food australia Journal, Vol. 77 (2) April - June 2025
Impressive progress in the fight against food waste
The Australian Food Pact program – supporting businesses to reduce waste
Trust the process: a food scientist’s perspective on Nova
A look at the strengths and weaknesses of this controversial classification system
The future of shelf-stable foods: innovations driving quality, safety, nutrition and
Re-imagining this category through leveraging new technologies
Canola meal proteins – technological challenges and mitigation strategies
Innovations in extraction and functionalisation will enable development of this sustainable,
We must be prepared for the future emergence of zoonotic viruses
The importance of effective and efficient sanitation in food processing: a critical Sanitation must be prioritised to protect consumers and uphold product integrity
Sustainable packaging trends, priorities and recommendations
What are the Key trends and opportunities in the Australian food and beverage ecosystem?
Unlocking consumer acceptance of novel foods: insights and implications
Insight into the key barriers to acceptance and strategies to help address them
High pressure processing of RTE lupin meals: untapped potential for prepared foods
Food safety risk assessment: part 2 - triggers for undertaking a rapid risk assessment
Part two in a series of articles exploring the science (and art) of food safety risk assessment
COVER
Samyang – 100 Years of Trust, Tailored Innovative Sugar Reduction Solutions.
Published by The Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Limited.
Editorial Coordination
Melinda Stewart | aifst@aifst.com.au
Contributors
Dr Ingrid Appelqvist, Dr Susan Bastian, Karen Blacow, Dr Armando Maria Corsi, Dr Lukas Danner, Dr Nivedita Datta, Dr Sushil Dhital, Dr Dan Dias, Dr Rebecca Dolan, Mr David Fienberg, Dr Alexandria Gain, Dr Melanie Hand, Dr Kai Knoerzer, Dr Djin Gie Liem, Deon Mahoney, Dr Janet McColl-Kennedy, Akhilesh Modi, Syuzanna Mosikyan, Shankar N. Mutkule, Dr Yada Nolvachai, Dr Henry Sabarez, Dr Dipon Sarkar, Robin Sherlock, Dr Smriti Shrestha, Dr Rozita Spirovska, Dr Roger Stanley, Piotr Swiergon, Dr Matt Teegarden.
Advertising Manager
Clive Russell | aifst@aifst.com.au
Subscriptions
AIFST | aifst@aifst.com.au
Production
Bite Communications
2025 Subscription Rates ($AU)
Australia $152.50 (incl. GST) Overseas (airmail) $236.50
Single Copies (Australia) $38.50 (incl. GST) Overseas $59.50.
food australia is the official journal of the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Limited (AIFST). Statements and opinions presented in the publication do not necessarily reflect the policies of AIFST nor does AIFST accept responsibility for the accuracy of such statement and opinion.
Editorial Contributions
Guidelines are available at https://www.aifst.asn.au/ food-australia-Journal.
Non-executive directors: Dr Angeline Achariya, Dr Anna Barlow, Mr Marc Barnes, Dr Heather Haines, Ms Melissa Packham.
AIFST National Office
PO Box 780
Cherrybrook NSW 2126
Tel: +61 447 066 324
Email: aifst@aifst.com.au
Web: www.aifst.asn.au
food australia
Food for Thought
As we move through 2025, the Australian agrifood industry continues to deliver exciting innovation whilst grappling with ongoing complexity. A number of key themes are emerging that shape our work—from sustainability to safety, consumer trust, and regulatory rigour.
Food waste remains a pressing challenge, with shelf-stable and ambient products offering practical solutions to reduce spoilage and improve access, especially in remote areas. Smarter systems for inventory, labelling, and consumer education can significantly reduce waste across the supply chain.
The NOVA classification system continues to attract attention. While well-intentioned, its focus on processing oversimplifies the role of food science and technology. Not all ultra-processed foods are unhealthy, and industry must communicate this nuance clearly to maintain public trust in science-backed solutions.
Foodborne viruses, particularly norovirus and hepatitis A, are an increasing concern. Strong hygiene practices, sanitation, and supplier verification are more important than ever. Advances in detection are welcome, but prevention must remain our top priority.
On the sustainability front, packaging innovation is progressing fast. Recyclable and compostable options are improving, but we must ensure food safety isn’t compromised. A science-based approach to packaging that balances function, compliance, and environmental performance is essential.
Novel foods, from cultivated proteins to precision fermentation, are closer to our plates—but consumer acceptance remains a hurdle. Trust and transparency will be key. We must proactively communicate safety, nutrition benefits, and sustainability advantages to support informed choices.
Finally, risk assessment frameworks must evolve with our food systems. Data-driven tools, including AI and genomics, are enhancing how we identify and manage emerging risks. Ongoing professional development in this space is critical.
AIFST remains committed to supporting members and the broader agrifood sector with the knowledge, tools, and networks to navigate these changes. As always, our collective efforts are crucial in ensuring the delivery of safe, sustainable, and trusted food to all Australians.
As we embrace innovation and adapt to new challenges, our role as food science and technology professionals remains grounded in science. Let’s continue to lead with integrity and collaboration— because safe, sustainable, and nutritious food for all is not just an aspiration, it’s our responsibility.
Public trust in science benefits society in many ways. It increases the likelihood that people will make informed decisions (for example, on health and nutrition) based on the best available evidence, provides the foundation for evidencebased policymaking, and facilitates government spending on research.
An international study analysed trust in scientists and their role in society by surveying more than 71,000 people from 68 countries.
The data was collected between November 2022 and August 2023 and involved a global team of 241 researchers, among them researchers from several Australian universities, including ANU, Macquarie, UNSW, UWA, La Trobe and the universities of Melbourne and Tasmania.
The researchers determined people’s trust in scientists by measuring views about their perceived competence, benevolence, integrity, and openness. They also analysed the extent to which people believe that scientists should be involved in society and policy making.
In most countries, it was found that a majority of people want scientists to take part in policymaking, challenging the idea that there is a widespread lack of public trust in scientists. In most countries it found that scientists and scientific methods are trusted – findings that are in line with other international studies on trust in scientists
These findings have implications for scientists and policymakers seeking to maintain and increase trust in scientists. The data provides decision-makers, scientists and the public with large-scale, open public opinion insights that can help maintain and potentially increase trust in scientists.
68% of Australians
agree or strongly agree that scientists should communicate their findings to politicians
Globally 78% of people perceive scientists as having high competence believing that scientists are qualified to conduct high-impact research
80% of Australians
believe scientists have a responsibility to communicate about science with the general public
Globally 57% perceive scientists to be honest
Globally 54% believed scientists should communicate about science with the general public
References
Australia scored equal 5th highest for trust in scientists and their role in society
1. Australia ranks top five for trust in scientists https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2025/release/australia-ranks-top-five-for-trust-in-scientists
2. Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries. Nature Human Behaviour (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5
AIFST awards program - 2025
AIFST’s annual awards program recognises and celebrates those who demonstrate leadership and excellence in their professional discipline. We are pleased to announce that we are now accepting applications and nominations for the following AIFST Awards for 2025. Winners will be announced in Melbourne on Tuesday 12 August at a ceremony during this year’s convention – AIFST25.
1. Service and Leadership Awards
AIFST Keith Farrer Award of Merit
The Keith Farrer Award of Merit is the Institute’s highest honour. It recognises a person’s remarkable contribution to the Institute and the Australian agrifood sector through advancements in food science and technology. The award was established to honour the legacy of Dr Keith Farrer OBE, a pioneering scientist and author who was involved in the formation of the AIFST in 1967. Dr Keith Farrer OBE FAIFST FIIFST (UK) FNZIFST FTSE FIAFoST was the second President of AIFST (1969-1971) and the second winner of the IFT Australian Award (1959). Initially known as the AIFST Award of Merit, it was renamed in Dr Keith
Farrer’s honour in 2006. Dr Farrer spent 43 years with Kraft Food Ltd, beginning as a research scientist and retiring as Chief Scientist. He was the author of more than 140 scientific and technological papers and several books on food history in Australia, including A Settlement Amply Supplied: Food Technology in Nineteenth Century Australia (1980) and To Feed a Nation: A History of Australian Food Science and Technology (2005). He was appointed OBE in 1979 for his services to science and industry.
AIFST President’s Award
This award recognises an individual who has provided exceptional and ongoing support for the Institute.
AIFST Emerging Leader Award
This award celebrates the accomplishments, leadership potential, and commitment of a food scientist and/or technologist within the Australian agrifood sector who is under 30 years of age.
AIFST Foodbank Hunger Hero Award
This award acknowledges extraordinary efforts to address food insecurity in Australia. Whether it’s championing a new initiative within a company or volunteering time and expertise in the community, AIFST and Foodbank want to recognise an individual or team contribution and hold them up as an inspiration to others.
2. Science Awards
AIFST Jack Kefford Research Publication Award
This award recognises the publication of an outstanding original research paper judged to have provided the most significant contribution to building knowledge in the field of food science and technology. The Award is named in honour of Mr Jack Kefford who provided enormous input to the science and technology of food as Officer-in-Charge 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 Literature Award
This award recognises the authorship of books or substantial reviews judged to have made the most significant contribution to food science and technology. It is named in honour of AIFST past President Bruce Chandler, who had a long association with the Institute’s journal, food australia, first as an Associate Editor and then as a member of the Editorial Board from 1969 to 1978. Notably, he was Literature Editor for 12 years from 2001, a function which he performed with extreme dedication.
AIFST John Christian Young Food Microbiologist Award
This award celebrates excellence in food microbiology by early-career professionals. It is given in honour of Dr
John Christian, who was Chief of the CSIRO Division of Food Science and Technology from 1979 to 1986 and Chairman of the International Commission for Microbiological Specifications for Foods from 1980 to 1991. John Christian was elected to the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences & Engineering as one of its Foundation Fellows in 1976. He was awarded the Officer of the Order of Australia in 1986 in recognition of his services to science, in particular microbiology.
AIFST Sensory Solutions Anthony (Tony)
Williams Sensory Award
This award is for young members of AIFST recognising contribution to the advancement of the food sensory field. 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 helped establish sensory research in Australia.
AIFST Student Research Poster Award
This award recognises a postgraduate student poster presentation of recent work that shares knowledge, fosters collaboration, recognises innovative thinking, and engages a scientific audience. The challenge for students is to effectively communicate and justify the key learnings of their work to an interested scientific audience. In 2025 the platform will be both virtual and in person. The judges will determine which posters will be invited to exhibit at AIFST25.
3. Industry Awards
AIFST Peter Seale Innovation Award
This award celebrates a significant Australian technological advancement in the agrifood sector that has achieved tangible results in the market. The award is given in honour of AIFST Past President, Peter Seale, who held that role from 1973-1975.
AIFST Food Safety Award
This is a new award in 2025, recognising a significant Australian contribution to advancing food safety.
AIFST members are at the forefront of food science and technology innovation in Australia. We want to celebrate these achievements and encourage all members to consider applying for an award and to encourage applications or nominations from colleagues who may be reluctant to showcase their own success.
Information on how to apply for an award
Visit the AIFST website for guidelines and nomination forms. https://www.aifst.asn.au/aifst-annual-awards.
1. SAMPLE PREP
jars
2. CHEMISTRY • Containers
tubes
measuring vessels
plates and dishes
blender bags
spoons
spatulas and scoops
crushers
stirrers,
blenders • homogenisers
shakers • hot plates
centrifuges
digesters
water baths
balances
extractors.
• Wet chemistry • chromatography • filtration and electrochemistry
• spectrophotometers • Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) tests. For accuracy and professionalism
AIFST Fellow awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM)
Congratulations to Dr Harley Juffs (FAIFST), who was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in the Australia Day Honours on 26 January 2025, for service to the community through a range of roles.
Harley’s long professional career in dairy technology and food science, started with the completion of a Diploma of Dairy Manufactures at Gatton College in 1962, before completing a BAgrSc (Hons) in 1967 at
University of Queensland, majoring in microbiology. He was then employed by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries (QLD DPI), at the former Otto Madsen Dairy Research Laboratory as a Bacteriologist, where he conducted studies on cold storage of raw milk. He completed a PhD on this topic at the University of Queensland in 1973, followed by postdoctoral studies in Food Science at Purdue University in the United States.
In 1985, Harley was appointed the first Director of the newly formed QLD DPI Food Research & Technology Branch. He later moved into senior management roles in the Department.
After leaving the Department in 1992, Harley served as the Interim Executive Officer of the Cooperative Research Centre for Aquaculture during its establishment phase. The following year, he set up his own consultancy, completing more than 60 projects until his retirement in 2013. His clients
included Dairy Australia, Horticulture Australia, FSANZ and Biosecurity Australia. He also developed HACCPbased food safety programs for small dairy and meat processors.
Harley has been a long-term member of professional associations, through which he has maintained contact with the food industries and professional colleagues.
A member of the AIFST since 1970, Harley was elevated to Fellow in 1986. He became a member of the former Australian Society of Dairy Technology (now the Dairy Industry Association of Australia) in 1963 and served as Federal President of the Society in 1984-85. Harley has always been an active volunteer in local community organisations and is now in his 13th year as Treasurer of Aspley Classes for Seniors where he also oversees day-to-day operations and governance issues; it was this role that led to his nomination for an OAM award.
Associate Professor Jayani Chandrapala to lead new department
Dr Jayani Chandrapala has been appointed as Head of the new Department of Food Technology and Nutrition at RMIT University in Melbourne. A globally recognised researcher in food chemistry and dairy science, she has made significant contributions to the physical chemistry of dairy foods, protein conformations,
and food component interactions. Her expertise includes protein-protein, protein-sugar, and protein-mineral dynamics, crucial for enhancing food functionality and quality.
Dr Chandrapala’s research spans advanced membrane processing, waste valorisation and emerging food technologies. She has played a key role in emulsions, microencapsulation, cheese and yoghurt production, addressing industry challenges related to food structure, stability and nutrition. She has published over 175 peer-reviewed articles (h-index 41) and secured competitive research funding. She also serves as an editorial member for Food Chemistry Advances, the International Dairy Journal, and Springer Nature, and as a section editor for Foods (Dairy)
Beyond research, she is an experienced academic leader
committed to mentoring future food scientists. She has supervised 12 PhD graduates and currently mentors 11 candidates. Passionate about teaching, she has delivered courses at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, including dairy science, food chemistry, and food manufacturing: plant products. In recognition of her contributions, she received the RMIT Research Excellence Award (2021), Best Teaching Excellence Award (2021), Best HDR Supervision Award (2021, 2023) and Best Early Career Award (2018).
At RMIT, she continues to drive research excellence, interdisciplinary collaboration and sustainability in food technology. Her strategic vision is to advance the Department’s role in bridging academic research with realworld applications and to strengthen RMIT’s position in the global food science community.
Dr Vicky SolahProfessorial appointment at Murdoch University
Dr Vicky Solah has been appointed Professor at the School of Medical, Molecular and Forensic Sciences, College of Environmental and Life Sciences, Murdoch University. This promotion acknowledges Vicky’s leadership within the academic community and the wider industry.
Since joining Murdoch University (MU) in 2020 to set up the Food Science and Nutrition program and lead the new Bachelor Food Science and Nutrition course, Vicky, working alongside a great team, has developed a unique course. Bringing industry experience into the classroom was key to the course vision and Vicky has been instrumental in realising that.
Collaboration is another aspect of the course vision realised through Vicky’s ability to bring people together. She has promoted strong mentorship of both the teaching team and student cohort, allowing everyone to grow and learn together. Graduate Natalie Johnson said: “The community that has been created is closeknit and inclusive, which is a direct effect of Professor Vicky Solah and her ability to bring people together.”
Working with Dr Wendy Hunt, Vicky was instrumental in the extension of the course offering to include the Master of Food Science (Industry Practice and Innovation) program which was developed and commenced in 2024, at the newly built Food Centre, Nambeelup, in the Peel region of WA.
In addition, Vicky was a key member of the MU team contributing to the successful Food Innovation Precinct Western Australia (FIPWA) initiative. Vicky’s commitment to collaborative research with
industry partners and researchers, generating relevant publications, and engagement with the media and wider community has helped strengthen MU’s profile.
