food australia Journal, Vol. 74 (1) January - March 2022

ISSN 1032 5298 • PRINT POST APPROVED PP241613/00096 VOL 74 ISSUE 1

JANUARY – MARCH 2022

Securing the digital food chain

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF AIFST

Plants 4Space

The promise of precision fermentation Regulars By the Numbers People Fast Five

Cellular agriculture update

ADVERTORIAL

MEAT TESTING, INSPECTION & CERTIFICATION Meat consumption is increasing globally and is considered a good source of protein, vitamins and minerals essential for good health. We work with producers, processors, importers or exporters to establish their analytical testing needs specific for the business.

As Australian consumers become more environmentally conscious, a growing number of companies are responding to this by shifting to sustainable packaging alternatives.

Meat consumption is increasing globally and is considered a good source of protein, vitamins and minerals essential for good health.

We work with producers, processors, importers or exporters to establish their analytical testing needs specific for the business.

All BVAQ facilities are DAWE approved and have established and approved methods to meet your specific industry requirements. BVAQ have qualified and experienced auditors to conduct on farm Livestock assessments for the beef and lamb sectors.

OUR SERVICES Laboratory Services • Microbiological Testing • General microbiology, approved DAWE compliant meat and surface swab testing, pathogens testing utilising cultural and rapid technologies such as TEMPO, BAX and VIDAS. • pSTEC Services: Entire E. coli nonO157 (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121 and O145) screen and confirmation testing.

• E.coli O157: H7 Services - Entire E. coli O157:H7 screen and confirmation testing.

Chemistry Testing • Nutritional Information Panel Testing • Food Allergen Testing: The widest range of ELISA based food allergen analysis available.

• GMO Testing • Residue Testing • Shelf Life Testing

AUDITING, CERTIFICATION & INSPECTION At BVAQ we have a network of professionals offering independent second and third-party auditing, inspection, and certification services across Australia and New Zealand and most parts of the world.

Our team is able to provide auditing services covering Farm Assurance, Management Systems Standards, GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative) standards and retailer standards. Our international network enables us to meet your auditing needs not only in Australia but almost anywhere in the world.

• Technical Specialist Team: Access to our team allows your business to be proactive, rather than reactive.

• Food safety risk assessments • Sampling and Testing Regime reviews • Microbiological Validation Studies • Challenge Studies • Digital solutions: Access to online results through a highly secure, webbased portal.

• Training: Customised Training and Workshops, VITAL® Training.

CONTACT US www.bvaq.com | sales.au@bvaq.com

OUR SOLUTIONS Whether your organisation requires Risk Management support, Technical Solutions, Training or access to results online with Online solutions, our team of Technical Specialists can assist your business by providing technical and practical advice.

JANUARY – MARCH 2022

12

18

20

IN THIS ISSUE

36

REGULARS 05 By the Numbers

12

Novel technologies will allow us to produce meat, dairy and eggs - without the

animal

06 People 46 Fast Five

What is cellular agriculture and how does it work?

14

Essential oils: combating green mould disease in citrus as a natural bio-

fungicide Using orange peel waste as an alternative fungicide 15

The anti-obesity potential of ulvan from the green seaweed Ulva

Study results support efficacy of a common seaweed 18

Thinking about trying edible crickets? Make sure you read the label first if you

have allergies Proteomics help answer questions on insect allergenicity 20 Plants4Space: the future of food Space research driving ag innovation with benefits for Earth 23

What’s brewing? Precision food proteins from fermentation

Precision fermentation emerging as a leading biotechnology 26

Resolving food safety problems with root cause analysis

COVER

How this investigative approach to food safety works

BVAQ: Meat testing,

32

inspection & certification

The 3D printing of foods – from concept to reality

What are the developments in this emerging field?

34

Hunger: a fact of life for too many in Australia

Report shows extent of food insecurity 36

Beyond ransomware: securing the digital food chain

Cyberattacks underline need to address gaps in education, investment and transparency 41

How to get adaptogens to the Australian market

What regulatory options are available to you?

45

Australian food industry signs up for $36 billion food waste fight

A new initiative to tackle food waste

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 Dr Bhesh Bhandari; Jonathan Braley; Dr James A. Broadbent; Renata Carneiro; Dr Michelle Colgrave; Susan Duncan; Fight Food Waste Limited; Charles Fisher; Foodbank Australia; Dr Leigh Francis; Dr Matthew Gilliham; Dr Sally Gras; Melissa Hersh; Dr Russell Keast; Dr Bianca Lê; Dr Gie Liem; Dr Amy Logan; Deon Mahoney; Randall Murch; Damian Nandorfy; Dr Jessica Pahl; Mohammad Mizanur Rahman; Ford Ramsey; Annelise Sarikas; Dr Thomas Vanhercke; Dr Peter Watkins; Anne Maree Weston.

Advertising Manager Clive Russell | aifst@aifst.com.au

Subscriptions AIFST | aifst@aifst.com.au

Production Bite Communications

Subscription Rates 2022 Subscription Rates for 4 editions Australia $120; Overseas (airmail) $190; single copies $30.00; Overseas $47.50 food australia is the official journal of the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Limited (AIFST). Statements and opinions presented in the publication do not necessarily reflect the policies of AIFST nor does AIFST accept responsibility for the accuracy of such statement and opinion.

Editorial Contributions Guidelines are available at https://www.aifst.asn.au/ food-australia-Journal.

Original material published in food australia is the property of the publisher who holds the copyright and may only be published provided consent is obtained from the AIFST. Copyright © 2018 ISSN 1032-5298

AIFST Board Chair: Mr Duncan McDonald Non-executive directors: Ms Suz Allen, Ms Julie Cox, Mr John Kavanagh, Ms Sandra Loader, Mr Deon Mahoney, Ms Bronwyn Powell.

AIFST National Office PO Box 780 Cherrybrook NSW 2126 Tel: +61 447 066 324 Email: aifst@aifst.com.au Web: www.aifst.asn.au

Inventing the future through collaboration and innovation Australia’s food manufacturing sector has enormous growth opportunities. The Food & Agribusiness Growth Centre (FIAL), amongst others, have provided strong evidence to propose a potential increase of AUD$200 billion by 2030 … “which would almost triple the current size of Australia’s food and agribusiness sector”.

But what is the best way to realise this potential? Consistent themes from both speakers and delegates at the 2021 AIFST Convention were the importance of innovation, collaboration, and trust – building on the theme of ‘Food Science – delivering in a changing world’.

Collaboration can be defined simply as ‘two or more people working together towards shared goals’. Breaking this down, there are three parts: 1. Two or more people – this could be a team from the same organisation or across many organisations or sectors of the agrifood industry 2. Working together – this encompasses processes, and should embrace innovative ways of thinking and working 3. Shared goals – the team working together for a shared outcome.

Collaboration requires trust to be built within the team for the shared goals and outcomes to be realised.

AIFST’s mission is to “advance and inspire all food sector professionals through education, collaboration and recognition to champion a robust, innovative, science based Australian food industry to meet future food needs”.

The challenge for 2022 My challenge to you for 2022, across the many disciplines of food science and technology in the food and agri-business sector, is how are you going to collaborate to innovate – what will you do differently, what will your role be and how will you create change?

We work hard to deliver on our AIFST mission, but we are keen to know how you think AIFST can be even more effective at fulfilling our purpose to unite food industry professionals in the science of feeding our future.

It is only through continued engagement that we can fulfill our purpose - email your thoughts to us at aifst@aifst.com.au.

Fiona Fleming B. App Sc (Food Tech); MNutr Mgt; FAIFST; MAICD Chief Executive Officer fiona.fleming@aifst.com.au

BY THE NUMBERS

Australian agri-food exporters expand horizons in 2021 Words by Anne Maree Weston Approximately 70% of Australian agrifood sector production is exported. In 2020/21, the value of agri-food exports was approximately $51 billion and had grown at an average annual rate of 3.6% since 2005/06.1 The opportunity to expand and grow agri-food exports is significant. ABARES forecasts the gross value of agricultural production to grow 8% in 2021-22 due to beneficial seasonal conditions and prices and exports are expected to grow by 12% to $54.7 billion in 2021-22.2 While ASEAN and North Asia will continue to drive growth, emerging markets in India and the Middle East also provide significant long-term opportunities. FTAs with the UK and EU will deliver new prospects, with North America continuing to be attractive for Australian wine and premium food.

Through the Agri-Business Expansion Initiative (ABEI), the Australian Government is investing $72.7 million to help Australian agribusinesses expand their export markets and achieve sustainable growth and resilience in their export strategies.

ABEI is jointly delivered by Austrade and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE), in close collaboration with industry.

Austrade is delivering scaled-up support to over 2,000 agri-food exporters each year, while DAWE is delivering an expanded Agricultural Trade and Market Access Cooperation (ATMAC) Program of matched grants for government and industry associations to work together on market expansion, boosted in-country engagement activities, accelerated work on technical market access and greater collection and delivery of market intelligence to exporters. For more information about Austrade’s programs go to: https://www.austrade. gov.au/about/programs/agribusinessexpansion-initiative.

Top 6 agri-food export markets (2020/21)

CHINA 22%

INDONESIA 7%

JAPAN 10%

USA 8%

SOUTH KOREA 6%

VIETNAM 5%

Composition of food exports by value (5 year average) - Top 6 1

2

MEAT & LIVESTOCK $15.6 million - 30%

GRAINS & CEREALS $7 million - 14%

4

FRUIT, VEGETABLES & NUTS - $4.2 million - 8%

3

5

PREPARED/PACKAGED FOOD - 13%

6

ALCOHOL $3 million - 6%

References 1. Based upon the DFAT publication, ‘Composition of Trade Australia’ 2. ABARES, ‘Agricultural forecasts and outlook’ September quarter 2021 Agricultural Commodities Report, Vol 11.

DAIRY $2.5 million - 5%

Anne Maree Weston is Head of Agribusiness and Food Centre of Excellence, Global Client Services, at Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade).

food australia 5

PEOPLE

Lisa Clark appointed as Manager of the Allergen Bureau The Allergen Bureau is pleased to announce that Lisa Clark has joined as Allergen Bureau Manager.

Lisa has worked for many years in various food industry roles, primarily in quality and innovation roles for leading FMCGs Peters Ice Cream, Nestle Dairy products, Goodman Fielder, Kraft Foods, SPC Ardmona and Simplot Australia. Most recently, Lisa was responsible for assisting Simplot Australia with food safety and technical support, working across many aspects of risk assessment, management, and communication.

This depth of experience and knowledge will be a huge asset to the Allergen Bureau and our members, knowing firsthand the issues and challenges in allergen management.

“I have loved learning about

allergen management, allergen risk assessment, labelling, and tackling those interesting manufacturing challenges. On my journey I have been so grateful to the Allergen Bureau, an organisation I have reached out to many times, for help on diverse topics from testing and cleaning, to setting up processing profiles. I am thrilled to work with such a great team of experts, and use my skills and knowledge to now support other businesses on their journey,” Lisa Clark said.

The Allergen Bureau would also like to say a sincere thank you to departing Manager, Ray Murphy.

Ray made a significant contribution not only to the Allergen Bureau but the wider food industry. A driver of significant change, Ray has helped

grow the Bureau membership base to improve financial sustainability, and take industry guidance to the next level.

KHQ Lawyers strengthen food and beverage capability with key hire Leading food and beverage lawyer, Charles Fisher, has joined KHQ Lawyers to lead its food and beverage team. Mr. Fisher is one of the country’s leading practitioners in this highly specialised area of law, advising and conducting training on food and beverage marketing, compliance, labelling, classification, licensing, safety and crisis management.

Since formally establishing its food and beverage team several years ago, KHQ has earned a reputation for clarity of thinking and practical advice, and has built a solid stable of national and international clients, including many household name brands. KHQ’s managing director,

David Kelly, said Mr Fisher’s appointment expands the firm’s existing capability: “We’re excited to have Charles join our team. He is highly regarded in the food and beverage sector, and his vision and expertise complements our existing offering. He will no doubt lead the practice to bigger and better things”.

Mr Fisher commented: “It is so wonderful to join such a happy mix of exceptional leaders. My niche expertise is now one more string to an already robust and full-service legal bow at KHQ. It feels like my thirteen years of staring at Australian and New Zealand food regulations have found the right home to best service food and beverage companies

from around the world.”

Mr Fisher can be reached at KHQ on +61 3 9663 9877

AIFST22 AIFST22 - 23-24 - 23-24 AUGUST, AUGUST, MELBOURNE MELBOURNE 6 food australia

PEOPLE

Cathy Moir appointed Senior Research Microbiologist at Quantal Bioscience Cathy Moir has joined Quantal influence and impact of women on Bioscience, an agile and growing policy and decision making as it science business delivering new shapes our planet. knowledge, innovative solutions Cathy was elevated to Fellow of and novel products to the food and the AIFST in 2017 in recognition of agribusiness industries. In her role her years of service to the Institute as Senior Research Microbiologist, and the food industry. She is the Cathy will work with the team current Chair of the Food Safety providing collaborative research Information Council, Australia’s consulting and specialised training leading disseminator of consumerfor industry and small business. targeted food safety information Cathy is excited to bring her and recently joined the Board of wealth of knowledge to Quantal Proficiency Testing Australia. from 35 years of working with Projekt1_Layout 1 08.03.2021 10:36 Seite 3 food and agribusiness through the CSIRO. She is a nationally recognised thought and science leader in the microbiology and processing of foods. She has supported industry to innovate through product formulation and processing while assuring a safe and stable product as well as troubleshooting food spoilage and processing issues.

Cathy will add value to the Quantal business through her outstanding communication and stakeholder engagement skills which have also contributed to her highly credible reputation as a trusted scientific advisor to the Australian food industry, government organisations and consumers.

Quantal’s activities in supporting women in small business will allow Cathy to pursue her passion for promoting women and diversity in leadership. In 2016 Cathy was accepted into the inaugural cohort of the Homeward Bound initiative, a state-of-the-art program to develop leadership and strategic capabilities, using science to build conviction around the importance of female voices as women in STEMM. The initiative continues to heighten the

COLOUR For extra boost!

I N D U S T R I E S

www.cathayindustries.com.au

food australia 7

PEOPLE

Dr Polly Burey promoted to Associate Professor Dr Polly Burey has been promoted to Associate Professor in the Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences and the Centre for Future Materials at the University of Southern Queensland.

Polly’s career began as a chemical and materials engineer in the timber industry, having previously completed internships in the plastic and steel industries. Her PhD was based at the University of Queensland in the Centre for High Performance Polymers on an industry-linked project focusing on the relationships between composition, processing, structure and rheology of confectionery. She followed this work with further research positions in processing-microstructure-rheology studies of model gel systems and food, with a range of industry partners and to date her academic

research has primarily had an industry focus. Polly’s current work focuses on the analysis, technology development and design of sustainable supply systems spanning food, packaging and industrial materials. She has applied this knowledge to improve recovery and value-add outcomes for horticultural and protein products.

Polly is looking forward to her next research challenge which is the New Options for Waste And Saving The Environment (NO WASTE) precinct pilot funded by a Strategic University Reform Fund grant from the Department of Education, Skills and Employment. The NO WASTE precinct has a focus on collaborative research and education initiatives to support development of regional circular economies and associated employment.

Sandra Olivier appointed Senior Research Microbiologist at Quantal Bioscience Sandra Olivier has been appointed as a Senior Research Microbiologist at Quantal Bioscience where she joins a highly experienced and passionate team of scientists who specialise in applied microbiology and microbiomics, delivering science services and solutions to the food and agribusiness sectors. Sandra brings her 20 years’ experience in applied food microbiology to Quantal, including 18 years at the CSIRO. Sandra specialises in the microbiology of processed foods and is thrilled at the opportunity to apply her expertise at Quantal, working collaboratively and providing support to industry to innovate safely and to remedy existing challenges. Sandra has expertise in microbiological hazard identification and risk mitigation, process validation, and shelf-life extension, within the context of both conventional and novel processing. Sandra also has

8 food australia

specific expertise in spore-forming microorganisms and their control by thermal and novel processing, and has been active in supporting industry in the adoption of novel processing technologies (e.g. high pressure and high pressure thermal processing), facilitating the validation of these to meet regulatory and market access requirements.

Through her work with industry, Sandra has developed a practical appreciation of the need to strike the delicate balance between meeting food safety/and stability objectives whilst also respecting the practical limitations of applying these commercially without compromising product quality or consumer acceptance. At Quantal, Sandra looks forward to building on her expertise, through the integration of novel microbiomics, to address evolving challenges for industry.

Sandra has a Degree in Science

(Hon) from University of Tasmania and Western Sydney University and has been affiliated with the AIFST since 2004, including serving a two year term in the NSW Food Microbiology Group.

PEOPLE

AIFST 2021 Fellows In 2021 six AIFST Professional members were elevated to the status of Fellow of the Institute.

Congratulations to our 2021 AIFST Fellows.

