food australia Journal, Vol. 77 (1) January - March 2025

JANUARY - MARCH 2025

Improving wholegrain intake

3D food printing –a technology with transformative potential OFFICIAL

NEOGEN: MADE TO DO MORE IN ALLERGEN TESTING

Neogen’s extensive range of food quality and safety products have been designed to facilitate making critical decisions confidently and quickly, to improve efficiency, add value, and contribute to better outcomes for businesses and consumers alike.

The most common reason for expensive product recalls in Australia is undeclared food allergens. Neogen provides rapid solutions designed to meet your specific requirements for food allergen management.

A growing need

The prevalence of food allergies around the world is increasing. Currently, the only way for a person to manage their potentially lifethreatening food allergy is to avoid the allergen. For this reason, there are strict laws in place to protect consumers.

Recently strengthened requirements for allergen labelling help consumers make safer choices. It is critical for producers to understand exactly where an allergen could enter their production line and be aware when it does.

How do food allergen tests help prevent allergen crosscontact?

Diagnostic tests provide a company with a method of easily determining if its product has been subjected to cross-contact and a tool to determine how and when the cross-contact occurred.

Companies can use the tests on a raw material before it enters production, or on equipment or product at any point throughout the production process to pinpoint and eliminate possible risks.

How Neogen can help you with allergen cross-contact

Neogen is a leader in food allergen rapid diagnostic tests with solutions available to address your individual needs.

Screening tests, such as Neogen’s Reveal® product line, are designed to be simple, easy to use, and rapidly determine the presence or absence of a target allergen with results in as

little as five minutes. These devices feature an overload line to prevent the hook effect producing a false negative.

Quantifying tests, such as Neogen’s Veratox®, utilise ELISA technology to determine exact parts per million (ppm) of a target allergen. Veratox can yield results in 30 minutes of testing time. The process can also be streamlined further with the StatFax 4700 plate reader which has been designed to read and calculate the results of Veratox assays automatically.

New Neogen developments in Veratox

Introducing Veratox VIP, one of the most robust ELISA allergen testing kits on the market. Veratox VIP offers the same ease of use as standard Veratox allergen tests but with significantly enhanced sensitivity, allowing users to detect extremely low levels of target allergens in a wide variety of sample types, including heat-processed and complex samples—all with a 30-minute timeto-result. Best of all, Neogen provides matrix feasibility studies, so you don’t have to do the preliminary work yourself.

Best of the world right here

As a global company with a large local presence, Neogen provides unparalleled support to our customers through a dedicated network of scientists and technical experts in Australia, New Zealand and around the world.

To learn more about Allergen Testing or our expanded food quality and safety product range, visit our website: neogenaustralasia.com.au or contact us: Email: FoodSafetyAU@neogen.com or call us on: 07 3736 2134

IN THIS ISSUE

9 Australian Food Safety Auditor Development Project update Australia tackling the challenge of food safety auditor availability

11 ARC food research roundup

A look at current Australian Research Council food research projects

15 What does a nutritionist do?

Insight into the world of a nutritionist in the food industry

16 Food Oral Processing: Understanding the journey of foods through the mouth to design better foods

20 Understanding the nutritional and antioxidant properties of an Australian native grain

The growing interest in developing native grain as sustainable alternatives for food and feed

24 Digital design to edible structures: 3D food printing reshapes food systems and human-food Interaction

28 Do consumers really ‘get’ food safety?

The attitudes and behaviours of consumers and food preparers in the home can have a major impact on food safety

31 From awareness to action: mitigating low whole grain intake in Australia Barriers and strategies to improve wholegrain consumption in Australia

36 Gauging Australian food security with sustainable food consumption

The status of food security in Australia and sustainable food consumption for the future

39 Precision fermentation: a future of food in Australia

An overview of precision fermentation’s potential to revolutionise future food systems and foods

41 Food safety risk assessment: part 1 - risk assessment primer

The first in a series of articles exploring the science (and art) of food safety risk assessment

43 Producing food through precision fermentation: the opportunity for Australia

A look at this transformative technology and its potential.

46 Cheese whey: a hidden opportunity to tackle Australia's food loss and waste problem

A ‘whey’ to improve the circularity of our food system

05 By the Numbers

Food Files

NEOGEN: made to do more in allergen testing.

Published by The Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Limited.

Editorial Coordination

Melinda Stewart | aifst@aifst.com.au

Contributors

Dr Ingrid Appelqvist, Dr Bhesh Bhandari, Mr Jacob Birch, Dr Rossella Caporizzi, Dr Andrew Costanzo, Dr Antonio Derossi, Dr Dan Dias, Jessica Freitag, Toni Gam, Jack Hetherington, Dr Pablo Juliano, Kathy LaMacchia, Dr Djin Gie Liem, Dr Adam J. Loch, Deon Mahoney, Dr Esteban Marcellin, Dr Ana Carolina Mosca, Dr Yada Nolvachai, Dr Martin Palmer, Sarah Pennell, Dr Dipon Sarkar, Dr Lijun Summerhayes, Dr Luke Williams.

Advertising Manager

Clive Russell | aifst@aifst.com.au

Subscriptions

AIFST | aifst@aifst.com.au

Production

Bite Communications

2025 Subscription Rates ($AU)

Australia $152.50 (incl. GST) Overseas (airmail) $236.50

Single Copies (Australia) $38.50 (incl. GST) Overseas $59.50.

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: Dr Michael Depalo

Deputy Chair: Dr Gregory Harper

Non-executive directors: Dr Angeline Achariya, Dr Anna Barlow, Mr Marc Barnes, Dr Heather Haines, Ms Melissa Packham.

AIFST National Office

PO Box 780

Cherrybrook NSW 2126

Tel: +61 447 066 324

Email: aifst@aifst.com.au Web: www.aifst.asn.au

Food for Thought

Welcome to the Summer edition of food australia, our first journal for 2025.

Food science is at the heart of what we do, we champion food science and food scientists.

As we begin a new year, we look to the future of food science which will be defined by our ability to innovate together to address some of the complex challenges facing the agrifood industry both in Australia and globally.

The food science and technology landscape is evolving rapidly and it is important that we keep up to date with changes and stay at the cutting edge of new developments.

At AIFST we focus on this through education and collaboration to support and grow food science knowledge and practices to develop sustainable food systems, essential for meeting Australia’s future food needs.

Continuous learning and adaptability are vital for food scientists and technologists to remain relevant in an industry that is evolving. Continuing professional development (CPD) is essential part of a food scientist and technologists ‘tool kit’, ensuring they stay informed on current advances, uphold food safety and quality, comply with evolving regulations, and drive innovation.

CPD also supports career progression and fosters adaptability in an ever-changing industry. Ultimately, it contributes to the advancement of the agrifood sector and the well-being of consumers.

My challenge to you for 2025, across the many disciplines of food science and technology in the food and agri-business sector is to make this a year to Learn, Grow and Lead with CPD.

AIFST is proud to offer an enriched calendar of CPD opportunities designed to keep food scientists and technologists at the forefront of innovation, safety standards, and sustainability practices. In 2025, and beyond, AIFST will continue to focus on providing a range of opportunities for our members and the food science community to grow, learn and connect.

Make a commitment to yourself, your colleagues, and teams to support and embrace learning - what will you do differently, how will you shape your role in CPD and drive meaningful change in 2025?

Fiona Fleming

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

Growing number of low-income households experiencing food insecurity

Words by Sarah Pennell

Low-income households are enduring the highest rates of food insecurity since the onset of the cost-of-living crisis, according to the Foodbank Hunger Report 2024 More than 870,000 (48%) of Australia’s low-income households, those earning less than $30,000 a year, experienced food insecurity in 2024, up 5% since 2022.

Now in its eleventh year, the 2024 Foodbank Hunger Report revealed the growing divide between those able to adapt to rising living costs and those left behind.

This divide was particularly evident in regional areas, with 37% of households experiencing food insecurity compared to 30% in metropolitan areas. Singleparent households were the hardest hit with over two-thirds (69%) facing food insecurity.

While there are clear pockets of hardship across the country, the hunger crisis remains widespread.

In 2024, 3.4 million households experienced food insecurity and of those, 59% experienced the most severe level, regularly skipping meals or going entire days without food.

Food relief charities such as Foodbank are continuing to experience heightened demand and more than half (53%) of food insecure households reported they are receiving food relief more often than they were a year ago.

This demand has been driven by the ongoing impacts of the cost-ofliving crisis, the increase in awareness of where to get help from and core support systems, such as family and friends, no longer being able to assist those struggling.

Sarah Pennell is Chief Operating Officer at Foodbank Australia.

Foodbank Hunger Report 2024: Key Findings

3.4 million households in Australia are experiencing food insecurity

870,000+ of Australia’s low-income households are experiencing food insecurity

37% of households in regional areas are experiencing food insecurity, compared to 30% in metropolitan areas

69% of single-parent households are facing food insecurity

59% of all food insecure households are experiencing the most severe level - regularly skipping meals or going entire days without food

53% of food insecure households reported they are receiving food relief more often than one year ago

Source: Foodbank Hunger Report 2024 https://reports.foodbank.org.au/foodbank-hunger-report-2024/

Edition seven of the ‘Green Book’ approaches!

Words by Julian Cox

In 1974, the first edition of Foodborne Microorganisms of Public Health Significance, was published. Whilst it is now affectionately known as ‘The Green Book’, the 1974 edition was brown. Subsequent editions were produced in 1976, 1979, 1989, 1997 and 2003, with the transition to the now-familiar green cover coming with the 3rd edition. Early editions provided basic information on a range of foodborne pathogens, as well as instructions for practical exercises in microbiological analysis, while later editions have evolved into a comprehensive reference text.

Fast forward 50 years from the original and some 20 years since the last published edition - the 6th in 2003, we are excited to share that we have a 7th edition gestating. The process commenced in late 2022. Early scoping found an enthusiasm for the book among the previous authors. This, combined with a similar enthusiasm among members of the food science and technology community for a new edition, saw the editorial process begin.

The book remains quintessentially Australian, with authorship still very largely drawn from our expert community (including Aussie expats). In addition, we secured an injection of international authorship to complete the book along with international reviewers, to ensure the chapters are of an international standard and are relevant to an

international readership.

In terms of content, the structure of the book is largely as it was for the 6th edition but all chapters are being comprehensively revised and updated - an important process, given the time elapsed between editions. Further, some chapters have been given a new lease on life. For example, the ‘Enteric Indicators’ chapter has been expanded to incorporate other indicators, as well as the addition of a section on surrogates for safety, such as in challenge testing or survival studies. Similarly, the ‘Microbiological Methods’ chapter is seeing a much-needed update on molecular methods, and revision to the range of methods, to reflect current practices.

The 7th edition also includes the essential addition of a chapter on Cronobacter and a chapter on organisms for which the ‘jury is still out’ on their role in causation of foodborne illness, including Aeromonas, as well as Group B streptococci , and Arcobacter Finally, there will be a chapter on the ecology and physiology of microorganisms in foods. Previous editions gave very little coverage to these topics, but they are foundational to understanding the fate of foodborne pathogens in foods.

Overall, the book will see an expansion of the foundational, general chapters, as well as the specific organisms, and with a wideranging coverage of the latter, the

The 7th edition of Green Book will be bigger and better than the 6th with 29 chapters, produced collectively by more than 60 authors.

book offers a global perspective. Given its scope, the book will be useful to a range of audiences, from university academics and students, respectively teaching and studying food microbiology, to those in industry needing a ready reference relevant to food safety.

The 7th edition of The Green Book will be bigger and better than the 6th with 29 chapters, produced collectively by more than 60 authors. It will be available primarily as an eBook, though for those who prefer the feel of paper, a print-on-demand option will be available.

As the very proud editor of Foodborne Microorganisms of Public Health Significance, 7th Edition, I trust that our community will celebrate its birth with me in 2025 and take it into their hearts and minds, and hands.

Julian Cox is Associate Professor in Food Microbiology at UNSW.

The Turmeric range from Futurals and Natracol are made from pure, natural Curcumin and are available in water soluble, liquid and powder form each with a high heat tolerance. These attractive shades are suited for almost any food application, so if you are looking for colors that promote a healthy appetite, give us a call.

Applications: Bakery, Confectioneries, Beverages, Prepared Foods, Dairy and Pharmaceuticals.

The 2nd edition of the Blue Book has landed!

Words by Gary Kennedy

The 2nd edition of the AIFST publication Cook Chill for Foodservice and Manufacturing: Guidelines for Safe Production, Storage and Distribution, commonly known as ‘the Blue Book’, has been released.

The 1st edition was published in 2008 and the 2nd edition has been updated to reflect changes to regulation and industry practices, with an acknowledgement that the book is used by a variety of readers with different informational requirements.

Since the release of the 1st edition, the Blue Book has found a home in many different areas of the food industry.

It is commonly used by food manufacturers to validate their manufacturing processes and to understand issues as they move into cook chill for the first time.

The food service industry uses the book to better understand issues in cook chill food, particularly microbiological issues related to Listeria monocytogenes and Clostridium botulinum

Food safety auditors and environmental health officers use the book for those reasons, as well as to learn more about the equipment used for cook chill, which differs markedly between food service and food manufacturing.

Food safety auditors use the Blue

Book as a reference tool. As such it has been expanded to better support high-risk food service environments, particularly those catering to vulnerable populations, such as hospitals and aged care facilities. This includes addressing issues such as hazards related to dysphagia diets and texture-modified foods.

The 2nd edition of the Blue Book has also been updated to cover changes to guidelines, including the CODEX HACCP updates in 2020 and 2023; the NSW and Victorian sous vide guidelines and the NSW Food Authority’s Guidelines for Vulnerable Persons

In recognition of its wide scope of use, there have also been changes to the copy and layout. Where relevant, more layman’s terms have been used, for instance replacing terms such as ‘thermal processing’ with ‘cooking’ where applicable. The layout has been simplified with fewer chapters and no appendices. All of the relevant information related to food safety, food quality and food processing methods, hazards and their controls are now stand-alone chapters.

The section on pathogens, which was previously in an appendix, has been moved to the main document so that the issues around Listeria monocytogenes and Clostridium botulinum are covered at the cooking step. This means a person with little microbial knowledge does not have to flip to an appendix and then back to the main text to find the information they need. Similarly, all of the information on how to cook and chill safely now sits within the microbial

section.

Several sections have also been expanded. The processing section has been expanded to give more explanation of the variety of processes used in cook chill.

There is more detail on equipment that can be used in food service for cook chill, such as combi-ovens, water baths and benchtop pressure cookers. It also covers equipment that might be used in manufacturing bulk cook chill, such as smokehouses and large stirring kettles.

Sous vide is addressed in detail in this edition, recognising that the term refers to very different process depending on the context. In fine dining food service, sous vide can involve cooking at temperatures as low as 550C – whereas in food manufacturing, it can involve temperatures as high as 1000C.

The new Blue Book is up-todate with industry best-practice information, is easier to navigate and to read for both food scientists and non-food scientists alike.

It is a must for the library of anyone involved in preparing, purchasing or inspecting cook chill food.

The 2nd edition of the Blue Book – also known as Cook Chill for Foodservice and Manufacturing: Guidelines for Safe Production, Storage and Distribution – is available from the AIFST website https://www. aifst.asn.au/AIFST-Store

Gary Kennedy is Managing Director at Correct Food Systems and is coeditor of the 2nd edition of the Blue Book.

Blue Book editors Gary Kennedy and Karen Ferres – old fashioned ‘cut and paste'.

Australian Food Safety Auditor Development Project update

To address the serious and growing challenge of availability and competency of food safety auditors across all food categories in Australia, AIFST launched the Australian Food Safety Auditor Development Project Intern Program (FSADP)in March 2024. This first-of-its-kind program sees Australia leading the way in tackling this worldwide challenge.

In March 2024, Erika Gomez Alfaro and Anna Lovett, became the first interns to join the Program. They will spend two years training and gaining practical experience with the support and guidance of AIFST, the managing Certification Bodies, industry partners and the NSW Food Authority.

Erika and Anna have completed their first placements with their managing Certification Bodies (CB)BSI and Intertek SAI Global as well as their first industry partner placement.

Erika spent six months with one of the largest Australian poultry producers, Baiada, at their processing production facility in Mt Kuring-Gai, NSW and Anna spent six months with international bakery company ARYZTA at their site in Liverpool, NSW.

