Permissible Levels of Harmful Factors for Health in the Work Environment (MACs, MASTCs, MACCs, MAIs)

Text in Polish

Exposure to harmful factors at work can negatively affect workers’ health. Therefore, it is crucial to adhere to the applicable regulations. Through proper protection of health and life in hazardous working conditions, it is possible to reduce the occurrence of occupational diseases and workplace accidents.

Employers are responsible for ensuring safe and hygienic working conditions.

One of the elements of protecting workers from the negative effects of harmful factors is adhering to the established permissible occupational exposure levels for health-hazardous factors, known as hygienic norms. These norms are based on scientific data regarding a specific harmful factor and its health effects.

Hygienic norms have been defined for harmful chemical and dust factors present in the work environment (expressed by the maximum allowable concentrations – MACs, maximum allowable short-term concentrations – MASTCs, and maximum allowable ceiling concentrations – MACCs), as well as harmful physical factors (expressed by maximum allowable intensities – MAIs) . All these terms are defined in the Regulation of the Minister of Family, Labor, and Social Policy of June 12, 2018, regarding the maximum permissible concentrations and intensities of harmful factors for health in the work environment (Journal of Laws 2018, item 1286, as amended):

  • MACs – Time-weighted average concentration, the impact of which on a worker during an 8-hour workday and a weekly work schedule, as defined by the Labor Code, should not cause negative health changes for the worker or future generations over their professional career.
  • MASTCs – Short-term average concentration that should not cause adverse health changes if present in the work environment for no more than 15 minutes and no more than twice during a shift, with an interval of at least one hour.
  • MACCs – A concentration that, due to health or life risks, must not be exceeded at any time in the work environment.
  • MAIs – The highest permissible intensity of a physical harmful factor for health, established as exposure levels that should not cause adverse health effects for workers or their future generations throughout their professional career.

In Poland, the system of setting MACs, MASTCs, MACCs, and MAIs values has been in place since 1983. The main body responsible for this is the Interministerial Commission for Maximum Allowab le Concentrations and Intensities of Harmful Factors for Health in the Work Environment, appointed by the Prime Minister. Members of this commission develop proposals for hygienic norms based on expert documentation, considering health criteria and risk assessment. These proposals are submitted to the Minister of Family, Labor, and Social Policy. Once approved, the maximum allowable concentrations and intensities are published in the Official Journal of the Republic of Poland in the form of a regulation. These values are legally binding for all sectors of the national economy .

Currently applicable MACs, MASTCs, and MACCs values are included in the annex to the July 2024 regulation of the Minister of Family, Labor, and Social Policy from June 24, 2024, amending the regulation on maximum permissible concentrations and intensities of harmful factors for health in the work environment (Journal of Laws 2024, item 1017). This annex replaces Annex 1 to the June 12, 2018, regulation and has been in force since August 10, 2024, except for positions listed in §2 of the regulation, which have different effective dates. One example is the popular preservative “Post-reaction mass of 5-chloro-2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one and 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one (3:1)” (CAS 55965-84-9), for which the MACs and MASTCs values take effect from April 5, 2024. The MAIs values have not been changed in the June 24, 2024, regulation, meaning that the MAIs values listed in Annex 2 of the June 12, 2018, regulation remain in effect.

Would You like to find out how our project can help You with REACH – fill in the form and we will contact You shortly: https://forms.gle/ySzqcv6mKmCeb7Sx7

References

Conference on Professionalization of Public Procurement in Warsaw, Poland, 2024-09-24

🌍💼 Professionalization of public procurement – under this theme, a conference on State Procurement Policy was held at the Ministry of Development and Technology. This is the latest event focused on the professionalization of public procurement. The Ministry emphasizes the importance of professionalization, which supports the increase of green 🌱 and innovative 💡 procurement.

📢 Deputy Minister Jacek Tomczak highlighted that further support for the professionalization of public procurement market participants will be a key issue for both the Ministry and the Public Procurement Office in the coming years.
Dr. Mariusz Filipek, the Plenipotentiary for Deregulation and Economic Dialogue, reminded that a few days ago, the first meeting of the Interministerial Team for Green Public Procurement took place, with the goal of increasing the number of green public procurements in government administration. 🏛🌱

📢 The discussion touched on the use of standards in public procurement (Prof. Włodzimierz Dzierżanowski), practical aspects and benefits that can be gained from conducting preliminary market consultations (Ms. Katarzyna Woźniak), as well as the potential for shaping new standards through green procurements (Ms. Klaudia Mańka). Selected regulations of public procurement law were also discussed, with a focus on how their appropriate use can contribute to greater flexibility in conducting procedures and smoother contract execution (Ms. Izabela Fundowicz).

During the conference, participants had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the World Bank’s 🌍 guidelines on implementing ProcurCompEU – the European Competency Framework for Public Procurement Specialists in Poland, along with reflections from a Polish participant of the program (Ms. Anna Krasińska).

🏆 Awards were also presented in the second edition of the “Public Procurement Expert” competition. The winners are:
🏅 SME-Friendly Procurer: 🥇 Włocławek County, Special Mention: Stępnica Municipality

🏅 Green Procurement: 🥇 Central Statistical Office

🏅 Highly Professional Procurer: 🥇 Koszalin City Hall

Congratulations to all the winners! 🎉👏

#GPP #ZZP #GreenPublicProcurement #PublicProcurement #ChemClimCircle #CCC #MZZZP

Mapping of key institutions involved in Public Procurement in Poland

In Poland, public procurement is governed by a network of institutions, each with a specific role in regulating, managing, or implementing procurement procedures, including the promotion of Green Public Procurement (GPP). Green Public Procurement refers to public purchasing that takes into account environmental sustainability and in the ChemClimCircle project we focus on the criteria related to reducing Chemicals, minimizing Climate impact and promoting Circularity.

Key Challenges and Developments in GPP in Poland:

  • Awareness and Capacity Building: Public authorities in Poland are working to increase awareness and expertise on GPP through training, workshops, and guidelines.
  • GPP Implementation: The integration of GPP in Poland is still evolving, with some sectors (e.g., waste management, energy) seeing more success than others. The Public Procurement Office(UZP), Ministry of Development and Technology (MRiT) and local governments are focusing on creating more standard templates and criteria for green procurement.
  • EU Influence: Poland’s green procurement policies are heavily influenced by the EU, especially with the growing emphasis on the European Green Deal. This is pushing national and local authorities to adopt more ambitious GPP strategies.
  • Distribution of responsibilities among many institutional actors: In Poland there are many institutions that play more or less significant role in promoting and implementing GPP. Sometimes synergies may be a benefit of the system, however, shared responsibility may dilute the strength of the measures implemented.

Here is a map of key institutions involved in Public Procurement in Poland, with special attention to their role in fostering Green Public Procurement:

1. Ministry of Development and Technology (Ministerstwo Rozwoju i Technologii, MRiT)

  • Role in Public Procurement: This ministry oversees national development strategies, including sustainable development and innovation policies. It coordinates the implementation of EU funds and procurement policies.
  • Green Public Procurement: The ministry encourages GPP as part of Poland’s national strategy for sustainable development. It supports integrating eco-friendly solutions into public procurement by aligning national policies with EU goals on sustainability and climate change.

2. Public Procurement Office (Urząd Zamówień Publicznych, UZP)

  • Role in Public Procurement: The Public Procurement Office (UZP) is the main governmental body responsible for the overall regulation, monitoring, and enforcement of public procurement laws and policies in Poland. It plays a crucial role in ensuring that public contracts are awarded fairly and transparently.
  • Green Public Procurement: UZP promotes sustainable public procurement practices, including Green Public Procurement (GPP). The office provides guidance on how to integrate environmental criteria into tender procedures, offers training, and supports public authorities in adopting sustainable practices in procurement.

