldwide in projects such as mines, where mine development is similar to FPD;  o  The potential benefits and challenges of IA include understanding the systematic process of EIA and variations of IA available; where timing and management are important factors in the successful implementation;  o  It is the concepts of IA that are incorporated into FPD in the design of the Enhanced FPD Framework. The challenges of implementing IA (i.e., within the field) thus apply to FPD. Food scientists understand that there are many unknown impacts within food production and the maintenance stage is particularly designed for this as products are often audited and periodically removed (or recalled) from supermarket shelves.  Even so, the application of IA will need to be carefully  monitored to prevent agency limitations.  The Enhanced FPD Framework:  •  Currently the industry is not set up to cater for a new Enhanced FPD Framework; Enhanced FPD Framework, though still subject to application error, is superior to the existing FPD framework(s) because it allows for social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns to be assessed collectively and where appropriate the impact reduced, prior to the development of the new proposed food product;  •  Guiding strategies are designed to support the Enhanced FPD Framework; o  Include Guiding strategies and Economic framework;  o  Question based to promote problem solving;  o  At best, practical and comprehensive to suit any new food product in any phase of development;  o  Highlights social and environmental concerns within the Guiding strategies;  o  Assessed economic and financial costs in the Economic framework;  o  Understandably, not all impacts will be identified, reduced or mitigated for prior to the product launch, as the Enhanced Framework is just that, enhanced, so the  134  percentage for success should improve, but the life cycle of any food product requires a continual process of auditing performed within the Maintenance Phase. The Case Study:  •  Case study illustrative of a Bakery mix and a rural African community in South Africa is used. One reason rural Africa is used is because in many rural African communities, social, environmental, and economic feasibility concerns are prevalent, and,,the author has had first hand experience in these areas. As these concerns are more noticeable in such a setting (i.e., malnutrition and lack of water) they are more easily identified, with greater urgency to improve them.  6.3  Implications  The illustrative case study presented was of a developing rural African community. The implications of using the same case product in developed, urban Vancouver is presented to highlight the effectiveness of the Enhanced FPD Framework, and Industry guidelines, to focus on the product, consumers, and consequential ' impacts relating to the proposed new food product, regardless of location. Importantly, the implications and strategic directions of the research are articulated according to practice, policy, and further research. It cannot be over emphasised that new food product development and the reformulation of existing foods is a complex, expensive, illusive and somewhat unpredictable and empirical process. As the FPD process is adapted to the demands of safety and long-distance transportation, consumers have been lavished with exotic flavours and tastes from around the world.  Now  consumers demand an enormous array of fresh produce and convenience foods to cope with the stresses of living in the modern world. This ever-increasing demand for appetizing, nutritious, and cheap foods has driven the food industry to improve the processing innovations. New ingredient combinations and nutritional content of foods are used to make foods look more appetizing, serve more functions, taste more natural and last longer with colours unimaginable a few years previous. What social and environmental costs is this market driven process eluding? Who is responsible for the impact (environmental and social) associated with our throw away, consumer-driven, convenience packed food and food-related industry? The proposed Industry guidelines may be considered time-consuming and expensive because of its comprehensiveness, the internalization of ecological and social costs and for the need for expertise related evaluations.  By working together in teams, and utilizing existing  135  research and knowledge, these strategies become a useful decision-making tool. Only when the communication of the concerns, consequential impacts, and responsibility are taken, will proactive changes be made in FPD. Awareness of the issues and potential disastrous implications is a key factor.  Paramount is the fact that each location-associated impact may differ and it is to these  impacts of consequence that the food industry need pay attention. For example, if the Bakery mix formulation and packaging were adapted to suit Vancouver, and an industrial supermarket, like Safeway for instance, the process flow would remain the same. However, the impacts associated with introducing this product into a different culture, ethnic group combination, and economic population group would differ from those associated with rural Ndumu. These impacts, relating to the social, environmental, and economic feasibility concerns need to be researched in detail and new formulations introduced, and designed to limit these impacts.  Only then would this Bakery mix version become socially acceptable, environmentally  benign, and economically feasible. As a preliminary estimation of the impacts and the formulation enhancements for this small bakery in Vancouver, the Bakery mix formulations and bread made from these formulations would include: Safe and nutritious factors:  Bread and formulations made with good quality ingredients in the correct proportions under the quality control and safety requirements laid down by the government of Canada. Social acceptable factors:  Increase the overall nutrition of the diet: •  Promote healthy lifestyles:  •  Fit population groups and be relevant: o  Wide range of cultures, ethnic groups, and religious groups. For example, bread made with range of different flours, like rice and potato and in particular, bakery mixes made from rice flour specifically for the Chinese community.  o  Wide range of specific-nutrition groups, for consumers suffering from obesity, diabetes, gluten intolerance (celiac), lactose intolerance, and different cancers (research based on population statistics).  For example, breads and bakery mixes  made with no sugar, low salt, no gluten, no milk products, added protein, and fortified with Vitamins respectively. o  Wide range of consumers from young children, to elderly including overly stressed, busy consumers with no time to cook elaborate meals. In particular, bread mixes made for bread machines or bread made with peanut butter and jelly swirls already inside the bread.  o  Consumer-sensitive additives would be replaced with natural ingredients  136  Environmentally benign factors:  Local ingredients o  Raw materials, where possible, used with organic versions and local farmers produce.  Process and production of both the local factory and small local bakery would promote environmental protection. •  Reusable and recyclable packaging o  Packaging being in large quantities, would have to take into consideration the cold damp weather, and recyclable potential of various forms of wrapping.  Practical:  Bakery would be re-evaluated in terms of appropriate technology, such as, bread-mixing equipment that is industrial in size and computer-programmed; .  With increased yield and one step process, would allow the baker additional time for other duties; and Manipulations of the dough would be carried out with recipes already designed with these new impacts accounted for.  Economic feasibility factors: True costs accounted for in the Economic framework. These impacts would be similar in concept, regardless of whether the customer represented multinational corporations or local supplier.  All multinational corporations are in  business to serve their consumers, and would theoretically have more resources to investigate potential impacts associated with introducing new foods and reformatting existing foods. Moreover, as multinational corporations produce more food products, so evaluation and assessment of impacts would be more extensive and could lead to localized formulations for localized conditions. Lessons learnt from one product could be used to improve another. Research assessing these impacts could be applied to different products if the impacts were similar, for example in baseline determinations. The Industry guidelines for the food industry were purposely designed to consider these issues.  By using these guidelines, Food Scientists working for multinational corporations would  promote a new paradigm, and be more successful in increasing the success ratio of the new product. The food industry does indeed recognise its role in environmental degradation by supporting subsequent research into industrial ecology, life-cycle analysis, and genetic engineering. Agriculturalists are well informed as are the packaging, energy resource and transportation industries, but is this enough to protect, respect and care for community of life? Where does the food industry and FPD industry stand? Do nutritionists write policies to protect consumers from  137  processed products? How can food scientists work more closely in structuring nutritional policy? How is the promotion of health linked to FPD? It is important that these are clearly articulated so as not to defer from the importance of this thesis and the strategies proposed.  