Food Processing _ August 2025 by Endeavor Digital Editions

SOURCE

Engineered from the ground up to provide unsurpassed performance in food processing facilities. These high performance, 100% synthetic lubricants provide extended lube intervals, multiple application capability, lubricant inventory consolidation and improved performance.

All while maintaining strict H1 safety requirements.

Lubriplate’s NSF H1 Registered Products Include:

HIGH-PERFORMANCE SYNTHETIC GEAR OILS

SYNTHETIC AIR COMPRESSOR FLUIDS

SYNTHETIC HYDRAULIC FLUIDS

HIGH-PERFORMANCE SYNTHETIC GREASES

HIGH-TEMPERATURE OVEN CHAIN LUBRICANTS

NSF H1 REGISTERED SPRAY LUBRICANTS

THE TOP 100 ©

Just an OK Year

Our Top 100 ﬁnds 2024 was a great year for poultry processors, so-so for everybody else; 2025’s challenges are starting to show.

54TH ANNUAL R&D SURVEY

Remove Sugar, Replace Colors

Our survey of product developers ﬁnds frustration, pressure to offset ingredient costs.

R&D TEAMS OF THE YEAR

Campbell’s V8 Team Keeps a 92-Year-Old Young

V8 has been extended into fruit blends, energy drinks, even powdered mixes.

PLANT OPERATIONS

Teaching AI Is Continuing Education

Artiﬁcial intelligence in the plant requires initial training but also constant upkeep.

Taking Motors to the Next Level

Plants shift toward predictive maintenance with efﬁciency gains.

Credit: Derek Chamberlain, generated with Shutterstock AI

Boundless Food Cutting Solutions

Urschel designs and manufactures high capacity, precision food cutting machinery designed for rugged production environments.

Sanitary and dependable in design. Rely on Urschel cutting solutions to effectively process all types of products.

Explore more cutting solutions at urschel.com.

www.urschel.com

Make FDA Great (and Authoritative) Again

No strangers to making threats, it's time for Trump and RFK to strongarm the states into accepting one set of food regulations.

President Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marty Makary have taken their victory laps over the past two months as one food or beverage processor after another fell in line and agreed to remove petroleum-based colors. Now it's time for that trinity to return the favor and strong-arm the states into repealing laws that ban not just colors but, in some cases, 50 ingredients. Or pre-empt them.

This federal republic setup is tricky at times – states should and do have some autonomy, including the right to legislate some things that uniquely suit their citizens. But the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution prevents states from enacting laws that interfere with interstate commerce, giving Congress the right "to regulate commerce ... among the several states."

A patchwork of potentially 50 slightly varying state laws banning or controlling different ingredients would certainly upend interstate commerce.

Everyone – including the federal government and an increasing number of food & beverage processors – now appears in agreement that seven certain colors should be gone. Brominated vegetable oil, too. Maybe butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) should go, too. When, for all of those, is another question.

Oklahoma is considering banning aspartame and sodium benzoate. Titanium dioxide will be forbidden in school foods in Arizona but not in neighboring California. Some Indiana legislator wants to get rid of high-fructose corn syrup. Even just warning labels would be onerous, as enacted in Texas and neighboring Louisiana – which have slightly different requirements.

It's not right that the Trump administration is pressuring certain states over liberal immigration laws or diversity, equity and inclusion programs. As I said, states have rights. Why not apply that kind of federal pressure – and enforce, rather than defy the Constitution for a change – and get all the states on board with a uniﬁed, national ingredient policy?

Make FDA great (and the authority) again.

Our Top 100 turns 50

This issue contains our annual Top 100 © list (pp22-27), our biggest research project of the year and the annual feature we're proudest of. Three people spent many hours poring over the ﬁnancial reports of the public companies on the list and scouring news reports and other items that might hint at the sales of the private companies.

Legend has it this is the list’s 50th year – that's difﬁcult to

conﬁrm but I can say we've done it for all 22 years I've been in charge. It is the best list you'll ﬁnd for at least four reasons: 1. We do the research ourselves. 2. We go to great lengths to include both public and private companies. 3. We base their sales only on consumer-ready (but not necessarily branded) food and drink products. 4. We count only products those companies make in their own U.S. and Canadian plants.

While lots of work went into creating the story and list that begins on p22, even more work goes into what's in the web version. There you can ﬁnd the story (www. foodprocessing.com/55305918) as well as the big chart (www. foodprocessing.com/55305917).

But if you click on any company name in that table, you're taken to a lengthy proﬁle of that company, including key executives, subsidiaries and parent ﬁrms, brands(!), food categories and, in most cases, the locations of their plants. Bookmark it and come back often.

Written by Dave Fusaro

EDITOR IN CHIEF

What’s New Online

Don’t miss what’s happening on FoodProcessing.com

very day, we add more content to www.FoodProcessing.com. Here are just a few of the items added in the past month or coming this month.

COMPETITION

Green Plant of the Year

If your plant is energy efficient, minimizes pollution and water use and uses alternative sources of energy and other innovative strategies to make it sustainable, we invite you to nominate it for our Green Plant of the Year competition, a poll that will be coming Sept. 1. For now, just send an email with some persuasive points to: ahanacek@endeavorb2b.com

Daily food & beverage news

We try to write a "best of" the news every month in this magazine, but all the stories you see on pp12-17 first appeared on our website and in our daily newsletter. Stay up to date and be the first at your company to know things – that Mars is buying Kellanova or Louisiana is banning or at least controlling 50 ingredients – by signing up for our daily newsletter. bit.ly/3yHyZLZ

PODCASTS

Podcasts for every issue

For those who like to listen, we continue to build our podcast library. Interested in the trends driving kids yogurt and snack consumption – through the eyes of Danone North America? Or how to create your company’s score for the Carbon Disclosure Project? Our Andy Hanacek interviews subject matter experts on current food & beverage industry issues at least twice a month. See the whole list at: www.FoodProcessing.com/ podcasts

EHANDBOOKS

Ebooks for every topic

Decades of consumer complaints and recent government pressures have come together to make this a year of significant food safety changes for the food & beverage industry. Our July ebook brings that all together. And an August handbook explores current technology in mixing and blending. Past ebooks have explored conveyors, plant sanitation and how to safely handle powders and bulk solids. Check out our entire library of ebooks to bone up on issues important for your job. www.FoodProcessing.com/ ehandbooks

AUGUST 2025 | VOLUME 86 NUMBER 4

EDITORIAL TEAM

EDITOR IN CHIEF Dave Fusaro dfusaro@endeavorb2b.com

SENIOR EDITOR Andy Hanacek ahanacek@endeavorb2b.com

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS

Ed Avis, Claudia O’Donnell

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Mohamed Z. Badaoui Najjar, Ph.D. R&D Senior Director–Strategy & Portfolio Sector Food & Beverage, PepsiCo

Ed Ballina

Principal, Operational Excellence Consulting (retired from PepsiCo)

James Davis

Director-Global Sanitation, OSI Group LLC

Leslie Herzog

Vice President of Operations & Research Services, The Understanding & Insight Group LLC (retired from Unilever)

Steven Hill, Ph.D.

Vice President-R&D, QA, Food Safety, Sustainability, Engineering, Regulatory, T. Marzetti

Leslie Krasny Krasny Law Ofﬁce

Jagriti Sharma

Senior Vice President of Product, Poppi Alvaro Cuba Simons Operations & Supply Chain Consultant (formerly of Mondelez and Kraft)

Gary M. Stibel

Founder & CEO, The New England Consulting Group

DESIGN & PRODUCTION

ART DIRECTOR

Derek Chamberlain dchamberlain@endeavorb2b.com

PRODUCTION MANAGER

Rita Fitzgerald rﬁtzgerald@endeavorb2b.com

AD SERVICES MANAGER

Jennifer George jgeorge@endeavorb2b.com

EXECUTIVE STAFF

VP/MARKET LEADER - ENGINEERING DESIGN & AUTOMATION GROUP Keith Larson

CIRCULATION REQUESTS Lori Books

ENDEAVOR BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC

CEO Chris Ferrell

COO

Patrick Rains

CRO

Paul Andrews

CDO

Jacquie Niemiec

CALO

Tracy Kane

CMO

Amanda Landsaw

EVP, DESIGN & ENGINEERING GROUP

Tracy Smith

Endeavor Business Media, LLC

30 Burton Hills Blvd, Ste. 185, Nashville, TN 37215 800-547-7377

PFAS Bring Risk, Regulatory Curbs

There’s suddenly a flurry of concern – and litigation – over their presence or even perceived presence.

Despite the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in food packaging for decades, they are prompting scrutiny from regulators, consumers and non-governmental organizations. Food packaging suppliers, food processors and retailers need to comply with state requirements and minimize potential risk of challenge in private litigation.

The FDA has taken actions to revoke authorizations for the use of certain PFAS in food contact applications, although there are still regulatory clearances and food contact notiﬁcations (FCNs) that allow for such uses. For example, in 2016, FDA revoked clearances for certain PFAS that contain eight or more carbon atoms in length (“long-chain” PFAS compounds) in food contact paper and paperboard applications, based on newly available toxicity data.

This January, the FDA determined that 35 FCNs, which previously authorized the use of PFAS in grease-prooﬁng coatings, were no longer effective because they were abandoned, following a voluntary market phase-out.

PFAS are still authorized for use in O-rings and gaskets used in food processing equipment as well as manufacturing aids added to other food contact polymers.

The FDA has acknowledged that PFAS may be unintentionally present in food packaging as an impurity

or contaminant. However, the agency has continued to maintain that testing of the general food supply has shown that very few samples have detectable PFAS and those that do generally have very low levels.

Fourteen states now have passed legislation restricting or banning PFAS in food packaging: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state. There is also proposed legislation pending in other states.

Importantly, the scope of this legislation varies from state to state with regard to composition, deﬁnitions of “food packaging,” restrictions vs. prohibitions and deadlines for compliance — with New York having the earliest compliance deadline of Dec. 31, 2022. Other states have bans or restrictions on PFAS in food packaging that are still not in effect, including the bans in New Hampshire and New Mexico, which do not go into effect until 2027.

It remains to be seen whether Congress or the White House will attempt to create a federal solution to this patchwork of state regulations.

In addition to increased regulatory attention, the food & beverage industry has seen a signiﬁcant uptick in the number of litigation challenges targeting PFAS in food packaging — as well as the alleged presence of PFAS in food. In these suits, plaintiffs

typically allege that the subject food or food packaging contains levels of PFAS that are toxic to humans. We expect more lawsuits ahead targeting alleged PFAS-containing food and food packaging.