“Working with great, clever, hardworking people makes everyone look good,” she said.
Vicky received the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology (AIFST) Keith Farrer Award of Merit in 2024.
R+K_AD_2024_118x162 Food_Australia.qxp_Layout 1 29.04.24 07:43 Seite 4
New product ideas need new colours. Mix and match the winning colour for your next product from the ERKA palette on our website.
Vale Tony Zipper
The Institute regrets to advise that Anthony (Tony) Zipper, who served as President from 1987 to 1989, passed away in late December 2024, aged 80. Tony was a member of AIFST for 55 years, joining after graduating from RMIT in 1969 with an Associate Diploma of Applied Chemistry. He was awarded the Institute’s President’s Award in 1997 and was a Fellow of both AIFST and RACI.
Tony was a significant figure in the Victorian and Australian food industries for over half a century. He spent most of the first three decades in a range of laboratory, technical
and senior marketing positions within the flavour industry, working with companies such as Bush Boake Allen (BBA), Dragoco, Alfred Lawrence and Universal Flavours. In later years, he established himself as an industry consultant, specialising in various aspects of new product development and food law – particularly in the areas of flavours, fragrances, colours, ingredients, nutritional labelling and Kosher accreditation. His expertise also extended to the pharmaceutical industry. Tony also lectured at a range of tertiary institutions and served on several food science course advisory boards.
Prior to becoming AIFST President, Tony had spent 15 years as a committee member of the Victorian (then Southern) Branch of the Institute, serving as Branch Chair from 1981 to 1983 and Chair of the 1983 AIFST Convention held in Melbourne. He was a delegate to the federal AIFST Council for almost a decade and, during that time, chaired several standing committees, including Membership, Constitution and By-laws, and Young Members (including the Malcolm Bird Award). He also represented the
New Head of School at UNSW
Professor Cordelia Selomulya has been appointed as the Head of the School of Chemical Engineering, UNSW Sydney. Prior to this appointment, Professor Selomulya served as the Associate Dean of Research in the Faculty of Engineering since 2022. Originally recruited to UNSW in 2019 to lead the Future Food Systems CRC as its Director of Research and Commercialisation, Cordelia has led a research team focused on solving key challenges at the interface of food engineering and science.This includes research on smart drying, protein functionality, encapsulation and food structure.
Prior to joining UNSW, Cordelia was at Monash University, holding roles as Director of Food
Institute on a range of sub-committees of the Standards Association of Australia.
Tony’s significant involvement with other industry organisations included the Flavour & Perfume Compound Manufacturers Association, Australian Council of Soft Drink Manufacturers, Australian Society for Cosmetic Chemists, as well as CAFTA, FTA Victoria and FTAA. His involvement with CAFTA and FTA Victoria dates back to 1972, when he first joined its Technical sub-Committee, which he later chaired. He was made an Honorary Life Member of FTAA in 2011.
Perhaps the most significant of Tony’s achievements was the organisation of AIFST’s 1982 Convention (Food Conference 1982) in Singapore, which he facilitated along with the late Dr Alex Buchanan and the Institutes of Food Science and Technology (IFSTs) of Singapore and Malaysia. The event led to the formation of FIFSTA (Federation of the Institutes of Food Science and Technologies in ASEAN), which continues today.
Tony is survived by Marcus, Brendan (Belle), Deborah, Russi and Boruch.
Engineering, Director of the Graduate Research Industry Partnership for the Food and Dairy Industry,Director of the Australia-China Joint Research Centre in Future Dairy Manufacturing and was an ARC Future Fellow. Cordelia’s time at Monash followed roles at the University of Leeds (UK) and UNSW.
Cordelia is a Fellow of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), ATSE, and IChemE, and is a member of the ARC College of Experts. She has won several awards, including the IChemE Global Award, Fonterra Award, AIFST Bruce Chandler Award and Judy Raper Leadership Award. She was awarded both her BE (University Medal) and PhD in Chemical Engineering from UNSW.
The Turmeric range from Futurals and Natracol are made from pure, natural Curcumin and are available in water soluble, liquid and powder form each with a high heat tolerance. These attractive shades are suited for almost any food application, so if you are looking for colors that promote a healthy appetite, give us a call.
Applications: Bakery, Confectioneries, Beverages, Prepared Foods, Dairy and Pharmaceuticals.
Impressive progress in the fight against food waste
Words by Dr Melanie Hand
Four years ago, The National Food Waste Strategy Feasibility Study asked a pivotal question: Can Australia halve its food waste by 2030? The answer was clear — yes. However, achieving this ambitious goal requires unprecedented action from all sectors: government, consumers, communities and the food industry itself.
With food waste costing Australia $36.6 billion annually and 7.6 million tonnes of food being discarded each year,1 innovative approaches were needed, especially in regards to industry action. Based on the success of voluntary agreements globally, End Food Waste Australia launched the Australian Food Pact in 2021, a collaborative initiative designed to transform Australia’s food system.
Food businesses joining the Pact, called signatories, are supported by a passionate team of experts to help reduce food waste in business operations and across the supply chain.
Over the past three years, signatories have self-reported their food waste data annually and provided updates on their food waste reduction initiatives, culminating in the release of the Australian Food Pact Impact Report early in 2025.
Target, measure, act: why reporting is key
Target, measure, act is an international best practice approach for reducing food waste, and it also underpins the Australian Food Pact. It requires businesses to set food waste reduction targets for their operations and then regularly and consistently measure food waste. Finally, it requires action to reduce their own food waste, and to work with suppliers and consumers to reduce theirs.
Through annual measurement and reporting, Pact signatories quantify the food not sold as well as identify
the food’s ultimate destination, the type of food wasted and the root cause of the waste. The data is then analysed and used to identify hotspots for action, which informs customised Food Waste Action Plans for each signatory. Throughout this process, the Pact provides tailored support and resources.
Aggregating the food waste data also provides insights into the progress of the Australian Food Pact as a program. In just three years, significant progress has been made.
Three years of impact
Since the Australian Food Pact’s inception, signatories have reduced food waste by 13% (16,000 tonnes) compared to 2022, while the total food handled increased by 19%. Impressively, the proportion of edible food waste has dropped from 92% in 2022 to 75% in 2024. This reflects improvements in reporting, waste management practices and food recovery efforts. One of the founding signatories, Simplot Australia, has halved its food waste since joining the Pact in 2022.
The economic impact of reducing food waste is substantial. Food waste costs businesses an average of $3,600 per tonne in material and disposal costs. In 2023 alone, Pact signatories
collectively saved $57 million by reducing food waste by 16,000 tonnes. Moreover, with landfill levies introduced to discourage waste, Pact signatories avoided an estimated $2 million by cutting food waste to landfill by 59% since 2022.
Rather than letting surplus food go to waste, the Pact encourages repurposing strategies such as food redistribution to charities, upcycling into innovative products, or converting it into animal feed. These efforts not only benefit people and the environment but also help businesses recover costs. The volume of food repurposed by Pact signatories has grown by 6,000 tonnes, a 2% increase from 2022.
A notable example of collaboration comes from Simon George & Sons, a fruit and vegetable wholesaler, and FareShare, a food rescue organisation. Together, they diverted 20 tonnes of fresh produce, resulting in 50,000 nutritious meals for Australians facing hardship. This collaboration exemplifies the power of working together to tackle both food waste and food insecurity.
In total, Pact signatories have donated 254 million meals to food rescue organisations over the past three years, helping to address food insecurity across the country.
Figure 1: Signatory site map.
Embracing the food waste hierarchy
The Food Waste Hierarchy is an essential guiding principle of the Australian Food Pact, helping businesses prioritise sustainable practices. The hierarchy emphasises resource efficiency and environmental impact, focusing on food waste prevention and higher-value solutions. A major shift has occurred, with 59% less food waste sent to landfill compared to 2022, and increases in charity distribution and composting. Pact signatories are also improving their ability to measure and report food waste, with 69% reporting increased accuracy in quantifying waste. Moving food waste up the hierarchy has led to significant environmental gains, including the avoidance of 505,000 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions, which is the equivalent of removing 210,000 cars from the road for a year. Emissions savings were estimated from both the production, plus the management of both food waste and repurposed food.
What can be done?
While businesses are making strides, policy change can be a catalyst for further progress. One key policy suggestion is the Food Donation Tax Incentive, which would reward businesses for donating surplus food instead of sending it to landfill. Such a policy could save an additional 100 million meals annually and support communities in need. Similar initiatives have been successful in the US, Canada and France, and their introduction in Australia could accelerate the country’s food waste reduction efforts.
Another area for improvement is ensuring that key suppliers within the supply chain measure and report their food waste. Expanding the Australian Food Pact and fostering greater supply chain collaboration will enable more transparency and help drive action across the entire food system. Expired food also remains a significant problem in Australia’s food supply chain, with signatories reporting that 44% of food waste in 2024 could be attributed to products being past their expiry date.
Naturally, high-quality reporting exposes key food waste hotspots across the supply chain. While the figures, especially in sectors such as bakery, are still alarming, highquality data does help to focus and prioritise actions where they will have the greatest impact. End Food Waste Australia has pinpointed areas of food waste that offer the highest potential for change and developed sector-specific priority actions to address them effectively. So far, implementation strategies have been rolled out across the bread and bakery, horticulture, dairy and food service sectors.
The next steps
Every business in the food supply chain, whether involved in growing, transporting, processing or purchasing food, has a role to play in the fight against food waste. The Australian Food Pact is empowering food businesses to reduce waste, increase profitability and ensure surplus food is redistributed to those in need. The Pact’s influence continues to grow, with the recent addition of ALDI bringing the representation of Australia’s supermarket sector to 83%. However, broader action is needed to
meet national food waste reduction targets. The Australian government’s support, through funding and mandates, will be crucial to achieving these goals.
Acknowledgement
End Food Waste Australia acknowledges the foundational funding provided by the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW); Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) for their help with the design and launch of the Australian Food Pact; all other partners involved in the establishment of the National Food Waste Governance Entity (now End Food Waste Australia); Rawtec who provided annual data validation, analysis and reporting for the Pact since 2022; and Australian Food Pact Signatories, whose data contributions have made the analysis possible.
Dr Melanie Hand is Data and Reporting Manager at End Food Waste Australia. f
Figure 2: The Food Waste Hierarchy.
Trust the process: a food scientist’s perspective on Nova
Words by Matt Teegarden
Over the course of my lifetime, the proportion of the world’s adult population that has obesity or is overweight has almost doubled. It is honestly staggering to think that this increase happened in such a short time. (OK, I am not that young. I am in my mid-30s, but that’s a large change in 30-plus years.) The increases are even more dramatic for children and teenagers, and the statistics for diet-related diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, are equally grim.
For years, processed foods have been a primary focus when assigning
blame for these concerning health trends. Food scientists like me are quick to point out that essentially all foods are processed to some degree, so blanket statements such as this are, scientifically speaking, not accurate. But the term “processed food” has never really been just about processing as a food scientist would define it. Instead, this term is loaded with implications about formulation, industrialized production, nutritional content, and marketing tactics to name a few. This fuzziness precluded a lot of systematic research on the role of processed foods in health until
2009, when the Nova (sometimes represented as NOVA, even though it’s not an acronym) food classification system was published. In its current form, Nova attempts to distinguish foods based on the extent and purpose of processing, ranging from minimally processed (1) to ultra-processed (4). This simple scale has facilitated an explosion of research that associates ultraprocessed food (UPF) intake with diet-related chronic diseases. Some scientists advocate that the data are convincing enough to justify urgent public health policies limiting
The Nova food classification system attempts to distinguish foods based on the extent and purpose of processing.
UPF consumption. In fact, Brazil has already updated its dietary guidelines to reflect the Nova scale, and the U.S. 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee considered the topic of UPFs in its latest literature review.
Widespread adoption of Nova would have a huge impact on the global food system, so it is important to understand its strengths and weaknesses from multiple points of view. My intent with this article is to discuss some of the major points of Nova and offer a food scientist’s interpretation of them.
UPFs and Health Risks
The evidence supporting Nova thus far is mostly observational, meaning epidemiologists have established that there are associations between higher consumption of UPFs and elevated risks of negative health outcomes. New publications are constantly being added to an already expansive body of literature, so I won’t attempt a comprehensive review here. I will offer the main points from a 2024 umbrella review as a salient example of what the research shows (Lane et al. 2024).1 This study, which systematically summarized
We have studies that compare apples to orange juice, but we also need to compare apples to applesauce.
research on 45 conditions across 14 meta-analyses, found that the risks for most of the health conditions analyzed were increased with exposure to UPFs. The authors also concluded that the associations with cardiometabolic diseases, common mental disorders, and overall mortality were particularly convincing based on the available data.
While these findings can be concerning, they need to be interpreted carefully. Nutritional epidemiology is inherently challenging for many reasons. It’s difficult to accurately measure what people eat, and the relationship between dietary patterns and health is riddled with confounding variables. Scientists fastidiously apply mathematical corrections to account for these things, but it is impossible to correct for everything. One study attempted to demonstrate residual confounding by measuring the association between UPFs and accidental death (Morales-Berstein et al. 2023).2 They found a positive
Where garbanzo beans are categorized on the Nova scale depends on whether they are dried, canned with salt, or canned with salt and EDTA.
association, so be careful out there. Nova also brings its own unique challenges to epidemiology, which have recently been summarized by Lauren O’Connor and colleagues (O’Connor et al. 2024).3 The main issue here is that most, if not all, of the data that epidemiologists rely on do not directly measure the Nova categories of foods that people eat. The Nova scale must be retroactively applied and processing levels are inferred based on limited information. I do not bring this up to question the legitimacy of this very challenging work, and I am not trying to say that the associations between UPFs and disease are not real or worth investigating further. However, I do think that these are major limitations that should be considered in discussions around UPFs and health. We also need to remember that association does not equal causation. Direct experimental evidence from human clinical trials is needed to validate these findings.
By now, many are familiar with the clinical study done by Kevin Hall’s group at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (Hall et al. 2019).4 In this seminal study, participants lived in the NIH clinic and were fed diets containing either UPFs or unprocessed foods for two weeks at a time. The key finding was that, on average, study participants consumed more calories, ate faster, and gained weight when consuming UPFs. This was recently somewhat replicated in a clinical study out of Japan (Hamano et al. 2024).5 In that study, participants seemed to gain weight no matter which food they were given (Hey, free food, right?), but people still tended to eat more calories, eat faster, and gain more weight on the UPF diet. These studies are interpreted by some as proving the key hypothesis posed by Nova, that the processing levels of foods, and dietary patterns by extension, dictate their healthfulness.
While I agree these results provide
important evidence on UPFs, I think they missed the mark on proving this crucial point. The menus in these studies were designed to differ in overall processing level while keeping macronutrient values and calories reasonably constant. In other words, the UPF menus were designed to provide most if not all calories from UPFs and vice versa for the minimally processed menus. However, the menus did not control for the types of foods that were offered to participants. Take, for example, the dinners from Day 1 of the Japanese study. Those consuming the UPF diet were given a Kentucky Fried Chicken platter, while the non-UPF meal was grilled pork with fresh vegetables, rice, and walnuts. The meals clearly differ in their level of Nova processing, but the foods that make up these meals are also completely different. This makes it hard to conclude if it was the processing level
or something else about the foods that led to negative outcomes.
Research Limitations
The current studies also fail to appreciate the variety of foods that fall within the Nova categories, with a tendency to test the most “extreme” versions of foods within each processing level. Evidencebased dietary guidelines already recommend limiting the consumption of many foods that would fall into Nova group 4 and would be considered UPFs—things like fast food, salty fried chips, and sugarsweetened soda. But the logic of Nova also allows for similar foods to be classified across different processing levels. Garbanzo beans, for example, could be Nova group 1, 3, or likely even group 4, depending on whether they are dried, canned with salt, or canned with salt and EDTA. Mass-produced whole grain
produced or purchased from a local bakery. breads are considered group 4, while whole grain bread purchased from a local bakery would be group 3. A cake made at home, completely from scratch, could potentially be classified as group 3, while a cake made from a boxed mix would definitely be classified as group 4. Meanwhile, lard and olive oil would both be classified as group 2, and thus considered similarly healthy. I bring these examples up to demonstrate that Nova is often at odds with current nutritional science that is built upon decades of evidence. The UPF category is also extremely broad and contains many foods that would conventionally be considered part of a healthy diet. The intricacies of Nova need to be thoroughly tested to understand whether it is actually a useful tool to improve nutrition.