Industry partners have shared the benefits to their organisations through involvement in the project.

The Baiada team found the internship experience both rewarding and challenging:

“The Program provided us with an opportunity to build Erika’s knowledge and challenge our own systems. Erika’s knowledge, insights and feedback based on her experience in other industries has been invaluable in assisting our team to develop better ways of working and generating ideas for improvement.” Suzanne Todd, Quality Systems and Regulatory Assurance Manager, Baiada.

The ARYZTA team welcomed the opportunity to host Anna:

“Being able to provide Anna

experience and exposure to ARYZTA and our bakery food products provided her with invaluable insights and depth into the world of food safety and quality at an industrialsized manufacturing facility. Through monthly follow-ups with Intertek and Anna, we stayed on track to ensure the objectives of the placement were met, whilst ARYZTA also gained a different perspective from an in-house audit trainee questioning the ‘why’ with our systems and processes. This targeted industry program, I believe, will provide future auditors an opportunity to gain a greater depth of knowledge of the product category for a safer food industry.” Alison Wright, Director FSQA APAC, ARYZTA.

Feedback from Erika and Anna has been very positive, with both acknowledging steep learning curves.

“The Program has not only given me invaluable exposure to key stakeholders in the industry, but I have been fortunate enough to receive bespoke mentorship from senior quality systems leaders. In addition, I have gathered crucial experience in current industry requirements like GFSI standards, supermarket codes and ethical sourcing guidelines. I am confident that my second industry placement will further broaden my industry insight and increase my enthusiasm to become a food safety auditor.” Erika Gomez Alfaro.

“During my time in the FSADP, I’ve

Anna Lovett (centre) with Jeff Camp, Deryck Ngo, Tiffennie Kau, Anna Lovett, Esther Malfara, Lisa Howarth, Matthew Adams, Nathan Chan and Alison Wright.

Amol Karambelkar, Swashna Bhan, Steve Dunn, Sarah Crisp, Anna Lovett, Raha Moossavi Jazari, Erika Gomez Alfaro, Laura Rankin, Craig Shadbolt.

For accuracy and professionalism

jars

tubes

measuring vessels

plates and dishes

spoons

crushers

2. CHEMISTRY • Containers

blender bags

stirrers,

spatulas and scoops

blenders

shakers

centrifuges

balances

homogenisers

hot plates

digesters

extractors. • Wet chemistry

water baths

chromatography

filtration and electrochemistry

buffers

acids

solvents • volumetric solutions standards • indicators

• allergens • quantitative and qualitative analysis

• general microbiology

• pathogenic organism analysis.

3. MICROBIOLOGY

• Dehydrated media / pre-poured plates • enzymatic kits • colony counters • microscopes

• spectrophotometers • Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) tests.

transformed from a curious newcomer to confidently leading audits. With the guidance of mentors and industry partners, I’ve grown both professionally and personally. It’s been an incredibly rewarding journey, and I’m excited to continue contributing to the industry with a deeper understanding and commitment to food safety.” Anna Lovett.

The managing Certification Bodies - BSI and Intertek SAI Global have also found the program to be a positive experience:

“BSI is delighted to be one of two certification body partners alongside AIFST, leaders of industry, key stakeholders and incumbent food safety auditors, to execute this innovative and impactful program. Our shared goal to create a positive and vibrant future for the certification industry by developing new food safety auditors is being realised. All contributors are demonstrating the power of collaboration to ensure the effectiveness of food safety and quality within the food supply chain.” Swashna Bhan, BSI.

“SAI Intertek are thrilled to be involved in this initiative, as an integral cog within this Program. Working towards a common goal with AIFST, BSI and industry partners, to develop a fast-track food safety auditor program to backfill the aging population of food safety auditors. Having the ability to model a new wave of food safety auditors, utilising our experienced team, to deliver a seamless client-based food safety audit experience.” Steve Dunn, SAI Intertek.

After a short return to their host CBs, Erika and Anna moved into their second industry placements with Chef Fresh and GSF Fresh Australia in late 2024.

As the Program progresses, AIFST will continue to engage with industry partners and stakeholders at a variety of levels to refine and expand its impact If you are interested in learning more or watching project progress, please visit the AIFST website https://www.aifst.asn.au/Australian-Food-SafetyAuditor-Development-Project f

Laura Rankin (Group Human Resources Manager), Erika Gomez Alfaro, Ron Waterhouse (Site Production Manager - Steggles Food Mount Kuring-gai).

ARC food research roundup

Words by Dr Martin Palmer

Over the last year, the total funding granted by the Australian Research Council for university-based food research exceeded $26m. These initiatives cover a broad range of topics, including food production, food processing, food science, food safety, nutrition and food security. They include the following new projects:

Industrial Transformation Research Hubs

ARC Research Hub for Protected Cropping

IH240100024 – Led by Professor Tony Bacic, La Trobe University with The Florey Institute and seven industry partners.

This project aims to transform the production of high-quality horticultural and medicinal crops into an integrated, national industry that spans primary producers and manufacturers. This multidisciplinary Hub will address knowledge gaps in the protected cropping sector, including plant health and breeding, waste valorisation, digital technologies, novel extraction technologies and chemistries, through to the discovery and functional characterisation of bioactives. The resulting knowledge will be applicable across related industries and will build the specialised workforce needed to underpin the sector in Australia.

ARC Research Hub for Intelligent Energy Efficiency in Future

Protected Cropping

IH240100009 - Led by Professor Tianyi Ma, RMIT University with CSIRO and 11 industry partners. This project aims to pioneer solutions in renewable energy, plant quality enhancement, intelligent greenhouse monitoring, and analysis to drive forward the vast potential of protected cropping. Expected outcomes include advanced energy technologies for greenhouses, enabling them to be self-sustained, affordable, and powered by renewable energy, and new automated decisionmaking techniques for farmers. This should provide significant benefits in agriculture including increased efficiency and environmental sustainability, jobs, optimised resource use, and improved crop yields and food security.

Industry co-funded Linkage Projects and Fellowships

Accelerating pulse breeding using machine learning

LP230100351 – Professor David Edwards et al., University of Western Australia with Intergrain.

Pulse legumes are currently underutilised in Australian agriculture due to poor adaptation, yet they offer significant benefits both for soil improvement and the production of high-protein crops. This project will

develop machine learning tools for the analysis of pulse legume crop traits and their association with genomic variation to accelerate the breeding of high-performance pulse legumes for Australian growers.

Engineering hybrid materials with functional bioactivity in the GI tract

LP230100345 – Professor Clive Prestidge et al., University of South Australia with Pharmako Biotechnologies.

This project aims to use an advanced particle engineering approach to develop novel biomaterials with multifunctional activities in the gastrointestinal tract. It expects to generate new fundamental knowledge of the key interfacial processes that control digestion, and identify new pathways for modulating gut microbiome composition. By establishing structure-activity relationships through mechanistic in vitro and in vivo models, the knowledge gained will help guide material design for optimised bioactivity. Industrial development of the lead formulation is anticipated to create new commercial opportunities for the nutraceutical sector.

Portable biosensor for rapid detection of viral contamination in food

LP230100108 – Professor Fariba Dehghani et al., University of Sydney with HA Tech.

The objective of this project is to create a miniaturised and costeffective electrochemical biosensor device that can simultaneously detect multiple pathogens, even at very low levels of concentration. This will be crucial for rapid detection of pathogen contamination in food and water and particularly beneficial in response to an outbreak or natural disaster. The successful development of this versatile cost-effective sensor will also benefit other industries where the detection of life-threatening pathogens is pivotal to prevent risk for consumers, such as pharmaceuticals, medical device manufacturing, and farming.

Biorefining of brewer's spent grain into novel dietary fibres

LP230201082 - Associate Professor Zhanying Zhang et al., Queensland University of Technology with Grainstone and Allozymes. This project aims to produce novel dietary fibres from a food industry waste – brewer’s spent grain – using low-cost, green alcohol solvents and novel enzymes. The expected outcomes also include new understanding of propertyfunctionality relationships of dietary fibres, as well as improved process sustainability and economics through the use of innovative biorefinery technologies. These technologies are also applicable to other grains and grain processing by-products, such as wheat bran, potentially accelerating the development of a new nutraceutical manufacturing industry in Australia.

Development of rapid-drying barley for sustainable malting

LP230201055 – Professor Matthew Tucker et al., University of Adelaide with Coopers Brewery and Australian Grain Technologies. Traditional malting processes that germinate and dry barley grain are resource-intensive and challenged by rising energy costs. This project aims to identify natural genetic variation in barley that contributes to improved performance during gas-powered kilning, the costliest processing step

for this industry. This multidisciplinary approach is expected to generate new information regarding the basis for variation in grain drying. It is expected to deliver reduced-input barley varieties that require less energy to process and are highly valued in domestic and export markets.

Advanced data analytics for costeffective mushroom cultivation

LP230200821 - Dr Wei Zhang et al., University of Adelaide with Clever Mushrooms, Pixelforce Systems and Hokken.

This project aims to develop innovative models and algorithms to monitor and understand the automated greenhouse mushroom cultivation environment, with multimodal multi-structured data. It will explore the interplays among these different data modalities and structures to provide practical data analysis approaches, establish the theoretical foundations, and generate new knowledge for precision agriculture, for application in mushroom cultivation and other horticultural systems.

Portable biosensor for food safety and quality monitoring

IE240100006 - Dr Syamak Farajikhah, University of Sydney, with HA Tech Pty Ltd. Concurrently with Linkage Project LP230100108 (see above).

The objective of this Fellowship project is to develop a portable electrochemical biosensor device for simultaneous detection of multiple pathogens in food and water samples, with potential broader application to other industries.

Precision nutrition through controlling the gut-particle biointerface

IL240100045 - Professor Benjamin Boyd, Monash University with Fonterra Australia and ANSTO. This Fellowship project aims to enable more rational design of efficient food systems through understanding the complex interactions that occur between the surface of food particles and

our gut. It expects to generate new knowledge on how biomolecules in the gut interact with particles, using novel techniques to study the gastrointestinal processing of food. Expected outcomes include new frameworks for the design of more efficient foods tailored to specific populations, enabling a ‘precision nutrition’ approach and connecting industry with advanced techniques. Potential benefits include efficiency of the delivery of nutrition, food utilisation, and new product concepts for the industry.

Unlocking the potential for winemaking applications of membrane filtration

IM240100133 - Professor Kerry Wilkinson, University of Adelaide with VAF Memstar; AWRI and Hill-Smith Family Estates.

This Fellowship project aims to develop new methods that ‘finish’ wine rapidly, with higher recovery rates, and reduced waste and input costs. The project is based on the accelerated application and adoption of membrane filtration technology as an innovative alternative to unsustainable, traditional winemaking practices.

Discovery Projects

Engineering functional antimicrobial polypeptide surfaces

DP240102343 – Professors Frank Caruso and Greg Qiao, University of Melbourne.

Structurally nanoengineered antimicrobial peptide polymers (SNAPPs) were recently developed to fight multidrug-resistant bacteria. This project aims to expand their application into antimicrobial coatings across a range of surfaces using a simple and universal coating strategy. By developing phenolicfunctionalised SNAPPs, this project aims to exploit the adhesive nature of metal–phenolic materials to rapidly coat diverse surfaces, including stainless steel and textiles. The expected outcome is the generation of antimicrobial polypeptide surfaces, which will have benefits in food safety, medical implant technology

and advanced textiles.

Political conflict, inefficient markets and food crises

DP240101563 - Associate Professor David Ubilava et al., University of Sydney.

The project aims to investigate the effect of political conflict on food markets in low- and middleincome countries across Africa and Southeast Asia by utilising granular data on ethnopolitical conflict, prices, and institutions. New knowledge will be generated in the area of conflict studies using an innovative approach that allows eliciting disruptive effects of conflict by examining price relationships in spatially and temporally connected food and agricultural markets. Expected outcomes include improved techniques to examine market inefficiencies in the wake of political conflict, providing benefits such as an early warning platform for potential food crises in times of conflict.

Collaborative food security solutions among migrant populations

DE250101419 - Dr Christina Zorbas, Deakin University.

This project aims to identify policy priorities to combat food insecurity amongst Australia’s migrant and refugee communities in the current cost-of-living crisis. Collaborating with researchers, governments and local communities, the project will generate new data, community engagement, and policy implementation tools on food insecurity. Expected outcomes include new routine monitoring of food insecurity among these communities, as well as new strategies to instil community perspectives into food insecurity policy decisions.

Defining the links between climate change, marine disease and food security

DP240100370 - Professor Justin Seymour et al., University of Technology, Sydney. Aims to deliver critical new

knowledge on the causes of marine pathogen outbreaks that threaten Australia’s aquaculture industry. Several members of the same genus of bacteria have been implicated in recent mass mortality events in aquaculture species, as well as human illness in consumers of seafood, yet the triggers for unprecedented outbreaks of these pathogens are unknown. By coupling a suite of sophisticated molecular biological tools and physiological measurements, this research will resolve the role of environmental disturbances including marine heat waves, floods and plastic pollution in stimulating marine pathogen outbreaks, thereby informing efforts to safeguard Australia’s food security and food safety.

Planet chicken: chemical entanglements in Asia's poultry boom

DP240100187 - Professor Sango Mahanty et al., Australian National University. This project aims to study the effects of Asia’s rapidly expanding chicken meat industry on environmental degradation, social inequality, public health and animal welfare. Agricultural chemicals and veterinary drugs saturate this industry, with little regulation or data on types, quantities and applications. Deploying interdisciplinary methods at key nodes of the chicken value chain in India, Thailand and Vietnam, this study will examine practices and market structures that shape chemical use, investigate chemical presence and socio-ecological impacts, and finally propose interventions for more effective governance of factory farming in Asia.

Responding to the harms of ultraprocessed foods in Australia

DE250101396 - Dr Priscila Pereira Machado, Deakin University. This project aims to develop strategies to increase public awareness of the harms of ultraprocessed foods in Australia.

These foods make up nearly half of Australia's diet, with the highest intakes among the youth and the most disadvantaged. However, many consumers remain unaware of their detrimental effects. This project will develop a framework to guide stakeholders in tailoring messages to reduce ultra-processed food consumption and create a novel warning label for ultra-processed food packaging to help consumers identify these foods. These outcomes will help to inform strategies and policies aimed at reducing societal harms linked with ultra-processed food consumption.

Shifting foodways: biomolecular archaeology and oral traditions in Vanuatu DE250100767 - Dr Mathieu Leclerc, Australian National University. Food is a key way of understanding connections between past and present communities. This project aims to investigate how ancestral culinary practices in the Oceanic region have evolved over time using residues preserved in pottery. Collaborating with communities in Vanuatu, it expects to generate new knowledge of how populations have adapted their diet and developed sustainable food practices whilst navigating environmental and cultural changes. Expected outcomes include a model for integrating traditional knowledge into contemporary development and food security strategies, leading to increased community resilience and better preparedness for future food and climate vulnerabilities.

Note: The descriptions of each of the projects have been condensed from the official summaries available on the ARC website, https://www. arc.gov.au. For more detailed information, readers are encouraged to contact the project leaders directly.

Dr Martin Palmer is a Principal Fellow in the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Melbourne. f

What does a nutritionist do?

Words by Kathy LaMacchia

When considering a career in the food industry and the opportunity to make delicious foods for Australians every day, certain roles may come to mind: product developer, chef, researcher, sensory expert, quality controller, process engineer, packaging expert and marketer. Less often do people think of a nutritionist, despite the important role we play in shaping the food we eat.

As dietitians and nutritionists, we receive comprehensive training in clinical settings such as hospitals and private practice to help patients improve their health through better dietary choices. While this work is essential, there are numerous avenues through which nutritionists can influence eating habits, particularly through collaboration with the food industry. This rapidly evolving field offers exciting opportunities to promote health on a larger scale.

Today, dietitians and nutritionists are essential partners within the food sector. With the global population estimated to reach 9.8 billion by 20501,2 and environmental pressures growing, a nutritionist's role in guiding food companies to create healthier products for both people and the planet has never been more crucial.

A nutritionist's involvement in a food company typically spans the entire stage-and-gate process, from ideation to product marketing. The skills required are a unique blend of creativity, technical knowledge, and strategic thinking. While they vary at each stage, they are all important for successful product development.