Food & beverage companies and other entities should consider taking steps to avoid regulatory enforcement action and mitigate risk of challenge in private litigation associated with PFAS-containing food and food packaging:

→ Review food packaging for its potential to be subject to various state laws restricting PFAS. This could include working with packaging suppliers to gain more visibility into the composition of food packaging and placing requirements on suppliers for the presence of PFAS.

→ Work with counsel to monitor new developments and have an action plan to ensure compliance with state laws restricting PFAS.

→ Review labeling claims in view of the evolving regulatory and litigation considerations related to the potential presence of PFAS.

Written by Sam Jockel and Ashley Yull

Assets dating back half a century risk a loss event or interruption to production.

A Aging Infrastructure Raises Concern

merica’s food processing sector has evolved into a complex and economically vital component of the national supply chain. Yet much of its infrastructure dates back more than half a century.

As processing plants have scaled up production and adopted advanced technologies, the underlying systems struggled to keep pace. The result is a growing mismatch between modern operational demands and aging physical assets. When faced with a loss event or interruption to production, this means increasingly complex and costly losses.

There are more than 36,000 food processing plants across the U.S., many of them constructed during the mid-20th century, at a time when design and technology bore little resemblance to modern standards. While demand and regulatory scrutiny have grown, capital reinvestment in infrastructure has often lagged.

The integration of advanced systems — robotics, thermal scanners, programmable controllers — into legacy environments has created new risks. In many cases, the underlying structure was never designed to support such technologies, and the interaction between old and new systems can introduce latent vulnerabilities. Failures are not isolated. A single malfunction can cascade across multiple processes.

Fire remains the most prominent risk. Large plants with dense, interconnected layouts often present signiﬁcant challenges for ﬁre suppression. Narrow corridors, few breaks in construction and extensive internal ducting can facilitate rapid spread.

Food processing also carries an inherent time sensitivity. Perishable products must move swiftly through the system. Any delay can compromise entire product lines. Contingencies are limited; replacement capacity may be geographically distant or simply unavailable. The result is prolonged downtime, substantial spoilage and widespread disruption.

Regulatory considerations further complicate recovery.

Food processors today operate within an evolving landscape of environmental, safety and building codes, often at federal, state and municipal levels. Facilities built to historic standards must, when damaged, be reconstructed in line with modern regulations, frequently at signiﬁcant cost.

In one case, the need to determine whether a $20 million air ﬁltration system was required under updated rules delayed both repairs and claims resolution for weeks.

Supply chains introduce additional exposure. The industry has shifted away from smaller, localized operators toward consolidation and interdependency. Many

plants now function as critical nodes within broader networks. If one link fails, the impact extends well beyond its walls.

A more holistic approach is required. Risk managers should prioritize comprehensive system audits, mapping dependencies across mechanical, digital and supply chain domains. Equipment age, integration complexity and access to spares should be routinely assessed.

Furthermore, a review of regulatory exposures, particularly those linked to environmental remediation and air quality standards, can aid in anticipating potential cost escalations during loss recovery.

Some progress is being made. A number of processors are investing in predictive maintenance technologies, cross-training teams for response readiness and working with external specialists to identify risks. These steps are signiﬁcantly less costly than prolonged unplanned downtime.

Addressing aging infrastructure is not just a matter of modernization; it is a prerequisite for safeguarding business continuity in an industry where delay equates to loss.

Written by Trent Gillette

Jorge Izquierdo Vice President, Market Development, PMMI,

The Association for Packaging and Processing Technologies

INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE

Advancing Food Safety Through Tech, Workforce Innovation

ood safety presents some of the industry's most significant challenges — the kind that keep plant operators up at night and require continuous innovation. Recent research from PMMI, The Association for Packaging and Processing Technologies, examines food safety and sanitation as it relates to workforce challenges, technological advancement and equipment design. What follows is a discussion of those findings with Jorge Izquierdo, vice president of market development at PMMI, on the findings of the research:

Food Processing: How have you seen food safety, sanitation and technology evolve over the past ﬁve or six years?

Jorge Izquierdo: As regulators and companies raise the bar for sanitation, workforce training must keep pace with new standards, best practices and tools. Food manufacturers have embraced Industry 4.0. We have seen greater adoption of predictive maintenance and remote access accelerated by Covid. Lastly, evolving regulations, consumer expectations and retailer preferences have everyone pulling to improve food safety, but not necessarily in the same direction. This poses greater challenges for manufacturers to align and comply with different demands.

FP: PMMI research that was just released recently mentions a 20% increase in food and beverage recalls since 2020. But what does the research ultimately say about food safety today?

JI: We were very curious about it as well. In our research, we asked OEMs and food processors, “What do you think was the reason?” Most responses from people with decades of experience suggested the industry has never been safer than it is today. For example, one respondent at a coffee roaster raised an interesting point. Years ago, coffee was a fringe food product subject to very few regulations or standards. Today all the standard requirements totally cover them for sanitation. And that’s true for many industries, where it’s much stricter these days than before.

FP: So how are companies adapting equipment design or operations to meet the increasing requirements of regulators and food safety?

JI: They’re looking for more cleanin-place equipment — which is not necessarily new, but it’s an investment. Toolless assembly is another in-demand feature, and so are features that ensure equipment can withstand high-pressure washdowns. Of course, hygienic equipment design with fewer crevices — harborage points for bacteria and contaminants — can make cleaning operations easier and shorter. And demand is rising for accurate record-keeping and reporting on the equipment sanitation for visibility and veriﬁcation.

FP: What are some of the more exciting innovations or technologies being developed for the next generation of sanitation systems?

JI: We see growth in data handling and automatic report development to ensure that all that information is kept. This is especially important for labeling. There have been many recalls due to problems with labeling rather than the product. There has been signiﬁcant growth in automation for clean-inplace. Operators also are taking advantage of sensors to verify the cleaning process. The guarding of electronics is still an issue, and so is ensuring equipment is much more intuitive — easier to operate, diagnose and troubleshoot. Processors want quick training solutions that can put the operator in front of the equipment, and whenever there’s a problem, technology will be able to assist the operator to solve 80% of the problems. The other 20% are left for remote access technologies or the service technicians to address. Further beyond the horizon, we’re

Food For Thought

Hear the conversation by tuning in to Food Processing’s Food For Thought podcast.

IN THIS SECTION

» Lots of news on synthetic colors

» Feds look to deﬁne ultraprocessed food

» Nestle USA has a new CEO

Ferrero To Acquire WK Kellogg Co for $3.1 Billion

Kellogg’s sales (and stock) have been on a slide since the 2023 split with Kellanova.

Luxembourg’s Ferrero Group will become one of the largest and broadest processors in the U.S. with its $3.1 billion deal to acquire iconic U.S. cereal company WK Kellogg Co.

The two sides on July 10 announced a deﬁnitive agreement, with Ferrero paying $23 per share in cash. Kellogg’s stock had been between $15-18 per share. The acquisition includes the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of Kellogg's portfolio of breakfast cereals across the U.S., Canada and the Caribbean. International cereals went with Kellanova when the former Kellogg Co. split in two in October 2023.

Kellanova didn’t last long either; it’s in the midst of an acquisition by Mars Inc., which has been approved by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission but is being held up by European antitrust regulators.

Since the split, WK Kellogg’s sales and net income have dipped – from $2.763 billion sales and $110 million

net in 2023 to $2.708 billion sales and $72 million net in 2024. In its ﬁrst quarter of this year, sales declined another 6.2% and net income another 45.5%.

By our count, Ferrero North America had 2024 sales of $2 billion (double that if you include Ferrara Candy Co.), while Ferrero Group's global sales were $13.5 billion.

“This transaction represents another chapter in Ferrero's proven strategy to acquire, invest in and grow iconic brands as it continues to enhance its overall footprint and product offerings in North America,” the joint announcement said. “As a result of this strong growth, in North America Ferrero and its afﬁliated companies currently count more than 14,000 employees across 22 plants and 11 ofﬁces.”

Ferrero’s North American portfolio includes self-developed brands Nutella, Kinder, Tic Tac and Ferrero Rocher, as well as acquired brands Butterﬁnger, Keebler, Famous Amos, Jelly

Belly, Nerds, Trolli, Blue Bunny, Bomb Pop and Halo Top.

Ferrero said Battle Creek, Mich., will remain a core location for the company and will be Ferrero’s headquarters for North America cereal.

"We believe this proposed transaction maximizes value for our shareowners and enables WK Kellogg Co to write the next chapter of our company's storied legacy," said Gary Pilnick, chairman and CEO of Kellogg. "Since becoming an independent public company in October 2023, we have made excellent progress on our journey to become a more focused and more proﬁtable business – driven by our tremendous people and a winning culture – all while building a strong foundation for future growth."

The deal was unanimously supported by Kellogg’s board of directors, but still needs approval by WK Kellogg Co shareowners, regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions and is currently expected to close in the second half of this year.

Ex-Pepsi

Beverages CEO Kirk Tanner Succeeds Michele Buck at Hershey

Hershey Co. on July 8 announced Michele Buck’s successor as president/CEO. Kirk Tanner, who spent more than three decades at PepsiCo, ultimately as CEO of PepsiCo Beverages North America, and who currently is CEO of Wendy's Co., will take over Aug. 18.

Buck announced her intention to retire from the company this January after 20 years with the chocolate, candy and increasingly salty snack company. As CEO since 2017 and chairman since 2019, she largely steered Hershey’s acquisitions into snacks, acquiring Amplify Brands (Skinny Pop and Pirate’s Booty), Dot’s Pretzels and most recently Lesser Evil.

In her January announcement, Buck said she planned to retire on June 30, 2026. Presumably, she will remain chairman until that date.

"Kirk is a proven, high-impact leader in the food & beverage industry with a great combination of customer and consumer passion, commercial acumen and operational scale," said Mary Kay Haben, lead independent director and chair of the CEO search committee – and long-ago head of Kraft Cheese.

"With a track record of driving growth in complex global businesses, Kirk brings a focused, results-driven mindset. His deep experience in snacks, beverages, M&A and innovation — combined with public company CEO and board roles — makes him well suited to lead Hershey into the future.” Haben also thanked Buck for "guiding the company through multiple phases of transformational growth."

Buck’s January announcement came after several executives departed Hershey and there were rumors the company was being pursued by Mondelez. While it’s a public company, effective control is held by the Milton Hershey School Trust, which reportedly (but not publicly/ ofﬁcially) turned down Mondelez’s offer.

John Ghingo Is Heir-Apparent at Hormel

Preparing for the retirement of James Snee in October, Hormel Foods promoted John Ghingo to president and brought back Jeffrey Ettinger, former chairman and CEO, as interim CEO for 15 months.

