The Report on the impact of the Institute of Food Research

Transcription

Brookdale Consulting Ltd
7 Brookdale Road
Bramhall
Cheshire
SK7 2NW
[email protected]
0161 440 8290
07813 892090
Impact of the
Institute of the Food Research
June 2013
Contents
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. Background to IFR
2.1
Overview of IFR
2.2
Evolution of Research
2.3
Market Failure
3. Operating Impact of IFR
3.1
Direct Impact
3.2
Indirect Impact
3.3
Induced Impact
3.4
Summary of Operating Impacts
4. Impact of IFR Research
4.1
Measuring Impact
4.2
Gut Health and Food Safety Impact
4.2.1
Chilled Foods Advancement
4.2.2
ComBase
4.2.3
Probiotics
4.2.4
Modified Gut Microbe in Humans
4.2.5
Reducing Gut Pathogens in Chickens
4.2.6
Model Gut
4.3
Food and Health Impact
4.3.1
Enriched Broccoli
4.3.2
Satiety
4.3.3
KTP – Case Study of Working with an SME
4.3.4
Reduced Fat Foods
4.3.5
National Collection of Yeast Cultures (NCYC)
4.3.6
Food Databanks
4.3.7
Food health claims
5. Wider IFR Impact
5.1
Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation (KEC)
5.1.1
Food and Health Network (FHN)
5.1.2
IFR Extra
5.2
Policy Contribution
5.2.1
Influencing Policy Decisions
5.2.2
Consultation Responses
5.2.3
UK National Technology Platform for Food
5.2.4
The European Technology Platform Food for Life
5.2.5
FOODforce
5.2.6
Coordination of National & International Collaborative Projects
5.3
Human Capital
5.4
Norwich Research Park (NRP)
5.4.1
Existing commercial business space
5.4.2
Future potential commercial space
5.4.3
Number of NRP jobs and GVA attributable to IFR
6. Summary and Overview
6.1.1
Operating impacts
6.1.2
Gross Research impacts
6.1.3
Net impacts
2
5
6
6
7
8
11
11
12
13
13
14
14
14
15
18
20
21
23
25
27
27
29
31
32
34
36
38
41
41
42
42
43
43
43
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
46
46
47
47
47
49
Page 1
Executive Summary
Brookdale Consulting was commissioned by the Institute of Food Research (IFR) to produce
an updated economic impact assessment of the Institute.
1
This work was to update a previous impact report undertaken in 2008 .
The report covers updates on many of the impacts identified in the 2008 report as well as
highlighting the wide range of new areas that IFR is active in.
IFR’s research is focused on addressing BBSRC’s three strategic priorities with contributions
across all three of these areas. IFR addresses a range of market failures in UK food and
health research.
IFR is funded by BBSRC and also levers in other funding from a wide variety of sources
making about 25% of its total income.
Table 1 summarises IFR’s operating impact (from staff and supplier spending) which supports
292 jobs and £12.7m of Gross Value Added (GVA) across the UK economy.
Table 1: Summary of IFR Operating Impacts
Output
(£m)
Direct
16.6
Indirect
10.3
Induced
3.2
Total
30.1
Employment
(jobs)
172
92
28
292
GVA
(£m)
7.9
4.1
0.7
12.7
A summary of the main gross impacts arising is set out below across fourteen case studies.
Gut Health and Food Safety impacts
Chilled Foods - Improved efficiencies, reduced wastage and increased sales in chilled foods
estimated at £25m per annum, £23.75m due to IFR. International policy contribution to
CODEX Alimentarius.
Botulinum toxin - additional value to the pharmaceutical industry of £10m per annum not
including on-going contribution to avoiding food poisoning
ComBase - every hour saved by all ComBase users is worth approximately £1m per year
Probiotics - IFR is providing objective scientific evidence that could support probiotic health
claims - a positive result is likely to benefit the probiotics sector as a whole supporting growth
of the wider UK market where a 1% increase would be worth £2m per annum to the sector.
Modified Gut Microbe in Humans – a potential new treatment for bowel disease where
every 1% reduction in lost working days, drug costs and outpatient costs could save £9.51m
Reducing Gut Pathogens in Chickens – by colonising chickens with Lactobacillus, each 1%
reduction in UK food poisoning would result in 10,000 fewer cases and £15m per year saving.
1
Economic impact of the Institute of Food Research 2008
Page 2
Model Gut - The sale of the Model Gut Contract Research company to Danish company
Bioneer:FARMA has just been agreed. The Model Gut could save industry millions in drug
development costs.
Food and Health impacts
Enriched Broccoli – Beneforte is now on sale in UK and US supermarkets. It has the
potential to reduce cardiovascular disease and prostate cancer if eaten regularly and could
soon have a health claim in place. Potential benefits of £38m per 1% reduction in disease
can be anticipated at the UK level. 50% of these are attributed to IFR.
Satiety – developing ways of people feeling full for longer which could reduce obesity. If the
work of IFR helps prevent 0.1% of the population from becoming obese, the avoided annual
costs to the NHS would be £19.6m and worth £61.6m to the economy.
KTP – one example of IFR working with an SME developed a new product which has secured
new contracts worth £570k; increased sales of existing products by £100k per year and cost
savings of £150k per year
Reduced Fat Foods – helping industry develop better tasting low fat options will lead to a
healthier population and reduced healthcare costs due to fewer people developing
cardiovascular disease. Reducing cardiovascular events by just 1% would result in savings to
the health service worth at least £30m a year.
NCYC – yeasts have substantial potential for new applications in biorefining, an expanding
research area for IFR; in renewable energy such as biofuels where imports could be displaced
as well as supporting the food & drink and pharmaceutical sectors
Food databanks - the value of the dataset is estimated at around £19.5m per annum to
industry, academia and the health sector.
Food health claims – IFR is bringing clarity to the process to establish health claims. A 1%
increase in the sale of functional foods through IFR support would be worth £14.6m annually
to the sector.
Wider impacts
Section 5 sets out a summary of the wider impacts of IFR in terms of academic achievement,
extensive industry engagement, commercialisation, attraction of R&D investment,
contributions to public policy, human capital and global leadership and reputation in the areas
of food and health. It also highlights potential NRP impacts of 1,300 net additional jobs and
£566m GVA over 10 years.
Page 3
A summary of the combined net impacts (excluding NRP impacts) is set out in Table 2 which
highlights a return on investment across the fourteen case studies of 8.2. Other case studies
could be included, which may result in a higher value.
Table 2: Summary of net impacts of IFR Research
Summary of Net Impacts of IFR Research
Total research funding assessed
Funding
IFR share of research funding assessed
Gross annual benefits identified (£)
Implementation timescale
Gross Benefits over 10 years (£PV)
Gross Impacts
Gross Implementation Costs over 10 yrs (£PV)
Net Benefits (£PV)
Net Additional Benefits Additionality of the impacts
for the UK Economy
Value of benefits to the economy (£PV)
IFR attribution based on share of work
Impacts Attributable to Additional Output over 10 years (£PV)
IFR
Additional GVA over 10 years (£PV)
Additional Jobs Supported (FTE)
VFM - IFR research funding only (GVA
leverage per £1 IFR research funding (10yr
Value for money
GVA NPV))
TOTAL
£ 35,985,000
£ 24,258,500
£231,970,000
Over 10 years
£742,526,391
£ 20,055,828
£686,485,563
62%
£427,813,072
73%
£312,977,398
£198,351,363
564
£
8.18
Page 4
1.
Introduction
Brookdale Consulting was commissioned by the Institute of Food Research (IFR) to produce
an updated economic impact assessment of the Institute.
The report highlights the range of quantitative and qualitative economic impacts generated by
the on-going research and activities of IFR.
The remainder of this document is structured as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Section 2 sets out the background to IFR and describes the evolution of the Institute
since the previous impact report
Section 3 sets out the operating impact of IFR
Section 4 presents the impact of IFR research
Section 5 presents the wider impact of IFR
Section 6 summarises the findings of the report
Annexes contain supporting material and data.
Brookdale Consulting acknowledges the significant contribution of IFR staff in working with the
team to produce this final document.
Page 5
2.
Background to IFR
2.1
Overview of IFR
IFR is the only institute that receives public funding in the UK that is dedicated to the
fundamental science of food and health. The mission of IFR is to carry out fundamental
research in food and health that assists government and the food manufacturing industry to
address the challenges of food security, diet and health and healthy ageing. IFR has
committed to a series of objectives over the period 2012-2017 as shown in Figure 2.1.
IFR has moved from food processing firmly into the food and health arena. It still has strong
contacts with industry which allow it to influence the adoption of new products resulting from
its research. This distinguishes IFR from other fundamental research establishments which
may not have such a strong industry connection.
Figure 2.1: IFR objectives 2012-2017
1 - To pursue highest quality
fundamental research
through its two Institute
Strategic Programmes:
6 - To develop the Food and
Health Network and standalone subsidiary, IFR Extra,
to deliver:
• Gut Health and Food Safety
• Food and Health
• enhanced knowledge exchange
activity
• effective mechanisms for
commercialisation
• enhanced public engagement activity
2 - To pursue, within its core
science programmes,
strategic applied research
aimed to translate
understanding into societal
benefit.
5 - To develop the Norwich
Research Park, in
partnership, as a leading
international centre for food
and health research,
innovation and training.
3 - To efficiently manage its
National Capabilities to
address the needs of
relevant stakeholders, in:
4 - To facilitate and develop
national and international
networks for:
• National Collection of Yeast Cultures
• ComBase@IFR
• Food Databanks
7 - To establish IFR as a
major UK centre for the
training of scientists in food
and health research.
8 - To manage staff and
resources in a manner that:
• ensures strategic relevance
• ensures financial viability
• maximises the potential of our staff
• academic strategic science and
training
• the food manufacturing and retailing
industry
Source: IFR (Director’s Statement)
As described in the IFR objectives above, from 2012 IFR will deliver its science through two
Institute Strategic Programmes: Gut Health and Food Safety (GHFS) and Food and Health
(FH). IFR is also host to three National Capabilities: the National Collection of Yeast Cultures
(NCYC); Food Databanks; and ComBase@IFR. The impact of the research undertaken by
IFR in each of the Institute Strategic Programmes (ISPs) and National Capabilities is explored
in Section 4 of the report.
In addition, the wider role of IFR is captured in objectives 4 to 7. This includes the facilitation
of networks nationally and internationally, the promotion of knowledge exchange and public
engagement and the provision of commercial services to industry. IFR also takes a leading
role in developing the Norwich Research Park as a centre for food and health. The wider
contribution and impact of IFR is explored in Section 5 of the report.
Page 6
2.2
Evolution of Research
Modern western society is increasingly faced with health problems associated with diet
including diabetes and obesity. Furthermore, while lifespan has increased, health span, the
period that individuals are free from chronic illness, has not increased at the same rate.
These issues place significant pressure on the health service. The main outputs of IFR
research are an understanding of how food and diet can enhance healthy ageing and how
food interacts with the body to influence health.
Table 2.1 sets out how this report relates to the previous impact report, identifying how
previous impacts have changed, and highlighting an extensive range of new research areas
and projects, new developments and new areas of impact, particularly in the area of gut
health and biorefining.
Table 2.1: Linkage between previous impact report and the current report
Previous report
Assessment of impact in this report
2
impact headings
Value for consumers
This work has evolved from the previous impact report into looking at
through chilled foods
new products, processes and healthier outcomes. There is work
advancement
being undertaken with the Chilled Food Association on a completely
new way of cooking ready meals using less energy, reducing
processing costs and delivering longer shelf life. This work feeds
into risk assessment of foods and if successful could be adopted by
the whole industry.
ComBase
The previous report assessed the impact of ComBase in terms of
savings to the food sector through reductions in R&D spending. In
this report, current impacts are reviewed and views sought of
industry to support the value of ComBase.
Wastage reduction
The reduction in food wastage costs by extending shelf life is
covered in this report plus reductions in energy and water usage
from process improvements.
Biorefining is a new area of impact, which has developed out of
work on food structure and texture and how food breaks down in the
human body. Biorefining can also be used to produce high value
compounds from waste.
Increased value
‘Enriched broccoli’ has developed substantially and is now on sale in
generated through
supermarkets across the US and UK. Possible cardiovascular and
nutrition improvement
prostate cancer impacts are being tested which could drive market
uptake based on the health benefits.
Avoidance of the cost
IFR continues to advise industry and government on reducing food
of food poisoning
poisoning. This work has also moved into the arena of influencing
policy including examples of standards for safe burger cooking
temperatures and sous-vide foods.
Known commercial
IFR’s growing collaborations with industry include IFR Extra which
activity
undertakes c50 small projects p.a. and IFR Enterprises which offers
consultancy and longer term projects to companies including
studentships and Technology Strategy Board (TSB) projects. The
Food and Health Network facilitates this.
Botulism toxin
The on-going impact of this work is updated.
therapeutics
2
www.ifr.ac.uk/info/Publications/Impact/IFR_economicimpact.pdf
Page 7
Peer reviewed
publications
Human capital
Growing the economy
Outreach and
engagement with
stakeholders
2.3
This is updated.
This is updated.
This area is expanded to consider the impact of the Norwich
Research Park, collaborative working with hospital, university, JIC,
TGAC and other organisations plus the provision of facilities on-site.
This is developed to look at the contribution of the Food and Health
Network and the leading role of IFR in collaborative projects and
initiatives and the overall influence on policy.
In addition to the areas above, the report includes impacts of a wide
range of other areas including:
Modified Gut Microbe in humans which is potentially a new
innovative, cost effective way of treating inflammatory bowel disease
or of delivering vaccines into the gut
Reducing Gut Pathogens in Chickens by colonisation with
Lactobacillus thus increasing growth, reducing need for growth
promoters and potentially reducing food poisoning
Model Gut which has developed as a business and has potential to
substantially reduce costs in drug development
Satiety with the potential to introduce appetite-reducing food
Reduced fat foods with the potential to improve taste of low fat
products and therefore reduce obesity
National Collection of Yeast Cultures, a National Capability which
supports the brewing industry and is also providing potential new
strains for biorefining.
