Ultra-processed foods

While the general self-sufficiency rate for overall food production is around 62%, the reliance on imports for certain key crops like corn, soy, sugar (cane-derived), and palm oil skews this figure downward for ultra-processed food production. 

1. Corn:

   • Most corn used in ultra-processed foods is imported. The UK grows corn mainly for animal feed, not for human consumption or industrial processing. Self-sufficiency is very low for the type of corn used in processed food. Mainly now from US after Russia invaded Ukraine

2. Soy:

   • Almost entirely imported, mainly from Brazil. Soy derivatives like soy protein isolate and soy oil, critical for many ultra-processed foods, are not produced domestically. Self-sufficiency here is effectively zero.

3. Sugar:

   • UK-grown sugar beet covers around 60% of the domestic sugar demand. However, sugar from cane, more prevalent in ultra-processed foods due to its specific properties, is primarily imported, and all comes through Tate & Lyle. Self-sufficiency is non-existent for cane sugar specifically.

4. Palm Oil:

   • The UK relies completely on imports for palm oil, much from Malaysia which is a staple ingredient in ultra-processed foods for its stability, texture, and cost-effectiveness. Self-sufficiency is zero.

5. Wheat:

   • The UK is largely self-sufficient in wheat, but most of this wheat is used for bread-making and animal feed. Refined flours for ultra-processed foods may require specific types of wheat not exclusively sourced locally, so the self-sufficiency could be slightly lower for this category.

Building a comprehensive map of the UK's evolving food trading relations, especially in the context of a significant shift towards ultra-processed foods, is an ambitious and insightful project. This transformation reflects broader changes in global food systems, supply chains, and consumer preferences, often likened to a new "Empire 2.0." Here's a structured approach to help you develop this map effectively:

1. Define the Scope and Objectives

a. Objectives:

• Identify Key Ingredients: Focus on wheat, corn, soy, palm oil, and sugars as primary constituents of ultra-processed foods.

• Trace Supply Chains: Map the origins of these ingredients, processing hubs, and final export destinations.

• Analyse Trade Dynamics: Understand how trade agreements, tariffs, and geopolitical factors influence food trade.

• Visualise Data: Create visual representations (maps, charts) to illustrate trade flows and relationships.

b. Scope:

• Time Frame: Consider recent years to reflect post-Brexit trade dynamics and the latest trends in ultra-processed food consumption.

• Geographical Boundaries: Primarily the UK and its major trading partners, both within and outside the EU.

2. Gather Comprehensive Trade Data

a. Key Data Sources:

• UK Department for International Trade (DIT): Offers detailed reports and statistics on UK’s food imports and exports.

• Office for National Statistics (ONS): Provides data on trade by commodity and partner countries.

• UN Comtrade Database: International trade statistics that can be filtered by HS codes.

• Eurostat: If analysing EU-related trade post-Brexit.

• World Trade Organization (WTO): For broader trade policies and agreements.

b. Relevant Harmonized System (HS) Codes:

Use these HS codes to filter and extract specific trade data for each ingredient.

Ingredient

Processed Forms

HS Codes

Wheat

Flour, starch, gluten

1101, 1108.11, 1109

Corn

Starch, syrup, etc.

1108.12, 1702.60, 2303.30

Soy

Oils, protein isolates

1507.10, 1507.90, 2106.10, 2923.20

Palm Oil

Crude, refined, kernel oil

1511.10, 1511.90, 1513.21

Sugars

Raw, refined, syrups

1701.12, 1701.99, 1702.30, 1702.90

3. Identify Major Trading Partners

a. By Ingredient:

• Wheat:

  • Major Exporters to UK: Canada, France, Australia, Russia.

  • Major Importers: Other EU countries may also be significant, especially post-Brexit.

• Corn (Maize):

  • Major Exporters to UK: USA, Brazil, Argentina, Ukraine.

• Soy:

  • Major Exporters to UK: Brazil, USA, Argentina.

• Palm Oil:

  • Major Exporters to UK: Indonesia, Malaysia.

• Sugars:

  • Major Exporters to UK: Brazil, Thailand, France.

b. Export Destinations for Processed Foods:

• Primary Markets: EU countries, USA, China, Middle Eastern countries.

• Emerging Markets: African nations, Southeast Asia.

4. Analyse Trade Agreements and Policies

a. Post-Brexit Trade Dynamics:

• UK-EU Trade Agreement: Assess tariffs, quotas, and non-tariff barriers affecting food trade.

• New Trade Deals: Look into agreements with non-EU countries like Canada (CETA), USA, Australia, etc.

b. Regulatory Standards:

• Food Safety Standards: UK-specific regulations post-Brexit.

• Labelling Requirements: Impact on trade flows and processing needs.

c. Tariffs and Quotas:

• Identify Tariff Rates: For each HS code and trading partner.

• Quota Restrictions: Any limits on specific imports.

5. Map the Supply Chains

a. Supply Chain Stages:

1. Raw Material Extraction: Farming/harvesting of wheat, corn, soy, etc.

2. Processing: Transformation into flour, oils, syrups, etc.

3. Manufacturing: Production of ultra-processed foods.

4. Distribution: Export to various markets.

b. Tools and Technologies:

• Geographic Information Systems (GIS): For spatial mapping.

• Supply Chain Mapping Software: Tools like Tableau, Power BI, or specialized GIS tools.