Snee, a 36-year company veteran and chairman/CEO the past nine years, announced in January his intention to retire. As executive vice president for retail, Ghingo led the company’s largest business unit and oversaw its portfolio of consumer brands.

Ghingo held leadership roles at Mondelez International, as well as previously serving as president of Applegate Farms LLC, a Hormel Foods subsidiary. He also was president of plant-based foods and beverages at WhiteWave and CEO of cheese-based chips company Whisps.

Del Monte Foods Files Chapter 11, Seeks a Buyer

Del Monte Foods Corp. on July 1 ﬁled for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection as it “is pursuing a value-maximizing sale process as part of an overall strategic balance-sheet restructuring.”

The Walnut Creek, Calif., company “has entered into a restructuring support agreement (RSA) with a group of its lenders holding certain of the company’s term loan indebtedness. The RSA contemplates the company undertaking a going-concern sale process for all or substantially all of the company’s assets, with the support of the lender group under the RSA, which is targeted at obtaining the highest or best offer to maximize value for all stakeholders.”

Del Monte Foods, primarily a fruit and vegetable canner, is 138 years old and has been owned since 2014 by Singapore and Philippines-listed Del Monte Pacific Ltd. Other subsidiaries of Del Monte Pacific are not affected by the bankruptcy filing. The parent firm has not yet filed its annual report, although its 2025 fiscal year ended April 30.

In our Top 100 companies list last year, Del Monte U.S. had $1.737 billion in sales, accounting for about 73% of Del Monte Pacific's revenue. The parent firm recorded a $127 million loss last year, most of it attributed to its American subsidiary. In its bankruptcy filing, Del Monte lists more than 10,000 creditors and both assets and liabilities between $1-10 billion.

Kirk Tanner

John Ghingo

A Colorful Two Months for Colors

There was a brief, awkward silence after federal ofﬁcials on April 11 challenged the food & beverage industry to remove petroleum-based color additives. But late June and July saw one big processor after another commit to their removal, plus commitments from two trade associations.

Kraft Heinz and General Mills both announced on June 17 they were reformulating to remove Blue 1 & 2, Green 3, Red 3 & 40 and Yellow 5 & 6 from their portfolios. Nestle USA, Conagra, J.M. Smucker and Hershey quickly followed suit. As July ended, WK Kellogg Co, whose Froot Loops became the poster child of the anti-color movement, joined in.

Most said they would remove the color additives from school foods by the start of the 2026 school year and from all products by the end of 2027. PepsiCo has not given itself a deadline for total removal but said colors would be out of its school foods in time for the start of this school year.

Danone North America, Treehouse Foods and Tyson earlier made pledges without speciﬁc deadlines.

The International Dairy Foods Assn. on July 14 said 40 makers of ice cream in the U.S. would eliminate artiﬁcial colors by Dec. 31, 2027. While the processors were not named, the association said they represent more than 90% of the ice cream sold in the U.S.

Consumer Brands Assn. chimed in with two directives: one asking its members to remove colors from school foods for the 2026 school year and a later one asking them to remove them from all foods by the end of 2027.

It all started with that April 11 press conference in which the heads of Health & Human Services and FDA strongly asked the food & beverage industry to remove the colors by the end of 2026.

More Color and Additive News

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on July 16 announced an investigation into Mars Inc. for reneging on a 2016 public pledge to “remove all artiﬁcial colors from its human food products” – as quoted by the Texas AG. He said it amounts to "deceptive trade practices."

Also in Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott on June 22 signed a new law requiring warning labels on all food and beverage packages containing any “artiﬁcial color, food additive or other chemical ingredient banned by Canada, the European Union or the United Kingdom.” In all, 44 ingredients were named. The law is effective Jan. 1, 2027.

Louisiana on June 27 created a law controlling 50 ingredients, some prohibited in schools and some banned throughout the state. The act includes the seven petroleum-derived colors, plus other often-mentioned ingredients (azodicarbonamide, butylated hydroxyanisole, etc.) but also some surprise additions – such as sweeteners acesulfame potassium, aspartame and sucralose, plus bleached flour and seed oils.

The FDA on July 14 approved the color gardenia (genipin) blue in various foods, making it the fourth color derived from natural sources approved by the FDA for use in foods in the previous two months.

Feds Working on Ultraprocessed Foods Deﬁnition

The three federal agencies that regulate foods published a joint Request for Information (RFI) to gather information and data to help establish a federally recognized uniform deﬁnition for ultraprocessed foods.

The request comes from Dept. of Health & Human Services and its subsidiary FDA along with USDA. “Currently, there is no single authoritative deﬁnition for ultraprocessed foods for the U.S. food supply,” the announcement said. “Creating a uniform federal deﬁnition will serve as a key deliverable on the heels of the recently published Make Our Children Healthy Again Assessment."

“A unified, widely understood definition for ultraprocessed foods is long overdue,” said Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. The RFI’s specifics were in the July 25 Federal Register.

Although there is no deﬁnition, “It is estimated that approximately 70% of packaged products in the U.S. food supply are foods often considered ultraprocessed, and that children get over 60% of their calories from such foods,” the announcement said. “Dozens of scientiﬁc studies have found links between the consumption of foods often considered ultraprocessed with numerous adverse health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, cancer, obesity and neurological disorders.” Comments are being taken till Sept. 23. Electronic comments can be submitted on the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www. regulations.gov.

Expansions

Private-label coffee and tea manufacturer WestrockCoffeeCo. opened its second new processing facility in Conway, Ark., in the past 14 months. The newest is a

525,000-sq.-ft. plant that will focus on production of single-serve coffee products. Distribution will take up the majority of the floorspace, but 130,000 sq. ft. will be devoted to manufacturing. It comes just over

Let us solve your bulk material handling and industrial vacuum cleaning needs, challenges, and requirements for compliance. For more information or for RFQ, visit www.vac-u-max.com or call (800) VAC-U-MAX.

a year after the company opened a 570,000-sq.-ft. ready-to-drink coffee products plant in Conway.

UK-based Hilton Foods’ subsidiary HiltonFoodsCanada will build its ﬁrst North American processing and distribution facility in Brantford, Ontario, investing $192 million in the 230,000-sq.-ft. facility. It will create 150 new jobs and appears to be the follow-through on Hilton Foods Canada’s 2023 announcement of a partnership to supply Walmart Canada with a variety of protein products, starting with beef, lamb, pork and seafood.

SettonPistachio opened its new processing facility July 1 in Zamora, Calif. The new plant, which has been under construction three years, has 430,000 sq. ft. allocated for processing; 270,000 sq. ft. is currently being used. It created 20 full-time and 40 seasonal jobs.

FarminaPetFoods, a family-owned pet food processor based in Italy, in June opened its first U.S. manufacturing facility, in Reidsville, N.C. The 150,000-sq.-ft. plant represents a $115 million investment and is expected to create 200 new jobs over the next five years, with 75 positions already filled.

Canadian pork and poultry processor Olymel undertakes a US$104.3 million expansion of its La Fernandière plant in Trois-Rivières, Quebec. Operation is slated for spring 2026.

Cargill will spend nearly $90 million on automation and new technology to upgrade its Fort Morgan, Colo., beef-processing plant over the next several years.

LactalisUSA will invest more than $75 million to upgrade cheese- and cultured products-making facilities in both Walton and Buffalo, N.Y.

Packaging Machine Reﬁll Direct-Charge Blender Loading

Vacuum Cleaners

Booth SU-26032

People

These ﬁrst two are related. Nestlé at the end of April announced that Steve Presley, executive vice president and CEO of Zone Americas, was retiring and that Jeff Hamilton, business head of Purina PetCare Zone Europe, will take his place as CEO of Zone Americas. Hamilton has worked for Purina since 1991. He was previously president and CEO of Nestlé Canada, president of Nestlé’s Foods Division in the U.S., and vice president of marketing at Nestlé Purina Asia, Oceania and Africa.

Meanwhile, Presley resurfaced as future CEO of global beverage provider Refresco. He was to join the Rotterdam, Netherlands, company on Aug. 4, and also was named to its board of directors.

Justin Ransom was named administrator of USDA’S Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), among a handful of appointments made July 3 by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. Ransom began his career at the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, then held jobs in food safety, quality systems, animal welfare and sustainability at companies that included Tyson Foods, McDonald’s and OSI Group. Earlier, Mindy Brashears became USDA’s under secretary for food safety, the same post she held in the previous Trump administration.

Specialty foods company T. Marzetti Co., a subsidiary of Lancaster Colony Corp., appointed Judith Mondello to be its new chief research, development and

quality ofﬁcer. She takes the place of Steven Hill, who will retire later this year after holding his position since 2017. Mondello brings more than 25 years of food and beverage industry experience, most

recently as senior vice president of R&D for the meat and beverage division at Campbell Soup Co., and earlier at J.M. Smucker Co., Sara Lee, McKee Foods and Continental Baking Co.

Food StartsSafety Here

Protect Your Product, Protect Your Brand

&mb=oulvķ-ruomvķѴbm;mv-m7=-1bѴb| |;

1;uঞC1-ঞom1o Ѵ7rov;-ubvh _oov;-Ѵ- m7u r-u|m;u|_-|Ľv ]b;mb1-ѴѴ Ѵ;-m oo7"-=;| ;uঞC;7-m7];|ĺ

ᅤ HACCP Support: m_-m1; o u7o1 l;m|-ঞom-m7=oo7v-=;| ruo|o1oѴv

ᅤ Proven Hygiene:b1uo0b-Ѵ|;vঞm];mv u;v; ;u b|;ll;;|v_ ]b;mb1-ѴѴ 1Ѵ;-mv|-m7-u7v

ᅤ Regulatory Compliance:Ѵb]m;7 b|_" ķ ķ&" -m7o|_;u=oo7v-=;| u;] Ѵ-ঞomv

ᅤ Reliable Quality:omvbv|;m|ķ7o1 l;m|;71Ѵ;-mѴbm;vvŌu;]-u7Ѵ;vvo=1_-m]bm]1om7bঞomv

-h;;uঞC1-ঞom-u|o=+o u! oo7l-m =-1| u;uv-m7ruo1;vvouvĺv o uѴ- m7u ruo b7;u1;uঞC;7ĵ omĽ|v; Ѵ;=ouľ1Ѵ;-m Ŀ ;l-m7 ]b;mb1-ѴѴ Ѵ;-m;uঞC;7Ѵ- m7ub;vbm o u! v

this code to find a

> or

Jeff Hamilton

A TASTE OF TAIWAN

New food and beverage products focus on health features, strong ﬂavors and improved functionality at Food Taipei Mega Shows in Taiwan this past June.