3. Ministry of Climate and Environment (Ministerstwo Klimatu i Środowiska, MKiŚ)

  • Role in Public Procurement: The Ministry of Climate and Environment provides guidance and oversight on public procurement in sectors like energy and infrastructure, ensuring that these activities comply with national environmental regulations and sustainability strategies.
  • Green Public Procurement: The Ministry promotes the integration of environmental criteria in public contracts, focusing on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable infrastructure to reduce the environmental impact of government procurement.

4. Ministry of Health (Ministerstwo Zdrowia, MZ)

  • Rola w zamówieniach publicznych: Ministerstwo Zdrowia zarządza zamówieniami na potrzeby systemu opieki zdrowotnej, w tym na leki, sprzęt medyczny i infrastrukturę szpitalną.
  • Zielone zamówienia publiczne: Ministerstwo dąży do wprowadzenia bardziej zrównoważonych praktyk w sektorze zdrowia, w tym zmniejszenia zużycia energii w szpitalach oraz stosowania ekologicznych materiałów w placówkach medycznych. Dąży także do ograniczenia zużycia jednorazowego plastiku w szpitalach oraz promowania bardziej ekologicznych technologii w opiece zdrowotnej.

5. Ministry of Funds and Regional Development (Ministerstwo Funduszy i Polityki Regionalnej, MFPR)

  • Rola w zamówieniach publicznych: Ministerstwo Funduszy i Polityki Regionalnej nadzoruje wdrażanie funduszy unijnych i regionalnych, w tym duże projekty infrastrukturalne, budowlane oraz inwestycje wspierające rozwój regionalny.
  • Zielone zamówienia publiczne: Ministerstwo aktywnie wspiera GPP poprzez kierowanie funduszy unijnych na projekty oparte na zrównoważonym rozwoju, w tym inwestycje w energię odnawialną, transport ekologiczny i modernizację infrastruktury pod kątem zwiększenia efektywności energetycznej.

6. Ministry of Agriculture (Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi, MRRW)

  • Role in Public Procurement: The Ministry of Agriculture manages public procurement related to agricultural services, food safety, and rural development projects. This includes contracts for infrastructure supporting rural areas, agricultural technologies, and public food procurement programs.
  • Green Public Procurement: The Ministry has a key role in promoting sustainable agricultural practices through GPP, focusing on the procurement of eco-friendly agricultural inputs, sustainable food production methods, and reducing the environmental impact of rural development projects. Their role is critical in driving the transition to sustainable farming, aligned with EU agricultural policies.

7. Ministry of Infrastructure (Ministerstwo Infrastruktury, MI)

  • Role in Public Procurement: The Ministry of Infrastructure handles procurement related to transport infrastructure, such as roads, railways, ports, and public transportation systems. It is responsible for large-scale infrastructure projects, including public tenders for construction and maintenance.
  • Green Public Procurement: GPP initiatives within the Ministry focus on reducing the environmental impact of infrastructure projects by incorporating sustainable construction materials, energy-efficient transportation solutions, and eco-friendly designs for public infrastructure. This aligns with EU standards for sustainable transport and climate goals, especially under the European Green Deal.

8. Ministry of Digital Affairs (Ministerstwo Cyfryzacji, MC)

  • Role in Public Procurement: The Ministry oversees the procurement of digital technologies, IT infrastructure, and telecommunications systems for the public sector. This includes e-government services, digital security, and cloud services.
  • Green Public Procurement: The Ministry promotes GPP by focusing on the procurement of energy-efficient IT systems, environmentally friendly data centers, and the reduction of e-waste. It also encourages the adoption of sustainable digital solutions in government services, such as paperless offices and low-energy consumption data storage systems.

9. General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways (Generalna Dyrekcja Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad, GDDKiA)

  • Role in Public Procurement: GDDKiA is responsible for managing the construction, maintenance, and expansion of Poland’s national road infrastructure. It conducts large public tenders for road construction, repairs, and associated services.
  • Green Public Procurement: GDDKiA increasingly focuses on GPP, prioritizing the use of eco-friendly road construction materials, energy-efficient lighting systems, and minimizing the environmental footprint of road construction projects. It is also involved in promoting sustainable transportation infrastructure like electric vehicle charging stations along highways.

10. General Directorate for Environmental Protection (Generalna Dyrekcja Ochrony Środowiska, GDOŚ)

  • Role in Public Procurement: GDOŚ oversees procurement related to environmental conservation projects, biodiversity protection, and environmental impact assessments. It is responsible for projects that ensure compliance with national and EU environmental regulations.
  • Green Public Procurement: GDOŚ plays a leading role in implementing GPP by integrating strict environmental standards in public tenders, focusing on nature conservation, sustainable land use, and environmentally responsible project execution. It ensures that all public procurement aligns with national environmental protection goals.

11. National Centre for Research and Development (Narodowe Centrum Badań i Rozwoju, NCBiR)

  • Role in Public Procurement: NCBiR handles the procurement of research and innovation projects, funding research institutions, universities, and enterprises engaged in cutting-edge technologies. This includes research contracts and public tenders for technological innovation.
  • Green Public Procurement: NCBiR promotes innovation in green technologies, funding projects that aim to reduce environmental impacts, improve energy efficiency, and develop renewable energy sources. Its GPP focus is on sustainable innovation, such as funding research on eco-friendly technologies and climate-resilient infrastructure.

12. The National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (Narodowy Fundusz Ochrony Środowiska i Gospodarki Wodnej, NFOŚiGW)

  • Role in Public Procurement: This organization manages environmental funds and provides financial support for environmental projects. It is responsible for environmental protection initiatives across Poland.
  • Green Public Procurement: NFOŚiGW plays a supporting role in GPP by financing projects that include sustainable procurement practices, especially in sectors like water management, energy, and waste management. The fund encourages public entities to include green criteria in contracts.

13. The Energy Regulatory Office (Urząd Regulacji Energetyki, URE)

  • Role in Public Procurement: This office regulates the energy market in Poland, overseeing electricity and gas sectors.
  • Green Public Procurement: URE supports the inclusion of green energy requirements in public procurement, especially in energy-related contracts. They help public bodies meet the requirements for renewable energy sourcing and energy efficiency, key components of GPP.

14. The Polish Agency for Enterprise Development (Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości, PARP)

  • Role in Public Procurement: PARP supports the development of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Poland, including their participation in public procurement.
  • Green Public Procurement: PARP promotes GPP by helping businesses develop green products and services that can be offered in public tenders. The agency also educates SMEs on how to meet green criteria to participate in eco-friendly procurement opportunities.

15. Supreme Audit Office (Najwyższa Izba Kontroli, NIK)

  • Role in Public Procurement: NIK is responsible for auditing public institutions, including their public procurement practices.
  • Green Public Procurement: As part of its audits, NIK ensures that public institutions follow both national and EU regulations on GPP. It assesses the integration of green criteria and monitors how sustainable procurement policies are applied in practice.

16. National Appeal Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO)

  • Role in Public Procurement: KIO is an independent institution that reviews appeals related to public procurement procedures. It ensures the legal correctness of procurement processes, resolves disputes, and ensures fair competition.
  • Green Public Procurement: While KIO does not directly implement GPP, it plays an important role in upholding environmental regulations in public procurement processes. It ensures that any procurement-related disputes concerning environmental or green procurement criteria are fairly adjudicated, supporting the broader GPP goals.

17. Government Administration Service Centre (Centrum Obsługi Administracji Rządowej, COAR)

  • Role in Public Procurement: COAR manages procurement for government offices, handling contracts for administrative services, office supplies, technology, and building management.
  • Green Public Procurement: COAR implements GPP by focusing on sustainable office management, including the procurement of energy-efficient buildings, eco-friendly office supplies, and reduced energy consumption in administrative services. It aligns with government goals to create greener workplaces across public institutions.