The clinical research we have suggests that people eating high UPF diets tend to eat excess calories, and it is reasonable to wonder why.
To put this all another way, we have studies that compare apples to orange juice, but we also need to compare apples to applesauce. Julie Hess at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center has
Whole grain bread’s Nova classification depends on whether it was mass
developed test menus that make this comparison ( Hess et al. 2024 ). 6 These menus were designed to differ in overall processing level, while carefully controlling not only for nutrient content but also for food types. As an example, the main dish for the more processed lunch on Day 2 is a breaded chicken patty on a white hamburger bun with Miracle Whip and romaine lettuce. Meanwhile, the less processed lunch on this day has a similar sandwich made with chicken strips on a homemade hamburger bun with mayonnaise and iceberg lettuce. This menu tests some of the nuances of Nova that seem antithetical to current evidence-based dietary guidelines. Of course, human studies still need to be done, but Hess’s work also makes a few important, theoretical points: It is possible to have a diet, composed of mostly UPFs, that is of high nutritional quality, according to current nutritional science ( Hess et al.2023 ). 7
It would be difficult to look at global health statistics and believe that absolutely nothing about our food system needs to change.
Conversely, it is also possible to have a relatively unhealthy diet composed of mostly unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
Nova Lacks Precision
If I sound critical of Nova, it’s because I am. The food and nutrition communities are moving toward an exciting future where dietary recommendations are more precise, but Nova works against this with its lack of precision. Nova categories are based on an odd combination of formulation and processing. Both of these factors can certainly impact the healthfulness of foods, but they need to be considered as two independent variables. However, it’s important to acknowledge that Nova goes beyond how a food scientist may think about processing; it also
considers the ways that processing may be used to create widespread availability of foods that are rich in calories but poor in nutritional value. It is additionally worried about making these types of food so convenient and enticing that people opt to eat them instead of more nutritionally balanced foods. While these concerns aren’t necessarily unfair to a point, it’s also likely wrong to say that they apply to all UPFs because, again, the Nova definition of UPFs is entirely too broad. Interestingly, epidemiologists have started separating UPFs into subcategories in their analyses—things like breads and cold cereals, sugarsweetened beverages, and savory snacks (see Mendoza et al. 2024 as an example).8 When this is done, only certain categories of UPFs are associated with disease outcomes,
Evidence-based dietary guidelines recommend limiting the consumption of many foods that would be included in Nova group 4.
while others appear to be benign at worst.
Do the shortcomings of Nova mean that we shouldn’t be researching UPFs? Not necessarily. They are a huge part of our food system, after all, and there are some real questions that need to be answered. The clinical research we have suggests that people eating high UPF diets tend to eat excess calories, and it is reasonable to wonder why. Ciaran Forde at Wageningen University studies ingestive behaviors, and his group recently published results from a trial where participants were fed minimally processed foods and UPFs that varied in hardness (Teo et al. 2022).9 They found that participants ate more of the soft foods, regardless of processing level. At the same time, the processing level did affect the total calories consumed because the UPFs in this study were more calorically dense than the minimally processed foods. There are other theories that should also be carefully tested, but the key question for Nova will be if they apply exclusively and uniformly to all UPFs. Certain concerns, like the increased bioaccessibilty of carbohydrates due to the breakdown of plant cell walls, may apply to groups 2, 3, and 4, and therefore be a result of processing overall, rather than ultra-processing per se. Many of the potential issues with UPFs, whether they are exclusive to the category or not, could also be addressed with new advances in food science and technology, as recently reviewed by Julian McClements (McClements 2024).10 For instance, optimizing the microscopic structure of foods may help improve how macronutrients are released during digestion, but it is unclear if these solutions would be acceptable under Nova guidelines.
It is also important to consider how results from UPF research will translate into real life. There are many factors that influence what and how people eat, like their knowledge of cooking, available time to prepare meals, hedonic preferences, and ability to purchase food, to name a few. Removal of UPFs from the diet without also addressing these things may lead
The clinical research we have suggests that people eating high UPF diets tend to eat excess calories, and it is reasonable to wonder why.
to null results or other unintended consequences. If we can understand which specific attributes of UPFs may have negative health impacts, we can work toward tailored solutions that preserve the universal benefits of these products, like convenience, abundance, and shelf stability.
Necessary Nuance
It would be difficult to look at global health statistics and believe that absolutely nothing about our food system needs to change. And while research on so-called UPFs could be an important part of this very complex puzzle, I am just not convinced that the definition offered by Nova is the answer. The “one-size-fits-all” approach that Nova takes to define UPFs ignores the nuance that needs to be understood. There are too many factors that influence how a food can impact health; it is impractical to think that this can be captured in a fourpoint scale. We need a better, sciencebased system to advance research that will improve health (Trumbo et al. 2024).11
Taking a step back, I think the issues with Nova illustrate the overall need for more interdisciplinary research in food and nutrition. For too long, scientists have worked in their own discipline-aligned silos on something that affects literally everyone on the planet. (Everybody eats!) We need to build bridges that allow us to capitalize on our collective expertise, and I think food scientists can play a key role in this. After all, we are trained across several disciplines to provide the world with safe, affordable, delicious, and nutritious foods. There is a huge incentive for scientists to be working toward a common goal here. We just need the right tools that enable us to do the work. IFT
References:
1. Lane M M, Gamage E, Du S, Ashtree D N, McGuinness A J, Gauci S et al. (2024) Ultraprocessed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses BMJ 2024; 384 :e077310 https://
doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077310
2. Morales-Berstein, F., Biessy, C., Viallon, V. et al. (2024) Ultra-processed foods, adiposity and risk of head and neck cancer and oesophageal adenocarcinoma in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study: a mediation analysis. Eur J Nutr 63, 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-023-03270-1
3. Lauren E O’Connor, Kirsten A Herrick, Keren Papier, (2024) Handle with care: challenges associated with ultra-processed foods research, International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 53, Issue 5, October 2024, dyae106, https://doi. org/10.1093/ije/dyae106
4. Kevin D. Hall et al. (2019) Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake. Cell Metabolism Volume 30, Issue 1, p67-77.e3July 02, 2019 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008
5. Shoko Hamano, et al. Ultra-processed foods cause weight gain and increased energy intake associated with reduced chewing frequency: A randomized, open-label, crossover study, Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, Volume26, Issue 11, November 2024, Pages 5431-5443 https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.15922
6. Hess, Julie M. et al. Using Less Processed Food to Mimic a Standard American Diet Does Not Improve Nutrient Value and May Result in a Shorter Shelf Life at a Higher Financial Cost, Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 11, 104471 https://cdn.nutrition.org/article/ S2475-2991(24)02405-3/fulltext
7. Hess, Julie M. et al. Dietary Guidelines Meet NOVA: Developing a Menu for A Healthy Dietary Pattern Using Ultra-Processed Foods, The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 153, Issue 8, August 2023, Pages 2472-2481 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tjnut.2023.06.028
8. Medoza, Kenny et al. Ultra-processed foods and cardiovascular disease: analysis of three large US prospective cohorts and a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies, The Lancet Regional Health – Americas, Volume 37, 100859 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lana.2024.100859
9. Pey Sze Teo, Amanda JiaYing Lim, Ai Ting Goh, R Janani, Jie Ying Michelle Choy, Keri McCrickerd, Ciarán G Forde, Texture-based differences in eating rate influence energy intake for minimally processed and ultra-processed meals, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 116, Issue 1, 2022, Pages 244-254, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqac068
10. David Julian McClements, Designing healthier and more sustainable ultraprocessed foods, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, Volume23, Issue 2, March 2024, e13331 https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13331
11. Trumbo et al. Toward a science-based classification of processed foods to support meaningful research and effective health policies, Frontiers in Nutrition, Volume 11, 2024 https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2024.1389601
Matt Teegarden, PhD, is a food scientist who has worked in academia and industry (teegardenmatt@gmail. com). f
This article is reproduced here with permission from IFT.
The future of shelf-stable foods: innovations driving quality, safety, nutrition and sustainability
Words by Dr Kai Knoerzer, Dr Ingrid Appelqvist, Dr Henry Sabarez, Piotr Swiergon, Dr Lukas Danner, Dr Rozita Spirovska and Dr Roger Stanley
Shelf-stable foods are a cornerstone of global food security and convenience, providing safe, nutritious and accessible meals with extended shelf life. Market research shows that global demand for shelf-stable food is increasing, particularly in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, which represents over 23% of global revenue (2024) and continues to grow at a rate of 5% (CAGR).1,2,3
Shelf-stable products play a vital role in reducing food waste across the supply chain and their importance has only grown in an era where supply chain disruptions and rising food insecurity are prevalent challenges.4 They ensure consistent food availability and convenience in remote regions and support emergency relief efforts.
Despite their advantages, the conventional methods used to produce shelf-stable foods, such as retorting and drying, often come with
trade-offs. High heat treatments can diminish nutritional value, especially in mixed-component meals. They can also alter sensory properties and consume significant energy, while certain drying techniques can compromise product quality or require extensive processing times.
As consumer demand shifts towards healthier, high-quality and less processed options, the food industry faces the pressing challenge of innovating shelf-stable products that balance safety, quality and sustainability. This includes producing high-quality products while minimising the logistic footprint (and cost) – especially for remote markets. In these areas, accessing sustainable manufacturing technologies and processing capacity is critical to support the resilience and sustainability of the food supply chain.5
A key aspect for developing innovative shelf-stable food lies in
improving processing technologies that retain functional, organoleptic and nutritional properties of food.
Enhancing efficiencies in drying and heating processes and leveraging newer technologies such as highpressure thermal processing (HPTP) and microwave-assisted thermal sterilisation (MATS), the industry is poised to reimagine shelf-stable foods. By embracing these solutions, food manufacturers can meet evolving consumer expectations while reducing waste, lowering environmental impact and supporting global food security.
Having opportunities to optimise processing parameters and conduct research trials at pilot scale will be important for manufacturers to develop tailored processes for a range of food products, helping industry partners achieve commercial-scale implementation with greater efficiency and reduced product loss.
Figure 1: Cubic metre retort system available at CSIRO for pilot-scale processing trials.
How can new technologies improve on current shelf-stable food?
Conventional technologies
Retorting
Retorting is a well-established method for sterilising shelf-stable foods through high-temperature heat treatment. This process, often used for canned and pouch-packed products, involves placing food in sealed containers and heating them under pressure (approximately 2 bar) to destroy harmful microorganisms and enzymes. While effective in ensuring safety and extending shelf life, traditional retorting can lead to nutrient loss and textural changes due to prolonged exposure to high temperatures.
Modern advancements in retort technology focus on improving heat distribution and reducing processing times to better preserve product quality. Innovative retorts now incorporate precise control systems and advanced monitoring to achieve uniform heat penetration, minimising the risk of overcooking or cold spots.6, 7, 8 These developments enable manufacturers to produce higherquality products with enhanced sensory and nutritional attributes. An example of a cubic metre retort is given in Figure 1.
Conventional drying
Drying, or dehydration, is one of the most widely used food preservation methods, playing a crucial role in extending shelf life by reducing moisture levels to inhibit microbial and enzymatic activity. Nearly all food products either undergo drying themselves or incorporate ingredients processed through drying. However, the process presents challenges, as removing water efficiently without compromising quality remains a fine balance between energy use, cost and environmental impact.
The selection of the optimal drying method depends on various factors, including the type of material to be dried (eg. whole, particulate or liquid), the desired end-product format (eg. powder or particulates)
and the sensitivity of nutrients (eg. vitamins and antioxidants) to drying conditions.9,10 While conventional drying techniques, such as spray drying, drum drying and fluid-bed drying, continue to dominate the industry due to their reliability, they are not without limitations. These processes can cause nutrient degradation, flavour changes, or textural alterations when subjected to high heat or extended drying times.
Incremental improvements in conventional drying technologies are helping address these challenges, focusing on improving energy efficiency, preserving quality and reducing environmental impact. Having access to pilot-scale dryers, including spray dryers, freeze dryers and drum dryers, food manufacturers can conduct trials and optimise their processing systems without having to lose production time in their factory.These facilities enable food manufacturers to fine-tune drying parameters, test various food materials and transition smoothly to
industrial-scale production (Figure 2). By combining established processes with innovative re-engineering, conventional drying remains a key player in producing sustainable and high-quality shelf-stable foods.
New technologies
Ultrasound-assisted atmospheric freeze-drying Atmospheric freeze drying (AFD) is an innovative alternative to traditional freeze drying, designed to preserve food at low temperatures and atmospheric pressure without the need for a vacuum.11 While conventional freeze drying is renowned for producing premiumquality dried products, its high energy costs and long processing times make it a costly option. AFD offers a more cost-effective approach, but its limitations include slow drying rates and high energy consumption due to extended residence times, which can lead to microbial contamination and quality degradation.
A new advancement in AFD has
Figure 2: Pilot-scale (a) spray dryer (NIRO FSD4) and (b) freeze dryer (Cuddon FD80) at CSIRO to support drying trials.
Figure 3: Computer-based test dryer with retrofitted ultrasonic systemschematic (a) and unit (b). Pilot-scale equipment available at CSIRO.
been the development of ultrasoundassisted AFD, a novel technology that intensifies the drying process by introducing ultrasonic waves to enhance moisture removal.12 Ultrasound creates microchannels in the product matrix, increasing mass transfer rates and reducing drying times significantly.13 This method combines the high-quality output of freeze drying with the lower costs and efficiency of conventional drying, making it an excellent solution for producing premium, minimally processed shelf-stable foods. Although this technology has shown great promise in laboratory trials, scaling it for industrial applications remains a challenge. Collaboration between equipment manufacturers and industry partners will be vital to develop and test pilotscale systems, aiming to demonstrate the commercial viability of ultrasound-assisted AFD. By bridging the gap between research and commercialisation, this technology has the potential to transform drying processes, offering manufacturers a sustainable, energy-efficient means of delivering high-quality dried products.
High-pressure thermal processing (HPTP)
High-pressure thermal processing (HPTP) is redefining the landscape of shelf-stable food production by combining the benefits of highpressure processing (HPP) with controlled temperature application. Unlike conventional methods such as retorting, which can degrade food quality through prolonged exposure to high heat, HPTP ensures microbial safety while better preserving the sensory and nutritional attributes of food. By using pressures of up to 600 MPa and moderate initial (prepressurisation) temperatures, HPTP achieves commercial sterility with significantly reduced thermal impact, resulting in products that retain fresh-like taste, texture and colourcritical for consumer appeal. The advantages of HPTP extend beyond superior product quality. The process minimises energy
consumption compared to traditional heat-based sterilisation and reduces the need for preservatives, aligning with the growing demand for clean-label products. Additionally, HPTP enhances protein digestibility and vitamin retention, making it an attractive option for nutrientsensitive formulations such as ready-to-eat meals, infant foods and plant-based alternatives.14
While the commercial availability of HPTP systems was historically a barrier, this changed in 2023 with the commercialisation of the HPTP canister system, developed in collaboration with Hiperbaric (Figure 4),15 the global leader in HPP equipment manufacturing. With industrial-scale solutions now available, food manufacturers have a ready pathway to adopt HPTP without the historical concerns around scalability. The focus is now on industry uptake – helping manufacturers integrate HPTP into existing production lines and demonstrating its value in creating premium, shelf-stable foods. As demand for high-quality, minimally processed shelf-stable products grows, HPTP is positioned to become a key technology in the future of food manufacturing.
Radio-frequency (RF) pretreatment
Radio-frequency (RF) heating is emerging as a versatile and efficient solution for processing shelf-stable
foods. By using electromagnetic waves in the RF spectrum (typically 13.56, 27.12 or 40.68 MHz), this technology heats food volumetrically, ensuring rapid and uniform energy transfer throughout the product.16 RF heating is particularly advantageous for bulk applications and low-moisture foods such as nuts, spices and flours, where traditional heat treatments can be slow or overly intense, leading to quality degradation.
