140 A. N. Tanner and N. Strøm-Andersen
CAT1. Similar process innovation took place in the Norwegian meat and
ABP industry.
Rendering companies also changed their innovative practice in the years
that followed the introduction of ABP regulations. They focused on organisational, process and product innovation. At the least, larger rendering companies had to restructure their production facilities to run three separate
streams of material (CAT1, CAT2 and CAT3) at different plant sites. CAT1
was prepared as MBM for incineration, CAT2 had to be sterilised before
being used as fertiliser and CAT3 principally found a use as pet food.
In both countries process and product innovation is still an ongoing activity characterising valorisation of ABP. For instance, Nortura collaborates with
SINTEF and other research centres to optimise meat cutting and minimise
waste. The process of distinctly categorising ABP and organic side- streams
into different groups for optimal treatment and further processing enables
more flexible and sustainable food processing. Furthermore, the company
attempts to better organise process innovation by developing cooling systems
at slaughterhouses and during transportation to keep the raw materials fresh.
Product innovation has been given attention where the industry seeks
higher value- added applications. Norilia recently launched two innovation
projects: eggshell membrane extracted and provided to the medical industry
for wound treatment, and protein in various forms and applications obtained
from enzymatic hydrolysis technology in a biorefinery opened in 2018. At
the same time, another company, Norsk Kylling AS, has also established an
enzymatic hydrolysis plant to utilise its by- products. Processing by- products
to high value- added applications and products such as protein has proven to
be a crucial strategy for the industry.
7.7 Regulative adjustments
As stated above, the EU regulations on ABP introduced in 2001 (amended in
2015) following the BSE scandal condition the type and volumes of input to
the ABP industry. This also means that if this law is changed, the input
foundation of the industry changes. A highly regulated field such as the meat
and ABP industry provides strong incentives for the industry to engage in
institutional entrepreneurship (Dorado, 2005; Leca & Boxenbaum, 2008).
This occurred in 2015 when the definition of the specified risk material
(SRM) in the TSE regulation was amended based on a scientific opinion
published by the EFSA (2014). With this change, a large amount of bovine
intestines (approximately 30 kg per cow) was moved from the SRM list (i.e.
CAT1) to CAT3 material. As a consequence, the volumes of CAT3 material
increased significantly and caused a significant drop in prices.
This situation threatened the European rendering industry and their
interest organisation, EFPRA, started lobbying for expanding market opportunities of processed animal proteins (PAP), including lifting the export ban
of PAP. Originally, the export ban of PAP was to hinder PAP from also
CAT1. Similar process innovation took place in the Norwegian meat and
ABP industry.
Rendering companies also changed their innovative practice in the years
that followed the introduction of ABP regulations. They focused on organisational, process and product innovation. At the least, larger rendering companies had to restructure their production facilities to run three separate
streams of material (CAT1, CAT2 and CAT3) at different plant sites. CAT1
was prepared as MBM for incineration, CAT2 had to be sterilised before
being used as fertiliser and CAT3 principally found a use as pet food.
In both countries process and product innovation is still an ongoing activity characterising valorisation of ABP. For instance, Nortura collaborates with
SINTEF and other research centres to optimise meat cutting and minimise
waste. The process of distinctly categorising ABP and organic side- streams
into different groups for optimal treatment and further processing enables
more flexible and sustainable food processing. Furthermore, the company
attempts to better organise process innovation by developing cooling systems
at slaughterhouses and during transportation to keep the raw materials fresh.
Product innovation has been given attention where the industry seeks
higher value- added applications. Norilia recently launched two innovation
projects: eggshell membrane extracted and provided to the medical industry
for wound treatment, and protein in various forms and applications obtained
from enzymatic hydrolysis technology in a biorefinery opened in 2018. At
the same time, another company, Norsk Kylling AS, has also established an
enzymatic hydrolysis plant to utilise its by- products. Processing by- products
to high value- added applications and products such as protein has proven to
be a crucial strategy for the industry.
7.7 Regulative adjustments
As stated above, the EU regulations on ABP introduced in 2001 (amended in
2015) following the BSE scandal condition the type and volumes of input to
the ABP industry. This also means that if this law is changed, the input
foundation of the industry changes. A highly regulated field such as the meat
and ABP industry provides strong incentives for the industry to engage in
institutional entrepreneurship (Dorado, 2005; Leca & Boxenbaum, 2008).
This occurred in 2015 when the definition of the specified risk material
(SRM) in the TSE regulation was amended based on a scientific opinion
published by the EFSA (2014). With this change, a large amount of bovine
intestines (approximately 30 kg per cow) was moved from the SRM list (i.e.
CAT1) to CAT3 material. As a consequence, the volumes of CAT3 material
increased significantly and caused a significant drop in prices.
This situation threatened the European rendering industry and their
interest organisation, EFPRA, started lobbying for expanding market opportunities of processed animal proteins (PAP), including lifting the export ban
of PAP. Originally, the export ban of PAP was to hinder PAP from also