Written by Andy Hanacek SENIOR EDITOR

Fantastic, exotic flavors popped at the Food Taipei Mega Shows. The June 25-28 expo was nothing short of a whirlwind of exotic food and beverage product samples, education and networking opportunities in Taipei, Taiwan. We were fortunate to attend.

The Lai Hoa hospitality booth taught a bit about Taiwan culture and included a “traditional” Taiwan “grandma’s house,” where they served tea and a light snack. The Taiwan Zone featured local companies showing off the latest and greatest food and beverage products made in Taiwan — some even looking to expand to the U.S. Many of the products were intriguing but not so far out there as to turn off potential Western consumers, in my opinion (unlike the salmon head soup combo meal I saw at the local mall’s food court).

Black Bridge Foods Co. was sampling a Taiwanese sausage at a “HugDog” kiosk. The dog was a tasty pork sausage with a delicious sweetness to it. Sweet became a running theme for a bit, with tastings of honey-based items, including refreshing honey water, sweetened iced tea and even sweetened rice coffee in the next few visits.

Shin Her Fa Frozen Foods was drying fish and turning them into a sort of “fish tea,” which tastes exactly as it sounds. I like most fish, so the taste definitely hit the mark, but I’m not sure I’d regularly consume a product like this — at least not cold. You’d really have to like that fishy flavor to like this product. Maybe there’s a use for it as an ingredient or soup base.

A couple products stood out to this editor. First was the Taiwan Awkeo Promotion Assn., which was displaying products made with Taiwanese Jelly Fig — a fruit that grows only in Taiwan, because it is pollinated by a specific fig wasp that lives only on that island. The figs produce Aiyu jelly, which is used for a wide variety of items. The association shared a cup of Aiyu jelly flavored with honey and lemon (which is typical), complete with a straw to slurp out the jelly. It was tasty and less gelatinous than I’d anticipated.

Kisaraki Foods displayed a Green Banana Fries product that looked and sounded really interesting, but alas, they were not sampling those products at that time.

In the Future Food Pavilion — a smaller collection of companies promoting products considered to be tailored toward “next generation” solutions — plant-based items seemed to be all the rage. One company that stood out was San Francisco, Calif.based Lypid Kitchen, which sampled baked goods made with its plant-based fats and Better Butter Series. They also promoted

their 100% plant-based BBQ Pork Bao Buns product line. All of Lypid’s products tasted on par with how their animal-based counterparts might taste.

A stop at HighTea (Pei Chen Corp.) offered a glimpse into several caffeine-free teas. Buckwheat tea has been a big trend in Taiwan, the company said, and

SHOW REPORT

its product is trying to capitalize on that momentum and hopefully carry it to the U.S. and elsewhere. The Harvest Buckwheat Tea, Caramel Flavor Rooibos Tea and Tropical Fruit Tea products were full of flavor.

Keskin International Trading Co. promoted I-doo Turkish ice cream. The product's stickiness allowed an “ice cream man” to hold the cone on the end of a long paddle to hand it to attendees. The server tricked attendees who wanted a taste by offering the cone, then quickly spinning the stick to make the attendee “miss” grabbing it. But the cone and ice cream remained stuck to the paddle. Once consumed, the stickiness and “chewiness” of the ice cream was quite evident. I don’t recall biting into ice cream to get some off a cone in my lifetime.

Keskin International Trading Co. had an ice cream man serving Turkish ice cream in cones to attendees on the end of a long paddle, demonstrating the unique stickiness of the frosty treat.

There wasn’t a lot that I tried that I disliked, though it was a whirlwind. I know I tried some pork meat snack sticks, sweet potato milk tea and shaved ice with flavor “popping balls” — all of which were really good.

Education opportunities at the show included the one-day Food Innovation Forum. You can read about the insights at http://bit. ly/3IAyF6s, where I summarized a portion of the conference.

From a food perspective, the show’s products were innovative and interesting without being too far afield from what the U.S. consumer is accustomed to. I’m personally hoping to see some of these foods and beverages in wider distribution in the U.S. sooner rather than later.

HighTea (Pei Chen Corp.) hopes that the popularity of buckwheat tea in Taiwan, and the greater trends around caffeine-free teas, continues to grow and drive its beverage portfolio higher.

Taiwanese Jelly Figs on display at the Taiwan Awkeo Promotion Assn. booth.

ROLLOUT

Nissin Tries its Hand at Frozen Meals

Kanzen Meal USA Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary and new business of Nissin Food Products Co., is making its debut with three namesake frozen meals that the company says were “intentionally and meticulously created to deliver a complete meal solution that optimizes taste and nutrient density.” Kanzen, the Japanese word for complete, is Nissin Foods’ ﬁrst foray into the single-serve frozen meal category.

Available in three varieties — fettucine alfredo, shrimp teriyaki and spaghetti Bolognese — each meal contains up to 23g of protein and 10g of ﬁber. They are fortiﬁed with micronutrients, with each meal providing more than one-third of the recommended daily values of all 27 essential vitamins and minerals. The meals range between 460 and 520 calories with 0g of added sugars.

FatBoy Ice Cream Gets Bigger

“Kanzen Meal is well ahead of other brands, especially with the increase in GLP-1 usage,” said CEO Robert Little.

Casper’s Ice Cream grows its FatBoy novelties line with two stick items and two sandwiches. The latter are made with a generous slab of FatBoy vanilla ice cream. The cinnamon churro variety includes a smooth caramel core and is sandwiched between two cinnamon-packed churro cookies. The hot fudge brownie option is loaded with a core of hot fudge and packed between two chewy chocolate brownies.

The stick novelties start with one of the brand’s ice cream sandwiches, either a whole FatBoy mint ice cream sandwich dipped in chocolatey coating and smothered in crunchy cookie crumbles or a whole FatBoy birthday cake ice cream sandwich dipped in smooth white frosting and coated in crunchy party sprinkles. Both the ice cream sandwiches (six packs) and sandwich pops (four packs) have a suggested retail price of $5.99 per package.

Dairy-Free Protein Shakes

BellRing Brands Inc. is entering the ready-to-drink dairy alternative beverage space with new Premier Protein Almondmilk Non-Dairy Protein Shakes. The shelf-stable beverages come in chocolate, vanilla and coffee varieties, with the coffee option containing the caffeine equivalent of one cup of coffee. Each 11.5-oz. bottle contains 20g of plant protein, 5g of sugar and 160 calories or less. Until this launch, the company had only offered beverages and mixes made with dairy proteins under the Premier Protein and Dymatize brands.

“We know a lot of flexitarians are on a never-ending hunt for a non-dairy protein shake that meets their nutrition needs and also tastes great,” said Amy Larek, senior director of marketing.

“That’s why we set out to launch a non-dairy protein shake that could delight taste buds and excite our fans.”

ROLLOUT

Açaí and Toppings Together

Sambazon, an acronym for Sustainable Management of the Brazilian Amazon, was founded in 2000 to market organic and Fair Trade-certiﬁed açaí products. Building on the success of its original frozen smoothie bowls that include toppings like granola and coconut flakes, the company is rolling out Fruit & Granola Topped Smoothie & Açaí Bowls.

These pre-topped frozen bowls were designed for consumers who crave convenience without compromising on the smoothie bowl experience. Each 6.1-oz., single-serve frozen bowl requires no prep; simply thaw and enjoy. The no-sugar-added bowls come in three varieties: Açaí Berry Blend with strawberry, blueberry, coconut and granola toppings; Açaí Raspberry Blend with diced strawberry, chocolate and granola toppings; and Mango Dragon Fruit Blend with diced mango, pineapple and granola toppings.

Value-Added Buns and Bagels

Just in time for grilling season, Ball Park Buns, a Bimbo Bakeries USA brand, adds Ball Park Butter Buns to its lineup. The buns feature a rich, buttery flavor and are designed to hold up to juicy burgers — even double and triple stacks — as well as loaded hot dogs, brats or other sausages.

Six-Ingredient Protein Bars

Today’s consumers have high expectations when it comes to their snacks. They want protein that powers them throughout the day without a long list of ingredients, artiﬁcial sweeteners or a chalky aftertaste. They also want snacks that offer unique flavors and taste good.

While this may seem like a tall order, RxBar, a brand from Kellanova that is known for its use of simple ingredients, is stepping up with an innovation that delivers on both function and flavor, according to the company. The new RxBar High Protein line was developed through extensive consumer conversations and testing to answer the call for a simpler, better-tasting high-protein bar. With 18g of protein, just six recognizable ingredients and a creamy, satisfying texture, it’s a bar made to support strength. It’s also glutenfree, plant-based and naturally sweetened with organic agave nectar. The initial launch is in two flavors: strawberry peanut butter and vanilla peanut butter.

For busy mornings once backto-school is in full swing, there’s new Thomas’ High Protein Bagels in two classic varieties: everything and plain. The presliced bagels made their debut in the Northeast with national retail distribution by October. A four-pack has a suggested retail price of $5.99. The plant-based protein blend of soy protein isolate, pea protein isolate and fava bean protein ensures a complete amino acid profile, with one bagel containing 20g of protein.

“We set out to create a protein-forward product that ﬁts into real life—whether you’re topping it with cream cheese, eggs or avocado. It’s versatile, satisfying and designed with wellness in mind,” said Nicole Alper, innovation manager.

Written by Dave Fusaro EDITOR IN CHIEF

2024 was a great year for poultry and most animal proteins, just so-so for most other food and beverage categories.

In the aggregate, the 100 companies on that chart totaled nearly $648 billion in sales, up 1.3% from their 2023 sales (so…meh).

Only ﬁve recorded net losses – that’s the fewest in at least three years.

Of course, all is not rainbows and roses these days in the food & beverage industry.

f you add up the columns on our Top 100© chart, the numbers say 2024 was a fair-to-good year for the food & beverage industry. Not great – unless you were in the meat & poultry or egg businesses.

Looking at the 100 companies on the table on pp24-25, sales in 2024 (or the most recent ﬁscal year available) increased at least 5% for 28 of them. Only 15 saw decreases that big. Net income was more of a wash: up for 22, down for 19.

The top 20 companies saw their combined market share slip from 42% in 2018 to below 40% last year due to competition from smaller premium brands and private-label products, according to a July article in The Economist. “Ultraprocessed” seems to be on everybody’s lips, and not in a good way. The Trump administration and the Make America Healthy Again movement are forcing processors to reformulate and/or adhere to new regulatory standards. And don't forget tariffs.

The vitality and relevance of some of the industry’s oldest companies and brands looks shaky. WK Kellogg Co and Kellanova didn’t survive long on their own after splitting Kellogg Co. – the former being acquired by Ferrero, the latter by Mars. Ice cream is already gone from Nestle, and that business is being split off from Unilever as we speak. Is Kraft Heinz really considering a breakup?

