Notes from the EPTA Conference workshops

The parallel workshops lasted two hours. The themes reflected different social fields with technological dimensions. Workshop discussions were designed to be lively and not too formal. A further aim was to keep the discussion as directed as possible, for example, by analysing some technology assessment or technology foresight project(s).

The themes were discussed mainly from the parliamentarians' perspective. The workshops were asked to seek answers to the following questions:

1. What is the impact of the discussed technological development on central social problems like unemployment or ageing? What kinds of new opportunities are technological developments creating in society and what kinds of new threats are associated with this?
2. What legislative measures should be taken as a contingency for or in response to foreseeable or assessable technologies?
3. How can parliamentarians command influence, through assessment projects, law drafting in the administrative sector and other administrative actions?
4. What new means of contact does technological development offer or require between citizens and parliamentarians?

Every parallel workshop started with an introductory presentation by the Chair. Then the Speakers gave short presentations concerning some basic aspects of the field. Some of them described assessment projects or processes related to the fields. The rest of the time was used to discuss questions essential from the perspective of parliamentarians.

Besides the Chair and the Speakers, most workshops had a Main Rapporteur and an MP Commentator(s). The Chairs and the Main Rapporteurs were representatives of Finnish research organisations. The Main Rapporteurs prepared materials for this summary report but the final selection and interpretations were made by Dr. Osmo Kuusi. MP Commentator(s) were active participants in the workshops. Nearly all workshops had a Finnish MP Commentator. In addition there were MP Commentators from other countries. It was also planned that the workshops would have non-Finn Co-chairs, who would participate in the preparation of the workshop reports. This aim was not realised.

The actual discussion processes in the workshops varied considerably. Some Main Rapporteurs made very detailed reports and some short overviews. Short summaries based on the reports are presented below. Detailed reports – where there are any – are given in the Appendix. In discussion summaries, the names have been replaced by their roles in the sessions (the Chair, the first Speaker etc.). In some detailed reports the names are, however, mentioned.

The theme of the workshop was introduced as follows: Technology has an enormous impact on educational policy, as well as on practices throughout education and training systems. European competitiveness is increasingly based on knowledge and continuous upgrading of core competencies. ELearning & eTraining are not just new ways to deliver high-level educational material, but also essential to the increasingly rapidly growing global business. As a basis for its work, this sub-group has to tackle these enormous global change processes based on technological development. What will be the role of technology education in the future?

Chair: Toivo Katila, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

Main Rapp. Kari Mikkelä, Finnish eLearning Cluster Development Programme

MP Comm. Markku Markkula, Committee for the Future, Finland

Speakers: Kari Mikkelä, Finnish eLearning Cluster Development Programme; Sari Söderlund, Finland Futures Research Centre; Eero Silvennoinen, National Technology Agency, Finland

Comments: Anne Vähäpassi, Educational Programmes of Finnish Broadcasting Company YLE; Matti Sinko, Finnish Virtual University

Participants:Ossi Kokkonen, The Finnish Academies of Technology; Camilla Modéer, Swedish Enterprise; Aziz Naji, Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs OSTC, Belgium; Timo Sneck, Technical Research Centre of Finland – VTT; Janne Sariola, Educational Technology Centre for ICT, Finland

In the lively discussion the workshop identified three specific areas where activities should be conducted. According to workshop participants a sustainable lifelong learning and eLearning development path could be obtained on regional, national and European levels by carefully balancing the public spending on these areas.

The first area is eLearning market place development. Innovative phase and early eLearning market development has been mostly led by the universities and research institutions. The role of public sector financing has been significant here. This pre-market stage has produced many generic solutions, which however have not yet persisted. The growth in the use of eLearning is now most significant in the private sector where most of the economically sustainable eLearning solutions also nowadays created. The growth began through global companies but is moving step by step to smaller and more local companies. The private sector also offers solutions to the education sector. However, the markets for eLearning are still at the development stage.

The second area is public sector eLearning initiatives and support. The volume of learning will increase in the future especially in the adult population. This growth will happen in all sectors of society. In addition to that of the organisers of traditional education, support for learning has become a significant challenge, among others, to most ministries. The eLearning Action Plan created by the European Commission states eLearning as a whole which is composed of four components: Firstly, it is planned that every education institution throughout Europe will have a chance to acquire the computers, networks and other equipment necessary for multimedia education. Secondly, teachers will be trained as learners of digital technology. Thirdly, educational supply especially designed for this purpose, and the software it requires will be developed. Fourthly, the networks of teachers and education institutions will be developed.

