Food Systems Industry Report 2010

2010 U.S. Industry Report:

FOOD SYSTEM, AGRIBUSINESS
AND BEVERAGE

2010FOODSYSTEM, AGRIBUSINESS & BEVERAGEREPORT 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
RISK INSIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Top Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Food Contamination Incidents and Reputation Risk . . . . . . . 6
Methods Used to Evaluate New and Emerging Risks . . . . . . 8
Methods Utilized to Evaluate Risk Appetite/Tolerance . . . . 10

CLIENT INSIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Enterprise Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Top Benefits of Using a Risk Data Technology . . . . . . . . . . 15
Priorities in Choice of Insurer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Client Buying Behavior/Program Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Retentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Use of Captives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

MARKET INSIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Coverage Terms and Conditions Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Leading Carriers in U .S . Premium Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Common Reasons for Carriers Not Quoting . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Common Reasons For Rejecting a Carrier’s Quote . . . . . . . 22
Premium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

FINANCIAL INSIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
METHODOLOGY, NOTES AND DISCLAIMERS . . . . 27
AON AT A GLANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
KEY CONTACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


INTRODUCTION
In today’s complex food system, agribusiness and beverage exposure
environment, the need to reduce volatility, stabilize earnings and control
pre-loss and post-loss risk exposures is critical .

Whether you are a small business or a global enterprise, your success
depends upon understanding and overcoming the risks you face . New risks
have emerged as a result of recent changes in regulation and globalization .
Issues such as food safety, supply system risk management, bio-terrorism,
food defense, genetically engineered foods, climate change, contamination
and environmental impact can have financially devastating effects if not
properly identified and addressed .

Aon has both the expertise and tools to help drive your vision . Our Food
System, Agribusiness and Beverage (FAB) Report provides comprehensive,
industry-specific data on key issues and concerns . These findings will
allow organizations to benchmark their risk management and risk
financing practices against those of others and can help identify practices
or approaches that may improve the effectiveness of their own risk
management strategies .

If you have any comments or questions about the survey, or wish to discuss
the findings further, please contact your Aon account executive .

Best regards,

Richard L. Shanks Lambros Lambrou George M. Zsolnay IV
National Managing Director Head of Aon Analytics Head of Aon Analytics -U.S.
Food System, Agribusiness lambros .lambrou@aon .com george .zsolnay@ .aon .com
and Beverage
Aon Risk Solutions
rick .shanks@aon .com


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Organizational sustainability demands proactive understanding and
management of risk . History provides only a partial understanding of
risk for the future . Recent events remind us that threats to organizations
increasingly come from all directions and in many different forms .

Staying fully informed and up-to-date with the latest industry trends is the best way to remain
competitive and relevant in the evolving global market . We provide this report to clients for this
reason – to help you stay abreast of emerging issues and to learn what your peers and competitors
are doing to manage risks, overcome challenges and capture opportunities . The report comprises
four main components:

RISK INSIGHTS including top risks faced; food contamination incidents and reputation risk;

methods used to evaluate new and emerging risks; methods utilized to evaluate risk appetite/
tolerance
CLIENT INSIGHTS including enterprise risk management; top benefits for using a risk data

technology; priorities in choice of insurer; retentions/deductibles; limits; use of captives
 ARKET INSIGHTS including discussion of coverage terms and conditions; top carriers; common
M
reasons for rejecting a quote and not quoting; changes in premium rates over the past year
FINANCIAL INSIGHTS including insight into market environment for FAB sector


Key Findings
RISK INSIGHTS
• Top Risks - The FAB industry is exposed to a broad • Methods Used to Evaluate New and Emerging Risks
spectrum of risk which, if untreated, may translate into - When asked to identify methods used to evaluate new
unexpected and unintentionally retained loss for the and emerging risks the two most cited methods were
organization . Some of the key risks faced by this industry access internal data and knowledge regarding new
include: supply system disruption, food safety & defense, emerging and/or developing risks (57%), and access
reputation risk and brand damage, regulatory change information from external providers (54%)
and sustainability • Methods Utilized to Evaluate Risk Appetite/Tolerance -
• Food Contamination Incidents and Reputation Risk Overall, the most frequent methods utilized to evaluate
- An accidental or malicious food contamination crisis risk appetite/tolerance is closely split between three: using
can have a devastating impact on a FAB company’s industry benchmarks (financial and operational); using
reputation, profitability, customer loyalty and retention formal quantified risk appetite agreed at enterprise level;
of top employees . FAB companies must continually assess and basing decisions on corporate “gut feel”
their risk exposures and develop extensive risk strategies
to ensure that their company is prepared for unexpected
challenges and events


