Across the food industry, manufacturers are being held to much stricter standards, especially by retailers. Auditors are searching for evidence of meaningful compliance.
Global Food Safety Initiatives (GFSI) standards, such as SQF, BRCGS, FSSC 22000 and Freshcare, have raised the bar over several years. Food businesses have responded by continuing to mature their systems.
As supply chains become more complex, food manufacturers are being asked by distributors and retailers to do more to prove they can deliver safe, quality products.
Natasha Bowe, the director of food safety consulting and training company, QMS Audits, sees first-hand the reactions some businesses have to the requirements.
“Our clients are looking for ways to improve their food safety, reduce their customer complaints and obviously increase their GFSI audit scores.”
Quality managers commonly redo HACCP refresher training, currently a three-year requirement under several standards, but the course material does not extend beyond HACCP.
“I see quality managers returning to do our two-hour HACCP refresher training time and time again. It’s fun and quick, but they are not learning
anything new,” Natasha said.
HACCP refresher training is not enough to cover key requirements of retailer standards such as Coles Food Manufacturing Supplier Requirements (CFMSR), and BRCGS. These have introduced food fraud, food defence and radiation into their requirements. In a direct response to this issue, Natasha said QMS Audits developed courses that focus on specific requirements in the standards.
“In our Advanced HACCP Training, we extend the number of types of hazards from five to eight, including radiation, food defence and food fraud,” Natasha said.
“We drill right down into each hazard, including the most common pathogens. This is what some retailers want to see in HACCP plans. We even do a deep dive into the impacts of drying and freezing on pathogens,” she said.
QMS Audits’ Advanced HACCP training is a two-day course that extends participants’ skills in writing and analysing HACCP plans. The workshop covers two units of competency, including FBPFSY5001 - Develop a HACCP-based food safety plan. Students have an opportunity to write up their own HACCP plan during the class.
The course is designed to follow on from QMS Audits’ popular HACCP Principles and Applications, making it Australia’s first four-day HACCP course. QMS Audits offers a bonus HACCP Refresher certificate with our two-day SQF and BRCGS training.
“We want to extend the industry’s knowledge of food and how to keep it safe, not just refresh quality managers’ ability to rattle off the seven Codex HACCP principles. We want to reward those investing in their learning and knowledge,” Natasha said.
QMS Audits is a Registered Training Organisation (RTO ID 45344), an SQFI Training Centre, a BRCGS Approved Training Partner, and a Freshcare Approved Training company. We specialise in training, consulting, auditing and recruitment for the food industry. We are always available for a chat.
Phone: 1800 404 505
Email: info@qmsaudits.com.au
Web: qmsaudits.com.au
18
Published by The Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Limited.
Editorial Coordination
Melinda Stewart | aifst@aifst.com.au
Contributors
Julie Larson Bricher, Andrew Brown, Marc Chambers, Dr Andrew Costanzo, Dr Sushil Dhital, Food Futures Institute - Murdoch University, Food Standards
Australia New Zealand, Long Huynh, Jessica Jolley, Dr Russell Keast, Dr Andreas Kiermeier, Dr Gie Liem, Natalie MacGregor, Deon Mahoney, Sharon Natoli, Dr Nenad Naumosvki, Becky Neal, Dr John Sumner, Amanda Walker, Natalee Ward.
Advertising Manager
Clive Russell | aifst@aifst.com.au
Subscriptions
AIFST | aifst@aifst.com.au
Production
Bite Communications
2023 Subscription Rates
Australia $130.00 (incl. GST); Overseas (airmail) $205.00.
Single copies (Australia) $32.50 (incl. GST); Overseas $52.00
food australia is the official journal of the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Limited (AIFST). Statements and opinions presented in the publication do not necessarily reflect the policies of AIFST nor does AIFST accept responsibility for the accuracy of such statement and opinion.
Editorial Contributions
Guidelines are available at https://www.aifst.asn.au/ food-australia-Journal
Original material published in food australia is the property of the publisher who holds the copyright and may only be published provided consent is obtained from the AIFST. Copyright © 2018 ISSN 1032-5298
AIFST Board
Chair: Mr Duncan McDonald
Non-executive directors: Ms Suz Allen, Ms Julie Cox, Dr Michael Depalo, Mr John Kavanagh, Mr Deon Mahoney, Ms Bronwyn Powell.
AIFST National Office
PO Box 780
Cherrybrook NSW 2126
Tel: +61 447 066 324
Email: aifst@aifst.com.au
Web: www.aifst.asn.au
In March, I joined the science and technology community at Science Meets Parliament 2023
This event brings together scientists, scientific societies, government, industry, and the broader community providing opportunities to elevate the visibility and understanding of STEM in Parliament and Australian Government Departments. This highlighted the importance of advocating for food science professionals and investing in food science in the agri-food sector. In her presentation at the event, Dr Cathy Foley, Australia’s Chief Scientist noted that we need to reignite curiosity for science - scientists need to be the heroes again.
Thinking about this – why are food scientists and technologists heroes? Here are just a few reasons:
• Food safety: they play a vital role in ensuring that food is safe for consumption
• Sustainability: they play a crucial role in creating sustainable food systems, innovating to reduce food waste and the environmental impact of food production
• Food security: they develop innovative ways of preserving and processing food, ensuring that all people have access to food
• Innovation: food science is a rapidly evolving field, they develop innovative products and processes that benefit consumers and industry, meeting demand for healthier, more sustainable, and convenient food options
• Nutrition and health: they work to improve the nutritional value of foods that contribute to healthy diets
• Addressing food-related challenges: using their knowledge and skills to address food-related challenges both now and into the future.
While we can celebrate our food science and technology heroes, we need to continue to advocate and champion for investment and support for food science and food scientists and technologists.
AIFST is taking up this challenge by:
• Educating others about the importance of food science
• Engaging with policymakers
• Encouraging young people to pursue careers in food science and technology
• Advocating on the importance of the profession. How are you making food science and food scientists and technologists the heroes and what can AIFST do to further support our food science and technology heroes and create our heroes of the future?
Fiona FlemingB. App Sc (Food Tech); MNutr Mgt; FAIFST; MAICD Chief Executive Officer
fiona.fleming@aifst.com.au
Consumer views on waste suggest compostable packaging will become a brand issue because consumers see waste as something to be managed largely at the point of creation, not consumption.
Compostable packaging is also a brand issue because the ACCC has signalled it might be taking action against companies using the term.
Consumers don’t see their consumption as creating the waste. For that reason, they hold the manufacturer or supplier responsible for minimising waste and making sure what remains of packaging is as close to harmless as possible.
If potential consumer dissatisfaction isn’t enough, the ACCC has compostability claims in its sights, too. FMCG companies made up more than half of the 247 companies swept by the ACCC for its 2023 report Greenwashing by businesses in Australia - findings of the ACCC’s internet sweep of environmental claims
Two of the terms the ACCC flagged as potentially misleading (thus targets for enforcement) were compostable and biodegradable. The ACCC said they are potentially misleading where the manufacturer is relying on a technical definition whereas the consumer might assume another meaning. The ACCC also suggested they might be misleading because the consumer wouldn’t realise that an industrial process was required before the ‘green’ result was achieved.
So, composting is a solution consumers are happy to embrace, but a poll of PLAY Innovation’s shopper panel found consumers are confused about compostable packaging and have limited options for disposing of it.
Becky Mead is Managing Director at PLAY Innovation. f
86% of consumers would like to see a lot more composting of food waste, packaging and containers
Only 1 in 3 consumers are sure what is compostable
Compostable packaging is more likely to be disposed of in a recycling bin than an organics bin
79% of consumers believe those who create packaging and containers should use the most sustainable processes
Professor Yasmina Sultanbawa has been appointed as the Director, Centre for Nutrition and Food Sciences, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation at the University of Queensland (UQ).
Yasmina holds a degree in Chemistry from the Institute of Chemistry (Sri Lanka), a Masters in Food Science from the University of Reading (UK), and a PhD in Food Science from the University of British Columbia (Canada).
Yasmina is an internationally recognised food scientist with more than 20 years of research experience in four countries. Her passion is to bring food science to the forefront in addressing food and nutrition security, two of the biggest challenges facing an increasing global population.
She has provided leadership in bringing together a unique combination of research areas combining process technologies and engineered delivery systems for
bioactive compounds to improve nutrition, flavour, quality and food safety. This work has provided commercially applicable solutions to address challenges and opportunities throughout the agri-food value chain.
She has worked closely with food industries and developed research partnerships through contract research with commercial entities. This approach has been highly translational in transforming industry practices for the ultimate benefit of human health. She has received $22 million in funding since joining UQ in 2010 including the ARC Industrial Transformation Training Centre for Uniquely Australian Foods.
Her work on Australian native plant foods is focused on incorporating these plants in mainstream agriculture and diet diversification, and working with First Nations communities to develop nutritious and sustainable value-added products for use in the food and beverage industry.
Yasmina’s ability to build successful partnerships with commercial outputs was recognised when her team and collaborators were awarded the coveted 2017 Business/Higher Education Round Table (BHERT) Award for Outstanding Collaboration in Community Engagement. Since 2017 she has been a board member and special series editor for scholarly publishers Elsevier, Frontiers and MDPI (Food and Nutrition).
quality and quantity measurement — work very familiar to James from his time at CSIRO.
James said, “I’m excited for the new role and the chance to be a part of a real turning point in food production. It’s not every day that you get to jump into something that could change the world.”
Eden Brew was founded in 2021 by CEO and co-founder Jim Fader who is vastly experienced in food retail and consumer goods, alongside Main Sequence Ventures, Norco Dairy Cooperative and CSIRO.
CSIRO’s flagship precision fermentation spin out, Eden Brew, has welcomed Dr James A. Broadbent to the role of Principal Analytical Chemist.
Eden Brew’s mission to put delicious, animal-free, ‘brewed’ dairy at the forefront of global food sustainability is bringing together a global team with extensive experience across precision fermentation, business entrepreneurship and food
science.
James joins the growing team with 19 years of experience in measurement science, having previously held positions in CSIRO as Senior Research Scientist and Team Leader, Applied Proteomics (2018-2023) and at SCIEX as Senior Field Applications Scientist, Proteomics (2016-2018).
He will support multiple functions in the start-up, through the application of mass spectrometry to protein
To create animal-free dairy products, Eden Brew uses the sustainable brewing technique known as precision fermentation which programs yeast to produce natureidentical dairy protein molecules.
Developing the world-first 4 protein micelle puts Eden Brew at the vanguard of this technology, producing cow-free dairy that emulates the creamy sensory experience of traditional dairy.
Dr Chris Downs is relishing his appointment as Director of the Food and Beverage Accelerator (FaBA), funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education and hosted by The University of Queensland.
The FaBA Trailblazer program is an investment to accelerate the growth of Australia’s food and beverage manufacturing sector, including growth in skilled jobs, establishing startups and growth in new value added products and ingredients.
“I welcome the opportunity to lead FaBA,” Chris said.
“It’s an important opportunity to lift investment and innovation as well as the value from innovation for the food and innovation sector in this country,” Chris said.
“Australia needs to continue to invest in value addition of food and beverage products which are then available for both domestic consumption and export into global markets. And FaBA underpins that opportunity,” Chris said.
Dr Downs has worked at the interface between science and industry as a scientist, leader and executive in the agri-food industry for more than 30 years. He is a former general manager for Crop and Food Science at the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and led the Food Program at Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO.
He has also previously held executive positions in Food Science Australia, CSIRO Food and Nutritional Sciences, CSIRO Animal, Food and Health Sciences and at the New Zealand Institute for Crop & Food Research. He is currently Director and Chair of the Institute for Food Technologists (IFT) in the US and a member of the advisory Board for High Value Nutrition in New Zealand.
Chris began his role at FaBA earlier this year and is based at The University of Queensland’s St Lucia campus.
Dr Kaye Coates, who passed away on 3rd January this year, was a highly regarded food scientist and a great friend and mentor to many in the industry.
During her 23 year career in the Victorian public service within the Victorian Department of Primary Industry, Kaye emerged as a national leader in agricultural food safety, heading the food microbiology unit based at Attwood where she lead a range of research projects that focussed on shelf life, product integrity and safety through the supply chain.
A significant achievement of this work was the establishment of an export market for Australian pork to Singapore, for which she was awarded the Batterham Memorial Award by the Australasian Pig Science Association, and the departmental Daniel McAlpine Science Excellence Award for
services to industry.
Her final role at the Department was as Program Investment Manager, managing research investment to improve product integrity, quality and food safety, providing market access for Victorian industry. She continued her contribution as a consultant after leaving the Department.
Kaye was always ready to take on a challenge – her mantra was ‘How hard can it be?’ – and she inspired her colleagues and staff to work with her to find solutions. She was warm, wickedly funny, and a role model for many female scientists.
It was typical of Kaye that she insisted the Daniel McAlpine award be conferred on the team, not her individually. Her spirit of collaboration and the generosity she displayed to all team members, no matter how junior, was illustrated in the stories that were told at the
celebration of her life. Her staff and colleagues always felt that, as she was achieving remarkable things, she was taking us with her and teaching us how.
For this, Kaye, we thank you. You will be missed.
A longer vale notice is available here https://www.aifst.asn.au/Vale-notices.
The annual ‘Recall Year in Review Report’ by GS1 Australia was released in March 2023 and reflects on activities and achievements during 2022. The comprehensive report was developed in collaboration with industry supporters and includes articles by Coles and HACCP International, as well as a look into what the future holds for product recalls in Australia and overseas.
As food safety risks continue to emerge, not only in Australia but also overseas, the likelihood of incidents involving unsafe food has increased due to the globalisation of food production and distribution.
Throughout the report, experts in the field share their insights and best practice towards achieving better product recall processes for everyone.
Experts such as Alan Edwards from the New South Wales Food Authority note that legislative changes and risk management are important to consider in the case of a recall.
“One thing that we’ve learned from previous introductions to changes in
legislation is that some businesses will unfortunately leave it to the last minute,” Mr Edwards said.
“That creates problems, as well as creating additional cost and risk, that really can be avoided with some good planning,” he said.
Similarly, Michael Smith from Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) noted that we are seeing relatively more recalls of certain products compared to a few years ago.
“These include craft beers due to the secondary fermentation, plantbased or vegan products due to undeclared milk, as well as Asian foodstuffs that have been imported,” Mr Smith said.