The third challenging area is the customer oriented technology and innovation development. The technological possibilities of learning support tools and the technologies increase faster than economical, cultural and social limitations allow. Nearly all the large content providers (media, research, etc.), IT and telecommunication firms (hardware, software, etc.), knowledge intensive business service firms (consultants, trainers, etc.) are already present on the global eLearning market. They all develop new technologies starting from their own strong starting points. So much splintered new technology is available. The most important new development areas of the future could be, among others, assisting agents supporting individual learning, ubiquitous learning solutions, collaborative learning solutions, semantic web and active environments.

What are especially needed are social and organisational innovations and their diffusion. On the eLearning arena the factor which really restricts growth is the slow development of the culture of the learning and of its reorganisation. However, eLearning can be more accessible only through the services offered by the organisations. Identification of real learning needs, an understanding of their own starting situation, acquisition of external solutions and their implementation and support are still problems to most organisations. A producer of the learning contents does not yet have a ready-made distribution channel through which to spread his content or his know-how to learners. So, open and flexible eLearning services for individual citizens are still really immature.

Various issues related to the above three key areas of eLearning were discussed in the workshop. A criticism was levied that the EU Action Plan does not state much about the educational objectives which can be set by the utilisation of eLearning technologies. This lack of objectives makes education and information technology understood in a deterministic way as the definition which determines the future of education and learning. Information technology is taken as granted, as the given nominator which sets the limits and demands for methodological/methodical solutions in education. Therefore the essence of development is not understood as having originated from the genuine needs and goals of the future.

It was, for example, suggested that the focus of eLearning should be more on the "fLearning". It means that the objectives of education are regarded more from the future's point of view. The aim is to consider the different possibilities and alternatives of the future in the study process, to create a vision – the desirable future state – from them, and only after that to think what technological solutions are best to reach that future state. Then information technology is seen as a tool for attaining the goals of the future and not as a compelling megatrend which subordinates all solutions to its requirements.

The theme of the workshop was introduced as follows: There is currently rapid development in the area of human genetics and related technologies (e.g. stem cells). At the beginning of 2001 the European Parliament set up a temporary committee on human genetics. During this year the committee will compile an inventory, as complete as possible, of new and potential developments in human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine. It will also examine the ethical, legal, economic and social problems posed by such new and potential developments.

Chair: Hans Söderlund, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT , Biotechnology

Main Rapp. Maria Höyssä, Laboratory of Environmental Protection, Helsinki University of Technology

MP Comm. Rauha-Maria Mertjärvi, Committee for the Future, Finland

Speakers: Anna-Elina Lehesjoki, University of Helsinki, Finland; Irma Thesleff, Biotechnology Institute, University of Helsinki, Finland

Participants: Lauri Aaltonen, Finnish Cancer Institute, Department of Medical Genetics, Biomedicum Helsinki; Elisabeth Barben, Congress Committees of Science, Education, Switzerland; Leonhard Hennen, Büro für Technikfolgen – Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag TAB, Germany; Osmo Kuusi, Finnish National Fund for Research and Development SITRA, Finland; Paavo Löppönen, Committee for the Future, Finland; Johannes Randegger MP, Congress Committee for Science, Education and Culture, Switzerland; Mikko Rask, Laboratory of Environmental Protection, Helsinki University of Technology

The Chair opened the discussion with issues related to the four questions relevant in the parliamentary technology assessment (page 1 in this paper). He considered that the main opportunity in the field is the novel option to treat severe and at present incurable diseases. There are improved and faster possibilities to develop more specific and more individually customised drugs. The threats are the considerable costs of new cures resulting in prioritisation problems. The development costs per sale increases. Who carriers the costs? A new ethical discussion is just beginning concerning the embryo-derived stem cells. How to manage the collision between society and individual rights when personal choices might incur significant costs to society. Legislation will probably forbid human cloning and germ line gene therapy in the future also. But how will this be tackled with non-germ line gene therapy? A special challenge for the parliamentary technology assessment projects is patenting. Can the patent system handle the world of innovation in the era of biotechnology?