Dr Ian Brown

Brenda Mossel

Dr Angeline Achariya

Dr Ian Brown has been involved in the food industry around the world for 40 years. Ian joined Fielder Gillespie Limited in Tamworth as a Research Chemist in 1981 after completing a BSc majoring in biochemistry. His career has involved senior roles in R&D, Applications, Sales & Marketing and general management in multinational food companies based in Australia and the USA. This included companies providing starches, proteins, and microencapsulated long chain omega-3 lipid ingredients.

Research undertaken during his MSc (UNE) and PhD (Hokkaido University, Japan) identified and developed the world’s first natural resistant starch ingredient, Hi-maize™, which won the AIFST Food Innovation Award in 1995 after its commercial success in Wonder White bread™. Ian led the global introduction and use of the Himaize family of ingredients in a broad range of foods, specialty animal feeds and medical and pharma formulations.

Ian was recognised for his contribution to food technology in 2013 with the award of the AIFST Keith Farrer Award of Merit and he continues his involvement in the development and commercialisation of innovative foods, medical research, and philanthropy.

Brenda has a passion for vulnerable consumer groups having worked for over two decades in developing and commercialising special purpose foods. She is committed to using her science to make people’s lives better by making special nutrition products accessible to as many people around the globe as possible.

Brenda has a passion for identifying good early-stage substantive science with innovative commercial potential which lead her to undertake a Master of Technology and Innovative Management. She uses this knowledge providing strategic advice on advanced manufacturing to Government through her appointment on the Ministerial Manufacturing Council.

Brenda was the National Council of Women Centenary Award winner, won the 1998 Australian Institute of Food Science Malcolm Bird Commemorative Award for young Scientists and a Deans Commendation for Outstanding Higher Degree Research Thesis 2002. The ultimate food nerd, Brenda’s family has banned her from the weekly supermarket shop as she spends too much time obsessing over all the new food product launches.

Angeline is a globally recognized and respected leader in commercializing innovations in global markets, with deep experience in export pathways into Asian markets. Angeline has a career spanning over 20 years of diverse international business and innovation, executive leadership experience, international speaker, advisory board and committee roles.

Angeline was appointed to her current role in August 2019 and is responsible for creating value across seed to plate opportunities. Angeline is accountable for Innovation and Growth including new opportunities through Simplot Food Futures. Her previous roles have been in blue chip multinational companies like MasterFoods Japan, Fonterra, Yum! Brands and Mondelez International which has resulted in more than 1000 innovations launched in grocery retail, foodservice and quick service restaurants. Angeline co-founded the first food innovation hub in Australia and over its six year journey saw more than 7000 Food and Beverage organisations engage and co-create with the hub.

food australia 9

PEOPLE

Kim Staples

Professor Roger Stanley

Stuart Johnson

Kim first joined AIFST in 2000 as a graduate of B App Science (Food Technology), completing her qualification at University of Western Sydney.

Joining AIFST opened opportunities to participate in the Institute’s meetings, in particular Young Member’s Night, John Christian Award, and the Malcolm Bird Award. Kim encouraged others to do so, resulting in many professional friendships that continue to this day.

After completing a research Honours in waste remediation of olive oil pressing wastes, she commenced a complex multidisciplinary PhD utilising culture of human cell line Caco-2 studying metabolism of divalent cations. A strong scientific approach was subsequently established.

Kim has continued her professional development gaining formal qualifications in quality, training, and auditing. She has worked in small, medium, and large manufacturing and wholesale FMCG settings, including auditing, production, sales, as a food technologist and quality manager, in domestic and global regulatory affairs, and as a consultant.

Roger Stanley is the Professor of Food Science and Technology and Director of the Centre for Food Innovation (CFI) at the University of Tasmania.

He has a Joint Academic Appointment between the Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG), Food and Nutrition, Scottsdale, Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture (TIA). In this role his research areas are on novel food processing for adding value to agricultural and aquaculture produce and operating within the DSTG to provide science leadership on the development of food and nutrition technologies to improve the capabilities of Defence.

Roger has held various roles as a research scientist in New Zealand, the USA and Australia from 1997 through to 2013 when he took up his current role in Tasmania.

Roger holds a BSc (Hons) Biochemistry, from the University of Canterbury (1977) and a PhD in Biochemistry, from the University of Auckland. From 1986-87 he held a postdoctoral appointment with Merck Sharpe and Dohme Research in the USA on vaccine manufacture.

Stuart Johnson commenced his acquaintance with food technology with his first role as a laboratory technician performing microbiological and chemical analysis of foods, at the WA based Peters Ice Cream. After several promotions, Stuart decided to finalise studies in Food Technology in a new course at Curtin University – a course he helped create.

Stuart soon re-joined the R&D team at the fast-growing Peters Ice Cream.

He joined the newly created AIFST Branch in its first year. Stuart was a Branch Councillor several times and was involved on the AIFST conference organising committee when the National Conference was held in Perth. Stuart also served on the food australia Board.

In the last ten years Stuart has served AIFST by working on projects to extend its membership, broadening the ability of the wider food industry to join the organisation. Stuart continues in the food Industry, now at Vesco - Australia’s leading meals manufacturer.

To be appointed a Fellow, a member must have given outstanding service in at least one of the following areas - research and development leading to creation of new knowledge; technology transfer and education or development of the food industry including promotion of its ethical standards and public image. The member must also have contributed

to the profession of food science and technology through development of the affairs of the Institute or an equivalent professional body.

If you are interested in nominating to become a Fellow of AIFST you will need to be proposed by a Fellow and supported by another two Fellows and have been a Professional member of the AIFST for at least ten

10 food australia

[10] years or for at least three [3] years, and a professional member of an equivalent institution involved with food science and technology for a period of time, such that total professional membership is no less than ten [10] years.

For more information visit the AIFST website or contact AIFST.

FUTURE FOOD PRODUCTION

Novel technologies will allow us to produce meat, dairy and eggs - without animals Words by Dr Bianca Lê

T

here’s no denying the growing scientific consensus that animal agriculture has become a key driver of many of our world’s biggest challenges: high greenhouse gas emissions from cattle, overuse of antibiotics, and increasing risks of endemic diseases such as swine and avian flu.

In turn, animal agriculture and the farmers that support our food system have also become one of the biggest victims of climate change, antimicrobial resistance, and animal diseases.

This vicious cycle will only worsen as our global population, and the demand for affordable protein, grows.

So how can we supply the growing demand for protein without sacrificing our planet? The answer is to diversify the way we make meat, dairy and eggs. And I don’t mean mock meat or dairy substitutes - I mean real meat made from muscle cells and animal fat, and full cream cow milk complete with casein and whey. Fortunately, food technologists are developing a way for us to continue producing the foods from animals we know and love without the animal.

12 food australia

What is cellular agriculture?

Cellular agriculture is a suite of technologies that allow us to farm and harvest animal cells, not whole animals.

Instead of raising, let’s say, an entire chicken, with feathers, a digestive tract, and a nervous system, just to eat the breast or thigh, we can grow meat directly from the animal’s muscle cells.

Cellular agriculture is an emerging interdisciplinary research field and industry, with the term ‘cellular agriculture’ coined only in 2015 and no products have yet been produced to scale. However, this novel food production method is predicted to use less land, water and energy resources than conventional animal agriculture, and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions. And as a bonus, no animals die in this process. The technology could have major implications for the environment, animal welfare, biodiversity, and human health.

How does it work?

Cellular agriculture technologies are generally split into two categories.

The first involves the development of cultured meat made from cells

via tissue engineering. This involves taking a painless biopsy, the size of an almond, from any animal of our choice, then isolating the meat cells (mainly muscle and fat cells).

The cellular farmers would then place the meat cells inside a stainless steel bioreactor, not dissimilar to steel tanks at a brewery. But instead of feeding sugar to yeast cells to brew beer, we feed meat cells the nutrients they’d normally get inside the animal’s body - amino acids, electrolytes, and sugars. These cells would then grow and divide for us to harvest. We can then perfuse these cells onto an edible scaffold made of collagen proteins to recreate the structured whole cuts of meat we know and love.

But let’s not stop at harvesting muscle cells for meat - we could use this food production method to harvest liver cells for foie gras, epithelial cells to recreate skin for pork belly or leather, and even oocytes for fish roe and caviar.

The second production method is called precision fermentation, which uses cells as the tool to create food ingredients. We can engineer

single-celled organisms like bacteria or yeast, to produce animal proteins and fats, enzymes, and vitamins. The final product isn’t the cells themselves, but the molecules that are produced by the cells (which are ultimately filtered out). That’s why precision fermentation is sometimes referred to as acellular agriculture. We could produce whey and casein for cow-free milk, albumin for chicken-free egg, and human collagen for supplements and cosmetics.

Not if, but when The question of whether cellular agriculture will be a major player in Australia’s economy is not a matter of if, but when – and in what form. The global demand for protein is increasing significantly and traditional production will need to be supplemented by nonanimal-based sources.

It’s no surprise, then, that investment in the cellular agriculture industry is booming. The global cultured meat market collectively raised US$366 million in 2020 alone. It’s clear Australia can be a leading producer and exporter of cellular agriculture technologies and high-quality cultivated meat products akin to Wagyu steaks and Australian grass-fed beef. Otherwise, we’ll rely too heavily on traditional animal agriculture, only to find ourselves in 10 years’ time dependent on importing alternative protein products from international markets.

Farming and animal agriculture have been core to every culture around the world for thousands of years and will continue to be so. Cellular agriculture isn’t a replacement for that, but an addition to our existing agricultural sector and food industry.

If the goal is to secure the future of Australia’s agriculture industry, then the strategy must be to maximise economic benefits and minimise the ecological impacts of meat production, while also meeting growing consumer demand. Collaboration and coexistence between animal agriculture and cellular agriculture is one way to do that.

Diversification into new protein markets will also allow Australia’s meat industry to maintain global competitiveness, encourage innovation, and future-proof

our food systems. Cellular agriculture also provides more consumer choice to omnivores who are environmentally conscious or are concerned about animal welfare.

Australia has previously struggled with technological changes in energy, transport, and telecommunications. The good news is that the government is currently providing significant funding and legislative support for agtech and food-tech research, innovation, investment, and commercialisation efforts. Let’s make sure we don’t fall behind in this agricultural revolution.

A time-sensitive opportunity for Australia’s food tech sector Fortunately, R&D within the cellular agriculture industry has been rapidly expanding in Australia over the past three years. Like any emerging industry, cellular agriculture will create new markets, new applications, and new jobs – particularly for those with STEM skills. As the number of university graduates in STEM surpass the number of available jobs in Australia’s current economy, a new interdisciplinary field such as cellular agriculture would be a welcome opportunity for job seekers.

As with traditional livestock farms, future cultured meat farms will also provide manufacturing jobs in large-scale cell cultivation and food processing, particularly in regional areas.

In mid-2020, I founded a nonprofit organisation called Cellular Agriculture Australia to build cellular agriculture R&D capabilities in Australia. Our three core pillars address three major barriers that are preventing Australia from being a frontrunner in the race: 1. Building a talent pipeline into cell ag research 2. Being the central hub to connect academics, entrepreneurs, students, investors and government stakeholders, and 3. Using effective science communication to create public awareness of the field so that future consumers understand what cellular agriculture is - but more importantly, what cellular agriculture isn’t.

So what are we doing to position

Australia as a global leader in cellular agriculture?

Firstly, we are working towards incorporating cellular agriculture content into existing food tech, biotech, engineering education and universities, and eventually build full subjects and degrees to equip our future workforce.

Secondly, we hope to establish a co-ordinated and multidisciplinary National Research Centre for Cellular Agriculture will allow us to drive innovation and accelerate the timelines for commercialisation.

And finally, we are advocating for public investment into pre-competitive infrastructure, such as an open access cell-line repository, plus pilot manufacturing facilities that can be hired by private companies to reduce the risk for commercialisation but also to drive global companies to our shores.

If you’re a food scientist, product developer, educator, or researcher, you are needed in this fast-growing field to ensure that we can future-proof our meat, dairy and egg industries for generations to come.

Dr Bianca Lê is Director of Cellular Agriculture Australia and Honorary Fellow in Agriculture and Food at the University of Melbourne. Dr Lê is a cell biologist who completed her PhD at Monash University, where her research focused on understanding how being born prematurely can lead to long-term cardiovascular disease. Bianca is now utilising her expertise in cell biology to help develop food more sustainably, in the emerging research field called cellular agriculture. f

food australia 13

AIFST 2021 RESEARCH POSTER COMPETITION

Figure 1. Green mould decay in inoculated oranges following dipping in water (left) and oxidised orange essential oil (EO) at 4000 µL L-1 (right).

Essential oils: combating green mould disease in citrus as a natural bio-fungicide Words by Mohammad Mizanur Rahman

G

reen mould caused by Penicillium digitatum is a major postharvest disease of citrus fruits causing major losses to the industry.1 It is currently controlled with the application of commercial chemical fungicides, but there are growing health and environmental concerns with continued use of synthetic chemicals.1,2,3 There is growing interest in sourcing natural alternatives, such as the application of essential oils (EO) to control postharvest decay.2,3 This project focused on the development and formulation of bio-fungicides from EO extracted from orange peel waste (e.g. citrus juice pomace).

In these trials, orange EO was mildly oxidised using ultraviolet-C (UV-C) irradiation. The antifungal potential of non-oxidised and oxidised orange EOs was assessed both in vitro by agar diffusion assays and in organic Navel oranges inoculated with P. digitatum spores by dipping in aqueous emulsions.

The results showed that UV-C oxidation of orange EO resulted in 20% decline of the major constituent, limonene, from the EO. Three hydroperoxide oxidation products,

14 food australia

namely (2S,4R)-p-mentha-6,8-diene-2hydroperoxide, (1S,4R)-p-mentha-2,8diene-1-hydroperoxide and (1R,4R)p-mentha-2,8-diene-1-hydroperoxide, were identified by GCMS as oxidation products. These hydroperoxides have capability to alkylate DNA and proteins that relates the key concept of survival of microbial species.4 In vitro agar diffusion assay studies with P. digitatum showed a strong antifungal response from the oxidised orange EO solution relative to the control and non-oxidised EO. Dipping inoculated oranges in oxidised orange EO significantly inhibited growth of P. digitatum. The optimal treatment concentration was 4,000 µL L-1. Interestingly, P. digitatum growth in oranges dipped in nonoxidised orange EO at 1,000 – 4,000 µL L-1 was not significantly different to the control (water dip only) (Fig.1). The enhanced antimicrobial activity of the oxidised orange EO was attributed to the presence of limonene hydroperoxide derivatives.

Fortunately, no phytotoxic injury to the rind was observed.

This study showed that UV-C oxidised orange EO has the potential as an alternative treatment to

synthetic fungicides for controlling green mould (P. digitatum) decay in citrus. Extraction of orange EO from waste flavedo generated from juice processing has the potential to add value to a currently unwanted byproduct.

References 1. Ismail, M.; Zhang, J. Post-harvest Citrus Diseases and their control. In Outlooks on Pest Management; Research Information: London, UK, 2004; 15, 29–35.

2. Talibi, I.; Boubaker, H.; Boudyach, E.H.; Ait Ben Aoumar, A. Alternative methods for the control of postharvest citrus diseases. J. Appl. Microbiol.

2014, 117, 1–17.

3. Torres-Alvarez, C.; Núñez González, A.; Rodríguez, J.; Castillo, S.; Leos-Rivas, C.; Báez-González, J.G. Chemical composition, antimicrobial, and antioxidant activities of orange essential oil and its concentrated oils. J. Food 2017, 15, 129–135.

4. Suzan, A.K.; Selva, R. Recent progress in photochemical reaction on main components of some essential oils. J. Saudi Chem. Soc. 2018, 22, 855–875.

Mr Mohammad Mizanur Rahman is a PhD (Food Science) candidate at the University of Newcastle, Australia (Thesis submitted). He had a funding collaboration with Horticulture Innovation “Citrus Postharvest Program” (CT19003) with NSW DPI, Ourimbah.

He was the winner of the Judge’s Award at the AIFST 2021 Research Poster Competition. f

The anti-obesity potential of ulvan from the green seaweed Ulva Words by Dr Jessica Pahl

T

he prolific green seaweed Ulva is an edible sea lettuce wellknown for the formation of ‘green tides’ owing to rapid growth rates and broad environmental tolerance. However, the same properties that enable species of Ulva to form green tides are highly suitable for cultivation and this has been demonstrated in land-based cultivation in South Africa for abalone feedstock.1 In addition to being a

sustainable food source, Ulva contains commercially valuable bioactive compounds that have potential for the treatment of metabolic syndrome.