18. Interministerial Team for Green Public Procurement (Międzyresortowy Zespół do spraw Zielonych Zamówień Publicznych, MZZZP)

  • Role in Public Procurement: This team coordinates GPP initiatives across different ministries, ensuring that green public procurement strategies are integrated into national procurement policies.
  • Green Public Procurement: The Interministerial Team promotes the adoption of green criteria in public tenders across all sectors, aligning them with EU sustainability goals. The team works to standardize GPP practices and ensure that ministries adopt eco-friendly procurement strategies, enhancing Poland’s efforts toward sustainability. Their role includes developing guidelines, providing training, and ensuring that green procurement is widely implemented in both national and local public procurement processes.

19. Local Government Units (Samorządy, JST)

  • Role in Public Procurement: Local governments in Poland, such as municipalities and regional councils, are responsible for public procurement at the local level, particularly in areas like construction, transportation, and public services.
  • Green Public Procurement: Local authorities are increasingly incorporating GPP into their procurement practices, especially in projects related to transportation, building energy efficiency, and waste management. Many local governments work with the Ministry of Development and UZP to align with national GPP strategies.

20. Public Sector Institutions (Organizacje Sektora Publicznego, OSP)

  • Role in Public Procurement: Public Sector Institutionsin Poland, such as universities, museums and other not controlled by local authorities, are responsible for large portion of public procurement at the local level, particularly in areas like construction, transportation, and services.
  • Green Public Procurement: Public Sector Institutionsare increasingly incorporating GPP into their procurement practices, especially in projects related to transportation, building energy efficiency, and waste management. Many public institutions work with the Ministry of Development, Ministry of Science, Ministry of Climate & Environment and UZP to incorporate GPP into their procurement strategies.

21. Environmental NGOs and Civil Society Organizations (Organizacje Pozarządowe i Społeczeństwo Obywatelskie, NGO)

  • Role in Public Procurement: Although not formal government bodies, NGOs and civil society organizations often influence public procurement by lobbying for greener policies and practices.
  • Green Public Procurement: These organizations advocate for stricter environmental standards in procurement processes and work with governmental bodies to ensure that GPP is a priority in national and local procurement strategies.

22. European Union (EU)

  • Role in Public Procurement: Poland is a member of the EU, which plays a critical role in shaping public procurement regulations. EU directives, such as the 2014 Public Procurement Directives, influence Poland’s national procurement laws.
  • Green Public Procurement: The EU sets targets and provides guidelines for GPP across member states, including Poland. EU funding programs, like those under the European Green Deal, often require green criteria in public procurement projects, especially when financing infrastructure, energy, and public transportation.

23. World Bank

  • Role in Public Procurement: The World Bank supports public procurement through financing large-scale projects in infrastructure, education, and environmental protection. It provides guidelines and frameworks to ensure that procurement processes are transparent, competitive, and aligned with international best practices.
  • Green Public Procurement: The World Bank plays a pivotal role in encouraging sustainable procurement in Poland by financing projects that integrate environmental sustainability. It promotes the use of GPP by offering technical assistance and resources for projects that focus on climate resilience, renewable energy, and sustainable development. Through its Green Procurement Framework, the World Bank supports the integration of eco-friendly practices into public tenders, particularly in large infrastructure and environmental projects.

In conclusion, Poland’s public procurement ecosystem involves several key institutions that manage, regulate, and promote GPP. The government’s focus on sustainability, combined with EU directives and funding incentives, is driving progress toward integrating environmental concerns into public contracts.

For more information about the ChemClimCircle project and how it can help, or how you can get involved fill in the contact form here, visit our website and follow us on social media. Let’s work together for a sustainable future! 🌍🌿🔄

#Sustainability #CircularEconomy #ClimateAction #ToxinFree #PublicProcurement #GreenFuture #ChemClimCircle

The Impact of Heavily Processed Foods and Soil Degradation on Global Health

Introduction

The global food industry, dominated by ultra-processed foods (UPFs), is increasingly recognized as a significant threat to public health. These foods are linked to a variety of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer (Fiolet et al., 2018; Srour et al., 2019). Another critical, yet often overlooked dimension of this problem is the declining quality of agricultural products due to poor soils. Modern agricultural practices, which prioritize the use of synthetic fertilizers rich in nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), neglect other essential nutrients. Also the structure & content of the soil carbon has been degraded. This exacerbates further the nutritional deficiencies of both raw and processed foods, compounding the global health crisis (Lal, 2009; Davis et al., 2004).

The Proliferation and Health Impacts of Ultra-Processed Foods

Ultra-processed foods have become a dominant feature of diets worldwide. These foods, characterized by their high content of sugars, unhealthy fats, and sodium, coupled with a lack of essential nutrients, are produced through extensive industrial processes. The convenience and palatability of these foods have made them popular, but their overconsumption is closely linked to a surge in obesity, metabolic disorders, cardiovascular diseases, and certain types of cancer (Monteiro et al., 2019; Fiolet et al., 2018).

Moreover, ultra-processed foods (UPFs), rich in sugar, unhealthy fats, and additives, are designed to be hyper-palatable, triggering addictive responses similar to those seen with drugs by activating the brain’s reward system, particularly through the release of dopamine (Schulte et al., 2015). This addiction is particularly concerning in children, whose developing brains are more susceptible to forming strong food preferences and habits that can persist into adulthood (Gearhardt et al., 2011). The habitual consumption of UPFs, reinforced by aggressive marketing, especially to children, leads to a cycle of cravings and overconsumption, contributing to obesity and related health issues (Ziauddeen, & Fletcher, 2013). This addiction increases the risk of chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mental health disorders (Fiolet et al., 2018). Addressing UPF addiction requires public health interventions that limit exposure, particularly among vulnerable populations like children.

1. Obesity and Metabolic Disorders

The consumption of ultra-processed foods is a major driver of the global obesity epidemic. The high-calorie, low-nutrient content of these foods leads to excessive caloric intake without providing the essential nutrients needed for health. According to Fiolet et al. (2018), higher consumption of ultra-processed foods is strongly associated with obesity and related metabolic disorders, a trend that is exacerbated by the declining nutrient density of agricultural products (Davis et al., 2004).

2. Cardiovascular Diseases

Cardiovascular diseases are another significant concern associated with ultra-processed foods. These foods are typically high in trans fats, sodium, and sugars, all of which contribute to heart disease and stroke. Research by Srour et al. (2019) indicates that diets high in ultra-processed foods are linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular events. This risk is further compounded by the low levels of heart-protective nutrients, such as magnesium, found in crops grown in nutrient-depleted soils (Rengel & Graham, 1995; White & Broadley, 2005).

3. Diabetes and Insulin Resistance

The high glycemic load of ultra-processed foods, coupled with low nutrient density, contributes to the growing prevalence of type 2 diabetes. As detailed in a study by Mendonça et al. (2017), diets rich in ultra-processed foods are associated with an increased risk of insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. The poor nutritional quality of these foods, derived from crops grown in depleted soils, further aggravates this condition, as the body struggles to manage blood sugar levels without adequate micronutrient support (Zhao et al., 2007).

4. Cancer Risk

Emerging evidence links the consumption of ultra-processed foods to an increased risk of cancer. A study by Fiolet et al. (2018) found that higher intake of ultra-processed foods correlates with a higher risk of overall cancer and breast cancer. The presence of carcinogenic compounds formed during food processing, along with the low levels of protective nutrients in the base ingredients due to poor soil quality, may contribute to this elevated risk (Beach RH, et al., 2019; Fan et al., 2008).

5. Risk of mental disorders

A Harvard study, assessed the impact of dietary habits on mental health. People who consumed the most processed foods – which include items such as sodas, chips, cookies, white bread and ready-to-eat meals – at nine or more servings a day were 50% more likely to develop depression than those who consumed no more than four servings a day. Consumption of many foods and drinks containing artificial sweeteners was associated with a particularly large increase in the risk of depression. The study was observational, meaning that it could not absolutely prove that processed foods cause depression, only that there was an association. Ultra-processed foods can disrupt the proper balance of gut bacteria, which affects how the brain works, the study authors said. Artificial sweeteners can interfere with chemicals in the brain that help nerve cells communicate normally (Samuthpongtorn C, et al.,2023).

