food australia Journal, Vol. 75 (1) January - March 2023

Seaweed and its extracts in food systems

The emerging science of ‘exome matching’

Offshore horizons for future seafood production & &

Food safety, security and sustainability - one continuum

We all know gluten is the doughforming fraction of wheat, rye and barley. It is responsible for coeliac disease as well as gluten intolerance. As there is no cure for coeliac disease, individuals with the condition must adopt a lifelong gluten free diet. Unfortunately, it is possible for foods labelled as gluten free to become contaminated during the production process. Furthermore, various processing methods and additives can deamidate the gluten that may be present which in turn poses a risk to the coeliac consumer. Consequently, ELISA Systems saw the need to develop a more sensitive and reliable test for the detection of both native and deamidated gluten in foods.

The R5 ELISA kit has been widely used as method for the detection of gluten. However, there are several disadvantages when using the R5 kit: The length of time required to perform the assay, the need for an extraction or fume cupboard and the poor detection of deamidated gluten.

ELISA Systems recognised the need to address these limitations in the R5 test kit by developing a gluten ELISA based on the R5 antibody footprint and specificity but as a rapid assay, not requiring the use of a fume hood and also capable of detecting both native and deamidated gluten. The scientific team at ELISA Systems are very proud to release the new ELISA Systems Generation 3 gluten kit featuring the new 2D4 antibody.

Why 2D4 as the antibody? It is because the 2D4 antibody has shown superior detection of both native and deamidated gluten in wheat, rye and barley, as well as their subspecies and hybrids, compared with other antibodies - including R5.

Deamidated/processed gluten has traditionally been difficult to accurately detect affecting the recovery of gluten in baked and heated goods. The breakthrough technology that we developed not only overcomes this problem but, unlike other kits in the marketplace, it also includes a novel extraction process resulting in no harmful or toxic extraction solutions.

The ELISA Systems Generation 3 Gluten kit has been specifically designed to provide accurate results

quickly and easily. This is illustrated in Table 1.

The ELISA Systems team also collaborated to publish a paper outlining the findings and showcasing the excellent results. If you would like to see the published paper characterising the 2D4 antibody, please follow the link below:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S073352102200174

6?dgcid=coauthor

This kit is now available so please contact us for more information. Email: sales@elisasystems.com Web: www.elisasystems.com

Table 1: Comparison of three gluten ELISA assays.

THE NEXT GENERATION OF GLUTEN TESTING IS NOW HERE

IN THIS ISSUE

14 Evaluation of core competencies for food science graduates

2022 AIFST Research Poster Competition winner

16 The antimicrobial efficacy of native Australian essential oils

2022 AIFST Research Poster Competition winner

18 Sandwich ELISA for the detection of oat protein in foods

2022 AIFST Research Poster Competition runner up

19 ePROB: A new tool for defining protein quality

The emerging science of ‘exome matching’

22 Strengthening the resilience of food supply chains Building the resilience of our food system to withstand future shocks and stresses

24 Carbon neutral claims: maximum penalties now $50 million plus What are ‘carbon neutral’ claims and how can businesses make these claims legally?

26 Food safety, security and sustainability - one continuum

Managing food safety, environmental and social issues symbiotically

30 Cellular agriculture: a crucial opportunity for Australia How to create an environment that enables growth with this emerging technology

33 AIFST Mentoring Program

A look back at 2022

34 Food safety trends - 2023 and beyond

A look to the future opportunities and challenges for food scientists

37 Black soldier fly – challenges and opportunities for the food supply chain

Investigating the protein composition of black soldier fly larvae and the food allergen implications

38 The AFGC’s Product Information Form V6 – concept to reality

Reflections on 20 years of the PIF

41 Seaweed and its extracts in food systems

The opportunities and challenges ahead for seaweed

44 New offshore horizons for future seafood production

The Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre - working to deliver results across seafood and renewable energy

38

REGULARS

05 By the Numbers

06 People

10 AIFST News

28 Food Files

47 Fast Five

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

Editorial Coordination

Melinda Stewart | aifst@aifst.com.au

Contributors

Dr Geoffrey Annison, Dr Louise Bennett, Dr Utpal Bose, Dr James Broadbent, Dr Polly Burey, Dr Rachel Carey, Dr Chris Carter, Lucy Cornwell, Dr Andrew Costanzo, Dr Andreas Ernst, Dr Helen Fitton, Foodbank Australia, Dr Snehal Jadhav, Dr Russell Keast, Dr Gie Liem, Deon Mahoney, Bill McBride, Agnes Mukurumbira, Dr Maureen Murphy, Dr Martin Palmer, Dr Enzo Palombo, Dr KimYen Phan-Thien, Dr Matthew Piper, Annelise Sarikas, Dr Kate Secombe, Dr Robert Shellie, Dr Tony Treloar, Dr Mark S Turner, Amy Wang, Dr Tong Wu.

Advertising Manager

Clive Russell | aifst@aifst.com.au

Subscriptions

AIFST | aifst@aifst.com.au

Production

Bite Communications

2023 Subscription Rates

Australia $130.00 (incl. GST); Overseas (airmail) $205.00.

Single copies (Australia) $32.50 (incl. GST); Overseas $52.00

food australia is the official journal of the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Limited (AIFST). Statements and opinions presented in the publication do not necessarily reflect the policies of AIFST nor does AIFST accept responsibility for the accuracy of such statement and opinion.

Editorial Contributions

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

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

AIFST Board

Chair: Mr Duncan McDonald

Non-executive directors: Ms Suz Allen, Ms Julie Cox, Dr Michael Depalo, Mr John Kavanagh, Mr Deon Mahoney, Ms Bronwyn Powell.

AIFST National Office

PO Box 780

Cherrybrook NSW 2126

Tel: +61 447 066 324

Email: aifst@aifst.com.au

Web: www.aifst.asn.au

Food for Thought

Welcome to the Summer edition of food australia, our first edition for 2023.

AIFST’s Strategic Plan for 2021-2023 identifies a distinct vision, yearly priorities, and a clear plan of implementation, across four key pillars of grow, learn, connect, and champion. The AIFST Board has recently reviewed and updated the strategic plan to reflect the challenges and opportunities ahead for both AIFST and the agrifood sector in 2023.

With less than a decade left to achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, there is growing acceptance of the need for agri-food systems to be transformed to become more resilient, sustainable, and equitable in the face of these rising challenges. Critical to the transformation will be advocating and investing in food science and food scientists. AIFST’s Strategic Plan for 2023 recognises this under the ‘champion’ pillar with the following goals:

• Food companies value, develop and retain food scientists

• Communicate the role and importance of food science professionals to meet the food science revolution – in feeding Australians in the future

• Identify sound science that unlocks the growth of the agri-food sector

• Advocate the importance of investing in food science in the agri-food sector.

The AIFST 2023 Convention will be held in Melbourne in July. The theme for AIFST23 is The Science of Food Security and Sustainability. Recognising the key role that food science playsover two days with plenary and three concurrent session streams, the convention will feature more than fifty scientific and food industry speakers from across the agri-food sector. Food security and sustainability will be a constant theme. Food safety will feature strongly, alongside advances in health and nutrition, sensory and consumer science, food security and resilience, sustainability, and packaging.

My challenge to you for 2023, across the many disciplines of food science and technology in the food and agri-business sector, is how are you going to champion food science and food scientists for food security and sustainability – what will you do differently, what will your role be and how will you create change?

Fiona Fleming

B. App Sc (Food Tech); MNutr

FAIFST; MAICD Chief Executive Officer fiona.fleming@aifst.com.au

Mgt;

Millions of households struggling to put food on the table

Words by Foodbank Australia

On any given day, more than half a million households in Australia are struggling to put food on the table and, disturbingly, those with children are being hardest hit.

The Foodbank Hunger Report 2022 reveals alarming details surrounding the food insecurity crisis this country is facing.

More than 2 million households in Australia have run out of food in the last year due to limited finances, sometimes skipping meals or going whole days without eating. This has meant that 1.3 million children lived in severe food insecure households during that time.

Unsurprisingly, the rising cost of living is the most common reason why so many are struggling to meet their household food needs, with the cost of food and groceries confirmed as the top cause, followed closely by energy and housing costs.

Assumptions that this is affecting only those who are unemployed or homeless are incorrect, with research showing that more than 50% of food insecure households had someone in paid work and one third of households with mortgages have experienced food insecurity.

For the first time in the history of the report, natural disasters are a factor cited for people not being able to meet household food needs. Around 19% of respondents nationally said this had been a cause of hardship for them, but if you look specifically at NSW and Queensland, which have experienced repeated and dramatic flooding over the last 12 months, this figure rises to 25% and 23% respectively.

The report signals that the problem is only set to get worse, with half of all households experiencing difficulty saying that being unable to afford food is happening more often. f

Food Insecurity Australia – 2022

The rising cost of living is the most common reason people are failing to meet their household food requirements (64% of food insecure households) Causes: cost of food and groceries (49%), cost of energy (42%), cost of housing (33%)

Households with children are being hit harder than others (32% severely food insecure in the past year versus a national average of 21%) and single parent households are the worst of all (37% severely food insecure)

On any given day, more than half a million households in Australia are struggling to meet their food needs

More than half of food insecure households (54%) had someone in paid work

On a typical day, 306,000 Australian households are receiving assistance from food relief organisations

Nearly one third of households with mortgages (30%) have experienced food insecurity in the last year. The situation is even worse in regional areas (36% versus 27% in metro areas)

Professor Cordelia Selomulya appointed Associate Dean (Research) at UNSW

Professor Cordelia Selomulya has been recently appointed as Associate Dean (Research) at the Faculty of Engineering, UNSW Sydney.

Cordelia holds Bachelor of Engineering and PhD degrees in Chemical Engineering from UNSW. Shortly after the completion of her PhD in 2002, Cordelia joined the Department of Chemical Engineering at Monash University, before returning to UNSW in 2019 as Research and Commercialisation Director of the Future Food Systems CRC.

She has received $20 million in competitive research funding through her career, including an ARC Future Fellowship (2014-2018), and Chief Investigator on the ARC Industrial Transformation Research Hub for Computational Particle Technology (2017-2021). Cordelia was also Director of the Australia-China Joint Research Centre for Future Dairy Manufacturing (2016-2020).

Throughout her academic career, Cordelia has developed an internationally recognised research program addressing ‘grand challenges’ at the interface of food engineering and science, building a strong team of doctoral and postdoctoral researchers working collaboratively on projects in spray drying and characterisation of functional dairy and food powders, including for microencapsulation and targeted delivery/controlled release applications.

She was the recipient of IChemE Global Awards in the Food and Drink category, the BHERT (Business & Higher Education Round Table) Award for outstanding collaboration in R&D, ICEF’s Young Food Engineer Award, and the Fonterra Award for outstanding contribution in the industrial application of a novel technology in the field of bioprocessing.

Cordelia is a Fellow of the

Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering and a Fellow of the IChemE. She is also the Executive Editor for Advanced Powder Technology, Regional Editor of Particuology, on the Editorial Board for Food and Bioproducts Processing and the Chair of the Research and Innovation Community of Practice of IChemE.

PepsiCo ANZ appoints Kathy Usic as Head of Nutrition

PepsiCo Australia have announced the appointment of Kathy Usic as Research & Development Life Sciences Associate Manager at PepsiCo Australia and New Zealand.

With more than 35 years of experience in the FMCG and health sectors, alongside extensive work for non-for-profit organisations including Diabetes Australia and the Healthy Kids Association, Kathy will play a key role in advising the business on how it can continue to lead the way by bringing healthier options to market and reformulating market-leading brands such as Doritos, Red Rock Deli and Smith’s.

PepsiCo ANZ CEO, Kyle Faulconer, said Kathy is a deeply accomplished health and nutrition professional and business leader.

“Kathy demonstrates a genuine passion for helping people make better choices – for their health and for the planet. Her values as a

professional are truly aligned to our commitment to PepsiCo Positive –putting sustainability at the centre of how we source ingredients, make and sell products and inspire consumers to make better choices for themselves and the planet,” Mr Faulconer said.

“Her strategic experience leading large change management programs focused on improving health, wellness and nutrition within large scale organisations makes Kathy the perfect fit as we further our commitment to providing more choice to consumers. We are excited to welcome Kathy to the PepsiCo team,” he said.

Prior to joining PepsiCo, Kathy held the roles of CEO and Head of Program Development within the Glycemic Index Foundation (GIF), responsible for managing core internal operations, developing relationships with key partners and growing awareness for GIF’s activities.

Kathy’s previous experience

includes leading nutritional roles at George Weston Foods, Campbell Arnott’s and Goodman Fielder, alongside work for the NSW School Canteen Association.

“I am proud to join the PepsiCo team at such a pivotal moment in the company’s ongoing portfolio transformation journey. I look forward to working with the PepsiCo team as we continue to provide Aussie consumers with more positive choices,” Kathy said.

CSIRO boosting its capability to support the future of food

Australia’s national science agency has appointed Professor Michelle Colgrave as Deputy Director (Impact) for CSIRO Agriculture and Food.

Based at the Queensland Bioscience Precinct in Brisbane, Professor Colgrave has been leading CSIRO’s Future Protein Mission, supporting innovation and growth for all types of food proteins – animal, plant and complementary sources such as insects and fungi.

She has been instrumental in helping to identify key proteins to benefit Australia’s livestock and plant industries and human health, and is internationally recognised for her work identifying and quantifying protein markers associated with important agricultural traits, beneficial proteins in food and proteins associated with

allergy or intolerance.

In her new role, Professor Colgrave will be extending her focus from growing and creating protein industries for Australia to supporting a sustainable future for Australian agriculture and food systems, through the translation and commercialisation of sustainable food systems research.

“I will be leading teams at CSIRO who are using innovative science and technology in partnership with industry and government to solve the immediate and long-term challenges that Australia’s agrifood industries face and to address the opportunities for value and job creation,” Professor Colgrave said.

Professor Colgrave is also the chief investigator on the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence

for Innovations in Peptide and Protein Science and was recently appointed as a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences & Engineering (ATSE).

Vale Dr Robert Alexander Buchanan AM

The Institute regrets to announce the passing of Dr R A (Alex) Buchanan.

At the completion of his studies at Scotch College, Alex was awarded a Victorian Department of Agriculture (Dept. Ag.) scholarship to attend Massey University (NZ) from 195356. On completing these studies, Alex returned home to work as a Milk Products Officer within the Dept. Ag.

In 1959 he won a Rotary Ambassadorial Scholarship to study at Iowa State University in the US where he was awarded an MS in Dairy Bacteriology and Agricultural Economics.

Returning to Australia, Alex continued working for the Dept. Ag. but in 1962 spent one year as Assistant Manager of the Rochester Butter Factory.

Following a fortuitous meeting with Geoff Loftus Hills (Officer-inCharge of CSIRO Dairy Research at Highett) Alex started work as head of the CSIRO’s New Foods group at Highett.

A few years later, Alex completed a PhD from the University of London

while working at Rothamsted Experimental Station, Hertfordshire in the UK in 1968.

Upon returning to the New Foods group, Alex developed the Australian Milk Biscuit, and later the High Energy Biscuit in conjunction with Frank Townsend at the Brockhoff Biscuit Company. These biscuits were produced for more than 25 years and became a major component of Australia’s food aid to developing countries. This rewarding experience confirmed Alex’s commitment to applied research.

In 1973, the Australian Development Assistance Bureau (later AusAID) seconded Alex from CSIRO and appointed him as a ‘Colombo Plan Expert’ to Thailand on a two year contract.

Alex’s warmth and genuine respect for fellow scientists in the Asian region contributed in part to the Australian Government appointing him as Australian Liaison Officer for the ASEAN Australia Economic Co-operation Program in 1975. With Alex’s co-ordination, food

technologists throughout South East Asia developed co-operative food research projects, which became the model for the now successful technical cooperation between ASEAN countries.

On his return to Australia, Alex held a number of roles prior to his retirement in 1999 including Administrative Director of the Centre for Molecular Biology and Medicine, Monash University (1986-89), Foundation Member of the Council of Victoria University (1993-95), and Executive Director of Continued overleaf...

Continues from page 7...

the ATSE Crawford Fund, an activity of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (1995-99).

Alex became a Fellow of AIFST in 1970 and was awarded the AIFST

Award of Merit in 1978. He was awarded a Centenary Medal in 2001 and was appointed a Member in the General Division of the Order of Australia (AM) in 2009. Outside of his professional and scientific commitments, Alex’s family

Vale Michael A Goldring

The food industry has lost one of its more entrepreneurial managers with the recent passing of Michael Goldring, aged 72.

Michael gained a scholarship and studied food technology at UNSW, graduating in 1972 as one of a highly talented group who made their mark over several decades. Mike later obtained an MBA from Charles Sturt University.

He began his food industry career as a research chemist at Allied Mills and Reckitt and Coleman in 19721973, then moved to Ricegrower’s Co-op Ltd for a decade from 1974, where he was QC and Technical Manager. During this period, he was awarded a prestigious Churchill Fellowship to study quality control in the rice industry throughout the USA, Canada and UK. This led to high level consultancy work with DFAT, the UN and the French Government in developing the rice industry in Cambodia.

Michael was an Associate (now Professional) Member of AIFST during

the early years, and received awards from Rotary, the Grains Research and Development Corporation and a National Energy Management Award. He was a member of working groups for the Australian Standards Association, ISO and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, and was a founding member of the NSW Grain Legume Association.

His entrepreneurial flare was ignited in 1983 when, with colleague Mick Foxall, he started the cereal and legume processor Allgold Foods in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area near Leeton; this subsequently expanded to become Green and Gold Foods in 1988, a joint venture with Greens Foods, before the eventual sale of the business to the newly listed Greens Foods Ltd in the early 1990s. Michael was appointed Technical Director and General Manager (Cereals and Snacks) at Greens Foods Ltd and travelled widely to expand markets in Europe, South Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

From 2000 he was a key leader

was his pride and joy. He is survived by his wife Jo, his children Rebecca and Ben and grandchildren Sam, Archie, Daisy, Ted and Billie. This is a summary of a longer piece which is available here.

Alan Mortimer AM

with Bestcare Foods, VIP Petfoods and Bush’s Fresh Pet Foods in pet food development at plants in southern Queensland, Gunnedah and Dubbo. During 2006-2013 he was a project manager with George Weston Foods in Sydney.

An abiding passion during his youth was sailing, first as a Sea Scout, and finally as the youngest Rear Commodore of the Cronulla Sailing Club.

