OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF AIFST JULY – SEPTEMBER 2024
Precision fermentation set to revolutionise food production systems
75 years of advancements in food safety management & &
The health benefits of Kakadu Plum
UNSW humanitarian food science & technology student engagement
At Hygiena®, our mission is to create innovative diagnostics for a healthier world, offering critical solutions that uphold safety and quality standards across various industries. Our extensive product suite includes the SureTrend® data analysis platform, ATP cleaning verification, allergen detection, molecular diagnostics and product quality tools. These solutions are designed to help you see the bigger picture and make timely decisions to protect your customers and your brand.
We significantly enhance hygiene, quality and safety within industries such as food and beverage processing and manufacturing, healthcare and hospitality. Our commitment to innovation and excellence is embodied in our best-in-class One Health Diagnostics™ solutions, which span the entire food value chain from farm to table. Hygiena believes in the close connection between human health and the health of animals within our shared environment. Our molecular rapid tests and analysis tools for food and beverage safety, veterinary diagnostics and environmental monitoring help prevent illness, save lives and contribute to a safer world. As a global leader in rapid
diagnostic tests, we ensure our solutions are reliable, easy to use, accurate and supported by industry-leading customer service. Headquartered in Camarillo, California, Hygiena has a significant global presence with numerous offices and customer application centers across the Americas, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. We also partner with over 180 distributors in more than 100 countries worldwide, ensuring our innovative tools reach a global audience.
Our new Sydney location, equipped with a spacious warehouse and modern office facilities, demonstrates Hygiena's reinforced dedication to serving the food and beverage industry in Australia, New Zealand and the broader Southeast Asian region. This strategic expansion aims to position Hygiena at the frontline of service delivery, fully staffed with specialists in Sales, Operations, Technical Services and Customer Support to ensure seamless and prompt regional service.
Our evolving portfolio, featuring sample collection and handling, ATP, lateral flow, PCR and ELISA assays, alongside sophisticated data analysis software, is designed to meet the diverse testing demands of the
animal health and food and beverage safety sectors. This new venture in Australasia supports our vision of fostering healthier global communities and stimulating local economic growth.
Local clients in Australia now benefit from direct ordering through Hygiena Australia, ensuring exceptional technical support, superior customer service and a tailored product range. The Sydney branch offers the complete spectrum of Hygiena's offerings, central to our mission of building genuine, direct relationships with clients and delivering unmatched value and support. This expansion seamlessly integrates into our One Health Diagnostics™ ethos, providing a comprehensive solution for both food and veterinary diagnostic needs, solidifying our commitment to enhancing food safety and quality worldwide.
For more information about Hygiena Australia and its services, please visit: www.hygiena.com/ australia
10 Kakadu Plum powder as a functional ingredient for gut health
A traditional Australian food with health and nutrition attributes
14 Seventy-five years of advancing food safety Reflections on the parallel histories of food australia journal and food safety management
20 Twenty years of allergen management excellence: tracing the path of collaboration The development of best practice food allergen management in Australia
23 food australia – a journal for the times Celebrating 75 years as a voice for food science and technology
26 A roadmap for bioplastics adoption in food packaging Considerations in the adoption of compostable plastics in food packaging
30 Scale-up of precision fermentation processes – challenges and opportunities The application of industrial biotechnology in the food sector
34 Harnessing synthetic biology to revolutionise food manufacturing Precision fermentation - a promising emerging technology
40 Revolutionising food ingredient production: UQ's custom-built bioreactors Infrastructure to support advancement in product and ingredient development
42 Integrating humanitarian food science and technology: food security and sustainable development UNSW students contribute to World Food Program initiative
45 Food chemistry: core knowledge with the potential for specialisation Insight into the world of food chemistry
Published by The Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Limited.
Editorial Coordination
Melinda Stewart | aifst@aifst.com.au
Contributors
Dr Benu Adhikari, Dr Oladipupo Adiamo, Dr Geoffrey Annison, Dr Jayashree Arcot, Sava Arsenijevic, Dr Colin Barrow, Dr Andrew Costanzo, Dr Dan Dias, To Fan, Dr Mehran Ghasemlou, Natalie Hayllar, Mariko Terasaki Hart, Dr Wendy Hunt, Oliver Jackson, Dr Snehal Jadhav, Dr Alice Lee, Dr Tom Lewis, Dr Djin Gie Liem, Dr Joe Liu, Deon Mahoney, Agnes Mukurumbira, Dilka Rashmi Peiris, Dr Kalana Peiris, Renuka Peiris, Peikun Qi, Jay Sellahewa, Robin Sherlock, Dr Yasmina Sultanbawa, Kornpol Suriyophasakon, Andrew Tilley, Junias Tjanaria, Dr Thomas Vanhercke, Frances Warnock, Dr Luke Williams, Dr David Wollborn.
Advertising Manager
Clive Russell | aifst@aifst.com.au
Subscriptions
AIFST | aifst@aifst.com.au
Production
Bite Communications
2024 Subscription Rates
Australia $145.00 (incl. GST); Overseas (airmail) $225.00. Single copies (Australia) $36.50 (incl. GST); Overseas $56.50
food australia is the official journal of the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Limited (AIFST). Statements and opinions presented in the publication do not necessarily reflect the policies of AIFST nor does AIFST accept responsibility for the accuracy of such statement and opinion.
Editorial Contributions
Guidelines are available at https://www.aifst.asn.au/ food-australia-Journal
Original material published in food australia is the property of the publisher who holds the copyright and may only be published provided consent is obtained from the AIFST. Copyright © 2018 ISSN 1032-5298
AIFST Board
Chair: Dr Michael Depalo
Deputy Chair: Dr Gregory Harper
Non-executive directors: Dr Angeline Achariya, Dr Anna Barlow, Mr Marc Barnes, Dr Heather Haines, Ms Melissa Packham.
AIFST National Office
PO Box 780
Cherrybrook NSW 2126
Tel: +61 447 066 324
Email: aifst@aifst.com.au
Web: www.aifst.asn.au
This issue of food australia marks a significant milestone anniversary for the journal – 75 years as a voice for food science and technology –quite an amazing achievement!
Celebrating 75 years of food australia, we reflect on the journal's rich history and its pivotal role in advancing food science and technology in Australia.
From its inception to now, food australia has achieved numerous milestones notably fostering collaboration among food scientists and agri-food industry professionals.
food australia has always been more than just a journal; it has been a platform for food science professionals, encouraging collaboration and knowledge sharing across a broad range of disciplines.
The journal plays an important role in supporting the AIFST mission: To advance and inspire all food sector professionals through education, collaboration, and recognition to champion a robust, innovative science based Australian agri-food industry to meet future food needs.
We extend our heartfelt gratitude to all the editors, authors, reviewers, and readers who have been part of food australia's journey. Your contributions and support have been invaluable.
As we celebrate the past 75 years, we also look forward to the future challenges and opportunities the agri-food sector has in store for food science and food scientists and technologists, continuing our mission to support and inspire the next generation of food science heroes!
As you read this special anniversary edition, please take some time to reflect on the importance of sound food science – it is essential for ensuring the safety, quality, and sustainability of the food supply. It plays a vital role in protecting public health, supporting economic development, and promoting a healthier, more sustainable future.
Join us in celebrating 75 years of excellence in food science and technology. I invite you to share your memories on our social media platforms or email us at aifst@aifst.com.au
Fiona Fleming B. App Sc (Food Tech); MNutr Mgt; FAIFST Chief Executive Officer fiona.fleming@aifst.com.au
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has released the results of its first Consumer Insights Tracker (CIT) survey.
The survey is intended to provide a mechanism for understanding consumer attitudes, understanding and trust in food labelling and the food regulatory system in Australia and New Zealand.
The CIT will be an annual, online survey of approximately 1,200 Australian and 800 New Zealand consumers aged 18+ years. It is based on a nationally representative sample by the interlocked quotas of age, gender and location. The survey consists of 42 quantitative questions that measure consumer trust and confidence in the food system, use and understanding of food labelling, attitudes and consumption intentions around new and emerging foods, and food safety perceptions and behaviours.
The new survey found that consumers rate nutrition above other food values such as naturalness, convenience and country of origin, with almost threequarters (73%) of Australian and New Zealand consumers putting effort into maintaining a healthy diet.
The CIT survey also found consumers look for food labels that can help them identify nutritious foods and make good dietary choices.
The survey asked questions across domains that covered:
• Trust and confidence in the food supply and FSANZ
• Health and dietary behaviours
• Use, understanding and trust in food labelling
• Food safety knowledge and concerns
• New and emerging foods and food technologies
• Demographics.
The survey included core questions that will be repeated annually to collect trend data, alongside questions to provide point-in-time data on current food safety topics and issues.
72% had confidence in the safety of the food supply
83% of people surveyed trusted farmers and food producers making them the most trusted sector
40% only trust voluntary front-of-pack labelling such as claims about health benefits
70% of people trust mandatory backof-pack food labelling such as the nutrition information panel and ingredients list
73% put effort into maintaining a healthy diet, including looking for food labels to identify nutritious food
59% nominated foodborne illness as their key food safety concern
Source: Source: FSANZ (2023) Consumer Insights Tracker 2023. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/science-data/socialscience?mc_cid=0dbbb4c7f4&mc_eid=f172913bd2
John Hinton Bassett Christian was a pioneer in our profession and a wonderful gentle man, with an optimistic outlook on life and concern for the well-being and success of colleagues. He contributed to the development of many concepts and techniques that are now everyday tools for food safety professionals. John was one of the world's most respected food microbiologists and helped build the reputation of Australian food science through research and leadership.
After serving in the RAAF during World War II, John completed a BSc Agr with First Class Honours. He gained a PhD from Cambridge University in 1956 and worked at CSIRO from 1951 until retirement in 1990.
John and other Australian scientists pioneered the concept of water activity (aw) in food preservation and safety. When John joined CSIRO he worked with
W J Scott, who was investigating microbial growth in dried, concentrated or salty environments. Two papers published in 1953, one by Scott and the other by Christian and Scott, were the world’s first to use the concept of water activity to describe the influence of water availability on microbial growth.
John played a major role in the creation of robust scientific frameworks for food safety and associated sampling, analysis and regulation. Probably his greatest sense of enjoyment and achievement involved his work with the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF). John was a member of the Commission from 1971-91 and Chair from 1980-91.
John spent seven years as Chief of the CSIRO Division of Food Research where he provided successful leadership during a turbulent period of large funding reductions.
John received many honours, including an AO in the 1987 Queen’s Birthday Honours and the AIFST Award of Merit in 1984. He had strong connections with AIFST and the John Christian Young Food Microbiologist Award is presented annually in his honour.
For accuracy and professionalism
Australia has lost a passionate nutrition researcher, food composition pioneer and teacher with the recent passing of Dr Heather Greenfield, aged 84.
Heather was born in Sunderland, UK and studied at Bedford College, University of London, completing a Bachelor of Science (Hons) in Zoology and Physiology.
A full-time research position at Chester Beatty Cancer Research Institute paved the way for a PhD degree in Physiology and Nutrition at Queen Elizabeth College, University of London.
Heather accepted a short-term consulting position with the FAO in Rome after completing her PhD in 1970. She then worked on energy requirements for pregnancy and lactation for women agricultural labourers at the Institute of Medical Research in Papua New Guinea. Following a lecturer position at the University of PNG she worked at the Garvan Institute in Sydney and, in 1976, became the first female academic in Food Science and Technology at UNSW.
Heather’s interests in nutrition were humanitarian and health oriented. One of her major contributions was producing food composition data for Australian foods, with many papers published in Food (Technology in) Australia. Heather set the ball rolling for sourcing Australian data rather than using overseas data.
Her work with the South Pacific Commission managing a regional program for producing Pacific food composition data was also significant. Her first textbook - Food Composition Data: Production, Management and Use - is still used by database compilers more than 30 years after its first release in 1992.
Heather retired from UNSW in 1998 as Associate Professor but continued to lecture and supervise PhD students until 2020 as Adjunct Professor. Her work on Vitamin D and bone health in China was also significant, with several publications and citations. She was a Fellow of FSANZ, AIFST and the Nutrition Society of Australia. For more information see: https://www.smh.com.au/ national/nsw/formidable-nutritionist-and-feminist-tookhealthcare-to-remote-regions-20240321-p5fe7m.html
• Containers • jars • tubes • measuring vessels • plates and dishes • blender bags • spoons • spatulas and scoops • crushers • blenders • homogenisers
• stirrers, • shakers • hot plates • centrifuges
digesters
water baths
balances
extractors.
2. CHEMISTRY
• Wet chemistry • chromatography • filtration and electrochemistry • buffers • acids • solvents • volumetric solutions standards
indicators
• allergens • quantitative and qualitative analysis • general microbiology
• pathogenic organism analysis.
3. MICROBIOLOGY
• Dehydrated media / pre-poured plates • enzymatic kits • colony counters • microscopes
• spectrophotometers • Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) tests.
AIFST is pleased to welcome three new non-executive directors (NEDs) to the Board. Dr Angeline Achariya, Dr Anna Barlow and Melissa Packham were each appointed for a three year term at the 2024 AGM held on 30 May, 2024. The Board is responsible for steering the strategic direction of the Institute, sound governance and providing the necessary experience relevant to the Institute and supporting food science professionals in the science of feeding our future.
For more information on the role of the Board, see the AIFST Board Charter here: https://tinyurl.com/vfm7ab55
Dr Angeline Achariya
Angeline is looking forward to bringing her skills, experience and passion for the Australian food industry to her Board role at AIFST where she has been supporting as thought leader and speaker at conferences and workshops including mentoring of graduates and early career food scientists.
Angeline, a global luminary in industry and commercialising innovations, currently leads as the
Dr Anna Barlow
Anna is a dynamic and motivational leader with a passion for innovation in the food and agritech sectors. With a PhD in natural products
CEO of Innovation GameChangers, Australian Chair of AgriFood Innovation and Senior Advisor at Beanstalk AgTech. She has more than 25 years’ experience in multinationals such as J R Simplot, Mondelez International, Yum Brands, Fonterra, Mars Corporation and Monash University.
Angeline’s impact in the agrifood sector has been profound. She cofounded Monash Food Innovation as a world first industry collaborative hub in Mondelez International with the Victorian Government. The hub’s continued success 11 years on, and impact across the sector connecting industry, research, government enabled SMEs, startups and corporates to scale their innovations for sustainable growth in domestic and international markets.
Having commercialised 1,200+ innovations globally in agribusiness, FMCG, foodservice and e-commerce, she is a trailblazer. Rooted in her agricultural upbringing, Angeline
chemistry from the University of Otago, New Zealand, Anna’s career has evolved from academia through to executive roles for multinational food and beverage companies such as Asahi Beverages, JDE Coffee, Mondelez International and Kraft Foods working in NZ, Australia, Europe and the UK. Anna has led global corporate technology and R&D programs and led Asia Pacificwide commercialisation programs in chocolate, coffee, biscuits, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages.
As Partner, Food & Agri Innovation at Startupbootcamp (SBC), Anna leads SBC’s food and agritech startup and scaleup accelerator FoodTech Tasmania and works with multiple
champions a sustainable agrifood system. Her advice and mentorship extend to startups, SMEs and individuals. Beyond boardrooms, Angeline is an international speaker, influencing discussions on resilient agrifood system innovation, the future of food and Australian exports. In 2024, LinkedIn recognised her as a global top voice for her leadership and influence.
Angeline studied food science and technology and was awarded the AIFST Malcolm Bird Award in 2000. She has a BSc (Hons), a PhD, GCert Bus Mng and is a Fellow of AIFST and GAICD.
Her commitment to creating value-added products that resonate with consumer and planetary needs makes her a force for positive change. Angeline’s journey is an inspiration – a testament to the transformative power of collaborative passion and dedication to a connected, sustainable world.
corporate and Rural Research and Development Corporation (RDC) clients across the food and agritech sector.
Anna also serves as NED and Secretary at FermenTasmania, where she connects SMEs, corporates and the academic sector, playing a crucial role in shaping the future of Tasmania’s new fermentation coworking manufacturing, R&D and learning facility. She also serves as a NED at Australia Vinegar, bringing expertise in leadership, R&D and innovation.
Anna is highly collaborative, with strong dot-connecting and people leadership capability. Anna enjoys working with teams to maximise
their strengths, leveraging her Facet5 and TeamScape accreditations in personality trait-based profiles for team building and leadership
Packham
Melissa Packham is an experienced strategist, communicator and advisor with a 20-year track record spanning the corporate, SME and startup sectors. She brings a unique blend of business strategy and brand and marketing management expertise, championing sustainable practices, systems thinking and challenging ‘business as usual’.
Throughout her career, Melissa
coaching.
Known for her energetic, authentic and motivational leadership style and exceptional stakeholder management
has managed growth for prominent household brands, including Campbell’s, Arnott’s, IceBreak and OAK. Responsible for multimilliondollar budgets, she has consistently delivered bottom-line results and led award-winning campaigns.
Since 2016, Melissa has been consulting independently and now leads Brand-Led Business, a boutique firm aiding SMEs across a number of sectors including food and beverages, consumer products, B2B, Software as a Service (SaaS) and professional services.