RF’s ability to rapidly raise product temperatures without relying on surface heating minimises nutrient loss and preserves sensory qualities such as texture and flavour. It also offers significant efficiency benefits, reducing processing times and energy consumption compared to conventional methods. For pasteurisation and sterilisation, RF heating has demonstrated its effectiveness, achieving microbial safety targets, such as a >5-log reduction of Salmonella in lowmoisture foods, while maintaining product integrity.
While RF is already widely used for drying, defrosting and baking, its application for pasteurisation and sterilisation remains in development. Challenges such as optimising packaging and feeder designs for industrial-scale operations need to be addressed to facilitate broader commercial adoption. Further research and collaborations with industry partners will unlock the full potential of RF technology (Figure
4: The Hiperbaric 300L HPP system equipped with a CSIROpatented HPTP canister. CSIRO pilot-scale HPTP capability including a 35L system. Industrial-scale systems are available for trials through its commercial partner, Hiperbaric (Spain).
5: The STALAM Radio Frequency pilot plant (7kW) with additional electric heating (30kW), located at CSIRO.
Figure
Figure
5) as a fast, energy-efficient and high-quality solution for processing shelf-stable foods.
Microwave-assisted thermal sterilisation (MATS)
Microwave-assisted thermal sterilisation (MATS) is an innovative technology designed to improve the quality and efficiency of sterilising shelf-stable foods. By combining traditional heat transfer with microwave energy, MATS enables rapid and uniform heating of packaged foods.17 Unlike conventional sterilisation methods, which rely on surface heat penetration, MATS uses microwaves to generate heat evenly throughout the product. This reduces processing times, prevents overcooking at the edges and ensures that the core reaches the required sterilisation temperature.18
The benefits of MATS are considerable. By reducing exposure to high temperatures, it preserves the taste, texture, colour and nutritional value of foods, addressing key limitations of retorting. It is compatible with a wide range of packaging materials, making it suitable for diverse products such as ready-to-eat meals, soups, and sauces. Moreover, MATS systems are energy-efficient, lowering operating costs and environmental impact compared to traditional methods.
Commercialisation of MATS technology is progressing, with FDAapproved systems already in use for certain food applications. However,
adoption challenges remain, including the high capital investment required and the need for specialised equipment and training. Collaborative efforts, such as those between research institutions like University of Tasmania, CSIRO, and technology providers or end-users (eg. the Defence Science and Technology Group, DSTG, Scottsdale, Tasmania), are essential for demonstrating the scalability and economic feasibility of MATS (Figure 6). These initiatives are paving the way for broader adoption of this transformative sterilisation method in the food industry.
Vacuum frying
Vacuum frying is an advanced method of frying foods at reduced pressure, which lowers the boiling point of oil and water. By frying at lower temperatures (typically between 80°C and 120°C), this technique minimises the degradation of heat-sensitive nutrients and reduces the formation of harmful compounds, such as acrylamide, compared to conventional deep frying.19 Vacuum frying is particularly well-suited for high-value or delicate products, such as fruits, vegetables, and specialty snacks, where preserving flavour, colour and nutritional quality is a priority.
The advantages of vacuum frying extend beyond improved product quality. Foods fried under vacuum retain a more natural colour, crisp texture, and superior flavour compared to traditionally fried
alternatives. Moreover, vacuum frying reduces oil absorption, resulting in healthier snacks with lower fat content. These attributes make vacuum-fried products appealing to health-conscious consumers seeking premium, minimally processed alternatives.
Despite its benefits, vacuum frying faces challenges for broader adoption. The higher cost of vacuum frying equipment and lower throughput compared to conventional fryers have limited its use primarily to niche markets. Research into optimising equipment design (Figure 7) and reducing energy consumption is underway to make this technology more accessible. CSIRO, in collaboration with other research organisations (eg. UCT Prague, Czech Republic), is exploring ways to scale up vacuum frying for commercial use, offering the potential to bring high-quality, innovative shelf-stable snacks to a broader audience.
Safety implications, policy and regulations
Ensuring the safety of shelf-stable foods is paramount, as these products often have extended storage periods and are consumed without further cooking. Regulatory frameworks and industry guidelines are in place to guarantee microbial safety, nutritional quality, and consumer protection, and new food processing technologies must meet stringent safety standards before
Figure 6: TA digital rendering of a MATS-B (Microwave-assisted thermal sterilisation) system supplied by 915 Labspilot unit is available at the University of Tasmania and DSTG (Scottsdale, Tasmania).
FOOD ENGINEERING
Figure 7: Vacuum frying system from Henan Huafood Machinery Technology Co. Ltd. Pilot-scale access can be coordinated through international collaborators such as UCT Prague (Czechia).
they can be commercialised.
Technologies such as highpressure thermal processing (HPTP), microwave-assisted thermal sterilisation (MATS), and vacuum frying are held to high scrutiny. They require validation studies to demonstrate their ability to achieve microbial safety in an equivalent manner to traditional thermal technologies while maintaining product quality. When stabilising technologies are applied, thresholds such as decimal reductions of the number of microorganisms are used as targets.
Policy implications extend beyond safety validation. Governments and international organisations such as Codex Alimentarius set guidelines for processing methods, labelling, and packaging, establishing a broad framework with which national regulations need to harmonise.20 When it comes to technologies such as retorting, some jurisdictions have strictly defined processes to validate its effectiveness.
Industry and research collaborations play a critical role in navigating these regulatory pathways. By conducting pilot-scale trials and compiling robust validation data, these partnerships help expedite market access and build
confidence in the safety and reliability of novel processes. As consumer demand for minimally processed, high-quality products grows, aligning innovative technologies with safety regulations is crucial to ensuring that these advancements not only meet market needs but also uphold public health and trust.
Bringing consumers along on the journey to modern shelf-stable foods
Consumer attitudes toward shelf-stable foods are evolving, driven by increasing demand for convenience, healthier choices, and sustainability. While these products have traditionally been perceived as sacrificing quality for extended shelf life, advancements in processing technologies have the potential to change this narrative.
To build consumer trust and acceptance, clear communication and transparent labelling are essential. Informing consumers how these technologies maintain food quality, retain nutrients, and reduce the need for additives can help reshape perceptions. Additionally, prioritising sustainability—through energyefficient production, recyclable packaging, and waste reduction— ensures alignment with the values of eco-conscious consumers.
For this transformation to succeed, the industry must actively engage consumers in the journey. By addressing consumer concerns and demonstrating the benefits of modern processing, the industry can establish shelf-stable foods as a trusted, nutritious, and convenient part of a balanced diet.
What role can AI play in transforming the shelfstable industry?
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionising the shelf-stable food industry by optimising processing, improving product quality, and driving efficiency. AI-powered predictive modelling enables manufacturers to fine-tune thermal and non-thermal processing parameters, to maximise microbial
safety while preserving taste, texture, and nutritional integrity.21,22 Advanced machine learning algorithms analyse vast datasets on ingredient stability, packaging interactions, and consumer preferences to accelerate product development, reducing trial-and-error experimentation.
Beyond processing, AI can enhance quality control by using real-time data from sensors to monitor key parameters such as moisture content, oxidation rates, and microbial stability. This ensures consistency in extended shelf-life products without over-processing. Additionally, AI plays a pivotal role in process validation for emerging technologies. By simulating and analysing complex systems, AI can assess the effectiveness of innovative methods and process adaptation in achieving microbial safety and regulatory compliance. This accelerates commercial readiness while reducing the costs and risks associated with manual validation trials.
With AI-driven automation and data analytics, manufacturers can now develop high-quality, stable foods more efficiently, unlocking new opportunities for premium, minimally processed shelf-stable products.
References
1. Verified Market Research. (2024). Shelfstable food market size and forecast (2024–2031). Retrieved from https://www. verifiedmarketresearch.com/product/shelfstable-food-market/
2. BioSpringer. (2024). Convenience foods market in Asia-Pacific: Market insights and trends. Retrieved from https://biospringer. com/en/convenience-foods-in-asia-pacific/
4. SIG. (2024). The role of shelf-stable foods within sustainability. Retrieved from https:// www.sig.biz/en/news-insights/blog/the-roleof-shelf-stable-foods-within-sustainability
5. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2025). Codex Alimentarius: International Food Standards. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/ fao-who-codexalimentarius/about-codex/en/
7. Pankaj, S. (2012). Advancement in food technology through retort processing and food packaging. International Journal of Applied Biology and Pharmaceutical Technology, 2(3), 234-241. https://www.fortunejournals.com/ ijabpt/pdf/66032-Pankaj[1].pdf
8. Tucker, G.S., & Featherstone, S.A. (2023). Understanding retort processing: A review. Food Science and Nutrition, 12(3), 1545-1563 https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.3912
9. Slozhenkina, M. I., Gorlov, I. F., Serova, O. P., Bozhkova, S. E., & Kotova, A. S. (2021). The study of factors affecting the drying process and the quality of dry cheese. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 640(3), 032018. https://doi.org/10.1088/17551315/640/3/032018
10. Sagar, V. R., & Kumar, P. S. (2010). Recent advances in drying and dehydration of fruits and vegetables: a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 47(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-010-0010-8
11. Rahman, S. M. A., & Mujumdar, A. S. (2015). Atmospheric Freeze Drying. In Handbook of Industrial Drying (4th ed., pp. 685–700). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119962045. ch7
12. Sabarez, H., Swiergon, P. & Knoerzer, K. (2019). Drying process and apparatus. World Intellectual Property Organization. WO2019014722A1.
13. Musielak, G., Mierzwa, D., & Kroehnke, J. (2016). Food drying enhancement by ultrasound – A review. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 56, 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tifs.2016.08.003
14. Terefe, N. S., Tepper, P., Ullman, A., Knoerzer, K., & Juliano, P. (2016). High pressure thermal processing of pears: Effect on endogenous enzyme activity and related quality attributes. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 33(2016), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2015.12.001
15. Knoerzer, K. (2017). Container for use in food processing. Australia Patent No. AU 2016/310416.
16. Marra, F., Zhang, L., & Lyng, J. G. (2009). Radio Frequency Treatment of Foods: Review of Recent Advances. Journal of Food Engineering, 91(4), 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jfoodeng.2008.10.015
17. Soni, A., Smith, J., Thompson, A. & Brightwell, G. (2020). Microwave-induced thermal sterilization- A review on history, technical progress, advantages and challenges as compared to the conventional methods. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 97, 433-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.01.030
18. Stanley, R. (2020). New opportunities for non-refrigerated ready meals. food australia, 72(2), 20-23.
19. Belkova, B., Hradecky, J., Hurkova, K., Forstova, V., Vaclavik, L., & Hajslova, J. (2018). Impact of vacuum frying on quality of potato crisps and frying oil. Food Chemistry, 241, 51-59. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.08.062
20. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2025). Need for sustainable and resilient city region food systems. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/in-action/food-forcities-programme/approach/need-forsustainable-and-resilient-crfs/en/
21. Tarlak, F. (2023). The use of predictive microbiology for the prediction of the shelf life of food products. Foods, 12(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12244461
22. Shi, C., Zhao, Z., Jia, Z., Hou, M., Yang, X., Ying, X., & Ji, Z. (2023). Artificial neural network-based shelf life prediction approach in the food storage process: A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–16. 64(32), 12009–12024. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2023 .2245899
Dr Kai Knoerzer is a Principal Research Scientist at CSIRO Agriculture and Food. Dr Ingrid Appelqvist is a Senior Principal Research Scientist and Team
Leader for Food Innovation at CSIRO Agriculture and Food. Dr Henry Sabarez is a Principal Research Scientist at CSIRO Agriculture and Food. Piotr Swiergon is a Senior Research Engineer at CSIRO Agriculture and Food. Dr Lukas Danner is a Senior Research Scientist and Team Leader of the Sensory and Consumer Science Team at CSIRO Agriculture and Food. Dr Rozita Spirovska is a Senior Research Scientist and Group Leader of the Microbial Food Systems Group at CSIRO Agriculture and Food. Professor Roger Stanley is Professor of Food Science and Technology at the University of Tasmania. f
Disclaimer
This article was developed through a collaborative effort between generative AI and subject matter experts. Some sections were initially drafted by the authors and refined using ChatGPT, while others were first generated by ChatGPT and subsequently adapted and expanded through expert input. The entire article was then reviewed, integrated and approved by all contributors to ensure consistency, clarity and scientific integrity.
Canola meal proteins – technological challenges and mitigation strategies
Words by Akhilesh Modi, Dr Smriti Shrestha and Dr Sushil Dhital
The plant protein market is expected to grow from US$124.51 million in 2023 to US$151.93 million by 2028, achieving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.06%.1 As the industry expands, canola protein becomes a viable alternative to the dominant soy and pea proteins.
Globally, canola is the third most important oilseed crop after soybean and palm oil, with 89.34 million tonnes produced in the year 2023/2024.2 Annual canola meal production reaches 43.72 million tonnes with major contributors being the European Union (21 million tonnes), Canada (20.3 million tonnes), and China (15.4 million tonnes). Australia alone contributes around 7% of global canola production.3,4
Canola meal, a by-product of oil extraction, contains ~40-45% protein by weight. Its amino acid profile is well-balanced, particularly rich in sulfur-containing amino acids like methionine and cysteine.5 This makes it a high-quality plant protein, complementing other sources and helping meet future plant-based nutrition demands.
Canada is a global leader in canola protein production, research, and utilisation. Commercial products Supertein™ and Puratein® (Burcon Nutra Science) have already been approved as safe (GRAS) for food by the US FDA.6 In Poland, NapiFeryn BioTech has developed a new commercial canola protein product.7 DSM Nutritional Products has introduced CanolaPRO®, a solventfree protein with functionality similar to egg and soy. It has received FSANZ approval for food use in Australia and New Zealand.8
The use of canola meal in cattle feed is established but the adoption of canola proteins in human food faces challenges, including technological constraints in protein extraction, the presence
of antinutritional factors (ANFs) causing bitterness and darkness, lower solubility than established plant proteins, and difficulties in processing and masking off flavours.9,10 These issues, along with evolving consumer preferences, highlight the need for innovative solutions to improve functionality, scalability and sensory qualities. This article explores strategies to enhance the functionality, taste, and yield of canola proteins, making them competitive, versatile and sustainable alternatives.
1. Canola meal protein isolation
For oil extraction, canola seeds are heated to around 80°C and flattened with a flaker to increase the surface area. The mechanical pressing typically extracts 60–70% of the oil. The residual oil can be removed through double pressing or solvent extraction, achieving ~99% recovery rate.
The protein extraction from defatted canola meal has predominantly relied on an aqueous method.11 Initially, the canola meal is treated with an alkaline solution (pH 8-12) to solubilise the proteins which are then precipitated by adjusting the pH to approximately 4.5-5 using acid. This process usually yields products with a protein content ranging from 65% to 90%.
2. Technological challenges
Despite significant advances in oil extraction technology, canola meal protein processing needs special consideration largely due to challenges in achieving functional properties and overcoming antinutritional factors inherent in the meal.
2.1 Protein denaturation is inevitable due to high temperature and extreme pH treatment during oil and protein
extraction, impacting protein structure and functionality.11
The aqueous protein extraction methods also face limitations such as inefficient cell wall degradation, incomplete removal of ANFs, and high solvent volumes. This increases operational costs and environmental concerns. Moreover, achieving high protein purity while preserving functional properties such as water and oil absorption capacities, adds further complexity to the extraction process.
2.2 Antinutritional factors in canola, such as phytic acid, tannins, glucosinolates and other phenolic compounds, can reduce protein digestibility and mineral bioavailability. Phenolic compounds can bind to unfolded proteins. Phytic acid can bind essential minerals such as iron and zinc.9,12 Similarly, glucosinolates can impact protein digestibility and contribute to a bitter taste.13
2.3 Protein yield and functionalities of canola protein are generally lower than soy protein. This is primarily due to the wider range of isoelectric points of canola protein and the presence of other non-protein compounds that hinder the isolation process.11 Additionally, canola proteins often lack desirable functional properties, such as solubility, emulsification and gelling, when compared to more established plant proteins.