The Impact of Soil Degradation on Food Quality and Health

Modern agricultural practices have contributed significantly to the decline in soil health. The focus on maximizing crop yields through the application of NPK fertilizers has led to the neglect of other vital micronutrients such as magnesium, zinc, iron, and selenium, which are crucial for human health (Gupta & Gupta, 2000; Cakmak & Marschner, 1988). Over time, soils become depleted of these nutrients, leading to crops that are less nutritious. Moreover, deterioration of carbon content and structure in soils causes the lover water retention and decreases yield. This soil depletion is not only a concern for raw agricultural products but also for the ultra-processed foods derived from them, further deteriorating the nutritional quality of the global food supply (Davis et al., 2004; Mayer, 1997).

1. Nutrient Depletion and Food Quality

Studies have shown that the nutritional content of crops has been declining over the past several decades. For instance, a comprehensive study by Davis et al. (2004) found significant reductions in the levels of essential nutrients in fruits and vegetables since the 1950s. This decline is attributed to soil depletion caused by modern agricultural practices focused on high yields rather than nutritional quality (Fan et al., 2008). The resulting crops, which are used as raw materials for processed foods, are inherently less nutritious, compounding the health risks associated with UPFs (Welch & Graham, 2004).

2. Degradation of Soil Structure and Carbon Content

The degradation of soil structure and carbon content is a critical issue that exacerbates the declining quality of agricultural products and, consequently, global health. Healthy soil structure is essential for maintaining water retention, nutrient availability, and root growth. However, intensive agricultural practices, such as over-tilling, monocropping, and excessive use of chemical fertilizers, have led to the breakdown of soil aggregates, resulting in soil compaction and erosion (Lal, 2004).

Moreover, these practices deplete the organic carbon content in the soil, which is crucial for soil fertility and microbial activity. Soil organic carbon acts as a key component of soil health, influencing nutrient cycling and the soil’s ability to sequester carbon dioxide, thereby mitigating climate change. The loss of soil carbon not only diminishes the soil’s capacity to support healthy crop production but also contributes to higher atmospheric carbon levels, intensifying the global climate crisis (Smith et al., 2015; Lal, 2004).

Addressing soil structure degradation and carbon loss requires adopting sustainable farming practices, such as reduced tillage, cover cropping, and organic amendments, to restore soil health, increase soil water retention, improve crop quality, and enhance global food security (Lal, 2015).

3. Impact on Public Health – Malnutrition

The combination of poor soil health and the proliferation of ultra-processed foods creates a “double burden” on global health. Populations are not only consuming foods that are high in unhealthy components but also low in essential nutrients due to soil degradation (Smith et al., 2016). This scenario exacerbates micronutrient deficiencies, leading to increased susceptibility to chronic diseases. For example, the lack of zinc in soils, and consequently in crops, has been linked to higher rates of immune deficiency and infectious diseases, as detailed by Brown & Wuehler (2000) and discussed in The Lancet (Swaminathan, 2003).

Global Health Implications and Industry Response

The global health implications of the widespread consumption of ultra-processed foods, compounded by declining soil health, are severe. The rise in non-communicable diseases, driven by these factors, presents a major challenge to public health systems, particularly in developing countries where both undernutrition and overnutrition are prevalent (Barrett, 2010; Cordell et al., 2009).

The food industry’s response to these challenges has been largely superficial, focusing on the introduction of “healthier” product lines without addressing the underlying issues of soil degradation and nutrient depletion (Glanz & Yaroch, 2004). While some companies are beginning to explore more nutrient-dense food options, the scale of the problem requires a more fundamental shift in both agricultural practices (including innovative organic fertilizers) and food processing methods (van der Wiel et al., 2023).

Societal Response to Global Health Implications

The global health implications of widespread consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and the degradation of soil health present a multifaceted challenge that requires coordinated action from governments, the private sector, civil society, and individuals. The societal response must address both the immediate health impacts and the underlying environmental and economic drivers that exacerbate these issues.

1. Policy and Regulation

Governments play a crucial role in shaping the food environment and mitigating the negative health impacts associated with UPFs and soil degradation. Effective policy and regulatory measures can include:

  • Nutritional Guidelines and Public Awareness: Governments can promote dietary guidelines that emphasize the consumption of whole foods and reduce reliance on ultra-processed products. Public health campaigns can raise awareness about the health risks of UPFs and the importance of nutrient-rich diets, particularly in vulnerable populations such as children and low-income groups (Monteiro et al., 2019; Fiolet et al., 2018).
  • Taxation and Subsidies: Implementing taxes on unhealthy foods, such as sugary beverages and high-fat snacks, can discourage their consumption. Conversely, subsidies for fruits, vegetables, and other whole foods can make healthier options more accessible and affordable. For instance, Mexico’s sugar tax, introduced in 2014, has shown promising results in reducing the consumption of sugary drinks (Colchero et al., 2016).
  • Food Labeling Requirements: Clear and informative food labeling can help consumers make healthier choices. Mandatory front-of-package labels that indicate high levels of sugar, fat, and sodium can deter the purchase of ultra-processed foods. Some countries, like Chile and Brazil, have already implemented such labeling systems with positive outcomes (Taillie et al., 2020).
  • Regulation of Marketing Practices: To protect vulnerable groups, particularly children, stricter regulations on the marketing of ultra-processed foods are necessary. Limiting advertising during children’s programming and restricting the use of cartoon characters and celebrities in marketing unhealthy foods can reduce children’s exposure to these products (Sadeghirad et al., 2016).

2. Agricultural Practices and Soil Management

Improving agricultural practices is essential to address soil degradation and enhance the nutritional quality of food. This requires a shift towards sustainable farming practices that prioritize soil health and biodiversity:

  • Sustainable Farming Techniques: Promoting techniques such as crop rotation, cover cropping, reduced tillage, and the use of organic fertilizers can help restore soil structure, increase soil organic carbon content, and improve water retention (Lal, 2004; Smith et al., 2015). These practices can enhance the resilience of agricultural systems to climate change and improve the nutritional content of crops (Bouis & Welch, 2010).
  • Support for Small-Scale Farmers: Governments and NGOs can support small-scale farmers in adopting sustainable practices by providing access to resources, education, and financial incentives. These farmers often face barriers to implementing sustainable methods due to limited access to technology, knowledge, and capital (Altieri, 2009).
  • Agroecology and Agroforestry: Integrating trees and other perennial plants into agricultural landscapes (agroforestry) can improve soil health, sequester carbon, and increase biodiversity. Agroecology, which emphasizes the ecological management of farming systems, can also play a critical role in creating more resilient and sustainable food systems (Gliessman, 2015).

3. Private Sector Initiatives

The private sector, particularly food manufacturers and retailers, has a significant influence on the food environment and consumer choices. Companies can contribute to the societal response by:

  • Reformulating Products: Food companies can reduce the levels of sugar, fat, and salt in their products and remove harmful additives. Reformulating UPFs to make them healthier while maintaining taste and affordability can help reduce the public health burden associated with these products (Mozaffarian et al., 2018).
  • Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Companies can engage in CSR initiatives that support sustainable agriculture, improve food security, and promote healthy eating. For example, investing in sustainable sourcing of ingredients or supporting educational programs about nutrition can enhance a company’s reputation while contributing to public health (Hartmann et al., 2015).
  • Innovating Healthier Products: The development of new, healthier food products that cater to the growing consumer demand for nutritious and convenient options can drive industry change. This includes increasing the availability of minimally processed foods and creating alternatives to highly processed snacks and meals (Pereira-Kotze C, et al., 2022).