CLIENT INSIGHTS limit purchased was $5 million . For Product Recall/
• Stages of ERM Program Development - Most Contamination, the average total limit purchased by FAB
respondents to the 2010 Global Enterprise Risk companies is $25 million . The highest limit purchased
Management Survey are past the basic stages of ERM was $235 million, while the lowest limit purchased was
program development, and program maturity has $1 million
improved since 2007 • Use of Captives - Based on the 2009 Global Risk
• Prime Drivers of ERM Implementation - Respondents Management Survey, 49% percent of FAB respondent
to Aon’s 2010 Global Enterprise Risk Management Survey companies reported having an active captive or
most often selected governance and transparency, best protected cell company (PCC)
practices, and improved performance and decision • Captive Domiciles - Organizations have many options
making as their primary ERM drivers when it comes to the domiciles they can select to
• ERM Objectives - The most cited objectives of an establish their captives . Based on 102 captives under
ERM program by respondents were to embed a risk management by Aon in the FAB sector, the domiciles
management culture followed by enable informed risk- used most often for an FAB captive are Bermuda (18%)
based decision making and Vermont (16%), and the most common type of
captive is a single parent captive
• ERM Barriers - The most-cited barriers to ERM are lack
of tangible benefits (40%), lack of skills to embed ERM MARKET INSIGHTS
(34%) and lack of senior management sponsorship (31%) • Coverage terms and conditions - Overall the FAB
• Benefits of Using a Risk Data Technology - In Aon’s industry remains stable to competitive in terms of
2009 Global Risk Technology Survey, all industry and coverage provided and enhancements available . In
food processing and distribution respondents ranked Product Recall/Contamination policies insurers can offer
accuracy and reliability of data as the number one benefit enhancements such as enhanced third party coverage,
of using risk technology, or risk management information adverse publicity, government recall and intentionally
systems (RMIS) . Agribusiness selected data consolidation/ impaired ingredients
management • Premiums Rates - Similar to the prior year, soft market
• Priorities in Choice of Insurer - Based on Aon’s 2009 conditions continue . FAB companies have on average
Global Risk Management Survey, FAB companies placed experienced flat to single-digit rate decreases for
financial stability as the highest priority in their choice of Property, Casualty, and Product Recall/Contamination .
insurance carriers Directors’ and Officers’ Liability appears to be
experiencing slightly higher decreases
• Retentions/Deductibles - Similar to last year, overall the
majority of FAB organizations have not changed their FINANCIAL INSIGHTS
retentions/deductibles . Product Recall/Contamination • Financial insights - In general, the market environment
retentions vary greatly based on size of FAB organization for FAB companies has significantly improved . Similarly,
and exposure . Some organizations self-insure this consensus forecasts from market analysts expect FAB
exposure while others purchase insurance cover . Based companies to gain from the general economic recovery
on a representation of our FAB clients the average in reporting revenue growth in 2010 . Employment in
retention maintained was approximately $1 .5 million agriculture is recovering from a recent double dip decline
with a maximum retention of $10 million and continues to grow . Positively, food and beverage
• Limits - The average Umbrella/Excess Liability total inflation remains muted, with no emerging pressure from
limit purchased by FAB companies increased to $128 agricultural commodity prices . In terms of exports, the
million compared to $117 million last year . The highest weak dollar had a substantial impact on the total value of
limit purchased was $400 million, while the lowest agricultural exports during 2009


RISK INSIGHTS
General Introduction

The stakes for organizations are high . It has never been more urgent to understand and proactively
address business risk at every level of the organization . Within this section of the report we provide
industry specific insight into:

 TOP RISKS

 FOOD CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS AND REPUTATION RISK

 METHODS USED TO EVALUATE NEW AND EMERGING RISKS

 METHODS UTILIZED TO EVALUATE RISK APPETITE/TOLERANCE

Top Risks
The FAB industry is exposed to a broad spectrum of risk which, if goes untreated, may translate into unexpected and
unintentionally retained loss for the organization . Identified below are some of the key risks faced by the FAB industry
based on our industry expertise .

Top Risks Top Risk Description and Discussion

Today’s globally dependent networks of growers, suppliers, distributors and customers must face the
reality of possible consequences of supply system disruptions . As the supply system complexity has
1 Supply System Disruption increased, so has the potential for a disruption . The negative economic consequences of supply system
disruptions can be overwhelming and underscore why companies must understand the sources of
supply system risk and develop strategies to mitigate them .
Americans depend on a complex system to provide safe, wholesome and nutritious food . This
system, as it ranges from producers, to processors, to foodservice and retail establishments, and
finally to the consumer, has a responsibility for keeping food safe . The goal is to reduce the potential
2 Food Safety & Defense for contamination at any point along the food supply chain and mitigating potentially catastrophic
public health and economic effects of such losses . It involves a wide range of disciplines with a farm-
to-table view of the food system and must encompass all aspects from primary production through
transportation and food processing to retail and food service .
Research by PriceWaterhouseCoopers indicates that intangible assets may represent over 60% of a
company’s market value (Predicting the Unpredictable: Protecting retail & consumer companies against
Reputation Risk and Brand reputation risk, PWC, 2005) . According to a 2005 Business Week study of brand values, prepared by
3
Damage Interbrand, this is even higher for restaurants at 71% of the market capitalization . An accidental or
malicious food contamination crisis can have a devastating impact on a FAB company’s reputation,
profitability, customer loyalty and retention of top employees .


Top Risks Top Risk Description and Discussion

Food safety is a critical area of concern for consumers, government regulators and the companies
whose success depends on the consumer confidence . A 2010 survey conducted on behalf of the Pew
Charitable Trusts found that 89% of voters support the government putting new safety measures
4 Regulatory Change in place and 83% believe that government should be responsible for food safety . With increased
regulatory requirements and heightened public awareness to growing consumer unease with threats
against the food supply and everyday products, companies cannot risk ignoring this important
challenge .
Sustainability will transform the food industry in many ways . The environmental, economic and social
factors will force food, agribusiness & beverage companies to change the ways that they do business .
Global water supplies are being consumed at an unsustainable pace leaving many to wonder how we
5 Sustainability
will feed a population of 9 billion in 2050 . Walmart was the first to require its suppliers to complete
a scorecard on energy and climate, material efficiency, natural resources and people and community .
Other food companies are now following in the footsteps of the retailing giant .

Food Contamination Incidents and Reputation Risk
A key responsibility of corporate leadership is to protect their organization’s well-being . FAB companies must continually
assess their risk exposures and develop extensive risk strategies to ensure that their company is prepared for unexpected
challenges and events . One critical threat that is often overlooked is the impact that a supplier may have on your most
important asset – your reputation .

Many corporate and risk managers feel unprepared or ill-equipped to address reputation risk . Other managers may
mistakenly believe that they have effective risk solutions for this exposure through existing insurance programs and
contractual programs . However, recent supplier financial security risk assessments conducted by Aon’s Food System,
Agribusiness and Beverage Group indicate that many suppliers’ insurance programs will not respond effectively to a
significant contamination event . Further, the vast majority of ingredient suppliers and importers have no coverage for
their legal liability should a customer suffer a business interruption or reputation loss caused by their contaminated
ingredient . While findings show that most companies have coverage for the bodily injuries associated with a contaminated
food, most have no coverage for the resulting loss of revenue caused by loss of consumer trust, damage to their brand
name or other expenses associated with a product contamination and recall .

FACTORS AFFECTING YOUR VULNERABILITY TO CONTAMINATION
Factors affecting a company’s vulnerability to accidental or deliberate contamination fall into the following categories . Some
of these categories are certainly more controllable and lend themselves to internal procedures to minimize the exposure .
Others may be largely outside a company’s direct control .