Food databanks a long term area that provides nutritional
information to support UK food industry and advisors.
Food health claims where IFR is leading efforts to establish how
food companies can meet European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
requirements for robust science to support any health claims
associated with their products.
Market Failure
This section summarises the market failure arguments underpinning the funding of IFR.
IFR is an independent institute and receives 75% of its revenue from BBSRC. BBSRC has
aligned its research funding around its three strategic priorities and IFR makes contributions
across all three as Section 4 will show:
•
•
•
Food security - maintaining a safe, affordable and nutritious food supply for UK
citizens and developing aspects of food security globally to help feed nine billion
people by 2050. Food databanks, ComBase, Sustainable Shelf Life Extension
(SUSSLE) and gut microbes in chickens are all examples of IFR contributions here
Sustainable bioenergy, chemicals and renewable materials from bioscience through industrial biotechnology, developing options to lessen UK reliance on fossil
carbon; making the low-carbon/green economy a reality. The potential of NCYC and
biorefining are examples here.
Enhancing lives and improving wellbeing - through fundamental bioscience,
particularly as the proportion of UK society living beyond 65 continues to increase
Page 8
dramatically. The Ovatus project for human gut health, satiety, reduced fat foods,
enriched broccoli are all examples here.
These economic, policy and societal issues are all in the public interest and key to the future
of the UK’s society and economy. They are not ‘goods’ that the market (i.e. private
businesses) could be expected to deliver on its own without public investment.
IFR also wins public funding competitively when it bids for grant funding against other
potential providers (e.g. to the European Union Framework Programme and other research
funding bodies). Market failure may still have occurred but competition ensures value for
money for the public purse.
In addition part of IFR’s income comes from private sources, such as when individual
businesses or trade bodies commission work specifically for them or their members. In this
case market failure may not apply, but IFR’s expertise and reputation are important in
undertaking the work and in ensuring adoption.
Table 2.2 sets out how IFR’s activities relate to different market failures.
Table 2.2: Market Failure – Why public funding of IFR is justified
IFR role or output
Market failure
Advice to Government at
international, national and
local levels.
Public good
Advice to consumers and
companies
from
Government on the basis
of advice provided to
Government by IFR.
i.e. There is little incentive for
any individual to bear the cost
of food improvement / health
promotion as this leads to a
free-rider problem: those who
do not pay still enjoy the
benefits.
Advice that informs social
and other sciences.
Understanding of food
safety,
microbial
modelling, health, quality
etc. Strategic research to
Externalities
i.e. Costs or benefits that
cannot be reflected through
Justification for funding and
nature of market failure
It is not in the interests of any
one commercial business to
provide science to support
policy guidance, strategic
advice
and
general
information to Government
and industry.
Neither is it in the interest of a
company to provide advice on
food (other than that which is
specific to its own products) to
the public and food producers
/ processors in general.
e.g. fundamental research into
the composition of foods,
understanding the implications
for
their
health
and
communicating this widely.
ComBase is a central, high
quality repository of food
safety data is beneficial to all
food producing businesses but
not
possible
for
most
businesses to establish such
an international database
Research is time consuming
and uncertain in its outcomes.
Businesses may not invest in
longer term work as this would
Page 9
deliver this forms
a
significant part of the work
of IFR.
Production and distribution
of knowledge, delivered
through applied but longer
term research that is
widely applicable
IFR makes freely and
widely available those
findings funded by the
public purse.
prices
are
known
as
externalities, said to be
negative for those on whom
they impose costs and
positive for those who gain
from them.
Imperfect, asymmetric or
lack of information
i.e. Business/Consumers may
lack the skill to understand
the risks of certain purchases,
and lack the capacity to
gather
this
information
individually
and
independently.
Market power
i.e. If a company did work and
protected
the
resulting
intellectual property, it might
have a monopoly or sufficient
market power to influence
prices to its own advantage.
be a cost they may not
recoup; hence this reduces
the availability of improved
quality, safe food products.
e.g. Enriched broccoli may
deliver
significant
health
benefits to society that could
not be captured in the market
price/ scale of development
costs.
Research findings are rich in
information. It is unlikely that
most businesses would have
access to all this information
and if they did, that they would
share it with rivals or
consumers.
e.g. Biorefining where new
approaches could lead to new
energy sources
Excess
market
power
disadvantages consumers so
IFR frequently shares findings
of publicly funded research
widely. Confidential one-toone work for industry may not
be shared if industry has paid
for it.
e.g. The Food and Health
Network.
Page 10
3.
Operating Impact of IFR
The operating impact of IFR relates to the on-site running of the Institute, such as expenditure
incurred and staff employed, and also the knock-on effects as these expenditures ripple
through the UK economy and support further activities. The total economic impact of
operating IFR therefore encompasses three distinct elements:
1. Direct impact: output generated and persons employed in the day-to-day operation
of the Institute in Norwich;
2. Indirect impact: output and employment created in the businesses which supply the
inputs or materials used by the Institute; and
3. Induced impact: output and employment created when workers employed directly or
indirectly spend their income in the local economy.
3.1
Direct Impact
IFR had an income of £16.6m in 2011/12. Figure 3.1 illustrates IFR income by source over
the last 4 years. Although total income is similar to the level 4 years ago, there has been a
significant increase in capital funding and a reduction in revenue funding. Between 2008/09
and 2011/12 total revenue income has fallen by £1.3m. Although BBSRC funding and private
sector income has remained relatively stable, EU funding and other public funding has
declined along with income from other sources such as student fees.
Figure 3.1: Sources of IFR Income (£000s)
20,000
18,000
16,625
17,525
17,158
16,564
Capital Funding
16,000
IFR Extra
14,000
12,000
Other
10,000
Other public e.g. TSB
8,000
Private
6,000
EU funding
4,000
BBSRC competitive funding
2,000
BBSRC core funding
0
08/09
09/10
10/11
11/12
Source: IFR Management Accounts
IFR directly employs 172 staff. The staffing comprises 128 staff involved in research activities
3
within IFR and 44 FTE central services staff allocated to IFR . In addition, in 2011/12, IFR had
36 students and an average of 30 visiting scientists. The students receive a stipend which
3
In total there are 148 staff in Central Services. IFR pays 30% of these staff costs, so 44.4 FTEs have
been allocated to IFR.
Page 11
varies according to the sponsor. Visiting scientists are supported by their host institutions, or
by EU funding for training purposes.
Figure 3.2: Staffing at IFR by area (2011/12)
Source: IFR HR database
3.2
Indirect Impact
IFR spent £6.0m with suppliers in 2011/12, of which £5.4m was with UK based suppliers. This
supplier expenditure forms the inputs for calculating the indirect operating impact of IFR.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the supplier expenditure by type.
Figure 3.3: IFR Expenditure by Type
Source: IFR Management Accounts
Page 12
In 2011/12 construction was a major element of expenditure, comprising both repairs and
maintenance and new build including a new Category 3 containment laboratory and
construction of the biorefinery.
This profile of supplier expenditure supports output and employment amongst supplier
industries, and their suppliers in turn. The extent of this impact can be estimated using the UK
National Accounts published by ONS, estimating the level of expenditure required to support a
FTE job in each supplier, and their knock-on expenditure.
In total for 2011/12, IFR’s supplier expenditure is estimated to indirectly generate a total of
£10.3m output for UK industries, supporting 92 jobs. This comprises 50 FTEs in those UK
companies directly supplying IFR, and a further 42 employed through further supply chain
effects (i.e. as IFR’s suppliers purchase inputs in-turn from their suppliers, which is still
attributable to IFR’s initial demand).
3.3
Induced Impact
Total salaries paid to IFR staff (including central services and student grants) amount to
£7.9m for 2011/12. In addition, salaries paid to those indirectly are estimated at £2.2m. In
total, this £10.1m of direct and indirect salaries accrues to households and will then be spent
on a profile of consumer goods and services, generating further economic activity in the UK.
This forms the basis for IFR’s induced impact.
Modelling this household income using an average consumer profile, indicates that the direct
and indirect salaries will lead to increased spending of £3.2m and will support a further 28
jobs across the UK economy. While these induced impacts can be attributed to IFR, they will
largely occur in sectors out-with the profile of direct and indirect industries, occurring instead
in consumer industries such as retail and recreational services.
3.4
Summary of Operating Impacts
Table 3.1 summarises the direct, indirect and induced impacts of IFR highlighting the 292 jobs
and £12.7m of Gross Value Added (GVA) across the UK economy.
Table 3.1: Summary of IFR Operating Impacts
Output
(£m)
Direct
16.6
Indirect
10.3
Induced
3.2
Total
30.1
Employment
(jobs)
172
92
28
292
GVA
(£m)
7.9
4.1
0.7
12.7
Page 13
4.
Impact of IFR Research
4.1
Measuring Impact
In order to measure impact, each area of IFR science was reviewed and routes to impact
assessed. A number of areas were chosen to best represent the current research effort,
taking into account the 2008 impact report and giving a mix of existing and new research
areas.
In each case, the impacts were assessed by modelling socio-economic outcomes of the
research such as improved health, improved productivity, and reduced costs. Where
possible, such outcomes are quantified at the UK level. Softer impacts such as academic,
collaboration and human capital are also highlighted along with international impacts.
The report contains a mixture of actual and potential impacts as some research has not yet
fed through to final impacts. In all cases, best estimates have been used of actual and
potential impacts based on available evidence with conservative estimates. The impacts
reported in the case studies are gross. They are then reduced to net impacts by taking
account of implementation costs required to achieve impact (by researchers and industry),
what would have happened in the absence of the work (deadweight) and any activity which
may be displaced. Displacement at the UK level is important to note. Where IFR has
assisted an individual company leading to increased sales, it may simply displace other
economic activity at the UK level. The company will have benefited but the UK will only
benefit if imports can be displaced or there is some other value added.
Attribution of the results to IFR is calculated based on either its share of total project costs or
its share of the research undertaken. This varies for each area.
Estimates of the rate of adoption of the research/technologies are also included so that net
impacts are measured over a 10 year period (base year 2012) by way of a Net Present Value
(NPV) and a discount rate of 3.5% in line with HM Treasury Green book. The 10 year NPV
presented can be considered to be the net contribution to the UK economy. The value for
money of each research area can then be measured by dividing the net economic impacts by
the research costs plus any other inputs.
In order to comply with the RCUK impact framework, Section 5 is devoted to wider impacts
that are not necessarily captured within the monetised figures or the softer impacts highlighted
within the case studies.
Each of the following sub-sections considers a particular area of IFR impact.
4.2
Gut Health and Food Safety Impact
Food poisoning and associated gastrointestinal diseases affect over 1m people per annum in
the UK. They are the leading cause of hospitalisation, a frequent cause of mortality (500
deaths), costing the UK economy over £2bn per annum. (Source: FSA Annual Report 2011)
The GHFS ISP seeks to contribute to a reduction in the incidence and burden of food
poisoning and gastrointestinal disease through increasing understanding of the biology of
Page 14
bacterial foodborne pathogens (particularly Campylobacter, Salmonella and Clostridia) and
the requirements for establishing and maintaining a healthy gut. The outcomes from the
research will have relevance for a number of stakeholder groups including:
• Policy makers: evidence-based advice on food safety and foodborne pathogens.
• NHS: science-based advice and evidence to support healthier ageing and disease
prevention.
• Public: improved food safety and security, early detection of risk factors for disease,
ultimately leading to improved health.
• Industry: safe, high quality foods, reductions in waste, development of commensal
bacteria for drug/vaccine delivery, and new, sophisticated nutritional support products
(pro- and prebiotics).
Examples of the work and its impact (or potential impact) are set out below.
4.2.1 Chilled Foods Advancement
IFR has undertaken extensive research into Clostridium botulinum in vacuum and modified
atmosphere packed (MAP) chilled foods. One example of the impact of this area of research
is a project that has directly contributed to guidance relating to the shelf-life of chilled foods,
undertaken on behalf of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the Advisory Committee on
4
the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF).
5
The findings of the research project led to the recommendation that for short shelf-life foods ,
storage is maintained at:
• ≤8°C and a shelf-life of ≤10 days, rather than
• ≤5°C and a shelf-life of ≤10 days or storage at 5°C - 8°C and a shelf-life of ≤5 days
This proposal was based on epidemiological evidence in relation to foodborne botulism,
where there have been extensive sales of chilled foods without any incidence of foodborne
illness, when the food is correctly stored. The recommendations have been approved by the
ACMSF and included in the revised FSA guidance document for industry on vacuum packed
6
or MAP foods. This is an example of IFR influencing industry guidance and bringing
clarity which will safeguard humans from food poisoning and protect industry
reputation. This is an example of an important contribution by IFR, although the value of this
aspect of research in the Chilled Foods sector is not specifically included in the fourteen case
studies presented later in this report.
The industry tends to be very conservative given the risks associated with food contamination.
Safety margins have generally been determined by caution and history. IFR has now
4
IFR (2006) Clostridium botulinum in vacuum packed (VP) and modified atmosphere packed (MAP)
chilled foods – Final Project Report (B13006), July 2006