The Speakers illuminated recent developments in the areas of human genetics and stem cells. According to the first Speaker the new genome data gives a number of new tools for (bio)medicine: improved diagnostics, therapeutic proteins and improved chemotherapy. Like the Chair she stressed the opportunity offered by specific drugs with better efficiency for the individual patient. The second Speaker considered that the main challenge for the use of stem cells is the replacement of damaged or missing tissues. Biological replacement is now available instead of mechanical replacement. There are now radically better opportunities to understand the differentiation processes of cells. Differentiation can even be somewhat directed, but the techniques are not yet sophisticated enough. A problem with growing tissues is that the stem cells are not the patient’s own. The research is striving for learning techniques for transforming a patient’s own cells "back" to totipotent ones.

The group discussion focused firstly on the use of embryo cells in research. Eradicating the use of embryo cells is a future vision. There are hopes that normal human cells could be used, but there are two challenges that have to be met first: 1. How to get cells to "forget" their origin. 2. How to make the constructed cells differentiate (into the wanted tissues, for example). It was considered that research must be carried out into both questions. It must be at least started with embryo cells. The existing 60 stem cell lines are not adequate for research, because there is no evidence that they are good lines for further research purposes.

The other focus of discussion was genetic screening. For example, should people be screened for susceptibility if "susceptibility" means that the risk of a genetic disease will rise from 1:1000000 to 1:10000. It may be medically and economically sensible to screen for it, but is it ethically sensible? Will the usefulness of increased knowledge compensate for the increased nervousness of the screened persons? It was considered that if there is knowledge of preventive medicine, screening is more justified. Diseases differ in this respect. The ones having to do with the neural system are very complex and not yet thoroughly understood and thus there is little knowledge related to their prevention. Alternatively the steps involved in the development of cancer within the body at the molecular level are becoming better and better understood. Then there is also the role of the environment, which can now be studied more systematically.

It was suggested that the justification for diagnostic research and the justification for screening should be separated: research must continue even though screening is not allowed, otherwise the chances of developing treatments are low. It was also considered that the choice of whether or not to make the test must be left to the individuals concerned. It is less problematic to screen individual families who can make an informed decision about the test. It is more problematic to make testing generally available, because people tend to take tests "just to be sure", without knowing much about the disease or the level of risk being screened.

The next issue discussed concerned data protection. What if insurance companies want the data concerning genetic screening.(as I believe this is a statement not a real question) What if employers want to test the genetic suitability of applicants. What if the workplace exposes the worker to potentially harmful conditions. It was recommended that the employer can inform the applicant of the risks involved with the job and recommend him/her to take a genetic test and then make a decision as to whether to apply or not. The employer shouldn’t be given access to the results of the test. Testing could be compulsory if third parties are involved. A pilot with a high risk of epilepsy might be considered unacceptable, for instance. A problematic situation may arise if one member of a high-risk family wants to be screened and someone else doesn’t. When people are related to each other, the knowledge concerns all of them.

The workgroup made no common recommendations. The ethical discussions will continue in the parliaments. E.g. the prenatal diagnostics legislation process has been started again in Switzerland. What is needed more, in any case, is information and education at all levels of societies. This is especially important in prenatal diagnostics education: as women often want to take all available tests "for the good of the baby". One very urgent issue concerns licensing. In order to develop a diagnostic kit for some disease, one needs at least 10 licences (for using the different laboratory equipment, for utilising knowledge on some mutation, etc). If any one of the licence owners denies the licence, the kit cannot be developed.

The theme of the workshop was introduced as follows: Gerontechnology is a composite of two words, 'gerontology' and 'technology'. The major reason for the importance of this field is the "double-ageing" of the European population as life expectancy increases and birth rates decrease. Though the increasing number of elderly persons is the main challenge in this field, many applications of gerontechnology concern all people e.g. the "barrier-free" environment and health monitoring security services. An assessment report concerning this area has just been published by the Parliament of Finland.

Chair: Mauno Konttinen, National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health STAKES, Finland

Main Rapport.Päivi Topo, National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health STAKES, Finland

Speakers: Osmo Kuusi, Finnish National Fund for Research and Development SITRA, Finland; Päivi Topo, National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health STAKES, Finland (Assistive devices); Hannele Hyppönen, National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health STAKES, Finland (Barrier-free planning)

Participants: Kimmo Halme, Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland; Annele Eerola, Group for Technology Studies, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT; Tuula Petäkoski-Hult, Human Interaction Technologies, Technical Research Centre of Finland – VTT Information Technology

There are two at least partly contradictory megatrends influencing the development and the use of gerontechnology in Europe. As the population is ageing the need for assistive devices or barrier-free environments will increase. On the other hand – as the Chair pointed out in his introductory speech - in most European countries the well-being and health of people older than 65 years of age is much better now than 20 years ago and this type of development will probably continue. In the future, it is likely that the majority of elderly people will not have disabilities. On the other hand, in the future there will also be many young people with disabilities.