3. Mitigation strategies
To address these challenges, various strategies have been proposed and are currently under active research (Figure 1). These strategies encompass enhancements in extraction methods, protein modification techniques and innovations in processing.
3.1 Pre-treatment of canola meal
Using dehulled canola seeds for oil extraction, followed by cold pressing and desolventising at lower temperatures, will offer a better solution for canola protein.9 These pre-treatments remove lipids and ANFs that could interfere with protein extraction and its functionalities. Further, enzymatic degradation of the cell wall (eg. cellulases, hemicellulases) increases protein solubility and improves the overall extraction efficiency.
3.2 Optimisation of the extraction process
Maintaining the right pH and temperature (25-35°C) is crucial for efficient protein extraction, preserving the native structure and minimising the degradation of valuable functional properties. To optimise this, novel extraction methods should be explored alongside conventional pH-based extraction. For example, using food-grade salts such as sodium (Na+), calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+) and potassium (K+) followed by ultrafiltration.14 Additionally, non-thermal techniques such as ultrasound and pulsed electric fields, either as pre-treatment or posttreatment processing should be investigated.
3.3 Removal of anti-nutritional factors
• Enzymatic hydrolysis of canola meal by phytase reduces phytic acid. Post-treatment of protein isolates with ethanol can remove glucosinolates and other phenolics.14 Microbial fermentation using Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces boulardii also reduces phenolic compounds.15
• Ultrafiltration of alkaline soluble proteins removes residual salts and other unwanted components such as phenolics and small peptides. The selective separation of proteins from smaller contaminants can be achieved based on membrane size (eg. 3-3.5 kDa), yielding high-purity protein with improved functionalities.16
Figure 1: Illustrates the stages involved in utilising canola protein for food and feed: (A) oil extraction; (B) ANF removal; (C) protein extraction and; (D) application in food products.
4. Conclusion
Despite its potential, technological challenges in extraction and functionalisation have constrained the widespread adoption of canola proteins. Recent research highlights the promise of alternative approaches, including salt extraction, ultrafiltration and ultrasonication, which show the potential to produce higher-quality proteins with improved functional properties. These findings underscore the importance of exploring novel extraction technologies, particularly synergistic combinations of alkaline and salt extraction, enzymatic hydrolysis and advanced ultrasonication techniques. As global protein demand continues to rise, innovations in canola protein extraction and functionalisation could play a pivotal role in developing sustainable, high-quality protein sources, contributing to a more resilient and efficient global food production system.
The authors would like to thank Dr Randy Adjonu (Charles Sturt University) and Nick Goddard (Australian Oilseeds Federation) for their support during the paper’s preparation.
Akhilesh Modi is a PhD student, and Dr Smriti Shrestha is a postdoctoral fellow working with Associate Professor Sushil Dhital in the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at Monash University, Australia. Dr Dhital’s research group focuses on food processing and waste valorisation. For inquiries, please contact: sushil.dhital@monash.edu f
Foodborne viruses: a primer
Words by Deon Mahoney
Viruses are responsible for a range of illnesses that present an ongoing and often serious threat to public health. Until the advent of vaccines, common viruses such as measles, chicken pox, rubella, and seasonal influenza had a major impact on morbidity and mortality, especially amongst the young.
Emerging and exotic viruses, including Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI),
Nipah virus, Hendra virus and viruses causing Lassa fever and Ebola, continue to pose significant health threats.
Not surprisingly, many viruses are transmitted via food and water. Although viruses cannot grow in foods and water, they can survive and infect consumers. Globally, viruses are the leading cause of gastroenteritis, with norovirus (NoV), hepatitis A virus (HAV), and hepatitis E virus (HEV) causing the most significant burden of foodborne illness. Transmission of norovirus
is primarily via the faecal–oral route, typically through ingestion of contaminated food or water, direct contact with contaminated environmental reservoirs, or person-to-person contact. Bartsch et al. estimated there are approximately 699 million norovirus illnesses and 219,000 deaths globally each year, resulting in health system costs of $4.2 billion and societal costs of $60.3 billion annually.1
Other viruses with the potential for foodborne transmission include Aichiviruses, Astroviruses,
Parvoviruses, Picornaviruses, Rotaviruses, Sapoviruses and other Enteroviruses. The significance and aetiology of many of these viruses is yet to be established.
Epidemiology
Viruses differ from pathogenic bacteria in terms of their infectivity, aetiology and persistence in the environment. Hence, they present an often unappreciated risk to public health. Furthermore, viruses are strict intracellular parasites, so their inability to replicate in food or water means that virus-contaminated food will look, smell and taste normal.
The shedding and transmission routes for foodborne viruses vary considerably, as does the level of exposure. Spread may involve direct contact with infected animals, person-to-person contact, waterborne exposure, or consumption of contaminated food or water. Because of the multiple routes of transmission, attributing illness to food is often challenging.
In foodborne transmission, viral contamination may result from the use of contaminated raw materials or water, or by contact from infected food handlers. Examples include crop irrigation with contaminated water and cultivation of oysters and other molluscs in contaminated estuaries. In these situations, faeces are the underlying source of the viruses, and if the food is consumed raw there is a risk to public health.
Testing protocols
Testing for foodborne viruses has always presented challenges for the food microbiologist. Foods present complex and problematic matrices, making virus detection significantly more complicated than testing clinical samples. Plus, virus particles in food are usually present in very low, unevenly distributed numbers, and the presence of various inhibitors often compromises analytical methods.
Viruses cannot be easily cultured in the laboratory, so modern detection methods involve molecular techniques. Complex steps are needed to extract and purify viruses from
the food matrix in order to identify them. Few of these methods are standardised or properly validated, making it difficult to set safety limits for viruses in foods or assess the efficacy of control measures. Plus, there are no reliable indicator organisms for viruses.
For these reasons, routine surveillance of food for viral pathogens is extremely limited.
Control of foodborne viruses
Good agricultural, aquacultural, and manufacturing practices are essential to avoid introducing viruses into raw materials and food handling environments and controlling contamination of finished products. While conformance with good hygienic practices is essential for avoiding contamination by food handlers.
In recent years, there has been considerable interest in securing scientific and technical evidence regarding the occurrence of viruses in food, including factors impacting their persistence in the environment and whether a control measure or combination of measures designed to protect public health can be effective under normal conditions of food processing, distribution and storage. With the appearance of viruses such as HPAI in food animals, questions arise as to the effectiveness of heat treatments and cooking to eliminate viable viruses from products such as meat, milk and eggs.
Managing the risk of viral contamination of bivalve molluscs focuses mainly on monitoring water quality in the growing and harvesting areas and securing these environments from the infiltration of faecal contamination through events such as heavy rainfall and floods. There is also an increasing focus on the application of decontamination methods, such as pasteurisation with mild heat and high-pressure processing.
Overview of selected foodborne viruses
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis A (HAV) is a small, positive-
stranded RNA virus with a 27–32nm diameter virion. It is a causative agent of acute infection of the liver, with symptoms including fever, diarrhoea, nausea, abdominal discomfort, malaise, loss of appetite and jaundice. HAV infection is rarely fatal and does not result in chronic liver disease or infection.
HAV is classified into six genotypes, with genotypes I, II, and III responsible for human infections. However, contamination sources are often difficult to identify because of the complexity of supply chains and the long incubation period (mean of 30 days).
The main routes of HAV transmission are person-to-person through the faecal–oral route or by ingestion of contaminated food or water. Restaurants are a common setting for outbreaks of HAV, with meals contaminated by food handlers or through the use of contaminated ingredients. Foods that are frequently eaten unprocessed, such as bivalve molluscs, berries and leafy vegetables are the most common food matrices implicated in outbreaks.
In Australia, major HAV outbreaks have been associated with oysters from Wallis Lakes (NSW) in the 1990s2 and via imported, minimally processed products such as sun-dried tomatoes, pomegranate arils and frozen berries over the past 16 years.
The incidence of hepatitis A infection in most regions of Australia is uncommon because of the supply of clean water, sewage treatment, improved hygiene, and vaccination. Cases are typically associated with recent travel to or from countries with higher rates of HAV and imported food products. In Australia, HAV is a notifiable disease, and the yearly rolling five-year mean is 144 cases per annum.
Hepatitis E
Hepatitis E (HEV) is an emerging pathogen and considered to be the most common cause of acute viral hepatitis worldwide. HEV is a nonenveloped single-stranded RNA virus that is classified into eight main genotypes. Two genotypes originate
from humans only (HEV-1 and HEV-2), and two genotypes originate from humans and different animal species (HEV-3 and HEV-4). Mammalian species considered to be reservoirs include domestic pigs, wild boar, sheep, goats, deer and rabbits.
HEV-1 and HEV-2 have been found in human epidemic outbreaks in lowincome countries and are typically transmitted by the faecal-oral route via contaminated water. While HEV-3 and HEV-4 have been isolated in humans and in wild and farmed food animals, in both low- and highincome countries. Transmission results from either consumption of raw or undercooked meat from infected animals (predominantly pigs and wild boar), ingestion of raw fruit and vegetables irrigated or washed with contaminated water, or consumption of marine bivalves (oysters or mussels) cultivated in environmentally contaminated water. Other routes of infection may include environmental exposure, drinking contaminated water and through the human blood supply.
Infection by HEV usually causes acute self-limiting hepatitis, with mild symptoms that resolve within weeks, although sub-populations such as pregnant women and immunocompromised adults are at higher risk.
In Australia, HEV is a notifiable disease, and the yearly rolling fiveyear mean is 27.8 cases per annum. On a global scale, the majority of HEV infections go unrecognised or misdiagnosed, hence the lack of data and standardised reporting make it difficult to accurately determine the disease burden and implement prevention and response activities.
Nipah Virus
The Nipah virus (NiV) belongs to the Paramyxoviridae family, with the Pteropus bat species considered to be the most important natural animal reservoir and vector. Human illnesses were first reported among pig farmers in Malaysia in 1998, with victims suffering from neurological and severe respiratory disorders, resulting in high mortality. Pigs were the intermediate
host and became infected by eating fruit contaminated by bat faeces and secretions.
While close contact with intermediate hosts was the main mode of transmission in the first outbreaks, increasing evidence supports the possibility of foodborne transmission. For example, outbreaks of NiV illness in Bangladesh occurred through the consumption of date palm juice contaminated by saliva and secretions from bats feeding on the juice.3
The arrival of NiV demonstrates how land clearing and human encroachment into forests results in bats coming into close contact with human populations. This closeness combined with opportunistic feeding on cultivated crops has the potential to promote viral spillover and the emergence of other viruses.4
Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) virus
The incidence of avian influenza (AI) infections in birds and dairy cattle in the United States has raised concerns that contaminated food may reach consumers and present a risk to public health. This is despite the fact that food has not been implicated in human infections even when large numbers of infections are occurring in birds.
A recent assessment found that the risk to the UK population of acquiring avian influenza from handling and consuming commercial poultry products ranged from negligible (commercial chicken and turkey) to very low (farmed duck, geese, and hen eggs).5 The epidemiological evidence demonstrates that human infections with AI occur most frequently after close contact with infected birds. Plus, the receptors for infection are different between avian and mammal hosts, and this forms a barrier to infection.
When HPAI virus was found in dairy cows and raw milk in the United States in 2024, there were fears that ingestion of contaminated milk could serve as a potential route of exposure for humans. Risk mitigation involves the identification and removal of
infected cows from the herd, but clinical signs are not totally reliable. So, with virus contamination of milk likely to occur, questions were raised regarding the efficacy of pasteurisation. A recent study found the high-temperature short time (HTST) pasteurisation combination of 72°C for 15 seconds resulted in >12 log10 reduction of HPAI virus in whole milk.6 Demonstrating that pasteurised milk is safe, and leading to advice to avoid raw milk.
Summary
Among the various illnesses transmitted by food, viruses pose an underestimated and serious threat to public health. Control and mitigation involve managing production environments, emphasis on hygienic practices, and improved surveillance. The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated we must be prepared for the future emergence of zoonotic viruses.
References
1. Bartsch, S.M. et al. (2016) Global economic burden of Norovirus Gastroenteritis. PLoS ONE 11, (4): e0151219. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0151219
2. Conaty, S. et al;. (2000). Hepatitis A in New South Wales, Australia, from consumption of oysters: The first reported outbreak. Epidemiology and Infection, 124, (1), pp. 121-130
3. Skowron, K. et al., (2022). Nipah virus–Another threat from the world of zoonotic viruses. Frontiers in Microbiology, 12:811157. https://doi. org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.811157
4. McKee, C.D. et al. (2021). The ecology of Nipah Virus in Bangladesh: A nexus of land-use change and opportunistic feeding behavior in bats. Viruses ,13, 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/ v13020169
5. Kintz, E. et al. (2024). The risk of acquiring avian influenza from commercial poultry products and hen eggs: A qualitative assessment. Microbial Risk Analysis, 27-28: 100317. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.mran.2024.100317
6. Spackman, E. et al. (2024). Inactivation of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus with high-temperature short time continuous flow pasteurization and virus detection in bulk milk tanks. Journal of Food Protection, 87, 10: 100349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jfp.2024.100349
Deon Mahoney is a food safety consultant at DeonMahoney Consulting, Adjunct Professor in the School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability at the University of Queensland and is Scientific Advisor at AIFST. f
FOOD FILES
Words by Dr Djin Gie Liem, Dr Yada Nolvachai and Dr Dan Dias
The future of protein: navigating the challenges of plant-based alternatives
The food industry is at a critical juncture. There is an urgent need to transition away from animal-based foods toward sustainable protein sources. Despite the growing market availability and increased public interest in alternative proteins, significant barriers remain to achieving meaningful dietary shifts.
A recent review in the journal Food Quality and Preference highlights a stark reality - the significant gap between consumer expectations and the realised sensory performance of plant-based alternatives. This discrepancy is a major hurdle in the widespread adoption of these products. Consumers often find that plant-based alternatives fail to match
the taste, texture, and overall sensory experience of animal-based products, and this remains the primary barrier to acceptance.
The current body of sensory and consumer research on plant-based alternatives is challenged with methodological shortcomings. Studies often suffer from small sample sizes, reliance on expert panels rather than actual consumers, and a lack of transparency. Additionally, many studies employ rudimentary sensory assessments that fail to capture the dynamic and temporal aspects of food consumption. There is also a notable lack of appropriate benchmarking against animal-based products, which is crucial for setting realistic expectations and improving sensory quality.
The outlook for plant-based
alternatives has challenges, but they are not impossible to overcome. Persistent roadblocks include mixed marketing signals, conflicting health narratives and insufficient public support. Despite the initial wave of enthusiasm and high expectations, sales in many plant-based categories have plateaued. This should not be seen as the end of progress but rather the beginning of a more grounded phase, where research and development can address critical barriers.
Sensory and consumer scientists have a unique opportunity to make a significant impact. By prioritising methodological rigour, using appropriate benchmarks, validating assumptions about substitution potential and focusing on actual consumer behaviour rather than
intentions, researchers can support the development of plant-based alternatives that meet consumer expectations.
While plant-based alternatives may not be the ‘silver bullet’ many hoped for, cutting through the hype and committing to sustained effort can still make them part of the solution. By addressing the critical gaps in current research and focusing on improving sensory quality, the food industry can pave the way for a more sustainable and palatable future.
Source: Giacalone D. “Grilling the myths”: Uncomfortable truths and promising paths in consumer research on plant-based alternatives. Food Quality and Preference, 129, 2025
Unlocking the secrets of freshness: how packaging affects raw beef quality
Have you ever wondered how the packaging of your beef affects its freshness? A recent study has investigated how different packaging methods influence the formation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in raw beef. These VOCs, which are released as gases, serve as indicators of meat freshness and spoilage.
The study examined three common packaging systems: modified atmosphere packaging (MAP), vacuum packaging (VP), and clingwrapped packaging (CP). MAP uses a combination of oxygen and carbon dioxide to extend shelf life up to 10 days, VP removes oxygen to preserve meat for weeks, while CP, commonly used in supermarkets, has the shortest shelf life of just 2–3 days.