The report also includes input from Coles, Leah Williamson who is also co-chair of the GS1 Australia Recall Advisory Group. The publication provides insights into supply chain risks and how these can be overcome, including logistics disruptions, increased freight prices, production delays and commodity pricing.
HACCP International’s Rachel Meryment provides an overview of HACCP International certification for
equipment, materials and support services used within the food industry.
“A HACCP based food safety management system involves a hazard analysis and risk assessment of microbiological, chemical, physical, and allergen hazards that are possible in each step of food production,” Ms Meryment said.
“The risk assessment identifies which steps in the process are critical control points for eliminating or managing a food safety risk,” she said.
Other topics covered in the report include the integration of GS1 Australia’s Recall system with other solutions to make life easier, including automated reporting and a reminder that ‘recalls don’t take breaks.’ Having a solid recall process and system in place becomes an effective strategy for managing risk. Investing in a greater level of preparedness allows brand owners and manufacturers to act quickly in the event of a product safety issue –even when the world would like to be taking a break.
The report provides an extensive list of recall partners who support the objective of sharing knowledge to enhance recall best practice and ultimately improve the way that recalls are conducted. Partners include the Australian Institute of Food Science & Technology (AIFST), Crisis Shield and Foodbank.
In Australia, the most common food safety risks can be categorised as microbial, chemical, physical, and allergen.
Microbial risks are caused by the presence of harmful bacteria, viruses, or other microorganisms in food products. Chemical risks can occur when food comes into contact with harmful chemicals, such as pesticides or cleaning agents. Physical risks refer to the presence of foreign objects in food products, such as glass or metal fragments. Allergen risks can occur when food products contain allergenic ingredients that are not declared on the food label.
Food recalls in Australia are managed by FSANZ and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). When a food product is found to be potentially unsafe, a recall may be initiated to remove the product from the market. There are two types of food recalls in Australia: – mandatory and company initiated. The recall can be implemented at trade or consumer level depending on where the product is in the supply chain. Company initiated recalls are instigated by the food manufacturer or importer to remove the product from the market.
Mandatory recalls can be initiated by the State or Territory jurisdiction where the company is based. If a food product is found to be unsafe, the jurisdiction may order a mandatory recall to remove the product from the market.
Traceability refers to the ability to track a food product from its
origin to its final destination. This is important for several reasons, including identifying the source of contamination in the event of a food safety issue.
Traceability can also help to improve supply chain efficiency, by providing information on product origin, storage conditions and transport routes. This can help to reduce waste, improve product quality, and ensure timely delivery of products to consumers.
In recent years, there have been significant advancements in food traceability technologies, including the use of 2D barcodes. These technologies enable the tracking of food products throughout the supply chain, from farm to table. By implementing these technologies, food companies can improve the accuracy and speed of product tracking, reduce the risk of foodborne illness, and improve consumer confidence in the safety and quality of their products.
In the case of 2D barcodes, the expiry date and recall information can be encoded into the barcode, preventing the sale of unsafe or recalled products at point-of-sale.
Despite the benefits of food recalls and traceability, there are still challenges to be addressed. For example, not all food products are currently subject to traceability requirements, and there is a need for more standardised approaches
to tracking food products across the supply chain. There is also a need for greater collaboration and information sharing between regulatory agencies and industry stakeholders, to improve the effectiveness of food safety measures and reduce the risk of foodborne illness.
Food recalls and traceability are important tools for ensuring food safety and protecting public health. By improving the accuracy and speed of product tracking and by promoting greater collaboration and information sharing between regulatory agencies and industry stakeholders, we can improve the safety and quality of our food supply.
It is important for all stakeholders to work together to implement effective food safety measures, and to continue to innovate and improve upon existing technologies and approaches.
The GS1 Australia Recall Year in Review Report is an important resource for anyone involved in the food industry to help protect consumers and safeguard their brands’ reputation.
Download your copy of the Recall Year in Review Report here, or visit www.gs1au.org/recall.
Andrew Brown is the Business Development Manager for Service Engagement at GS1 Australia and has a wealth of knowledge regarding the product recall process and the GS1 Australia Recall system. f
Words by Deon Mahoney
January 2022 signalled the creation of the International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA). The focus of the Association is to represent companies from every segment of the global fresh produce and floral supply chain, providing industry-facing support, advocating on member interests, and fostering an engaged community of industry professionals.
IFPA is built on the legacy of the US industry bodies, United Fresh and the Produce Marketing Association (PMA) and is seen as a transformation rather than a combination. In this process, what was formerly known as PMA Australia New Zealand became the International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA ANZ).
In addition to supporting the industry in marketing, technology, and talent development, the Association has a strong focus on addressing sustainability and advancing food safety. Under the new Association, significant additional resources on food safety became available for members, the fresh produce industry, regulatory partners, and policy makers.
In Australia, IFPA actively champions and supports improvements in the safety of fresh produce. In November 2022, AIFST and IFPA jointly hosted the webinar Food safety – raw and risky to celebrate Australian Food Safety Week. The goal being to develop informed food safety leaders across the entire food industry.
In late 2022, IFPA ANZ hosted a Food Safety Summit in Canberra. Key personnel from across the fresh produce supply chain as well as regulators and researchers
met to explore challenges and strategies impacting food safety. The goal was to identify issues hampering improvements in food safety along fresh produce supply chains and to support the industry with the introduction of the Primary Production and Processing (PPP) Standards for berries, leafy vegetables and melons under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code.
Participants identified the need for ongoing development of targeted and practical food safety resources, guidance, and tools accessible by all; consideration of how such materials can be more effectively disseminated; and industry-wide conversations about organisational culture and the importance of business owners taking responsibility for their food safety programs. The Summit report is available here.
More recently, IFPA ANZ has hosted two sustainability summits (Auckland and Sydney). The summits brought together key industry personnel to explore ways to improve sustainability and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) across the fresh produce supply chain. Including how we can work as an industry to explore the uncertainties and capture opportunities. IFPA defines sustainability as the optimisation of processes and resources in order to drive social, environmental and economic benefits that leave the world a better place for future generations.
The summits identified the need to better communicate knowledge of current and emerging trends, making our sustainability and ESG issues more understandable, whilst succinctly telling our sustainability
story. There is also the need to facilitate improved access and knowledge of sustainability guidance materials, and develop tools and resources to educate on key sustainability concepts.
IFPA ANZ is also engaged in initiatives designed to improve the nutritional status of Australian and New Zealand consumers by promoting the consumption of fresh produce. Fresh fruits and vegetables are an important part of a healthy diet, and research suggests eating enough fruits and vegetables is linked to a lower risk of many chronic diseases.
As an industry association, IFPA seeks to ensure that consumers have access to safe and suitable fresh produce that has been grown and marketed in a sustainable way. In doing so, it seeks to create competent and informed leaders, who can manage the issues faced by the industry. IFPA uses an evidencebased approach in its work and actively engages with memberbased organisations such as AIFST to ensure the very best science and advice is communicated to the industry.
For further details on the role of IFPA in supporting the fresh produce sector, visit the website at www. freshproduce.com
Australia is free of foot-andmouth disease (FMD) and has strict biosecurity measures in place to maintain this status.
FMD is a highly contagious viral disease that affects cloven-hoofed animals including major food producing species such as sheep, goats, cattle and pigs. Animals infected with FMD typically develop blisters around the hooves, mouth and teats.1
The virus is shed by infected animals in all secretions and excretions including breath, saliva, urine, faeces and milk. The virus can survive in the environment for many months as well as in frozen, chilled and freeze-dried foods.
Spread can occur directly between animals, on the wind, and when items such as vehicles, clothing, people or feedstuffs contaminated with the virus contact animals susceptible to
Prepare yourself now for a possible future outbreak:
• Familiarise yourself with the biosecurity decision-makers in your jurisdiction - Animal Health Committee
• Review your tracing systems - rapid trace-forward (spread tracing) and trace-back (source tracing) will help identify the source of the disease and confine the impacts
• Products and by-products that have been adequately treated to inactivate FMD virus may not require further investigation. Have evidence that your processes effectively inactivate FMD and be aware that they may require a permit
• Factor into your food recall plan a biosecurity duty to remove FMD at-risk product from the market and know it will be subject to biosecure disposal.
infection.
Animal products contaminated with FMD are a potential source of disease spread. In any FMD outbreak in Australia, legislative control measures would be introduced to restrict the movement of potentially contaminated product to ensure that product doesn’t pose a FMD transmission risk and minimise the
risk of FMD spreading on people and items leaving facilities that process products from FMD susceptible species.
Many of our export industries depend on Australia’s FMD-free status for access to premium markets. An incursion of FMD into Australia
would close many of these markets immediately. It is estimated that a large multi-state FMD outbreak would have a direct economic impact over 10 years of around $80 billion.2
An FMD outbreak would also impact industries and communities beyond the livestock sector. Overseas outbreaks of FMD have demonstrated significant impacts on the tourism and hospitality sectors and domestic food supply chains. Despite the significant impact of FMD on many fronts, there is no threat to human health or food safety from FMD.3
Australia’s national policy in response to an incursion is to eradicate FMD and re-establish our FMD-free status in the shortest possible time, whilst minimising the social, animal welfare, environmental and economic impacts.4
Following the detection of FMD in any jurisdiction there would be an immediate, Australia-wide halt on all movements of live FMD susceptible animals for a minimum of 72 hours. This would be followed by further restrictions on the movements of animals and their products, depending on their location within declared disease control areas. The aim of this is to minimise any further spread, whilst destruction and disposal of FMD susceptible species is undertaken on infected properties to stamp out the disease.
Australia has detailed FMD response plans and arrangements in place including the Australian Veterinary Emergency Plan (AUSVETPLAN). The AUSVETPLAN FMD Response Strategy, updated in 2022, sets out the government and industry’s agreed approach that would be taken to respond to FMD if it occurred in Australia.
This strategy includes provisions for the management of animal products and by-products.
In the event of an FMD outbreak, all stakeholders in the supply chain will be affected, so all should take steps now to understand the impacts an incursion may have on their businesses, and ensure they are as informed and prepared as possible.
1. World Organisation for Animal Health (2022). “Terrestrial Manual - Chapter 3.1.8. Foot and mouth disease” https://www.woah.org/ fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/ tahm/3.01.08_FMD.pdf
2. Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2022) “Direct economic impacts of a foot-and-mouth (FMD) disease incursion in Australia, An update of ABARES 2013 estimate” https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/
research-topics/biosecurity/biosecurityeconomics/fmd-update-of-2013-estimate
3. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2021) “Animal Diseases, human health and food safety” https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/ consumer/safety/Pages/Animal-diseases,human-health-and-food-safety.aspx
4. Animal Health Australia (2022) “AUSVETPLAN Response Strategy Foot-and-mouth disease” https://animalhealthaustralia.com.au/ download/1641/
URLs
AUSVETPLAN - https://animalhealthaustralia. com.au/ausvetplan/ Animal Health Committee - https://www. agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/animal/health/ committees/ahc
Amanda Walker (BVSC/BVetBiol, MANCVS - veterinary epidemiology) is a Senior Veterinary Officer with the NSW Department of Primary Industries. f
If there was ever an ultra-mega trend spurring innovations in food science and technology, it’s sustainability. More precisely, nextlevel food production and processing technology advancements are increasingly driven by the urgent need to produce 60% more food to feed an estimated world population of 9.3 billion by 2050.
According to the World Resources Institute, to do that, new solutions to reduce agriculture’s impact on climate, ecosystems, and water and to improve efficiencies all along the food supply chain will be necessary. As José Graziano Da Silva, former director-general of the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, once noted, “We have no choice but to embark on a greener revolution.”
Food Technology editors consulted industry market research and food industry scientists and experts to discover what food technology trends have the potential to advance the development of sustainable food processing systems in 2023 and beyond. Here’s how the top three trends shake out.
Most plant-based food categories are experiencing rapid, double-digit growth, according to the Good Food Institute, driven in large part by consumer demand for foods that address health and environmental concerns. In 2020, the top three fastest-growing categories were plant-based eggs, plant-based dairy spreads, dips, sour cream, and sauces, and plant-based meat. GFI reported that among alternative proteins, plant-based milk tallied US$2.5 billion in 2020 sales, and plant-based meat had $1.4 billion in 2020 sales, growing a whopping 45% since 2019.
“The biggest food tech trend in 2023 will be higher protein,” says Eyal Afergan, cofounder and CEO, Imagindairy, noting that the trend that started in the sports nutrition world has made its way into the mainstream. “With the global awareness toward healthy nutrition, consumers are looking for higher protein content in more types of products. So, alternative proteins will continue to grow as a major ingredient in new products.”
Arlin Wasserman, founder and managing director of food strategy consultancy Changing Tastes, agrees. “Our love of protein isolates is going to evolve to protein concentrates,” he explains, “and U.S. soy may emerge the winner. The pursuit of lower carbon footprints and less processing will help our profession to realize the isolate process and its relatively large footprint is one that we can skip over in favor of eating crushed and concentrated beans, especially those bred for higher protein content.”
Whether it’s plant-based, mycoprotein, cultured meat and seafood, or edible insects, experts note that there is a pressing need for rapid development of a range of sustainable alt-protein food technologies, including precision and biomass fermentation, 3-D printing, enzymatic and molecular biology methods, and CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing.
Lou Cooperhouse, president and CEO of BlueNalu, a pioneering cellular aquaculture company, says that over the past decade there has been a shift in consumer behavior worldwide that parallels new
developments in food technology, which he believes will lead to a total transformation of the global protein supply in the decades ahead. Consumers are increasingly demanding increased transparency about the health, environmental, and ethical implications of the food they buy, he says.
“At the same time as we are seeing these consumer shifts, plant-based, fermentation, and cell-cultured technologies have been developed to enable new solutions to supplement our global food supply chain,” Cooperhouse says, noting that BlueNalu’s first commercial product will be cell-cultured bluefin tuna toro that will be marketed to premium foodservice markets worldwide.
Cooperhouse cites a 2019 research paper conducted by Kearney that projects that in 20 years’ time, only 40% of global meat consumption will come from conventional sources, while cell-cultured protein sources will be the fastest growing, and continually increasing market share. He notes that the market is starting to see the transition happening already, as global investments in cell-cultured startup companies were more than three times year-over-year from 2021 to 2020, while investment to plant-based startups declined slightly during that time.
Industry 4.0, or digital transformation, in the food and beverage processing industries has been slower to be incorporated by some sectors over the years, but the COVID-19 pandemic and labor shortages are driving new levels of adoption in manufacturing plants. The four key concepts of digital transformation–data collection and analysis, connectivity, continuous monitoring, and process optimization–offer numerous touchpoints for technology development, most notably through machine and software automation.