In the future, senior citizens are expected to participate more actively than before. More and more elderly people are living alone and they will need products and services to support communication and social contacts. The challenge is how to organise person centred care which is organised to be as seamless as possible. In addition, different solutions to help with the self-monitoring of a person with chronic disease such as high blood pressure or diabetes will be very important to ageing people. Reliable solutions to support independent living at home for as long as possible are also needed (safety alarm systems). Health technology will also develop rapidly. For example, the dissemination of peroral insulin will help the self care of diabetes. Tailor-made biogenetic medicines will cause an ethical dilemma: who will be able to get these very expensive drugs? Reconstructive surgery (heart, joints, eyes) will also become more common and it should be seen as part of rehabilitation.

In the group the role of an MP was seen as an opinion leader, a decision-maker in developing regulations (laws, etc.) and a representative of the citizens. They should make sure that there is some kind of consensus on the reasons why the increase in life expectancy is promoted. It was concluded that in the field of assistive technologies and barrier free design the parliaments could

• Ensure that there are funds for the development of barrier free and assistive technologies
• Invest in the problem orientated technology assessment
• Raise ethical issues in regards to the development of assistive and barrier free technology to help in developing socially and environmentally sustainable products and services
• Investigate whether it is possible to promote a barrier free society by regulations (compare with the US laws)
• Invest in updating) existing laws (for example, access to assistive technologies)
• To ensure that companies producing assistive technology are able to export
• Encourage development of cost effectiveness research in assistive technology and in Barrier-free design.

The theme of the workshop was introduced as follows: Human interaction has always been carried out through cultural devices. Innovations like written language, electronic communication, and institutional solutions like bureaucracy or network organisation filter our dealings with one another. These systems of interaction determine our ways of living, our societal lives. Modern technology is about to radically change the ways in which we communicate with each other. Mobile technologies, for one, change the ways we organise our time and allocate our daily tasks. Networks that function online enable us to act in novel ways as consumers and as citizens. The workshop will open up these themes and look carefully at the risks and promises inherent in these lines of development.

Chair: Matti Kamppinen, Finland Futures Research Centre

Main Rapport.: Matti Kamppinen, Finland Futures Research Centre

MP Comm. Kyösti Karjula, Committee for the Future, Finland

Speakers: Anita Rubin, Finland Futures Research Centre; Marja-Liisa Viherä, Sonera Corp., Finland

Participants: Sergio Bellucci, Swiss Centre for Technology Assessment; Jarl Forstén, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT: Andrew Hardie, PIAS – Prague Institute of Advanced Studies, Czech Republic; Petri Honkanen, Technology Department, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Finland; Morten Jastrup, Teknologirådet, The Danish Board of Technology; Seppo Kangaspunta, Technology Department, Ministry of Trade and Industry, Finland; Markus Koskenlinna, National Technology Agency, Finland; Ronny Mees, Belgian House of Representatives; Walter Peissl, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences; Pekka Pellinen, The Finnish Association of Graduate Engineers TEK; Tuula Petäkoski-Hult, Technical Research Centre of Finland – VTT Information Technology

The workshop was devoted to the issue of the social dimension of technology assessment. On the basis of presentations the Speakers, as well as that of the MP Commentator participants agreed that processes of technology assessment should utilise a checklist of questions that would focus the attention on the social dimension of technology. The checklist would include at least the following issues:

The theme of the workshop was introduced as follows: The great challenge, e.g. related to the Kyoto agreement, is to develop and promote the use of new energy sources. The challenge concerns the use of CO2-free energy sources especially (biomass, geothermal, hydrogen, solar (photovoltaic/solar thermal, waste heat, wind and the recycling of energy), in all areas of life including the household, industry and transportation.

