food australia Journal, Vol. 74 (3) July - September 2022

ISSN 1032 5298 • PRINT POST APPROVED PP241613/00096 VOL 74 ISSUE 3

JULY – SEPTEMBER 2022

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF AIFST

‘Failing forward’ & NPD success

THE ROLE OF FOOD SCIENCE IN SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS

Strategic approaches to addressing food safety

COVID & the chicken meat industry &

&

ADVERTORIAL

ALS – RIGHT SOLUTIONS, RIGHT PARTNER ALS Food & Pharmaceutical (ALS) supports your regulatory compliance through providing a full suite of microbiological and chemistry testing.

ALS is focussed on delivering high quality food testing services in Australia, and further enhancing our proud reputation within the food and beverage industries. We are committed to providing a responsive and flexible analytical service to meet our customers’ needs, with the aim of exceeding their expectations and establishing productive, long-term relationships. Our Australian food laboratory operations employ more than 160 professional and support staff.

Our core service offering includes: • Food microbiology testing – full suite of pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms to demonstrate compliance with regulatory and customer requirements • Food chemistry testing – nutrition information panel, allergen detection, AgVet residues • Pharmaceutical microbiology testing – BP methods, PET, LAL, Bioburden • Pharmaceutical chemistry testing – Physical, Chemical and Chromatography.

2 food australia

Our NATA and TGA accreditation provides confidence that our methods have been rigorously developed and meticulously applied to ensure that we consistently achieve the mostaccurate results for our clients.

Through its national network of laboratories, highly experienced staff and extensive range of testing, ALS provides customers with costeffectivequality assurance from ‘paddock to plate’.

ALS has a range of test methods available to meet your requirements (traditional or rapid) and to comply with specific retailer and food safetyscheme standards.

You can be confident that we are committed to providing a responsive and flexible analytical service to meet your testing needs, with the aim of exceeding expectations and establishing sustainable, long-term relationships.

At ALS we are committed to assuring our community by providing high quality, innovative, professional testing services that enable our clients to make informed decisions.

Here are some of the ways that we will support you beyond testing: • ALSolutions – supporting you with results trending, visuals for Environmental Monitoring, fast/easy login of samples, live results, 24/7 access • Dedicated client services team – supporting you with quick response, friendly and helpful service & no hidden fees • Consulting services – supporting you with specialist technical expertise when you need it.

To find out how ALS Food & Pharmaceutical can support your regulatory compliance, contact us at: TEL MEL 613 8756 8111 TEL SYD 612 8832 7500 TEL BRIS 617 3518 7618 www.alsglobal.com

JULY - SEPTEMBER 2022

14

20

44

38

IN THIS ISSUE

REGULARS 05

By the Numbers

06

People

09

AIFST News

resistance

36

Food Files

New Cooperative Research Centre to tackle AMR

47

Fast Five

13

14

Protecting Australia’s food and agribusiness sectors by tackling antimicrobial

Individual variability of saliva and the perception of food flavour

to better design foods 18

The art of ‘failing forward’ to ensure NPD success

Learning from mistakes to improve your product development process 19

Perfect (study) pairing options served up at University of Southern

ISSN 1032 5298 • PRINT POST APPROVED PP241613/00096 VOL 74 ISSUE 3

Understanding the preferences of consumer groups with diverse salivary compositions

JULY – SEPTEMBER 2022

The role of food science in sustainable food systems

Queensland New School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at USQ 20

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF AIFST

‘FAILING FORWARD’ & NPD SUCCESS

Strategic approaches to addressing food safety

The Food Systems Summit and the role of food science and technology in

sustainable food systems FST’s role in the development of sustainable global food systems 24

COVID & the chicken meat industry

Has food safety certification reached its use-by date?

&

Is it time for a reboot of food safety certification?

26

A2 or not A2? A cautionary tale in dairy (goat) science

Insights into the complexity of caprine and bovine milk proteins 30

Egg safety: Salmonella culturability in acidified raw egg-based foods

&

COVER ALS - right solutions, right partner

Understanding the persistence of Salmonella in raw egg-based foods 32

COVID and the chicken meat industry - impacts and learnings to date

Insight into how one industry navigated the pandemic 38

Strategic approaches to addressing food safety

Food safety strategies covering the entire food supply chain are now needed 42

Disease trends and estimated cost of foodborne illness in Australia

What are the trends in foodborne disease?

44

Where is the fork? The missing link in farm-to-fork food safety strategies

Citizen science and crowd-funding? Filling the data gaps in food safety

food australia 3

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

Food for Thought

Editorial Coordination Melinda Stewart | aifst@aifst.com.au

Contributors Lydia Buchtmann, Dr Erica Donner, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Dr Sally Gras, Dr Kate Howell, Dr Russell Keast, Dr Vivien Kite, Dr Xu Li, Dr Gie Liem, Jiaqiang Luo, Deon Mahoney, Bill McBride, Dr Andrea McWhorter, Dr Lydia Ong, Dr Martin Palmer, Xinwei Ruan, Dipon Sarkar, Jay Sellahewa, Dr Craig Shadbolt, Dr Heather Smyth, Garrick Spencer, Chris Thomas, Megan Woodward.

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

Subscriptions AIFST | aifst@aifst.com.au

Production Bite Communications

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the Winter edition of food australia.

Recently I had the opportunity to attend and present at an industry stakeholder event on ‘Future Ready Food Standards’ facilitated by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).

In preparing my presentation, I reflected on the significant role the Australian food system plays in delivering safe, reliable, and nutritious food products to the Australian population, supported by a robust, innovative, science based Australian agrifood industry.

There is no argument that our agrifood system is facing immense challenges and pressures. There are many food safety challenges such as – increasing numbers of vulnerable consumers, emerging pathogens, desire for minimal processing, food fraud and antimicrobial resistance to name a few. This is the landscape in which food scientists are working. The challenges require innovation as the norm. This is not new however the pace of change has accelerated.

With challenges come opportunity – how can the many sectors of the Australian food industry work together to achieve common goals? The answer lies, once again, in collaboration – working together to achieve shared goals, embracing innovative ways of thinking, and working.

If the Australian food system is to be positioned to take advantage of the huge opportunities foreseen by our experts, and to mitigate the threats, a serious, nationally coordinated approach to food needs to be prioritised so that it is led by industry with true commitment, collaboration, and support from the highest levels of government.

AIFST22 – our annual convention is just around the corner – Food Science – creating the future through collaboration and innovation. To reiterate my challenge from earlier in the year across the many disciplines of food science and technology in the food and agri-business sector, how are you going to collaborate to innovate – what will you do differently, what will your role be and how will you create change?

Don’t forget AIFST22 will be held as a face-to-face event, on August 23 & 24 in Melbourne featuring a full technical program and an exhibition. Please join us in August to grow, learn and connect.

As always, I invite and encourage you to take an active role engaging with the Institute – it is only through continued engagement that we can fulfill our purpose of uniting food industry professionals in the science of feeding our future.

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

BY THE NUMBERS

Analysing Australian food recalls Words by Food Standards Australia New Zealand Food recalls help assure Australia’s safe food supply.

Every year, dozens of food businesses work with state and territory enforcement agencies and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to remove unsafe food from distribution, sale or consumption.

Food recalls are conducted at trade and consumer level.

A trade recall recovers food not sold directly to consumers from places such as distribution centres, wholesalers and caterers.