With a double Bachelor's degree in Business (Marketing) and Arts (Humanities), and as a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, she combines branding expertise and strategic acumen with a strong moral compass. As a Climate Fresk facilitator and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Certified Professional, she demonstrates her commitment to real-world sustainability and ESG risk
skills, Anna’s ability to nurture talent, negotiate effectively and empower teams has made her a respected mentor and coach in the industry.
management.
Recognised for her collaborative nature, empathy and warmth, Melissa highly values teamwork. Beyond her professional endeavours, Melissa cherishes her role as a mother to one, and can be found indulging in her eclectic taste in music or enjoying long walks by the river in Meeanjin (Brisbane).
She recognises that she owes her career to her start in food and sees the crucial role that food plays in a sustainable future. She looks forward to supporting AIFST in its mission to support food industry professionals to meet future food needs.
AIFST thanks our retiring NonExecutive Directors - Julie Cox and Bronwyn Powell - for their commitment and passion to the Institute and the agri-food sector more broadly. f
Terminalia ferdinandiana, commonly known as Kakadu Plum (KP) in English and by a number of regional Aboriginal language names, is a traditionally used plant that is native to Australia.
Various Aboriginal communities of Australia have used KP as part of their traditional diet and also as a medicinal plant. The KP is a small green stone fruit that is tart to taste. While the fruit is small in size (Figure 1), it possesses extremely high levels of ascorbic acid and has been used by Aboriginal communities for tens of thousands of years for its ‘superfood’ qualities. Pounded KP fruits are used to treat headaches, alleviate cold and flu symptoms, serve as an antiseptic and act as a soothing balm for aching limbs.1,2
The inner bark of the tree is pounded into a paste for application on skin infections and ulcers, or it can be gently rubbed on the body to relieve tiredness.3 The medicinal properties of KP are attributed to various bioactive compounds. Interestingly, the fruit is among the richest known sources of vitamin C, containing about 50 times the vitamin C levels found in citrus fruits.4,5,6
The fruit is also a source of flavanols, or flavanones,4 and is rich in phenolic compounds with
antioxidative properties, gallic acid and ellagic acid,7 than commercial fruits such as pomegranates and strawberries.8 Phenolic rich extract of KP has shown significant antiinflammatory, antioxidant and chemopreventive activities in vitro.9,10 These findings collectively support the traditional medicinal use of KP.
Although consuming polyphenolic compounds such as ellagic acid and ellagitannins in fruits and vegetables is linked to health benefits, the bioavailability of these compounds is limited in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract and moves to colon, where they undergo biotransformation by gut microbiota into smaller molecular weight compounds or metabolites that can easily be absorbed.11 Animal and human studies have shown that gut microbiota ferments polyphenols such as chlorogenic and caffeic acid into simpler, absorbable phenolic compounds.12 The human gut microbiota is a complex ecosystem with thousands of bacteria species. Its composition varies between individuals due to differences in diet, health, genetics and age.13
Phenolic metabolites from gut microbes are believed to contribute significantly to the health
benefits of polyphenols. Therefore, understanding the biotransformation of polyphenols by gut microbiota is crucial to determining the health benefits of polyphenol-rich plant products.
Generally, KP is used as a functional ingredient in powdered form. A recent in vitro study on KP powder revealed that colonic fermentation of 5g of the powder for 48 hours enhances the production of healthy metabolites, particularly ellagic acid, gallic acid and pyrogallol, exhibiting strong antioxidant properties (Figure 2). However, the most potent metabolites, urolithins, from microbial degradation of ellagic acid was not observed in the study.14 This absence was attributed to the potential lack of three specific human GI anaerobes (Gordonibacter urolithinfaciens Gordinobacter pamelaeae and Ellagibacter isourolithinfaciens) in the donor’s faecal sample.15 Further investigation into the health benefits of KP powder should consider using pooled faecal samples from at least three donors for colonic fermentation and identifying the gut microbiota responsible for the biotransformation of the polyphenols.
In addition to polyphenols, KP fruit is a remarkable source of fibre, polysaccharides and pectin, which could act as a significant prebiotic
agent. The addition of KP, particularly at 3% concentration, enhanced the growth of Lactococcus lactis 537 during milk fermentation and improved nisin production (Figure 3) which is crucial for a healthy gut system.16
As a wider variety of functional and food-based products are developed from the KP fruit, there is increasing concern as to whether these newly developed products meet food safety regulatory guidelines. Since 2008, the KP fruit has been recognised as ‘traditional’ and ‘not novel’ by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods (ACNF) at Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).17 While this recognition of ‘not novel’ means that a business that supplies KP fruit does not have to apply to amend The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code),18 it is also not a recognition of safety. In fact, the ACNF explicitly states that their determination is not a premarket safety assessment and that their determination of whether a food is novel or not is not legally binding.19 Therefore, the onus of proof to ensure consumer safety is on the supplier. It is also important to point out that this recognition of ‘not novel’ only applies to the fruit itself and its traditional use as a whole fruit. Newly developed products that greatly increase the concentration of bioactive components through processing techniques, such as freezedried powders or extracts derived from the KP fruit, begin to deviate from the original traditional food use and therefore may be deemed ‘novel’ under the Novel Foods framework.18 In such cases, it is paramount that suppliers of these newly developed products are aware of the food safety regulations and are confident that their products are not endangering consumers.
This question around consumer safety and what qualifies as a novel or traditional food is not isolated to KP but is a question that is increasingly being raised throughout the wider
) hypothetical pathways.14
native foods industry.20 As a greater range of products are developed from traditionally used native plants, there is a need to increase the awareness of the food regulatory requirements.
Aboriginal communities in Northern and Western Australia have been harvesting KP for thousands of years and there is great potential for the health benefits of this ‘superfood’ to bolster the nutritional content of
mainstream diets. However, the major issues preventing the upscaling of the KP industry are the lack of consistent supply and quality control.21 Since the vast majority of available KP is still wild harvested, supply chains are at the whim of seasonal and environmental variations which impact year-to-year pollination rates and fruit set.21 The Northern Australia Kakadu Plum Alliance (NAAKPA) is a cooperative of Aboriginal-owned companies supplying KP fruit and extracts for the Australian market.
Figure 3: Antimicrobial activity of nisin-producing Lactococcus Lactis 537 against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC9144 in UHT milk with (a) control (no prebiotic), (b) 1% KP, (c) 3% KP, (d) 1% KP pectic oligosaccharides.16
NAAKPA has been empowering an Aboriginal-led value chain for the supply of this culturally significant fruit and working with collaborators on ways to increase the consistency and yield of harvests.
As a larger range of KP-based food products and food applications are developed, it is important to ensure that an Aboriginal-led value chain is maintained. Supporting an Aboriginal KP value chain within Australia ensures that the Traditional Custodians of the KP, who have been using this fruit for tens of centuries, can lead the development of their culturally important species upon their homelands and prevent the continued exploitation of their knowledge.
References
1. Lim, T.K. (2012). Terminalia ferdinandiana, in Edible Medicinal And Non-Medicinal Plants 2012, Springer Netherlands. p. 158-160.
2. Wiynjorrotj, P. et al. (2005). Jawoyn Plants and Animals, ed. J. Galmur. 2005, Northern Territory, Australia: Jawoyn Association, Northern Territory Government.
3. Conservation Commission of the Northern
Territory, Traditional Aboriginal medicines in the Northern Territory of Australia 1993, Darwin: Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory of Australia.
4. Konczak, I., et al. (2010). Antioxidant capacity and hydrophilic phytochemicals in commercially grown native Australian fruits. Food Chem, 123(4), 1048-1054.
5. Williams, D.J., et al. (2014). Profiling ellagic acid content: The importance of form and ascorbic acid levels. Food Res Int, 66, 100-106.
6. Brand, J., et al. (1982). An outstanding food source of vitamin C. The Lancet, 320(8303), p. 873.
7. Akter, S., Hong, H., Netzel, M., Tinggi, U., Fletcher, M., Osborne, S., & Sultanbawa, Y. (2021). Determination of ellagic acid, punicalagin, and castalagin from Terminalia ferdinandiana (Kakadu plum) by a validated UHPLC-PDA-MS/MS methodology. Food Anal Methods, 14, 2534-2544.
8. Landete, J. M. (2011). Ellagitannins, ellagic acid and their derived metabolites: A review about source, metabolism, functions and health. Food Res Int, 44(5), 1150-1160.
9. Bobasa, E. M., Phan, A. D. T., Netzel, M. E., Cozzolino, D., & Sultanbawa, Y. (2021). Hydrolysable tannins in Terminalia ferdinandiana Exell fruit powder and comparison of their functional properties from different solvent extracts. Food Chem, 358, 129833.
10. Tan, A.C., et al. (2011). Native Australian fruit polyphenols inhibit COX-2 and iNOS expression in LPS-activated murine macrophages. Food Res Int, 44(7), 2362-2367.
11. Aravind, S. M., Wichienchot, S., Tsao, R., Ramakrishnan, S., & Chakkaravarthi, S. J. F. R. I. (2021). Role of dietary polyphenols on gut microbiota, their metabolites and health benefits. Food Res Int, 142, 110189.
12. Stalmach, A., et al. (2009). Metabolite profiling of hydroxycinnamate derivatives in plasma and urine after the ingestion of coffee by humans: identification of biomarkers of coffee consumption. Drug Metabolism Disposition 37(8), 1749-1758.
13. Kumar, M., et al. (2016) Human gut microbiota and healthy aging: Recent developments and future prospective. Nutr Healthy Aging, 4(1), 3-16.
14. Adiamo, O. Q., Bobasa, E. M., Phan, A. D. T., Akter, S., Seididamyeh, M., Dayananda, B., ... & Sultanbawa, Y. (2024). In-vitro colonic fermentation of Kakadu plum (Terminalia ferdinandiana) fruit powder: Microbial biotransformation of phenolic compounds and cytotoxicity. Food Chem, 448, 139057.
15. Selma, M. V., Beltrán, D., Luna, M. C., RomoVaquero, M., García-Villalba, R., Mira, A., ... & Tomás-Barberán, F. A. (2017). Isolation of human intestinal bacteria capable of producing the bioactive metabolite isourolithin a from ellagic acid. Frontiers Microbiol, 8, 1521.
16. Almutairi, B., Turner, M. S., Fletcher, M. T., & Sultanbawa, Y. (2023). The impact of Kakadu Plum (Terminalia ferdinandiana) fruit powder and its pectic oligosaccharides on the growth, survival and antimicrobial activity of probiotic bacteria in milk. Food Biosci, 56, 103445.
17. FSANZ. (2024). Record of views formed in response to inquiries [Online]. FSANZ. Available: https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/ business/novel/novelrecs [Accessed 31/5/24].
18. FSANZ. (2017). Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code - Standard 1.5.1 - Novel foods [Online]. Available: https://www.legislation. gov.au/F2015L00403/latest/text [Accessed 31/5/24 1].
19. FSANZ. (2022). Novel foods [Online]. Foodstandards.gov.au. Available: https:// www.foodstandards.gov.au/business/novel [Accessed 31/5/22].
20. Williams, L. B., Jones, M. & Wright, P. F. A. (2023). Decolonising food regulatory frameworks: importance of recognising traditional culture when assessing dietary safety of traditional foods. Proc Nutr Soc, 1-14.
21. Cutting, B. T., Granger, A. & Saeki, P. (2022). Increasing returns to Kakadu plum growers through improved pollination. AgriFutures Australia, Publication no. 22-132.
Dr Oladipupo Adiamo is a Research Fellow at the ARC Training Centre for Uniquely Australian Foods, Centre for Nutrition and Food Science (CNAFS), QAAFI, University of Queensland (UQ), Brisbane, Australia.
Dr Luke Williams is a Research Fellow at the ARC Training Centre for Uniquely Australian Foods, CNAFS, QAAFI, UQ, Brisbane, Australia.
Professor Yasmina Sultanbawa is the Director of CNAFS, QAAFI and Director of the ARC Training Centre for Uniquely Australian Foods, CNAFS, QAAFI, UQ, Brisbane, Australia. f
Words by Deon Mahoney
As the pre-eminent publication on food science and technology in Australia, food australia (and its antecedent Food Technology in Australia) has reliably communicated the latest scientific and technical information and innovations impacting food industry professionals for threequarters of a century. From its first edition in August 1949 until today, the journal has strived to publish research findings, make known the latest advice and guidance, as well as provide a connection between the multi-disciplinary cast of personnel across the food supply chain.
The food science and technology landscape has changed considerably during these 75 years, and this journal has been at the forefront of communicating developments to the food industry and its collaborators.
A 1949 editorial proposed the journal as a medium for disseminating knowledge of value to the Australian food industry. The journal was under the stewardship of Professor Fritz Reuter of the University of New South Wales, who worked with a small editorial committee to create
a journal that would make a real contribution through abstracts, comments and critical reviews of literature.
Early editions drew attention to published content from across the world, rather than publishing technical articles, reflecting some of the scientific capacity at that time. A concern highlighted at the time was the perceived inability to access sufficient food technologists with the necessary skills and knowledge to take the food industry forward.
Hence in early editions of Food Technology in Australia, the focus was on the fundamentals of manufacturing and technology adoption, and not so much on the challenges of placing safe and nutritious food on the plates of Australian consumers. In fact, the food scientists of the 1940s and 1950s were concentrating on building and improving Australia’s food processing industry, addressing topics such as:
• Modern equipment to improve the efficiency of canning operations
• Cleaning and sanitation in the food industry
• Utilisation of waste products
• Rat infestation and control
• Control of mould wastage. Today the journal provides an allembracing source of intelligence for food scientists and technologists, promoting ideas, providing resources and supporting the industry with upto-date guidance.
Much was happening in the Australian food industry in the late 1940s. The food scientist and historian Keith Farrer described the period 19451955 as the decade of decision.1 There was the establishment of organised Food Technology Associations, the creation of tertiary courses in food technology to address skill shortages and industry professionals coming together in associations and institutes.
To address skills, a food technology diploma course commenced at the Sydney Technical College in 1947. Then in the 1950's, Hawkesbury Agricultural College established its food technology diploma focussing on modern trends in the canning of fruit and vegetables. The fee for the course was £64 per annum for tuition, board and lodgings (equivalent to $3,363 in
2023). Subsequently, courses in food, wine, and dairy technology were established at colleges such as Gatton Agricultural College, Roseworthy College, and the Gilbert Chandler Institute of Dairy Technology. Nowadays, there are more than 30 Australian institutions offering qualifications in food science and technology.2
Research activities were also gearing up, with CSIRO actively engaged in researching food preservation to meet growing export opportunities for Australian food. Plus in 1954 the Defence Science and Technology Group established its primary food research facility in Scottsdale, Tasmania. The unit undertook research in food science and nutrition and developed a range of specialised food products to meet the energy and nutritional needs of frontline personnel.
Internationally, journals such as the Food, Drug, Cosmetic Law Quarterly were launched in the late 1940s, publishing articles on procedures for appraising the toxicity of chemicals in foods, introducing the concept of food adulteration and highlighting the need for legislation to regulate the use of chemicals in foods. In 1946, Rutgers University in New Jersey established the Department of Food Science. It remains one of the leading research and teaching facilities for food scientists and technologists.
Around 75 years ago, the profession of food scientist and food technologist was taking off and gaining a standing in the community. There was a growing recognition of the opportunities to convert agricultural products into consumer products for both domestic and export markets. However, there were rising concerns regarding the way food safety was being regulated across the states and territories.
In the 1940s, the state of Victoria introduced legislation to make milk pasteurisation compulsory following an outbreak of milkborne typhoid fever in Moorabbin. This resulted
in heating times and temperatures being stipulated in the Victorian Milk Pasteurisation Act (1949). What followed was an increasing national focus on requirements designed to protect the health of consumers.
At that time each state was setting its own food regulations and standards, reaffirming that responsibility for food standards was the domain of the States following Federation. Attempts to frame uniform national food standards and avoid inconsistencies continued to be pursued but were not successful until 1952 when the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) agreed to work with the Council of Australian Food Technology Associations (CAFTA) to address differences in food and drug legislation between the States. This led to the NHMRC establishing the Food Standards Committee in 1954, and the drafting of proposals for uniform food regulations covering safe manufacture, food composition, packaging and labelling, storage, display, advertising and sale of food.
Over the next three decades, the Committee met regularly to consider and develop standards for a wide range of food commodities.3 Ultimately Australian health ministers agreed to the establishment of
Model Food Legislation and, in 1980, a Model Food Act was agreed to. It covered the offences relating to the hygienic preparation, labelling and sale of food.
Then in 1991, the National Food Authority Act was passed, establishing a National Food Authority (NFA) with responsibility for the preparation of unified food standards. Subsequently, this role evolved to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, and then to Food Standards Australia New Zealand.
Over the last 75 years, there have also been notable advancements in the way food safety is managed by the food industry. Quality control practices which reacted to defects in finished products, progressed to quality assurance programs, and eventually to quality management systems and the development of comprehensive food safety programs that the food industry has in place today.