• Company Profile – Higher profile and visibility equates to a higher exposure
• Type of Products – Products aimed at children (candies, toys, clothing) and those with little protective packaging (fresh
fruits, vegetables, meats) make for attractive targets
• Packaging – A well-protected product may lessen the exposure to a deliberate contamination simply because it is more
difficult to tamper . However it is important to keep in mind that no package is tamper proof
• Labor relations – Facility closings, downsizings and layoffs, union relations and general employee relations contribute to
a company’s vulnerability
• Geographic exposures – How widely and to where products are distributed


• Quality Control/Quality Assurance Procedures – The most obvious and regulated factor to minimize and detect a
potential contamination
• Product Shelf Life – What is the amount of product in the stream of commerce and what inventory is available to replace
any recalled products
• Product coding – Smaller lot size, as well as forward and backward traceability will affect the scope and size of the recall

KEY STRATEGIES TO IMPROVING THE CHANCES OF RECOVERY FROM MAJOR
REPUTATIONAL DAMAGE
Bad news travels fast . And in todays global communications world, bad news travels faster than ever before, creating
new challenges for organizations . Failure to implement the appropriate program, risk management processes and liability
and product recall protection can open the door to crippling financial loss and irreparable erosion of consumer confidence
in the event of a serious contamination or recall incident . Some basic strategies to improve your organization’s chances of
recovery from a major contamination or recall incident include:
Crisis Planning Methodology

Crisis Management

Pre-Incident Crisis Post-Incident
Response Recovery
Planning Event Analysis

Communication

PRE-INCIDENT PLANNING
The first step in managing the risk of food contamination incidents is proper advance planning . No amount of insurance
can replace customer confidence lost due to poor planning and/or execution of a crisis and recall strategy . If the public
perceives that a company’s products are unsafe or that a company is more concerned with its bottom line than the
public’s safety, the company will lose business .
Inevitably, these crisis situations occur at the least opportune time – a Friday afternoon, the day before earnings are
released, or other times when management may be distracted . Once an incident or suspected incident becomes known
to the media, a company can expect difficult questions from a range of interested parties . First and foremost, customers
need and will want to have a clear understanding of the potential danger and measures the company is taking to minimize
or eliminate the danger . Likewise, governmental agencies, suppliers, distributors and other external parties will have
questions on how this affects them . Internally, employees, marketing, public relations, quality control, and the company’s
general counsel will also be seeking information and direction .
Every company should have a well-documented and practiced product recall or retrieval plan . This plan should
be designed to quickly and efficiently identify, locate and recover any suspected contaminated product . The plan needs
to include customer, vendor, distributor and retailer notification procedures, as well as appropriate notification messages
to be sent through the media . Media in the 21st century has expanded at an incredible pace and now, more than ever,
managing the messages and providing accurate and timely information will greatly enhance the retrieval process .


CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLAN
Together with an effective pre-incident plan, an appropriate crisis management plan should be in place for every
company . The crisis management program goes beyond the pre-incident plan and coordinates all activities associated
with the crisis . The crisis management plan defines the crisis management team and their respective roles in responding
to specific aspects of the crisis . Team members may include the Chief Executive Officer, General Counsel, Risk
Manager and representatives from security, marketing, public relations, quality control, human resources, distribution
and manufacturing . All members need to be reachable at a moments notice . In many instances, the crisis team is
supplemented by outside members that may include public relations and crisis management consultants .

Methods Used to Evaluate New and Emerging Risks
While monitoring and managing current risks is the keystone of any successful risk management program, an
organization must look beyond what is known to attempt to see emerging risks and prepare for events that have no
historic documentation . The identification of new and emerging risks requires some degree of crystal-ball gazing and the
continual tweaking of what-if scenarios, and is a very difficult task . In looking to the past, organizations may know what
has happened to them, to a competitor, or to a peer . But they rarely step outside their doors to think about what tempests
might be gathering force on the horizon .

When asked to identify methods used to evaluate new and emerging risks the two most cited methods were access
internal data and knowledge regarding new emerging and/or developing risks (57%) and access information from external
providers (54%) .

Companies that are linked to industry information providers have a better understanding of external trends . However,
even organizations that look externally for direction may not find or understand risk information easily . A risk scenario may
never have occurred before, or if it occurred in the past it might be so distant or relatively small that it does not resonate
with current leadership . Although it is common to consider natural disasters, worldwide economic and political events,
and competitive discoveries as harbingers of new and emerging risks, many future risks develop internally as well .

Companies that are successful in identifying hidden problems both internally and externally often cultivate risk
management cultures that extend down to the employee level . New and emerging risks are often identified within
operations — for example, a plant floor supervisor noticing an ingredient quality issue that may affect product liability, a
procurement manager hearing of a potential supply chain interruption, or a sales manager learning through the grapevine
that a key customer is taking business elsewhere . Companies that approach risk assessment with a strong blend of top-
down and bottom-up risk awareness are best suited to see the potential impact of isolated and siloed risk information and
use this information to enhance corporate strategy and operating plans .


Revenue: Revenue:
Methods Used to Evaluate New All Less than Revenue: Revenue: Revenue: $10B Revenue: Greater than
and Emerging Risks Industries $1B $1B - $4 .9B $5B - $9 .9B - $14 .9B $15B - $24 .9B $25B

Access internal data and
knowledge regarding new 57% 52% 51% 70% 79% 67% 54%
emerging and/or developing risks
Access information from external
54% 40% 51% 59% 79% 67% 63%
providers
Develop knowledge with major
43% 44% 44% 44% 50% 27% 42%
project and program managers
Engage stakeholders to develop
36% 24% 38% 44% 36% 40% 46%
information
Access information from suppliers
36% 32% 35% 37% 43% 40% 42%
and customers
Conduct cross functional “what
if” analysis to identify new 35% 20% 38% 48% 64% 40% 25%
emerging and/or developing risks
Develop knowledge with
externally facing marketing 28% 20% 21% 33% 36% 47% 42%
and strategy executives
Our organization does not
have a method to identify 12% 14% 17% 11% 0% 7% 8%
new and emerging risks
Not Specified 5% 14% 1% 0% 0% 0% 8%
Other 1% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Data Source: Global Enterprise Risk Management Survey


Methods Utilized to Evaluate Risk Appetite/Tolerance
Overall, the most frequent methods utilized to evaluate risk appetite/tolerance is closely split among three: using industry
benchmarks (financial and operational); using formal quantified risk appetite agreed at enterprise level; and basing
decisions on corporate “gut feel .” Organizations should be encouraged to make decisions based on quantitative and
qualitative data rather than gut feeling, thereby lessening subjective views on risks and opportunities . Companies in the
mature stages of ERM base decisions on information from both internal and external sources, rather than intuitive or
incomplete information requiring individual interpretation .

