ISSN 1032 5298 • PRINT POST APPROVED PP241613/00096 VOL 73 ISSUE 1
JANUARY – MARCH 2021
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF AIFST
Purple pigs & dietary polyphenols
Fresh produce safety
Dietary fibre foods or ingredient?
Alternative proteins & food justice
Regulars By the Numbers People Food Files Fast Five
ADVERTORIAL
ENSURING FOOD QUALITY AND SAFETY DURING THE PANDEMIC, AND BEYOND During COVID-19, food safety, food security and the food supply chain were challenged in ways not previously experienced by the Australian food industry. Almost all major supply chains were impacted in some way. Many businesses experienced significant changes in production volumes, with decreases in export markets but substantial increases in packaged goods in the retail sector, driven by consumer trends shifting in unexpected directions. The Australian food manufacturing industry responded accordingly, however this was not without its challenges and in many instances required significant financial investment. Food safety procedures were blended with the management of public health procedures to ensure the safety of staff but with a clear commitment to ensuring a consistent supply chain. The question is, did these extra pressures impact on the quality or safety of the products manufactured in 2020? A review of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand recall data for 2020 would suggest that, based on the total number of recalls, industry performance was comparable to 2019 results and at the time of writing, the number of recalls for 2020 was less than for either 2018 or 2019.1 Microbiological contamination and undeclared allergens continued to be the leading reasons for recalls in Australia, however many of these were driven by clusters of related issues, for example the numerous products recalled due to undeclared peanut in pesto and/or cashew containing products.2 Importantly, this data supports the efforts of the food manufacturing industry in managing and maintaining food safety standards
during a global pandemic and should not go unrecognised. In the wake of 2020, risk review is critical, reflecting on the initial challenges faced by business and determining their potential to present new risks for 2021 will reduce the impact on the industry moving forward, but also ensure reduced food safety impacts to the consumer. For example, global ingredient sourcing remains a significant issue as a result of the pandemic, could this lead to an increased risk of food fraud and alteration? Globally, many regulatory jurisdictions have relaxed labelling requirements for alternative ingredients, what impact will this have on the management of undeclared allergens in the supply chain? Alternatively, will these risks and constraints lead to innovation and increased manufacturing capabilities in Australia? Whilst the food industry navigates what will be the new COVID normal, the commercial laboratory network in Australia continues also to adapt to ensure the latest technology and methods are available to support the innovation required to meet industry and consumer trends as we progress
into 2021. The team at BVAQ, Australia’s largest food and beverage analytical laboratory and solutions provider, continues to assist its food manufacturing partners deliver the safe and quality products that Australia is known for. In addition to providing analytical testing solutions, our technical team continues to actively participate in key food industry stakeholder groups and advise on changes to regulatory frameworks, enabling us to respond quickly to the changing environment.
References: 1. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/industry/ foodrecalls/recallstats/Pages/default.aspx 2. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/industry/ foodrecalls/recalls/Pages/default.aspx
To find out how BVAQ’s team of technical experts are able to assist your business with food safety risk mitigation solutions, contact us at www.bvaq.com
JANUARY – MARCH 2021
16
22
26
38
IN THIS ISSUE
REGULARS
07 Does storage improve the nutritional quality of plums? First place in the 2020 AIFST Research Poster Competition
05 By the Numbers 06 People 22 Sensory 47 Fast Five
08 Water-oil-water double emulsions Equal second place in the 2020 AIFST Research Poster Competition 09 Would you dare? Australians’ willingness to eat insects Equal second place in the 2020 AIFST Research Poster Competition 10 Is plant-based meat a healthier choice? The health and nutritional credentials of plant-based meats 12 Bushfires to pandemics - how the industry responded The supply chain for food and grocery products response to COVID-19 14 Improving food production returns with smarter information use Data analytics enable organisations to make better decisions 16 Now and next: Navigating a changed consumer landscape Key drivers of consumer behaviour – how to stay on top 20 New oat assay completes gluten analysis puzzle The ability to detect oat avenins fulfils a much-needed role 25 Last stand for the innovation patent SMEs still need to think about protecting their IP 26 The quest for sustainability What sustainability means for The Lupin Co.
COVER Ensuring food quality & safety during the pandemic and beyond.
28 Safety of fresh produce – should consumers worry? Nutritional benefits achieved with micro hazards effectively managed 32 Just food transitions? The social benefits of alternative proteins How might the principles of food justice guide the sector? 35 Food safety culture - why all the fuss? Food safety culture - how does it relate to food safety management? 38 Purple pigs show the importance of dietary composition Research insight into maximising the benefits of dietary polyphenols 42 Shining some light on the ‘dark’ kitchen The shared responsibility for food safety – seeing the light 44 Dietary fibre - foods or ingredients? Do we need to re-think consumer advice on dietary fibre?
food australia 3
Published by The Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Limited.
Food for Thought
Editorial Coordination Melinda Stewart | aifst@aifst.com.au
Contributors Geoffrey Annison, Andrew Davies, Sushil Dhital, David Fienberg, Elisabeth Frankish, Rodolfo Garcia-Flores, Jennifer Gu, Indee Hopkins, Adam Hyland, Karen Job, Russell Keast, Gethmini Kodagoda, Deon Mahoney, Andrew McGregor, Mayumi Silva, Tony Treloar, Elysha Young.
Advertising Manager Clive Russell | aifst@aifst.com.au
Subscriptions AIFST | aifst@aifst.com.au
Production Bite Communications
Subscription Rates 2021 Subscription Rates for 4 editions Australia $116; Overseas (airmail) $184; single copies $29.00; Overseas $46.00 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 here. 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
Welcome to the Summer edition of food australia, the first one for 2021. Last year provided many challenges and opportunities for the food industry - COVID-19 impacted every facet of our lives and presented challenges and opportunities to adapt and innovate across the food supply chain. In this edition we feature articles on key topics – we reflect on the defining events of 2020 – both bushfires and the pandemic and how the food industry responded; in health and nutrition we look at the benefits of polyphenols; and in food safety we look at the safety of fresh produce and shine a light on ‘dark’ kitchens. Food Safety culture is becoming more important in managing food safety risk – turn to our article on ‘food safety culture – why all the fuss’. Turning to current trends we look at plant-based meats and maximising the social benefits of alternative proteins; navigating a changed consumer landscape in Australia and finish off with our top food trend predictions for 2021. We have recently finalised the theme for the 2021 AIFST convention: AIFST21 - Food Science – delivering in a changing world. This speaks to the exciting opportunities ahead for the food industry and the important role of food science and technology. The convention will be held on July 26 and 27 in Sydney, so please lock these dates into your calendar and join us to grow, learn and connect. Australia is recognised for our reliability, our ingenuity and quality of food products. Now in a disrupted global economy we have the opportunity to grow that reputation by continuing to invest in food science and technology disciplines critical to the future success of food manufacturing and the food industry as a whole. As always, I invite and encourage all members to actively engage with the Institute – it is only through your continued engagement that we can fulfill our purpose of uniting food industry professionals in delivering the science of feeding our future. Feedback – we would love to hear what you think about this issue of food australia. Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts.
AIFST Board Chair: Mr Duncan McDonald. Non-executive directors: Ms Suz Allen, Mr John Kavanagh, Mr Deon Mahoney, Ms Sandra Loader and Dr Chris Downs.
AIFST National Office 11 Julius Avenue, North Ryde, NSW, 2113, Australia Tel: +61 447 066 324 Email: aifst@aifst.com.au Web: www.aifst.asn.au
Fiona Fleming B. App Sc (Food Tech); MNutr Mgt; FAIFST; MAICD Chief Executive Officer fiona.fleming@aifst.com.au
BY THE NUMBERS
Supporting local is the new preferred premium Words by Natalie Baker The movement to support local businesses kicked off after Australia’s devastating bushfires in 2019 and continued to grow throughout the pandemic in 2020. Hint: it is definitely a trend worth paying attention to. In 2020, groups sprung up to support ‘local’ and ‘Aussie-made’ products and producers. With communities banding together more than ever, it is little surprise that this wave of support grew during the coronavirus shutdowns. In fact, people power regarding supporting local producers became so powerful consumer demand put pressure on retailers to make locally made products more prominent. We know what you’re thinking: Australian-made is not new news. But this time, it’s more note-worthy than before. When Google searches for a topic spike, you know that consumer interest is growing. After a five-year flatline trend of search history, in 2020 the number of searches for “Australian-Made’ rose significantly, with peak popularity achieved in July. Bulk-buying at the beginning of the pandemic helped to shift typical shopper behaviour, and scarcity forced consumers to consider new brands and products. Data gathered from almost 8,000 Australians from the PLAY MR online panel showed an attitudinal skew to this conundrum, with younger groups more open to trialling and exploring new products, and older groups more narrowly focused on prioritising Australianmade products. In short, it’s a good time to be dialling up your Aussiemade credentials. Natalie Baker is general manager at PLAY Market Research.
food australia 5
PEOPLE
Glycemic Index Foundation appoints new board directors In late 2020 the Board of the Glycemic Index Foundation announced the appointment of three new Directors to the Foundation’s Board of Management. Professor Grant Brinkworth, Mark Field and Richard Meagher were appointed to the organisation to support the continued growth of the Foundation in its mission ‘to help people lead healthier lives through adopting evidence-based low GI eating principles for better health’. Nutrition, health and medical research leader with the CSIRO, Professor Grant Brinkworth, has over 20 years’ experience leading strategic science research portfolios across a variety of therapeutic, health and wellness areas including obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, ageing and mental and
Left to right: Professor Grant Brinkworth, Mark Field and Richard Meagher. physical performance. He also brings an extensive publication history of peer-reviewed journal articles and five commercial book publications. Senior food and retail industry technical and commercial executive Mark Field, will bring over 25 years’ experience across international food manufacturing and retail. Mark previously headed the Coles Brand team where he was responsible for attaining increased market
share through Innovation, product development and technical standards. Richard Meagher, a well-respected and experienced senior business leader in the food industry, has over 25 years in B2B and B2C across ANZ and Asia. Richard holds a non-executive director role at Paintback Limited. Prior to this Richard was the CEO of Tip Top Baking, where he was a trusted counsel to many of Australia’s most iconic baking brands.
Dr Hugh Dircks’ new role at Asahi Beverages
Dr Matthew Morrell appointed QAAFI director
Dr Hugh Dircks has been appointed to the role of group microbiologist at Asahi Beverages. The role sits within the Quality Team and is part of the Australia New Zealand Quality Team at Asahi. In this role, Hugh will manage the provision of oversight to management of all microbiological aspects of quality across the Asahi network. Prior to this appointment, Hugh held the role of brewing area manager - fermentation, at CUB’s Abbotsford Brewery in Melbourne, and started his career at CUB as senior microbiologist at Abbotsford. Hugh’s previous experience includes seven years at Mars Inc. working in cocoa and chocolate related roles in Australia and overseas, including almost three years as cocoa senior scientist, and the role of research scientist at George Weston Foods as part of the Group Technical team. Hugh has a PhD from University of New South Wales (UNSW) in microbiology, specifically the fermentation of cocoa beans.
Dr Matthew Morell has been appointed as the next director of the Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI). Matthew is currently Director-General of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), based in the Philippines, and has previously led a number of research programs with CSIRO over a 17 year period – most recently the Future Grains and Plant Oil Theme in the former CSIRO Food Futures Flagship. Matthew holds a PhD in agricultural chemistry from the University of Sydney and undertook postdoctoral studies at the University of Michigan and the University of California, Davis. He served as a research fellow at the Australian National University and remains a fellow at the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering. Matthew will formally commence at UQ on Monday 15 February 2021.
6 food australia
AIFST 2020 RESEARCH POSTER COMPETITION
Does storage improve the nutritional quality of plums? Words by Gethmini Kodagoda and Dr Michael Netzel Plums (Prunus spp.) are a popular stone fruit, widely consumed around the world. Due to high perishability, plums are harvested at an early stage of maturity to extend postharvest storage life. Cold storage is generally used alone or in combination with other practices to slow the ripening process and extend the shelf life.1 After purchasing plums, consumers tend to store them for a few days in their households before consumption. Plums can be stored either refrigerated or held at room temperature until they are fully ripe (soft and aromatic). During storage, based on the storage temperature and time, the nutritional composition, appearance, texture and flavor of plums may change, altering palatability and affecting bioaccessibility (release into the gut) and bioavailability (uptake from the gut) of nutrients, polyphenols and other bioactives, as they continue to ripen. As a part of a PhD project, this study was conducted to evaluate changes in the physicochemical properties (colour, pH, total soluble solids and titratable acidity) and nutritional composition in different tissues of ‘Queen Garnet Plum’ (QGP) at two common domestic storage temperatures (4 and 23°C). Queen Garnet is a cultivar of Japanese plum (P. salicina Lindl.) developed as a high anthocyanin plum in a Queensland Government breeding program.2 Anthocyanins are water-soluble polyphenols and plant pigments responsible for the bright colours of many fruits and vegetables. They may also play a significant role as health promoting food ingredients.3 Preliminary results confirmed that different tissues within the fruit have significantly different physicochemical properties, which also vary significantly depending on the two storage temperatures. Total anthocyanin content (TAC) and total phenolic content (TPC) of the peel was higher than the inner or outer
flesh. On a whole fruit basis, after 10 days’ storage at 23°C, TAC increased 2.3-fold; but at 4°C the increase was 1.2-fold. A similar increase was observed for TPC at these storage temperatures. Total carotenoids (bioactive yellow-orange pigments) of whole plums reduced with time at both storage temperatures. Total sugars also reduced significantly at 23°C but at 4°C, there was a slight increase. These results clearly showed that common domestic storage conditions can improve the nutritional quality of plums by increasing the content of anthocyanins and other polyphenols with potential health benefits. Anthocyanin content and accumulation during storage can be considered as an important nutrition and health related quality attribute of dark fleshed plums.4 However, storage temperature and time can also cause significant changes to the fruit matrix, potentially affecting anthocyanin stability, binding characteristics to cell wall components and subsequently the stability, bioaccessibility and bioavailability of anthocyanins during digestion. Future work on QGP will study the effects of storage conditions on these health-related parameters, as well as on sensory attributes. It is
also planned to extend these studies to examine the effect of domestic storage conditions on the nutritional quality of ‘Rubycot’- a novel plumcot cultivar.
References 1 Khan AS, Ahmed MJ, Singh Z. (2011). “Increased ethylene biosynthesis elevates incidence of chilling injury in cold-stored ‘Amber Jewel’ Japanese plum (Prunus salicina Lindl.) during fruit ripening.” Int J Food Sci Technol 46: 642–650. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652621.2010.02538.x 2 Russell D, Topp B. (2011). “Queen Garnet.” PVJ, 24:141-143 3 Wright ORL, Phan ADT, Hong HT, Netzel G, Sultanbawa Y, Netzel ME. (2020). “Bioactive Anthocyanins in Selected Fruits – A Foodomics Approach.” Reference Module in Food Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-08-100596-5.22785-6 4 Wang L, Sang W, Xu R, Cao J. (2020). “Alteration of flesh color and enhancement of bioactive substances via the stimulation of anthocyanin biosynthesis in ‘Friar’ plum fruit by low temperature and the removal.” Food Chem 310:125862, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodchem.2019.125862
Gethmini Kodagoda is a PhD student at Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), University of Queensland. She won 1st Prize at the AIFST 2020 Research Poster Competition. Dr. Michael Netzel is a Senior Research Fellow and PhD supervisor at QAAFI. This research was funded by Hort Innovation Australia, the University of Queensland and the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
food australia 7
AIFST 2020 RESEARCH POSTER COMPETITION
Water-oil-water double emulsions using grape seed oil and milk protein complexes Words by Mayumi Silva, Dr Bogdan Zisu and Dr Jayani Chandrapala Double emulsions are complex encapsulation systems that can be developed as either water-oilwater (W/O/W) or oil-water-oil (O/W/O) emulsions, depending on the application and ingredient type. In food applications, W/O/W emulsions are more prominent. Generally, double emulsions are used to protect and deliver both watersoluble and oil-soluble functional ingredients simultaneously within the internal water phase and oil phase respectively. For example, double emulsions can be used to reduce the fat content of salad dressings1, fat spreads,2 cheese3 and meats4 without compromising the sensory properties. These systems can also be used to control the release of target compounds, to protect sensitive functional compounds and to mask undesirable sensory attributes of some water-soluble ingredients.5 However, double emulsion-based food products often show poor stability during processing and storage, as structural disruption and release of encapsulated materials can occur upon exposure to the environmental stresses such as pH and temperature. In this study, we used ultrasound to develop stable, dairy-based W/O/W double emulsions with grape seed oil. Ultrasound was applied as an emulsification technique as it is a non-thermal, energy efficient and environmentally friendly technology. Dairy products are widely consumed and the major milk proteins, have excellent emulsification ability. Grape seed oil is a by-product from wine manufacturing, with a good thermal stability, sensory properties and nutritional profile. Double emulsions were designed using milk protein solutions with varying casein to whey protein ratios as internal (W1) and external (W2) aqueous phases with grape seed oil (O). In the first step, primary emulsions of grape seed oil and milk protein
8 food australia
Microstructure of double emulsions. solutions at 80:20 (w/w) ratio were stabilised with polyglycerol polyricinoleate (PGPR, lipophilic surfactant) at 2.5 per cent (w/w) concentration, using low-frequency ultrasound at 20 kHz and ~50 J/mL energy density. Prepared primary emulsions were then successfully emulsified with milk protein solutions at 10:90 (w/w) ratio under ~25 J/ mL energy density, obtaining > 40 per cent encapsulation efficiency. Whey protein-rich emulsions had a higher encapsulation efficiency than the casein-rich emulsions. Moreover, emulsion droplet size was also dependent on the casein:whey ratio. Emulsions with larger initial droplet size were disadvantageous, as this promoted the release of entrapped material during storage. This study demonstrated that encapsulation efficiency and storage stability of dairy-based double emulsions can be controlled by adjusting the composition of caseins and whey proteins in the aqueous phases. These compositiondependent effects are thought to be due to sonication-induced structural modifications and changes in bonding behaviors of the milk proteins. The detailed study on “Ultrasound-assisted formation of double emulsions stabilised by casein-whey protein mixtures”, has now been published
in Food Hydrocolloids, volume 109, December 2020, 106143, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2020.106143.