During the 1960s the adoption of the hazard analysis critical control points (HACCP) system supported an effective and rational means of identifying and preventing hazards and assuring food safety along the food supply chain. The system was
originally created to support the provision of safe food for the Apollo space program and encompassed three guiding principles: conduct a hazard analysis; identify points where these hazards could be introduced; and determine how they could be prevented, controlled, or eliminated at each point. Over the past 60 years, HACCP has evolved to cover seven principles, which are designed to identify and control potential problems before they occur.
Alongside an increased focus on food control was the establishment of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) in 1963. The CAC is an international body established jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) to implement the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program. The objective of the CAC is the protection of consumer health and ensuring fair practices in food trade, through the creation of international food standards, guidelines and codes of practice.
The industry’s embrace of technology and innovation over the past 75 years to create our modern food supply has been breathtaking. Cutting-edge research in the second half of the twentieth century led to advances in dairy processing in Australia –including the introduction of spray drying and fluidised bed technology to improve the functionality of powdered milk, the mechanisation of cheese-making,4 and the introduction of ultra-high-temperature (UHT) processing. In other parts of the food industry, there were advances in freezing processes, canning technology, freeze drying, the application of irradiation, modified atmosphere packaging and more recently high-pressure processing. All these developments have resulted in improvements in the safety and quality of processed foods.
The challenges now faced by the food industry include how to maintain food safety, whilst
reducing waste, improving energy use and enhancing biodiversity and sustainability along the entire food supply chain.
Innovative technologies are supporting the development of biodegradable and eco-friendly packaging material, the production of cell-cultured meat, enhanced traceability along the food chain, genetically modified organisms and alternative protein sources. Real-time tracking enables food producers to match demand, and upcycling is keeping food out of landfills. Robots are replacing employees on farms and in food processing plants. Importantly, there is a need to ensure these innovations don’t compromise the safety of our food supply.
Australia has always possessed a rich research and development environment with scientists actively exploring ways to make our food supply safer. During the period from the 1960s to the 2000s research scientists such as John Christian, Bill Murrell and John Pitt at the CSIRO Division of Food Processing oversaw major advances in our understanding and management of microbiological hazards associated with our food supply.
They and other microbiologists such as Margaret Dick, Sue Dixon, Nancy Millis, Frank Fenner and Tom McMeekin have been front-runners in advancing food safety and public health through their research and stewardship. Australian scientists have provided leadership both locally and globally in bodies such as the CAC, Codex Committees and Expert Meetings, and the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF).
The challenges associated with the production of safe and suitable food in the 1940s are quite different from those of today. While we have observed improvements in food safety through the evolution of our regulatory system, structured
food safety management programs, advances in rapid testing and diagnosis and the use of technology, our burden of foodborne illness is still too high. Plus we have the challenge of feeding an ever-increasing global population which is projected to reach 10.3 billion by 2099.5
The uptake of technology to meet production demands, regulatory requirements and consumer expectations in the agri-food sector will continue into the future. The need to increase productivity and efficiency will change what we eat and how it is created. Sourcing food from sustainable and ethical sources will continue to be a high priority, along with an increased focus on food safety and the role of food in public health.
Changes to the global climate, the mounting emergence of antimicrobial resistance, the challenge of accessing clean water for agricultural production and increasing numbers of vulnerable consumers and people with special dietary needs mean we will need to double our efforts to better manage food safety and suitability.
1. K.T.H. Farrer (1987). Australian food science and technology: the decade of decision 19451955, Food Technology in Australia, 39, pp. 22-3
2. Institutions offering food-related qualifications https://www.aifst.asn.au/Universities-andCourses
3. NHMRC Health and national food standards: Case Study https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/ file/17490/download?token=05nTp-QE
4. R. Birtles (2020). Throwback Thursday: how we brought cheese to the world. https://blog.csiro. au/cheese-making-australia/
5. https://database.earth/population/bycountry/2099
Deon Mahoney is a food safety consultant at DeonMahoneyConsulting and is Adjunct Professor in the School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability at the University of Queensland. f
Global Strength. Local Action.
Put to work our technical ingenuity and industryleading portfolio to create future-forward nutrition solutions with flavours, colours, fibres, plantbased proteins, specialty ingredients and more. We bring more than a century of global expertise to Australia & New Zealand. Your Edge. Our Expertise.
A recent study led by Associate Professor Djin Gie Liem from Deakin University reveals a fascinating connection between online environments and our food preferences.
The research team found that imagining oneself in a calming nature setting can significantly increase the desire for healthy foods. This study involved 238 participants who assessed their cravings for various foods before and after being immersed in different virtual scenarios. The results showed that those who visualised themselves in a serene park-like environment showed a marked preference for nutritious, low-calorie options. In contrast, participants exposed to a hectic street scene reported a decrease in their appetite for these healthier choices.
This insight is particularly relevant today, as more people make food choices in online settings. The implications of this study could steer future strategies in promoting healthier eating habits through digital means. Deakin University's research opens a new chapter in understanding how virtual spaces can be designed to foster better nutritional decisions, paving the way for innovative approaches to public health and well-being.
Picky eating is characterised by a limited diet and avoidance of certain foods, which can lead to poor diet quality and health risks. While previous research has focused on the impact of smell and texture on taste perception, the role of colour on pickiness has remained largely unexplored.
A recent study conducted at the University of Portsmouth, UK, recruited 46 adult participants who were classified as picky eaters (n = 20) and non-picky eaters (n = 26) based on a Food Neophobia Scale questionnaire. The study aimed to determine the effect of contextual colour on food preference and flavour perception.
In the study, participants completed a food tasting task where they consumed the same snack (salt and vinegar chips) served in three different coloured bowls (red, blue and white). They rated these snacks on saltiness, desirability and flavour intensity. Results indicated that colour significantly influenced the perceived saltiness and desirability of the snack for the picky eaters, but not for the non-picky eaters.
The snack was rated by the picky
eaters as being saltier when served in the blue bowl and least salty in the white bowl. The snack was most desirable to the picky eaters in the blue bowl and least desirable in the red bowl. This suggests that the colour of the serving vehicle can affect food perception in picky eaters, offering potential interventions for those with restricted palates.
For professionals in the food industry, these findings highlight the importance of considering multisensory attributes when designing food products and packaging. Colour can be a powerful tool to modify the perception of taste and, consequently, the desirability of food. By leveraging such insights, food manufacturers can create more appealing products and experiences for all consumers, including those with picky eating tendencies.
Annette M, Stafford LD. How colour influences taste perception in adult picky eaters. Food Quality and Preference. 2023;105:104763.
A comprehensive review by Bryan and Hill discusses how counterfeit, illicit and untaxed alcoholic spirits pose significant economic, labour and public health challenges worldwide. Estimates suggest that 25% to 40% of all alcoholic spirits consumed globally are counterfeit. These products lead to substantial economic losses, with the European
Union alone losing 23,400 jobs and at least €3 billion in revenue each year, which in turn leads to a loss of at least €1.2 billion in annual tax revenue.
In addition to examining the global problem, scope and scale of spirits counterfeiting - including specific health issues and the international labour shortages resulting directly from the production and sale of counterfeit liquor - the authors present a range of analytical methods for spirit analysis, each proving effective in identifying counterfeits or adulterants.
However, common limitations include high costs and the need for specialised training to operate these methods. Criminal prosecution typically relies on data from advanced analytical techniques including gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and high-performance liquid chromatography. In combination, statistical and indirect techniques are essential for screening large numbers of market samples, especially when investigating the scale and distribution of illicit alcoholrelated health incidents.
Among the methods described, ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy together with principal component analysis stand out as the easiest, most cost-effective and generally as predictive as the other analytical methods.
In summary, Bryan and Hill state that a systematic approach is essential to combat counterfeit spirit production. This approach should include stricter legislation and stronger deterrents, such as increased fines, along with broader detection efforts.
Key priorities include developing low-cost analytical methods capable of determining authenticity without even opening the bottle, ultimately enhancing the sensitivity of 'gold standard' methods. Additionally, improvements in statistical analyses and the development of a standardised information database for use by industry and regulatory agencies worldwide are crucial.
Michael A. Bryan & Annie E. Hill (2024): Worldwide Illicit and Counterfeit Alcoholic Spirits: Problem, Detection, and Prevention, Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists, DOI: 10.1080/03610470.2024.2319934
One in five bags of food purchased in Australia is wasted, with fresh produce being one of the most discarded items in households. Microbial spoilage is a significant factor limiting the shelf life of fresh produce. Not only is this a contributor to food waste but it can also be a threat to public health.
Over the years there have been increased incidences of foodborne outbreaks implicated with fresh produce caused by pathogens such as enterohaemorrhagic E. coli, L. monocytogenes and Salmonella spp. Current post-harvest sanitation methods involve the use of chemicals such as chlorine washes to extend shelf life. However, these methods, while effective in high doses, can result in toxic residues on produce and have a considerable impact on water and electricity usage. An alternative solution lies in the use of antimicrobial essential oils for fresh produce sanitation. Essential oils, with their complex composition of plant-derived secondary metabolites, demonstrate effectiveness in inhibiting the growth of various microorganisms, including bacteria, yeasts and fungi. Several environment friendly and safe essential oils have been approved by the FDA to have a Generally Recognised as Safe (GRAS) status.
One study, by Mukurumbira et al. (2023) from Deakin University's CASS Food Research Centre, focused on the antimicrobial activity of native Australian essential oil, lemon myrtle (Backhousia citridora). The oil, containing potent active ingredients such as Citral, exhibited strong antimicrobial activity against foodborne bacteria and fungi in both liquid and vapour phases.
This research suggests the potential use of these oils in active antimicrobial packaging. To address
the volatility and stability issues of essential oils, Mukurumbira et al. (2024) encapsulated native Australian oils (lemon myrtle and Tasmanian Mountain Pepper) and non-native thyme in biocompatible lipid nanoparticles made using coconut oil using high-pressure homogenization.
Encapsulation, known for protecting bioactive compounds and ensuring sustained release, also helps mitigate the strong sensory impacts of essential oils, improving their applicability in foods. Microscopic imaging using transmission electron microscopy confirmed the successful encapsulation of oils, and the synthesised lipid nanoparticles (<200nm in size) remained stable under refrigeration and ambient temperatures for 60 days.
More importantly, the encapsulation enhanced the overall antimicrobial activity of the oils in the liquid phase.
The encapsulated essential oils, particularly native Australian varieties, displayed a bi-phasic release profile, featuring an initial burst followed by sustained release. Non-native thymeloaded lipid nanoparticles exhibited a more sustained release of the oil. Overall, the stability, improved antimicrobial efficacy and slow release of encapsulated essential oils indicate a promising strategy for their use in the active packaging of fresh produce to enhance safety and shelf life.
Mukurumbira, A. R., et al. (2023). The antimicrobial efficacy of native Australian essential oils in liquid and vapour phase against foodborne pathogens and spoilage microorganisms. Food Control, 151, 109774. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodcont.2023.109774
Mukurumbira, A. R., et al. (2024). Preparation, physicochemical characterisation and assessment of liquid and vapour phase antimicrobial activity of essential oil loaded lipid nanoparticles. LWT, 191, 115624. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lwt.2023.115624
Dr Djin Gie Liem is Associate Professor, Dr Dan Dias is Senior Lecturer, Dr Snehal Jadhav is Senior Lecturer, Dr Andrew Costanzo is Lecturer and Agnes Mukurumbira is a PhD student.
All are at CASS Food Research Centre, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. f
Words by Dr Tom Lewis, Dr Geoffrey Annison, Robin Sherlock and Natalie Hayllar
As we approach a significant milestone for the Allergen Bureau in 2025, it is opportune to look back and reflect on the ongoing collaboration to develop best practice food allergen management.
Originating from a pivotal meeting nearly two decades ago, the Allergen Bureau has evolved into a pinnacle industry non-profit organisation, shaping best practices in food allergen management. 2025 marks 20 years since its official launch in 2005, a milestone deserving dedicated celebration. Significant strides have been made since that pivotal meeting in February 2004 which led to initiatives such as the Product Information Form (PIF), Food Industry Guide to Allergen Management and Labelling (FIGAML) and the formation of the Allergen Bureau itself.
As we approach the Bureau’s 20th anniversary, it is appropriate to reflect on its inception, key initiatives and evolution. Reflecting on this journey, we recognise the profound impact of collective effort and foresight in advancing food safety
practices for the benefit of the food industry in Australia and globally and, ultimately, for the allergic consumer.
Past and present leaders in the allergen management space share their thoughts below on some of the leading tools that evolved from this meeting, the latest developments in industry resources, and plans for the future strategic direction of the Bureau.
The Allergen Bureau, Tom Lewis February 2004 marked a significant milestone in the evolution of allergen management in the food industry. A meeting titled ‘Food Allergens: Issues and Solutions for the Food Product Manufacturer’ was jointly organised through the then Food Safety Centre of Excellence, AIFST and AFGC and brought together, for the first time, about 100 food manufacturing representatives who were advocating for a joint, industry-led approach to the topic of food allergen safety.
Industry experts from the USA, including Steve Taylor and Sue Hefle from the University of Nebraska, were flown in to provide their
perspective. As an amusing anecdote, the representative from Kraft, Dan, remarked that he was so immersed in the world of allergen management that his kids suggested they'd engrave his headstone with "May contain Dan”.
Gathered in a meeting hall in Sydney, our overseas guests discussed their efforts and experiences in food industry allergen management. They offered their opinion that organising the type of pre-competitive collaboration and cooperation needed to coordinate a meaningful industry-wide response would be impossible. Their view was that none of the larger food manufacturing companies would be willing to enter that space, to work alongside competitors to further food safety risk assessment aspirations, and even if they wanted to, company lawyers would put ‘the kibosh’ on the whole idea.
So, we responded in what seemed the obvious way – we gave it a redhot go.
The Australian Food & Grocery Council (AFGC) was considered best placed to support the initial
phases of this work and established the Allergen Forum within the AFGC’s then Scientific and Technical Committee, which was managed by the now sadly missed Dr Dave Roberts.
The way we approached this challenge was in the manner recognised today as central to successful industry clusters: we acknowledged competitive tensions; we put them to one side; we openly shared our pain points (“Oh, really? You mean it’s not just me…?”); we identified the ‘burning deck’ issues; we committed to real collaboration; and we convened a central group of food industry champions to provide the organising energy.
It’s worth a ‘shout out’ here to the individuals involved in those early days. These industry leaders had the vision to debate and create what is now seen globally as a role model in collaborative food industry allergen management.
The initial Allergen Forum (and their affiliations at the time) comprised:
• Fiona Fleming (Chair) – George Weston Foods
• Adrian Sharpe – Kerry Ingredients
• Jenni Cooper - Heinz
• Jo Jeffery – General Mills
• Julie Newlands - Unilever
• Kevin Norman – Peanut Company of Australia
• Kirsten Grinter – Goodman Fielder
• Patricia Verhoeven - Cerebos
• Philip Corbet – Simplot
• Robyn Banks - Nestle
• Tania Watson – Griffins Foods (NZ)
• Tony Downer – AFGC
• Tom Lewis – Australian Food Safety Centre of Excellence. We note with sadness the subsequent deaths of our dear friends and colleagues, Julie Newlands and Tony Downer.
This group initiated and developed seven projects to deliver against the key priorities arising from the February meeting:
• Benchmarking
• Uniform supplier questionnaire
• Information bureau
• Testing and thresholds
Looking
forward, the Allergen Bureau will continue to support industry and the consumer as we move towards global harmonised risk assessment and allergen labelling, with a renewed focus on education, for the industry and about the industry.
Jasmine Lacis-Lee, Allergen Bureau President.
• Allergen risk assessment protocol
• Labelling
• AFGC Allergen Guide.
That was in 2004. So, where are we now, 20 years later in 2024?
Firstly, we should celebrate the fact that this industry collaboration is still active and thriving. This is a remarkable testament to the doggedness of our initial champions and those who have stepped up throughout the intervening years. It was thought when it all started that the energy and will to collaborate would fizzle out after a few short years.
Nope.
Energy, creativity (eg. brand development on the back of a serviette) and a hard focus on coal-face issues and sciencebased decision making keep us at the forefront of global allergen management discussions. With this foundation, and an eye to continued development, the initial seven priorities have coalesced into a suite of world-leading initiatives and resources.
Notable examples of initiatives and resources are:
The AFGC’s Product Information Form (PIF) V6 – concept to reality Geoffrey Annison
It is hard to believe the AFGC’s PIF has been supporting the food
industry for two decades, beginning with its release as PIF Version 1 (PIF v1) in 2003. Now, in its latest form, PIF Version 6, it remains a world-leading tool for facilitating standardised product information exchange throughout the supply chain.
Originally designed as a resource for R&D and regulatory affairs staff to stay informed about food regulatory changes, the PIF has evolved over successive versions in consultation with industry representatives. By 2012, the transition to PIF v5 as a complex MS-EXCEL™ spreadsheet highlighted the need for a more secure and interoperable format, leading to the development of PIF V6, launched online in July 2017.
The development of the online PIF coincided with increasing consumer demand for detailed food product information, driven by heightened awareness of food provenance, production technologies and sustainability. PIF V6 represents a significant advancement over previous versions, boasting expanded scope, enhanced functionality and improved security features.
