Horizon 2020 INFRADEV-1-2014 - Design studies RICHFIELDS ... · RICHFIELDS (see Annex 1a) including individuals representing the target audience, namely research, industry, technology

Horizon 2020

INFRADEV-1-2014 - Design studies

RICHFIELDS Working Package 3

Deliverable D3.1

Report from first Stakeholder Platform meeting

Date delivered:

M13

Authors:

Siân Astley (EuroFIR AISBL – BE)

Paul Finglas (IFR – UK)

Deliverable lead beneficiaries:

EuroFIR AISBL

2

Project

Project acronym: RICHFIELDS

Project full title: Research Infrastructure on Consumer Health and Food Intake for E-science with Linked Data Sharing

Grant agreement no.: 654280

Project start date: 01.10.2015

Document:

Title: Report from first Stakeholder Platform meeting

Deliverable No.: D3.1

Authors: Siân Astley (EuroFIR), Paul Finglas (IFR)

Reviewer:

Start date: 1.10.2015

Delivery date: 17.10.2016

Due date of deliverable: 30.09.2016

Dissemination level: PU

Status:

Change history:

Version Notes Date

001 17.10.2016

Karin Zimmermann prof. dr. ir. Pieter van’t Veer

Project Coordinator Scientific Coordinator

3

Contents

1. Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 4

2. Invitations ........................................................................................................................................... 5

3. Aims, objectives and implementation ................................................................................................ 6

4. Outcomes and conclusions ................................................................................................................. 7

Annex 1a. Registered delegates ............................................................................................................ 11

Annex 1b. Attendees ............................................................................................................................. 13

Annex 2a: Agenda ................................................................................................................................. 15

Annex 2b: Presentations ....................................................................................................................... 17

Annex 3a: Groups .................................................................................................................................. 29

Annex 3b: Breakout session questions ................................................................................................. 31

Annex 4a: Minutes from Breakout Session 1: Discussing the science (data sources) .......................... 32

Annex 4b: Minutes from Breakout Session 2: Discussing the business case (services provided) ........ 40

Annex 5: Feedback from attendees ...................................................................................................... 46

Annex 6: Post-event article (Dissemination for WP2, EUFIC) ............................................................... 49

4

1. Summary

The first RICHFIELDS Stakeholder Platform took place on 2nd June 2016 at the Penta Hotel (Brussels,

BE). The aim of the platform is to introduce RICHFIELDS to the wider stakeholder community, and

identify better stakeholders’ needs with respect to the scientific and business cases for the proposed

research infrastructure (RI). As well as offering a chance to learn more about RICHFIELDS as the

project develops, the platform also enables stakeholders to influence the design of the RI. A vibrant

and active stakeholder community, as indicated in the Description of Activities, whilst difficult to

achieve is important if the outcome (i.e. proposed research infrastructure) is to deliver what the

wider stakeholder community needs/ wants through appropriate products and services.

Speakers presented the background and aims of RICHFIELDS, and breakout sessions were used to

discuss how consumer-generated data might be better accessed and applied. More specifically, the

delegates considered what types of consumer data are relevant for RICHFIELDS, who is producing

these data, what the minimum data requirements might be, what might be possible in two-five years

(short-term) or 10 years (long-term) time, and where data exchange taking place now and where it

might take place in the future. In the second interactive session, the delegates explored the services

that might be useful for stakeholders or facilitate high quality research, what services could be useful

for the food industry, and those services that might help policy-makers and public health.

Conclusions from these sessions are elaborated in Section 4: Outcomes and conclusions. However,

briefly, achieving the kinds of numbers need for a vibrant and active stakeholder community is going

to be challenging, especially whilst the project is still unclear about the exact nature of RICHFIELDS.

Nevertheless, RICHFIELDS needs to engage with those willing to participate across the consortium at

the level of individual work packages. There are options to promote attendance that will be applied

for the WP3 workshops planned in 2016-2017 and, subject to remaining budget, the 2018 platform.

Whilst stakeholders appreciated the breakout session discussions, these need to be much more

focussed what data sources are available and could be utilised to deliver specific services. Topics with

implications for the overall design include (actual) sources of data, potential users of these data and

their needs, privacy, motivation for sharing (business or personal) and response from RICHFIELDS as

well as what is technically feasible. Overlap with existing (e.g. QuaLiFY, PRECIOUS, PD_Manager) and

future activities (e.g. METROFOODS, etc.) should be avoided, and must be taken into account during

future discussions as well as the overall design. This should also ensure discussions are less generic.

Those who registered for the platform or expressed an interest in RICHFIELDS will be updated

regularly via the LinkedIn group Food & Health Research Infrastructure, the RICHFIELDS’s newsletter

and website as well as personalised emails and participation in the workshops.

5

2. Invitations

Between November 2015 and June 2016, individuals and organisations including umbrella

organisations (i.e. SME Associations and Research Infrastructures, e.g. ECRIN) were identified as

RICHFIELDS stakeholders from a range of sources. This process created two lists: (1) RICHFIELDS

STAKEHOLDERS Contact Details containing 269 individuals or individuals representing an organisation

and (2) RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURES containing 187 individuals representing an EU-funded research

infrastructure, based on information provided in http://bit.ly/2eU9gFZ, with a likely interest in or

potential relationship with RICHFIELDS (i.e. biomedical and or social science).

Review and update of these lists is on-going and will be throughout the lifetime of the project.

However, information includes (stakeholder) name, contact person, contact form URL or email

address(es), website, country, city and category of interest group, specifically whether research,

technology, funding or industry. Additional information for each research infrastructures is acronym,

project/ overarching organisation and purpose. From these sources, 194 individuals and

organisations and eight research infrastructures (i.e. ECRIN, BBMRI-ERIC, DEDIPAC, ENDAPSI, CESSDA,

EMBL-EBI, EATRIS-ERIC, ELIXIR) were identified as having a specific, measurable, achievable, relevant

and timely interest in the design of RICHFIELDS. Invitations were sent to these organisations.

In addition, ca. 2000 personalised invitations were sent to individuals and organisations in the

EuroFIR Client Relationship Management (CRM) database. These individuals and organisations were

identified based on their client profile (specifically research, technology, funding or industry) and/ or

general interest in determinants, status, diet and/ or health (DISH). Finally, RICHFIELDS beneficiaries

were asked to share details of the meeting with appropriate contacts. The number of individuals and

organisations contacted by beneficiaries cannot be determined.

Summary of invitations (Stakeholders: Industry, technology, research and funding):

• 2500 personalised invitations

• 11 expressions of interest

• 40 registered to attend (see Annex 1a)

– 21 stakeholders + 5 external1 (see Annex 1b) (henceforth stakeholders)

1 Stakeholders are those invited directly. External are those expressing an interest or registering who were not contact directly/ heard about

the event by means other than RICHFIELDS

6

3. Aims, objectives and implementation

The aims of the first Stakeholder Platform were to:

• Introduce RICHFIELDS to the stakeholder community

• Identify the stakeholder needs on the scientific and business cases

Where the scientific case is framed mainly as data and the business case as services.