Changing the status quo of the FPD process is an  accomplishment, if and only if, the present paradigm is changed within the food industry to take advantage of the broader world community.  The implications and strategic directions of this research are articulated according to practice, policy, and further research. Implications are addressed first and then strategic directions. Implications: include the educational paradigm, multinational corporations, the food industry, Impact Assessment (IA), technology transfer, and consumer concerns. In practice, with practical implications in mind, changing the educational paradigm is just one minimal way to attempt to reduce the negative and enhance the positive impacts of food production via the design of new food products.  Changing the paradigm takes time because students need to be taught, and  literature and information need to be published with relevant industry-based information.  In  correlation to these articles and books, as new research is established, so is the information that will need to be filtered into the new paradigm. Impact Assessment as a body of research took twenty years to become established worldwide in the product development business. The Enhanced FPD framework will need to be used practically from the present and lessons learnt re-established into the new framework. Universities, colleges, and training facilities will need to debate the concept first and find it practically useful before the concept will percolate into the food industry.  The food industry is  considered a successful multi-billion dollar business, with millions of employees and employers involved in the day-to-day operation. To state the obvious, an attempt to change the status quo will be fraught with difficulties, not to mention opposition. The limitation of this research is that both industry and the research community need to accept a new Enhanced Framework as proposed here. Other frameworks need to be explored as other researchers may agree in part with the concept of disconnections of food and the social, environmental, and economic feasibility concerns, but decide that another framework other than IA is more appropriate to enhance FPD. Moreover, the food industry asks legitimately why should it change now? Why adapt a process that adds initial upfront private costs in relation to invisible external costs later. Who cares about later? Costs are immediate with cash flow being the key to any new business. Why should this industry be proactive in relation to the impacts associated with food production? The majority of the world's population is starving. Is it not the responsibility of the food industry and foodrelated industries to supply adequate quantities of healthy, nutritious and safe foods? 138  In practice, the Enhanced FPD framework and Industry guidelines may be considered time-consuming and expensive. A new learning curve is time consuming, but the benefit of the increased knowledge and expertise that results is still to be tested among food scientists and the industry.  Time in the food industry is expensive, so unless the food products designed have a  better success rate, many in the food industry will only look to the immediate cash flow. The limitation of incorporating the Enhanced FPD Framework is in the fact that the IA approach may be limited when legal implications take precedence over the investigation of consumer concerns, or timing of the project, or relaying of crucial information. So too, the existing FPD Framework(s) are not followed literally as every company has a version formulated to suit its own company objectives, time constraints, potential competition, and market potential. Would the Enhanced FPD Framework be used in the same way? Combining two inexact frameworks will be limiting, if not done with practicality in mind. Transfer of appropriate technology  incorporates difficulties ranging from cultural  sensitivities, correct interpretation of instructions, and depreciation of equipment. No guidelines or strategies can accurately predict or predetermine all the concerns and impacts associated with the interaction of food processes with the environment. Only by documenting the use of the Enhanced FPD Framework and Industry guidelines can improvements be made, and on an ongoing basis. The practical limitations of this research, is the design of placing the consumer participation stage and step E8 last. The guidelines fail to accentuate the importance of the consumer, and although these are addressed briefly in the development phase, rearranging the strategies as in the case study to emphasise consumer participation at each stage is significant (i.e., E8 is labelled E l - 8 and addressed first in the case study).  Policy implications of this research include understanding policy decision-making. Policies combining environmental, economic, and nutritional and health concerns with the food industry are now necessary. How the food industry operates, how the consumers perceive it and how these policies are interrelated should reflect the changing paradigm. Hence, policies may need to change, and be more diverse for a wider range the disciplines (i.e., nutrition and food science).  Policies need to be developed sooner (than later) in the overall process of food  consumption. Policies need to be more integrated within the food industry with different standards and definitions of success relating to these policy outcomes. Moreover, there needs to be policy perspectives of integration to accommodate government and society, as well as the wide range of potential consumers. There is a need for unifying, overarching, and cross-cutting policies that account for the competitive nature of the food industry. In reality, achieving industry-wide policies will be difficult, but even within this competition, failure to do so will limit the advances made by the Enhanced PFD paradigm. 139  To clarify, the concrete steps proposed for government policy (regulations) to see a way for more acceptance of the Enhanced FPD Framework include: •  Working with professional food institutions (i.e., American/Canadian Institute of Food Scientists and Technologist) and food related NGO's to publish working papers introducing the Enhanced FPD Framework; Working closely with Health Promotion, Nutrition, Public Health, Epidemiology, to change food related policies to promote the proposed framework within these fields of research; bringing these fields closer together with a common goal relating to Industry guidelines of new food products;  •  Woking closely with Environmental and Agricultural policy makers to promote the proposed framework and to extent the Industry guidelines to include agricultural endeavours (i.e., organic foods).  The concrete steps proposed for educational institutions (required training for food science majors and food-related majors) to see a way for more acceptance of the Enhanced FPD Framework include: •  Publishing literature on the Enhanced FPD Framework, and Industry guidelines with real life case studies of existing food products being enhanced using the abovementioned;  •  Changing the curriculum within food science and technology institutions to be inclusive of the Enhanced FPD Framework and the more holistic approach to FPD; Retraining food scientists and food technologists to understand and use the new framework and Industry guidelines;  •  Attending food science related conferences to promote the proposed framework and Industry guidelines; Contacting current authors on FPD to promote new framework;  •  Brainstorming (conferences)  with other  food scientist, engineers, marketing  personnel to improve the framework; The concrete steps proposed for corporate cultures to see a way for more acceptance of the Enhanced FPD Framework include: •  Adapting the framework to suit small, and large food companies worldwide;  •  Addressing consumer service and consumer safety institutes to promote the more holistic approach to FPD with the Enhanced FPD Framework;  •  Improve consumer awareness and public pressure for the food companies and institutions to change; 140  Address large corporate companies where reputations are considered extremely important to change and incorporate the new approach. In relation to further research implications, there is still much to be done. Research into the practicality of applying the Enhanced FPD Framework and Industry guidelines in different locations, industries and markets, with different cultures and economic backgrounds would be beneficial to make the new FPD paradigm more accessible for the food industry to assess. Research into making the Industry guidelines, more user-friendly and appropriate, as well as industry specific and even less time consuming would be beneficial.  Research into the  introduction of the Bakery mix (and Bakery concept) into Ndumu would be constructive if documented, in order to show the success of the new product launch, especially with respect to the research of the difficulties faced within the proposed process. New policies written to capture the combination of issues that arise during development of new food products need to be appropriate.  