Skills for nutritionists in food companies

Ideation

In this phase, nutritionists leverage big-picture thinking, a strong knowledge of food and nutrition trends, and global perspectives to

envision the future of food and help identify opportunities to shape a company’s future product pipeline.

Innovative product development

During this stage, nutritionists utilise trends and insights to explore nutrients and ingredients that can be used in new products. They ensure that the base formulation meets nutritional targets for key nutrients of concern.

Renovation product development

Here, a nutritionist focuses on improving a product’s nutritional profile. This often includes reducing nutrients or ingredients of concern, such as sugar, sodium, colours and preservatives.

Claims

A nutritionist must clearly understand the regulatory framework to support the development and substantiation of product health claims. Since nutrition and regulations are closely associated, people with nutrition degrees often hold regulatory roles.

Recipe development

Products are rarely consumed in isolation; they are often part of a meal. The culinary experience of food is essential, which is why nutritionists frequently collaborate with chefs to create delicious and healthy recipes featuring their products.

Communications

Whether on product labels and websites, or through social and mainstream media communicating a product's nutritional attributes is key to promoting their health benefits to consumers. Nutritionists in food companies are often involved in writing and approving copy, and acting as a spokesperson for a product or campaign.

The diversity of the role of a nutritionist today is demonstrated in the variety of nutrition and dietetic degrees on offer at universities. From scientific and clinical studies to culinary nutrition and product development, there is a role for any aspiring nutritionist passionate about enhancing the food supply.

References

1. UN, (2019). World Population Prospects 2017 Revision, FAOSTAT Land Use & Annual Population https://population.un.org/wpp/ publications/files/wpp2017_keyfindings.pdf

2. Keating, BA. et al (2014) Food wedges: Framing the global food demand and supply challenge towards 2050, Global Food Security, Volume 3, Issues 3–4, November 2014, Pages 125-132

Kathy LaMachia is General Manager at the Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council. f

Food Oral Processing: Understanding the Journey of Foods Through the Mouth to Design Better Foods

Words by Dr Ana Carolina Mosca and Dr Ingrid Appelqvist

What is food oral processing?

We learn to eat with our mouths closed because it is considered impolite to show food being chewed. Despite this, scientists working in the field of food oral processing research are interested in analysing what happens inside our mouths while we eat so as to develop better

approaches to food design and consumer understanding.

During biting and chewing, the forces applied by our teeth and tongue fracture foods into small particles under continuous mixing with saliva until we can safely swallow. This sequence of events, from first bite to swallowing, is known as food oral processing and

has a direct impact on the way we perceive and appreciate foods (Figure 1).1

Because we all have unique mouth characteristics (eg. different mouth anatomy, saliva composition, number of taste buds, etc.), our eating experience of the same food can vary significantly. Thus, research scientists and the food industry

aim to understand how different people interact with various foods during oral processing and use this knowledge to design innovative, tasty, and nutritious foods that meet our needs and expectations.

How do we sense foods?

We have access to a wide variety of foods, ranging from solids to liquids and from single-ingredient items to complex combinations. With advances in product development, food processing and preservation, safe, convenient, nutritious and enjoyable foods are readily available in the market.

As one might expect, different foods require different oral behaviours to break down the food structure during oral processing. Solid foods such as biscuits, nuts, meat pieces and apples require more chewing force and number of chews to deform, fracture and reduce the food particle size before swallowing, whereas liquids like juice, soup and yoghurt can be quickly swallowed. Other foods such as chocolate and ice cream do not need to be chewed as they can melt in the mouth. While the initial characteristics of the food, for instance the hardness of an apple or the viscosity (thickness) of yoghurt, contribute to our overall perception, most of the sensations

elicited during eating come from the changes in food while it is being broken down and transformed into a bolus.2

Another critical component for how we sense food is saliva. Saliva contains many compounds including enzymes (eg. amylase and lipase), proteins, mucins, electrolytes and antibacterial compounds that contribute to important oral functions such as protecting the mouth surfaces, increasing lubrication and diluting food during eating. For starch-rich foods such as bread and pasta, the digestion process starts in the mouth by the action of salivary amylase combined with the mechanical reduction of particle size during chewing.3 It is, therefore, correct to say that what we perceive of our food (taste, texture, flavour) can be quite different from the foods we had initially on our plates.

To get an in-depth understanding of what happens to foods during oral processing, one approach is to analyse the expectorated (spat out) food bolus as a function of the number of chews. It might not sound very appealing to investigate what somebody else has chewed, but information including the size of food particles and the amount of saliva incorporated into the food bolus,

tells scientists important information about sensory perception, which can be used to identify strategies to design or modify foods that maximise pleasure during eating.

Variations in food oral processing behaviour

The way we interact with foods in our mouth depends greatly on our biting force, facial muscle activity during chewing, chewing behaviour, tongue pressure and saliva properties.1,4 All these parameters vary with age, gender and ethnicity,5 highlighting that even if we eat the same food, our eating experience can be very different. With ageing, for example, the functional decline in muscle structure, dentition, bone structure and soft tissue and the decrease in saliva production and ability to swallow can change completely our capacity to handle foods and reduce our eating performance.6,7 This in turn will affect our food choice, appetite and desire to eat as we get older. Therefore, with an ageing population in Australia, it is important to understand how changes in oral processing behaviour in the elderly can be compensated for by the design of appropriate foods to increase nutrition and improve sensory attributes (including safe swallowing) to increase food

Figure 1. Schematic drawing representing the impact of food oral processing on our responses to foods, such as liking/ disliking, food intake and food choice.

consumption and avoid malnutrition, especially in aged care and hospital facilities.

Eating speed also differs from one individual to another and it has been shown that slow eaters chew longer and break the food into smaller particles, while fast eaters chew less and swallow large food particles.8 Because of these differences in chewing behaviour, sensory perception varies between slow and fast eaters. So, when you eat your next meal try to pay attention to determine if you are a slow or fast eater.

Food oral processing also impacts the fullness sensations (satiation) we get from a meal. It is well known that foods consumed in smaller bites, prolonged chewing and slower eating rate are considered more satiating.9 This means that if we chew more and eat more slowly, we end up eating less! The food industry, nutrition bodies and government could play a big role in reducing overeating by understanding oral processing behaviour to improve the satiating capacity of foods, which will in turn benefit consumers who want to control their body weight.

How to use food oral processing research?

Different methodologies can be used to characterise oral processing behaviour such as recording the chewing/biting force, measuring facial muscle activity or jaw movements during chewing. Recording people eating with a video camera is the most common and least invasive technique used to analyse how people eat. Videos are subsequently analysed to extract information such as the number of bites, chews, and swallows, as well

Our specialist team are experts in the critical protection of your business’s most valuable asset - your intellectual property.

Our vast experience will guide you through the complexities of brand and trade mark protection to safeguard your competitive advantage.

Call Len Hickey for an obligation free discussion.

LEN HICKEY

Principal Solicitor - Intellectual Property

T: +61 3 9663 9877 | E: lhickey@khq.com.au www.khq.com.au ARE YOU PROTECTED?

Figure 2. Chewing simulation by the virtual mouth model developed by CSIRO scientists.

as chewing time and total eating duration.

Data obtained from in vivo studies are used to develop models to simulate different eating conditions. One example is the virtual mouth model developed by CSIRO scientists (Figure 2). This model helps to predict the breakdown of foods, taking into consideration the dynamic interactions between the food and the oral cavity.10 We are currently exploring the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to facilitate our understanding of human-food interactions. As an example, AI can identify the movements of the face related to chewing and automatically count the number of chews. It might also have the potential to analyse emotional clues from facial expressions during eating. Such models and AI tools can accelerate the collection and analysis of eating behaviour data. By adopting these techniques, the food industry will better characterise and understand the sensory performance of products, thereby reducing time and costs in research and development. Aligned with the abovementioned eating challenges resulting from ageing, eating behaviour data can, for example, be applied to the design of more tailored food textures for the elderly consumer segment. So, on that note, please keep eating with your mouth closed, and be aware that whatever changes that happens to your food while you chew, it is very important for your nutrition and pleasure.

References

1. Chen, J. (2009). Food oral processingA review. Food Hydrocolloids, 23, 1-25.

2. Devezeaux de Lavergne, M., van de Velde, F., & Stieger, M. (2017). Bolus matters: the influence of food oral breakdown on dynamic texture perception. Food & Function, 8, 464-480.

3. Hoebler, C., Karinthi, A., Devaux, M.F., Guillon, F., Gallant, D.J., Bouchet, B., Melegari, C., & Barry, J.L. (1998). Physical and chemical transformations of cereal food during oral digestion in human subjects. British Journal of Nutrition, 80, 429-36.

4. Ketel, E.C., de Wijk, R.A., de Graaf, C., & Stieger. M. (2020). Relating oral physiology and anatomy of consumers varying in age, gender and ethnicity to food oral processing behaviour. Physiology & Behaviour, 215, 112766.

5. Ketel, E.C., Aguayo-Mendoza, M.G., de Wijk, R.A., de Graaf, C., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Stieger, M. (2019). Age, gender, ethnicity and eating capability influence oral processing behaviour of liquid, semi-solid and solid foods differently. Food Research International, 119, 143-151.

6. Kohyama, K., Mioche, L. and Martin, J. F. (2002). Chewing patterns of various texture foods studied by electromyography in young and elderly populations. Journal of Texture Studies, 33, 269-283.

7. Vandenberghe-Descamps, M., Laboure, H., Prot, A., Septier, C., Tournier, C., Feron, G., & Sulmont-Rosse, C. (2016). Salivary flow decreases in healthy elderly people independently of dental status and drug intake. Journal of Texture Studies, 47, 353-360.

individuals in dynamic texture perception of sausages. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 189200.

9. Forde, C.G., van Kuijk, N., Thaler, T., de Graaf, C., & Martin, N. (2013). Oral processing characteristics of solid savoury meal components, and relationship with food composition, sensory attributes and expected satiation. Appetite, 60, 208-219.

10. Harrison, S.M., Cleary, P.W., Eyres, G., Sinnott, M.S., & Lundin, L. (2014). Challenges in computational modelling of food breakdown and flavour release. Food & Function, 5, 2792.

Dr Ana Carolina Mosca is a Research Scientist in Sensory and Consumer Science and Dr Ingrid Appelqvist is a Senior Principal Research Scientist and Food Innovation Centre Lead. Both work at CSIRO Agriculture and Food. f

R+K_AD_2024_118x162 Food_Australia.qxp_Layout 1 29.04.24 07:43 Seite 3

8. Devezeaux de Lavergne, M., Derks, J.A.M., Ketel, E.C., de Wijk, R.A., & Stieger, M. (2015). Eating behaviour explains differences between

New product ideas need new colours. Mix and match the winning colour for your next product from the ERKA palette on our website.

Our distributor in Australia

Understanding the nutritional and antioxidant properties of an Australian native grain

Words by Dr Luke Williams and Mr Jacob Birch

Grains, the edible seeds from grasses, form an integral part of humanity’s diet. Indeed, it may have been the increased consumption of carbohydrate-rich foods, like grains, that aided early hominid brain evolution.1,2 In Australia, Indigenous peoples have been using grains harvested from native grass species as a source of food for tens of thousands of years.3,4 This long history of use has been supported by the discovery of milling stones that contain starch residue from various seeds at Cuddie Springs in northern New South Wales, Australia, that date back 30,000 years.5 The extensive Indigenous use of native grains in Australia was also noted by early European explorers who reported on seemingly endless fields of harvested grass where the seed was being collected to be further processed for consumption.6,7

There are an estimated 1,100 perennial wild grass species in Australia and it has been reported that 42 of these grass species have previously been used as a source of food.8 While there is evidence of longterm use of many of these grasses within various Aboriginal communities of Australia, native Australian grasses have not yet been domesticated and

widely incorporated into modern diets.8 The impact of colonisation within Australia has displaced Indigenous peoples from their lands and food systems9 and native grain production has been replaced with broad acre cropping and pastoralism of predominantly imported plant and animal species.

However, more recently, there has been growing interest in developing native grain species from research groups that are looking for sustainable grain alternatives for food and feed.4,8,10-12 Interest has also come from the multinational agrichemical, pharmaceutical and biotechnology company, Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, and is now establishing a research collaboration with a prominent Australian university to begin selecting and breeding wild populations of native Australian grass varieties that can be found on Gamilaraay lands.13

As the interest in Australian native grain varieties grows, various Aboriginal groups of Australia are looking to be leaders in the development of the native grain varieties they have used for centuries. Considering that native grains grow in every bioregion within Australia, there is a great opportunity for a successful

Indigenous-led native grains industry to create economic opportunities and improve food security for Aboriginal communities, particularly those in regional, rural and remote Australia.11

An Indigenous-led grains industry would contribute to greater involvement of Aboriginal Peoples within the broader Australian native foods industry, which currently has extremely low representation (1-2%) of Indigenous business ownership.14 Unlike agri-food corporations, these Aboriginal-led grain programs are typically formed as social cooperatives that seek to benefit the whole community while also continuing cultural and traditional practices largely based on sustainable farming practices,15 and readily meet multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.16

Ethical research

The primary aim of our research was to facilitate the development of a native grain variety for modern consumption. Historically, Indigenous Peoples have rarely benefited from or participated in commercial endeavours that originate from their traditional knowledge and resources.15 To ensure that our research practices were not extractive and that we

Example of a complete grindstone with a top stone, western New South Wales Image: Abram Powell. © Australian Museum

empowered the communities we were working with, we worked closely with the Indigenous custodians of the grain we were researching.

A collaborative partnership was established with representatives of the independent Gamilaraay Peoples Food Sovereignty Working Group (GPFSWG). The Gamilaraay people are custodians of the lands where the grain we wanted to research are grown and they are intangibly tied, culturally and spiritually, to the grain. The Gamilaraay people are one of the most active Indigenous nations in Australia, working to revitalise their native grain foodways. Working with an independent collective of Gamilaraay people ensured the project followed best practice research principles by empowering them to be in control of research that involves them and their culture.17 This also ensured our research enabled their right to self-determination18 and upheld the rights as stated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.19

The GPFSWG see native grains as an opportunity to shift health outcomes in their community by re-introducing this food back into people’s diets.

This was achieved by providing GPFSWG with a greater understanding of the nutritional and functional properties attributed to their native grain, so that informed decisions could be made, and potential commercial applications explored. All intellectual property generated or discovered throughout the project was signed over to GPFSWG, and the project took direction from them on how the research would be disseminated.

As a result, under the guidance of GPFSWG, we have chosen to not identify the grain in our published material so that the Gamilaraay Peoples can have the opportunity to achieve their aspirations of leading the development of their culturally important species upon their homelands. This decision has impacted publication opportunities but is a vital small step in preventing

Figure 1: Summary plot highlighting nutritional and functional properties of native grain and wheat. (Data are summarised as a percentage relative to maximum levels or responses. Full data sets are shown in Williams, L.B., et al.20).

the continued exploitation of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge, particularly that of native foods and botanicals.

Nutritional and functional assessment

For the project, threshed and dried Gamilaraay native grain was directly compared to whole wheat grain (Triticum aestivum) in a range of nutritional and functional assays to better understand how the native grain would compare to a commonly consumed comparator. This would provide the GPFSWG with an understanding as to what health impacts this grain might have, whether the selected native grain was going to be commercially viable, and highlight marketable attributes that could be used to promote the use of the native grain.

As summarised in Figure 1 and

detailed in the published manuscript,20 when compared to whole wheat the native grain species contained two-fold greater protein and total fats, and higher levels of essential minerals and trace elements, including eight-fold greater iron levels and >2.5-fold greater calcium, magnesium, zinc, copper and manganese levels. Functionally, the native grain contained 2.4-fold greater polyphenol content and displayed greater antioxidant potential in vitro in exposed human monocyte cultures. Importantly, the native grain was not only shown to be high in key nutrients but was also very low in gluten, and therefore, could be suitable for glutenfree or low-gluten products, which can be nutrient-poor. The nutritional data generated in the study was derived from testing done in an accredited food analysis laboratory, which means it can be used to satisfy food labelling

Harvesting native grasses. (Supplied by Black Duck Foods)

requirements and substantiate any nutritional claims, further facilitating market access for the Traditional Custodians who wish to develop the selected native grain.