Michael is survived by his wife Barbara, four children and five grandchildren.

Dr Duncan Craig appointed to AFGC

Dr Duncan Craig joined the Australian Food and Grocery Council in December 2022 taking the position of Director of Nutrition and Regulation.

Duncan has a higher degree in Applied Microbiology and Risk Assessment and a Bachelor of Science (with Honours First Class) from Flinders University, South Australia. In his early career he worked as an Environmental Health Officer in South Australia and then held several positions in Food Standards Australia New Zealand

including Principal Microbiologist.

In 2016, Duncan joined the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (now the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, or DAFF) as a Principal Scientist in the Imported Food Program.

Duncan has held a number of roles in DAFF including a recent three year posting to Beijing as Counsellor (Agriculture) at the Australian Embassy. This has provided him with extensive experience in scientific areas relevant to food, policy development, trade frameworks and regulatory environments across domestic and international settings.

Vale Emeritus Professor Harry Lovell OAM FAIP

It is with immense sadness and heavy hearts that the Australian Institute of Packaging (AIP) advises one of its key foundational members, Emeritus Professor Harry Lovell OAM FAIP, passed away in September. Harry has closed his final packaging textbook after 92 amazing years of devoting his entire life to furthering education, first in the UK and then in the Australasian region through the AIP.

Harry’s prime focus in life was to impart technical packaging knowledge to anyone who needed assistance, and ensure that everyone in the industry had the opportunity to be trained and educated. Many in the industry know Harry from their time at Gatton College where he lectured, and others were lucky to have him as a tutor for the Diploma in Packaging Technology or Certificate in Packaging degrees.

Harry’s technical knowledge and

packaging expertise was unparalleled and his kindness and grace was second to none. So many of us have memories about passionate technical discussions and debates with Harry in the corners of a conference, and how you always walked away having learned something new.

Harry was instrumental in reinvigorating the Australian Institute of Packaging, not only as an education and training professional body, but also as a business unit, during his terms as National President in the 1990s.

There is little doubt that without his hard work, which was usually in a voluntary capacity, the AIP would not be in existence today. There are several thousand Australians with a better understanding of packaging, food science and food safety as a result of Harry’s teachings.

There will never be another Harry

Lovell, and we hope that he knew how much he meant to all of us in the industry. He was a mentor to so many and will be sadly missed.

This excerpt is reproduced with permission of AIP.

AIFST awards program - 2023

AIFST offers a range of national awards each year which recognise the commitment and excellence of members, championing those who lead and exceed. Applications are now open for the 2023 AIFST Awards, with winners to be announced at the Awards ceremony during the AIFST ConventionAIFST23 - in Melbourne on July 24th.

AIFST Keith Farrer Award of Merit

This award is the Institute’s highest honour, acknowledging an individual whose work has resulted in significant positive change for the food industry, the food science and technology profession, food research and innovation, and/or food science education, and/or has promoted the health and enjoyment of the wider community regarding food. The recipient’s achievements must also include substantial contributions made to further the aims and objectives of the AIFST.

The award is named after Dr Keith Farrer OBE, a pioneering scientist and author, who was involved in the formation of the AIFST in 1967. Dr Farrer was the second president of AIFST from 1969-1971, and himself a recipient of the award (then known as the IFT Australian Award) in 1959.

AIFST President’s Award

This award acknowledges and acclaims an individual or an organisation that has made an outstanding contribution to the Institute and has demonstrated a clear commitment to advancing AIFST’s role in supporting Australia’s food industry professionals.

who held the role from 1973-1975.

AIFST Anthony (Tony) Williams Sensory Award

This award is for young members of AIFST who demonstrate academic achievement, interest, enthusiasm and integrity in sensory research.

The AIFST Sensory Award is sponsored annually by Sensory Solutions in honour of Dr Anthony (Tony) Williams. Dr Williams was one of the pioneers of the sensory research industry in the United Kingdom and a world authority in sensory and consumer science. Tony’s enthusiasm and passion also helped establish sensory research in Australia.

AIFST ILSI Dr David Roberts

Emerging Young Leader Award

This award was created as a means of encouraging and supporting the development of a young food scientist, technologist or nutritionist for their endeavour or achievement, and leadership potential within the food industry. This award was created in memory of Dr David (Dave) Roberts.

AIFST Malcolm Bird Young Members Commemorative Award

This award is for young AIFST members (aged under 30) who demonstrate academic achievement, leadership and integrity in their profession. The award is named in honour of AIFST Past President, Malcolm Bird who was the fifth president of the AIFST from 19751977, and reflects his support for young members.

for scientists from all over Australia to share their research.

AIFST Jack Kefford

Award

This award recognises the contribution to food science and technology of Institute members who publish original research papers. The Award is named in honour of Mr Jack Kefford who provided enormous input to the science and technology of food as Officer-inCharge of the CSIRO Food Research Laboratory, Assistant Chief of the CSIRO Division of Food Research, as a scientist of international repute, as AIFST President (1971-1973) and as a Technical Editor of food australia

AIFST

Bruce Chandler Award

This award is for AIFST members who are authors of books or substantial reviews, considered to make the greatest contribution to the literature on food science and technology in particular years. The award is given in honour of AIFST Past President, Bruce Chandler, who had a long association with the journal food australia, first as an Associate Editor then member of the Editorial Board between 1969 and 1978. Notably he was Literature Editor for 12 years from 2001, a function which he performed with extreme dedication.

AIFST Foodbank Hunger Hero Award

AIFST

Peter Seale Food Industry Innovation Award

This award acknowledges a significant new development in a process, product, ingredient, equipment, or packaging which achieved successful commercial application in any sector of the Australian food industry.

The award is given in honour of AIFST Past President, Peter Seale,

AIFST Research Poster Competition

This competition provides a space for food scientists to present a summary of their recent work or a key aspect of their work in poster form. The challenge for entrants is to effectively communicate and justify the key learnings of their work to an interested scientific audience. The platform for the 2023 competition will be virtual providing an opportunity

This award recognises a person or team who have gone above and beyond to tackle food insecurity. Whether it’s championing a new initiative within their company or volunteering their time and expertise in the community, AIFST and Foodbank want to recognise an individual or team contribution and hold this up as an inspiration to others.

How to apply for an award

Visit the AIFST website for all guidelines and nomination forms. For further information please call the AIFST team on 0447 066 324 or email us: aifst@aifst.com.au

AIFST Branch event news

William Angliss Institute featuring a range of speakers on immune health, heart health, gut health as well as an overview of nutrition trends and health claims. Great discussions followed the presentations. Our Victorian members and colleagues celebrated the end of 2022 with a cocktail style event.

Tasmania

In November, Tasmanian based members and colleagues enjoyed an afternoon of talking and tasting! The afternoon involved two activities - a tour of both the Callington Mill whisky distillery and The Imbiberswine, cheese, and spirit merchants in Oatlands.

South Australia

It was great to see several face-toface events organised by the AIFST Branch committees in the last quarter of 2022. These events gave members and food industry colleagues the opportunity to grow, learn and connect. Here is a snapshot of these events.

Queensland

In October, the Arnott’s Virginia factory opened their doors for an AIFST members only tour of their site and shared how they make their delicious biscuits.

In November, the Branch organised a tour of the Native Oz Bushfoods farm at Ropeley in the Lockyer Valley. AIFST members and food industry colleagues were treated to a jam-packed tour including: an indigenous smoking ceremony and acknowledgement of country, an educational talk and tour around the gardens and orchards with the Native Oz Bushfoods founders and delectable bushfood inspired

refreshments.

The Branch rounded out the year with a Christmas party at the end of November with a celebration of Australian wine. Forty-four wine connoisseurs gathered with wine scientist and qualified winemaker, Siobhan Horchner, from University of Southern Queensland who provided expert guidance during the tasting and shared how each wine developed its characteristic flavours. AIFST Queensland Branch committee member and quizmaster, Jarethan Mullen, took guests through a short and snappy wine trivia.

New South Wales

NSW members and colleagues came together to celebrate the end of 2022, gathering to share some Christmas cheer and reflections on the year that was.

Victoria

The Branch held a Nutrition Update and Networking event hosted by the

In December, members and colleagues gathered at The Cumby to celebrate the holiday season and usher in 2023.The small but energetic group enjoyed a warm and enjoyable time over a steak night and a few drinks. The chat also covered possibilities for expanding networks and programs in 2023.

Western Australia

In October AIFST Fellow, Gary Kennedy from Correct Food Systems presented an update on Future Food Production and Sustainability during a visit to the West.

In December, members and colleagues gathered to celebrate a successful year during which the Branch committee has run several successful events.

Branch Committees

Thank you to our Branch Committee Chairs, Committee members and our event partners for delivering a range of events enabling members and the broader food science community to engage and collaborate.

If you are interested in joining a Branch Committee, please contact AIFST. Visit the events page on the AIFST website for information about upcoming events.

Victorian members enjoying the end of year celebration.

Queensland members enjoying the end of year celebration.

The AIFST J R Vickery Address

Words by Dr Martin Palmer

The J R Vickery Address is traditionally a highlight of the first day of the Institute’s Annual Convention. This keynote presentation is named in honour of prominent Australian food scientist, Dr James Richard Vickery OBE, FTSE, FAIFST (1902-1997).

In 1950, Vickery helped to found the Australian Section of the (American) Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) and when this evolved into the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology, he became its first President (1967-69).

As a researcher, Vickery is probably best known for his pioneering work on the effects of chilling, freezing and storage conditions on meat quality, particularly in relation to the export of lamb and beef from Australia to the UK. His early research gained international prominence and in 1931 he was appointed to lead the newlyformed CSIR Food Preservation and Transport Section, in Brisbane. In 1940, following the significant economic impact of this research and the additional demands associated with wartime food exports to the UK, this group was expanded to form the CSIRO Division of Food Preservation and Transport. Vickery led this Division until his retirement in 1967.

Vickery’s career in food research spanned more than 40 years and included many more achievements in food science and technology generally, impacting on a wide range of food-related industries. His research clearly demonstrated the value of food science at a time when it was struggling to be recognised and appreciated as a discrete discipline. His successful collaboration with industry, along with his international recognition and boundless enthusiasm for food science, was instrumental in achieving ongoing government support for food research at CSIRO and similar organisations. He was also passionate about education in food science and technology, setting up an education committee within his

Division, which helped to establish the first food technology courses in Australia, at Sydney Technical College and Hawkesbury Agricultural College.

A more detailed account of Vickery’s career and achievements, along with his interesting retrospective review of ‘The Scope and Status of Food Science’ was published on his retirement, in a commemorative issue of Food Preservation Quarterly 1

Jim Vickery’s standing within AIFST and the wider world of food science was perhaps best summed up by Jack Kefford in his 1997 obituary, when he wrote: “Without question he was the doyen of food science and technology in Australia. His death marks the end of an era which saw the evolution of this field of applied science from mere beginnings to world recognition and commercial achievement”.2

Although relating to a common theme, a diverse range of professionals have been nominated for the Vickery Address, reflecting the broad range of interests within AIFST membership. Academics include, for example, Charles Brennan (2022), Johannes Le Coutre (2021), Hilton Deeth (2013), and Barbara Santich (2006). Speakers from CSIRO have included Phil Morle (2020), Larry Marshall (2015), Martin Cole (2010), Alastair Robertson (2005) and Michael Eyles (1998). We’ve also heard from AFGC (Dick Wells, 2007) and a former Chief Scientist (Ian Chubb 2011). Industry speakers have included Jane Bennett (2019), Ros Harvey (2018), Barry Irvin (2017) and Frank Yiannis (2008).

Looking ahead to the AIFST23

Convention, we’re pleased to announce that the J R Vickery Address will be presented by Dr Mary Ann Augustin FATSE, Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Agriculture & Food. Mary Ann’s distinguished career in food science covers more than 30 years, working primarily with CSIRO but also as a Professorial Fellow with Monash University. In addition to more than 260 publications in food science, she has a strong track record in the development and adoption of science-based solutions to solve industrial challenges in product and process development and sustainability. We’re looking forward to her presentation at AIFST23, which will address the Convention theme of ‘Exploring the Science of Food Security & Sustainability’.

References

1. ‘The Scope and Status of Food Science’ Food Preservation Quarterly (Vol 27, No.3, September 1967

2. https://alumni.csiro.au/wp-content/ uploads/2020/10/Vol-27-No-3-1967.pdf

Kefford, J. (1997) food australia 49 (8)

Dr Martin Palmer is with the Department of Chemical Engineering at the University of Melbourne. f

Dr JR Vickery, AIFST President 1967-69. (Image source: CSIRO).

Evaluation of core competencies for food science graduates

In September 2019, a roundtable organised by AIFST was assembled with representatives from a number of Australian universities, a TAFE, nine food companies and one government body, to discuss competencies for food science graduates in Australia.

• Are the threshold learning outcomes from our food science degrees being achieved?

• Are our students getting adequate scientific training and professional skills to develop into competent food scientists?

• What are the attributes industry looks for in our graduates and are our degrees fulfilling these requirements?

An outcome of this discussion was the desire to survey food industry representatives, and other organisations that employ food scientists/technologists, on the value of various core competencies.

Despite good intentions in 2019, the pandemic delayed the finalisation and release of the survey, which occurred in July 2022.

More information regarding the drivers for this initiative, including the continual need to attract and train highly qualified food scientists in Australia and the need for a clear understanding of what food science

programs should teach, can be found in a previous edition of food australia 1

An outcome of this discussion was the desire to survey food industry representatives, and other organisations that employ food scientists/technologists, on the value of various core competencies.

Response to the IFT core competencies

Participants were asked to rate the importance of most of the individual IFT core competencies.

Of the 42 core competencies evaluated in this survey, only 2 were identified as being less than desirable (ie. had an average score <1). This indicates that the survey participants saw the majority of the IFT core competencies as being desirable in food science graduates. The IFT use these core competencies and several other factors (eg. staffing/expertise) to evaluate and certify food science programs at universities in the USA and several other countries, including Australia. The results of this survey suggest that these core competencies can continue to be used by universities in Australia to assist in the development of new programs in food science, or reviewing, or redesigning current offerings.

Evaluation of additional knowledge and skills

The respondents were also asked to rate 23 knowledge or skill attributes for graduates, in addition to the IFT core competencies. These additional attributes were more specific and/ or have grown in importance since 2001. Only 4 items had an average rating above 3 (very important). These were “food safety and quality systems” (3.17 rating), “allergen management” (3.11 rating), “working in multi-function teams” (3.08 rating) and “state, national and international regulations” (3.03). Apart from allergen management, the other items (food safety/quality, teamwork, and food regulation) had similarities to IFT core competencies that also scored highly. Allergen management has clearly grown in prominence in the past 20 years. It is now a major activity in the food industry and should be considered as a core competency for food science graduates in the future.

Collaboration between training institutions and industry

More than half the survey participants indicated they would be interested in collaborating with university academics to develop better educated and experienced graduates. For graduates to be appropriately qualified and experienced upon entering the food industry, placements and graduate programs provide valuable learning experiences that can complement the knowledge gained through their formal studies. Employers prefer new employees to have some experience and exposure to the workplace, but despite this desire, when questioned about whether they take placement students, nearly 60% of survey respondents (n=65) indicated they do not take interns or placement students.

When delving into the reasons for this finding, those who did take student interns typically trained them for three, six or 12 month placements. Respondents who did not take internship or placement students identified the extra resourcing

Words by Drs Mark S Turner, Kim-Yen Phan-Thien and Polly Burey

(budget and time) required to train placement students as being beyond their organisation’s capacity. For example, one respondent said they “Have tried to in the past but [have] no suitable pathway mechanism to engage with university [sic] any more”, however, many universities do have work placement courses.

In a related question, >70% of respondents (n=63) indicated they do not have a graduate program, with resourcing again being one of the main hurdles (budget and time) to accommodating such a program. This is a challenge that can negatively affect experience levels for students if they cannot undertake a placement prior to graduation.

For appropriately experienced graduates to enter the workforce it is beneficial for industry and the university sector to work together and codesign internship programs that benefit both the workplace and the placement student. When this is done well, students may later be permanently employed by the host organisation.

Some mechanisms for industry to stay connected with university programs include guest lectures, project mentorship and suggested assessment to solve a business problem. In this way, industry members can interact with students while they are still studying and gauge their potential abilities before considering taking on a placement student.

Ideally placements are compensated, however, due to limited resources and size of organisations, this may not always be possible.

The AIFST are planning to build further on this work to assist the education and training of industry ready food science graduates in Australia. To register your interest to be involved, please contact: education@aifst.com.au

Acknowledgements

Thank you to those who

completed the survey for their time and insights. This information will assist institutions in training quality food science graduates in the future. Thanks to AIFST for coordinating this work and members of the working party who provided advice and support for the development of the survey.

This article is an excerpt of a longer report which is available on the Institute’s website

(https://www.aifst.asn.au/IndustryGraduate-Survey/) and covers a snapshot of the survey findings. This article builds on the findings that were published in food australia (OctDec 2022, p.5).

References

1. Phan-Thien KY, Turner MS.( 2019). Training next-gen food scientists. food australia 71:3236.

Dr Mark S Turner is a Professor of Food Microbiology and Deputy Head of the School of Agriculture and Food Sciences at the University of Queensland.

Dr Kim-Yen Phan-Thien is a Senior Lecturer in Food Science at the University of Sydney. Dr Polly Burey is Associate Professor in the School of Agriculture and Environmental Science at the University of Southern Queensland. f

The antimicrobial efficacy of native Australian essential oils

Words by Agnes Mukurumbira and Drs Robert Shellie, Russell Keast, Enzo Palombo and Snehal Jadhav

Over the last few years, the food industry has witnessed significant shifts in consumer dietary behaviours, with the increasing consumption of raw and minimally processed foods. Minimally processed foods and raw vegetables are notorious for harbouring and acting as transmission vehicles of foodborne pathogens and spoilage microorganisms.1 Despite the evolution and advancement of processing technologies, foodborne microorganisms have continued to be an obstinate challenge to the food industry.1

According to the US Food and Drug Administration, the activity of food spoilage microorganisms is responsible for the loss of more than 1.3 billion tonnes of food annually. Given recent food security challenges and the impact of COVID-19, such high food losses are a further burden on the already strained food system. Moreover, foodborne pathogens continue to be a significant threat to public health.2,3 The World Health Organisation (2018) estimates that 600 million people suffer from foodborne illnesses annually and a recent (2020) report by the Australian National University estimated foodborne illness and its sequelae to cost the Australian economy more than $2.44 billion annually.