A consumer recall recovers foods sold to the public from all points in the production, distribution and retail chain.

Foods are recalled for a variety of reasons including undeclared allergens, microbial contamination, presence of foreign matter, packaging faults and labelling errors.

FSANZ coordinates and monitors food recalls in Australia, publishing annual statistics and a 10-year analysis to help identify trends and develop preventative strategies.

Food manufacturers, importers and wholesalers are required to have a food recall plan in place to ensure unsafe food can be quickly removed from the food supply chain.

Businesses are encouraged to prepare for a recall by regularly reviewing their food recall plan and conducting mock recalls.

Being prepared ensures businesses have the necessary information to conduct a recall and supports timely and comprehensive recovery action.

An up-to-date distribution list for products is critical. Distribution information is used by government agencies to ensure businesses have been notified of the recall and the affected product has been removed from sale or destroyed.

For consumer recalls, distribution lists should include retailers where the product is available for sale to consumers.

Food recalls in Australia between 2012 and 2021 Total food recalls in Australia 776 recalls conducted between 2012 and 2021

80 recalls conducted in 2021

665 consumer recalls (86%) and 111 trade (14%)

10-year average of 78 recalls per year

Recall reasons 2012-2021

TOP 3 REASONS

Undeclared allergen (335), Microbial contamination (201), Foreign matter (92)

TOP 5 UNDECLARED ALLERGENS Milk (100), Multiple allergens (57), Peanuts (49), Tree nuts (35) Wheat/gluten (31)

GLASS

TOP 5 MICROBIAL CONTAMINANTS

Listeria monocytogenes (72), Salmonella (46), Escherichia coli (41), Other microbial contaminant (23), Hepatitis A (7)

TOP 5 FOREIGN MATTER TYPES

Plastic (28), Metal (27), Glass (22), Other (9), Rubber (3)

Top 5 food categories recalled 2012-2021

Mixed and/or processed foods (277)

Breads and bakery products (194)

Fruits, vegetables and herbs (178)

Confectionary Dairy (168) products (144)

For more food recall statistics visit www.foodstandards.gov.au

food australia 5

PEOPLE

Food Standards Australia New Zealand has a new Chief Executive Officer Dr Sandra Cuthbert was appointed to the role of CEO at FSANZ in April 2022 after serving eight months as interim CEO following the departure of Professor Mark Booth.

A former FSANZ General Manager, Dr Cuthbert brings a wealth of expertise and experience to the role.

With qualifications in law and veterinary medicine and surgery, Dr Cuthbert worked in private practice before joining the Australian Public Service (APS).

As an APS executive, she managed biosecurity risks, supported Commonwealth-State relations, developed policy and led agency corporate services and governance.

Dr Cuthbert said she was excited to be leading FSANZ at a time of opportunity and challenge for the Australian and New Zealand food sectors.

“The global food system is experiencing rapid change driven by multiple factors including evolving science, advancing technologies, supply chain challenges and shifting market and consumer needs,” she said.

“As good regulatory stewards, FSANZ will continue to work collaboratively with our stakeholders to ensure our bi-national system responds to change, prioritises food safety and delivers an effective, transparent and accountable standards framework within which industry can work efficiently.

“I’m committed to ensuring FSANZ maintains and builds on its reputation as a world-leader in food safety science, information and standards setting.”

Dr Cuthbert said her priorities included broadening stakeholder engagement, improving client

service delivery through digital transformation, supporting system priorities for modernisation and maintaining robust evidence-based decision making.

“FSANZ will continue to work closely with domestic, regional and global partners to deliver on its legislative responsibilities, maintain standards that ensure a safe food supply and support innovation,” Dr Cuthbert said.

Dr Donna Cawthorn joins DAF QLD as Food Innovation Team Leader After a competitive search, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF), Queensland, has appointed South African food scientist Dr Donna Cawthorn to lead the Food Innovation team within the Agri-Food and Data Sciences unit.

Donna holds a PhD degree in Food Science and more than 15 years of experience in the agrifood and fisheries sectors, primarily working at the interface between food provenance, food security and sustainable supply chains. Based at Coopers Plains in Brisbane, she will guide the team in pioneering research related to post-harvest quality, ingredient development, value addition, alternative processing technologies, waste utilisation, consumer insights and market trends.

Prior to joining DAF, Donna built a strong international reputation for her work on food authentication and traceability, applying a suite of

6 food australia

innovative tools – including molecular techniques and trade data analyses – to enhance market transparency and detect fraud and illicit practices.

She has also collaborated on several projects aimed at leveraging underutilised protein sources to augment food security and curtail overexploitation of wild food resources. From an industry perspective, Donna served as Technical Manager for a commercial food laboratory in South Africa for seven years, fostering robust leadership, organisational and communication skills.

Donna’s work, which consistently strives for positive change for both the public and environment, has been widely disseminated and has had a positive impact on food industry operations, legislative frameworks and broader society.

She has published more than 40 papers, delivered 15 oral presentations

at symposia and more than 30 guest lectures globally, receiving five ‘best oral’ awards and one ‘young scientist’ award.

Donna said her upbringing on a cattle farm in South Africa sparked her interest in the biological sciences, and she cannot wait to translate this passion into innovation and value addition for Queensland’s agricultural and fisheries industries.

Professor Giovanni Turchini to lead the School of Agriculture and Food at the University of Melbourne Renowned fisheries and aquaculture researcher Professor Giovanni Turchini has been appointed Head of the School of Agriculture and Food at the University of Melbourne.

He has broad academic leadership experience and is an internationally recognised researcher in the biochemistry of nutrition with a successful track record in competitive national grant funding. His key interests include nutrition (animal and human), aquaculture, food and feed technologies and fatty acid metabolism in cultured aquatic species, as well as sustainability and ethical issues in fisheries and aquaculture.

Professor Turchini was formerly the Associate Dean Research for the Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, and Professor in Nutrition and Food Science, in the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at Deakin University.

Professor Turchini started his academic career with a master’s degree in animal sciences in the Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, University of Milan, Italy, graduating with highest honours - Summa Cum Laude. He continued at the same institution to gain his PhD in Food Quality and to undertake postdoctoral research. He then spent 18 years at Deakin University progressing from ARC Research Fellow to Professor, Associate Head of School and Associate Dean.

The School of Agriculture and Food forms part of the Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences at the University of Melbourne, Victoria’s leading university for the agricultural sciences. The School’s integrated teams of scientists, engineers and practitioners are improving the nutritional quality, safety and availability of the world’s food supply through collaboration,

applied research and innovation.

“We are working across disciplines with smart technologies to push the boundaries of knowledge in food production, soil quality, water management, animal physiology, pests and diseases, agri-economics, plants and food sustainability,” said Professor Turchini.

Vale Anthony Roy Hazzard – food safety advocate Tony Hazard recently passed away after a career educating and advocating for food safety both in Australia and abroad. Tony worked tirelessly instructing students about the importance of food microbiology as well as promoting food safety initiatives whilst working with the World Health Organiation (WHO).

Tony was born in Sydney in 1953. He was educated in Sydney, Melbourne and the UK, before studying science at the University of Sydney. He started his professional career initially as a tutor then lecturer in microbiology at Hawkesbury Agricultural College (now Western Sydney University).