Metabolic syndrome is the term used to describe the co-occurrence of abdominal obesity, high blood pressure, and high concentrations of glucose, cholesterol, and triglycerides in the bloodstream. Rates of obesity are increasing worldwide, and consequently the prevalence of metabolic syndrome is also increasing and with it a greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

There are many factors at play that lead to this increased risk of metabolic syndrome and related conditions, but one potentially modifiable factor is the gut microbiome. The human gastrointestinal tract is colonised by up to 10 trillion microbes and the diversity and prevalence of certain species can indicate whether a gut microbiome is ‘healthy’ or implicated in disease. A gut microbiome that has decreased diversity, loss of beneficial organisms or irregular bacteria blooms has been linked to the development of various diseases.2 The factors leading to this are not completely understood, however, genetic factors and a diet high in saturated fats and simple carbohydrates but low in dietary fibre are believed to have a causative role.3 Ulva contains a unique soluble fibre called ulvan (12% of the dry biomass), which is resistant to human enzymatic digestion and could therefore

The sea lettuce Ulva ohnoi grown in north Queensland. potentially exert prebiotic effects to confer beneficial changes to the composition and/or activity of the gut microbiome. We tested ulvan using an established 16-week model in rats, whereby a high-carbohydrate, high-fat diet was fed for the first eight weeks to induce obesity. In the remaining eight weeks of the study, the rats continued to consume the highcarbohydrate, high-fat diet, but with an additional 0.5% of ulvan mixed into the food (an intake of approximately 230 mg/kg body weight of the rat/ day). The changes to body weight, body composition, blood pressure, glucose tolerance and the gut microbiome was tracked from start to finish of consuming ulvan in the diet.

In our study, ulvan slowed the progression of obesity by lowering body weight gain by 29% and fat mass gain by 45%. This anti-obesity effect was correlated with a 25% reduction in feed efficiency and a change in the gut microbiome towards one more associated with a lean phenotype, showing that ulvan potentially is an effective prebiotic. Ulvan was unable to reduce systolic blood pressure, blood cholesterol and triglycerides, and oral glucose tolerance.

Further research of the health

benefits of ulvan and to discover other uses of Ulva, for example the high lipid and protein yield in comparison to traditional crops,4 would encourage the cultivation and commercial production of Ulva products in Australia, thus fully utilising a seaweed that is sustainable and native to the Australian coastline.

References 1. Bolton, J.J.; Robertson-Andersson, D.V.; Shuuluka, D.; Kandjengo, L. Growing Ulva (Chlorophyta) in integrated systems as a commercial crop for abalone feed in South Africa: a SWOT analysis. Journal of Applied Phycology 2009, 21, 575-583, doi:10.1007/s10811008-9385-6.

2. Dabke, K.; Hendrick, G.; Devkota, S. The gut microbiome and metabolic syndrome. Journal of Clinical Investigation 2019, 129, 4050-4057, doi:10.1172/JCI129194.

3. DeGruttola, A.K.; Low, D.; Mizoguchi, A.; Mizoguchi, E. Current understanding of dysbiosis in disease in human and animal models.

Inflammatory Bowel Diseases 2016, 22, 1137-1150, doi:10.1097/MIB.0000000000000750.

4. Mata, L.; Magnusson, M.; Paul, N.A.; de Nys, R. The intensive land-based production of the green seaweeds Derbesia tenuissima and Ulva ohnoi: biomass and bioproducts. Journal of Applied Phycology 2016, 28, 365-375, doi:10.1007/s10811-015-0561-1.

Dr Jessica Pahl is a researcher at the University of Southern Queensland and was runner-up of the Judge’s Award at the AIFST 2021 Research Poster Competition. jessica.pahl@usq. edu.au f

food australia 15

AIFST NEWS

AIFST celebrates our 2021 award winners

AIFST President’s Award winner Peter Schutz OAM.

AIFST Keith Farrer Award of Merit winner - Dr Geoffrey Annison.

AIFST congratulates our award winners and all of those who were nominated – it is wonderful that we have so much talent within the Institute and our industry here in Australia. A special thank you to all the judges who contributed hours of their time and expertise during the selection and judging process.

AIFST Keith Farrar Award of Merit Dr Geoffrey Annison The Award of Merit acknowledges achievements within food science and technology in the wide areas of research, industry, and education, and may take cognisance of contributions made to further the aims and objectives of the Institute. The Award is named after Dr Keith Farrer, an outstanding food scientist and author who was involved in the formation of the AIFST in 1967 and is the Institute’s highest honour.

Geoffrey has been the Deputy Chief Executive as well as Director of Health, Nutrition and Scientific Affairs at the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) for over fifteen years.

From a science perspective, his high level of technical expertise coupled with his wide industry experience has facilitated the resolution of many science-based issues and associated public policy challenges.

In his role at the AFGC, Geoffrey has advocated for the food industry in relation to scientific and technical matters, ensuring consistency of positions based on best practice principles – and evidence-based, proportionate regulation. He has had a major influence on regulatory policy in the areas of gene technology labelling, food standards, (particularly the health claims standard), voluntary codes of

AIFST President’s Award Peter Schutz OAM The AIFST President’s Award recognises, acknowledges, and acclaims an individual or an organisation that has made an outstanding contribution to the Institute.

Joining the Institute in 1984, Peter became a staunch supporter of the organisation and its objectives - he was the recipient of the Food Innovation Award in 2003, was made a Fellow in 2009, served as Chairman of the Institute’s Publications and Editorial Committee between 2011 and 2013, and in 2015 he was awarded the AIFST Keith Farrer Award of Merit.

In 2020, Peter retired from the Board of the AIFST after six years of service including four as President and Chair. His term as President and Chair capped off many years of involvement with the Institute, throughout which he gave generously of his time, expertise, and wise counsel.

16 food australia

practice for responsible marketing to children, and the voluntary Health Star Rating for front-of-pack labelling.

Geoffrey has contributed significantly to AIFST activities through presentation of keynote and other papers at annual conventions, at specialist courses, in liaison with government at state and federal levels, and on the organising committee or as an advisor to conferences and technical meetings. He is also a regular contributor to AIFST’s journal food australia, and served for an extended period on its Publications Committee.

As a result of Geoffrey’s advocacy, the AFGC for a period provided valuable sponsorship of AIFST activities.

AIFST Peter Seale Food Industry Innovation Award - v2food Pty Ltd The AIFST Peter Seale Food Innovation Award is awarded to a company or organisation that has demonstrated a significant new development In a year where all applicants of the AIFST Peter Seale Food Industry Innovation Award would have been worthy winners, v2food claimed the pinnacle through the sheer level of impact on the Australian food industry.

In 2019 v2food launched Australia’s first plant-based meat analogue product, the Rebel Whopper at Hungry Jack’s. Shortly after the v2Burger, v2Mince and v2 sausages were released into Coles and Woolworths

with an Australian company to bring protein extraction/processing infrastructure to Australia. This will replace the current reliance on imports for protein isolates and increase return to farmers and industry through value adding and producing protein-rich plant products, potentially doubling the potential for Australian plant-based meat exports.

and several burger outlets. The product was designed to have the same texture and mouthfeel and develop flavours that are like animal meat products.

The innovation in the meat texture design was to control the assembly of natural plant polymer composites (protein/carbohydrates) at a nano-, micro- and meso-scale, by manipulating in-process production under precise structuring conditions (heat/shear/pressure). An extrusionbased process was developed that promotes the Maillard reaction between the free amino group of protein and the reducing carbohydrate group, to form protein-carbohydrate conjugates with fibrous/cartilaginous structure. This was a platform technology, which could be tuned to obtain soft to fibrous to cartilaginous structures. The technology which enabled the chewy bite attribute in v2food plant-based meat analogues has set the texture of its products apart from the competition. Flavour was the other important component.

The team’s experience in flavour precursors and structure of complex food materials was used to control the kinetics of meat-like flavour release upon grilling.

Through the development of v2food it became clear that Australia did not have capacity for protein extraction, and therefore no infrastructure for local industry to value-add commodity crops. Investment in v2food is developing new value chains for Australian legumes and grains and a platform for nutrient delivery based on plant proteins. v2food is collaborating

AIFST Allergen Bureau Julie Newlands Award - HJ Langdon The AIFST Allergen Bureau Julie Newlands Award recognises excellence in food allergen management based on contribution to a consistent, science-based approach to food allergen risk assessment, management and communication that assists allergen sensitive consumers to make informed choices based on label information and guides industry best practice in Australia.

AIFST Foodbank Hunger Hero Award - Lisa Rivers, Supply Manager, Nestle The AIFST Foodbank Hunger Hero Award recognises a person or team for going above and beyond to tackle food insecurity. Whether it’s championing a new initiative within their company or volunteering their time and expertise in the community, the award recognises an individual’s or team’s contribution as an inspiration to others.

AIFST Sensory Solutions Tony Williams Sensory Award The AIFST Sensory Award provides the opportunity for young members of the Institute to demonstrate their interest and passion for sensory research through the submission of a unique, short paper on a sensory related topic of their choosing and interest.

The 2021 award recipients were: Winner: Jaqueline Moura Nadolny Sensory characterisation of Indigenous bunya nuts Runner Up: Mitali Gupta - Sensory Evaluation of Commercial Plant-based Yoghurt Substitutes Compared to Dairy Yoghurts

AIFST Jack Kefford Award for Best Paper The AIFST Jack Kefford Award for Best Paper recognises the contribution to food science and technology of Institute members who publish research and technical papers.

The 2021 Award recipients were Dr Dai Suter and Ferenc Bekes for their paper ‘Who is to blame for the increasing prevalence of dietary sensitivity to wheat?’ published November 2020 in Cereal Research Communications.

AIFST Research Poster Competition The Research Poster competition is an opportunity for students and early career researchers to showcase their work. The criteria for the competition include originality of research, quality of the research or review and the research approach, scientific and commercial value of the subject matter and presentation of the poster.

This year the poster competition was held virtually, and the posters were hosted on the AIFST website.

Judges Award Winner: Mohammad Rahman - Photo-oxidation of Orange Essential Oil - Combating green mould disease in citrus Judges Award Runner up: Jessica Pahl - Effects of ulvan in diet-induced metabolic syndrome in rats People’s Choice Award Winner: Janne Beelen - Using sensory science to create new vegetable-based food products for children People’s Choice Award Runner up: Prakhar Chatur - Effect of highpressure processing on texture profile, digestibility, and antioxidant properties of cooked Kimberley large Kabuli chickpeas.

2022 Awards Program The AIFST awards will be back in 2022.

For more information visit the Awards page on our website https://www.aifst. asn.au/aifst-annual-awards

food australia 17

FOOD SAFETY

Thinking about trying edible crickets? Make sure you read the label first if you have allergies Words by Dr James A. Broadbent

I

remember as a child watching a documentary where an East African tribe harvested termites for food.

They did this through a particular process: identifying an underground termite nest; constructing an elaborate clay hallway that extended from the nest opening to a large cooking pot; then drumming on the ground. Not just a little drumming, a lot of drumming — even hours of drumming. But all that percussion eventually paid off. The insects couldn’t stand it any longer and marched their way to the nest opening, along the hallway and directly into the cooking pot. The tribe then prepared the protein rich ingredient for an evening meal and as I watched, I wondered what termites might taste like (having only bitten an ant once as a small child since it had bitten me first!).

To this day, I still have no idea what termites taste like, crickets on the other hand, I have certainly tried.

And not from foraging around in my garden but rather bought from a store like any other food product.

There is no if or when regarding whether insect protein products may become available — they are here

18 food australia

now in Australian supermarkets. More broadly though, there is a long history of insect consumption around the world dating back thousands of years due to their availability, nutrition, and desirability. Yet, while insect consumption is not new, the rise of food allergies, and the exponential growth of the human population certainly are modern issues.

Insect products are packaged and labelled like any other supermarket product and come in bar, powdered and roasted snack formats. For those who look closely at labels, you might notice there is a notification that reads: “People who have a crustacean shellfish allergy may be sensitive to crickets.”, printed on the packaging.

This notice was informed by research showing that people with shellfish allergy may have their immune system cross-react with insect proteins; it serves to keep them safe from unknowingly consuming food that could cause harm. Although this safety measure is in place, it remains unclear as to the tendency of insect proteins to react in the same way as crustacean shellfish allergens within the bodies of the shellfish allergic population. For this reason, an

international team of scientists sought to develop and apply tools that could: • Predict the presence of allergens in insects using genomic data • Measure allergens in ingredients and foods • Examine the potential for the shellfish allergic population to react to insect proteins.

I was fortunate to be a part of this team and eventually lead some of this work and this is what we found.

Edible crickets have genes that are very similar to those in other organisms that code for allergenic proteins. Working closely, the research teams from Edith Cowan University (ECU) and CSIRO constructed genetic databases containing all of the known protein-coding sequences from domestic cricket. These sequences were provided to A*STAR researchers in Singapore for analysis using a sophisticated protein allergenicity potential prediction software called AllerCatPro. Through this analysis, 20 proteins showed results that met the criteria to be called putative allergens.

With this theoretical evidence that crickets had the potential to produce allergenic proteins, the question was, do they?

Proteomics is a branch of analytical chemistry that uses mass spectrometry (MS) to directly detect and quantify proteins. Through close collaboration between CSIRO and James Cook University (JCU), we sought to comprehensively extract proteins from dietary cricket samples.

These samples were tested using MS to determine if the putative allergens were present. From these analyses, 53 putative allergens were detected (including multiple variants of the same allergen) from cricket. In this regard, edible crickets were shown to have the genes and make the proteins that could cause allergy. Importantly, when these protein samples were tested in the JCU laboratories, sera from patients with crustacean shellfish allergy showed signs of immune cross-reactivity (unpublished).

These studies provided the foundational knowledge to help understand safety around cricket consumption and the reasons for immune cross-reaction between

crustacea and insects. In Australia, we are fortunate to have food labelling laws that are designed to keep the population safe from harm by warning those with crustacean shellfish allergy to avoid insect consumption. Wild caught insects though, don’t come with labels. Indeed, earlier in 2021 a major periodical emergence of cicadas (once every ~17 years) in the United States led entrepreneurial food vendors to offer cicadas on their menus — on pizzas, in tacos, popcorn style and almost any other format you could imagine. While providing a great opportunity for consumers to try a plentiful source of protein, this occurrence highlights why understanding and publicising the risks to the allergic population may be important to avoid unintentional harm. So, while I may fulfil my childhood musings about consuming termites one day, the science says that those with crustacean shellfish allergy should think twice before doing the same.

This research was conducted as part of the Future Protein Mission, a collaboration between CSIRO, government, industry and the research sector, to develop $10b of new and improved Australian protein products. The project was funded as part of the 2020 Australia-Singapore Innovations in Food for Precision Health Bilateral Program.

References Bose U, et al. (2021) “Protein extraction protocols for optimal proteome measurement and arginine kinase quantitation from cricket Acheta domesticus for food safety assessment” Food Chem. 2021 Jun 30;348:129110. doi: 10.1016/j. foodchem.2021.129110.

James A Broadbent is a research scientist and team leader in the Agriculture and Food Business Unit of the CSIRO. He is an expert analytical chemist specialising in the discovery and quantification of proteins and proteomes in important and emerging foods. f

GS1 Recall Lower the impact and cost of product recalls with the GS1 Recall platform.

A game-changer for food safety and brand protection.

We do our thing, so you can do great things www.gs1au.org/recall

food australia 19

FUTURE FOOD PRODUCTION

Plants4Space: the future of food Words by Drs Matthew Gilliham and Sally Gras

T

The race for space is on again, and it’s more ambitious than ever. Multiple grand challenges are locked into space agency plans worldwide: a new space station orbiting the moon in the next five years; an established lunar base by the end of the decade; and, the delivery of humans to Mars by 2040.

The critical technologies that will enable remote ‘off-world’ habitation include propulsion systems – which are well advanced – and life support technology, such as the supply of adequate nutrition, which are early in their development cycle. Unlike water, oxygen and fuel, food is not available for harvest on the Moon or Mars and re-supply of resources from Earth is not a viable option, due to the current mass and volume restrictions for space travel. Even if enough food could be sent in advance, keeping essential vitamins and nutrients stable for longer periods of time, five or more years, is not yet achievable. Furthermore, the challenge of providing an adequate and varied diet without fresh produce leads to menu fatigue and resulting weight loss. Compounded by the additional requirements of the human body under the stresses that space brings,

20 food australia

including altered gravity and increased radiation, all of this will mean a drop off in performance in individuals who need to be highly alert.

Ultimately, these factors make providing a nutritious, varied food supply to sustain physical and mental wellbeing for long-term human space habitation one of the greatest obstacles for mission planners.

Space: the ideal laboratory Two camps of opinion arise when the prospect of space settlement and its challenges are aired. One camp echo the view of monarch-in-waiting Prince William, who recently stated that ‘we should repair this planet and not find the next’, when launching his Earthshot prize for 50 solutions to the world’s greatest environmental problems by 2030. The second camp sees that an attempt to achieve the currently impossible – the moonshot of the 21st Century (humans living on Mars) – will unlock innovation previously unimagined.

It is our view that Space research will help us achieve sustainability on this planet and is not in conflict with sustainability research for Earth. Space and Mars missions will necessitate sustainable food production in a

closed loop system - with near zero waste. Because of this, space proves to be the ideal laboratory for innovative technologies, providing new opportunities for achieving sustainability on Earth.