4. Community and Civil Society Engagement

Civil society organizations, community groups, and NGOs play a crucial role in advocating for healthier food environments and supporting grassroots initiatives that promote sustainable agriculture and healthy eating:

  • Community-Led Initiatives: Local initiatives such as community gardens, farmers’ markets, and food cooperatives can improve access to fresh, local, and nutritious foods. These initiatives also strengthen community ties and empower individuals to take control of their food choices (Wakefield et al., 2007).
  • Educational Programs: NGOs and community organizations can provide education on nutrition, sustainable agriculture, and cooking skills, particularly in underserved communities. These programs can help people understand the importance of healthy eating and how to prepare nutritious meals on a budget (Drewnowski et al., 2010).
  • Advocacy for Policy Change: Civil society organizations can advocate for stronger government action on food policy and environmental protection. By mobilizing public support and engaging in policy dialogue, these organizations can influence decision-making and drive systemic change (Lang & Rayner, 2012).

5. Individual Actions and Consumer Choices

Ultimately, individual choices play a significant role in shaping the demand for ultra-processed foods and the sustainability of agricultural practices. Consumers can contribute to societal change by:

  • Making Informed Choices: Educating oneself about the health impacts of ultra-processed foods and the importance of soil health can lead to more informed purchasing decisions. Choosing whole, minimally processed foods and supporting sustainable agricultural products can drive demand for healthier options (Lal, 2009; Monteiro et al., 2019).
  • Reducing Food Waste: Reducing food waste is another important individual action that can contribute to global sustainability. By planning meals, using leftovers, and composting organic waste, consumers can reduce the environmental impact of their food consumption (FAO, 2011).
  • Supporting Sustainable Brands: Consumers can choose to support brands that prioritize sustainability, ethical sourcing, and healthy products. By directing purchasing power towards companies that align with these values, individuals can encourage the broader food industry to adopt more sustainable practices (Hartmann et al., 2015).

In Summary: Addressing the global health implications of ultra-processed food consumption and soil degradation requires a comprehensive societal response that involves coordinated action from governments, the private sector, civil society, and individuals. By implementing policies that promote healthy eating, sustainable agriculture, and consumer education, society can mitigate the health and environmental impacts of these challenges and move towards a more sustainable and equitable food system.

Conclusions

The convergence of soil degradation and the proliferation of ultra-processed foods represents a significant threat to global health. The depletion of essential nutrients in soils, coupled with the rise of nutrient-poor processed foods, exacerbates the global burden of non-communicable diseases. Addressing this issue requires a multi-faceted approach, including:

  • adoption of sustainable innovative agricultural practices (including organic fertilization),
  • stricter regulation of food processing and innovative agricultural practicies,
  • incentives for less processed food,
  • greater public awareness of the nutritional quality of foods.

This publication has been inspired by the interesting article in The Economist (Aug 18, 2024), section business: Can big food adapt to healthier diets? https://www.economist.com/business/2024/08/18/can-big-food-adapt-to-healthier-diets#

References

  1. Altieri, M. A. (2009). Agroecology, small farms, and food sovereignty. Monthly Review, 61(3), 102-113.
    https://doi.org/10.14452/MR-061-03-2009-07_8
  2. Barrett, C. B. (2010). Measuring food insecurity. Science, 327(5967), 825-828.
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182768
  3. Beach RH, et al. (2019). Combining the effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide on protein, iron, and zinc availability and projected climate change on global diets: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. Jul;3(7):e307-e317.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30094-4.
  4. Bouis, H.E. and Welch, R.M. (2010), Biofortification—A Sustainable Agricultural Strategy for Reducing Micronutrient Malnutrition in the Global South. Crop Sci., 50: S-20-S-32.
    https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2009.09.0531
  5. Brown, K. H., & Wuehler, S. E. (2000). Zinc and human health: results of recent trials and implications for program interventions and research. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 21(4), 440-443.
    https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/food/fnb22-2.pdf  
  6. Cakmak, I., & Marschner, H. (1988). Zinc-dependent changes in ESR signals, NADPH oxidase and plasma membrane permeability in cotton roots. Physiologia Plantarum, 73(1), 182-186.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1988.tb09214.x  
  7. Colchero, M. A., et al. (2016). Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages: observational study. BMJ, 352, h6704.
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6704
  8. Cordell, D., Drangert, J. O., & White, S. (2009). The story of phosphorus: Global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 292-305.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009
  9. Davis, D. R., et al. (2004). Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 23(6), 669-682.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2004.10719409
  10. Drewnowski, A., & Darmon, N. (2010). The economics of obesity: dietary energy density and energy cost. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82(1), 265S-273S.
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/82.1.265S
  11. Fan, M. S., et al. (2008). Evidence of decreasing mineral density in wheat grain over the last 160 years. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, 22(4), 315-324.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2008.07.002
  12. FAO (2011). Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Rome.
    https://www.fao.org/4/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf
  13. Fiolet, T., et al. (2018). Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk: results from NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. The BMJ, 360, k322.
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k322
  14. Gearhardt, A. N., et al. (2011). Can food be addictive? Public health and policy implications. Addiction, 106(7), 1208-1212.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03301.x
  15. Glanz, K., & Yaroch, A. L. (2004). Strategies for increasing fruit and vegetable intake in grocery stores and communities: policy, pricing, and environmental change. Preventive Medicine, 39(Suppl 2), S75-S80.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.01.004
  16. Gliessman, S. R. (2015). Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. CRC Press.
    https://doi.org/10.1201/b17881
  17. Gupta, U. C., & Gupta, S. C. (2000). Selenium in soils and crops, its deficiencies in livestock and humans: Implications for management. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 31(11-14), 1791-1807.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00103620009370538
  18. Hartmann, M., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Consumer perception and behavior regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 44(1), 2-11.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.12.006
  19. Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304(5677), 1623-1627.
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396
  20. Lal, R. (2009). Soil degradation as a reason for inadequate human nutrition. Food Security, 1(1), 45-57.
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S12571-009-0009-Z
  21. Lal, R. (2015). Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability, 7(5), 5875-5895.
    https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055875
  22. Lang, T., & Rayner, G. (2012). Ecological public health: the 21st century’s big idea? An essay by Tim Lang and Geof Rayner. BMJ, 345, e5466.
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5466
  23. Mayer, A. M. (1997). Historical changes in the mineral content of fruits and vegetables. British Food Journal, 99(6), 207-211.
    https://doi.org/10.1108/00070709710181540
  24. Mendonça, R. D., et al. (2017). Ultra-processed food consumption and the incidence of hypertension in a Mediterranean cohort: The SUN Project. American Journal of Hypertension, 30(4), 358-366.
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ajh/hpw137
  25. Monteiro, C. A., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed foods: what they are and how to identify them. Public Health Nutrition, 22(5), 936-941.
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980018003762
  26. Mozaffarian, D., et al. (2018). Role of government policy in nutrition—barriers to and opportunities for healthier eating. BMJ, 361, k2426.
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2426
  27. Pereira-Kotze C, et al. (2022). Conflicts of interest are harming maternal and child health: time for scientific journals to end relationships with manufacturers of breast-milk substitutes. BMJ Glob Health. 2022 Feb;7(2):e008002.
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008002.
  28. Rengel, Z., & Graham, R. D. (1995). Wheat genotypes differ in zinc efficiency when grown in the chelate-buffered nutrient solution. I. Growth and zinc uptake. Plant and Soil, 176, 307-316.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00011795
  29. Sadeghirad, B., et al. (2016). Influence of unhealthy food and beverage marketing on children’s dietary intake and preference: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Obesity Reviews, 17(10), 945-959.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12445
  30. Schulte, E. M., et al. (2015). Which foods may be addictive? The roles of processing, fat content, and glycemic load. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0117959.
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117959
  31. Smith, P., et al. (2015). Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press.
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415416.017
  32. Srour, B., et al. (2019). Ultra-processed food intake and risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study (NutriNet-Santé). The BMJ, 365, l1451.
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l1451
  33. Taillie, L. S., et al. (2020). An evaluation of Chile’s law of food labeling and advertising on sugarsweetened beverage purchases from 2015 to 2017: A before-and-after study. PLOS Medicine, 17(2), e1003015.
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003015
  34. van der Wiel, B.Z., Neuberger, S., Darr, D. et al. (2023). Challenges and opportunities for nutrient circularity: an innovation platform approach. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-023-10285-x
  35. Wakefield, S., et al. (2007). Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto. Health Promotion International, 22(2), 92-101.
    https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dam001
  36. Welch, R. M., & Graham, R. D. (2004). Breeding for micronutrients in staple food crops from a human nutrition perspective. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55(396), 353-364.
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erh064
  37. White, P. J., & Broadley, M. R. (2005). Historical variation in the mineral composition of edible horticultural products. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology, 80(6), 660-667.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2005.11511995
  38. Ziauddeen, H., & Fletcher, P. C. (2013). Is food addiction a valid and useful concept? Obesity Reviews, 14(1), 19-28.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.01046.x