Along his professional journey, the opportunity arose to work on food safety with the WHO in the Western Pacific region. Tony then balanced his academic work in Australia with numerous assignments at WHO headquarters (Geneva) and in WHO

regional offices in Manila and New Delhi.

As Regional Food Safety Advisor, Tony oversaw a range of groundbreaking capacity building initiatives in the countries of the Southeast Asian and Western Pacific regions.

This included significant incidents such as avian influenza, melamine contamination in food from China, the detection of Ebola Reston in the Philippines, and poisonings associated with the consumption of turtle meat.

His work saw emerging economies accept and adopt the primacy of food safety as an essential public health function.

As well as teaching the next generation of food microbiologists, Tony’s contribution to food microbiology included the chapter on Clostridium botulinum in Foodborne Microorganisms of Public Health Significance (the Green Book) with Bill Murrell.

Tony was a quiet achiever, actively making things happen, but never seeking the limelight. He was an engaging academic who cared deeply for his students, as well as being a passionate promoter of food safety across the globe. He has been remembered by many as kind, empathetic and respectful, but also daring, cheeky and unstoppable when it came to standing up for what was right. For this he is fondly remembered by a vast cohort of food safety professionals across Australia, Europe, Asia and the Pacific.

food australia 7

PEOPLE

CSIRO announces key leadership appointment for its Agriculture and Food Business Unit Dr Michael Robertson has been appointed Director of Agriculture and Food, a globally recognised team creating healthier, trusted, safer and more sustainable food and fibre for the future.

Dr Robertson has been at CSIRO for 29 years, where he has held a range of leadership roles including Deputy Director of Agriculture and Food, and Acting Director of Health and Biosecurity.

Dr Robertson has been integral

to furthering research in digital agriculture, and championing CSIRO’s Missions, which are largescale, impact focussed scientific and collaborative research initiatives aimed at making significant breakthroughs. His research background is in crop agronomy, farming systems and simulation modelling.

Dr Robertson will take up his new role on 1 August.

Vale John Ingram Pitt - 1937-2022 With deep sadness we report the passing of Dr John Pitt on 23 March 2022, after a long and courageous battle against lymphoma.

On 1st March, 1954, just before his 17th birthday, John Pitt started his first job, joining CSIRO Division of Food Preservation as a Technical Assistant Grade 1 (Junior). He went on to advance through all research grades, reaching Chief Research Scientist in 1992.

At UNSW, John initially undertook a part-time degree in Food Technology, continued onto an MSc qualifying course, and then a part-time MSc, studying Microbiological Problems in Prune Preservation. In these early years he worked on the preservation of dried fruit, which led to his life-long interest in mycological aspects of food spoilage.

A full time PhD at University of California, Davis, studying yeast taxonomy, was followed by a postdoctoral year at the USDA Northern Regional Research Center, Peoria, Illinois, where he learnt Penicillium taxonomy. These years set up the two main streams to John’s science: John the taxonomist and John the food mycologist.

As a food mycologist, John Pitt sought to understand the relationships between fungi and food spoilage and the production

8 food australia

of mycotoxins in the food supply, working on improving the methods and media used to isolate fungi from foods.

He provided practical help and advice on mycological problems to the Australian food industry in the management of spoilage caused by preservative resistant yeasts, heat resistant moulds, xerophilic fungi, Penicillium and Aspergillus in products as diverse as beverages, fruit purees, syrups, confectionery, cakes, bread, flour and tomato paste.

As part of the many projects he was involved in, he employed and trained graduate scientists and PhD students, many of whom went on to successful careers in microbiology, food science and food mycology in Australia and abroad.

John built a network of colleagues within Australia and overseas and was highly respected. His expertise in mycotoxins and foodborne fungi resulted in invitations to give many keynote and plenary addresses at conferences and he was a valued contributor to many high-level international committees and working parties, including ICMSF, ICFM, WHO and FAO. In 2003, John was awarded the Centenary Medal, Commonwealth of Australia, for ‘Services to Food Science and Technology’.

John was always very generous with his knowledge and loved teaching. With his North and South American colleagues, he organised and taught many workshops on Penicillium and Aspergillus identification, food mycology methods and identification of foodborne fungi.

This enthusiasm to pass on knowledge was the driving force behind the forthcoming 4th edition of ‘Fungi and Food Spoilage’, due out later this year, and it is sad that he will not see the finished product.

He will be greatly missed.

AIFST NEWS

Victorian Branch event Words by Pilar Oyarzun Being a member of AIFST is not only about finding opportunities for yourself while building up a network, or keeping your knowledge of the industry up to date through our webinars or workshops, but also about sharing your experience with the new generation of food scientists to help them flourish in our industry.

Members of the AIFST Victorian Branch had a great opportunity to do just that when they were invited by the Graduate Agriculture and Food Society at the University of Melbourne to attend a careers night in April.

As part of the event, students heard the career stories of some of our branch members - Tom Debney, Executive Director at FAPIC Pty Ltd;

Sarah Crisp, Senior Partner Food Safety at Rule Thirteen; Ashna Gobin and Leonardo Bohorquez, Food Technologists at Edlyn Foods Pty Ltd; Troy Gosetti, Technical Support Representative at Neogen; and Pilar Oyarzun, Principal Consultant at Great Food Creations Pty Ltd. Key messages from our industry speakers to the students that night were: • Find a mentor • Diversify your career as much as

you can • The best company to work for is the one whose values match yours • Build solid and long-lasting relationships within the industry and its stakeholders The night was filled with excitement and brilliant young minds that AIFST is looking forward to helping grow, learn and connect to champion the Australian food industry.

WA Branch careers night Words by Dr Vicky Solah The AIFST WA Branch careers night was held at Murdoch University on Wednesday 27th April, 2022.

The format this year involved a short background brief by an industry panel followed by question time.

The panel consisted of: Hayley Cullen (scientist), Eibhlin McCleary (HR specialist), Charlotte Rowley (Dietitian), Clare Wood (Dietitian/ Lecturer), Justin Whitely (AIFST Fellow and Compass Group), Barry McCleary (FiberCarb, Ireland), Wendy Hunt (AEGIC), Haelee Fenton (Intergrain), Stuart Johnson (AIFST Fellow and past Vesco), Andrew Tilley (past Gelavo and Vesco, Lecturer) and Samantha Fewster (Quality Produce).

Despite participants needing to wear face masks, the night was a great success with 38 students attending from Murdoch University, Curtin University and Edith Cowan University. Vicky Solah chaired the event while Justin Whitely welcomed the industry panel and highlighted the benefits of AIFST membership.

We received positive feedback

about the addition of HR specialist Eibhlin McCleary to the panel and will make sure a HR focus is part of future careers nights. Special thanks to student Chloe Efstratiadis who checked vaccination certificates and registrations as people arrived.

A clear message to students from all on the panel, and highlighted by both Eibhlin McCleary and Haelee Fenton, was to prepare a targeted resume and clearly address the selection criteria in a carefully written application letter focussing on the specific role.

Many students were interested in a career in nutrition and were pleased to hear from Charlotte Rowley and Clare Wood on improvement in the number of positions advertised for nutritionists and dietitians in Australia. Everyone on the industry panel shared the view that showing evidence of being a volunteer was key to standing out in an interview.

Thank you to industry representatives, student volunteers and Murdoch University for supporting this event.

Charlotte Rowley with students.

Dr Justin Whitely welcomes the industry panel and students.