The cumulative socio-economic impacts of foodborne microbes and the limitations of conventional synthetic antimicrobial agents, such as the rise in microbial resistance, have been significant drivers towards the exploration of alternative antimicrobial agents. In particular, essential oils have garnered significant public and scientific interest and many systematic investigations have shown their strong antimicrobial efficacy.4,5,6 Interestingly, some studies have confirmed comparable

and/or superior activity of essential oils in comparison to conventional antimicrobial agents.7

Australia is endowed with some unique native flora that produces essential oils. Since WWII, tea tree oil has been extensively used as a potent antimicrobial. However, other plant species such as Tasmanian mountain pepper (Tasmannia lanceolata) and lemon myrtle (Backhousia citriodora) (Figure 1) are underexplored albeit important sources of essential oils more suited to food-related applications. Tasmanian mountain pepper (TPB) and lemon myrtle (LM) both have GRAS (Generally Recognised As Safe) status and can therefore be used as a food.

In our recent study, we investigated the antimicrobial efficacy of TPB and LM essential oils in liquid and vapour phase against common food spoilage and pathogenic microbes. The oils

showed significant antibacterial and antifungal activity in liquid phase, as indicated by low minimum inhibitory concentration ranging from 0.00156.250 (% v/v). In accordance with previous literature, Gram positive bacteria appeared to be more susceptible to the oils in comparison to Gram negative bacteria.3

TPB was a mwore potent antifungal, albeit less active in comparison with LM. Interestingly, LM exhibited significantly higher antimicrobial activity than tea tree oil (used as a control) which has historically been touted as a potent antimicrobial essential oil.

Considering the volatile nature of essential oils, and the limited literature on their vapour phase activity, the vapour diffusion and inverted petri plate assays were used to assess the antimicrobial efficacy of oil volatiles (Figure 2). The assays

Figure 1: Australian native Lemon myrtle and Tasmanian pepper berry.

Figure 2: Inverted petri plate assay for measuring vapour phase antimicrobial activity.

confirmed that the volatile components released by TPB and LM oils possess antimicrobial properties against food microbes. LM volatiles were more potent relative to TPB. Notably, the volatiles had the greatest effect on fungi thus indicating their potential as vapour phase antifungals.

In order to identify compounds responsible for the observed antimicrobial activity, the compositional profiles of the oils in liquid and vapour phases were analysed using gas chromatography mass spectrometry. The analysis confirmed the multi-component nature of essential oils, however, citral (antimicrobial aldehyde) was the major component in both phases for LM. Polygodial (moderately antimicrobial terpene) and pinene were the major compounds in TPB in the liquid and vapour phases, respectively. The differences in antimicrobial activities of the oils could perhaps be ascribed to the differences in their compositional profiles.

Overall, the findings of the study suggested that essential oils are promising alternative antimicrobial agents. In particular native lemon myrtle is a potent antimicrobial in both liquid and vapour phases indicating its potential application in active antimicrobial food packaging.

References

1. Bajpai and K.-H. Baek, Biological Efficacy and Application of Essential Oils in Foods-A Review. Journal of Essential Oil Bearing Plants, 2016. 19(1): p. 1-19.

2. Santos, M.I.S., et al., Essential oils as antibacterial agents against foodborne pathogens: Are they really as useful as they are claimed to be? Journal of food science and technology, 2017. 54(13): p. 4344-4352.

3. Dobre, A.A., V. Gagiu, and N. Petru, Antimicrobial activity of essential oils against food-borne bacteria evaluated by two preliminary methods. Romanian Biotechnological Letters, 2011. 16(6): p. 119-125.

4. Alderees, F., et al., Mechanism of Action against Food Spoilage Yeasts and Bioactivity of Tasmannia lanceolata, Backhousia citriodora and Syzygium anisatum Plant Solvent Extracts. Foods, 2018. 7(11): p. 15.

5. Mith, H., et al., Antimicrobial activities of commercial essential oils and their components against food-borne pathogens and food spoilage bacteria. Food Science & Nutrition, 2014. 2(4): p. 403-416.

6. Kerekes, E.B., et al., Anti-Biofilm Effect of Selected Essential Oils and Main Components on Mono- and Polymicrobic Bacterial Cultures. Microorganisms, 2019. 7(9): p. 345.

7. Bajpai, V.K. and K.-H. Baek, Biological Efficacy and Application of Essential Oils in Foods-A Review. Journal of Essential Oil Bearing Plants, 2016. 19(1): p. 1-19.

Agnes Mukurumbira is a PhD Candidate, Dr Russell Keast is a Professor and Dr Snehal Jadhav is a lecturer and are all members of the CASS Food Research Centre at Deakin University.

Dr Robert Shellie is a Professor at the Centre for Food Safety and Innovation at the University of Tasmania.

Dr Enzo Palombo is a Professor within the Department of Chemistry and Biotechnology at Swinburne University of Technology. Their poster won the 2022 Research Poster Competition Judges’ Award. f

Elemental Analysis

Essential analysis tools for your food laboratory.

CHNS-O

All-IN-ONE SOLUTION

Combustion and pyrolysis in a single Analyser avoiding the need for external modules.

ACCURATE

EMA 502 is a flexible and robust Analyser, designed for superior reliability with high performance and accuracy.

N/PROTEIN

VERSATILE

Seamlessly choose between Helium and Argon as carrier gas without hardware modifications.

FAST

NDA 702 produces N/Protein results in just 3 to 4 minutes totally unsupervised and cloud-enabled.

CARBON / NITROGEN

ROBUST AND FLEXIBLE

Fully automatic determination of TC, TOC and TIC (after acidification), TN and Carbon/ Nitrogen Ratio.

PRECISE

The NDIR (Non Dispersive Infrared) detector and LoGas™ TCD (Thermal Conductivity Detector) designed by VELP, provides precision and unrivaled LOD (Limit of Detection).

For more information scan the QR code on the right to see the above elemental analysers on our website.

www.rowe.com.au

Stirring and Mixing

New South Wales & ACT Ph: (02) 9603 1205 rowensw@rowe.com.au

Queensland Ph: (07) 3376 9411 roweqld@rowe.com.au

Victoria & Tasmania Ph: (03) 9701 7077 rowevic@rowe.com.au

South Australia & NT Ph: (08) 8186 0523 rowesa@rowe.com.au

Western Australia Ph: (08) 9302 1911 rowewa@rowe.com.au

A sandwich ELISA for the detection of oat protein in foods

Words by Dr. Tony Treloar

Oats are one of the most commonly cultivated cereal crops in the world. The popularity of oats is increasing, partly due to their perceived health benefits. Oats contain β-glucan, a fibre which has been demonstrated to potentially decrease cholesterol and insulin sensitivity. As well as their traditional uses, oats are being used more extensively in novel foods including oat milk, ice cream, chocolate and yoghurt. Oat extracts are also becoming increasingly common in cosmetics.

Some jurisdictions, including Australia and New Zealand, class oats as a gluten-containing food and hence no gluten-free claim may be made on a food containing oats. Gluten detection is most commonly performed using sandwich ELISA, but these assays typically have little or no reactivity against oats and thus cannot be used to detect oat protein in foods. Hence, a specific test for oats was necessary to substantiate gluten-free claims. Additionally, a specific allergy for oats has also been described,1 thus creating more need for oat testing.

A sandwich ELISA specific for oats, the ESOAT-48 assay, has been developed. The ESOAT-48 assay uses polyclonal antibodies to detect oat avenin, the oat equivalent of the coeliac toxic prolamins in wheat, barley and rye. The assay was calibrated in the range of 2.5 – 25 ppm oat protein. The kit calibration was checked against the protein concentration measured by Kjeldahl nitrogen using ten commercial oat flours. The average oat protein concentration by Kjeldahl was 13.1% (range 8.2-16.2%). The average oat protein concentration measured using the ESOAT-48 assay was 13.1% (range 6.3-21.5%). This shows that while there is variability in both the protein and avenin content that both methods measure in a similar range. The oat protein and avenin concentration may be influenced by a number of

factors including seasonality, cultivar and growing conditions.2 It must be emphasised that the ESOAT-48 assay specifically detects avenin and may not detect the presence of oat in products where the avenin has been degraded or excluded by processing.

A panel of 68 foods was screened for false positives in the ESOAT-48 assay. No false positives were recorded with any of these foods, which included other glutencontaining cereals, non-gluten containing cereals, seeds, nuts, legumes and pulses. The lack of reactivity in these foods shows that the ESOAT-48 assay is highly specific for oat avenin.

The effectiveness of the ESOAT-48 assay for detecting low levels of avenin in foods was tested using spiking experiments. Nine products were selected as representative for the products which may be assayed for oats (vegetable chips, breakfast cereal, coconut yoghurt, biscuits, rice pudding, breakfast shake, cashew milk, conditioner, moisturiser). The recovery of the avenin spiked into these products was typically above 70% for all samples. This good spike recovery shows that the assay is not seriously affected by the product matrix across

a diverse range of products.

Excellent run-to-run variability has been observed with the standards. Over the course of four assays performed on the same day, the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the standards were all below 5%. Lotto-lot variability of the kit is also good with the RSD values of three check samples being less than 5% across seven kits.

The ESOAT-48 assay is a highly sensitive and specific method for the detection of oat avenin in food. It complements current gluten testing methods to allow full substantiation of gluten-free claims.

References

1. Boussault, P., Léaute-Labrèze, C., Saubasse, E., Maurice-Tison, S., Perromat, M., Roul, S., Sarrat, A., Taieb, A., and Boralevi, F. 2007 Oat sensitization in children with atopic dermatitis: prevalence, risks and associated factors. Allergy 62: 1251-1256. DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007

2. Ahola, H., Sontag-Strohm, T., Schulman, A., Tanhuanpää, P., Viitala, S., and Huang, X. 2020 Immunochemical analysis of oat avenins in an oat cultivar and landrace collection. J. Cereal Sci 95: 103053. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcs.2020.103053

Dr Tony Treloar is a Senior Scientist at ELISA Systems. His poster, coauthored with ELISA Systems colleagues, won the 2022 Research Poster Competition Judges’ Runner Up Award. f

ePROB:A new tool for defining protein quality

The word protein is derived from the Greek word ‘Proteios’, meaning ‘primary’ and ‘first’. This naming indicates the central role of protein in human metabolism to build and replenish body tissues, and as a precursor for synthesising biologically-essential enzymes and hormones. Humans and other organisms need to consume an adequate amount of dietary protein to maintain these bodily functions and sustain health. So, the question is, how much and what type of protein is needed to stay healthy?

Dietary protein should be ‘balanced’

The bioavailability and nutritional impact of dietary protein is dependent on both the quality and quantity of the proteins available in the food supply. An inadequate intake of protein, leading to protein deficiency, causes loss of lean muscle mass. On the other side of the nutrition spectrum, too much protein in the diet, although it builds up muscle mass, can lead to a negative energy balance and weight loss. Furthermore, a high protein diet potentially links with many negative health outcomes, such as the increased risk of chronic kidney disease due to increased levels of nitrogenous metabolic waste in the body. In addition, the intake of total dietary protein and the balance with

other macronutrients, carbohydrate and fat, is understood to regulate the biological trade-offs between longevity and reproductive function, associated with low and high protein diets, respectively.1

Aside from the importance of protein for its anabolic functions and health outcomes, protein intake also plays an important role in how much we eat. This concept has been captured in the ‘protein leverage hypothesis’, demonstrating that humans prioritise protein when regulating food consumption.2 The hypothesis implies that when consuming a diet with a low proportion of total protein, humans tend to compensate by eating more to reach a protein intake target, and in so doing, consume an excess of energy in the form of carbohydrate and fat. This problem is magnified when consuming highly-processed foods in the Western diet, in which protein is diluted by other macronutrients, leading to overconsumption of carbohydrates and fat. It is likely that protein leverage is an important contributor to the current obesity epidemic.

Although we have some understanding of the way that macronutrient balance can affect health, we have less understanding of the way that protein quality is important.

Evolving understanding of protein quality

When eating protein, we are eating combinations of the building blocks of proteins, called amino acids (AA). There are 20 different AAs of which nine are essential (EAA), meaning they cannot be synthesised in the human body and must be obtained from the diet. The concept of ‘protein quality’ describes the inherent capacity of a given dietary protein or combination of proteins, to satisfy the physiological EAA requirements of the organism. There are numerous methods for characterising protein quality, with their details and limitations described in Table 1.

The current reference method for evaluating protein quality is the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS), capturing both enzymatic digestibility selectivity and an EAA-specific scoring pattern that is used to define EAA requirements for humans in infant, child and adult stages of life. In this method, the digestibility of individual AAs is measured at the end of the small intestine, nominally to exclude microbial utilisation of the test food, usually in an animal model and after correcting for the contribution of endogenous AAs.3

Aside from the ethical concerns of animal testing, and some uncertainty in the accuracy of measuring low

Words by Drs Louise Bennett, Matthew Piper, Andreas Ernst and Tong Wu

levels of undigested AAs in the digestate, there is also uncertainty around the accuracy of the reference values of EAAs, as determined over decades of nutritional research by multiple techniques in animal and human models.4 Indeed, compared with previous values determined by nitrogen balance methodology,5 updated estimates determined by the AA oxidation approach6 nearly doubled in value for six out of ten EAAs. The EAA reference values are expected to be further revised in the future and, with each revision, so does the understanding of absolute protein quality of a specific food.

Exome matching for defining reference requirements and determining food protein quality

Our recent research has demonstrated how to balance EAAs and generate dietary protein of excellent quality, with potential for developing theoretical targets of EAA ratios for all protein-consuming species, including humans. The foundation of this emerging science is ‘exome matching’, originally described by Associate Professor Piper.7

To achieve exome matching, nearly 20,000 protein-coding genes were translated into the corresponding protein sequences, and then the usage of each AA was summed across all proteins. These values were subsequently used to find the relative proportion of each AA for all proteins in the exome, which is the subset of a genome containing all protein-coding genes. The concept of exome-matching hypothesised that the optimal AA requirements for an organism are encoded by its exome-matched proportion. This in silico computation is applicable to any organism whose genome is sequenced. Using the exome-matched ratios of AAs, a tailored diet can be subsequently designed to ‘feed the genome’ (Figure 1).

Initially, the effect of an exomematched diet was tested in flies and mice using diets in which protein was substituted by free AAs, allowing AA blending to hit the exome target, thus avoiding both undersupply and

oversupply of any AAs. The results demonstrated that, under protein limitation, organisms consuming an exome-matched diet had better early life vigour than organisms consuming the non-matched diet. This was established for growth and egg laying in fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster and for growth in mice.

Additionally, the flies and mice on the matched diet consumed less food than those consuming exome mis-matched diets, indicating that the exome matched diet is more satiating. The results supported that exome matching represented a promising theoretical approach to re-defining AA requirements of any organism and, by extension, to designing a diet that achieves the highest protein quality, tailored to the requirements of the

species. In support of the accuracy of the exome-derived reference values of EAAs, when compared with the currently defined values,6 a strong positive correlation is evident (Figure 2).

These results are exciting, and we believe that exome-matching may provide an efficient and experimentation-free approach to estimating absolute requirements of dietary AAs for humans and other organisms, and a basis for delivering high protein quality in food.

Bringing exome-matched food to the plate

The exome-matched diets previously tested in flies and mice were made of individual AAs, which is not feasible for mainstream adoption. Using

Figure 1. Functional modules that deliver the Monash University ePROB technology.

Figure 2. Correlation between AA requirements for adult humans based on exome-informed calculation versus current reference values derived from nutritional research.5

Evaluation Mode Limitations

Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER)

Measures body weight change per gram of consumed protein

Biological Value (BV)

Measures the difference between nitrogen intake and excretion (from urine and faeces)

Amino Acid Score (AAS)

Measures ratio of limiting EAA in test food to that in a reference pattern

Protein Digestibility Corrected

Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS)

Adapted from AAS, but corrected for proportion of undigested total protein sampled at end of the colon

Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DAAS)

Ratio of the limiting, digestible EAA to that in a reference pattern, sampled at the end of the small intestine

• Not specific for individual AAs

• Does not account for protein digestibility

• Uses non-human animal model

• Does not account for protein digestibility

• The reference pattern is determined by various methods (ie. nitrogen balance and stable isotope) and produces variation in the result

• The apparent protein digestibility reflects cumulative effects of enzymatic and microbial utilisation

• Uses non-human animal models

• The apparent AA digestibility is specific to intestinal enzymemediated digestion

• Uses non-human animal models and human subjects (ileostomy)

Table 1 – Summary of methods for determining dietary protein quality.

modern methods of molecular biology and computing, here at Monash University, we have developed an advanced technology – ‘exomeinformed PROtein Balancing’, or ePROB - for designing exomematched foods from whole proteins present in available food sources and ingredients (Figure 1).

The ePROB tool identifies blends of food proteins based on the total AA profiles, through a mixing algorithm that computes the best match to the exome target of the organism. In addition, the ePROB tool can also account for enzymatic digestibility (in monogastrics), thereby adjusting the anabolic bioavailability of the protein source to the target exome.

The concept of ePROB using whole food proteins designed for the mouse exome has been recently tested. Using the ePROB tool, we successfully formulated two exome-matched diets (one corrected for digestibility) by blending full cream milk powder, camel milk powder and whey protein isolate in different proportions. The diets were isoenergetic, and had identical macronutrient energy from protein, carbohydrate and fat (P:C:F = 6.2% : 63.2% : 30.6%). We found that, when the protein was the limiting nutrient in the diet, the two exome-

matched blends conferred significant benefit on growth and feed efficiency improvement for both male and female mice. In particular, the exomematched blend that corrected for digestibility, produced approximately 30% and 40% improvement in feed efficiency in female and male mice, respectively.

In addition, in the animals fed with exome-matched blend, the body growth was enhanced without compromising the reproductive functions in either sex. The results suggest that the ePROB-designed, exome-matched foods delivered the optimal balance and avoided the expected biological trade-offs between growth and reproductive function.

Potential benefits of ePROB

The new ePROB tool is available to redesign foods for modern consumers and other living organisms. We propose that exome-matched foods can shift the diet towards precision nutrition, bringing desired benefits for enhancing growth, reproductive health and lifespan, while suppressing the chronic conditions associated with consuming low-quality protein foods, such as the increased risk of chronic kidney disease.8

ePROB represents a paradigm-shift in understanding species-specific dietary protein requirements and, as the limiting nutrient for sustaining human populations, improving the exome matching characteristics can thereby enhance security of the protein food supply (‘more with less’). We are very hopeful that the ePROB tool can be applied for developing new foods and support a new paradigm of precision protein nutrition.