References 1 Gaonkar, A. G. (1994). “Stable multiple emulsions comprising interfacial gelatinous layer, flavorencapsulating multiple emulsions and low/no-fat food products comprising the same.” In: Google patents. 2. Okonogi, S, et al. (1994). “Methods for producing emulsions, low-fat spread and oil-in-water-in-oil type spread.” In: Google patents. 3. Felfoul, S, et al. (2015). “Low-fat gouda cheese made from bovine milk-olive oil emulsion: Physicochemical and sensory attributes.” Journal of Food Science & Technology, 52 (10):67496755 4. Serdaroglu, M, et al. (2016). “Emulsion characteristics, chemical and textural properties of meat systems produced with double emulsions as beef fat replacers.” Meat Science, 117:187-195 5. Jiménez-Colmenero, F. (2013). “Potential applications of multiple emulsions in the development of healthy and functional foods.” Food Research International, 52 (1): 64-74
Mayumi Silva is a PhD candidate and Dr Jayani Chandrapala is a senior lecturer in the School of Science at RMIT University. Dr. Bogdan Zisu is a senior process engineer at Fluid Air Spraying Systems, Melbourne.
Would you dare? Australians’ willingness to eat insects Words by Indee Hopkins Variety
Overall
Male
Female
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
>65
Ants
47.4
58.7
43.9
33.9
54.5
50.9
48.5
37.0
23.8
Crickets
50.6
66.4
45.6
35.7
56.1
55.9
50.5
42.5
28.6
Fly larvae
12.8
23.8
9.4
5.4
15.9
16.1
8.9
12.3
0.0
Caterpillars
24.0
40.6
18.8
17.9
25.9
28.0
17.8
24.7
19.0
Witchetty grubs
43.6
67.1
36.2
23.2
45.5
51.6
38.6
45.2
38.1
Moths
16.3
27.3
12.9
10.7
14.8
22.4
12.9
17.8
9.5
Chocolate coated ants
52.1
58.0
50.0
48.2
58.7
52.8
52.5
42.5
28.6
Insect based flour
65.7
72.0
63.8
58.9
71.4
68.9
65.3
54.8
47.6
Not willing to eat insects
26.3
18.9
28.6
35.7
21.7
23.0
25.7
34.2
42.9
Table 1. Participants willingness to eat a variety of insects or insect products (n=601) collectively, by gender and by age group (years). All data presented as percentages. Given the global population is growing and expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050,1 we have an urgent need to develop sustainable food systems to ensure a safe and secure food supply. Animal-based protein production will be a particular challenge, as meeting increasing demand is restricted by resource limitations, including land and water, and risks environmental damage.2 Insects offer us a nutritious and sustainable protein alternative. Yet, despite their many environmental benefits such as lower greenhouse gas emissions and resource requirements when compared to those of animalbased protein production,3 there seems to be a hesitation in the adoption of eating insects by the majority of Australians, with this practice far from mainstream. This study was an online survey exploring Australians’ previous experiences with edible insects and the possible factors that may motivate them to increase the likelihood of future insect consumption, such as species or presentation. Of the 601 adult respondents, 35.3 per cent reported having consumed insects previously, with 61.8 per cent reporting the consumption of Orthopteran species (grasshoppers, locusts and crickets). Insects from the Odonata
order (dragonfly and damselflies) were the least commonly consumed species with (reported by just 0.5 per cent of respondents). Of those who had consumed insects previously, further analysis showed no relationship between respondent age or gender and insect consumption. When asked about the likelihood of future insect consumption, should the opportunity arise, 56.2 per cent of respondents reported they would be either “extremely likely” or “somewhat likely” to consume insects. By comparison, 33.6 per cent of respondents reported they would be either “extremely unlikely” or “somewhat unlikely” to consume insects, with 10.1 per cent citing they would be “neither likely nor unlikely”. Further analysis showed a relationship between respondent gender and the likelihood of future willingness to try eating insects, with males showing a higher willingness. There was no relationship between respondent age and future willingness. The species or presentation appeared to influence respondent acceptance of an insect or insect product, with 65.7 per cent reporting they would be willing to try an insectbased flour, compared with just 12.8 per cent who would be willing to try fly larvae. There was a relationship
between respondent gender and the likelihood of future willingness to try particular species, with males more likely to try fly larvae and caterpillars, yet no relationship existed between gender and the respondent’s willingness to try crickets or witchetty grubs. This study indicated that a large proportion of Australian adults are open to the possibility of future insect consumption. However, to increase the likelihood of insect protein acceptance, it may be necessary to present food products in a way which ensures the insects are physically indistinguishable, such as insect-based flour, and limit products to particular species that appear to have wider consumer acceptance.
References 1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2019). “World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights.”:5. 2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2017). “The future of food and agriculture – Trends and challenges, Summary version.” Rome.:15-18. 3. Lawrence S, K. T., Fish L, Baird Walsh J, Byrd E. (2019). “Meat Re-Imagined, the global emergence of alternative proteins- What does it mean for Australia?” .:5-8
Indee Hopkins is a PhD candidate in food science at RMIT University, with a research focus in insects as an alternative protein source.
food australia 9
HEALTH & NUTRITION
Is plant-based meat a healthier choice? Words by Karen Job
NEXT! Chickn in Stir Fry
A
ustralians are eating too much
attractive protein option for people
In addition, plant-based meats also
red meat - it’s a commonly heard concern from health authorities, yet one unheeded down under. Australians consumed more than double the amount of red meat advised by government dietary guidelines in 2019, as shown in data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).1 According to the most recent Australian health survey, one-third of this meat consumption is nonlean and processed meats2 – the very types of meats that health experts warn against. Decades of epidemiological research has shown that the overconsumption of red meats, particularly processed meats, contributes to the rise of colorectal cancer, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus, diseases that are among the leading causes of death in Australia. For consumers hearing the warnings and seeking to eat less meat, the meat alternatives industry is expanding its offerings to meet these changing consumer preferences. From local supermarkets to fast casual restaurants, a growing range of plantbased meat products have hit shelves and menus to meet every taste and
who want familiar formats, like sausages and schnitzels, and meatlike flavours. Plant-based meats, and especially those ‘new generation’ products designed to mimic meat, have a base of ingredients primarily comprising protein, fat and water – the same primary building blocks as conventional meat – to create a ‘meaty’ taste and texture. As an emerging category, plantbased meats have drawn curiosity from consumers, dietitians, media and food industry professionals alike, namely questioning: are these options really a healthier choice? To answer this question, Australian and New Zealand think tank Food Frontier and leading Australian Accredited Practising Dietitian (APD) Teri Lichtenstein developed an extensive study on the health and nutrition of plant-based meat. The study analysed the nutrition averages of plant-based meats available across Australia and New Zealand in comparison to some of Australia’s favourite conventional meat products such as sausages, burgers and crumbed chicken. The report found that, compared to their conventional meat equivalents,
have the presence of fibre, while conventional meat contains none. Report co-author Teri Lichtenstein, APD, said the results showed plantbased meat can serve as a healthier option over similar conventional meats, especially for those seeking an adequately protein-packed, centre-ofplate alternative. Lichtenstein says that everyone should be eating more whole foods, including whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds, though plant-based meats provide some of the benefits associated with eating more whole plant foods, such as dietary fibre and lower saturated fat. She emphasises that plant-based meats can also serve as a transition food towards a more plant-centric diet, a perspective shared by the Chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Professor Frank Hu.3 The report also explores key topics related to the health of plant-based meats, including processing and ingredients. Plant-based meats fall in the same NOVA category as processed conventional meats. This is due to the methods for extracting the protein isolates from plant material
occasion. Given that Australian consumers’ tastes and culinary preferences have remained largely unchanged over the decades, alternatives such as plant-based meats can be an
plant-based meats, on average, have: • higher or comparable protein • lower or comparable kilojoules and sodium • lower fat and considerably lower saturated fat
and the use of extrusion technology to produce the proteins commonly used to provide plant-based meats a fibrous, meat-like texture. However, the definition and impacts of processing are nuanced and warrant
10 food australia
Red meat-style plant-based meats and conventional red meat equivalents (per 100g)
best achieved through incremental changes, and it’s necessary to offer 4 5 6 7 Nutrient Sausages Burgers Mince Bacon Sausages Burgers Mince Bacon (n=23) (n=23) (n=9) (n=4) people viable, appealing alternatives to their current dietary choices that Energy (kilojoules) 785.1 987 863.3 950.4 757.7 767 971 1310 suit their existing eating patterns and Protein (g) 16.3 14.5 14.7 16 17.2 22.5 22.4 15.4 fulfil nutritional needs.5,6,7 Fat, total (g) 9.0 18.7 10.9 16.4 9.2 10.4 12.2 28.2 Lichtenstein believes that’s where Saturated Fat (g) 2.7 8.7 3.7 7.5 4 4.7 2 10.9 plant-based meats come in, and the Carbohydrate (g) 8.6 2.9 11.8 4.3 6.4 0 8.8 0.3 healthiest plant-based meats will Sugars (g) 1.8 0 1.8 1.3 1.9 0 1.6 0.3 for everyone, while the Dietary Fibre (g) 4.5* 0 3.9* 0.1 5.8* 0 2.7* be different 0 Sodium (mg) 501.1 740 416.7 471.3 346.4 51 639.0 industry 1274 also has a role to play in Health Star Rating continually improving their products. 3.7 3.7 4 4 3.6The report 0.5 concludes with guidance 1.5 2 from Lichtenstein and Food Frontier * Dietary Fibre: Calculated based on products that list fibre nutrient value (Sausages, n=19; Burgers n=15; Mince, n=4; Bacon, n=1) for the plant-based meat industry to White meat style plant-based meats and conventional white meat equivalents (per 100g) explore ways to increase desirable nutrient values with solutions like = Plant-based Meat Poultry Poultry Nutrient Poultry Poultry biofortification and vegetable fibres; – un-crumbed – un-crumbed** – crumbed – crumbed = Plant-based average is superior (n=11) (n=25) and reduce less desirable nutrients and = Average is comparable within 10% Energy (kilojoules) 847.1 970.1 684.6 644.6 ingredients, from additives to sodium. Protein (g) 12.6 13.8 18.6 18.1 = Plant-based average is inferior The full report is available for free Fat, total (g) 10.3 12.5 5.8 7.9 Saturated Fat (g) 2.1 2.7 1 2.4 download at: www.foodfrontier.org/ Carbohydrate (g) 14.3 15.8 6 2.4 reports. 8
9
Sugars (g)
2.3
2.6
1.6
1.3
Dietary Fibre (g)
4.9*
0.6*
5.6*
0.1
Sodium (mg)
541
596
506.4
504.2
References
Health Star Rating
4
3.5
4.4
4
*Dietary Fibre: Calculated based on products that list fibre nutrient value (Poultry – crumbed, n=23; Poultry – un-crumbed, n=10) **Includes raw and pre-seasoned poultry pieces
an extended discussion. In brief, the report points out that plant-based meats do not, on average, present the problematic nutrition profiles typically associated with ‘ultra-processed foods’ (e.g. high sugar, sodium, saturated and trans fats, a lack of fibre or protein, or a high ratio of calories to nutrients). Plant-based meats are made from a range of different combinations of plant proteins, oils, spices, seasonings and other plant derivatives, including starches and common food additives. Generally, these products use plant proteins (most often in the form of protein isolates, concentrates and flours) or mycoprotein (protein derived from fungi) to achieve a more meat-like appearance and texture, rather than incorporating whole grains, legumes, nuts or vegetables – though some products do. The report found plant-based meats contain an average of five additives, while conventional meat equivalents contain four additives on average, with both most commonly using ‘emulsifiers, stabilisers, and thickeners’ – to create
schnitzels, burgers and sausages, for example. The Food Frontier report concludes that plant-based meats, while processed foods like their conventional meat equivalents, are either comparable or superior in nutrition. Considering Australians would need to eat 24kg less red meat a year to meet the current government dietary guidelines, public health practitioners and dietitians alike may consider the report’s findings as evidence of the role that plant-based meats can play. Research by leading market research agency Colmar Brunton shows many Aussies are already on a meat reduction journey: in 2019, 42 percent of Aussies said they were eating less meat – or none at all.4 This figure represents more than 10 million Australians whose diets are defined as ‘Flexitarians’ or ‘Meat-Reducers’ – both actively limiting their consumption of meat – or Vegetarians and Vegans, who are entirely meat-free. Evidence in behavioural change shows making better choices is
1. (2019) Meat consumption (Indicator). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (FR). (doi: 10.1787/ fa290fd0-en). OECD meat consumption data was utilised in line with Australian Government use of OECD data for determining meat consumption, in addition to allowing for comparison across both Australia and New Zealand. 2. (2014) Australian health survey: Nutrition first results - Foods and nutrients, 2011-12. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS Cat. No.: 4364.0.55.007. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/healthconditions-and-risks/australian-health-surveynutrition-first-results-foods-and-nutrients/latestrelease 3. (2019) Plant-based meat substitutes can be ‘transitional foods’ on path to healthier diet. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-inthe-news/plant-based-meat-healthier-diet/ 4. (2019) King T, Weber J. Hungry for plant-based: Australian consumer insights. Colmar Brunton. https://www.foodfrontier.org/reports 5. (2009) Lloyd-Williams F, Mwatsama M, Ireland R, Capewell S. Small changes in snacking behaviour: The potential impact on CVD mortality. Public Health Nutr;12(6):871-6. (doi:10.1017/S1368980008003054) 6. (2009) Stroebele N, de Castro JM, Stuht J, Catenacci V, Wyatt HR, Hill JO. A small-changes approach reduces energy intake in freeliving humans. J Am Coll Nutr;28(1)63-8. (doi: 10.1080/07315724.2009.10719763 7. (2010) Paineau D, Beaufils F, Boulier A, Cassuto DA, Chwalow J, Combris P, et al. The cumulative effect of small dietary changes may significantly improve nutritional intakes in free-living children and adults. Eur J Clin Nutr;64(8):782–91. (doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2010.78)
Karen Job is the head of industry engagement at Food Frontier, a not-for-profit think tank and expert adviser on alternative proteins in Australia and New Zealand. f
food australia 11
SUPPLY CHAINS
Bushfires to pandemics – how the industry responded Words by Dr Geoffrey Annison
A
s the new year begins, many are reflecting on the defining events of 2020 and most agree that, for Australians, it was bushfires and the pandemic. Their impacts have been profound on individuals, on the nation, and on Government. Both have highlighted our vulnerability to natural disasters, resulting in a rapid re-focus by Government on two key aspects of disaster responses – preparedness and recovery. As a result, the Federal Government has challenged the food and grocery manufacture and supply sector in two broadly aligned areas vis: 1. the Government’s manufacturing strategy policy to assist recovery of the economy following COVID-19, and the call for greater investment in food and grocery manufacturing in Australia, and 2. the Government’s further call for greater resilience in the economy to resist future shocks from pandemics, natural disasters and geopolitical unrest based on increasing sovereign capability in essential industries, including food and grocery manufacturing. The Government has indicated that sectors contributing to the manufacturing strategy should focus on investment and expansion aiming to create jobs, improve productivity, support regional development, include smart manufacturing
12 food australia
technologies and grow export potential. Increasing manufacturing in Australia will improve the resilience of the sector to some extent, and it is aligned to regional employment and export objectives. Notwithstanding this, the food industry needs to be competitive to compete in global markets which may constrain some aspects of increasing resilience in the sector. Resilience may be broadly defined as maintaining food and grocery security for Australians in the event of disruptions or shocks to the food and grocery supply chain. In a practical sense, this means maintaining the supply of the wide range of products found on supermarket shelves. For foods, this would include products ranging from: • fresh through to long shelf-life products • the five major food groups • value up to premium offerings, and • the many cultural backgrounds of Australians. This type of resilience was demonstrated during the current COVID-19 crisis. Despite a large and sustained surge in consumer demand, shortages in products were relatively few, and short term. Overall, supply shortages occurred in only a small number of categories but shortages in remote, indigenous communities were longer lasting.
It should, however, be acknowledged that in the initial stages of the pandemic, fragility in the supply chains was revealed. Although Australia produces a surplus of food commodities, the food manufacturing sector is critically reliant on imports for specialist ingredients and other components of food (e.g. food additives, colourings, flavourings and processing aids). In addition, other inputs such as packaging, disinfectants and personal protective equipment (PPE) used during manufacture are largely imported. Shortages of many of these inputs occurred requiring alternative sources to be identified by companies. In some cases – for example with PPE – government assistance was sought and provided to secure stocks. Overall, however, the supply chain for food and grocery products responded well to the COVID-19 crisis. Similarly, during the 2020 bushfires, widespread damage to property and communications occurred but a coordinated effort across the supply chain restored supplies into supermarkets and other retail outlets relatively quickly. Where road links took longer to be repaired, supplies were transported by air and sea. The response was essentially two– pronged viz: 1. Re-establishing normal supply
chains. Retailers worked urgently to bring stores back into operation after they were forced to shut down due to power failures or failures of other services such as internet connections. Retailers worked closely with suppliers to ensure goods were available to be transported by road, air or sea. These arrangements were managed in close collaboration with authorities, and emergency services. This rapid re-establishing of ‘routine’ supply chains allowed consumers in affected areas to purchase the day-to-day food and grocery products they needed from retail outlets. 2. Utilising Foodbank and similar charities to supply goods to affected areas. Many Australians who were directly affected by the bushfires required the assistance of charities such as Foodbank which was able to organise shipments of goods and establish outlet facilities to provide food and grocery products to those in need. Working with authorities to coordinate shipments, and understanding what goods were needed in which regions, went a long way to ensuring those persons most affected by the bushfires received the goods they needed in a timely fashion.