Future application

The findings of this research promote the selected Australian native grain species as a viable food crop and a healthy dietary addition. There is an opportunity for the GPFSWG to capitalise on the nutritional and functional quality of the grain and, while production is in its infancy, aim for fortification of grain-based products rather than replacement (Figure 2). Taking this value-added approach requires less grain product and will mean the group can begin raising capital, which can then be used to expand the venture. Aside from fortification, there may also be opportunities for collaboration with food manufacturers or with bakers and chefs who are looking to work with a niche grain product.

Working in collaboration with the Gamilaraay Peoples Food Sovereignty Working Group, the next step at the Centre for Nutrition and Food Sciences (CNAFS), QAAFI (based at the University of Queensland), is to further explore the potential functional properties of the grain. This will include in vitro digestion and bioaccessibility studies to gain a greater understanding of the bioavailability of the nutritional and functional

properties.

Following this, the physicochemical attributes of the grain can be examined to understand its application in the development of grain-based products. If there is a desire for product development, then product development and sensory studies can be undertaken to ensure its suitability for consumer preferences.

Additional nutrition analysis

As wheat is also a major contributor to global dietary fibre and starch, further studies to examine the fibre and starch content of the native grain are warranted. While the total phenolic content was determined in this study, the complete profiling and quantification of the phytochemical profile of the native grain would provide valuable insight into the grain’s properties, including greater insight into the potential antioxidant activity and other health attributes.

In addition, it is well known that the nutritional composition of plant foods changes, based on the season and location of harvest. Therefore, follow-up studies to examine the impact of various growing conditions, and management practices, are recommended.

Indigenous leadership

Indigenous self-determination is a globally recognised right of Indigenous peoples. Australia continues to struggle with this

concept, particularly when it comes to scientific research on native foods and botanicals, which can be tokenistic in its engagement, outright exploitative or even exclusionary of Indigenous Peoples.

The development of an emerging native grain industry is being led by Gamilaraay people alongside Indigenous researchers to demonstrate a new paradigm. This research is not important because of the academic outputs that show that the native grain is nutritionally dense, safe for human consumption, and complemented by exceptionally low gluten content; it is important because of the precedent it sets and the potential social impact this creates.

The main author chose to sign over the intellectual property to the Gamilaraay Peoples and gave them oversight and final decision-making power over what could and couldn’t be published. The result was the author de-identifying the species analysed to protect the interests of the Traditional Custodians and prevent the exploitation of their knowledge. However, the benefit for the researcher is a stronger, deeper relationship with Indigenous partners and ongoing opportunities for collaboration and career development.

This decision should give those working and researching in the native foods and botanicals industry pause to reflect. Who is benefitting from your work? Who is leading and

Figure 2: Pasta and sourdough products made with a blend of native grain and white wheat flour at a 1:5 ratio.

(Images supplied by Jacob Birch).

directing the work? What are your social responsibilities and are you engaging with Indigenous Peoples in an authentic and meaningful way?

References

1. Fellows Yates, J.A., et al.,( 2021). The evolution and changing ecology of the African hominid oral microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 118(20).

2. Hardy, K., et al., (2015).The Importance of Dietary Carbohydrate in Human Evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 90(3): p. 251-268.

3. Allen, H., (1974). The Bagundji of the Darling Basin: Cereal Gatherers in an Uncertain Environment. World Archaeology, 5(3): p. 309322.

4. Birch, J., et al., (2023). The nutritional composition of Australian native grains used by First Nations people and their re-emergence for human health and sustainable food systems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7.

5. Field, J. and R. Fullagar, (1997). Pleistocene seed-grinding implements from the Australian arid zone. Antiquity, 71(272): p. 300-307.

6. Mitchell, T.L., (1848). Journal of an expedition into the interior of tropical Australia, in search of a route from Sydney to the Gulf of Carpentaria. London, UK: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans.

7. Sturt, C., (2021). Narrative of an expedition into Central Australia, in Nineteenth-Century Travels, Explorations and Empires, Part II vol 6, Routledge. p. 123-162.

8. Drake, A., C. Keitel, and A. Pattison, (2021). The use of Australian native grains as a food:

a review of research in a global grains context. The Rangeland Journal, 43(4): p. 223-233.

9. Williams, L.B., M. Jones, and P.F.A. Wright, (2023). Decolonising food regulatory frameworks: importance of recognising traditional culture when assessing dietary safety of traditional foods. Proc. Nutr. Soc.,p. 1-14.

10. Jenifer, J., et al., (2023).Panicum decompositum, an Australian Native Grass, Has Strong Potential as a Novel Grain in the Modern Food Market. Foods, 12(10): p. 2048.

11. Lopes, C.V.A., et al., (2023). Aboriginal Food Practices and Australian Native Plant-Based Foods: A Step toward Sustainable Food Systems. Sustainability, 15(15): p. 11569.

12. Bell, T.L., et al., (2022). Native grasses as a traditional and emerging source of food. Australasian Plant Conservation: Journal of the Australian Network for Plant Conservation, 31(2): p. 3-6.

13. Bayer. (2023). Bayer grant to explore the potential of native grains. [7/8/23]; Available from: https://www.bayer.co.nz/en/bayer-grantto-explore-the-potential-of-native-grains

14. ILSC. (2022 ). Discussion paper: Bushfoods. [19/12/23]; Available from: https://www. ilsc.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ Bushfood-Discussion-Paper.pdf

15. Antonelli, A.,(2023). Indigenous knowledge is key to sustainable food systems. Nature 613(7943): p. 239-242.

16. UN General Assembly, (2022). The Sustainable Development Goals: Report 2022. UN.

17. AIATSIS, (2012). Guidelines for ethical research in Australian Indigenous studies, Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS).

18. UN General Assembly, (1966). International covenant on economic, social and cultural

rights. United Nations, Treaty Series, 993(3): p. 2009-2057.

19. UN General Assembly, (2007).United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples UN Wash, 12: p. 1-18.

20.Williams, L.B., et al., (2024). Comparing the nutritional composition and antioxidant properties of an Australian native grain variety with commonly consumed wheat. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 59(7): p. 4939-4948.

Dr. Luke Williams is a Gumbaynggirr Research Fellow at the ARC Training Centre for Uniquely Australian Foods, CNAFS, QAAFI, University of Queensland, Australia.

Mr. Jacob Birch is a Gamilaraay PhD student at the ARC Training Centre for Uniquely Australian Foods, CNAFS, QAAFI, University of Queensland, Australia.

The research outlined here was originally published as: Comparing the nutritional composition and antioxidant properties of an Australian native grain variety with commonly consumed wheat International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 59(7): p. 4939-4948. f

Digital design to edible structures: 3D food printing reshapes food systems and human-food Interaction

Additive manufacturing (AM) creates objects by depositing materials in the three-dimensional space, through a layer-by-layer process guided by digital information.1 Among several AM techniques, the deposition of viscous-fluid filaments, commonly known as 3D Printing (3DP) has rapidly advanced with the use of diverse printable materials, including thermoplastics, metals, concrete, glass, and biological materials among others. Leveraging its ability to create objects with any shape, any internal structure and novel functionalities, 3DP has made significant inroads across industries such as automotive, pharmaceuticals, biological engineering, and, more recently, the food industry.

3D food printing (3DFP) involves four phases (Figure 1):

1. Design of the digital model. The digital model can be designed through user-friendly or professional CAD software (Tinkercad, Rhino 3D, etc.). It is then processed by slicing software (eg. Cura; Prusa) that defines the printing conditions. This is a critical phase in which the internal morphology of the food can

be adjusted by modulating several variables, such as infill level and infill path, to achieve desired effects on thermal, mechanical and sensory properties.2

2. Development of a printable food formula. The development of a printable food formula with appropriate and stable rheological properties is also important. The food material not only should ensure nutritional content and sensory properties but it should be easily extrudable through narrow nozzles (eg. between 0.5 and 2mm) and selfsupporting to ensure stability during post-printing.

3. The setting of the printing variables. Other variables (eg. printing speed, layer height and extrusion rate), require careful attention to ensure a precise balance between the amount of food ink deposited per unit of time and the speed of the printer.

4. 3DFP test and post-printing process. Once the 3D-printed food is obtained, a post-printing process is often required, such as in the case of cereal-based products that need baking carried out by traditional oven or innovative technologies (eg. lasercooking).

Current state-of-art and recent innovations

Over 300 scientific publications on 3DFP confirm the high level of interest from both academia and industry. Initially, while some researchers tested a wide variety of foods and ingredients, and explored the rheological properties that best describe food printability, other scientists focused on understanding how printing variables could be modulated to obtain high-quality 3D printed food. It has been shown that several food materials can be 3D printed, including dough, vegetable, fruit, chocolate, fish, cheese and meat, while new sources of nutrients and composite ingredients such as oleogels, microalgae, beeswax, insects, unconventional food plants and food by-products have recently begun to be explored (Figure 2).3,4,5 Some of these components are utilised to enhance the printing performance of complex food formulas. Indeed, prerequisites to print food are a shear-thinning behaviour, appropriate yield stress, apparent viscosity, elastic modulus and adhesivity. AI-driven predictive models with computer vision could

Words by Dr Antonio Derossi, Dr Rossella Caporizzi and Dr Bhesh Bhandari

help by evaluating the rheological characteristics of food inks, which enable real-time formulation adjustments for improved printability and consistent quality.

Regarding the printing variables, a large body of literature has detailed their effects on 3D-printed food quality. The layer height (LH), defining the distance between two layers, is generally set at 80% of the nozzle diameter ensuring an appropriate adhesion of overlying layers and, therefore, an improved structural stability of printed food. Similarly, an imbalance between printing speed and deposition rate can result in over- or under-deposition of material, leading to significant defects.2 AI approaches, such as machine learning algorithms, to adjust printing variables have demonstrated enhancing printing efficiency, better control over the printing process and improved dimensional accuracy of printed products.6

Beyond the current literature, 4D food printing uses responsive food materials, which when exposed to external stimuli, are subjected to dynamic changes of various sensory properties (Figure 3).7 Colour changes of curcumin or anthocyanin have

been activated by pH, temperature or moisture modification.

Aromatic compounds can also respond to pH stimulus or microwave heating. The flavour evolution of vegetable-based 3D printed food was obtained by spraying a solution at pH 8-10. Using a gelatin/ethyl cellulose bilayer exposed to hot water allowed shape changes due to the different water absorption of the two layers.8

In addition, variations of the dielectric or shrinkage properties of ingredients deposited as interspersed layers can provide different bending angles

when 3D-printed food is subjected to microwave or air dehydration. Dynamic changes in the nutritional composition have also been created after depositing living cells of vegetable or probiotic bacteria in a 3D printed scaffold made of nutritious media in which such cells can develop leading to the time evolution of the nutritional content of the products.

Application in gastronomy and the food industry

The market of 3D food printing is rapidly growing with an estimated

Figure 1: Main phases of the 3D food printing process.

Figure 2: Traditional and innovative materials utilized in 3D food printing. (Adapted from references 1, 8 and 9).

value of USD$42.5 million by 2025. The technology has been used for both gastronomic and industrial applications.

London’s Food Ink, Santa Monica’s two-star Michelin restaurant

Melissa and Spain’s La Enoteca and La Boscana are all restaurants creating innovative, gourmet dining experiences using 3D- printed food. Beyond applications in gastronomy, Sushi Singularity is an Open Meals project (https://www.open-meals. com/sushisingularity/index_e.html) that aims to revolutionise sushi preparation by combining biometrics to achieve hyper-personalisation. Food industry innovations include:

• Blurhapsody (https://blurhapsody. com) is an Italian company centered on innovating how pasta will be eaten. They produce a line of dried pasta for finger food.

• Nourished (www.get-nourished. com) developed gummies nutritionally customised for their amounts of vitamins, micronutrients and aroma compounds. The consumer can order their own gummies by choosing nutrients based on the expected effects such

as sleep, digestion, eye health and many others.

• Revo Foods (https://revo-foods. com/) sell ‘FILET’ a salmon-inspired product obtained by combining 3D printing technology and the nutritional content of mycoprotein biomass to offer sustainable protein-based food products with highly accepted texture properties. The capability to provide programmable textures is being used to develop meat and fish analogues using alternative proteins derived from plants, algaes, insects and fungi.1

Examples of this include Redefine Meat (https://www.redefinemeat. com/), Steakholder (https://www. steakholderfoods.com/), Novameat (https://www.novameat.com/) and Aleph Farm (https://aleph-farms. com/).

Social, economic and environmental impacts

Although initially explored for aesthetic purposes, 3DFP has the potential to positively impact several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Figure 4).1

The high flexibility of 3DFP in using

different forms of nutrient sources such as liquid, paste and powder, also enables the utilisation of side-stream and food waste with positive impacts on sustainability.

Food can be digitally designed for custom purposes, including for nutritional requirements and sensory properties. Micro-dosage of individual ingredients can be guided by digital technologies, such as wearable sensors, for health monitoring, and AI-driven approaches. 3D-printed food products with nutrients located in specific regions could also control their kinetic release according to specific consumer requirements.

Regarding sensory properties, 3DFP allows for the benefits of the odour-induced taste or shape-taste effects to be maximised. New shapes and internal structures offer great potential for delivering a healthier diet making food more appealing than some original unpleasant raw forms. Similarly, 3DFP may increase the sweetness or saltiness perception while the inner structure of the food can be sugar or salt-free. Co-creation is another key factor of 3DFP. Consumers could be involved in

Figure 3: 4D food printing. Examples of dynamic changes of food properties subjected to external stimuli (Adapted from references 1, 3 and 5).

designing food with increased liking that, in turn, would help reduce food waste in households. In addition, consumers could define the amount - ie. the weight - of food they want to print and eat leading to further reductions in food waste. All these aspects fit the approaches of ondemand production which could renew the food chain with beneficial social, economic and environmental impacts.9

Future potential

3DFP is an emerging technology that enables new levels of innovation in the food sector. The process is guided by 3D digital models containing information about shape, dimension and internal structure of the food products. It enables nutritional customisation through its capacity to include individual nutritional requirements and desired sensory properties in the model.

While almost all foods can currently be printed, specific rheological properties are prerequisites to ensure an easy flow through the printer's nozzle and structural stability. The creation of an accurate replica of the digital model requires the accurate

adjustment of the printing variables to ensure the balance between the deposition of the food ink and the printing movements. AI has been introduced to achieve optimised printing by enabling more precise control over the process.

Some 3D-printed foods are already on the market with some companies selling products such as 3D-printed dried pasta, gummies, meat- and fish-analogues, and cereal-based snacks. However, further experiments are needed before 3DFP can be introduced more broadly into gastronomy and used in industrial applications, especially regarding the speed of printing that still hinders use for mass production.

References

1. `Derossi, A., et al. (2024). Personalized, digitally designed 3D printed food towards the reshaping of food manufacturing and consumption. npj Science of Food, 8, 54 (2024).

2. `Derossi, A., et al. (2019). Critical Variables in 3D Food Printing, Editor(s): Fernanda C. Godoi, Bhesh R. Bhandari, Sangeeta Prakash, Min Zhang. Fundamentals of 3D Food Printing and Applications, Academic Press, 41-91.

3. `Pereira, I., et al. (2024). Unconventional sourced proteins in 3D and 4D food printing: Is it the future of food processing? Food Research International, 192, 114849.

4. `Shi et al. (2021). Effect of addition of beeswax based oleogel on 3D printing of potato starchprotein system, Food Structure, 27, 100176.

5. `Tian et al., (2021). Effect of hybrid gelator

systems of beeswax-carrageenan-xanthan on rheological properties and printability of litchi inks for 3D food printing, Food Hydrocolloids 113, 106482.

6. Outrequin, T.C.R., et al. (2024). Machine learning assisted evaluation of the filament spreading during extrusion-based 3D food printing: Impact of the rheological and printing parameters, Journal of Food Engineering, 381, 112166.

7. Guo et al. (2022). Investigation on simultaneous change of deformation, color and aroma of 4D printed starch-based pastes from fruit and vegetable as induced by microwave, Food Research International, 157, 111214.

8. Navaf, M. et al. (2022). 4D printing: a new approach for food printing; effect of various stimuli on 4D printed food properties. A comprehensive review. Appl. Food Res. 2, 100150 (2022).

9. Rogers, H. et al. (2021). Emerging sustainable supply chain models for 3D food printing. Sustainability 13, 12085.

Dr Antonio Derossi is Associate Professor – Food Science and Technology in the Department of Agriculture, Food, Natural Resources and Engineering, University of Foggia, Italy.