References

1. Solon-Biet, S.M., McMahon, A.C., Ballard, J.W.O., Ruohonen, K., Wu, L.E., Cogger, V.C., Warren, A., Huang, X., Pichaud, N., Melvin, R.G. and Gokarn, R., 2014. The ratio of macronutrients, not caloric intake, dictates cardiometabolic health, aging, and longevity in ad libitum-fed mice. Cell Metabolism, 19(3), pp.418-430.

2. Simpson, S.J. and Raubenheimer, D., 2005. Obesity: the protein leverage hypothesis. Obesity Reviews, 6(2), pp.133-142.

3. Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2013. Dietary protein quality evaluation in human nutrition: report of an FAO expert consultation. Auckland, New Zealand.

4. Millward, D.J., 2012. Amino acid scoring patterns for protein quality assessment. British Journal of Nutrition, 108(S2), pp.31-43.

5. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 1985. Energy and protein requirements: report of a Joint FAO/WHO/ UNU expert consultation. Rome, Italy. https:// apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/39527

6. World Health Organization & United Nations University, 2007. Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition: report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU expert consultation. Geneva, Switzerland. https://apps.who.int/iris/ handle/10665/43411

7. Piper, M.D., Soultoukis, G.A., Blanc, E., Mesaros, A., Herbert, S.L., Juricic, P., He, X., Atanassov, I., Salmonowicz, H., Yang, M. and Simpson, S.J., 2017. Matching dietary amino acid balance to the in silico-translated exome optimizes growth and reproduction without cost to lifespan. Cell Metabolism, 25(3), pp.610-621.

8. Ko, G.J., Obi, Y., Tortoricci, A.R. and KalantarZadeh, K., 2017. Dietary protein intake and chronic kidney disease. Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care, 20(1), p.77.

Tong Wu (MSc, UMelb) is a PhD student in the School of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Monash University.

Louise Bennett is a Professor in the School of Chemistry and Co-director of Monash Food Innovation, Monash University.

Matthew Piper is an Associate Professor in the School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Monash University.

Andreas Ernst is a Professor in the School of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Monash University. f

Strengthening the resilience of food supply chains

Words by Drs Rachel Carey and Maureen Murphy

We’ve all noticed food prices rising over the last few years. In August 2021, food prices in Australia were around 10% higher than the same time the previous year, and fruit and vegetables cost 19% more.1 Extensive flooding on the east coast of Australia during successive La Nina events has destroyed crops, blocked major transport routes and inundated food retail stores. But it’s not only extreme weather events such as floods that are affecting food prices.

Food supply chains in Australia are still feeling the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly labour shortages due to loss of migrant and backpacker labour and workers becoming ill or needing to isolate during successive COVID-19 waves. There’s an estimated shortfall of more than 170,000 workers in food supply chain industries in Australia.2

Food supply chains are also being affected by global geopolitical shocks, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has driven up the price of wheat, oil and fertilisers. Russia and Ukraine account for around 30% of the world’s wheat exports.3 Russia is also a major global exporter of oil and fertilisers.

Recent rises in food prices are due to the compounding impacts of multiple shocks and stresses. Shocks to food systems are occurring more often, with little time to recover in between, and this is set to continue. Climate change is likely to lead to more frequent and more severe extreme weather events in future.4

We have a narrative in Australia that we’re a food secure country because we produce and export a lot of food.5 We produce and export a lot of some foods, including beef and lamb, dairy, wheat and canola. However, we don’t produce

significant surpluses of vegetables or most fruits - foods that are particularly important to a healthy and sustainable diet.6

Food security is not only about how much food we produce. It’s about people’s ability to access the food that is available in our food supply.7 People’s ability to access food is being affected by these shocks and stresses through rising food prices, other cost of living pressures and loss of income, particularly during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2021, one in three households surveyed by the City of Melbourne local government area reported experiencing food insecurity. They ran out of food and couldn’t afford to buy more, skipped meals or were worried about running out of food.8

In July 2020, three months into the COVID-19 pandemic, Foodbank Australia reported a 47% increase in demand for food relief across Australia, and they estimate that more than two million Australian households experienced severe food insecurity during 2021-2022.9

So how do we build the resilience of food systems to these shocks and stresses? The Foodprint Melbourne research project in the School of Agriculture and Food at the University of Melbourne has been investigating the impacts of shocks and stresses on Melbourne’s food system and how we can strengthen the resilience of the city’s food system in a world of increasing shocks and stresses.

We collaborate with a wide range of project partners including the City of Melbourne, other metropolitan local governments in the region and peak bodies. We run co-design workshops with stakeholders from government, industry and civil

society, where participants work in cross-sector teams to co-develop strategies to strengthen the resilience of the city’s food system.

We investigated the impacts of the 2020 bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic on Melbourne’s food system and found that these shocks had impacts all the way through food supply chains from production to consumption and waste recycling. The impacts included a decrease in the amount of some foods produced, labour shortages throughout food supply chains during the COVID-19 pandemic, disruption to food freight and retail, and increasing food waste. These impacts all contribute to rising food prices.10

Recent shocks and stresses have revealed vulnerabilities in food supply chains. Our food systems are optimised to deliver a wide range of foods to consumers all year round through complex ‘just in time’ supply chains. But long and complex supply chains have many potential points of disruption.

At the peak of the COVID-19 Omicron wave in early 2022, many supermarkets had shortages of fresh foods due to the numbers of food workers isolating, but smaller grocers were often well stocked as they tend to source direct from wholesale markets through shorter, simpler supply chains. There’s also a dependence on imports for critical inputs to food supply chains such as fertilisers, farm chemicals and many food processing agents. This can create vulnerabilities in the event of border closures or geopolitical shifts.

Recent experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic, bushfires and floods provide an opportunity to learn lessons and strengthen the resilience of food systems to future shocks and stresses. Resilient food

systems are likely to be diverse in the geographic locations we source food from (local, national and global), the variety of crops produced, and the methods and scales of production. Larger scale enterprises often have more resources to get back up and running quickly after a disaster, but smaller scale enterprises can be nimble and flexible.

Resilient food supply chains are likely to be more decentralised. Centralised distribution centres and food processing facilities are vulnerable during pandemics and localised extreme weather events. Networks and collaboration are also central to resilient food systems. Existing networks of stakeholders built on relationships of trust enable quick responses and rapid adaptation when disasters happen. Community networks also enable local level collaboration to strengthen resilience, such as the neighbourhood mutual aid networks that emerged during COVID-19, which helped to increase food security for vulnerable people.

Resilient food supply chains are adaptive and innovative. During the COVID-19 pandemic, major supermarkets responded rapidly to surges in demand by establishing ‘pop up’ distribution centres and bypassing distribution centres at times, sending trucks directly to stores. Smaller producers moved their businesses online using platforms like the Open Food Network,11 and civil society organisations came together to form new enterprises such as Moving Feast, delivering food relief to Victorians using produce from local farmers and networks of community gardens.12

Many Australian cities have an abundance of fresh food growing on their peri-urban fringes, but food systems are not optimised to get locally produced food to local people and businesses.13 Strong local and regional food supply chains are a fundamental building block in more resilient food systems. Investment is needed in shared and decentralised infrastructure for small to medium scale food processing, distribution

and retail to strengthen regional food supply chains.

Cities have advantages as places of food production. They have access to secure sources of water from city water treatment plants and stormwater runoff, which is important in a warming and drying climate. Cities also produce large amounts of food waste and organic waste that can be processed into composts and biofertilisers to build soils on nearby farms as part of circular food economies, keeping valuable nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen in the food system. Reusing the natural resources on which food production depends will be key to creating more resilient food systems.

It’s time to reexamine the narrative that Australia is a food secure country and have a different conversation about rising food insecurity. Shocks to our food system are likely to occur more frequently in future due to climate change, and there will be compounding effects as shocks co-occur. These shocks and underlying constraints on the availability of natural resources are likely to continue driving up food prices. The impacts will be greatest on people on low incomes who are already at risk of food insecurity.

The main response to food insecurity in Australia is provision of emergency food relief by charitable organisations utilising surplus food donated by the food industry. This isn’t a long term or dignified solution, and it doesn’t ensure the human right to have access at all times to sufficient, adequate and culturally acceptable food.14 Recent experience has shown that we don’t know what shocks to the food system will come next or in what combination, so we need to take actions that will increase the resilience of food systems to any future shock.

In a world of shocks and stresses, we need greater government leadership and accountability for food security in Australia and for ensuring the human right to food. It’s time for a Minister for Food and a food resilience plan – a ‘whole

of government plan’ to build the resilience of our food system to future shocks and stresses.

References

1. ABS (2022) Monthly consumer price index indicator, September 2022. https://www.abs. gov.au/statistics/economy/price-indexesand-inflation/monthly-consumer-price-indexindicator/sep-2022

2. National Farmers Federation (2022) Unprecedented labour crisis across Australia’s food supply chain. Media release, 22 August 2022.

3. OECD (2022) The impacts and policy implications of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine on agricultural markets, 5 August 2022.

4. Carey R, Murphy M, Alexandra L, Sheridan J, Larsen K and McGill E (2022) Building the resilience of Melbourne’s food system – a roadmap. University of Melbourne, Australia. https://doi.org/10.46580/124371

5. ABARES (2020) Analysis of Australia’s food security and the Covid-19 pandemic. ABARES Insights, Issue 3, 2020

6. Turner G, Larsen K, Ryan C, Lawrence L (2013) Australian food security dilemmas: Comparing nutritious production scenarios and their environmental, resource and economic tensions. In Q Farmer-Bowers et al. (eds) Food security in Australia: Challenges and prospects for the future. New York: Springer.

7. HLPE (2020) Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.

8. City of Melbourne (2021) Community food relief 2021-2025: Planning for a food secure city. City of Melbourne.

9. Foodbank (2022) Foodbank hunger report 2022.

10. Murphy M, Carey R, and Alexandra L (2022) The resilience of Melbourne’s food system to climate and pandemic shocks. University of Melbourne, Australia. https://doi. org/10.46580/124370

11. Open Food Network - https:// openfoodnetwork.org.au/

12. Moving Feast - https://movingfeast.net/

13. Carey, R., Larsen, K., Sheridan, J. and Candy, S. (2016) Melbourne’s food future: Planning a resilient city foodbowl. Victorian EcoInnovation Lab, The University of Melbourne.

14. FAO (2022) The right to food. https://www. fao.org/right-to-food/en/

Dr Rachel Carey is a Senior Lecturer in Food Systems and Dr Maureen Murphy is a Research Fellow in Food Systems in the School of Agriculture and Food at the University of Melbourne. f

Carbon neutral claims: maximum penalties now $50 million plus

Words by Lucy Cornwell and Amy Wang

Product labels, websites and advertisements – food businesses are increasingly claiming or trying to claim their products are ‘carbon neutral’. In a world where consumers are becoming increasingly conscious of the environmental impact of their food choices, businesses are motivated to use this green credential in any way they can. So, what exactly are ‘carbon neutral’ claims? And, with regulators ready to spring into action, how can businesses make these claims safely?

What do carbon neutral and net zero mean?

Though ‘carbon neutral’ and ‘net zero’ claims are sometimes made interchangeably, they have slightly different meanings. Carbon neutral means balancing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions released into the atmosphere by offsetting or removing GHG from the atmosphere. Carbon neutrality often involves purchasing and retiring offsets, or carbon-offsetting, to create this balance.

For example, the Western Australian company “OatUP” launched the world’s first carbon neutral oat milk product in 2020. In making this carbon neutral claim, OatUP created an emissions reduction strategy that targeted the way oats were transported, produced, rolled and manufactured.

OatUP also purchased Australian carbon credit units in composting and regeneration projects to off-set any remaining emissions.

Conversely, net zero carbon is where an organisation releases net-zero carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The amount of GHG emissions released is actually reduced until emissions are at zero, or practically zero. Offsets are only used sparingly, to counter any remaining, unavoidable emissions.

Internationally, the differences in these definitions have become the subject of legal action. On 13 October 2022, a lawsuit was filed in New York, claiming that Evian’s ‘carbon neutral’ claims on its bottled water products were misleading, as most consumers would believe that ‘carbon neutral’ means ‘carbon free’. The suit claims the average consumer does not understand how carbon credits offset carbon emitted during production. Evian also does not define carbon neutrality, or direct consumers to other information to explain how it achieves carbon neutrality.

ACCC’s focus on greenwashing

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced environmental claims as a formal enforcement priority for 2022/2023. In September 2022, ACCC Chair Delia Rickard reaffirmed this goal, naming ‘greenwashing’ as an active target.

‘Greenwashing’ refers to companies using messaging to suggest a product is environmentally friendly, without actually making any sustainability efforts. It includes making general claims of carbon neutrality, without having the

requisite supporting evidence.

Rickard advised, “it is important that businesses can back up the claims they are making, whether through reliable scientific reports, transparent supply chain information, reputable third-party certification, or other forms of evidence”.

The ACCC are not only increasing court enforcement action but also assessing companies’ carbon offsets and welcoming private actions by individuals against those making misleading statements. On 4 October 2022, the ACCC commenced a review of at least 200 company websites, in a sweep for misleading claims across a range of sectors, including food. In pursuing these claims, the ACCC will not be acting alone. It will work together with other supervisory bodies to take a streamlined approach to address misleading carbon neutral claims.

The Australian Consumer Law and Environmental Code

While there is no specific consumerprotection legislation in Australia that regulates carbon neutral claims, consumers are still protected under general provisions in the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). Under the ACL, businesses have an obligation not to engage in conduct that is likely to mislead or deceive consumers.

Businesses’ good intentions and disclaimers cannot ‘cure’ misleading representations. For example, if a business makes a carbon neutral claim, and is making changes to make its products environmentally friendly, it will still likely breach the ACL if

they are not in fact carbon neutral. Both the ACCC and consumers can pursue breaches of the ACL, and these carry exceptionally high pecuniary penalties. The maximum civil penalty per contravention of the ACL for corporations recently increased to the greater of: (a) $50,000,000 or (b) three times the benefit gained from the contravention, or (c) if the benefit is not ascertainable, 30% of the annual turnover (in the previous 12 months).

Other potential consequences for breaches of the ACL include injunctions, declarations, compliance orders, enforceable undertakings, infringement notices, corrective communications to customers, disqualification from management, and/or reputational and brand damage.

When marketing and advertising consumer goods, businesses should also consider the Environmental Claims Code (the Code). According to the Code, when advertising a product, any environmental claims (including carbon neutral claims) made must:

• “have a truthful and factual presentation;

• offer a genuine benefit to the environment; and

• be substantiated and verifiable”?. The Code is enforced through a process of industry self-regulation, overseen by the Ad Standards Community Panel (the Panel). While decisions by the Panel are not legally binding, offending advertisers will be instructed to take down or edit advertisements. Decisions are also posted publicly, which can lead to reputational damage and, in the worst-case scenario, cases can be reported to government agencies.

Climate Active Certification –a carbon neutral certification

Businesses can support their carbon neutral status through certifications.

Climate Active is a partnership between the Australian Government and Australian businesses to drive voluntary climate action. Businesses can indicate their carbon neutrality

to their consumers by gaining certification through Climate Active and using their certification marks on product labels.

To gain carbon neutrality certification under the Climate Active Carbon Neutral Standards, businesses must first calculate the GHG-emissions generated by their activity. They can then reduce these by updating technology and altering operations. They can then cancel out any remaining emissions by purchasing carbon offset units. Carbon offset units, including Australian carbon credit units (ACCUs), are generated from activities that prevent, remove or reduce GHG emissions from being released into the atmosphere.

In April 2022, Coles became the first major Australian supermarket to offer a carbon-neutral beef product line. The beef’s packaging states, “CERTIFIED CARBON NEUTRAL”, and includes the Climate Active certification mark. Coles are working with cattle farmers to help reduce emissions through increased renewable energy and changing herd management practices. Additionally, Coles are investigating ways to plant trees and vegetation, thus reducing net carbon emissions on beef farms through carbon sequestration. To offset the carbon it cannot abate, Coles has purchased ACCUs.

How can businesses make carbon neutral claims?

To avoid regulatory action, businesses should consider the following checklists when making general environmental claims and ‘carbon neutral’ specific claims. General environmental claims checklist:

• What is the overall impression given to the consumer by the environmental claim?

• Are the representations appropriately qualified?

• Is there evidence to support the environmental claim being made?

• Have the claims been independently verified? Is there a scientific authority that can be used

to justify the basis of the claim?

• Have you considered the whole product life cycle?

• Is there a genuine benefit to the environment and does your advertising disclose the substantiation?

Carbon neutral claims checklist:

• Have your carbon emissions been calculated in accordance with accepted methods and cover the whole life cycle of the product (including at least production, transport and sale)?

• How are the carbon offsets generated and are they certified and/or audited?

• Would there have been a reduction in emissions without your help? Emission reductions from the offsets you purchase should be in addition to what the government requires of an organisation.

• Do you have Climate Active certification? If so, ensure that your certification matches your promotion. For example, if a facility is certified, be careful not to represent that products from that facility are certified. Plus, where certified, use “CERTIFIED CARBON NEUTRAL”, and include the Climate Active certification mark.

• How will you update your carbon emissions calculations and credits so that the claims remain accurate over time? For example, will you be notified about changes in the supply chain so they can be considered for impacts on carbon neutral claims?

• Do claims relate to emissions from the production and sale of the product, emissions from the product’s use, or both?

Lucy Cornwell and Amy Wang are part of King & Wood Mallesons’ food law practice led by Scott Bouvier. f

Food safety, security and sustainability are one continuum

Words by Bill McBride

In the Winter 2022 edition of food australia, I submitted that food safety certification has reached its use-by date. At the risk of stepping into the abyss, I suggest that it’s not just the certification process that needs to change, but the recognition that food safety, security and sustainability are interdependent and must be managed symbiotically throughout the food supply chain.

According to the World Health Organisation, access to safe, nutritious, healthy food is a basic human right.1 However, food security is increasingly difficult to achieve considering factors such as a rising world population (9.7 billion by 20501), increasing urbanisation (currently 50%, rising to 65% by 20501), geopolitical conflicts, the emergence of zoonotic diseases and climate change impact.