To achieve this, the agenda (see Annex 2a) was composed of a mixture of presentations (see Annex

2b) and breakout sessions. The presentations included a wider perspective of the research and

innovation landscape and how existing and future nutrition and food systems might assured (Petra

Goyens, European Commission - BE) as well as an introduction to RICHFIELDS (Karin Zimmermann, LEI

Wageningen UR - NL), plan for the day (Siân Astley, EuroFIR AISBL – BE) and an explanation for the

case studies to be considered during the breakout sessions (Krijn Poppe, LEI Wageningen UR - NL).

For the breakout sessions, attendees with different expertise (e.g. academia – social and natural

sciences, government, food industry, retail and public health) were assigned to one of three groups

(see Annex 3a: Groups), each with a specific focus, namely consumers with health issues (e.g.

diabetes), consumers are different life stages (e.g. Pregnant, over 75s, under 20s) or ethical drivers

(e.g. sustainably, vegetarian, vegan, organic) and sporty consumers (e.g. Runners for a marathon,

elite athletes in competition). Monique Raats (University of Surrey, UK) (Group 1), Paul Finglas

(Institute of Food Research, UK) and KwabenaTiti Ofei (Aalborg Universitet, DK), and Poppe & Marc-

Jeroen Bogaardt (LEI Wageningen UR, NL) moderated the discussions, which were reported by Siân

Astley, Angelika Mantur, Carlos Ramos, Sarah Tillous and Sidonie Pauchet (EuroFIR AISBL – BE).

During the first breakout session (see Annex 4a), discussions focussed on data, specifically what types

of (determinants) data are relevant for RICHFIELDS, where these data are being generated, minimum

requirements for these data in terms of meta-data, validation, etc., what might be possible in the

medium (two-five years) and longer timeframes (10 years), as well as where and how data exchange

or sharing are taking place currently and where and how this might be achieved in the future;

consideration of what might be possible or needed in the future is particularly important for a design

study such as RICHFIELDS given the pace at which technology is and continues to advance

The second breakout session (see Annex 4b) considered what services might be useful for

stakeholders, how these could facilitate high quality research or be used by industry and or support

policy-makers, public health, etc. Monique Raats (University of Surrey, UK) and KwabenaTiti Ofei

(Aalborg Universitet, DK) reported back from the breakout sessions to the attendees in plenary and

led subsequent discussions concentrating on what data and services are generic (all cases) and which

are case-specific and, based on these, what requirements for a flexible (platform) architecture might

be identified; the objective - in both cases - being to identify service types, sources and

requirements, which have implications for Phase 3 (Design).

A parallel aim was to begin to establish a stakeholder community that could engage with RICHFIELDS

to support design of the research infrastructure in the longer term through a series of workshops.

7

4. Outcomes and conclusions

Identification of relevant stakeholders has been achieved and it was possible to narrow down the

wider group to target stakeholders for the platform based on sector, specifically industry,

technology, research and funding. 2500 personalised invitations were sent and included support for

accommodation (one night at the venue). There were 11 expressions of interest, i.e. individuals or

organisation interested in attending/ being represented who were unable to attend because of prior

engagements and or late notice. The invitations were sent in May 2016 for 2nd June 2016, after some

discussion about continuing with a venue in Brussels after the terrorist attacks earlier in the year.

Forty (40) individuals registered for the event with a wide range of expertise and potential interest in

RICHFIELDS (see Annex 1a) including individuals representing the target audience, namely research,

industry, technology and funding from across Europe. Approximately half of these, however, did not

attend on 2nd June 2016 (see Annex 1b). There are a number of reasons individuals might have

registered but not attended, which include changes in personal circumstances/ availability on the

day, ill health, company and or individual concerns about the venue, lack of funding for travel, etc. It

is not uncommon for individuals to register for free meetings and then not attend. Despite asking

these individuals directly for feedback regarding reasons for non-attendance, none was received.

Including RICHFIELDS’ beneficiaries (13), 27 people attended the event (see Annex 1b) including five

external and nine stakeholders. For the purposes of this report, stakeholders are those invited

directly by WP3 whilst external are those not contacted directly who heard about the event via other

means (henceforth stakeholders). These self-selecting attendees were highly engaged and some

volunteered for the planned workshop during the event. They were also enthusiastic participants in

informal interviews with WP4 representatives. Of the 32% providing feedback, the majority was

satisfied or very satisfied (see Annex 5).

Where dissatisfaction was expressed, it was in the loose framework of RICHFIELDS at this relatively

early stage (i.e. Month 6) (e.g. “I think the topic was too generic; aims and "end points" should be

better narrowed, focused and finalized”, anonymous participant). None for example were dissatisfied

or neutral about discussions during the breakout sessions (e.g. “Great lively discussions, but would

have been great to have more time”, anonymous participant).

To capture this enthusiasm, participants have been invited to join the EuroDISH LinkedIn Group,

which has been rebranded by WP2: Impact & Dissemination for RICHFIELDS as Food & Health

Research Infrastructure. Currently, this group has 258 members including five (of 14) stakeholders

and all the RICHFIELDS’s beneficiaries attending the platform. They were also invited to subscribe to

the RICHFIELDS’s newsletter. How many have done this is not current available for analysis.

The outcomes from the various discussions during the breakout sessions were very consistent,

suggesting the issues for RICHFIELDS are less about potential sources of data (e.g. consumers,

patients or technology, such Apps) and more about why sources would choose to share information

and how these might be exploited by research and or other stakeholders (e.g. policymakers).

8

Here, and at other events, it was clear that the role of RICHFIELDS is perceived differently amongst

beneficiaries as well as stakeholders, typically the push-pull between exchanges of information with

consumers directly versus obtaining (big) data for research. These are not mutually exclusive, but

they may require different models for sustainability. For example, exchange of information with

consumers would necessitate a more personalised approach and risks duplicating existing initiatives

(e.g. QuaLiFY [GA 613783], PRECIOUS [GA 611366]). Similarly, the argument for a separate research

infrastructure (RI) for determinants is less clear given the fragmented nature of nutrition and health

resources in Europe when RICHFIELDS’s might work with existing RIs, such as ELIXIR, ECRIN or BBMRI.