Dr Rossella Caporizzi is a researcher in the Department of Agriculture, Food, Natural Resources and Engineering, University of Foggia, Italy.

Dr Bhesh Bhandari is Professor in the School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. f

Figure 4: Impact of 3D food printing technology on the SDGs.

Do consumers really ‘get’ food safety?

Words by Deon Mahoney

While the food industry has an obligation to present safe and suitable food to the marketplace, there is no such thing as risk-free food. Despite every food manufacturer’s very best intentions, including implementing state-of-the-art food safety programs, there remains a residual food safety risk associated with every food product. Such a risk may range from quite high with a raw food product such as poultry meat, to extremely small for a retorted product, but it is never zero.

This places some onus on food handlers and consumers to adopt practices and behaviours that result in the hygienic handling, preparation, and storage of food. The question is, do consumers understand the risks and appreciate their role in avoiding foodborne illness? Specifically, do they understand and follow advice on food labels, and do they have adequate background knowledge of safe food handling practices?

Consumer insights

Results from the first Consumer Insights Tracker survey published by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) revealed 72% of consumers have confidence in the safety of the food supply. Trust for food system actors such as farmers

was high (trusted by 83%), while trust in food manufacturers and processors was only 57%.1

Diving deeper into the data, the survey showed:

• Foodborne illness was the key concern of consumers, however, there appears to be a gap in knowledge of foods that present the greatest risk of foodborne illness

• Consumers look for food labels that can help them identify nutritious foods and make good dietary choices

• Up to a third of consumers do not understand date-marking, while a further third claim to understand but report behaviour inconsistent with an understanding.

While it is reassuring that trust in the safety of our food supply remains high, the question remains, are consumers following through with the consistent implementation of hygienic handling, preparation, and storage practices for food in the home?

Food Safety Information Council

The Food Safety Information Council is a health promotion charity and a national voice for consumerfocused, science-based food safety information in Australia. Their goal is to reduce the burden of foodborne

illness in Australia by promoting food safety in the home, through the provision of practical advice and guidance, and by hosting the annual Australian Food Safety Week.

The theme of Australian Food Safety Week 2024 was Look before you cook – read the food labels 2 The purpose was to focus food preparers and consumers on the need to pay attention to food safety instructions printed on packaged foods. This included information such as use-by or best-before dates, cooking advice and storage instructions.

Food safety information targeting consumers is also provided by state departments of health, FSANZ, nongovernment organisations, and some peak industry bodies and research and development organisations. It requires consumers to go looking for it, and there are issues around the consistency of the advice, its veracity and its currency.

Food labelling

The consuming public often has a sceptical view of food labels and fails to follow through on instructions such as thaw before cooking, cook before consumption, refrigerate after opening, or discard five days after opening.

In May 2024, the US Department of Agriculture released a finalised

rule restricting Salmonella levels in frozen, breaded, and stuffed chicken as consumers failed to realise these products are not ready-to-eat. This is despite labels that state the product must be cooked. Non-ready-toeat breaded and stuffed chicken products can come pre-browned and may appear cooked but are often raw. US consumers repeatedly failed to fully understand this, and were using improper techniques, such as inadequate microwave cooking as opposed to cooking in ovens, leading to a spike in cases of salmonellosis. While in Australia, a recent incident with almond milk occurred because a consumer failed to correctly store the food in the refrigerator. While there were no storage instructions on the package, the consumer failed to recognise the importance of storing an open package of perishable food at refrigeration temperatures.

Another area where consumer knowledge is of concern is the use of information regarding bestbefore and use-by dates. The FSANZ Insights Tracker found that up to a third of consumers do not understand date-marking, and a further third claim to understand but report behaviour inconsistent with their understanding.1

A recent survey by the RMIT University and the End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre highlighted consumer perceptions of date labels and storage advice.3 Depending on their understanding of risk, different food categories elicited

different behaviours. Consumers theoretically understood the difference between use-by and bestbefore date labels, but they were often treated the same, with food being disposed of when it reached either date, exacerbating the problem of food waste. The survey highlighted the need to provide consumers with clear, consistent, and easy-to-read date labels, and to eliminate vague and unhelpful storage advice, such as store in a cool, dry place

Food storage temperatures

For food businesses, the 2-hour/4hour rule is advocated as a good way to make sure potentially hazardous food is safe even if it’s been out of refrigeration.4 The rule is based on how quickly microorganisms can grow in food when stored at temperatures between 5°C and 60°C. Under the rule, food can be used, sold, or put back in the fridge to use later if it is stored at these temperatures for less than two hours. Between two and four hours, the food can be used or sold, but it must not be returned to the fridge for later use. After four hours between 5°C and 60°C, the food cannot be sold and must be discarded.

While this information is communicated to food businesses, such information is not easily accessible by consumers. Userfriendly information is not universally available on recommended storage times and temperatures for foods; the impact of storage of perishable

foods at ambient temperatures for prolonged periods; and the need to discard potentially hazardous food after four hours of holding at ambient temperatures. Occasionally there are campaigns around food handling at special events such as major public holidays, but the messages normally do not resonate for long.

Knowledge influencing behaviour

In Western Australia, the Play it Food Safe mass media campaign by the Department of Health strives to improve safe food-handling behaviour among consumers. An evaluation of the impact of the campaign in 2021 assessed the safe food-handling knowledge, behaviour and psychological constructs (habits and perceived risks) of 689 participants.5 The results indicated that some psychological constructs improved over time and the campaign was effective for increasing knowledge among participants. However, behaviour remained the same.

An example of the challenges faced when seeking to change behaviour is best evidenced by efforts to discourage the practice of rinsing or washing raw chicken meat in the home. In recent years, food safety campaigns in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom have sought to deter consumers from continuing to wash raw poultry because of the inherent risk of cross-contamination of the kitchen environment. Despite this, barriers exist for some consumers around adopting the practice of not rinsing or washing raw poultry. Thematic analysis has highlighted the justification of this behaviour, with consumers claiming a sense of control over the process, lacking trust in public health messaging and attributing the behaviour to habit.6

This is also true in the food service sector, where there is also a disconnect observed between food safety knowledge and the behaviour of food handlers.7,8

Historically, risk communicators have deployed the deficit model for communication. The assumption being that when provided with sound knowledge and information, individuals will proactively alter their attitudes and behaviours. This is regrettably erroneous, as the provision of one-way, targeted scientific evidence regarding food safety does not lead to behavioural changes as described above. Science is not the most important issue for consumers, instead the risk needs to be placed in a larger social context – such as this practice could lead to making your family ill. What is needed is two-way engagement and discussion, as this will facilitate the establishment of trust, an understanding of accountability, and lead to amended actions.

Importantly, food hygiene behaviours need to be constantly emphasised and reinforced. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, significant efforts were made to educate the public about the importance of effective handwashing in minimising the spread of infection.

Educational programs focussed on the elements of effective handwashing (at least 20 seconds with water and soap) and compliance improved. However, four years on, the emphasis on hygiene has slipped and observance of good handwashing habits is falling away.

Another priority area is addressing knowledge deficits among young people, who tend to have limited understanding of food safety and a lack of concern for the consequences of foodborne illness.9 Food safety education and literacy should be encouraged at an early

age, with the goal of linking learning, behaviour, habits and choices with public health and wellbeing. Interactive educational methods at an early age, result in sustainable behaviours. Departments of Health and Education have a critical role in promoting and embedding food safety education into school curricula.

Summary

The attitudes and behaviours of consumers and food preparers in the home can have a major impact on food safety. Unfortunately, there are limits to consumers’ understanding of food hygiene and their behaviours often run counter to their knowledge. By understanding how consumers assimilate food safety information it will be possible to craft better educational materials and approaches to improve food handling behaviours and reduce the burden of illness attributed to home preparation of foods.

The food industry has an important role in addressing knowledge deficits by better informing consumers and food handlers about ways to protect themselves from risks, whilst also preserving food quality and reducing food waste. The food label (and sometimes point-of-sale material) is the direct interface with the consumer, and it has a critical role in supporting good food hygiene behaviours. By enhancing the provision of clear, consistent and concise labels, the industry has the potential to inform improved food handling and preparation, encourage proper storage practices and facilitate a better understanding of date marking.

References

1. FSANZ (2024). Consumer Insights Tracker 2023 Technical Report https:// www.foodstandards.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-05/Consumer%20 Insights%20Tracker%202023%20Technical%20Report.pdf

2. Food Safety Information Council (2024). https://www.foodsafety.asn.au/ topic/australian-food-safety-week-2024/

3. Parker, L. et al. (2024). Date labelling and storage advice: Consumer interviews Insights Report, RMIT University & End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre. https://endfoodwaste. com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/EFWA_124_DateLabel_ ConsumerInterviewInsightsReport.pdf

4. FSANZ (2023). Safe Food Australia - A guide to the Food Safety Standards. 4th edition. www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/ safefoodaustralia

5. Charlesworth, J. et al. (2023). Examining the long-term effects of a safe food-handling media campaign. Food Control, 149, 109690. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109690

6. Gilman, A. et al. (2022). Understanding barriers to consumers to stop washing raw poultry through in-depth interviews. British Food Journal, 124, (11), pp 3411-3427. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2021-0837

7. McFarland, P. et al. (2019). Efficacy of food safety training in commercial food service. Journal of Food Science, 84, (6), 1239–1246. DOI: 10.1111/17503841.14628

8. Yu, H. et al. (2018). Implementation of behavior-based training can improve food service employees’ handwashing frequencies, duration, and effectiveness. Cornell Hospital Quarterly, 59, 70–77. https://doi. org/10.1177/19389655177043

9. Syeda, R. et al. (2021). Young people’s views on food hygiene and food safety: a multicentre qualitative study. Education Sciences, 11, (6), 261. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060261

Deon Mahoney is a food safety consultant at DeonMahoneyConsulting and is Adjunct Professor in the School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability at the University of Queensland. f

Puck magazine cover, March 12, 1884. Science History Institute.

From awareness to action: mitigating low whole grain intake in Australia

Words by Toni Gam

Whole grains are essential to a nutritious diet, serving as a foundation for promoting health and preventing chronic diseases. They encompass the entire grain kernel, including the bran, germ and endosperm, making them rich in carbohydrates, dietary fibre, vitamins and minerals. Consuming whole grains can help improve digestion, maintain healthy blood sugar levels and promote satiety.1

Numerous studies have established a strong link between whole grain consumption and a reduced risk of non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes and certain cancers.2,3,4

The Global Burden of Disease Study has revealed that low whole grain intake is one of the leading dietary risk factors for mortality worldwide, accounting for millions of disabilityadjusted life years (DALYs) and deaths annually.5

Despite these benefits, many Australians do not consume sufficient whole grains. The Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council (GLNC) recommends that adults consume

at least 48g of whole grains daily.6 Unfortunately, approximately 75% of Australians do not meet this target, underscoring a significant public health concern, as low whole grain intake is linked to an increased risk of chronic diseases.7

Compared to other countries, Australia's whole grain consumption patterns reveal a pressing need for intervention. In Denmark, a systematic approach to promoting whole grain consumption led to a substantial increase over a decade – from 33g per day in 2004 to 55g per day in 2014.8 Conversely, while the United States has reported that around 60% of adults meet their daily grain intake recommendations, fewer than 1% achieve the recommended whole grain intake.9 These examples highlight that, despite the recognised benefits of whole grains, some populations struggle to integrate them into their diets.

Barriers to consumption

Despite the known benefits of whole grains, several barriers hinder their consumption.

Many Australians have developed

a taste for refined grains due to their texture and flavour.10

Cost and accessibility also significantly affect whole grain consumption. Whole grain products are sometimes more expensive than their refined counterparts, limiting options for budget-conscious consumers.11 The availability of whole grain options can also be limited, making it even more challenging to access whole grain foods.

The popularity of low-carbohydrate diets and widespread misinformation have fostered negative perceptions of grains, associating them with weight gain and poor health.10

One of the most significant barriers is the lack of awareness regarding whole grains and their health benefits. Many consumers are unaware of the recommendations for whole grain intake and how to identify whole grain products in supermarkets.12 With only 10% of Australians able to determine what constitutes a whole grain, product availability and accurate labelling are crucial in educating consumers on identifying and choosing whole grain foods.12

The Code

The GLNC led the development of the voluntary Code of Practice for Whole Grains Ingredient Content Claims (The Code) to help consumers make informed choices about whole grain foods by guiding the use of whole grain content ingredient claims on food labels in Australia and New Zealand.6

It aims to help Australian consumers meet the recommended Daily Target Intake (DTI) of 48g per day for adults and children nine years or older, following the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG) recommendation of six core grain foods per day.

The Code sets out principles for making whole grain ingredient content claims based on industryendorsed minimum whole grain content levels of:

• At least 8g per manufacturer serve: contains whole grain

• At least 16g per manufacturer serve: high in whole grain

• At least 24g per manufacturer serve: very high in whole grain.

Availability of whole grain foods

To understand the current state of whole grain foods in Australia, GLNC conducted product audits across three categories: breakfast cereals, flour and bread. These audits took place across the retail landscape in New South Wales to provide an overview of the categories, track trends over time, analyse the proportion of products displaying whole grain claims and evaluate the overall availability of whole grain options in supermarkets. The data was then compared to the same audits conducted two years prior.

In total, 1747 products were analysed across the three categories (Figure 1).

Whole grain percentages

Bread

Bread comprised the largest portion of products, with 794 available on the shelf. However, according to the minimum whole grain content

1: Breakdown for each of the three categories surveyed in the product audits.

specified in The Code, only 17% of bread products were considered whole grain.

Breakfast cereal

There were 686 breakfast cereals included in the audit, and approximately 59% were considered whole grain.

Flour

Flour was the smallest of the three categories, with 263 products available. Only 23% of flour products were considered whole grain.

Claims on pack

Whole grain claims on packaging have decreased across all three categories over the two years.

While 601 products were eligible to display a whole grain claim, only half included a claim. Breakfast cereals led with the most claims, with just over one-third displaying a whole grain claim on the pack.

Of whole grain products, 159 displayed a DTI statement on the pack, with bread having the greatest portion.

The audits revealed that while

some whole grain products were available, health claims on packaging mainly emphasised fibre content rather than whole grains. Dietary fibre claims commonly linked fibre with health benefits, such as enhanced digestion and gut health. None of the claims on the pack linked whole grain content to a health benefit.

The whole grain problem

The limited availability of whole grain foods can impede consumers’ ability to make healthier choices. With fewer options available and unclear labelling, many consumers may unknowingly choose refined grains over whole grain alternatives, contributing to the overall low intake of whole grains.

Strategies to improve whole grain consumption

Given the barriers identified and the current trends in whole grain consumption, a multifaceted approach is essential for improving whole grain intake in Australia.

Figure

Consumer awareness initiatives

Consumer awareness initiatives are crucial for educating the public on whole grains' health benefits and importance. Educational campaigns, such as Whole Grain Week, should inform consumers about the importance of whole grains, address misinformation, and arm consumers with the tools to identify whole grain products to ultimately meet the DTI.

Providing clear and accessible information through several platforms, such as social media, workshops and informational materials, can be valuable tools for disseminating knowledge about whole grains.

Improving product availability and labelling

Manufacturers should adopt clear whole grain labelling to facilitate informed choices for consumers. When consumers can quickly identify whole grain options, they are more likely to incorporate them into their diets. Food labels that link whole grains to health benefits could improve awareness about the health benefits of whole grains and help consumers make more informed food choices.

Intentional food labelling, such as the GLNC whole grain logo or the DTI statement of 48g of whole grains daily, can help individuals make informed decisions.6

Retailers can play a crucial role by increasing the range of available whole grain options and ensuring these products are prominently displayed.

Industry collaboration

Collaboration between the food industry, public health organisations, and consumer advocacy groups is essential for addressing the issue of low whole grain consumption. By working together, stakeholders can create marketing strategies that effectively highlight the benefits of whole grains, making them more appealing to consumers.

Policy intervention

Policy interventions are necessary to create a supportive environment for whole grain consumption.

Governments should consider implementing policies similar to those in Denmark, which established a framework for whole grain labelling and revised dietary guidelines to emphasise whole grains.13 Such policies can incentivise food manufacturers to produce and promote whole grain products, ultimately encouraging higher consumption rates among consumers.