Around 821 million people go hungry worldwide (11% of the world’s population) and two billion people worldwide suffer from malnutrition.2 Lest we consider this only a third world problem, the Foodbank Hunger Report 2022 indicates that two million households in Australia (21%) have experienced severe food insecurity in the previous 12 months.3

Food safety management has evolved beyond just a risk-based

approach to identifying and controlling microbiological, chemical and physical food safety hazards since the Codex Alimentarius Commission first adopted the HACCP Principles in 1997. It now justifiably incorporates allergen management, food defence, food fraud and personal behaviours impacting food safety (let’s not call it ‘food safety culture’. ‘Culture’ applies to all facets of an organisation, not just food safety).

The practices imposed by ‘competent authorities’1 and their commercial counterparts, and applied by food businesses, are arguably effective in eliminating or reducing the risk of foodborne illness - it’s only the failures we hear about. Most food businesses in all parts of the food supply chain are aware, informed and in control of their food safety performance and have reaped the economic benefits accordingly.

So, what needs to change? Apart from the aforementioned certification/ auditing processes which a colleague suggests are “becoming robotic” - and to my mind are increasingly ineffective - we have to remove the ‘fortress food safety’ mentality. We need to stop prioritising food safety initiatives, often at the expense of known environmental and social issues, and recognise the symbiotic

relationship between food safety, sustainability and food security. Food security can only be achieved when all people, in all nations and regions, have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food. A sustainable environment is needed to achieve and maintain a safe and secure food supply. They are interdependent.

Food safety versus food waste

As far back as 2011, it was recognised that “roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year - approximately 1.3 billion tonnesgets lost or wasted.4 The US food supply chain – farm to consumer – contributes up to 20% of land-fill weight with consequent methane production.5 A report published in September 2022 indicates that the EU wastes more food product than it imports.6

Yet it’s only recently that the environmental and social impacts of food waste have been effectively measured and actions taken to eliminate the apparent paradox between improving food safety and reducing food waste. Over-supply and consumption in the developed world and over-reliance on inspection rather than prevention have contributed, whilst date marking of food has been described as organised food waste.7 Although there are many factors that impact the declining food security numbers, reducing food waste to improve the availability of safe food, can only help.

The plastic problem

The insidious widespread use of a wide range of plastic materials for protection and packaging of food products has contributed to the safety of food products and increased customer convenience, but has also caused irreparable environmental damage over the years.

In 1986, during the BOC round-the world yachting challenge, Australian yachtsman Ian Kiernan was so disgusted by the amount of rubbish

(mainly non-biodegradable plastics) he saw choking the world’s oceans, that he was inspired to establish ‘Clean Up Australia’ and ‘Clean up the World’. Thirty-six years later, how are we doing?

If we believe the corporate spin, we’re doing pretty well. Everything from soft drink bottles to shampoo containers is now promoted as recyclable. But there is a distinct difference between ‘recyclable’ and ‘recycled’. According to National Geographic in 2019 (and more recently reported by the World Economic Forum) 91% of the world’s plastic is not recycled.8 To compound this, many countries that have till now been the destination (ie. dump sites) for western waste are now pushing back.9

The product initially intended in part to keep food products safe is now, itself, a food safety hazard. A study recently published in Trends in Food Science & Technology and reported in Food Safety Magazine suggests that microplastics affect human health not only by their presence in food, but in the formation of pathogen harbouring biofilms.10

The social concerns

We also need to look internally and address the social and economic conditions of those who produce, process, package, store and transport our food within the supply chain. Whilst the food safety community talks about improving food safety culture, many in the global food supply chain live and work well below the International Labour Organisation Conventions.

The 2022 Food and Agriculture Organisation report tracking progress on food and agriculturerelated Sustainable Development Goal indicators shows either decline or at least lack of improvement in poverty, inequality, gender equality and land tenure.11 Some of this can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, severe weather events and geopolitical conflicts, but many are preventable by improving conditions

within our supply chains.

A report by Catalyst Australia indicates that 98 million children globally (58% of all child labour) are likely to be working in the agricultural sector, while the services sector and the industry sector account for 54 million and 12 million children respectively.12 The report comments on the strengths and limits of national legislation, the flaws in self-regulation and the ‘symbolic’ supply chain audit efforts undertaken by companies or their designated agents.13

The need for positive actions

What can responsible food businesses do? Many of the reports mentioned in this article are targeted at ‘competent authorities’,2 ie. regulatory or official organisations. However, all food businesses play a critical role. A singular attitude to food safety is no longer sufficient. There are many good, positive industry initiatives now that address part of the problem, but food safety, security and sustainability are interdependent and need to be addressed holistically and simultaneously.

The solution starts with every individual food business:

• Be open and transparent Appreciate the change in community attitudes. Millennials are now the largest generational cohort in Australia with the greatest purchasing power and they are generally informed and care about the provenance of the food products they are buying. They are becoming wary of token Environmental, Social and Governance measures and greenwashing

• Measure

Establish comprehensive and credible performance metrics that integrate food safety, sustainability and social responsibility performance internally and throughout the supply chain. Regularly measure all aspects - the parts that are being done well, and the areas where improvement is needed

• Improve

Continue to find solutions. Work on the areas that need to be addressed, including those where there is an apparent conflict between required food safety, social and sustainability outcomes. Food safety, security and sustainability are one continuum. They cannot be achieved independently.

References

1. World Health Organization (2022) ‘WHO global strategy for food safety 2022–2030: towards stronger food safety systems and global cooperation’ Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

2. Christoph Schulz; CareElite (2020) ‘World hunger statistics, facts and figures 2020/2021’ https://www.careelite.de/welthungerstatistiken-fakten

3. Foodbank Hunger Report 2022 https://reports. foodbank.org.au/foodbank-hunger-report2022/?state=au

4. Gustavsson, Cederberg & Sonesson (2011) ‘Global Food Losses and Food Waste’ https://www.madr.ro/docs/ind-alimentara/ risipa_alimentara/presentation_food_waste.pdf

5. Food Waste in the US is excessive; (all statistics from the US Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency) https://pingree.house.gov/uploadedphotos/ highresolution/166eb01e-7904-4fe7-8cb5ed90b69acdbf.jpg

6. EU fails on food waste: Report reveals bloc discards more than it imports https://www. foodingredientsfirst.com/news/eu-fails-onfood-waste-report-reveals-bloc-discards-morethan-it-imports.html#.YysAyl58RAw.linkedin

7. GFSI Conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 2015; Tom Heilandt, Secretary, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Italy,

8. A Whopping 91 Percent of Plastic Isn’t Recycled; National Geographic Resources Library; https:// www.nationalgeographic.org/article/whopping91-percent-plastic-isnt-recycled/

9. Thailand announces total ban on plastic waste imports by 2025 to “protect country”; Packaging Insights, 19 September 2022. https:// www.packaginginsights.com/news/thailandannounces-total-ban-on-plastic-waste-importsby-2025-to-protect-country.html?fbclid=IwAR0 p42hbUO56o0HvxbtADSE9hbSb77xoWhBsKc6 l4fh2VRiOYy1FzrwbsvI

10. Food Safety Magazine, September 20, 2022 https://www.food-safety.com/articles/8002microplastics-encourage-biofilm-formationpose-microbial-food-safety-risks

11. (2022) ‘ Tracking progress on food and agriculture-related SDG indicators 2022’ https:// doi.org/10.4060/cc1403en

12. Catalyst Australia Incorporated (2022) ‘Child labour Report’ https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/ uploads/2020/12/Child_Labour_Report.pdf

Bill McBride is the Principal of Foodlink Asia Pacific and a forty year veteran of food safety and quality management in the global food industry.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/billmcbride-2018221b/ f

FOOD FILES

Is bitterness a blessing or curse?

Curse

Bitterness is often an unwanted attribute in foods as when it dominates it can cause rejection of a food. But bitterness is a complex problem to solve.

Throughout evolutionary history it was a warning and essential for the survival of species. Over millions of years, if an animal was searching for food and came across potential food, the first point of contact prior to ingestion was the mouth. The animal samples the food, with chewing and manipulation of the food by the tongue part of the chemical sampling process, with signals from the tongue sent to the brain to confirm whether the food could be swallowed. If the food contained potential toxins it was vital for the animal’s survival that the food was not swallowed, as ingestion may cause death. This is where bitterness was essential, it is inherently unpleasant and promotes food rejection and therefore helps survival.

Humans’ bitter taste system is robust and complex and can detect thousands of different compounds, even some which do not exist in nature. Humans have a family of 25 bitter taste receptors, some of which combine to form additional receptors, so the number of combinations of potential

receptors is very large. Also important is that any one compound may activate more than one bitter taste receptor and any receptor may be responsive to more than one compound. This sophistication of the bitter taste system has evolved over millions of years and is not going to change, so the food industry must use various strategies to try to reduce bitterness to ensure foods are not rejected by consumers. Development of new foods such as meat analogues made from plant protein are problematic for the food industry. Plant proteins are often bitter and therefore make production of plant based ‘meats’ difficult. Proteins are important for functionality of the plant based foods, so simply removing them to reduce bitterness is not an option. Also, by definition, plant protein needs to be part of the plant based meat analogue.

Blessing

While removing or minimising bitterness may be important in terms of acceptance of a food, we should consider that taste receptors are present throughout the alimentary canal (mouth and gastrointestinal tract (GIT)) and their role is to identify chemicals in foods, the same way as in the mouth. However, the outcome of activation of bitter taste receptors in the GIT does not cause bitterness,

rather the release of appropriate satiety hormones.

The perception of bitterness causes rejection of foods. If the GIT response mirrors the mouth response, then activation of bitter taste receptors would result in a response with a similar valence meaning halting food intake and, in the extreme, causing expulsion of foods. If activation of bitter receptors can halt consumption, this may be an effective strategy to aid weight loss. This was the rationale for a systematic review on bitter sensing throughout the alimentary canal and the influence on appetite by Hassan et al

The database screening identified 16 papers that were included in the review. There was variety in the methods used in the 16 papers including variation in bitter stimuli administered, the route of administration (oral or nasogastric), hormones measured and satiety via questionnaire or consumption. All these variables make a conclusive summary of research difficult. However, if bitter administration was robust, perhaps the variation in methods used over the 16 papers would not be relevant.

The overall conclusion was two hormones were responsive to bitter administration, while results for food intake and appetite were inconclusive. So while there is some evidence of

Words by Drs Russell Keast, Andrew Costanzo and Gie Liem

bitter stimuli reducing food intake and increasing satiety, more definitive data is required.

Excessive bitterness is not useful in foods, as it causes consumer rejection. However, depending on context, low to moderate bitterness intensity can be acceptable. Further to this, consumption of low levels of bitter compounds may actually be an interesting weight loss strategy as the bitter compounds can activate mechanisms that increase fullness and decrease consumption.

Hassan L, Newman L, Keast R, Danaher J, Biesiekierski J. The effect of gastrointestinal bitter sensing on appetite regulation and energy intake: A systematic review. Appetite 2023 180 106336 doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106336

Keast R, Costanzo A, Hartley I. Macronutrient sensing in the alimentary canal. 2021 Nutrients 13(2) 667 doi: 10.3390/nu13020667. (Free download)

Lab based meat

A sustainable animal friendly diet is becoming more top of mind for many consumers. Yet the sensory appeal of meat is powerful and, although

consumers may have the intention to eat less meat, market data suggest that such intention does not translate into behaviour.

Amongst the many meat alternatives, there is one which could be considered meat, where no animal has died - cell cultured meat, also known as lab-based meat. Meat that is grown from animal cells without the slaughter of animals. In theory, this could be a promising meat alternative. However, consumers may not be that positive about the idea that their food comes from a lab, rather than over romanticised green paddocks of rural Australia.

A recent review in the journal Applied Sciences compared different marketing strategies and consumer attitudes towards lab cultured meat across different parts of the world. The acceptance of the cultured meat varies greatly by country, with consumers in China, Spain, Finland and the Netherlands being more willing to try cell cultured meat than consumers in Brazil and New Zealand.

Acceptance is impacted by various factors such as religious diversity, current meat consumption, and familiarity with food innovation. Interestingly, very few studies about consumer acceptance of cell cultured meats have been conducted with Australian consumers. With regards to meat consumption, innovation in the market, and religious diversity, Australia is rather different compared to countries in which consumer behaviour towards cell cultured meat was investigated. This emphasises the need for more studies which investigate Australian consumers’ attitudes and beliefs towards cell cultured meats.

Sciences 2022;12(17):8795.

Dr Russell Keast is Professor, Dr Gie Liem is an Associate Professor, Dr Andrew Costanzo is a lecturer and are all members of the CASS Food Research Centre at Deakin University. f

Siddiqui SA, Khan S, Murid M, Asif Z, Oboturova NP, Nagdalian AA, et al. Marketing Strategies for Cultured Meat: A Review. Applied

Cellular agriculture: a crucial opportunity for Australia

Words by Dr Kate Secombe

It is increasingly well appreciated that humans are consuming more unsustainable products than our planet can afford. Good examples of this are many animal-derived products, and meat in particular. The impact of production is compounded by an upward demand for protein sources across our growing population.

Cellular agriculture is an emerging field worldwide1 that represents an opportunity to diversify the way we produce a range of agricultural products, including those traditionally derived from animals, and solve problems related to the impact of current production methods. While not yet approved for sale in Australia, the industry uses cell-based technologies to create a range of products as diverse as meat, seafood, dairy, breast milk and coffee, with the potential to improve sustainability and reduce ethical concerns.

Broadly, cellular agriculture can be divided into two subcategories: cell cultivation and precision fermentation. Cell cultivation involves the production of a variety of tissue types including muscle, fat and connective tissue (for meat), skin (for leather) and human breast milk (see Australia’s Me&) from stem cells,

originally isolated from an animal (often via biopsy) and then cultured at a large scale.

In precision fermentation, yeast, bacteria or fungi cells are engineered to produce specific ingredients such as fats or proteins equivalent to those found in eggs and milk. This technique has been used for decades for the production of insulin or rennet (a cheese-making enzyme). In both of these subcategories, work is underway to understand how to efficiently scale up these processes to ensure commercial viability.

In only a short period of time, the cellular agriculture sector has come along in leaps and bounds. The first cell-cultivated burger was cooked in London in 2013, at a cost of approximately $375,000 USD.2 Fast forward to October 2022, Australian company Vow has opened their first facility in Sydney, called Factory1, capable of producing 30 tonnes of meat per year.3

There are, however, still a number of hurdles to overcome. Cellular Agriculture Australia is a not-forprofit established in 2020, dedicated to enabling the impact potential of the cellular agriculture industry in Australia. We recently released Australia’s first cellular agriculture

White Paper, outlining key areas requiring investment and support to unlock the future potential of this sector here in Australia. Here, we discuss some of the technical challenges the sector is facing, before turning to the factors that are required to create an optimal enabling environment for the sector to grow in Australia.

Technical challenges

Through research and engagement with the sector, we have identified and profiled, using our interactive Pathways tool, a number of challenges that require further research and development.4 These include culture media development, taste and access to appropriate infrastructure.

Culture media

Cell cultivation requires an appropriate growth, or culture media (a liquid containing growth factors and other nutrients required for cells to grow and divide), that ideally does not contain animal products and is cost-effective at scale. Classical culture media in many academic research settings often includes foetal bovine serum (FBS), which contains many factors required for cell

Australian cultivated meat start-up Vow’s first commercial product morsel.

attachment, growth and proliferation. Recent profiling of typical FBS has determined it contains approximately 1,800 proteins and more than 4,000 metabolites.5 Despite its effectiveness, FBS is cost prohibitive, inconsistent between batches and, from an ethical and animal welfare perspective, is inherently contrary to the drivers of cellular agriculture.

With much of the field’s knowledge and intellectual property being developed and held within private companies, it is difficult to determine how far R&D has progressed in this area. However, the cellular agriculture sector appears to now be overcoming the challenge of FBS-free media, with neither Australian companies Magic Valley or Vow using any animal products in their culturing processes (beyond the initial cell biopsy from the animal of choice).6 Cost-effectiveness however, still remains a challenge. Recent research has worked to develop new, costeffective media preparations that do not contain FBS.

In one paper, the authors tested an FBS-free media formulation called Beefy-9 to determine its viability for the growth of bovine satellite cells (cow muscle stem cells).7 The media maintained cell growth over the entire test period (seven passages). A key addition to the media preparation was (non-animal based) recombinant albumin, which allowed long-term suitability without altering muscle cell characteristics.

Other research used RNA sequencing to determine the key cellular receptors that are upregulated when bovine satellite cells differentiate into mature muscle fibres. The authors then formulated a chemically-defined culture media that included high levels of ligands for these receptors, and found it induced good levels of satellite cell differentiation.8 However, substantially high levels of stable cell growth and differentiation are required from a range of donor animals for cell cultivation processes to be successful, which is still a work in progress.

Taste and texture

Along with price, key to consumer acceptance of cellular agriculture products will likely be sensory characteristics such as texture, aroma, colour and flavour, and their comparability to traditional products. There are many properties that contribute to these factors, such as the presence and amount of specific proteins, volatile compounds and lipids.

One recent study used an electronic tongue system to compare amino acid composition and other taste characteristics in cultivated and conventional chicken and beef. They found some differences in amounts of in valine, tyrosine and glutamic acid, as well as significant differences in umami, bitterness and sourness scores. ‘Hybrid’ products may be a possible method of improving taste, by including lipids in cultivated meat products. Lipid degradation reactions are important reactions that contribute to taste in cooked meat. Options to include fat in meat products may include co-culturing adipocytes with muscle cells, or adding separately cultured fats (eg. via precision fermentation).

The type of product will also vary the difficulty of mimicking a conventional meat product. Matching the texture of a mince product might be easier than mimicking something like steak, which would require complex 3D scaffolds - surfaces on which the cultured cells can grow.10

A major challenge when developing these structured products is efficiently supplying nutrients to the inner cells while also removing waste products.

Specific tests used to measure sensory aspects of conventional meat, such as texture profile analysis, or GC-MS for aroma analysis, will also need to be optimised for cultivated meat products both before and after cooking.

Access to infrastructure

Precision fermentation processes involve ‘reprogramming’ microbial cells (bacteria, yeasts or fungi) with genetic information to produce recombinant molecules for ingredients such as egg, milk fats and proteins. Although the fundamental scientific processes are mature, they have typically been used to produce small quantities of high-value products such as insulin and the cheese making enzyme, rennet.