The catalogue of space-assisted translation for Earth industries is long and touches upon everyday items we have come to depend upon such as LED lighting, solar cells, water purification and food preservation systems. The diet of astronauts on the International Space Station consists of pre-packaged, often dehydrated food, with occasional supplementation of fresh produce from Earth. The growth of plants in space is only at the experimental scale, and the produce have rarely been eaten. A focus on food and material production, using plants and the processing and longer-term storage of food in space could lead to a range of future innovations. There will be unique space conditions that will need to be overcome for the growth of plants and production of food off-Earth, particularly microgravity and extreme high carbon dioxide concentrations. However, the overall sustainability challenge of producing nutritious, palatable, digestible, and

shelf-stable foods with minimal energy and water input in space are similar to those faced on Earth. Resulting applications in areas will be as diverse as the rapidly growing global controlled environmental agriculture (CEA) sector - >20% per annum,1 the advanced manufacture of food and pharmaceutical products, and the production of tailored nutritional products for a wide variety of settings and consumer groups, including aged care facilities.2 Such research aligns seamlessly with the national priorities of the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre (AMGC),3 the Food and Agribusiness Growth Centre (FIAL),2 and the MedTech and Pharma Growth Centre (MTPConnect)4 to boost commercial opportunities in these areas. Space research therefore is a significant market opportunity that will increase in importance over the upcoming years. It would be remiss to not deploy and take advantage of the enabling technology needed to achieve this here on Earth long before humans step onto the Mars surface 20 plus years from now.

Quality Endorsed Company ISO 9001:2015 SAI Global

HandyStep® Touch S

BRAND

ROWE CODE

DH0031

Automatic size detection with PD-Tips II from BRAND The HandyStep® touch saves time and prevents errors through automatic tip size recognition of the PD-Tips II from BRAND, with patented coding on the pistons. After inserting the tip, the size is automatically recognised

Australia - an agricultural heavyweight Australia is in a strategic position to move into space horticulture, due an ideal combination of knowledge and skills in many different areas. In particular, Australian researchers in the broad category of agriculture (including plant-based food production) are world leading, with many more universities featuring in the top 50 globally ranked universities than for any other discipline.5 Despite many challenges in production constraints, global connectivity and market access, Australia produces enough food for almost three times its population, with clear success stories in food and beverage innovation in past decades. Australian primary producers are among the world’s most innovative, leading the way in efficient water and nitrogen use, and producing stress tolerant crops. Furthermore, targets set by the Australian government and the Australian Space Agency, for a $200 billion agricultural industry and a $12 billion space economy respectively, allow for Australia to contribute a globally significant effort in this research arena.6,7 The innovation required to provide the nutrition and biomaterials to sustain long-term space habitation, and to deploy this technology here on Earth to improve sustainability, is one such area where researchers in Australia are putting their efforts. Here, Australia can claim to have the critical mass and is capable of providing global leadership.

The perfect team.

and displayed, making it easy to select the volume to be dispensed. When a new PD-Tip II of the same size is inserted, all instrument settings are maintained.

Multi and sequential dispensing, all possible with the HandyStep® touch and PD-Tip II For more information see the latest edition of Lablikes below.

LABLIKES ISSUE 11

DOWNLOAD YOUR COPY TODAY.

www.rowe.com.au/rowe/lablikes Stirring and Mixing

Plants4Space Plants are the ultimate base material for food production in Space due to their autotrophic nature. Both plants and photosynthetic microorganisms can support life requiring nothing but carbon dioxide, light, water, and a minimal set of nutrients to produce sustenance and oxygen required for humans. In return, we use the carbon fixed by plants as energy and complete the circle by respiring carbon dioxide. Higher plants have the added benefit of an

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.NOV 2021

food australia 21

FUTURE FOOD PRODUCTION

intricate metabolism, and ability to compartmentalise that metabolism in different cellular compartments or tissues, that provides a platform to produce highly complex molecules adding flavours, nutrients, and even biomaterials such as plastics.

Heterotrophic bacterial, yeast, cell and insect-based systems will also play a role in space, particularly in food and waste processing, but are less sustainable and less suitable for a completely closed food production system due to their requirement for plant derived carbon sources.

The need for plants in space coincides with growing global demand for plant-based food on Earth, driven by consumer concerns of sustainability, health, animal welfare and the rise of flexitarian and vegan diets. Achieving a wide range of plant-based food products, however, is not without its challenges, including the problems presented by the low water solubility, taste and texture of plant proteins. The growth and development of plant-based foods therefore presents a range of scientific and engineering challenges.

A unique collaboration of researchers at the Universities of Adelaide, La Trobe, Melbourne and Western Australia, with world leading institutes and space agencies around the world have formed a cluster of expertise in Plants4Space. This convergence of previously disparate disciplines will bring together the skills needed to address these challenges to achieve long-term human space habitation. The research platform brings together molecular plant sciences, advanced medicinal agriculture, plant physiology and biotechnology, innovative food and bioprocessing, sensory sciences and psychology, nutrition, systems and process engineering, and law.

The main ambitions for Plants4Space include: • The use of new technologies to produce nutrient rich, highly efficient plants, with near zerowaste suitable for rapid growth in

22 food australia

controlled environments • The fortification of plant-based foods into a complete nutritional source (including nutrients sourced traditionally from animal sources) using modern gene technologies • The production of spaceready functional materials, pharmaceuticals and foods, and the translation of these into Earth markets • Training a new generation of plant and food researchers, and industry professionals.

These main ambitions will contribute to the delivery of new plant products with improved stability to assist with global food distribution. They will allow the production of food closer to demand and the opening of new markets. Ultimately, they will decrease the carbon footprint of production, if coupled to renewable power sources. They will also provide new insights into plant ingredient functionality and the development of innovative industrial technologies (at scale and miniaturised) to make a range of palatable, novel plant-based ingredients and products. Yoghurtlike gels, semi-solids (‘cheese’), solids (striated products resembling meat), or novel 3D-printed formats are worthy targets of investigation that would allow a variety of products that could help to fight menu fatigue.

Plants4Space aims to develop new methodologies to predict the sensory and digestive properties of raw and processed plant foods, in order to reduce the need for sensory panels.

This will reduce cost, waste, and time-to-market, providing significant economic benefits in product and process development. Lastly, the research cluster will develop a greater understanding of the link between food formulation and gastrointestinal behaviour, which will allow food nutrition, transit, and digestion to inform product design, benefitting consumer health including the growing aged care market.

This research will provide breakthroughs in the emergent field

of plant processing, sustainability and food production. These advances will firmly establish Australian competitiveness as a leader in highvalue, low-input and sustainable agricultural production and greatly support that ‘moonshot’ of the 21st Century – long term space habitation.

Plants4Space are searching for industry professionals who would like to partner at the junction of plant production and food engineering to pave the way to new, plant-based food solutions that improve nutrition and physical health for consumers in rapidly growing vegan, vegetarian, and plant-based markets. For more information on this consortium and to reach out for collaboration see www. plants4space.com.

References 1. Global Market Insights. (2021) Vertical Farming Market Size... & Forecast, 2021–2027.

2. FIAL. (2020) Sector Competitiveness Plan.

3. AMGC. (2020) Making it happen: The Australian Government’s modern manufacturing strategy 4. MTPConnect. (2020) Sector Competitiveness Plan 5. AWRU: http://www.shanghairanking.com/ 6. FIAL. (2020) Capturing the prize: The A$200 billion opportunity in 2030 for the Australian food and agribusiness sector.

7. ASA. (2019) Advancing Space: Australian Civil Space Strategy 2019–2028

Matthew Gilliham is Director of the transdisciplinary Waite Research Institute, the University of Adelaide’s flagship for agriculture, food and wine innovation. He is also Professor of Crop Molecular Physiology specialising in crop plant nutrition and stress resilience. Matthew is a current Clarivate/Web of Science Highly Cited Author in Plant and Animal Sciences, and member of the South Australian Premier’s Science and Innovation Council. Professor Sally Gras is Director of the Dairy Innovation Hub at The University of Melbourne, Director of the Faster, Smarter Pharma and Food Manufacturing Program and also of the Food and Agribusiness research theme within the University’s Melbourne School of Engineering. Sally is also Associate Director of the Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute. f

FUTURE FOOD PRODUCTION

What’s brewing?

Precision food proteins from fermentation Words by Drs Thomas Vanhercke and Michelle Colgrave

T

o feed the global population of the future, we will need to produce food at a greater scale, and more sustainably, than today. To meet that gap, we’ll need to derive even more protein from traditional sources (meat, dairy, eggs, seafood, plants) in addition to protein from emerging but complementary sources (yeast, fungi, algae, insects). Precision fermentation (PF), a relatively new field of biotechnology, has emerged as one of the frontrunners for additional sources of protein that could underpin the growth of a sustainable bioeconomy in Australia.

Precision fermentation uses the same fundamental principles of fermentation that has a long and safe history in supplementing and diversifying our foods. Traditional fermentation processes rely on microbial cells (yeast, fungi) and anaerobic (oxygen-free) conditions to convert ingredients into end-products with unique texture or flavour properties such as yoghurt, bread, cheese, tempeh, and alcoholic beverages. Biomass fermentation, on the other hand, makes use of the nutritional qualities of fungal mycelium, and the branching thread-like fibres that typically form the vegetative part of a fungus. Mycelium are cultivated in large tanks, with sugar and other nutrients

added to trigger growth. The mycelium is harvested, then cut and flavoured to produce alternative protein products (mycoprotein). Fungal mycelia offer high levels of protein as well as fibre, vitamins, minerals, and can be used directly as an ingredient, without the need to extract and purify the protein.

One example is the mycoprotein derived from the fungus Fusarium venenatum which was pioneered in the late 1960’s and has been sold under the brand Quorn™ since 1985.

Since then, other mycoprotein startups have emerged around the globe, such as Fable Foods (Australia), Meati, Prime Roots and Nature’s Fynd (USA), Mushlabs (Germany), and Kinoko-Tech (Israel). Nature’s Fynd Fy™ protein, for example, is derived from a different Fusarium strain flavolapis, discovered from the hot springs of Yellowstone National Park. Products such as FyTM protein can serve as an ingredient for dairy-free or meat-free foods.

Today, PF is being harnessed to synthesise compounds that would otherwise be too expensive and/ or complicated to harvest from their natural sources. While traditional and biomass fermentation involve propagation of microbial cells without any genetic modification, PF relies on reprogramming microbes to produce

specific, customised (recombinant) molecules that can serve as new food ingredients. By introducing the genetic information that codes for specific proteins into the microbial genome, cells can be programmed to act as highly efficient cellular factories that can grow on a variety of carbon sources and deliver desired outputs, which are typically proteins equivalent to those found in nature. The novel products obtained via PF technology can enhance consumer products by improving taste, texture, or other functional aspects to accommodate consumers’ preferences and sustainability concerns. A well-known historical example of a high-value food protein derived from PF is chymosin, the major enzyme in calf rennet used during cheesemaking. In fact, by 2006 fermentation-derived chymosin occupied as much as 80% of the global market share for rennet.1 In recent years, significant advances in the field of genetic engineering have allowed for rapid reprogramming of microorganisms (synthetic biology) to produce a whole suite of specific food protein ingredients in a cost-efficient and sustainable manner. In the wake of the early chymosin application, PF is now increasingly being used to deliver specific ingredients for adjacent

food australia 23

FUTURE FOOD PRODUCTION

industries. For instance, PF-produced soy leghemoglobin, a key ingredient in the plant-based Impossible™ burger that is responsible for imparting the unique colour and taste of meat, was recently approved by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ, Application A1186). Other examples of start-ups built on PF technology include the Every company (egg protein), and a raft of companies in the dairy alternative space including Perfect Day (casein and whey dairy proteins), Eden Brew (milk and dairy), Formo and Change Foods (cheese). New synthetic biology companies such as Nourish Ingredients (animal lipid flavours) and Motif Foodworks are developing flavour alternatives to further improve the overall quality of next-generation alternative protein products.

The opportunity of producing tailored food ingredients by PF has not gone unnoticed to investors. During the first seven months of 2020, PF attracted a total of US$435 million in venture capital investment. This has catalysed a wave of food fermentation companies.2 Motif Foodworks and Perfect Day are leading the way, raising US$200-300 million during their latest funding series in 2020-2021,3 while the Australian PF start-up Nourish Ingredients secured US$11 million in seed funding in 2021.

Despite the growing interest, several challenges remain for this emerging industry. Most PF start-ups are still at a relatively nascent stage. Fermentation infrastructure with the capacity to operate at scale is severely limited, highlighting the urgent need for investment in larger scale fermentation and downstream processing facilities.4 Early implementation of technoeconomic analyses is needed to assess overall economic viability during scaleup and to identify critical factors that determine the cost of goods. Similarly, sustainability and carbon footprint claims related to specific PF production processes will need to be supported by rigorous independent life cycle analysis, such as recent studies conducted by Perfect Day and Impossible Foods.5,6 Regulatory approval frameworks with regards to synthetic biology and PF are currently being revised

24 food australia

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Precision fermentation relies on the production of novel proteins or protein ingredients by: 1. Growing microbes on a cheap carbon source (feedstock) such as sugar 2. The microbial cells themselves are genetically modified to produce the desired protein in high quantities.

Typically, this engineering step requires multiple cycles where required genetic changes are predicted, designed and introduced into the DNA of the cell. This is followed by testing for the presence of the target protein, validation of the desired food property and further genetic improvements to increase product quantity and quality. This rapid and often complex ‘design-build-test-learn’ engineering process is defined as ‘synthetic biology’ and happens in small reactors in the lab 3. The next step is a gradual scaling-up of the culture volumes from lab (tens of litres) to commercial scale (order of hundred thousand litres) 4. Depending on the application, the proteins are extracted, purified and combined (formulated) together with other ingredients into, 5. The final food product.

Summarised in the lower half are the challenges and opportunities where future process improvements are likely to drive down overall R&D and production costs as precision fermentation continues to mature as a scientific field. in many jurisdictions, including FSANZ,7 to keep up with technological innovations such as genome editing.

Consumer perceptions related to novel PF-derived food products and appropriate labelling will require social licence to ensure continued trust and transparency.

Future research will focus on improving the overall cost effectiveness of PF processes to achieve higher product yields. Improvements in cellular secretion machinery will simplify downstream purification and, in turn, improve capital utilisation and lower costs. Novel naturally occurring and under-utilised microbes or next-generation microbial strains will be investigated for their ability to thrive on abundant and cost-effective feedstocks, to replace refined sugar by various (food) waste streams and even CO2 (e.g. Air ProteinTM). New artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) algorithms will offer the opportunity to drastically speed up the engineering

of new microbial production strains by relying on computer models that can simulate the effect of specific genetic changes on overall cell behaviour and composition (metabolism).8 Advances in AI/ML are also breaking ground in the prediction of ingredient combinations that result in new flavours (NotCo), the engineering of sweeteners with novel properties via computational protein design (Amai Proteins), and screening for novel protein functionalities using large food-safe protein databases (Protera).

Continuing innovation in bioreactor redesign tailored for food-grade fermentation is required and these systems will need to be powered by renewable energy resources to deliver their full impact potential. Minimising purification/processing and maximising value extraction from left-over microbial biomass through the delivery of co-products during downstream processing will improve the overall economics of PF technology.

Fermentation, in its various forms offers an exciting opportunity to deliver optimised nutrition and improved flavour or functionality, especially when incorporated with other food segments.

In addition to specific ingredients, technology platforms like PF can deliver enzymes that can be used as food processing aids such as those used for tenderising meat.

Over time, the costs associated with PF will continue to decline, and PF-derived products will reach costcompetitiveness with a wider range of traditional materials.9 Australia has a unique advantage to enter this emerging industry given the easy access to abundant and cheap sugarcane, crushing infrastructure and access to ports for export to Asian markets.10 Yet the need to scale the production systems, combined with implementation of renewable energy sources, will be critical to the successful establishment of the industry.

References 1. Johnson, ME, Lucey, JA (2006). “Major technological advances and trends in cheese” Journal of Dairy Science, 89: 1174-1178.

2. Specht, L, Crosser, N (2020). “State of the industry report. Fermentation: An introduction to a pillar of the alternative protein industry” The Good Food Institute https://gfi.org/blog/fermentation-stateof-the-industry-report/ 3. Crosser, N (2021). “2020 State of the industry report. Fermentation: Meat, eggs, and dairy” The Good Food Institute https://gfi.org/resource/ fermentation-state-of-the-industry-report/ 4. Warner, M (2021). “Commercial fermentation: opportunities and bottlenecks” https://gfi.org/ event/commercial-fermentation-opportunitiesand-bottlenecks/ 5. Sinistore, J, Lab, J, Natarajan, M, Kriete Z (2021).