Resilience in face of extreme circumstances A key lesson from the pandemic was that the Australian food and grocery manufacturing sector has a largely resilient supply chain, but, with some vulnerabilities. Clearly, challenges to the operation of the food and grocery supply chain may vary greatly in their severity, and consequently degrees of resilience are required to resist them and keep supermarket shelves stocked. Currently, in the event of widespread, prolonged disruptions to the manufacture of food and grocery products, and their distribution to consumers, the closest framework for the prioritisation of food and grocery products within the supply chain is the ‘pantry lists’ which have been
produced, including by the Australian Food and Grocery Council.
Building resilience in the supply chain Prioritising which elements of the food and grocery manufacture and supply chain must remain operational may start with assessing the critical needs of consumers, and then working backwards to source materials and key material and service inputs. These critical needs may be broadly characterised as key foods based on: • providing a wide variety of energy and nutrient dense products to support good nutrition • utility and storage requirements – perishable, chilled, or shelf stable • cultural/culinary requirements – halal, kosher, organic • special needs – e.g. infant formula This approach is not exhaustive, and more detail is required. It needs to be refined to ensure that all basic needs are identified along with the inputs, and supply chain details, needed to meet those needs. For the food and grocery sector, resilience might best be conceptualised as two-tiered: • Tier-one – keep the industry running with minimal disruption in the supply of products to retailers. Consumers would be unaware that steps were being taken to modify supply operations. This is the ideal outcome in the event of a ‘crisis’ such as a pandemic as it would help to maintain community confidence in supply chains and avoid panic buying. • Tier-two – keep the supply chain functioning at a level where key products still reach consumers despite either localised major infrastructure disruption, or an extended period of disruption across the whole sector. Again, this might be the result of a major disruptive event.
Post COVID-19 and manufacturing strategy
roadmap. The sector will benefit from reforms to industry policies and from initiatives which incentivise R&D, and support training and skills development (particularly in STEM disciplines). In addition, the deregulation agenda of the Government, has the potential to reinvigorate the food industry. The current review of the food regulatory system should lead to the streamlining of processes and encourage innovation in food product development.
Business investment is required to build resilience and competitiveness Building resilience and improving competitiveness require businesses to invest. Global sourcing of inputs has led to reduced costs, while just-in-time delivery has brought efficiencies in the supply chain. Although businesses and consumers have benefitted through cheaper products from stretched and lean supply chains, this model is less resilient than if supply chains were shorter and greater stock volumes were held in storage. Boosting on-shore manufacturing also has the potential to increase resilience but realistically many food products will still rely on imported components for their manufacture. Supply chain diversity, strategic sourcing and partnership building can make supply chains more robust, but there may be some cost disadvantages. Clearly individual businesses need to examine their supply chain exposures and risk appetites, and not just as a response to 2020. Indeed, as we enter 2021 levels of uncertainty remain high. COVID-19 has not been conquered, economic conditions remain problematic, and geopolitical tensions remain high. Dr Geoffrey Annison is deputy chief executive at the Australian Food and Grocery Council. f
The Federal Government has asked the food and grocery manufacturing and supply sector to create a
food australia 13
FOOD ENGINEERING
Improving returns in food production through smarter information use Words by Dr Rodolfo García-Flores
W
hilst it is expected that food consumption will continue to grow for at least the next 40 years,1 driven by a growing population and rising incomes, this increase will also face constraints from scarcity of resources, more attention to food security, and changing dietary habits. Variable climate patterns, economic uncertainty and changing regulatory policies will demand adaptation and more efficient and better integrated supply chain operations. Automated data analytics are already facilitating the use of decision support models and opening the door to important efficiency increases and enabling widespread agricultural supply chain optimisation and risk analysis. In this article, we provide an overview of data analytics in food supply chains with emphasis on risk management. Data analytics enable organisations to make better decisions by obtaining valuable insights from their data. Analytical models can be grouped into descriptive (they provide a summary of the data), predictive (they produce an estimate of the future) and prescriptive (they advise on outcomes of decisions). Prescriptive models are the most valuable for commercial operations, as they not only build upon descriptive and predictive models, but also incorporate and formalise the knowledge from experts and operators to model and assess the decisions that can make or break a business. This knowledge is represented as rules, preferences, constraints and scenarios. Prescriptive models are based on simulation and optimisation, which are methodologies that analyse the availability of resources and explore all the possible actions. The discipline of applying advanced analytical methods to help take
14 food australia
Figure 1. The risk space framework3 better decisions is known as Operational Research (OR). Developing prescriptive models for food supply chains is challenging because of the inherent complexity derived from the biological nature of agricultural systems. This complexity is reflected in high variability, the difficulty to quantify issues related to sustainability, and the importance of timing to process and market (perishability). These risks can be assessed and quantified using stochastic optimisation, which is a methodology that helps understand how to achieve the best outcome by minimising the impact of identified risks. This is done through weighting a number of plausible scenarios and their probabilities of occurring, and which could be seen as the calculation of expected values for the solution. Thus, no matter what scenario unfolds, the optimal solution of a stochastic model is robust in the sense that it is less likely to deviate from the expected optimal solution value than a solution that assumes the certainty of a single scenario that may not occur; the latter is called a deterministic model. As the chance of having a more precise estimate
of the uncertain scenarios increases, so does the chance of the model suggesting a solution that is closer to the true optimal, and therefore of making the best decision. Optimisation, both deterministic and stochastic, has been used in the food industry to model inventory management, transportation and logistics, production scheduling, infrastructure investment, time to market and reduction of food loss. Increasingly, these models rely on real-time data collected from sensors on the field, distributed computer networks, commercial databases, climate and economic forecasting models, warehouses and point-ofsale, opening up possibilities for reactive optimisation, which is the real-time calculation and correction of operational plans using the latest information collected on the ground. This is part of the promise of Industry 4.0. In addition to optimisation, risk managers use the concepts of resilience, which is “the potential to recover quickly from disruption”, and robustness, which is “an ability to withstand disruption with an acceptable loss of performance”.2
Thus, a robust food supply chain is fit to handle business-as-usual risks, whereas a resilient supply chain is better able to manage the risks of disruption. Resilience and robustness together ensure that a system is reliable, that is, it is free from failure and can consistently perform well.
NEW:
A useful framework to unify some of these concepts is the risk matrix. Resilience stands out as a promising research topic to address in data analytics - stochastic optimisation is helpful to weight disruptive scenarios, but the response to the disruption should also touch on the cultural aspects of continuous improvement. These challenges are harder to attain for networks of companies than for individual players, as more coordination and a broader view of the system are necessary. The fact that cognitive, political and ideological agreement is needed in addition to quantitative modelling makes the design of a truly resilient supply chain a very difficult endeavour. There is a gap in research on food supply chain resilience. True resilience only comes from continuously asking the right questions proactively, building networks and partnerships, and ensuring a variety of creative
strategies as part of a broader entrepreneurial culture.
References 1. HCJ Godfray, JR Beddington, IR Crute, L Haddad, D Lawrence, JF Muir, J Pretty, S Robinson, SM Thomas, and C Toulmin. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967):812–818, February 2010. 2. G Behzadi, MJ O’Sullivan, TL Olsen, and A Zhang. Agribusiness supply chain risk management: A review of quantitative decision models. Omega, 79:21–42, 2016. 3. R García-Flores, S Allen, R Gajre, P Johnstone, D Yi, J Johnston, T White, D Scotland, and L Lim-Camacho. Food Engineering Innovations across the Food Supply Chain, chapter Understanding and building resilience in food supply chains. 2020. Accepted for publication.
Rodolfo García-Flores is a research scientist in CSIRO Data61. He has over 15 years’ experience in Operations Research, particularly in mathematical programming, data mining, simulation, and multiagent systems. He has participated in many commercial projects to optimise food supply chains (e.g. dairy, beef, vegetables). f
Oat Protein Detection Kit !
ELISA Systems is proud to announce the release of its new Oat Protein Residue Detection Kit- ESOAT-48. A new tool to bridge the gap in current gluten analysis. For more information contact: sales@elisasystems.net www.elisasystems.com
food australia 15
TRENDS FEATURE
Now and next: Navigating a changed consumer landscape in Australia Words by Elysha Young
Y
ou don’t need to be a market analyst to know that 2020 was an extremely rocky year for Australians, both mentally and financially. COVID-19, and the resulting recession, have left consumers wary and uncertain about the future on both a personal and societal level. Mintel’s data captured that uncertainty with our fortnightly COVID-19 sentiment tracker, where we observed consumers’ heightened level of concern about their own health, the wellbeing of their families, forced changes to their lifestyles, unemployment levels – the list goes on. We’ve seen a lot of data over the past few months indicating that while health and safety will remain
feel about their personal financial situation, we can see that caution continuing through. Much of the downturn we’ve seen has been due to the sudden cessation in consumption outside of the home – after the initial period of panic buying, consumers mostly found that staying inside and cooking for yourself is much cheaper than commuting to work, eating out, visiting people, going to events. In this scenario, it becomes more important to be creative about how you stimulate spending because for many, it’s not a lack of cash stopping them from buying things. More impactful is the uncertainty, compelling consumers to hold onto their cash for a rainy day, combined of course with the closure
pandemic the reliance on disposable packaging and extreme hygiene made environmental concerns less salient, and there was concern that all the progress made in becoming more environmentally aware would be lost. However, as time has gone on and consumers settled into their new lifestyles to some extent, nearly a third of Australians say the environment has become a higher priority for them. Likewise, healthy eating and exercising has remained a consistent focus, and 45% of Australians say staying in touch with their family and friends is more important to them now than before COVID-19. These elements combined have created a complex and constantly
major concerns, it’s the slowing of the economy that’s having a negative effect on consumer confidence and their willingness to spend in both the short and long term. When it comes to how Australians
of so many places meaning fewer occasions to actually spend. Over this period, we’ve seen Australians take stock and reassess their priorities. With an emphasis on hygiene, in the initial stages of the
evolving situation, and in the food and drink industry it will be more important than ever to understand what consumers are looking for in order to create products and brand communications that are relevant to
16 food australia
Australians’ evolving lifestyles. Below are three key trends that encapsulate the shifts occurring, and actions brands can take to ensure they are meeting consumers’ emerging expectations.
Sustainability and localism The first trend we’ve seen is around how Australians are connecting to their surroundings. Localism and sustainability have become important drivers of consumer behaviour in the wake of the COVID-19 lockdowns and the bushfires. We’ve seen real momentum for locally-produced and owned build over the past year – between the bushfires and COVID-19 there’s been quite a dramatic shift towards trying to buy more locally grown food – from 44% in July last year, up to 52% July this year – saying they try to buy locally grown all or most of the time. Sustainability is important because the environment is so salient – as we saw in Australians’ shifting priorities – brought about by the resurgence of single-use plastic waste, and that initial rebound we saw of the environment when we first slowed down. We’ve also been thinking a lot about the environment since the bushfires, and the way it’s linked is becoming very clear. Australians tend to prize locally made goods and consider them of better quality than their imported counterparts. As demonstrated by Mintel’s Purchase Intelligence, consumers gravitate towards Australian made products and rate them more highly on attributes such as quality, taste and trustworthiness of the brand. They also consider them slightly better value. Australian consumers say that the most important quality in food and drink purchases post-COVID-19 is low price, with 40% agreeing price is most important. The next most important factor is that products are made locally, with 39% of Australians agreeing locally produced is important. Consumers may trade a slightly higher cost for locally made products, but won’t suffer high prices for goods produced overseas
– especially items they consider to be better quality when from Australia, like seafood. In this climate, ‘Australian made’ communicates value and safety. From a sustainability perspective, Mintel’s Global New Products Database has identified an 8.8% rise in Vegan/No Animal Products claims between 2019 and 2020, and a 19.5% rise in Carbon Neutral claims, indicating environmental issues are resonating with Australian consumers and they are seeking out products that are produced sustainably. This is reflected in the consumer data, where 38% of Australians agree the COVID-19 pandemic proves humans need to eat fewer animals and 34% say they
limit their meat intake all or most of the time. Note that this doesn’t mean Australians are becoming strict vegetarians or vegans or cutting meat out completely, but more that they see the benefits of a plant-based lifestyle and that the intention exists to restrict consumption. We’ve also identified which consumer segments and traits tend to go together; the type of Australian consumer that’s interested in being more sustainable and ethical with their purchases is also more likely to want to shop locally, cares about where their products come from, and is actually more sceptical than the average Australian about on-pack
food australia 17
TRENDS FEATURE
Interestingly, while immunity claims featured on only 0.75% of products in 2020, many of the products that did include an immunity claim also included a pro/prebiotic claim. This indicates that consumer understanding of the importance of gut health for general wellbeing is increasing, and that the awareness of the functions of specific ingredients will see more specific claims resonate better than general ‘immunity’. By contrast, the GNPD identified an increase of 21.7% for on-pack probiotic claims on food and drink products in Australia between 2019 and 2020 and a 19.5% increase for prebiotic claims. Psychological wellbeing will become increasingly important to consumers
claims and efficacy of ingredients. They’re also more price-conscious than the average Australian, so being able to demonstrate that locallyproduced is also better value will be key.
Another emerging consumer expectation lies in the increasingly complicated path towards wellbeing.
digestive system and emotions – is critical for cognitive and physical wellbeing. Consumers are starting to understand this connection much more, and are looking for products that make them better from the inside out. 51% of Australians believe that certain ingredients have a beneficial effect on their mood, for example chamomile tea for relaxation, and 44% are including more immune-boosting
Brain health, emotional wellbeing and stress reduction are growing priorities for consumers as they gravitate to a more holistic approach to wellness. Maintaining a healthy gut/brain axis – the connection that links the brain,
foods in their diets than pre-COVID-19, indicating that people are using food and drink as preventative medicine to stay as healthy as possible and build immunity against any oncoming viral threats.
Health and wellbeing
18 food australia
– this has been an extremely stressful time and many of us are busier than ever while trying to adjust to our strange new environment, so brands really have an opportunity here to help consumers find that balance. Patent registration (https://www. mintel.com/food-patent-watch) around food and drink opportunities in the area of the gut-brain axis is growing. With increasing research into the gut microbiota suggesting a broader influence on wellbeing, including its impact on mental health issues, there are likely to be wider opportunities for psychobiotics and fermented foods in the future to support mental wellbeing. When it comes to performance, the needs and functions consumers are looking for are becoming increasingly specific. Eye health is an emerging claim in many countries around AsiaPacific, and with people using screens and being exposed to blue light more than ever, this could really resonate with Australian consumers.
Comfort and value As Australians take ‘hyper-nesting’ to new levels, comfort and value will become more important than ever. As they remain concerned about hygiene and continue to turn their homes into offices, entertainment spaces and everything in between, people will look for the quality of experience they used to need to leave the house for,
but expect it either delivered to them or, at the very least, able to be enjoyed at the same level at home. Now that Australians are going out less, the home is where they will look to treat themselves; past recessions show even valueconscious shoppers seek to trade up with small treats. Consumers can justify the expenditure by comparing how much more the same kind of treats cost in foodservice. Economic uncertainty is not just something in the back of their minds – they’re explicitly cognisant of the economic situation and how that affects each and every purchase. However, while many Australians will be cautious of their budget when grocery shopping, that doesn’t mean brands should compete on price alone. Indeed, careful spending can mean minimising risk as much as it does being frugal. Emphasising the value of a product helps consumers feel like they are getting ‘bang for their buck’ without taking a risk by sacrificing quality. A good way to emphasise value is to highlight the flexibility of your product. Dalgona coffee is the perfect example of how consumers started getting experimental with whatever they had in the pantry, and turning it into something café-worthy, by whipping up instant coffee with sugar and water to turn it into a kind of coffee foam. The two biggest risks when trying something new while shopping are that you won’t like it, or you won’t get a chance to use it before it goes off. By highlighting the variety of usage occasions, brands give the consumer more reasons to try and more ways to get value from their product, thus mitigating the risk of purchase. Farmers Union Greek yoghurt, for example, launched a marketing campaign with the proposition ‘Make anything Zing’, meaning that you can put the product with pretty much any meal and it will add value to it. As consumers are cooking at home more than they have in a long time, communications like this will resonate with consumers who want to be a bit adventurous with their cooking but don’t have the budget to be taking risks. Localism and sustainability, health and wellbeing, and comfort and value will remain key drivers of consumer behaviour in Australia for the foreseeable future. The way that these drivers play out, however, will shift as consumers adapt to their new circumstances. Staying on top of these trends in consumer behaviour will help brands to remain relevant to Australian lifestyles long after the crisis period ends.
We have a range of masks, in stock and ready for despatch. Scan the barcode or visit our website to see our range.