#Sustainability #PublicHealth #FoodSecurity #UltraprocessedFoods #UPF #Agriculture #SoilDeterioration #HealthyLiving #CorporateResponsibility #SCR

REACH is not just an obligation; it’s the safety of your company! See how professionals view it and find out how you can implement it today.

  1. Introduction to REACH: REACH is a key tool for chemical management in companies operating within the European Union. The introduction of this regulation aims to protect human health and the environment through better management of risks associated with chemicals (ECHA, 2020, Barlow et al., 2015; Fisk, 2013).
  2. Benefits of Implementing REACH: REACH is a mechanism that not only helps companies comply with legal requirements but also offers long-term benefits such as improved workplace safety, health protection, and enhanced company reputation (Ciatti et al., 2021, Hammerschmidt & Marx, 2014, ECHA, 2016 ).
    • Improved Workplace Safety and Health Protection: There is broad consensus in the scientific literature that implementing REACH positively impacts workplace safety. Research shows that reducing exposure to harmful chemicals leads to fewer accidents and occupational diseases (Bodar et al., 2018; Frick, 2011, Wachter & Yorio, 2014, Godderis et al., 2024).
    • Compliance as a Risk Management Strategy: Compliance with REACH regulations is crucial to avoiding legal sanctions, as emphasized in scientific studies. This compliance is also seen as a strategic element of risk management in companies, which can lead to an increase in their market value (Ramos et al., 2020; Black & Baldwin, 2012, Vogel, 2010).
    • Increased Competitiveness and Sustainable Development: Implementing REACH can contribute to increased competitiveness by improving the company’s reputation for sustainable development. Studies suggest that companies adhering to REACH are perceived as more socially and environmentally responsible, which can attract new customers and partners (Hale et al., 2015; Kontogiannis et al., 2017, Worthington, 2013).
  3. Challenges of Implementing REACH: While the benefits are usually highlighted, it’s also important to address the challenges associated with implementing REACH, which are discussed in the literature.
    • Implementation Costs: One of the main challenges is the high costs associated with implementing REACH, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Research indicates that these costs may include not only the registration of substances but also risk assessments and compliance monitoring (Salguero-Caparrós et al., 2020; Sutton, 2014).
    • Complexity and Bureaucracy: REACH is often criticized for its complexity and administrative demands. The process of registering and evaluating substances is time-consuming and requires significant resources, which can be challenging for SMEs (Li & Guldenmund, 2018; Robinson et al., 2020).
  4. Recommendations: Given the challenges posed by implementing REACH, it is recommended to take steps such as identifying the chemicals used, conducting risk assessments, training employees, and regular monitoring (Pidgeon, 1991).
    • Importance of Training: Studies show that regular employee training in the safe handling of chemicals is crucial for the effective implementation of REACH. These training sessions should cover both theoretical and practical aspects to increase awareness and preparedness among employees (Gander et al., 2011; Walters et al., 2011).
    • Monitoring and Auditing: Regular monitoring of REACH compliance and conducting internal audits are essential to maintaining compliance and minimizing risk (Bahr, 2014; Reese, 2018).

Conclusion: The article rightly emphasizes that REACH is not just a legal obligation but also a tool for improving workplace safety and health protection within an enterprise. While implementing REACH comes with certain challenges, the long-term benefits, such as better employee health protection, compliance with regulations, and increased competitiveness, outweigh these difficulties. Therefore, it is worth investing in the REACH implementation process to ensure the safety and sustainable development of the company (Black, 2010; Majone, 2010).

Would You like to find out how our project can help You with REACH – fill in the form and we will contact You shortly: https://forms.gle/6YJgSAJiPpmSQbJW6

Bibliography (with links to original publications)

  1. Bahr, N. J. (2014). System safety engineering and risk assessment: A practical approach. Available here.
  2. Barlow, S. M., Boobis, A. R., Bridges, J., Cockburn, A., & others. (2015). The role of hazard-and risk-based approaches in ensuring food safety. Trends in Food Science & Technology, Volume 46, Issue 2, Part A, Pages 176-188 Available here.
  3. Black, J. (2010). Risk-based regulation: Choices, practices, and lessons being learnt. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264082939-en .
  4. Black, J., & Baldwin, R. (2012). When risk-based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges. Regulation & Governance. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748- 5991.2011.01124.x.
  5. Bodar, C., Spijker, J., Lijzen, J., & others. (2018). Risk management of hazardous substances in a circular economy. Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.014 .
  6. ECHA, 2016, Cost and benefit assessments in the REACH restriction dossiers https://doi.org/10.2823/57600
  7. ECHA, (2020). REACH Regulation Overview. Helsinki: ECHA, https://echa.europa.eu/regulations/reach/understanding-reach
  8. Fabrizzio Ciatti, Daniel Vencovsky, et al., 2021, Development of REACH – Review of evidence on the benefits & costs of REACH, German Environment Agency, https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/5750/publikationen/2021_01_28_texte_06-2021_reach_weiterentwicklung_ap_2.pdf
  9. Fisk, P. (2013). Chemical risk assessment: A manual for REACH. Available here.
  10. Frick, K. (2011). Worker influence on voluntary OHS management systems–A review of its ends and means. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.04.007
  11. Gander, P., Hartley, L., Powell, D., Cabon, P., & others. (2011). Fatigue risk management: Organizational factors at the regulatory and industry/company level. Accident Analysis & Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.11.007
  12. Godderis L, et al., 2024, Towards a more effective REACH legislation in protecting human health. Toxicol Sci. 2024 May 28;199(2):194-202. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfae025.
  13. Hale, A., Borys, D., & Adams, M. (2015). Safety regulation: The lessons of workplace safety rule management for managing the regulatory burden. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.012.
  14. Hammerschmidt, T., Marx, R., 2014,  REACH and occupational health and safety. Environ Sci Eur 26, 6 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-26-6
  15. Kontogiannis, T., Leva, M. C., & Balfe, N. (2017). Total safety management: principles, processes, and methods. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.09.015.
  16. Li, Y., & Guldenmund, F. W. (2018). Safety management systems: A broad overview of the literature. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.016.
  17. Majone, G. (2010). Strategic issues in risk regulation and risk management. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264082939-en.
  18. Pidgeon, N. F. (1991). Safety Culture and Risk Management in Organizations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022191221009
  19. Ramos, D., Afonso, P., & Rodrigues, M. A. (2020). Integrated management systems as a key facilitator of occupational health and safety risk management: A case study in a medium-sized waste management firm. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121346
  20. Reese, C. D. (2018). Occupational health and safety management: A practical approach. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351228848 .
  21. Robinson, C., Portier, C. J., & Čavoški, A., et al. (2020). Achieving a high level of protection from pesticides in Europe: Problems with the current risk assessment procedure and solutions. European Journal of Risk Regulation. 11(3):450-480. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.18.
  22. Salguero-Caparrós, F., Pardo-Ferreira, M. C., & others. (2020). Management of legal compliance in occupational health and safety: A literature review. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.08.033.
  23. Sutton, I. (2014). Process risk and reliability management. Available here.
  24. Vogel, D. (2010). The Private Regulation of Global Corporate Conduct. Business and Society, 49(1), 68-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650309343407
  25. Wachter, J. K., & Yorio, P. L. (2014). A system of safety management practices and worker engagement for reducing and preventing accidents: An empirical and theoretical investigation. Accident Analysis & Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.07.029 .
  26. Walters, D., Johnstone, R., Frick, K., Quinlan, M., & others. (2011). Regulating workplace risks: A comparative study of inspection regimes in times of change. Available here.
  27. Worthington, I. (2013). Greening Business: Research, Theory, and Practice. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780199535224, Available here.