Dr Vicky Solah is Associate Professor and Academic Chair of Food Science and Nutrition in the College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education at Murdoch University.

food australia 9

AIFST NEWS

WA Branch event Words by Dr Vicky Solah Professor Barry McCleary, from FiberCarb in Ireland, presented on the development and application of the world reference method for dietary fibre. This method was implemented in May this year by the US FDA and food authorities worldwide, including Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), for measuring and monitoring food fibre claims.

A great night was held at Don Massimo Underground, one of Perth’s most distinctive buildings on Barrack Street, which was erected in 1894 for pawnbroker Phineas Seeligson.

The audience of industry, university and health professionals were keen to understand the chemistry and how important it is to health claims

to measure fibre content by an International standard method.

Hayley Cullen chaired the evening and organised networking games, essential for an event like this which attracted new people to our AIFST network. Sharron Meakins, a diabetes educator, won the ‘weight of the dried mushrooms’ competition.

During a fruit and vegetable guessing competition, the choko and an unusual looking sweet potato caught many people out. The winning group had conveniently already given themselves the team name ‘The Winners’. Congratulations to team members Yan Xin, Kim Jorgensen, Mahya Bahmani and Haelee Fenton.

Thank you to Don Massimo

AEGIC and Intergrain with Hayley Cullen.

Underground for delicious food, and to Tresslyn Warmsley and Intergrain for sponsoring the event.

Dr Vicky Solah is Associate Professor and Academic Chair of Food Science and Nutrition in the College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education at Murdoch University.

RMIT offers Institute membership to its food science students RMIT School of Science acknowledges the fantastic role AIFST plays in the food science and technology community in Australia. It is a great pleasure that we have joined forces with AIFST to offer membership to 69 of our food science students.

As Dean of Science at RMIT, and a passionate food scientist, I think this represents a great opportunity for our students to come together with experienced practitioners and researchers. At RMIT we are

committed to developing meaningful, impactful teaching and research opportunities for all of our students so they are job-ready before they leave the University.

My thanks and appreciation go out to AIFST for the mentoring of these younger members. AIFST is the premier professional institute in Australia and plays such an important role in shaping the future of food science across all of Australia and beyond.

Professor Charles Brennan, RMIT University.

Face-to-face event bowls over the Queensland Branch Words by Stewart Eddie On a balmy April evening, thirty members and guests of the AIFST Queensland Branch gathered at the New Farm Bowls Club in Brisbane for a barefoot bowls and networking event.

The competition was enthusiastic as attendees enjoyed the chance to meet old friends and make new acquaintances. A feature of the evening was having guest speaker Bob McMillan share with the group the important role FoodBank

10 food australia

Queensland plays in addressing food insecurity in the local community.

We thank Foodbank Queensland for partnering with our event and are thankful for the generosity of our sponsors - BVAQ and Neogen.

It was a delightful evening of fun, networking and storytelling, but the best part was that we were able to contribute $400 from the proceeds to support the valuable work of Foodbank Queensland in our community. The Committee looks

AIFST members Deirdre Mikkelsen, Polly Burey and Lisa Hopkins. forward to seeing you at the next event.

AIFST NEWS

University of Adelaide - 2021 Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Prize On the evening of May 3 2022, the annual School of Agriculture, Food and Wine Prize Ceremony was held at the University of Adelaide’s Waite Campus. This ceremony honoured the School’s 2021 prize winners and 2022 scholarship holders.

AIFST has supported and participated in this ceremony since 2010 through the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Prize. This prize was established by the University of Adelaide in 2010 in partnership with the AIFST and is awarded to the graduate with the highest aggregate in the Bachelor of Food and Nutrition Science program.

The 2021 winning candidate is Wen Dee Lee. Wen Dee is the 12th consecutive graduate from the Bachelor of Food and Nutrition

Science to be awarded the AIFST Prize.

Wen Dee, an international student from Malaysia, was also awarded the Food South Australia Prize at the Prize Ceremony, for the best student who successfully completed the Food and Nutrition Science industry placement course in 2021. Wen Dee also received a Faculty of Sciences Outstanding Academic Achievement Award for 2021 and 2020.

Congratulations and best wishes to Wen Dee Lee for her future career.

AIFST supports both graduates and students studying food science and technology, and does this in a variety of ways, such as partnering with tertiary institutions to acknowledge student success, offering student and graduate

membership of AIFST, the annual Student Summer School program and opportunities for students to submit abstracts and posters to the annual AIFST Convention.

Is your palm oil sustainable?

The palm oil supply chain is complex and the consumer-driven demand for sustainable palm continues to grow. RSPO Supply Chain Certification with BSI can help your organization increase resilience in this challenging market and assure customers that your palm oil practices are sustainable.

From mills and crushers to refineries and ingredient or end-product manufacturers, the certification process assesses the traceability of your product as well as your procedures so that you can credibly claim it aligns with environmental and social best practice as established by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

Certified organizations benefit from being able use RSPO trademarks on B2B and B2B2C communications and the ability to position themselves as a supply chain-certified supplier to potential and existing downstream customers who are looking for certified suppliers as part of their own RSPO certification process.

For more information Visit: bsigroup.com/food-au Call: 1300 730 134

food australia 11

AIFST NEWS

Another virtual success: 16th NZOZ Sensory and Consumer Science Symposium Words by Dr Heather Smyth With the support of AIFST, the University of Queensland hosted the 16th annual Australia and New Zealand Sensory and Consumer Science Symposium in February attracting a record breaking 120 online delegates.

The NZOZ Sensory Symposium is traditionally attended by researchers and professionals from Australia and New Zealand, however, for the first time, members of the recently formed Asian Sensory Network (ASN) were also invited to participate.

Around half of the delegates were from private businesses in the food and beverage sector, with the remaining participants representing more than 20 universities, several government organisations and industry research institutes. The three-day program involved presentations from international keynote speakers, local experts and students.

Guest speaker Dr Sara Jaeger, who leads the Sensory and Consumer Insights team at Plant and Food Research in New Zealand, presented her very topical consumer research on the transition to plant-based foods and beverages.

Associate Professor Sujinda Sriwattana, from the Asian Sensory Network and Chiang Mai University in Thailand, presented her research involving the development of reduced sodium foods.

Dr John Ennis, co-founder and president of Aigora, presented on how future facing technologies can help sensory and consumer science teams prepare for artificial intelligence in the food and beverage space.

Other presentations covered a range of topics including sustainability, plant-based foods, cross-cultural and life-stage food choice, health and wellbeing, emerging methods and digital developments.

There were also several product-

12 food australia

Dr Sara Jaeger. focussed presentations covering sensory and consumer research of wine, dairy, cereals, honey and Australian native foods as well as processed foods and ingredients.

While the symposium was presented virtually, with many presentations pre-recorded, there were ample opportunities for lively discussion and interaction.

The Symposium is known for providing opportunities for students to attend and present their work and in 2022 we also attracted students from several international universities and institutions. Awards were presented to students who gave outstanding presentations.

The international nature of the symposium was evident during the awards ceremony with the award for Best Oral Presentation going to Jenna Fryer from Oregon State University (USA), and runner-up Caroline Giesenaar from Massey University (NZ). Best Poster Presentation was awarded to Shannon Ruzgys from Brock University (Canada).