Research in accommodating changes in the relevant FPD fields into the guidelines  would make for a practical adaptable process. Strategic directions include changing the educational paradigm, creating food scientists with more awareness and responsibility of the impacts resulting from food production. Practical strategic directions would include the creation of a database documenting successes. Establishing a database of information on other systems worldwide similar to the proposed FPD Framework, and establishing a database of experts in the field. Practical strategic directions would also include continually refining the new paradigm, identifying gaps in the knowledge and shortcomings. Strategic directions for the food industry would mean less need for governmental policies; and an industry conscious of the resulting adverse impacts. Policy strategic directions would include investigating other IA related tools, such as Strategic Environmental Assessment and Cumulative Environmental Assessment to learn from these policy-related systems.  Once  identifying pertinent information to improve the new paradigm, the concepts can then be incorporated into the Industry guidelines. Further research strategic directions include assessing the Industry guidelines as a worthwhile tool for decision-makers to evaluate impacts and ensure limited or no adverse impacts resulted.  Food-related industries need to work more closely together, and in the future  establishing multidisciplinary partnerships within the food industry.  Nutritional and health  promotion and environmental industries would cement the success of this research.  141  Changes need to be made within the food industry and in particular, the FPD industry as proposed by this thesis.  However, before these proposed enhancements to FPD might be  implemented, the food industry will need to change as well as those employed within the industry. Currently this industry is not set up for these proposed changes. To explain further, the Enhanced FPD Framework proposes that food-related disciplines work more closely together. exist.  At present, interdisciplinary teams within the food industry do not  Promoting ways to share information between disciplines to suit the competitive and  secretive nature of the food industry will be necessary. The Enhanced FPD Framework highlights the need to assess impacts associated with social, environmental, and economic feasibility concerns. Many in the food industry are not aware of these concerns, let alone understand them in combination. Educating those in the food industry to become more aware of these issues is a challenge. Unless profit-driven managers accept the genuine reasons why the industry should change, they will not credit the enhancements or promote the training of their employees. Research institutions need also change their food product development curriculum.  To  support these changes, literature and new computer programmes will have to be developed. Moreover, educating those within the food industry to incorporate this new way to performing FPD will not be without certain challenges. The way in which the enhancements are presented will need to take into consideration personal skill levels and the structure within the food company, and research institution. The proposed enhancements will need to be easy to implement and inclusive of support systems. Changes within the food industry will cause ripple effects, and these effects will be seen in other related industries, which then may change accordingly. Effects will also be seen within the new food products produced with benefits to consumers and their health.  From these ripple  effects, policy changes will need to take place. This research highlights the need for both a bottom-up and top-down approach to these proposed changes. It is not a matter of when to change the food industry, but where and how to best implement these proposed changes.  142  Bibliography Angelsen, A. & Sumailia, U. R. 1996. Hard Methods for Soft Policies: Environmental and Social Cost Benefit Analysis. Forum for Development Studies, 1996:1, pp. 87-114. Callan, S. J. & Thomas, J. M. 2000. "Environmental Economics and Management: Theory, Policy and Applications," 2 ed., pp. 3-28,63-96, 237-252, 253-280, 625-656. Harcourt, Inc. Orlando, nd  FL. Connor, J. M. & Schiek, W. A. 1997. "Food Processing: An Industrial Powerhouse in Transition," 2  nd  ed., pp. 142. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Edinburgh, M. J. 1998. "Refinement and Modification of a complete powdered bakery mix for the consumer". Masters Thesis, Natal Technikon, Food Technology Department, Durban, South Africa. Edinburgh, M. J. 1997. Unique Bakery Mix. South African Patent 96/4887. Faber, M., Oelofse, A., Kriek, J. A., Benade, A. J. S. 1997. Breastfeeding and Complementary Feeding Practices in a Low Socio-Economic Urban and a Low Socio-Economic Rural Area. The S. A. Journal of Food Science and Nutrition. 9(2):43-51. Food Product Development Centre, 2003. http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/fdc/index.html. Friedmann, H. 1993. After Midas's Feast: Alternative Food Regimes for the Future in "Food for the Future: Conditions and contradictions of Sustainability" ed. P. Allen, pp. 213-233. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, New York. Fuller, G. W. 1994. "New Food Product Development: From Concept to Marketplace," pp. 1-264. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla. Glasson, J., Therivel, R. & Chadwick, A. 1994. "Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: Principles and Procedures, Process, Practice and Prospects," 2 ed., pp. 3-496. UCL Press Ltd, nd  London. Goldberg, M. C. 1998. The Spirit and Discipline of Organizational Inquiry: Asking Questions f o r ' Organizational Breakthrough and Transformation. The Manchester Rev. 3(3): 2-7  143  Health Canada, 2003. Population Health Approach, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/phdd/ Health Canada, 2003. Nutrition for Health: An Agenda for Action, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpfbdgpsa/onpp-bppn/nutrition Jiealth_agenda_e.html.  .  Hinds, M. A. 2002. Look into the Future, ed. N. H. Mermelstein. Food Technol. 56(1): 46-55. Hollingsworth, P. 2002a. Developing and Marketing Foods for Women. Food Technol. 56(1): 38-55. Hollingsworth, P. 2002b. Hot topics address Terrorism, Fickle Consumers, and Obesity. Food Technol. 56(8): 48-52. International Health Impact Assessment Consortium, 2003. www.ihia.org.uk. Lord, J. B. 2000. New Product Failure and Success. In "Developing New Food Products for a Changing Marketplace," ed. A. L. Brody and J. B. Lord, pp. 29 - 5 3 , 55-86. Technomic Publishing Co., Inc. Lancaster, PA. Marais, H. 1998. "South Africa limits to change the political economy of transformation", pp. ix. Zed Books Ltd, New York. Maslow, A. H. 1943. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review 50, 1943, pp. 370-396. Mckillop, J. & Brown, A. L. 1999. Linking Project Appraisal and Development: The performance of EIA in Large-Scale Mining Projects. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. 1(4): 407-428. McWilliams, M. 2001. "Foods: Experimental Perspectives" 4 ed., pp. x-xiii. Prentice Hall, Upper th  Saddle River, N.J. Modak, P. & Biswas, A. K. 1999. "Conducting Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries," pp. 1-364. The United Nations University Press, Tokyo. Ottawa Charter. 1986. http://www.who.int/hpr/achive/docs/ottawa.html Pimentel, D. & Pimentel, M. 1999. "Food, Energy, and Society" rev. ed., pp. 1-22. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Co. Popkin, B. M. 1998. Key economic issues. Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 19(2): 117-121. Potter, N. N. & Hotchkiss, J. H. 1995. "Food Science," 5 ed., pp. vii, 16. Chapman & Hall, New th  York.  144  Pyne, A. W. 2000. Innovative New Food Products: Technical Development in the Laboratory. In "Developing New Food Products for a Changing Marketplace." ed. A. L. Brody and J. B. Lord, pp. 259-275. Technomic Publishing Co., Inc. Lancaster, PA. Ridgeway, B. 1999. The Project Cycle and the Role of EIA and EMS. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. 1(4): 393-405. Rogers, E. 1995. "Diffusion of Innovations," 4 ed., pp 112-114. The Free Press, New York. th  Rohmann, C. 1999. "A World of Ideas; a dictionary on important theories, concepts, beliefs, and thinkers," pp.393. Ballantine Publishing Group, New York. Rudolph, M. J. 2000. The Food Product Development Process. In "Developing New Food Products for a Changing Marketplace." ed. A. L. Brody and J. B. Lord, pp. 87-101. Technomic Publishing Co., Inc. Lancaster, PA. Saguy, S. I. & Graf, E. 1991. "Food Product Development: From Concept to the Marketplace," pp. 9-51. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Segall, S. 2000. New Food Products: Technical Development. In "Developing New Food Products for a Changing Marketplace." ed. A. L. Brody and J. B. Lord, pp. 217-258. Technomic Publishing Co., Inc. Lancaster, PA. Shapton, D. & Shapton, N. 1991. "Principles and Practices for the Safe Processing of Foods." pp. v. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Oxford, England. Solomon, M. R. 1996. "Consumer Behavior." 3 ed., pp. xxii. Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey. rd  Suzuki, D. 1997. "The Sacred Balance: Rediscovering Our Place in Nature," pp. 115. The Douglas & Mclntyre Publishing Group, Vancouver. Watkins, B. A. 2002. Look into the Future, ed. N. H. Mermelstein. Food Technol. 56(1): 46-55. Wheelwright, S. C. & Clarke, K. B. 1995. "Leading Product Development: The Senior Manager's Guide to Creating & Shaping Enterprise," pp. 30. The Free Press, New York.  145  Appendix Appendix 1-1: Detailed list of objectives attributed to FPD 1.  