Regardless, notable remarks from the groups during the breakout sessions were, briefly:

Breakout Groups 3 & 4: Sporty & Healthy eating

Implications for data types, sources and requirements (Design)

• Dialogue between consumers and the platform is important (forming a community and

promoting ownership amongst users)

• Consumer should be aware of the (1) risks associated with sharing data and (2) value of their

data for the commercial sector; Users need to respect the trust of the community

• Methods of collection need to decided: big data versus guided data (e.g. healthy eating)

• Differences in preferred approaches for collecting data, which are largely associated with

research type, specifically directed (what is the research question) (natural sciences) versus

scoping (what can we learn from these data sources) (social sciences)

• Benefit all citizens not just research, technology, funding or industry

• Opportunity to mould industry behaviour (healthier products)

Implications for service types, sources and requirements (Design)

• Training would be required for effective use especially amongst researchers

• Provision of bespoke data, consultation services, warehousing, etc. needed

• Tools to pick out data and data management tools, help with identifying missing/ invalid data

• Easy access (free), particularly for developing countries

• Certification scheme for apps provider/ users, e.g. “these services are supported by RICHFIELDS”

• Integration of other source data (e.g. energy suppliers)

• Properly characterised populations groups are essential

Breakout Groups 2 & 5: Life-stages & Ethical


As above and …

• Foods descriptions are important but also need images, portion sizes, etc.

• Motivation for sharing, i.e. why are consumers engaging with RICHFIELDS (e.g. food-based [e.g.

healthy living], choice-based [e.g., vegetarian], disease-based [e.g. diabetic], exchange of

information for altruistic reasons or in search of information [e.g. personalised dietary advice)

• Food production, food purchase and food consumption need to be definable

• Privacy

9


As above and …

• Are consumers a potential user or might their access be via a third party?

• Researcher – define carefully; do the same needs apply to all researchers?

• ICT – needs depend on users’ needs (e.g. researchers, consumers, business)

• Industry – consumer behaviour is a priority

• Who owns the data? Consumers, app providers, etc.

Breakout Groups 1: Consumers with diabetes


As above and …

• Do we need to distinguish between diseases (e.g. diabetes, Parkinson’s, dementia) or between

health and disease or is all data the same?

• Longer-term patterns are more important than day-to-day

• Needs to be in context (e.g. exercise/ activity, environment)

• Potential links with clinical data, which creates barriers (cf. privacy)

• Map on to other examples of consumer data (e.g. energy/ electricity/ gas)


As above and …

• Services for whom? Must identify needs and differences

e.g. (1) Researchers – raw unmanipluated data, (2) Policy-makers – meaning/ message

• Is data storage necessary, particularly with advant of European Open Science Cloud or federated

systems that can retrieve data from many sources simultaeously

• Can we capure national data successfully? Pan-EU data sources, often in English, are relevatively

easy compared with smaller native-language resources

• Ownership of data, wider release and publication

• Feedback in exchange for sharing

• Certification/ validation/ standards all need to be established for services to be useful and ethical

Conclusion: Stakeholders’ Platform

Achieving the kinds of numbers need for a vibrant and active stakeholder community is going to be

challenging, especially whilst the project is still unclear about the exact nature of RICHFIELDS.

However, for RICHFIELDS to deliver what the sectors (research, funding, technology and industry)

want/ need then it is important that the consortium engage with those willing to participate even if

the numbers of individuals and organisations is not ideal.

There are several options to promote attendance, e.g. travel expenses in addition to

accommodation, charging for the event and reimbursing individuals (without notice) on attendance.

In the case of the workshop (ca. 15 stakeholders per event), expenses will be paid based on EC expert

reimbursement rates (excluding time). Subject to remaining budget, this option will also be

considered for the second platform meeting in April 2018.

10

There is always a conflict between early notification for academia (up to 12 months in advance) and

later notification for the industry (up to three months in advance) that needs to be considered.

However, in this case, it was clear that the invitations were sent later than optimal and, for this

reason, WP3 has now set dates for the workshops (27th September 2016, week beginning 3rd April

2017, week beginning 4th December 2017) and the second platform (week beginning 9th April 2018).

Discussions were good, but focussed on potential needs (services) and sources of information (data),

and much less on what data sources are available and could be utilised to deliver services customers

from industry, funding, technology and research want. Topics for future discussion include (actual)

sources of data, potential users of these data and their needs, privacy, motivation for sharing

(business or personal) and response from RICHFIELDS, and what is technically feasible. In this

respect, there is also considerable overlap with existing (e.g. QuaLiFY, PRECIOUS, PD_Manager) and

future activities (e.g. METROFOODS, etc.), which must be taken into account in future discussions as

well as the overall design. This should also ensure discussions are less generic.

Effort will be made to update those who registered or expressed an interest in RICHFIELDS regularly

including the activities and outcomes from the workshop. This will be achieved via the LinkedIn group

Food & Health Research Infrastructure, the RICHFIELDS’s newsletter and website and personalised

emails (see Annex 6 for an example of communications already posted online by WP2).