According to a recent report by PMMI, The Association for Packaging
and Processing, larger consumer packaged goods companies continue to automate and integrate Industry 4.0 solutions at a faster rate than small- and medium-sized operations, but smaller CPGs are investing in smart manufacturing technologies at a steady rate. The report, Automation Timeline: The Drive Toward 4.0 Connectivity in Packaging and Processing, indicates that manufacturers surveyed have been actively expanding both machine and software automation in the past five years and “there remains significant room for continued growth in the next decade.” Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) sensors and devices for more effective measurement, tracking and data collection, and artificial intelligence and machine learning to more effectively analyze data that can be used to streamline and optimize processes are among the digital transformation technologies that CPG manufacturers expect to incorporate at some level in the next few years.
In 2021, the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) CEO Champions Group on Accelerating Digital Transformation in a Post-COVID-19 World stated that Industry 4.0
• The global push for sustainable foods and food systems is driving food processing technology advances.
• Innovations in digital transformation, alternative protein, and food safety technologies are forecast to impact sustainability goals in 2023 and beyond.
• The COVID-19 pandemic, labor shortages, and customer specifications are drivers for innovations in new food technologies.
also can support a company’s sustainability initiatives. “Immense opportunity exists for enterprises that can capture the value of data to drive more sustainable solutions,” the group noted in its playbook report, Bridging Digital and Environmental Goals. “For example, it’s estimated that the value unlocked by artificial intelligence in helping design out waste for food, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems, could be up to $127 billion a year in 2030.”
The group said that digital transformation technologies and systems can reduce environmental impacts by optimizing resource use, reducing waste, and increasing energy efficiency. “The use of datasharing and tracking platforms provides both visibility and accountability–often in real time–thereby reducing environmental impacts before they are magnified,” the WEF group stated.
Paul Kafer, principal of Anabasis Technical Consulting and former head of engineering for Smithfield Foods, comments that it has been estimated that technology evolution outpaces human evolution by a factor of 1,000. However, he notes that in the near term, companies are stepping up to the challenge and choosing strategies that fit their strategic needs and are within the capabilities of their staff. The most common Industry 4.0 technologies Kafer sees food companies choosing to incorporate into their operations are automation, process integration and data collection.
“Automation is considered to address the tight labor market and to reduce costs,” Kafer says. “It has accelerated during the pandemic as companies have seen that reducing the number of employees helps mitigate close contact situations and is another driver for investment.”
He adds that the challenge of implementing Industry 4.0 technology in many older facilities is that there is not enough space to retrofit automated solutions and creating additional space adds to the investment. “However, equipment suppliers recognize this challenge and have developed innovative methods such as conveyors that can operate with tighter turns or that feature technology to help make sharper turns and reduce length,” he notes, “or robots that can case pack and palletize with one end-ofarm tool and use of mezzanines or platforms.”
Data collection and process integration are often linked with one another, Kafer adds. Equipment that can communicate from front to back of the process can pass data to help smooth out surges and prevent process upsets. Collecting this data and using analytical tools can help managers assess performance in real time and become part of a predictive maintenance approach to optimization, which will help keep the digital transformation trend top of mind for the foreseeable future.
“This technology is hard to tackle, as it demands certain skill sets, robust training, and constant focus on how the network is operating,” Kafer says. “It is well worth the effort, and facilities that have implemented
this feature of Industry 4.0 have reaped the benefits of higher profits.”
At first glance, innovative food safety technologies may not seem directly related to a food company’s sustainability initiatives, but their use can have a positive impact on a processor’s green goals while optimizing food protection systems, says Larry Keener, a certified process authority and president and CEO of International Product Safety Consultants. For example, during the pandemic, necessity mothered advances in the development of effective and safe light-based disinfection technologies, such as ultraviolet light and light-emitting diodes, he says.
“Light-based disinfection technology is a good example of how technology can simultaneously deliver on food safety and reduce environmental impact as the result of manufacturing food,” Keener explains. “UV and LED disinfection treatments require less chemical usage in food processing and environmental sanitation applications and have been shown to reduce water usage.
“The pandemic also exposed the poor air quality in food processing plants and some of these light-based technologies that were integrated with the HVAC systems were shown to effectively eliminate molds and viruses,” Keener continues. “I think these light technologies have a big future in advancing food safety, and I expect these will continue to be developed in the coming year and beyond.”
Low-energy electron beam technology (LEEB) is another food safety intervention that Keener believes will take center stage in the immediate future. LEEB is nonthermal, chemical free, water free, and does not use radioactive substances, Keener says, so it has the positive benefit of inactivating harmful pathogens and viruses without damaging the environment. One company recently received
FDA acceptance of its small production floor footprint method for generating low-energy electron beams for treating spices, which Keener believes will make the technology easier to adopt and implement into processing lines.
In terms of food safety, companies are seeking and will continue to seek technologies that allow them to monitor preventive control and quality points in food production processes more quickly, accurately, and continuously, adds Richard Stier, a consulting food scientist based in Sonoma, Calif. Stier notes that while it is up to food, beverage, and ingredient processors to ensure that the foods that they manufacture are safe, wholesome, and adhere to the company’s established quality specifications, he expects that near-term food technology advances at the processing level also will be driven by customer specifications.
“A good example of this is X-ray technology for foreign material detection, which has become faster and cheaper to use,” Stier explains. “There is a lot of interest in finding a greater potential of all materials, whether it’s glass, stones, hard plastics, or bone. Although this technology is still challenged by the size of the objects, one multinational retailer is pushing their suppliers to adopt X-ray technology, so it’s likely that we’ll see more work to improve on these systems.”
Stier also expects that in the near-term, food companies will increasingly adopt robotics or other automated systems that speed up processing and packaging operations and allow them to operate more efficiently, effectively, and with fewer staff.
“I believe we will see scanning technology coming into more operations, as well,” Stier says, noting that Campbell Soup has been doing this for several years through a brite stacking system in its warehouses. “The company adopted double scanning technology, which not only scans bar codes but also day codes that indicate product and day packed to avoid mislabeling of canned foods. If they don’t line up, they stop the line and reevaluate.”
Successfully leveraging the trends in digital transformation, alternative protein and food safety technologies will require food companies to identify opportunities for optimization within their individual processes and businesses, Keener concludes. “It’s best to decide which emerging technologies make the most sense for your business early on. That goes a long way toward achieving your goals, including sustainable production and processing, and gaining a competitive advantage.”
Julie Larson Bricher is science and technology editor, Food Technology magazine (jbricher@ift.org).
This article was originally published in Food Technology and is re-published here with the permission of IFT. f
analysis tools for your food laboratory.
All-IN-ONE SOLUTION
Combustion and pyrolysis in a single Analyser avoiding the need for external modules.
ACCURATE
EMA 502 is a flexible and robust Analyser, designed for superior reliability with high performance and accuracy.
VERSATILE
Seamlessly choose between Helium and Argon as carrier gas without hardware modifications.
FAST
NDA 702 produces N/Protein results in just 3 to 4 minutes totally unsupervised and cloud-enabled.
ROBUST AND FLEXIBLE
Fully automatic determination of TC, TOC and TIC (after acidification), TN and Carbon/ Nitrogen Ratio.
PRECISE
The NDIR (Non Dispersive Infrared) detector and LoGas™ TCD (Thermal Conductivity Detector) designed by VELP, provides precision and unrivaled LOD (Limit of Detection).
For more information scan the QR code on the right to see the above elemental analysers on our website.
www.rowe.com.au
Stirring and Mixing
New South Wales & ACT Ph: (02) 9603 1205 rowensw@rowe.com.au
Queensland Ph: (07) 3376 9411 roweqld@rowe.com.au
Victoria & Tasmania Ph: (03) 9701 7077 rowevic@rowe.com.au
South Australia & NT Ph: (08) 8186 0523 rowesa@rowe.com.au
Western Australia Ph: (08) 9302 1911 rowewa@rowe.com.au
In recent years, there has been a rise in the popularity of plant-based diets within the Australian population. This is driven by consumer awareness of ethical, environmental and sustainability issues associated with the consumption of animal-based food products.
The transition from an omnivorous diet to a plant-based diet, sometimes called flexitarianism, is a critical moment for plant-based food manufacturers to capture the interest of this new consumer segment. Food manufacturers should consider this transitionary period when developing food products, as there are many plantbased food products on the market that may only cater to consumers who are already following a plant-based diet. Consideration should also be given to the distinct palates and preferences of omnivores and flexitarians.
A recent study at the Nestlé Research Center of Lausanne, Switzerland, compared the taste sensitivities of vegans and omnivores. In this study, 30 omnivorous and 24 vegan participants were recruited. Researchers assessed the participants’ ability to detect three taste qualities – sourness (citric acid), bitterness
(quinine) and umami (monosodium glutamate) – as well as astringency (tannic acid) using a forced-choice ascending concentration method.
The results showed that omnivores tended to be more sensitive to bitterness, umami and astringency, although sourness sensitivity was similar between groups. The researchers theorise that this is because plants produce many bitter and astringent compounds as defence mechanisms.
Vegans likely consume a greater quantity of plant foods and have greater exposure to these compounds, which may lead to a dulled responsiveness over time. It was not clear why vegans were more sensitive to umami, but this may be due to a greater use of flavour enhancers such as monosodium glutamate or stock cubes. It should be noted that the sample size was quite small in this study, and the results should be interpreted as such.
During development of plantbased foods, if only plant-based diet consumers are used in sensory analysis, then this may affect the taste of the final food products. The data from the above research suggests this may alienate the omnivorous segments of the market who may perceive some products as too bitter or astringent, for example.
It is recommended to include both plant-based and omnivorous dieters in the sensory testing of plant-based food products to ensure they are palatable for a wide range of consumers, including the rising flexitarian market segment.
The acceptance of plant-based meat products by consumers is crucial for the success and sustainability of these products in the food industry, and texture analysis is a critical aspect of this acceptance.
The texture of plant-based meat is affected by various factors such as the protein source, processing parameters, structure, physicochemical properties, and component-instrument interactions of the plant base. The texture of a food product can affect its overall sensory perception and, therefore, its acceptability. Consumers expect plantbased meat to have a texture similar to traditional meat products, and any deviations from this expectation can lead to a lower acceptability. Hence, improving the texture of plant-based meat is essential to make them more
appealing to consumers.
Plant-based meat products are prepared using plant proteins such as soybean and pea proteins and wheat gluten. The processing of these proteins involves the unfolding and reconstitution of protein molecules, and the formation of new chemical bonds to create fibrous structures similar to those in meat. The use of proteins with multiple origins enhances the hardness, strength and elasticity of the product, while various types of starches and fibres can improve the overall texture and sensory properties.
Food additives also play an important role in the texture and structure with guar gum, methyl cellulose, carrageenan and xanthan gum commonly added to improve thickness and consistency, reduce cooking losses and improve the texture of plant-based meat. The addition of additives like calcium alginate, microbial glutamine transaminase, apple extract and titanium dioxide provide additional adhesion and binding to plant proteins and recrosslinking internal amino acids, thereby improving the overall texture hardness and elasticity of plant-based meat.
Manufacturers also use a combination of processing techniques, such as extrusion, microfluidisation and highpressure processing, to modify the texture of plant-based meat.
Improving the texture of plantbased meat is an important aspect of their development and acceptance by consumers. Advances in technology and understanding of the structural properties of plant proteins can help in the development of more precise and scientific approaches to improving the texture.
The addition of food additives and improvements in production and processing processes can also play a crucial role in creating products with textures closer to traditional meat. Xia et al. review current knowledge on how food components and processing can influence texture of plant-based meats.
Xia Y, Qian J, Zhao Y, Zheng B, Wei K, Peng B, Yuan J, Xing C, Yan W. (2022) Effects of food components and processing parameters on plantbased meat texture formation and evaluation methods. Journal of Texture Studies. https://doi. org/10.1111/jtxs.12718
We all know the struggle of deciding whether to indulge in unhealthy foods or not. Sure, they taste delicious in the moment, but in the long run they can wreak havoc on our well-being. Researchers have come up with various strategies to help us combat this issue, but they often overlook an important factor: the anticipated enjoyment that accompanies the unhealthy behaviour.
However, a new study has found a promising solution. Instead of focusing on the long-term costs of unhealthy behaviour, such as weight gain or other health issues, researchers suggest emphasising the short-term costs, such as indigestion and sugar crashes. By doing so, we may be able to reduce our need for self-control and make it easier to resist temptation.
The study conducted seven experiments with more than 4,000 participants to test this hypothesis. The results showed that when we consider the short-term costs of unhealthy behaviour, we are more likely to avoid it. Short-term costs are realised sooner and more likely to occur, which makes them more salient and easier to associate with the act of consumption. This, in turn, reduces our anticipated enjoyment of unhealthy food.
The researchers also found that
short-term costs undermine our intentions to purchase sugary snacks when we have an enjoyment goal in mind. This effect was consistent across individuals with different backgrounds and characteristics such as BMI, age, gender, health goal strength, and perceived self-control ability.
The study suggests there is variation in how individuals naturally associate unhealthy behaviours with short-term costs. However, perceiving unhealthy behaviours as having short-term costs predicted avoidance, with no effect for longterm costs.
In summary, by emphasising the short-term costs of unhealthy behaviour, we may be able to reduce our need for self-control and make it easier to resist temptation. So next time you are tempted to reach for that sugary snack, think about how it might make you feel in the shortterm, and you may be less likely to indulge.
Stillman P, Woolley K. (2023) Undermining Desire: Reducing Unhealthy Choices by Highlighting Short-Term (vs. Long-Term) Costs, Journal of Consumer Research, ucad004. https://doi. org/10.1093/jcr/ucad004
Dr Russell Keast is Professor, Dr Gie Liem is an Associate Professor and Dr Andrew Costanzo is a Lecturer. They are all members of the CASS Food Research Centre at Deakin University. f
In December 2021, after more than five years nurturing startups to develop innovations for the food and agriculture sector, Rocket Seeder launched a new program to tackle one of the world’s most pressing environmental challenges - food waste.
The program was open to any individual, team or business with an idea that would solve food loss and waste challenges. It assisted fledgling businesses that supported the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), aligned directly to SDG 12.3, which aims to halve global per capita food loss and waste. In Australia alone, more than 7.3 million tonnes of food is wasted each year.