Improving safety, quality and cost of existing products, finding new uses for agricultural crops or manufacturing by-products, sourcing ingredients and/or packaging alternatives, evaluating product shelf life, assessing consumer preferences and advising on compliance with labelling, packaging and advertising legislation (Food Product Development Centre, 2003).  2.  Increasing the variety in the diet by providing a range of attractive flavours, aromas, colours and textures in food. Related aims include changing the form of the foods to allow further processing, to provide nutrients required for health and to generate income for the manufacturing company.  3. Tasty, versatile, convenient and healthy staple food reaches the consumer, no matter what the economic situation, foods that anyone, anywhere can benefit from.  Foods that are user-  friendly, wholesome, nutritious, and favourable and full of aroma, of acceptable texture, easy to use, easy to consume, long shelf life and microbiological, analytical and texturally safe are inclusive though not exclusive of the dimension in describing the requirements of a food for a consumer (Edinburgh, 1998).  146  Appendix 2-1: The different types of new food products 1.  Novel - products "newly brought into existence: the rare, never-before-seen product" (Fuller, 1994)  and the "novel, unique, and distinctly untried, unfamiliar, or even  nonexistent" (Segall, 2000).  Also considered classically innovative.  previously  It is difficult to find  examples in this category, as all food products ultimately are variation of what is already on the supermarket shelves.  Examples - frozen juice concentrate; alcoholic rooibos tea (i.e.,  translation of rooibos is red bush, this tea is made from the stems of the rooibos, which only grown in the cape region of South Africa and after being fermented produces a potent brew!) 2.  Line extensions - a new variant of an established line of food products, and they represent a logical extension of a similarly positioned products and they require little developmental and marketing strategy change, no major manufacturing changes, no new raw material sources, no new storage or handling techniques using regular distribution system.  Generally, line  extensions include: a new flavour of a product, new variety and more natural version (Fuller, 1994 & Segall, 2000). Example -Ketchup; green coloured version; 3.  Repositioned existing products/equity transfer products - are similarly described and  thus are one in the same category. Basically, one industry is transferring products into a new market. Thus products that can be redirected into a new market, where manufacturing is unaffected, and development time is minimal, with only new advertising and label design required (Fuller, 1994 & Segall, 2000). Examples - baking soda, a raising agent that may act as a refrigerator deodorant and a restaurant/coffee shop franchise deciding to market its distinctive sauce/ coffee using its restaurant/franchise name; 4.  New form of existing products - instantized, solubilized, granulated, tabulated, powdered, foamed, concentrated, spreadable, frozen versions of existing products (Fuller, 1994). Example - instant coffee;  5.  Reformulation of exiting products - 'new and improved' and there is some improvement notably to better colour, flavour, and shelf life stability (Fuller, 1994).  Example - Birdseye  custard powder (i.e., changed from a synthetic to natural additive to improve colour and flavour); 6.  Innovative and value added changes made to existing products - difficult to categorize as initially they seem similar to reformulations and new forms of existing products. The examples explain the difference, as innovative products include a value-added  processing stage.  Examples - simulated crab legs, lobster chunks, shrimp and scallops based on surimi technology (Fuller, 1994);  147  7.  Conversion products/new packaging of existing products  - bulk produce packaged  into unit packaging, and snack products and different packaging materials designed purposely to extend shelf life of existing products (Fuller, 1994). Example - snack packs of biscuits; and 8.  Miscellaneous - definitions of types of new food products which could fit into any of the above-mentioned categories include clones, temporary, private label. Clones represent similar versions of competitor's product; temporary includes for example, Easter eggs and Passover breads, and private labels are having one company package their product in another companies packaging and using this company to market it through their different distribution system (Segall, 2000). In this category there is another definition that should be included and that is, culturally selective products.  These products though well known in one country and/or culture, are  unique to another country and/or different cultures.  Due to globalisation, food products  culturally unique are being integrated into other cultures, and expanding the boundaries of potential target markets. Examples - include rooibos tea, biltong, mealie meal pap (i.e., South African versions of food products consumed by many African cultures that are presently being introduced into the Canadian culture).  148  f  4  1  15  SJ 5  '3  QJ  c  c  >i ,2-5 81 < M |lO  HI <  OJ c C L OJ  tO  i/5" OJ  O, Q J  E -o  E  §r . _  =  E  w  _  5  tJ  a  T3 O y c  I—.  >- o  Q .  lo  JS  I lo  I  CO  ro <  >  Q .  CL  CL  .E  C .!= O  < HH  0J  LU O j - >  jIo lo  I  i i  11 I  11 11  QJ «0  o a  Im  3  Q.  J2 E  i  II 1 I ii 8 •SJ  I*  "3  SJ t>  CH  LO  in  C j , ^  s  i_  Ilo  II  «!  13^  -SJ  a Set  -5  OJ  c o a  s  a  si  0J  _>  (A OJ  a 3 O  O  Ul  Q  149  OJ  a. a.  u OJ  QJ  E S2  0J OJ t— Q.  2  ,QJ !?>  •c: QJ  C  <  B  JS  E  O QJ  ro  -a  Q .  HH  IS si  a  LU  i_  u) < in  OJ  l-H  3  _ro  * - OJ 2 o CI- Q. ro Si  <  LU  •E £ H H o QJ LU 3 VI .2 QJ B i n» E 2 ¥> V. .SJ, 53£ Q>£ l =J -2 ro toi p  .2 8 u w<  II  lo  ro 5  ui  W  E  < i—i  LU  0J  EE  l  <  ro  o>>£ ro  re a.  O E  E TS JB  > .SJ, § a  c  < I—I  in  Q.  ro 5 <  5 ^  ro OJ  0 J OJ  l  1  V )  .Cl.Cl  <  -a  S c 2 i2 a. a.  O. QJ  •SJ -9J ^  LU O  ro ro  1  " W I LU X< LU  O  o  •F  "> re (A  I  c  ro ^ S o <=  E  S8  13  IO o 1? <UCL CL  JS &  J=  .10  8  .8 .6  J~I  Ii I SJ ^ 43 I ill  10 10 O SJ 'u t! " QJ  _ ti 0J  I  t  Si  .1  ^  •SJ  St iP  SJ  1^  il  I*J  I1  1  la  0J >  •5 H  % £ a. OJ to a.  OJ  >  E OJ OJ a.  *i ui >  OJ  to a.  !  s  5  s 1  S-fi ^ 111  < u  c  LU  0» c E V  c E i 5 >o (A (A IjB •> V) < to 111 < in to ui [2  QJ C  C  I  E  _ —  ai  c <u  tLraJU X  .2  JS  1  I  Lo •  < LU  U  3  JS  I  Lo  I  <  «a V)  <  3  SS  JD  lo  lo  L5  < i—i  4->  LU  .2 $  u tf) <  ; o w HH to < to  I ,1 3  I  I  I  ILo  LU  i 0) E _ tf)  < i—i LU  u o  i_  JS  2  I  lo  JS  3  r  qj c  8? 11 11 "s §  I  ss  !  i  t l CL  0. fi  I  LU  J3 i_  JS  I  lo  I ^ .§ ^  I  1  < LU  lo  lo  1  i£  &  •is  si  •Si fi  " '8  -S  1?  Q 1. S  *r  V)  0 c 01 °  = JS <  I  IS  qj  u o  Bt  a  6  !  ti  i—t  Q.  I  3  <  E £  > s  1  I  SI  lo  _ u JS ro 6  Si  4>  JS  u  5  §.<Ofi  sail  I  11is 38  81 Ul  a.  4-1  'to .E  150  ra c o 'S re N  'E L? >  O £  a. vt .E c c  .2 'G re c  JS CC  Q. 4-1  P^  1)  u  I  I  Is  SO  01 01 (A  re  I 1 .1 2  (A  03  2  | ^ "5? c;  re •o o Z  8- ^  "5 <J  S  01  c  LU  8  >  E  o  JS  I Lo  OJ  ao  JS 10" OJ  —  .a re H  I—I  «2 8 2'5 5! < I C (fl LU M LU < l/l  E  QJ  <  <  <  l-H  E  LU  (A  i_  iH <  HH  8  LU  QJ < JS  J2  8«  •3 re 2aj  8 i_  I  H I  c  in  I LU X < LULo  S- UJ c v c  <  N  HH  <  <  S u <  <fl  u , O (fl u> <  <££  2  HH  JS  hH  I  in  Lo  HH  UJ  re c o '& c  .5 s Qj  I i  QJ > C  uo  < J  !is * Si 1  SJ QJ  CJ QJ  a..o  0J  E  u u  4j  QJ  u cn 2. c  V  4-1  a.  aj _ re E 5 £ J3 E 2.  <  (A  ™  OJ  £ .2 re  (A U  "JJ3  2 re  c  fl  (A a  LU  E  QJ  X £ ui  I—H  HH  .2  re o  « < 01  u  _  _  .—  HH  QJ re  Appendix 4-1: Guiding strategies 4.2  The guiding strategies  The first step to the strategies is to include managing team issues and in FPD, the interdisciplinary team involved in the coordination of the development of the new product consist of food scientists, food  engineers,  marketing, advertising, quality  control,  legal,  packaging, nutrition and  management specialists. In the Enhanced FPD Framework the contribution of the interdisciplinary team of specialists is coordinated according to priority of mitigating related impacts. In this new framework catering for more team members, more ideas, changes to these ideas, and updating the development process includes managing the changes to the development process. Specific to the new framework, the questions relating to the team composition are noted below:  4.2.1 Team management of the Enhanced FPD Framework 1.  What is the concise purpose of the team? Who are the members of the impact management team? (Organizational; design roles, authorities and responsibilities?)  2.  Who will manage the specialist contributions, liase with the people involved in the project process; incorporate the proposed changes and co-ordinate the process?  3.  How are the consumers and customers likely to be affected by the new FPD?  4.  What is the strategy of the team relative to policies, programmes, procedures, plans, budgets and other resource allocations  5.  What are the human and non-human resource support services?  6.  Which area of impacts will the new product affect the most?  7.  Is there enough expertise in the areas of the impacts? Are consultants required?  