In Australia, Change Foods are working on using these processes to develop cheeses, Nourish Ingredients are producing fats, and Eden Brew and All G Foods are producing dairy - all examples of lower value products that need to be produced at a very large scale. For example, if we assume milk has 3% protein content (30g/l), and at-scale manufacturing facilities can produce 30g of protein per litre, the industry will need 120 one million litre plants to meet Australia’s current milk production

George Peppou (CEO), Matt Kean (NSW Treasurer), and Tim Noakesmith (co-founder), celebrate the launch of Vow’s ‘Factory 1’.

capacity. Australian company Agritechnology is currently looking to commission the first pilot plant for precision fermentation here in Australia, which will be orders of magnitude smaller than one of these facilities. The investment required for these types of equipment is prohibitively expensive for a single start-up company, especially when trialling new products and processes. In addition, the scale required brings technical challenges, particularly in fields like chemical and bioprocessing engineering linked to the design, construction, commissioning, management and optimisations of these facilities.

This is further complicated by a severe lack of appropriately skilled people. These new processes involve not only innovation in microbial strain choice and target selection, but the optimisation of processes at a previously untested scale.

Opportunities for the food industry in Australia

As an emerging industry, there are more than just technical problems to solve. Following the release of our White Paper, we conducted a workshop with 28 leaders from the sector in Australia who represented emerging Australian cellular agriculture companies, university researchers and policymakers. Through the White Paper and workshop, we have identified six areas where strategic investment and support is required to equip the sector and unlock its potential for growth. These areas are:

• Developing a future-fit workforce: Australia needs to grow a multidisciplinary pipeline of talent at VET and university levels to enable commercialisation and industry growth

• Deepening Australia’s crossdisciplinary, open access cellular agriculture research: There are gaps in collaboration and information sharing between private companies and precompetitive research. Dedicated

research centres that bring these parties together would help to bridge the gaps

• Establishing at-scale manufacturing capabilities: Investment into specialised infrastructure such as large-scale bioreactors and cell line repositories is crucial as companies begin to scale their production

• Influencing the policy environment: There is a desire from sector leaders to coordinate efforts and agree on common positions around high-level government policy

• Establishing an accessible and consistent regulatory framework: The cellular agriculture sector has highlighted the opportunity to create a clear and consistent approach to navigating regulatory frameworks and ensure the fastest path to getting new products approved for sale in Australia

• Social acceptance: Communication with clear and consistent messaging to a range of key stakeholders including future consumers, policy makers, regulators and the incumbent industry is important, firstly to raise awareness of the sector and its products, but also to allay possible fears around its impact, safety, nutritional content and taste concerns.

Going forward, we intend to explore, roadmap and implement solutions across these areas alongside, and for the benefit of, the entire sector.

Where to next?

The Australian Government has signalled its desire for Australia to be a ‘maker, not taker’ of new technologies.11 Through cellular agriculture, Australia is well placed to continue and build on its excellent reputation in agriculture with worldleading capabilities in multiple relevant disciplines, strong export relationships with large protein markets in Asia, and long-term advanced manufacturing policy goals. We now need to focus on developing the capabilities and infrastructure identified through

our recent work to ensure this opportunity becomes a reality. Download the White Paper at: https://cellularagricultureaustralia.org/ Learn more about cellular agriculture problems to be solved at: https:// pathways.cellularagricultureaustralia. org/problems

References

1. Bowling, D. (2022) Biden points to cultured meat in New Biotech Executive Order, Future Alternative. Available at: https://futurealternative. com.au/biden-points-to-cultured-meat-in-newbiotech-executive-order/ (Accessed: October 18, 2022).

2. Kupferschmidt, K. (2013) Here it comes ... the $375,000 lab-grown beef burger, Science. Available at: https://www.science.org/content/ article/here-it-comes-375000-lab-grown-beefburger (Accessed: October 18, 2022).

3. Ettinger, J. (2022) Vow opens one of the largest cultivated meat factories in the world ahead of anticipated regulatory approval, Green Queen. Available at: https://www.greenqueen.com. hk/vow-cultivated-meat-factory-regulatoryapproval/ (Accessed: October 18, 2022).

4. Cellular Agriculture Pathways (2022) Cellular Agriculture Australia. Available at: https:// pathways.cellularagricultureaustralia.org/ problems (Accessed: October 18, 2022).

5. Gstraunthaler, G., Lindl, T. and van der Valk, J. (2013) “A plea to reduce or replace fetal bovine serum in Cell Culture Media,” Cytotechnology, 65(5), pp. 791–793. Available at: https://doi. org/10.1007/s10616-013-9633-8.

6. Bowling, D. (2022) What’s next for Magic Valley?, Future Alternative. Available at: https:// futurealternative.com.au/whats-next-for-magicvalley/ (Accessed: October 18, 2022).

7. Stout, A.J. et al. (2022) “Simple and effective serum-free medium for sustained expansion of bovine satellite cells for cell cultured meat,” Communications Biology, 5(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03423-8.

8. Messmer, T. et al. (2022) “A serum-free media formulation for cultured meat production supports bovine satellite cell differentiation in the absence of serum starvation,” Nature Food, 3(1), pp. 74–85. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/ s43016-021-00419-1.

9. Joo, S.-T. et al. (2022) “A comparative study on the taste characteristics of satellite cell cultured meat derived from chicken and cattle muscles,” Food Science of Animal Resources, 42(1), pp. 175–185. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5851/ kosfa.2021.e72.

10. Fraeye, I. et al. (2020) “Sensorial and nutritional aspects of cultured meat in comparison to traditional meat: Much to be inferred,” Frontiers in Nutrition, 7. Available at: https://doi. org/10.3389/fnut.2020.00035.

11. Husic, E. (2022) Address to the Science and Technology Australia Gala Dinner, The Hon Ed Husic MP Minister for Industry and Science. Australian Government. Available at: https:// www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/husic/ speeches/address-science-and-technologyaustralia-gala-dinner (Accessed: October 15, 2022).

Dr Kate Secombe, science communicator at Cellular Agriculture Australia. f

AIFST Mentoring Program

Words by Annelise Sarikas

The AIFST mentoring program is an annual, six month program that aims to bring young professionals and experienced members of AIFST together. Mentees and mentors are paired based on experience and interest, and encouraged to meet on a weekly or fortnightly basis depending on their individual availability.

The 2022 AIFST mentoring program launched in April and concluded in October, with 46 pairs successfully completing the course program. We were delighted to open the mentee applications beyond students and graduates this year and included a host of young professional members in the early stages of their careers.

In 2022 we were also pleased to launch the first ever mentee interview process which enabled greater reliability in the pairing process. The interview process involved allocating each mentee, who applied for the program via written application, a 10-minute time slot in which we arranged for past mentors of the program to ask simple questions about their interests and goals for the program. From here, we were able to pair mentees and mentors accordingly. I would like to thank all mentors who volunteered their time to help with this process as it added significant value to the 2022 program and will be carried into future years.

Another element of the 2022

mentoring program which contributed to its great success was the establishment of mentoring catch ups. Once a month, we arranged a mentoring catch-up with the entire participating cohort enabling an opportunity for AIFST to connect with the members and allow the mentors and mentees of other pairs to network and get to know each other.

In the first session, we heard from mentor, Simone Hoyle, who spoke about the enormous benefit of mentoring. For the second session, we arranged breakout rooms within Zoom to assist in providing a more intimate and manageable environment for participants to get to know each other. From here, we surveyed the group to see what topics they would find most beneficial. We then prioritised the most popular topics.

In the third session, we were fortunate enough to hear from long-time member of AIFST, Sharon Natoli, who spoke about dealing with difficult people. In session four, mentor Stewart Eddie spoke about how to pitch yourself in 40 seconds which proved a very helpful session, particularly for our mentees. In session five, mentor Sarah Crisp spoke about the importance of improving your ‘soft’ skills.

In our final session, mentor Polly Burey spoke about finding jobs in the food industry. Overall, these

structured monthly catch ups were very productive for our group, allowing a safe space for education and networking for both the mentors and the mentees.

I would like to share a lovely quote by mentor Annesley Watson: “The program is a great opportunity for mentees to drive their own development. It is also a good learning experience for mentors as no two mentees are the same.” This captures the immense benefit the program provides to all participants.

I can say from personal experience, that this program allows access to an encouraging and supportive group of people who are cheering you on. It has been an absolute pleasure to coordinate the AIFST Mentoring Program over the past couple of years. As I look to my next chapter and pass this role on to my colleague Melissa Garland, I am confident that it will continue to grow and prosper under her guidance.

Thank you to all the amazing 2022 Program participants who made the program such a success.

For information on the 2023 Mentoring Program, visit: https:// www.aifst.asn.au/National-MentoringProgram

Annelise Sarikas was Membership Services Officer at the AIFST and is now a Product Development Technologist at Goodman Fielder. f

Food safety trends2023 and beyond

Words by Deon Mahoney

As we move through the third decade of this century, society has never been more challenged by disturbances and disruptive practices. At this time, we are dealing with a multitude of issues, including an ongoing pandemic, continued economic uncertainty, labour shortages, profound disruptions to global supply chains and trade, a fast-changing and volatile climate, environmental degradation, and global conflicts and sanctions.

These issues are having an effect on food availability, affordability, sustainability and safety, and impacting every sector of society including the food industry. Over the past three years we have observed massive disruptions along the entire food supply chain, and this has been overlain with changes in consumer attitudes, behaviours and habits.

By studying current conditions and analysing trends, it is possible to develop strategies to manage disruptions and avoid emerging food safety challenges. This relies upon food industry players (at all stages from production to consumption) to monitor and understand trends and developments, and then adapt

and transition to this changing operating environment. Unfortunately, predicting food industry trends is a complex process, with variability and uncertainty playing key roles in determining how we can successfully negotiate the future.

What food safety trends are we observing now?

As a result of the pandemic, we have observed significant changes in the purchasing patterns of consumers and their eating habits. Initially, there was a return to home cooked meals, a reduction in eating out and fastfood consumption, and an increased eating frequency due to stress and quarantine. A detailed analysis of the literature by Bennett et al. (2021) found dietary practices in Europe and globally were both negatively and positively impacted by lockdowns.1 The negative habits were typically associated with other poor outcomes including weight gain, reduced physical activity and mental health issues.

From a food safety perspective, many countries observed a reduction in cases of foodborne illness. This was attributed to several factors including less eating out, increased focus on

hygiene, and reduced health seeking behaviours.

Now, as a consequence of recent increases in the cost-of-living, changes in consumer buying patterns and behaviours have been observed. A recent study by the United Kingdom Food Standards Agency found that consumers were taking food safety risks because of money pressures and rising energy costs.2 The survey of 2,000 consumers found risky practices such as:

• Turning off a refrigerator/freezer or changing the settings to save energy

• Lowering food cooking temperatures or reducing cooking times to save energy

• Eating cold food as they could not afford to cook

• Eating food past its use-by date because they couldn’t afford to buy more.

Ongoing approaches to improve sustainability along the food supply chain also have the potential to increase food safety risks. Food packaging has come under significant scrutiny because of its perceived impact on the environment, while its role in protecting foods is often disregarded.

Plastic bashing has become commonplace with consumers demanding less packaging. This ignores the importance of packaging in reducing the likelihood of contamination in the retail sector, as well as preserving product quality attributes and extending shelflife. The objective should be to use recycled packaging and utilise materials that are recyclable. There is also ongoing evidence of climate change transforming food production environments and practices, with increased risk to public health through issues such as:

• Stresses on animals/health resulting in increased disease risks

• Algal blooms in waterways impacting fisheries and aquaculture

• Stresses on infrastructure such as cold chains

• Extreme weather events resulting in destruction and/or contamination of produce.

The NSW Department of Primary Industries is currently undertaking a detailed analysis of the risks and opportunities of a changing climate to support resilience and adaptation in the broadacre cropping sector. In addition, the National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy 2021–2025 frames Australia’s approach to coordinated adaptation across multiple domains including ecosystems, agricultural lands, plants and animals.3

The Global Food Security Index (GFSI) developed by Economist Impact evaluates affordability, availability, quality, safety, sustainability and adaptation. The 2022 report indicates that the global food environment has deteriorated, making it vulnerable to shocks, with affordability and food safety plummeting and a widening food security gap. In the overall global rankings, Australia comes in at 22nd with a score of 75.4 compared to New Zealand with a score of 77.8 (14th).4 Australia ranks highly for its enabling environment for food safety, while scoring poorly in categories such as nutrition monitoring and surveillance, food security and access policy, and

volatility of agricultural production. There is no room for complacency.

What factors will drive future food safety trends?

In 2023 and beyond, we have an increasingly watchful society, with consumers showing greater interest in the origin, authenticity, safety and sustainability of their food supply. Research shows that we have consumers demanding safe foods but seeking foodstuffs that have undergone only minimal processing. In contrast, we have the food industry reformulating traditional foods, introducing ultra-processed foods, and exploring the potential to use novel ingredients. Population data shows that we have ever increasing numbers of vulnerable consumers. And with urban intensification we have longer and more complex supply chains delivering foods to densely populated urban areas.

Not surprisingly we observe deepening concerns around both food safety and security as each year passes. Consumers are more vocal, seeking assurances regarding sustainability, questioning the safety of their food, actively pursuing healthy eating options, and demanding guarantees about the origin and integrity of the food they consume. This extends to increased scrutiny of new technologies and products, and a focus on approaches to prevent foodborne illness.

What should be our future food safety focus?

On the horizon a number of factors continue to hamper our progress to deliver a safer food supply. They can be divided into two main categories –continuing and emerging threats and the failure to adequately embrace and

adhere to basic systems designed to manage food safety.

Continuing and emerging threats

Emergence and re-emergence of foodborne pathogens is an ongoing concern for food regulators, public health agencies, the food industry, and consumers. Many of these emerging pathogens are of zoonotic origin and include not only bacteria, but parasites and viruses. Various factors contribute to their emergence, including changes in agricultural practices, climate change, food processing and distribution practices, and evolving pathogenicity through the acquisition of virulence factors. Furthermore, improvements in analytical techniques and methods support increased detection and recognition of new pathogens. Information on a range of emerging foodborne pathogens has been previously described.5

An equally concerning issue is the enduring emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). The World Health Organisation has declared AMR as one of the top ten global public health threats facing humanity, citing the overuse and misuse of antimicrobials as a major driver in the development of drugresistant pathogens. Controlling AMR requires a multisectoral approach which includes a focus on improved infection and disease prevention in food and feed production settings. It also demands an improved awareness of the problem among stakeholders in the animal and plant health sectors, further research into new antimicrobials and enhanced diagnostic tools.

A potential threat to our food supply is the incidence of chemical residues. The presence of agricultural chemicals, veterinary medicines, and

1: Australia’s score on the 2022 Global Food Security Index.

contaminants in our food supply is strongly regulated and routinely assessed under the National Residue Survey (NRS). NRS testing of selected animal products, grains and horticulture products in 2021–2022 demonstrated greater than 99% compliance of a wide range of agricultural commodities with relevant Australian standards.6 The NRS is vital for confirming Australia’s status as a producer of clean and green produce and for facilitating access to domestic and export markets. Nevertheless, consumers remain concerned about chemical residues underscoring the need for continued attention to good agricultural and veterinary practices for ensuring this clean status is retained.

Adherence to basic food safety practices

The safety of our food supply is contingent on every player along the food supply chain following standard practices to ensure the safety and suitability of our food supply. Unfortunately, not all players along this chain understand or practice good hygienic behaviours. Examples include failure to adequately monitor incoming raw materials and key processing parameters, not undertaking a root cause analysis when a problem occurs, or failing to provide basic instruction in food hygiene to employees.

Resistance to the adoption of basic prerequisite programs and the implementation of food safety programs designed to minimise

hazards remains a challenging issue. While costs, resources and access to expert advice can be a barrier, this could be reduced by access to plain English guidance and leadership by peak industry bodies to support small and medium sized businesses. Access to over-designed food safety programs has created obstacles for many small operators and led to a culture of negativity to rational strategies to manage food safety.

When it comes to incidents involving food safety, the need for enhanced traceability remains a key priority. Improvements in the way we are able to promptly track food through all stages of production, processing and distribution will lead to improvements in public health, strengthen consumer trust and protect brands.

Finally, there is a need to better communicate food safety matters to consumers. Consumers lack a good understanding of date marking, the difference between a raw food and a ready-to-eat food, and the importance of temperature control for perishable and higher-risk foods. While the ‘real estate’ on a food label is highly valuable, there is a need to better communicate to the consumer how a food should be handled, prepared and stored. This will not only reduce the likelihood of food waste and its impact on sustainability but also provide protection against food safety hazards. For example, QR codes on food packaging provide a connection between the physical

food and the digital environment where information on food handling, allergens and nutrition can be accessed. There is also the added advantage of enhancing traceability and authenticity.

Summary

While Australians enjoy access to a wide range of safe foodstuffs, greater effort is required if we are to reduce the burden of 4.86 million cases of foodborne illness every year.

Responsibility for access to safe, suitable and nutritious food is shared along the entire food supply chain with producers, packers, transporters, processors, retailers and consumers, and there is a need to pay greater heed to good hygienic practices. This starts with education and more effective communication about the hazards, and a determined effort to change behaviours.

In addition, horizon scanning to access basic information about emerging hazards, the impacts of climate change and evolving consumer trends ensure the food industry stays on top of factors influencing the safety of our food supply.

References

1. Bennett et al. (2021). The impact of lockdown during the COVID-19 outbreak on dietary habits in various population groups: A scoping review. Frontiers in Nutrition, Vol. 8, Article 626432. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.626432

2. UK FSA (2022). Latest consumer survey tracks level of worry around the cost of food and its impact on food safety. https://www.food.gov. uk/news-alerts/news/latest-consumer-surveytracks-level-of-worry-around-the-cost-of-foodand-its-impact-on-food-safety

3. Australian Government (2021). National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy 2021-2025. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/ policy/adaptation/strategy/ncras-2021-25

4. Economist Impact (2022). Global Food Security Index 11th edition. https://impact.economist.com/ sustainability/project/food-security-index

5. Mahoney, D. (2021). Keeping a focus on emerging foodborne pathogens. food australia, Oct-Dec, pp 36-38

6. Australian Government (2022). Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment Annual report 2021-2022. https://www.transparency. gov.au/annual-reports/departmentagriculture-water-and-environment/reportingyear/2021-22-11

Deon Mahoney is Head of Food Safety at the International Fresh Produce Association. f

Black soldier fly – challenges and opportunities for the food supply chain

Words by Drs James A Broadbent and Utpal Bose

Is it just me, or has the phrase ‘circular economy’ come up with much more regularity over the last few years? Three years ago, I had no idea what this phrase meant, but I’ve come to learn a lot more about it.