Methods Utilized to Evaluate All Revenue: Less Revenue: Revenue: Revenue: Revenue: Revenue: Greater
Risk Appetite/Tolerance Industries than $1B $1B - $4 .9B $5B - $9 .9B $10B - $14 .9B $15B - $24 .9B than $25B

Using industry benchmarks
32% 24% 38% 22% 36% 40% 33%
(financial and operational)
Using formal quantified risk
appetite agreed at enterprise 31% 20% 28% 37% 43% 47% 42%
level
Based on corporate “gut
30% 28% 39% 19% 14% 40% 21%
feel”
We do not have a formalized
risk appetite (or tolerance) 26% 26% 24% 33% 21% 13% 33%
evaluation process
Using formal quantified risk
appetite agreed at divisional 20% 18% 20% 15% 36% 33% 13%
/ functional / process level
Based on shareholder
expectations (related to 16% 22% 13% 22% 7% 27% 8%
earnings estimates)
Not Specified 5% 14% 1% 0% 7% 0% 8%



CLIENT INSIGHTS

Organizations are operating within a very dynamic and complex business environment . Those
organizations with access to up-to-date risk management analytics are empowered to make more
effective and informed business decisions . Benchmarking against other companies of similar
industries can provide very helpful decision-making support . Within this section of the report, we
provide industry-specific insight into:

 ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT

 TOP BENEFITS OF USING A RISK DATA TECHNOLOGY

 PRIORITIES IN CHOICE OF INSURER

 RETENTIONS/DEDUCTIBLES

 LIMITS

 USE OF CAPTIVES

Enterprise Risk Management
As professional risk management has entered the mainstream and become a standard management practice, many
organizations have made or are making the transition from a culture of risk avoidance to risk optimization . Accepting risk
encourages growth, and not all risks can or should be mitigated back to zero . Understanding risks as well as their quantified
impact on risk appetite and risk capacity is a necessary condition for effective risk acceptance .

Best-practice organizations that are mature in their ERM efforts have moved into opportunity recognition, weighing the
benefits and likelihood of achieving growth against potential risk impact and cost of mitigation . In effect, risk management
becomes opportunity management, with leadership teams choosing not necessarily the path with the least risk but the path
with the best return for an acceptable amount of risk — bearing in mind the organization’s abilities to identify and manage
financial and operational exposures .

Risk management becomes a very strong competitive advantage when organizations can identify risks and opportunities
earlier than competitors, and when they are better positioned to manage foreseeable and unpredictable events .


CURRENT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZATION’S ERM STRATEGY
AND FRAMEWORK
Most respondents to the 2010 Global Enterprise Risk Management Survey are past the basic stages of ERM program
development, and program maturity has improved since 2007 . 58% of 2010 respondents describe themselves at the
“Defined” or “Operational” level, meaning that they have policies and techniques in place to identify, measure, monitor
and manage some risk components . This is a healthy 20 point increase over the 2007 level .

Current Stage of Development Revenue: Revenue: Revenue: Revenue: Revenue: Revenue:
of Organization’s ERM Strategy All Less than $1B - $5B - $10B - $15B - Greater
Stage and Framework Industries $1B $4 .9B $9 .9B $14 .9B $24 .9B than $25B

Component and associated
Initial/ activities are very limited in
11% 16% 15% 11% 0% 0% 4%
Lacking scope and may be implemented
on an ad-hoc basis
Limited capabilities to identify
Basic 22% 26% 25% 19% 14% 13% 21%
assess manage and monitor risks
Sufficient capabilities to identify
measure manage report and
monitor major risks; policies
Defined 39% 32% 38% 48% 50% 53% 33%
and techniques are defined and
utilized (perhaps independently)
across the organization
Consistent ability to identify
measure manage report and
monitor risks; consistent
Operational 16% 8% 18% 11% 14% 27% 29%
application of policies
and techniques across the
organization
Well-developed ability to identify
measure manage and monitor
risks across organization;
process is dynamic and able
Advanced 7% 6% 3% 11% 21% 7% 8%
to adapt to changing risks and
varying business cycles; explicit
consideration of risk and risk
management

PRIME DRIVERS OF ERM IMPLEMENTATION
Primary drivers for implementing ERM are linked to strategy development and policy setting at the corporate or enterprise
level . Respondents to Aon’s 2010 Global Enterprise Risk Management Survey most often selected governance and
transparency, best practices, and improved performance and decision making as their primary ERM drivers . Other drivers
include regulatory pressure, CEO impetus, rating agency requirements and stakeholder pressure .


Prime Drivers of ERM All Revenue: Less Revenue: Revenue: Revenue: Revenue: Revenue: Greater
Implementation Industries than $1B $1B - $4 .9B $5B - $9 .9B $10B - $14 .9B $15B - $24 .9B than $25B

Corporate Governance/
65% 54% 73% 59% 71% 47% 79%
transparency
Best practice 53% 54% 52% 52% 79% 40% 50%
Improved performance
49% 44% 46% 44% 64% 73% 46%
and decision making
Regulatory pressure 23% 36% 11% 33% 29% 7% 29%
CEO impetus 19% 20% 15% 26% 29% 7% 25%
Rating agency /
financial institution 16% 6% 15% 26% 14% 13% 29%
requirements
Peer / external
9% 14% 7% 4% 7% 13% 8%
stakeholder pressure
Other 4% 2% 6% 11% 0% 0% 0%
Not Specified 2% 6% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0%


KEY OBJECTIVES OF THE ERM PROGRAM
The most cited objectives of an ERM program by respondents were to embed a risk management culture followed by
enable informed risk-based decision making . Companies are able to drive the most value through ERM when it is tailored
to each organization’s culture, processes and structure .