Fifteen startups were selected for the inaugural program.
Among the first cohort was Forkful which was developing an app to connect consumers to unsold food from local restaurants at a discounted rate. Circular Farms was also part of the program. As a company it aims to drive the adoption of circular economy practices in agriculture to create a more sustainable and resilient food system and it also has funding from Sustainability Victoria.
Another successful participant is GoMicro, which has developed technology that puts AI in the hands
of producers and retailers, enabling them to more accurately assess the state of their produce.
The four-month program included weekly sessions on business model canvas, customer discovery, funding, marketing and communications. It encouraged founders to test their ideas and develop products and services quickly in a safe environment.
The move may have seemed like a giant leap into a new sector for many, but for Rocket Seeder Managing Director Emma Coath, it was a natural, obvious progression on the path to finding solutions to food production and waste issues in Australia.
“To generate real impact, the agriculture and food production sectors need to collaborate,” Ms Coath said.
“Agriculture and food production must be considered as one continuous supply chain. We see governments still have separate departments for farming, which comes under agriculture, and food production, which is often overseen by departments of industry or innovation. This exacerbates the disconnect between supply and demand drivers, effectively restricting innovation.
“We have to merge these. It’s good
to see some headway in the private sector, and through the Federal Government with its proposed Food Strategy, but there needs to be greater collaboration within government and across industries,” she said.
Coath has been at the helm of Rocket Seeder for the past four years. Her career spans the full agrifood supply chain, having worked in agriculture, food production, exporting and government for more than 25 years.
Rocket Seeder’s headquarters are at Melbourne Connect, the University of Melbourne’s purpose-built innovation precinct. From Melbourne Connect, Ms Coath and her small, energetic team run programs that attract individuals from universities, farming, food and agtech, entrepreneurs, trades, technicians, researchers and beyond — anywhere the next brilliant innovation is brewing.
Over the past six years, Rocket Seeder has supported more than 70 startups, with more than 80% developing sustainable ongoing enterprises. Together these businesses have had a positive global effect through improving on-farm efficiencies and automation, developing supply chain innovation, expanding future foods and
minimising food waste.
“We have supported startups who are connecting consumers to surplus food, transforming prawn shells into a high-end oil product and developing a technology,” Ms Coath said.
Others are developing gamechanging technologies including a new refrigeration process that extends the shelf life of food and another that converts whole food waste into nutritious ingredients for food manufacturing.
All initiatives must focus on innovation that aligns with United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Responsible Consumption and Production, as well as Zero Hunger, Affordable and Clean Energy, Climate Action and Life on Land.
“This is not just about finding ways to reduce food waste, it’s also about food security and the ability to provide enough food to feed everyone in a sustainable manner,” she said.
Ms Coath’s focus is supporting startup founders in the early stage of their innovation journey. She has seen the time and effort it takes to develop successful businesses that will have a true impact on global challenges.
She has identified several factors that need to be addressed to help Australian agriculture reach its productivity, efficiency and sustainability goals, with increasing demand from international markets for food producers to prove their environmental credentials.
“There are clear issues with the way we produce and consume food in Australia,” Ms Coath said.
“Too much food is being produced and heading straight to landfill and ultimately not consumed. There’s too much water and energy being spent on food that is transported from the farm to the wholesaler, then to the retailer, to the home and then to landfill.
“Upcycling food will be a major part of the solution to global food waste. We need to find better ways
to reuse food that is in oversupply or out of spec. Food, for example, that is damaged through hail but still edible.
“We need more systems and infrastructure to capture the real value of food, creating a more circular system that minimises the loss and waste. We need to view this as a resource rather than a waste stream.
“Prawn oil is a good example of using what was viewed as a waste product and giving it renewed value in the system, turning by-product into a valuable commodity. There are people and institutes trying to get this moving, but we need to see more support to help commercialise their solutions,” she said.
Through her involvement with the first group of entrepreneurs in
the Food Waste and Loss program, Coath has identified areas of improvement when it comes to sourcing raw product.
“Food innovators need to understand the importance of a consistent supply of raw product. We are seeing startups developing solutions through the use of products such as seaweed and native foods, products that would appear to be in abundant supply but, in reality, aren’t available on a commercial scale.”
Ms Coath said there are several innovators looking at ways to recycle food that has passed its conventional, ideal date of use, but again supply consistency is an issue.
“These sorts of developments are growing in popularity but at the moment they remain niche solutions due to inconsistent supply – this can
Rocket Seeder Managing Director Emma Coath with Rocket Seeder Alumni, food author and broadcaster Alice Zaslavsky. Food Waste participant Sivam Krish, founder of GoMicro, which aims to put AI diagnostics in the hands of all farmers to allow for accurate assessment of seafood, fruits, vegetables and grains.be changed,” she said.
From Ms Coath’s experience, the greatest impact is made when individuals come together to share skills and competencies.
“People with different skill bases must be encouraged to work together,” Ms Coath said.
“Farmers, industrial designers, food technicians, environmental consultants and academics… they are all part of the solution. There’s knowledge out there but it needs to be coordinated. Dots need to be connected.
“Perhaps the most important collaboration is between those with the unique drive and mindset to innovate, and those behind the important research that supports development needed for real impact.
“Entrepreneurs must be matched with researchers to commercialise research and fast-track innovation. Our AgTech Seeds program has initiated this collaboration with early
signs of success.
“Developing these businesses is not as easy as many people think. But it needs to be done to line up with UN SDGs” she said.
Ms Coath understands that tackling food waste begins on farms, and Rocket Seeder’s current programAgtech Seeds - is clearly part of the solution.
AgTech Seeds is a three-month program, funded by the Victorian Government, that brings together teams of budding entrepreneurs and researchers to develop agtech solutions that respond to the needs of Victorian farmers to boost their sustainability, productivity and profitability.
The teams spend three months fast-tracking their ideas, working with researchers from universities across the State and Agriculture Victoria.
They will gain an understanding of critical skills in business model development and customer discovery, and have access to Rocket Seeder’s network.
“A key component of our programs is providing access to Rocket Seeders’ experienced network of mentors, advisors and alumni whom the group meets over the three months and beyond,” Ms Coath said.
“Participants also have access to information about how to attract next-stage funding that rewards their hard work and innovation.We believe in putting the founders at the heart of our network and support them to be bold and brave, generate ideas, prove concepts and develop prototypes and products. And then it’s time for growth,” she said.
The Agtech Seeds program is supported by LaunchVic and Agriculture Victoria. It is being delivered in partnership with Cruxes Innovation, which connects researchers to industry to build sustainable, commercially viable solutions to global challenges.
It’s currently being delivered in Victoria, and Ms Coath has bold plans to roll the program out across the country.
“Over the years we have been running our programs, we have come to understand that the next big ideas could come from anywhere,” Ms Coath said.
“There’s no single obvious source. We need to make sure everyone with an idea has the access they need, wherever they might be, to support to test their concepts.
“Get all of this right, and you create an environment that fosters innovation and collaboration for a sustainable agrifood sector. It’s not easy, but it’s the only option we have,” she said.
For more information, or to apply, visit www.rocketseeder.com. Rocket Seeder is Australia’s pre-eminent non-profit accelerator program in the agriculture and food tech sector.
Natalee Ward is a communications consultant specialising in agriculture and food production, and former editor of The Weekly Times. f
Nelson Mandela said education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.
The world of food science and technology is changing rapidly and, as an industry, we need to ensure we keep up to date with changes.
Education is a major focus for AIFST, built around our key priorities of grow, learn, connect and champion.
In today’s increasingly competitive and changing world, food scientists and technologists must stay at the cutting edge of new developments throughout their careers. It is no longer possible to rely on basic studies or on-the-job training to provide professional advice and service to our employers, customers and clients.
This means to continually improve our technical knowledge and skills we need to engage in continuing professional development (CPD). AIFST also recognises that in modern organisations, food scientists and technologists are increasingly responsible for developing their own careers. CPD allows you to enhance your future.
A CPD program reflects the professionalism of the members, improves their professional standing and enhances their employability by formalising and documenting CPD activities. It assists in keeping knowledge up to date and illustrates an ability to adapt to changing roles in the food industry and food production environment. Ensuring currency in a complex job market can be difficult and companies look for staff who bring a broad range of skills.
A continuing professional development program is an active self-planned and structured program for developing and enhancing your professional skills. Ideally, the program is designed with clear objectives, extends your professional knowledge and capabilities, and allows you to engage in a broad range of activities to increase your career options.
The AIFST CPD program was launched in 2019. It is voluntary and designed to encourage members to maintain currency of skills and knowledge and assist with career planning. It will provide recognition
of experience and interests and align food scientists with other wellrespected professions.
Much of AIFST members’ skill set is developed over their working life but is not always part of their formal qualifications. The CPD program is intended to provide recognition of these activities and skills by formalising and recording the process in a straightforward and transportable way.
The best outcome for the food science community is to develop a recognised professional identity. The competence of members is vital to the development and credibility of food science practitioners and AIFST is committed to providing value to members by developing and supporting this program.
Keep an eye out for member communications, visit the CPD page on the AIFST website or contact AIFST (education@aifst.com.au).
Keep eye for member communications, visit the CPD page on the website or contact AIFST (education@aifst.com.au).
Innovation is key in the Food and Beverage Accelerator (FaBA), a billion dollar enterprise bringing together the best and brightest university researchers and industry experts to speed up growth in the sector.
With funding of $49.6 million from the Commonwealth Department of Education and hosted by The University of Queensland (UQ), FaBA will help accelerate the growth of Australia’s food and beverage manufacturing sector, including growth in skilled jobs, new startups and growth in new value added products and ingredients.
FaBA’s director, Dr Chris Downs has more than 30 years’ experience in the sector. He is a former general manager for Crop and Food Science at the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and previously led the Food Program at CSIRO.
“FaBA is an important initiative for Australia’s food and beverage industry and an opportunity to bring together government, research and industry to work in collaboration to
deliver value,” Dr Downs said.
“In supporting greater innovation in the food and beverage sector, FaBA absolutely underpins the development and delivery of foods and beverages that are healthy, sustainably produced and safe and trusted for global consumers.
“And those big drivers are important in the world in which we live. Australia needs to continue to invest in onshore value addition of food and beverage products, which are then available for both domestic consumption and export into global markets,” he said.
UQ is working with CSIRO, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and University of Southern Queensland to build new research capabilities and drive commercialisation outcomes.
“FaBA is actually quite a significant step change for these universities,” Dr Downs said.
“It’s a chance to bring together the best teams, but also change the way in which we work across the different disciplines within universities,” he said.
The FaBA four program leads each have specific objectives to lift the skills and approaches universities take in engaging with industry partners.
The Trailblazing Training Centre will be led by Associate Professor Nidhi Bansal with an overarching objective of building workforce capacity through education and training.
“By implementing a consolidated Trailblazer FaBA Training Centre, we will provide a unique program that combines cutting-edge theory and traditional research training with professional and broad technical skills required by industry from diverse sectors,” Professor Bansal said.
Premium Food and Beverages, led by Professor Jason Stokes from UQ’s School of Chemical Engineering, will support the science and engineering associated with the development and production of value-added food and beverages.
“It’s particularly exciting to help create foods that meet consumer expectations in terms of
sustainability, nutrition and vitality, as well as flavour and texture – and to be training the next generation of researchers to enhance innovation,” Professor Stokes said.
Innovation Pathways, led by Professor Janet McColl-Kennedy, will create programs with a multidisciplinary approach.
“We will co-design a suite of programs to build skills to benefit both researchers and businesses - in emerging businesses and established businesses seeking to increase their competitiveness by using our ingredients in their products,” Professor McColl-Kennedy said.
Innovative Ingredients is led by Associate Professor Esteban Marcellin Saldana and will use synthetic biology and precision fermentation to produce sustainable and tasty food.
“By combining advances in synthetic biology in traditional food fermentation microorganisms, we can produce ingredients that were previously unattainable through traditional fermentation methods and offer new functionalities and sensory properties,” Associate Professor Saldana said.
Dr Downs said FaBA was already off to a flying start.
“We’ve already proactively engaged with more than ten companies who’ve expressed strong interest in being part of the FaBA program.
“I think success will be measured by growing businesses and employment in businesses over FaBA’s initial four-year period. This is an opportunity to boost investment significantly, but also leave a legacy of ongoing investment into innovation in the food and beverage sector,” Dr Downs said.
For more information about FaBA, head to: https://qaafi.uq.edu.au/ research/food-beverage-accelerator
Natalie MacGregor is the Principal Media Officer at the Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI) at The University of Queensland. f
Wenkang Huang, a PhD candidate from the University of Queensland, has been announced as the winner of this year’s John Christian Young Microbiologist Award at the 2023 AIFST Food Microbiology Conference held in March in Sydney.
Wenkang won for his study: Evaluation of the fermentation potential of plant-isolated lactic acid bacteria as starter cultures in nut-based milk alternatives.
The Award is given in honour of John Hinton Bassett Christian AO and was created as a means of encouraging and supporting the development of young food microbiologists. Congratulations to our finalists and thank you to the judging panel.
In recent years, the term sustainability has dominated conversations about our ability to safely co-exist on this planet, whilst concomitantly meeting our current needs and those of future generations.
Sustainability is increasingly a focus for the food industry, as it is responsible for a large portion of land usage, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, waste production and other environmental issues affecting society.
The food industry is criticised on a routine basis for everything from deforestation, water use, animal welfare, its carbon footprint, to food waste. The way forward involves recognition of the need to be more sustainable, and the generation of new ideas, technologies and strategies to safeguard the future of the industry.
Unfortunately, there is no agreed definition of the term sustainability. Its meaning varies depending upon the context and the situation, implying different things to stakeholders along the food supply chain.
For the consumer it manifests itself as concerns about the proliferation of single use packaging and
avoidance of food waste, while for the agricultural producer it is about managing the soil to retain its health and productivity and securing access to suitable inputs such as water.
As far back as 1987, the United Nations Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs 1 Subsequently, the United Nations delineated its 17 Sustainable Development Goals, creating a framework for improving the lives of people, whilst lessening the effects of climate change, and promoting sustainable ways for using the planet’s natural resources.
Global food production generates sufficient food to feed ten billion people, but as much as one third of all food is wasted through inefficiencies and poor management.2 These losses occur at every stage along the supply chain, and impact not only sustainability but also food security.
But sustainability is more than just reducing or limiting food waste. Motivated operators along the food supply chain are expanding the use of renewable energy, adopting circular initiatives, and striving to
reduce emissions.