Mitigating low whole grain intake in Australia

Whole grains are a vital component of a healthy diet, yet their intake remains low in Australia. Fostering an environment where whole grains are accessible, affordable, and desirable will be essential in achieving long-term health benefits for the population.

References

1. McRae M. P. (2017). Health Benefits of Dietary Whole Grains: An Umbrella Review of Metaanalyses. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 16(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.08.008

2. Newby P.K., Maras J., Bakun P., Muller D., Ferrucci L., Tucker K.L. (2007) Intake of whole grains, refined grains, and cereal fiber measured with 7-d diet records and associations with risk factors for chronic disease. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 86:1745–1753. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/86.5.1745.

3. Aune D, Norat T, Romundstad P, Vatten LJ. (2013). Whole grain and refined grain consumption and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and dose-response metaanalysis of cohort studies. Eur J Epidemiol 28(11):845-858.

4. Chen G.-C., Tong X., Xu J.-Y., Han S.-F., Wan Z.-X., Qin J.-B., Qin L.-Q. ( 2016). Whole-grain intake and total, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: A systematic review and metaanalysis of prospective studies. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 104:164–172. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.115.122432.

5. Afshin, A., Sur, P. J., Fay, K. A., Cornaby, L., Ferrara, G., Salama, J. S., ... & Murray, C. J. L. (2019). Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis

for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet, 393(10184), 1958-1972. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8

6. Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council. (2021). Code of practice (Updated). https://www.glnc. org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/GLNCCode-of-Practice-Handbook_2021.pdf

7. Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council. (2014). Australian Grains and Legumes Consumption and Attitudinal Report. Unpublished

8. Mejborn H., Ygil K.H., Fagt S., Christensen E.T. Wholegrain intake of Danes 2011–2012 [(accessed on 2 June 2020)] http://www. food.dtu.dk/english/-/media/Institutter/ Foedevareinstituttet/Publikationer/Pub-2013/ Rapport_Fuldkornsindtag_11-12_UK.ashx?la=da

9. Albertson A.M., Reicks M., Joshi N., Gugger C.K. (2016). Whole grain consumption trends and associations with body weight measures in the United States: Results from the cross sectional National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001–2012. Nutr. J. 15:8. doi: 10.1186/ s12937-016-0126-4.

10. Kuznesof S., Brownlee I.A., Moore C., Richardson D.P., Jebb S.A., Seal C.J. (2012). WHOLEheart study participant acceptance of wholegrain foods. Appetite.;59:187–193. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.04.014.

11. Meynier A, Chanson-Rollé A, Riou E. (2020). Main Factors Influencing Whole Grain Consumption in Children and Adults-A Narrative Review. Nutrients.12(8):2217. doi: 10.3390/nu12082217. PMID: 32722381; PMCID: PMC7468875.

12. Foster, S., Beck, E., Hughes, J., & Grafenauer, S. (2020). Whole Grains and Consumer Understanding: Investigating Consumers' Identification, Knowledge and Attitudes to Whole Grains. Nutrients, 12(8), 2170. https:// doi.org/10.3390/nu12082170

13. Copenhagen Business School & the Danish Whole Grain Partnership. The evolution of the Whole Grain Partnership in Denmark.[Accessed August 16, 2024] https://www.cbs.dk/files/ cbs.dk/the_evolution_of_the_whole_grain_ partnership_in_denmark.pdf

Toni Gam is the Industry Engagement Manager at the Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council. f

FOOD FILES

Words by Dr Djin Gie Liem, Dr Yada Nolvachai, Dr Andrew Costanzo and Dr Dan Dias

Embracing the future of food: how we’re learning to love novel foods and beverages

In a world increasingly focused on sustainability and health, the food industry is constantly innovating to meet consumer demands. A recent comprehensive study shed light on the factors influencing consumer acceptance of innovative products and outlined a roadmap for future research.

Novel foods and beverages (NFBs) are emerging as key players in the quest for healthier and more sustainable diets. These include everything from plant-based meat alternatives and cultured meat to genetically modified foods and innovative beverages. Despite their potential benefits, consumer acceptance remains a significant hurdle.

The review identifies several critical factors that shape consumer attitudes towards NFBs. Psychological factors such as food neophobia, or the fear of new foods, play a major role. Consumers often perceive novel foods with scepticism, influenced by perceived risks and benefits and emotional responses such as disgust.

In addition, socio-cultural factors, including diets, consumption habits and trust in institutions, significantly impact acceptance. For instance, consumers with vegetarian lifestyles

or those who trust scientific institutions are more likely to embrace NFBs. Product-related factors such as information labels, brand, packaging and product origin are crucial. Clear and appealing product information can significantly enhance consumer acceptance.

The review highlights that most studies focus on technology-based innovations such as genetically modified foods and cultured meat, predominantly using quantitative research methods. However, there is a notable gap in qualitative and multi-method approaches that could provide deeper insights into consumer behaviour. Geographically, the majority of research is concentrated in Western countries, leaving a significant gap in understanding consumer behaviour in developing regions such as Asia, Africa and Latin America.

To bridge these gaps, the review suggests several future research directions. Incorporating broader theories such as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and dual processing theory can provide a more comprehensive understanding of cultural and cognitive aspects of NFB acceptance. Employing multi-method studies, web-based data, machine learning and psychophysiological measures can capture a more holistic view of consumer behaviour. Research should extend to under-

explored regions to gain insights into diverse consumer behaviours and preferences. Investigating factors such as mindfulness, personal norms and situational appropriateness can offer new perspectives on consumer acceptance.

For marketers and policymakers, these findings offer valuable insights to assist in developing effective strategies for promoting NFB. Understanding the diverse factors influencing consumer acceptance can help tailor marketing messages, improve product design and enhance the overall consumer experience.

As the food industry continues to innovate, understanding consumer acceptance of novel foods and beverages is crucial. This study provides a comprehensive overview of the current landscape and offers a roadmap for future research, paving the way for a more sustainable and health-conscious future.

Reference: Mosikyan S, Dolan R, Corsi AM, Bastian S. (2024) A systematic literature review and future research agenda to study consumer acceptance of novel foods and beverages. Appetite, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appet.2024.107655

Legume pasta: the tasty way to stay full and healthy

Legume-based products are gaining popularity as a sustainable, plantbased option for improving dietary habits. Flours made from legumes may also be suitable gluten-free

alternatives to wheat flour. A recent study conducted in Italy investigated how different types of legume-based pasta affect satiety and energy intake in healthy volunteers. The results offer insights for consumers and food manufacturers looking to promote legume-based alternatives.

The study involved two experimental protocols. In the first, participants consumed one of four types of pasta: lentil pasta; chickpea pasta; durum wheat pasta; and glutenfree pasta made from rice and corn flours. Participants were able to eat as much as desired in an ad libitum meal. The second protocol involved a fixed portion of each pasta followed by an ad libitum buffet two hours later. Researchers measured energy intake during and after meals and used a visual analogue scale to assess appetite sensations such as fullness and desire to eat.

The results showed that lentil pasta significantly reduced energy intake compared to durum wheat pasta. This effect was particularly strong in females, who reported lower energy intake both during the meal and at the subsequent buffet. Lentil pasta also led to higher post-meal satiety and reduced the desire to eat compared to the other pasta types. However, the palatability of lentil and chickpea pasta was rated lower than that of durum wheat pasta, suggesting that taste and texture may influence overall meal satisfaction.

These findings suggest that lentilbased pasta can help consumers man age food intake and feel fuller for longer. For the food industry, this

indicates potential for developing legume-based products as part of a healthy and sustainable diet. However, improving the palatability of these products could enhance their appeal and encourage wider adoption. Further research is needed to explore long-term effects and potential for broader consumer acceptance.

Source: Cioffi, I., Martini, D., Del Bo, C., et al. (2024). Lentils based pasta affect satiation, satiety and food intake in healthy volunteers. Current Research in Food Science, p.100858. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.crfs.2024.100858

Flavour unlocked: aromatic profile, antioxidant and anthocyanin magic in fermenting fine-flavour Ecuadorian cacao

Ecuador is one of the world's leading producers of fine-flavour cacao (Theobroma cacao), with approximately 75% of its cacao bean exports classified as ‘fineflavor’. This is primarily made up of Trinitario and Criollo cacao varieties, which are widely cultivated across tropical Latin America. However, the Nacional variety, predominantly grown in Ecuador, is also considered fine-flavor cacao due to its unique aromatic profile, characterised by floral, green and spicy notes. Today, hybrid cacao beans from crosses between Nacional and Trinitario varieties are commonly grown in Ecuador, offering a rich and complex aroma profile.

The fermentation of fine-flavour cacao beans is a crucial process that enhances both their sensory qualities and the economic value for cacao farmers. A recent study explored the

changes using gas chromatographymass spectrometry (GC-MS) metabolite profiling, along with assessing the antioxidant capacity and anthocyanin content, throughout the fermentation of fine-flavor cacao beans.

The study revealed that the evolution of key aroma compounds in Nacional x Trinitario cacao beans was generated by the formation of key metabolites after 48 hours of fermentation. The desirable compounds identified included 17 fruity and nine floral-like volatiles, along with metabolites contributing towards caramel, chocolate, ethereal, nutty, sweet and woody aromas. Inadvertently, undesirable metabolites with camphoraceous, cheesy, fatty and pungent characteristics were also detected. The compounds, which either formed or degraded during fermentation, likely originated from the pulp, were inherent to the bean, or were synthesised by microorganisms. Additionally, it was determined that the anthocyanin content decreased over time, while the ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) and total phenolic content (TPC) values fluctuated throughout fermentation, displaying a similar trend which suggested a partial correlation between the assays. These findings enhance our understanding of aroma compound development and antioxidant activity during fermentation, offering insights that could be applied in future research to optimise the fermentation process and improve the quality of fermented cacao beans.

Source: Chóez-Guaranda, I., Maridueña-Zavala, M., Quevedo, A. et al. (2024) Changes in GC-MS metabolite profile, antioxidant capacity and anthocyanins content during fermentation of fine-flavor cacao beans from Ecuador, PLoS One 19(3) e0298909 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0298909

Dr Djin Gie Liem is Associate Professor, Dr Yada Nolvachai is Post Doctoral Fellow, Dr Andrew Costanzo is Lecturer and Dr Dan Dias is Senior Lecturer. All are at CASS Food Research Centre, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University. f

Gauging Australian food security with sustainable food consumption

Words by Dr Lijun Summerhayes

Australia is one of the most food-secure nations in the world, capable of feeding 75 million people, nearly three times its population.1 This abundance of food is attributable to the industrialisation of the agri-food system and advanced technologies, which are long assumed to have solved the atavistic challenge of feeding people adequately.2 While renowned for its food self-sufficiency, Australia's prolific agricultural and food products also contribute to exports. Approximately 70% of the total value of agriculture, fisheries and forestry production is export-oriented to meet increasing global demand, a testament to its high-quality products and high-standard food safety regulations.3

Despite this, Australians are becoming increasingly food insecure. Thirty per cent of Australians experienced food insecurity in 2020, rising to 36% in 2023, with a slight drop to 32% in 2024, despite the COVID-19 pandemic being the significant cause in 2020.4,5 At the same time, this paradox of abundance and insecurity is further complicated

by the prevalence of food-related health diseases, notably onequarter of Australian children and two-thirds of Australian adults are overweight or obese.6 A double helix of overconsumption of unhealthy food and underconsumption of healthy food characterises the unique manifestation of food insecurity in Australia, a phenomenon shaped by and further exacerbating unsustainable food consumption.7 Although the 2024 national parliamentary inquiry into food security recommended the development of a National Food Plan and the appointment of a Minister for Food, inconsistent measurement and a lack of reliable data to understand the prevalence and extent of food insecurity may hinder these efforts.3 Gauging food security with sustainable food consumption arguably provides a structural and evidence-based approach to this complex issue.

Defining food security

Food security is at its core when ‘all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food

that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’.8 A significant shift in understanding this concept is the transition from the focus on addressing hunger and starvation, which primarily affects low-income countries, to include all forms of malnutrition, which includes issues that high-income countries increasingly face, such as obesity and overweight.8

This shift is in large part due to the increasing complexity of food security, which necessitates the ‘right to adequate food’ as the legal framework, underpinned by sustainable food systems. The expanded understanding of food security from four to six dimensions with the addition of agency, and sustainability to availability, access, stability and utilisation aptly reflects the updated global narrative of food security and nutrition (FSN) articulated by the High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE).8 In this new narrative, food insecurity is no longer considered in isolation. Instead, it sits with food systems and their interactions impacting a broad range of food security activities

and outcomes from food production to ensuring availability, equitable and inclusive access for all people, empowering and respectful for the agency, resilient to ensure stability, regenerative to ensure sustainability and healthy and nutritious to ensure utilisation.8

This broadened approach represents a timely response to multiple yet interdependent challenges that complicate global food security. Many nations recognise the common threats to food security as the confluence of and interplay between numerous global factors intensify, such as globalisation, escalating geopolitical tensions, the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and other socioeconomic challenges. While starvation still occurs in lowincome countries, there is increasing inequity in food consumption9 and carbon footprints globally.10 Overconsumption, food waste, and their environmental impacts are significant, especially in wealthy nations.9

Australia is not isolated from these global impacts. As one of the most urbanised countries in the world, 90% of the Australian population lives in urban areas, characterised by low-density and spatially dispersed urban forms.11 Food consumption in urban environments arguably plays a significant role in food security or insecurity.7

Food security in Australia

Instrumental in understanding and measuring food security is

the sustainable food consumption framework.7 An essential idea of this framework regards food consumption as a demand issue conditional on the socio-spatial characteristics of urban environments. This conceptual construct enables the evaluation of four socioeconomic factors affecting food consumption: food affordability; access to healthy food; food retail options and food-related carbon emissions. Each factor impacts food security in Australia individually and collectively.

A Brisbane case study measured food security according to the sustainable food consumption framework. Looking at food affordability it found that this factor affects food security through two dimensions – availability and access to healthy foods. Figure 1 shows not quite half of urban residents (48.6%) perceive fresh and nutritious foods to be affordable despite the perceived availability of food (90%). The affordability of less nutritious foods, on the contrary, encourages their consumption, with overconsumption becoming more likely due to their perceived convenience (28%), accessibility (19%), availability (19%), palatability (16%), and affordability (11%). More than 30% of residents shop for these items frequently, despite being aware of the consequences of overconsuming non-essential foods (81.4%). The magnitude of food affordability as a factor is further underscored with 42% of residents spending more than one-third of their household

income on food, a risk signalling food poverty.7

The second factor of food consumption, access to food, impacts food security physically, financially, and socially, including the right to food. Geographical dispersion of the population renders walking less practical for some, compelling greater reliance on automobiles. In the Brisbane case study, 66% of respondents selected driving as the dominant mode to obtain food, and 63% spent longer than five minutes (approximately 3.7km in distance) to reach their food shopping destinations.7

Lack of access to food has worse impacts on vulnerable and disadvantaged demographic groups. Only 49% of respondents in the Brisbane case study either accessed food support services or knew people who did. While embarrassment was one deterrent, many also cited physical distance and other barriers to accessing food services. This finding reflects an underestimated food access issue, inadequate and inequitable access and the limited provision of food charities.7 The inability to adequately access healthy food renders the right to food unachievable while escalating the negative impact of a double helix in food consumption constrained by the socio-spatial characteristics of lowdensity urban environments.

The third factor in the food consumption framework, diverse retail options in urban areas, can impact food security in terms of

Figure 1: Perception of the availability (1a) and affordability (1b) of fresh and healthy food.7

agency, stability, utilisation and sustainability. This factor is particularly impactful where the variety of healthy food retail options is inadequate in spatially dispersed and lowdensity urban environments. In the Brisbane case study, the monopoly of supermarkets left most residents (78%) predominantly shopping for food in these outlets.7

Supermarket consolidation reduces the diversity of food provision and restricts consumer choices. The proliferation of non-essential food from multinational fast-food chains, on the other hand, attracts more consumers due to their convenience, easy access and the affordability and palatability of their product offerings. The combination of both factors reduces the agency of consumers in making food choices, weakens the stability of food provision in times of unexpected events, diminishes the intake of healthy and nutritious foods and reduces the sustainability of food systems in urban areas.7

Food-related carbon emissions, the fourth factor in the food consumption framework, affects food consumption and food security through utilisation and sustainability. There are negative ecological impacts associated with food production, distribution and retail activities. The increasing carbon footprint is inevitable, with most food produced, consumed and wasted in urban areas.9 While 71% of urban dwellers acknowledged this foodrelated ecological imbalance, they often fail to translate this awareness into action.7

The preceding four factors defined in the framework of sustainable food consumption indicate their undeniable association with various aspects of food insecurity in Australia.