11

Annex 1a. Registered delegates

BENEFICIARY NAME FAMILY NAME POSITION / ROLE ORGANISATION COUNTRY

1 Birdem Amoutzopoulos Food Composition and Dietary

Assessment Manager MRC Human Nutrition Research UK

2 Petronille Bogaert Project Researcher WIV-ISP BE

3 Ariane CARRÉ Adviser Legal Affairs Independent Retail Europe BE

4 Paolo Colombani Consultant Consulting Colombani CH

5 Lea Coulet Executive Director Medical Nutrition Industry BE

6 David de Lorenzo Director NIMGenetics ES

7 Constance Denis intern WIV-ISP BE

8 sascha doerr global consumer and market insights

manager DSM CH

9 Susanne Döring Secretary General International Association of Plant Bakers BE

10 Pierre Dussort Scientific Project Manager ILSI Europe BE

11 Petra Goyens Project Office European Commission BE

12 Paul Hagan EU Officer WHEB- Welsh Higher Education Brussels BE

13 Phil Holliday European Public Affairs Director White Rose University Consortium BE

14 Rok Hrzic Associate Technical Officer World Health Organization BE

15 Alain Yv Jabea MD BYCINVEST & Co BE

16 Jörg Kowalczyk Senior Manager Science, Innovation &

Administration Südzucker AG DE

17 Marija Kulis Student University of Hohenheim DE

18 Emilie Leibovitch Majster Senior Adviser, Scientific & Regulatory

Affairs CEFS BE

19 Sandra Matuliene Health Care Attaché Permanent Representation of Lithuania to

the EU BE

20 Laura Mazzei policy advisor a.v.e.c. BE

21 Ross Melzer Director SciencelBusiness BE

22 Iryna Mogilevkina Head of Science Department Shupyk National Medical Acdemy og

Postgraduate Education UA

12

23 Chris Moore Managing director Nordic group ApS DK

24 Gianluca Picariello Researcher National Research Council (CNR) IT

25 Loek Pijls Director, Owner Loekintofood-gcv BE

26 Harry van Haaften CFO The Hyve NL

27 Geertrui Vlaemynck Group leader food quality and

innovation ILVO BE

28 YES Sian Astley Senior Researcher & Communications

Manager EuroFIR AISBL BE

29 YES Kerry Ann Brown Research Fellow University of Surrey UK

30 YES Paul Finglas Head of Food Databanks Institute of Food Research UK

31 YES Angelika Mantur Research Associate EuroFIR AISBL BE

32 YES Bogaardt Marc-Jeroen Senior Researcher Wageningen UR NL

33 YES Kwabena Titi Ofei Research Scientist Aalborg University DK

34 YES Sidonie Pauchet EC Projects & Office Assistant EuroFIR AISBL BE

35 YES Krijn Poppe research manager LEI Wageningen UR NL

36 YES Monique Raats Professor and Research Centre Director University of Surrey UK

37 YES Carlos Ramos Research and Business development


38 YES Sarah Tillous Policy & Communications Intern EuroFIR AISBL BE

39 YES Lada Timotijevic Senior Research Fellow University of Surrey UK

40 YES Karin Zimmermann Research manager Research

Infrastructures / Coordi Wageningen University & Research NL

13

Annex 1b. Attendees

BENEFICIARY NAME FAMILY NAME POSITION / ROLE ORGANISATION COUNTRY

1 Birdem Amoutzopoulos Food Composition and Dietary

Assessment Manager MRC Human Nutrition Research UK

2 Ariane CARRÉ Adviser Legal Affairs Independent Retail Europe BE

3 Paolo Colombani Consultant Consulting Colombani CH

4 Constance Denis Intern WIV-ISP BE

5 Sascha Doerr Global consumer and market insights

manager DSM CH

6 Susanne Döring Secretary General International Association of Plant Bakers BE

7 Pierre Dussort Scientific Project Manager ILSI Europe BE

8 Petra Goyens

European Commission BE

9 Rok Hrzic Associate Technical Officer World Health Organization BE

10 Jörg Kowalczyk Senior Manager Science, Innovation &

Administratio Südzucker AG DE

11 Gianluca Picariello Researcher National Research Council (CNR) IT

12 Loek Pijls Director, Owner Loekintofood-gcv BE

13 Harry van Haaften CFO The Hyve NL

14 Geertrui Vlaemynck Group leader food quality and

innovation ILVO BE

15 YES Sian Astley Senior Researcher & Communications


16 YES Kerry Ann Brown Research Fellow University of Surrey UK

17 YES Paul Finglas Head of Food Databanks Institute of Food Research UK

18 YES Angelika Mantur Research Associate EuroFIR AISBL BE

19 YES Bogaardt Marc-Jeroen Senior Researcher Wageningen UR NL

20 YES Kwabena Titi Ofei Research Scientist Aalborg University DK

21 YES Sidonie Pauchet EC Projects & Office Assistant EuroFIR AISBL BE

22 YES Krijn Poppe research manager LEI Wageningen UR NL

14

23 YES Monique Raats Professor and Research Centre Director University of Surrey UK

24 YES Carlos Ramos Research and Business development


25 YES Sarah Tillous Policy & Communications Intern EuroFIR AISBL BE

26 YES Lada Timotijevic Senior Research Fellow University of Surrey UK

27 YES Karin Zimmermann Research manager Research

Infrastructures / Coordi Wageningen University & Research NL

15

Annex 2a: Agenda

09:30-10:15 Registration and coffee

10:15-10:30 Welcome, aims of the meeting including informal interviews

Siân Astley, EuroFIR AISBL (BE)

10:30-10:45 Research and innovation for future-proofing our nutrition and food systems

Petra Goyens, European Commission (BE)

10:45-11:15 Introduction to RICHFIELDS

Karin Zimmermann, LEI Wageningen UR (NL)

11:15-11: 45 Introduction case studies

Krijn Poppe, LEI Wageningen UR (NL)

11:45-12:45 Breakout Session 1: Discussing the science (data sources)

1. Consumers with type-2 diabetes

Lead by: Monique Raats (University of Surrey, UK)

Rapporteur: Siân Astley, EuroFIR AISBL

2. Consumers at different life stages (e.g. Pregnant, over 75s, under 20s)

Lead by: KwabenaTiti Ofei (Aalborg Universitet, DK)

Rapporteur: Angelika Mantur, EuroFIR AISBL

3. Sporty consumers in training (e.g. Runners for a marathon, elite athletes in competition)

Lead by: Krijn Poppe (LEI Wageningen UR, NL)

Rapporteur: Sarah Tillous, EuroFIR AISBL

4. Consumers want to eat healthily, and share and test recipes

Lead by: Marc-Jeroen Bogaardt (LEI Wageningen UR, NL)

Rapporteur: Sidonie Pauchet, EuroFIR AISBL

5. Consumers wanting to eat ethically (e.g. sustainably, vegetarian, vegan, organic)

Lead by: Paul Finglas (Institute of Food Research, UK)

Rapporteur: Carlos Ramos, EuroFIR AISBL

{Reserve: Karin Zimmermann (LEI Wageningen UR, NL) and Siân Astley (EuroFIR AISBL, BE)}

12:45-13:00 Plenary discussion

Lead by: Monique Raats, University of Surrey (UK)


13:00-14:00 Lunch

14:00-15:00 Breakout Session 2: Discussing the business case (services provided)

15:00-15:30 Coffee

16

15:30-16:00 Plenary discussion

KwabenaTiti Ofei, Aalborg Universitet (DK)


16:00-16:30 Wrap-up and next steps

Siân Astley, EuroFIR AISBL (BE) & Karin Zimmermann, LEI Wageningen UR (NL)

16:30 Close of meeting

17

Annex 2b: Presentations

10:15-10:30 Welcome, aims of the meeting including informal interviews

Siân Astley, EuroFIR AISBL (BE)

18

10:30-10:45 Research and innovation for future-proofing our nutrition and food systems

Petra Goyens, European Commission (BE)

19

20

10:45-11:15 Introduction to RICHFIELDS

Karin Zimmermann, LEI Wageningen UR (NL)

21

22

23

24

25

11:15-11: 45 Introduction case studies

Krijn Poppe, LEI Wageningen UR (NL)

26

27

28

29

Annex 3a: Groups

NOTE: Due to low attendance the groups were reorganised as follows:






Lead by: Paul Finglas (Institute of Food Research, UK) & KwabenaTiti Ofei (Aalborg Universitet, DK)

Rapporteur: Angelika Mantur & Carlos Ramos, EuroFIR AISBL



Lead by: Krijn Poppe & Marc-Jeroen Bogaardt (LEI Wageningen UR, NL)

Rapporteur: Sarah Tillous & Sidonie Pauchet, EuroFIR AISBL




Kerry Ann Brown, University of Surrey

Geertrui Vlaemynck, Government ILVO

Karin Zimmerman, LEI WU





Constance Denis, ISP

Lada Timotijevic, University of Surrey

Susanne Doring, International Association of Plant Bakers

Harry van Haaften, The Hyve

Jörg Kowalczyk Südzucker, AG





Paolo Colombani, Consulting

Rok Hrzic, World Health Organization

30

Leok Pijls, Loekintofood-gcv

Sascha Doerr, DSM

Gianluca Picarellio, National Research Council (CNR)

Birdem Amoutzopoulos, Public Health

Pierre Dussort, ILSI Europe

Ariane Carré, Independent Retail Europe

31

Annex 3b: Breakout session questions

Breakout Session 1: Discussing the science (data sources)

Questions for each group:

What types of (determinants) data are relevant?