“Comparative life cycle assessment of Perfect Day whey protein to total protein in milk” WSP USA https://f.hubspotusercontent00.net/ hubfs/7692102/Comparative%20Perfect%20 Day%20Whey%20LCA%20report%20 prepared%20by%20WSP_20AUG2021_Non%20 Confidential-1.pdf?hsCtaTracking=2df1505b-f8f64242-9192-495d0f428c0f%7C1301fe86-ab41-4f1a9d5f-b61e8bbf3658 6. Khan, S, Dettling J, Loyola C, Hester J, Moses R (2019). “Environmental life cycle analysis: Impossible burger 2.0” Quantis https:// impossiblefoods.com/sustainable-food/burgerlife-cycle-assessment-2019 7. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2021) “Proposal P1055 – Definitions for gene technology and new breeding techniques” https://www. foodstandards.gov.au/code/proposals/Pages/ p1055-definitions-for-gene-technology-and-newbreeding-techniques.aspx

8. Lu, H et al. (2019). “A consensus S. cerevisiae metabolic model Yeast8 and its ecosystem for comprehensively probing cellular metabolism” Nature Communications, 10:3586 9. Tubb, C, Seba, T (2020). “The roadmap to disruption and market opportunities” Rethinx https://rethinkdisruption.com/the-roadmap-todisruption/ 10. CSIRO Futures (2021). “A national synthetic biology roadmap: identifying commercial and economic opportunities for Australia” CSIRO, Canberra https://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/ services/consultancy-strategic-advice-services/ csiro-futures/futures-reports/synthetic-biologyroadmap.

Dr Michelle Colgrave leads the CSIRO Future Protein Mission, a large research initiative aimed at capturing growing demand for high quality and sustainable protein. Michelle is also a Professor of Food and Agriculture Proteomics at Edith Cowan University. Dr Thomas Vanhercke leads the ‘Novel Protein Production Systems’ and ‘Agriculture and Food’ domains within the CSIRO Future Protein Mission and CSIRO Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform, respectively. Thomas’ background is in plant and yeast synthetic biology with a particular interest in food proteins and lipids. f

Manildra Group produces a range of Australian food and industrial products including wheat flours, bakery mixes, vital wheat gluten and proteins, starches, syrups, ethanol, fats and oils, and sugars from our world-class flour mills, joint venture sugar mills and refineries and state-of-the-art manufacturing sites in Australia and the United States.

Aerial view of Manildra Group’s flagship flour mill located in the central west town of Manildra, New South Wales // PHOTO: CHRIS WATSON

manildra.com.au ManildraGroup_AD_HPH_NOV21_.indd 1

@manildra 17/11/21 12:47 pm

food australia 25

FOOD SAFETY FEATURE

Resolving food safety problems with root cause analysis Words by Deon Mahoney

F

or the food industry to advance food safety and improve hygiene in food processing operations it must fully investigate and determine all those factors that trigger a food safety incident.

By digging deep, the underlying reason(s) for an incident can be uncovered and permanent solutions or fixes can be identified and implemented.

In the food industry an incident can be failure to meet a critical process control criterion, or an escalation that requires the business to undertake a food recall, or a situation where consumers have become ill through the consumption of an unsafe food product.

Where a food has been implicated in an incident of foodborne illness, the need to better understand the cause is increasingly being driven by enhanced detection of foodborne pathogens through improved diagnostics such as whole genome sequencing. Such methods support improved traceback of a pathogen from a patient or a food in the marketplace to the food processing environment. But knowing where a pathogen or toxin originated is only part of the picture, as authentic improvements in food safety only occur when we understand why it is in the foodstuff and the circumstances that allowed it to survive and cause illness.

What is root cause analysis?

Root cause analysis (RCA) is a retrospective investigative approach which uses a range of tools and

26 food australia

techniques to determine the underlying factors that contribute to a system failure. In the food industry, these contributing factors can be specific operational, behavioural, or environmental factors that give rise to a failure e.g. malfunction of a kill step, unsatisfactory sanitation procedures, incorrect storage temperature, or inadequate supervision.

In simple terms, the RCA determines why something has gone wrong by revealing contributing factors which shed light on what actually went wrong. It involves scrutiny beyond operator or equipment performance issues to establish those systemic factors that led to an incident.

Origin of root cause analysis RCA originated as a means of reducing operational failures and improving efficiency. There are various ways to perform a RCA, and one of the first was the 5 Whys technique which is attributed to Sakichi Toyoda. Toyoda was an inventor and industrialist, and his inventions revolutionised the Japanese textile industry in the 19th century. Toyoda also developed the 5 Whys which focuses on asking ‘why?’ five times to establish the cause of the problem. It enables businesses to develop solutions to a problem and mitigate against its recurrence and was subsequently employed as a component of problem-solving in the Toyota Motor Corporation.

The 5 Whys supports an iterative approach to identifying causes beyond the obvious and is favoured because of its simplicity. As a result,

it has been widely employed in manufacturing and engineering, as well as in the investigation of aviation and space accidents, medical and healthcare safety incidents, and construction accidents. The National Aeronautical Space Administration used RCA as a critical element in the investigation of accidents with the Challenger and Columbia space shuttles. The RCA exposed persistent cultural and organisational problems associated with the Challenger incident which remained largely overlooked and contributed to the later Columbia tragedy.

A range of other methods and tools have been developed to support RCA. These include Causeand-Effect diagrams (Fishbone or Ishikawa diagrams), Pareto charts, Failure mode effects analysis, and Fault tree analysis. There is no best or prescribed method or tool for conducting RCA. Each approach has its advantages and trade-offs. Some tools may be combined to support a specific situation or context, and there are various software solutions to support RCA. Plus, there are alternative analytical tools with reduced resource requirements that support investigations of less serious incidents.1

HACCP-based food safety programs and RCA Both the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system and RCA are closely intertwined and crucial for protecting public health and achieving continuous improvement.

HACCP-based food safety programs seek to predict hazards and develop strategies for controlling the risks by initiating immediate corrective action when a non-conformance occurs.

While RCA is a retrospective process that commences in response to a non-conformance or an incident. The RCA must extend beyond the actual non-conformance to focus on what system or process failure allowed the issue to arise. When this has been established, procedures in the food safety program can be amended to prevent the issue arising in the future.

Performing a RCA By employing a structured proactive approach to investigate an incident, the output of a RCA supports the identification of effective long-term solutions designed to prevent such incidents from recurring. In broad terms, the key stages are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

The techniques used to determine how and why a food safety incident or processing failure has occurred vary in complexity, the time investment required, and the depth of analysis.2 The 5 Whys technique allows the investigator to dissect contributing factors to reveal the underlying root cause of an incident. The root cause is identified when asking ‘why’ yields no further information. In some cases, it may be necessary to ask more than

five questions to get to the root cause.

The goal is to keep burrowing into the next layer of the underlying cause to reveal the systemic issue(s) that caused the problem.

• Why did unpasteurised packaged milk enter the marketplace?

• A malfunction resulted in raw milk exiting the pasteuriser and being packaged. Why? • The flow diversion valve failed to function effectively when the

Embedding resilience into food safety BSI’s new HACCP & GMP Criteria Updated to reflect Codex HACCP 2020, our new programme includes requirements around food safety culture, allergen labelling as well as training and risk awareness to help you reassure your customers about the safety of your products.

Certifying to our criteria can help you demonstrate your commitment to a preventative, risk-based HACCP management system.

For organizations that might need help understanding and implementing HACCP & GMP or improving their current understanding, our related training programme has been updated to include HACCP Refresh and HACCP Requirements courses.

Visit bsigroup.com/food-au or call and speak with one of our food safety experts at 1300 730 134.

food australia 27

FOOD SAFETY FEATURE

EXAMPLE: Listeria monocytogenes contamination of packaged salads resulted in an outbreak of foodborne illness Contributing factors An extreme weather event resulted in elevated soil contamination of fresh produce just prior to harvest, and subsequent product washing, and sanitation processes were ineffective in removing this contamination

Root causes • Insufficient scientific knowledge of risk factors (rainfall events, extreme weather, pathogen adherence and infiltration) to predict increased likelihood of microbial contamination of raw materials • Failure to adopt effective process control procedures including inspection and screening of incoming raw materials; control of raw material washing and sanitation steps; and implementation of routine verification tests • Company culture did not adequately address product safety risks and failed to implement appropriate control measures in the food safety program temperature dropped. Why? • The flow diversion valve was found to be faulty. Why? • The flow diversion valve was not on the maintenance schedule. Why? • The pasteuriser maintenance procedure was inadequate and poorly executed.

By completing this process, the root cause of the problem is revealed, and the development of a practical maintenance and calibration program for the flow diversion valve will rectify the issue and result in all the whys being resolved.

Another commonly used technique is Ishikawa or fishbone diagrams which employ a cause-and-effect approach. This identifies probable causes for an effect or problem and evaluates factors that may have contributed to an incident, such as materials, equipment, measurements, procedures, environment, and people.

Using this approach, the investigator strives to understand what happened by asking what happened, when, where, how, and so what? This enables identification of a possible cause, the consequences, and its importance.

RCA was used recently to identify persistent and transient Listeria contamination in an apple packhouse and to implement and trial interventions.3 This process explored various options to determine the root cause and identify effective interventions. In doing so,

28 food australia

it demonstrated the effectiveness of RCA in identifying, implementing, and testing interventions to control pathogens in food production and processing environments.

Outputs of RCA A thorough analysis of a food contamination event or incident will reveal the chain of events leading to its occurrence and provide information on the underlying cause(s). Uncovering weaknesses in food safety programs supports enhanced preventative-based controls.

To be effective, the outcomes of the analysis must extend beyond bandaid solutions to non-conformances, especially those that seek to lay blame on employees. This old view is that human error is responsible for failures.4 The new view acknowledges that there are often trade-offs between safety and production, and that errors or failures that occur are an organisational problem, with personnel rarely the root cause.

Uncovering a use/user or human error denotes cognitive or perception issues and is only the beginning of uncovering a root cause. Requiring a focus on how policies, procedures, or processes allowed an error to occur. Other pitfalls to avoid when undertaking an RCA include: • Focusing on the contributing factors rather than proceed to identify the root cause(s)

• Using personnel who lack investigative skills, including the ability to conduct effective interviews, gather and preserve evidence, and troubleshoot problems • Failing to ask the right questions and explore all possibilities • Employing approaches which oversimplify the issues and rely on ad hoc deductions • Identifying a single root cause when there may be multiple sources • Fixing the root cause alone may not remedy the problem.

Summary Food producers and processors are increasingly expected to reduce food safety risks and implement systems that minimise incidents impacting the health of consumers to as low as possible.

RCA is crucial for discerning the cause of an incident and the identification of fact-based preventative measures. By incorporating RCA into business operations, food processing companies benefit by protecting public health and maintaining consumer trust and confidence.

Routine utilisation of RCA supports continuous improvement and from a cultural perspective, demonstrates to employees a commitment to bettering food safety.

References 1. Hagley et al. (2019). Review of alternatives to root cause analysis: developing a robust system for incident report analysis. BMJ Open Quality 2. Pew Charitable Trusts (2020). A Guide for Conducting a Food Safety Root Cause Analysis; Approaches for investigating contamination incidents and preventing recurrence 3. Belias et al. (2021). Root cause analysis can be used to identify and reduce a highly diverse Listeria population in an apple packinghouse: A case study. Food Protection Trends, 41, (6), 555–567 4. Dekker (2014). The field guide to understanding ‘Human error’. (CRC Press, 3rd Edition) .Deon

Mahoney is Head of Food Safety at Produce Marketing Association (PMA) Australia-New Zealand. f

ROSEWOOD RESEARCH

Innovation in cereal & grain foods

Funding opportunities for research projects in baking, cereal and grain foods.

ROSEWOOD RESEARCH

Rosewood Research is an independent self-funded organisation.

We offer collaborative partnerships and funding to academic institutions and business for research Innovation in cereal & grain foods projects that advances innovation in baking, cereal and grain foods.

ROSEWOOD RESEARCH Partnership Program

Innovation in cereal & grain foods

Collaborative Research Partnerships

ROSEWOOD RESEARCH Applied Research Partnership Program ✔ Collaborations between academic institutions and business.

Innovation inresearch cereal &&pilot grain foods ✔ Desktop studies to provide valuable input into new research studies. ✔ Baking technology and baked foods.

✔ New product and process development. ✔ Sustainability projects.

Academic Research

✔ Long term initiatives that support future advances in baking, cereal and grain foods.

Contact Us

If you would like to discuss a potential research project, please give me a call.

Bill Hazard, Research Director 0416 293 703 b.hazard@rosewoodresearch.com.au

Project Management

✔ Structured approach to multidisciplined projects. ✔ Provision of Funding Agreements, Management of IP and Nondisclosure Agreements.

SENSORY & CONSUMER SCIENCE FEATURE

FOOD FILES

Dr Russell Keast, Dr Gie Liem, Dr Leigh Francis and Damian Nandorfy Unravelling the flavour of white wine Wine is a complex beverage and quite subtle changes in aroma and flavour due to winemaking or vintage variation can greatly influence the market demand and a brand’s reputation over time. As a natural product, it is hard to determine which compounds are responsible for certain wine flavours and how they might be controlled. Some aromas come from the grape berry, some are formed during fermentation and others are formed during maturation in a barrel or bottle. Even the choice of bottle closure – screwcap or natural cork – can strongly influence the bouquet of a wine over time.

Although challenging, it is important to understand the relationship between wine chemical composition and sensory properties to help wine producers to tweak their practices accordingly.

In traditional flavour chemistry research, wine aroma compounds are identified one at a time using techniques such as gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy, but this approach does not reveal how odourants interact or help to uncover aromas that are signalled by multiple compounds simultaneously – a phenomenon known as configural

30 food australia

odour processing. To investigate this complicated liquid a series of sensory descriptive analysis studies was conducted at the Australian Wine Research Institute in Adelaide.

Statistically based experimental designs were used to identify interactions between odourants that shape the aroma of fruity Chardonnay wines. Using model wine systems that mimicked generic white wine, odourants were added or removed, in combination, to untangle the role each compound plays in the sensory properties of a glass of wine.

This approach found that peach aroma, which is highly desirable for many consumers, was directed by a small group of yeast-derived ester compounds, particularly ethyl octanoate. Interestingly, when this odourant was presented with another ester, ethyl butanoate, the aroma shifted from peach to a clear pineapple character. Another important interactive effect was found when several floral/citrussmelling monoterpenes, which come from the grape berry, were combined with trace amounts of lactone compounds and the mixture became reminiscent of fresh apricot.

This apricot character is common in several wine types, but is a hallmark of Viognier wines and is highly

sought after by some winemakers.

However, not all aromas are desirable in wine. These experiments also showed that some compounds not only imparted cheesy and cardboard off-odours to wine but also had strong suppressing effects, diminishing the intensity of the fruity attributes. By identifying the roles of these odourants in specific wine flavours, advice can be provided to the wine industry on ways to modify or preserve their levels. For example, producers could select particular yeast strains to increase the concentration of esters or choose vineyard planting material or timing harvest to enhance levels of monoterpenes.

Nandorfy et al (2021) Understanding the interactive effects of volatile compounds contributing to stonefruit aroma nuances in white wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research (in press).

Situational desire for food Some situations are so strongly connected to specific foods that being in such situations increases your desire for these foods. For example, walking into a pub may increase your desire for a beer.

Being in front of an open fireplace while snow covers the world outside, may increase your desire for a hot chocolate milk. The more we are

exposed to a set combination of situation and food consumption, the more we ground the combination of situation, bodily response and desire for food in our memory and cognition. Such combinations can be so strong that only the sight of a situation, or us imagining being in a situation, can trigger a response such as a desire for specific foods or the initiation of a specific habit.

For example, visualising a photo of Christmas in your family home may trigger that warm feeling of belonging. You imagine yourself eating food that is associated to that situation which subsequently increases your desire for Christmas pudding. A better understanding of how situational cues can reactivate an eating experience is important for sensory marketing, in which we try to evoke the senses and desire by providing a variety of situational cues.

In a recent paper in the journal Appetite, Papies and colleagues investigated how a given situation (e.g., cinema vs kitchen) can increase consumers’ ability of imagining eating specific foods. By showing consumers (n=524) different combinations of food and situations and by having participants taste the actual foods, the researchers showed that consumers’ ability to imagine eating the food played a crucial role in how much they desired the food. Simply put, the more vivid the imagination, the higher the desire for food. Such vivid imagination is more likely to happen when the situation is congruent with the food. For example, a photo of soup in a kitchen is congruent, whereas a photo of soup in a cinema is not. For sensory marketing it is important that the situational cues embedded in photos and descriptions of the situations, help consumers imagine they are eating the food. If this imagination is strong enough it could increase desire. Photos of food without an appropriate context, like food on a white background, or photos of food in isolation where they are usually

eaten as part of a meal, make it more difficult for consumers to imagine eating the food and could therefore have a negative impact on food desire. The findings of this research can be used when selling food online.