Food affordability, access to healthy food, food retail options, and carbon footprint are inherently associated with the socio-spatial characteristics of urban environments. These factors, both individually and collectively, affect how food is marketed, distributed, accessed, and consumed, playing a critical role in shaping Australia's food security.

Based on our case study, food security in Australia, when assessed against the four factors in the sustainable food consumption framework, is weak.

Australia’s food security requires sustainable food consumption

Food security in Australia is unique. Its manifestation does not depend on the amount of agricultural food produced and exported. Instead, it lies in the availability, affordability and accessibility of healthy food, the level of diversification in the retail sector, and the degree of food loss and waste. Support is needed to deliver the right to adequate food, to improve the quality of food systems in urban environments and their connections with semi-urban and rural communities. Addressing the four socioeconomic factors of sustainable food consumption identified in urban areas, characterised by spatial dispersion and low-density residential development, can reduce the formation of the double helix of overconsumption of unhealthy food and underconsumption of healthy food. In doing so, food security in Australia, underpinned by sustainable food consumption, will be strengthened in quantity and quality along with production.

References

1. Australian Food & Grocery Council. (2020). No need to panic, Australia produces enough food for 75 million

2. K. Morgan and R. Sonnino, (2010). "The urban foodscape: world cities and the new food equation," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Vol. 3, pp. 209-224.

3. Parliament of Australia. (2024). Inquiry into food security in Australia https://www.aph. gov.au/foodsecurity

4. Foodbank. (2020). Foodbank Hunger Report 2020 https://www.foodbank.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/FB-HR20.pdf

5. Foodbank. (2024). Foodbank Hunger Report 2024 https://reports.foodbank.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2024/10/2024_Foodbank_ Hunger_Report_IPSOS-Report.pdf

6. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, (2017). A picture of overweight and obesity in Australia https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/ overweight-obesity/a-picture-of-overweightand-obesity-in-australia/notes

7. L. Summerhayes, D. Baker, and K. Vella, (2024). Food diversity and accessibility enabled urban environments for sustainable food consumption: a case study of Brisbane, Australia. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Vol. 11, p. 1227.

8. HLPE, (2020). Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030. High Level Panel of Experts, Rome 2020. https:// www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe/en/

9. T. Hasegawa, P. Havlík, S. Frank, A. Palazzo, and H. Valin, Tackling food consumption inequality to fight hunger without pressuring the environment. Nature Sustainability, Vol. 2, pp. 826-833, 2019/09/01 2019.

10. L. Chancel, Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019. Nature Sustainability, Vol. 5, pp. 931-938, 2022/11/01 2022.

11. N. Gurran, (2011). Australian urban land use planning: principles, systems and practice, 2nd ed. Sydney: Sydney University Press.

Dr Lijun Summerhayes is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia. Her research focuses on urban and regional land use planning, food planning, food systems, food security, policy and governance. f

Precision fermentation: a future of food in Australia

Words by Dr Esteban Marcellin

To sustainably feed the growing global population, we must significantly scale up food production while reducing its environmental impact. This includes increasing ingredient and food supply from traditional sources, including meat, dairy and plants, and from innovative sources through new technologies such as precision fermentation.

The White Paper Precision Fermentation: A Future of Food in Australia provides a comprehensive overview of precision fermentation’s potential to revolutionise food systems, and contribute to economic growth, environmental sustainability and food security across the nation. Developed by Australia’s Food and Beverage Accelerator (FaBA), the White Paper draws on the experience and expertise of more than 70 authors from across industry, government and academia. The authors systematically

reviewed current conditions for Australia’s precision fermentation industry and explored opportunities for sector growth.

What is precision fermentation?

Precision fermentation builds on wellestablished fermentation techniques that have safely diversified our food supply for centuries, adapting them for modern, large-scale applications. Traditional fermentation transforms ingredients through microbial processes, producing food staples like bread, cheese, yoghurt, beer and wine. Precision fermentation enhances this process, cultivating microbial strains specifically engineered to produce high-quality protein and other ingredients. This method promises to enhance and complement food production by creating efficient, scalable alternatives to conventional food production systems.

Future foods

Precision fermentation has the potential to create entirely new ingredients, flavours, and tastes while protecting the environment. It is a complementary technology that can enhance and diversify our food. Imagine Italian cuisine without tomatoes, Thai food without chillies, or a world without chocolate. When Christopher Columbus arrived in the Americas in 1492, he introduced tomatoes, cocoa and chillies to Europeans and chillies to Asians, transforming global cuisines. Today, precision fermentation represents a similar innovation, enabling the creation of novel and improved food products through advanced biotechnological processes. This technology has the potential to reshape our food systems, offering sustainable solutions that align with modern demands – but we must ensure the

Professor Esteban Marcellin working in his laboratory in the UQ Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (Credit – Megan Pope).

appropriate national, regulatory and policy frameworks are in place.

Recommendations for policymakers

Appoint a Minister for Food and develop a National Food Plan

Develop a National Food Plan and appoint an Australian Minister for Food to coordinate the regulation, innovation, investment and promotion of precision fermentation. This aligns with the 2023 Australian Parliament’s Agriculture Committee report and submissions to the 2024 Government Inquiry into the Future of Food and Beverage Manufacturing. Develop enabling regulatory frameworks

Establish comprehensive regulatory and ethical guidelines for precision fermentation that prioritise consumer health, safety and innovation. Ensure these guidelines meet standards that facilitate market entry and avoid unrealistic expectations about the technology’s potential.

Engage industry experts, academics, and regulators such as FSANZ and OGTR to ensure adaptable, robust guidelines that address technological advances and environmental risks.

Promote responsible production of precision fermentation-based foods

Maintain transparency around the risks and benefits of precision fermentation while addressing food security issues. Ensure economic viability

Invest in research, pilot- and commercial-scale manufacturing facilities that prioritise sustainable practices and deliver economically viable products.

Provide financial support and training for traditional agriculture and food sectors to adopt precision fermentation technologies. Encourage continuous environmental improvement

Develop standardised methods to assess the environmental impact of precision fermentation through comprehensive life cycle analyses.

Set measurable sustainability goals for companies and mandate transparent reporting on environmental performance. Promote collaboration

Foster collaboration between precision fermentation companies and traditional industries to accelerate technology adoption.

Establish forums and workshops to enhance communication between academia and industry, ensuring research aligns with market needs.

Enhance education and public awareness

Implement public education programs that address consumer concerns and highlight the benefits of precision fermentation. Emphasise the environmental and health impacts using transparent data, including life cycle assessments.

Engage with consumer advocacy groups to support education efforts and improve public understanding of precision fermentation.

If we are to invest in advanced production systems, such as precision fermentation, we must ensure an appropriate landscape – implementing these policy recommendations would help ensure the future Australian food sector is well positioned to truly thrive.

References

1. Marcellin, E, Bansal, N, Ebert, B, Gumulya, Y, Johnson, H, Peng, H, Turner, M, van der Pols, J. (2024). (eds.) Precision Fermentation: A Future of Food in Australia, White Paper, Innovative Ingredients Program, Australia's Food and Beverage Accelerator (FaBA), The University of Queensland, 88pp. https://faba.au/wp-content/ uploads/2024/11/Precision-Fermentation-AFuture-of-Food-in-Australia.pdf

Professor Esteban Marcellin is Lead, Innovative Ingredients Program, at the Food and Beverage Accelerator (FaBA). f

Food safety risk assessment: part 1 - risk assessment primer

Words by Dr Dipon Sarkar and Deon Mahoney

This is the first in a series of articles in food australia exploring the science (and art) of food safety risk assessment. In this article, we will be focusing on the fundamentals of risk assessment - the basic steps according to the Codex framework, along with the complexities and barriers in the process. While this article focuses on microbial risk assessment, the concepts can be extended to managing other hazards such as allergens and chemicals.

Codex risk analysis

Over the past two decades, there has been a significant push for food safety management systems to move from a reactive hazard-based approach to a harmonised, preventative, riskbased approach.1 This shift required a reliable, scientifically robust and reproducible process to assess the risk from food safety hazards. The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), under the umbrella of the parent organisations WHO and FAO, developed the risk analysis

process in 1999 as the common operational framework to support the development of risk-based food safety control.2

Codex defines risk analysis as the structured, systematic process that examines the potential adverse health effect from a hazard and develops options for mitigating that risk.2 The Codex risk analysis framework consists of three separate but closely related elements – risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. As the name suggests, these elements focus on defining and assessing the risk; identifying the control measures that can be used to effectively manage the risks; and communicating the risks to different stakeholders.

The four steps of conducting a risk assessment according to the Codex framework are:

1. hazard identification, 2. hazard characterisation, 3 exposure assessment and; 4. risk characterisation.

Hazard identification is the first step of risk assessment. It builds on HACCP principles and is focused on

identifying the main microbiological, physical, allergenic or chemical hazards associated with a particular food process or product. Hazard characterisation focuses on the detailed relationship between exposure to the hazard and public health outcome, including factors that influence the severity or occurrence of disease caused by the hazard, such as virulence factors, risk populations and food matrix effects. The doseresponse relationship is an essential part of hazard characterisation, providing mathematical relationships between levels of hazard consumed (dose) and the probability of a health outcome (response).

Exposure assessment gives a quantitative measure (prevalence and concentration) of the contaminant level in the final product at the time of consumption.4 The first step in conducting an exposure assessment is describing the food pathway, which illustrates how the exposure will be calculated. The final step of the risk assessment is risk characterisation which integrates findings of the previous three steps and provides

Hazard identification

Description of hazard (microbe, toxin, etc.) and adverse effects it causes

Hazard characterisation

Description of the hazard’s effect, including doseresponse – predicting the probability of an adverse effect from a given dose

Exposure assessment

The qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation of the likely intake of biological, chemical, and physical agents via food as well as exposures from other sources if relevant

Risk characterisation

Qualitative/quantitative estimate of occurrence and severity of adverse health effects in a given population

Table 1: Summary of the four steps of conducting a microbial risk assessment according to the Codex framework..

a risk estimate and proposes risk management options.2 Depending on the method used for risk assessment, risk characterisation can be qualitative, quantitative, or semiquantitative, however quantitative methods are usually used.4 The estimate can be risk per portion or risk per population, and may involve economic evaluations. A complete risk characterisation consists of the risk summary; understanding the variability of the risk; sensitivity analysis, understanding the uncertainty and validation.

There are two major types of microbial risk assessmentsqualitative and fully quantitative.3 When quality data are lacking, qualitative risk assessment serves as a quick tool to describe risks in descriptive measures, such as ‘negligible’, ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’. The methodology depends on a subjective description of quantities based on expert opinions. Semiquantitative risk assessment uses either primary data or ‘scores’ to describe risk. The model complexity and the amount of data required are less in this model compared to fully quantitative models, making food safety risk assessment readily available to non-expert users for educational and decision-making purposes.4 Quantitative risk assessment is a more complex form of risk assessment, which uses a probabilistic modelling approach to generate numerical estimates of consumer risk.

These formal risk assessment protocols have proven to be beneficial for researchers, academics, and food regulators in the development of food regulations, codes of practice, and guidance

material designed to eliminate or reduce risks. However, on the food factory floor, food industry personnel need to perform stripped-down risk assessments on a routine basis –often with limited time, resources, and expertise. These assessments (henceforth referred to as rapid risk assessments) are needed to address the day-to-day scenarios encountered by the food industry and make time-sensitive decisions on product release, raw material acceptance, and ingredient or process change. In reality, these rapid risk assessments are often made based on experience and intuition or with the help of a 3x3 (using subjective estimates of likelihood and consequence) without detailed analysis and consideration of the risk descriptor. The limitation of this approach is that it doesn’t necessarily leverage the full breadth of knowledge and scientific advancements that have been made in this field.

The question arises, how can food industry personnel leverage the Codex framework when undertaking rapid risk assessments to make them more robust? Are there tools available that can help? Is the revised hazard analysis process under the HACCP system being effectively used to identify those hazards which are of such significance that they are reasonably likely to cause harm if not effectively controlled?

To explore these topics, and dissect microbial and allergen case studies from a regulatory and industry perspective, AIFST has partnered with industry experts to organise a series of risk assessment workshops. The first workshop was conducted in June 2024 in

Melbourne with further workshops organised in Brisbane and Sydney (dates to be confirmed). The findings from the workshop along with other essential themes of risk assessment will be further explored in this series of risk assessment articles in future editions of food australia. Stay tuned!

References

1. Koutsoumanis, K.P., Aspridou, Z., 2016. Moving towards a risk-based food safety management. Current Opinion in Food Science 12, 36–41.

2. FAO and WHO. 2023. General Principles of Food Hygiene. Codex Alimentarius Code of Practice, No.CXC 1-1969. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ cc6125en

3. FAO and WHO. 2021. Microbiological risk assessment - Guidance for food Microbiological Risk Assessment Series No. 36. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5006en

4. Membré, J., 2022. Microbiological Risk Assessment Associated with the Food Processing and Distribution Chain. ISTE Ltd, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dr Dipon Sarkar is a food safety consultant working at Victual. Deon Mahoney is a food safety consultant at Deon Mahoney Consulting and is Adjunct Professor in the School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability at the University of Queensland. f

Producing food through precision fermentation: the opportunity for Australia

Words by Jessica Freitag

Australia has a strategic opportunity to position itself at the forefront of food and agricultural innovation by embracing precision fermentation (PF). This transformative technology has the potential to complement traditional food production methods, strengthening the resilience and future-proofing of our food system.

A recent report by Cellular Agriculture Australia (CAA), outlines how investment in precision fermentation could not only support the food and agriculture sectors’ transition to more sustainable practices, but also bolster Australia’s sovereign capability and position itself as a global leader in biomanufacturing.

What is precision fermentation?

Precision fermentation harnesses microorganisms (eg. yeast, bacteria, fungi) to produce specific ingredients. These ingredients, which include egg and dairy proteins, fats and oils, can be used in a range of food and agricultural products. It is part of the field of cellular agriculturewhich encompasses the use of cells and innovative biotechnologies to

produce new ingredients, foods and agricultural products more broadly.

Precision fermentation has long been utilised in pharmaceuticals and in producing minor food ingredients such as additives and nutritive substances. However, its application in producing major food ingredients such as proteins and fats is more recent and requires larger-scale production.

Globally, precision-fermented ingredients have been approved for sale in the US, Singapore, India, Israel and Canada. For example, companies such as Perfect Day and New Culture have been approved to produce precision-fermented dairy proteins that are now being incorporated into a range of milk, cheese and ice cream products.

Why do we need precision fermentation?

As a net food exporter, Australia plays a crucial role in feeding domestic and global markets. However, the nation’s food systems are increasingly under pressure due to rising demand for protein, the growing challenges of climate change and rising agricultural input costs.

Several international organisations

agree that meeting global climate targets is impossible without decarbonising food systems,1 which contributes around 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions.2

Using PF to produce protein and other food ingredients is projected to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to conventionally produced products. As such, PF offers a potential method of producing the foods we know and love whilst mitigating current and emerging challenges in our food system.

By 2030, CSIRO projects that an additional 8.5 million tonnes of protein products will be required to meet domestic and export demand.3 Precision fermentation could also play a crucial role in helping to diversify Australia’s protein sources and ensure the country can keep up with this demand.

Growth in this industry will contribute to future food security, strengthen Australia’s bioeconomy and create diverse job opportunities across STEM fields and trades.

Sector overview

Although still nascent, Australia’s PF sector is making strides, with

'Tastilux' precision-fermented fat by Nourish Ingredients.

FUTURE FOODS

six companies currently operating in Australia: All G Foods; Cauldron Ferm; Eclipse Ingredients; Eden Brew; Noumi and Nourish Ingredients, as well as Daisy Lab operating in New Zealand (current as at Oct 2024). These companies are developing a range of precision-fermented ingredients, including dairy proteins and fats. They are currently working to transition from proof-of-concept products to pilot production, regulatory approval and commercial scale.