At specific locations, targeted initiatives seek to reduce deforestation; improve agricultural productivity; boost soil health using amendments such as bio-based fertilisers; and enhance waste valorisation, water reclamation, and reuse. Food transport companies are utilising modern fuel-efficient refrigerated transport and warehousing to reduce energy use and GHG emissions.
Meanwhile, consumers are encouraged to adopt practices which reduce food waste, compost food packaging, and consider diets which embody more environmentally friendly production methods.
An important aspect of securing and protecting natural resources is the unequivocal need to protect public health and safety. Food supply chains are by their very nature long and complex, so achieving a balance between food safety and sustainability is not always obvious, transparent or even well understood.
For this reason, actions designed to guarantee both food safety and sustainability must cut across the entire food supply chain and foster engagement with all entities involved in food production. But are we seeing sufficient analysis of the impact of
sustainable practices throughout the supply chain and their bearing on the objective of having safe food products? Unfortunately, approaches designed to improve sustainability are often poorly aligned with strategies that assure food safety.
What is required is the exchange of ideas and the flow of reliable information and data which supports the identification of opportunities where food safety and sustainability programs can be melded to achieve safe and financially viable solutions.
Sustainable farming practices promote the use of manure, compost and green waste in order to reverse the negative impacts of conventional agriculture, regenerate soil and produce higher yields. However, the principal source of food safety hazards found in agricultural soils are soil amendments such as animal manure, compost and biosolids obtained from sewage treatment plants.
While these amendments may restore soil biota, there is the potential that pathogens (bacterial, viral and protozoan) may be introduced into the soil, contaminating ensuing food crops or grazing animals.
A further concern is that manures can be a source of chemical hazards, such as heavy metals and pharmaceuticals. Plus, if antibiotics have been administered to animals during animal production, they may appear in the manure and potentially create residue issues or promote the development of antimicrobial resistance.
While such circular food systems are considered a key for future sustainable food production, a major issue is the emergence and potential accumulation of food safety hazards.3 This has led to industry standards placing strict requirements regarding the use of these types of soil amendments, with exclusion periods between manure application and crop harvesting making it impractical
Agricultural production
• Deforestation
• Land usage and soil degradation
• Water use, pollution, and eutrophication
• Biodiversity loss
• Use of hazardous chemicals
• Manure – introduces microbiological hazards
• Water reuse –chemical and microbiological hazards
Postharvest handing and processing
• Air and noise emissions
• Contamination of land and water
• Energy use
• Disposal of effluent and waste
• Food packaging
• Handling and processing compromise good manufacturing and good hygienic practices
• Contamination
Transportation
• GHG emissions –refrigeration and transportation
• Long supply chains
• Food safety and quality concerns
Distribution centres and retail
Consumer
• Food packaging
• Food waste
• GHG emissions
• Food waste
• Energy use in cooling and cooking
• Food packaging
to use manures in many situations. Heat treated or properly composted manures represent a safe alternative to raw manure.
Water scarcity is an ongoing concern, with reduced access to high quality water considered a major issue globally. Water saving, enhanced irrigation efficiency, and techniques to reduce water loss should be a priority. However, increasingly, reclamation and reuse of wastewater are considered as sustainable approaches to mitigate water scarcity issues in agricultural production and as a means of natural resource conservation.
Despite the benefits of water reclamation and reuse, there are many concerns regarding human health and the environment.
Conventional wastewater treatment plants are designed to remove organic matter, total solids and nutrients, but their capacity to remove micropollutants, heavy
• Contamination via handling
• Failure to chill foods
• Failure to chill foods
• Failure to adequately cook food
metals and other environmental contaminants is lacking, and must be considered when using reclaimed water on crops.
If not adequately monitored, reclaimed water may have harmful effects on soil, and result in contaminants being taken up by crops and animals, leading to public health concerns. At the very least, reclaimed water should meet strict microbiological and chemical parameters, particularly when used on crops such as leafy vegetables or in food production facilities.
Food without packaging is often seen as the most sustainable solution, yet the reality is that packaging supports food safety, maintains the quality of food along the supply chain, and serves an important role in reducing food waste. Avoidance of food waste represents a critical packaging attribute.
An essential feature of food packaging is its functionality – its
ability to protect a product on its passage along the supply chain until it reaches the consumer. It needs to withstand the demands of transport and storage environments, playing a key role in ensuring the safety and quality of food products. This cannot be ignored when considering sustainability.
Consumer perceptions of food packaging include concerns about consumption of non-renewable resources, energy usage and management of the resultant waste. Hence the trend towards the use of 100% recyclable packages and compostable flexible packaging. When exploring a shift towards sustainable packing there must be consideration of environmental criteria, consumer expectations, commercial realities and the functionality of the package. When examining improvements in sustainability, it is essential to determine if the packaging can be reduced or modified to enable it to be re-used or recycled without compromising its functionality.
A study of Italian students and environmentalists perceived glass bottles as the most environmentally sustainable when compared to aluminium cans and plastic bottles.4 However life cycle assessments showed the positive perception of single-use glass is completely unfounded, with glass packaging the worst option. The study demonstrated the need for communication to address consumer prejudices that were excessively proglass and excessively anti-plastic.
When food processors are considering changes in packaging, it is essential they factor food waste into their life cycle assessment studies. This assists in differentiation between packaging systems with a lower environmental impact causing high food waste versus those with a higher environmental impact that reduce food waste.5
Increasingly legislative requirements are driving food processors to explore how plastic packaging is used, especially
multilayer plastic packaging which offers good protection to food but is difficult to recycle. By 2030, the European Union will require all plastic packaging to be either reusable or cost-effectively recyclable (EU DIRECTIVE 2019/904 – Reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment).
There is now a scramble to innovate and develop viable alternatives which meet these requirements and concomitantly protect foods. There is a fear that the loss of protection afforded by multilayer plastic packaging will have a negative overall environmental impact, with loss of quality and shorter shelf-life leading to greater food waste.
Today’s consumer places everincreasing importance on sustainability and is progressively looking for food produced under what is considered environmentally friendly conditions. Consumer pressure can be formidable, and it frequently shapes our industry. So, not surprisingly, there is a distinct focus on reduced or more ecofriendly food packaging options.
More and more food companies are striving to reduce their environmental impact, adopting strategies to save water, energy and resources as well as making other more sustainable choices. While sustainability is a focus, the food industry must
not lose sight of the importance of maintaining food safety and protecting public health, as well as ensuring the economic viability of all stakeholders along the supply chain. Consumers expect their food to be safe, and anything less will adversely affect public trust.
By working together, food safety professionals and sustainability managers can develop an appreciation of how conservation practices affect food safety, and vice versa. Collaboration which identifies sustainable, science-based solutions, which do not adversely affect food safety, represent the endgame.
1. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. http://www.un-documents. net/our-common-future.pdf
2. Zarocostas, J. (2022). UN says a third of food wasted. Lancet, 400, 1185. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01925-0
3. Focker et al. (2022). Review of food safety hazards in circular food systems in Europe. Food Research International, 158, 111505. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111505
4. De Feo et al. (2022). Comparison between the perceived and actual environmental sustainability of beverage packagings in glass, plastic, and aluminium. Journal of Cleaner Production, 333, 130158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2021.130158
5. Wikström et al. (2014). The influence of packaging attributes on consumer behaviour in food-packaging life cycle assessment studies – a neglected topic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 100-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2013.10.042
Deon Mahoney is Head of Food Safety at the International Fresh Produce Association. f
It took from the dawn of time until the early 1800’s for the global population to reach one billion people, notwithstanding brief interruptions to overall population growth such as the bubonic plague (Black Death) in the mid 14th century that killed more than 200 million people.
With rapid increases in industrialisation and enormous leaps in scientific and medical developments, our population is on a rapid growth trajectory. Since the early 1900’s we have seen an exponential increase in the global population. In 2022, the global population reached eight billion and, by the year 2050, the World Health Organisation projects this to increase to around nine billion.1,2
What is interesting, and also concerning, about this population growth is that we are now faced with a very polarised world population consisting of two extremes related to health outcomes.
On one side of the spectrum, we are faced with an increased share of the population that is severely undernourished and suffers from health issues directly related to hunger: increased infectious diseases, lower immunity and early mortality. The year 2021 was proclaimed a bad year for world hunger with
nearly one billion people across 93 countries not having enough food to eat.3 This is in addition to increased levels of anxiety, depression, stress, poor sleep quality, isolation, long COVID-19 and many other consequences directly and indirectly associated with the global pandemic.4
As the population increases, the Earth’s capacity to regenerate its own resources is becoming more limited and restricted. A relatively recent report from the FAO emphasised that the concept of ‘business as usual’ is no longer an option for the future of food and agriculture.1 If current food production and agricultural methods remain unchanged, the future of the food supply (in addition to the current population health outcomes) will remain rather bleak.
Furthermore, recent events in Europe such as the conflict between some of the world’s major wheat producers, in addition to food shortages linked with climate change, has meant the production and supply of food are exposed to significant uncertainties in all areas of the global food industry.
According to a relatively recent study,5 Australia is also not immune to the consequences of climate change and extreme weather
conditions. All of these events are imposing a cascade of negative and worrying outcomes that we are already seeing in all food industries and related sectors.
Given the worrying developments on the global stage, including the predicted and upcoming non-viral consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, we see that food science, food innovation and human nutrition are vitally important areas for the management of future population demands.
The professions involved in all aspects of the food industry and research are at a pivotal point within our food and health systems. Currently, there are several urgent actions needed in the area of food and nutrition in particular, including changes in our eating habits and dietary choices, the reduction of food waste and food loss, preservation of biodiversity, reduction of foodrelated diseases and better balance in food distribution and supply.
In order to achieve these outcomes, a relatively new concept or perhaps a new way of thinking and collaborating is needed from all areas of food academia, industry and consumers.
There is strong evidence to support the importance of diet in human health and, in particular, the adherence to ‘unhealthy’ foods constitutes one of the multiple risk factors associated with chronic and cardiometabolic disease.6 These types of diseases are becoming an enormous health and economic problem in developed countries. Some of these ‘unhealthy’ food habits include the higher adherence to Western style dietary patterns and increased consumption of ultraprocessed foods (UPF), to the extent that these foods become the main dietary pattern.
The increase in meals that are convenient, quick and easy to prepare, in addition to accessibility and over-indulgence in UPF, is seen as a major contributor to some of the health issues currently seen in the world. The majority of foods are processed and have been available as a regular source in the human diet for several millennia. Therefore, it is expected that these have a place in the market. However, fundamental importance must be placed on the amounts consumed.7
Adherence to different traditional dietary patterns (Nordic, Japanese, Mediterranean) has been associated with several beneficial health outcomes.8 Some traditional dietary patterns are underpinned by the intake of very similar food groups (wholegrains, fruits, vegetables and green leafy vegetables, fish and seafood) while the minimally processed food items are predominantly plant-based food products that are seasonally available. This is expected, as meat and seafood can undergo different processing techniques in order to extend the shelf-life and palatability of food products.
Furthermore, there is a variation in food groups that are region and season specific within each of the main dietary patterns, and the consumption of locally grown,
harvested and processed foods and food products is promoted. Interestingly, different dietary patterns also have very similar potential mechanisms of action associated with how beneficial health outcomes are achieved, such as improvements in diversity of gut microbiota, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and beneficial cardiometabolic outcomes.7
The presence of Western style dietary patterns is becoming more influential, even in these traditional diets.7 Therefore, despite their popularity in several different countries, these traditional dietary patterns are also becoming more processed and there is a tendency to deviate from the traditional foods being consumed. This is also reflected in the consumption of foods that are not locally grown in season, and foods that are of high caloric content.
The Mediterranean diet is currently identified as one of the healthiest dietary patterns in the world, with its beneficial health outcomes being first mentioned in the Renaissance. This dietary pattern originates from the countries in the region surrounding the Mediterranean Sea and is characterised by the high intake of plant based foods and olive oil, a moderate intake of fish and seafood, a relatively low intake of dairy products (mostly cheese and yoghurts) and a low intake of red processed meats and sweets.
Although this relatively generalised Mediterranean dietary pattern is commonly used as a dietary intake description, it is important to clarify a couple of meanings associated within this term.
The first paradigm is related to the word ‘diet’ derived from the Greek word ‘diaita’ which means a ‘way of life’. The second is related to the cultural UNESCO definition of the Mediterranean diet9 that does not mention the food intake itself, but rather all other practices that are
related to the cultivation of food, its preparation and associated social interaction.
Both paradigms indicate that a Mediterranean diet, in addition to consuming food and beverages, should be viewed together with the social interaction, local seasonal food, skills, knowledge, rituals and traditions associated with all aspects of food.
The concept of ‘natural’ foods and their association with positive health emotions is almost exclusively reported in Western society. This can be seen as an heuristic model applied to all foods that are not processed and results in some products automatically being perceived as healthier, tastier and better for the environment.
Nevertheless, the preference for these types of foods can also be driven by instrumental (health), cultural (vegetarianism) and idealisation (religion) reasons and predominantly drives the notion that the absence of human processing is the key to food being perceived as healthier.10
This also drives consumers (population) and industry towards more environmentally friendly and sustainable food systems. However, there is relatively limited information on the environmental impact of certain foods. The study by Clark et al (2022) is the first to provide a detailed attempt to characterise the environmental and nutritional impact of more than 57,000 food products. Based on their findings, it can be observed that some foods and beverages have a lower nutritional impact score, but also a lower environmental impact score.11 This can potentially indicate that the concept of ‘naturalness’, perceived as less processed and of higher nutritional value, can have a much higher environmental impact, and contrasts with the ‘natural is better’ heuristics.
One of the main drivers for organic food consumption is the environmental benefit and the
perception that organic foods are healthier than their counterparts. The findings of several large cohort studies have supported the association that frequency of consumption is associated with lower risks of developing various cancers and lower incidence of metabolic syndrome, among other beneficial health effects.
These findings were also attributed to the lack of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides that can be harmful to human health.12 Interestingly, this is also one of the main concepts supporting the use of genetically modified food products.
Technological advances are positively perceived in many domains of the scientific, medical and health areas. For example, the development of new tools for medical diagnostic, pharmaceutical and nutraceutical implementation, as well as use of artificial intelligence, are seen as a valuable addition to the consumer and industry alike.