http://www.foodbase.org.uk//admintools/reportdocuments/30_60_B13006.pdf
5
Where other controlling factors are not identified.
6
FSA guidance on the safety and shelf-life of vacuum and modified atmosphere packed chilled foods
with respect to non-proteolytic Clostridium botulinum (July 2008).
Page 15
introduced a multi-disciplinary, quantitative risk-based approach which will deliver substantial
benefits to industry.
7
For example, a very recent project known as SUSSLE will allow reduced cooking
time/temperature (improving taste and reducing energy use) and extension of shelf life, thus
reducing waste. Its findings are applicable to thermally processed chilled foods, but are
confidential to Chilled Food Association (CFA) members until 2014.
Chilled prepared foods produced in the UK are either given a maximum shelf-life of 10 days
(having been heated at an equivalent of 70°C/2mins) or a maximum shelf-life of 42 days
(having been heated at an equivalent of 90°C/10mins). Through the SUSSLE project, IFR has
identified a new safe intermediate heat process (SUSSLE Process) and intermediate shelf-life
(SUSSLE Shelf-life) that can be applied to chilled prepared foods.
The total UK chilled prepared food market was an estimated £13.7bn in 2011 (including
8
sandwiches at £3.9bn) . It is estimated that around £500m of this sector is likely to have a
thermally processed component and could benefit from reduced energy use and waste.
Significantly, the sector is growing at 6% per annum according to Kantar.
Interest by the chilled food industry in adopting the SUSSLE approach is substantial, and IFR
has held technology transfer workshops with others planned. One company working with an
independent taste panel has recently shown that a soup given the SUSSLE process was
statistically significantly preferred to the same soup given 90°C/10 min.
The following impacts are estimated based on IFR’s engagement with the sector and together
represent potential savings of about £10m per annum for industry:
• Efficiency savings - by moving from 90°C/10mins to the milder SUSSLE Process
processing energy costs will be reduced by about 9%.
• Better control - A software tool will enable businesses to fine tune their 70°C/2 min,
SUSSLE Process and 90°C/10 min heat treatment, potentially reducing cycle time,
improving energy efficiency, throughput and reducing wastage without additional
capital expenditure.
• Shelf-life extension - for some foods the shelf-life will be extended with reduced
wastage and enhanced manufacturing efficiencies. A case study at one ready meals
site estimated reduced store wastage, increased availability and increased
profitability.
In addition to these benefits, given the feedback received on taste, it is likely that SUSSLE will
support additional growth in the fully processed ready to eat/reheat chilled prepared sector.
Each additional 1% growth will be worth £5m to the sector based on its turnover of £500m and
annual growth of 6%. If it is assumed that the adoption of the SUSSLE approach contributes
half of an on-going increase in sales growth (an increase of 3%) this equates to £15m per
annum.
7
SUSSLE ran from August 2008 to March 2012, cost £750k and was funded by CFA, Defra, IFR,
BBSRC and Unilever.
8
Kantar WorldPanel 2012.
Page 16
Defra and BBSRC contributed £177k each, and industry the balance of £396k. IFR carried
out the project including all of the experimental work and mathematical analysis. On this
basis, we have attributed 95% of impacts to IFR.
Therefore, the estimated value of the SUSSLE project to the UK chilled food industry
through improved efficiencies, reduced wastage and increased sales is estimated as
£25m per annum based on the figures above with £23.75m being due to IFR inputs.
According to the CFA, the industry has already achieved 21.4% energy reduction over the
9
past 10 years against a target agreed with government of 13.2% . It is innovations such as
SUSSLE that will support the industry in future savings and developments.
SUSSLE achieved the highest score possible from the LINK programme. Dr David Cole,
Programme Co-ordinator at LINK stated: “SUSSLE is an extremely good example of what can
be achieved in LINK through a strong and focused industry-academic collaboration. The
Project Management Committee has awarded a maximum score of 10.”
The work also has an international policy dimension. According to Professor Martin Cole,
Chief of CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) Animal,
Food and Health Science: “SUSSLE is the first application to safe shelf life extension of
chilled food using the risk management framework adopted internationally by CODEX
10
Alimentarius . The approach represents a considerable advance to the work carried out in
the US and could form the basis for international agreement on the shelf life of chilled foods
that could be promulgated through CODEX, giving the UK a leadership position in this field.”
Impact summary for SUSSLE
Total input costs
Attribution of benefits to IFR
Timescales for inputs
Total implementation costs e.g. for industry
Assumed adoption rate by industry (% by
year over a 10 year period)
Gross annual benefits identified
10 Year Net Present Value
£750,000
95% based on work done
2009-2012
N/A It is assumed that industry will implement
SUSSLE as part of on-going product
development
Yr1
2
0
10
£23.75m
£32.0m
3
4
5
6
7-10
30
50
100
100
100
Botulinum toxin
IFR’s work in Botulinum toxin was highlighted in the previous impact report in relation to
reducing food poisoning and pharmaceutical applications. IFR’s role in this area continues.
For example, IFR regularly advises companies and environmental health officers in preventing
foodborne botulism outbreaks and there is on-going research in this area.
9
http://www.chilledfood.org/MEDIA/NEWS/2012/
CODEX Alimentarius develops international food standards, guidelines and codes of practice to
protect consumer health and promote fair trade.
10
Page 17
IFR has worked with industry in the biotechnological development of Botulinum toxin for
pharmaceutical use. The global value of this industry is presently £1.2bn per annum and is
11
anticipated to rise to £2.7bn by 2018 . Whilst details are confidential, it is estimated that the
potential value to industry of IFR’s contribution is in the region of £10m per annum.
Impact summary for Botulinum Toxin
Total input costs
year over a 10 year period). It is assumed
that the benefits will last for four years before
tailing off as competitors develop further.
Confidential
100% based on IFR undertaking work paid
for by industry
2009-2012
Confidential but already netted off from the
impact figure identified below.
Yr14
5
6
7
8
9
10
100
60
40
20
20
20
20
£10m
£40.2m
IFR has also carried out confidential work targeted at preventing and controlling acts of
bioterrorism. The value of this contribution, however, is not specifically included in the
fourteen case studies presented later in this report.
There are other examples of IFR research having an influence on policy through the ACMSF
and these are presented in Section 5.2 of the report.
4.2.2 ComBase
ComBase provides data to support food safety research underpinning product development
worldwide. ComBase has two components:
•
•
A web-based database of validated predictions and quality-assured data for growth or
survival of pathogens and spoilage organisms in food
A set of validated predictive models on the growth and survival of foodborne
organisms under various environmental conditions
ComBase is used as a training resource by major food companies such as Unilever, Nestle
and Danone as well as many smaller companies. It is also used by industry bodies such as
Campden BRI, by regulators and by academics in research. It is a National Capability for the
UK, managed by the National Capability ComBase@IFR and an international resource with
official recognition by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service
(USDA-ARS) in the United States, and the University of Tasmania Food Safety Centre (FSC)
in Australia.
11
Global Industry Analysts
Page 18
‘ComBase is an exemplar of the way that governments and the
research community can successfully work together to help
improve the safety of food products. The Food Standards Agency
strongly supports this initiative, its widespread application and its
use to reduce foodborne disease.’
Jon Bell, Chief Executive Officer, FSA, UK
IFR typically trains 100 people per year around the globe in how to use ComBase. We cost
12
this time at £15,000 . Academics form 60% of trainees, industry 30% and regulatory/public
sector 10%.
For food companies, consumer safety is of the highest priority. According to industry
consultees, ComBase is the only publicly available database of well-structured microbial data
allowing searching of different bacteria in different situations. The predictive tools are also
useful. Larger food companies may have an in-house capability to develop bespoke
predictive models, and can use ComBase to validate these models. Smaller companies may
depend entirely on ComBase for predictive modelling.
ComBase saves industry a lot of time in new product development as it effectively provides
‘off the shelf’ data that companies can use directly or it allows companies to validate their
predictive models. ComBase data support risk assessment in consumer safety.
Unilever has up to 50 ComBase users around the world. The
15 most intensive users are in the UK as well as Netherlands,
China, India and the USA. ComBase is seen as invaluable in
supporting innovation and food safety risk assessments.
Unilever has provided its own data to ComBase to enhance its
capability. Unilever is not aware of any other tools that offer
what ComBase does and uses it to speed up new product
development and to support risk assessment and modelling.
Global foods and refreshments sales in the first nine months of
2012 were €18.56bn, with foods (i.e. spreads, dressings, and
savoury products) accounting for 57.6% or €10.69bn, and
refreshments (i.e. ice cream and beverages) accounting for 42.4% or €7.87bn - these two
categories being the most relevant to microbiological food safety. ‘ComBase is a tool that
helps our business to predict microbial responses in foodstuffs to support better and faster
product and process design, and to assess and manage risks to consumer health. It is of
great value to us’ Alejandro Amézquita PhD Science Leader - Microbiological Risk
Assessment & Food Safety
The previous IFR impact report suggested savings in international industry/academic
food and drink R&D budgets of £22m as a result of using ComBase. It is also likely that
ComBase contributes to lowering levels of foodborne disease. In this report, an
alternative means of quantifying the impact is that every hour that the food industry
12
Training costs are calculated based on 100 users and 7.5 hours each at £20 per hour from the Annual
Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2011, ONS is £15,000.
Page 19
saves by using ComBase (across all users) as opposed
13
microbiological testing results in a saving of approximately £1m .
to
conventional
Campden BRI uses ComBase in its
advice to industry. ‘The industry finds
ComBase predictor software a very
useful initial assessment tool that
allows the potential for pathogen
growth/survival under a certain set of
environmental conditions to be assessed quickly and cost effectively. These predictions are
often used for HACCP plans and risk assessments and when new product formulations are
being developed.
Pathogen predictions are also useful in trouble-shooting situations when a deviation in either
product formulation or storage conditions has occurred. Where appropriate the approach can
be supplemented with practical shelf-life trials and challenge testing, focusing on the
conditions of most concern.’‘ Linda Everis, Dept. of Microbiology, Campden BRI
Impact summary for ComBase
Total input costs
£1,600,000 over 10 years
100% as the maintainer of the database
10 year period from 2012
Annual training costs of industry over the 10
year period is £150,000
Yr1
2
3
4
5
100 100 100 100 100
£0.96m per hour saved
£2.14m for every hour saved
6
7-10
100
100
4.2.3 Probiotics
IFR has been active in the probiotic foods sector. Probiotics are foods containing live bacteria
with beneficial properties for humans. The value of the sector in 2010 was estimated to be
14
worth $19.6bn globally, and is projected to reach $28.1bn in 2015 . In 2012 the probiotic
sector in the UK was valued at £200m.
As European regulation of food health claims has tightened, probiotic manufacturers have to
provide stronger scientific evidence to support health claims. For example, in July 2012 the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejected health claims made by the probiotics
industry.
This situation highlights the importance of organisations such as IFR in supporting industry
with reputable science.
13
200 users * 5 days per working week* 48 working weeks per year = 48,000 users per year. Based on
£20 per hour from the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2011, ONS the annual impact
would be £960,000 per hour saved across all users. This ignores double counting of users as more
intensive users are assumed to gain more time savings.
14
ComPanies and Markets.com, December 2012
Page 20
IFR has led two projects with a major probiotic manufacturer in conjunction with the University
15
(UEA) and the hospital . The first was a pilot double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to
assess the impacts of probiotics on the human immune system (2006). This pilot study found
beneficial effects such that a second larger study (60 patients) was undertaken (50% IFR and
50% UEA). The results of this second study are still being evaluated.
The work has been very high profile and led to a number of outputs including a paper in the
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Allergy (2008), conference papers in China, Japan, USA,
and Italy. This has raised the profile of IFR and the UK internationally. It has also
strengthened collaboration between Norwich Research Park (NRP) partners (IFR, UEA and
the hospital).
The work could have been undertaken elsewhere. For example, the company has its own
global research centres. However, the unique combination of IFR, the University medical
school and hospital supported the company’s decision to come to the NRP.
16
According to Global Industry Analysts , Europe is the largest and fastest growing probiotics
market with Germany and the UK accounting for around 45% of the total EU market with
annual growth rates of 10-12% quoted by various analysts. Japan, the second largest market,
is seen as a maturing market.
If the research at IFR is successful in identifying a link between probiotics and immune
response, the company will seek to establish a new health claim with EFSA. It will also
potentially allow the company to establish a new range of market segments for products
based on much more precise health claims. While the market is still growing in the absence
of supported health claims, probiotics companies recognise the importance of supporting their
claims with science. One company’s annual retail sales for 2011/12 are estimated at £97.5m
for the EU and £29m in the UK. Gross profit is estimated from accounts at 6.7% of sales and
net profit at 4.2%. A successfully established health claim will support growth in product sales
and value in the EU – even a 1% increase as a result of an established health claim will be
worth £290k per annum to the company in the UK and £975k per annum in Europe based on
the company’s annual report.
This may displace market share from other companies in the UK. Therefore, the economic
benefits may not be captured at the UK level. However, any positive result is likely to
benefit the probiotics sector as a whole supporting growth of the wider UK market
where a 1% increase would be worth £2m per annum to the sector.