Chair: Mikko Kara, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT

Main Rapport.: Sami Tuhkanen, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT

MP Comm.: Martti Tiuri, Committee for the Future, Finland

Speakers: Tapio Alvesalo, Fortum Oyj, Finland (Photovoltaic); Kai Sipilä, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT (Bioenergy); Esa Peltola, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT (Wind power);

Participants: David Cope, Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology POST, U.K.; Corneliu Cornea, Standing Committees’ Staff Unit, Legislative Procedures Division, Legislative Department, Senate of Romania; Shuichi Fukuda, Japanese International Science and Technology Exchange Centre; Antero Jahkola, The Finnish Academies of Technology; Torsti Loikkanen, Technical Research Centre of Finland – VTT Chemical Technology; Franciszek Loose, Economic and Commercial Section, Embassy of Poland; Jyrki Luukkanen, Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics and Business Administration; Ron Oxburgh, Lord, Science and Technology Committee, The House of Lords, POST Board, U.K.; Pekka Pirilä, The Finnish Academies of Technology; Ahti Salo, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland; Tarja Turkulainen, Technical Research Centre of Finland – VTT Chemical Technology; Liisa Viikari, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT

The role of renewable energy and new energy technologies were the most important topics under discussion. The Finnish Speakers presented their views on biomass, wind and solar energy as a business and as options for the mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Biomass is the most important renewable energy source in Finland and Finnish industry is the world leader in developing combustion and gasification technologies for biomass fuels. These technologies like fluidised bed boilers and gasifiers will have great potential in global energy markets in the future. Wind power is one of the fastest growing energy technologies in the world and it will have a significant role in future energy systems. Solar energy (photovoltaics, solar thermal power and solar heat) is also growing rapidly and it will enable electrification of rural areas in developing countries. These technologies (wind and solar) are currently competitive only in some niche markets and they require some incentives at least in the immediate future. Therefore it is essential that national and EU policy measures are targeted to increase the share of renewable energy sources. Nuclear power was also been identified as an important option in the mitigation of airborne emissions, especially greenhouse gas and fine particulate emissions.

The participants were also concerned about the rapidly growing GHG emissions from road transportation. The current trend is that large and heavy sport utility vehicles (SUV) are increasing their market share in new vehicle sales, especially in the US. This development renders technological improvements in fuel economy ineffective and leads to growing fuel consumption. However, new technologies like hybrid vehicles and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) will enter the market during this decade. These technologies have significantly better fuel economy than present vehicle technologies and FCVs can even use energy sources other than oil-based fuels, e.g. hydrogen and methanol. However, the use of new energy sources in transportation will require modifications in the fuelling infrastructure and initially this will delay the penetration of new technologies. Transportation policies should be designed to support the implementation of new vehicle technologies.

The theme of the workshop was introduced as follows: The development of new communication technology (mobile communication, Internet) and its integration with logistics have challenged physical transport systems and the present physical infrastructure. Another main challenge in this field is environmental. It is, for example, evaluated that traffic is responsible for 20 – 25 % of the CO2 emissions both worldwide and in the European Union.

Chair: Tor Ulf Weck, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

Main Rapport.: Tor Ulf Weck, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

Speakers: Harri Kallberg, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT; Pekka Leviäkangas, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT

Participants: Rik Hindriks; Jukka Isotalo; Pia Koskenoja, University of Tampere

The discussion was opened by the Chair with a historical survey in urbanisation and the different aspects of logistics in an urban society. The Speakers discussed the links between ICT technology and logistics. The first Speaker suggested that efficiency based on ICT means better logistics and better logistics in turn means more logistics. From the perspective of the logistics of carbon dioxide pollution, he suggested that a difference should be made between the quantity and quality of logistics. Quantity can be guided mainly by the planning of the physical infrastructure, i.e. shorter distances and by taxation. Quality means more transport results with constant or less traffic and also more advanced technological means of transport.

The second Speaker asked for more efficient use of the existing physical infrastructure and practical means to create new ICT services for transport. The "rules of the game" - i.e. legislation and other regulatory measures – should be clarified. The parliaments should have a key role in defining the boundaries between the public and private sectors. There should be the right amount of the right type of regulation while still allowing the market-driven organisations and entrepreneurs to produce different types of services as demanded by customers and consumers. The Speaker appreciated cost-benefit analysis as an assessment method. He considered, however, that it used to be insufficient on its own to support the investment decisions in the logistics sector.

In the lively discussion, e.g. the following statements were made. The increase in the efficiency of logistics has been considerable: five times more goods are now transported by the same amount of transportation than twenty years ago. A participant questioned the need to keep remote places inhabited and thus increase traffic. It was suggested that IT supports the trend that the global production of goods will be more and more centralised. More transportation will be needed to bring goods to individual consumers. On the other hand, IT will help transport to fill the whole capacity of the vehicles and infrastructure (e.g. terminals).

The theme of the workshop was introduced as follows: Globally, the future of food production is a highly important issue related, for example, to the supply of water, pollution and opportunities for new biotechnology. In developed countries a special question is in relation to functional food having, for example, a good impact on health.