Surgical and KN95 face masks are in stock and ready for immediate despatch. View our website to find out more.
www.rowe.com.au Stirring and Mixing
References 1. COVID-19’s impact on ANZ consumers: 14-18 September, Mintel 2. Mintel’s Global Consumer – July 2020 – Food & Drink 3. Mintel’s Global Consumer – July 2020 – The Holistic Consumer 4. Mintel’s Global New Product Database 5. Mintel’s Purchase Intelligence
Elysha Young is trends manager APAC at Mintel. She manages the Asia Pacific Mintel Trends team made up of expert analysts and trend spotters. She currently oversees content for Mintel Trends as well as client servicing for the region. f
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 REF:101
South Australia & NT Ph: (08) 8186 0523 rowesa@rowe.com.au
Western Australia
Ph: (08) 9302 1911 rowewa@rowe.com.au
x/marketing/advertising/AIFST/101-AIFST.SEP 2020
food australia 19
FOOD SAFETY FEATURE
New oat assay from ELISA Systems completes gluten analysis puzzle Words by Dr Tony Treloar
What is ‘gluten’? Gluten is a collective description for the main storage proteins (prolamins) of wheat, rye, barley, and oats, and their hybrids. Gluten intolerance encompasses several types of gluten-related disorders, most notably coeliac disease, a common autoimmune condition of increasing prevalence.1 Symptoms of this disease are triggered by prolamins from wheat (gliadin), rye (secalin), barley (hordein) and, in some patient populations, oats (avenins).2 Avoidance of gluten is the cornerstone of coeliac disease management and therefore analysis to measure gluten in food constitutes a crucial element of this dietary treatment.
has not been a reliable assay for oat prolamins until now. The ELISA Systems Oat Protein Detection kit specifically detects oat avenins allowing quantitative detection of oat gluten, therefore fulfilling a muchneeded role in the gluten analysis of food. The absence of crossreactivity with other gluten prolamins complements existing gluten assays, facilitating the complete quantitative monitoring of gluten-containing cereals. The sensitivity of the oat kit is consistent with current commercially available gluten kits which have limits of quantitation ranging from 2 – 5ppm gluten (approximately 2.5 -6.25ppm total protein for wheat).
Immunoassays for gluten
Specific application areas for the oat protein detection kit
Although a variety of immunoassays have been developed to measure wheat, rye and barley prolamins, these kits do not detect oats to any significant degree. Hence, there
1. Gluten allergen management In a regulatory context, the CODEX Alimentarius Commission includes oats in its definition of gluten,3 and this is also reflected in many national
20 food australia
jurisdictions governing the labelling of gluten in foods. For example, in the EU, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the intentional addition of oats requires mandatory declaration on the label to indicate the presence of a gluten-containing grain. It is therefore important to have a specific analytical method that can monitor and quantitate oats in a food production environment. The availability of the Oat Protein Detection kit therefore facilitates ingredient control and consequently may also promote increased use of oats as an alternative grain source to take advantage of its nutritional profile and cost benefits. 2. Verifying gluten-free status In Australia and New Zealand, the requirements for gluten-free labelling are regulated under the Food Code Standard 1.2.7 (Schedule 4), nutrition, health and related claims. Currently, a food making a gluten-free claim must not contain: (a) detectable gluten; or
Format:
Double antibody (sandwich) ELISA
Specificity:
Oat Avenin
Lower Limit of Quantitation:
2.5 ppm Oat Protein
Upper Limit of Quantitation:
25 ppm Oat Protein
Extraction Time:
20 mins
Detection kit can test samples from raw and cooked products, nutritional supplements and environmental samples such as rinse waters and swabs. These quantitative and qualitative applications will allow validation of cleaning protocols and ongoing verification of allergen status.
Assay Time:
50 mins
References
ELISA Systems oat protein residue assay details
1. Tye-Din et al. (2018) “Celiac Disease: A (b) oats or oat products; or (c) cereals containing gluten that have been malted, or products of such cereals. The distinction for oats largely reflects the previous lack of methodology to allow their detection in food. The Oat Protein Detection kit therefore represents an invaluable tool in verifying gluten-free status of ingredients and finished products. Further, the ability to now quantitate all gluten-containing grains should promote discussions
on an acceptable threshold for non-intentionally added gluten. This would alleviate the issues regarding the development of increasingly sensitive gluten detection methodologies which make a nondetectable threshold impractical. It would also be in concordance with many other jurisdictions where up to 20 ppm gluten is permitted for gluten-free claims. 3. Cleaning validation and verification The new ELISA Systems Oat Protein
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Review of Current Concepts in Pathogenesis, Prevention, and Novel Therapies.” Front Pediatr. 6:350. doi:10.3389/fped.2018.00350. 2. Hardy et al. (2015) Ingestion of oats and barley in patients with celiac disease mobilizes crossreactive T cells activated by avenin peptides and immuno-dominant hordein peptides. J Autoimmun. 56:56–65. 10.1016/j.jaut.2014.10.003. 3. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Foods for Special Dietary Use for Persons Intolerant to Gluten Rome: FAO-WHO (2008).
Dr Tony Treloar is a biochemist and has been senior scientist at ELISA Systems for over 12 years. f
CONTROL
MAKING THE
DIFFERENCE
SAFETY
INNOVATIVE SAFETY, QUALITY AND SUSTAINABILITY SOLUTIONS FOR YOUR FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN
INSPECTION
CERTIFICATION
• • • • •
• GFSI (SQF, BRC, FSSC 22000, Global G.A.P.) • Freshcare, HARPS • Gluten Free, Non-GMO • UTZ, RSPO, ECA, ESA
Pre-shipment In-store product quality Secret shopper Post-shipment Agricultural testing
CONSULTANCY
LABORATORY
• Training • Second Party Audits • Internal Audits and other customised services • Food Safety and Quality Systems • Food labelling compliance
• • • • • •
Pathogens Hygiene Indicators Allergens Nutritional Analysis Contaminants and Residues All Species ID and GMO’s
Call our friendly client services team for a quote or allow us to develop a customised service to meet your needs.
CONTACT US (03) 9574 3200 agrifood.au@sgs.com www.sgs.com.au SGS Agriculture & Food
food australia 21
SENSORY & CONSUMER SCIENCE FEATURE
FOOD FILES Words by Dr Russell Keast, Dr Gie Liem, Dr Georgie Russell and Dipendra Mahato
Sugar reduction in foods is possible! Sugar is added to foods to make them more palatable and enjoyable. However, the consumption of sugar in excess of the recommended level can have adverse health effects. To address such public health concerns, the World Health Organisation recommends less than 10% of total energy intake from free/added sugar. Also, Public Health England recommends at least a 20% sugar reduction in specific categories of processed foods. Food reformulation is a promising public health strategy to tackle nutrition-related issues. Reduction of sugar without consumers noticing is the major challenge for the food industry as sugar has multiple sensory influences on a product, not just sweetness. To address the issue of sugar reduction, Mahato et al used chocolate milk as a ‘model food’ and assessed the extent of sugar reduction that is possible without influencing consumer liking and acceptance. Consumption of chocolate flavoured milk helps meet the recommended dietary allowances for vitamin D and calcium, however, the added sugar contributes 10%+ of energy intake compared to standard milk. The consumer trend is towards ‘all‐natural’ labelled products assuming them to be safe and healthier, therefore the authors
22 food australia
used natural sweeteners stevia, RebA and monk fruit extracts as sweetness replacers in this study. For consumer testing, 107 participants (between 20 and 65 years) provided their feedback on the overall liking of the chocolate flavoured milks as well as their liking of specific attributes. Response Surface Methodology was used to optimise the concentrations of the natural sweeteners in chocolate flavoured milks and the results showed that 50% of added sugar could be replaced without influencing overall liking compared to the control fullsugar sample (10% sucrose). In terms of specific attributes, the bitterness, metallic and chemical tastes were more prominent in the temporal profile of stevia-RebA mixture compared to the stevia-monk fruit extract mixture which had prolonged sweetness and honey-like taste. Interestingly, the monk fruit extract masked the bitterness, metallic and chemical aftertaste of stevia sweetener when used in mixture. The monk fruit sweetener also resulted in sweetness synergy and ultimately enhanced the overall liking of the product. In conclusion, sugar could be reduced by 50% in chocolate flavoured using natural sweetener mixtures to replace sweetness, without impacting consumer acceptance. Also and importantly,
the use of sweetener mixtures was an effective strategy to reduce off flavours or problems with single sweeteners. Mahato et al. (2020). “Optimization of natural sweeteners for sugar reduction in chocolate flavoured milk and their impact on sensory attributes.” International Dairy Journal https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2020.104922
The sound of premium! Auditory cues have long been associated with premium products by consumers. Think about the sound when closing the door of a premium car, or the thundering rattle of a Harley Davidson motorbike. The sounds emitted when products are used can have a significant influence on consumers perceptions of the product, and this is a research area termed psychoacoustics or sonic branding. Almiron et al looked to apply sonic branding to beer, specifically understanding the distinctive sounds of opening and pouring the beverage and how the acoustics apply to premium beer. An obvious question is what is premium, as the concept of premiumness can be ambiguous and hold different meanings for different brands and product categories. As a general heuristic, premium brands tend to command a higher price, with the promise of the benefit of higher quality. In the present study, the authors assessed the perception of beer premiumness as: bottle vs can;
opening vs pouring sounds; and sound pressure and frequency. Close to n=200 regular beer drinkers with normal hearing took part in the online study. A total of 16 manipulated auditory stimuli were used for the experiments (can be accessed: https://osf.io/ve3ap/). The consumers rated the premiumness, willing to pay and quality of the sound on a five-point scale. The results revealed that regular beer consumers would not be able to tell premium from sound alone. However, sounds from bottles were more premium than cans, pouring sounds are more premium than the opening sounds, and louder sounds are more premium than the quieter opening sound. On a practical level the authors state that packaging could be altered to help modify the opening sounds of beer creating sonic branding, or modify the sounds of opening to elicit more premium sounds. Of course the sounds are only one part of a multisensory experience with beer and the proof or premium will always be in the tasting. Almiron et al (2021). Searching for the sound of premium beer. Food Quality and Preference https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104088
Food, service or cost - what drives restaurant ratings? Melbournians have waited long for the moment they were allowed back in cafes and restaurants. Of course, you do not want to spoil the evening with bad food or service. Nor do you want to pay an unreasonable price. Therefore, many consumers will first have a look at the online reviews and ratings of restaurants. A five-star rating is supposedly better than a four-star rating, but how do consumers come to these ratings? Is it mainly the food, service, or price that drive ratings up or down? These are important questions to answer, because when star-ratings are mostly driven by service and you are mostly interested in the food, such star ratings might be less relevant for you. A new study in the journal Food Quality and Preference aimed to shed some light on the
answer to the question: “What factors influence consumers’ online ratings of restaurants?”. The researchers analysed 175,879 online restaurant reviews. They identified the 300 most frequently used words in reviews and categorised them in ‘food’, ‘service’, ‘expenditure’, ‘social’ and ‘miscellany’. Next, they investigated how many positive and negative words were associated to ‘food’, ‘service’, ‘expenditure’ and ‘social’. The results reveal that consumers mostly wrote about food, with words related to service coming in second. However, when consumers wrote about service, they used more positive and negative words. This suggests that restaurant service is most related to consumers’ sentiment. Furthermore, the study suggests that star-ratings are driven by consumers’ sentiment. This indicates that most consumers who write reviews are equally happy about the food, but the restaurant service is what makes the difference between a four- and a five-star rating. So, next time you go to a restaurant and look up an online review, you might want to consider that the star-rating might more reflect a brilliant service than mind blowing food.
Tian G, Lu L & McIntosh C. (2021). What factors affect consumers’ dining sentiments and their ratings: Evidence from restaurant online review data.” Food Qual Pref 88: 104060 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104060
Characteristics of toddler foods in the Australian retail environment There is now a wide range of foods and beverages available in Australian supermarkets that are specifically for toddlers. This is not unique to Australia, though - the market for toddler specific foods has grown in many countries. It is important to understand what types of foods toddlers are consuming because food experiences during toddlerhood affect nutrition and health, as well as shape children’s eating habits and preferences. To understand the characteristics of these foods we undertook a photographic and online audit of foods marketed for consumption by toddlers (children aged 12-36 months) available at major supermarkets in Australia. We identified 154 unique toddler foods in the market, from 22 different manufacturers. Most of the foods were snacks (80%). We then looked at how these foods fit with
food australia 23
SENSORY & CONSUMER SCIENCE FEATURE
the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG) by classifying the foods as ‘core’ (recommended) or ‘non-core’ (discretionary), and whether they were ‘ultra-processed’, ‘processed’, or ‘minimally-processed’ according to the NOVA classification system of food processing. We were interested in looking at both classification systems because there is a growing body of evidence that excess consumption of ultra-processed foods, like non-core foods, can have detrimental effects on health. We found over half (60%) of the foods in the Australian retail environment were core foods (e.g. yoghurts) with the remaining 40% of foods being discretionary (e.g. fruit based cereal and snack bars). A large proportion of the foods (85%) were ‘ultraprocessed’, with 4% ‘processed’ and 11% ‘minimally processed’. Of the foods classified as core, interestingly
79% of these were also classified as ‘ultra-processed’. This result is thought-provoking because it shows that although both systems (ADG and NOVA) aim to group foods according to how healthy they are for consumers, they can conflict. When we looked further into the nutrition profile of foods classified by the ADG and NOVA systems, we noted noncore foods were of poorer nutritional quality than core foods (as expected). However, for the NOVA classification, the ‘ultra-processed’ foods were (per 100g) higher in sodium, but lower in sugar, than ‘minimally processed’ or ‘processed’ foods, and there were no other differences in the assessed nutrients (e.g. fat, protein, energy) between the NOVA groups. The high proportion of dried fruits in the ‘minimally processed’ and ‘processed’ foods might help explain some of these findings. The results show that,
for consumers, identifying which foods are the healthier ones for their toddlers is not straightforward, with many toddler foods in the Australian market being ‘core’ but also ‘ultra-processed’. These results, along with further details of the on-pack messages (claims), and the characteristics of toddler milks are outlined in a new paper McCann, J., Russell, CG., Campbell, K., & Woods, J. (2020). Nutrition and packaging characteristics of toddler foods and milks in Australia. Public Health Nutrition, 1-13. doi:10.1017/ S1368980020004590. Dr Russell Keast is Professor, Dr Gie Liem is Associate Professor, Dr Georgie Russell is senior lecturer and Dipendra Mahato is a PhD candidate at the CASS Food Research Centre at Deakin University. f
Ready to drive improvement in your ethical performance? Responsible business practices are at the heart of every resilient organization and in today’s changing business environment, organizations need innovative ways to deliver assurance in their social performance and provide continuity throughout the supply chain. Show your commitment to visibility and continuous improvement in ethical supply chain performance with SEDEX virtual assessments from BSI. Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (SEDEX) is a globally recognized platform for sharing ethical supply chain data with over 60,000 members in 180 countries, across 35 industry sectors. BSI is an approved provider to deliver Sedex virtual assessments and can help your organization to reduce risks, protect company reputation and improve supply chain practices. Remember, you don’t know what you don’t know, so get in touch with our experts so you can gain visibility and start your improvement journey.
For more information Visit: bsigroup.com/food-au or call: 1300 730 134
24 food australia
LEGAL
Last stand for the innovation patent Words by Adam Hyland
T
he innovation patent has always been a great way to protect innovation in the fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector. Unfortunately, the innovation patent has entered its last days, so now would be a good time to take advantage of this extremely useful IP tool before it goes. After 21st August 2021 it will no longer be possible to file a new innovation patent, but those already filed will still run their full eight-year term, up to 2029. The Federal Government, in its wisdom, has decided the innovation patent did not serve its original purpose, which was to encourage small to medium enterprises (SMEs) to innovate. What the government possibly did not appreciate at the time was that SMEs have always had to innovate to survive and they did not need a new patent to do so. What the innovation patent has provided, however, is an extremely useful and robust way to protect incremental but valuable improvements in products, packaging and processing - the bread and butter of the food industry. In a business environment where the trade is very keen to appropriate the innovations of its suppliers, and even the innovations of the larger branded players, having at least
one tool in the shed that allows an innovator to ‘stand their ground’ has been very valuable for some. The most useful thing about the innovation patent is that it protects an innovation that is new and a working improvement on existing technology – unlike standard 20 year patents, the innovation does not have to have as high a level of ‘invention’, so it is applicable to anything that is a new improvement to a product, package or process. Even better, they are devilishly hard to challenge or invalidate once granted. Examples of innovation patents that were granted in Australia for foodrelated innovations, include: • the square muffin • the square-based taco shell • a holder for a food product • a method of recycling food waste • a method of making a crisp. The best way to invest in IP has never been to gear up for litigation, particularly in a relatively small market such as Australia – the costs don’t necessarily add up. However, having a clearly defined IP right, whether a registered trade mark or an innovation patent, does allow an innovator to set clear boundaries around what is ‘theirs’. Good boundaries are fundamental to all good relationships, whether between commercial partners or between
competitors. A defined IP right also makes the innovation a legally tangible thing that can be bought, sold or licensed. It’s like a gate in a fence – it allows the owner to decide who is allowed in the property and who is not - who gets in for free, and who has to pay. For this reason, it is always worth looking at what can be protected and via what means. Some innovations, particularly ‘in house’ technology, like formulation and processing methods, may best be protected via confidentiality/secrecy arrangements. However, if your innovation is readily reverse-engineered then a publicly registered IP right, like an innovation patent, is the only way to keep ownership and control of the idea once it leaves the factory. So, vale the innovation patent – an idea that didn’t turn out to be necessary for SMEs to innovate, but was (and still is) a great way to keep control of FMCG innovation, if you get in quick. Adam Hyland BE(Chem) Grad Dip IP Law MAIFST is a registered patent attorney in Australia and New Zealand. He is a founder and principal of Franke Hyland, which celebrated 10 years of IP strategy in 2020. f
food australia 25
SUSTAINABILITY FEATURE
The quest for sustainability Words by David Fienberg
What does it mean to be sustainable? For The Lupin Co, sustainability means leaving the earth in a better condition than we found it. It means that we work hard to find ways to improve our business without causing damage to the environment – our air, land and sea. To ensure we are managing in a sustainable way, a key strategic goal for The Lupin Co has been to synchronise with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ . The key area of focus for The Lupin Co is recognising that the SDG’s are broad and apply across our whole business. We work to find the best option for creating activity which delivers a net benefit to the environment. When we started The Lupin Co, we wanted to ensure we were making every effort to meet the SDG’s and to do that we needed a benchmark - a guiding principle for our business. Adopting the SDG’s as our compass for sustainability has been challenging yet exciting, because the message we seek to express to
26 food australia
others is that by adopting the SDG’s we are becoming a better business. Almost everyone that has been working with Australian Sweet Lupin as a seed breeder, agronomist, farmer, or small-time food manufacturer will know that there is lots of magic about this humble Australian legume. But for all of the papers we’ve read over the years, we cannot remember reading a single one that adequately summarised the benefits of lupin against a globally accepted sustainability benchmark. In this article we have attempted to show how this plant delivers benefits to humans and the environment on many levels and delivers against the UN SDG’s. We also hope to raise awareness that lupins do have a fantastic future because of the great contribution they make as a valuable ‘break crop’ and very special food. When farmers incorporate lupin into their cropping rotation and more importantly, when consumers buy lupin products, the value of this to the environment flows all the way back to the source of production – the farm. So here goes…
Nitrogen – organic or manufactured We know that legumes produce organic nitrogen in small white nodules called rhizomes on the plant roots. But rarely do we stop to consider that although this organically produced nitrogen appears below the soil in the root ball, it eases the pressure on farmer’s needs to purchase nitrogen, currently produced industrially from natural gas. This industrial nitrogen product serves a useful purpose when nitrogen is not organically available in sufficient quantities to optimise production, but the downside is that it becomes volatile following rain and escapes from the soil. Plants need nitrogen to grow. Nitrogen also helps agricultural plants (wheat and barley) to improve yield and quality. When organically produced nitrogen is available (from the lupin plant) and then accessed by cereal plant roots, for example a wheat crop planted after a lupin crop, the nitrogen is far more stable, stays in the soil longer and has a much larger and beneficial effect.