4.2.4 Modified Gut Microbe in Humans
Known as the ‘Ovatus Project’, IFR has genetically engineered strains of a commensal gut
bacterium Bacteroides ovatus (B. ovatus) such that they can carry therapeutic proteins into
the human lower large intestine, when stimulated by xylan, a plant derived sugar. Patients
would take a formulation of B. ovatus resulting in either permanent or transient colonisation
of the large intestine. Once colonised, the desired B. ovatus strain would sit in the gut and
15
16
Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
http://www.biomedtrends.com/GetDetails.asp?CatName=Probiotics
Page 21
when required, xylan could be taken, in the form of yoghurt or drink. The xylan would
stimulate the bacteria to produce the desired therapeutic protein. Recent patents have been
secured.
There are numerous potential applications for this technology. For example, Inflammatory
17
Bowel Disease (IBD) which affects around one in 250 people in the UK and falls into two
main types, Crohn’s disease and Ulcerative Colitis (UC). Both are chronic autoimmune
disorders which erode the delicate lining of the intestine. The cause of the disease is related
to uncontrolled immune response to members of the intestinal microbiota. The severity of
symptoms fluctuate unpredictably over time with sufferers experiencing flare-ups and periods
of remission. Both Crohn’s and UC are treated with medication such as corticosteroids, (to
reduce inflammation), and immunosuppressants, which block the harmful activities of the
immune system. For UC, if symptoms do not respond to drug treatment, surgery to remove
the whole of the colon is sometimes necessary (approximately 1 in 5 sufferers). About 80%
of sufferers of Crohn’s disease require surgery to relieve their symptoms, repair damage to
their digestive system and/or to treat complications of the condition. At present there is no
cure for Crohn’s, although UC can be effectively treated with surgery. Treatment can control
the symptoms of both diseases in most cases.
The Ovatus project could offer an effective treatment for IBD. Patients would be given the
formulation and whenever the disease flared up, xylan could be taken to stimulate the
bacteria to produce the beneficial therapeutic. This would alleviate the need for other drug
therapy and potentially reduce the requirement for hospitalisation and surgery.
18
There are around 250,000 cases of IBD in the UK with 9-18,000 diagnosed each year. A
study of the costs of IBD in the UK in 2000 showed that the total cost per patient was
1920
21
£3,600
. The overall cost of IBD in the UK is therefore estimated at £900m .
Drug costs have accounted for about a quarter of total direct health service costs for IBD in
Europe. Half of IBD costs relate to inpatient management of a minority of patients who need
22
intensive medical or surgical intervention.
IFR initially anticipates that this treatment would co-exist alongside other therapies.
Therefore, it would not save the full costs of IBD, but rather a portion. Disease flare up was
associated with a 2–3-fold increase in costs for non-hospitalised cases and a 20-fold increase
in costs for hospitalised cases highlighting the importance of a treatment that could easily and
cheaply control IBD.
17
http://www.bsg.org.uk/attachments/160_IBDstandards.pdf
www.nacc.org.uk
19
Bassi, Dodd, Williamson, Bodger, (2004), Cost of illness of inflammatory bowel disease in the UK: a
single centre retrospective study, International Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Taking the
weighted average of costs for UC and Crohn’s for the 6 month trial and multiplying by 2 to give annual
figure.
20
All figures have been inflated to 2011 prices, the latest available http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/data_gdp _index.htm.
21
There are other lower estimates in the literature but these do not appear to have inflated the costs to
current prices.
22
http://www.bsg.org.uk/attachments/160_IBDstandards.pdf
18
Page 22
The average number of days lost annually due to Crohn’s disease is 40 and for UC is 34
23
days. There are around 39% of sufferers in employment. The cost for loss of earnings due
to Crohn’s disease is therefore estimated to be around £313.6m and for UC £133.2m.
Therefore, for every 1% reduction in lost working days through the new treatment, the
24
impact would be £3.1m for Crohn’s and £1.3m for UC, making £4.4m in total.
Initially it is envisaged that Ovatus will be an additional therapy which will run alongside
patients’ existing medication at additional cost. However assuming that in the long term,
drug therapy costs are reduced, for every 1% reduction there will be a saving of £2.25m
annually. We have assumed that the biggest cost reductions will occur in non-hospitalised
patients (86%) and that for the most severe cases surgery may still be required and
hospitalisation levels will remain. The Bassi et al study (2004) found that 31.8% of total costs
were for non-hospitalised patients, applying this to the £900m overall cost, the annual cost for
non-hospitalised patients is £286.2m. Due to the administration of the new product it is
assumed that there will also be a reduction in outpatient costs of non-hospitalised
patients, with every 1% reduction giving an annual saving of £2.86m.
In summary therefore, the impacts could be:
• Per 1% reduction in lost working days £4.4m
• Per 1% reduction in long term drug costs £2.25m
• Per 1% reduction in outpatient costs £2.86m
Impact summary for Modified Gut Microbe
Total input costs
£600k from MRC, £400K from BBSRC and
£100k from Gates Foundation
100%
2009-2012
£1m assuming clinical trials required to
confirm benefits.
Yr1
2
3
4
5
6
7-10
0
0
10
20
40
80
100
£9.51m per 1% reduction in IBD and its costs
£24.5m
The Gates Foundation is also funding a project at IFR to see if this method can deliver
vaccines into the human gut. The objective would be to find a way of administering vaccines
cheaply to large populations in the developing world. This has the potential to save costs and
improve vaccine uptake in the long term.
4.2.5 Reducing Gut Pathogens in Chickens
Six pathogens have been identified by the FSA as causing the majority of the one million food
poisoning outbreaks annually in humans in Britain. These are Campylobacter, Listeria
monocytogenes, E. coli, Salmonella, viruses and Clostridium perfringens. The consumption
of animal products is the usual route by which these pathogens enter the human body.
23
http://gut.bmj.com/content/53/10/1471.full
Crohn’s 39% x 166,700 sufferers x 40 days lost x £603/5 x 1%, UC 39% x 83,300 sufferers x 34 days
x £603/5 x 1%. Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2012, www.ons.gov.uk
24
Page 23
Work done in the 1970/80s at IFR and other institutes showed that a mixture of harmless
bacteria can out-compete pathogenic organisms and so can potentially reduce the incidence
of food poisoning. IFR has now built on this earlier work to develop a Lactobacillus strain that
when fed to newly hatched chickens will colonise the gut thus preventing harmful bacteria
from establishing within the animal’s GI tract.
25
Lactic acid bacteria with GRAS status are deemed safe and have been used in food
production in yoghurt, cheese and fermented feed. The strain developed by IFR colonises the
chicken gut, reduces disease in the birds thus improving the animal’s welfare.
The research process involved identifying, characterising and stabilising the strain, then
testing under laboratory conditions. IFR also developed the strain to be able to be stored at
26
room temperature. The work was done in collaboration with AHVLA and IAH in order to gain
access to poultry facilities. IAH also assessed benefits to the immune system of poultry.
Having demonstrated the benefits under laboratory conditions, the technique has been
patented and licensed to a major poultry breeding company which is a multinational business
with interests in the UK and research facilities in the USA. The company is in the process of
negotiating an exclusive licence to use the strain and is now conducting trials.
The trials aim to grow the strain in large fermenters. It will then be sprayed onto pelleted or
powdered chicken feed or put into drinking water making it cheap to administer. The trials will
also assess any other benefits such as an increase in feed conversion efficiency or better
health. Farmers and consumers will be key beneficiaries if the trials are successful, with
improved chicken welfare, improved productivity and reduced food poisoning.
Foodborne disease is estimated to cost the UK £1.5bn per year. The current FSA foodborne
disease strategy has the target to achieve a lower number of cases and a lower cost to the
27
economy in 2015 than 2010 . Whilst it is early days for this research, its novel approach
to reducing pathogens at source suggests its potential impact could be substantial
alongside on-going measures to reduce food poisoning. Each 1% reduction in UK food
poisoning would result in 10,000 fewer cases and £15m per year saving.
In parallel to the trials the strain is being further improved. Research is being conducted to
understand why this commensal bacterium is so good at excluding human and animal
pathogens. It is possible that the lactic acid produced by the bacteria may kill other
microorganisms and so change the composition of the microbiota, further improving its
effectiveness. Campylobacter is the cause of 60% of food poisoning in the UK; this strain
reduces Campylobacter and BBSRC follow on funding is enabling this mechanism to be
investigated. Another project involves a gene from a virus which enables bacteria to make a
protein to kill Clostridium perfringens, the third most common cause of food poisoning in
humans.
25
GRAS or Generally Recognised As Safe is an American Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
designation that a chemical or substance added to food is considered safe by experts
26
AHVLA is the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. IAH is the Institute for Animal
Health.
27
FSA Foodborne Disease Strategy, 2010-15, May 2011.
Page 24
The IFR research has other potential applications; for example Lactobacillus could act as a
delivery vehicle for vaccines. If so this would be significant as an earlier economic impact
28
study of the Institute for Animal Health estimated a cost of £10.6m to administer a single
vaccine for the entire UK flock of broilers, which typically receive 20-30 vaccines during their
lives. This is in addition to the cost of the vaccines. There would still be a cost to deliver a
vaccine via feed but it is highly likely to be significantly less than the cost of the many
vaccinations currently required.
As at the beginning of 2013, outputs for this work have included:
• 1 publication – Journal of Applied Microbiology
• 3 more papers awaiting publication
• 2 patents, 1 for a strain of Lactobacillus
• Conferences in China, Portugal, Canada and Slovakia.
• A potential chicken probiotic which would require approval from EU agencies such as
EFSA before it can be commercialised. Hence scientific evidence needs to be
produced that it meets key criteria such as lack of side effects and not causing
antibiotic resistance in the birds.
Impact summary for Chicken Gut Bacteria
Total input costs
£150k from core BBSRC and £150k from
BBSRC Follow-on-funding
100%
2009-2012
£100m over 10 years
Yr1
2
0
0
£25.6m
£42.7m
3
4
5
6
7-10
10
20
40
80
100
4.2.6 Model Gut
The Dynamic Gastric Model (DGM) technology has been developed by PBL for two markets:
• the development, manufacture and sale of the DGM unit as a high-value commodity
for the R&D community; and
• the development and sale, or franchise, of a contract research business.
The Model Gut has been operated by PBL as a virtual Contract Research Organisation (CRO)
for three years, working with a small group of client companies (19 food industry and 17
pharmaceutical) and using the feedback to refine the DGM and its applications, and to
investigate the potential market, both for the technology itself and for a CRO based around it.
For example, two particular areas where the DGM is seen to have great potential to add value
are in the evaluation of modified release formulations and the study of poorly soluble drugs.
Data from the Medtrack system shows that there are currently more than 120 products in
development that are classed as “controlled or delayed release”, of which 65 are in Research
28
The Economic and Social Impact of the Institute of Animal Health’s Work on Avian Infectious
Diseases, Feb 2010
Page 25
or Pre-Clinical phases of development, and 10 are generics. Similarly a further 142 products
in development are classed as “requiring solubility or bio-availability enhancement”, of which
79 are in Research/Pre-Clinical phase and 6 are generics. These potential markets represent
a valuable opportunity for the application of the DGM technology. The generics market is
particularly promising, as the DGM can provide significantly superior comparisons of generic
versus innovator performance than other in-vitro tests.
Revenues from the Model Gut CRO operations have grown steadily to around £300,000 per
year, all of which have been recycled into PBL operational costs, internal R&D and refinement
of the technology. IFR receives 40% of profits. Extrapolating Model Gut activity to date, to
the total potential market in the pharmaceutical sector (500 companies plus numerous
academic institutions), suggests potential turnover of over £3m per year for the CRO
business, even at a relatively modest penetration rate (40%). Assuming profit of 20% of
turnover £600k, would deliver income of £240k per year to IFR in the long term.
The sale of the Model Gut CRO to Danish company Bioneer:FARMA has just been
agreed, with full transfer of activities taking place over the next 2 years.
The alternate commercial strategy of selling DGM units to interested parties has also been
modeled, and projections of the potential market for DGM sales and peripherals, suggests
lifetime technology values in the range of £38-56m. However, this opportunity requires
substantial investment, given the highly specialised nature of the units, such that a
conservative NPV over its lifetime is in excess of £1.9m, profits being made from year 5.
Discussions with potential end users/customers suggest that both strategies can comfortably
co-exist, as the expertise of the Model Gut team within any CRO, in conjunction with the DGM
technology is seen as adding considerable value.
The DGM’s use is as a tool to resolve unexpected development issues for new drug
formulation projects and could potentially find use as a pre-screen, to de-risk formulation
development before taking a drug into clinical trials. IFR proposes to drive two arms of
development work to meet the unmet needs of ethically impossible testing, by running testing
and development programmes aimed at alcohol-induced dose dumping and adapting the
DGM to simulate the paediatric or geriatric stomach.
The extensive application of DGM testing could save the industry millions of dollars and also
potentially increase the likelihood of a new or reformulated drug coming to market.
The need for a technology such as the DGM is evidenced by the creation of the EU-FP7
Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) consortium – a pre-competitive alliance of Pharma
companies who are pooling their resources to find and validate better in vitro models of the GI
tract. The IMI group is keen to work with the DGM.
The commercial potential of the DGM technology and the Model Gut CRO business is
therefore substantial. However, a significant barrier to achieving market potential is the need
to generate a robust validation dataset and refine the technology. Validation will allow the
results of DGM trials to be acceptable to regulators where human clinical studies are currently