8.  Is the proposed product still feasible considering the limitations to the team?  9.  Where will the product be designed, produced and marketed, and sold? Are these different locations, locally or internationally?  10. What are the regulations regarding the impacts in these locations, do they differ for each?  152  4.2.2  Guiding strategies through  the concept stage of the Enhanced FPD Framework  This section of the framework includes the enhancing of the concept stage, the process design and the product design of the FPD framework and then the maintenance stage, auditing the new design.  Due to the dynamic character of impacts strategic (policy related) and cumulative  (collective over time) and consumer risk assessment related concerns are also included. stage is discussed in general, and then explained through the impact equation, 4c.  Each  Questions  include discussion of components and FPD activities that result in potential impacts as discussed in Table 4-1.  (Where necessary for clarification, the traditional or current FPD framework is  compared as noted in [ ] brackets). CONCEPT STAGE A l ~ Screening  All new food products have the potential for adverse impacts on the related components of product development. Focus is now placed on the potential impacts not fully understood prior to the launch of the new product; consequently, these impacts require further investigation. Impact regulations are location specific; that is the country regulations where the product is to be commercialized should be followed.  Explanation through the impact equation (4c) and with reference to Table 4-1:  Individual and accumulative impacts within the food industry on the social, environmental and economic components related to food production are the result of the related activities of FPD. Total impact management requires prediction, assessment and mitigation measures to establish residual impacts. Decisions are made as to whether the new food product should be launched in the original design or if changes need be incorporated for less impact and for the sustainable management of these impacts throughout the product life cycle.  Understanding the possible  activities and components that make up FPD is the essential. In the activity-component impact equation 4c, this stage is concerned with understanding the whole equation. {Component: social (i), environmental (ii) or economic (iii)}i * {(FPD Activity}^ -» (Impact)^ -» (Prediction and Assessment)  Mitigation measures -* (Residual Impact)^  Where * is multiplied and sum of all the possible combinations  153  In the screening stage, the process followed is not only that described in Chapter Two, it is a process that now incorporates a comprehensive understanding of all the product activities of FPD that have an affect on the social, environmental and economic components relating to consequential impacts. General examples include activities such as sanitation, which is associated with the environmental components of water use, water pollution and biodiversity. The activity of choosing specific ingredients for the new product is associated with the agricultural components: environmental loss of land and natural areas, deforestation, biodiversity, fertiliser use and pesticides, and transportation resulting in impacts. Choosing specific ingredients may also be associated with health components: obesity, cancer and heart disease.  The balancing of  components economically within the production of new foods, include weighing the costs of improved technologies, reduction and reuse of resources and discounting with the cost of the resulting impacts. Questions asked incorporate issues on the design of the new product idea based on new ingredients, or ingredients in new combinations or even new technologies, and incorporate all activities and components of FPD. Questions asked within the screening stage are purposely openended due to the character of new food products being unique. (Within the other major steps and stages the strategies include concrete recommendations).  Strategies relating to impacts of Social (i) Nutrition (i, a) * Overall Product (op)  Within the screening stage questions focus on the impacts of such a new product idea on social concerns: nutrition and health promotion concerns for the ideal consumers and the community in which they belong, taking the nutrition a step further than understanding the functionality of each of the individual ingredients and how they interact within the product.  Assessing the overall  product idea, including raw materials, formulation, and process beyond the existing approach to highlight the noted socially acceptable concerns.  Nutrition (i, a) * Overall Product (op) 1.  Nutrition is the study of all processes of growth, maintenance and repair of living body, which depends upon the digestion of foods. Awareness is now placed on understanding whether the product will benefit the consumer's overall diet. [Existing approach does not emphasize this question, that foods are more than essential and specific market-capturing commodities]. Does the product formulation address the issue of growth, maintenance or repair? Which nutrients are specific to these attributes? [Existing approach understands the potential consumers; this approach takes the nutritional aspects further to promote health].  2.  Does the product aim to reduce the impact of malnutrition or under-nutrition? 154  [Understanding that many consumers live under the poverty line where malabsorptive hunger, seasonal hunger and famine are common occurrences, the traditional FPD approach is to produce food with lesser regard of the consumers' financial status, demographics or ethnic backgrounds, unless designed with a particular consumer group in mind. These foods are marketed to reach all consumers, more than those initially thought of when designing the actual food product.  Are those connected with this development aware of the major  nutritional concerns that consumers especially in the third world countries may face if this product is introduced into their community?] 3.  What are the physiological and psychological impacts associated with this product?  How  'culturally appropriate or relevant' is this new proposed product? 4.  As the consumer group is identified for the new product, where would this product fit in the total diet of the consumer when considering Canada's food guide as recommended by Health Canada? Does the product add value to the consumers overall diet? [Should foods be labelled as such to promote consumer awareness of their overall dietary intake?]  Nutrition (i, a) * Raw materials  5.  (rm)  Identifying the raw materials necessary for the new product, what is the overall nutritional impact associated with the product? ingredients).  (Raw materials include packaging and individual  Cost is always considered a factor in the formulation, but now nutritional  concerns are highlighted.  Are the choice of ingredients and raw materials considered  nutritious? Which of these raw materials could be recycled, reduced, removed or substituted to aid in the overall product nutrition and health promotion? [Preservative and additives have nutritious connotations and as new research is published about specific ingredients so the formulation, where appropriate, may improve the nutritional impact]. 6.  Which raw materials are found locally and could be substituted into the product along the FPD process?  Could any of the raw materials be grown locally according to the consumers'  demographics and would these substitutions improve upon the nutritional quality of the product? What would the challenges be for the food safety concerns of the product?  Nutrition (i, a) * Formulation  7.  (f)  Does the formulation and combination of the ingredients affect the nutrition of the product? Which raw materials are consumers concerned about? Do the raw materials influence highrisk consumer groups, and which are they? consumers' nutritional needs? 155  Could the formulation change to suit specific  [Should foods become even more consumer specific? Traditionally this is just touched upon as many companies change their product formulations accordingly.  Proactive action towards  consumers' nutritional needs is emphasized with product formulations reducing impacts associated with consumers' food preferences].  Nutrition (i, a) * Process (p) 8.  Is the process used to produce the product nutritionally damaging to the individual ingredients and/or overall product? Do these impacts continue into the consumers' realm? What are the consumers' perceptions of the process used to complete the FPD? technologies enhance the nutritional status of the product?  May appropriate  What are the product-product  interactions, product-packaging interactions associated with nutrition? What are the different processes that could be used to enhance this product and what are the nutritional changes that occur? [New technologies used in the production and by the consumers are relevant to the success of the product, and whether the product is baked, boiled or fried changes the nutritional status. What are these nutritional changes?]  Nutrition (i, a) * Production (pr) 9.  Does the production affect the nutrition of the product?  (When the production process is  improved upon or changed, the nutritional properties may change also). Strategies relating to impacts of Health Promotion (i, b) * Overall Product (op) (1-13)  1. As the product is introduced into the market how will the product be received? [The capacity to adapt to, and respond to, and even control life's challenges and changes, depends upon many factors including food choices (Population Health Approach, 2003) 2.  