#Safety #Management #REACH #fit4REACH2PL

Challenges of Circular Economy in Food Delivery

In the ever-evolving landscape of sustainability, the circular economy stands out as a promising solution to many of our environmental challenges. By focusing on reducing waste and making the most of resources, the circular economy can significantly mitigate environmental degradation. However, implementing circular principles in food delivery presents unique challenges that require innovative solutions.

The Complexity of Food Delivery Systems

Food delivery systems are intricate networks involving multiple stakeholders, including suppliers, restaurants, delivery services, and consumers. Transitioning from a linear to a circular model in this sector is complex due to the diverse and interconnected nature of these systems. Each stakeholder has different priorities and capabilities, making it difficult to implement uniform circular practices.
For instance, while some restaurants might easily adopt reusable packaging, delivery services need to manage the logistics of returning these packages. This complexity necessitates a coordinated approach, where each stakeholder’s role and responsibilities are clearly defined and supported by robust infrastructure and policy frameworks.

Consumer Behavior and Mindset

One of the most significant challenges in promoting circularity in food delivery is changing consumer behavior and mindset. Many consumers are accustomed to the convenience of single-use packaging, which offers quick disposal without the need for cleaning or returning items. Shifting this mindset towards a more sustainable approach requires a cultural change, driven by awareness and incentives.
Educational campaigns highlighting the environmental impacts of single-use plastics and the benefits of reusable alternatives are essential. Moreover, providing incentives such as discounts for using reusable containers or penalties for opting for single-use items can nudge consumers towards more sustainable choices. However, these measures need to be carefully designed to avoid inconvenience that might discourage adoption.

Infrastructure and Logistics

The infrastructure required to support circular food delivery systems is another significant hurdle. Establishing a system where reusable packaging is collected, cleaned, and redistributed involves considerable logistical challenges. This requires investment in cleaning facilities, efficient collection routes, and partnerships with delivery companies.
Moreover, urban environments vary greatly in their capacity to support such systems. Cities with dense populations might find it easier to implement centralized cleaning facilities and efficient collection systems, while smaller or more spread-out areas may struggle with the logistics and cost-effectiveness of such solutions.

Regulatory and Policy Frameworks

Effective implementation of circular economy principles in food delivery also depends on supportive regulatory and policy frameworks. Governments play a crucial role in setting standards, providing incentives, and enforcing regulations that promote circular practices. However, developing and enforcing these policies can be challenging.
Regulations need to balance the interests of businesses and consumers while ensuring environmental benefits. Policies might include bans on single-use plastics, mandates for reusable packaging, and incentives for businesses that adopt circular practices. However, without proper enforcement and support, such policies might not achieve their intended impact.

Technological Innovation

Technological innovation is key to overcoming many of the challenges associated with circular food delivery systems. Advances in materials science can lead to the development of more durable and sustainable packaging options. Digital platforms can streamline the logistics of collecting and redistributing reusable containers, making the process more efficient and user-friendly.
However, adopting new technologies requires investment and willingness to experiment. Small businesses, in particular, may find it difficult to allocate resources towards such innovations without support from larger companies or government initiatives.

Economic Viability

The economic viability of circular food delivery systems is a critical consideration. While the long-term benefits of circularity include reduced waste management costs and environmental impact, the initial investment can be high. Businesses need to see a clear economic benefit to invest in reusable packaging systems, infrastructure, and technology.
Creating a business model that balances environmental sustainability with economic viability is essential. This might involve collaborative approaches where costs and benefits are shared among stakeholders, government subsidies or incentives, and innovative pricing strategies that reflect the true cost of single-use versus reusable packaging.

Conclusion

The transition to a circular economy in food delivery presents numerous challenges, from changing consumer behavior and developing infrastructure to creating supportive regulatory frameworks and ensuring economic viability. However, these challenges are not insurmountable. With coordinated efforts from all stakeholders, technological innovation, and supportive policies, the food delivery sector can move towards a more sustainable and circular model.
By addressing these challenges head-on, we can create a food delivery system that not only meets our convenience needs but also aligns with our environmental and sustainability goals. This transition requires a collective effort, but the benefits for our planet and future generations make it a journey worth undertaking.

Contact:

Would You like to find out more about our activities, please follow us on Internet and Social Media (Facebook, LInkedIn, X (formerly Twitter)).
Would You like to find out whether there is a possibility to join the project as an associated partner: please fill in the short questionnaire (5 questions) here or contact coordinator for Poland (Dr inż. Andrzej Tonderski) here.

#ChangeKnow #Sustainability #CircularEconomy #GreenGovernance #EcoFriendly #FoodDelivery #MultipleUsePackages

The Future of Green Public Procurement: Integrating Chemicals, Climate, and Circularity

In the quest for sustainability, the public sector plays a crucial role. Through Green Public Procurement (GPP), municipalities and governments can set a powerful example by choosing goods and services that have a reduced environmental impact. However, achieving true sustainability requires more than just a focus on green products; it requires a holistic approach that integrates chemicals, climate, and circularity. This is where the ChemClimCircle project steps in.

What is ChemClimCircle?

ChemClimCircle is an innovative project designed to address the complex interplay between chemicals, climate, and circularity in public procurement processes. The project’s primary aim is to ensure that materials procured by municipalities are not only circular and climate-neutral but also free from harmful toxins. This integrated approach is crucial for creating a truly sustainable and safe circular economy.

The Need for Integration

Public procurement is a powerful tool for driving environmental change. However, traditional procurement practices often overlook the interconnectedness of chemical safety, climate impact, and material circularity. For instance, a product might be climate-neutral but contain harmful chemicals, or it might be free of toxins but contribute to greenhouse gas emissions during its lifecycle.
To address these gaps, ChemClimCircle focuses on developing a comprehensive procurement concept that assesses the interlinks, conflicts, and dependencies between these three critical aspects. By doing so, it aims to provide municipalities with the guidance and tools needed to make informed, sustainable procurement decisions.

Key Components of ChemClimCircle

Concept Development:
• Assessing the interconnections between circularity, chemical risks, and climate neutrality.
• Identifying potential conflicts and dependencies in procurement processes.
Guidance and Training:
• Creating detailed guidance documents and training modules for procurement specialists and decision-makers in municipalities.
• Ensuring these materials are practical and applicable to real-world scenarios.
Internal and External Management Strategies:
• Developing internal strategies for municipalities to coordinate ChemClimCircle aspects.
• Providing external support for municipalities, particularly in the Eastern Baltic Sea Region, through round tables and collaborative efforts.
Stakeholder Engagement:
• Mapping target groups and initiating dialogues with stakeholders.
• Creating platforms for larger collaborative actions and networking opportunities.
International Collaboration:
• Organizing international think tank workshops to discuss findings, share best practices, and receive feedback from a diverse group of experts.

Transforming Public Procurement

ChemClimCircle aims to transform public procurement by embedding the principles of chemicals safety, climate neutrality, and circularity into the procurement processes. This involves:

  • Assessing Procurement Processes: Municipalities need to evaluate their current procurement practices to identify areas where improvements can be made in terms of sustainability.
  • Developing Comprehensive Criteria: Establishing procurement criteria that ensure products and services are circular, climate-neutral, and free from harmful chemicals.
  • Training and Capacity Building: Providing ongoing training for procurement officials to keep them informed about the latest sustainable procurement practices and standards.
  • Monitoring and Evaluation: Continuously monitoring procurement outcomes to ensure they align with the ChemClimCircle principles and making adjustments as necessary.