In its basic form, when it comes to food, it concerns how food travels through the supply chain. It can either have a linear transit from produce to waste stream or, in the case of a circular economy, the byproducts of this transit are used to create some valuable material that can be circled back into the supply chain. This reduces waste production (including greenhouse gasses) and potentially reduces the burden on environmental resources.

However, turning a waste stream into a higher-value material for a circular bio-economy requires changes in consumer behaviour, legislation to innovate in processing technology, and storage solutions to ensure the safety of these products.

Insects are an attractive processing technology option for converting waste streams into higher-value products. In particular, black soldier fly larvae have shown promise for industrial growth, given their ability to consume a wide range of organic waste materials. Further, black soldier fly larvae have been used as a feed for livestock and aquaculture, and in pet food industries. These applications are possible due to their efficiency in converting waste streams into nutritionally enriched and high-value lipid and protein products. Yet, with any new material entering the food or feed supply chain, it’s critical to understand its composition and any potential risks arising from its consumption.

The protein composition of black soldier fly larvae was investigated recently and reported by Bose et

al. in the Journal of Proteomics

The research team examined three types of processed material supplied by Goterra — a leading Australian food waste management innovation company. Firstly, the investigators took a systematic approach to extract the protein content from the raw material and determine the composition that resulted from various extraction procedures. This gave the research team an indication of the best extraction protocol and a diverse catalogue of detectable proteins.

Next, the entire black soldier fly genome was screened for signs of potential human allergens using a sophisticated analysis tool developed by the paper’s co-authors based at A*STAR in Singapore. This analysis revealed the presence of 33 potential human allergens within the black soldier fly genome.

Finally, the investigators selected one of the putative allergens found commonly in other foods, including shellfish, and tested if its abundance was affected by the different processing methods used by the team at Goterra. This analysis produced evidence that the putative allergen abundance is diminished due to food processing when compared to the raw unprocessed material. Importantly, this work provides foundational knowledge regarding the composition, putative allergen content and potential benefit of processing for food or feed applications.

So, when might you expect to see these products of circular economic practice in circulation? Companies are currently working to harness the capability of black soldier fly to produce livestock, aquaculture feed and pet food. While recommendations within

a recently published aquaculture standard may limit the use of insects for aquaculture food, there remain key questions regarding the nutrition and safety of insects as food and feed components. In this regard, the CSIRO supports insect farming industries by developing new measurement tools to understand insects’ nutritional and microbiological composition following various food processing methods. Through this work, insects have a better opportunity to be part of the circular bio-economy and may help to save the planet one day.

References

Bose U, et al. (2021) ‘Comparison of protein extraction protocols and allergen mapping from black soldier fly Hermetia illucens’ Journal of Proteomics. October 30, 2022 269:104724 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprot.2022.104724

Dr James A Broadbent is a team leader and research scientist in Agriculture and Food at the CSIRO. Dr Utpal Bose is a research scientist in Agriculture and Food at the CSIRO. This research was conducted as part of the CSIRO Future Protein Mission, a collaboration between CSIRO, government, industry and the research sector, to develop $10 billion of new and improved Australian protein products. It was funded by the 1st Singapore-Australia Bilateral Program on Innovations in Food for Precision Health, 2019 (Grant number: SG-AUS2019_191D4) encompassing a partnership between The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia), James Cook University (Australia and Singapore) and Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR, Singapore). f

The AFGC’s Product Information Form V6 – concept to reality

Words by Dr Geoffrey Annison

It’s hard to believe that the Australian Food and Grocery Council’s (AFGC) Product Information Form (PIF) is approaching its 20th year in supporting the food industry’s need to pass product information up and down the supply chain in a standardised format.

It was a world first in 2003 when released as an MS-WORD™ document (Product Information Version 1; PIF V1), and in its latest form, PIF Version 6 (Release 6.1), it remains world-leading. It was conceived as a hands-on tool for R&D and scientific and regulatory affairs staff to stay up to date with, and ahead of, food regulatory changes for product specific information across the whole supply chain. During successive versions of the PIF, the regulatory scope and functionality have been updated in deep consultation with food industry representatives from a wide range of food companies.

By 2012 the PIF v5 had become a complex, interactive MS-EXCEL™ spreadsheet which, while fit-forpurpose in its content, was ill-suited to the growing demand from industry for high levels of data security, and interoperability with company-level IT systems. Following extensive exploration of the options, and discussions with industry experts, it was decided to build a completely new version of the PIF, from the ground up, which would be available in an on-line format. By then, online data collection, collation and transmission was becoming more commonplace with many business-tobusiness examples (eg. in finance).

Efficiency of system use, maintenance of data integrity and security of data storage and transmission were agreed upon as foundation design attributes of the new electronic PIF, PIF V6 or the

PIF V6 was launched at the Australian Institute of Food Science & Technology Convention in July 2017.

As the concept of the on-line PIF was being developed, rapid changes in demand for information about food products were also occurring at the consumer level. Heightened awareness and interest in the provenance of food products, the technologies used in their production and the sustainability of food systems have driven consumers’ expectations and demands for detailed information about the foods they buy.

Apart from going on-line, the PIF V6 is a game-changing advance over previous versions. Its scope, functionality, security features and futureproofing are a quantum-leap ahead of previous spreadsheet versions. Dealing with these in turn, firstly, the scope of the information included in the PIF is about 25% greater than covered by the previous PIF v5. It covers all information required about food products necessary to assure regulatory compliance with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (FSC),

Country of Origin Labelling (CoOL) requirements and the Health Star Rating (HSR) front-of-pack nutrition labelling and much more.

Specifically, PIF V6 retains and builds upon PIF v5 (now withdrawn) and includes information to support:

• Ingredient declaration breakdown

• CoOL

• Allergen and food safety declarations (ANZ and international allergens and information to support the Allergen Bureau’s VITAL® program)

• Pre-market clearance – genetically modified, irradiated and novel foods

• Quarantine and biosecurity

• Nutrition information

• Nutrition, health and related claims

• Voluntary front of pack labelling –HSR labelling and the Daily Intake Guide

• Certification and endorsement information

• Shelf life specifications

• Traceability information

• Measurement marking

• Potential safety hazards

• Packaging information (see the AFGC website for listing).

e-PIF.

In line with the ‘future proofing’ concept, PIF V6 also includes an option to report ‘added-sugar’ content. Caution must be exercised here as a regulatory definition of added sugar has not been determined. The issue is currently being considered by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) under Proposal 1058 Added Sugar Labelling

Turning to functionality, the on-line portal systems allow companies to create, store, edit and exchange the PIF V6 between businesses. Accessed through any web-browser, the system can be used in a ‘standalone’ environment. That is, there is no need for it to be integrated with other company IT systems. It can be run completely independently. Alternatively, it can be used to exchange information with other internal company IT systems (ie. information can be imported to complete PIFs, or exported from PIFs as required by other companylevel IT functions). Interoperability is provided through the PIF system using standardised data exchange protocols.

Functionality is also enhanced through four types of PIF being offered through the PIF system. These are PIFs for:

1. Samples – for new product development and showcasing

product prototypes

2. Flavours – reflecting the limited data set required for these types of products

3. Ingredients – providing downstream customers information to assist them to meet the regulatory requirements of finished products

4. Retail ready products - information assisting with regulatory compliance and integrity of consumer ready products. Security of data has been front and centre of considerations during the development of the PIF V6. The AFGC is acutely aware of the commercially sensitive nature of product information, and the on-line PIF system has a number of design elements intended to safeguard individual PIFs and the data they contain. Those design elements include:

1. Data entry through bespoke, secure on-line portals and highly secure cloud storage provided by AFGClicensed and well-established business solution software providers under the auspices of the AFGC Authorised Food Data System®

2. Restricted access to portals and individual PIFs, ie. hierarchical password protected access providing PIF creating, read-only, edit, approval and PIF-sending and

receiving permissions determined by food company management

3. Sharing of PIFs through portal-toportal transmission. This does away with the notoriously risky sharing of soft copies of PIFs by email, or by hard copy, which occurred with earlier PIF versions. PIF V6 can, however, be downloaded from portals as PDF files and shared, but this is not recommended.

The on-line portal system is the foundation of the futureproofing of the PIF system. It is designed to be upgradable and expandable. Some of this will be obvious to users through upgrades to improve useability or to keep pace with regulatory developments, while other changes in the ‘back-end’ will be updates in software to keep pace with IT advances. The intent is to minimise the disruption to users as changes are introduced. Since its launch in 2017 the PIF system has been tested extensively to ensure its reliability and useability. This continuous commitment has already resulted in a number of minor adjustments and improvements to the system.

There was also a change in PIF content made in August 2022 to reflect the new mandatory allergen labelling requirements under Standard 1.2.3 Information Requirement – warning statements, advisory statements and declarations

following FSANZ’s Proposal P1044 –Plain English Allergen Labelling. This change resulted in PIF V6, release 6.1. The notation signifies the substantial change in the PIF content. The timing of the change reflects August 2022 being halfway through the three year transition period for the new allergen labelling requirements which expires in February 2024. Further significant changes in content will be denoted by new release numbers.

With regard to more changes down the track, no major changes are currently envisaged. Regulatory changes in the FSANZ pipeline, or those of other regulatory agencies, are not expected to trigger substantial changes to the PIF content. There are, however, discussions on how the AFGC Authorised Food Data System® might expand. For example, work on a Facilities Information Form, or FIF, has commenced. This will contain key information about food production sites – that is, facilities – which may be important for business-tobusiness, and business-to-consumer

engagement.

For example, it may include production site certifications, such and halal or kosher, or it may have environmental sustainability certifications. Packaging information, or a ‘packaging PIF’ has also been discussed as a potentially useful addition. The guiding principle across the AFGC Authorised Food Data System® is the concept of ‘one true source of data’ within food companies supported by one-time manual data entry, flexible data sharing and strong protection for business efficiency and data security.

So how does it all work in practice?

The AFGC Authorised Food Data System® is a collaboration between the AFGC and three software companies – Bizcaps Software, Hamilton-Grant, and Oakbarrel Software – which are licensed PIF V6 vendors. While all three offer on-line PIF management services (e.g. create, edit, send, receive, storage) through their individual bespoke PIF Portals, by operating to an AFGC functional specification, the portals act as both

a transmitter and receiver of PIFs. The PIF Vendors can provide advice to companies on becoming a PIF V6 user, and on integrating the PIF V6 system (ie. exchange data) with other IT systems companies may be using or with external systems.

A full description of the PIF system and supporting resources (factsheets, Q & A sheet, PIF user guide and webinars) are available from the AFGC website. Also on the website is a list of food companies, both large and small, which have joined the ever-expanding PIF V6 business community.

The last word: The AFGC strongly recommends that the ANZ food industry work together to implement the PIF V6 to ensure regulatory compliance and safety of food products to ease us into the future.

At the time of writing, Dr Geoffrey Annison was Deputy Chief Executive Officer & Director, Health, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs at the Australian Food and Grocery Council. f

Seaweed and its extracts in food systems

Words by Dr JH Fitton

As the world comes to terms with climate change, there has been increased cultivation of seaweed. Seaweed production has a long history as both a wild harvest and as a cultured marine crop both on and offshore. Like land plants, seaweeds are diverse and cannot be considered as a single biomass.

Seaweed preparations are used throughout food systems as crop stimulants, in animal feeds and even as a packaging component. Numerous seaweeds have a place in cultural food practices and some are sources of colloids used in prepared foods. Seaweeds vary considerably in protein content, but generally have complete amino acid profiles. In this article we discuss how seaweed provides diversity in food systems and some of the challenges ahead for each sector.

Climate change has sharpened economic attention to diverse sources of feed and food. Seaweeds offer both established and new ingredients to increase resilience in food systems. Preparing for a changed climate means an increased focus on low carbon footprint food production. Marine algae and shellfish

both have a place in this future, cultured both off and onshore.1

Recent marketing enthusiasm for seaweed has resulted in unusual claims, often accompanied by an appealing photograph of the wrong seaweed. It is important to clarify that, just like land plants, there are many different types of seaweed, each with different routes into food systems. Sustainable wild harvests have been established for decades providing agricultural, feed and food biomass. More recent cultivated crops, both open water and onshore, are providing more biomass, each with a variety of uses.2 According to a recent WHO report, world production has increased from 10.6

Group

Seaweed

Brown (Phaeophycaeae) Undaria pinnatifida

million tonnes in 2000 to 32.4 million tonnes in 2018.3 The expanded industry has supplemented, rather than replaced, sustainable wild harvests which still have an important role.

Rather than referring to a collective ‘seaweed’, it is better to consider each harvest as a separate source. Macroalgae are classified into three groups - brown, red and green seaweeds. Some examples of common edibles are shown in Table 1.

Nutrients in seaweeds

In general, wet biomass contains about 90% water, and sodium chloride and potassium chloride are major components. A high salt

Common names

Wakame (blade), mekabu (sporophyll)

Laminaria japonica Kombu

Cladosiphon okamuranus Mozuku

Durvillea antarctica

Red (Rhodophycaeae) Porphyra spp

Cochayuyo, bull kelp

Nori, laver bread

Palmaria palmata Dulse

Chondrus crispus

Green (Chlorophycaeae) Ulva spp

Caulerpa spp

Table 1. Some common edible seaweeds.

Irish moss, carrageen

Sea lettuce

Sea grapes

Codium sp and Ulva sp.

content keeps bioburden low in dried seaweed. Anti-nutrients that can block the absorption of useful components in the diet may be present in the form of phlorotannins (polyphloroglucinols), lectins and other natural compounds. However, many seaweeds can be considered ‘edible’ and very few contain toxins.

Soluble fibres and colloids are most notable in large brown kelps and red carrageenan and agar bearing seaweeds. Reforming structures, modifying viscosity, stabilising emulsions and extending shelf life are just some of the useful properties of these marine colloids.4

Bioactive polysaccharides such as fucoidan and ulvans are used in supplements.

Mannitol is a storage sugar alcohol present seasonally in kelps. This useful compound is used as a sweetening agent, as a hyperosmotic drug and, interestingly, when nitrated to mannitol hexanitrate can be used as an explosive.

Lipids are generally a minor component in seaweeds, with PUFAs usually concentrated in marine microalgae. Vitamin contents are modest, but Nori in particular may provide a vegetable source of B12.5

Trace element content in edible seaweeds makes them attractive for inclusion in the diet.6 Iodine

content can be controlled in onshore cultivated biomass, but may be especially high in some natural kelps.

Proteins are generally a larger component (more than 30%) of traditional edible seaweeds such as Porphyra sp (Nori) and some Ulva spp. Colloid companies such as DuPont are investigating the potential to also extract proteins from ‘side streams’ during processing of biomass colloids.7

Companies such PhycoHealth (Australia) are using high tech onshore cultivation of Ulva spp that captures waste C02 and nutrients for rapid protein production on a small footprint.8 PhycoHealth creates shelf stable tasty food products such as pasta and muesli. Recent studies showed improved plasma lipids and anti-inflammatory activity in overweight subjects taking the glycan extract.9

Amino acid profiles of seaweed proteins are unusually complete, and may contain the rare amino acid taurine which has useful bioactivity.10 Complementary essential amino acid profiles in different seaweeds could be mixed to form protein blends that are nutritionally on par with animal products such as milk and whey.11 This makes protein preparations from seaweed biomass, either as a whole food in Nori or Ulva, or the future development of ‘flavour neutral’ protein extracts, attractive for formulators.

The subject of amino acids in seaweeds would not be complete without a nod to the Japanese chemist Kikunae Ikeda (1864-1936), who in 1907 discovered the Umami flavour amino acid glutamate (E621) in kelp and went on to co-found the monosodium glutamate company ‘Ajinomoto’.12

Seaweed fermentation

Fermentation can facilitate the extraction of bioactive compounds from seaweeds and can also be used to generate useful biogas and even polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) for use in bioplastics.13 Products of seaweed fermentation show enhanced

bioactive and sensory profiles which can lead to new products.14

Seaweeds in plant food crops and in animal feeds

Seaweeds have long had a role in providing essential nutrients, resulting in increased resilience in livestock and increased nutrient values in milk, meat, egg and fleece products. Inclusion in poultry feeds,15 for example, results in improved feed conversion rates, healthier gut microbiome and increased egg quality. Usage in agricultural cropping applications was recently reviewed by Shukla et al 16 Seaweeds contain compounds that elicit plant immunity, and stress tolerance responses. Commercial preparations are able to provide considerable economic advantages in a safe and effective manner.

Seaweed packaging

Seaweeds have the potential to be used as key ingredients for bioplastic production, either extracts, chemically modified, or fermented to produce polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). The presence of distinctive functional groups can be manipulated to provide desirable bioplastics, most probably in combination in land biomasses. There are a number of companies looking at microbial conversion of seaweed biomass to compounds suited to packaging production.13,17

Safety of seaweeds

Safety, both in production and throughout the food system, is key to sustainable production.3 Whilst most seaweeds are edible and non-toxic, a few contain compounds that could be harmful. Naturally occurring toxins include kainic and domoic acids found in ‘non edible’ red seaweeds.18 Bromoform is the active component in Asparagopsis, promoted as a feed additive for methane reduction in ruminants.19 Safe levels of bromoform are well regulated within the water industry.20

Seaweed components are chelating agents, which means that heavy metals (inorganic arsenic and cadmium), pesticide residues,

Happy kid eats PhycoHealth Seaweed pasta.

persistent organic pollutants (dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls) and even radionuclides may be present in harvests from particular locations. Because seaweed is sold dried, levels can be ten-fold higher than in the raw wet product.

The recent FAO report into seaweed food safety recommends Codex guidelines/standards and regional/national legislation to protect production, processing and utilisation of seaweed for food and feed, with due regard for the interests of all stakeholders along the value chain.3

References

1. Zhang, W., et al., Aquaculture will continue to depend more on land than sea. Nature, 2022. 603(7900): p. E2-E4.

2. Hafting, J.T., et al., Prospects and challenges for industrial production of seaweed bioactives. J Phycol, 2015. 51(5): p. 821-37.

3. WHO, F.a., Report of the expert meeting on food safety for seaweed – Current status and future perspectives. Food Safety and Quality, 2022. 13(Rome, 28–29 0ctober 2021).

4. Ścieszka, S. and E. Klewicka, Algae in food: a general review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 2019. 59(21): p. 3538-3547.