Revenue: Revenue: Revenue: Revenue:
Key Objectives of the ERM All Less than Revenue: Revenue: $10B - $15B - Greater
Program Industries $1B $1B - $4 .9B $5B - $9 .9B $14 .9B $24 .9B than $25B

Embed a risk management
60% 54% 65% 70% 79% 47% 46%
culture
Enable informed risk-based
55% 42% 52% 63% 79% 53% 71%
decision making
Implement a process to
align risk management with 51% 48% 54% 44% 64% 53% 46%
compliance and governance
Integrate different functional
approaches to managing 45% 50% 39% 52% 50% 27% 50%
risk
Drive value creation for the
31% 24% 24% 30% 71% 60% 29%
organization
Manage the Total Cost of
29% 22% 35% 26% 29% 40% 25%
Risk (TCoR)
Manage volatility to
earnings and other key 27% 24% 20% 30% 43% 47% 29%
financial metrics
Other 6% 2% 10% 4% 14% 7% 0%
Not Specified 4% 8% 1% 4% 7% 0% 4%



ERM IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS
How important is an effective dedicated risk executive (whether CRO or other position) to the success of an organization’s
ERM program? The most-cited barriers to ERM are lack of tangible benefits (40%), lack of skills to embed ERM (34%), lack
of senior management sponsorship (31%), lack of a clear implementation plan (28%), and failure to communicate the case
for change (27%) — all of which can be linked back to executive leadership for risk . Anecdotal evidence suggests that ERM
programs falter or fail without clear executive leadership .

ERM Revenue: Revenue: Revenue:
Implementation Revenue: Less Revenue: $1B Revenue: $5B $10B - $15B - Greater than
Barriers All Industries than $1B - $4 .9B - $9 .9B $14 .9B $24 .9B $25B

Lack of tangible
40% 32% 48% 30% 29% 60% 42%
benefits
Lack of skills and
capability to embed 34% 40% 27% 37% 29% 20% 54%
ERM business
Lack of senior
management 31% 30% 32% 44% 29% 27% 21%
sponsorship
Unclear ownership
and responsibility 30% 26% 27% 33% 21% 47% 38%
for implementation
Lack of a clear
implementation 28% 28% 28% 30% 21% 27% 29%
plan
Failure to clearly
communicate the
27% 30% 18% 44% 29% 20% 33%
business case for
change
Lack of capital
to invest in risk 24% 22% 30% 19% 29% 20% 21%
management
Lack of access to
12% 18% 10% 19% 7% 0% 8%
key people
Other 7% 6% 10% 4% 14% 0% 4%
Not Specified 6% 10% 1% 7% 14% 0% 8%



Top Benefits of Using a Risk Data Technology
In Aon’s 2009 Global Risk Technology Survey, all industry and food processing, distribution, and beverage respondents
ranked accuracy and reliability of data as the number one benefit of using risk technology, or risk management
information systems (RMIS), which indicates that these organizations likely use their RMIS to manage daily business
operations and generate accurate financial information .

Organizations in the agribusiness sector indicated the most important benefit as data consolidation and management,
reflecting that they likely use these systems to collate multiple-source data into one place for consistent and reliable
reporting .

Industry Benefit 1 Benefit 2 Benefit 3

Data Consolidation/ Management Reporting
All Industries Accuracy & Reliability of Data
Management Improvements
Management Reporting Automation of Processes,
Agribusiness Data Consolidation/Management Improvements, Accuracy & Communication
Reliability of Data (tie) Improvements (tie)
Automation of Processes,
Food Processing, Distribution Management Reporting
Accuracy & Reliability of Data Data Consolidation/
and Beverage Investments
Management (tie)

Data Source: Global Risk Technology Survey

Priorities in Choice of Insurer
Based on Aon’s 2009 Global Risk Management Survey, FAB companies placed financial stability as the highest priority
in their choice of insurance carriers . This same group also appeared to prioritize value for money lower and flexibility/
innovation/ creativity higher than the all industry group . One of the reasons that flexibility/ innovation/creativity
is important to FAB companies is that the industry has unique complex risks that can present challenges in claim
situations . Companies value the partnership and collaboration of carriers willing to address these risks and who have an
understanding of the process when a claim arises .

Priorities in choice of insurer FAB All Industry

Financial stability/rating 1 1
Claims service 2 3
Flexibility/innovation/creativity 3 7
Industry experience 4 5
Value for money 5 2
Prompt settlement of large claims 6 9
Capacity 7 4
Long-term relationship 8 6
Ability to deliver a global program 9 8
Speed and quality of documentation 10 10

Data Source: Global Risk Management Survey


Client Buying Behavior/Program Design
RETENTIONS/DEDUCTIBLES
Similar to last year, overall the majority of FAB organizations have not changed their retentions/deductibles . The driving
factors behind this include:

• a general sense of comfort with historical retention levels
• budget pressures on insureds to not increase overall premium spend (by reducing the retention)
• trade-offs in premium offered by carriers (either up or down) were not deemed to be yielding meaningful savings

2.1% 89.4% 8.5%
09-10 Property

5.2% 90.9% 3.9%
08-09 Property

93.1% 6.9%
08-09 Directors & Ofﬁcers Liability

94.7% 5.3%
09-10 Automobile Liability

6.1% 85.7% 8.2%
08-09 Automobile Liability

5.1% 92.3% 2.6%
09-10 General Liability

5.2% 92.2% 2.6%
08-09 General Liability

92.3% 4.6%
09-10 Workers Compensation 3.1%

89.8%
08-09 Workers Compensation 9.1% 1.1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Lower Same Higher

*Product Recall/Contamination change in retentions are based on observations in the marketplace .

Data Source: Other Aon Proprietary Databases

Product Recall/Contamination retentions vary greatly based on size of FAB organization and exposure . Some organizations
self-insure this exposure while others purchase insurance cover . Based on a representation of our FAB clients the average
retention maintained was approx . $1 .5 million with a maximum retention of $10 million .