It covers a broader range of information essential for regulatory compliance, including ingredient breakdowns, allergen declarations, pre-market clearance and nutrition details. The online portal system facilitates seamless creation, storage
and exchange of PIF V6 between businesses, offering flexibility in integration with existing IT systems or standalone operation. Interoperability is ensured through standardised data exchange protocols, supporting efficient information sharing across the supply chain.
The Allergen Testing Special Interest Group (ATSIG). Robin Sherlock, Safe Food Production QLD, Testing and Threshold Working Group With bold ambition, we embarked on a grand plan to assist the industry by developing a matrix that matches samples with the correct testing kit and defines how testing should be performed using the best available science. Analysts everywhere are still diligently working on this, but we've certainly come a long way. Back when there was scarce information to draw from, our collaborative working group of laboratories and companies pooled their experience, expertise and data. What we discovered was that we had much to learn, but the best way forward was to continue collaborating.
From this initial collaboration, several remarkable initiatives have sprung forth, including NATA accreditation for laboratories, the first Australian-based proficiency program for gluten, and the establishment of the ATSIG under the auspices of the National Measurement Institute and the Allergen Bureau. This group has provided leadership and expertise when reliable analysis was critical to resolving complex industry issues. Our commitment to knowledge sharing remains steadfast, and we've become an integral part of the Food
Allergen Management Symposium (FAMS). The ATSIG stands out for its unique approach to sharing critical information and has been recognised as a model by many global experts in the field. It continues to provide a venue to address the ongoing challenge of analytical testing, where national and international stakeholders openly discuss analytical challenges and work towards resolutions.
The Allergen Bureau’s industry guidance. Natalie Hayllar, The Allergen Bureau
Over the past 20 years the Allergen Bureau has provided guidance for the agri-food industry to manage allergens effectively, ensuring consumer safety and compliance with regulatory standards. This guidance evolved based on scientific research, industry and consumer needs, and regulatory changes. Fundamental to the success of the Allergen Bureau has been the spirit of collaboration – developed by industry for industry.
The Allergen Bureau continues to refine and promote best practice labelling for consumers with food allergy. This guidance serves as a beacon of knowledge, offering support in identifying potential allergens, determining labelling requirements and promoting a consistent approach to allergen management. The commitment to accessibility is commendable, with essential resources freely available to all food producers, regardless of their size or scale.
As Communications Manager of the Allergen Bureau for nearly five years
now, I am continually amazed by the visionaries who initiated and continue to drive the development of our invaluable industry resources. These trailblazers have led initiatives to provide crucial resources for effective allergen management and labelling practices in the food industry.
Key initiatives such as the Food Industry Guide to Allergen Management and Labelling (FIGAML) and the Allergen Risk Review Website (ARRW) give testament to the leadership shown by the many individuals who have given of their time and expertise over the years. These foundational resources, along with the VITAL® (Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling) Program, establish the standard for allergen management across industry. The VITAL® Program is particularly noteworthy for its standardised risk assessment framework, equipping food companies globally with the necessary tools to conduct thorough allergen status reviews at every stage of production.
Additionally, the Bureau provides access to advanced tools and training through VITAL® Online, ensuring industry stakeholders always have access to the latest knowledge and resources. Looking back on my time with the Allergen Bureau, I'm grateful for the opportunity to be part of such a dynamic and forward-thinking team.
While the resources evolve and develop, what hasn’t changed is the commitment to industry collaboration in a pre-competitive space, a unique approach allowing industry to work together to solve challenges.
Dr Tom Lewis is Co-Founder and Special Advisor to The Allergen Bureau.
Dr Geoffrey Annison is former Deputy Chief Executive of the AFGC.
Robin Sherlock is Principal Science Officer at Safe Food Production Queensland.
Natalie Hayllar is Marketing Communications Manager at The Allergen Bureau. f
Words by Deon Mahoney
Scientific journals have long played a vital role in the dissemination of knowledge, fostering collaboration within and across disciplines, guiding and educating the next generation of scientists and in some cases influencing public policy. Whilst the publishing landscape has been disrupted by developments such as social media and generative AI, scientific journals still provide a trusted and reliable source of information and intelligence.
Over 75 years of publication, first as Food Technology in Australia and then as food australia, the journal has contributed to AIFST’s mission – to advance and inspire all food sector professionals through education, collaboration and recognition to champion a robust, innovative science-based Australian food industry to meet future food needs. It has achieved this by connecting food scientists and technologists, encouraging engagement, informing members, promoting educational offerings and fostering conversations at state, territory and national levels on how our food industry develops and evolves.
The first edition of Food Technology in Australia was published in August
1949, by the Council of Australian Food Technology Associations (CAFTA). Early editions focussed on the challenges facing the agriculture and food processing sectors in accessing technology and skills following World War II. This was matched by optimism around the opportunity to create a vibrant Australian food industry with an export focus.
In an article on the future of the food industry in Australia in 1951, Ian Clunies Ross (Chairman, CSIRO) highlighted prospects for Australian food production and agriculture.1
The article emphasised the importance of scientific research and its value to all sectors, the need for more training in food technology and an appreciation of the value of science to industry. These issues still resonate 73 years on.
In 1967 AIFST was established and commenced support for the management of the journal through an accord with CAFTA. In 1988 the name of the journal was changed to food australia and then, in 1995, AIFST took over full ownership of the journal. In 2024 the journal became open access. More detailed descriptions of the way the journal has evolved are published in earlier anniversary editions.2,3,4
At various times across its history the journal has been published
monthly, bi-monthly and most recently quarterly. The physical format, logo, masthead, layout and design of the journal have also changed over the decades. Similarly, the nature of the content has changed, with an increasing focus on content addressing the extensive range of disciplines that support the food industry. These changes in frequency and content have occurred as a result of reviews of the food australia model, the professional needs of our members and the ability to access high-quality manuscripts.
The production of the journal was outsourced in late 2011, and this coincided with efforts to enhance advertising revenue and help advertisers get their products and services in front of potential buyers across the food industry. The commitment of loyal advertisers and new clients remains vital for the ongoing commercial viability of the journal.
The journal is currently distributed in both print and online versions to members of AIFST and subscribers. Digitisation of the journal and promotion via social media is recognition of the changing nature of scientific communication and extends the reach of the journal to a wideranging audience.
Since 1996 it has been full-text
available on the Informit database platform making it readily available in most Australian university library collections and the Informit records are findable in Google Scholar, further amplifying its reach to a global readership. As an open access journal, AIFST is also promoting the principles of open science, transparency and reproducibility.
Over the past 75 years, the disciplines of food science and technology have undergone monumental changes. Similarly, the world of communication, marketing and publishing has been radically transformed. Our members now have unparalleled access to topical information and guidance from a wide variety of sources.
While the journal is a trusted source of information, the challenge has been to remain relevant, and it does this with regular contributions from leading academics and industry
experts. This content includes feature articles designed to keep food professionals abreast of scientific and technological developments, invited opinion pieces, editorials, student contributions, AIFST news items and advertisements.
An examination of recent volumes sees content addressing ingenuity and innovation within the food industry, including commentaries on the latest food industry developments, legal and regulatory trends and evolving challenges. Feature articles covering exciting developments in technology adoption, machine learning and the use of AI, new products, utilisation of waste, packaging, food security and sustainability help to drive positive developments across the food industry and inform members of contemporary issues.
The journal is also of significant value to contributing authors. Feature articles and opinion pieces enable academics, scientists and industry
experts to expand the impact and reach of their work. For the authors of content, there is the delight of having their writing published and distributed through the journal. It often involves collaboration between two or more writers, drafting and revising their manuscripts and working to a deadline. Then it is onto the work of the reviewers and editors, who evaluate and edit submitted manuscripts and uphold ethical publication practices ahead of final publication.
The ongoing success of the journal is testament to the many highly committed individuals who have supported and guided its direction over the decades. This includes the editors (editorial teams and editorial coordination), the advertising and marketing managers and the content reviewers.
The ultimate measure of the success of a publication is that it can stimulate a conversation, as well as
support professional development and change what the reader thinks and does. High-quality, relevant and timely subject matter published in a quality journal has real value.
Editors play a significant role in establishing, maintaining and developing a journal’s position, profile and reputation in the publishing space. Over the 75 years, food australia has been well served by an exceptional group of managing, supervising and associate editors. In 1949 it was the vision of Professor Fritz Reuter to establish a journal for food scientists and technologists to cover critical issues impacting the manufacturing and handling of foods. He served as Editor until 1980 (and as Associate Editor until 1990). Along the journey, there were various editors or associate editors including Professor Terry Lee, Dr Jack Kefford, Professor Ken Buckle, Professor Ron Edwards and Dr Barbara Munce. They have all provided guidance, leadership and strategic input into the journal’s development and promoted the ideals of publishing integrity and objectivity.
Editors work closely with contributors and the journal’s production team, and AIFST has been well served by its staff and reviewers in continually putting out a first-class product for its members and the wider agri-food community. food australia has developed into a leading publication that supports the evolving aims, scope, and status of the Institute, whilst strategically addressing the changing publishing market and integrating present-day modes of delivery to the readership.
Australia is one of the most food secure nations in the world, with access to a wide variety of safe, healthy and nutritious foods. This
is due in no small part to the huge network of food industry professionals who help put the food on our tables. food australia is a valuable and trustworthy resource for food technologists and scientists in Australia. The journal provides an accessible platform that delivers timely and relevant information, news and academic communication. This sharing of knowledge connects members and advances knowledge, science and scholarship across the food industry. It enables AIFST to actively support food science and technology professionals to keep their finger on the pulse and embrace the future.
1. Clunies Ross, I. (1951). The future of the food industry in Australia. Food Technology in Australia, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp 55-61
2. Kefford, J. (1999). food australia – a brief history. food australia, Vol. 51, No. 8, pp 355
3. Munce,B. and Kefford, J. (2009). food australia – a brief history. food australia, Vol. 61, No. 8, pp 322-323
4. Palmer, M. (2019). Back in time to read food australia. food australia, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp 26-28
Deon Mahoney is a food safety consultant at DeonMahoneyConsulting and is Adjunct Professor in the School of Agriculture and Food Sustainability at the University of Queensland. f
R+K_AD_2024_1_118x162 Food_Australia.qxp_Layout 1 21.04.24 16:39 Seite 1
New product ideas need new colours. Mix and match the winning colour for your next product from the ERKA palette on our website.
Words by Dr Mehran Ghasemlou, Dr Colin Barrow and Dr Benu Adhikari
Plastics have unquestionably revolutionised our modern life, offering convenience, durability and versatility. However, their widespread use has come at a significant cost to the environment. From clogging our oceans and waterways to infiltrating ecosystems and harming wildlife, the environmental impacts of plastics are increasingly alarming.
Approximately 130,000 tons of plastics are leaking into Australian marine environments every year.1 Moreover, plastics break down into microplastics, which can enter the food chain, potentially harming human health. Single-use plastic items used in food service - including takeaway containers, cups, utensils, straws and packaging - currently account for a significant proportion of plastic pollution. Australians are consuming around 3.4 million tonnes of plastics each year. One million tonnes of Australia's annual plastic consumption are single-use plastics.2
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on global plastic waste generation and management practices. With the implementation of lockdowns, travel restrictions and heightened hygiene measures, there has been a surge in the use of single-use plastics, particularly in the healthcare, food service and retail sectors. Furthermore, the closure of dine-in restaurants and cafes has resulted in a shift towards takeaway and delivery services, leading to a higher consumption of disposable food packaging, utensils and containers. In addition to the rise in single-use plastics, the pandemic has disrupted recycling and waste management systems in many regions.3
Given the escalating danger of plastic pollution, there is an urgent requirement to develop novel plastics
that are either biodegradable or recyclable. In recent years, numerous strategies have been suggested to address the hazards and difficulties associated with plastic waste or reduce the scale of the plastic issue. Bioplastics have emerged as a potential game-changer, derived from either biodegradable or renewable sources.
Plastics play a vital role in ensuring the safety, quality and convenience of food packaging, making them indispensable in the food industry. Plastic packaging helps to protect food from contamination, spoilage and physical damage during transportation, storage and display. It offers a wide range of functions that can cater to various food products, including fresh produce, beverages, snacks and ready-to-eat meals.
The significant contribution of the food packaging industry to the global plastic crisis has prompted a critical need for transformation. As a result, the sector is undergoing a transition towards embracing the principles of the circular economy for plastics.4 Given the dominant global plastic crisis and the imperative need to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, this article outlines a roadmap for adoption of bioplastics in food packaging and underscores their long-term viability and contribution to a circular economy.
The scale of plastic pollution in Australia is significant and continues to grow. Despite efforts to improve waste management and increase recycling rates, much of the plastic used in the country still ends up in landfills or the natural environment. The analysis of global plastic waste production has uncovered alarming trends, indicating that approximately
269,000 tonnes of post-consumer plastic waste find their way into waterways and oceans each year.
Plastic litter and marine debris impose substantial economic losses on local tourism and fishing industries, accounting for an estimated annual loss of US$1.3 billion.5 Marine animals often mistake plastic debris for food, leading to ingestion and entanglement, which can result in injury, suffocation or death. Additionally, plastics in the ocean break down into smaller fragments over time, known as microplastics.
The Australian Federal Government has recognised the urgent need to address the environmental impacts of single-use plastics, reducing or eliminating their usage. One key strategy is to introduce bans and restrictions on specific single-use plastic items such as straws, cutlery and polystyrene containers, which are notorious for their detrimental effects on the environment. For instance, the Victorian State Government banned the use of certain problematic singleuse plastics from February 2023.6 While banning the sale and distribution of single-use plastics is a well-intentioned effort, it is not always effective because many items unaffected by the ban can still contribute to plastic pollution. Also, banning single-use plastics can increase waste in other areas, such as food. In addition to regulatory measures, the Australian government has also invested in educational initiatives to raise public awareness about the environmental impacts of single-use plastics and promote behaviour change among consumers and businesses.
Australia has made significant strides in promoting recycling and adopting circular economy principles to address waste management challenges and reduce environmental impacts (Figure 1).
According to data from the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), the national recycling rate for household packaging waste was about 49% in 2018-2019. This indicates that nearly half of household packaging waste was recycled.7 One of the key initiatives driving Australia's recycling efforts is the implementation of container deposit schemes (CDS) across various states and territories. These schemes incentivise consumers to return empty beverage containers for recycling by offering a refund or financial incentive.
As Australia faces the environmental challenges posed by traditional plastics, compostable bioplastics are a promising alternative with the potential to mitigate plastic pollution and support the transition towards a
Bioplastics
Advantages
Figure 1: Stages of plastics recycling. (Adapted from istockphoto.com)
more sustainable future. Compostable or biodegradable bioplastics are designed to break down in natural environments, offering a potentially eco-friendly solution for a wide range of applications, including packaging, food service products and agricultural materials.
The use of compostable bioplastics in Australia has experienced significant growth, driven by increased awareness of plastic pollution, growing consumer demand for sustainable alternatives and supportive policy measures.8 Despite the promising growth of compostable plastics in Australia, challenges remain in ensuring their effective
Conventional Plastics
Advantages
Sustainable Raw Materials: Bioplastics are produced from renewable resources such as corn, sugarcane, and food waste, helping to decrease reliance on fossil fuels.
Lower Carbon Footprint: The production of bioplastics generally releases fewer greenhouse gas emissions.
Biodegradability: Certain types of bioplastics can degrade in specific environments.
Disadvantages
Industrial Composting Required: Some bioplastics need specific industrial composting conditions to decompose properly.
High Cost: Bioplastics are generally more expensive to produce than traditional plastics.
Energy Intensive Production: The production of bioplastics can be energy intensive.
implementation and scalability. Issues such as standardisation of compostability certifications, consumer education and awareness, and end-of-life management infrastructure, need to be addressed to realise the full potential of compostable plastics as a sustainable alternative to traditional plastics (Table 1).
Recent global trends in food packaging have been heavily influenced by a growing emphasis on sustainability, health consciousness and technological advancements.
Durability: Conventional plastics are strong and resistant to damage providing a protective barrier for products.
Lightweight: Conventional plastics are lightweight, reducing transportation costs.
Cost-Effective: Conventional plastics are often cheaper to produce than bioplastics.
Performance: Conventional plastics often have superior mechanical properties than bioplastics.
Disadvantages
Environmental Pollution: The most significant disadvantage of conventional plastics is their environmental pollution.
Non-biodegradable: Most conventional plastics are non-biodegradable, meaning they do not break down naturally in the environment.
Toxic Additives: Some plastics contain toxic additives, such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA), which can leach out of the plastic and pose health risks to humans and animals.
Table 1: Some important advantages and disadvantages of bioplastics and conventional plastics.
