Food Protection Trends - September/October 2019 - 426

FIGURE 2. Food safety innovation can be of several types, and many innovations consist of more than one type of innovation. The
distribution of innovation outcome types noted in 27 successful food safety projects in the Australian red meat industry according to the
Schumpter/OECD typology (new sources of supply and exploitation of new markets have been combined as market innovation).

Survey respondents retrospectively indicated that all
innovation systems elements were present in cases where
they also judged innovation to have occurred. Analysis of
the data indicated that weakness in one element of either
innovation system failure framework was sufficient to result
in a consensus that innovation did not occur. Within the
limitations of the available dataset (the 41 cases available
for analysis), the innovation system failure frameworks were
supported; all elements defined by each innovation system
failure framework needed to be sufficiently strong in order to
ensure certainty of innovation (Fig. 3).
The implications of this finding is that proponents of any
innovation (change in a system), cannot work with a narrow
understanding of the required actions for innovation but
also must pay attention to all the other elements of the
innovation system. Some of these elements are well defined
in law or practice. For example, the need for regulatory
approval of a new ingredient in a food, or the validation of
a diagnostic test to a particular standard, are well-defined
and perhaps obvious, but other elements, such as the
competence of actors, existence of sufficient infrastructure,
or the acceptance of the innovative idea may not be so
obvious. The relevance of the other innovation system

426

Food Protection Trends September/October

elements may not be obvious to the proponent or manager
of the innovation project, but the results of this research
suggest that they must not be overlooked.
Failures in the food safety innovation system
Failure to succeed in an innovation project is often
thought of as a chance event (bad luck). For example,
it is well known that only a small percentage of new
food products will survive in the marketplace, and
tactical approaches are taken to ensuring that the rate of
successful launches is improved (44). An alternative, in
the innovation system paradigm, is to ask whether there
are weaknesses in the system that predispose the system to
failure. Food safety innovation in the Australian red meat
industry, conducted by MLA, operates as a system, with
projects failing to lead to innovation often having the same
innovation system weaknesses (22). For example, market
value was frequently not established, or the development
of knowledge was considered insufficient by those relying
on the outputs of the system. These recurring weaknesses
suggest that, rather than the projects failing by chance,
at least some failure is predictable; prediction of failure
may be based on the recognition of system weaknesses.

Food Protection Trends - September/October 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - September/October 2019