While the 2022 virtual event was in many ways a great success, networking and tasting workshops were greatly missed, as these have been a cornerstone of the NZOZ Sensory and Consumer Science Symposium experience.

In 2023, the 17th NZOZ Sensory and Consumer Science Symposium will be held in New Zealand (location to be confirmed) during February and

Associate Professor Sujinda Sriwattana.

Dr John Ennis. the organising committee is keen to ensure that future symposiums return to face-to-face meetings with ondemand material made available for delegates who are unable to attend in person.

We look forward to seeing you in New Zealand in 2023, hopefully in person. Keep an eye on future editions of food australia for more details, or contact Dr Mei Peng from the Department of Food Science, University of Otago (mei.peng@ otago.ac.nz) or Associate Professor Heather Smyth, the University of Queensland (email h.smyth@uq.edu. au) for more information.

Dr Heather Smyth is a Principal Research Fellow at the University of Queensland and leads the Food Quality Team as part of the Centre for Nutrition and Food Sciences (CNAFS) at the Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI).

FOOD SAFETY

Protecting Australia’s food and agribusiness sectors by tackling antimicrobial resistance

Quality Endorsed Company ISO 9001:2015 SAI Global

Words by Dr Erica Donner

A

ntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a complex challenge that poses a critical threat to food and water security and human health. Antimicrobials such as antibiotics and antifungals are essential assets for many food and agribusiness industries, but their overuse and misuse can lead to AMR. When AMR emerges in bacteria and fungi they no longer respond to available antimicrobials. This increases disease risk and burden, making it more difficult and costly to treat infections, and reducing productivity.

As AMR poses a health and biosecurity risk and can impact import/export markets, effective AMR management is needed to meet Australia’s Ag2030 goal to grow agriculture into a $100 billion industry by 2030.

But managing AMR is a complex challenge that requires a collaborative effort across many industries. This is why Australia’s newly funded Cooperative Research Centre for Solving Antimicrobial Resistance in Agribusiness, Food and Environments (CRC SAAFE) is taking a crosssectoral, multi-partnered approach to tackling AMR. The CRC SAAFE consortium continues to grow, and now includes more than 60 agricultural businesses, food and beverage producers, water and waste processors, regulators, government agencies, universities and research institutes. Through CRC SAAFE, industries with similar AMR challenges will work together to find shared solutions to mitigate AMR. CRC SAAFE research will support partners to develop and commercialise the tools needed to tackle AMR across their value chains, de-risk their circular economies, and increase their competitiveness. This will ensure that partners are better positioned to secure international market access, safeguard export growth, and reach productivity targets.

Through an extensive 10-year program of training and education, CRC SAAFE will also equip the next generation of practitioners and professionals with the tools, technology and know-how to manage AMR. A range of PhD opportunities, vocational training, microcredentialling, short courses and workshops will be offered to ensure that AMR knowledge is disseminated as widely as possible throughout the food and agribusiness and environmental management sectors.

Australian food and agriculture is known worldwide for its premium quality, safety and sustainability. By mitigating AMR, CRC SAAFE will help protect and leverage this powerful global brand.

Professor Erica Donner is acting CEO of the Cooperative Research Centre for Solving Antimicrobial Resistance in Agribusiness, Food and Environments (CRC SAAFE). f

METALS DIGESTION and Sample Preparation Designed so you can perform metals digestion rapidly and safely, with accuracy and uniformity.

PT0494 Digestion Cups 50mL

HG0577 GhostWipe Premoistened 15x15cm

ID0121 Digestion Block, ‘Hotblock’, 200 Series

PR0187 Wire Rack Ultimate cup - 18 place

IA0311 Autoblock Plus Digestion System

For product details and ordering information, download the brochure on our website.

Scan QR code or click on this ad to see further information.

DOWNLOAD THE BROCHURE

Visit our website.

www.rowe.com.au Stirring and Mixing

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

Queensland

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

Victoria & Tasmania Ph: (03) 9701 7077 rowevic@rowe.com.au REF:101

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

Western Australia

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

x/marketing/advertising/AIFST/101-AIFST.APRJUNE 2021

food australia 13

STUDENT CONTRIBUTION FEATURE

Individual variability of saliva and the perception of food flavour Words by Xinwei Ruan, Jiaqiang Luo and Dr Kate Howell

E

veryone has saliva, which is essential to our physiological processes for digestion, but have you ever wondered what saliva is made of? While human saliva appears similar, its composition between people varies widely.

Variation mainly depends on who you are, your diet and your lifestyle.

Our saliva is integral in every eating process - to reduce food size, initiate digestion and to perceive the flavour of foods. Therefore, is it possible that our individual variation in saliva composition also makes food taste different to different people?

Here, we describe the interindividual variation in human saliva and demonstrate the potential connections to both host factors and sensory perception. Studying various sensory responses potentially allows us to better understand the preferences of consumer groups with diverse salivary compositions and to better design foods for particular audiences.

What is in saliva?

Our saliva is approximately 99% water, but the remaining 1% is highly complex, and includes electrolytes, proteins, lipids, sugars, and hormones.1 The small fraction of functional salivary ingredients provides critical support during

14 food australia

food consumption. For example, one of the most common salivary proteins, mucin, has a lubricating and softening effect on food during chewing. Without lubricating proteins like mucin, it is not possible to swallow solid food.

Saliva is important for supporting growth of the oral microbiota and allowing the adhesion of the resident microorganisms. The oral cavity is one of the most complex and clinically relevant habitats in our bodies, colonised by various microbial groups including bacteria, fungi, archaea and viruses.

Bacteria are the most abundant microorganisms in saliva as more than 700 bacterial species in the oral cavity have been identified and are supported by saliva as a major energy source.2 Every day, 80 billion bacteria are shed from the surface of the mouth and carried into the digestive tract by swallowing with the help of saliva.3 The salivary microbiome is essential in maintaining host health status through host-microbe interaction. Although the underlying mechanisms by which microbes and host are linked have not been fully understood, emerging evidence shows that the salivary microbiome alters with the changes in health status of the host.

Do we all have the same saliva?

Numerous studies have evidenced the inter-individual variations in our saliva. Different people may vary in both the volume of saliva produced and its composition. Similarly, not all bacteria detected from the oral cavities are shared from person to person.

Our previous study defined the core membership of healthy human salivary microbiota by re-analysing raw 16S rRNA data from 47 studies.

Although the core microbiota is common across the 2,206 saliva samples investigated, they also demonstrated large variabilities among different populations.4 Interestingly, the composition of saliva produced by the same person is also dynamic. For example, the composition of our saliva can be significantly different in the morning and the afternoon.

The large variability of salivary composition is attributed to intrinsic personal attributes and lifestyle factors. The intrinsic factors are inherent physiological characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, circadian rhythm and genetic characteristics, while lifestyle factors are regarded as extrinsic factors.

Some lifestyle habits, such as smoking, drinking alcohol and

dietary composition may affect the composition of saliva. As a recognised risk factor for oral health, smoking tobacco drastically alters the type and abundance of oral bacteria. Such changes in oral microbial profiles may result in the development of various diseases, such as cancer and diabetes. The alteration may be produced by direct contact between microorganisms in the human mouth and the toxic components in cigarettes.5

How is saliva associated with flavour perception?

The flavour of food is predominantly determined by its volatile profile and the physicochemical composition of the food matrix. When perceiving food aroma we rely on orthonasal and retronasal olfaction (Figure 2). The former happens when we directly sniff the food and aroma compounds reach the olfactory nerves located in the nasal cavity through our nostrils.