Bioplastics offer a range of potential benefits for food packaging applications. Controlling the passage of oxygen and water vapour through plastic packaging is crucial to prevent food spoilage. Bioplastics possess material-dependent permeability that facilitates the transmission of various small molecules such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapour, organic vapours and aroma compounds. Their selective barrier properties against oxygen and/or water barrier qualities can extend the shelf life of perishable food products. When adequately designed or engineered, bioplastics exhibit similar or superior mechanical performance compared to conventional plastics. Utilising bioplastics in food packaging aligns with consumer preferences for environmentally friendly products, potentially boosting sales and profitability for food companies. Bioplastics offer lower environmental impacts when disposed of properly, thus reducing plastic-related greenhouse gas emissions.9
Despite these benefits, challenges such as high production costs, unclear end-of-life fates and inadequate waste management infrastructures hinder the widespread commercialisation of bioplastics. However, increased production capacity and growing demand are expected to drive down manufacturing costs over time.
Counting solely on bioplastics to mitigate all adverse effects of plastics is impractical, especially when more than half of bioplastics are derived from fossil fuels. While bioplastics are often touted as environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional plastics, the truth is more complex. Bioplastics that are dumped in landfills may not degrade as intended due to the lack of suitable conditions for biodegradation or composting. Therefore, encouraging or mandating food manufacturers to incorporate clear and informative labels is required.10
We have identified five main challenges that impede the implementation of bioplastics in food packaging:
1. Cost: Bioplastics are often more expensive to produce than conventional plastics due to higher raw material costs and production technology requirements. This high cost can pose a barrier to adoption, particularly for price-sensitive food manufacturers and consumers.
2. Performance: Bioplastics, as packaging materials, must meet stringent requirements for food safety, shelf life, barrier properties and mechanical strength to ensure adequate protection and preservation of food products. Achieving comparable performance to conventional plastics while maintaining biodegradability and sustainability can be technically challenging and may require focussed and sustained research.
3. Toxicity: Thorough studies on the long-term biological effects and toxicity of bioplastics are imperative.
4. Recycling complexity: Many consumers and food manufacturers remain unconvinced about the practicality of bioplastics due to inconsistencies in labelling and end-of-life disposal methods.
5. Recycling facilities: The lack of large-scale recycling and composting facilities is another challenge to establishing a circular bioplastic economy. Bioplastics may end up in landfills or contaminate recycling streams, undermining their environmental benefits.11
Several types of bioplastics are currently used for food packaging, each with its own unique properties and applications (Table 2):
1. Polylactic acid (PLA) is a biodegradable and compostable polymer derived from renewable resources such as corn starch or sugarcane. It is commonly used
for producing transparent films, trays, cups and containers for food packaging. However, its biodegradability is compromised in salty conditions such as in the ocean.
2. Starch-based bioplastics are derived from renewable starch sources such as corn, potatoes or wheat. These materials can be processed into films, trays, and bags for food packaging. Thermoplastic starch frequently results in bioplastics with high sensitivity to moisture. To address these deficiencies, they are often blended with other biodegradable polyesters such as polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT), polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) and PLA. In a recent study, we demonstrated that the reinforcement of nanocellulose enhanced the performance and sustainability of starch bioplastics (Figure 2).12
3. Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) is a family of biodegradable polymers produced by microbial fermentation of renewable feedstocks. PHA-based bioplastics either alone or coated with paper exhibit excellent barrier properties and are suitable for various food packaging products including cups, cutlery and containers (Figure 3).
4. Bioplastics derived from biobased sources can also be used to produce conventional plastics such as PE and PET. Major companies such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Heinz have begun using bio-PET or bio-PE bottles for beverages and food products.
Bioplastics do not solve the problem of littering. Nonetheless, with consumer education and increased government investment in establishing efficient collection, recycling and composting systems, bioplastics are less likely to contribute to environmental pollution. With increasing demand for home-compostable and fully marinebiodegradable bioplastics, polymers offering high degradability in various environments are anticipated to dominate the future bioplastic
market. It is expected that in the near future, European Bioplastics will refine the bioplastics’ definition to focus solely on renewablebased materials, excluding those which are fossil-based, despite their biodegradability. Therefore, the future development and commercialisation of bioplastics in food packaging will prioritise those with high renewable contents such as PHA, PLA, or other plant-based and seaweed-based bioplastics.9
The roadmap of bioplastics in food packaging is a strategic plan that involves collaboration between governments, industries and consumers to promote their adoption. This includes investments in research and development to improve the performance and costeffectiveness of bioplastic materials, as well as the development of infrastructure for collection, recycling and composting.13
Conclusion
Bioplastics have the potential to change the food packaging sector, with both the level of interest and bioplastic utilisation growing in this sector. As use increases, so will the scale of manufacturing, which will drive down the production cost of bioplastics over time. Regulatory support, such as incentives or subsidies, can also offset the costs, particularly initially where bioplastics are still a niche product.
Efficient food packaging design can optimise bioplastic use without compromising functionality. Educating consumers about bioplastic benefits will increase demand and drive industry investment. Through this roadmap, the food packaging industry can continue to expand its adoption of bioplastics, advancing sustainability goals while meeting increased consumer demand for more environmentally friendly products.
References
1. Mutuku, J., et al. (2024)Public perceptions of the value of reducing marine plastics in Australian waters. Ecological Economics,
Bioplastic item Food packaging applications
Bowls Bioplastic bowls are commonly used for serving salads, soups and frozen food in restaurants, cafes, and takeout establishments.
Cutlery Cutlery (includes forks, knives, and spoons) are commonly included in takeaway and delivery orders, especially for meals that require utensils, such as salads, pasta, and rice dishes.
Food bags Biodegradable and compostable bags for items like groceries, bread, and produce are among the most wellknown bioplastic products. These bags are commonly made from starch blends.
Straws PLA straws are commonly included with packaged beverages such as bottled iced coffees, juices, and smoothies.
Beverage cups Many fast-food chains use PLA cold drink cups for serving sodas, iced teas, and other cold beverages.
Takeout boxes PLA clamshell containers are used by salad bars and delis for packaging fresh salads and cold pasta dishes. Cellulosebased takeout boxes are used for carrying baked goods.
Table 2: Various applications of bioplastics in food packaging.
217, 108065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2023.108065.
2. Sharma, S., V. Sharma, and S. Chatterjee (2023) Contribution of plastic and microplastic to global climate change and their conjoining impacts on the environment-A review. Science of the total environment, 875, 162627. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162627
3. Peng, Y., Wu, P., Schartup A. T., et al. (2021) Plastic waste release caused by COVID-19 and its fate in the global ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(47), e2111530118. https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.2111530118
4. Zhao, X., K. Cornish, and Y. Vodovotz (2020) Narrowing the gap for bioplastic use in food packaging: an update. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(8), 4712-4732. https://doi. org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03755
5. Jiang, D.-H. et al. (2022) Sustainable alternatives to nondegradable medical plastics. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 10(15), 4792-4806. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acssuschemeng.2c00160
6. Borg, K. et al. (2022) Curbing plastic consumption: A review of single-use plastic behaviour change interventions. Journal of Cleaner Production 344, 131077. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131077.
7. Hossain, R., et al. (2022) Full circle: Challenges and prospects for plastic waste management in Australia to achieve circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production 368, 133127. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133127.
8. Shlush, E. and M. Davidovich-Pinhas (2022) Bioplastics for food packaging. Trends in Food Science & Technology 125, 66-80. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.04.026.
9. Ghasemlou, M., C.J. Barrow, and B. Adhikari (2024) The future of bioplastics in food packaging: An industrial perspective. Food Packaging and Shelf Life, 43, 101279. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2024.101279.
10. Mitrano, D.M. and M. Wagner (2022) A sustainable future for plastics considering material safety and preserved value. Nature Reviews Materials 7(2), 71-73. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41578-021-00406-9.
11. Rosenboom, J.-G., R. Langer, and G. Traverso (2022) Bioplastics for a circular economy. Nature Reviews Materials, 7(2), 117-137. https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00407-8
12. Ghasemlou, M. et al. (2020) Use of synergistic interactions to fabricate transparent and mechanically robust nanohybrids based on starch, non-isocyanate polyurethanes, and cellulose nanocrystals. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 12(42), 47865-47878. https://doi. org/10.1021/acsami.0c14525.
13. Ghosh, K. and B.H. Jones (2021) Roadmap to biodegradable plastics—current state and research needs. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 9(18), 6170-6187. https://doi. org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c00801.
Dr Mehran Ghasemlou is an Alfred Deakin Research fellow within the Centre for Sustainable Bioproducts, Deakin University. His research includes improving the properties of bioplastics for food packaging.
Professor Colin Barrow is Distinguished Professor and Chair in Biotechnology at Deakin University. He has established the Deakin BioFactory with the aim of developing sustainable bioproducts, including bioplastics, from organic input materials. He is a highly cited researcher and Director of the Centre for Sustainable Bioproducts.
Professor Benu Adhikari is a research-active food engineer and material scientist and also teaches food packaging related courses. He currently serves as Associate Editor of Sustainable Food Technology (Royal Society of Chemistry) and Drying Technology (Taylor & Francis). f
Words by Dr David Wollborn
Industrial biotechnology and precision fermentationpast and present
Biotechnology covers a variety of different scientific fields and is often divided into medical, marine, agricultural and industrial biotechnology. Their commonality is that they employ microbial fermentation to produce valuable products. The pharmaceutical and chemical industries have established many production processes. Recently, there has been an increasing trend towards the application of industrial biotechnology principles in the food sector to sustainably produce foods and food ingredients.
The term ‘precision fermentation’ was introduced in 2019 to differentiate these highly controlled fermentation processes from existing classical fermentation, using wild type strains or biomass fermentation in the production of food ingredients. The major difference is that precision fermentation uses genetically
modified organisms and most processes are performed aerobically (require active aeration).
The breakthrough for the aerobic production of chemicals using microbes was in 1919, when citric acid was produced by the fungus Aspergillus niger, making the previous citric acid extraction process from natural sources obsolete.1,2 It also paved the way for the industrial biotechnology industry as it contributed to the establishment of technologies that allowed the supply of sterile air at large quantities to support microbial growth in sterilised steel tanks.
The resulting advancements in the 1940s subsequently enabled industrial-scale production of a range of antibiotics. This was followed by the microbial production of amino acids as food and feed additives and enzyme production for various applications in the 1960s and 1970s. Advances in genetic engineering paved the way for production of proteins for pharmaceutical
applications and the concept of ‘cell factories’ for manufacture of an even wider range of products.2,3
Genetically modifying different microbes using a targeted engineering approach to create cell factories has rapidly developed within the last 20 years.4 This has given rise to disciplines such as metabolic engineering and synthetic biology (see glossary box). Advances in DNA synthesis, DNA sequencing and ‘-omics’ technologies have led to a dramatic reduction in R&D costs. As a result, it has become easier to establish the infrastructure required to develop novel microbial production systems for a multitude of applications, including food production.
The design, build, test and learn cycle used to create novel strains is further accelerated by the introduction of ‘biofoundries’. The term ‘biofoundry’ describes an integrated infrastructure of automated robotic systems that enables the rapid construction
and testing of genetically modified microorganisms, thereby increasing the throughput and speed at which new microbial cell factories can be developed. Research organisations and universities have created these biofoundries for research purposes and usually offer their services to external clients.5
In short, precision fermentation aims to use these engineered microorganisms to produce novel foods or food ingredients. Many precision fermentation processes are conducted under aerobic conditions.6 Therefore, these processes differ strongly from anaerobic processes such as brewing, and require bioreactors that greatly differ from those of a typical brewing tank. The bioreactor must be actively mixed to ensure a constant oxygen supply into the culture medium to maximise the performance of the cell factory.6,7
The development pipeline for novel biotechnological products does not end with the creation of a newly engineered microorganism. Once a promising microorganism is selected to produce the desired target molecule (eg. protein, organic acid, pigment, lipid) the cultivation conditions also need to be optimised.
Microbial strain characterisation and bioprocess optimisation usually occurs in bench-top scale bioreactors. The bench-top scale ranges from 0.5 to 10L total bioreactor volume. At this stage, parameters such as temperature, pH, culture medium composition, aeration and stirring rate, and feeding profile are optimised. It is important to have precise control over the process as production of the desired compound can be greatly affected by culture conditions.
The workhorse in biotechnological processes is the continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR). It has been well characterised over many decades, resulting in the availability of formulas and correlations that predict and simulate operating conditions.
To generate competitively priced
1: Bioreactor volumes at different stages of the scale-up process for microbial processes. Adapted from presentation by: Nico Snoeck, Bio Base Europe Pilot Plant “Challenges in scale-up of industrial bioprocesses” (2022).
products, precision fermentation will need to target large volume manufacturing. Large volumes are needed to meet predicted quantities of new food products, as dictated by market requirements. Achieving the desired manufacturing volumes requires up-scaling of the process.8 Start-ups face a 'scale cost paradox' because they lack the necessary production facilities to generate profitable economies of scale. However, they are unable to finance the required production facilities due to their limited production capacity.U1
Scale-up describes the transfer from laboratory research benchtop scale to industrial manufacturing scale. It is largely based on chemical engineering principles and is considered successful if the industrial high-volume process achieves the same performance as bench-top scale.
Usually, once the ideal production conditions have been established at bench-top scale, they are then verified at pilot, demonstration and production scale (Figure 1). These research activities require time, know-how and complex, very costly infrastructure that require a significant capital investment.8
Newly established precision fermentation companies often rely on contract development and
2: Schematic drawing of a continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR). The concentration distribution of a component that is fed into the bulk liquid is shown as a heat map. At the point of addition (Feed), the concentration is high (red) resulting in an excess. Through the height of the reactor the concentration forms a dilution gradient resulting in different compartments where the concentration becomes limiting or even leads to starvation of the microbes.12
manufacturing organisations (CDMOs) for bioprocess development and scale-up. On the other hand, large established companies can rely on their own facilities and know-how. Overall, the scale-up process is not trivial and bears many pitfalls that should be addressed early on in the process development pathway.9
Media quality can change (eg. at large scale, other, less pure raw material sources might be used due to availability and cost considerations).
Bioprocess development often uses desalted water for media preparation whereas industrial scale production uses tap water. Tap water pH and mineral content depends on the location of the production plant and can heavily affect bioprocess performance.
To maintain the pH at constant levels, corrective agents (acids/bases) are used. At bench-top scale these are liquid, whereas at industrial scale ammonia gas is used to reduce dilution effects.
At industrial scale the height of the water column within the bioreactor affects the hydrostatic pressure in the liquid. Increased pressure leads to an increased gas solubility. The CO2 that cells emit due to their metabolic activity therefore solubilises better and creates a carbonate buffer (CO2/HCO3) affecting the pH and buffer capacity.
The CSTR is the workhorse in biotechnology and precision fermentation as it is best characterised.10,11 A usual assumption is that, at bench-top scale, the culture medium is ideally mixed. Therefore, all nutrients and microbes are homogeneously distributed in the liquid and every individual microbe experiences the same temperature, pH value, oxygen- and nutrientconcentration.
Once the bioreactor size is increased, these precisely controlled ‘ideal’ conditions cannot be maintained. Multiple factors cause inhomogeneity, zones of poor mixing and concentration gradients (Figure 2) that can negatively affect microbial performance in terms of growth and productivity.12
Factors that need to be considered for up-scaling can be divided into chemical, biological and physical factors and are summarized in Table 1.6,8,9,12
A common approach is to select one criterion (eg. volumetric power input) and keep it constant across
Industrial-scale production requires a large initial amount of cells to initiate the fermentation process.
The necessary cell mass is produced in multiple pre-culture steps where the cultivation volume is successively increased (seed train).
This results in many strain doublings (generations) that increase the likelihood of mutations and thereby affect strain stability. As a result, the genetically modified organisms might lose their ability to produce the desired value product.
Bioreactor geometry, dimensions and available instrumentation (feed pumps, measurement probes such as pH, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
With increasing scale, the volume increases cubically (x3), whereas the surface increases squared (x2). As a result, the surface to volume ratio decreases and sufficient cooling cannot be solely achieved over the bioreactor surface area. Cooling coils or cooling registers need to be installed to achieve sufficient heat transfer.
Gassing rate and stirrer geometry differ between bench-top and productionscale. Therefore, bioreactors larger than 5m3 are no longer capable of achieving the same volumetric power input into the liquid by stirring and gassing as at bench-top scale. The result is longer mixing times and the formation of concentration gradients.
scales. Due to chemo-physical effects at large scale, it is impossible to maintain multiple factors identical throughout all scales.14
In addition to the effects mentioned in Table 1, another classical drawback is foam formation at larger scale. Foam formation directly affects the achievable total volume in the bioreactor and thereby affects the total amount of product. It can also impact the purification or downstream process (DSP) and thereby achievable product purity.
Awareness of the challenges during scale-up and addressing them early are key factors for success. When a new bioprocess is developed, considerations around feedstock sustainability/availability and water quality should also be considered.
To address the scale-up challenge, current research is focusing on the whole bandwidth of relevant effects. Poor mixing and non-homogeneously mixed culture medium is investigated using mobile spherical sensors that travel through the bioreactor while acquiring data.15 This data can help to
refine computational fluid dynamics (CFD) which helps predict gradients and allows for improved vessel, agitator and baffle design. Another improvement method is down-scaling. Here, the approach is not to try and achieve the same cultivation conditions at largescale but instead mimic large-scale conditions (eg. concentration gradients) at bench-top scale. This provides insight into how microbes perform under less-thanideal conditions and the impact on productivity.12 14
All approaches are accompanied by intensive modelling, with the concept of ‘digital twins’ becoming a growing area of interest. A digital twin aims to simulate the up-scaled process and find ideal operating conditions. This makes the performance of actual tests at largescale obsolete, saving development cost and reducing the time required for process development. So far, there are a few examples where this concept was successfully applied, however, every model requires validation which initially takes time.