Researchers analysed porterhouse steak samples over a seven-day period, starting three days before and ending three days after the bestbefore date (BBD). Using solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC–MS), we identified 35 different VOCs. Surprisingly, there was no clear trend linking VOC presence to a specific packaging type. However, carbon disulphide and acetoin were consistently detected across all packaging formats, reinforcing their role as key indicators of beef freshness.
This research highlights the
complexity of meat spoilage, including the limitations of relying solely on best-before dates to determine freshness, and that packaging alone does not determine the formation of spoilage-related VOCs. The findings pave the way for innovative onpack freshness sensors, which could provide real-time quality assessments rather than relying on estimated expiry dates. Such sensors could help both consumers and retailers make informed decisions, reducing food waste and ensuring safer consumption.
As food safety and waste reduction become global priorities, studies like this help bridge the gap between science and everyday consumer choices. With further advancements, shoppers may soon have access to smart packaging that ensures their meat is always fresh and safe to eat.
Source: Bhadury D., Nolvachai Y., Marriott P.J., Tanner, J., and Tuck, K.L. (2021) Detection of Volatiles from Raw Beef Meat from Different Packaging Systems Using Solid-Phase Microextraction GC–Accurate Mass Spectrometry. Foods 10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ foods10092018.
Isotope fingerprinting: a reliable backup for safety & traceability in animal-derived foods
In recent years, the globalisation of the food trade and the rise of certified agro-food products have placed greater emphasis on food authenticity and traceability. This growing focus has also led to increased opportunities for fraudulent practices, underscoring the need to protect consumers from economic and health risks. To safeguard the integrity of the food chain, advanced analytical techniques have been developed and optimised, particularly those examining isotopic composition and ratios.
A comprehensive review by Varrà and co-authors examines the scientific advancements made in the past decade in using isotope fingerprinting to authenticate animal-derived foods. They provide an overview of its applications and evaluate whether combining isotopic analysis with other markers enhances the reliability and robustness of food authenticity testing. A total of 135 studies covering
fish and seafood, meat, eggs, milk and dairy products were reviewed, assessing the relationship between isotopic ratios and factors such as geographical origin, feeding practices, production methods and seasonality.
The authors state that various environmental and biological factors influence the isotope abundances of both light and heavy elements in animal tissues and secretions, creating a distinct fingerprint that can be used to detect food fraud in the animal-derived food chain. Recent research advancements have demonstrated that stable isotopic ratios of light elements can effectively determine the geographical origin, diet and production system (organic vs. conventional, wild vs. farmed) of animal-based food products such as milk and dairy, meat, fish and seafood, and eggs. However, integrating isotopic analysis with other inorganic markers appears essential to enhance reliability and address potential confounding results.
Future advancements in analytical technologies and big data processing are expected to facilitate the development of detailed isotopic maps of foods. The dissemination of these maps through comprehensive databases would represent a major breakthrough in modern food traceability systems for animalderived products. Such progress would improve the efficiency of food inspection and control, strengthen food safety standards, enhance transparency and regulatory compliance, and ultimately safeguard the integrity of the food supply chain.
Source: Varrá MO, Zanardi E, Serra M, Conter M, Lianieri A and Ghidini S (2023) Isotope Fingerprinting as a Backup for Modern Safety and Traceability Systems in the Animal-Derived Food Chain, molecules 28, 4300, https://doi. org/10.3390/molecules28114300.
Dr Djin Gie Liem is an Associate Professor, Dr Yada Nolvachai is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Dr Dan Dias is a Senior Lecturer. All are at CASS Food Research Centre, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University f
The importance of effective and efficient sanitation in food processing: a critical component to food safety
Words by Karin Blacow
Sanitation in food processing is not just a regulatory requirement but a fundamental pillar that ensures the safety and quality of food products. Effective and efficient sanitation practices are crucial in preventing contamination, safeguarding public health, and fostering a strong food safety culture. This article delves into the significance of sanitation in food processing and its role in achieving food safety and quality.
Preventing contamination
One of the primary objectives of sanitation in food processing is to prevent contamination. Contaminants can be biological, chemical, or physical, and can pose significant risks to food safety and
adversely impact food quality. Biological contaminants include bacteria, which can cause foodborne illnesses or lead to product spoilage. Chemical contaminants might involve cleaning agents, pesticides, or unintended allergens, while physical contaminants could be foreign objects such as metal or plastics.
Effective sanitation practices help mitigate the risk of contaminants in food processing environments. This includes routine cleaning and disinfection of food processing equipment, tools, and the environment, as well as periodic deep cleaning. By achieving and maintaining a clean environment, food processors can significantly reduce the risk of contamination and ensure that the food products are safe and with the expected shelf life.
Controlling microbial growth
Microbial control is a critical aspect of sanitation in food processing. Microorganisms such as Listeria, Salmonella, Campylobacter, yeasts, and moulds can proliferate in food processing environments, leading to spoilage and foodborne illnesses. Effective sanitation practices are essential in controlling microbial growth and ensuring food safety and quality.
Routine cleaning and sanitising of equipment, tools and the environment helps to control microbial contamination. Additionally, maintaining proper temperature and humidity levels in processing areas is critical to minimising microbial growth. Implementing a solid environmental monitoring program will help detect early contamination of the environment and allow it to be addressed promptly.
Enhancing product quality
Sanitation also plays a vital role in enhancing the overall quality of food products. Contaminants can affect the taste, texture, and appearance of food, leading to inferior products that do not meet consumer expectations. By maintaining a clean processing environment, food processors can ensure that products are of the highest quality.
Moreover, effective sanitation can extend the shelf life of food products. Contaminants can accelerate spoilage and reduce the time that products remain safe for consumption.
Fostering a strong food safety culture
A robust food safety culture is integral to the success of sanitation efforts in food processing. It involves integrating a sanitation mindset into everyday practices and decision-making at all levels of the organisation. To set sanitation up for success, leadership is key and food safety representation in the leadership team is required. A clean
factory, clean equipment and clean processing environment foster a mindset of good hygiene and tie into food safety culture.
Strong sanitation programs
Sanitation programs should be specifically designed to manage the risk associated with the product, the equipment and the environment. The program should include a routine sanitation process, which happens daily or weekly, depending on the product and risk, as well as periodic cleaning to manage build-up in areas that cannot be reached during routine sanitation. These areas can be hygienic design flaws in equipment that need periodic attention, or in the environment such as overhead structures, floors or walls.
A strong program ensures that the investment in production results in a high-quality final product. Many are seeking a magic bullet to make facility cleaning way faster and easier, but the truth is it comes down to the tried-and-true methods we have been following for decades. The most
successful process follows a sevenstep sequence, and the importance of a well-sequenced process is often underestimated.
While a successful sanitation program starts with leadership, knowledge, training, coaching, providing fit-for-purpose tools and sufficient resources, implementing equipment that is hygienically designed is the next most important and enabling element for success.
Conclusion
Effective and efficient sanitation in food processing is a critical component of food safety. It controls microbial growth, prevents contamination, enhances product quality and fosters a strong food safety culture as a result. Sanitation must be prioritised to protect consumers and uphold the integrity of the product.
Karin Blacow is Senior Food Safety Specialist at Commercial Food Sanitation f
Sustainable packaging trends, priorities and recommendations
Words by Dr Alexandria Gain and Dr Janet McColl-Kennedy
An astounding 29 million metric tonnes of plastic is expected to end up in the ocean each year by 2040.1 As concerns over plastic pollution rise, sustainable packaging offers a compelling solution. Businesses can significantly reduce their environmental footprint by embracing packaging made from recyclable, compostable, or renewable resources and by leveraging innovative design processes to optimise packaging efficiency.2 Sustainable packaging is not only good for the planet; businesses can benefit by being more attractive to consumers who are now paying more attention to the sustainability of the food and beverages they consume.3 Leveraging sustainable packaging is especially relevant to businesses in the food and beverage sector, irrespective of whether they are small, medium or large.
Understanding the key sustainable packaging trends and opportunities in the Australian food and beverage ecosystem is critical to equipping businesses to respond appropriately and plan ahead. This will support the
transition to a circular packaging economy.
Australia’s Food and Beverage Accelerator (FaBA) is committed to driving growth and innovation in Australia’s food and beverage sector by co-creating solutions to address complex industry challenges and thereby enabling commercial success. FaBA researchers recently undertook a systematic review of the latest market, industry and government publications (20192024)4 to serve as a comprehensive guide for stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding sustainable packaging solutions.
The comprehensive review included publications released by food and beverage and packaging peak bodies, leading management consultancy firms, market research agencies, government and non-governmental agencies, and food and beverage and packaging industry news.
Drawing on machine learning and natural language processing (NLP) techniques to analyse the publications, researchers uncovered 12 key sustainable packaging trends, along with their associated challenges and opportunities. The trends were grouped into four key priority areas.
Four priority areas and corresponding twelve key trends
1. Governing waste for sustainable packaging development
• Trend 1: Regulating packaging waste focuses on regulatory actions, bans on problematic plastics, and extended producer responsibility schemes to manage waste effectively
• Trend 2: Committing to end plastic pollution highlights global partnerships, commitments, and agreements aimed at reducing plastic pollution
• Trend 3: Facilitating systemwide packaging transformation emphasises industry leadership, coordinated action, and a shared vision to drive sustainable packaging transitions
• Trend 4: Capturing economic value from circularity explores strategies to close the loop on waste and capture economic value from recovery.
2. Designing packaging for circularity
Trend 5: Designing for recycling encourages the use of recyclable packaging and the development of recycling programs and services
Trend 6: Designing for composting promotes the adoption of compostable packaging and the establishment of composting standards
Trend 7: Designing for reusing advocates refillable and returnable packaging and systemic reuse initiatives.
3. Leveraging packaging design for sustainable food life cycles
Trend 8: Packaging to reduce food waste focuses on product protection, innovative packaging solutions that extend shelf life, and offering convenience and labelling to aid consumer food waste reduction.
Trend 9: Packaging to reduce emissions recognises the role of packaging in reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the food value chain.
Trend 10: Packaging to support conscious consumption emphasises packaging that facilitates informed decision-making and enables sustainable consumption behaviours.
4. Innovating technologies for sustainable packaging development
Trend 11: Advancing next-gen recovery concentrates on the development of advanced recycling technologies and providing feedstocks for new plastics. Trend 12: Advancing bio-based packaging solutions focuses on leveraging research and adoption of packaging materials derived from renewable resources, including biodegradable bioplastics. The report provides specific recommendations for the food and beverage sector.
• Recommendation 1: Establish collaborative partnerships to build capacity to underscore the importance of fostering multistakeholder partnerships to enhance innovation, identify joint solutions, and address disparities in knowledge and resources among stakeholders in the food packaging ecosystem. This recommendation encourages collaborative efforts between academia, businesses, and government to drive sustainable packaging transitions. Involving key industry players across the life cycle, such as food and beverage manufacturers, plastics manufacturers, supermarkets, and waste remediation services, can help to ensure that circular packaging solutions are practical, scalable, and address challenges like recyclability, infrastructure limitations, and high costs for smaller businesses.
• Recommendation 2: Embrace an ecosystem mindset to facilitate collective action to emphasise the need for collective action and systemwide change towards circularity. By recognising the importance of governance and facilitation, stakeholders can work together to achieve shared goals and overcome barriers to sustainable packaging adoption. Establishing regulatory frameworks and encouraging stakeholder participation across the packaging value chain can help align roles, goals, and incentives, building a more coordinated transition to circularity.
• Recommendation 3: Leverage data analytics and digital technologies to develop and improve solutions to highlight the potential of data and digital technologies in creating and enhancing sustainable packaging solutions. This recommendation encourages the use of data analytics and digital technologies to inform decision-making, optimise packaging designs, and improve recycling and recovery processes. For example, technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain can enhance tracking, authentication, and waste management, while smart sensors and intelligent robotics can help close the loop on waste and pollution.
• Recommendation 4: Invest in R&D to boost ‘win-win’ sustainable packaging innovation to stress the importance of research and development in driving the emergence of novel packaging solutions that address multiple sustainability goals and trade-offs. Innovative approaches such as product concentrates in powder and tablet forms help reduce packaging waste, emissions, and food waste, while new materials derived from food by-products, develop packaging from resources that would otherwise go to waste.
• Recommendation 5: Accelerate efforts to scale up sustainable packaging solutions to emphasise the need for agility, willingness to learn, and reimagining business models to scale new technologies across sectors, regions, and stakeholders. This includes addressing key barriers to adoption, such as costs, infrastructure, and enhancing versatility, and investing in scalable solutions, such as compostable packaging, nextgeneration recycling technologies, and bio-degradable bioplastics to achieve a circular packaging economy.
In conclusion, the report offers a comprehensive overview of sustainable packaging trends, priorities and actionable recommendations. By focusing on the four priority areas and implementing the five recommendations, the Australian
food and beverage sector can make significant strides in achieving sustainable packaging development and contributing to the broader transition to a circular economy. This article is based on the newly released report: Gain, Alexandria, M., Janet R. McColl-Kennedy, Edgar Brea and Macarena Tabilo (2025). Sustainable Packaging Trends Report: Opportunities to support the transition to a circular packaging economy in the Australian food and beverage ecosystem.4
References
1. Lau, et al. (2020), Evaluating Scenarios Toward Zero Plastic Pollution, Science, Volume 369, Number 6510, pp.1455-1461.
2. Saveth, Bradley (2023), Embracing Sustainability: The Rise of Eco-friendly Packaging Solutions, Forbes June Newsletter. https://www.forbes.com/councils/ forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/06/23/embracingsustainability-the-rise-of-eco-friendly-packagingsolutions/#:~:text=Sustainable%20packaging%20 not%20only%20aligns,logistics%20and%20improved%20operational%20efficiency.
3. Brea, Edgar, Janet McColl-Kennedy, Damian Hine and Ellen Derbyshire (2023), Global Food and Beverage Trends Report: Opportunities to unlock innovation in the Australian food and beverage sector, Innovation Pathways Program, Australia’s Food and Beverage Accelerator (FaBA), The University of Queensland. 56pp. ISBN No. 978-174272-422-5, DOI 10.14264/cc5c67a https://faba. au/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023.12.07Global-Trends-Report.pdf
4. Gain, Alexandria, M., Janet R. McColl-Kennedy, Edgar Brea and Macarena Tabilo (2025), Sustainable Packaging Trends Report: Opportunities to support the transition to a circular packaging economy in the Australian food and beverage ecosystem, Innovation Pathways Program, Australia’s Food and Beverage Accelerator (FaBA), The University of Queensland, 72 pages. https://faba.au/wpcontent/uploads/2025/04/FaBA-SustainablePackaging-Trends-Report_Final-Formatted.pdf
Dr Alexandria Gain and Professor Janet McColl-Kennedy are from the Innovation Pathways program at FaBA which is hosted by The University of Queensland in collaboration with partners QUT and the University of Southern Queensland, as part of the Federal Government’s Trailblazer Universities program to build new research capabilities, drive commercialisation and invest in industry engagement opportunities. For more information, contact Professor Janet McCollKennedy: j.mccoll-kennedy@business. uq.edu.au; https://about.uq.edu.au/ experts/284 f
Unlocking consumer acceptance of novel foods: insights and implications
Words by Syuzanna Mosikyan, Dr Armando Maria Corsi, Dr Rebecca Dolan and Dr Susan Bastian
Current food industry challenges
The food industry, along with current production systems, faces challenges on a global scale. Climate change is inducing severe weather patterns, directly impacting soil fertility, crop yields and the nutrient composition of foods.1 Simultaneously, the world’s population is projected to reach 10 billion by 2050, amplifying concerns over the scarcity of animal protein from traditional sources such as livestock, poultry and fish, as well as escalating dietary risks.1,2 Furthermore, current food production systems are significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, phosphorus pollution, biodiversity loss and ethical concerns surrounding animal welfare.2
Novel foods as a solution
In the face of all the aforementioned challenges, the introduction of novel foods with enhanced safety, nutritional value, production efficiency and environmental sustainability has emerged as a promising solution.1–3
Novel foods encompass newly developed food products, traditional foods new to specific regions, and items produced through innovative technologies.4–6 Examples include plant-based meat alternatives, insect proteins, genome-edited plants and cultured meats (see Figure 1 for additional examples).