However, perceptions on technological advancements in the food industry have shown to be rather different in this respect. Some of the novel technologies such as gene technology and biotech advancements have met with significant resistance from consumers and, in some cases, from governments.
Consumer belief about the potential of food technologies is predominantly driven by a relatively limited nutritional knowledge, incorrect perceptions of the environmental impact of food products and relatively scarce knowledge about food production itself. This can be exemplified by the relatively poor food literacy of the younger generations as to where food comes from and how it is produced.12
Nevertheless, the concern from those working in both food science and nutrition is whether our existing food systems can meet the needs
of current and future increases in global population. Locally grown and seasonal foods have repeatedly been shown to be better for the environment and for overall health, backed by countless cohort studies examining the health effects of different dietary patterns.
It is important to note that the increases in global population, and the emerging health consequences that are directly associated with population increases, are potentially unmanageable with current food production outputs.
Therefore, there is an increased need for investment (in all forms, not only financial) in education and the development of novel food technologies and applications. Lessons from local and seasonal foods need to be better adapted, managed and applied in managing the needs for our future population.
1. FAO (2018). The future of food and agriculture - Alternative pathways to 2050. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
2. Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Gregg JW, Levin K, Rockström J, Newsome TM, et al. (2022) World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2022. BioScience, 72(12):1149-55
3. Laganda G. (2021) 2021 is going to be a bad year for world hunger: United Nations https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/ news/2021-going-be-bad-year-world-hunger
4. Bulman A, D’Cunha NM, Marx W, McKune AJ, Jani R, Naumovski N. (2021). Nutraceuticals
as Potential Targets for the Development of a Functional Beverage for Improving Sleep Quality. Beverages, 7(2):33
5. Malik A, Li M, Lenzen Mea. (2022). Impacts of climate change and extreme weather on food supply chains cascade across sectors and regions in Australia. Nature Food, 3:631-43
6. Bochenek H, Krga I, Sergi D, Kouvari M, Zec M, Naumovski N. (2022). Dietary patterns, caloric restrictions for management of cardiovascular disease and cancer; a brief review. Rev Cardiovasc Med., 23(1):41
7. Harriden B, D’Cunha NM, Kellett J, Isbel S, Panagiotakos DB, Naumovski N. Are dietary patterns becoming more processed? The effects of different dietary patterns on cognition: A review. Nutr Health 2022;28(3):341-56.
8. Kouvari M, Tsiampalis T, Kosti RI, Naumovski N, Chrysohoou C, Skoumas J, et al. Quality of plant-based diets is associated with liver steatosis, which predicts type 2 diabetes incidence ten years later: Results from the ATTICA prospective epidemiological study. Clin Nutr. 2022;41(10):2094-102.
9. UNESCO. Mediteranean Diet 2000 [Available from: https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/ mediterranean-diet-00884].
10. Nadricka K, Millet K, Verlegh PWJ. When organic products are tasty: Taste inferences from an Organic = Healthy Association. Food Quality and Preference. 2020;83:103896.
11. Clark M, Springmann M, Rayner M, Scarborough P, Hill J, Tilman D, et al. Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119(33):e2120584119.
12. Eyinade GA, Mushunje A, Yusuf SFG. The willingness to consume organic food: A review. Food and Agricultural Immunology 2021;32(1):78-104.
Dr Nenad Naumovski is an Associate Professor in Food Science and Human Nutrition in the Discipline of Nutrition and Dietetics at the University of Canberra. f
Around half a century ago CSIRO revolutionised the way in which Australia could ship chilled meat primals to distant markets by pioneering research and development into vacuum packaging. The researchers stated three key prerequisites would give a shelf life of 42-56 days and 70-84 days stored at 0°C for lamb and beef primals, respectively:
1. Initial count no more than 2-3 log10 cfu/cm2
2. Packaging film with low oxygen permeability
3. Good control of temperature.1 Nowadays, these prerequisites are routinely achieved: product of high hygienic quality is packed in films with low oxygen transmission rates and shipping containers are set at -1°C. Recent publications indicate shelf lives for Australian primals approximate 230 days for beef at -0.5°C,2 while lamb primals exceed 84 days at -0.3°C.3
A more recent development for Australian exporters is the processing of vacuum-packed (VP) cuts in retailready formats, where the retailer merely adds price details. For lamb, this sector has increased significantly in recent years, from 46,101 tonnes in 2017 to 62,706 tonnes in 2021. Three major markets - USA/Canada, Middle East, and Japan/Korea - account for 50%, 20% and 20% of total exports
respectively, with the North American market share increasing significantly from 40% in 2017 to 50% in 2021 (Meat & Livestock Australia data).
Over the past decade transport of VP products to distant markets has encountered numerous logistical challenges. Firstly, in the wake of the global financial crisis, as a fuelsaving measure, shipment times were extended due to reduced speed of container vessels from 20 knots to 17 knots/hour, so-called ‘slow steaming’.4
Typical delivery times to the importing port range from 25 days to Japanese/Korean, 35 days to Middle Eastern and 55 days to North American and European ports, extended significantly when there is industrial action at waterfronts. In addition, exports from Australia to the Middle East and Europe are trans-shipped to a second vessel in Singapore or Malaysia where it is not uncommon for containers to be held up for one to two weeks awaiting their connecting vessel.5
Most recently, COVID related shutdowns, particularly in Chinese ports, caused a shortage of both refrigerated containers and a reduction in scheduled visits by container vessels to Australia with some exporters needing to transport product from Western Australian to eastern ports by road.
As well as logistical challenges, there are regulatory constraints surrounding shelf life. Exporters to Middle Eastern countries face a requirement that more than 50% of the shelf life is available at landing. A delay of 7-14 days at transshipment compromises the allowed expiry period of 90 days as required by the Gulf Cooperation Council Standardisation Organisation.6 Other importing countries set microbiological criteria for product at landing. For example, to ensure sufficient shelf life through their marketing chain, some Japanese importers stipulate an aerobic plate count (APC) limit of 5 log10 cfu/cm2 on entry to their warehouse, usually around 30 days after the date of slaughter. Industry information that this limit is sometimes breached was confirmed by static trials in Australia where 13/100 VP boneless lamb shoulders, stored at each of four Australian exporters for 30-35 days, had APCs close to or > 5 log10 cfu/ cm2.7
A final challenge in long supply chains are temperature abuse and physical damage during de-containerisation, inspection, consolidation, picking orders at the distribution centre and unloading to the customer’s cold store. The potential for physical damage is enhanced in those cuts where bone
protrudes, such as lamb racks which are ‘Frenched’ (meat removed from the intercostals exposing the eight ribs).
Recently, secondary-sealing (SS) films have been developed for which there are claims that they reseal damage to the pack, preventing early leaker spoilage and the appearance of the product is also enhanced by drip (purge) being prevented. The effect of SS films on chilled shelf life is not known and we recently took the opportunity to update shelf life of VP lamb primals on conventional (non-SS) packaging, and to evaluate the effects of two proprietary brands of SS film on the shelf life of retailready lamb products.
Trials were undertaken, in which vacuum-packed bone-in cutsshanks, legs and Frenched rackswere stored at close to 0°C for up to 118 days. At specific times, samples were withdrawn and assessed for their sensory and microbiological quality, the results of which are presented here.
Sensory assessment was by a five-member panel using an ordinal scale from 0 (poor performance) to 8 (good performance) based on the Australian national guidelines8 where a score of less than 4 for any criterion equates with the end of shelf life. Three criteria were assessed:
1. Prior to opening, each pack was scored for vacuum and packaging integrity and for overall appearance
2. After opening with a small cut along the seal, the confinement odour was observed (but not formally recorded)
3. The pack was then opened completely, and the odour reassessed after five minutes.
Microbiological testing involved removing bacteria from a 100 cm2 area using firm, back-and-forth strokes both along and across each cut with a sterile Whirl-Pak SpeciSponge, resuscitated with 25 mL of chilled Butterfield’s solution. Bacteria were removed from the sponge by ‘squishing’ sponges by hand massage in the sample bags for 30 seconds
and, from the moisture expressed, serial dilutions in 0.1% buffered peptone water blanks (9mL) using 1mL aliquots were prepared. Aliquots (1mL) from each dilution were spread on APC Petrifilm (3M) and incubated at 25°C/96 h.
Colonies were counted as colony forming units (CFU) as per the manufacturer’s instructions.
Two trials were carried out in which, after storage for various periods, triplicate samples were removed for sensory and microbiological testing. The results are summarised in Table 1 (Trial 1) and Table 2 (Trial 2).
In both trials, scores for vacuum and odour largely remained at or close to a score of eight until the end of acceptable shelf life. In Trial, 1 product packed in non-SS film remained acceptable at -1.1°C for 111 days (racks) and 98 days (shanks). As products approached the end of shelf life a slight confinement odour was noted, which disappeared within five minutes. When packs were opened any slight colour loss under
vacuum was quickly reversed when the bloom returned.
In Trial 2, racks packed in two proprietary brands of SS film scored acceptably for 115 days at -0.3°C, at which time all samples had been used. Mean sensory scores were higher for racks packed in SS Film A compared with those in SS Film B due to differences in vacuum integrity and resulting appearance (volume of purge and presence of small gas bubbles). There was uncertainty in the shelf life of shanks packed in SS Film A with most scoring acceptably up to and including 108 days but one replicate scoring poorly at 98 days due to greening of the fascia (silverskin). All replicate samples of legs packed in the non-SS film were commercially acceptable up to and including day 108.
As well as enhancing product appearance (absence of drip) a further positive is that SS films do not require bone guards, which is an environmental advantage and reduces processing and shipping costs.
Table 1 - Summary of sensory and microbiological results from lamb cuts during storage at mean -1.1°C packed in conventional film (Trial 1). Bold numbers indicate the last age where all triplicates had vacuum, appearance and odour scores greater than or equal to 4.
* App = Appearance ** Mean log10 APC/cm2 Blank cells indicate that the corresponding product was not assessed/tested.
Table 2 - Mean sensory and microbiological results from lamb cuts during storage at mean -0.3°C packed in different films (Trial 2). Bold numbers as indicated in Table 1. * Footnotes as for Table 1
As shown in Table 1, counts on both products (non-SS film) rose to around 6-7 log10 cfu/cm2 by day 25 of storage and generally remained around 6-7 log10 cfu/cm2 throughout the storage period, as did counts in Trial 2 (Table 2). By contrast, after 36 days cuts packed in SS and non-SS films had counts mostly in the range 3-4 log10 cfu/cm2, which would meet the Japanese landed maximum of 5 log10 cfu/cm2
There are three major findings from the present trials. Firstly, irrespective of their packaging film, Australian VP lamb cuts have a longer shelf life than the 84 days previously established,3 with SS films extending shelf life compared with conventional (nonSS) films.
Secondly, SS films alone, without associated bone guards, minimise physical damage, particularly for
vulnerable products such as racks. Thirdly, Australian exporters can now label with confidence a shelf life of 100 days from date of slaughter, enabling product to be landed in the most distant markets (North America and Europe) with sufficient shelf life for marketing.
1. Egan A, et al. (1988). Meat PackagingMaintaining the quality and prolonging the storage life of chilled beef, pork and lamb. In: Meat 88: Industry Day. CSIRO; Brisbane.
2. Small A, et al. (2012). Vacuum-packed beef primals with extremely long shelf-life have unusual microbiological profile. Journal of Food Protection, 75:1524.
3. Kiermeier A, et al. (2013). Microbial Growth, Communities and Sensory Characteristics of Vacuum and Modified Atmosphere Packaged Lamb Shoulders. Food Microbiology, 36:305.
4. Mills J, et al. (2014). Factors affecting microbial spoilage and shelf-life of chilled vacuumpacked lamb transported to distant markets: A review. Meat Science, 98:71.
5. Sumner J, (2016). The Impact of Transport to Australia’s Distant Markets on the Shelf-Life of Beef and Sheep Primals. Australian Meat Processor Corporation, North Sydney, NSW.
6. GSO, (2022) Expiry periods of food products – Part 1: Mandatory expiry periods. GSO 1501:2013/Amd 2:2022 Published online October 19, 2022.
7. Sumner J. & Jenson I, (2011). The effect of storage temperature on shelf life of vacuumpacked lamb shoulders. Food Australia, 63:249.
8. MLA. (2016). Shelf Life of Australian Red Meat 2nd ed. Meat & Livestock Australia; North Sydney, NSW.
Dr Andreas Kiermeier is with Statistical Process Improvement
Consulting and Training Pty Ltd, Marc Chambers is with WAMMCO International, Jessica Jolley is with the South Australian Research and Development Institute, Long Huynh is with Meat & Livestock Australia and Dr John Sumner is with M&S Food Consultants based in Tasmania. Their work was jointly funded by WAMMCO International and Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA Project V.MFS.0446). f
ROSEWOOD RESEARCH
Innovation in cereal & grain foods
ROSEWOOD RESEARCH
Innovation in cereal & grain foods
Rosewood Research is an independent self-funded organisation. We offer collaborative partnerships and funding to academic institutions and business for research projects that advances innovation in baking, cereal and grain foods.
ROSEWOOD RESEARCH
Partnership Program
Innovation in cereal & grain foods
Collaborative Research Partnerships
ROSEWOOD RESEARCH Partnership Program
Applied Research
✔ Collaborations between academic institutions and business.
Innovation in cereal & grain foods
✔ Desktop research & pilot studies to provide valuable input into new research studies.
✔ Baking technology and baked foods.
✔ New product and process development.
✔ Sustainability projects.
Academic Research
✔ Long term initiatives that support future advances in baking, cereal and grain foods.
Contact Us
If you would like to discuss a potential research project, please give me a call.
Bill Hazard, Research Director
0416 293 703
b.hazard@rosewoodresearch.com.au
Project Management
✔ Structured approach to multidisciplined projects.
✔ Provision of Funding Agreements, Management of IP and Nondisclosure Agreements.
Aspecialised Food Science and Nutrition campus has been launched by Murdoch University, sowing the seeds of a new era of food science in Western Australia.
The ribbon has now been ‘cut’ on the Food Innovation Precinct of Western Australia (FIPWA) where the Food Science and Nutrition campus is located.
Murdoch University’s specialised campus establishes a world-class destination for food professionals and researchers committed to advancing knowledge and production of food that is both good to eat and good for you.
The campus has already graduated its first class of Bachelor of Food Science and Nutrition students under the guidance of leading food scientist Associate Professor Vicky Solah.
“This is a really exciting development for food research in Western Australia as it embeds our students and scientists within an established business precinct in the Peel region,” Dr Solah said of the launch.