required.
Page 26
£750,000 has been secured by IFR and PBL for a translational grant to validate the model gut
as a tool for pharmaceutical assessment.
4.3
Food and Health Impact
The FH ISP generates knowledge to underpin evidence-based policy development in diet and
health and to contribute to an understanding of the role of diet in health ageing. Effective
translation of this knowledge will stimulate innovation in the food industry to develop novel
functional products. In addition, the ISP is involved in researching the potential of plants and
waste products from the agri-food industry to generate energy and reduce waste.
The outcomes from the research will have relevance for a number of stakeholder groups:
• Scientific community: publishing of high impact scientific papers to inform research.
• Policy makers: evidence and advice on dietary issues.
• Industry: driving innovation through generation of IP and knowledge exchange.
• Public: improved public health advice on healthy eating and ultimately improved health
through development of foods with improved nutritional and functional properties.
(Source: FH ISP Outline)
Examples of the work and its impact (or potential impact) are set out below.
4.3.1 Enriched Broccoli
In October 2011 enriched Broccoli was launched in the UK in Marks and Spencer stores
under the brand name Beneforte achieving wide media coverage. In July 2012 it became
more widely available in certain other UK supermarkets. Prior to its UK launch, it was
launched in the USA in 2010 and is now being sold in all US states.
Following its original inception at JIC, IFR has played a crucial role in the development of this
broccoli, in developing an understanding of the human health benefits that are necessary to
support consumer communications.
As highlighted in the previous impact report, Beneforte contains around two and a half times
more glucoraphanin than normal broccoli. This is turned into sulforaphane in the body,
boosting antioxidant enzyme levels and strengthening the body's defences against the
damage caused by environmental pollutants and free radicals. A diet rich in glucoraphanin
may reduce levels of cardio-vascular disease and cancers such as prostate cancer.
IFR has been able to run human intervention studies for enriched broccoli in conjunction with
the UEA and the Hospital highlighting the value of the NRP for collaboration studies of this
kind. This study with volunteers at moderate risk of cardiovascular disease provided evidence
that regular consumption of Beneforte for 12 weeks resulted in a clinically significant reduction
in 10 year cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk of 1.44%. However, substantial scientific
evidence is required by the European Food Safety Authority before any kind of health claim
can be made. Funding has been secured from the Technology Strategy Board (TSB), as part
of its Nutrition for Life programme, to complete a larger study with two recruitment centres,
Page 27
one in Norwich and one at the University of Reading. This study, part funded by Monsanto,
will continue to validate heart health benefits of the high glucoraphanin broccoli.
As well as CVD, there is substantial epidemiological evidence and supporting evidence from
animal studies that diets rich in broccoli can reduce prostate cancer. IFR has found that men
29
who ate a broccoli-rich diet of 400g / week experienced changes in the activity of genes
associated with tumour survival and growth. IFR is starting a new long term study on broccoli
and prostate cancer in 2013 funded by a $1m grant from the US based Prostate Cancer
Foundation, the largest prostate cancer charity in the world. This study will aim to
scientifically assess the benefits in relation to prostate cancer.
Therefore, including Beneforte in a healthy diet, also involving reduction in salt and saturated
fats, could result in a reduction in CVD and prostate risk, resulting in benefits for the
individual, cost savings for the NHS and benefits to the UK economy.
Cardiovascular disease is the cause of 50,000 premature deaths per year in the UK and
affects more than five million people with annual costs exceeding £30bn. 80% of premature
CVD (i.e. occurring before age 75) is avoidable. Reducing cardiovascular events by just
1% would result in savings to the health service worth at least £30m a year compared
30
with no additional intervention.
Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer for males in western countries. About
31
41,000 men are diagnosed with the disease each year in the UK . An Oxford University study
found that prostate cancer costs the UK economy £800m per year, comprising health care
32
costs of £400m, economic costs of £200m plus the cost of informal care of another £200m .
A 1% reduction in prostate cancer in the UK, would deliver £8m of savings (NHS
savings £4m, lost work days £2m and informal care £2m).
To achieve these benefits will require:
• scientific evidence of the benefits (IFR and partners)
• uptake of the broccoli by growers and retailers
• marketing of the benefits to consumers (cancer charities, health agencies and
retailers)
• consumption of sufficient broccoli over a long enough period to deliver the benefits
(consumers)
There are multiple patents filed by PBL in relation to the enriched broccoli. Between 2003 and
2012 they invested £336k to enable IFR to investigate the health benefits of broccoli.
Increased sales of Beneforte will return substantial royalties to JIC, and to a lesser extent in
the future, IFR, from the commercialisation of Beneforte broccoli.
29
Traka et al (2008), PLoS One. 2008 July 2.3 (7):e2568
Barton P et al (2011) Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of cardiovascular disease prevention in
whole populations: modelling study British Medical Journal 343, 4044
31
Data Table: Incidence cases and rates for males, females and persons in the UK, England, Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland, Cancer Research UK, December 2012.
32
The economic burden of cancer across the European Union, Jose Leal, University of Oxford, NCRI
conference paper, Nov 2012
30
Page 28
Monsanto, as licensee, sees Beneforte as key to its growth plans. Along with other major
agricultural and biotechnology businesses Monsanto is now seeking to deliver consumer
benefits directly through food rather than simply focusing on increasing yields of commodity
crops for growers. This whole area has significant implications for future nutrition and
healthcare.
Although Beneforte sales so far are modest, market penetration for a new variety can be
relatively swift if it becomes the adopted standard. Seminis, owned by Monsanto, supplies
around 40% of world broccoli seed. Apio Inc, one of the largest North American
grower/distributors of fresh vegetable produce anticipates 100% replacement of conventional
broccoli within five years.
To summarise, the economic impacts of the work on enriched broccoli carried out at IFR that
have already occurred are:
•
•
Income to PBL (shared primarily with JIC) from licensing to Monsanto.
Additional grant funding from TSB and Monsanto of at least £1.5m.
Potential benefits of £38m per 1% reduction in disease can be anticipated at the UK level.
50% of these are attributed to IFR.
Impact summary for enhanced broccoli
Total input costs
£11.965m since 1990; £2.84m between 2008
and 2013
50% to IFR and 50% to JIC
1990 - present
£1m estimated by Brookdale; industry is
currently rolling this out
Yr1
2
5
5
£38m
£34.7m
3
4
5
6
7-10
10
20
40
40
80
4.3.2 Satiety33
Obesity is an increasing problem facing society in the UK and in developed economies as
people eat and drink more calories and use too few. It is reported by the NHS that the
34
average person eats around 10% more calories than they need every day , which suggests
around 200 excess daily calories. This leads to gradual weight gain throughout life, leading in
35
increased proportions of overweight and obese individuals as they age . Therefore a
sustainable, long term approach is required to eliminate this small amount of overconsumption
to reduce the amount of long-term weight gain currently observed in the population.
Alongside exercise, controlling appetite is a major factor in preventing this long term weight
gain as the level of calories consumed has a direct impact on weight gain.
33
Feeling full, or absence of hunger.
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/eat-less.aspx
35
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/pubs/opad09
34
Page 29
36
The three year BBSRC-funded Satiety Project led by IFR aims to develop to proof of
concept stage a system for adding an ingredient to food that will increase the feeling of being
full (by triggering a release of satiety-inducing gut hormones), while at the same time slowing
down fat digestion (by applying a coating to the fat droplets in the food). The aim is to identify
an ingredient that is already in use in foods that it will be possible to add to staple foods such
as bread in order to achieve a wide impact. Therefore, although this research is considered
too early stage for the private sector, if the project achieves its objective to prove that the
concept can work in humans it may be possible to work with industry and regulators to
introduce the system into foods within 5 years.
In addition to identifying potential ingredients to prolong satiety, the project will also develop
new research systems which could also help companies develop the evidence to support
health claims for similar products (see Food health claims case study). The outputs of the
study may also be used in providing dietary advice to help patients to increase consumption of
products that increase the feeling of satiety.
37
The UK has the highest obesity rates for women and second highest for men in Europe .
38
According to the latest figures, 11.2m adults (26.1%) in England are obese . The
extrapolations in the foresight report indicate that on current trends, by 2015, 36% of males
and 28% of females will be obese. By 2025, 47% and 36% respectively are estimated to be
obese, and by 2050 the proportion of the population that is obese will be 60% of males and
39
50% of females . This is a major health issue for the country which is linked to increased
risks of type II diabetes, some cancers and heart and liver disease.
Tackling obesity-related illness is estimated by the Department for Health to already cost the
40
NHS £5.1bn per year. The foresight paper on tackling obesity estimates that obesity
problems cost the UK economy around £16bn per year, which could rise to £50bn by 2050 if
41
unchecked. The government’s obesity action plan for England ‘Healthy Lives, Healthy
People’, acknowledges that tackling weight gain in adults and obesity is not just an individual’s
problem, but requires action across a range of levels. Applying the total cost of obesity to the
total number of obese people indicates that the average annual cost to the NHS is £455 per
obese person and to the economy of £1,429 per obese person.
Current treatments range from diet control at one end of the spectrum (which relies heavily on
willpower) but is low cost through to surgery at the other end of the spectrum. For those who
are dangerously obese, surgery is one of the main options currently available to reduce the
amount of food required to make them feel full. There were 6,723 weight loss surgery
procedures (gastric banding and gastric bypasses) carried out by the NHS between April 2011
36
IFR are receiving £400k out of total funding of £900k over 3 years. The project team also includes
Imperial College, University of Leeds and Glasgow University
37
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Overweight_and_obesity__BMI_statistics
38
http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/04/obesityfacts/
39
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/obesity/14.pdf
40
http://www.bis.gov.uk/foresight/our-work/projects/published-projects/tackling-obesities
41
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_130487.pdf
Page 30
42
and April 2012 . The average cost of gastric banding is reported at £5,000 - £8,000 and
43
gastric bypass surgery is £9,500 – £15,000 .
The satiety project could therefore help to introduce a new treatment that could provide an
alternative between simple diet control based on willpower at one end, and costly surgery at
the other. Companies could introduce the ingredient into selected products as part of normal
new product development or as a new range of products targeted at the overweight.
Therefore if the work of IFR can help prevent 0.1% of the population from becoming
obese, the avoided annual costs to the NHS would be £19.6m and worth £61.6m to the
economy.
Impact summary for Satiety
Total input costs
£400,000
44% based in share of funding
2012-2015
N/A It is assumed that industry will introduce
any new ingredients as part of on-going
product development
Yr1
2
3
4
5
6
7-10
0
0
0
0
1%
2% 15%
£61.6m (long term reduced economic cost of
obesity)
£4.6m
4.3.3 KTP – Case Study of Working with an SME
44
Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTP) is a UK-wide programme funded by the TSB to help
businesses to improve their competitiveness and productivity through better use of
knowledge, technology and skills from within the UK Knowledge Base. There are three parties
within the partnership – a company, a research partner and a recently qualified KTP
associate. In 2010, IFR entered a KTP with a manufacturer of premium quality food
ingredients for the catering sector, Macphie of Glenbervie. The KTP was to employ a newly
qualified scientist for 2 years, provide them training to work with industry and to help with
product development. Total costs of the KTP were £150k, with the company paying a third of
the costs.
The company produces around 10 tonnes per week of glaze for use in the catering sector, for
example on baked products. Traditionally glazes used in baking are made with dairy or egg
protein. However the raw material cost of dairy products and eggs has fluctuated significantly
and increased in cost. As a result, the company developed the KTP with IFR to help them
identify lower cost, higher quality ingredients with improved functionality without using
additives.
IFR undertook the initial work to identify the key characteristics of the glaze. This then enabled
the KTP associate to do the screening to identify similar materials which could be used as a
42
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/08august/Pages/gastric-bypass-surgery-up-fivefold-in-six-years.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/weight-loss-surgery/Pages/Introduction.aspx
44
http://www.online.org.uk/background/
43
Page 31
substitute for egg protein. Access to technologies at IFR allowed the KTP associate to
undertake analysis.
The business has reported that it achieved all three original objectives:
developing a new product which has secured new contracts worth £570k
increased sales by £100k per year by improving existing branded products
delivered cost savings of £150k per year in existing products
Therefore, the cumulative benefits in terms of increased sales and reduced costs are in
excess of £800k. The business has benefited from the education and training in R&D
technology and the techniques deployed are likely to lead to future new product development.
Assuming that a third of the benefits could be attributed to each partner in the KTP, the input
from IFR is estimated to be worth £270,000 to the supported business in terms of
additional turnover and reduced costs. In addition to the benefits to the business, the
scientist also received 4-5 months training at IFR.
“Working with IFR has allowed Macphie to access leading edge food science and
translate that into real technologies and products with substantial commercial value.