However, despite their potential benefits, consumer acceptance of novel foods remains complex and fragmented. Our research explores the key barriers and facilitators shaping the adoption of some of the most prominent novel food types. The findings provide actionable
insights for food scientists, industry professionals and policymakers to drive innovation and acceptance in the food sector.
Trending novel food types
Technological innovations dominate research: Recent research highlights a strong focus on technology-driven advancements such as genetically modified and genome-edited (eg. CRISPR-Cas9) foods and cultured meats.7 These innovations, integral to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, are driving the transition towards more sustainable food systems.8 They reflect a shift towards more mindful consumer choices, a transition towards digitalised production processes, and the rise of novel foods that prioritise nutrition, sustainability and reduced health risks. Rising popularity of plant-based alternatives: Products such as plantbased dairy and meat substitutes
are gaining significant traction driven by their perceived health benefits and lower environmental impact. This trend also supports the evolving consumer preference towards healthier, environmentally and economically sustainable products. At the same time, it signals a growing scarcity of traditional protein sources and the need to diversify protein options. In this context, insects have emerged as a leading alternative protein source, researched in many studies exploring their use in forms ranging from whole insects to processed products. The main reason for such interest is their sustainability—offering high nutritional value with significantly lower environmental impact.9,10
Key barriers to consumer acceptance of novel foods
The acceptance of novel foods is influenced by a variety of biological, psychological and sociocultural factors. Here, we focus on the most impactful barriers and explore strategies to address them effectively.
Personality traits – such as food innovativeness and curiosity – play a critical role in shaping consumer behaviour toward novel foods.
The most significant personality trait predicting rejection towards novel foods is food neophobia, the tendency to avoid unknown or unfamiliar foods.7,11 It is particularly prevalent with technology-based foods, such as genetically modified products and cultured meat, presenting a significant challenge to acceptance.
Consumer perceptions such as perceived unnaturalness and usefulness of novel foods strongly influence consumer behaviours towards these products. Risk perception is another decisive factor influencing consumer decision-making,11,12 especially for foods associated with advanced technologies such as genetic modification.13 Interestingly, risk perception in this case is often shaped by consumer attitudes towards technological advancements.
For example, individuals who view scientific progress as beneficial tend to perceive genetically modified foods as less risky and more advantageous.13
Affects and emotional responses significantly influence consumer perceptions and decision-making regarding novel foods. Disgust is a primary emotion that drives unconscious evaluations, often leading to rejection.11 This is particularly evident with regionally unfamiliar foods, such as insects in Western cultures, as well as with artificial meat, genetically modified foods and lab-grown milk.12
Strategies for enhancing acceptance
1. Education and communication with positive framing: Consumers often lack awareness of novel food production processes and hold misconceptions about their environmental impact, which
can hinder acceptance.12 To encourage adoption, it’s essential to educate consumers while using positive framing to emphasise the benefits—both personal (eg. health advantages) and environmental (eg. reduced carbon footprints and sustainable sourcing).14,15 Emphasising sustainability and personal well-being can resonate with eco-conscious consumers, positively shaping their attitudes and increasing acceptance of novel foods.
2. Leveraging trust: For consumers to adopt novel foods, they need to trust the information provided.16 This can be achieved by partnering with trusted organisations and offering evidence-based narratives from sources such as consumer organisations or independent journalists, rather than solely relying on industry or government messages.17 Building trust is
Figure 1: Examples of plant-based meat alternatives, insect proteins, genome-edited plants and cultured meats.
crucial for forming positive attitudes toward novel foods.
3. Brand and product package design choices: Brand elements and product packaging play a significant role in influencing consumer perceptions, especially when novel foods are introduced. For example, displaying unfamiliar ingredients on the packaging may trigger negative reactions. Therefore, it is advisable to pre-test packaging and communication elements to identify those that evoke positive emotions. Carefully chosen design elements can encourage a more favourable reception of the product.18
4. Cultural tailoring and contextualisation: Developing regionspecific campaigns that respect cultural norms and dietary habits can significantly improve adoption rates. For instance, emphasising the environmental benefits of insect consumption in regions where this practice is already familiar can enhance acceptance and reduce one of the key inhibitors—disgust.
5. Leveraging familiarity through sampling: Exposure to novel products before making a purchasing decision has been proven to increase familiarity and acceptance.19 Offering samples can be an effective marketing strategy for introducing novel foods to the market and building consumer confidence.
The road ahead
As the food industry adapts to the challenges of climate change, sustainability and food security, the acceptance of novel foods will play a pivotal role. By addressing key barriers such as personality-driven factors, risk perceptions and emotional reactions, stakeholders can craft communication strategies that address misconceptions and emphasise the positive attributes of these products. Investment in consumer education will be essential in fostering acceptance. Additionally, leveraging machine learning and behavioural data can support adoption by predicting
consumer trends and informing targeted marketing strategies.
The pathway toward mainstream adoption of novel foods requires collaboration across sectors. Food industry leaders should align innovations with consumer expectations and evolving preferences, policymakers should implement clear regulatory frameworks to enhance transparency and build consumer trust, and researchers should continue to explore new ways to understand consumer behaviour. With these combined efforts, novel foods have the potential to evolve from niche innovations to integral components of a sustainable global food system.
References
1. Hassoun A, Bekhit AE, Jambrak AR, Regenstein JM, Chemat F, Morton JD, et al. The fourth industrial revolution in the food industry—part II: Emerging food trends. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2022;0:1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398. 2022.2106472.
2. Motoki K, Park J, Spence C, Velasco C. Contextual acceptance of novel and unfamiliar foods: Insects, cultured meat, plant-based meat alternatives, and 3D printed foods. Food Qual Prefer 2022;96:104368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodqual.2021.104368.
3. Giacalone D, Jaeger SR. Consumer acceptance of novel sustainable food technologies: A multicountry survey. J Clean Prod 2023;408:137119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137119.
4. European Commission. What is Novel Food? 2023. https://food.ec.europa.eu/safety/novelfood_en (accessed November 20, 2023).
5. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Regulation of novel foods. 2024. https://www. foodstandards.gov.au/industry/novel/Pages/ default.aspx (accessed August 10, 2024).
7. Mosikyan S, Dolan R, Corsi AM, Bastian S. A systematic literature review and future research agenda to study consumer acceptance of novel foods and beverages. Appetite 2024;203:107655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107655.
8. Hassoun A, Cropotova J, Trif M, Rusu AV, Bobis O, Nayik GA, et al. Consumer acceptance of new food trends resulting from the fourth industrial revolution technologies: A narrative review of literature and future perspectives. Front Nutr 2022;9.
9. Gumussoy M, Macmillan C, Bryant S, Hunt DF, Rogers PJ. Desire to eat and intake of ‘insect’ containing food is increased by a written passage: The potential role of familiarity in the amelioration of novel food disgust. Appetite 2021;161:105088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appet.2020.105088.
10. Hopkins I, Farahnaky A, Gill H, Newman LP, Danaher J. Australians’ experience, barriers and willingness towards consuming edible insects as an emerging protein source. Appetite 2022;169:105832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appet.2021.105832.
11. Monaco A, Kotz J, Al Masri M, Allmeta A, Purnhagen KP, König LM. Consumers’ perception of novel foods and the impact of heuristics and biases: A systematic review. Appetite 2024;196:107285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107285.
12. Siegrist M, Hartmann C. Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nat Food 2020;1:343–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016020-0094-x
13. Rodríguez-Entrena M, Salazar-Ordóñez M. Influence of scientific–technical literacy on consumers’ behavioural intentions regarding new food. Appetite 2013;60:193–202. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.09.028.
14. Aschemann-Witzel J, Peschel AO. How circular will you eat? The sustainability challenge in food and consumer reaction to either waste-to-value or yet underused novel ingredients in food. Food Qual Prefer 2019;77:15–20. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.04.012.
15. Bieberstein A, Roosen J, Marette S, Blanchemanche S, Vandermoere F. Consumer choices for nano-food and nano-packaging in France and Germany. Eur Rev Agric Econ 2013;40:73–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/ jbr069.
16. Siegrist M. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends Food Sci Technol 2008;19:603–8. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2008.01.017.
17. Yang Y, Hobbs JE. The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication. Am J Agric Econ 2020;102:1271–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ajae.12078.
18. Aschemann-Witzel J, Varela P, Peschel AO. Consumers’ categorization of food ingredients: Do consumers perceive them as ‘clean label’ producers expect? An exploration with projective mapping. Food Qual Prefer 2019;71:117–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodqual.2018.06.003.
19. Custódio M, Lillebø AI, Calado R, Villasante S. Halophytes as novel marine products – A consumers’ perspective in Portugal and policy implications. Mar Policy 2021;133:104731. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104731.
Ms Syuzanna Mosikyan is a PhD candidate in Wine Business and Sensory Science. Dr Armando Maria Corsi is an Associate Professor in Wine Business, the Director of the Wine Business Group and the Discipline Leader – Marketing at the University of Adelaide Business School. Dr Rebecca Dolan is an Associate Professor of Wine Business and Marketing at the University of Adelaide Business School, and the Associate Dean (International) of the Faculty of Arts, Business, Law and Economics (ABLE). Dr Susan Bastian is an Associate Professor in Oenology and Sensory Science at the School of Agriculture, Food and Wine. All are at the University of Adelaide.
The research outlined here was originally published as: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda to Study Consumer Acceptance of Novel Foods and Beverages. Appetite, Volume 203, 1 December 2024, 107655 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107655 f
High pressure processing of RTE lupin meals: untapped potential for prepared foods
Words by Mr David Fienberg, Mr Shankar N. Mutkule and Dr Nivedita Datta
Approximately 85% of the world’s production of the low-alkaloid lupin, known as Australian Sweet Lupin (ASL), originates from Western Australia, where narrow-leafed lupin (L. angustifolius) is cultivated.1 In contrast, southern Europe and South America grow the bitter, high-alkaloid white lupin (Lupinus albus). ASL, a leguminous crop, is recognised for its exceptional nutritional and functional properties, making it a sustainable and versatile food.
Nutritionally, ASL contains a negligible amount of starch, is high in protein (30-40%) and fibre (2530%), low in carbohydrate and fat, and has a low glycaemic index. It is
gluten-free and non-GMO. These attributes make it an ingredient that can assist in appetite suppression, control of blood sugar, lowering of blood pressure, and, as a good source of prebiotic fibre, it can contribute to bowel health by promoting good bacteria in the gut.
ASL contains gamma-conglutin (γ-C), a glycoprotein and the bioactive γ-C -peptide, which are produced in the gut after consumption of ASL and work as an insulin mimetic.2
While ASL offers these health benefits, only 28% of Australians regularly consume legumes,3 and the consumption of ASL specifically remains low. A negligible number of ASL-based ready-to-eat (RTE) foods or meals are currently prepared by thermal treatment and have a short shelf-life (two-three days) in refrigerated storage (Figure 1). High-
pressure processing (HPP), is widely applied in other food processing sectors, however, the application of HPP to lupin processing generally remains unexplored and requires research and validation. This technique, when used for lupinbased products, can extend the product shelf life while preserving their sensory and nutritional integrity during processing.
HPP has achieved commercial success in producing RTE meat and rice products. Beginning in 2010, Moira Mac’s was the first company to commercialise HPP-RTE meats in Australia. A significant step in the HPP process is the inactivation of pathogens in packaged cooked products, as pathogens can remain active even after cooking, or can affect the product if it becomes contaminated after cooking. The
Figure 1: Ready-to-eat Australian sweet lupin based products.
opportunity of post-lethality treatment of pathogens, such as Listeria monocytogenes in packaged cooked meat by using HPP, has opened a new horizon to the food industry.
The application of HPP in other food product areas has resulted in remarkable growth, however, similar efforts and developments have not occurred in ASL-based meals. Currently, there are no commercially available HPP RTE-ASL products and there remains a significant knowledge gap in applying this novel technology for ASL products.
This article’s objective is to fill this gap by discussing HPP’s potential for preparing RTE-ASL meals and looking at strategies for overcoming some of the current obstacles.
Potential of HPP for producing ready-to-eat ASL products
High-pressure treatment of food is usually achieved in the range of 400-600 Megapascal (MPa) at room temperature or slightly higher. The pressure itself causes only a slight rise in the food’s temperature. Process times are short, usually between two and 30 minutes. Microbial inactivation is caused by the impact of pressure only and it is known as a non-thermal technology.
Although HPP foods have attracted huge public attention, there has not been any application of HPP in preparing ASL-based products. Ready-to-eat products such as ASL pancakes, ASL meals with rice, and ASL fresh pasta have the potential to benefit from high-pressure processing (HPP).
The key potential advantages of HPP for ASL-based RTE products include:
• A significant reduction of further heating of cooked ASL products, thus avoiding further thermal degradation
• Flavour and nutrients (eg. vitamins) in ASL meals are attached by covalent bonds only and remain intact after HPP
• Extended shelf-life (compared to non-HPP RTE meals).4
HPP for ASL-based RTE meals
The application of high pressure at 500-600MPa for 5-20 minutes on RTE-ASL meals following refrigerated storage resulted in the inactivation of pathogenic E. coli, Listeria, Salmonella, and Clostridium at 5-6 log level, underscoring the potential of HPP in assisting in the commercialisation of these products. Therefore, the development of a blueprint for producing RTE-ASL meals utilising HPP is of utmost importance for having these novel products available in the refrigerator aisles of supermarkets.
As there is no literature available on HPP process conditions for RTE-ASL meals, the chosen process criteria are based on 1) products with similar composition and 2) inactivation data for target organisms. The target organisms were either pressureresistant or known to be present in lupin meals. These criteria were identified after critically analysing the available research data on the use of HPP for RTE meals. Table 1 shows the high-pressure processing conditions of RTE-ASL meals.
The inactivation of pathogens during HPP was based on the results for E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes in RTE-ASL meals.
The processing parameters of HPP RTE-ASL rice have been adopted after critically analyzing the research data of HPP on chickpeas.5 Chickpeas and ASL are similar legumes, both contain high levels of dietary fiber and protein and have a low glycaemic index (GI).6
In 2012 a USDA standard regulation procedure described that E. coli O157:H7, the most pressure-resistant strain, needs to be inactivated as a 5-log during HPP of RTE meals. Pressures up to 600MPa and holding for between 5-20 minutes at 4-250C can inactivate most vegetative bacteria including pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes and E. coli O157:H7 population by more than 5 logs.4 Most yeast and mould spores are totally inactivated at HPP of 400MPa for five minutes at 200C7 and these processing conditions were considered in RTE-ASL bread and pancake.
Processing stages
The seven main stages of processing for HPP RTE-ASL meals are shown in Figure 2. These stages arepreparation, cooking and packaging followed by product loading, vessel pre-filling, pressurising and product unloading. ASL meals or foods that are subject to pressure treatment need to be packaged in suitable material before they are processed. The headspace in the packaging needs to be a minimum for controlling the distortion of the packaging. Vacuum packed polypropylene, polyethylene pouches, films and trays are typically used to transmit the pressure without structural damage occurring in the ASL foods. Application of highpressure treatment of desired Megapascal (400-600MPa) with an appropriate holding time at
Name of Product Preparartion Processing conditions MPa/time(minutes)
ASL pancake Pancake with lupin flour
400/5 at 20°C
ASL plain bread Lupin bread with 100% lupin flour 400/5 at 20°C
ASL rice Lupin flakes (21%), Basmati rice (71%), shredded coconut (3%), ginger, turmeric, cumin etc. (3%), salt (1.5%). This premix cooked for 10 minutes.
ASL falafel Lupin falafel is made from a mix of ground lupin beans, fresh herbs and aromatic spices.
ASL dahl Lupin dahl was prepared similarly to lentil soup (Concentrated)
600/5 at 4°C
600/5 at 4°C
600/5 at 25°C
Table 1: Processing conditions of HPP-RTE ASL based meals.