Chair: Hannu Korhonen, Food Research, Agrifood Research Finland MTT

Main Rapport.Eero Puolanne, University of Helsinki, Finland

MP Comm.: Pekka Vilkuna, Committee for the Future, Finland

Speakers: Tiina Mattila-Sandholm, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT; Raija Ahvenainen, Technical Research Centre of Finland VTT; Liisa Rosi, National Technology Agency TEKES, Finland; Eero Puolanne, University of Helsinki, Finland

Participants: Lars Klüver, Teknologirådet, The Danish Board of Technology; Sirpa Kurppa, MTT Agrifood Research Finland; Torsti Loikkanen, Technical Research Centre of Finland – VTT Chemical Technology; Trees Merckx-Van Goey, Flemish Parliament

It was agreed that the session would focus on consumer expectations of future foods, with special attention on the following subjects:

• functional foods,
• national and international technology programmes on emerging technologies,
• assurance of food safety by new technologies,
• food production and the environment, and
• future food quality strategies.

It was also agreed that due to the time constraint, issues related to the globalisation of the food trade, gene modified food and food production in and food aid to developing countries would not be discussed in detail.

The first Speaker pointed out that all food is functional. Food is food, not medicine. The so-called functional foods do not heal diseases, but they can be shown to decrease some health risks. In recent years, several products with scientifically documented health benefits have been launched on the European market. The food industry is leading the process. There is, however, no uniform legislation in the EU concerning functional foods or health claims to be attached to these products. The consumers are therefore confused, and the scientists are carrying out studies to prove or reject the claims. This situation should be tackled at an EU level.

According to the second Speaker, currently, scientists and industry research and development personnel have first to develop the products and then provide the scientific data to prove the health claims, only to learn that the product will not be accepted, the claims will not be allowed, or such permission will take years. Therefore, a uniform definition about functional foods and common regulations about health claims permitted for these products are strongly recommended. The third Speaker pointed out that both the research community and industry have developed novel food products and technologies suitable for their manufacture. Now there is a wait for legislation to recognise this development and for the consumers to accept the products.

The fourth Speaker divided food quality into two categories: measurable quality and "psycho quality". The industry and legislation take care of the numerical aspects of quality. Between the consumers and industry "quality is an agreement", i.e. the consumer should be able to each time get products of the same quality at the same price. The industry should inform about the relevant changes in the quality. The authorities should concentrate on safety, on the regulation of equal opportunities for all participants in the market, and on controlling the labelling and other information on foods. According to the fourth Speaker food fears have increased during the last few yeas, although modern food is safer than ever before. The ordinary consumers place food information into two categories: safe and unsafe. The assessment is usually very fast, and therefore clear and simple rules on health claims and labelling are needed.

In the discussion it was pointed out that the consumers do not know the real environmental load of food production and processing, and misinterpretations often prevail. People's knowledge could be greatly improved if the demand on environmentally high valued products contributed to the sustainability of food production. The most important factors are the total energy and material flows and direct as well as indirect links between the material flows and the environment. Fertilisers represent a very high energy input in the food chain. Transport also utilises much energy in various parts of the food chain, similarly the heating and freezing processes.

It was also stressed that nature is always regarded as a fundamental source of resources, but the role of nature as a constant receiver of waste material is often ignored. If the food chain would be realised as a circle, the environmental load would be more easily manageable and the responsibilities more equally distributed than is the case where the flow is one way only. As a result of a one way flow, the local environmental problems of, for example, animal husbandry are mostly dependent of where the feed has been produced and where the manure will be used.

A strong spatial concentration of the production and the enlargement of production units will bring more risks to food production, from the environmental point of view also. In some cases, environmental regulations and standardisations as such increase the need for concentration. For instance, the basic life cycle analysis (LCA) is quite labour and resource intensive when used in small and medium enterprises (SME).

The workshop made the following conclusions. A special conclusion was that legislation for functional foods is needed urgently in order to eliminate the present confusion in this field which is harmful to the industry and prohibits approaches which could be taken to improve the nutritional quality and safety of a range of foods and diets. The industry, trade and authorities must also be prepared for bioterrorism, which should mean improved control and safety systems throughout the chain. More emphasis must be placed on having closed circles in the food chain. This will be more easily achieved by local food systems, where production, consumption and recycling of materials (food production waste and for example, packaging material) can be more easily organised. This means that food research and development in some well-developed countries may be inhibited by countries with slower development.