When eating, retronasal olfaction allows aroma compounds to travel from the mouth to the nasal cavity and then to the olfactory receptors.

Food aroma perceived by the retronasal olfaction varies not only in the intensities of particular notes, but also the types of perceivable sensory attributes due to the modulating effects of the oral environment.

Retronasal olfaction begins when food is taken into the mouth and disrupted with mastication.

Mastication increases the release of hydrophobic aroma compounds present in food by interrupting bonding to lipids via weak Van der Waals forces and other hydrophobic binding interactions.

The contribution of saliva to aroma perception is interesting when liquid consumption is considered.

Saliva can change the partition coefficient of aroma compounds by dilution, salting out and modification of rheological properties. As the partition coefficient of individual aroma compounds is changed, they become more available to be perceived via retronasal olfaction.

Salivary components are able to

Figure 1. Saliva composition is influenced by host factors and contributes to food selection and preference.

Figure 2. Food aroma perception by orthonasal and retronasal olfaction. Orthonasal olfaction is the direct detection of volatile compounds through the nose, which is detected by aroma receptors to then be processed by the olfactory bulb. Retronasal olfaction describes the aroma compounds released by food after mixing with saliva in the mouth. participate in olfaction in different ways. Firstly, by the binding of salivary proteins and aroma compounds; secondly, by catalysing enzymatic reactions; and thirdly by oral microbiota directly producing aroma compounds.

If we consider the first, proteins are able to interact with aroma compounds modulating their release and therefore influence retronasal olfaction. The most abundant human salivary proteins, α-amylase and mucin, demonstrate strong aroma retention capacity, typically against esters by the hydrophobic interaction.6 Notably, a trace protein lipocalin-1 is likely to bind small aroma compounds by its hydrophobic

pocket structure and then transport these compounds to the olfactory receptors. Results from our work7 also demonstrated that participants with more abundant salivary lipocalin-1 tended to perceive stronger ‘fruity’ and ‘floral’ notes from Shiraz wine.

The second mode of interaction is from enzymes in human saliva participating directly in aroma release. Salivary easters, aldehyde dehydrogenases and peroxidases are accessible to specific substrates present in the food being consumed.

They can potentially catalyse chemical reactions to shape in-mouth aroma release and consequently flavour perception.

Finally, there are studies which

food australia 15

STUDENT CONTRIBUTION FEATURE

4

5

6

7

8

show that oral microorganisms are themselves able to produce volatile compounds. Production of aromas can be achieved by either their own metabolism, producing malodorous volatile sulfur compounds or hydrolysis of odourless precursors.

Muñoz-González et al8 reported that human oral bacteria were capable of releasing grape C6-alcohols, terpenes and benzenoids from their glycosylated precursors and thus impacting the flavour of wine.

Change your lifestyle, change your saliva (and the foods you prefer) Since saliva composition is related to host factors and it affects aroma perception, we can potentially explain the inter-individual variation in sensory perception by the differences in our saliva induced by our intrinsic or lifestyle factors.

This hypothesis has been tested in consumers’ sensory responses to wine.

A study showed that the rate of aroma release from wine is different in the saliva of obese people versus normal-weight people.9 Recently, the effects of age and gender differences on in-mouth volatile release during wine tasting were shown to be related to composition of saliva.10 It is possible that other factors are related to wine perception and preference.

Our study found that Western and Chinese wine consumers reported different flavours and aromas in

16 food australia

the same wines. Further analysis suggested that significant differences in salivary proteins altered in the Western and Chinese wine consumers and may then in turn affect flavour release and detection to explain this variation.7 Establishing relationships between different consumers and their perceptions of wine could help the wine industry better understand the preferences of different markets and make wines accordingly. Beyond wine, consumers could choose other foods that meet their individual preferences.

Studies have investigated preferences based on saliva composition in other foods, such as cheese, bread and ice cream, but as yet, these predictions exist in the research domain only. Perhaps one day in the future, the moment you step into a supermarket, your smartphone will be able to tell you which foods are right for you, just based on your personal lifestyle, intrinsic factors and the composition of your saliva.

References 1. Dawes, C. et al. (2015). “The functions of human saliva: A review sponsored by the World Workshop on Oral Medicine VI” Archives of Oral Biology, 60(6): 863-874 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2015.03.004 2 Welch, J. L. M., Rossetti, B. J., Rieken, C. W., Dewhirst, F. E. & Borisy, G. G. (2016).

“Biogeography of a human oral microbiome at the micron scale” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(6): E791-E800 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1522149113 3 Pedersen, A. M. L. & Belstrøm, D. (2019). “The role of natural salivary defences in maintaining

9

10

a healthy oral microbiota” Journal of Dentistry, 80: S3-S12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jdent.2018.08.010 Ruan, X., Luo, J., Zhang, P. & Howell, K. (2022). “The salivary microbiome shows a high prevalence of core bacterial members yet variability across human populations” bioRxiv: 2021.2012.2013.471511 https://doi. org/10.1101/2021.12.13.471511 Yu, G. et al. (2017). “The effect of cigarette smoking on the oral and nasal microbiota” Microbiome, 5(1): 3 https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40168-016-0226-6 Pagès-Hélary, S., Andriot, I., Guichard, E. & Canon, F. (2014). “Retention effect of human saliva on aroma release and respective contribution of salivary mucin and α-amylase” Food Research International, 64: 424-431 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.07.013 Luo, J. et al. (2021). “Can variation in wine preference amongst consumers be explained by salivary protein composition?”

Poster presented at the Institute of Food Technologists annual meeting 2020, Chicago, IL Muñoz-González, C., Cueva, C., Ángeles PozoBayón, M. & Victoria Moreno-Arribas, M. (2015).

“Ability of human oral microbiota to produce wine odorant aglycones from odourless grape glycosidic aroma precursors” Food Chemistry, 187: 112-119 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodchem.2015.04.068 Piombino, P. et al. (2014). “Saliva from Obese Individuals Suppresses the Release of Aroma Compounds from Wine” PLOS ONE, 9(1): e85611 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0085611 Pérez-Jiménez, M. et al. (2022). “Insights on the effect of age and gender on in-mouth volatile release during wine tasting” Food Research International, 155: 111100 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111100

Miss Xinwei Ruan (MSc, UMelb) is a PhD candidate in Agricultural Science at the University of Melbourne. She is working on investigating the inter-individual variation in human salivary microbiota, and the influence of saliva composition on the sensory perception of foods.

Follow her @louise_ruan95.

Mr Jiaqiang Luo (MSc, UMelb) is a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. He is currently working on understanding the impacts of salivary protein composition on wine sensory perception and preference. He is a cofounder of Nanjing Jizhishi New Material Technology Co., Ltd. and a portrait photographer. Follow him @ xavier_luo.

Associate Professor Kate Howell (PhD, UNSW) is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Melbourne. She heads a laboratory of postdocs and graduate researchers to investigate questions of microbial ecology and chemistry in agriculture and food production. Kate has particular expertise in yeast biology and genetics with applications to food and beverage production. Follow her @ lifeonthefly15 f

AIFST22 – JOIN US IN MELBOURNE IN AUGUST TO GROW, LEARN AND CONNECT Exhibition and Full Technical Program.