Introducing the new product will have an influence on the population; what will this be?  3.  Is education a factor in the choosing of this product?  4.  Does employment factor in the development of new product?  5.  Does gender, culture, ethnic backgrounds play a role in the new product?  6.  Does the new product aid in achieving health for all?  7.  Does it aid in decreasing inequalities within the community?  8.  Does this product aid consumers' to cope with health related issues?  9.  With health promotion as a response: what mechanisms are needed to respond to the challenge of health promotion?  10. Where does FPD framework challenge health promotion?  156  [In the Ottawa Charter on Health Promotion (1986), to advocate, enable and mediate by building policy, creating supportive environments and strengthen community action is promoted.  Within the proposed FPD framework and new food product are these criteria  followed?] In summary of the screening stage: nutrition and health promotional components, the impacts of the finished product on the consumers highlight consumers' diet choices. In assessing the adequacy of a balanced diet, answers to questions like what foods are eaten, when, and in what quantities, and which consumers are choosing to eat which products are necessary. These questions are difficult to answer because consumers' diet choices are diverse and include many different factors. The purpose of highlighting nutrition for the consumer within the FPD framework is to promote health. Nutritional concerns are important when the FPD process is outside of the nutritional policies written to improve food choices consumers make.  Strategies relating to impacts of Environmental (ii) Resource Use and Degradation (ii, a) and Energy Use (ii, b) * Overall Product (op)  The impacts of new products on the environmental components include: resource use (raw materials and ingredients) and degradation of these resources once the consumers have consumed the product and the environmental energy resources required to produce the new product. Attention is given to the overall energy requirements. Assessing the overall product idea, including raw materials, formulation, and process beyond the traditional approach to highlight the noted concerns in both the food-resource cycle and the food-energy cycle.  Environmental resource use and degradation (ii, a) * Overall Product (op) The Enhanced FPD Framework promotes environmental benign products and the production of these products.  In relation to designing and producing the new proposed product, what  environmental resources are required? jeopardising food security?  Can these resources be utilised sustainability without  Determining how close poverty and environmental over-use and  degradation of resources are integrated within the design of the product.  Environmental resource use/degradation and energy requirements (ii, a & b) * Raw materials (rm) 1.  Identify the raw materials necessary for the new product. What is the overall environmental impact associated with the product?  (Raw materials including packaging and individual 157  ingredients as well as energy use).  [Cost is always considered a factor in the formulation,  however environmental cost attributed to the utilization of raw materials and the degradation of the environment resulting from this use need to be carefully considered as impacts. Are the choice of ingredients and raw materials considered nutritious and how will this influence the environmental resource allocation?] 2.  Which of these raw materials could be recycled, reduced, removed or substituted to aid in the overall product environmental promotion? [Understanding that in some instances secondary consumers may struggle with poverty].  3.  Which raw materials are found locally and could be substituted into the product along the FPD process, and in particular within the consumers? Could any of the raw materials be grown locally according to the consumers' demographics and would these substitutions improve upon the resource use and energy requirements of the product?  4. What would the challenges be for the food safety and nutritional concerns of the product? 5.  What are the energy requirements for the production and consumption of the product?  6.  What energy related raw materials are used and what alternatives are feasible for design production, and primary and secondary consumers?  Are these alternatives considered  sustainable? 7. What raw materials are used for cleaning the operation, within production and the consumers preferred processes? Are these raw materials feasible for the consumers nutritious and health requirements? What are the costs attributed to these raw materials?  Environment (ii, a&b) * Formulation (f) 8.  Does the formulation and combination of the ingredients require specialized energy requirements? Which of these are consumer concerns? Do the raw materials affect high-risk consumer groups, and which are they? consumers' needs?  Could the formulation change to suite specific  Proactive action towards environmental concerns is emphasized with  • product formulations requiring less environmental impact.  Environment (ii, a&b)* Process (p) 9.  What are the consumers' perceptions of the process used to complete the FPD process? May appropriate technologies apply that enhance the status of the product? What are the productproduct interactions, product-packaging interactions associated with the environment? What are the different processes that could be used to enhance this product and what are the environmental changes that occur?  158  Environment (ii, a&b) * Production (pr) 10. Does the production result in environmental impacts? Are raw materials being over-exploited? What are the alternatives and are they feasible? What are the energy requirements for the product and are they sustainable? Strategies relating to the balance of Economics (costs and benefits)  Within the new Enhanced FPD Framework, products will be designed and produced with consequences in mind on the resulting impacts. Changing the statue quo may be expensive, and companies will not be willing to change, and rightly so, without valid reason.  Economic (iii) * Overall Product (op) Dynamics highlighted by the economic feasibility concerns in Chapter One and Two, the private costs versus external opportunity (social and environmental) costs and private benefits versus external benefits attributed to sustainable FPD are determined.  Here, in this research the  Enhanced FPD Framework balances more favourably on accounting the externalities of production on social, health, nutrition and environmental degradation prior to the launch of the new product. At the relevant stages of development the economic based questions include: 1. What are the private costs associated with the activities and components that make up the potentially significant impacts? 2.  In changing the activities and reducing the impacts what are the private costs?  3.  What are the external opportunity costs?  4.  What are the private benefits and what are the private costs?  5.  What are the ethical issues of answering these questions?  Strategies relating to Strategic concerns  Strategic: Social (i) 1.  Nutritional policies are focused in promoting optimal health for low-income consumers, particularly over critical periods. Is the FPD framework nutrition responsive? Should policy intervene?  2.  In the food strategy and safety policy, prevention of contamination along the FPD process is paramount. The consequences of the impacts related to the new food products needs to include food safety on a local, national and international level.  3.  Within the sustainable food supply, enough good quantity food that promotes rural economies and sustainable development is promoted. Where does the new food product fit?  159  4.  In the integrated approach to food and public health where does the FPD process to the new food product apply? How can the design and production of the new food product be improved upon to enable the flow to be more harmonious?  5.  Does the FPD impact food nutrition on public policy?  Strategic concerns: Environment (ii) 6. What are the policies associated with the resources required for the proposed product, the allocation and utilisation of the resources, before and after commercialisation?  Strategic concerns: Economic (iii) 7. What are the strategic economic policies in place for the consumers and how does these influence the new product, the commercialisation and consumers overall success? Strategies relating to Cumulative concerns (Time dependent)  Cumulative concerns: Social (i) Nutritional baselines in the majority of people are decreasing, and there is a high incidence of nutrition related chronic diseases where diet is second to tobacco when considering non-genetic factors of poor health (Nutrition for Health: An agenda for Action, 2003). In the agenda for action, integrating nutritional services into the existing health system is recommended. 1. Where does this new product fit in the health system and is there additional nutritional support for consumers in relation to the new product? [Decreasing economic productivity and quality of life, with changes over time may result in significant health related impacts]. 2.  What are the overall positive impacts of the new product?  3.  