The IFR team have been very helpful, professional and easy to work with. The KTP
collaboration has been of significant business benefit to Macphie” Ashley Baker,
Macphie of Glenbervie
4.3.4 Reduced Fat Foods
IFR is leading research into reduced fat and sodium content in ready-made sauces and meals
45
as part of the EU funded TeRiFiQ project . The project aims to achieve significant binary
(salt and fat or fat and sugar) reductions in the level of sodium, sugar and fat in selected
cheeses, meat, cakes and ready-made food products whilst maintaining, and where possible
enhancing, nutritional and sensorial qualities.
As part of the work, IFR is researching an ingredient currently used to reduce the viscosity in
46
chocolate (PGPR ), but which also has properties that can be used to stabilise water droplets
within oils which could reduce the fat content in a wide range of food products that contain
emulsified fats - potentially up to half of all manufactured foods.
Although PGPR is approved by the EFSA for use in food (such as chocolate), companies that
have considered using it in reduced fat foods face uncertainty as to whether EFSA will
recognise the health benefits (i.e. its contribution to reduced fat content). As a result, although
PGPR has been found to be safe, companies are unwilling to introduce products that
incorporate PGPR into foods due to the regulatory risk. In response to this market failure, IFR
is designing a project to support companies’ bids to claim the health benefits associated with
PGPR and therefore get it introduced into a wider range of foods. This will include providing
the evidence to support claims that the product has multiple health benefits.
45
IFR is one of 17 partners in the EU funded TeRiFiQ consortium (http://www.terifiq.eu/), which includes
research organisations and food manufacturers from across Europe. The four year €3m project (IFR
funding of €250k) commenced in 2012.
46
Polyglycerolpolyricinoleate (E476)
Page 32
The primary objective of the project is to develop better quality low fat food options, which will
result in a greater uptake of lower fat products replacing high fat alternatives. The NHS
reports that eating too much fat leads to weight gain while a diet high in saturated fat can raise
cholesterol levels, increasing the risk of heart disease. Some foods currently marketed as
lower fat often replace fat with sugar, or other carbohydrates which can end up being turned
into fat in the body. This project aims to reduce fat content by 40% while retaining good taste
properties. For example, mayonnaise has a typical fat content of 75.6g per 100g, compared
with a reduced fat alterative with just 28.1g of fat.
Reducing the dietary intake of fat is an important factor in reducing the risk of CVD, along with
physical activity and managing biological factors such as blood pressure and obesity. The
average person aged 19-64 in the UK consumes 70.9g of fat daily, of which 26g are saturated
47
48
fatty acids , 20% more than the recommended amount . A World Health Organisation report
in 2003 stated that a diet high in fat (particularly saturated fat), sodium and sugar and low in
49
complex carbohydrates, fruit and vegetables increased the risk of CVD . According to the
50
British Heart Foundation, cardiovascular disease costs the UK economy £30.7bn per year
and causes more than 50,000 premature deaths in the UK. In 2010 there were around 330m
51
prescriptions for CVD in the UK , well above any other health condition. In 2008, 11.1% of
adults in Great Britain have CVD (5.5m) which indicates a cost of £5,500 per person with the
disease.
It is anticipated that the project will result in lower fat content in existing foods, by replacing fat
with water. The result could be better taste low fat options, healthier population and reduced
healthcare costs due to fewer people developing cardiovascular disease. Reducing
cardiovascular events by just 1% would result in savings to the health service worth at least
52
£30m a year compared with no additional intervention .
Impact summary for Reduced Fat Foods
Total input costs
£210,000
70% based on leading this area of research,
but in a large consortium
2012-2016
N/A It is assumed that industry will introduce
any new ingredients as part of on-going
product development
Yr1
2
3
4
5
6
7-10
0
0
0
0
1%
2%
5%
£30m (long term potential due to reduced
healthcare costs)
£1.78m
47
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_128556.pdf
48
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/Eat-less-saturated-fat.aspx
49
Diet, Nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. World Health Organization, 2003; Report of a
Joint AHO/FAO Expert Consultation
50
http://www.bhfactive.org.uk/userfiles/Documents/coronary-heart-disease-stats2010economics.pdf
51
OHE Guide to UK Health and Health Care Statistics, 2011
52
Barton P et al (2011) Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of cardiovascular disease prevention in
whole populations: modelling study British Medical Journal 343, 4044
Page 33
4.3.5 National Collection of Yeast Cultures (NCYC)
The NCYC is a National Capability based at IFR. With over 4,000 strains of yeasts, the
53
collection is the 7th largest in the world and continues to grow with an average of 4 new
54
strains added each month. The main role of the NCYC is to collect, preserve and distribute
yeasts for use by academia and industry. The team also uses DNA sequencing and
increasingly, genomic analysis, to identify and characterise yeasts to provide information to
55
56
help exploit yeasts . NCYC receives funding from BBRSC and has 3 direct team members.
The wide and growing number of applications means that there is a strong demand for yeast
57
cultures . The Collection supplies cultures as high quality raw material for production and
58
research and has over 690 customers . These include academic institutions, brewers, the
pharmaceutical industry, the food and beverage industries and biofuel producers. The NCYC
supplies mainly to the UK but a considerable proportion of sales and services are used by
non-UK customers.
NCYC provides a number of services:
•
•
•
Yeast identification service - used by both academia and industry to precisely
59
classify and identify yeast cultures . For example, identification of yeast
contaminants in the beverage industry is a vital first step in eliminating and preventing
re-occurrence with a resultant saving of spoilage and money.
Confidential safe deposit service - companies can have their yeasts safely stored.
Of 128 customers, most are brewers while pharmaceutical companies also use this
60
service. The service enables businesses to resupply in an emergency and to have a
reference point for quality control. This is particularly important for small brewers who
may not have the same analytical and storage facilities as large firms.
DNA Fingerprinting service - primarily used by the brewing industry, has become an
important element in quality control in other sectors that use yeasts. For example,
NCYC is undertaking work for several of the world's biggest animal feed companies
and related work for the State Testing Laboratory of Ireland.
There are a range of examples of high value sectors that currently use, or are investing in the
use of, yeasts:
•
NCYC is recognised as having a particular historical specialism in brewing yeasts,
with 475 strains in the collection. Yeast is responsible for fermentation in beer and
each strain of yeast delivers different characteristics in the beer. Alongside water, a
53
Yeast culture collections of the world: meeting the needs of industrial researchers, 2012
For example if products that use a particular yeast are discontinued there is no incentive for the
company to retain the yeast
55
while there are approximately 1,500 known species, it is thought that only 1% of species have been
discovered
56
£2 million over 5 years
57
The NCYC had over 11,000 unique web hits and over 400 email inquiries in 2011/12.
58
The NCYC dispatched 386 yeast cultures to customers in the 2011 to 2012 financial year. 15 SGRP
strain sets were also supplied
59
The NCYC carried out 119 identifications in the 2011 to 2012 financial year
60
The yeast strains are kept in glass ampoules and freeze dried in quantities that can be built up quickly.
54
Page 34
•
•
•
starch source (normally malted barley) and flavourings, yeasts are central to the
61
brewing sector, which had turnover of £8.4bn in the UK in 2011 .
The renewable energy sector is increasingly interested in using yeasts. The
production of ethanol from biomass is an established process using yeasts. The
process is continually being improved and different biomass materials are being used.
Often the process is discovered without knowing which yeast is causing the
fermentation and there are a number of businesses that have had their collections
screened by NCYC to isolate yeasts and identify characteristics to see if there are
similar strains in the collection which could yield better results. The NCYC can
therefore make a contribution to the developing biofuels sector in the UK. A
total of 652m litres of bioethanol were used in the UK in 2011 - a sevenfold increase
from the 85m litres used in 2005. However, much of this is currently imported as
production capacity is only 47m litres, and actual production is only 10% of capacity.
As well as producing bioethanol, research is also being undertaken into using yeasts
together with microalgae for microbial lipid production with potential to produce
biodiesel.
There is strong demand for yeasts for novel uses and researchers use the collection
to search for new beneficial properties that they may require for their application.
Yeasts are widely used for enzyme production and sterility testing by the
pharmaceutical industry. There are some other emerging areas of work, such as
research to look at the impact of yeasts in the gut on gastroenteritis (Irritable Bowel
Syndrome). NCYC has undertaken research sequencing yeast genomes for the gut
using bioinformatics.
Yeasts are also being used in the production of bio-based platform chemicals (e.g.
62
succinic acid at the DSM/Roquette plant ). Similar to oil refineries, the 'Biorefinery'
concept involves several such high value products being produced from
biomass alongside bioalcohol. This is an expanding research area for IFR.
There is significant latent potential within the NCYC that is now being exploited to
increase UK production of biofuels and other high value products.
61
2011 Annual Business Survey, ONS
http://www.dsm.com/en_US/cworld/public/media/pages/press-releases/36_11_dsm_and_roquette
_to_open_commercial_scale_bio_based_succinic_acid_plant_2012.jsp
62
Page 35
Impact summary for NCYC
Total input costs
£400k
100%
Annual
n/a
Yr1
2
0%
0%
£6.6m
£1.93m
3
1%
4
2%
5
5%
6
10%
7-10
15%
4.3.6 Food Databanks
The Food Databanks at IFR are a National Capability to manage and publish data which
describe the composition of foods eaten in the UK. The Food Databanks National Capability
63
consists of two interconnected databases - the Composition of Foods , which describes the
64
nutrient composition of more than 3,000 foods consumed in the UK and eBASIS , which is
an online repository of critically evaluated data about plant bioactive compounds and health
effects. The activities of the Food Databanks include:
•
•
•
•
Refreshing existing datasets, extending datasets through the nutrient survey analysis
65
and undertaking new surveys (for example including branded foods data).
Providing access to the data by publishing datasets, papers and producing the
66
McCance and Widdowson’s Composition of Foods.
Undertaking collaborative research with industry and other researchers including
Universities / FSA / Department of Health / British Nutrition Foundation / Royal
Society of Chemistry and several analytical European bodies. The Food Databanks
team also works with other compiling organisations and recent projects led by IFR
staff have sought to integrate the data into a European Platform which is aimed to
harmonise information across Europe.
The team is also working to improve access to the data, for example, enabling data
to be accessed by mobile phone. Around 100 publications, conferences and other
media outputs are delivered each year.
The Food Databanks are an independent and reliable national resource used by academia,
67
healthcare, industry, government and the general public in the UK . The data are used to
support policy, help industry with reformulation and by dieticians and other health
professionals. These databases are already established as independent and trusted
resources with 50,000 international users from academia, healthcare, industry, government
63
This has been on-going for many years and is typically funded on a 2-4 year basis. There is a team of
6 people funded by BBSRC, EU and DoH, around 550k per annum
64
Developed with funding from the EU
65
This is a relatively slow process, since the cost of collecting data means that they undertake 1 study a
year.
66
th
st
IFR is currently halfway through the 4 year programme for the 7 edition which started on May 1
2009.
67
Most countries compile databases about the nutrient composition of the foods eaten by their
population.
Page 36
and the general public. IFR reports that the UK food composition datasets were cited in an
average of 6,546 scientific publications per year between 2001 and 2010.
There are a wide range of uses of the data:
•
•
•
•
•
•
To provide data for dieticians to assess nutrient composition of an individual’s current
diet and to inform diet and health plans for individuals.
As a source of data for other health related publications – for example a key data
source to calculate nutrient intake in preparing the results of the national nutritional
survey.
Use by academia undertaking research into diets such as risk assessments into how
diets affect health - for example, to assess an increase in intake of vitamin D and
selenium.
Use by industry in reformulation of products. Many SMEs in the food sector do not
have the in-house resources to support consumer nutrient information and the
databanks provide a readily accessible source for the information.
For specific studies, for example of transfats, using different oils and fats. The data
provide a benchmark for different products to assess the nutrient content of a food
product compared to the average.
Researchers also use data to do hypothetical studies to help improve health and in
policy development.
The value of the databanks can be measured in terms of the cost to access the information
from alternative sources. A report produced for the FSA in 2005, found that the uniqueness
and value of the UK Food Composition database was estimated to be worth in excess of
68
£15m . Given that this source is somewhat dated now, we have estimated the cost based on
the current user profile. The users are broken down by type:
•
•
•
Food and healthcare: 20,000 – in the absence of the food databanks, SMEs and
other industry bodies would have to undertake their own analysis to produce
information on nutrition. Assuming each user avoids having to do just one nutrition
69
test on foods, at a cost of £400 each, this represents a saving of £8m.
70
Dieticians: there are 7,888 registered UK dieticians who consult with around 8
71
patients a day . Assuming each patient visits 3 times over the course of a year,
altogether, dieticians consult with around 4.5m patients per annum. In the absence of
the food databanks, dieticians would have to spend time accessing data on the
nutrition content of foods from a wider range of sources - assuming that a dietician
has an hourly rate of £20, and that they spend an average of 5 minutes accessing
data per patient from alternative sources, the annual cost would be in the region of
£7.5m.
Academia: an estimated 20,000 people use the food databanks for research and
teaching purposes. Assuming a saving of 1 hour per researcher, represents a cost