5. Watanabe, F., et al., Vitamin B12-containing plant

food sources for vegetarians. Nutrients, 2014. 6(5): p. 1861-73.

6. Lozano Muñoz, I. and N.F. Díaz, Minerals in edible seaweed: health benefits and food safety issues. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 2022. 62(6): p. 1592-1607.

7. Gregersen, S., et al., Enzymatic extraction improves intracellular protein recovery from the industrial carrageenan seaweed Eucheuma denticulatum revealed by quantitative, subcellular protein profiling: A high potential source of functional food ingredients. Food Chem X, 2021. 12: p. 100137.

8. PhycoHealth, 2022.

9. Roach, L.A., et al., Improved Plasma Lipids, AntiInflammatory Activity, and Microbiome Shifts in Overweight Participants: Two Clinical Studies on Oral Supplementation with Algal Sulfated Polysaccharide. Marine Drugs, 2022. 20(8): p. 500.

10. Duszka, K., Versatile Triad Alliance: Bile Acid, Taurine and Microbiota. Cells, 2022. 11(15).

11. Reynolds, D., et al., Seaweed proteins are nutritionally valuable components in the human diet. Am J Clin Nutr, 2022.

12. Sano, C., History of glutamate production. Am J Clin Nutr, 2009. 90(3): p. 728s-732s.

13. Moriya, H., et al., Cobetia sp. Bacteria, Which Are Capable of Utilizing Alginate or Waste Laminaria sp. for Poly(3-Hydroxybutyrate) Synthesis, Isolated From a Marine Environment. Front Bioeng Biotechnol, 2020. 8: p. 974.

14. Reboleira, J., et al., Seaweed fermentation within the fields of food and natural products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2021. 116: p. 10561073.

15. Kulshreshtha, G., et al., Feed supplementation with red seaweeds, Chondrus crispus and Sarcodiotheca gaudichaudii, affects performance, egg quality, and gut microbiota of layer hens. Poultry Science, 2014. 93(12): p. 2991-3001.

16. Shukla, P.S., et al., Seaweed-Based Compounds and Products for Sustainable Protection against Plant Pathogens. Mar Drugs, 2021. 19(2).

17. Dang, B.T., et al., Current application of algae derivatives for bioplastic production: A review. Bioresour Technol, 2022. 347: p. 126698.

18. Brassart, P.L., et al., Towards a Better Understanding of Toxin Biosynthesis in Seaweeds. Chembiochem, 2022. 23(16): p. e202200223.

19. Abbott, D.W., et al., Seaweed and Seaweed Bioactives for Mitigation of Enteric Methane: Challenges and Opportunities. Animals (Basel), 2020. 10(12).

20. DeMarini, D.M., A review on the 40th anniversary of the first regulation of drinking water disinfection by-products. Environ Mol Mutagen, 2020. 61(6): p. 588-601.

Dr J Helen Fitton has more than 20 years of experience in research and development, with a focus on the commercial extraction and application of marine algal polysaccharides. She holds a BSc (Hons) in Biochemistry from the University of Manchester, a MSc from University College London and a PhD in Applied Chemistry from Aston University. She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry. f

New offshore horizons for future seafood production

Words by Dr Chris G Carter

Seafood and aquaculture

The importance of aquaculture in future food production for global food and nutrition security cannot be underestimated. As was recently outlined by Antonia Guterres as Secretary-General of the United Nations, there needs to be “invest[ment] in sustainable ocean economies for food, renewable energy and livelihoods“.1 Aquaculture will make an increasing contribution to seafood production and can be done using different systems and locations that contribute to meeting the sustainability challenges the world’s seas face.

Whilst the majority of aquaculture is from polyculture of carp species in Chinese freshwater ponds, marine aquaculture is large, increasing and provides many opportunities. In addition to animals, aquatic plants contribute about a quarter of aquaculture production. Nine of the top fifteen aquaculture species are marine and include five seaweed species, whiteleg shrimp, oysters, carpet shells and Atlantic salmon.2

New marine horizons are being explored around the world to increase seafood production and offshore locations are often envisaged as critical to seafood futures. A functional definition of offshore that emphasises the exposed and high energy nature of the environmental conditions, rather than only the distance from the shore,3 provides an effective way to encapsulate the local conditions as well as the vision and challenges.

The Blue Economy Cooperative

Research Centre (BECRC) has taken the challenge further to focus on both offshore sustainable seafood and renewable energy. Integration is a founding principle and reflected by opportunities for co-location of renewable energy with seafood production. Integration also operates at different levels which encompass co-location of multiple aquaculture species and systems, integration of nutrient cycling among them and even extends to wild fisheries that might associate with offshore structures.

The BECRC brings together more than forty partners from ten countries to grow the blue economy for offshore seafood and renewable energy production.

Seafood and Marine Products is one of five research programs and aims to develop offshore aquaculture systems that provide viable and sustainable growth opportunities. The Seafood and Marine Products Program will support existing industries’ move offshore and develop, test and evaluate innovative product, production and processing systems for a range of seafood species. There are exciting opportunities such as using established aquaculture species, identifying a new whitefleshed marine fish, establishing seaweed aquaculture, and systems that promote aspects of the circular economy.

Australia presents an excellent location - it has the world’s third largest Exclusive Economic Zone, nearly 60,000km of coastline,

multiple climates, and is recognised to offer access to offshore locations with significant but unrealised potential for aquaculture.4 There are established species and markets, and consumers know Australian grown seafood with Atlantic salmon at the top of the menu that includes oysters, yellowtail kingfish, barramundi and prawns.

Tasmania is Australia’s largest seafood producing state by value which is mainly attributable to farmed Atlantic salmon aquaculture: in 2019/20 Atlantic salmon accounted for well over half of Australian aquaculture (55% value, 62% production) and 29% of the value of all Australian seafood.5 All Australian states have some aquaculture and there are exciting prospects in the northern tropical regions as well as from mussel, Chinook (King) salmon and oyster aquaculture in New Zealand.

Which aquaculture species and systems?

What seafood might the consumer expect to come from offshore aquaculture? There are lots of species to consider from the many already farmed globally, but far fewer offer realistic choices. Meeting market needs as well as critical biological and technical production criteria are crucial for any species to be successful, offshore locations add criteria around meeting environmental challenges of open ocean locations for both the species and the production systems.

Strong contenders the BECRC will

Bull kelp is one of the seaweed species the BECRC is investing in research.

consider are seaweeds, extractive species that take food from the environment such as filter feeding bivalves (oyster and mussels), high value shellfish (lobsters, abalone, sea cucumbers) and the best few from many different species of finfish that need formulated feeds. These will be considered as single and multiple species systems and for different climates and regions.

With our partners in successful aquaculture industries the BECRC is already exploring offshore aquaculture for salmon and oysters. Globally, the location of salmon farms and matching production schedules are changing to move on land and offshore. Successful salmon farming will most likely be based on sophisticated adaptive integration of both; using land-based recirculation aquaculture systems (RAS) to increase the size and condition of salmon before they are moved to offshore and high energy seawater sites. High energy seas pose considerable technological challenges as well as unknown questions about salmon production biology. Fortunately, a large amount of information that can be applied locally is rapidly accumulating around the world.

Engineering offshore structures is clearly critical for success, the two distinct approaches are for large and very robust surface structures built to withstand the waves and storms or for submersible structures that can be lowered out of harms way. Semi-enclosed systems have additional advantages which are being explored. For example, they might offer protection for fish from disease, parasites and other harmful organisms as well as offer the opportunity to recycle wastes into valuable by-products. There are a range of options for contributing to the circular economy that include recycling nutrients within multispecies systems, using nonhuman food ingredients and deriving value from biofouling.

The BECRC has the opportunity and intent to build on current knowledge about best practices

for environmental sustainability for offshore industries. This is inherent in the BECRC structure and a holistic approach across programs will support managing the environmental footprint of offshore infrastructure, aquaculture systems and renewable energy generating systems that will be used by different offshore industries.

New technologies to support sustainable aquaculture emphasise the critical nature of accurate and appropriate data to minimise both environmental impact and the impact of the environment on aquaculture, as this maximises sustainable production. Autonomous systems for environmental monitoring will be crucial for operating remote offshore locations, including projects that are developing and linking sensor networks with autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV), autonomous surface vehicles (ASV) and drones.

New data gathering systems will be covered by marine spatial planning (MSP) tools incorporating resource potential, operational logistics and risks (particularly to the environment) into a decision support tool for locating offshore industries. Site choice will maximise the offshore advantage for horizontal dispersal of wastes so that they can be continually processed on the seafloor. The impact and benefits of such systems must be quantified so we are developing novel approaches to measuring any depositional footprint and then incorporating this information into MSP.

Other technology projects include developing novel offshore structures such as pens for holding fish and structures for anchoring seaweeds as well integrating seaweed and other aquaculture with renewable energy production. There are further opportunities for renewable energy supporting aquaculture operations such as hydrogen powered vessels. Decarbonising aquaculture operations as well as understanding how aquaculture can contribute to decarbonisation and increased nutrient sequestration are also being

explored.

Seaweeds are likely to contribute and to be key species in multispecies systems as discussed below. Further, the number of examples of how to co-locate aquaculture with renewable energy infrastructure is increasing across the world.6 The vital consideration of building social licence to operate, which necessarily includes environmental sustainability, is part of the research portfolio.7 Thus, the BECRC is investing in R&D for environmentally sustainable aquaculture at multiple levels.

Achieving an aquaculture industry at scale for white-fleshed marine fish would be a major advance and arguably essential for future Australian seafood. For almost fifty years, Australian research has aimed to address this local gap using species like barramundi, cobia, mulloway, snapper, striped trumpeter and yellowtail kingfish. The success of Australian Atlantic salmon provides a model, as it has a range of excellent biological characteristics that make it suitable for aquaculture8 and the product is underpinned by strong markets. Although local production is currently small, marine fish are farmed successfully. Barramundi, mulloway and yellowtail kingfish may provide the starting point for new offshore finfish aquaculture. Characteristics required for offshore farms will be developed and applied alongside the standard aquaculture species selection criteria.8

Seaweed aquaculture is only very recently emerging as a potential industry in Australia and New Zealand. Seaweeds might be used as a quality human food, as a source of high value extractives, for nutrient sequestration, and potentially for hydrodynamic attenuation in high energy and offshore sites.

There is a real need to correctly understand and then promote the values that farmed seaweeds might have. For example, the economics of seaweed products is still to be determined and the role of seaweeds in decarbonisation needs to be evidence based. Consequently, R&D

to underpin establishing a seaweed aquaculture industry requires a broad range of R&D ranging from establishing production technology to ensuring an appropriate legal and governance structure is in place. After two years of the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030) it is apparent that throughout the world, countries with expertise and interest in aquaculture are developing offshore aquaculture systems.9 Through the BECRC, Australia has invested in seeking to combine renewable energy production with sustainable offshore aquaculture. The BECRC partnership aims to increase sustainability, regional economic growth and community trust to deliver multiple impacts across seafood and renewable energy.

References

1. ANON. 2022 Guterres outlines four recommendations to help us all ‘Save Our Ocean’. UN Ocean Conference. 27 June 2022. Speech to

Conference by UN Secretary-General António Guterres].[cited 21.10.2022]; Available from: https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/06/1121402.

2. FAO. 2022. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation FAO, Rome, Italy. 266 pages.

3. Buck, B.H., M.F. Troell, G. Krause, D.L. Angel, et al., 2018. State of the art and challenges for offshore integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Frontiers in Marine Science. 5: 00165 doi 10.3389/ fmars.2018.00165:

4. Gentry, R.R., H.E. Froehlich, D. Grimm, P. Kareiva, et al., 2017. Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 1: 1317-1324. doi 10.1038/s41559-017-0257-9:

5. Steven, A.H., M. Dylewski, and R. Curtotti. 2021. Australian Fisheries and Aquaculture Statistics 2020. Canberra, Australia. doi.org/10.25814/0wzyre76:

6. Aryai, V., R. Abbassi, N. Abdussamie, F. Salehi, et al., 2021. Reliability of multi-purpose offshorefacilities: Present status and future direction in Australia. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 148: 437-461. doi 10.1016/j. psep.2020.10.016:

7. Garavelli, L., M.C. Freeman, L.G. Tugade, D. Greene, et al., 2022. A feasibility assessment for co-locating and powering offshore aquaculture with wave energy in the United States. Ocean & Coastal Management. 225: 106242 10. doi 10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2022.106242:

8. Le Francois, N.R., M. Jobling, C. Carter, and P.U. Blier, eds. 2010. Finfish Aquaculture Diversification CAB International. 681 pages.

9. Novaglio, C., N. Bax, F. Boschetti, G.R. Emad, et al., 2022. Deep aspirations: towards a sustainable offshore Blue Economy. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 32: 209-230. doi 10.1007/s11160020-09628-6:

Redefine the future of food

What you do matters

We are in a time of transition where environmental awareness and future thinking is stepping up to lead consumer led solutions for the food and beverage manufacturing industry.

foodpro is the leading food and manufacturing event that brings all the industry expertise to one place.

Acknowledgement

The author acknowledges the financial support of the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre (CRC), established and supported under the Australian Government’s CRC Program, grant number CRC-20180101. The CRC Program supports industryled collaborations between industry, researchers and the community.

Professor Chris G Carter is Deputy Executive Director and Academic Director of the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), University of Tasmania. He has contributed to aquaculture research, development, extension and teaching for more than 30 years. He is Program Leader for Seafood and Marine Products in the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre (BECRC). f

Showcasing design innovations, new technology, and the latest packaging and processing solutions, foodpro is where the food industry gathers to generate solutions towards a more sustainable world. It’s about creating. Together.

Because what you do, matters.

FAST5

Q: How do you think food science will contribute to addressing food security and sustainability in the future?

Dr Mary Ann Augustin Chief Research Scientist, Agriculture and Food, CSIRO

Food science contributes to the development of strategies to create more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable food systems. Improving food system sustainability is essential for addressing current and future food security, and requires a whole of food-value chain approach. Food science strategies can improve the use of natural resources, decrease energy use in processing operations, reduce food loss and waste, and contribute to lowering environmental impacts, whilst ensuring food safety and nutritional quality. Food science has an important role in accelerating innovation. Food science expertise is required when exploring new food resources and alternative sources of sustainable food components (eg. fermentation-derived ingredients). In addition, experts in food science can work collaboratively with all stakeholders in the supply chain as well as with policy makers to bring new sustainable food products to the market.

Dr Mark Turner Professor of Food Microbiology and Deputy Head of the School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Queensland

Food science has already played a central role in improving food security and sustainability for the past 100 years, with well-established processes such as appertisation, pasteurisation, fermentation and spray drying. People and education are critically important. Through their interdisciplinary knowledge, skills and creativity, food scientists can address current and future challenges around food quality, safety, nutrition, waste and energy. Training our next generation of food science students with a wide spectrum of science competencies, along with an

awareness of current and future global challenges will ensure we can continue to drive beneficial innovations in food processing.

Dr Pablo Juliano Group Leader - Food Processing and Supply Chains, Agriculture and Food, CSIRO

The world has almost 1bn hungry people, 2bn deficient in key micronutrients, 1 in 4 children stunted, and 240m displaced people. In Australia, 2m households and 1.3m children are experiencing food insecurity at any time in the year. Climate change, and increasing environmental emissions are impacting biodiversity, and challenging food systems, as all are interconnected with the way that we produce, preserve, distribute, and consume food. Food science can set a path to transforming food systems and interconnect supply chains to deliver improved and sustainable nutrition and health. Food processing and preservation science can directly contribute to reducing environmental pressures by providing alternatives with fit-forpurpose solutions in the food value chain, including access to food and ingredients across long distances in remote locations, targeting locally made ready-to-use supplementary foods, and delivering food management strategies to address safety, quality or nutrient scarcity through sustainable practices.

Professor Giovanni Turchini

Head of School, School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Science, The University of Melbourne

At present, food supply is not the problem. Income insecurity is why people are going without food. Soon, however, because of growing population and planetary boundaries, a rapid evolution of food systems will be mandatory. The sustainable intensification of agriculture, enhancing both productivity and ecosystem health, circularity and waste minimisation, the expansion of

blue foods, and a shift of production objectives from quantity to quality (from kilograms to nutrients), will all contribute to longer term food security and sustainability; an enormous, multifaceted, and complex challenge. Not a single solution will ever do. A multitude of approaches based on social, economic, political, cultural, geographical, geological, technological, and climatic peculiarities of each region is needed. However, only marginal advancements can be achieved by individual sectors or disciplines. We need a global multisectoral and transdisciplinary effort, to generate solutions and approaches that will be adapted and implemented at the local level.

Melissa Fitzgerald Head of School of Agriculture and Food Science, University of Queensland

Future food security and sustainability requires the production of more food, the identification of novel ingredients, a decrease in the carbon emissions of food production, and the scientific know-how to create palatable, nutritional, and carbon-neutral foods for consumers. I strongly believe that the production of more food requires the use of biotechnology to fine-tune crops to give high yields in a range of environments, and to synthesise nutrients. Novel ingredients will be found in sources including insects and algae, and there must be investment in food technology to process novel ingredients into palatable products. Another growing area of food science is the capacity to create foods in laboratories through both cellular methods and fermentation, and we need a global effort to understand the safety of these foods and enable compliance. The future security and sustainability of food requires significant investment into both agriculture and food technology as current arable land and crops will not feed future generations.

Professor

The theme for the Institute’s 2023 Convention is ‘TheScienceofFoodSecurity&Sustainability ’ so our question for this issue of the journal seeks to start the conversation about these important topics.

ADVANCED FOOD SAFETY COURSES

2023

Our entire range of training courses can be structured to suit your organisation. We offer training as a public classroom, virtual with a trainer or in-house.

All of our training is delivered as a structured classroom discussion. It’s how adults learn best – through listening and telling stories.

QMS Audits Training is a Registered Training Organisation (No. 45344).

OUR 2023 COURSE LINE-UP INCLUDES

HACCP Principles and Applications (Day 1&2)

Advanced HACCP (Day 3&4)

2 x HACCP Refresher Courses

Food Microbiology - Techniques & Analysis

BRCGS

SQF

VITAL Allergen

Internal Auditor – Food Safety

Lead Auditor (NFSA, SQF, Exemplar, Nationally Accredited)

Cook Chill (incl. 2 onsite audits)

Food Safety Culture

Freshcare

ISO 14001 Environmental Management

TRAINING