All that is the backdrop for our Top 100 ©, our annual look at the ﬁnancial health of the food & beverage industry. It starts with all the numbers and the ranking on that chart on the following pages, all of which is based on value-added food and beverage products only, made in U.S. and Canadian plants.

Every food or beverage processor’s story is different, of course, but as long as we have the numbers handy, let’s look at trends and some of the big winners and losers.

Winners and losers

The biggest increase in dollars went to CalMaine Foods. Remember how eggs hit record prices early this year? The ﬁnances at the country’s biggest egg marketer set records, too. Cal-Maine’s sales nearly doubled in a single year, up nearly $2 billion. Net income was even more dramatic: It more than quadrupled to more than $1.2 billion. That’s nearly a 29% proﬁt margin!

“The higher net sales were primarily driven by an increase in the net average selling price of shell eggs and also reflected higher volumes sold,” the company said in its yearend ﬁnancial report, which just came out July 22 (its ﬁscal year ends May 31). “The higher market prices were a direct result of the reduced supply of shell eggs … due to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza during a period of high demand for eggs and egg products around the Easter holiday.”

We’re not implying any connection, but Cal-Maine revealed in its third quarter report it’s being investigated by the Dept. of Justice in connection with antitrust or anticompetitive conduct.

ALPHABETIC

Top 100 List

11PepsiCo Inc. 55,20055,64191,8549,5789,074

22Tyson Foods Inc. (10/2/24)50,95650,36653,309822(-649)

43Nestle (U.S. & Canada)28,048

55Kraft Heinz Co.19,54320,12625,8462,7462,846

67Coca-Cola Co.18,64916,77447,06110,63110,714

76General Mills Inc. (5/25/25)16,70017,10819,4872,3002,519 810Mars Inc.

99Cargill Inc. (5/31/24)

108Anheuser-Busch InBev14,65515,07259,7685,855 D 5,341 D

1111Smithﬁeld Foods Inc.13,67114,08114,14297023 1223Keurig Dr Pepper13,29812,89215,3511,4412,181 1314National Beef Packing Co.12,37211,94912,372552793 1412Hormel Foods Corp. (10/27/24)11,92112,11011,921805793 1513Conagra Brands Inc. (5/25/25)11,61312,05111,6131,152347 1615Mondelez International10,91011,07836,4414,6114,959 1718Pilgrim’s Pride 10,63010,02817,8781,087322 1817Hershey Co.10,25410,21611,2022,2211,862 1919Lactalis American Group10,0009,45031,559NANA 2021Saputo Inc. (3/31/25)9,7199,39913,309(-123) 196 2122Campbell Soup Co. (7/28/24)9,6369,3579,636567858 2216Bimbo Bakeries (U.S. & Canada)9,255 C 10,737 C

2320Molson Coors Co.9,2409,42511,6271,158956

Top 100 List

K Kellogg Co2,7082,7632,70872110 6460Trident Seafoods Corp.2,6002,6002,600NA-PrivateNA-Private 6564Mountaire Farms2,4002,3002,400NA-PrivateNA-Private

65Schreiber Foods Inc. 2,4002,3007,000NA-PrivateNA-Private 6762Lindt & Sprungli*2,380 C 2,386 C 6,054 C 743 C 759 C 6866Dreyer's/Froneri*2,231

Corp.2,0551,8189,10020(-455)

72J. R. Simplot Co. (8/31/24)2,0002,00011,000NA-PrivateNA-Private 7574Brown-Forman Corp. (4/30/25)1,9681,8894,2287831,024 7669B&G Foods1,9332,0621,933(-251)(-66)

LLC1,8832,0251,88371166

Colony Corp. (6/30/24) 1,8721,8231,872159111 7976Leprino Foods Co. 1,8001,8003,600NA-PrivateNA-Private 83Reser's Fine Foods 1,8001,8001,800NA-PrivateNA-Private 8180Sargento Foods Inc. (6/30/24)1,7001,7001,700NA-PrivateNA-Private

8386Triumph Foods1,6001,5001,600NA-PrivateNA-Private

8485Seneca Foods Inc. (3/31/25)1,5791,4591,5794163

8582J&J Snack Foods (9/30/24)1,5751,5591,575118110 8688Monogram Foods1,5001,3701,500NA(-67) 8787Utz1,4091,4381,40931(-40)

8883McKee Foods Corp. 1,4001,5001,400NA-PrivateNA-Private 89NRAjinomoto1,3001,20010,600NA-PrivateNA-Private 9044Suntory Global Spirits1,2371,22510,7741,0181,005

9192National Beverage Corp. (5/3/25)1,2011,1921,201187177

9289American Crystal Sugar Co. (8/31/24)1,200

Coca-Cola Co. also did splendidly. Its total global sales in 2024 increased by $1.3 billion, about 3%, and North American sales – that’s what we count – rose by nearly $1.9 billion, buoyed by a 1% increase in volume but, more importantly, a 10% increase in “price, product and geographic mix.” Net income, however, dipped ever so slightly.

The second biggest percentage increase, at least among the bigger companies, belongs to poultry processor Wayne-Sanderson Farms – up $1.3 billion in sales, a 17.5% jump. The company has been on a roller-coaster since the 2022 merger of the former Wayne Farms and Sanderson Farms. Sales were even higher that ﬁrst year ($8.8 billion), then dipped in 2023, which was an awful year for all poultry companies. 2024 was a good year for all the poultry ﬁrms.

Kevin McDaniel, president/ CEO of Wayne-Sanderson Farms, explained: “Several factors paved the way for a successful year for Wayne-Sanderson Farms. Most importantly, we are fully realizing the synergies that were the justiﬁcation for the acquisition and merger of Sanderson Farms, and combining the two companies expanded our presence and capabilities across our B2B and retail business segments. Market conditions were right for solid growth

In the aggregate, the 100 companies totaled nearly $648 billion in sales, up 1.3%. Only ﬁve recorded net losses – that’s the fewest in at least three years.

as well. With beef prices soaring and availability suffering, we saw high demand for chicken as a more affordable protein from both retail consumers and restaurant/food service customers — and we’re still seeing that today."

Indeed, sales were up for other chicken companies Pilgrim’s Pride and Perdue Foods – as well as those selling other animal proteins (Tyson, JBS, National Beef, OSI Group).

But not so much for pork processor Smithﬁeld Foods.

2024 was an average year for pork supply and pricing, but Smithﬁeld exited California because of “high taxes, high utility costs and a challenging regulatory environment,” and made other divestments to ready itself for an initial public offering of its stock. On Jan. 29 of this year, the company sold 7% of its stock back into the public market, with the remainder being held by Chinese ﬁrm WH Group.

Some companies went both ways. Conagra recorded its second consecutive year of shrinkage, with sales down 3.6%, but its net income more than tripled to nearly $1.2 billion.

Going in the opposite direction, beer and spirits maker Constellation

Much More on the Web

Brands enjoyed a slight sales increase but net income reversed from a $1.7 billion proﬁt in 2023 to an $81 million loss in 2024, mostly due to the write-down of its investment in Canadian cannabis company Canopy Growth, as well as some divestments.

Post Holdings almost made the billion-dollar-sales-increase club (+$900 million) thanks to higher sales within its Consumer Brands and Weetabix segments.

All of Nestle SA had a down year, and its U.S. and Canadian operations were no different, with sales declining nearly $3 billion. Similarly, Bimbo Bakeries USA was a drag on its Mexican parent, with revenues down $1.5 billion.

As we said, five companies reported red ink: B&G Foods (its third loss in a row), Constellation Brands, Hain Celestial Group (second in a row), J.M. Smucker and Saputo. Smucker’s was quite a reversal, from a $744 million profit in its fiscal 2024 (its fiscal year ends April 30) to a $1.23 billion loss for FY25.

On the other hand, Froneri, the Nestle-PAI Partners ice cream joint venture that does business in the U.S. as Dreyer’s, reversed $52 million in red ink in 2023 with a $357

This magazine report is just the tip of a very big iceberg. We have a remarkable database at www.FoodProcessing.com/top100/2025, where you’ll see the same table you saw on pp24-25, but if you click on a company name you’ll get that company’s business proﬁle, including headquarters, top executives, subsidiaries, even brands, and in most cases their manufacturing plants. Bookmark this great research tool.

million proﬁt in 2024. Maple Leaf had two consecutive years of red ink until 2024. So did Utz Foods. Seaboard went from minus-$455 million to plus-$2 million.

As we said, 2023 was a tough one for meat & poultry companies. JBS had a loss in 2023, but came roaring back with nearly $2 billion in proﬁt in 2024. Tyson was $649 million in the red in 2023, $822 in the black last year.

Comings & goings

Every year we update and ﬁnetune the chart. Tropicana Brands Group has eluded us since its spinoff from PepsiCo, but this year we added it to the table at $3 billion. Ajinomoto, known mostly for its soy sauce and as an ingredient supplier, has been building up a prepared foods business in the U.S., and they tell us its sales are $1.3 billion.

We were able to get a clearer picture of Shamrock Foods’ dairy business, so even after subtracting its food distribution, it joins our list. Sugar Creek, which just slipped off the chart last year, is back.

Kellanova and WK Kellogg Co are still on our list, but they’ll be gone next year. We had to remove Del Monte Paciﬁc Ltd., a Singapore holding company, because it’s “deconsolidating” and “derecognizing” its American subsidiary, which ﬁled for bankruptcy protection on July 1 and is seeking a new owner.

One qualiﬁer about the list: Foreign exchange has been particularly volatile the past year, so some foreign-based companies that appear to have decreases in sales or proﬁts in U.S. dollars may have had increases in their local

TOP 100

currency. For example, one euro on Dec. 31, 2024 bought $1.04; on Dec. 31 of 2023 a euro was worth $1.10. Wherever possible, we’ve flagged those companies with an

asterisk (*). For companies that don’t report in U.S. dollars, we do the currency conversion based on the rate on Dec. 31, 2024 or the last day of their ﬁscal year.

54TH ANNUAL R&D SURVEY

THIS YEAR'S PRIORITIES: REMOVE SUGAR, REPLACE COLORS

This looks like a normal year of progress for product development professionals. But there’s an undercurrent of frustration, plus pressure to offset ingredient costs.

Written by Dave Fusaro

EDITOR IN CHIEF

rom the looks of our 54th annual R&D survey, everything’s hunkydory in the product development side of the food & beverage industry. R&D budgets are sufﬁciently funded, ingredient costs have returned to normal price increases and most product developers are “swinging for the fences,” developing truly novel products.