Does the new product reinforce healthy eating habits and practices; support nutritionally vulnerable populations and enhance overall food availability?  Cumulative concerns: Environmental (ii) 4.  Over time how will the environmental resource allocation and degradation influence the product?  Will the formulation of the product change with the research on environmental  concerns?  Cumulative concerns: Economic (iii) 5.  Over time the costs and benefits both social and private will change. Maintaining the balance between these costs and benefits for the new product and its consumers is crucial. Are there systems in place to account for the change? 160  Strategies relating to Consumer risk assessment  Risk assessment: Social (i) 1. What is the overall social impact of the new product for all the consumers? 2.  Does it aid in employment, empowerment, entrepreneurship, health promotion and overall nutrition?  3.  Is there a specific area of concern i.e. health of young children consuming large quantities? What is the scientific research and literature pertaining to these concerns? Is more research needed to update the literature on the latest research on this concern?  Consumer risk assessment: Environment (ii) 4.  Considering the overall environmental impact of the new product for all the consumers, what are the consumer risks?  Does the new FPD framework promote environmentally benign  practices?  Consumer risk assessment: Economic (iii) 5.  Are the production, product, and introduction of the product economically feasible? [Ethical dilemmas in determining the distribution of these costs may be an issue. Understanding the ethics of decision-making may alleviate the concern].  This stage incorporates a comprehensive evaluation of the product development process and the impacts. Activities related to these impacts involve not only those necessary in FPD. Components are numerous though for reasons previously mentioned, regarding the lack of connection humankind faces with their food, concerns of social overall nutrition, health promotion as well as environmental and economics are emphasised.  161  A2—Product Development Scoping  Scoping seeks to identify, from the beginning, from all the possible impacts and alternatives that may arise, which are significant. Initially determining which are potentially significant, which are not significant and which are unclear in significance. Refining the process of identifying the most significant of impacts continues throughout the new Enhanced FPD Framework.  Strategies relating to scoping include (1-5):  1.  In the development process what are the potentially significant impacts specific to the new product?  2.  What are the activities within the FPD process that contribute to these impacts?  Which  components relating to the social, environmental and economic feasibility concerns relate to potentially significant impacts? 3.  In understanding the impact equation and the overall plan regarding the development of the new product what are the potential alternatives? Where were these alternatives researched?  4.  Rank the possible impacts into categories of significant, not significant and of unclear significance. Then eliminate those impacts that are not significant and combine those with unclear significance into the category of potentially significant.  What are these significant  impacts? 5.  Under what category does the potential impacts fall: physical, socio-economic; direct or indirect; short-run or long-run; local or strategic; adverse or beneficial; reversible or irreversible; quantitative or qualitative; actual or perceived relative to other developed products?  A3--Consideration of Alternative Impacts  Here consideration of alternatives within the FPD process relative to the potential impacts where alternatives include Investigating different types, scales, locations and operational conditions relevant to the FPD process. One alternative could include the 'no action' option, where the new product is not developed, or launched in a particular market  Explanation through the impact equation (4c) and with reference to Table 4-1:  In the impact equation, this stage is concerned with understanding the whole equation deducing alternative action. Consideration of the alternatives and comparison between these has a direct influence on the potential impacts. Component issues remain the same with respects to the social, environmental and economic categories highlighted in the screening stage.  162  By changing the  activities (highlighted in the equation) related to FPD, and mitigating the significant impacts, change will result in residual impacts. (Product Activity)! * (Component)j -H> (Impact^ -> (Prediction and Assessment) -> Mitigation Measures -> (Residual Impact^  Strategies to determine alternative impacts include (1-7):  Questions involve the design of the new product and investigate alternative activities and possible resultant impacts of FPD. 1.  Which impacts of this proposed FPD need alternative solutions?  2.  What are the alternative types and scales for such a product development? What are the alternative locations, in design, development, and commercialisation of the new product?  3.  List the alternative processes involved in the FPD. Do these alternatives cause less impact with respects to the social, environmental or economic components? Are the alternatives more beneficial overall than the original impacts?  4.  Can these alternatives be explained with the use of the health and environmental concerns?  5.  Do the social impacts conflict with the environmental impacts? Do the alternative activities reduce this conflict?  6.  Can these alternative activities be explained with economic cost/benefit analysis?  7.  Do the alternatives change the new product concept?  A4—Social, Environmental, Economic Baselines  Investigating the relevant components of social, environmental and economic concerns is necessary for understanding the resultant impacts and alternatives. Present and past research is accessible to determine component baselines, that is, at which level the components should remain above in order not to result in a negative impact.  Explanation through the impact equation (4c) and with reference to Table 4-1:  The sum of the activities and components equals the degree of impact. The establishment of baselines includes both the present and likely future state of the components (highlighted in the equation) assuming that a proposed product is not undertaken and taking into account changes resulting in natural events and from other human activities (Glasson, 104). ,  (Product Activity)! * (Components)]  (Impact^ ->  (Prediction and assessment) -> Mitigation measures -> (Residual Impact^  163  Strategies relating to social, environmental and economic concerns (1-3)  1. What are the types of components (concerns) in question? 2.  What are the baselines for each of the components?  Are there sub-elements to these  components and what are they? 3.  What is the methodology used to capture the required information?  A5—Impact identification  Impact identification brings together project characteristics related to FPD activities (A3) and baseline characteristics related to components (A4) with the aim of ensuring that all potentially significant impacts (adverse or favourable) are identified. Several methods are utilised. Explanation through the impact equation (4c) and with reference to Table 4-1: (Product  Activity)!  *  (Components)j  -» (Impact)^ ->  (Prediction and Assessment) -> Mitigation Measures —> (Residual Impact^  Strategies to identify impacts include (1-11):  Questions are concerned with which method(s) are considered more suitable to determine the identification of significant impacts. 1. When choosing a method, specific aims need to be considered. What are these aims? 2.  Does the method chosen provide a comprehensive coverage of a full range of impact?  3.  Does the method distinguish between positive and negative; long-term and short-term; reversible and irreversible?  4.  Does the method help identify secondary, indirect and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts?  5.  Does the method aid in distinguishing between significant and insignificant impacts?  6.  Does the method allow a comparison of alternative development proposals?  7.  Does the method consider impacts within the constraints of an area's carrying capacity?  8.  Does the method chosen incorporate qualitative and quantitative information?  9.  Is the method easy and economical to use?  10. Is the method able to show unbiased and consistent results? 11. Regarding checklists, matrices, quantitative methods, networks and overlay maps, which method is most beneficial for the determination of the most significant impacts?  164  B 6—Prediction of impacts  The object of prediction is to identify the magnitude and other dimensions of identified change that may result with the development of the new product, and comparing situations with and without the new product.  Explanation through the impact equation (4c) and with reference to Table 4-1:  (Product Activity)! * (Environment Component)] -> (Impact),] -> (Prediction  and Assessment)  —> Mitigation Measures —>  (Residual Impact^ Strategies for the prediction of impacts include (1-24):  In determining what to predict and how to predict the impacts, the questions surround the design of a new product, and all-alternative activities and resultant impacts of FPD. 1.  What are the alternative types and scales for such a product?  2.  