Who is producing these data?

What are the (minimum) data requirements?

What might be possible in two-five years (short-term)? What might be possible in 10 years (long-

term)?

Where is data exchange taking place now? Where might data exchange take place in the future?

Plenary questions:

What data are generic (all cases) and which are case-specific?

Based on these, what requirements for a flexible (platform) architecture can be identified?

Outcomes:

Identification of data types, sources and requirements, which have implications for Phase 3 (Design)

Breakout Session 2: Discussing the business case (services provided)

Questions for each group:

What services would be useful for stakeholders?

What services would facilitate high quality research?

What services are needed by the industry?

What services would support policy-makers, public health, etc.?

Plenary questions:

What services are generic (all cases) and which are case-specific?

Based on these, what requirements for a flexible (platform) architecture can be identified?

Outcomes:

Identification of service types, sources and requirements, which have implications for Phase 3

(Design)

32

Annex 4a: Minutes from Breakout Session 1:

Discussing the science (data sources)




Individuals with diabetes

Sources of data: Clinical

Q. do we need to distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2. Type 2 diabetics often have other issues

related to food and low levels of exercise.

Feedback of information on activities and intake

Different GI GL values for food and calculating insulin requirements

Year-to-year, month-to-month and day-to-day information might be informative for supporting long-

term health.

Support mechanisms can be different from one area to another, e.g. access to exercise, clinical

approaches; often a need for repetition of information to specialists, parallel healthcare, and

activities.

There is also an issue of mindset, e.g. diabetics may not consider they are patients except during a

crisis.

Sharing of clinical data is also variable within regions, countries and EU-wide.

Some diseases areas are examined more frequently than others. In theory consumers/ patients own

these data and could ask for access.

Some individual are not engaged or do not want to participate in their care at a high level, which

means data sources are likely to be limited. This can also vary amongst others depending on life

events, feeling (un)well.

Purchase data would be one option if the household were known to include a diabetic. Images of food

consumed might useful, especially as technology to interpret the information increases.

Purchase data and procurement in school and colleges might be an opportunity as well as data

collected for health, e.g. height, weight, etc.

Culture might have impact on individuals’ decision to reveal whether they have diabetes or food

allergy, etc. Requiring a “prefer not to disclose” approach. There is also an issue with those making

certain purchasing choices because it is a lifestyle decision not because of medical need.

33

Fora and other exchange mechanisms might also be a source of data as well as social media, Google

searches or charities.

- SBA: Seek contact with EU diabetes patients groups for stakeholders’ platform

Would also be relevant for Parkinsons’, dementia, etc. where problems with food are common and

clinically relevant.

Determinants rather than disease are a priority for RICHFEILDS. It might be that RICHFIELDS makes no

distinction from who data are collected, but that disease be declared as part of the process.

People who are more interested in foods, do they want more information on?

Looking forward, given many more people are managing their diabetes with technology (e.g.

automatic insulin pump), there is a potential source of information from these technologies or others

(e.g. central heating in the home).

Loyalty cards remain the largest source of purchase data, but there are distinct issues, e.g. not all

those purchasing gluten-free will be celiac. Some loyalty cards do in theory offer consumers the

opportunity to access their data.

How might consumers be stimulated to share? What requirements would potential users have?

Linking data between apps – what can be mapped to generate a more detailed data source.

Utilities companies are sharing behaviours. Sharing food behaviours with consumers might be more

challenging because it is so much more complex.

How is the condition being managed might also be an issue, e.g. more insulin rather than controlling

food intake. In the future there would be more smart technology available to collect and direct

response. These all collect data that could be shared. Computers that collect information about

periods of work would offer data on sedentary behaviour and tiredness.

Health professionals would be another potential source of information.

34





What consumer might want?

PF presented the slides about the vegetarian plate. Food descriptions are important. Not enough

food pictures. Portion sizes are variable. Allergies – how do we communicate that to consumers?

LT: What kind of data do we need? The type of data that the users need, or the data the consumers

need to produce and present?

PF- Both. Researches and policy makers would like to know which type of foods is produced while

consumers want to know which kind of foods they consume.

LT: Is the data being produced the self-reported data (e.g. nutritional diaries) or data from sensors?

How reliable is that kind of data collection? What are these two types of data telling us and which

one should we focus on?

PF: Who is producing these data? Consumers (smartphone applications), food industry (bar codes),

research institutes, academia (bioactive compounds). In technological terms how would you see the

collection of data? Where would you see the data sources?

HH: What’s the focus on this question? Researches and consumers? Consumers are really interested

in this kind of information. There are a lot of possible sources. I would probably search for the

information on the internet. However, the moment I share my data is only when I get something

back.

LT: Would you be willing to share your data for the sake of science? People usually share their data

only when they see an economic profit. And on which conditions would you share it?

HH: I don’t know. Only if it’s simple and if I don’t need to do anything (e.g. I just need to click on

“yes” button in the form, tick a box in an application). Or if it was something like “Patients like me”

(it’s a kind of a social media platform for people who have the same disease and they can discuss

their problems, give each other tips etc.).

PF: How could the app developer benefit from that kind of thing?

HH: It depends on their interest.

PF: As a software developer, would you be bothered with where the data is coming from?

HH: We are interested in it (data source), but also in the links between the wearables. It’s very

important to know what we want from this project. It’s not very clear to me for the moment.

35

JK: You have to look into the focus groups, there are different behaviours. What do we need? Food

information from the consumers? Like consumers groups with similar food behaviours? Because

there are different behaviours in different cultures, age groups, country side vs. cities.

LT: As a consumer do you use any kind of technology, apps?

JK: My son does use the internet and apps, he’s a sportsman.

LT: Would you be willing to share that data?

JK: I don’t know.

LT: Does his diet influence yours?

JK: Yes, a little bit.

LT: How would you feel about sharing your data with science?

JK: I won’t have a problem with it if the group is big enough, but it would bother me if a group is

small.