saving of £4m per annum.
68
Strategic Review of the nutrient Analysis Programme, FSA, 2006
FDA’s 2003 Labelling Cost Model reports a cost for full NLEA lab analyses of $560 (Ref.
29)http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/LabelingNutrition/UCM249276.pdf
70
http://www.hpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/professions/index.asp?id=5
71
http://www.alliedhealthworld.com/dietitian-jobs.html
69
Page 37
Therefore the revised value of the dataset is estimated at around £19.5m per annum to
Impact summary for Food Databanks
Total input costs
£550k
100%
Annual
Assume 90% of the industry benefits are
derived from data already published
Yr1
2
3
4
5
6
710
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
£19.5m
£6.5m
4.3.7 Food health claims
Research over the years has been able to demonstrate the beneficial effects of many foods.
With consumers being increasingly interested in healthy eating, it is of significant benefit to
businesses to make health claims about their products. To avoid misleading consumers, there
are strict regulations about making a health claim on a food, which are enforced in Europe by
72
EFSA .
In December 2006, the Regulation on nutrition and health claims made on foods was adopted
by the EU. This sets out rules for the use of nutrition claims such as “low fat”, “high fibre” or
health claims such as “reducing blood cholesterol”. The aim of the regulation is to ensure that
any claims made on foods are clear, accurate and based on evidence that is acceptable to the
whole scientific community.
Although this regulation is aimed at protecting the consumer, there is uncertainty amongst
both food producers and the research community about how claims are assessed by EFSA
and the evidence required to support a claim. Therefore, there is concern that food producers
are reluctant to make health claims due to the risks of not gaining approval. There have been
a number of recent reports highlighting the small number of health claims being approved and
the number of previous foods with health claims that can no longer be made – for example
73
probiotic claims have been rejected .
74
IFR is leading a 4 year €6m EU funded project ‘BACCHUS’ , which commenced in October
2012, to research the beneficial effects of bioactive peptides and polyphenols on
cardiovascular health. Polyphenols are biologically active compounds that occur in a wide
72
European Food Safety Authority
http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/health/eu-health-claims-regulations-in-forcetoday/235068.article?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=rss
74
The total project is €6m, with IFR receiving €1.2m (the EU pays 75% of costs - so actual cost to IFR is
€1.5m). There are 28 partners in the consortium with IFR as the lead and largest partner. In total there
are 28 partners involved in the consortium, including 16 SMEs, several universities and other European
research partners.
73
Page 38
range of foods such as apples, blackcurrants, oranges, grapes, and tea. Bioactive peptides
are small fragments of food proteins which are either present in the plant or are generated as
a result of the natural action of enzymes during food processing (e.g. dry-curing of meat) or by
addition of enzymes as a processing aid. Although there is a large volume of research into the
health benefits of bioactive peptides and polyphenols, much of it is not meeting EFSA
requirements to demonstrate cause and effect, and consequently only one product (olive oil)
is currently approved to claim the health benefits associated with polyphenols or bioactive
peptides. This project is therefore designed to address the market failure arising from
uncertainty over what research is required to provide the benefits and how to get approval.
The European Commission recognises this as a barrier for SMEs and the project is focussed
on overcoming the difficulties in, for example, proving the cardiovascular health benefits of
these proteins.
An important element of the project is working directly with 15 SMEs, the majority of which are
directly involved in developing food products and pursuing health claims. Existing SMEdeveloped products that have clear potential for obtaining favourable opinions for health
claims have been selected as test cases for the study. These are aimed at addressing key
aspects of the EFSA health claims evaluation process. IFR will advise SMEs on the research
required to support a health claim; help put together the dossier of information required to
support the claim(s); and monitor the progress of claims to understand issues arising as case
studies progress through the EFSA system.
The project will seek to overcome barriers to approving health claims of polyphenols by:
Developing new knowledge to demonstrate cause and effect
Undertaking trials to demonstrate beneficial effects in human subjects
Disseminating findings, particularly to the wider SME community
It is anticipated that results and best practice will be made publically available, and thus
support future health claims by the food industry - there will be 2-3 presentations a year
alongside the case studies and published research. The project will use the IFR Food and
Health Network (FHN) - the knowledge exchange mechanism of IFR which has a number of
Expertise Clusters to bridge the gap between the IFR science and industrial application. One
Expertise Cluster is focused on “Plants, Food and Health” and meetings of this Cluster will be
used to transfer knowledge and technology to industry. The main outputs will be improved
knowledge of how polyphenols benefit health; information for the research community; and
general and specific information for SMEs to help proceed through the EFSA claims process.
IFR has recognised scientific excellence in this area and has the support systems and skills to
manage a project of this scale. The only organisations able to lead on this work would be a
handful of other research institutes and universities in Europe.
Beneficiaries will be businesses able to make health claims on their products, and consumers
who will have a wider choice of products with proven health benefits.
The British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) describes functional foods as foods which contain
ingredients that have health promoting properties over and above their nutritional value. The
total UK market for functional foods was valued at £1.46bn in 2009 75. The sector is the
75
http://www.keynote.co.uk/market-intelligence/view/product/2386/functional-foods
Page 39
largest in the UK health foods market after organic foods. Fortified dairy products and cereal
products comprise most sales. These two categories comprise 97% of total revenues.
Although the price premia of functional foods can be as high as 30% (partly to compensate for
higher R&D and ingredient costs), the difficulty in promoting the health benefits is perceived to
76
be stifling product sales. Indeed, it has led to many product failures and market withdrawals .
IFR’s work will help to demonstrate the health benefits of polyphenols and peptides, and
simplify the health claims process for companies, potentially reducing costs and creating new
market opportunities for food companies. A 1% increase in the sale of functional foods
through IFR support would be worth £14.6m annually to the sector.
Impact summary for Food Health Claims
Total input costs
76
£1.2m out of a £5m EU project
20% (based on partner inputs)
2012-2016
Unknown contribution to research funding
Yr1
2
3
4
5
6
7-10
0
0
10% 20% 40% 80% 100%
£14.6m
£7.2m
http://www.druppas.com/Publicatie%20(EVD).pdf
Page 40
5.
Wider IFR Impact
5.1
Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation (KEC)
KEC is central to IFR’s mission and is funded by the BBSRC’s KEC grant. Knowledge
exchange activity enables IFR to make sure that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The knowledge and understanding it generates is widely shared so increasing the pool of
knowledge held by others
IFR advice informs Government food policy-making and enables public funds to be used
wisely
Appropriate regulations are put in place to guide business and others
Education and information outputs and activities by IFR and its partners lead to well
informed consumers and businesses, leading to wise food purchases, sensible food
storage, handling and preparation and thus a reduction in food wastage and human health
problems
Public spending on preventing and dealing with food-related illness is reduced
The training of the next generation of food and health scientists and administrators
ensures the sustainability of the UK food sector.
In these ways, IFR contributes to the public good. It would not be in the interest of most
businesses or individuals to take on these roles as most of the benefits would not accrue to
them.
IFR publishes extensively in the scientific literature as one means of disseminating its
scientific knowledge. An analysis of its publications over the past 5 years highlights the
following:
• Some 459 scientific papers with an impact factor greater than 2.5 have been
published by IFR researchers since 2007
• These papers have appeared in 150 leading journals
Since 2002, 1,964 items have been published by IFR bringing a total of over 35,000 citations
– an average of 17.95 citations per publication.
In terms of commercialisation at IFR, it centres on:
•
•
•
Intellectual property developed at IFR being shared and, subject to licenses, exploited for
business and society leading to income for IFR and societal benefit
Businesses that see value in IFR’s outputs exploit them, leading to entrepreneurship and
innovation, business growth, shareholder value and job creation (both within and out with
the UK)
Economic impact is maximised by growth of economic output and value added.
The Institute has a set of processes (its ‘Research Exploitation Conveyor’) that takes ideas
from fundamental research, through translational and follow-on scientific activity to
collaborative and 1:1 projects of varying scale. These can be followed by proof-of-principle
funding, exploitation of intellectual property and the commercial development by partners of
new products. There are a range of tools used, ranging from IP management and contract
Page 41
research and troubleshooting to industrial research partnerships and creation of spin-out
companies.
In 2011/12, IFR’s 115 contracts totalled £3,377k of which the private sector contributed 16
projects worth £462k and the EU 33 projects worth £1,121k. Since 2008/9, contracts from all
sources added a total of £16,143k to IFR’s core grant income.
Important examples of IFR’s KEC activity are set out below.
5.1.1 Food and Health Network (FHN) 77
FHN links food businesses with IFR scientists so that industry gets early access to the latest
research findings to gain competitive advantage. The Network has around 250 members of
which around 70 are SMEs.
There are a number of Expertise Clusters to focus FHN activity onto the most important
areas of interest for business and so to improve the transfer of scientific knowledge to create
wealth. Members may collaborate to fund research of mutual interest, sometimes
confidentially, other times with match funding from outside funding bodies.
FHN Direct provides confidential one to one discussions and collaboration between IFR
scientists and their industry counterparts as opposed to the more open discussions in Clusters
meetings.
These activities lead to external projects; for example, in October 2011 the TSB Nutrition for
78
Life collaborative R&D programme granted £246,669 to part-fund ‘Project Oliver’ in which
PepsiCo worked with IFR to develop healthier snacks.
5.1.2 IFR Extra
IFR Extra Ltd was established in 2009 as a commercial subsidiary of IFR. It supplies short
term and applied research projects, trouble-shooting, specialist analysis and consultancies on
a commercial basis. Typically, IFR Extra projects are each worth less than £20,000.
The business has handled between 45 and 55 assignments per year since it started. In the
first half of 2012/3 the team completed eight pieces of work, had eight more in progress as at
November 2012 with sixteen in the pipeline. Altogether it has worked with nearly 200
customers.
Some examples of IFR Extra projects are set out below. The examples highlight that
79
relatively small projects (in financial terms to IFR) can deliver larger benefits to companies :
• One of the world’s leading food manufacturers asked IFR to conduct statistical
analysis and modelling of research trial data. The company used this analysis to
inform production of a new product, gaining significant advantage. A research paper
was published and IFR Extra gained direct income of c. £20,000.
77
http://www.foodandhealthnetwork.com/
78 Food Processing and Manufacturing Efficiency – projects offered funding, 5 December 2012
79
These projects are confidential so full details are not disclosed.
Page 42
•
•
5.2
An SME engaged IFR to analyse phytochemicals in a novel product. As the work
demonstrated an increase in potentially beneficial phytochemicals in the product, the
SME was able to profit by selling the formulation to a large international food
company. IFR direct income £6,400
A large international supplier of ingredients for animal feeds had issues with waste
streams blocking pipes. IFR undertook cross-disciplinary biochemical & microscopical
analysis. As a result the company then knew exactly what issue it faced. Resolution of
the problem will save the company considerable energy otherwise used to remove
blockages from waste streams. IFR direct income £3,200.
Policy Contribution
There is a range of ways in which IFR has a contribution to policy, both directly and indirectly.
It not only influences the policies and regulations in the UK but also informs policy at the
European and international levels.
5.2.1 Influencing Policy Decisions
IFR science is used as evidence to inform decision-making by Government Advisory
Committees. Two examples are set out below:
•
Sous-Vide is a method of cooking food at accurately regulated temperatures much lower
than normally used for cooking. IFR has clarified the conditions under which sous-vide
cooking is safe and provided industry with data in ComBase to enable them to ensure
they are following good practice and offering safe food to consumers.
•
Safe Cooking of Burgers : An American fast food chain suggested to the FSA that the
UK recommended temperature/time conditions for cooking burgers were more stringent
than was necessary. After the ACMSF reviewed the situation, the Chief Medical Officer
(CMO) advised that the advice on the safe cooking of burgers should not change, citing
IFR’s work ten times.
80
5.2.2 Consultation Responses
IFR influences UK and EU policy development through providing responses to consultations
from the FSA, Defra, the European Commission and others from time to time. Two examples
are:
•
Advice to the ACMSF on the draft risk profile of the Toxoplasma parasite in the
food chain, March 2012: By urging action to understand and minimise its impact on the
health of the population, the IFR response should contribute to reducing the adverse
economic impact of this parasite.
•
Ready to eat foods: The IFR response was aimed at ensuring consistency in regulation
between the UK and EU thus making it easier for businesses to trade in the EU and
elsewhere in Europe and hence increasing business efficiency.
80
Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food; Ad Hoc Group on Safe Cooking of Burgers, Report on
the Safe Cooking of Burgers, August 2007
Page 43
5.2.3 UK National Technology Platform for Food
81
IFR took the lead in the formation of a National Food Platform in collaboration with other UK
food research and network organisations. Its aim is to improve co-ordination, identify market