Chemical useage - the intersection with crop rotation
Nitrogen nodules on lupin plant tap-root system. The other important aspect is that organically produced nitrogen from lupin is far less costly than nitrogen purchased from an industrial source. More importantly, organic nitrogen means the nitrogen is extracted from the air and not fossil fuels, which is unsustainable. Lupin has the ability to produce massive amounts of organic nitrogen. Just imagine millions of lupin plants, all producing nitrogen on the roots, available for the following years’ crop. The nett benefit is that with less pressure on farmers buying industrial nitrogen and greater availability of lupin-produced nitrogen, the sustainability of crops to produce protein for human food is a very real option - in the root system of the lupin plant.
Carbon – soil and sequestration Carbon offsets, carbon sequestration or soil carbon are some of the terms used which goes to the heart of a significant challenge to our society desperately needing to reduce atmospheric carbon. What role can lupin play? Lupin has a tap root that can be two metres or longer and serves to not only stabilise soils, but also sends organic matter (the root material) to the lower reaches of our Western Australian Sandy soils. In many ways, it is a water chasing plant. Importantly, the
plant is capturing carbon from the atmosphere and transferring that carbon into root material deep in the soil – which is effectively carbon sequestration. Imaging a paddock with 20cm row spacings between plants – that is 25 million plants per hectare and a lot of root material below the surface. With well over 800,000 hectares of lupin grown in Western Australia annually, that silent operation is capturing lots of carbon.
Water use efficiency/ reducing our water footprint How efficiently do lupins use water? This is often referred to as ‘water use efficiency’ - the less water used for the greatest amount of final product, the better. One way to describe ‘water use efficiency’ is ‘Water footprint per unit of nutritional value’. A key report by M.M. Mekonnen and A.Y. Hoekstra in 20101 reported that the quantity of water used in litres per gram of protein was 112 litres for Bovine (cattle), 63 litres for sheep/goat and 34 litres for chicken production. Let’s compare that to lupin… Data from our farms shows that for a lupin crop yielding 1.5t/ha and an average annual rainfall of 300mm, the water footprint per unit of protein is a mere 0.005 litres per gram of protein – an astonishing comparison to animal farming.
The use of chemicals on farms globally (other than organic farms) is common practice. The use of chemicals to control weeds, remove crop-damaging insects and fungi/ moulds is a difficult balancing act, both environmentally and financially. The benefit of using lupin as a rotational or ‘break-crop’ offers farmers the advantage of being able to gradually reduce their chemical use. Without break crops, similar chemical ‘groups’ are continually used and this leads not only to chemical resistance by weeds and insects but also the need to increase the volume of chemical used.
Post farm gate The Lupin Co made the decision to vertically integrate from farm to plate. A connection to the best farmers we could find and to some of the best lupin-growing areas in the world was critically important to us. As well as the farm operation sustainability actions, we have also invested in infrastructure and systems along the entire supply/demand chain. A key feature has been installation of a 300kw+ solar power supply, delivering immediate benefits to our energy costs for day-time operations.
Summary In summary, working towards the UN SDG’s has helped The Lupin Co become more focussed on key metrics which help our strategic goals, including making the world a better place. Our challenge now is to find ways to objectively measure these activities and to then develop strategies inside the business which help us to continually improve.
References 1. M.M. Mekonnen and A.Y. Hoekstra (2010). The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 48, UNESCO-IHE, Vols.1 and 2 https://waterfootprint.org/en/ resources/publications/value-water-researchreport-series-unesco-ihe/
David Fienberg is the founder and managing director of The Lupin Co. f
food australia 27
FOOD SAFETY FEATURE
Safety of fresh produce – should consumers worry? Words by Deon Mahoney
C
onsumers are increasingly being reminded of the benefits of including fresh produce in their diets. Daily consumption of a wide variety of vegetables and fruit is recommended for health and nutrition with fresh produce a good source of dietary fibre, vitamins, and minerals, including vitamin C and folate. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Australian consumers have shifted towards buying and consuming increased amounts of fresh produce. This is because many of us are working from home, eating more food at home, and eating out less frequently. Importantly, the share of pre-packed fruit and vegetables has increased during this time, driven by convenience, a perception of enhanced food safety, and to limit time in retail settings. However, continuing episodes of foodborne illness associated with fresh produce have highlighted potential risks for consumers. This article will give a rundown of some recent outbreaks and provide an overview of best practice for fresh produce safety along the supply chain.
Challenges of managing the safety of fresh produce Over the past three decades, fresh produce has emerged as a major source of foodborne pathogens and
28 food australia
foodborne illness in the United States, Europe, and Australia. Fresh produce typically refers to fruits and vegetables that have not been processed in any way, beyond washing, sorting and grading, and packaging. This term does not include such items as dried vegetables, dried fruits, frozen vegetables, pickled vegetables, fruit in syrups, dried herbs, or rice, or nuts of any kind. However, products such as pre-prepared salads and pre-cut fruit are often classified as fresh produce, despite undergoing some processing and handling. Where fresh produce has been implicated in outbreaks of foodborne illness, the main culprits are virulent pathogens such as Shiga-toxin producing Escherichia coli (STEC), Salmonella spp., and Listeria monocytogenes. Other pathogens have been implicated, including human parasites and viruses such as hepatitis A and noroviruses, but with less frequency. The presence of these hazards in fresh produce is due to the open nature of fresh produce chains. Contamination often occurs during the on-farm production phase, with produce exposed to contaminants in the soil, in manures and fertilisers, irrigation water, and from animals in the growing environment. Further opportunities for contamination exist during harvesting, in the packing
facility, and along the supply chain. Unfortunately, there is no kill-step for identified pathogens during the production and marketing of fresh produce, hence the consumer may be exposed to a public health risk.
Outbreaks and case studies In recent times significant incidents of foodborne illness involving a wide range of fresh produce have occurred across various jurisdictions. In Australia we have experienced outbreaks associated with imported berries (Hepatitis A), melons (Salmonella spp. and L. monocytogenes), imported frozen pomegranate arils (Hepatitis A), leafy greens and sprouts (Salmonella spp.), and papayas (Salmonella spp.). They have had the effect of undermining consumer confidence and significantly impacted sales. In the United States there have been ongoing outbreaks of foodborne illness involving an expanding range of fresh produce as described in Table 1. Unfortunately, traceback and investigation of many of these outbreaks fails to adequately reveal the root cause. These reviews frequently report that a source or potential point of contamination was not identified. For prepared salads and cut fruit the source could be a field contaminated raw produce or contamination originating
YEAR
OUTBREAK (ORGANISM/PRODUCE)
LOCATION
2018
E. coli O157:H7 linked to romaine lettuce
US outbreak/210 cases
2018
Cyclospora infection linked to salads
US outbreak/511 cases
2018
Cyclospora infection linked to pre-packaged vegetable trays
US outbreak/250 cases
2018
Salmonella Adelaide linked to pre-cut melon
US outbreak/77 cases
2018
E. coli O157:H7 linked to romaine lettuce
US outbreak/210 cases/5 deaths
2018
E. coli O157:H7 linked to romaine lettuce
US outbreak/62 cases Canada outbreak/29 cases
2019
Salmonella Javiana linked to cut fruit
US outbreak/165 cases
2019
E. coli O157:H7 linked to romaine lettuce
US outbreak/167 cases
2019
Cyclospora linked to fresh basil (origin Mexico)
US outbreak/241 cases
2019
Salmonella Uganda linked to whole papaya (origin Mexico)
US outbreak/81 cases
2019
Salmonella Carrau linked to pre-cut melons
US outbreak/137 cases
2020
E. coli O103 linked to clover sprouts
US outbreak/51 cases
2020
L. monocytogenes linked to enoki mushrooms (origin Korea)
US outbreak/36 cases/4 deaths Australia outbreak/6 cases
2020
Salmonella Enteritidis linked to peaches
US outbreak/101 cases. Canada outbreak/57 cases. Exported to New Zealand
2020
Salmonella Newport linked to red onions
US outbreak/1,127 cases Canada outbreak/515 cases
2020
Cyclospora linked to bagged salads
US outbreak/701 cases Canada outbreak/370 cases
Table 1. Selected outbreaks of foodborne illness attributed to fresh produce.1,2 from within the processing facility, or a combination of both. While environmental monitoring may identify the niche occupied by a contaminant, the original source of contamination in a food packing and processing facility is rarely elucidated. Detailed investigations have been undertaken on the STEC outbreaks linked to leafy greens in recent years. Between 2009 and 2018 there were 40 foodborne outbreaks of STEC infections in the US with a confirmed or suspected link to the consumption of leafy greens.2 An important contributing factor has been the proximity of growing fields to cattle and feedlots. Cattle are a persistent source of STEC, and through dust and bioaerosols, manure, and contaminated irrigation water, adjacent growing environments for fresh produce have been frequently
exposed to contamination. As a result of these recurring outbreaks, the US Food and Drug Administration released the 2020 Leafy Greens STEC Action Plan in July 2020. The plan outlines how the agency will advance the safety of leafy greens, focussing on three areas: prevention-oriented approaches to manage produce safety; ensuring outbreak response is quick and thorough; and addressing knowledge gaps and using emerging technologies. A major focus is on the development of new traceability tools and improved traceability procedures. The safety of fresh produce has also been the subject of concern in Australia. In June 2018, the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation noted an increase in foodborne illness outbreaks linked to horticultural
products and requested FSANZ to identify appropriate regulatory and non-regulatory measures to better manage food safety risks. FSANZ subsequently raised the proposal, Primary Production and Processing Requirements for High-risk Horticulture (P1052) to consider the development of a standard for selected higher-risk horticultural products such as leafy greens, berries, and melons. Work continues on the proposal including a through-chain assessment to identify pathways of contamination, survival, and amplification of hazards during production, harvest, and post-harvest processing of selected commodities. The outcome of the proposal is not expected until late 2021.
The risk management tools The effective management of hazards
food australia 29
FOOD SAFETY FEATURE
associated with fresh produce requires a holistic, through-chain approach which begins with identifying the source of potential hazards. During production, growers must be cognisant of the many and varied sources of contamination. This requires assessing the likely presence of wild animals (birds, rodents, and native animals), and livestock in and around the cropping environment and consideration of their potential to contaminate crops, soil, and water. They must also consider the potential for contamination originating from bioaerosols, soil, fertilisers (including manure and composted material), irrigation water, and harvest personnel. Strategies must then be implemented to diminish the likelihood of fresh produce becoming contaminated, such as monitoring the microbiological status of irrigation water, only using certified pathogen-free inputs, and adhering to exclusion periods between grazing or application of raw or untreated
30 food australia
manure and harvest of fresh produce that will be eaten uncooked. In the Australian outbreak of listeriosis linked to rockmelons in 2018, a series of extreme weather events (dust storm and heavy rainfall) prior to harvest were considered to have increased the likelihood that fruit was contaminated by soil, and this overwhelmed washing and sanitation steps for the fruit.3 The outbreak resulted in 22 cases (with seven deaths and one miscarriage). The incident emphasised the importance of undertaking a comprehensive hazard analysis and factoring in the consequences of extreme weather events or scenarios where the efficiency of existing control steps such as washing, and sanitation may be compromised. Post-harvest, the removal of field heat enhances product quality and shelf-life, while washing and sanitising steps (where practised) assist in removing some field-acquired contamination. It is important to
recognise that even under normal operating conditions, decontamination steps have limited efficiency on fresh produce, and may lead to crosscontamination. Hence efficacy of sanitisers and sanitation steps should be evaluated in each production setting. Note that pathogens may be protected by the morphology of the produce and internalisation of contamination, and washing processes are often constrained because fresh produce is delicate and easily damaged. Maintaining the hygienic status of packing and processing facilities is another crucial element of risk management. Equipment and packing environments must be managed to ensure hygiene and prevent pathogens such as L. monocytogenes becoming resident. Developing and implementing a comprehensive environmental monitoring program is a key strategy, as is ensuring staff are fully aware of food safety issues and good hygienic practices.
Risk communication and the consumer An emerging factor that requires increased attention is the way produce is handled and used by consumers. Apart from packaged ready-to-eat (RTE) products (labelled do not wash), fresh produce is expected to be washed prior to consumption. This reflects the situation that under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, most fresh produce is not considered RTE, hence there are no microbiological criteria set for these products. The onus is therefore on the consumer to adequately wash produce to remove potential contamination and to handle these products hygienically. This factor is not well understood and needs to be targeted by better risk communication. In the 2018 outbreak of listeriosis in Europe linked to blanched frozen vegetables, consumer handling practices were considered a contributing factor. The outbreak resulted in 54 cases and 10 deaths (between 2015-2018) across six European countries, with one case in Australia. Investigations revealed that L. monocytogenes persisted in a freezing tunnel in the processing environment. Although the products were frozen, and labelled cook before consumption, consumers are increasingly using such non-RTE food as RTE food in products such as smoothies, salads, and dips. As a result, the EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards recommended consumer education and standardised label information to promote better understanding of the risks by consumers, particularly susceptible populations.4
Summary The continued nutritional benefits of consuming fresh produce are only achieved when microbiological hazards associated with these products are effectively managed. As many of these products are consumed raw, protecting them from microbial contamination is critical to reducing the risk of foodborne illness. Interventions that focus on preventing contamination in the pre-harvest environment are essential, but they must be combined with strategies for minimising cross-contamination during post-harvest handling, and the application of sanitary practices that more effectively remove field-acquired contamination. A further risk mitigation strategy involves better education of consumers and food handlers of the need for proper handling of fresh produce to protect public health.
References 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/ outbreaks/multistate-outbreaks/outbreaks-list.html 2. Health Canada https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publichealth-notices.html 3. US FDA (2020). 2020 Leafy greens STEC action plan 4. NSW Department of Primary Industries (2018). Listeria Outbreak Investigation – Summary Report for the Melon Industry 5. EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (2020). The public health risk posed by Listeria monocytogenes in frozen fruit and vegetables including herbs, blanched during processing. EFSA Journal, 18, (4), 102 pages
nutrition labelling sy ea e d ma
Get 3 MONTHS FREE
•
SAVE TIME AND TRUST YOUR RESULTS with FoodWorks 10 Nutrition Labelling the Australian software for recipe development and label compliance.
Design new product formulations and recipes according to nutritional criteria. Generate nutrition labels (NIPs, ingredient statements and allergen declarations) that comply with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code and other regulations. Calculate CoOL values from a recipe's raw materials and generate standard marks. Integrate with label-printing software.
No more complicated spreadsheets. Better recipes. Compliant labels. FoodWorks is trusted Australian software with friendly local support.
GET 3 MONTHS FREE HERE: XYRIS.COM.AU/AIFST Offer ends 31 March 2021
Call 07 3223 5300 Visit www.xyris.com.au Email info@xyris.com.au
Deon Mahoney is head of food safety at Produce Marketing Association (PMA) Australia-New Zealand f
food australia 31
FEATUREFOOD PRODUCTION FUTURE
Just food transitions? Maximising the social benefits of alternative proteins Words by Dr Andrew McGregor
T
he recent rise of alternative proteins poses significant challenges to existing food systems. Plant-based and cellular meat and dairy products, as well as insect derived proteins, are diversifying how food is known, grown, made, and consumed. While the cultural, environmental and nutritional implications of alternative proteins are widely discussed, much less attention has been devoted to social dimensions, and how alternative proteins can contribute to more than just food systems. In Australia, as is the case in many parts of the world, productivist paradigms prioritise the production of large amounts of cheap foods, often through capital-intensive methods that favour large industrialised production systems over smaller endeavours. For animal farming this has contributed to the ongoing consolidation,
32 food australia
homogenisation and industrialisation of production, creating food more cheaply but often with significant social, environmental and animal welfare costs. Alternative proteins are gaining traction as niche products that have the potential to disrupt industrialised animal-based food systems. Transitioning towards plant-based food systems has been advocated by a range of institutions including the Food and Agricultural Organisation, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the EAT LANCET Commission and multiple leading climate and environmental scientists. Food systems transition, however, is difficult.