Not everybody agrees, however. Nearly half of the 223 respondents to our survey are tasked this year with less-than-glamorous things: cleaning up current products (21%), safely extending product lines (14%) or working on cost control (10%).

More on the Web

This is our 54th annual R&D Survey. The survey was online from midFebruary through mid-May. There were 223 responses primarily from product developers at companies of all sizes and in all categories of the food & beverage industry. Here in the magazine, we could ﬁt only six of the 13 infographics, but you can see them all in a pretty PDF downloadable at http://bit.ly/46KbIrN.

Removing sugar (37%) and replacing synthetic colors (35%) were the top ingredients getting attention this year, both for the wrong reasons, and just over half (53%) of respondents are looking to replace the color additives being discussed for bans.

About those colorants, perhaps the most hotly debated product development issue this year: “I saw this coming a mile away and always advocated to not use things that were already banned in EU,” wrote one respondent. “Actually, glad to see it,” wrote another about the replacements underway now at companies such as General Mills, Kraft Heinz, Nestle USA, Conagra, J.M. Smucker and Hershey.

While R&D budgets funded “about the same as last year” remained the top answer to that question, as it seemingly has forever, this year’s 32% vote was the smallest plurality in at least 11 years; most years it hovers between 40% and 50%. Most of the missing responses defected to the “It’s been cut” answer, up 10 points from last year. The only time the “cut” answer has been this high was 2021 (22%); most years it’s been in the midto low teens. “It’s been increased” may have dropped 10 percentage points but last year’s number (32%) was unusually high.

Cocoa, eggs and coffee are the ingredients whose prices shot up the most in the past year, at least for the 72 respondents who took the time to specify the commodities they’re wrestling with. Several mentioned palm oil.

54TH ANNUAL R&D SURVEY

This survey was taken from mid-February through mid-May, so some of those ingredient prices have abated since then and the effect of Trump’s tariffs was uncertain for most of the survey period.

“Bought more stock before the tariffs were in place,” wrote one product developer. Several said they were looking for U.S. sources of formerly imported ingredients.

Cost control on the mind

Despite it not scoring highly in our opening question on priorities, cost control came up often, especially in write-in embellishments to some questions.

The biggest cohort – 46% – said ingredient costs have risen 5-25% in the past year; 35% said they’re up 26-50% and 6.8% said they increased more than 50%. 12% said ingredients are costing about the same as in previous years. One lone vote – which doesn’t even account for a half-percent – said “believe it or not, they’ve gone down for us.”

Several respondents said they were reformulating to reduce costs: “Reformulating items, leading to ‘cost-neutral’ end state for company and customers.” Others mentioned a conscious effort to develop co-products as a way to offset input costs. One said she was “developing conventional formulas in place of what would have been organic.”

Other ways of controlling costs:

→ “Looking to move away from palm oil; as for cocoa, looking to use flavors and reduce the percentage of cocoa used in a formula,” wrote a woman at a bakery.

→ “Emphasizing fudge flavors that use less or no chocolate.”

→ Which of the following targets will be the most important for your R&D efforts this year?

"Really new" products 33% (2024 48%, 2023 34%, 2022 33%)

Existing product improvement 19% (2024 22%, 2023 19%, 2022 15%)

Product line extensions 14% (2024 6.1%, 2023 17%, 2022 17%)

Cost control 10% (2024 9.2%, 2023 16%, 2022 22%))

"Cleaning up" current products 21% (2024 12%, 2023 9.7%, 2022 19%)

→ What ingredients will you be working most on this year?

Removing sugars (2024 26%, 2023 39%, 2022 32%)

Replacing synthetic colors (2024 32%, 2023 14%, 2022 18%)

Removing allergens (2024 16%, 2023 16%, 2022 NA)

Removing sodium (2024 17%, 2023 21%, 2022 26%)

Adding fruits & vegetables (2024 23%, 2023 20%, 2022 19%)

Removing GMO/BE ingredients (2024 20%, 2023 13%, 2022 25%)

Adding ﬁber (2024 17%, 2023 21%, 2022 17%)

Adding vitamins (2024 16%, 2023 12%, 2022 12%)

Removing saturated fat (2024 21%, 2023 9.7%, 2022 11%)

Replacing reﬁned with whole grains (2024 23%, 2023 8.0%, 2022 14%)

Other answers: Improving flavor & shelf life, Removing seed oils, Adding protein, Removing lactose, Replacing Chinese suppliers, PFAS and heavy metal reduction

→ Are you looking for replacements for the color additives being banned?

Yes 53%

No 47%

→ How much have your ingredient costs gone up over the past year?

More than 50% 6.8% (2024 12%, 2023 6.3%)

26-50% 35% (2024 25%, 2023 32%)

5-25% 46% (2024 51%, 2023 57%)

They’re about the same 12% (2024 12%, 2023 5.1%)

→ How involved are the following titles/departments in setting your product development goals?

→ What's happened to your R&D dept.'s budget this year?

It’s about the same as last year 32% (2024 52%, 2023 45%, 2022 54%)

It’s been increased 22% (2024 32%, 2023 22%, 2022 20%)

It’s been cut 21% (2024 11%, 2023 15%, 2022 12%)

Don’t know 25%

→ “We keep shrinking the pack sizes to be able to deliver value, but at some point consumers are going to get annoyed with that strategy,” wrote a product developer at one of the biggest U.S. food processors.

Concern about what consumers think of the food & beverage industry showed up in several ways, from the obvious worries about passing along cost increases to musings on ultraprocessed foods, questionable ingredients and general transparency.

Just over half are worried about reformulating without the ingredients being banned by some states or talked about at the federal level – ingredients such as the six petroleum-based colors, as well as (we speciﬁcally named) titanium dioxide, brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate and propylparaben.

It's a team sport

Keeping in mind we get responses from companies of all sizes, 69% said they have a formal product development team – that’s 15 points lower than last year but not an historical anomaly. Not surprisingly, R&D has the highest influence on setting product development goals, the case at 79% of respondents, although marketing is not far behind at 64%.

It’s worth noting that in about half of the responses, management and plant operations members are “very involved” in setting product development goals.

For those who have teams, 39% said the group meets weekly or more often – that’s 12 points lower than last year and historically low. 24% said they talk a couple times a month.

It’s difﬁcult to draw any conclusions about how long it takes to launch a new product. 18% said they can get a new product out in three

months (that’s a historical high); 34% said six months; “nearly a year” dropped 12 points from 2024 but 13-23 months increased 11 points.

Most product ideas from this year’s group come from internal research (66%); general market research (58%) traditionally has gotten the highest response. Research provided by suppliers surged this year, to 53%; it’s traditionally garnered 20-40% of the vote. After being halved last year from our 2023 survey, focus groups jumped back up this year, to 35%.

In a ﬁnal open-ended question, several mentioned trying to come to grips with what makes a product ultraprocessed. Several said they were working on ways to lessen the “processing,” primarily by avoiding ostracized ingredients. Other concerns written in:

→ Impact of tariffs

→ Sugar reduction

→ Finding experienced R&D staff

→ A handful mentioned removing seed oils; one speciﬁcally moved to beef tallow

We’ll give the ﬁnal word to this product developer:

“We’re increasing transparency in labeling so consumers can make informed choices about what they put in their bodies. I hope companies are listening to informed consumers. There is increasing awareness that many foods contain harmful ingredients that contribute to chronic diseases. Consumers are looking for truly natural, whole-food-based products without artiﬁcial additives, seed oils or excess sugars. I encourage brands to consider feedback from health-conscious buyers when developing new products.”

Amen.

R&D TEAMS OF THE YEAR

CAMPBELL’S V8 TEAM: KEEPING A 92-YEAR-OLD JUICED UP

With huge brand awareness, trust and a health halo, V8 has been extended into fruit blends, energy drinks, even powdered mixes.

Written by Dave Fusaro

EDITOR IN CHIEF

How do you keep a 92-year-old vital? Maybe even trendy?

Somehow, the V8 product development team at Campbell’s Co. has done just that, moving the iconic vegetable juice into veggie-fruit blends, canned energy drinks and, most recently, energy drink mixes.

That’s a lot of innovation for a 92-year-old … which makes Campbell’s V8 group one of our R&D Teams of the Year, garnering the most votes in the large-company category. Kudos to our runners-up in that category, who made it a close race: Tyson Foods and Grupo Jumex’s Odwalla beverage team.

V8 had a lot going for it. “The product has 97% brand awareness. It’s a trusted brand. It’s perceived as healthy, natural, nutritious,” says Amit Pal, director of R&D-beverage at Campbell’s. In 17 years at Campbell’s, he’s been devoted to the V8 brand the past ﬁve years.

For 17 years now, Food Processing has asked food & beverage companies to nominate their research & development groups for our annual R&D Teams of the Year competition. This year, 1,112 readers and website visitors read their 150-word essays and elected as winners:

• Campbell’s V8 team in the large category (more than $751 million in sales).

Runners-up were Tyson Foods and Grupo Jumex’s Odwalla team.

• Dole Packaged Foods in the medium category ($100-750 million sales).

Runners-up were Caliﬁa Farms, Lifeway Foods and Rubix Foods.

• Bitchin’ Sauce in the small category (less than $100 million sales). Second place goes to Beleaf Vegan.

“The brand had been quiet on innovation for a very long time,” he says. “But you can see what has come out in recent years. And with new flavors and formats, we’re just getting started.”

V8 was founded in 1933 by William G. Peacock to provide affordable vegetable nutrition during the Great Depression. Originally called Vege-min, Peacock renamed it V8 Cocktail Juice in 1947. Campbell Soup Co. acquired the brand a year later.

Peacock created a unique blend of eight vegetables: tomatoes, celery, beets, carrots, lettuce, spinach, watercress and parsley. The same eight vegetables are in each glass of V8 Original today. The brand accounted for more than 1.6 billion servings of vegetables and more than 1.7 billion combined servings of veggies and fruit last year alone.

Today’s V8 is much more than that. The recent innovations “recognize that consumers are evolving their needs, also their drinking moments,” says Pal.

“We now have Blends, a fruit and vegetable mix, which takes the flavor to the sweeter side and still delivers a full serving of vegetables and at least a half serving of fruit. Followed by V8 Energy, which has been a rock star for us. It lets us play a unique role in the ‘better for you’ energy drinks segment as it contains a single serving of vegetables.”

While V8 Energy has been in the market since May 2011, powdered V8 Energy drink mixes were just launched this summer. While the liquid juices are an evolution of the original product – which remains a solid seller – the powdered energy drinks were a bold development, Pal says.