DC: Food information should be easy to collect from consumers (they share they information already

on social media), especially if they have a healthy behaviour because they are “proud” and like to

share it. They are already doing it on the internet, so it should be interesting for them to have it

structured. However, food consumption is easier to share and collect than health information (the

latter is more confidential).

PF: What kind of technology can we expect in the future? What could change in 2-5 years from now?

HH: Probably we will all use wearable devices.

LT: Or we won’t- it’s difficult to anticipate. The technology might actually reach the market saturation

and the new generation might even stop using wearables.

HH: It’s possible. However, I think that everyone who needs information on food or nutrition will do

everything to search for it.

LT: We don’t need a daily/ constant approval for our behaviours, but only when we have specific

conditions (pregnant, clinical condition).

PF: Where do you search for more info?

36

LT: Most of the population will search on the internet. We should focus on what kind of information/

data people need when they have those clinical situations. But most likely it will never be related to

food consumption. How would you look for data?

JK: At the moment we are buying data (from food companies).

LT: Data on consumers?

JK: Data on products (nutrients, ingredients), as this is the information we need. It’s very expensive.

LT: Do you have any need of linking this information with consumption data (food consumption)?

JK: It would be interesting, yes.

LT: If it was open access data, would it worry you?

JK: Yes, because there is a lot of competition, so sharing data might be a problem.

PF: Where do you get your data sources? Do you use any existing Research Infrastructures?

DC: No, as we are trying to set up our own research infrastructure on health determinants, which is a

very long and difficult process. I don’t know the sources because I am not working on that directly

(intern). We wanted to ask you about the setup of your RI.

LT: Have you done the user needs analysis?

DC: We wanted to integrate policy members and we want to work with different Member States.

KO – We did a case study on how we were collecting the data on what a lady was buying (household

data) from 2000 to 2016 (receipts) and her motivation was to get some feedback on it.

PF: In UK (Tesco, Sainsbury’s) they have a huge purchase database (a few million).

LT: How easy is it to aggregate existing data? (It might not be useful for the scientists). What is the

value of this data? Not all big data is valuable data.

37





Marc-Jeroen Bogaardt welcomed participants and presented the aim of the break out session: to

discuss big data for smart food and health services. One of the aim of RICHFIELDS is to collect data on

consumer lifestyle and food behavior, in real time and in situ, covering the whole range of purchase,

preparation and consumption. RICHFIELDS needs to elaborate methods to align, link and share data.

What types of (determinants) data are relevant?

Krijn Poppe first asked participants if building a platform on consumer will be feasible.

Sascha Doerr agreed and said this platform will be highly relevant and that consumers are interested

in such data. He is himself interested in food policy and in the EU regulations on labelling. As a

market researcher, he is interested in having access to consumers’ data. He mentioned that he could

participate to RICHFIELDS as a data profiler and user of this data.

Paolo Colombani explained that this platform should be about building a community in which

consumers share their data, but also want some feedback. He has some experience in collecting data

linked with sport.

Ariane Carré is Adviser in Legal Affairs for the Association of Independent Retail Europe, representing

the interests of independent SMEs. They work on campaign on nutrition and is interested in data

patterns of consumers, to observe purchase and eating behaviours. Do consumers really know the

risk and the value of sharing data? She explained that as a consumer, she will be worried about her

personal data, she doesn’t want companies to use her health data or eating habits. She considers

that this kind of information is highly sensitive and private and she doesn’t want to be discriminated.

Marc-Jeroen Bogaardt stressed the importance of making the difference between risky and non-risky

data.

Sascha Doerr explained that to collect data, you have two ways of doing this:

Big data: you collect everything and AFTER you look at what you are interesting in.

Or, put some guidelines.

Here, the guideline could be “How inspire people to change their habits for a healthy life living?”

So RICHFIELDS should be able to identify which kind of data we are interesting in. So, to have some

real benefits, there is a need to be specific but in the meantime, the data collected should help

researchers to answer questions they don’t even ask yet. Kind of chicken-egg question.

Loek Pijls asked how consumers will be involved and explained that it is important to collect data for

a purpose. The platform should clearly explained that the data collected will be used to help the

38

people who have an impact on what consumers eat better understanding society. The platform

should influence and inspire consumers in order to help them.

Rok Krzic explained that the WHO is globally interested in population-based data, especially on food

consumption that will be help WHO in developing a policy framework that has an impact on

consumer behaviour.

Pierre Dussort explained his organization ILSI is interested in such data, ILSI has some members that

are large companies in the food sector but it very sensitive to share such data.

Krijn Poppe explained that the main challenge will be not to consider the data collected in the

platform as purely factual and as statistics but as a community of trust, built on interdisciplinary

research in sports, and that rules of ownership of the data will be set up.

What data to collect?

Loek Pijls said that he was interested in knowing about the behaviours of consumers and not

physiological aspects. The key information is to know how consumers decide to eat a product or not?

Rok Krzic explained that WHO is interested in knowing what are the risk factors leading to diseases,

such as eating disorders and obesity. As an example, is the availability of fresh food has an impact?

Birdem Amoutzopoulos stressed the importance of identifying measures for data collection for

example for data on sedentary lifestyle. The data should help researchers in modelling and in

identifying variables.

Group agrees that to build a platform you have to make a choice of the data collected by answering

this question: “What is the key thing you want to access?”

Who is producing these data?

Sasha Doerr mentioned that the platform should benefit all citizens and not just benefit RICFHIELDS

partners nor just the European Commission.

Krijn Poppe explained that the RICHFIELDS project involves different disciplines and its aims is to

work with consumers. He mentioned the Migros Project (Switzerland - http://www.engagement-

migros.ch/en) in which consumers and manufacturers are both involved.

Paolo Colombani said that consumers need to be involved in the collection of their data but they

often loose interest in completing their information and in using apps.

Pierre Dussort said that all actors from the food chain but metrics need to be defined.

Birdem Amoutzopoulos added that industry need guidance on consumers’ behaviours, they usually

don’t know how nutrition rules and guidance on how to promote healthy food. For this, RICHFIELDS

has a role to play to help the industry.

http://www.engagement-migros.ch/en

http://www.engagement-migros.ch/en

39

Ariane Carré described the view of SMEs and companies who are first interested in profit and that

they need incentive to sell healthy food.

What are the (minimum) data requirements?

Birdem Amoutzopoulos raised the issue of data protection, and the security of the data sharing. She

gave the example of the new EU Project (ie: project InterConnect - http://www.interconnect-

diabetes.eu/).

RICHFIELDS needs to avoid any legal issue by encrypting data. RICHFIELDS can also maybe use their

data, but the consumer is necessary for the user experience.

http://www.interconnect-diabetes.eu/

http://www.interconnect-diabetes.eu/

40

Annex 4b: Minutes from Breakout Session 2:

Discussing the business case (services provided)




Services for whom? Research, industry, etc.