Visit our website for more information about AIFST22

R+K_AZ_2022_Food_Australia_122x162.qxp_Layout 1 30.05.22 11:41 Seite 1

AIFST would like to thank our 2022 Convention Partners Gold Partner

Silver Partner

Bronze Partners

Wine & Cheese Event Partner

food australia 17

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

The art of ‘failing forward’ to ensure NPD success Words by Chris Thomas

H

ave you ever typed “FMCG innovation success rate” into Google? It’s an activity best avoided if we’re honest. You’re instantly met with the statistics about how three in four launches fail within a year and commentary on all of the industry’s issues. It’s a depressing but (unfortunately) accurate summary of the current state of affairs.

But all is not lost, and as is the PLAY way, we’re here to inject some positivity into the situation. That’s why, in this article, we want to show you a deeper and more meaningful way to develop products that you can take learnings from so you can avoid unnecessarily wasting time and money.

the respondents cited being poor at consumer-led product development (aka not bringing consumers in early and often enough) as the NUMBER 1 problem they needed help addressing.

And “more often” doesn’t mean commissioning large-scale, timeconsuming research. Far from it.

Agile approaches like idea screening, concept testing, product clinics and design sprints all play a role.

How can design sprints help?

Design sprints are a brilliant example of agile development work. They involve iterating rapidly with your stakeholders and consumers in real-time. The journey is very

“Innovation sprints are becoming an increasingly common work practice across the world as managers become more aware of their swift, far-reaching results. Tracing their roots back to traditional ‘hackathons’, they not only help the business identify new avenues and solutions – they’re also a great way to build team morale.” (Atlassian)

What is failing forward?

‘Failing forward’ is the concept of front-loading your research with consumer-led product development in order to integrate learnings sooner.

This means rather than just ‘failing fast’ (cutting your losses and quickly trying something else), you’re making informed decisions along the way.

This allows you to bring a better product to market faster and more successfully.

The core premise of failing forward is about testing more often through the concept development journey so you can build on what works and learn from what doesn’t. This involves leveraging smaller, more frequent check-ins to hone and prioritise your potential offers.

In fact, we conducted an indepth, year-long piece of research evaluating innovation pain points within Australian FMCG companies and more than half of

18 food australia

collaborative and ideas are physically brought to life, rather than working from imaginary concepts.

When taking this approach, we often start by going into a qualitative forum with several concept territories, a few pack design directions and some product prototypes (if you’re far enough down the line).

The first round helps identify leading concept directions and key language that can inform further honing. At this point, pack designs can also be reviewed (both on a digital shelf and as a standalone label) to see what works, what fits with the best concepts and more.

Prototypes can then be tested (or tasted!) and early diagnostics help refine the offer.

Lastly, you - the client - go away for a week or two, refine the shortlisted proposition(s) and come back for another round of testing.

Chris Thomas and his team have conducted extensive research to better help clients innovate innovation, from exploration to development, proof and post-launch.

This process allows you to prototype earlier and bring your product to life sooner so you can test what resonates and what doesn’t with real consumers before spending more time or money on early-stage refinements

In support of slipping up You’ve likely heard the expression: “There are no mistakes or failures, only lessons.” (Denis Watley) It might sound cheesy, but it’s true.

Not every concept you put through this process will work. Some ideas will inevitably ‘fail’. However, what we learn from those failures is what keeps us moving forward.

If there’s one piece of advice we want to leave you with, it’s this: Don’t shy away from making mistakes. If anything, run towards the risk of getting it wrong.

Ultimately, those blunders are the best way to do better and achieve a competitive edge that will sustain your business for years to come.

References 1. Thompson, John. (2021) “How to get past “shiny object syndrome” and build what your customers really want” Atlassian: Work Life Blog https://www.atlassian.com/blog/ teamwork/what-is-an-innovation-sprint

Chris Thomas is the founder and director of PLAY Innovation, an FMCG-specific consultancy providing a whole of NPD solution from Australia’s largest sensory testing facility. Subscribe to the PLAY Innovation newsletter to get the latest industry resources and offers direct to your inbox. f

EDUCATION

Perfect (study) pairing options served up at University of Southern Queensland Words by Megan Woodward

R

ising to the challenge of meeting the global environmental challenge of sustainably feeding an ever-growing population, the University of Southern Queensland has opened a new School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences with a full menu of study and research options focused on influencing food production in the future.

From agricultural sustainability and food security to climate change and beyond, study disciplines at the new School include agricultural engineering, agricultural technology and management, agricultural science, environmental science, food science, wine science, horticulture, animal science and wildlife management.

Head of School (Agriculture and Environmental Science) Professor Craig Baillie said his team was hard at work solidifying the connection between teaching, research, industry and community.

“Our purpose is to mould students who are equipped to be critical, creative thinkers, effective communicators and collaborators, ethical, engaged and employable,” Professor Baillie said.

“To do that, we are building flagship undergraduate and postgraduate coursework programs that are highly regarded by industry.”

Professor Baillie said the school was established to help develop strong research expertise and capabilities in agricultural productivity and environment management, both in Australia and internationally.

“From on farm automation to artificial intelligence guided agricultural modelling, through to management of biosecurity risks, we’re proud to deliver thinking that works,” Professor Baillie said.

“It’s all about employing world leading research to help create world changing results, focusing on issues

that are locally relevant, have national significance and a global impact.”

Two new programs within the school were launched this year – the Bachelor of Agricultural Technology and Management and the Bachelor of Environmental Science – as well as a new major in Wildlife Management.

The School’s Associate Professor in Food Science, Dr Polly Burey, said the new programs and majors offer an incredible opportunity for students and academics alike to pair their passion projects.

“We have a number of students who are pairing up majors in food science and wine science, or food science and environmental science,” she said.

“These combinations provide such a great platform for delving into the ever-evolving growth sector of food and really putting the spotlight on the science behind food and food production.”

Dr Burey said the research opportunities afforded through the University – including as a partner in the national Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre – work strategically to unite industry and academia.

“It’s an exciting time to be considering research and collaboration at the University of Southern Queensland right now, and there’s a huge appetite for the research outcomes we’re working towards and have been involved in to date,” she said.

“From helping consumers become healthier to making prize-winning wine to natural resource management, we have scientists involved.”

Dr Burey said the University of Southern Queensland was proud to be playing a part in providing innovative research outcomes, alongside producing industry ready scientists of the future.

“We know that nationally, and

Associate Professor in Food Science, Dr Polly Burey, from the University of Southern Queensland is working to produce industry ready food scientists of the future. globally, industry is crying out for food scientists and technologists, especially those with multidisciplinary expertise,” she said.

“At the University of Southern Queensland we’ve built an incredible offering to meet this demand through the new School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences and I’m really excited to see the impact we’re able to make into the future through these programs.”

To learn more about the University of Southern Queensland’s Food Science degrees visit: https://www. usq.edu.au/hes/school-of-agricultureand-environmental-sciences For more information on key dates for course applications, visit: https:// www.usq.edu.au/study/key-dates Megan Woodward is Communications Coordinator at the University of Southern Queensland. f

food australia 19

FOOD SYSTEMS

The Food Systems Summit and the role of food science and technology in sustainable food systems Words by Jay Sellahewa Words by Dr Jay Sellahewa

T

hroughout the history of mankind, food has played a critical role in all cultures by providing nourishment, improving our wellbeing, and connecting us with each other and our natural environment. Food systems not only transform agricultural products into tasty, nutritious, culturally acceptable, safe to eat and affordable foods, they also empower women in many developing countries and enable economic prosperity through the creation of employment.