Product Recall/Contamination Retentions

$12,000,000

$10,000,000
$10,000,000

$8,000,000

$6,000,000

$4,000,000

$2,000,000 $1,478,333
$1,000,000
$500,000
$10,000 $150,000
$0
Minimum 1st Quartile Average Median 3rd Quartile Maximum

LIMITS
Umbrella/Excess Liability
The average Umbrella/Excess Liability total limit purchased by FAB companies increased to $128 million compared to $117
million last year . The highest limit purchased was $400 million, while the lowest limit purchased was $5 million . Similar to
last year there appears to be a correlation between organizational size and limit – with larger FAB companies maintaining
higher limits . Also based on our data it appears the majority of FAB companies are maintaining their limits purchased .

Revenue Minimum 1st Quartile Average Mode Median 3rd Quartile Maximum

All $5,000,000 $50,000,000 $127,636,364 $100,000,000 $100,000,000 $187,500,000 $400,000,000
<$250M $10,000,000 $25,000,000 $31,666,667 $25,000,000 $27,500,000 $33,750,000 $65,000,000
$251M -
$5,000,000 $50,000,000 $52,692,308 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $55,000,000 $100,000,000
$1,000M
$1,001M -
$50,000,000 $100,000,000 $117,352,941 $100,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $250,000,000
$5,000M
$5,001M -
$100,000,000 $175,000,000 $225,000,000 $200,000,000 $225,000,000 $262,500,000 $400,000,000
$10,001M
>$10,000M $50,000,000 $150,000,000 $213,636,364 $150,000,000 $250,000,000 $287,500,000 $350,000,000


Product Recall/Contamination
For Product Recall/Contamination, the average total limit purchased by FAB companies is $25 million . The highest limit
purchased was $235 million, while the lowest limit purchased was $1 million .

Revenue Minimum 1st Quartile Average Mode Median 3rd Quartile Maximum

All $1,000,000 $5,000,000 $25,000,000 N/A $8,500,000 $20,000,000 $235,000,000

Directors’ and Officers’ Liability
For Directors’ and Officers’ Liability, the average limit purchased by all publicly traded FAB clients is $107 million . The
highest limit purchased was $445 million, while the lowest limit purchased was $5 million . Similar to umbrella/excess
liability, there appears to be a correlation between size of the organization and limit carried .

Market Cap Minimum 1st Quartile Average Mode Median 3rd Quartile Maximum

All $5,000,000 $50,000,000 $107,000,000 $125,000,000 $85,000,000 $130,000,000 $445,000,000
<$1,000M $5,000,000 $25,000,000 $58,889,000 N/A $40,000,000 $75,000,000 $200,000,000
$1,001M -
$5,000,000 $60,000,000 $95,000,000 $150,000,000 $80,000,000 $137,500,000 $150,000,000
$5,000M
>$5,000M $125,000,000 $125,000,000 $175,000,000 $125,000,000 $127,500,000 $156,250,000 $445,000,000

Limit data shown above represents policies incepting between July 1, 2008 and June 31, 2009 .


Use of Captives
Captives exist or are created because they fill a niche that cannot be easily, or as efficiently, filled by the conventional
insurance marketplace . While not for everyone, captives can be an important part of a professionally constructed risk
financing program that recognizes the value of retaining certain risks in meeting overall corporate financial objectives .
Captive owners benefit from reduced insurance costs, access to reinsurers, an ability to insure the ‘uninsurable’ and
improved cover and control . Many organizations in the FAB industry utilize these alterative risk transfer mechanisms as
part of their risk management/insurance programs . Based on the 2009 Global Risk Management Survey, 49% of FAB
respondent companies reported having an active captive or protected cell company (PCC) . For this same group the most
common coverages currently underwritten were:

• Property
• Auto liability
• Employers liability/workers compensation
• Product liability/tampering
• Crime/fidelity
• Marine


Organizations have many options when it comes to the domiciles they can select to establish their captives . Based on
102 captives under management by Aon in the FAB sector the domiciles used most often for an FAB captive are Bermuda
(18%) and Vermont (16%) and the most common type of captive is a single parent captive .

Domicile Percentage Group Captive, 1%
Association Captive, 1% Other, 1%
Bermuda 18%
Cell Captive, 3%
Vermont 16%
Guernsey 11%
Luxembourg 10%
Dublin 9%
Cayman 7%
Sweden 5%
Switzerland 5%
Barbados 3%
Gibraltar 3% Single Parent Captive, 94%

Isle of Man 3%
Netherlands 3%
Netherlands Antilles 3%
Hawaii 2%
Kentucky 1%
Malta 1%
Singapore 1%
Vancouver 1%


MARKET INSIGHTS

Understanding which markets to approach with a placement and the goings-on in the marketplace
is vital to every effective renewal process . To assist our clients and brokers in this process, Aon has
developed the Aon Global Risk Insight Platform® . Aon GRIP is the world’s leading global repository
of global risk and insurance placement information, providing fact-based insights into Aon’s USD $54
billion in global premium flow . Within this section of the report we provide industry-specific insight
based primarily on data from Aon GRIP . Findings by line of coverage include:

 COVERAGE TERMS AND CONDITIONS DISCUSSION
 LEADING CARRIERS IN U.S. PREMIUM VOLUME
 COMMON REASONS FOR CARRIERS NOT QUOTING
 COMMON REASONS FOR REJECTING A CARRIER’S QUOTE
 CHANGES IN PREMIUM RATES OVER THE PAST YEAR

Aon GRIP Dashboard


Coverage Terms and Conditions Discussion
Overall the FAB industry remains stable to competitive in terms of coverage provided and enhancements available . In Product
Recall/Contamination policies insurers can offer enhancements such as enhanced third party coverage, adverse publicity,
government recall and intentionally impaired ingredients . In the exhibit below we have outlined by line of coverage current
market conditions as it relates to coverage terms and conditions .