Researcher might want to know what is in the database/ RI? How can I interact with the data? How

was the data collected? Has it been validated? Characteristics of the metadata. DEDIPAC has

identified that these aspects are very difficult to achieve. Easy access and guidance for limitations,

and support for appropriate use/ expertise in data use.

Somewhere to store and curate the data, which is being developed with the European Open Science

Cloud.

As a national organisation what are the obligations for storing and making available nationally

funded research outputs. These could be aligned with transnational data and European Open Science

Cloud.

Often national data sources are ‘hidden’ because of the disparate nature of internal organisation.

Data are collected and lost, for example, because it was required only a for a student project.

Collation of these datasets is very challenging.

Funding bodies are increasingly concerned about where data they have funded is archived and how it

can be exploited beyond the lifetime of the research.

There is a legacy related to publication, meaning open release of data is inhibited. Making data

available for open source is a huge task, often unfunded because it occurs after the project. It would

be appropriate to include standards and harmonisation as a requirement for data that is relevant to

RI, as part of the proposal/ funding process.

PhD student might apply for data, but this raises issues for subsequent publication. Some RIs actively

exclude PhD students because of this.

What key measures might benefit policy-makers? What are the questions coming from society and

government? Datasets are sometimes vulnerable to government funding or similar political decisions

(e.g. change in emphasis). Thus, it is important to know how data are being used and by whom. And

what is needed by the end-users including researchers and the quality of data available.

Differences perhaps are in the type of bespoke service, e.g. public health = interpretation of data

(meaning), industry = manipulated data and interpretation and researcher mostly likely raw or

41

minimally manipulated data, government might want data about “communities” (demographic

data).

Training required would include use RICHFIELDS but also to understand the content to determine

what could be done with it.

Diabetic consumers might want feedback (interpretation of their behaviour and advice), fora to

discuss issues, etc.

Potentially food companies could exploit information, such as GPS/ location, e.g. requirement for low

food miles, potential market.

Development of algorithms/ interface to interact with data. Customers want to be able to give a

dataset to with a set of criteria to address their questions, and come back with the results.

Standards/ certification for Apps, NGOs etc. in terms of how they do what they do and if it

appropriate. What is acceptable, what would be required to be RICHFIELDS ‘approved’. Some API are

already coming into line for best practice.

What data are relevant to different communities, e.g. sucrose, fructose, etc. for diabetes. People

want to know “can I eat it”, “how much should I eat”, “how much is too much”, “how much is not

enough”, etc. As trends arise groups of foods can be identified as ‘suitable’, i.e. a decision tree.

Difficult to be answerable to every community. Currently, there are routes to access information but

not the personal interpretation.

Many want to know the latest recommendations. Providing this would be very challenging on an

individual basis.

42





What services will be useful for the stakeholders?

KO: We have to define our services very precisely. What do we want to get out of them? What kind

of services do you have in mind for the different stakeholders? Do we have any services yet? If so,

what kind?

LT: As a scientist you need an easy access to data and an application to access it, as well as a clear

overview of data archives and clear procedures to access it.

PF: What about the ICT point of view? What would help you?

HH: From our side, it depends on which kind of requirements researchers need. I would go the

stakeholders for questions.

LT: What are the users needs?

HH: We start with requirements gathering. It’s impossible to get all the information about

consumers.

JK: From the industry side, we are more interested in the consumers’ behaviour.

LT: Who is the owner of the data in the apps?

HH: There are contracts between app builders and consumers.

LT: Would you be willing to give away some data (as a company) in exchange for other data?

JK: I don’t know if we would, because of the competition.

LT: How do you choose the app for data collection?

HH: With the partners (QualiFy).

PF: It would have been useful for the project to have an app.

HH: You can take the Quisper Platform and use it for the next steps (it would be very useful).

KO: From a consumer’s point of view, what’s the use of Quisper?

PF: It’s not usable for consumers; they would just input their data.

43

LT: Only if there is a community panel to provide some feedback. The role of RICHFIELDS will be to

serve as an organisation to help linking the data, but not to develop an app. RICHFIELDS would guide

organizations on how the apps should collect the data (standardization). Like a contractual

relationship.

PF: However, if we offer something were the app developers could work, this can be interesting.

KO: How do we ensure that it’s all in harmony?

LT: We must have very strict criteria. The point is to produce data than can then be used by

scientists.

KO: What services could facilitate high quality research?

PF: Making the data more readily available to researchers (phase 1). The main focus is purchase,

preparation and consumption.

LT: Are the consumers the users, or are they something else?

PF: They are not users.

HH: Data curation will be very important, as there is a lot of existing data, but with many gaps and it

needs to be curated.

LT: The risk is that many people don’t provide real information. How do we know what’s the real

information? What is the quality of these data? Timeframe is also an issue- it’s hard to get most

recent data.

JK: What kind of data do you need as scientists? Is it defined yet?

LT: Ongoing data on consumer behaviour. And what is consumption actually? Is it just putting the

food into mouth? Or is it also purchase and preparation? And what does it tell us? Why do we show

this behaviour? Why do we eat this product in particular and not the other? What does it tell us?

How do we link these data? There are all important questions we will need to answer.

KO: What does food industry need from RICHFIELDS?

JK: Consumer preferences- we need to know that in order to develop new products and services. It’s

important for our market research.

44





The starting point of the discussion was when and which data to collect from consumers. The

collection should be made on a regular basis for example, monthly. We should collect usage and

attitude data. The aim is to know How/ Why/ What consumers are eating.

Then the question was how to collect and access the data. The consumer data platform should be

accessible via an API.

Function of the consumer data platform

On the political level, the data collection should contribute to the analysis of the impact of EU health

policies (example: the impact of the tax on sugar) and at the same time should have a role to play in

setting up political agenda (ex ante and ex post influence).

The data provided should also influence the research agenda and help in defining risk factors.

Who could benefit from using this data?

1. Researchers

2. Policy actors

3. Public health Institutes

4. Apps builders

5. Retailers

What services would facilitate high quality research?

Overall

Training on the consumer data platform (especially for researchers)

Tools to pick out data and data management tools

Standardizing data, harmonized and comparable data

Standardizing procedure for providing data

Accessibility for everyone (non-EU countries): the data should be open for developing

countries .

For policy actors: Conferences involving policy actors

For apps providers:

Consulting services (selling intelligence)

Validated data for personalised advices

Certification for apps providers and help in the identification of missing gaps and apps

For industry: to offer a kind of flexibility to allow them to integrate their own data warehouse to

RICHFIELDS.

For insurance companies: “open door” policy

45

For hospital: the data platform could help as well hospital and care services

For consumers: a marketing and communication campaign should be set up for consumers to explain

the aim of the data platform.