• Trade Map by ITC: Visualize trade flows and patterns.

c. Visualization Elements:

• Flow Maps: Show movement from exporters to the UK and from the UK to other countries.

• Heat Maps: Indicate concentration of trade volumes.

• Choropleth Maps: Represent data intensity by region.

6. Incorporate Industry and Market Data

a. Major UK Food Processors:

• Identify Key Players: Companies involved in processing and manufacturing ultra-processed foods.

• Supply Chain Partnerships: Their sourcing strategies and key suppliers.

b. Market Trends:

• Consumption Patterns: Shift towards ultra-processed foods and its drivers.

• Economic Factors: Price fluctuations, subsidies, and their impact on trade.

7. Address Challenges and Considerations

a. Data Availability and Quality:

• Timeliness: Ensure data is up-to-date, especially post-Brexit.

• Consistency: Harmonize data from different sources for accuracy.

b. Complexity of Supply Chains:

• Multiple Intermediaries: Ingredients might pass through several countries before reaching the UK.

• Global Dependencies: Reliance on specific countries for key ingredients like palm oil from Indonesia.

c. Dynamic Trade Environment:

• Geopolitical Events: Conflicts, trade wars, or pandemics affecting trade flows.

• Policy Changes: Sudden shifts in trade agreements or regulations.

8. Utilize Visualization and Mapping Tools

a. Data Visualization Platforms:

• Tableau: For interactive dashboards and maps.

• Power BI: Integrates with various data sources for visualization.

• QGIS or ArcGIS: For detailed geographic mapping and spatial analysis.

b. Interactive Elements:

• Clickable Regions: Show detailed trade data when a country is selected.

• Time Sliders: Illustrate changes over time.

• Filter Options: Allow users to focus on specific ingredients or trade partners.

9. Example Structure for Your Food Trade Map

a. Global Supply Overview:

• Primary Suppliers: Display major exporting countries for each key ingredient.

• Trade Volume: Use proportional symbols to represent trade volumes.

b. UK Processing Hubs:

• Major Ports and Industrial Areas: Show where food processing and packaging occur.

• Logistics Networks: Highlight key transportation routes (sea, air, land).

c. Export Destinations:

• Primary Markets: Indicate major countries receiving UK-processed ultra-processed foods.

• Emerging Markets: Highlight regions with growing demand.

d. Regulatory and Trade Policy Overlay:

• Trade Agreements: Visual cues for countries with significant trade agreements with the UK.

• Tariff Zones: Differentiate regions based on tariff rates or trade barriers.

10. Leverage Additional Resources

a. Reports and Publications:

• Industry Reports: From organizations like IBISWorld, Euromonitor, or Mintel.

• Government Publications: White papers, trade strategy documents from the UK government.

b. Academic Research:

• Studies on Food Trade: Look for research on global supply chains, ultra-processed food trends.

• Economic Analyses: Impact of trade policies on food imports and exports.

c. Industry Associations:

• Food and Drink Federation (FDF): UK-based body providing insights and data.

• British Retail Consortium (BRC): Information on retail trends affecting food trade.

The 1980 Iso-Glucose Case (Case 138/79, Roquette Frères v. Council of the European Communities) revolved around the European Economic Community's (EEC) imposition of tariffs and production levies on iso-glucose, a sweetener derived from maize (corn), as part of its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The case highlighted the tensions between market regulation and free competition within the EEC.

The proposed tariffs were aimed at protecting the European sugar beet industry, which was heavily subsidized under the CAP. Iso-glucose, a cheaper alternative to sugar, posed a competitive threat to the traditional sugar market. The EEC sought to equalize the economic conditions between the two sweeteners by imposing production levies on iso-glucose to align its costs with sugar. The policy was intended to prevent market disruption, protect agricultural incomes, and ensure stability in the sugar industry—a politically influential sector in many member states.

The measures, however, were criticized as disproportionately favoring the sugar industry at the expense of iso-glucose producers. Roquette Frères, a leading iso-glucose manufacturer, challenged the regulation, arguing that it violated the principles of proportionality and equal treatment enshrined in EU law. The company contended that the tariffs distorted competition and unfairly hindered the development of alternative sweetener markets.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ultimately upheld the EEC's regulation, emphasizing the broad discretion granted to EU institutions in shaping agricultural policy. The Court found the measures justified under the CAP's objectives, even if they imposed unequal burdens on different sectors. This ruling underscored the dominance of agricultural priorities in early EU law-making and illustrated the challenges of balancing market liberalization with sectoral protectionism. The case remains a landmark in EU competition and agricultural law.

The proposed levies on iso-glucose under the European Economic Community's (EEC) regulations in the 1980s were designed to align the production costs of iso-glucose with those of traditional sugar. Specifically:

• The levy on iso-glucose production was set at $8.21 per 100 kilograms of dry matter (approximately €7.2 per 100 kg in historical terms).

This levy aimed to counterbalance the lower production costs of iso-glucose compared to sugar derived from sugar beet, ensuring that iso-glucose did not undercut the sugar industry, which was protected by subsidies and quotas under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

These measures reflected the political and economic priorities of the EEC at the time, particularly its commitment to stabilising the sugar market and supporting agricultural incomes in member states where sugar beet production was a significant sector. However, the levies also effectively limited the competitiveness of iso-glucose producers like Roquette Frères, prompting the legal challenge that became the Iso-Glucose Case.