“We’ve brought university to industry so we can work closely on research that improves the sustainability, reputation, nutrition and taste of local produce.”
Dr Solah’s research sits at the interface between food and nutrition science with an emphasis on linkages between food composition and structure, how food is produced and processed, and human nutrition.
“This new campus puts us shoulder to shoulder with the very food and beverage enterprises that we’re training the next generations of workers to join,” Dr Solah said.
Research here is focused on high impact areas, including extending the shelf life of food without compromising nutrition and flavour, developing new food and beverage products, nutritional profiling of foods and sensory evaluation.
Ahead of today’s launch, Dr Solah and her team have already used the new location to connect PhD researchers with industry in collaborative dairy and horticulture research.
One of those projects was with Bannister Downs Dairy, where the team successfully determined a significant difference in WA milk nutrition and quality.
“Our research collaboration with Murdoch’s food science and nutrition team in 2022 confirmed what we suspected – Western Australian milk is nutritionally different,” Suzanne Daubney, Managing Director
Bannister Downs, said.
“This presents our business and others in the industry with a scientifically proven point of difference and, on the strength of that, we will continue to partner with Murdoch on research projects this year.
“It’s wonderful to have this capability right here in the southwest and I encourage other food businesses to take advantage of it,” she said.
This type of project – proving and finding new nutritional benefits in local produce – is a major opportunity for the collaborative centre.
In an international export market that places a high value on provenance and nutrition, having scientifically proven claims are a powerful differentiator for local producers. It also sits squarely within Dr Solah’s vision for the campus.
“If we can make more food that both tastes great and is good for you – that’s a wonderful outcome for everyone.”
Murdoch’s Food Science and Nutrition campus is complemented by the Food Technology Facility (FTF) at FIPWA, featuring a food manufacturing pilot plant to test innovations at batch scale to assist commercialisation.
The FTF is jointly operated by Murdoch, the Future Food Systems Cooperative Research Centre (FFSCRC) and the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. It will assist food businesses to test, develop and produce new and enhanced products using advanced manufacturing technologies.
The CEO of the FFSCRC, James Krahe, said it was an exciting development for the food industry nationally.
“I am very excited by the potential of FIPWA to become the central location for future food value-adding in WA as well as wider Australia,” Mr Krahe said.
“The investment from multiple layers of government, and strong collaboration of industry, education and research providers will ensure that this facility is not only worldclass now but industry-leading into
the future.
“It is an honour for the Future Food Systems CRC to be part of this important project,” he said.
FIPWA is managed by the Shire of Murray and made possible with funding support provided by the Australian and State Governments of Western Australia.
This research supports United
Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2 and 12, to improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture, and ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.
Murdoch University’s Food Futures Institute is working to improve the availability of safe, sustainablyproduced and nutritious food. f
Health authorities globally recommend daily consumption of 30 grams of dietary fibre for optimal health.1 However, there is a significant difference between recommended and actual consumption,2,3 referred to as the ‘fibre-gap’.4
Ideally, fibre should come from natural food sources, such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes, however, as processing can strip away fibre, whole grain options are preferable. For example, as per the Australian Food Composition Database, wholemeal flour has around 9 grams of fibre per 100 grams, while white flour has only 2.2 grams of fibre per 100 grams.
The fibres in wheat and rice are located on the outer parts (bran layer), but during milling of the grain to white flour, the bran is removed and only endosperm rich in starch are extracted. The bran layer of grains contains not only fibre but
also essential vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals.5,6
Fibres are edible non-starch polysaccharides such as pectin, guar gum, xanthan gum, cellulose and inulin. These are mostly ‘polymers’ of sugars. For example, cellulose is a polymer of glucose, but pectin is more complex and mostly consists of galacturonic acid, rhamnose, galactose, arabinose and xylose.
Structure determines functional and nutritional properties,7 for example, cellulose is water-insoluble but swells upon absorbing water, pectin is water-soluble and forms gels, whereas inulin, though soluble, does not form gels. Because of ‘swellability’ and increased viscosity, only limited amounts (maximum 2-3%) can be added to foods. Beyond this amount, the product quality and taste become ‘unnatural’, and consumers may not prefer it.
Thus, with the exception of products where whole grains increase the fibre content, enriching foods with fibre is not a solution for reducing the fibre gap.
It is important to understand that fibres are not individual ingredients but are part of foods themselves. The complex structure of fibres in natural foods has more functionality compared to isolated or added fibres. This is reflected by the US Food and Drug Administration, which considers fibres as “intrinsic” and “intact”, naturally occurring in foods.
Fibre cannot be broken down by the digestive enzymes in the small intestine, so it is excreted to the colon, where it is fermented to short chain fatty acids which provide significant benefits to health and nutrition. Foods with intact fibres stay in the stomach for a longer period, making us feel less hungry8 and leading to reduced glycaemic responses. For example, when
breakfast oats reach the stomach, they swell and become viscous, slowing down the rate at which they pass to the small intestine (gastric emptying time).
In contrast, the starch in white bread solubilises in the stomach, passes quickly into the small intestine, and is completely hydrolysed to glucose, leading to a rapid increase in blood glucose followed by a rapid fall, prompting a revived feeling of hunger. Further, oats have a unique structure where the starch is not fully cooked and is trapped in a dense network of fibres such as beta-glucan and arabinoxylan. These in situ interactions9 make the starch less accessible to digestive enzymes than bread, where the starch is fully cooked and more easily digestible. The viscous fibres in oats absorb more water, causing them to move quickly through the small intestine and triggering the ‘ileal brake’ mechanism, which further slows gastric emptying, increasing feelings of satiety and reducing hunger.8
Metabolic diseases such as type 2 diabetes, obesity and colon cancer can be addressed by a nutritional approach. Reports have shown an association between high-fibre diets and a reduced incidence of metabolic diseases and longevity.10,11 Foods high in fibre and lower in digestible starch demonstrate promising regulatory effects on the gut (eg. digestion and absorption, transit time and stool formation) and microbial effects (changes in gut microbiota composition and fermentation metabolites).
Microbial metabolites have been shown to have a wide range of positive effects through the gutbrain axis, including cognitive health. Gut microbiota and the brain communicate with each other via various routes involving microbial metabolites such as short-chain fatty acids.12 A healthy gut is, therefore, essential for overall health and wellbeing.
Consuming foods rich in fibre and resistant starch (prebiotics) will create a low-pH environment in the colon, inhibiting the growth of harmful bacteria. Only good bacteria (probiotics) will proliferate, improving gut and overall health.
Further, commercially available probiotic capsules and supplements claim to contain billions of active ‘good’ bacteria, but the evidence that they survive the harsh conditions of the stomach and small intestine and reach the colon where they can colonise is not fully supported by the science.13
It is important to note that the beneficial bacteria are natural to the colon and have the potency to colonise if a diet rich in fibres and resistant starch is regularly consumed.
The existing fibre-gap, irrespective of increased consumer knowledge of the benefits of high-fibre foods, demonstrates the need for a better approach. Consumption of minimally processed foods can enhance the intake of intact fibres and resistant starch. For example, legumes (pulses) are often consumed intact, either from a can or after cooking. The starch in seeds is protected inside the cell walls made of strong polymers such as cellulose, pectin and xylans, which are 2-3um thick.
During chewing and stomach processing, at least 10-20% of cells remain intact and pass through to the small intestine. As the digestive enzymes cannot hydrolyse the cell walls,14 starch within the cells is protected from hydrolysis. In the colon, the intact cells are fermented by colonic microorganisms which use starch as a substrate. These starches are known as resistant starches.15
A diet with a wide range of fermentable fibres is necessary to maintain microorganism populations throughout the colon. Soluble fibres such as pectin and beta-glucan are easily fermented in the proximal part of the colon, while some soluble
oligosaccharides, such as fructo and galacto oligosaccharides, are rapidly fermented and may cause discomfort.
Cellulose fibres, such as wheat bran, are slowly fermented in the distal part of the colon. Resistant starches are in-between and are fermented along the middle of the colon. A balanced diet with a mix of soluble fibre, resistant starch and insoluble fibre provides balanced nutrition for microorganisms throughout the length of the colon.7,8 This allows for the lowering of the pH throughout the colon, thereby preventing the proliferation of pathogenic and putrefactive microorganisms.
Although whole or minimally processed food is a good source of intact/intrinsic fibres and resistant starch, its processing functionality is limited. For example, foods such as bread, pasta, noodles and snacks often require finely milled flour. Considering the widespread acceptance of wheat, the best way to close the fibre-gap is to modify the wheat’s properties agronomically, to naturally increase its fibre content.
Wheat-based foods such as bread typically have a high glycaemic index. However, science has now made it possible to produce low glycaemic wheat, allowing us to enjoy the same bread with more fibre. This new breed of wheat is called high-amylose wheat (HAW)16,17 and has the potential to minimise the fibre-gap.3
The scientists at CSIRO, in collaboration with French company Limagrain, pioneered the development of HAW. Another company, US-based Arcadia Biosciences, has also created a HAW called GoodWheat®. The HAW developed by CSIRO is currently being produced and marketed as HealthSense® wheat flour by Bay State Milling Company in the US, and is used as an ingredient in many cereal-based foods. Australia’s leading flour and bakery manufacturer, Allied Pinnacle, recently announced exclusive rights to the CSIRO developed HAW,
indicating that HAW flour may soon be available in the Australian market.
The starch in cereals is composed of amylose and amylopectin, both of which are glucose polymers. Amylose is a linear molecule, while amylopectin is highly branched. When amylose and amylopectin are broken down by enzymes in the small intestine, equivalent amounts of glucose are produced and absorbed into the blood, leading to the use of the term ‘glycaemic’.
Foods that are rapidly digested, leading to a fast release of glucose, are called ‘high glycaemic’, such as some breads or cooked rice, while foods with a slower release of glucose with a limited and slow increase in blood glucose are called ‘low glycaemic’, such as whole legumes and pasta. Several intrinsic and extrinsic factors determine a food’s glycaemic potency.9,15
High amylose wheat has a starch content of more than 60% amylose, which is almost 2.5 times the amount found in normal wheat.16,17
This increase in amylose is achieved through non-genetic (non-GMO) breeding techniques by manipulating the activity of enzymes involved in its synthesis. The high amylose content leads to a more thermally stable starch. Due to the retention of its dense packing, enzymes are unable to fully hydrolyse it in the small
intestine, resulting in a low glycaemic response.18,19
High amylose wheat and wheat flour can contain more than 20% dietary fibre including the resistant starch, a significant increase compared to the more than 2% found in traditional refined wheatbased foods.20 With as little as a 25% replacement of traditional refined wheat flour with high-fibre wheat flour, it is possible to make a “good source of fibre” claim with no other changes in formulation or processing other than a slight increase in water absorption.
Research has shown that the bread,21-24 noodles,25 pasta26 and tortillas27 made from the incorporation of HAW flour have a lower glycaemic response with at least a 6-7 fold increase in resistant starch without noticeable sensory changes, and these foods have shown a positive effect in terms of beneficial gut-microbiota and metabolites.28
High amylose wheat is not yet widely grown, so products made with it are sold at a premium price. However, it is likely that by 2030, 50% of normal wheat will be replaced by HAW, lowering the price due to increased competition.
Thus the consumption of cerealbased foods with increased resistant starch firstly minimises the fibre-gap and further addresses the epidemic of metabolic diseases, reducing the economic and social burden.
Good eating habits and a healthy lifestyle are essential for physical and mental well-being. Consumers are often faced with the choice of selecting healthy products, which may sometimes mean compromising taste for health.
However, advancements such as HAW allow the development of products with improved nutritional balance, without sacrificing taste. In the future, we hope consumers will be able to enjoy a soft white bread or wrap with high fibre content without having to pay a premium for it.
1. NHMRC (2006). Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
2. Fayet-Moore et al. (2018). Nutrients, 10, 599.
3. Harris et al. (2022). Public Health Front, 451.
4. Li, et al. (2019). Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 18, 362-379.
5. Fardet, A. (2014). Cereal Foods World, 2014, 59, 224-229.
6. Fardet, (2006). Nutr Res Rev, 19, 18-25.
7. Gidley, et al. (2019). Trends Food Sci Technol, 86, 563-568.
8. Gidley, et al. (2013). Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci, 18, 371-378.
9. Dhital, et al. (2019). Trends Food Sci Technol, 93, 158-166.
10. Reynolds, et al.(2019). The Lancet, 393, 434445.
11. Gill, et al. (2021)/ Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol Hepatol, 18, 101-116.
12. Cryan, et al. (2019). Physiol Rev
13. Zucko, et al. (2020). Curr Opin Food, 32, 4549.
14. Xiong, et al.(2022). Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf, 21, 1198-1217.
15. Dhital, S et al. (2017). Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 57, 875-892.
16. Regina, et al. (2015). Plant Biotechnol J, 13, (9), 1276-1286.
17. Slade, et al. (2012). BMC Plant Biology, 12, (1), 1-17.
18. Li, et al. (2022). Carbohydr Polym., 295, 119871.
19. Li, et al.(2022). Food Hydrocoll, 131, 107840.
20. Bird et al. (2018). J Cereal Sci, 82, 99-105.
21. Li, et al. (2022). Food Hydrocoll, 123, 107181.
22. Corrado, et al. (2022). Food Funct, 13, (3), 1617-1627.
23. Di Rosa, et al.(2023). Foods, 12, (2), 319.
24. Belobrajdic, et al. (2019). J Nutr, 149, (8), 1335-1345.
25. Li, et al. (2021). Food Chem, 336, 127719.
26. Cimini, et al. (2022). Foods, 11, (16), 2510.
27. Li, et al. (2023). Food Hydrocoll, 137, 108321.
28. Gondalia, et al. (2022). J Nutr, 152, (6), 14261437.2nd ed. Meat & Livestock Australia; North Sydney, NSW.
Dr Sushil Dhital is a Senior Lecturer at Monash University and Chair of the Australasian Grain Science Association. His research focus is on food-nutrition, processing and engineering. f
As the demand for formulating food emulsions with enhanced nutritional value (eg. low calorie, encapsulated bio-actives and targeted release) becomes increasingly sophisticated, new technologies are needed to replace current blending methods at a manufacturing scale, most of which are still based on principles of homogenisation. Fundamentally aggressive and difficult to control, this method requires a high energy input which can damage ingredients and result in formulations with a broad particle size distribution that affects the quality and performance of the end product. Although the recent development of microfluidic devices can provide precisely controlled monodispersity, the technique still
cannot deliver industrially meaningful volumes.