“It’s unique in the sense that it delivers steady energy & supports focus in delicious, fruit-forward flavors. It contains 80mg of caffeine from black and green tea, is an excellent source of B vitamins and has no added sugar.”

The energy drink mixes are offered in strawberry lemonade, pomegranate blueberry and peach mango. Consumers can choose how to use the drink mixes, which are single-serve stick packs sold in 10-count cartons. They can add one to a water bottle or a glass of water.

The V8 portfolio also has seen innovative flavor expansions, including additions such as Spicy Chipotle and Hot Honey in the V8 Original line; Deliciously Green, strawberry banana, mixed berry acai and peach mango in Blends; pomegranate blueberry and Tropical Passionfruit Orange Guava in the Energy line.

There’s even a V8 Grillo’s Dill Pickle Bloody Mary Mix. And just this month they launched V8 Pineapple Jalapeno, delivering “the sweetness of pineapple with the heat of jalapeno.”

Pal is proud of last year’s launch of V8 Grillo’s Dill Pickle Bloody Mary Mix. V8 already had a

The V8 R&D Team from Campbell's Co.; that's Amit Pal, Director of R&D-Beverage, front row left.

R&D TEAMS OF THE YEAR

bloody mary mix, but, “as we were scouting emerging trends using AI tools to analyze social media and restaurant and bar menu mentions, we identiﬁed consumers were adding pickle to their bloody mary drinks at home. It was a great way to extend the product and flavor.

“Reaching new consumers and occasions has inspired our innovation and portfolio expansion,” Pal says, “new demographics, new age groups, new functions.”

The V8 R&D team is made up of 12 members — including food scientists, process and packaging engineers, sensory specialists and chefs — who refer to themselves as product designers. Their backgrounds are in food science, nutrition or several disciplines of engineering. “We also get to leverage other functions and assets of Campbell’s full R&D team with expertise in ingredients, flavors, regulatory, nutrition and process safety,” says Pal.

A dedicated beverage development lab — aptly named the “Sip Lab” — is housed at Campbell’s headquarters in Camden, N.J. So is a pilot facility.

“We draw inspiration from various sources, starting with the consumer,” Pal continues. “What need or demand of theirs are we trying to solve for them? The right science and the right consumer insights, when they are married together, that’s where the magic happens.”

The V8 team uses a stage gate process, “but I think essential in this process is the pre-work we do to stay immersed in the world of beverage — from trend treks to competition analysis, something we call ‘Mind the gap’ tastings we hold as we see new and interesting products hit the market globally and begin developing flavor banks.

“Once a project is gated, we leverage trend-based flavor bank ideas, technical scouting or vendor partners to kickstart the development.” Ingredient suppliers, contract manufacturers and packaging suppliers are consulted along the way.

While Campbell’s does use some contract manufacturers, most of the V8 products are made in the same plant that came with the V8 acquisition: Campbell’s Napoleon, Ohio, facility.

“Being recognized with an award like this means a lot to our team,” Pal says. “We’re passionate about our products, and I think this R&D team of beverage enthusiasts has the talent to keep this innovation engine going.”

Self-Contained Exhaust Filtration System Eliminates Grease and Particulate Build-Up

Demister XL

Keep your fryer room free from smoke and your roof free of grease and particulate.

Food processors using ovens and fryers to cook their product often encounter signiﬁcant maintenance and housekeeping issues with grease and particulate carryover in the exhaust stream. This is a signiﬁcant issue in heavy breading applications.

Demister XL Exhaust Filtration System features:

• No moving components in the exhaust stream

• Easy to maintain and clean

• 3-stage ﬁltration system

- Knockdown/Velocity Reduction

- Wet Scrubber

- Demister Pad Filters

• Periodic ﬁlter rinsing while in production

• Water Recirculation System reduces water consumption and operating costs

• 99% efficient for particles 5 micron and greater

• 80% efficient for 3 micron particulate

INGREDIENTS

Functional ﬁber blends

FibRefine 3.0 and Organic FibRefine 3.5 are two ingredient solutions that maximize fiber content and minimize the risk of gastrointestinal discomfort. These blends use a trio of carefully selected and optimally proportioned fibers that metabolize and ferment at different rates, which allows manufacturers to add up to 15g of fiber per serving without triggering gastrointestinal distress that can occur with single-fiber formulations. They are roughly 30% as sweet as sugar and complement clean label natural sweeteners, making them suitable for sugar reduction.

Icon Foods; Portland, Ore. 310-455-9876; www.iconfoods.com

Natural blue dye

Blue spirulina-based syrups and powders can replace artiﬁcial dyes across various food and beverage applications. This patented and trademarked process creates one of the purest commercially available blue spirulinas with improved low pH and heat stability. This means opportunities for mainstream blue food, notorious for being the hardest to replicate naturally, across categories.

Rich colors for savory recipes

Class III and IV caramel colors are the preferred choice in a variety of savory sauce and seasoning applications. Class III products are chosen for their salt stability and tan to brown color spectrum, particularly in soy sauce and gravy bases, while class IV products are widely used for their acid stability and versatility, especially for sauces and seasoning mixes. With a diverse color palette of light tans, deep reddish-browns, dark browns and black, these caramel colors offer excellent functionality and reliability.

FUL Foods; Amsterdam, Netherlands www.fulfoods.com

We have the

Sethness Roquette; Rosemont, Ill. 888-772-1880; www.sethness-roquette.com

Key Technology’s optical sorters combine intelligent technology with intuitive operation, taking food sorting to the next level.

Our systems maximize product yield, cut maintenance costs, simplify sanitation, and deliver actionable performance data to optimize your production process.

It’s never been easier to maximize your RTQFWEVSWCNKV[[KGNFCPFNKPGRTQƂVUWatch our video and contact us today at info@key.net or www.key.net!

TEACHING AI TO OPS: A CONTINUOUS EDUCATION

Implementation of artiﬁcial intelligence requires initial training, but like many other innovative technologies in the food & beverage industry, it also demands constant upkeep.

Written by Andy Hanacek

SENIOR EDITOR

uch has been written about artiﬁcial intelligence (AI), its implementation into the food & beverage industry and its potential to revolutionize various parts of the processing world. Companies have already begun investing — some heavily — in AI systems to perform all sorts of tasks along the production spectrum. AI has worked its way into product formulation, M

ﬁnance and administrative departments, human resources, food safety & quality and operations. In many cases, AI is used to sort, handle and process data, and even formulate an outcome or suggestion, or present a case for change or an actionable solution.

The more AI “learns,” the better it gets. However, while AI can learn by doing, the question begs: How do food & beverage workers learn how to use AI and the information it can provide? Further, how much should companies invest in a system if their employees can’t use it or won’t because they’re not familiar with it?

Photo: Derek Chamberlain / Shutterstock AI

A culture shift

Processors know all about installing and training on new equipment and lines and in new facilities. Good operations managers and good OEMs can join together and get line workers, supervisors and maintenance teams trained and well-versed on new machinery at a rapid clip nowadays. But AI is a different story.

“The biggest challenge isn't teaching the tech, it's leading the change,” says Jill Stuber, vice president and co-founder of consultancy Catalyst Food Leaders (www.catalystfoodleaders.com). “Adopting AI is more than a systems upgrade; it's a culture shift.”

That culture change, she continues, demands a different kind of leadership. Those atop the organization chart and in charge of training and implementation need to focus on building their human skills first.

“Leaders who invest in building human skills like clarity, empathy, coaching and trust are the ones who win the race on outcomes, retention and engagement,” Stuber says.

This past May, Kellanova gave a few glimpses into how the “AI revolution” is transforming the workplace there and how the company is assisting its workforce through implementation and adoption. The announcement covered all sorts of AI and generative-AI innovations the company had begun working on, whether on the production floor, in the R&D labs or throughout the corporate ofﬁces.

Thematically, Kellanova’s tech executives highlighted the company’s strategy to champion a “test-and-learn culture,” allowing employees at any level

“ I’VE SEEN COMPANIES SPEND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS PUTTING SENSORS ON EVERYTHING THEY’VE GOT IN THE PLANT, AND THEN THIS MASSIVE AMOUNT OF DATA COMES IN AND IT DOESN’T GET ANALYZED PROPERLY.” –

to flex their curiosity, explore the new options and learn about the opportunities they offer at their own pace.

That approach has led to a good level of acceptance of the program by workers who have participated thus far, the company says — a point that is critical in the old-school landscape of the food & beverage processing industry, says Mike Smith, reliability engineering manager for Life Cycle Engineering (www.lce.com).

“To make implementation effective, we really have to focus a lot on the organizational change management aspect of it,” Smith says, “making sure that we bring them along, help them understand the beneﬁts, show them why it beneﬁts them and the company.”

Stuber agrees, saying that operators really need more than instructions. They need clarity on why the tool matters, particularly how it impacts their role and responsibilities, and what is expected of them. Still, Smith says, every person is different, and the reactions can be night-and-day different at ﬁrst.

“Some employees will push back against any big change, and you really have to show them and sell them on it,” he adds. “But some will jump right in and be 100% behind what you’re doing; that’s great, but it’s also not the norm.”

Getting maintenance employees fully engaged and understanding and then championing the AI effort can be a signiﬁcant win for the AI implementation team, Smith says.

“Once maintenance gets on board with it, they buy into it a lot, and most of them are pretty techsavvy people,” he explains. “Once they buy into it, you have a good support organization — but it will take some time to get there; it’s not instantaneous.”

Operators also would be wise to monitor the message around why the company or plant is implementing AI and the ultimate result of its use, Stuber adds.

“AI can be scary since people have heard it will replace jobs,” she says. “Leaders need to be transparent about what the tool is for and how it supports the team, and then support people through the change.”

An ongoing investment

Even after a company has implemented AI and feels as though its workforce is trained to capitalize on the efﬁciencies and opportunities, the work isn’t done. Kellanova says it is moving beyond isolated pilots of its AI initiatives and focusing on democratizing access to AI tools and investing in upskilling to “empower people to harness AI’s full potential.”

MIKE SMITH, LIFE CYCLE ENGINEERING

Stuber would give positive marks to this concept, conﬁrming that AI adoption isn’t a one-time training event.

“What really moves the needle is ongoing support, trust-building and personal connection,” she explains. “You have to reinforce learning over time, check in with people as humans, and make space for them to voice stress, confusion or ideas.”

Commitment to long-term support can be overlooked, leading to an expensive case of “buyer’s remorse” down the road, Smith says.

“I’ve seen companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars putting sensors on everything

PLANT OPERATIONS

they’ve got in the plant, and then this massive amount of data comes in and it doesn’t get analyzed properly,” he says. “They don’t have a process to take that information, turn it into a corrective work order that gets planned, scheduled and ultimately repaired. And if you don’t have those systems, you’ve just spent a lot of cash and you’re not getting anything out of it.”