What is the magnitude versus the significance of the impact? Is there a difference?  3.  Is the determination of the magnitude of the impact an objective or subjective approach?  4.  What are the direct and indirect impacts?  Is there a simple cause and effect diagram  associated with the impacts? 5.  What is the geographical extent of the impact: local, regional, and or national?  6.  Are the impacts beneficial or adverse? Is the impact beneficial to one component and adverse to another?  7.  What is the proposed duration of the impact?  8.  Are the impacts reversible or irreversible?  9.  Are there cumulative and synergistic impacts that need to be predicted?  10. What are the quantitative and qualitative impacts? 11. Are there explicit units in which to present the impacts for a basis for evaluation and trade-off? 12. Do the predictions include estimates of the probability that an impact will occur? 13. How to predict the impacts: which methods and models to use? 14. Which model best suits the impact prediction: mathematical or mechanistic models, mass balance models, statistical models, physical, image or architectural models, field and laboratory models? 15. What is the appropriateness of the chosen method for the task involved, in the context of the resources available? 16. Are the necessary resources available including time, data and range of expertise to use these methods? 17. Will the methods produce replicable results and be free from analyst bias? 165  18. Will the methods be consistent so that the method may be applied to different product development processes to allow predictions to be compared? 19. Are the methods adaptable? 20. Is more than one method appropriate? What are they? 21. What are the types of uncertainty in the decision-making? 22. What are the uncertainties about the project? What information regarding the possibilities or investigation, research, surveys, analysis and forecasting is needed? 23. What are the uncertainties regarding the guiding values?  What objectives require clearer  objectives regarding policy guidance, clarifying aims, setting priorities and involving others? 24. What are the uncertainties regarding the related decisions?  What possibilities require co-  ordination for liaison, planning, or negotiation?  B7—Evaluation of impact significance Once the impacts have been predicted, there is a need to assess the relative significance. Methods used to determine the significance of impacts are debatable.  Explanation through the impact equation (4c) and with reference to Table 4-1: (Product Activity), * (Component)j -H> (Impact),; -> (Prediction and Assessment) - » Mitigation Measures -> (Residual Impact^  Strategies to evaluate impact significance include (1-8): 1.  What are the determinants of environmental, social and economic significance?  2.  What is the use and value which society has assigned to the particular impact?  3.  What are the magnitude, spatial extent and duration of the anticipated change of the impact?  4.  What is the resilience of the environment to cope with the change?  5.  What is the confidence of prediction of.the change?  6.  Is there existence of policies, programmes, plans and procedures against which the need for applying the new framework can be determined?  7.  Is there the existence of environmental, health and nutritional and economic standards against which the proposal can be assessed?  8.  What is the degree of public interest in the health, environmental, and economic issues associated in the production of the new food product?  166  B8—Mitigation  Mitigation is the predicted measures to avoid, reduce and if possible remedy significant adverse impacts. Within FPD, measures must be planned in an integrated and coherent fashion to ensure that they are effective in removing or reducing the effect of the potential impacts. Explanation through the impact equation (4c) and with reference to Table 4-1:  (Product Activity), * (Component)j -> (Impact)^ -> (Prediction and Assessment) -> Mitigation Measures -> (Residual Impact),; Strategies for mitigation include (1-5):  Questions on the methods used to avoid impacts of FPD. 1.  Do the proposed mitigation measures avoid or reduce impacts at the source?  2.  Do these measures abate impacts on site, in the development laboratory, factory or consumer households?  3.  Do these mitigation measures repair impacts?  4.  Do these measures compensate in kind, or by other means of compensation?  5.  Do these measures enhance the present FPD framework?  D10~Monitoring after the decision  Monitoring of the Enhanced FPD framework for the development of new food products implies the systematic collection of a potentially large quantity of information over a long period of time. Such information should include: indicators, casual underlying factors, opinions the impacts, and the equity of impacts. A monitoring programme is recommended. Explanation through the impact equation (4c) and with reference to Table 4-1: (Product (Prediction  Activity)!  *  (Component)j  and Assessment)  ->  -> Mitigation  (Impact)jj - > Measures ->  (Residual Impact)^  Strategies for monitoring impacts after residual impacts are determined (1-6):  1.  Is there a summary of the significant impacts identified in the Enhanced FPD Framework?  2. What are the mitigation measures recommended for each significant impact? 3.  What are the monitoring requirements for each mitigation measure?  4.  Who is responsible for the monitoring of the mitigation measures?  5.  What are the timing and/or frequency of the monitoring?  167  E1-8--Consumer consultation and participation  Consumer participation is integrated within stages A, B and steps 1-8.  (In the future this may  include stage C and step 9, but for now legal ramification of new FPD is excluded). The use of consumer and customer participation beyond the present FPD process aids in determining the relative significance of likely impacts. Explanation through the impact equation (4c) and with reference to Table 4-1: (Product  Activity)!  *  (Component)j  -»  (Impact)^  -»  (Prediction and Assessment) -> Mitigation Measures -> (Residual Impact),;  Strategies involving consumers and customer participation include (1-6):  1. Who are the consumers and customers affected by the proposed new FPD? 2.  Is there the provision of accurate, understandable, pertinent and timely information about the development and the likely impacts?  3.  Is there dialogue between those responsible for the decisions and those influenced by them  4.  Is there assimilation of what the consumers and customers decide? Is there feedback about actions taken?  5.  Where are the places that the information to the consumers and customers can be consulted?  6. What are the ways in which they may be informed? 7. What manner should the consumers be consulted by? 8.  What are the time limits allocated to the various stages of the procedure in order to ensure that a decision is taken within a reasonable period?  168  Appendix 5-1: Factory Manufacture of Case Study Bakery mix 1.  Place all minor premix ingredients into a container;  2.  Mass all major ingredients and sieve into the 50Kg capacity Ribbon Blender;  3.  Mix mixture for 5 minutes;  4.  Add minor premix and mix all ingredients for 25 minutes;  5.  Sample from various positions to check mixing efficiency;  6.  Place into packaging (LDPE bags and paper sack) and or sacking of 25Kg capacity.  169  Appendix 5-2: Costing For Manufacturing of Bakery Mix. Cost of original Product A As determined by the original business plan the selling price of Product A, inclusive of gross profit, distribution and fixed costs equals R 140.90 per 25 Kg of Bakery mix. Additional considerations due to the change in formulation to Product B  New Manufacturing Costs for Product B Vitamin/Mineral premix to enrich Bakery mix Due to the addition of Vitamin A premix purchased specifically with substantial overages to compensate for processing and storage loss, including Vitamin BI, B2, B6, Zinc, Vitamin A, Iron, Nicotinic Acid and Folic Acid, an additional cost of R2.75 for this premix in now included.  New packaging ideas for environmentally benign Bakery mix Due to the change in packaging from LDPE bag and paper sack, or sacking to higher quality cardboard box with handles and 'Gumbo bag' that is a bag made for storage and transport of 25L liquid an additional cost of R14.84 for 'Gumbo bag' and R5.16 for 25Kg box. This is a total of R20.00; however, the cost of the original packaging equals R3.60, therefore the additional cost of the packaging equals R19.15. Thus the cost of Product B equals R160.05 per 25Kg Bakery mix  Accounting for the packaging benefits of Product B The benefit of Product B would be the assimilated use of storage and easy carrying capacity containers. The box (with handles) is recyclable and reusable packaging, which amounts to R5.15 based on the assumption of a similar cardboard box being purchased. The 'gumbo bag' equivalent would be any container used to capture rainwater, and/or carry and store liquids, because the 'Gumbo bag' when recycled and reused would be an ideal container.  (In comparison to sacking where rodent and pests are a food safety concern). The  equivalent of using the 'Gumbo bag' would be the cost of a storage container, and/or simply three garbage bags used inside of each other to capture rainwater, at a basic cost of R3.70. Thus the monetary costs of benefits amounts to R8.85.  170  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0091761/manifest

Comment

Related Items