The COVID pandemic has seen a sharp increase in online food ordering and although we are slowly moving out of lockdown, it is expected that the increase in online food ordering will stay higher than it was preCOVID. Papies E. K. et al. (2022) Situating desire: Situational cues affect desire for food through eating simulations. Appetite, 168 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105679

Rapid descriptive methods Descriptive Analysis (DA) is considered the gold standard of objective sensory testing where a group of panelists (n=8-12) is trained to use sensory attributes that discriminate among a specific product set. These attributes are then anchored by reference standards ensuring that the panelists are using the attribute in a similar fashion. The construction and running of a DA panel takes considerable investment in time, expertise and cost which means it is out of reach for many SMEs and led to the development of ‘rapid methods’ as they do not require the time and cost involved with traditional DA. Check-all-thatapply (CATA) is a rapid method where the untrained consumers are given a list of attributes and are asked to either check if the attribute is present, while rate-all-that– apply (RATA) where they rate the attribute’s intensity. Both CATA and RATA require more participants than DA (approximately 80 consumers) but all participants are untrained which greatly reduces time and cost.

A new study from the University of California compared traditional DA using highly trained panelists (n=10) with CATA and RATA using semi trained panellists (n=10-14).

The authors aim was to see if CATA and RATA using a low number of panelists could perform as well as descriptive analysis with the thought

that CATA or RATA may be useful as a replacement in industry R&D projects. For sample preparation, soups were modified by addition of small amounts of fat, salt or MSG and panelists evaluated soups using each method to identify attributes and potential differences between soups.

The performance of each method to identify attributes and differences was assessed.

Results showed that DA was the most powerful method at discriminating samples, but the time involved in data collection was also significantly more than RATA or CATA. The RATA method using an attribute reference list, simple intensity scale, and panelists with limited training also provided good discrimination. The authors suggest that RATA may be more appropriate than DA for industry based panels as DA may provide overdiscrimination which does not reflect the consumer liking.

Nishida et al. (2021) Comparing classical descriptive analysis with modified descriptive analysis, modified rate-all-that-applies and modified check-all-that-applies. Journal of Sensory Studies 36:e12684 https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12684

Dr Russell Keast is Professor and Dr Gie Liem is an Associate Professor both are members of the CASS Food Research Centre at Deakin University.

Damian Nandorfy and Dr Leigh Francis work for the Australian Wine Research Institute. f

food australia 31

FEATURE FOOD ENGINEERING

The 3D printing of foods – from concept to reality Words by Drs Amy Logan, Peter Watkins and Bhesh Bhandari

3

D printing is a form of additive manufacturing, which involves a computer-controlled process of sequential layering to form a predesigned object. This technology is more commonly used for the production of metal and plastic speciality items, however current research to develop suitable food ‘ink’ ingredients has led to the reality of using 3D printing to prepare on-demand foods in kitchens or elsewhere such as in restaurants.

With a global value of around $485.5 million in 2020, the market for 3D printed food products is estimated to grow to around $1 billion by 2025, primarily in the confectionery and bakery space.1 Recent advancements have meant that more complex and multi-ingredient food products can be fabricated using 3D printing with customised colour, shape, flavour, texture and nutritional loading. The concept of 4D printing is also emerging, where the structure of the 3D printed food can change with time. For example, the development of flat pasta that will morph into predesigned shapes when rehydrated and exposed to heat,2 providing a novel consumer experience as well as packaging efficiencies for the flat, dry ingredient.

Our recent ICEF13 legacy book chapter focuses on the hardware, inks, applications and commercial activities associated with 3D printing of foods

32 food australia

from which parts of this article have been extracted.3

Hardware Four different types of 3D printing hardware are commonly used for the production of foods based on the principles of: • Material extrusion - where the food ink material is in a liquid or powder form and forced to flow through a shaped hole or die under varied temperatures and pressures at a steady rate to form the desired 3D product. This is the most common method applied to food 3D printing • Material jetting - which uses an array of pneumatic nozzle-jets to produce a layer of the ink material and deposited onto a surface, similar to 2D inkjet printing • Binder jetting - which is similar to material jetting but uses a liquid binder with a powder base to form the desired product • Selective laser sintering - where a laser is used to apply high temperatures and fuse the powder ink materials in layers.

Inks and applications The form (e.g. dried powder or liquid concentrate) and physicochemical properties of the 3D printer inks are important considerations for the construction of different food materials, and the user will need to

match the ink’s characteristics and 3D design parameters to the mechanism of the specific printer hardware.

In most common extrusion types of 3D printing, a food ink must be able to flow from the print cartridge, yet form a self-supported shape once deposited on the printing platform.

As such, much emphasis has recently been placed on understanding the material properties of food inks with or without the addition of thickeners or stabilisers, and how they respond during the 3D printing process.

3D printing allows for the upscaling of low value products (such as vegetable rejects and meat offcuts) and the introduction of novel ingredients to construct attractive and nutritious food products. Consumer acceptance needs to be considered in the development of 3D printed foods, especially when novel ink ingredient or approaches are considered. A survey of Australian consumers conducted in 2016 suggested little support for cultured meat and insect-based foods.4 However, more recent media attention and growth in the number of emerging start-up companies involving cellular protein and insect farming, indicates a step-change in consumer acceptance, providing greater social licence for advancements in this space.

It is fascinating that 3D printing makes it possible to control the

internal structure of the product to regulate textural attributes and material quantity (calorie intake) per piece of the product. The different patterns and infill levels of 3D printed chocolate, which is not a choice in a conventional chocolate making process, have been reported.5 Barry Callebaut opened its world first 3D printing studio in 2020 with the brand name of Mona Lisa chocolate.6 The concept of personalised nutrition involves the tailoring of dietary advice and diets specifically to meet an individual’s needs,7 with 3D printing providing one technology that could be used to prepare on-demand foods of customised texture and nutrient loading. Projections indicate significant growth and demand for personalised products, with annual revenues as high as $64 billion by 2040.8 For example, the UK based company Nourished manufactures customised vitamin ‘Nutrition Stacks’ using 3D printing.9 Food printing is particularly suited to niche food applications, for example the development of personalised nutrition and texture modified foods for people with swallowing difficulties, referred to collectively as dysphagia.

Around 50-60% of individuals in aged care homes and around 15-22% in the general population are affected by dysphagia.10 To meet the Dysphagia Diet Standardisation guidelines11 for safe food consumption, foods need to be texture modified or presented as thickened liquids, but can often become unacceptable in terms of appearance,12 taste and texture. Development of meat-based 3D products meeting the dysphagia quality parameters have been recently reported by the research team at The University of Queensland.13 Food products of defined texture and sensory properties can be freshly prepared using 3D printing and designed to look similar to the real food but easier to swallow and digest.14 Addressing environmental sustainability and human health, two different start-up companies Redefine Meat15 and NovaMeat16, have been developing plant-based meat analogue systems, or ‘faux meat’, us-

Mixed ingredient vegetable-based 3D printed food prototypes and printer cartridge (Work undertaken at CSIRO’s Food Innovation Centre. Credit: Dr Mala Gamage and Ms Nivini Samarathunga).

ing 3D printing to mimic fibrous meats and seafoods.

No doubt, the development of different food products will continue into the future, along with the creation of new consumer markets and experiences for 3D printed foods.

References

1. BBC Market Research FOD093A, 2020, https:// www.bccresearch.com/market-research/foodand-beverage/3d-food-printing-market-report. html, accessed 28 Oct 2021.

2. https://3dprinting.com/food/mit-produces-4dshapeshifting-printed-pasta/, accessed 28 Oct 2021.

3. Watkins, W, Logan, A, Bhandari, B. (2021) Threedimensional (3D) food printing – an overview in Food Engineering Innovations Across the Supply Chain, (ed) Juliano, P, Knoerzer, K, Sellahewa, J, Nguyen, M, Buckow, R. Academic Press.

4. Lupton, D, Turner, B. (2018) Food of the Future?

Consumer Responses to the Idea of 3D-Printed Meat and Insect-Based Foods. Food and Foodways, 26(4), 269–289.

5. Mantihal, S, Prakash, S, Bhandari, B. (2019).

Textural modification of 3D printed dark chocolate by varying internal infill structure. Food Research International 121: 648-657 6. https://www.barry-callebaut.com/en/group/ media/news-stories/barry-callebaut-opensworlds-first-3d-printing-studio-craft-unseen, accessed 30 Oct 2021 7. Archer, N, Krause, D, Logan, A. (2017) Personalised food revolution. food australia 69.4: 42-44.

8. Fitzgerald, M. (2020) “Personalized nutrition could be the next plant-based meat, worth $64 billion by 2040, says UBS”, https://www.cnbc. com/2020/01/19/personalized-nutrition-couldbe-the-next-plant-based-meat-worth-64-billionby-2040-says-ubs.html accessed 29 Oct 2021.

9. https://get-nourished.com/, accessed 29 Oct 2021.

10. Roden, DF, Altman, KW. (2013) Causes of dysphagia among different age groups: a systematic review of the literature. Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America, 46(6), 965-987.

11. https://www.speechpathologyaustralia.org. au/SPAweb/Resources_for_the_Public/Modified_Foods_and_Fluids_Terminology/SPAweb/ Resources_for_Speech_Pathologists/Professional_Resources/Modified_Foods_and_Fluids_ Terminology.aspx?hkey=822fd30c-b7d4-45c39071-a20a7b38bb52.

12. Kouzani, A, Adams, S, Whyte, DJ, Oliver, R, Hemsley, B, Palmer, S. (2017) 3D Printing of Food for People with Swallowing Difficulties.

KnE Engineering, 2(1), 23–29.

13. Dick, A, Bhandari, S Prakash, S. (2022). Printability and textural assessment of modified-texture cooked beef pastes for dysphagia patients.

Future Foods 3: 100006.

14. Hua, WS, Na, L, Dong, ZY. (2018) “GW29-e0057 3D food printing can help elder to digest and swallow foods” in The 29th Great Wall International Congress of Cardiology China Heart Society Beijing Society of Cardiology, 72(16, Supplement), C210.

15. https://www.redefinemeat.com, accessed 28 Oct 2021.

16. https://www.novameat.com/, accessed 28 Oct 2021.

Dr Amy Logan leads the Personalised Fabrication of Smart Food Systems testbed within CSIRO’s AIM Future Science Platform and is Group Leader for Food Quality and Safety, CSIRO. Dr Peter Watkins leads the Food Analysis team for the Food Program, CSIRO. Professor Bhesh Bhandari leads the food materials science and engineering including 3D printing research at The University of Queensland.

This article is based on a chapter from the book Food Engineering Innovations Across the Supply Chain, edited by Pablo Juliano, Kai Knoerzer, Jayantha Sellahewa, Minh Nguyen and Roman Buckow, 2021, Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. f

food australia 33

FOOD INSECURITY

Hunger: a fact of life for too many in Australia Words by Foodbank Australia

F

oodbank has revealed one in six Australian adults haven’t had enough to eat in the last year and, even more shockingly, 1.2 million children have gone hungry during that time.

The Foodbank Hunger Report 2021, released in time for Anti-Poverty Week, shows that more than half of people impacted by severe food insecurity go a whole day every week without eating.

The report, now in its 10th year, highlights that the pandemic continues to deliver challenges that are exacerbating pre-existing issues in our community. In addition to those who were already struggling before COVID-19, the pandemic has caused others to experience vulnerability for the first time.

In fact, more than one in three of last year’s food insecure Australians (38%) had never been in that position before.

According to Foodbank Australia’s CEO, Brianna Casey: “This is especially disheartening in light of the gains made last year when the Federal Government’s Coronavirus Supplement was able to reduce poverty for so many.”

Ms Casey said the issue of food insecurity in Australia has never been more prominent than it is right now.

“The global pandemic has put a spotlight on the crisis that for too long has gone under society’s radar,” Ms Casey said.

The report highlights that food insecurity is not restricted to the ‘obvious’ vulnerability groups in the community such as homeless people and the unemployed. It shows people of every age, living alone, in families and in groups are susceptible. Food insecurity is shown to affect people in cities right through to those in remote areas and surprisingly, it affects more people in some form of employment (64%) than

34 food australia

those who have none.

“The key findings in this report are indeed confronting, but we can’t fix a problem we don’t understand or acknowledge. Although Foodbank is now providing food relief to a record one million people a month, we know many experiencing hardship feel there are others worse off and don’t ask for help.

That is heartbreaking to know, and if there is one thing I can stress, it’s that there is no shame in asking for help, and in fact, it’s exactly what we’re here for. Life happens to us all, and we’re here for everyone,” Ms Casey said.

The Foodbank Hunger Report provides a snapshot of the prevalence and depth of the issues of food insecurity as well as insights into the day-to-day experience of people in our community who are doing it tough.

The 2021 Hunger Report is available here: https://www.foodbank.org. au/?state=au

Key Statistics • One in six adults in Australia haven’t had enough to eat in the last year • 1.2 million children have gone hungry in the last year • Uncertain access to food affects Australians from all walks of life • One in three people struggling to meet their food needs are new to the situation • Two in five people seeking food relief do not get enough for their household’s needs • More than half of the people impacted by severe food insecurity go a whole day every week without eating • 64% of food insecure Australians have a job • Foodbank provides food relief to more than a million people each month

ADVERTORIAL

Serving up a better process for food recalls

W

hen a product recall is issued, every part of the supply chain becomes focused on identifying the location of the product and removing it from circulation. The ability to respond quickly and accurately to a product recall is critical.

For the food service industry, if the recall is food allergen-related, it can be the difference between life and death for some customers.

Across the past decade, undeclared allergens have been the single biggest cause of Australia’s total food recalls.

During the month of October 2021 alone, 55% of reported recalls were due to undeclared allergens, including the presence of soy, tree nuts and wheat (gluten) in food products and sulphates in liquor.1 Those living with allergies rely on manufacturers to deliver safe food products with accurate food labelling so as to be able to make informed decisions about what to eat, and what to avoid.

Despite excellent controls and global best practices in the food supply chain, things can still go wrong.

Packaging errors, incorrect ingredient lists, unverified raw ingredients and accidental cross-contaminations can occur during the manufacturing process. These can result in potentially unsafe products ending up at a food service outlet or restaurant.

Protecting customers with a fast, efficient way for food wholesalers, manufacturers and operators to

GS1 Australia Recall online platform protects customers with the fast, effective communication of recall notifications. remove unsafe products from the supply chain, is the driving force behind the GS1 Australia Recall online platform.

Andrew Brown, Business Development Manager at GS1 Australia says, “We developed the Recall platform with input from our industry partners and regulatory bodies, including FSANZ, to ensure food manufacturers and distributors can communicate product recalls more effectively, using a consistent format.”

GS1 Recall is supported by bodies such as HACCP and the Australian Institute of Food Science Technology (AIFST) to enable the automatic sharing of recall notifications with regulators and state-based food safety authorities in accordance with Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) Food Industry Recall

Protocol.

Brown continued, “A major benefit for using a digital communication tool such as the Recall platform, is that everyone is notified in real-time at the click of a button. Evidence of communications is captured, and an audit trail is produced, of when actions and communications took place, with updates instantly delivered to mobile devices.”

At the completion of the recall, full reporting is instantly available to satisfy business and regulatory requirements.

Find out about the GS1 Australia Recall platform at: https://www.gs1au.org/ recall

Reference 1. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/industry/ foodrecalls/Pages/default.aspx

food australia 35

CYBERSECURITY FEATURE

Beyond ransomware: securing the digital food chain Words by Susan Duncan, Renata Carneiro, Jonathan Braley, Melissa Hersh, Ford Ramsey and Randall Murch

I

n May 2021, the world’s largest meat processor, JBS Foods, paid $11 million in Bitcoin to a ransomware gang known as REvil, following a cyberattack that forced JBS to halt operation in 13 of its U.S. beef processing plants. When Andre Nogueira, CEO of JBS USA, confirmed the ransom payment, he said JBS did so to mitigate damage to supply chain partners, including restaurants, grocery stores, distributors, and ranchers.

The JBS incident is the latest in a spate of ransomware attacks on major food and beverage companies over the past year, including Molson Coors, Campari Group, and BrownForman. Further, since 2015, several U.S. restaurant and fast-food chains suffered malware attacks resulting in expensive data breach lawsuits, including Caribou Coffee, Applebee’s, Panera Bread, Chipotle, Sonic DriveIn, Pizza Hut, KFC, Wendy’s, and Dunkin’.

A 2017 cyberattack against Mondelēz International resulted in significant operational disruption to its production, distribution, and sales and financial losses. The Mondelēz

36 food australia

incident is noteworthy because it highlighted the limits of cyber insurance coverage and the role of exclusions, which remains an ongoing debate (Satariano and Perlroth 2019). Additionally, small to mediumsize businesses, which often do not have the in-house technical support or security of large corporations, serve as farm-to-table supply chain partners throughout the system; attacks on these companies may be equally disruptive with significant operational and financial losses.

A Sweeping, Multidimensional Challenge Costs associated with ransomware can rapidly escalate (Table 1), exceeding the ransom itself. Cyber threat tactics and techniques are constantly evolving, and while the prevalence of cyberattacks is increasing within the foodservice and food processing sectors, the landscape of cyber threat and vulnerability is not one-dimensional, nor are the characteristics of cyber threat actors (Table 2). Cyber threat actors can comprise malign states, criminal or transnational criminal

syndicates, lone wolf mercenaries, hacktivists, insider threat actors (including disgruntled employees), dissatisfied customers, homegrown violent criminals or extremist groups, foreign terrorist organizations, and industrial competitors.