Figure 2: The stages of HPP-RTE ASL-based product.
the required temperature on the packaged ASL products, using a high-pressure pilot plant where water is used as a pressure transmitting medium in the vessels. In addition to the seven stages outlined above, the remaining three stages are compression, holding and decompression. After the decompression step, the RTE-ASL products are ready to eat or be distributed to retail outlets.
HPP toll processing facility
The high cost of HPP equipment (from USD$600,000 to USD$4 million) can limit its availability to food processors. To help overcome this, an HPP toll processing facility was developed by the original equipment manufacturers to enable commercial production of HPP products by small and medium-scale food manufacturers. Additionally, companies that own HPP equipment offer HPP tolling to other food companies or research groups by sharing their excess or spare production capacity.8
Examples of this include Preshafoods Pty Ltd in Derrimut, Victoria and Moira Mac’s in Bendigo East, also in Victoria.
Conclusion
High-pressure processed RTE ASLbased products offer a variety of
functional and nutritional attributes, are convenient, minimally processed and have good shelf-life. RTE ASLbased products have the potential to develop as a niche market, providing unique opportunities and challenges to the Australian food industry. While equipment costs can be a limiting factor in the commercial use of this novel technique, we propose that this can be resolved through the use of HPP toll processing. Furthermore, the combined and concerted efforts of ASL processors, highpressure equipment manufacturers and research organisations will be important in bringing these novel products to the supermarket aisle.
References
1. Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council (GLNC). Lupins. https://www.glnc.org.au/legumes/ types-of-legumes/lupins/
2. Bryant L, Rangan A, Grafenauer S. (2024). Lupins and health outcomes: A systematic literature review. Nutrients,14(2):327. https:// doi.org/10.3390/nu14020327
3. Reyneke G, Hughes J, Grafenauer S. (2022). Consumer understanding of the Australian dietary guidelines: Recommendations for legumes and whole grains. Nutrients, 14(9):1753. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14091753
4. Inanoglu S, Barbosa Cánovas GV, Sablani SS, Zhu MJ, Keener L, Tang J. (2022). High‐pressure pasteurization of low‐acid chilled ready-to-eat food. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 21(6):4939-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13058
5. Chatur P, Johnson S, Coorey R, Bhattarai RR, Bennett SJ. (2022). The effect of highpressure processing on textural, bioactive and digestibility properties of cooked Kimberley large kabuli chickpeas. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9:847877. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnut.2022.847877
6. Kouris-Blazos A, Belski R. (2016). Health
benefits of legumes and pulses with a focus on Australian sweet lupins. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 25(1):1-7. https://doi. org/10.6133/apjcn.2016.25.1.23
7. Woldemariam HW, Emire SA. (2019). High pressure processing of foods for microbial and mycotoxins control: Current trends and future prospects. Cogent Food & Agriculture 5(1):1622184. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2 019.1622184
8. Lawrence I, Jung S. (2020). HPP as an innovation tool for healthy foods. In Present and future of high-pressure processing, pp. 187-200. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B9780-12-816405-1.00008-X
Mr. David Fienberg is the Founder, Managing Director and Chief Lupineer at The Lupin Co. www.thelupinco.com.au
Mr Shankar N. Mutkule is a PhD candidate and is working in molecular biology of lupin in the Paul Hebert Centre for DNA Barcoding and Biodiversity Studies (PHCDBS) of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Maharashtra, India.
Dr Nivedita Datta is a researchactive food scientist who worked with high pressure processing at University College Cork and teaches functional foods and emerging technologies at universities in India and Australia. Currently she is a deputy editor of the International Journal of Dairy Technology (IJDT) and Assistant Director of the PHCDBS. f
Food safety risk assessment: part 2 - triggers for undertaking a rapid risk assessment
Words by Deon Mahoney and Dr Dipon Sarkar
In the January-March 2025 issue of food australia, we provided an overview of the risk analysis process, focussing on the steps undertaken in a risk assessment.1 The content largely related to formal risk assessments undertaken to identify regulatory approaches to addressing and ultimately managing those emerging microbiological and chemical hazards.
For food industry professionals operating within processing environments, risk assessments need to be performed in a timely manner to address an urgent problem or a shifting situation. They require different strategies and approaches depending on the nature of the issue but can be broadly grouped into:
• Changes in ingredients, suppliers, or packaging material
• Introduction of a new technology or changes to a processing operation
• Follow-up of a process or product failure
• Changes in an agricultural production practice
• Changes in environmental conditions through climate change
• Changes in consumer demographics.
Many of the formal third-party food safety management programs require processors to undertake risk assessments to assess hazards associated with, for example, the introduction of new ingredients, new suppliers, or changes in water sources. The revised Codex Alimentarius Commission Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) guidelines now state that during the hazard analysis step, a food manufacturer should identify the hazard, the likelihood of its occurrence and the likelihood and severity of adverse health effects.2 While this change has blurred the lines between hazard analysis and risk assessment, they remain fundamentally different and separate processes.
Hazard analysis versus risk assessment
Hazard analysis was adopted as the first principle of the HACCP system. It encompasses qualitatively identifying and analysing information on hazards associated with the foodstuff under consideration, with little specification on how to perform this task. The challenge has always been that HACCP teams would identify a plethora of hazards, without information on their likelihood of
occurrence. This complicated the task of focussing on which hazards were significant and needed to be addressed in the HACCP plan.
Recent changes to the HACCP Guidelines (General principles of food hygiene CXC 1-1969), effectively expand hazard analysis to include estimates of their likelihood and severity, in order to focus attention on those hazards of most significance to public health and safety.
Whilst determining the likelihood and severity of a hazard eventuating is crucial, the full process of risk assessment involves a more detailed and structured evaluation, which focusses on first identifying and characterising a specific hazard, determining the consumer exposure, and integrating this information to produce a risk characterisation. The output can be qualitative, quantitative, or a combination of both. The risk assessor needs significant time and resources, along with full access to the scientific literature and detailed data on the food, the hazard, and dose-response models in order to interrogate modes of exposure to the hazard.
Rapid risk assessments
The food industry operator is often faced with a situation that calls into question the safety of an ingredient, process or product. With limited time or resources, they are required to make a recommendation on whether to accept a raw material or ingredient, release a product to the market, or explore the need to withdraw or recall a product from the market.
This requires the operator to undertake a rapid risk assessment, where the focus is on the likely consumer exposure to the hazard rather than on hazard identification and characterisation. They already know the hazard should not be present in the ingredient, the processing environment or the finished product. The task is to determine the likelihood that an identified hazard may be present in a final product, estimate the exposure of consumers, and generate guidance on how it can be managed, without
delay. In this situation, the food safety operator is both a risk assessor and a risk manager.
A rapid risk assessment scenario
The risk assessor must assemble all the relevant information quickly and efficiently. This is best achieved by assembling a small team with appropriate knowledge of the product, manufacturing and distribution. It is expedient to utilise a template to assist in gathering and collating information, and in identifying gaps ahead of any interpretation of the risk.
In this example, Listeria monocytogenes is confirmed in a ready-to-eat food that has been released into the market. The decision on whether to initiate a recall is shown in Table 1 - the information identifies what is known.
Given the severity of this pathogen to vulnerable populations, and the manufacturer’s low-risk appetite, further assessment of the risk is justified. This needs to consider the consumer, the product’s shelf-life, and how the product is handled, stored and consumed. Further consideration of the test results is also warranted. This requires an exposure assessment to gather intelligence on the above issues as shown in Table 2. Given the time-sensitive nature of decisions, and the fact that a product containing L. monocytogenes is in the marketplace, a manufacturer with a strong food safety ethos would recall this product. With laboratory confirmation of the pathogen in food, the relevant food regulator would have been informed and they too will have interest in the results of the risk assessment.
In the next edition of food australia, we will focus on exposure assessments, resources and tools, and databases available to support risk assessment.
References
1. Sarkar, D. and Mahoney, D. (2025). Food safety risk assessment: part 1 - risk assessment primer. food australia, 77 (1), 41-42. https://bit. ly/3QOWiZZ
2. FAO and WHO (2023). General Principles of Food Hygiene. Codex Alimentarius Code of Practice, No. CXC 1-1969. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc6125en
Scenario – what we know Next step
The issue
Listeria spp. has been found in a test sample of ready-to-eat (RTE) food which has been released to market
The product
This RTE food will not support the growth of L. monocytogenes
Finished product specification: pH 4.4, Aw 0.92
Regulatory requirements
Does the level of contamination exceed limits in the Food Standards Code – food that will not support growth of this pathogen may contain up to 100 L. monocytogenes/gram
Test results imply L. monocytogenes may be present, so the first step is laboratory confirmation of the species
Review production records and test retention samples from the affected batch
What we determined
PATHOGEN DETECTED
L. monocytogenes confirmed in the food (qualitative test)
MEETS SPECIFICATIONS
No anomalies with production and the Implicated batch meets specifications
Retest the product to determine if it meets the limit of n=5, c=0, m= <100 L. monocytogenes/gram
COMPLIANT WITH CODE
The product is found to be compliant
1: Details of the scenario and the required information gathering for a risk assessment.
Exposure assessment Details and observations
Consuming public General public: including vulnerable consumers (the young, the elderly, pregnant women, and immunocompromised individuals)
Shelf life
The product has a shelf life of 30 days – labelled as a use-by-date –how much time remains?
Will the attributes of the product change during storage e.g. will spoilage organisms change the pH
Handling This is a refrigerated product and should be stored between 0-5°C
Is there a chance it may be subjected to temperature abuse?
Consumption The product is sold in a 200-gram, single serve pack
Test results
Qualitative testing found L. monocytogenes present in the product
Quantitative testing found <100 cfu/gram (the limit of detection)
What we know
At-risk consumers may be exposed
Consumer understanding and adherence to use-by-dates varies
Little change in product attributes during its shelf-life
Opportunities for temperature abuse exist along the supply chain and in the household
200 grams represents a significant exposure to L monocytogenes if the count is around 100 cfu/gram
Listeria may be unevenly distributed throughout a batch of product
Quantitative enumeration of L. monocytogenes in food with low level contamination is poor, indicating a higher uncertainty of measurement
Table 2: Essential elements of exposure assessment for the scenario.
Dr Dipon Sarkar is a food safety consultant working at Victual. Deon Mahoney is a food safety consultant at DeonMahoney Consulting, an Adjunct Professor
in the School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability at the University of Queensland and is Scientific Advisor at AIFST. f
Table
Grow, Learn, Connect and Champion: register now for AIFST25
The 2025 AIFST Convention will be held on 12 and 13 August at the Crown Promenade in Melbourne. The annual event brings together Australia’s food science and technology community for two days of cutting-edge insights, industry connections and professional growth.
The theme for AIFST25 is Grow, Learn, Connect and Champion. It is designed to spark fresh ideas, foster collaboration, and ignite conversations about building a more sustainable, resilient and inclusive agrifood system for the future. Through engaging sessions and dynamic discussions, attendees will gain valuable insights into the evolving landscape of food science and technology—empowering them to expand their knowledge, learn from experts, and connect with likeminded professionals dedicated to shaping the future of food.
Building on the huge success of AIFST24, this year’s Convention promises even more opportunities to grow, learn and connect. Over the two days with plenary and concurrent session streams, attendees can expect more than 50 scientific and food industry speakers from across
the agrifood sector. Key topics covered will include food safety, advances in health and nutrition, sensory and consumer science, food security and resilience, advanced food manufacturing, food policy and regulation, innovation and sustainability.
The many benefits to attending AIFST25 include:
• Networking opportunities: the Convention provides an excellent platform for networking with professionals, experts and leaders in food science and technology
• Knowledge enhancement: stay updated on the latest trends, research and innovations in the food science and technology field. This knowledge can enhance your understanding, broaden your perspectives and provide valuable insights into industry best practices
• Continuing Professional Development (CPD): gain CPD points, acquire new skills, enhance your existing capabilities and keep pace with emerging industry requirements
of the food industry, including academia, research organisations and businesses. This environment fosters collaboration and partnership opportunities, enabling you to connect with potential collaborators, suppliers, distributors or clients
• Stay ahead of industry trends: get the latest insights into emerging trends, challenges, and opportunities within food science and technology. By staying informed, you can proactively adapt your strategies, products and services to meet evolving consumer demands, regulatory changes, sustainability requirements and other industry developments.
Whether you work in food manufacturing, research, industry, or are a student, AIFST25 is the must-attend event for anyone in the agrifood sector.
• Collaboration and partnership opportunities: bringing together professionals from various sectors
Register now to secure your spot! Stay updated on the latest program and speaker announcements by visiting the dedicated AIFST25 Convention page on our website: https://www.aifst.asn.au/AIFST2025-Convention.
Join us this August to Grow, Learn, Connect and Champion!
What does a food regulator do?
Words by Robin Sherlock
Australian food regulation requires a unique depth and breadth of skills. The field extends well beyond traditional roles within government agencies and departments, playing a critical role in helping the food industry navigate the complexities of ensuring a safe and sustainable food system.
Food regulation in Australia covers a range of areas including food safety, consumer protection, biosecurity and market access with the broader application extending to animal welfare and environmental impact. It plays an essential role in safeguarding public health and ensuring food is safe for consumption.
Government roles
Roles within government organisations include developing, implementing, and ensuring compliance with food standards, addressing microbiological and chemical hazards, labelling and packaging, food additives and contaminants, and examining novel foods and processes. Food scientists and technologists in government contribute to scientific risk assessments, evaluations of emerging risks, assessing novel products and developing processes to enhance the food system.
Positions vary, from those on the ground working with producers and manufacturers to data scientists modelling dietary exposure or microbiological risk. The role of regulators extends to biosecurity, agricultural chemicals and residues and beyond domestic supply to import and export commodities. Professionals with a background in
microbiology, chemistry, toxicology, environmental health, nutrition, epidemiology, statistics, data analysis and modelling all contribute to various regulatory roles at state and federal levels of government. In addition, having industry experience is crucial to ensure the approach of the food regulatory system reflects real-world challenges and implications for industry.
Food scientists and technologists bring expertise to policy decisions, ensuring they are based on the latest research. They evaluate evidence related to emerging food safety issues, such as genetically modified foods, new food technologies, and foodborne diseases, ensuring that emerging trends in consumer preferences (think plant-based or functional foods) adhere to food safety guidelines.
As the food ecosystem expands, the knowledge and skills required broaden as well. There is an increasing need for professionals to ensure that food safety, quality and compliance are maintained in the private sector.
Agribusiness roles
The responsibility for quality assurance and food safety within the agribusiness sector sits with food safety professionals and is integral to ensuring that food and food products meet regulatory standards. These professionals are responsible for inspecting, monitoring, and auditing and work with producers, processors and regulators to maintain highquality products that meet food safety regulations. Food scientists
and technologists research and develop new ingredients, products and processes and ensure they meet safety and quality standards. They collaborate closely with regulatory authorities to ensure that new food innovations comply with existing regulations and are safe for consumers.
Corporate roles
Within businesses, specialists working in regulatory affairs play a key role in interpreting legislation and guidelines, and ensuring that products are compliant with regulations. They also provide expert advice and evaluate scientific evidence on a diverse range of issues.
I have been privileged to work in the regulatory environment alongside government and industry colleagues with diverse expertise. Their skills span laboratory analysis, metrology and data analytics, as well as environmental science, animal health and aquaculture. Additionally, many bring practical skills in auditing and risk assessment, all of which are essential to effective food regulation. The most important skill sets are those that are truly portable and include critical thinking, an understanding of scientific principles and a collaborative approach to multidisciplinary troubleshooting.
Highly skilled professionals with qualifications in food science and technology play a critical role in food regulation in Australia contributing to government policy development and assisting business compliance. Expanding cross-disciplinary skill sets including complex data analysis and predictive modelling will move us to a regulatory environment that goes beyond compliance to a forwardthinking, proactive environment that protects the complex Australian food ecosystem. If you want to work at the dynamic interface of science and safety, come join the world of food regulation.
Robin Sherlock is Principal Science Officer at Safe Food Production Queensland. f
Take your career to the next level
The AIFST CPD program is designed to empower you with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in the ever evolving agrifood sector.
How do I get involved?
To be a part of the CPD Program, you just need to be a member of AIFST. Visit the AIFST website for more information.