Food transitions Alternative protein proponents face considerable political, economic, social, cultural and technological hurdles to affect food systems change.
How these challenges are navigated affects whether, and what type of, transition occurs. Smith et al (2012),1 for example, distinguish between ‘fit and conform’ strategies that seek to make innovations competitive within otherwise unchanged food systems, and ‘stretch-and-transform’ that seek to convert existing systems into something new and better. Geels et al (2016)2 outline four transition pathways. Substitution is when new actors introduce new technologies and processes, such as cellular meat, and attempt to replace existing products and businesses. Fit and conform strategies seek to compete with existing farm animal products, as is evident in the proliferation of new plant-based burgers, whereas ‘stretch and transform’ additionally seeks to change the rules, institutions or practices of current food systems. This may involve,
for example, introducing carbon labelling or new animal welfare laws. Transformation refers to changes within existing institutions as they either incrementally (‘fit and conform’) or substantially (‘stretch and transform’) reorient themselves around new technologies. The rebranding of animal processing giant Tyson Foods as a ‘protein company’ and its investment in alternative proteins is an example of incremental transformation. Reconfiguration signifies new alliances between alternative proteins and animal food industries, as evident in the relationship between V2 and Hungry Jacks and the recently established Future of Protein Forum that brings together NSW Farmers, Food Frontier and the National Farmers Federation. The outcomes of reconfiguration depend on the willingness of incumbents to embrace new ideas and technologies. Finally, de-alignment and realignment is a much rarer form of systems transition, referring to the collapse of existing businesses due to external factors, such as government policy, war, or the increasing ecological risks associated with climate change, such as drought, fire and heat. Institutions based on new technologies rush to fill the gap. What this work highlights is that systems transitions occur in a variety of ways with diverse processes and impacts for those involved. Alternative protein producers are engaging in a variety of strategies to affect food systems change. Some of these strategies result in incremental changes that introduce new products and technologies but leave existing food paradigms in place, whereas other strategies may advocate new ways of thinking about and engaging with food. As alternative proteins become more visible and popular the degree to which proponents conform to, or transform, existing food systems will have important consequences not just environmentally and nutritionally, but socially for farmers, workers, and consumers. For this reason, it is useful to view food systems transition from the perspective of food justice.
Food justice Food justice refers to a social movement that has its roots amongst people of colour in North America. Food justice advocates have shown how social categories such as race, gender and class shape how food is produced, valued, retailed, accessed and consumed. A core insight from food justice advocates is that current food systems are unjust – with poorer more marginalised communities not only being more food insecure, but also disproportionately employed in risky or undesirable forms of food production From a food justice perspective, current food systems are failing at multiple scales. From global crises of hunger and obesity that differ according to geography, gender, class and race to the urban food deserts that have emerged in some cities, whereby poorer communities generally have much less access to nutritious food than middle class, suburban, mostly white communities. Some of the concepts from the food justice literature that may benefit the alternative proteins industry include a focus on: distributive justice which tracks how opportunities and risks associated with the new technologies are distributed across geographic spaces and scales as well as across social categories of class, gender and race; procedural justice, emphasising the importance of having inclusive and accessible decision-making processes that incorporate marginalised groups and those most affected; accessibility, ensuring different social groups have access to the benefits of new food types in terms of employment and consumption; and food sovereignty, which seeks to enshrine the right of communities to manage their own nutritional and culturally appropriate food systems.
Just transitions From a food justice perspective, it is important that food transitions associated with alternative proteins engage with issues of race, gender and class in the development and implementation of new technologies.3 Engaging with different social groups
not only in product development, but also in decision-making, is likely to result in more socially-just outcomes than if marginalised groups are not consulted. It will increase awareness of the social costs and barriers of new technologies, so they may be addressed appropriately, while also resulting in more diverse and interesting foods. Such strategies are associated with a ‘stretch-andtransform’ approach that seeks to improve current food systems. If the industry pursues a ‘fit and conform’ strategy based on incremental substitution it is likely to experience less resistance and have greater success in terms of the volume of products produced and consumed. It simply becomes a niche competitor within the existing animal protein market. Over time particular businesses, like Impossible Foods or Beyond Meat in the USA, may become significant food producers and eventually even come to dominate particular food markets. Existing global fast-food giants may ultimately drive a substitution-based transition by quickly shifting to cellular proteins once the technology and price is competitive, quite possibly with very little concern for current animal industry workers. This will likely come with significant social costs as well as environmental, animal welfare, and possibly nutritional benefits. The social and economic problems of current food systems remain in place, it is just that new alternative protein companies have become key players.
food australia 33
FUTURE FOOD PRODUCTION FEATURE
Alternatively, if principles drawn from food justice become central to a ‘stretch and transform’ approach the opportunity for more radical transformations of food systems become possible. This may involve, for example, principles and processes put in place that discourage monopolies and favour local artisanal food production, such as smallscale plant-based cheese producers. Similarly, financial incentives could be provided, when the technology is available, to promote cellular meat production in locally owned bio-breweries, much like the craft beer industry.4 There could be an explicit focus on assisting Indigenous, migrant, and lowincome groups in forming alternative protein cooperative ventures that encourage greater culinary diversity. A central component of a food justice approach would be designing strategies to support and enable
a just transition for meat industry workers. ‘Stretch-and transform’ approaches require more work and creative thinking but are likely to result in greater social benefits, over time, than more immediate ‘fit and conform’ strategies.
Conclusion Food justice provides a set of principles and concerns that those in the alternative proteins industry interested in ‘stretching and transforming’ the food system may find useful. With environmental and ethical considerations core to the formation of the alternative proteins industry5, some may find the concept of food justice attractive. While there remain many challenges ahead, food justice frameworks can help the alternative proteins industry pursue a just transition towards fairer and more diverse, resilient and equitable
food systems.
References 1. Smith, A. and Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy 41:1025-1036. 2. Geels, F., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Neukirch, M., Wassermann, S. (2016). The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: a reformulated typography and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (19902014). Research Policy 896-913. 3. Broad, G. (2019). Plant-based and cell-based animal product alternatives: an assessment and agenda for food tech justice. Geoforum 107: 223-226. 4. Jönsson, E. (2020). 0n breweries and bioreactors: Probing the ‘present futures’ of cellular agriculture. Transactions: Institute of British Geographers DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ tran.12392 5. Mouatt, M., Prince, R., Roche, M. (2019). Making Value Out of Ethics: The Emerging Economic Geography of Lab-grown Meat and Other Animal-free Food Products. Economic Geography 95:2:136-158.
Dr Andrew McGregor is Associate Professor, Geography and Planning in the Macquarie School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University f
Create a High Value Team
Introducing:
The QA accelerator Program
Enrol Now for Feb or Mid-Year Intake
The Comprehensive Convenient Career Development Program for QA Professionals/ 7 Key Training Courses, including HACCP, and Learning Support that Accelerate Your Career/
www.qualityassociates.com.au/qa-accelerator-program HACCP Re res er Nationally Recognised
TACCP VACCP Systems
Food Labelling More Courses
The QA nline tRAINING portal
onlinetraining.qualityassociates.com.au Quality Associates Training RTO 41341) 1300 73 71 93 training@qualityassociates.com.au 34 food australia
FOOD SAFETY
Food safety culture – why all the fuss?
Words by Elizabeth Frankish, Dr Tom Ross, Dr John Bowman, Dr Pieternel Luning, Deon Mahoney, Dr Bisi Oladele, Graham McAlpine and Dr Hayriye Bozkurt
T
he global burden of foodborne disease where one in 10 people suffer a foodborne illness annually1 warrants improved efficacy of food safety management systems (FSMSs) through supply chains. The main contributors to foodborne illness identified by the World Health Organisation - poor hygiene and sanitation by food handlers, contaminated equipment, temperature abuse, and food from an unsafe source - are factors influenced directly or indirectly by food handler behaviour. Why is it that companies with seemingly advanced FSMSs still sometimes cause outbreaks? Evidence is building that improving food safety (FS)-culture contributes not only to better food safety outcomes but also reduces the cost of food safety control.
What is a food safety culture? FS-culture is that part of organisational culture that relates to food safety beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and behaviours.2 However, FS-culture is a complex combination of technological, managerial, and organisational conditions, human factors, and the food safety management system (FSMS).3 The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) defines FS-culture as “shared values, beliefs and norms that affect mindset and behaviour toward food safety in, across and throughout an organisation”, while Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) defines FS-culture as “Food safety culture in a business is how everyone (owners, managers, employees)
thinks and acts in their daily job to make sure that the food they make or serve is safe. It’s about having pride in producing safe food every time, recognising that a good quality product must be safe to eat. Food safety is your top priority”.
How does food safety culture relate to food safety management? Preventative controls and hazard analysis and critical control point plans (HACCP) are effective process operations control systems, but they ignore the human input factor to food safety management. The effectiveness of FSMSs is dependent on how food workers apply company policies and implement procedures in practice.5 Thus FS-culture is an enabling
food australia 35
FOOD SAFETY
Food safety culture measurement approaches
Basis of measurement
Toolkits e.g. FSANZ, 2019
Questionnaires Matrices assigning riskbased culture category
Maturity models e.g. Jespersen et al., 20164
Questionnaires Matrices assigning a scale of food safety culture maturity
Mixed methods quantitative models e.g. Zanin et al., 20216
Questionnaires Interviews Observations Document analysis Microbial analysis
Advantages
Disadvantages
Benchmarking Ideas for improvement
Snapshot in time Insufficient elements provided for advanced FSMSs No integration with individual company FSMS
Benchmarking Provides a concept of the end goal
Snapshot in time Participant perceptions influence results
Assessment over time. Triangulation of data provides a more comprehensive interpretation of results Ability to target specific areas for improvement
Time-consuming Needs to be led by an experienced quality assurance person or consultant
Table 1. Food safety culture measurement approaches, their advantages, and disadvantages. condition for the successful operation of an FSMS. The integration of a food science and behavioural science systems-based approach to managing food safety risk is described as the ‘techno-managerial and food safety climate route’3 or the ‘socio-technical system’. The prevailing FS-culture is influenced by the interaction of workforce composition, size of the organisation, maturity level of the food safety (and quality) management system and position in the supply chain. International developments in FS-culture also affect Australian operations. The FSMS, financial and technical resources, change management, market forces, and customer requirements combine to drive imperatives to develop FSculture. The extent to which these mechanisms are used determines food handler response to learning and compliance, and in turn determines FSculture outcomes. In positive and proactive FS-cultures the basic requirements of an FSMS are extended and food safety values are considered foundational to its effective implementation and practice;2 leaders demonstrate daily that food safety is the top priority by ‘walking the talk’; there is consistent, appropriate food safety behaviour through acceptance of individual responsibility for reducing risk; risk-based goals are clearly
36 food australia
articulated and communicated with high performance expectations; people have authority to make decisions; resources and training are provided through risk-based decision making; and food handlers are educated in their training because training does not ensure compliance. Food handlers who understand why specific controls are in place will trust that the expectations placed on them will positively impact food safety. They will have strong commitment to the company food safety vision. A proactive FS-culture enables rapid adaptability to turn new threats into opportunities and raises risk awareness through understanding risk likelihood and severity and the potential for new or increased risk.
Evaluation of food safety culture Like performance evaluation of FSMSs through validation, verification and monitoring, performance measurement of FS-culture is a means of defining its effectiveness4 and provides a baseline from which to drive culture improvement. The advantages of measurement include raising risk awareness, supporting risk assessment, promoting commitment to food safety, identifying weaknesses, informing decision-making, and helping to avoid foodborne illness incidents and food recalls. Measurement options include
toolkits, maturity models and mixedmethod quantitative models. The basis of their measurement, their advantages and disadvantages are shown in Table 1. Toolkits developed by regulatory bodies incorporate questionnaires and matrices to assign a risk-based culture category. These tools are a useful starting point for businesses. Maturity models are tools to evaluate a snapshot of culture against a scale4 that categorises maturity progression by behaviour-based elements. These tools enable decision-making about resource needs and priorities and allow the development of plans to improve maturity. Mixed-method quantitative approaches acknowledge the interconnectedness of FS-culture determinants, thus are the most effective in determining the outcomes of FS-culture inputs. Incorporation of observations, questionnaires, interviews, document analysis, microbial analysis, and in some approaches historical data, while timeconsuming, allows for triangulation of data, thus increasing validity of the results, reducing bias,6 allowing for trend analysis, and the use of feedback to target specific improvements. The most beneficial measurement tools systematically assess dimensions that are peoplebased i.e. leadership, commitment,
communication, knowledge, risk awareness and perception, and beliefs; and technological/organisational dimensions including the work environment, the management system, styles, and process. It is unlikely that one measurement approach will be appropriate for all situations because they have been developed from the perspectives of regulators, food processors,3 quality assurance managers6 or food handlers.4 Assessments reported in the literature provide an understanding of the prevailing FS-culture, actual food safety and hygiene behaviour, how the management system supports food safety, microbiological hygiene status, and guidance on appropriate interventions to improve performance.
The challenges to improving food safety culture Improving FS-culture is time, and resource-intensive. Barriers to change include resources, such as financial, physical, scientific, educational, and regulatory, and people factors, including, for example, values, belief systems and willingness to self-improve. Striving to improve FS-culture should not create a judgmental environment but rather an environment supportive of compliance with best practices. This requires attention to factors such as welldefined competency requirements and training targeted to education levels. Incentives and rewards might be needed for example, to motivate appropriate behaviour and encourage teamwork.
Future directions and opportunities The recent inclusion of FS-culture requirements internationally by Codex, the European Union, and the US Food and Drug Administration provides an imperative for Australian food businesses to act. For example, major retailer Woolworths recently issued a food safety culture code of practice for suppliers. Private standards e.g. BRCGS are also introducing FS-culture components. Interest from investors
and insurance companies in culture development to reduce risk will also propel FS-culture into mainstream management. Culture is not something to be implemented, but rather a FSculture exists, therefore the increased consumer interest in food provenance, business transparency and social responsibility provide compelling reasons for demonstrating continuous improvement in FS-culture through its measurement. The opportunity ahead is to develop the appropriate tools to enhance FS-culture in the context of specific food operations.
Conclusion Food safety risk is managed most effectively by integrating FS-culture improvement with food safety management. A positive FS-culture leads to fundamentally successful operations, business agility when challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic arise, and sustainability. To manage an effective food safety management system while nurturing FS-culture is complex and hard, but it is a goal which Australian food businesses will find worthwhile in their endeavour to consistently produce safe food.
References 1. World Health Organisation, WHO. (2015). WHO Estimates of the Global Burden of Foodborne Diseases. Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland: https://www.who.int/activities/estimating-theburden-of-foodborne-diseases. Accessed 7th August 2020. 2. Powell, D. A., Jacob, C. J., & Chapman, B. J. (2011). Review: Enhancing food safety culture to reduce rates of foodborne illness. Food Control, 22, 817-822. 3. De Boeck, E., Jacxsens, L., Bollaerts, M., & Vlerick, P. (2015). Food safety climate in food processing organisations: Development and validation of a self-assessment tool. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 46, 242-251.
4. Jespersen, L., Griffiths, M., Maclaurin, T., Chapman, B., & Wallace, C. (2016). Measurement of food safety culture using survey and maturity profiling tools. Food Control, 66, 174-182. 5. Luning, P. A., Bango, L., Kussaga, J., Rovira, J., & Marcelis, W. J. (2008). Comprehensive analysis and differentiated assessment of food safety control systems: a diagnostic instrument. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 19, 522-534. 6. Zanin, L. M., Luning, P. A., da Cunha, D. T., & Stedefeldt, E. (2021). Influence of educational actions on tranistioning food safety culture in a foodservice context: Part 1 - Triangulation and data interpretation of food safety culture elements. Food Control, 119(107447).
Elizabeth Frankish is a consultant microbiologist and is currently undertaking a PhD at University of Tasmania and University of Sydney on microbial risk management in fruit packinghouses. Tom Ross is Professor in Food Microbiology at Centre for Food Safety and Innovation, Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania. John Bowman is Professor and Leader at Centre for Food Safety and Innovation, Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania. Pieternel Luning is Associate Professor, Food Quality and Design Group, Department of Agrotechnology and Food Sciences, Wageningen University. Deon Mahoney is head of food safety at PMA Australia-New Zealand. Bisi Oladele is technical manager at Jeftomson, a vertically integrated apple and pear business. Graham McAlpine is director of Fresh Food Systems & Associates. Hayriye Bozkurt is a postdoctoral research associate at ARC Industrial Transformational Training Centre for Fresh Food Safety in the Fresh Produce Industry, Sydney Institute of Agriculture, University of Sydney. f
food australia 37
HEALTH & NUTRITION
Purple pigs show the importance of dietary composition Words by Chunhe Gu and Dr Kate Howell
P
olyphenols are widely accepted as beneficial compounds due to their bioactivity and ability to act as antioxidants and thus contribute to improved human health. Antioxidants can neutralise free radicals that are harmful to human health and are related with reduced diabetes, inflammation, and cardiovascular diseases. Polyphenols are compounds that exist naturally in fruits and vegetables and can give intense colours to these foods. What is the best way to consume polyphenol-rich plant foods in the context of your daily diets? Is it possible to freely consume diets without considering the quantity and types of foods as long as we consume enough fruits and vegetables? This article gives an overview of the digestion of polyphenols, absorption in the digestive tract and the impact on bioabsorption from other dietary compounds, especially dietary lipids.