Benefits of Integrated Green Public Procurement

By integrating chemicals, climate, and circularity into public procurement, municipalities can:

  • Reduce Environmental Impact: Lower greenhouse gas emissions, decrease waste, and minimize the use of toxic substances.
  • Enhance Public Health: Promote the use of non-toxic materials, leading to healthier environments for residents.
  • Promote Innovation: Encourage the development and adoption of sustainable products and services.
  • Lead by Example: Set a standard for sustainable practices that can inspire other sectors and regions to follow suit.

The Road Ahead

As ChemClimCircle progresses, it aims to create a ripple effect, influencing more municipalities and regions to adopt integrated procurement practices. By addressing the critical links between chemicals, climate, and circularity, the project sets a new standard for sustainable public procurement.
For those involved in public procurement, the ChemClimCircle project offers invaluable insights and practical tools to navigate the complexities of sustainable procurement. By adopting these practices, municipalities can not only reduce their environmental footprint but also lead the way towards a safer, healthier, and more sustainable future.
Stay tuned for more updates on our journey towards integrating chemicals, climate, and circularity in Green Public Procurement. Together, we can make a difference!

For more information about the ChemClimCircle project and how you can get involved (fill in the formular here), visit our website and follow us on social media. Let’s work together for a sustainable future! 🌍🌿🔄

Energy Audit

An energy audit constitutes a comprehensive assessment designed to evaluate the energy efficiency of buildings, systems, and operational processes. This analytical process aims to uncover inefficiencies in energy usage and identify opportunities for enhancement and energy conservation. Conducted through a thorough examination, its purpose is to gain a nuanced understanding of energy consumption patterns within a particular structure or process and to devise strategies for optimization.

The principal objectives of conducting an energy audit include:

  • Identification of Potential Energy Savings: The audit serves to pinpoint specific areas where energy usage is excessive or inefficient. Common findings may include thermal leaks, improper settings of heating and cooling systems, the use of outdated electrical appliances, or inefficient lighting solutions.
  • Enhancement of Energy Efficiency: Insights gained from the audit facilitate the formulation of strategies to optimize energy consumption. This may involve the adoption of more energy-efficient appliances, enhancement of building insulation, fine-tuning of HVAC system operations, or the integration of renewable energy sources.
  • Reduction of Operational Costs: By streamlining energy management practices, significant cost savings can be achieved. The audit identifies potential reductions in energy usage that translate directly into decreased utility expenses.
  • Promotion of Sustainable Energy Use: The energy audit is a vital instrument in advancing sustainable development goals and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Enhancements in energy efficiency contribute to reducing the environmental footprint of operations.

Energy audits are conducted by external specialists or experts in energy efficiency, who are fully certified and authorized to undertake such evaluations.

The outcomes of an energy audit offer a detailed overview of current energy consumption levels and provide targeted recommendations for implementing energy efficiency improvements. At Grantera, we maintain a roster of skilled auditors capable of delivering these critical insights.

For further inquiries or to discuss the potential benefits of an energy audit for your organization, please feel free to schedule a complimentary consultation with one of our Energy Efficiency Experts through the form.

Environmental Credit

We have often received questions about the possibility of obtaining subsidies despite the lack of an idea for innovation or innovative products or technologies . Until recently, we did not have a positive answer to this question, but now the situation has changed. We present you with a solution that perfectly meets these needs – the “Environmental Credit”. POMInnO assissts different organizations in applying for funds and grants.

This program provides an excellent source of financing for the replacement of obsolete machinery with modern ones, modernization of the machinery park and other investments related to energy efficiency. Importantly, it does not require the implementation of innovative products or advanced technologies resulting from research and development. All you have to do is decide to replace energy-intensive machines with new ones that have reduced energy consumption. This is a program aimed at companies that not only want to modernize their machinery, but also want to invest in renewable energy, such as photovoltaics, or make other improvements that will reduce the company’s overall energy consumption.

It is worth noting that, despite its name, the “Environmental Credit” is not a preferential loan, but a non-refundable grant that provides additional financial support to your business.

Therefore, if you are an entrepreneur and believe there are ways to improve energy efficiency in your company – I invite you to individual consultations, which will allow us to determine the chances and likelihood of obtaining a grant for your company. However, before you decide whether this program is for you or not – I warmly invite you to watch a recording from the online training on May 25, 2023, i.e., before the previous edition of this program. The training was conducted by Karol Bober, President of the Grantery Board, who is an expert in the field of EU grants and has over 20 years of experience in obtaining and settling grants. I know that now all companies supporting the acquisition of grants are very busy, and we need to support each other. I share this information without a problem, as the messages conveyed by Karol are always very practical, and I myself sometimes cooperate with Grantera in preparing grant applications, knowing that this knowledge is top-notch.

As part of the Ecological Credit competition, two calls for proposals have been planned for 2024. The first call will last from April 25, 2024, to July 25, 2024. The next call is planned from October 17, 2024, to December 30, 2024.

If you are interested in the program – please fill out the contact form, which will allow us to reach out directly and establish the details of cooperation in preparing the Ecological Credit application for your company.

#environmentalcredit #kredytekologiczny #grantera #serwisgrantowy #grantservice4you

ChemClimCircle II Initiative: Greening Public Procurement Across the Baltic Sea Region

Text in Polish

The Challenge: A Green Revolution Awaits

Public procurement is a powerful tool for promoting environmental sustainability, yet its potential remains largely untapped. Despite existing guidelines and criteria, the implementation of Green Public Procurement (GPP) practices is sporadic and voluntary, far from the widespread adoption needed to make a significant environmental impact. The ChemClimCircle project aims to tackle this by integrating chemical safety, circular economy principles, and climate considerations into procurement processes, making green procurement not just an exception, but a norm.

Why Transnational Collaboration Matters

The obstacles to greening public procurement are not confined by borders. Shared challenges across the Baltic Sea Region (BSR), including varying levels of knowledge, lack of skills, and economic pressures, underline the necessity for a unified approach. The ChemClimCircle initiative leverages transnational cooperation to foster knowledge exchange, harmonize standards, and create a unified market that benefits from sustainable procurement practices.

Our Targets: Engaging Key Players

Our focus is on empowering public entities across the BSR, from small municipalities to national authorities, in adopting comprehensive green procurement strategies. This includes procurement and environmental departments, regional development agencies, SMEs, and interest groups, all pivotal in shaping a sustainable future.

The Partnership: A Collective Journey Towards Sustainability

Led by the Lithuanian National Procurement Office, our consortium embodies a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including municipalities, regional networks, think tanks, and the Union of the Baltic Cities. This diverse partnership ensures the development and dissemination of innovative solutions tailored to various contexts across the BSR.

The Roadmap: From Concept to Reality

Our project unfolds in three strategic Work Packages (WPs): Preparing solutions, Piloting and evaluating solutions, and Transferring solutions. Through collaborative efforts, we aim to develop operational models, monitoring concepts, and impact assessment tools that simplify the integration of GPP criteria into procurement practices. This comprehensive approach ensures that our target groups are not only involved but are active participants in the transformation process.

The Outcome: A Sustainable Procurement Ecosystem

The ChemClimCircle initiative is set to revolutionize public procurement by making sustainability the default criterion. Our vision is to create a BSR where every procurement decision is an opportunity to advance environmental goals, fostering a sustainable market that extends beyond regional boundaries.

Join Us: A Call for Action

We invite potential partners to join this ambitious journey to green public procurement across the BSR. Together, we can create a sustainable future, one greener procurement decision at a time. For more info & to get involved, reach out and fill in a short registration form here!