To remove this bottleneck, Micropore’s patented range of AXF™ (advanced crossflow) equipment offers a next generation, fully scalable technology enabling continuous production of emulsions, double emulsions, encapsulated and bioengineered particles with an energy and resource efficient small footprint. Able to protect delicate ingredients, this fully scalable, continuous method delivers a narrow and controllable particle size distribution from development at micro litre scale through to kilotonne manufacturing if required.
Micropore equipment is constructed entirely of food grade stainless steel
with industry standard hygienic fittings. While other membrane emulsification methods use glass or ceramics which are prone to blockages, Micropore uses laser micro-drilled stainless-steel membranes. It overcomes difficult challenges in formulations with particular successes in the production of low-fat dairy foods, improving the texture and stability of meat-free products and evenly dispersing high viscosity ingredients such as Manuka honey in chocolate.
For more information or to book a demo, contact us
ATA Scientific Pty Ltd
+61 2 9541 3500
www.atascientific.com.au
Optimise dispersion & emulsion size and stability
• Advanced light scattering system with enhanced resolution, speed and ease-of-use.
• Measure particle size, particle charge and calibration-free particle concentration.
Rapid particle size distribution: Wet dispersion & dry powder
• Measures over the nanometer to millimeter particle size range to deliver high performance in a compact footprint.
• Intuitive software with built -in expertise allows reliable measurements, ideal for fragile and cohesive powders.
Scalable, GMP ready platform for particle engineering
• Advanced Cross Flow (AXF) membrane-based emulsification and encapsulation process allows narrow particle size distribution.
• Single device covers lab based experimentation up to kilotonne throughput for commercial production lines.
Words by Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Businesses who make and serve our food are integral to our way of life and important to the Australian economy. The vast majority of these businesses make food that is safe to eat, every time. However, in mid-2018, ministers responsible for our food noted foodborne illness outbreaks linked to food service in Australia. They agreed food safety risk management needed reviewing in the sector and asked Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to take a closer look.
FSANZ assessed food safety risks and practices in food service and retail businesses (through Proposal P1053) and considered a suite of tools that could strengthen the way
Image provided by SA Health.
these businesses manage food safety.
The focus was to ensure businesses have food handlers with the right knowledge, skills and supervision, as well as strong checks in place to safely prepare and serve food. We worked very closely with the food safety regulators in each state and territory to make sure the tools were well targeted interventions that would enhance food safety in our food service sector.
The result is a new national food safety standard for food service (Standard 3.2.2A Food safety management tools), agreed to by the food ministers. It will take effect from December 2023 and a 12-month transition period began in November 2022.
Standard 3.2.2A is an extension of the food safety requirements in Standard 3.2.2. It applies to Australian businesses in food service, catering and retail sectors that handle unpackaged, potentially hazardous food that is ready-to-eat. Generally, this includes caterers, restaurants, cafés, takeaway shops, pubs, supermarkets and delis, food vans and other facilities serving food.
The Standard requires these businesses to apply either two or three food safety management tools (in addition to their existing Chapter 3 obligations), based on their food handling activities.
Businesses must:
• Have a food safety supervisor
• Ensure their food handlers have training
• Keep a record of or show how they are managing key food safety activities such as food temperatures and cleaning and sanitising.
Standard 3.2.2A classifies businesses as ‘category one’ or ‘category two’. Category one businesses, which are higher risk, must implement all three
management tools. Category two businesses must have a food safety supervisor and have staff trained in safe food handling.
To provide guidance on the new Standard, FSANZ has updated Safe Food Australia. This national guide book is mainly intended for government agencies who enforce the standards, but food businesses may also find it helpful for understanding the standards and food safety issues.
The key additions to Safe Food Australia are a chapter on Standard 3.2.2A, and revised templates for food businesses. It also has a new appendix on food safety culture and updated reference links throughout.
The template examples (Appendix 8) are forms designed to help businesses record food safety management activities, including food temperatures, supplier details and cleaning and sanitising. They can be adapted by businesses to suit their individual needs.
The food safety culture appendix (Appendix 11) explains the importance of having a positive culture, what a strong culture looks like and where to start.
Safe Food Australia can be accessed for free from the FSANZ website. Food businesses are encouraged to contact their local food regulatory authority for further information about compliance with the new food safety standard.
Watch out for more information on the new Standard 3.2.2A from FSANZ through social media updates. Each month we’ll feature an aspect about the new Standard. This will include our InfoBite fact sheets, animations, information on where to find translation services and examples of templates for use by businesses.
As a final note, we would like to highlight the importance of food
safety culture in food businesses. A positive culture makes food safety a top priority in all business activities, from developing procedures and training personnel to implementing new requirements.
It goes across all food handling steps, as well as premises fit-out, maintenance and cleaning and sanitising regimes. A culture that encourages and reinforces the need to think and act correctly is a strong foundation to making sure food is safe, every time.
Our website has a range of food safety culture resources including questionnaires, animations and tips for improving culture in a business.
For further information on the new Standard or Safe Food Australia:
• visit our web page foodstandards.gov.au
• email information@foodstandards. gov.au
• contact your local food regulatory agency.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is an independent statutory agency responsible for developing food standards in Australia and New Zealand. f
Food scientists play an important role in the future health of people and the planet. By contributing to food quality, safety and nutrition, the expertise of a food scientist influences many aspects of the product development process that are critical for successful and sustainable food production.
One of the ways this influence is exerted is by speaking with confidence and being heard in the workplace. Voicing an opinion, contributing thoughts and ideas, and ensuring your expertise is taken into account as part of the decisionmaking process, are all essential skills for food scientists.
From a career perspective, the ability to speak confidently and clearly in both informal and formal settings is also a way to demonstrate your leadership readiness.
However, contributing effectively and ensuring your voice is heard in the workplace is not always easy. Unhelpful internal dialogue may get in the way, hierarchy within organisations may create power dynamics that hold you back, and the presence of people who consistently control and dominate the conversation may make it challenging to get your points across.
As a food scientist, you also may feel more comfortable behind a
laptop or looking down a microscope than standing behind a lectern or holding the floor in a meeting.
If you can relate, this article provides 12 ways to assist you communicate with greater confidence and clarity so that in your role, you can effectively exert influence and make the difference you’d like to make.
The three key ingredients for confident communication (Figure 1) are:
Clarity - being clear on the point you want to make Agency - taking the necessary action to speak and share your message Energy - being your authentic self when you speak.
The first four ideas are about message clarity. When your message is clear, it helps your listener understand the key point you are making, while also holding their attention.
1. Clear the clutter - identify your point. Before you speak, find quiet time to get really clear on the specific point you want to make. Write this out as a short statement, a bit like you would a
headline for a media article. An example might be: ‘the ingredient we’re testing is not performing.’
2. Structure your message - speak to be heard. Once you have your point, back it up with evidence and follow this up with an action. As the brain finds it easier to remember things in threes, find three pieces of evidence you can use, then finish off with the action you’d like your listener to take.
3. Connect with the listener - address their problems. Think about what’s on the mind of your listener and as you introduce your point, connect it to their key concerns. For example, if you’re presenting to the marketing team, you may highlight how your point helps protect brand reputation, whereas if you’re speaking with business leaders, you may state how your point helps generate more sales.
4. Speak my language - use words that resonate. As you prepare what you want to say, think about the language you will use to best appeal to your listener. Ask yourself what style is best suited to the audience you’re speaking with.
Once you are clear on your point, the next thing you need to do is share
it. This requires a sense of agencythe belief that what you have to say matters. Agency is about actionstepping forward, putting your hand up or leaning in to contribute your thoughts and ideas.
5. Stand in your power - use your physicality. Research by social psychologist Dr Amy Cuddy shows when you adopt ‘power poses’ (standing with hands on your hips, leaning forward), levels of stress hormones reduce, while testosterone increases, making you feel more confident. Notice your body language. Keep yourself open, upright and leaning into a conversation, and you will feel, and be perceived, as more confident.
6. Mind your language - power up your words. Apologetic and permissionbased words and language reduce the impact of your message. Notice and remove words such as ‘just’, ‘please’ and ‘sorry’ and instead, use more decisive and direct words in your phrasing.
7. Get comfortable with discomfortbuild the muscle of courage. You may find yourself holding back from contributing as you prefer to stay in the comfort zone of silence. However, as training and development expert Brian Tracy said, “the comfort zone is the great enemy of courage and confidence”. Try daring yourself to do something every day that makes you feel slightly uncomfortable to build the muscle of courage. This could be challenging yourself to contribute something at each meeting you attend.
8. Assume equality - don’t put people on a pedestal. Hierarchy and associated power differentials have a significant influence on voice in the workplace. It can be much more challenging to share your perspectives if you feel nervous in the presence of someone with more perceived power. Viewing others as similar to yourself, rather than as being different due to their title, role or salutation, can help you speak with a greater sense of calmness.
Energy is about bringing your essence and authenticity to your communication. When you can be yourself, and speak genuinely and authentically, you are more believable, likeable and influential.
9. Get intentional - decide how you want to be heard. Just as you get to choose the clothes you wear each day, you can also choose how you want to be heard. Pick a few words to describe how you would like your voice to sound when you speak, then practise purposefully bringing that energy into your conversations.
10. Cultivate calm - be present and focused. Maintaining calmness helps you remain in social engagement mode - a relaxed state that assists you to communicate authentically. Try slowing your breathing, telling yourself you’re safe, or shaking your body to release nervous tension before you present or speak.
11. Speak to be heard - raise your vibration. Just like a musical instrument, the sound of your voice depends on how well it vibrates. It therefore helps to raise your vibration by taking care of your body. Keep active, stretch
regularly and warm up your voice with humming and buzzing sounds before you speak.
12. Manage setbacks - speak to yourself kindly. When you try something new, like speaking up more frequently, or voicing your thoughts in meetings or in the presence of someone with more perceived power, you may not always produce the outcome you’d like. When this happens, resist beating yourself up and instead lift yourself up by speaking to yourself kindly. Self-compassion builds resilience. Set yourself a goal to keep speaking, practising and contributing your perspectives at each meeting or event you attend. The more you do, the better and more comfortable you will become, the greater impact you’ll have and the more influence you’ll build.
Sharon Natoli helps leaders and teams in the food sector speak with confidence and grow their influence. For a full copy of ‘Be Heard: 15 Ways to Communicate with Confidence – a white paper for food scientists’, email sharon@sharonnatoli.com f
Q: What role can nutrition science play in ensuring the security and sustainability of our food supply?
Jemma O’Hanlon Advanced Accredited Practising Dietitian
For a secure and sustainable food supply we need to create food systems that support our health and wellbeing and protect our planet. We need to make it easier for people to make healthier choices, and we need to make sure healthy food is accessible and affordable. A National Nutrition Policy will be an important step forward for Australia, and we need one that is well-resourced, coordinated and evidence-based. Each year 27,500 Australians die from preventable diet-related diseases, which is far too many in my opinion. Nutrition science will always be at the heart of guiding us to a healthier Australia.
Patricia Ribeiro de Melo PhD candidate, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin UniversityFrom the discovery and isolation of the first vitamins in the 20th century to helping explain the associations between nutrients, foods, diets and a range of health outcomes, nutrition science has evolved significantly, providing us with invaluable evidence to inform dietary guidance and policies. Increasingly, we have come to also understand that nutrition affects not only humans but also planetary health. Due to a bidirectional relationship between nutrition and the environment, unsustainable practices of food production and consumption can lead to adverse environmental changes which can, in turn, affect the quantity and quality of foods in our supply chains. To address those challenges and ensure sustainable and secure food supplies, nutrition must expand beyond its traditional focus on isolated nutrients, towards becoming a holistic and integrative discipline. It
needs to encompass the knowledge of other sciences and give equal importance to the social, commercial, political and ecological factors that can affect health.
Dr Nenad Naumovski Associate Professor in Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of CanberraLast year, the global population passed eight billion people. With the current pressures relating to food production and supply (wars, climate change), food and nutrition science play an essential role in managing the sustainability and security of food. There is also a sharp increase in the onset and development of several chronic diseases, as a direct consequence of adhering to a Western style dietary pattern. On the other hand, it is evident that adhering to healthy dietary patterns (Mediterranean, Japanese, Nordic, etc.) has a number of beneficial health effects. The majority of these healthy dietary patterns utilise local, seasonal and fresh foods, while seasonal oversupply of food is converted into products for ‘off season’ consumption. Nutrition science plays an integral part in retaining the nutritional composition of seasonal food. We also need to pay significant attention to education, the transfer of knowledge, skills and societal values that revolve around healthy dietary patterns.
Alison Baldwin Director Regulatory & Nutrition Science, Arnott’s GroupNutrition science is essential to ensuring the sustainable future of the food supply. It is key to identifying ways to grow essential ingredients in drought prone areas and make plants more resilient to extreme weather conditions, while high-tech agricultural innovations will increase the supply of fresh local fruits, vegetables, grains and legumes. At the same time, advances in nutrition science and technology will lead
to greater uptake of synthetic and lab-created ingredients offering the potential to produce nutrient-dense food more sustainably However advances in nutrition science come with challenges. At a time when many are concerned with food processing, education is needed to ensure consumers become more accepting and trusting of the essential roles science and technology have in guaranteeing access to affordable, safe and nutritious food.
Kathy La Macchia General Manager, Grains & Legumes Nutrition CouncilA person is considered ‘food secure’ when they have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs for a healthy life. There are several key elements in achieving this: accessibility, availability, affordability, safety and nutritional value. Nutrition plays a key role in food security as it is important that the nutritional value of food meets the dietary needs of each individual for today and for a healthy future. I see nutrition science today expanding to address the above matters encompassing the nutrition quality of food, sustainability to ensure a robust food supply over time and wholesome core ingredients that will feed the world As a nutritionist working with the food industry, I feel it is our responsibility that nutrition and sustainability remain high on every food companies’ agenda to ensure food security for all - healthy people and a healthy planet.
The theme for AIFST’s 2023 Convention is ‘The Science of Food Security & Sustainability’, so we asked:
Global Strength. Local Action.
Put to work our technical ingenuity and industryleading portfolio to create future-forward nutrition solutions with flavours, colours, specialty ingredients and more.
We bring more than a century of global expertise to Australia & New Zealand.
Your Edge. Our Expertise.
Let’s create. adm.com/ADM-Nutrition-ANZ