46

Annex 5: Feedback from attendees

1. Please indicate the sector of your organization:

Research (5)

Industry (3)

Government (1) i.e. response rate was 32%

2. How would you rate your level of satisfaction?

Organisation

Unsatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied Date 2 1 2 3

Venue 2 2 4 Meetings rooms 2 3 4

Lunch 2 4 3 Duration 2 1 2 6

More generally 2 1 2 3

Comments:

Could have been more on the spot. Seemed to be quite open in terms of what exactly should be

achieved (what are the KPIs that will be measured etc.). What is the end goal according to the

sponsors of this workstream?

Scientific content

Unsatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied

Applicability of topics 1 1 5 1 Lecturers 1 2 4 1 Interest in topic 1 1 5 1 Depth of coverage 1 4 3 General 1 1 5 1

Comments:

I think the topic was too generic; aims and "end points" should be better narrowed, focused and

finalized

47

Breakout sessions

Satisfied Very satisfied Group 1: Consumers with type-2 diabetes Led by Monique Raats (University of Surrey, UK) Rapporteur: Siân Astley (EuroFIR AISBL, BE) Breakout Session 1: Discussing the science (data source)

2

Group 1: Consumers with type-2 diabetes Led by Monique Raats (University of Surrey, UK) Rapporteur: Siân Astley (EuroFIR AISBL, BE) Breakout Session 2: Discussing the business case (services provided)

2

Group 2 & 5 combined: Consumers at different life stages & Consumers wanting to eat ethically Led by Kwabena Titi Ofei (Aalborg Universiteit, DK) & Paul Finglas (IFR, UK) Rapporteurs: Angelika Mantur & Carlos Ramos (EuroFIR AISBL, BE) Breakout Session 1: Discussing the science (data source)

1

Group 2 & 5 combined: Consumers at different life stages & Consumers wanting to eat ethically Led by Kwabena Titi Ofei (Aalborg Universiteit, DK) & Paul Finglas (IFR, UK) Rapporteurs: Angelika Mantur & Carlos Ramos (EuroFIR AISBL, BE) Breakout Session 2: Discussing the business case (services provided)

1

Group 3 & 4 combined: Sporty consumers in training & Consumers want to eat healthily, and share and test recipes Led by Krijn Poppe & Marc- Jeroen Bogaardt (LEI Wageningen UR, NL)Rapporteurs: Sarah Tillous & Sidonie Paujchet (EuroFIR AISBL, BE) Breakout Session 1: Discussing the science (data source)

2 2

Group 3 & 4 combined: Sporty consumers in training & Consumers want to eat healthily, and share and test recipes Led by Krijn Poppe & Marc- Jeroen Bogaardt (LEI Wageningen UR, NL)Rapporteurs: Sarah Tillous & Sidonie Paujchet (EuroFIR AISBL, BE) Breakout Session 2: Discussing the business case (services provided)

2 2

* no respondents were unsatisfied or neutral

Comments:

Great lively discussions, but would have been great to have more time

48

3. How did you first find out about this Stakeholder Platform meeting?

From EuroFIR Website

Personnel invitation (3)

Linkedin

I represented my Institution, which was invited

Internal company email

4. How can we improve this meeting, what themes would you like to be included, lecturers, other

subjects, etc.?

More discussions with the whole group

Was fine

Complete nutrient profiling, why people choose/ buy certain food, drivers behind

In my opinion, the rationale underlying RICHFIELDS and the work carried out in the first months

of activity should have been illustrated in some details, also in order to envisage future

developments

Nutrition, carbohydrates in food

Would certainly include the Information technology side of the project. It seems to be this is the

critical bit of it as it will be all about bringing the (big) data together and structure them possibly

in an automated way.

5. What was the most interesting about this meeting?

The discussion sessions (2)

Networking

To learn about food 2030

Information platforms are of huge interest, especially in the food-related fields. I found

interesting the multidisciplinary standpoints about the knowledge that can be inferred from very

large and high dimensional data sets

That I know what the EU is considering doing in the field of public health, an area where that

DSM operates in.

6. What was the worst about this meeting?

All was fine

Nothing (3)

I found discussion too generic and scarcely finalized at this stage

Details, i.e. defining clear, measurable goals where this project is going to go.

7. Do you wish to continue receiving news and updates on the RICHFIELDS project?

Yes (8)

8. Would you be interested in attending future RICHFIELDS Stakeholder workshops?

Yes (8)

49

Annex 6: Post-event article (Dissemination for WP2, EUFIC)

Stakeholder Platform - Introduction to RICHFIELDS

Thursday 2nd June 2016 - Penta City Centre Brussels

On Thursday 2nd June 2016, we were pleased to welcome 28 delegates representing research

funding bodies, retailors, public health, food and ingredients industries, researchers, non-

governmental organisations, universities, ICT providers, and science communicators, as well as

representatives from some of the partners, from the UK, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, the

Netherlands, Demark, and Italy, to the first RICHFIELDS Stakeholders’ Platform (Brussels, BE).

The aim of this symposium was to introduce RICHFIELDS to our stakeholder community, and explore

their needs and ideas to understand and better use consumer-generated data.

Petra Goyens (European Commission, BE) presented some of the issues DG Research & Innovation is

discussing with respect to future-proofing our nutrition and food systems, and Karin Zimmermann

(LEI Wageningen UR, NL) introduced RICHFIELDS.

Before the delegates broke into their assigned groups, Krijn Poppe (LEI Wageningen UR, NL)

explained some of the concepts behind the topics for discussion, which included consumers with

different needs and perspectives (e.g. type-2 diabetes, life stages, sporty, ethical and health eating).

In the first session, participants were asked to consider what types of consumer data are relevant,

who is producing these data, what the minimum data requirements might be, what might be

possible in two-five years (short-term) or 10 years (long-term) time, and where data exchange taking

place now and where it might take place in the future. In the second interactive session, the

delegates explored the services that might be useful for stakeholders or facilitate high quality

research, what services could be useful for the food industry, and those services that might help

policy-makers and public health. Monique Raats (University of Surrey, UK) and KwabenaTiti Ofei

(Aalborg Universitet, DK) presented feedback from the sessions and will be included in a report for

future consideration by Phase 3 of the project, which is responsible for design of the proposed

Research Infrastructure.

The Stakeholders’ Platform is an ideal forum for stakeholders to learn about RICHFIELDS and make

contact with researchers improving knowledge about healthy food choices. If you were not able to

attend but would be interested in learning more about RICHFIELDS and our activities, please contact

Dr Siân Astley ([email protected]), visit www.richfields.eu or follow us at @SciFoodHealth and LinkedIn

(https://www.linkedin.com/groups/7484314).

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.richfields.eu/

Documents

Horizon 2020 INFRADEV-1-2014 - Design studies RICHFIELDS ... · RICHFIELDS (see Annex 1a) including individuals representing the target audience, namely research, industry, technology