The bioactivity and absorption of polyphenols According to the dietary guidelines recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australian Government (2015), an adult should consume at least five serves of vegetables and two serves of fruit every day, where a typical serving is 75g. Fruits and vegetables
38 food australia
contain many components which are important for health, including fibre, vitamins and minerals. Polyphenols, a diverse chemical class of compounds with high antioxidant capacity, are present in fruits and vegetables and are often associated with intense colours and flavours, including the intense purple colour seen in purple carrots in due to the presence of anthocyanins. In our work, we have used purple carrots as a model plant to investigate plant foods, absorption of polyphenols and purple carrots are relatively rich in antioxidants with content comparable to blueberries, strawberries and raspberries.1 The dominant polyphenols we found in purple carrots are anthocyanins and phenolic acids with 394.1 and 518.5ug/g carrot fresh weight respectively. Based on this result, a typical serving of purple carrots would give a dose of around 68.4 mg of polyphenols. While we don’t have dietary recommendations for daily intake of polyphenols, this is within range of intervention studies which have been performed for clinical trials. A summary of these data show that 100-300mg of single classes of polyphenols (for example ellagaitannins) are often dosed into trials, as purified compounds and not in the plant matter from which they are derived. Polyphenols are present in the
vacuoles of plant cells. Phenols can be released from the plant food through food processing (cutting, cooking, making juice) or oral mastication, then the compounds can be available to the digestive system. The small intestine can absorb between 20 and 30% of the available polyphenols after modification by intestinal enzymes.2 However, the majority of the polyphenols remain bound to the plant matrix and escape small intestinal absorption to reach the colon, where polyphenols are degraded by gut microbiome into smaller molecules.3 The biotransformation of polyphenols can increase absorption but reduce bioactivity, as antioxidant activity of polyphenols can be lost. Thus, the integrity of the plant cell and the availability of the polyphenol to absorption in the small intestine will present the compounds to the gut microbiome and change the activity of the compounds. Processing plant foods into smaller particles prior to consumption can increase the release of polyphenols from the plant matrix. Smaller particles possess larger exposed surface area and can increase the diffusion rate of digestive fluids to the core of the particles which help the digestion of polyphenols.4 Cooking solubilises the plant cell wall and increases cell wall
permeability, which also promote the diffusion of polyphenols outside to the digestive fluids.5 Our recent study using a simulated digestive model on purple carrots of different particle sizes quantified the effects upon bioaccessibility, which refers to the quantity of polyphenols that are released from the plant matrix. Cooked purple carrot puree possesses significantly higher bioaccessibility compared to diced raw carrot during digestion. Therefore, from the perspective of polyphenol absorption, processing plant foods into smaller particles and thermal treatments can increase the bioaccessibility and therefore potential of polyphenol absorption in human body. We propose that this increases absorption in the small intestine. When the raw diced carrots are used, the polyphenols remain intact within the plant cell and so more polyphenols are delivered to the large intestine for digestion.
Impact of dietary lipids on digestion of polyphenols Polyphenols, as antioxidants, target on free radicals and increase antioxidant defenses in plasma. In the human body, free radicals are related to absorption of triglycerides and triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, the majority of which enter the diet through fats and oils.6 Our research investigated the effects on interactions between dietary lipids and polyphenols on the digestion and absorption of polyphenols. The results showed that dietary lipids can protect and increase bioaccessibility of polyphenols in an in vitro digestive system.7 In the small intestine, lipids are emulsified by bile salts and biliary phosphatidylcholine and break into micelles under the actions of lipase before they are absorbed. The emulsified lipids can interact with polyphenols to increase their stability and protect them from degradation.8 Meanwhile, research using animal models also verified that a moderate amount of 5% dietary lipids can increase the plasma concentration of polyphenols through stimulating the
Cell rupture helps polyphenols get released from vacuoles of the plant cells. absorption kinetics of polyphenols.9 However, these results do not mean consuming large amounts of dietary fats are beneficial for absorption of polyphenols. In our study using pigs as a monogastric digestive model, we fed the animals purple carrots coupled with both high-fat and low-fat diets for four weeks. As expected, the animals fed a high fat diet showed a significant increase in plasma low density lipoprotein (LDL), which is the ‘bad’ cholesterol related to increased risk of cardiovascular disease. And this effect was barely altered when the pigs were fed a high fat diet supplemented with purple carrots.10 These results suggest consuming polyphenol-rich foods cannot counter-balance high plasma LDL caused by excessive intake of dietary lipids. As the bound polyphenols remained in the plant matrix and further degradation and bio-modification of polyphenols resulted in reduced antioxidant capacity regardless of lipid intake. However, a fine scale investigation on the types of dietary fats consumed showed some interesting results. Here, we wanted to investigate if dietary lipids can protect polyphenols during digestion and increase their absorption. Coconut oil, which contains mediumchain polysaturated fatty acids, showed relatively high protective effects compared to sunflower oil and beef tallow, both of which contain long-chain fatty acids. Unfortunately,
consumption of coconut oil with the carrots induced changes in a model gut fermentation with increasing abundance of detrimental bacteria Escherichia coli, which is associated with microbial ecosystem disturbance and linked with multiple gastrointestinal diseases.11 The results from the model gut fermentation were mixed - consumption of coconut oil showed antibacterial activity with reduced microbial activities and lower production of shortchain fatty acids production, which are generally considered beneficial and are an essential energy source for colon epithelial cells and are associated with reduced intestinal cancers and positive cardiovascular effects.12 While dietary lipids can increase absorption and bioactivity of polyphenols, detrimental effects caused by excessive intake of dietary lipids, especially medium-chain polysaturated fatty acids, cannot be compensated by consuming phenolic-rich plants.
The best way to consume polyphenol-rich fruits and vegetables What is the best way to consume phenol-rich plant foods? Our study showed that when pigs were fed with raw diced or cooked pureed purple carrots (7.5g carrots per kg body weight), the total plasma antioxidant activity was significantly higher in the pigs fed with low-fat diet (5% fat content) supplemented with carrot
food australia 39
HEALTH & NUTRITION
Phenolic acids and anthoycanins are the major phenolic compounds contained in purple carrot. puree compared to the pigs fed with high-fat diet (15% fat content). We calculated this amount of carrot to be fed by using the Australian dietary guidelines. This would equate to about 450g (comparable to the weight of about 3.5 apples) per day for an average adult with 60kg body weight. Nevertheless, within the high-fat diet group, purple carrot consumption could not mitigate hyperlipidemia caused by long-term excessive intake of purple carrots. On the other hand, low amount of lipids (4-6% w:w) in a diet can enhance the absorption of polyphenols.14 Our study showed that both polysaturated fatty acids (PSFAs) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) could improve polyphenol bioaccessibility. However, fats containing shorter saturated fatty acids (SFAs in beef tallow and coconut oil) contribute to increased plasma LDL, atherosclerosis and higher risks of cardiovascular diseases.15 Other studies show that PUFAs (e.g. sunflower oil and fish oil) relate with more beneficial functions including reducing inflammatory markers and preventing cardiovascular diseases as well as some types of cancers.13 Therefore, from the perspective of maximising polyphenol bioavailability in the diet, coupling phenol-rich plant foods of a small particle size in a diet containing low amounts (about 5%) of dietary PUFAs could be a good approach.
40 food australia
Conclusion Polyphenols are antioxidant compounds that are beneficial to human health and are most often included in the human diet through intake of fruits and vegetables. Coupling polyphenol-rich plant foods with a low-fat diet could be a good way to maximise absorption of bioactive polyphenols. Nevertheless, bioaccessiblility and absorption of polyphenols are limited since most polyphenols may be remained in plant matrix, and any beneficial antioxidant activity cannot counterbalance the negative effects from consumption of excessive dietary fats. We know that most Australians do not eat enough fruit and vegetables, which means that polyphenol consumption could be improved. As non-communicable diseases increase in Australia, and the links between polyphenol consumption and amelioration of oxidative stress become clearer, this is another argument to support official dietary advice and your parent’s sage words - eat your vegetables!
References 1. Gu, C., et al., Lc-esi-qtof/ms characterisation of phenolic acids and flavonoids in polyphenolrich fruits and vegetables and their potential antioxidant activities. Antioxidants, (2019). 8(9): p. 405. 2. Awika, J.M., et al., Complementary effects of cereal and pulse polyphenols and dietary fiber on chronic inflammation and gut health. (2018). 9(3): p. 1389-1409.
3. Loo, Y.T., et al., Modulation of the human gut microbiota by phenolics and phenolic fiber rich foods. (2020). 4. Capuano, E., N.J.J.o.t.S.o.F. Pellegrini, and Agriculture, An integrated look at the effect of structure on nutrient bioavailability in plant foods. (2019). 99(2): p. 493-498. 5. Rovalino-CĂłrdova, A.M., V. Fogliano, and E.J.C.p. Capuano, A closer look to cell structural barriers affecting starch digestibility in beans. (2018). 181: p. 994-1002. 6. Nordestgaard, B.G. and A.J.T.L. Varbo, Triglycerides and cardiovascular disease. 2014. 384(9943): p. 626-635. 7. Gu, C., et al., Dietary Lipids Influence Bioaccessibility of Polyphenols from Black Carrots and Affect Microbial Diversity under Simulated Gastrointestinal Digestion. (2020). 9(8): p. 762. 8. Erlejman, A., et al., The interaction of flavonoids with membranes: potential determinant of flavonoid antioxidant effects. (2004). 38(12): p. 1311-1320. 9. Lesser, S., R. Cermak, and S.J.T.J.o.n. Wolffram, Bioavailability of quercetin in pigs is influenced by the dietary fat content. (2004). 134(6): p. 1508-1511. 10. Gu, C., et al., Effect of a polyphenol-rich plant matrix on colonic digestion and plasma antioxidant capacity in a porcine model. (2019). 57: p. 211-221. 11. Verbeke, K.A., L. Boesmans, and E.J.P.o.t.N.S. Boets, Modulating the microbiota in inflammatory bowel diseases: prebiotics, probiotics or faecal transplantation? (2014). 73(4): p. 490-497. 12. Den Besten, G., et al., The role of short-chain fatty acids in the interplay between diet, gut microbiota, and host energy metabolism. (2013). 54(9): p. 2325-2340. 13. Arab-Tehrany, E., et al., Beneficial effects and oxidative stability of omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids. Trends in Food Science & Technology, (2012). 25(1): p. 24-33. 14. Azuma, K., et al., Enhancing effect of lipids and emulsifiers on the accumulation of quercetin metabolites in blood plasma after the shortterm ingestion of onion by rats. Bioscience, biotechnology, and biochemistry, (2003). 67(12): p. 2548-2555. 15. Siri-Tarino, P.W., et al., Saturated fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease: modulation by replacement nutrients. Current atherosclerosis reports, (2010). 12(6): p. 384-390.
Dr Kate Howell (PhD, UNSW) is a microbiologist and biochemist employed at University of Melbourne. Her research encompasses the interactions of microbes, particularly yeasts, in complex environments found in food and agriculture. She is the director of research training in the School of Agriculture and Food and teaches subjects in food and nutrition at undergraduate and postgraduate level. Follow her at @katehowell3010 Chunhe Gu is a PhD candidate at University of Melbourne. Her main research interests include food chemistry, bioactive components of foods and food processing. Her PhD study investigated the effects of plant cell structure and dietary lipids on polyphenols in phenol-rich plant foods digestion and absorption. f
SAVE THE DATE FOR AIFST21 FOOD SCIENCE – DELIVERING IN A CHANGING WORLD
SAVE THE DATE FOR AIFST21
AIFST VIRTUAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION Monday July 26 - Tuesday July 27 2021 Novotel, Sydney Olympic Park www.aifst.asn.au
Redefine the future of food Australia’s leading manufacturing exhibition is back in 2021.
25 28 JULY 2021 Sydney Showground
Save the date and subscribe for updates at foodproexh.com
food australia 41
FOOD SAFETY
Shining some light on the ‘dark’ kitchen Words by Andrew Davies
A ‘dark’ kitchen must meet the same regulatory requirements as other retail food businesses
T
echnology is impacting the way we live and the way we eat. Food businesses and their consumers can now engage with each other without even having a conversation. A simple touch of a button (or two) can see a hot meal delivered to a home in minutes. The Australian online meal delivery market has seen an average annual growth rate of 76% since 2015,1 with revenue expectations pushing towards $1 billion in 2021.2 Online meal delivery is used by nearly four million Australians3 and given the restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, who can foresee their rising popularity stalling into the future?4 Astute operators have acted to ensure they are able to continue to provide products and services despite these restrictions. Some are operating from home in their domestic kitchens and use social media to engage with customers and arrange delivery or pick up. Larger operators might use an existing restaurant or, if their focus is entirely on delivery-only meals, they might take advantage of the new kitchenonly facilities which are popping up in some urban areas. The three leading brands using this model in Australia are Uber Eats (market share 59.7%), Deliveroo
42 food australia
(market share 17.5%) and Menulog (market share 12.1%), who are all enjoying great success. They offer a wide variety of foods including big name chains, halal, breakfast, Lebanese and other cuisines, vegetarian, sushi etc. The options are endless. Menulog says it can connect more that 2.7 million active customers with almost 20,000 local restaurants.5 Many of these meal providers work closely with online meal delivery platforms. And when they do focus solely on that market and utilise a kitchen-only facility they are called a ‘dark’ kitchen (sometimes known as cloud, ghost or virtual kitchens).
What are dark kitchens? Dark kitchens are those that have no dine-in facilities and meals are made solely for delivery. Their customers have no visibility of them and will never set foot inside. The concept of the ‘dark’ kitchen is born out of the success of on-demand meal delivery services. Takeaway food is nothing new. The distinction is that the consumer does not always know who is making their food when a ‘dark’ kitchen is used. ‘Dark’ kitchens can operate in several ways. The business might operate in connection with an existing
bricks and mortar establishment such as a café or restaurant, they might contract with online delivery platforms such as Uber Eats, or perhaps engage directly with their customers in some other way (telephone, website and social media). There might be a mix of all three situations operating at the same facility. In any event, given their undoubted success, ‘dark’ kitchens are here to stay. Their value to the industry was solidified when NSW planning legislation was relaxed at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘dark’ kitchens can now be set up in any commercial kitchen so long as operators meet the COVID-19 Public Health Order requirements.6 The ‘dark’ kitchen concept poses some challenges for food regulatory and enforcement agencies. Traditional shopfront premises are readily identifiable – positioned on the street for maximum exposure to attract customers. But the ‘dark’ kitchen has a distinct lack of physical presence. This means they can be less visible to the public and by extension, the authorities. Some ‘dark’ kitchen businesses, therefore, have the potential to be a largely uncontrolled environment for the preparation of safe and suitable food.
Are regulatory requirements different? From a regulatory perspective the ‘dark’ kitchen is no different to any other retail food business. Regardless of the scale or type of operation, all food businesses in Australia must comply with the relevant parts of the Food Standards Code. In NSW, the State Government shares the responsibility for food safety with local councils under the framework of the Food Regulation Partnership. The NSW Food Authority regulates businesses from paddock to plate. This includes manufacturers, suppliers, importers and distributors. Local councils are appointed under the NSW Food Act 2003 to implement food safety legislation at the local level through monitoring and inspection of most retail food premises. State and local government work efficiently and effectively together. A ‘food business’ means a business, enterprise or activity that involves the handling of food7 intended for sale, or the sale of food. All food businesses must ‘notify’ regulatory authorities of their food handling operations. This allows the regulatory agency to make an informed decision on the degree to which any regular inspection is necessary. This is achieved by assessing the risk classification of the food, the skills and knowledge of the food handlers and any compliance history. An appropriate level of oversight or inspection frequency can then be implemented to assess practices against the food safety standards. The food safety standards specify process control requirements to be satisfied at each stage of the food handling process. Some relate to receipt, storage, processing, display and packaging of food. Other requirements relate to the skills and knowledge and health and hygiene of food handlers, and the cleaning, sanitising and maintenance of food premises and equipment. Why is food safety important? It is estimated that 4.1 million Australians are affected by foodborne illness each year.8 Food safety standards are
in place to protect the public from getting ill. Food poisoning can be caused by food handlers not cooking food properly, incorrect storage of food that needs to be kept chilled below 5°C, poor personal hygiene practices or poor cleanliness of the premises or equipment.
What are the challenges? Food regulatory authorities in NSW work hard to ensure that the food produced, manufactured and sold in NSW is safe and they can only so this if they are able to assess all food handling operations. The challenge for the authorities is therefore how to identify, engage and capture a ‘dark’ kitchen food businesses in food surveillance activities. How to shine some light in the ‘dark’, so to speak. As can be seen, a robust regulatory and food surveillance framework exists to assess the food handling operations of all food businesses and ensure only safe food is being delivered. However, it may, at times, require all parties – food businesses, online delivery platforms and authorities - to work together and share the responsibility of food safety. First, the ‘dark’ kitchen operator (and other food businesses) must meet their responsibility to contact the appropriate enforcement agency to notify of their food handling operations. There is a breach of the Food Standards Code – and therefore the various Food Acts which give it legal standing – should they fail to do this. In the absence of notifications, the authorities may have to rely upon other intelligence sources to identify ‘dark’ kitchen food businesses. This might be monitoring advertisements, social media posts or complaint data. Online food delivery companies can play their part too by requiring their partners – the ‘dark’ kitchens - to engage with authorities in the first instance. But there are other, softer, methods of food safety compliance which the authorities can employ to engage the food business. Food safety depends
not only on sound science, risk assessment and risk management, but on broad and effective risk communication. This includes dissemination of accurate information to consumers, and effective training and education for everyone from the food producer to the consumer. It is well known that information, training and education play a critical role in achieving food safety.9 With education being the best available compliance tool, the authorities must continue to engage all food businesses and food handlers with their food safety messaging. Having informed and knowledgeable food handlers that demonstrate an awareness of food safety will always be the most effective strategy in achieving positive food safety outcomes.