trends, shift national priorities, fill gaps in the UK food research, innovation and training
provision and influence the national and European funding landscape. In this way it aims to
maintain the UK food industry as a key player in European research, innovation and training.
5.2.4 The European Technology Platform Food for Life
82
IFR sits on and is active in the European Technology Platform (ETP) Food for Life . IFR is
thus in a position to influence developments in the food industry across Europe and to
influence the forward research agenda e.g. the research and innovation agenda for the
Horizon 2020 Programme worth an estimated €80bn that will fund European R&D 2014 –
2020.
5.2.5 FOODforce 83
IFR initiated and provides the chair and secretariat for FOODforce, a pan-European network
of 25 multidisciplinary European research providers active in the areas of food, nutrition and
health. FOODforce enables discussions on best practice and societal impact and facilitates
international knowledge exchange and innovation, within and outside the EU. This position
recognises IFR’s international role and leadership in food science.
5.2.6 Coordination of National & International Collaborative Projects
IFR staff are often asked to co-ordinate national projects supported by TSB or LINK as well as
EU consortia projects. For example:
81
82
83
84
•
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR): In May 2012 the TSB’s ‘Technology Inspired
Innovation’ competition awarded a grant to Oxford Instruments Industrial Analysis
group to work with IFR’s Analytical Sciences Unit in order to develop techniques for
processing low field (60MHz) NMR spectra.
•
BACCHUS (See Food Health Claims case study - Beneficial effects of dietary
84
bioactive peptides and polyphenols on cardiovascular health in humans) is a
€6m EU Framework 7 project that started in December 2012. It is led by IFR and has
brought together 16 European SMEs that are pursuing health claims with the EFSA
for new food products with 12 research organisations that can generate scientific
evidence and tools to support those.
https://connect.innovateuk.org/web/uk-ntp-for-food/our-group
http://www.fooddrinkeurope.eu/publication/etp-food-for-life-places-innovation-at-heart-of-research/
http://www.foodforce.org
http://www.bacchus-fp7.eu/
Page 44
•
5.3
Websites: IFR co-ordinates and runs no less than 18 websites on various aspects of
food and health, ranging from wheat to bioinformatics - from chemical imaging to
metabolomics.
Human Capital
As mentioned in Section 3, in 2011/12 IFR hosted 36 students and 30 visiting scientists.
These trainees resulted in income for IFR from studentships and supervisory fees. More
importantly, by enabling visitors to participate in IFR projects and activities, IFR gained from
the knowledge and skills they brought and in turn provided them with new competencies.
In this way, IFR contributes to expansion of the overall human capital and sustainability of
food and health research and product development in the UK and abroad. People who have
benefited from their time at IFR are likely to be ambassadors for the Institute, leading to future
scientific and commercial opportunities.
5.4
Norwich Research Park (NRP)
NRP is centred around six research institutes/organisations, employing around 2,700
scientists and 12,000 staff (plus UEA students). All six organisations have their primary
facilities on-site, providing a critical mass of multidisciplinary activity and expertise at the NRP.
This mix is very appealing to potential inward investors. The large number of multidisciplinary
research staff onsite is also likely to lead to a growing number of spin-outs and start-ups.
NRP has, as at 2013, only generated a small number of spin-outs/start-ups and very limited
inward investment. This is in large part because development/expansion land has not been
available. This however is changing with land ownership and planning issues resolved, £26m
funding in place for supporting infrastructure and the first phase of new development
underway.
5.4.1 Existing commercial business space
In early 2013 NRP had commercial business space comprising:
•
•
26,500 sq ft of office and lab space within the Innovation Centre; this was
operationally full at 85% occupancy levels
12,000 sq ft of office and lab space within the bio-incubator; occupancy fluctuates at
around 85 – 90%.
In addition to these two bespoke schemes, there are also a number of companies occupying
space within the University site, within the hospital site and in one or two other locations
estimated to be c. 10,000 sq ft.
Estimate of jobs and GVA generated by existing commercial space
Occupied commercial space was estimated to support 220 net additional jobs in 2013,
generating c. £12m GVA per year (the NPV of which over a 10 year period discounted at
3.5% equals £104m GVA).
Page 45
5.4.2 Future potential commercial space
Additional bespoke commercial space proposed within NRP
A central hub building, the Centrum will provide networking, function and other meeting space
plus two floors of commercial space, providing c. 20,000 sq ft of space in total. When fully let,
this will support an additional 85 jobs generating £4.6m GVA per year.
Future development land
NRP should be able to develop c. 120 acres of land for commercial space. When fully
developed and occupied, the additional land could support c. 6,500 net additional jobs
generating £360m GVA per year.
Together, the commercial space at the Centrum combined with the space that could be
accommodated on the two development sites could support c. 7.500 net additional jobs
generating £412m GVA per year.
This large volume of additional space will take time to build and let / sell. This is likely to
progress over a 10 year period, reaching full occupancy in years 9 and 10 (of between 80 and
85%, allowing for churn).
5.4.3 Number of NRP jobs and GVA attributable to IFR
One sixth of the resulting jobs and GVA can be attributed to the influence to IFR based on
th
equal attribution between the six partners at NRP. One 6 equals:
•
1,300 net additional jobs
•
c. £70m GVA per year (£70m GVA 10 year NPV @ 3.5%).
Table 5.1 Jobs and GVA supported by both current and future potential commercial
space at NRP
Net additional
Net additional
10 yr NPV @ 3.5%
jobs
GVA
220
£12,094,353
£104,104,396
Current commercial space
Future potential commercial
space
Total
7,502
£412,629,707
£3,295,871,730
7,722
£424,724,060
£3,399,976,126
Attributable to IFR
1,287
£70,787,343
£566,662,688
Page 46
6.
Summary and Overview
A summary of main areas of impact identified in the report is set out below. Within the context
of fundamental research it is a relatively short period since the last impact report,
nevertheless:
• There are a large number of new areas of promising research that have emerged
• Food and health research is converging and IFR has an important contribution to
make through its gut health work, industry contacts and other expanding areas
• Synergies from the Norwich Research Park are increasing and joint research between
IFR, The Genome Analysis Centre (TGAC), UEA and the hospital is increasing
• There is a balance between actual and potential impacts. Some very long term
research projects are now coming to fruition, e.g. Enriched Broccoli which is now on
sale and Model Gut which has just been sold to an EU company. There are other
areas where there could soon be much larger impacts including income to IFR
through exploitation of its IP. Further on-going impacts are estimated from areas
such as ComBase, Food databanks and Botulinum toxin research.
• The serendipitous nature of fundamental research is also highlighted in the report,
examples of which include:
Model gut which started as a human digestion model and is now being
applied in Pharmaceuticals for drug development.
Super Broccoli started as plant breeding and is now about health benefits.
Lactobacillus research now showing promise in relation to production of
poultry and reduced food poisoning pathogens at source.
6.1.1 Operating impacts
IFR has a substantial impact on the regional economy around Norwich. This includes 292
jobs, plus annual Gross Value Added (GVA) impacts of £12.7m at the UK level.
6.1.2 Gross Research impacts
In total, fourteen case studies of impact are presented under the two ISPs. Gross impacts
identified are as follows:
Gut Health and Food Safety impacts
Chilled Foods - influencing industry guidance to safeguard humans from food poisoning and
protect industry reputation. Improved efficiencies, reduced wastage and increased sales in
chilled foods estimated at £25m per annum, £23.75m due to IFR. International policy
contribution to CODEX Alimentarius.
Botulinum toxin - additional value to the pharmaceutical industry of £10m per annum not
including on-going contribution to avoiding food poisoning
ComBase - every hour saved by all ComBase users is worth approximately £1m per year
Probiotics - the unique combination of IFR, the University medical school and hospital have
attracted a major probiotics company to bring research to the NRP. IFR is providing objective
scientific evidence that could support probiotic health claims - a positive result is likely to
benefit the probiotics sector as a whole supporting growth of the wider UK market where a 1%
increase would be worth £2m per annum to the sector.
Page 47
Modified Gut Microbe in Humans – a potential new treatment for bowel disease where
every 1% reduction in lost working days, drug costs and outpatient costs could save £9.51m
Reducing Gut Pathogens in Chickens – by colonising chickens with Lactobacillus, each 1%
reduction in UK food poisoning would result in 10,000 fewer cases and £15m per year saving.
Model Gut - The sale of the Model Gut Contract Research company to Danish company
Bioneer:FARMA has just been agreed. This could save industry millions in drug development
costs.
Food and Health impacts
Enriched Broccoli – Beneforte is now on sale in UK and US supermarkets. It has the
potential to reduce cardiovascular disease and prostate cancer if eaten regularly and could
soon have a health claim in place. Potential benefits of £38m per 1% reduction in disease
can be anticipated at the UK level. 50% of these are attributed to IFR.
Satiety – developing ways of people feeling full for longer which could reduce obesity. If the
work of IFR helps prevent 0.1% of the population from becoming obese, the avoided annual
costs to the NHS would be £19.6m and worth £61.6m to the economy.
KTP – one example of IFR working with an SME developed a new product which has secured
new contracts worth £570k; increased sales of existing products by £100k per year and cost
savings of £150k per year
Reduced Fat Foods – helping industry develop better-tasting low fat options will lead to a
healthier population and reduced healthcare costs due to fewer people developing
cardiovascular disease. Reducing cardiovascular events by just 1% would result in savings to
the health service worth at least £30m a year.
NCYC – yeasts have substantial potential for new applications in biorefining, an expanding
research area for IFR; in renewable energy such as biofuels where imports could be displaced
as well as supporting the food & drink and pharmaceutical sectors
Food databanks - the value of the dataset is estimated at around £19.5m per annum to
Food health claims – IFR is bringing clarity to the process to establish health claims. A 1%
increase in the sale of functional foods through IFR support would be worth £14.6m annually
to the sector.
Wider impacts
Section 5 sets out a summary of the wider impacts of IFR in terms of academic achievement,
extensive industry engagement, commercialisation, attraction of R&D investment,
contributions to public policy, human capital and global leadership and reputation in the areas
of food and health. It also highlights potential NRP impacts of 1,300 net additional jobs and
£566m GVA over 10 years.
Page 48
6.1.3 Net impacts
In addition to the operating impacts highlighted in 6.1.1, a summary of the net impacts across
the fourteen case study areas is set out below (Table 6.1). It takes the gross impacts
calculated for each case study and for each one makes an assessment of research costs,
implementation costs, timescales of adoption, and additionality at the level of the UK
economy. These are conservative estimates and the value may be greater. The figures are
summed together to derive the net cumulative impact expected over the next 10 years.
Finally, Value for Money (VFM) ratios are also presented for each area. Overall, the VFM of
the IFR research areas considered is £8.2 of Gross Value Added (GVA) at the UK level. Other
case studies could be included, which may result in a higher value.
Table 6.1 Summary of net impacts of IFR Research
Funding
Gross Impacts
Net Benefits (£PV)
for the UK Economy
IFR
Value for money
GVA NPV))
TOTAL
£ 35,985,000
£ 24,258,500
£231,970,000
Over 10 years
£742,526,391
£ 20,055,828
£686,485,563
62%
£427,813,072
73%
£312,977,398
£198,351,363
564
£
8.18
Page 49
Appendix 1: Summary of Net impacts and Value for Money of IFR Research
Gross Impacts
Net Benefits (£PV)
for the UK Economy
IFR
Value for money
GVA NPV))
Funding
TOTAL
£ 35,985,000
£ 24,258,500
£231,970,000
Over 10 years
£742,526,391
£ 20,055,828
£686,485,563
62%
£427,813,072
73%
£312,977,398
£198,351,363
564
£
8.18
Reducing gut
bacteria in
chickens
Sussle
Combase Probiotics Modified Gut
£
750,000 £ 100,000 £1,600,000 £870,000 £ 1,100,000 £
300,000
£
750,000 £ 100,000 £1,600,000 £870,000 £ 1,100,000 £
300,000
£ 25,000,000 £10,000,000 £ 960,000 £
£ 9,510,000 £15,000,000
£ 136,079,528 £61,012,738 £8,943,941 £
£48,476,730 £76,461,720
£ 5,443,181 £
£1,397,491 £
£
£11,248,972
£ 129,886,347 £60,912,738 £5,946,450 -£870,000 £47,376,730 £64,912,747
40%
100%
68%
100%
80%
100%
£ 51,504,539 £60,912,738 £4,059,838 -£870,000 £37,681,384 £64,912,747
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
£ 48,929,312 £60,912,738 £4,059,838 -£870,000 £37,681,384 £64,912,747
£ 32,051,096 £40,168,407 £2,135,493 -£870,000 £24,495,714 £42,740,413
44
54
8
85
157
Botulinum
Toxin
42.73
401.68
1.33
-
22.27
142.47
The value of “Funding” for “Botulinum Toxin” has been assumed by Brookdale Consulting: the actual figures are confidential.
Page 50
Funding
Gross Impacts
Total research funding
IFR share of research funding
Net Benefits (£PV)
for the UK Economy
IFR
Value for money
GVA NPV))
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
Model Gut
1,200,000
1,200,000
380,000
3,540,310
2,340,310
85%
1,986,279
100%
1,986,279
902,944
5
0.75
Broccoli
£ 14,805,000
£ 7,402,500
£ 38,000,000
£ 129,659,754
£ 1,966,184
£ 112,888,571
100%
£ 112,888,571
50%
£ 56,444,285
£ 34,736,378
140
4.69
Satiety
£
400,000
£
176,000
£61,600,000
£16,382,580
£
£15,982,580
100%
£15,982,580
44%
£ 7,032,335
£ 4,581,501
16
26.03
KTP
£ 150,000
£
50,000
£ 820,000
£4,179,907
£
£4,029,907
6%
£ 226,192
33%
£
75,397
£
32,762
0
0.66
Reduced Fat
£
210,000
£
210,000
£30,000,000
£ 5,222,771
£
£ 5,012,771
79%
£ 3,968,217
70%
£ 2,777,752
£ 1,783,336
6
8.49
NCYC
£4,000,000
£4,000,000
£6,600,000
£8,986,786
£
£4,986,786
100%
£4,986,786
100%
£4,986,786
£1,931,279
9
0.48
Food
Databanks
£
5,500,000
£
5,500,000
£ 19,500,000
£ 181,673,804
£
£ 176,173,804
7%
£ 12,667,380
100%
£ 12,667,380
£
6,490,471
27
1.18
Food Health
Claims
£ 5,000,000
£ 1,000,000
£ 14,600,000
£ 61,905,822
£
£ 56,905,822
100%
£ 56,905,822
20%
£ 11,381,164
£ 7,171,569
11
7.17
Page 51

The Report on the impact of the Institute of Food Research

Transcription

Similar documents

Sikorsky S-76B - PlaneSayling Aviation Limited

Allentech reprint.qxd - Aluminum Floating Roofs

Wairoa Trip Report July 2001

Formulas / ATPL theory summary - VAT-AIR

Technologies for Autonomous Operations of UAV`s

Sandwiches

Putting the Kibosh on the Infamous Tummy Bloat

Shopping Smart for Healthy Eating on a Budget

Top 10 Tips: Improve everyday nutrition

March – HIGH RES - EAA Chapter 377