And, of course, it always helps if a plant or company has an AI champion who fully understands the technology and reasoning for implementation and can give the transition a shot in the arm any time enthusiasm wanes.

“You have to have that person who is the sponsor, who kind of coaches, leads, directs and cheerleads, whatever may need to be done,” Smith says. That champion can help rally workforces that got behind the implementation, helping to maintain any traction the system may have had built up with employees and their motivation to engage and participate.

If the long-term approach matches up with the system implementation — and companies invest in further support to continue training and proper analysis of the inputs — Smith predicts those companies will see longer-term success.

TAKING MOTORS TO THE NEXT LEVEL

As the industry shifts toward predictive maintenance on its motors and drives, the components themselves continue to improve, meaning greater efﬁciency gains for food & beverage processors.

Written by Andy Hanacek

SENIOR EDITOR TECHNOLOGY

Motors and drives are the oftenunsung equipment heroes of any manufacturing facility, the components that put and keep operations in motion. Without them, a food or beverage processing plant simply cannot run.

For what seems like an eternity, operators might have taken motors for granted as a wear-and-tear, commodity-type part of the greater puzzle of manufacturing. “Electric motors may appear simple, but they are complex electromechanical systems,” says Alexander Kanaris, president of Van der Graaf (VDG), a manufacturer of drum motors (www. vandergraaf.com).

“The latest electric motor designs focus on achieving premium efﬁciency for reduction of energy cost and high-power factor. However, the main components of an electric motor have not changed. The stator, the electric motor windings and the rotor are physically the same,” he says. “What has changed are

the metallurgical composition of the core and rotor material and the electric motor windings. These changes reduce iron and copper losses, leading to higher overall efﬁciency.”

Mike Smith, reliability engineering manager for Life Cycle Engineering (www.lce. com), notes, “Almost everything in a plant is run by a motor; the vast majority of things have an electric motor driving them. But it's probably one of the least-understood pieces of equipment that you have in a plant, and it was always treated as, if it quit turning, you removed it and got another one, or took it to be rebuilt.”

He says those tactics stemmed from the fact that most operators never truly understood the inner workings of the motors and how to determine what was actually happening with each unit over time. Of course, in most food or beverage facilities, motors are on the smaller side, relatively speaking (compared to most of the rest of the manufacturing world), so they could be very easily overlooked or ignored. But that was then, and now the industry has shifted from a “run to fail” mentality to a preventive maintenance approach and onward toward predictive maintenance.

“There had been a lot more focus on preventive maintenance, but now you're really starting to see a hard shift into predictive maintenance,” Smith adds. “A lot of the food & beverage companies are doing predictive analysis — vibration, motor current analysis, etc. — to help get a better understanding of what's going on inside of the motors and drives.”

VDG motors include a sensor called GV-Therm, a bimetal temperature device that will cut the power if the motor exceeds its designed operating temperature. Optional sensors available for VDG Drum Motors include RTDs, thermistors and thermocouples, which primarily are used to sense stator and oil temperature. Sensor bearings and encoders are also available for indexing applications.

The sensors that many processors have installed on their motors are a newer technology in the past decade — an investment that has made sense based on the ﬁnancial

TECHNOLOGY

consequences of not being proactive on this technology. When a plant has to stop a processing line or shut down the facility to change out a critical motor, there are ramiﬁcations that directly impact the bottom line.

“You’ve got lost production, you've got quality issues and potential safety and environmental issues, and all of that rolls up into dollars lost,” Smith says. “Since food & beverage already runs relatively tight, anything that they can do to improve their return is good business.”

Predictive maintenance boost

Sensors on motors can detect real-time vibration, temperature and other signs of the wear and tear on that component and send that data instantly to be analyzed. Instead of having a maintenance worker walk the floor and record readings once a month or once a quarter, Smith says, operators can

get that information instantaneously. Furthermore, because of the innovation in data analytics and implementation of artiﬁcial intelligence (AI) systems, processors can get predictive analysis done on a motor or pump in near real-time.

“That gives the maintenance team a long time to prepare for any potential issues,” he explains. “These sensors help maintenance know sometimes months in advance that they have a problem developing, so they can plan and schedule the work.”

That means less unscheduled downtime, more efﬁciency and fewer quality problems. Quantifying the savings that brings, Smith adds, is the easiest way to get the attention of plant managers, engineers and other decision-makers pointed toward adopting a predictive mindset and listening to what the motors are saying about their own performance. Beyond the dollars saved, there are additional beneﬁts to the strategy.

Nearly every moving piece of equipment in a food or beverage processing plant requires a motor to put it in motion.

“The other side of it, which is a bit more intangible, is the improvement in safety and environmental,” he says, “If the equipment is not breaking down, you're not sending people out into abnormal situations to work on equipment unexpectedly.”

Having a finger on the pulse of the motors in the facility can even help create opportunities to upgrade the systems, with motor manufacturers continuing to innovate and develop more premium-efficiency motors. For production lines that are running 24/7, continuously pushing the motors to the limit, swapping out current motors for higher-efficiency models can create a big cost savings due to the reduction in energy use by the new motors.

All VDG electric motors are manufactured to IE4 (premium efﬁciency standards), says Kanaris. VDG drum motors are about 25-30% more efﬁcient than the traditional external motor and gear box that is commonly used on belt conveyors today.

The high efficiency of the VDG drum motor is due to its design, where the electric motor is inline with the gear reducer. In contrast, external motor/gearbox systems typically have the electric motor shaft positioned at a 90-degree angle to the gearbox shaft. This difference results in mechanical losses that can vary between 20% and 40%, depending on the gearbox brand.

The next steps toward further innovation revolve around motor current analysis. Smith says that sensors are available to perform that task today, but they’re not as sophisticated as needed to make a real impact.

“Maybe we'll see that improve in the next year or two, and when that happens, you're going to see a strong push in that direction,” he says. Motor current analysis is just another step toward processors truly understanding the inner workings of the motors they use in their plants — and using that data in conjunction with vibration, temperature and ultrasonics measurements will enhance that expertise.

“One bit of information can steer you in the wrong direction; you want to have multiple indications of an issue,” Smith says. “The more evidence you have, the higher conﬁdence level you have that your response plan is correct.”

Of course, without proper systems in place to retrieve, store and handle all that data, then properly produce actionable results, advances in this realm will be slowed down. Processors cannot just throw money at technology and hope it works — there is a human element as well. Smith reminds processors: “If we don't have good processes, we will not be as successful as we should be.”

With the right processes in place, he believes predictive maintenance will be a game-changer for the industry as innovation continues to push the boundaries of what is truly possible in motors and drive technology.

Motors used for the food & beverage industry are getting much more attention today as processors look to increase their efﬁciency and also predict the maintenance needed to extend their lives and minimize downtime.

Custom mixers are possible

A recently completed custom coaxial mixer, with 1,100-gallon working capacity, uses an innovative concentric-shaft conﬁguration to blend, disperse and homogenize materials by combining two synergistic agitation technologies. The agitation system consists of two independently driven components: a heavy-duty design, two-wing anchor with triangular cross-section and a pitched-blade propeller assembly. Each agitator is powered by a 15hp explosion-proof motor, with the outer agitator producing speeds up to 25rpm, while the inner shaft turns the propellers up to 191rpm. The NEMA 12 control panel has two 15hp VFDs built in with ethernet/ IP option for controlling each agitator either locally or remotely;

EQUIPMENT

plus displays for speed, amperage and percent load, an Emergency Stop button, and the appropriate safety disconnects.

Ross Mixers; Hauppauge, N.Y. 800-243-7677; www.mixers.com

High-pressure processing

The QIF 600L high-pressure processing system offers an impressive 600-litre cycle capacity, claiming to be the largest in the industry. Its vessel diameter improves load efﬁciency and accommodates more packages per cycle. Equipped with up to 12 intensiﬁers, the scalable system can meet the most demanding production needs. High-pressure processing, a non-thermal, minimal-processing technique, produces safe, preservative-free refrigerated foods and beverages. HPP inactivates foodborne pathogens to ensure product safety while maintaining freshness, taste and nutritional value.

Quintus Technologies; Lewis Center, Ohio 614-891-2732; www.quintustechnologies.com

U.S.

TEAM

VP/MARKET LEADER

Keith Larson (630) 625-1129, klarson@endeavorb2b.com

GROUP SALES DIRECTOR

Amy Loria (352) 873-4288, aloria@endeavorb2b.com

STRATEGIC ACCOUNT MANAGER

Regina Dexter (234) 224-0114, rdexter@endeavorb2b.com

STRATEGIC ACCOUNT MANAGER

Lisa Williman (205) 332-5915, lwilliman@endeavorb2b.com

STRATEGIC ACCOUNT MANAGER

Bill Rodman (216) 533-1848, brodman@endeavorb2b.com

STRATEGIC ACCOUNT MANAGER

Amy Stauffer (920) 259-4311, astauffer@endeavorb2b.com

STRATEGIC ACCOUNT MANAGER

Roland Espinosa (201)912-1112, respinosa@endeavorb2b.com

U.S. ADDRESS 1501 E. Woodﬁeld Rd, Suite 400-N, Schaumburg, IL 60173

Food Processing © (USPS 203-820 ,ISSN 0015-6523), is a registered trademark. Food Processing is published 6x annually by Endeavor Business Media, 201 N Main St 5th Floor, Fort Atkinson, WI 53538 . Periodicals postage paid at Fort Atkinson, WI and additional mailing ofﬁces. Subscription rates per year: U.S. $100.00; Canada and other international: $290.00 (payable in USA funds). Single copies are $15.00. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. We make portions of our subscriber list available to carefully screened companies that offer products and services that August be important to your work. If you do not want to receive those offers and/or information via direct mail, please let us know by contacting us at List Services Food Processing, Endeavor Business Media, 201 N Main St 5th Floor, Fort Atkinson, WI 53538. Printed in the USA.

POSTMASTER: send address changes to Food Processing, PO Box 3257, Northbrook, IL 60065-3257

SUBSCRIPTIONS: Qualiﬁed reader subscriptions are accepted from key people with managerial responsibilities for processing activities in the food industries at no charge. To change or cancel a subscription, email foodprocessing@omeda.com. Subscription rate for non-qualiﬁed U.S. subscribers is $100/yr. Single copy rate is $15.00. International rate is $290/year Airmail only. Copyright ©2025 by Endeavor Business Media. All rights reserved. The contents of this publication not be reproduced in whole or in part without consent of the copyright owner.