Biofoundries
Automated laboratory infrastructure to increase throughput in the test, build, learn cycle to create engineered microorganisms.5
Precision fermentation
“Precision fermentation combines the process of traditional fermentation with the latest advances in biotechnology to efficiently produce a compound of interest, such as a protein, flavor molecule, vitamin, pigment, or fat.”U3
Metabolic engineering
Targeted genetic construction, redirection and modification of cellular metabolism to create cell factories with the objective of producing desired compounds and/or improving the product yield.2,16
Synthetic biology
Inspired by electrical engineering, the objective is the development of specific regulatory circuits within a microbial cell using standardised biological components to allow plug-and-play design strategies.4
Scale-up
Scale-up describes the transfer from laboratory research bench-top scale to industrial manufacturing scale by increasing the bioreactor volume. Many parameters, such as oxygen transfer, must be considered to achieve the same performance at production scale as at bench-top scale.6
Digital twin
Many industrial sectors use this term to describe high-fidelity digital simulations of physical objects. It is differentiated between digital models, digital shadows and fully-fledged digital twins.17
Bioreactors can also be operated in different modes. One concept that has gained more attention recently is the continuous operation mode. This could potentially reduce bioreactor size through continuous supply with fresh medium while a constant harvest stream is removed and further processed.
In summary, there is significant development research taking place and precision fermentation can benefit from the learnings of the biofuel industry and industrial
biotechnology sector as a whole. Shared large scale facilities, investment into pilot plants to derisk processes and the education of skilled workers are key factors required to make this industry a success. Current initiatives such as the Food and Beverage Accelerator Trailblazer are a step towards success.U2
1. Angumeenal, A. R. & Venkappayya, D. (2013) ‘An overview of citric acid production’. LWTFood Science and Technology 50, 367–370.
2. Nielsen, J., Tillegreen, C. B. & Petranovic, D. (2022) ‘Innovation trends in industrial biotechnology’. Trends Biotechnol 40, 1160–1172.
3. Nielsen, J. (2019) ‘Yeast Systems Biology: Model Organism and Cell Factory’. Biotechnol J 14.
4. Nielsen, J. & Keasling, J. D. (2011) ‘Synergies between synthetic biology and metabolic engineering’. Nature Biotechnology vol. 29 693–695.
5. Hillson, N. et al. (2019) ‘Building a global alliance of biofoundries’. Nature Communications vol. 10.
6. Garcia-Ochoa, F. & Gomez, E. (2009) ‘Bioreactor scale-up and oxygen transfer rate in microbial processes: An overview’. Biotechnology Advances vol. 27 153–176.
7. Zhong, J. J. (2011) ‘Bioreactors – Design -Bioreactor Engineering’. In: Murray Moo-Young (ed.), Comprehensive Biotechnology, Second Edition, volume 2, pp. 165–177. Elsevier.
8. Crater, J. S. & Lievense, J. C. (2018) ‘Scaleup of industrial microbial processes’. FEMS Microbiology Letters vol. 365.
9. Junker, B. H. (2004) ‘Scale-up methodologies for Escherichia coli and yeast fermentation processes’. J Biosci Bioeng 97, 347–364.
10. Nienow, A. W. (1998) ‘Hydrodynamics of stirred bioreactors’. Appl Mech Rev 51.
11. Metzner, A. B. & Otto, R. E. (1957) ‘Agitation of non-Newtonian fluids’. AIChE Journal 3, 3–10.
12. Nieß, A., Löffler, M., Simen, J. D. & Takors, R. (2017) ‘Repetitive short-term stimuli imposed in poor mixing zones induce long-term adaptation of E. coli cultures in large-scale bioreactors: Experimental evidence and mathematical model’. Front Microbiol 8.
13. Islam, R. S., Tisi, D., Levy, M. S. & Lye, G. J. (2008) ‘Scale-up of Escherichia coli growth and recombinant protein expression conditions from microwell to laboratory and pilot scale based on matched kLa’. Biotechnol Bioeng 99, 1128–1139.
14. Tajsoleiman, T., Mears, L., Krühne, U., Gernaey, K. V. & Cornelissen, S. (2019) ‘An Industrial perspective on scale-down challenges using miniaturized bioreactors’. Trends in Biotechnology vol. 37 697–706.
15. Bisgaard, J. et al. (2020) ‘Flow-following sensor devices: A tool for bridging data and model predictions in large-scale fermentations’. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal vol. 18 2908–2919.
16. Wuest, D.M., Hou, S., Lee, K.H., (2011) ‘3.52 - metabolic engineering’. In: Moo-Young, M. (Ed.), Comprehensive Biotechnology, second ed. Academic Press, Burlington, pp. 617–628.
17. A. Udugama, I. et al. (2021) ‘Towards digitalization in bio-manufacturing operations: A survey on application of big data and digital twin concepts in Denmark’. Frontiers in Chemical Engineering 3.
URLs
U1. SynBioBeta: Addressing the “scalecost paradox” in biomanufacturing, last accessed 31.05.24: https://agfundernews. com/synbiobeta-2024-from-novel-hoststo-tricking-cells-to-be-more-productiveaddressing-the-scale-cost-paradox-inbiomanufacturing
U2. Food and Beverage Accelerator, last accessed: 31.05.2024: https://faba.au/ U3. Precision Fermentation Alliance definition, last accessed: 31.05.2024: https://dairynews. today/global/news/precision-fermentationalliance-and-food-fermentation-europefinalize-a-refined-definition-of-precis.html
Dr David Wollborn is a Senior Engineer in CSIRO Agriculture and Food. f
Words by Dr Joe Liu, Dr Thomas Vanhercke and Dr David Wollborn
Fermentation technology
The term ‘fermentation’ describes a process at least 10,000 years old whose broad use across multiple scientific disciplines often leads to different interpretations.
Traditional fermentation processes have been integral to human civilisation for millennia. They rely on microbial cells (yeast, fungi and bacteria) and are usually conducted under anaerobic (oxygen-free) conditions to convert ingredients (referred to as substrates) into end-products with unique texture or flavour properties.
Examples range from yoghurt, bread, cheese and tempeh to alcoholic beverages such as beer and wine. Meanwhile, biomass fermentation emerged in the 20th century. This includes single cell protein (SCP). For example, biomass fermentation makes use of the nutritional qualities of fungal mycelium, the branching thread-like fibres that typically form the vegetative part of a fungus. The mycelium can be cut and flavoured to produce meat alternatives - the most well-know being the products under the brand of Quorn™ that was launched in 1985. Fungal mycelia offer high levels of protein as well as fibre, vitamins and minerals, and can be used as an ingredient directly.1
Besides traditional fermentation
and biomass fermentation, another specialised fermentation technology involves manipulating a microorganism (usually through genetic modification) to produce a target compound during the fermentation process. This is followed by a set of downstream processes to isolate and purify the target compound to create an ingredient. This technology has been extensively applied in the pharmaceutical industry with one of the best-known examples being the use of genetically modified Escherichia coli to produce insulin.2
In the food industry, this technology has also been deployed to manufacture certain niche ingredients such as food additives (eg. glutamate) and processing aids (food enzymes).
A well-known historical example is to use this technology to manufacture chymosin. This is the major enzyme in calf rennet that is essential for cheesemaking. Instead of isolating this protease from calves’ stomachs, it is now mainly produced by genetically engineered bacteria through this specialised fermentation process. In fact, fermentation-derived chymosin occupied as much as 80% of the global market share for rennet by 2006.3
Today, this unique fermentation technology - now referred to as precision fermentation (PF) - is being
further explored for its potential to manufacture a wider range of food ingredients.
The Good Food Institute (GFI) has described PF as: “…a form of specialised brewing that uses microbes as ‘cell factories’ for producing specific functional ingredients. Capable of producing proteins, vitamins, enzymes, natural pigments, and fats…”4
The workflow of PF is illustrated in Figure 1.
Once a target molecule is identified for manufacture through PF, microbes (yeast, fungi or bacteria) can then be selected and engineered to produce the desired molecule. Selecting the appropriate microbial host is of great technological and food safety importance. It usually follows the synthetic biology -Design-BuildTest-Learn- principle to genetically engineer a microbial host and optimise its production titre and yield at lab-scale.
Some other characteristics of the microbial host and growth conditions can be engineered or optimised in this step (eg. utilising alternative fermentation feedstocks such as a food waste stream). After proof of principle and optimisation at lab-
scale, the fermentation process is then scaled up further in pilot-scale (100L to 100,000L) and eventually to commercial-scale (>100,000L) fermenters,5,6 with the aim of optimising the processing parameters and growth conditions to achieve maximum productivity.
Followed by the fermentation process, there is the purification process which is called downstream processing (DSP). Depending on the target ingredient, this usually involves steps for biomass separation, cell disruption, filtration and sometimes extraction or chromatography if high purity is desired. Spray drying or freeze drying could come into play as the final step to process the target ingredient into a powder format before packaging and transportation. Like other traditional food ingredients, prior to being used for food production, the PF ingredient will be evaluated with regards to food safety and quality (eg. microbial and chemical testing), shelf-life, techno-functionalities (eg. solubility and viscosity), flavour, texture, nutritional and health benefits.
Precision fermentation has been identified as an emerging key technology in the fourth industrial revolution of the food industry.7 According to a report from BCC Research,8 the global market for synthetic biology in the food and beverage sector (including flavouring and additives, meat and dairy, medical foods, sweeteners and others) was estimated at $427.7 million in 2020, and it is growing at a compound annual growth rate of 51.3% to reach a forecast market value of $5.7 billion in 2026. The report also said the meat and dairy, and sweetener market segments are forecast to grow at even higher rates through 2026. Data from the GFI’s 2022 industry report also showed the rapid overall growth of PF in the meat, seafood, eggs and dairy sectors, in terms of both the number of PF start-ups and capital investment.4 Rapid technological advancement in the field of synthetic biology has enabled the wider application of PF
in the food industry, but what other major drivers are contributing to its rise? Some of the key factors are:
Traditional agricultural systems and food production systems play an important role in society, but can have adverse impacts on the environment. While impacts vary depending on the region and type of agricultural production, some systems can lead to soil and land degradation, deforestation, water scarcity and loss of biodiversity. Other factors include use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides and the carbon footprint of production and transportation of chemical fertilisers and machinery in traditional agriculture.9
The sector is looking for ways to improve sustainability through improvements to existing approaches, as well as exploring entirely new production systems. Precision fermentation potentially offers a complementary, low-footprint food production system.4 PF processes utilise bioreactors which are closedloop systems with lower land use requirements, leveraging the fast growth of microorganisms with minimum input of resources such as water and nutrients. However, claims regarding the environmental sustainability of PF need to be substantiated. Precision fermentation is still in its very early stage in the food industry, particularly in scale compared to traditional agricultural and food production systems, and so cannot be accurately compared. Sustainability claims still need to be validated by independent studies at large industrial
scale, factoring in energy inputs and supply chain implications.
From a circular bioeconomic perspective, PF has the potential to use food and agriculture waste streams as the fermentation feedstock, as opposed to chemically defined fermentation media.10,11 Utilising greenhouse gases (eg. CO2 and CH4) as the carbon source in the fermentation processes (gas fermentation) is currently being explored.12,13 Although these processes are still in early stages of development, the prospect of utilising food waste and greenhouse gases to produce food ingredients through PF could further reduce environmental impacts.
In addition, the importance of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in evaluating companies is on the rise. Research suggests that these non-financial metrics significantly impact the economic value of companies. Notably, companies disclosing higher levels of ESG information tend to have better access to financial resources, indicating a positive correlation between ESG performance and financial outcomes.6
b) Food and nutrition security
Ensuring food and nutrition security for a growing global population is a pressing challenge exacerbated by climate change, a global pandemic, geopolitical factors, environmental degradation and socioeconomic inequalities. Traditional agriculture faces some constraints in meeting the increasing demand for food, including land and water limitations, declining soil fertility, as well as yield losses due to pests, diseases and adverse weather
conditions.14 Precision fermentation could help improve food and nutrition security by providing a reliable and resilient means of food production that is less susceptible to environmental risks and external disruptions. By producing major food ingredients in controlled indoor environments, PF may help to ensure year-round availability of nutritious food products and overcome supply chain disruptions sometimes faced by traditional systems.
In addition to supporting food security, PF could enhance the quality of complementary food technologies such as plant-based protein production. While plantbased foods represent another crucial avenue for improving food security, issues such as flavour, aroma, allergenicity and nutritional profile present hurdles to widespread consumer acceptance. Precision fermentation can create specific ingredients which address these deficiencies in plant-based products and improve the nutrition of nonperishable products.5 Furthermore, PF presents opportunities across various sectors, including the development of biopesticides for more sustainable agricultural practice, production of fish feed and nutrient supplements for aquaponics and hydroponics systems, and the creation of growth factors for cultivated meat production.
Consumer awareness and market demand
Growing consumer awareness of environmental, health, and ethical issues associated with conventional agriculture is driving demand for sustainable and plant-based food products.5 Complementary protein markets seeking animal-free dairy, meat and egg options are driving the interest in applying technology to produce those ingredients (eg. caseins, whey and ovalbumin) without animals while still achieving ‘natureequivalence’.15 Other innovative applications of PF include producing completely novel compounds to meet a market gap or solve an industry problem. For example, using
PF to produce a dairy protein that has its allergenicity attenuated or eliminated.16
What is the commercial future for precision fermentation in the food industry?
The rise of PF is evidenced by the increase of tech start-ups, capital investment and the participation of large multinational companies in this field. There were 62 companies in 2022, of which most were start-ups. Forty-nine were founded between 2019 and 2022.4 The actual number of start-ups is likely to be higher as some operate in stealth mode. The invested capital in PF start-ups was around US$1.9 billion between 2013 to 2022 according to GFI, with US$1.88 billion invested between 2019 to 2022.4
GFI has published a database to list the relevant companies in this field.17 The majority of those companies are focusing on producing dairy proteins through PF. Perfect Day was one of the first companies to enter the marketplace. Their whey proteins are among one of the first PF-derived milk proteins obtaining GRAS (generally regarded as safe) status from the US FDA in this category.18 As a result, their PF derived whey proteins have been used in a wide range of consumer products such as dairy beverages, ice cream, protein bars and protein powder supplements, through the company’s in-house brands.
Australian companies Eden Brew and All G Foods are also key players in the dairy category. Lipid is another popular ingredient category in this space. Nourish Ingredients is an Australia-based company that produce fat ingredients that can mimic the flavour and functionality of dairy and animal fats. C16 Biosciences, based in the US, uses PF to produce a palm oil alternative. Other PF companies include Impossible Foods which produces a meat flavour and texture ingredient called soy leghemoglobin for plant-based meat products, and The EVERY Company producing egg proteins as functional
ingredients for bakery and beverage products. Soy leghemoglobin is a Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) approved food ingredient in Australia, under the Genetically Modified Foods and nutritive substance (source of iron) categories.19
While most of the start-ups focus on developing food ingredients, it is noticeable that more contract development and manufacturing organisation (CDMO) start-ups have launched in recent years. This can provide greater production capacity which is a major bottleneck in the value chain, and support the sector towards maturity and scale. Some of the key players in this category include Liberation Labs in the USA that provides up to 600,000L fermentation capacity, and Cauldron Ferm based in Australia that aims to build multiple 100,000L plus fermentation processing lines.4
In addition to the boom of PF start-ups, many large food companies have started to participate in this field. These are usually multinational companies with funding, manufacturing infrastructure and market access channels. They can enter the sector through partnering with PF start-ups to develop consumer products, direct investment or acquisition.
Unilever has started a separate business division to focus on developing PF through partnering and investing in start-ups including Perfect Day for animal-free whey protein and Genomatica for palm oil alternatives. Nestle has partnered with Perfect Day to launch the animal-free dairy drink Cowabunga. The product was trialled on the market in San Francisco in 2022. Novonesis (former Novozymes) and Arla Foods Ingredients launched a partnership in 2023 to develop new protein ingredients for food products using PF. Archer-DanielsMidland Company (ADM) initiated a joint venture with Nurasa to establish a CDMO called ScaleUp Bio in Singapore to provide bioprocessing development and manufacturing services to PF companies.5 Cargill
and DSM have teamed up to develop a platform to produce sweeteners through PF.20 In Australia, the country’s largest dairy cooperative Norco has developed a collaboration with Eden Brew to develop and distribute PF derived dairy proteins.21
One of the biggest hurdles that PF needs to overcome is cost parity. A recent report published by Synonym, a data-driven infrastructure management and development platform for biomanufacturing, modelled the cost of goods sold (COGS) of some major product categories. They used data collected from more than 350 companies worldwide through Synonym’s techno-economic analysis engine called Scaler. Results showed that the COGS in the protein category is about US$50/kg and the lipid category about US$28/kg from PF.22 However, the COGS ranges from about US$30/ kg to US$120/kg for proteins and about US$15/kg to $US118/kg for lipids.