The increasing number of cyberattacks on large food and beverage companies is part of a growing trend by cyber threat actors to target critical infrastructure sectors, including food and agriculture, which increasingly depend on information technology (IT), operational technology (OT), and convergent IT-OT or Internet of Things (IoT) processes and applications to increase efficiencies, optimize processes, and enhance knowledge discovery and innovation.

The high value of the diverse integrated data sets used in food and agriculture research, development, production, and distribution has created a rich environment for cybercriminal interfere with uniquely important biological and economic information and systems. Other contributors include an increased dependency on software-based IT

Table 1. Costs From Ransomware Attacks Exceed Payouts Alone (illustrative example). Modified from Vijayan, J. 2021 Cost Categories

Description of Cost

Considerations

Ransom payout

Identified by attackers

FBI advises not to pay. May negotiate to reduce.

Downtime costs

Disruption of normal services resulting in

May take days to weeks before systems are

loss of business, opportunities, customers;

restored.

also brand erosion, broken service-level agreements Double extortion costs

Theft of sensitive data for leverage to

Increases risk of data leak and increases

extract ransom

related costs for legal fees, regulatory fines, data breach cleanup and more.

IT upgrade costs

Risk of malware residing on systems

Requires upgrading infrastructure, implementing more controls.

Recovery costs

Data recovery, restoration, return to

Occurs even when ransom is not paid and

normalcy takes time.

backup data is available.

Reputational damage

Erosion of consumer trust and confidence

Customers are sensitive to disruption of

costs

and loss of customers and business

service.

applications, and increased use of digitalized industrial control systems for regulated safety processes in the production and storage environments, waste management, etc. These data and information ecosystems are used to verify good manufacturing practices (GMPs), food safety adherence (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points [HACCP]), quality standards, and biosecurity practices.

All have impacts on upstream and downstream suppliers and vendors.

Moreover, much of the data and information is sensitive and proprietary and essential for remaining productive and competitive, including product development concepts, intellectual property, ingredient supplies, packaging, personal health, and personally identifiable information such as sensory (human subject) personal identifiers. The convergence of biological data with digital technologies and cyberphysical systems and biosecurity considerations relates to every sector in the food supply chain (Duncan et al. 2019).

Patchwork Is Not Sufficient Relying on IT experts and cybersecurity investments in

patching software solutions alone is insufficient to effectively mitigate cybersecurity risk to organizations— and the entirety of the end-to-end food system. Cyber risk is a shared vulnerability, and security is a shared responsibility. Protecting against cyberattacks requires an awareness of the potential consequences of unmitigated cyber risk on food safety, biosecurity, economic competitiveness, and security of supply. Because unmitigated cyber risk can exceed one organization’s reputational losses and extend to losses across a particular industry subsector, or even cause broader reputation losses stemming from general mistrust in the integrity of products from a particular country of origin, cyber risk should be viewed as enterprise risk and requires senior leadership-level attention.

A New Twist: Cyberbiosecurity Cyberbiosecurity is an emerging discipline at the convergence of cybersecurity, cyber-physical security, and biosecurity (Murch et al.

2018). “Cyberbiosecurity addresses the potential for or actual malicious destruction, misuse, or exploitation of valuable information, processes, and material at the interface of the

life sciences and digital worlds,” according to Richardson et al. (2019).

Despite its growing importance, this discipline is still a missing component within the food scientist and food engineer training, even though the food scientist/engineer roles are distributed throughout the food supply chain. Food scientists and engineers are aware of the nuances, accepted data variability, and the risks of recalls or product failure if processes, ingredients, or storage conditions are altered or data is lost, locked, or manipulated. As most food scientists are knowledgeable about GMP, HACCP, and other standards, they are inherently responsible for “developing and instituting measures to prevent, mitigate, investigate, and attribute biological, physical, and cyber threats as these pertain to security, competitiveness, and resilience” related to food quality, safety, and security, according to Murch et al. (2018). This gap in education and training increases risks to the domestic food supply chain and the ultimate mission of securing the U.S. and global food supply.

Implications of High- and Low-Effort Cyberattacks Vulnerabilities exist throughout the farm-to-table system (Duncan et al.

food australia 37

CYBERSECURITY FEATURE

Table 2. Types of Cyberattacks That Create Disruption and Can Affect the Food Supply Chain and Customer Confidence in the U.S. Food Supply.

Classification

Description

Ransomware

uses an infection vector through a malicious attachment or link to gain control of system, with requirement for ransom payment to unlock

Hacktivism

disrupts networks or exposes/destroys data to advance political or social cause

Financial fraud

point-of-sale compromise or business email compromise

Intellectual property (IP) theft

accesses data with intent to steal trade secrets, plans, research information

Emerging technologies

autonomous and unmanned systems equipped with backdoor access to data

Misinformation/disinformation

integrate partial truths with false information in social media campaigns to disrupt trust and confidence in company

2019, Richardson et al. 2019) (Table 2, Table 3). Cyberbio attackers can engage in high-effort or low-effort attacks. Low-effort attacks are unlikely to result in major losses to major companies or the food system at large but may have larger implications to small- and mediumsize enterprises. In contrast, higheffort attacks have the potential to affect critical components of food processing and manufacturing. The result of this effort/return tradeoff is that larger firms may experience many low-effort attacks, most of which can be mitigated with standard IT security tools. More concerning are high-effort and high-payoff attacks that—due to the structure of the modern food manufacturing sector— have the potential for nationwide or even global effects.

The food supply can be fragile and is often managed in a “just-intime” strategy due to the availability and biology of the raw product.

We recently saw this fragility as processing plants were taken off-line as a consequence of labor-related business interruptions during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, and then as a consequence of various cyberattacks across the food and agriculture sector from development, production, and distribution. These occurrences resulted in significant loss of raw food products and failure to move processed products into markets.

38 food australia

A Susceptible Food and Agriculture System While advances in technology have increased efficiency in food production, processing, and manufacturing, they have also gone hand in hand with increasing concentration in some food manufacturing sectors. Mergers and acquisitions have resulted in increased company and plant size leading to overall industry consolidation. At the same time, many companies now rely on a high degree of vertical coordination to obtain inputs from producers. The volume of contracted production, and the amount of production managed through vertical integration have both increased in many parts of the food supply chain (Adjemian et al. 2016). These changes in the economic structure of food manufacturing and processing have resulted in a changing cyberbiosecurity risk profile in the industry. Increased connectivity through the IoT has also expanded the potential for susceptibility.

Cloud access and storage, rapid advancement of 5G, work from home, and increased use of technologyenabled devices are exposing individuals and businesses to these risks.

Attackers, whether motivated by potential economic returns, or simply wishing to cause havoc, consider

both the potential for an attack to be successful and the expected result. While increased concentration may make more resources available for food manufacturers to combat cyberattacks, it also makes single firms into more attractive targets.

Generally speaking, the potential payoff from a successful ransomware attack on a major manufacturer is much larger than an attack on a small firm. Likewise, the potential for disruption of food supplies is also much larger. This was seen in recent cyberattacks in the animal processing and slaughter sector, where ransomware attacks on single firms resulted in temporary shutdowns to significant portions of U.S. processing capacity.

Ransomware operators look to target companies that are highly likely to pay ransom demands.

Food and agriculture organizations cannot afford downtime, the loss of intellectual property, or the leakage of sensitive information. Given the criticality of producing and processing food, such organizations are high-value targets. In addition, there are nations that are heavily reliant on the United States for food and agriculture.

One way to better defend yourself is to understand the goals of your adversaries. As such, network defenders from the industry often look at adversarial countries’ “fiveyear plans” to understand what sort

Table 3. Cyberbiosecurity Vulnerabilities for the Food and Agricultural System. Modified From Richardson, et al. 2019.

Vulnerability Classification

Description

Domains of Engagement for Food

Automation hacking

Critical cloud-based or connected processes in industrial control systems

Manufacturing; process controls

Microbial, microbiome, or genetic information

Key data for decisions of relevance to biotechnology, fermentations, food safety, nutrition

Intellectual property: food safety; product development; quality control; breeding (plant/animal); feed and food formulations

Agricultural production portals

Cloud-based data derived from collective precision agriculture technologies and equipment

Crop and animal precision agriculture; weather systems

System vulnerabilities

Data used to integrate and guide systems within and across enterprises

Logistics and distribution; transportation; ingredient and packaging supplies

Pathogen tracking

Data identifying pathogens, agricultural records, biosecurity

Analytical laboratories; food safety and biosecurity; plant and animal health and production

System integrity

Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and Internet of Things (IoT)

Innovation, research and development; data analytics; machine learning

Scientists and Engineers

of intellectual property they might be looking to exfiltrate.

At the same time, organizations must also defend against insiders.

This includes people who act maliciously as well as wellintentioned employees. One way that nations try to gain critical intellectual property is by recruiting employees with technical knowledge away from U.S. companies. In addition, U.S. agriculture and food processing businesses often rely on seasonal guest workers, which makes managing insider threats more challenging.

Securing the supply chain is a systemwide challenge. Many suppliers do not have the resources to sufficiently protect themselves from effective cyberattacks. They can be used as vectors to get into the larger enterprise. Additionally, the use of IoT devices within a sector and the larger system have created additional security concerns. Smart sensors, switches, irrigation systems, and similar technologies all create new challenges and potential attack vectors. Non-malicious insider threats can also lead to bad consequences and often occur due to naivete, ignorance, lack of cyber hygiene, mistakes, or negligence, which reinforces the need for education, regulation, and higher investment on

cyberbiosecurity.

What Needs to Be Done?

While there is no single solution to cyberbiosecurity threats, any strategy must comprise a combination of increased education, cooperation, and resource investment.

• Education. As cyber criminals increase their focus on the agriculture, food, and beverage businesses, it is vital to promote education and training on cyberbiosecurity. Last year, Virginia Tech hosted a two-day virtual workshop, “Securing Agriculture, Food, and its Economy (SAFE) with Cyberbiosecurity,” which included 170 interdisciplinary participants representing state and federal agencies, legislators, professionals from agriculture, cybersecurity, and technology companies and organizations, community leaders, academic researchers, educators, and administrators.

Participants identified the need to customize training for different audiences, explain terms and concepts, and make the topic more approachable. To be effective, communication must be inclusive, and knowledge must be shared through different channels.

Large corporations may have the resources to pay for a consulting

service or develop their own educational and training materials, but that may not apply to smaller businesses. In this context, land grant universities, through formal and informal education, including their off-campus agricultural research and extension centers and cooperative extension specialists and agents, can play an important role in creating accessible and affordable opportunities to discuss challenges, identify gaps, and share knowledge, good practices, and strategies.

• Information Sharing. Engaging with industry peers to collaborate on cyber risk mitigation has long been considered a necessary and effective practice for critical infrastructure. The threat is simply too great for any company to expect to mitigate on its own. Since 2013, the nonprofit Information Technology-Information Sharing and Analysis Center’s Food and Agriculture Special Interest Group (SIG) has provided food and agriculture companies an industryonly forum to share threat and mitigation information. This SIG assists members to be better prepared through secure and trusted sharing of information and collaborative analysis. Analysts within the SIG have a heavy focus

food australia 39

CYBERSECURITY FEATURE

on the strategic side of threat intelligence, often looking toward nation states’ and cybercriminals’ motivations in an attempt to understand future risks and threats.

This is often unique to the sector as their global operations require an understanding of foreign policy, tensions, and motivations.

• Resources. Businesses of all sizes should become familiar with the municipal/state/country/ trade organizational resources to proactively seek out information and anticipate where to go before and after something happens. In the SAFE with Cyberbiosecurity workshop, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) advised that defending the food system relied on outreach and education, research and awareness, completion of vulnerability assessments and an advanced playbook, creating countermeasures, having effective detection tools and toolkit, and thorough investigations. Research and cooperative extension publications and websites, workshops, and workforce training programs, and opensource educational materials facilitate learning, planning, and implementation.

Information-sharing communities benefit those organizations with a common commitment to cyberbiosecurity. Information sharing is a force multiplier that enables

40 food australia

companies to leverage expertise from analysts in peer companies who are seeing the same threats and dealing with the same business environment.

In many ways, the benefits of information-sharing communities extend beyond the sharing of threat information. Leveraging the knowledge and experience of sector peers can empower participants and save an organization time and resources.

And if the worst-case scenario happens and an attack occurs, the FBI also recommended having the local or regional office on speed dial. Invite them into the conversation early.

Acknowledgements This work has been supported, in part, by grants and resources from USDANIFA Grant No. 2019-67021-29956, Accession No. 1019771, the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, the Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, the Commonwealth Cyber Initiative Southwest Node, and Tyson Foods.

References • Adjemian, M. K., B. Wade Brorsen, W. Hahn, et al. 2016. “Thinning Markets in U.S. Agriculture?”

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, EIB-148. doi: 10.22004/ ag.econ.232928.

• Duncan, S. E., R. Reinhard, R. C. Williams, et al.

2019. “Cyberbiosecurity: A New Perspective on Protecting U.S. Food and Agricultural System”.

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 7: 63. doi: 10:3389/ fbioe.2019.00063.

• Richardson, L. C., N. C. Connell, S. M. Lewis, et al. 2019. “Cyberbiosecurity: A Call for Cooperation in a New Threat Landscape.”

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 7: 99. doi: 10.3389/ fbioe.2019.00099.

• Satariano, A., and N. Perltroth. 2019. “Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack. They May Be Wrong.” The New York Times, April 15.

• Vijayan, J. 2021. “5 Reasons Why the Cost of Ransomware Attacks Are Rising.” https://www. csoonline.com/article/3276584/what-does-aransomware-attack-cost-beware-the-hiddenexpenses.html.

Susan Duncan, PhD, RD, a member of IFT, is professor of food science and technology, associate director of the Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, and director of the Center for Advanced Innovation in Agriculture - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va.(duncans@vt.edu).

Renata Carneiro, PhD, a member of IFT, is postdoctoral researcher, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (rcvc@vt.edu).

Jonathan Braley is operations manager, Information Technology-Information Sharing and Analysis Center, Manassas, Va. (jbraley@it-isac.org).

Melissa Hersh is a risk and strategy advisor, Hersh Consulting, LLC, Washington, D.C. (melissa@hersh-consulting.com).

Ford Ramsey, PhD, is assistant professor, Dept. of Agricultural and Applied Economics, and affiliate faculty in the Center for Advanced Innovation in Agriculture - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (aframsey@vt.edu).

Randall Murch, PhD, is adjunct professor in the School of Plant and Environmental Sciences and affiliate faculty in the Center for Advanced Innovation in Agriculture - Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (rmurch@vt.edu).

Published with permission of IFT f

REGULATORY

How to get adaptogens to the Australian market Words by Charles Fisher

E

very year or so, some healthy ingredient or nutrient appears to ‘take the world by storm’. Previous hero ingredients have been antioxidants, probiotics, the protein rush and our current focus on prebiotics and other fibres. While it remains to be seen whether this will be the case with ‘adaptogens’, the volume of queries fielded by food regulatory consultants suggests that the food industry is ready to try.

This article explores what adaptogens are, what the potential regulatory paths to the Australian market are, and what regulatory barriers could get in the way, particularly if you classify your adaptogenic product as ‘food’.

Never heard of adaptogens?

Many of the plants and fungi (and more importantly - their concentrated or refined extracts) that are marketed as ‘adaptogens’ have often been known for their health benefits for some time. A paper issued by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2008 refers to “herbal medicinal products’’ and lists some products that are already well-established in the Australian market, such as ginseng.1 Other trending ingredients being branded as ‘adaptogens’ include ashwagandha, maca, turmeric, schisandra and certain mushrooms.

Apparently, what makes these plant products ‘adaptogens’ is whether they have an ‘adaptogenic’ effect. This effect is broadly defined as ‘stabilising physiological processes’ and the ‘promotion of homeostasis’ – but generally comes back to the concept of assisting the human body in coping with stress.

It is worth noting at this point that the EMA paper concluded that more clarification and research needed to be done into the entire ‘adaptogenic’ concept, and subsequently prohibited the use of the term in pharmacological and clinical terminology until that research was done. While this prohibition appears to still be in place in Europe, the position in Australia can be quite different, depending on the regulatory classification of the ‘adaptogen’ in question.

While the global pandemic has no doubt driven up consumer demand for products that help protect their body from the physiological toll of stress, the consumer trend for their food and supplements to tackle mood and influence how consumers feel was already well established pre-COVID.

What’s your regulatory path to market?

Given that adaptogens appear to need to be orally consumed to have their desired effect, this means any product

must either be legally classified as ‘food’ or as a ‘therapeutic good’ to be compliant if sold at a retail level on the Australian market.