Several international companies are selling approved minor food ingredients produced using precision fermentation in Australia. Australian consumers may already be purchasing Impossible Foods’ plant-based burger patties which contain precision-fermented soy leghemoglobin and Cargill’s EverSweet stevia sweetener produced using precision-fermented steviol glycoside.

Outside of companies focusing on precision-fermented ingredients, Australia also benefits from deepseated scientific expertise in this field across numerous academic and research institutions, while its investment community has played a vital role in supporting the industry’s early development. Over 2023-24, there was an increase in government engagement and support of the sector, most notably the support of Cauldron Ferm through both the Federal Government Industry Growth Program4 and the Queensland Government.5

Australia’s opportunity to build a thriving precision fermentation industry

Australia is well-positioned to become a global production hub for precision-fermented ingredients. The nation boasts strong emerging capabilities across the value chain – from research and regulation to manufacturing. However, to realise this potential, CAA’s report argues that several key non-competitive challenges must be overcome and that the Australian Government must take a more active role. In particular,

by overtly declaring its support for, engaging with, and investing in Australia’s emerging PF sector. Robust research capability

Australia has a solid and longstanding foundation in scientific research and innovation, underpinned by internationally recognised expertise in fields critical to advancing PF, including synthetic biology, bioprocessing, bioengineering and agricultural science. Key players in advancing precision fermentation include precision fermentation companies, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), CSIRO, and the ARC Centre of Excellence in Synthetic Biology.

However, CAA points out that the lack of funding for open-access foundational research is a barrier to commercialisation. Without public investment, intellectual property risks being locked up by commercial interests, hindering research translation and industry growth. CAA advocates for explicit recognition of precision fermentation within public funding mechanisms as a first step to facilitating research translation and commercialisation.

A well-established regulatory system

Australia's regulatory framework is well-equipped to manage the approval of precision-fermented ingredients, with oversight provided

by two key agencies - the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). The OGTR regulates the handling and processing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), while FSANZ oversees the commercial sale of precision-fermented ingredients.

In 2024, the OGTR awarded a first-of-its-kind licence to contract manufacturer Cauldron Ferm,6 creating a significant opportunity to reduce the costs of establishing new production infrastructure. Although FSANZ’s food safety regulatory pathway has not yet been fully tested for precision-fermented major food ingredients, the regulator is highly trusted by consumers and has a strong track record in approving precision-fermented additives and nutritive substances.

Several Australian companies are currently preparing dossiers for regulatory assessment by FSANZ, but barriers such as lengthy timelines, high costs and unclear application requirements are limiting the pace of commercialisation. CAA advocates for the Australian Government to address these challenges by increasing FSANZ's resourcing, reducing the cost of assessments and streamlining regulatory approval pathways.

Creamilux’ precision-fermented fat in chocolates. Image by Nourish Ingredients.

An emerging manufacturing landscape

Australia is increasingly primed to support the manufacturing and scaleup of precision-fermented ingredient production, which has the potential to be a pillar of Australia’s future bioeconomy.

CSIRO is set to upgrade its Food Innovation Centre at Werribee with food-grade pilot-scale capacity of 400L, and the Mackay Renewable Biocommodities Pilot Plant upgrade, supported by QUT and the Queensland Government will offer a capacity of 2,400L.7 In addition, contract manufacturer Cauldron Ferm’s 25,000L demonstrationscale fermentation facility will provide much-needed infrastructure for companies. Coupled with Cauldron Ferm's proprietary hyperfermentation technology, this facility is poised to deliver significant cost and efficiency advantages for its customers.

Since the report’s publication, Cauldron Ferm announced it has secured funding from the Queensland Government to build APAC’s largest precision fermentation facility, the ‘Cauldron Bio-Fab’, in Mackay, Queensland.8

The report emphasises that infrastructure is currently the most significant bottleneck limiting the growth of the precision fermentation industry. By 2035, the demand for PF infrastructure is expected to be 180 times greater than current levels.9 This represents a significant opportunity for investment from both the public and private sectors. CAA urges the Australian Government to prioritise precision fermentation and cellular agriculture in its innovation and infrastructure agendas, and provide financial support and incentives for pilot and commercialscale facilities suitable for precision fermentation.

A strategic ecosystem opportunity Australia’s precision fermentation sector benefits from a highly collaborative ecosystem. Companies, research institutes, venture capital firms, and government bodies have

demonstrated a willingness to work together to address shared challenges and realise broader opportunities. This is where organisations such as CAA can play a critical role in bringing diverse stakeholders together to identify, prioritise and work together on common, non-competitive challenges.

A standout example of this strategic ecosystem approach can be found in Queensland’s Greater Whitsunday (GW) Region. Spearheaded by the Greater Whitsundays Alliance (GW3), the region has steadily built momentum over the past decade, positioning itself as a hub for PF manufacturing. The GW region’s success lies in its ability to leverage unique regional strengths, such as access to key feedstocks such as sugar, economic strength and a highly skilled workforce.

A prime example of this regional collaboration is Cauldron Ferm’s planned facility in Mackay, which is strategically co-located with the sugar industry. This initiative reflects the strength of a dedicated coalition and the critical role of government support.

Australia can build a thriving precision fermentation industry that attracts domestic and international investment by fostering deep collaboration and leveraging regional strengths, as seen in the Greater Whitsundays.

A tipping point for the industry

Australia’s precision fermentation industry holds all the puzzle pieces to realise its potential and has begun to pave the way to position itself as a world leader. As companies gain access to commercial manufacturing capacity, a pivotal shift will be observed as they transition through pilot and commercial scale and focus on reducing costs. In parallel, we are likely to see an increased focus on deepening understanding of Australian consumer perceptions and preferences in relation to precision-fermented ingredients, and a keen focus on the development

of delicious and nutritious products demanded by Australian consumers. The industry has now reached a critical juncture whereby it could underpin the creation of a more diverse and resilient economy and global food system.

To read the full CAA report, visit: https://www. cellularagricultureaustralia.org/ publications/producing-foodthrough-precision-fermentation--the-opportunity-for-australia

References

1. World Bank. (2024). Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving net zero emissions in the agrifood system https://www.worldbank.org/ en/topic/agriculture/publication/recipe-forlivable-planet

2. UNEP. (2023). What's Cooking? An assessment of potential impacts of selected novel alternatives to conventional animal products https://www.unep.org/resources/ whats-cooking-assessment-potential-impactsselected-novel-alternatives-conventional

3. CSIRO Futures. (2022). A Roadmap for unlocking technology-led growth opportunities for Australia https://www.csiro.au/en/workwith-us/services/consultancy-strategic-adviceservices/csiro-futures/agriculture-and-food/ australias-protein-roadmap

4. The Hon Ed Husic MP, Minister for Industry & Science. (2024). First funding from Industry Growth Program spans batteries to blueberries https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ ministers/husic/media-releases/first-fundingindustry-growth-program-spans-batteriesblueberries#:~:text=IGP%20funding%20 is%20provided%20through,product%2C%20 process%2C%20or%20service

5. Cauldron Ferm. (2024). Cauldron Receives Queensland Government Support to Develop First-of-a-Kind Biomanufacturing Facility https://www.cauldronferm.com/post/ cauldron-receives-queensland-governmentsupport-to-develop-first-of-a-kindbiomanufacturing-facility

6. Cauldron Ferm. (2024). Cauldron licensed to produce animal proteins using microbes in batches up to 10,000 litres by office of gene technology regulator https://www. cauldronferm.com/post/cauldron-licensed-toproduce-animal-proteins-using-microbes-inbatches-up-to-10-000-litres-by-office-of-genetechnology-regulator

7. Queensland University of Technology. (2024). Mackay pilot plant upgrade set to fast-track novel foods through precision fermentation https://www.qut.edu.au/ news?id=192812#:~:text=A%20%243.9%20 million%20project%20will,to%20produce%20 novel%20food%20ingredients

8. Cauldron Ferm. (2024). Cauldron Receives Queensland Government Support to Develop First-of-a-Kind Biomanufacturing Facility

9. Paraphrased from Michele Stansfield (Cauldron Ferm). Greater Whitsunday Alliance. (2024). Let's discuss future foods and precision fermentation for the Australian sugar industry https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=Wudh4BZv8rQ

Jessica Freitag is Advocacy & Communications Coordinator at Cellular Agriculture Australia. f

Cheese whey: a hidden opportunity to tackle Australia's food loss and waste problem

Words by Jack Hetherington, Dr Adam J. Loch and Dr Pablo Juliano

Australia generates 7.6 million tonnes of food loss and waste (FLW) each year, with nearly half occurring before food reaches consumers.1 While fruits and vegetables often dominate discussions, a lesser-known yet significant issue is the waste of cheese whey, a by-product of cheese production. This underutilised resource presents an opportunity for the dairy sector to embrace more sustainable practices, by considering different business models.

The whey waste opportunity

Whey is the liquid leftover from cheesemaking, containing around half the nutrients and up to 90% of the mass of raw milk. There are many ways businesses are turning this byproduct into high-value food products.

You can buy alcohol (eg. beer, vodka or gin) made from cow (https://www.stdukesdistillery. com.au/shop), goat (https://www. jumpinggoatliquor.com/), sheep (https://hartshorndistillery.com. au/) and camel milk (https:// summerlandcamels.com.au/ collections/vodka). In addition to utilising a byproduct that would otherwise go to waste, the production process for whey-based alcohol emits fewer greenhouse gases and uses less water than traditional brews from grain.2 Others make protein powders and extract nutrient components such as Lactoferrin, which has been found to aid in the treatment of long COVID symptoms.3

Despite these innovations, whey waste is one of the largest sources of FLW in the dairy sector. Each year, 350 million litres of whey is wasted in Australia, costing businesses over $500 million and contributing to negative environmental consequences.4

More than one ‘whey’ to reduce waste

Addressing whey waste does not require every business to act alone. Circular business models’ ie. different business models and strategies that reduce, reuse or recycle our resources, offer a range of pathways for firms to repurpose whey and reduce waste.

In a new study, we looked at four practical options for cheesemakers to deal with whey waste.5 These include:

• Doing it ‘in-house’

• Engaging ‘third parties’ (eg. a local processor/distiller),and

• Entering ‘joint ventures’ (multiple cheesemakers teaming up).

For businesses already repurposing whey and with the infrastructure and capability to do so, we also looked at why they couldn’t (wouldn’t) accept whey from other cheesemakers when they had an opportunity to become a ‘focal company’ for the waste of others as a fourth option.

We found that Australian cheesemakers had a good understanding of potential applications for their whey. Everyone could name at least one option that repurposed whey into a food product.

So, what is stopping them? A range of issues were identified, including cost, scale, competing priorities and distances to potential partners. We found that by considering these different business models, some of these barriers were reduced, but each model came with its own challenges:

• In-house approaches can work across all production scales—in fact, one business makes more money from whey than cheese— but it requires sufficient time and money

• Third parties can help with the time and money issue, provided there’s agreement on the waste’s ‘value’

• Joint ventures suit those wanting to retain value but lack scale, however this model needs clear leadership and business planning

• Focal companies can solve many of these issues, though this comes with a new set of product specifications.

Willingness to change increases from 33% when only in-house solutions are considered, to 79% when all four models were on the table. This highlights the importance of offering diverse pathways to reduce FLW.

Interestingly, distance was often cited as a major issue, yet we showed that over half of cheesemakers had potential partners, such as other cheesemakers, distillers or brewers, within 1-2km. This suggests a gap between ‘perceived’ and ‘actual’ barriers to adopting these business models.

We need to close the gap between perceived and actual barriers. Most businesses have someone local they could work with although they might not realise they are there or have connected the dots that a local distiller may be a potential recipient. Also, there can be a lot of ambiguity about the technical requirements for these options and how they can fit within their business or broader collaboration.

The result is that whey waste is put in the ‘too hard’ basket.

So what needs to change?

Our research shows that no one-sizefits-all solution exists to solving the waste problem, and collaboration is key. This will take different forms, and each option will come with its own (teething) issues. It requires action from governments, industry and individual businesses and consumers.

Decision support tools can play an important role here. Imagine a sophisticated calculator that compares all the options and tells you what might work for your specific situation and goals. In addition to technological tools, there are also a range of regulatory disincentives6 that need to be addressed, including food safety regulations and alcohol taxation so that there are better support systems in place to help with this transition.

Dairy Australia, the peak industry body, recently released an action plan to halve food loss and waste by 2030. The plan has a focus on establishing industry working groups and assessing the feasibility of diverting waste to third-party processors.4 Our findings support these proposed actions. We suggest that companies already repurposing whey (eg. potential ‘focal companies’) are brought to the table to leverage their existing processing capacity, thereby accelerating progress toward the industrywide goal of waste minimisation. Companies such as Bega Cheese, Fonterra, Saputo and Asahi (the latter produces a line of whey-based vodka called ‘Vodka O’) should be at the table too.

Consumers also need to be made aware of what is happening in the food system, and given the choice, buy the gin made from whey. The ‘Upcycled’ (https:// www.upcycledfood.org/upcycledfood) label is still in its early days in Australia but has the potential to help inform consumers and drive demand for these products. This could be part of broader efforts to change consumer food waste behaviour such as The Great Unwaste (https://

thegreatunwaste.com.au/).

Finally then, what can we learn from the dairy sector?

The dairy sector’s whey waste problem mirrors broader issues of FLW in Australia. Finding ‘wheys’ to improve the circularity of our food system could unlock economic benefits for the industry and enable us to produce more with less. This will require different forms of collaboration and sufficient incentives for these businesses to overcome the barriers and invest in these changes.

References

1. FIAL (2021). National Food Waste Strategy Feasibility Study https://www.fial.com.au/ sharing-knowledge/food-waste

2. Risner, D., Shayevitz, A., Haapala, K., MeunierGoddik, L. and Hughes, P. (2018). Fermentation and distillation of cheese whey: Carbon dioxideequivalent emissions and water use in the production of whey spirits and white whiskey, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol.101(4), p2963-2973

3. Chang, R., Ng, T.B. and Sun, W-Z. (2020) Lactoferrin as potential preventative and adjunct treatment for COVID-19, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, Vol.56(3), 106118

4. Dairy Australia (2023). Dairy Sector Food Waste Action Plan https://www.dairyaustralia.com. au/manufacturing-support/manufacturingsustainability/dairy-sector-food-waste-actionplan#:~:text=The%20Dairy%20Food%20 Waste%20Action,across%20the%20dairy%20 supply%20chain

5. Hetherington, J.B., Loch, A.J., Juliano, P.,

Umberger, W.J. (2024). 'Barriers to circular economy adoption are diverse and some are business-model specific: Evidence from the Australian cheese manufacturing sector', Journal of Cleaner Production, 143879.

6. Hetherington, J., Loch, A., Juliano, P., Umberger, W. (2024) Exploring incentives to move up the Food Waste Hierarchy: a case study of the Australian cheese manufacturing sector https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4215468/v1

Acknowledgement

This article features research that was funded by the End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre whose activities are funded by the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centre Program, the CSIRO and the University of Adelaide. Jack Hetherington acknowledges the support of Associate Professor Adam Loch, Dr Pablo Juliano and Professor Wendy Umberger.

Jack Hetherington is a PhD candidate at the University of Adelaide.

Dr Adam J. Loch is an Associate Professor in the School of Economics and Public Policy at the University of Adelaide.

Dr Pablo Juliano is Group Leader Food Processing and Supply Chains, Agriculture and Food, CSIRO. f

Figure 1: Total liquid whey generated in Australia.4

BECOME A FOOD SAFETY AUDITOR

With 15 Internal and Lead Auditor courses on offer, we are Australia’s leading provider of Food Safety, HACCP, GFSI and ISO training courses.

All of our Auditor courses are Exemplar Global accredited, excluding BRCGS. QMS Audits is a Registered Training Organisation (RTO. 45344)

Call us for a chat to understand your next step to becoming an auditor.

2025/2026 COURSE LINE-UP

Internal & Lead Auditor – Food Safety

Internal & Lead Auditor – ISO 14001 – Environment

Internal & Lead Auditor – ISO 9001, 19011

Internal & Lead Auditor – ISO 45001 – OHS

IMS Implementation & Lead Auditor – ISO 9001, 14001 and 45001

BRCGS Auditor – 3 & 5 day

Food Microbiology – FBPFST5006

Cook Chill – FBPAUD5002