The underlying methodology for these calculations was to collate all the data and group into major product categories, then scale the results to a theoretical 1,000,000L facility.22 Thus the data collected are likely to vary significantly in facility processing capacity, microbial hosts, target compound, titre and yield,
feedstock, labour and utility cost. Nevertheless, the results give a highlevel indication for benchmarking. One way to achieve price parity is to increase the conversion rate from substrate to product (yield) and improve the overall product titre. The integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches in research efforts could help speed up metabolic pathway engineering to achieve the high titres and conversion rates required to make PF a success. Another approach to lower production costs is through scale-up. The principle of economy of scale applies to the needed production plants, while the cost per unit can be lowered by using larger fermenters (eg. >100,000L).
The worldwide capacity for fermenters at that scale is limited in the food industry,6 therefore, the existing infrastructure needs to be expanded. This can also be regarded as an opportunity to build new production plants tailored to the needs of the food industry,22 which entails the investigation of different operation modes (batch, fed-batch, repeated fed-batch, continuous, perfusion), minimising downstream processing steps and process modelling by implementing digital twins. Feedstock is another major cost driver in PF processes. Given the quantities required to meet the demand for food products and ingredients, alternative feedstocks
may help to further reduce production costs for the successful establishment of a PF industry. Besides the next generation feedstocks that are known from the biofuel industry (C5 sugars derived from cellulose containing wood biomass) a current trend is to convert gas (CO2 and H2) into utilisable feedstocks.12 Finally, left-over microbial biomass should be converted to a product stream instead of a waste stream to further improve processing economics.
Consumer acceptance remains one of the biggest challenges for a novel food innovation’s success in the market. Price, taste, nutrition, safety and functionality all come into play. PF is no exception, especially given some responses to the gene modification (GM) process. However, recent research 23,24,25 suggests consumer attitudes are primarily driven by perceptions of benefit and positive evaluations of the technology’s efficacy. Effective framing is also important, with many consumers relying on how such novel food products are marketed and labelled.26 Ultimately, it is important to understand consumer priorities and articulate how the technology is meeting consumer needs.
Regulatory approval is required for GM food or genetic technology derived food, and is specific to each country or region. The regulatory approval processes are usually stringent and have a primary focus on
ensuring food safety.27 As mentioned, some food ingredients, processing aids and nutrition ingredients produced by GM technology have been around for decades. Many governments have regulatory frameworks to conduct pre-market assessment.
In recent years, the US Food and Drug Administration, Singapore Food Agency (SFA), and FSANZ have approved PF derived dairy and meat ingredients in the non-animal protein space. In Europe, the regulatory approval processes are more stringent and complex. Approval processes are handled centrally at the EU level by the European Commission, and when required, involve the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) providing a scientific perspective / risk assessment of the food in question. But once the product or ingredient is approved, it applies across all EU countries.4
The rise of PF technology represents a pivotal moment in reimagining future food value chains to sustainably meet the demands of a growing population. This disruptive technology holds great potential for revolutionising
food production systems, yet its widespread adoption hinges on addressing technological, scaling, regulatory and commercialisation challenges, alongside consumer acceptance of GM derived and nontraditional ingredients.
It is imperative to integrate expertise in synthetic biology, biomanufacturing, food technology and science, while ensuring the product commercialisation strategy aligns with consumer values and preferences. Australia’s innovation system can play a crucial role in developing PF. Funding is needed for PF R&D initiatives, investing in biomanufacturing infrastructure and identifying opportunities to streamline food and ingredient regulatory approval processes. Ultimately, by fostering technological innovation, stakeholder collaboration, and integrating consumer needs, PF stands poised to help diversify the future of food production systems in a sustainable way.
References
1. Cardoso Alves, S. et al. (2023) Microbial meat: A sustainable vegan protein source produced from agri-waste to feed the world. Food Research International 166.
2. Baeshen, N.A., Baeshen, M.N., Sheikh, A. et al (2014) Cell factories for insulin production.
Microb Cell Fact 13, 141. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12934-014-0141-0
3. Johnson, M. E. & Lucey, J. A. (2006) Major technological advances and trends in cheese. J Dairy Sci 89, 1174–1178.
4. Good Food Institute. 2022 State of the industry report. Fermentation: Meat, seafood, eggs, and dairy.
5. Frost and Sullivan (2023) Technology Growth Opportunities for precision Fermentation. DAD4TV, November 2023. Competitive Intensity enabling the Emergence of New High-impact Sustainable Ingredients for Diverse Industries.
6. Jean-François Bobier, Tristan Cerisy, AnneDouce Coulin, et al. (2024) Breaking the Cost Barrier in Biomanufacturing. Boston Consulting Group, Synonym.
7. Abdo Hassoun, Alaa El-Din Bekhit, Anet Režek Jambrak, et al. (2024) The fourth industrial revolution in the food industry—part II: Emerging food trends, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 64:2, 407-437, DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2022.2106472
8. BCC. (2022) Synthetic Biology: Global Markets. Report Code: BIO066G. BCC Publishing.
9. Campbell, B. M., D. J. Beare, E. M. Bennett, et al. (2017). Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecology and Society 22(4):8. https:// doi.org/10.5751/ES-09595-220408
10. Yang, R., Z. Chen, P. Hu, S. Zhang, and G. Luo. (2022) Two-stage fermentation enhanced singlecell protein production by Yarrowia lipolytica from food waste. Bioresource Technology 361:127677. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2022.127677.
11. Martí-Quijal, F. J., S. Khubber, F. Remize, I. Tomasevic, E. Roselló-Soto, and F. J. Barba. (2021) ‘Obtaining antioxidants and natural preservatives from food by-products through fermentation: A review’. Fermentation 7 (3):106. doi: 10.3390/fermentation7030106.
12. Liew, F. M. et al. (2016) ‘Gas Fermentation-A flexible platform for commercial scale production of low-carbon-fuels and chemicals from waste and renewable feedstocks’. Frontiers in Microbiology Vol. 7 Preprint at https://doi. org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00694
13. Ilje Pikaar, Jo de Vrieze, Korneel Rabaey, et al (2018) ‘Carbon emission avoidance and capture
by producing in-reactor microbial biomass based food, feed and slow release fertilizer: Potentials and limitations’, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 644, Pages 1525-1530, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.089
14. Ending Hunger, World Food Programme https://www.wfp.org/ending-hunger
15. Augustin, M. A., Hartley, C. J., Maloney, G. & Tyndall, S. (2023) ‘Innovation in precision fermentation for food ingredients’. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition Preprint https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2023.2166014
16. Bhatt, V., L. Clark, T. Geistlinger, and J. Lin. (2021). ‘Hypoallergenic recombinant milk proteins and compositions comprising the same’. WO2021168343 A2. Filed February 19, 2021 and issued August 26, 2021.
17. Alternative protein company database (2024) | GFI
18. GRAS Notice GRN 863 Agency Response Letter - beta-lactoglobulin produced by Trichoderma reesei (fda.gov)
19. Current status of genetically modified foods applications | Food Standards Australia New Zealand
20. https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/ Article/2018/11/08/Cargill-and-DSM-to-establishJV-to-bring-fermentation-based-high-potencysweeteners-to-market
21. https://www.foodfrontier.org/the-regions-topmoments-in-alternative-proteins/
22. Synonym. State of Global Fermentation. www. scaler.bio (2023). https://scaler.bio/
23. Mankad, A., Carter, L., & Hobman, E. V. (2022). ‘Ethical Eggs: Can synthetic biology disrupt the global egg production industry?’ Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6:915454. https://doi. org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.915454
24. Hobman, E. V., Mankad, A. & Carter, L. (2022).
‘Public perceptions of synthetic biology solutions for environmental problems’. Frontiers in Environmental Science. doi: 10.3389/ fenvs.2022.928732
25. Mankad, A., Hobman, E. V. & Carter, L. (2020). ‘Effects of knowledge and emotion on support for novel synthetic biology applications’. Conservation Biology, 35(2), 623-633. https://doi. org/10.1111/cobi.13637
26. Shuobo Shi, Zhihui Wang, Lirong Shen, Han Xiao (2022). Trends in Biotechnology, July 2022, Vol. 40, No. 7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tibtech.2022.01.002
27. Graham, A.E., Ledesma-Amaro, R. ‘The microbial food revolution’. Nat Commun 14, 2231 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37891-1
Dr Joe Liu is Precision Fermentation Lead in the Agriculture & Food Business Unit at CSIRO. Email: joe.liu@csiro.au
Dr Thomas Vanhercke is Novel protein production System Lead, Future Protein Mission, at CSIRO. Email: Thomas.vanhercke@csiro.au
Dr David Wollborn is a Senior Engineer working within the Food Program (A&F) at CSIRO. He specialises in bioprocess engineering and is experienced in the bioprocess development to produce precision fermentation derived products, using
microbial hosts such as yeast and bacteria. He obtained his doctoral degree from the chair of biochemical engineering at RWTH Aachen University, Germany.
We would like to acknowledge the valuable contributions and leadership of Professor Michelle Colgrave (Deputy Director - Impact. CSIRO Agriculture and Food) and Dr Crispin Howitt (Future Protein Mission leader).
We would also like to acknowledge the following scientists who contributed their expertise to the paper: Dr Carol Hartley, Dr Geoff Dumsday, Dr Rozita Spirovska Vaskoska, Dr Aditi Mankad, Dr Robert Barlow, Ms Emily Lehmann, Ms Gabrielle Corser and Professor Mark Turner. f
Words by Sava Arsenijevic and Mariko Terasaki Hart
Following three years of meticulous planning and design, The University of Queensland (UQ), a key partner of Australia’s Food and Beverage Accelerator (FaBA), has unveiled a series of custommade bioreactors. These state-ofthe-art bioreactors are set to drive groundbreaking collaborations with industry partners, aimed at developing innovative products and ingredients through FaBA.
Professor Esteban Marcellin, Director of UQ’s Biosustainability Hub at the Australian Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology and FaBA Innovative Ingredients Program
Lead, emphasised the transformative potential of these bioreactors in the food ingredient production landscape.
"The arrival of these bioreactors marks a significant milestone in our commitment to pioneering food solutions that are potentially sustainable and healthy," Professor Marcellin said.
Bioreactors are essential for the optimal development and productivity of microorganisms, enabling precise control and maintenance of growth conditions such as temperature, pH and oxygen levels. Researchers can meticulously tailor these conditions to influence cellular processes by programming specific parameters and feed rates. This level of control ensures not just the survival but the thriving of cells, promoting robust growth and metabolic activity.
"The introduction of these bioreactors signifies a technological leap for food and beverage manufacturing companies and researchers in precision fermentation," Professor Marcellin said.
Traditional methods, such as cultivating cells in simpler systems such as flasks or small wells on plates, present significant limitations. Well
plates allow for high throughput but offer lower environmental control and smaller working volumes, while flasks are simpler and accommodate larger volumes but result in lower throughput. These methods often fail to precisely control nutrient or oxygen levels, leading to suboptimal conditions for cell growth and productivity.
The Biosustainability Hub's bioreactor suite overcomes these limitations by enabling high throughput while maximising control over environmental variables. This system of individual components works in tandem to create an environment for optimal performance of microbial cells.
Dr Axa Gonzalez, Senior Bioprocess Engineer at the Integrated Design Environment for Advanced biomanufacturing (IDEA Bio), proposed an innovative in-house design for bioreactors, aiming for costeffectiveness, enhanced functionality and adaptability.
The development drew on the expertise of a dedicated team at UQ, comprising researchers, engineers and skilled glassblowers. The design and construction process involved high levels of customisation and was carefully executed in collaboration with teams across UQ.
Professor Marcellin emphasised the
meticulous design refinement and onsite assembly of all components.
“Axa launched the concept, and together we've developed a highly innovative and flexible bioreactor that evolves with our projects,” Professor Marcellin said.
"Our team conceived the design, sourced all necessary components and assembled the bioreactors right here, showcasing our joint innovation and dedication. These bioreactors are poised to drive significant advancements in the food and beverage industry,” he said. Critical to the project's success were Dr Gonzalez and Sava Arsenijevic, Technical Officer at IDEA Bio, whose roles in design, planning and implementation were vital.
Precision fermentation is a cuttingedge biotechnological process that uses microorganisms to produce specific products such as proteins, enzymes and other bioactive compounds. The custombuilt bioreactors at UQ represent a significant advancement in this field, providing a controlled environment where microorganisms can be optimised for maximum efficiency and productivity.
Temperature is a critical parameter in fermentation processes that affects
the growth rate and metabolic activity of microorganisms. The bioreactors are equipped with advanced temperature control systems that maintain optimal conditions for various microbial strains. This precise control enhances the consistency and quality of the produced ingredients, essential for scaling up production while maintaining high standards.
Maintaining the appropriate pH is crucial for microbial growth and product formation. The bioreactors feature sophisticated pH control systems that automatically adjust the pH levels, preventing the environment from becoming too acidic or alkaline. This minimises variations in the production process, leading to more predictable and reliable outcomes.
Oxygen is another vital factor in fermentation, particularly for aerobic microorganisms. The bioreactors allow for precise control of oxygen levels, tailored to the specific needs of the microorganisms. This capability is essential for optimising the metabolic pathways involved in the production of desired compounds, leading to higher yields and more efficient processes.
The rate at which nutrients are fed into the bioreactor can significantly impact the growth and productivity of microorganisms. The custom design of UQ’s bioreactors includes advanced feeding systems that can be programmed to deliver nutrients at precise rates. This control ensures that microorganisms have a consistent supply of essential nutrients, promoting optimal growth and product formation.
The introduction of these bioreactors is expected to have far-reaching implications for the food and beverage industry. By enabling precise control over fermentation conditions, these bioreactors will pave the way for the development of
novel ingredients that are sustainable, healthy and produced with high efficiency.
Several bioreactors have already been commissioned, with many more expected to be utilised by current and future FaBA industry participants.
Collaboration between UQ and industry partners is crucial for translating research breakthroughs into commercial applications. The bioreactors will serve as a platform for industry participants to explore new possibilities in food ingredient production, fostering innovation and driving economic growth. Additionally, this partnership can streamline the pathway from research to market, reducing the time and cost associated with bringing new products to consumers.
Sustainability is a key focus of FaBA's. The advanced control capabilities of the bioreactors enable the production of ingredients with reduced environmental impact. By optimising microbial processes, these bioreactors can minimise waste, reduce energy consumption and utilise renewable resources more effectively. This focus on sustainability aligns with global efforts to mitigate climate change and promote responsible resource use.
The ability to produce novel ingredients with specific health benefits is another significant advantage of these bioreactors. Researchers can develop ingredients with enhanced nutritional profiles, tailored to meet the growing demand for healthier food options. This capability aligns with global trends towards health-conscious consumer choices and supports the development of functional foods. Furthermore, these innovations can lead to the creation of ingredients that address specific dietary needs, such as allergen-free proteins or fortified nutrients, broadening the scope of available healthy food products.
Cost reduction and accessibility
As the technology matures and becomes more widely adopted, the cost of producing valuable proteins and other ingredients through precision fermentation is expected to decrease. This reduction in cost can make high-quality, nutritious ingredients more accessible to a broader population.
The potential new production processes and products developed through the bioreactors can assist in alleviating the ethical concerns of some consumers, relating to a reliance on animal-based production systems. This also aligns with the preference of some consumers for more sustainable food sources.
The acquisition and deployment of custom-made bioreactors at UQ mark a transformative step in the field of food ingredient production. These advanced systems offer unparalleled control over fermentation processes, leading to the development of innovative, sustainable and healthy food ingredients.
The collaboration between academia and industry, exemplified by FaBA’s Innovative Ingredients Program, highlights the potential for groundbreaking advancements that can reshape the food and beverage industry. As these bioreactors come online, they are set to drive new research, foster innovation and contribute to a more sustainable, ethical and health-focused future in food production.
Sava Arsenijevic is Technical Officer at IDEA Bio, an NCRIS, Qld Government and UQ funded facility that offers synthetic biology services. It is an integrated space capable of providing cutting-edge synthetic biology services, offering high-throughput solutions for Australian researchers and businesses.
Mariko Terasaki Hart is a Business Manager at FaBA. f
Words by Dr Jayashree Arcot, Dr Alice Lee, Jay Sellahewa, Frances Warnock, To Fan, Oliver Jackson, Kornpol Suriyophasakon, Junias Tjanaria, Peikun Qi, Dr Kalana Peiris, Dilka Rashmi Peiris and Renuka Peiris
Aglobal assessment of food security and nutrition in 2022 described a world still recovering from the global pandemic and the war in Ukraine, impacting the global food and energy markets.1
The convergence of the major drivers of food insecurity and malnutrition – conflict, climate extremes, economic downturns and growing inequality, is also challenging our efforts to achieve UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2 (Zero Hunger) and 3 (Good Health and Well-Being).