Coverage Terms and Conditions by Line of
Coverage
Coverage

Workers Compensation 
General Liability  /
Automobile Liability  /
Umbrella/Excess Liability  /
Product Recall/Contamination 
Directors & Officers Liability  /
Property  /

 Coverage Terms and Conditions Broadening
 Coverage Terms and Conditions Stable
 Coverage Terms and Conditions Restricting

Carrier/Marketplace Participation
The exhibits shown below are based on information from Aon GRIP . Data shown in this section provides insights into carrier/
marketplace participation for Casualty, Liability, Workers Compensation, Automobile, Financial Lines and Property .

Leading Carriers in U .S . Premium Volume (Alpha Order)
Casualty/Liability Automobile Workers Compensation Financial Lines Property

ACE ACE ACE Chartis (AIG) ACE
Chartis (AIG) Chartis (AIG) Chartis (AIG) Chubb Chartis (AIG)
Nationwide Nationwide Liberty HCC Allianz
Travelers Old Republic Old Republic Travelers FM Global
Zurich Travelers Zurich Zurich Zurich
Data Source: Global Risk Insight Platform


Common Reasons for Carriers Not Quoting

Uncompetitive - Price Uncompetitive - Price Class of Business Class of Business Exposures
Class of Business Class of Business Uncompetitive - Price Uncompetitive - Price Uncompetitive - Price
Exposures Exposures Exposures Client Financials Class of Business
Uncompetitive - Terms/
Premium Threshold Loss Experience Loss Experience Geographic Concerns
Conditions
Loss Experience Premium Threshold Premium Threshold Coverage Capacity

Common Reasons for Rejecting a Carrier’s Quote

Inferior Pricing Inferior Pricing Inferior Pricing Inferior Pricing Inferior Pricing
Incumbent Relationship Incumbent Relationship Incumbent Relationship Incumbent Relationship Inferior Terms/Conditions
Inferior Terms/Conditions Inferior Terms/Conditions Inferior Terms/Conditions Inferior Terms/Conditions Incumbent Relationship
New coverage or new New coverage or new New coverage or new
Limited Familiarity Limited Familiarity
layer not purchased layer not purchased layer not purchased
New coverage or new
Limited Familiarity Carrier Financials Limited Familiarity
layer not purchased

Premiums
Similar to the prior year, soft market conditions continue . FAB companies have on average experienced flat to single digit
rate decreases for Property, Casualty, and Product Recall/Contamination* . Directors’ and Officers’ Liability appears to be
experiencing slightly higher decreases .

For the remainder of 2010 insureds with an attractive risk profile should continue to experience flat to single-digit rate
decreases in most casualty lines . Insureds with extreme exposure reductions or unfavorable loss history should anticipate rate
increases .

We expect Property rates to continue their downward trend for most accounts in 2010 . Record early season losses are not
expected to negatively impact the property market . FM Global announced a membership credit of up to 20% for business
renewing after June 30, 2010 . It is important to note that this membership credit is not a rate reduction, but a one-time
credit against current rates with future renewals based on the current expiring rate . Non nat/cat exposed business continues
to be an attractive counter-balance to most property markets and remains quite competitive .

We expect pricing for Directors’ and Officers’ Liability to remain soft for most insureds as long as there continues to be
ample capacity in the marketplace and carriers competing for business .


Year-Over-Year Change in Average Rate

-1.7
Property
-0.2

-13.6
Directors' & Ofﬁcers' Liability**
-10.9

-2.7
Umbrella/Excess Liability
-6.2

-0.25
Automobile Liability
-0.2

-3.3
General Liability
-3.7

-2.2
Workers Compensation
-4.2

-16% -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0%

2008-2009 2009-2010

*Product Recall/Contamination change in rates are based on our experiences in the marketplace .
**Directors’ and Officers’ Liability rate change represents S&P Industry Groups: Food & Staples Retailing and Food, Beverage & Tobacco for the Q1 ‘10 and Q2 ‘10 only .


FINANCIAL INSIGHTS

Understanding current performance and perception of the future financial strength of a sector are
important factors in any analysis . Within this section of the report we provide insight into market
environment for FAB sector .

Industry Data
In general, the market environment for FAB companies has significantly improved . In terms of market performance, listed FAB
companies were less affected by the broad market declines last year and have maintained growth into 2010 . Similarly, consensus
forecasts from market analysts expect FAB companies to gain from the general economic recovery in reporting revenue growth
in 2010 . Employment in agriculture is recovering from a recent double dip decline and continues to grow . In addition, the trend
in food manufacturing employment appears to have arrested its decline and seems poised to report annualized employment
growth by the next quarter . Positively, food and beverage inflation remains muted, with no emerging pressure from agricultural
commodity prices . In terms of exports, the weak dollar had a substantial impact on the total value of agricultural exports during
2009 .

Market Performance of FAB Sector vs Russell 3000

150
145
140
135
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
Apr'09

May'09

Jun'09

Jul'09

Aug'09

Sep'09

Oct'09

Nov'09

Dec'09

Jan'10

Feb'10

Mar'10

Apr'10

May'10

Russell 3000 Index Food and Beverage*
Source: BLOOMBERG, *Food and Beverage companies in the Russell 3000


Annualized % Change in Consumer Prices

7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
-1%
-2%
-3%
Feb'07

Apr'07

June'07

Aug'07

Oct'07

Dec'07

Feb'08

Apr'08

Jun'08

Aug'08

Oct'08

Dec'08

Feb'09

Apr'09

Jun'09

Aug'09

Oct'09

Dec'09

Feb'10

Apr'10
Food and beverage CPI index
Source: BLOOMBERG

% Change in Annualized Employment

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%
Apr'08
May'08
Jun'08
Jul'08
Aug'08
Sep'08
Oct'08
Nov'08
Dec'08
Jan'09
Feb'09
Mar'09
Apr'09
May'09
Jun'09
Jul'09
Aug'09
Sep'09
Oct'09
Nov'09
Dec'09
Jan'10
Feb'10
Mar'10
Apr'10
May'10

Total Non Farm Agri Sector Food Manufacturing
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Food and Beverage % Annual Revenue Change

30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Q2'07

Q3'07

Q4'07

Q1'08

Q2'08

Q3'08

Q4'08

Q1'09

Q2'09

Q3'09

Q4'09

Q2'10 (f)