Seeing the light So, the ‘dark’ kitchen need not be so dark. Operators must engage with food safety authorities and help in the shared responsibility to achieve high food safety standards. In turn, this will contribute to sector growth and shine a positive light on the ‘dark’ kitchen phenomenon.
References 1. CBRE Research 2020 2. https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/ dark-kitchens-in-high-demand-as-isolationboosts-delivery-services-20200409-p54imu. html 3. Roy Morgan 2020, CBRE Research 2020 4. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-12/ inside-australias-dark-kitchens-cloud-kitchensvirtual-kitchens/12650548 5. https://www.menulog.com.au/info/about-us 6. Environmental Planning and Assessment (COVID-19 Development – Takeaway Food and Beverages) Order 2020. 7. Section 6 of the NSW Food Act 2003 8. https://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/ consumer/food-poisoning 9. https://foodregulation.gov.au/internet/fr/ publishing.nsf/Content/publication-stategicstatement
Andrew Davies manages the Food Regulation Partnership on behalf of the NSW Food Authority. f
food australia 43
HEALTH & NUTRITION
Dietary fibre – foods or ingredients? Words by Drs Ghanendra Gartaula and Sushil Dhital
Dietary fibre and FSANZ “Let food be thy medicine”- this quote ascribed to Hippocrates has been a health mantra since long ago. A healthy diet not only protects us against malnutrition but also prevents non-communicable diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and colon cancer. These chronic diseases are an economic burden to individuals and governments as they increase expenditure and reduce work productivity from increased morbidity and mortality rates (Fayet-Moore et al., 2010). One of the approaches to diffuse this ticking time bomb of economic burden is through dietary intervention. A recent systematic review and meta-analyses on carbohydrate quality and human health has revealed that there was a 15–30% reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality, and incidence of coronary heart disease, stroke incidence and mortality, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal cancer when intake of total dietary fibre was increased (Reynold’s et al., 2019). Researchers have shown that there is a clear association between the intake of dietary fibre (also referred to as fibre/s in the text) and the reduced risk of the aforementioned diseases. Dietary fibre, as per Food Standards Australia New Zealand
44 food australia
(FSANZ) is defined as the fraction of the edible part of plants or their extracts, or synthetic analogues that: (a) are resistant to digestion and absorption in the small intestine, usually with complete or partial fermentation in the large intestine; and (b) promote one or more of the following beneficial physiological effects: (i) laxation; (ii) reduction in blood cholesterol; (iii) modulation of blood glucose; and includes polysaccharides, oligosaccharides (degree of polymerisation > 2) and lignins. As per the FSANZ code, to claim the nutrient content of dietary fibre in a food, it must contain at least 2g of dietary fibre per serve. And it would be a good source if the serving of food contains at least 4g, an excellent source if it contains at least 7g, and an increased source if the serving contains at least 2g of fibre and the food contains at least 25% more fibre than in the same amount of reference food. Hence, a nutrient content claim about the presence or absence of certain nutritional properties of food. A general level health claim on the other hand claims that a food, or a property of food, has or may have a health effect and
are not a high-level health claim. A high-level health claim claims that a food or a property of food, has or may have a health effect and refers to a serious disease or biomarker of a serious disease. The condition for permitted general level health claim of dietary fibre is ‘the food must meet the general conditions for making a nutrient content claim along with the Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) and the specific health effect ascribed to it is that it contributes to regular laxation. The code has also listed beta-glucan specifically, one of the dietary fibres among many others, for a permitted general level health claim of reducing dietary and biliary cholesterol absorption with the condition that the food must contain at least 1 g per serving of beta-glucan from the foods listed - oat bran, wholegrain oats or wholegrain barley. The diet should be low in saturated fatty acids and should contain 3g of beta-glucan per day. And beta-glucan is the only fibre that is listed under high level health claims. The specific health effect of beta-glucan, as per the document, is that it reduces blood cholesterol, with the same dietary context and the food conditions as mentioned earlier. Hence, if we look at the definition, dietary fibre can be understood as an ‘ingredient’ rather than a ‘food’ itself.
A general public perception might be that taking a pill or capsule of dietary fibre instead of consuming foods rich in fibres would check or alleviate the health problems. But we should not ignore the fact that a food rich in fibre would contribute to multiple physiological effects. Let us suppose we have a refined food to which 7g of purified fibre is added and a wholegrain bread that has 7g of intrinsic fibres. The former one would definitely function towards its specific health outcome, let’s say laxative effect, in the body but the latter would confer benefits beyond that, as the fibre would be present in its natural form, in a complex matrix (see Figure 1) with other different types of fibres, phytochemicals and food components (Dhital et al., 2019). Such a food matrix offers a multitude of health benefits such as delayed gastric emptying, slower absorption of glucose, increased satiety, release of minerals and bulking of faeces to name a few (Augustin et al., 2020; Gidley, 2013). The fibre in the intact food performs its functions throughout the gastrointestinal tract as opposed to some localised effect of a refined dietary fibre. Whilst beta-glucan is the only type of fibre specifically mentioned in the FSANZ code, the European Food Safety Authority has a list of other different sources such as arabinoxylans, pectins, resistant starch etc. that are the subject of health claims (Stephen et al. 2017).
Gastrointestinal tract and fibre The human digestive system is designed to process complex plant foods rich in fibre (Mann, 2007). This is facilitated by a long gastrointestinal tract compared to carnivorous animals. On average, a human small intestine is about 5 m long and the large intestine is about 1.5 m long. A longer GI tract means food has further to transit, slowly releasing nutrients for the body to absorb on its way. Towards the end of the large intestine, the undigested
Figure 1: Typical plant tissue. The starch (green) is encapsulated by cell walls (dietary fibre, blue). The complex interaction of starch, proteins, lipids and cell walls give synergistic nutritional functionality compared to the equivalent amount of added fibres in foods. food components (dietary fibre) feed the gut microbiota for the good before they are finally excreted.
Fibres provide numerous beneficial roles Evidence from epidemiological studies as well as in vitro mechanistic studies and in vivo intervention studies show that a high dietary fibre intake has potential health benefits, particularly for better bowel function and preventing metabolic diseases (Fardet, 2010; Brownlee, 2011). Some dietary fibres that are polymeric in nature, have the ability to absorb water or to solubilise to form a gel-like structure, thus increasing the viscosity of the food. Stomach mixing and grinding are less efficient and thus the stomach releases a comparatively smaller proportion of food into the small intestine. The lower the rate of emptying, the lesser the substrate available for intestinal enzymes to hydrolyse. Hence the rate of release of glucose into the blood is lowered. Studies have shown the adsorption of the digestive enzyme alpha-amylase onto the surface of insoluble fibre as well as inhibition of activity of the amylase by soluble fibre affecting the
catalytic efficiency of the enzyme towards starch (Dhital et al. 2015, 2017). Due to increase in volume in the stomach as well as the slower passage of food from the stomach to the small intestine, the body feels full more quickly and for a longer time, thereby reducing the intake of food. We all might have noticed that we feel full for longer when we have oat porridge as breakfast compared to an equivalent amount of white bread. Towards the end of the small intestine, when the epithelial cells sense the presence of undigested food or nutrients, a negative feedback mechanism called the ileal-brake is activated. This reduces the food intake and increases satiety levels, most likely due to the reduction of the rate of gastric emptying as well as reduced intestinal enzyme secretion associated with increased satiety and decreased food intake. The fibre in the colon, most importantly insoluble fibre that is slowly fermented, have the capacity to hold a large amount of water (laxation). This limits water reabsorption in the colon and adds bulk to the stool, decreasing the intra-luminal pressure and the force
food australia 45
EVENTS
the consumption of ‘food’ dietary fibre rather than the ‘ingredient’ dietary fibre. More awareness programs need to be developed and conducted on the consumption of wholegrain foods, fruits and vegetables. Intact food is not only the sum of its nutrients but also a structured matrix that contributes to metabolic and health effects.
References
to propel soft moist stools. The lack of fibre in the diet is thus associated with slower movement of the colonic content leading to constipation and other associated metabolic disorders such as diverticulitis and haemorrhoids. The decrease in intestinal transit time as well as the high-water content of stool dilute potentially toxic products and protects the colon from prolonged exposure to cytotoxic substances which may be carcinogenic. The colonic fermentation of some fibres (soluble fibres are more rapidly fermented than insoluble) produce short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) such as butyrate, acetate and propionate. These SCFAs reduce the pH of the colon, making it unfavourable for the proliferation of undesirable bacteria. SCFAs are also an energy-source for cells lining the colon as well as protecting the mucous layer covering the cell lining. In the absence of fibre, the microbiota feed on the mucus lining only to compromise the gut health of the individual. Thus, they improve the colon-cell’s health and inhibit the growth and proliferation of tumour cells. Although traditionally fibres have been classified as soluble and insoluble based on their viscosifying effect, fermentability and stool bulking effect, studies have shown that this is
46 food australia
not always the case. Insoluble fibres from cereals, fruits and vegetables are readily fermented and there are certain complex soluble fibres, eg psyllium which increase viscosity of intestinal contents but are not easily hydrolysed by microbial enzymes in the gut. This necessitates the need for a balanced consumption of fibre rich foods. As stressed by scientists (Gidley, 2013; Gidley and Yakubov, 2019), there is also a need for a functional categorisation of dietary fibres based on their nutritional functionalities.
Strategy With the current definition of dietary fibre, it is obvious for food manufacturers to claim the nutrient content by incorporating certain purified fibres whose overall physiological benefits might be less than expected. The fibre in the label may not represent the ‘physiologically intact and intrinsic’ fibres. There is also a high chance that consumers misinterpret their information on dietary fibre and are inclined to consume ‘refined’ sources of food with added dietary fibres, and in some cases over-consume soluble fibre/ supplement (e.g. inulin) which can cause intestinal discomfort. Hence, a clear definition of dietary fibre is needed to provide an unambiguous message to the consumer regarding
1. Augustin, L. S., Aas, A. M., Astrup, A., Atkinson, F. S., Baer-Sinnott, S., Barclay, A. W., ... & Ceriello, A. (2020). Dietary Fibre Consensus from the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC). Nutrients, 12(9), 2553. 2. Brownlee, I. A. 2011. The physiological roles of dietary fibre. Food Hydrocolloids, 25, 238-250. 3. Dhital, S., Gidley, M. J. & Warren, F. J. 2015. Inhibition of α-amylase activity by cellulose: Kinetic analysis and nutritional implications. Carbohydrate Polymers, 123, 305-312. 4. Dhital, S., Warren, F. J., Butterworth, P. J., Ellis, P. R., & Gidley, M. J. (2017). Mechanisms of starch digestion by α-amylase—Structural basis for kinetic properties. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 57(5), 875-892. 5. Dhital, S., Brennan, C., & Gidley, M. J. (2019). Location and interactions of starches in planta: Effects on food and nutritional functionality. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 93, 158166. 6. Fardet, A. 2010. New hypotheses for the health-protective mechanisms of whole-grain cereals: what is beyond fibre? Nutrition Research Reviews, 23, 65-134. 7. Fayet-Moore, F., George, A., Cassettari, T., Yulin, L., Tuck, K., & Pezzullo, L. (2018). Healthcare expenditure and productivity cost savings from reductions in cardiovascular disease and Type 2 Diabetes associated with increased intake of cereal fibre among Australian Adults: A Cost of Illness Analysis. Nutrients, 10(1), 34. 8. Gidley, M. J. (2013). Hydrocolloids in the digestive tract and related health implications. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, 18(4), 371378. 9. Gidley, M. J., & Yakubov, G. E. (2019). Functional categorisation of dietary fibre in foods: Beyond ‘soluble’ vs ‘insoluble’. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 86, 563-568. 10. Mann, N. (2007). Meat in the human diet: An anthropological perspective. Nutrition & Dietetics, 64, S102-S107. 11. Reynolds, A., Mann, J., Cummings, J., Winter, N., Mete, E., & Te Morenga, L. (2019). Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Lancet, 393(10170), 434-445. 12. Stephen, A. M., Champ, M. M. J., Cloran, S. J., Fleith, M., van Lieshout, L., Mejborn, H., & Burley, V. J. (2017). Dietary fibre in Europe: current state of knowledge on definitions, sources, recommendations, intakes and relationships to health. Nutrition Research Reviews, 30(2), 149190.
Dr Ghanendra Gartaula is research scientist at Australian Export Grains Innovation Centre in WA. Dr Sushil Dhital is senior lecturer in the Department of Chemical Engineering, Monash University. sushil.dhital@ monash.edu f
5
FAST
Top food trend predictions for 2021 Q: What do you predict will be the top food trends to emerge in 2021? Dr Belinda Chapman, Director, Quantal Bioscience Sauerkraut and kimchi are just the tip of the fermented plant-based foods pyramid. In 2021 more umami-rich fermented plant-based foods will rise up in Western diets. Some of these will be traditional foods coopted from other, particularly Asian cultures, but some will be entirely new additions to the fermented food world, as manufacturers are spurred on by consumers to increase the diversity of plant-based foods in our everyday diets. Beyond plant-based umami, fungal-based umami will also be on the rise, from all things mushroom – mushrooms, mushroom broth, mushroom sauce, fermented mushrooms (double umami!) and so on – to fungi used in the fermentation of other (again, particularly plant-based) substrates – Aspergillus will definitely be a hero in 2021. Wrapping it all up, there will be a trend to umami-rich plant-based foods for breakfast that replace bacon and eggs, but that move us beyond mushroom and avocado. Professor Michelle Colgrave Future Protein Lead, CSIRO Agriculture and Food The year 2020 and COVID-19 have brought increased focus on food for health as people look to eat to stay healthy and avoid illness. Foods that are perceived to be linked to immune system health will be of special interest in coming years. But it won’t just be about human health; 2021 is likely to bring attention to foods that are seen as good for the planet. We will also see an increased focus on Australian grown and Australian manufactured food as a result of disrupted food supply chains and consumer trust. We can expect to see a continued shift away from
carbohydrate towards protein-centric diets, including continued growth in plant and alternative protein products. We will see increased diversity and availability of protein sources, and innovation leading to greater product offerings. Cumulatively, the ecoindulgence trend will continue, where people will indulge more readily when they believe there is a sustainability benefit. Dr Lisa Szabo Director Food Safety & CEO Food Authority, NSW Key food related trends for 2021 will include transparency, with consumers seeking access to information about their food, including country of origin, method of farming, composition, food miles, carbon neutrality, human and animal welfare concerns. Markets and consumers expect that when unsafe or unsuitable foods enter the system, companies and/ or regulators can identify and isolate the source to mitigate the risks. Motivated by market and consumer expectations, risk mitigation, efficiency gains, or some combination of these, companies will increasingly turn to end-to-end traceability systems. Digitisation, such as mobile technology, social media, digital portals, or distributed ledgers will contribute to consumer trust and confidence through enabling improved transparency and traceability. During the pandemic, consumers gravitated to familiar foods and brands. There is an opportunity for comfort foods and brands to take advantage of this surge and reimagine their products for the postCOVID-19 consumer. Food waste reduction practices such as upcycling ‘imperfect’ fruit and vegetables into edible products will continue to grow.
Sharon Natoli Director, Food & Nutrition Australia In 2021 we are likely to see a continued focus on local, natural, healthy and sustainable food and drinks. COVID-19 has accelerated growth of the conscious consumer and this has extended well beyond health and environment to incorporate local and socially conscious businesses and products. While price will always be a driver of food purchasing decisions, consumers will be more willing to pay for products that come from businesses that reflect their values. The growth in direct to consumer distribution also means people are feeling increasingly comfortable dealing directly with brands, providing an opportunity to develop strong relationships with the market. The work for companies will be in developing a clear, relevant and authentic brand and corporate voice that enables them to stand out and to build these relationships in a way that creates business resilience and contributes to long term growth. Wendy Pasco Marketing Manager ANZ, Ingredion 2021 will see plant based foods go mainstream and move into more categories due to the rise of the flexitarian and mindful consumer. Eating for health & wellness COVID-19 has resulted in a focus on health and immunity as consumers seek foods and ingredients to support personal health. The focus will be on immunity, gut health, sleep, mental wellness, mood boosting and sugar reduction. Sustainability - The rise of the mindful consumer who is concerned about the future state of the planet and looks for foods that are sustainable such as zero waste, biodiversity, organic, clean labels, biodegradable packaging and plant based.
food australia 47
� ROHA® INNOVATING FOR YOU. WITH YOU.
DAIRY ON-THE-GO A convenient, on-the-go snack! A mix of beverages, dips, yogurts, cheese and more. With the increase in consumer demand for dairy products that support their healthy and active lifestyles, at Roha you will always find a complete range of clean label, natural colors and also customised solutions to meet all your needs. For more details, contact us.
+61-3-9729 0302
I
roha.australia@rohagroup.com
Follow us on
lffl
I
www.roha.com
rohaglobal � RohaGlobal