Such threats are expected to continue, compelling us to build resilience through effective policies and strategies to meet these goals. Providing nutritious and safe food to those affected by natural disasters, conflicts or economic turmoil in the right quantity at the right time in the right place is a significant challenge.
An international symposium on Humanitarian Food Science and Technology (HFST) was held in 2017 in Sydney through the Australian Institute of Food Science and
Technology.2 A global network was established following the symposium to initiate and facilitate projects that demonstrate the application of HFST concepts through case studies.
The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) is the world's largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger worldwide. The mission of WFP is to help the world achieve zero hunger (SDG 2) in our lifetime.
WFP has been present in Sri Lanka since 1968 providing assistance with emergency response after the 2004 tsunami, supported the protracted recovery interventions during and in the aftermath of the 27-year conflict and responded to recurrent natural disasters (economic crisis, droughts, floods and landslides).
WFP is currently into its second five-year Country Strategic Plan (CSP 2023-2027) developed in consultation with the government and other stakeholders. In full alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Cooperation
Framework (UNSDCF) 20232027, this CSP will have a strong emphasis on supporting systems, including those at both national and subnational levels that contribute to the production and distribution of, and access to, food and nutrition by the broad population and by the most vulnerable.3
Since 2005, the Government of Sri Lanka has been instrumental in reaching about 1.1 million primary school children through its National School Meal Program (NSMP). WFP had been providing technical support as well as in-kind food assistance when required to sustain the program with full national ownership. A freshly cooked breakfast each school day, for many children, has been the main and only nutritious meal for the day.
In 2024, the Government set an ambitious goal to expand the coverage to 1.7 million primary school children (Grades 1-5), which is the total number of primary school children in the country. WFP is also focusing on micronutrient fortified supplementary food products
manufactured through a local government supported enterprise called Sri Lanka Thriposha Ltd. This project is designed to achieve an optimally nourished food product through raw materials such as soy and corn or rice to be distributed for free to children aged between six months and five years, and pregnant and breastfeeding women, through the country’s extensive public health network.
UNSW food science and chemical engineering students had an invaluable opportunity to travel to Sri Lanka and work as WFP volunteers, learning about their operations in Sri Lanka, with a focus on process operations, nutrition and food safety. These placements were supported by the New Colombo Plan mobility funding through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in 2024.
Students had the opportunity to be immersed in Sri Lankan culture by participating in local cultural events and also visiting the Australian High Commission in Colombo on invitation to discuss their projects.
The students’ visits to Sri Lanka had the following objectives:
1. Contribute to the WFP programs through:
a. Improving the process understanding of the Thriposha manufacturing facilities and the impact of processing parameters on product quality attributes such as nutrition
b. Undertaking a whole supply chain analysis to ascertain the source of aflatoxins in locally grown corn in the Thriposha product and making recommendations on appropriate interventions to minimise aflatoxin contamination
c. Developing training resources on food safety for the school meal caterers involved in the NSMP.
2. Providing an experiential learning opportunity on the application of food science and technology principles, nutrition, food safety and engineering by interacting with the WFP team and its stakeholders. This includes field
visits to Thriposha supplementary food manufacturing facilities, government health and education departments, universities, research institutes and agricultural facilities. In addition, regular interactions between the students' supervisors at UNSW and the WFP team in Sri Lanka facilitated stronger linkages that are likely to result in longer term collaborative projects in the areas of food security, nutrition and humanitarian food science and technology, such as the following:
• Assessing the process performance of the extruder cooker and product quality at Thriposha supplementary food manufacturing facility
Three students focused their activities on the operation of the Thriposha factory where a product fortified with micronutrients is made with corn and soya flour.
Students designed trials in collaboration with Thriposha Ltd and WFP to demonstrate that the product quality attributes depended on the measured residence time distribution and calculate the Specific Mechanical Energy (SME) under different operating conditions.
This enabled the team to better understand the operation of the extruder, how the thermo-mechanical energy of the extruder affects the viscosity of the reconstituted product, the amount of dry matter in a given volume and the energy density, which
must be controlled accurately when feeding malnourished children and other target groups.
Some key recommendations to WFP included a factory cleaning policy, reducing manual handling of raw material, improving process control efficiency, regular risk assessment and management protocols in the factory, and developing a standard operating procedure for the extruder.
After returning to Sydney, the students drafted a plan to use the extruder available in the School of Chemical Engineering to develop a fortified product using rice and mung bean - which are locally available in Sri Lanka - that could replace imported corn and soybean. This work will continue until the end of 2024.
• Assessment of critical stages along the food value chain to minimise and/or eliminate aflatoxin contamination in Thriposha Aflatoxins - carcinogenic fungal toxins - present significant food safety and paediatric health challenges for Thriposha production, as corn is a major ingredient. Due to the shortage of fertilisers during the COVID-19 pandemic affecting local corn production in Sri Lanka, corn is currently sourced from international suppliers, making it both costly and unsustainable. To facilitate the Thriposha Ltd company’s transition to using local corn, this project aimed
to identify critical control points (CCPs) in their corn supply chain for developing locally practical aflatoxin control measures.
The Romer Labs AgraQuant rapid test system was set up in Thriposha Ltd and training was provided to local staff to facilitate on-site analysis. The students’ field assessments, conducted in collaboration with WFP Sri Lanka and Thriposha Ltd, identified several critical areas for intervention. The study thus provided a foundation for the future development of multi-sectoral solutions to improve food safety, quality and sustainability in the production of Thriposha in Sri Lanka.
• Developing training resources on food safety and hygiene for caterers involved in the NSMP In recent years, concerns have arisen about the lack of information and evidence on food safety risks associated with school meals and the potential for causing foodborne illness in vulnerable children.
Consequently, a Food Safety Risk Assessment (FSRA) study of NSMP in Sri Lanka was commissioned by WFP in 2022 and findings highlighted some potential food safety risks.
Capacity strengthening on food safety for caterers involved in the NSMP is now a current priority for WFP. The students’ research project aimed to develop tailored food safety and hygiene training tools for school caterers focusing on behavioural change. Drawing on the results of the FSRA study, on-site visits to caterers’ homes and adapting the WHO's Five Keys to Safer Food messages, informative supplementary training resources were produced, including two new food safety information posters and a pocketbook.
Despite long lead times to project implementation due to the COVID-19 pandemic combined with the economic crisis in Sri Lanka, the student placements and learnings in partnership with the WFP (SDG 17-Partnerships for achieving the goals) make this work in recovery
even more significant to tackle SDGs two and three.
The WFP has been instrumental in gaining insights into food security challenges and understanding the local landscape, providing essential context to the students’ undergraduate education in food science and chemical engineering.
Some of the key learnings for students were:
1. Understanding the challenges facing developing countries like Sri Lanka in assuring food security when exposed to ‘external and internal shocks’ (COVID-19, economic crisis in 2022, loss of yields in local crops)
2. The importance of partnering with key local stakeholders when placing students in overseas locations and identifying a local host
3. Having a well-defined objective for the students and a detailed plan with realistic timelines
4. Ensuring that adequate local resources were allocated to the students
5. The importance of good communications and teamwork. In their own words:
“I had the honour to collaborate with the World Food Program, the largest humanitarian organisation in the world. It was amazing to see all of the work they are doing in Sri Lanka, and I am excited to see how I can contribute over the next year through my undergraduate engineering thesis project”.
“One of my highlights was having the opportunity to see a commercial scale extruder at Thriposha and be able to experiment with it. This was not only an eye-opening experience as to how extruders work within the industry but also how factories operate in Sri Lanka”.
Today there are exciting new career opportunities available for talented food science and technology, and engineering graduates in the life saving and life changing areas of humanitarian emergency response, food assistance and food security.
1. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. (2023) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023. Urbanization, agrifood systems transformation and healthy diets across the rural–urban continuum. Rome, FAO. https://doi. org/10.4060/cc3017en
2. Innovations in Humanitarian Food Science and Technology https://aifst.asn.au/HumanitarianFood-Science-and-Technology
3. FAO & WFP. (2018) Home-Grown School Feeding. Resource Framework. Technical Document. Rome
We acknowledge the New Colombo Plan Mobility scheme (through DFAT) for providing scholarships to three students and WFP, Sri Lanka for hosting the students. Sri Lanka Thriposha Ltd for allowing students to visit their company providing a fantastic learning experience and other WFP partners and Romer Labs for the supply of the AgraQuant rapid test systems free of cost.
Professor Jayashree Arcot is the Undergraduate Food Science Program Director with expertise in food and health research (Nutrition).
Associate Professor Alice Lee is Director of the Postgraduate Coursework Program (Food Science and Engineering) with expertise in food and allergy research.
Frances Warnock is an Adjunct Fellow with expertise in food safety and nutrition capacity strengthening in low-middle income countries in Asia and Pacific regions from 2005 to 2023.
Jay Sellahewa is an Adjunct Fellow with expertise in food process engineering.
All are in the Food and Health Group at the School of Chemical Engineering, UNSW and are members of the Humanitarian Food Science and Technology global network.
Dr Kalana Peiris, Dilka Rashmi Peiris and Renuka Peiris are Program Policy Officers in Nutrition and Food Safety at the United Nations World Food Program.
Peikun Qi is studying food science (postgraduate) and To Fan, Oliver Jackson, Kornpol Suriyophasakan and Junias Tjanaria are studying chemical engineering (undergraduate). All are students at UNSW. f
Words by Andrew Tilley and Dr Wendy Hunt
Stop for a moment and picture a food scientist.
Okay, got it?
Chances are, you are picturing a food scientist wearing a white lab coat and safety glasses while holding a pipette. Food chemistry in action! While many people working in the field of food chemistry fit this picture, others fill multidisciplinary roles that might not even require a pipette.
You may have read about food science careers in sensory and consumer science, food microbiology, food engineering, quality assurance and new product development, possibly even in food australia. Food chemistry is important in each of these roles.
Food chemistry is core knowledge required by all food science professionals. Central to all foods and food processing, it is the understanding of the chemical composition of food and studies food interactions under specific processing or environmental conditions. These chemical interactions are incredibly complex and influence the sensory and physicochemical properties of food. Many successful food scientists have highly specialised careers in the chemistry of single product categories or food commodities. You will find food chemistry professionals in:
• Academic research or teaching
• Food and beverage manufacturing businesses
• Analytical laboratories
• Government agencies
• Agricultural research companies. Food chemistry professionals working in these areas are often involved in:
Food compositional analysis
Using analytical methodologies to measure the concentration of macro and micro elements in food. These may be proteins, fats, carbohydrates,
vitamins, minerals, or minor constituents such as polyphenols, specific peptides or enzymes.
Product formulation
Formulating new products by leveraging a comprehensive understanding of ingredient physicochemical properties and functionality including ingredient interactions. New products are developed for specific market segments or existing products may be reformulated to improve sensory and nutritional quality.
Research and development
Investigating new ingredients, processes or methodologies. Exploring new technologies and their application in food analysis or production. New knowledge can be used to develop novel foods that help to combat global challenges such as food insecurity and poor nutrition.
Root cause analysis
Every food manufacturer has encountered problems with product quality at some time, particularly when dealing with out of specification sensory attributes. Food technologists can utilise their food chemistry knowledge to efficiently identify causal factors and implement solutions in production.
Some commodity specialised roles focus on:
Cereal chemistry
Wheat, barley, oats and beyond. Cereal chemists are specialists in understanding grain quality and the functionality of grain products in food processing. Think chemical composition, dough rheology and end products. Cereal chemists specialise in the science behind bread, noodles and beer.
Dairy technology
Experts in maintaining the chemical and microbiological quality of dairy products. Dairy technologists
monitor raw milk composition and ensure downstream processing accommodates its inherent variability. They study product quality through pasteurisation, homogenisation and even fermentation to produce desirable milk products, yoghurts and cheeses for consumers.
Meat technology
Whether you are purchasing a juicy steak or smallgoods such as ham or salami, meat technologists have applied their understanding of the chemical composition of meat to control factors such as texture, colour, flavour, pH and chemical lean percentage.
Food chemistry is one of the ‘core’ sciences of food. It allows food scientists to navigate diverse and complex industries and it gives them a fabulous image at the same time. After all, who doesn’t love a white lab coat and a pipette?
Food chemistry professionals may be ‘food chemists’ or they may work in multidisciplinary roles at the nexus of scientific and business fields. Food chemistry ensures our food supply continually adapts to the everchanging global environment and, despite the challenges, allows our industry to produce nutritious food that consumers want to eat.
Andrew Tilley is an experienced food scientist with a passion for innovative product development. He is currently an associate lecturer and PhD candidate at Murdoch University.
Dr Wendy Hunt is a Senior Lecturer and Academic Chair of Food Science and Nutrition at Murdoch University. Her research explores grain quality and the link between food composition and health. f
Pest-proofing in the food manufacturing industry is crucial to maintain product safety and prevent contamination. Rodents, with their innate curiosity and agility, are adept at finding entry into buildings through the tiniest of openings as they search for food and shelter. They’ll make themselves comfortable and can quickly develop into an infestation that’s more challenging to remove.
Rodents can pose a significant risk to your business. Carrying a wide range of diseases, they can physically contaminate stock, damage building infrastructure, and can ultimately harm your business reputation. Therefore, it's crucial to implement robust and effective proofing strategies to block these entry points, significantly lowering the risk of a rodent infestation on your property.
Flexi Armour, by Rentokil Initial provides sustainable rodent-proofing solutions to help protect buildings internally and externally. By utilising hard-wearing, flexible Kevlar and knitted steel mesh, Flexi Armour provides impenetrable barriers that prevent rats and mice from entering your facility
Flexi Armour Seal is designed to seal gaps and holes effectively, preventing rodent access. This sealant utilises a modified Polymer sealant infused with knitted stainless steel ‘omega’ loops, allowing for easy application using standard tubes and standard caulking guns. Flexi Armour Shield is a unique proofing
tape built with a dense stainless mesh, providing a sticky, flexible and virtually impenetrable barrier for rodents whilst Flexi Armour Door provides flexible and highly effective rodent-proofing solutions for door gaps. It helps prevent easy rodent access to your premises, providing a sustainable approach to Integrated Pest Management by restricting rodent intrusions into your business.
As the experts in pest control, Rentokil Initial provides a complete, integrated pest management approach to minimise risk to the food industry. In addition, we make several recommendations to our customers to ensure that any risk of infestation or rodent activity is absolutely minimised including:
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) - IPM combines various control methods, including sanitation, exclusion, monitoring, and targeted pesticide application, to manage pests effectively while minimising risks to food safety and the environment.
Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) - Adhering to strict GMP guidelines will maintain a clean and hygienic facility. This includes proper sanitation procedures, regular cleaning schedules and employee training on hygiene practices.
Facility Design and Maintenance - A well designed and maintained facility should aim to minimise any possible pest entry points. Seal gaps, cracks and other potential entryways in walls, floors, doors and windows.
Proper Waste Management - Implementing effective waste management practices will remove potential food sources for pests. This includes proper disposal of food scraps, packaging materials and other waste products. Use sealed containers and dumpsters, and schedule regular waste removal to prevent pest infestations.
Pest Monitoring and Inspection -
Ensure your pest control supplier is conducting regular inspections of your facility to identify signs of pest activity such as droppings, gnaw marks or pest sightings. Installing monitoring devices, such as pest connect by Rentokil Initial and rodent bait stations, in strategic locations will proactively detect and monitor pest activity.
Employee Training and Awareness - Rentokil Initial strongly recommends training employees on the importance of pest management and their roles in preventing pest infestations.
Documentation and Record Keeping - Maintain accurate records of pest control activities, including inspections, monitoring results and pest treatment interventions. Document corrective actions taken in response to pest issues and track trends over time to identify areas for improvement.
Collaboration with Pest Management ProfessionalsPartner with licensed pest control professionals who specialise and have an established track record managing pest control in commercial food facilities. Work together to develop and implement a comprehensive pest management plan tailored to the specific needs and challenges of the facility.
By implementing these pest-proofing strategies, food manufacturers can effectively mitigate the risk of pest infestations and safeguard the integrity of their products and brand reputation.
With 12 Internal and Lead Auditor courses on offer, including BRCGS and Cook Chill, we are Australia’s leading provider of Food Safety, HACCP, GFSI and ISO training courses.
Our extensions program enables our students to extend their training into Lead Auditor qualifications from our 2-day Internal Auditor courses.
All of our Lead Auditor courses are Exemplar Global and nationally accredited, excluding BRCGS. QMS Audits is a Registered Training Organisation (RTO. 45344)
Call us for a chat to understand your next step to becoming an auditor.
OUR AUDITOR ACADEMY COURSES INCLUDE
Internal Auditor – Food Safety
Lead Auditor – Food Safety
Internal Auditor – ISO 14001 – Enviroment
Internal Auditor – ISO 9001 ISO 19011
Internal & Lead Auditor – ISO 45001 – OHS
IMS Implementation & Lead Auditor –ISO 9001, 14001 and 45001
BRCGS Auditor – 3 & 5 day*
Cook Chill FBPAUD5002 Audit Cook Chill Process
*BRCGS licenced courses are not nationally recognised by ASQA and do not include any units of competency
40 Hours of Food Microbiology
Combined Food Microbiology and Cook Chill