Q3'10 (f)

Q4'10 (f)
Q1'10

-5%
-10%
-15%
Russell 3000 Companies Beverages * Food Producers*
Source: BLOOMBERG, *Food and Beverage companies in the Russell 3000

-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Apr'09
Sep'07

Source: BLOOMBERG
Oct'07
May'09
Nov'07
Dec'07
Jan'08 Jun'09
Feb'08
Mar'08 Jul'09
Apr'08
Commodity Price Performance

% Change in Annualized Exports
May'08
Aug'09
Jun'08

Corn
Jul'08
Aug'08 Sep'09

Source: US Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce
Sep'08
Oct'08

Total Exports
Oct'09
Nov'08
Dec'08

Wheat
Nov'09
Jan'09
Feb'09
Mar'09 Dec'09
Apr'09
May'09 Jan'10
Jun'09
Soybean

Agri Exports
Jul'09
Feb'10
Aug'09
Sep'09
Oct'09 Mar'10
Nov'09
Dec'09 Apr'10
Jan'10
Feb'10
May'10
Mar'10
Apr'10
2010FOODSYSTEM, AGRIBUSINESS & BEVERAGEREPORT
26


METHODOLOGY, NOTES AND DISCLAIMERS
This report is based on data from Aon’s 2009 Global Risk Management Survey, Aon 2010 Global Risk Management Survey,
Aon’s 2009 Global Technology Risk Survey, Aon GRIP and other proprietary databases .

Results shown in this report based on the 2009 Global Risk Management Survey, 2009 Global Technology Risk Survey
represent responses from the agribusiness, food processing and distribution and beverages industry and are not limited
to the United States .

2010 Global Enterprise Risk Management Survey responses represent all industry groups and are not limited to
the United States .

Aon GRIP is the world’s leading global repository of global risk and insurance placement information providing fact-based
insights into Aon’s USD $54 billion in global premium flow . Results shown in this report based on Aon GRIP data represent
placements in the United States between July 1, 2009 and July 1, 2010 .

All pricing data and publicly available financial information included under the financial Insights section of the report sourced
from Bloomberg, U .S . Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce and Bureau of Labor Statistics . Bloomberg
Data incorporated pursuant to license . Aon takes no responsibility as to the accuracy of any of the reported information .

In addition to the resources discussed above, we have included data from other proprietary databases . Results shown in this
report, unless noted, based on data from these other databases represent placement information from the United States
between July 1, 2009 and June 31, 2010 .

Along with the support of other Aon insurance and industry specialists, Aon Analytics collected and tabulated results,
provided analysis and interpretation of findings and prepared this report .

Copyright 2010 Aon Corporation . This report is furnished for informational purposes only . Do not distribute or copy .
Aon has endeavored to confirm the correctness of the data and opinions expressed in this report, however, neither Aon
nor its employees make any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the data or opinions expressed
herein . Aon has no liability to the recipient or any other party resulting from the use of, or reliance upon, the contents
of this report .


AON AT A GLANCE
Aon Corporation (NYSE: AON) is a leading global provider highest on Business Insurance’s listing of the world’s largest
of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance insurance brokers based on commercial retail, wholesale,
brokerage, and human capital consulting . Through its more reinsurance and personal lines brokerage revenues in 2008 .
than 36,000 colleagues worldwide, Aon readily delivers A .M . Best deemed Aon the number one insurance broker
distinctive client value via innovative and effective risk based on brokerage revenues in 2007 and 2008, and Aon
management and workforce productivity solutions . Aon’s was voted best insurance intermediary, best reinsurance
industry-leading global resources and technical expertise intermediary and best employee benefits consulting firm
are delivered locally through more than 500 offices in more in 2007, 2008 and 2009 by the readers of Business
than 120 countries . Insurance . Visit http://www .aon .com for more information
on Aon and http://www .aon .com/unitedin2010 to learn
Named the world’s best broker by Euromoney magazine’s about Aon’s global partnership and shirt sponsorship with
2008, 2009 and 2010 Insurance Survey, Aon also ranked Manchester United .

Aon Analytics provides clients with forward-looking Based in Dublin, Ireland, the Aon Centre for Innovation
business intelligence, comprehensive benchmarking and and Analytics provides Aon colleagues and their clients
total cost-of-risk analysis as well as global market insights around the globe fact-based market insights . As the owner
using proprietary technology like the Aon Global Risk of the Aon Global Risk Insight Platform (GRIP), one of the
Insight Platform to enable more informed and fact-based world’s largest repositories of risk and insurance placement
decision making around risk management, risk retention information, the Centre analyzes Aon’s USD $54 billion
and risk transfer goals and objectives . global premium flow to identify innovative new products
and to provide Aon brokers insights as to which markets
and which carriers provide the best value for clients .

As the world’s leading insurance broker and risk advisory
Aon Global Risk Insight Platform® (Aon GRIP) is the world’s
firm, Aon is committed to helping clients respond quickly
leading global repository of global risk and insurance
and effectively to changing market conditions that may
placement information . By providing fact-based insights
impact their businesses . The Aon Situation Room™,
into Aon’s USD $54 billion in global premium flow, Aon
accessible at www .aon .com, provides clients with fact-
GRIP helps identify the best placement option regardless of
based information to help guide their businesses through
size, industry, coverage line or geography .
this volatile period .
The Web-accessible data produced by Aon GRIP helps
Aon brokers evaluate which markets to approach with a In the Aon Situation Room, clients will find current insurer
placement and which carriers may provide the best value financial strength ratings and the most recent updates from
for clients . It also gives Aon brokers a leg up when it comes Aon’s Market Security Committee on specific carriers .
to negotiations, making sure every conversation is based on The latest news, legislative action, and earnings information
the most complete, most current set of facts . is included on the site as well . Clients can also register
to receive up-to-date e-mail alerts .

Food Systems Industry Report 2010

Food Systems Industry Report 2010

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (10)

Ähnlich wie Food Systems Industry Report 2010

Ähnlich wie Food Systems Industry Report 2010 (20)

Food Systems Industry Report 2010