In Australia, a lot of products are regulated as ‘therapeutic goods’ that would – in many other countries – be regulated as ‘food’ (or, at least, not regulated as ‘medicine’). These include many products marketed as adaptogens, such as complementary medicines, traditional medicines, and dietary supplements. There are regulatory benefits to being classified as a ‘therapeutic good’, particularly in relation to the powerful claims you are often able to make. In fact, in contrast to Europe, a search of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) website for ‘adaptogen’ shows it to be a permitted indication on behalf of listed therapeutic goods so long as evidence is held as to its traditional use.2 However, there are also downsides to being regulated as a ‘therapeutic good’, including: restrictions on where and how they can be sold; having to manufacture in premises audited to medicinal goods manufacturing practices; expensive and timeconsuming market pre-approvals of ingredients, recipes, and claims for example. These downsides are encouraging many adaptogen product suppliers to explore the regulatory

food australia 41

REGULATORY

possibilities of ‘food’ in Australia. In contrast to therapeutic goods, there are fewer pre-market approvals and the manufacturing standards are much more achievable for ‘food’ products.

This often makes ‘food’ a quicker or more economically viable pathway.

But ‘food’ still has its own regulatory challenges – not least of which include: whether the adaptogen itself is allowed in ‘food’; and what claims can be made about it.

Is your adaptogen ‘novel’?

One of the aspects of food regulation that requires market pre-approval from Food Standards Australia New Zealand is if an ingredient is ‘novel’ or not. If an adaptogen is found by a regulator to be ‘novel’, the whole product will not be permitted to be sold in the Australian market. An application to change the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code seeking permission for the adaptogen will be required.

Many adaptogens, such as turmeric, ginger and liquorice, are clearly not ‘novel’ (and therefore likely permitted in food) due to their long history on the Australian market. In contrast, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods (ACNF) has found several popular adaptogens to be ‘novel’ - such as rhodiola and cordyceps mushroom –

which risk being prohibited in ‘food’.

Is the very word ‘adaptogen’ a health claim?

Once you are confident that an adaptogen is permitted in food, the next question is how to compliantly market the adaptogenic properties.

Any implication that a food product has an effect on the human body (including a physiological process or outcome) could be found to be a ‘health claim’, which may require either self-substantiation through a scientific systematic review or an amendment to the Food Standards Code. Once permitted, the making of a health claim on behalf of food products is still regulated (through nutritional profiling and labelling).

In fact, the very word ‘adaptogen’ could be seen by a regulator as being a health claim; although this author would argue that the word could be used on a food product if its use were strictly limited to a claim about the presence or absence of a biologically active substance (such as saying “with vitamin C”) or about a food ingredient that has associated health benefits (eg. “with whole grains”).

market, hopefully this article not only demonstrates how possible it is, but also the importance in making these decisions early in the new product development process. These decisions will impact how quickly you can launch, where you manufacture your adaptogenic product, what can go in it and in what quantities, where you can sell it, and how to communicate its unique selling proposition to consumers.

As someone who has had to support a number of clients who made these decisions after going to market, this author would strongly recommend getting expert regulatory advice (as well as extensive consumer research) before launching your product into the adaptogenic market.

References 1. Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products (2008), “Reflection Paper on the Adaptogenic Concept”, European Medicines Agency https://www.ema. europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/ reflection-paper-adaptogenic-concept_en.pdf 2. Therapeutic Goods (2021) (Permissible Indications) Determination (No.1), Table 8 https://www. legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00056

Charles Fisher is the Principal Solicitor of Food & Beverages at KHQ Lawyers and has spent the last 13 years advising and supporting food companies in Australia and New Zealand. f

Next (or hopefully first) steps Whichever path you select to take your adaptogenic product to

AIFST would like to thank our 2021 Virtual Convention Partners

MONDAY 11 - TUESDAY 12 OCTOBER

42 food australia

ADVERTORIAL

Quantal Bioscience’s team of world-class microbiologists expands, growing opportunities for the food industry and for the next generation of scientists Words by Belinda Chapman

D

espite the COVID-19-related turmoil that marked 2021, Quantal Bioscience ended the year on a high note, adding two more highly experienced microbiologists to our world class team.

Quantal Bioscience is a unique and growing science business delivering new knowledge, innovative solutions and novel products to the food, agribusiness and health industries.

In the final quarter of 2021, Quantal Bioscience welcomed Cathy Moir and Sandra Olivier to our team of microbiologists. Cathy and Sandra bring with them a combined experience of more than 50 years working with the food industry in Australia, adding to the already impressive 100 plus years of food microbiology research and development experience embodied in Quantal’s scientists.

Quantal Bioscience is led by Dr Belinda Chapman, one of the company’s three Principal Research Microbiologists. Belinda has 25 years’ experience across the food, agriculture and health sectors, including for Arnott’s, Burns Philp, Sanitarium, the CSIRO, The Sydney Catchment Authority, The Westmead Institute for Medical Research, as well as for the University of Tasmania and KPMG. Quantal’s other Principal Research Microbiologists are Dr Michelle Bull, and Dr Janelle Brown, both also previously of CSIRO. Quantal provides collaborative research consulting and development, science management and specialist microbiology testing services to Australian and overseas food manufacturers. Quantal prides itself on working as a trusted advisor to food manufacturers, developing deep knowledge of our clients’ products and processes to deliver solutions, unlock opportunities and create value.

Quantal’s world-class research and

Just like the microbes they’re passionate about, the Quantal Bioscience team continues to grow. Photo credit: Georgia Wunderlich. development capabilities include food formulation and processing for microbiological safety and shelf-life, thermal processing (pasteurisation, sterilisation and novel processing technologies), food spoilage investigation, identification of bacteria, yeast and moulds, and fermentation.

In each of these areas of specialisation Quantal melds a unique background of classical microbiological knowledge and approaches with the latest cutting-edge laboratory techniques... speaking of which…how many times do you think you heard the phrase “genetic sequencing” last year? Given recent circumstances, you would be forgiven for immediately associating the phrase with COVID-19. But in 2021 the focus for Quantal’s own genetic sequencing efforts were firmly on food and agribusiness, demonstrating for our clients the unique insights available through microbiomic analysis.

In 2021 Quantal launched a range of new microbiomic analysis services, spanning across rapid diagnosis of food spoilage, through characterisation of food fermentations, to optimisation and valorisation of waste treatment processes. Where it previously may have taken up to six weeks to diagnose the cause of a complex spoilage incident, using microbiomic analysis Quantal is now able to identify spoilage agents of all persuasions – bacteria, yeasts and moulds – in as little as

24 – 72 hours! We’ve also used our microbiomic analysis capability to save the stuck fermentation…and the day… on more than one occasion over the past year. But perhaps most excitingly during 2021, was Quantal’s work with a variety of manufacturers using microbiomic analysis to uncover the hidden microbial gold in their waste streams; microbial gold just waiting to be harnessed to reduce costs, add value, and create new opportunities for businesses, as we all re-emerge from COVID-19 and re-focus ourselves on the challenges of climate, environment and sustainability.

So, here’s looking forward to growing opportunities and a great 2022 for us all!

For Quantal, we’re particularly looking forward to continuing to grow our team with the next generation of scientists, from our PhD and undergraduate students, right through high school to our very youngest trainee scientists in primary school, through our unique and authentic research and development-based MSchool and Skilled in Science programs. What can we say? We’re microbiologists… growing is what we’re all about! www.quantalbioscience.com Dr Belinda Chapman is Director of and Principal Research Microbiologist for Quantal Bioscience.

food australia 43

AIFST NEWS

AIFST Mentoring Program 2021 Words by Annelise Sarikas

T

he AIFST Mentoring Program is a 6-month program designed to pair young AIFST members with members already established in their career. The Program was launched in 2017 and has been operating successfully for the past four years with the 2021 Program reaching a record number of ninety participants.

It is wonderful to see the growing awareness and popularity of the AIFST Mentoring Program each year.

The 2021 Program officially commenced in April. Pairing was conducted by the AIFST team, aligning the interests of mentees with the experience of the mentors. Thanks to technology and the growing use of video conferencing tools throughout 2021, we were able to prioritise interests over physical location when assigning the pairs. Once paired, the progression of the Program is at the discretion of the mentoring pairs with AIFST providing activities for pairs in need of direction for their meetings.

Following feedback from previous years, the 2021 Program provided AIFST mentoring resources to use as needed with new resources being continually added across the six month program based on feedback from both mentors and mentees. The upcoming 2022 Program will aim to build on

44 food australia

these mentoring resources to provide the best support to our participants.

AIFST held five mentoring catch ups for the mentor and mentee participants across the six-month period to enable sharing about what the individual pairs were discussing in their weekly or fortnightly catch ups. These meetings also provided a means of virtual networking across the wider group so that mentees and mentors had the opportunity to meet other AIFST members in the industry.

Any desired changes or adjustments to the Mentoring Program were also discussed in these meetings for subsequent implementation. As a result of these discussions, the 2021 Program saw the launch of the mentoring resources page on the AIFST website.

The page contains mentoring activities, recordings from the group meetings and an open forum for group discussions.

After such a successful 2021 Program, we are excited and very much looking forward to the launch of the 2022 AIFST Mentoring Program.

The 2022 Program will feature a shift in the mentoring application process with a panel of mentor volunteers conducting interviews with potential mentees. This will ensure pairing of mentors and mentees is done as

accurately as possible and that all Program participants are dedicated and committed for the six-months .

The AIFST Mentoring Program was originally designed to pair students with industry professionals however in 2022 we have decided to open the Program up to all young professional members of the Institute. So, if you are a student, graduate or have already begun your career and could benefit from a mentor to help guide you, please sign up for our 2022 AIFST Mentoring Program. Applications will open in February so keep an eye on the Program page on the AIFST website for all mentoring related updates.

We are looking forward to another successful year of the AIFST Mentoring Program.

For further information on the Mentoring program, please contact: aifst@aifst.com.au Annelise Sarikas is a fourth and final year student at the University of New South Wales studying a Bachelor of Food Science and Technology. She has worked part time for AIFST since January 2020. Over the past two years, Annelise has been responsible for coordinating and running the AIFST Mentoring Program together with administering the AIFST Consultants Register. f

FOOD WASTE

Australian food industry signs up for $36 billion food waste fight Words by Fight Food Waste Limited

S

ome of Australia’s biggest food industry participants have joined a revolutionary new collaboration tackling Australia’s $36.6 billion food waste challenge.

The Australian Food Pact is a voluntary agreement featuring major companies such as Simplot Australia, Woolworths Group and Coles as founding signatories, with many more expected to join by the end of 2021 and into 2022.

The eight founding signatories are: • ARECO Pacific • Coles • Goodman Fielder • McCain Foods • Mars Australia • Mondeléz Australia • Simplot Australia • Woolworths Group.

The Australian Food Pact was launched at a virtual event on 21 October by Federal Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Sussan Ley MP. Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management, the Hon. Trevor Evans MP, also spoke.

Other speakers included: • SFWA Chief Operating Officer Mark Barthel • Simplot Australia Managing Director Graham Dugdale • Woolworths 360 Managing Director Laurie Kozlovic • Goodman Fielder (Australia) Joint Managing Director Kinda Grange.

Led by Stop Food Waste Australia (SFWA), the Australian Food Pact represents one of the biggest, most tangible demonstrations so far in

helping the Australian Government reach its target of halving food waste by 2030, according to SFWA CEO Dr Steven Lapidge.

“Food waste is a local, national and global challenge,” Dr Lapidge said.

“Australians waste 7.6 million tonnes of food each year, equivalent to more than 300kg of wasted food per person per year.

“The Australian Food Pact represents a major step forward in our bid to reduce food waste, and I commend all the signatories for their commitment to take action,” he said.

SFWA Chief Operating Officer Mark Barthel says similar voluntary agreements overseas, such as the UK’s Courtauld Commitment, have successfully reduced food waste at scale.

“Overseas experience shows that voluntary agreements work, and based on the heartening response from our food industry to the Australian Food Pact, it will work here as well,” Mr Barthel said.

“By joining the Australian Food Pact, signatories will be able to improve profitability, respond to supply risks and opportunities, provide innovative solutions, be more competitive, and create quality products with lower environmental impacts,” he said.

Simplot Australia was the first organisation to sign up to the Australian Food Pact. Its Managing Director, Graham Dugdale, said Simplot Australia strongly aligns and identifies with the Australian Food Pact’s goal and mission.

“We were inspired to be the first

signatory, because it will give organisations like ours the opportunity to reduce food waste while collaborating with industry experts and like-minded organisations to improve Australian agricultural and food manufacturing productivity and practices,” Mr Dugdale said.

Dr Richard Swannell, International Director of UK environmental charity the Waste and Resources Action Program (WRAP), said WRAP is delighted to be a founding partner in the Australian Food Pact.

“This is a crucial step in the fight against climate change,” Dr Swannell said. “Food loss and waste is responsible for 8 to 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and if it was a country would be the third largest emitter in the world. What Australia has started today will not only benefit its citizens and businesses, but the environment as a whole. I am delighted that WRAP was able to work with partners in Australia to develop this exciting initiative and we look forward to helping deliver its ambitious goals,” he said.

For more on the Australian Food Pact: https://www.stopfoodwaste.com. au/australian-food-pact/ f

food australia 45

5

FAST

The importance of collaboration across the agri-food system Q: A key theme to emerge from the 2021 AIFST Convention was the importance of collaboration across the agri-food system. What does effective collaboration look like to you with respect to food science and technology?

Nick Hazell CEO at v2foods From v2food’s perspective, collaboration with Universities, CSIRO, industry partners and other startups is an essential part of our growth model.

Indeed it is the only way to rapidly grow our business, our technology and the industry ecosystem. We focus on results and insights, do not worry too much about owning every outcome (though we do protect key technology) believing that in our mission solving the problem of feeding the planet sustainably is consideration number one and there will be many winners if we make rapid progress.

We collaborate with the meat industry, CSIRO, other startups, universities and have formed the Australian Proteins Council to create industry cohesion. Together we can advance the science and technology needed to unlock the plant based meat opportunity, and work to expand the industry into a globally significant entity that could make a major difference at a planetary scale.

Dr Mirjana Prica Managing Director the Food and AgriBusiness Growth Centre (FIAL) There is growing interest in Clusters because of the benefits they bring.

Clusters are regional groups of interconnected businesses, research institutions and government organisations working to establish local ecosystems of resources, knowledge and relationships to support the growth of businesses and increase the share of Australian food in the global marketplace.

A critical dimension of Clusters

46 food australia

is collaboration. The collaborative advantage is based on the strengths and breadth of social relationships, the application and sharing of these to identify opportunities, drive growth and unlock potential.

Through the networks, relationships and strategic alliances (i.e. the collaborative advantage) cluster participants realise business outcomes which would be impossible or more challenging to achieve on their own.

FIAL has been instrumental in the establishment of eight regional clusters focused on food and agribusiness.

Maren Strachan National Innovation Facilitator, CSIRO Collaboration looks like a group of people with different commercial, science, customer, and entrepreneurial perspectives, sitting in the same room, making a mess, talking through various future states where the customer gets what they want, only through the combination of the contributions of this specific group.

After the meeting, the group goes back to their various companies and organisations feeling challenged but valued. They are gleeful at the thought of how they will rule the market and influence the next disruption and delighted in the trust and respect the group members have about sharing IP and assets. Working together will be difficult, but everyone has skin in the game, believes in what they can do together, and has created a safe space to attempt the amazing.

Olympia Yarger Founder and CEO, Goterra Necessity is the mother of invention and the agriculture sector must transform itself to produce more food with fewer emissions at the same time as adapting to rapidly changing conditions as a result of climate change. The necessity is compelling and is driving substantial innovation.

As all stakeholders are affected,

opportunities for collaboration are plentiful.

In our experience, collaborative approaches are most effective when they involve diverse stakeholders from across the value chain, including governments, business, NGOs and academia. Each party brings something unique, but all are united by a common purpose.

Given the scale and complexity of the climate crisis, collaboration is key to finding mutually beneficial solutions and it is exactly those solutions that will be most effective and most successful.

Dr Tom Lewis Director and Senior Consultant, RDS Partners Collaboration is listening; doing things differently; trusting; sharing; and compromising.

To foster effective collaboration across Australia’s food system, I suggest putting more energy into supporting people from different organisations to get out of their silos, connect with others, understand each other’s pain points, work out how to address issues and then get on with it.

Cross-organisational collaboration of this nature is the focus of the cluster model of industry development (e.g. www.tci-network.org/).

True, industry-led clusters are established specifically to build trust and a shared vision within the industrygovernment-academia ‘triple helix’ of organisations with a stake in the development of a particular sector, usually within a defined geographic region. Local examples include the FIAL-supported Fermentasmania, Food and Fibre Gippsland and the Food & Agribusiness Network.

There’s plenty of evidence to show that embedding a cluster mindset across Australia’s food system will help us remain relevant and grow.

AIFST22 - 23-24 AUGUST, MELBOURNE

The Convention will feature an exhibition in addition to a full technical program Interested in exhibiting or partnering with AIFST in 2022? Please contact us at aifst@aifst.com.au To learn more about AIFST and to join our food industry community, visit our website or call us on 0417 066 324.

+ Exhibition + Conference 7-8 July 2022 Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre

The destination for food innovation

SCAN TO FIND OUT MORE

foodtechqld.com.au