However, the way that we currently produce, process, and consume food, together with the food losses that occur throughout the value chain, utilises significant amounts of finite resources and has an adverse impact on the environment. It has been estimated that food accounts for 60% of the losses in biodiversity and about

20 food australia

a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions, and agriculture uses half the world’s habitable land and 70% of freshwater water.1,2 Furthermore, current food systems contribute to inequality in the world resulting in underlying health and ethical issues with many people, mostly in affluent countries, over consuming and those in many poorer countries not having sufficient food, resulting in hunger, malnutrition and mortalities.

These problems are likely to continue and possibly get worse as the global population and affluence increase and conflicts, wars, climate related natural disasters, economic disorders and pandemics such as COVID-19 prevail. Therefore, the current food systems are not sustainable, and it is necessary to transform our food systems to assure

food security and address hunger and malnutrition without compromising the health of our planet.

Sustainable food systems and the Food Systems Summit According to the United Nations (UN) Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), a sustainable food system delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social, and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised.

This definition ensures that sustainable food systems are profitable (economic sustainability), have broad based benefits for society (social sustainability) and have a positive neutral impact on the environment (environmental

sustainability).3 The importance of transforming our current food system was recognised by the UN and, in early 2020, the UN Food Systems Summit (FSS) was formed to empower all people to leverage food systems to achieve all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 because food systems have some impact on all SDGs.4 With the objective of transforming the food system in the way we produce, consume, and think about food, this summit was referred to as the ‘People’s Summit’ and the ‘Solutions Summit’ to focus on the emphasis of widespread consultation with stakeholders and the need to find solutions to transform the food system.

During the 18 months leading up to the Summit, there was extensive consultation and engagement with various stakeholders across 145 countries, including relevant UN agencies, governments, small and medium-sized enterprises, representatives from indigenous peoples, youth and women’s groups, civil society, the private sector, scientists and academia. These consultations, which included nearly 1,700 dialogues with more than 109,000 people, were followed up with a pre-summit in Rome in July 20215 that was attended by around 500 people from 130 countries together with another 22,000 virtual delegates from 183 countries, representing diverse stakeholders.

The pre-summit covered a wide range of topics and there were many discussions on a number of subjects including the nexus between ‘people, planet and prosperity’, the importance of food in connecting all people, the role of marginalised communities, women and youth, impact of the food system on climate change, resilience to shocks, importance of local food systems, systems thinking, multi sector collaboration, role of the private sector, the finance systems and the role of science, technology, and innovation. In addition, there were many discussions on the role of governments and policy makers, civil

society and other stakeholders.

The main Summit took place during the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2021, where the UN Secretary General issued a statement of actions together with pathways for food systems to deliver SDGs by 2030.6 In this statement, the importance of global collaboration among stakeholders (including farmers, governments, the research community and the private sector) and the need for urgent action was emphasised.

Three fundamental areas for shaping progress were identified: • People – ‘Nourishing everyone for health and wellbeing’ • Planet – ‘Producing in harmony with nature’ • Prosperity – ‘Inclusive, transformative and equitable recovery for the 2030 Agenda’.

A feature of the Summit was the statements made by heads of governments and senior Ministers of many UN member states.7 It was proposed that action must be driven at country level by governments in their local contexts. Five broad areas for action were identified:6 1. Nourish all people 2. Boost nature-based solutions 3. Advance equitable livelihoods, decent work, and empowered communities 4. Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses; and

5. Accelerate the means of implementation.

In addition, nearly 300 commitments were made by various stakeholders including member states and civil society, highlighting the Summit’s inclusive approach to accelerate action.8 Furthermore, recognising the fact that multi-sector, multi-stakeholder and inter-country (regional and global) collaboration is required to find practical solutions, several coalitions were formed.9 The UN Secretary General will convene stock take meetings every two years to review progress on the implementation of actions that will contribute to the achievement of the 2030 agenda.

The role of food science and technology In their paper, Bounie et al discussed the role of Food Science and Technology (FST) in humanitarian response and highlighted how FST could contribute to humanitarian food systems.10 Many of the issues discussed in that paper are relevant to current and future food systems, especially in a context of recurrent threats and shocks, in particular the importance of developing resilient local food systems and the use of the core principles of FST to process local raw materials using appropriate technologies to produce nutritious,

food australia 21

FOOD SYSTEMS

the FST community should and is ready to play, demonstrating the positive impact of FST in food systems through case studies and disseminating these experiences through education programs that addresses future generations.14

Australia’s participation in the Food Systems Summit

safe to eat, affordable and culturally acceptable foods.

FST can also contribute to reducing food losses by preserving foods, creating employment, empowering women and youth by developing processing technologies to produce value added foods in local communities with territorial governance systems, and contributing to improving food security. In a related report issued by the HighLevel Panel of Experts of the UN Committee on World Food Security (2020),11 the impact of COVID-19 on food security and nutrition was discussed where the role of FST was referred to.

Although the UN Food Systems Summit engaged with scientists, and the role of science and innovation in transforming food systems was discussed and recognised as important, the role of FST was not discussed in depth and the focus of these discussions tended to be on agricultural systems and nutrition.

As there was a concern that

22 food australia

the contribution food scientists, technologists and engineers could make in developing sustainable food systems in the proposed implementation plans for transforming the current food systems would not be fully captured at the FSS, the Humanitarian Food Science and Technology (HFST) Group prepared a discussion paper The Food Systems Summit – A call for integrating the role of food science and technology in sustainable food systems and was posted online.12 In addition, an online statement entitled ‘Including the specific role of food science and technology in the Food Systems Summit agenda’ (in English, French and Spanish) was posted through change.org.13 Within a week nearly 700 people from 77 countries endorsed this statement, which was subsequently submitted to the FSS Secretariat.

The HFST Group also submitted a commitment of action to the FSS community in raising and increasing awareness about the role that

The Australian government supports the UN’s goal of delivering more sustainable, productive, and resilient agricultural and food systems for producers and consumers alike, and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) took the role as Australia’s National Convenor for the Food Systems Summit.15 In this role, DAWE organised a series of National Food Systems Summit Dialogues, took part in the Pre-Summit and the main Summit, and signed on to three Coalitions of Action to tackle global food systems issues.15 The following pre-Summit dialogues were hosted by DAWE where representatives from CSIRO, universities, food producers and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) participated: • Growing greener – food production and a healthy environment • Future proofing our food systems – boosting resilience • Eating for our health and the environment - balancing nutrition and sustainability • Australian food systems – addressing shared challenges and • Agricultural innovation – building better food systems.

In addition, the following dialogues were convened by other Australian government departments, agencies, and collaborators: • Multi-stakeholder partnerships for scaling agricultural innovation • Achieving healthy diets from sustainable food systems by 2030 – what science, innovation, and actions are needed in Australia?

• What role does food labelling play in helping to shift consumers towards healthier, safe, and sustainable consumption?

• Food loss in food systems collaborative research and priorities.

Australia will continue to work with international partners to tackle global food systems issues and has committed to join the following three Coalitions of Action:15 • The Global Sustainable Livestock Coalition • The Sustainable Productivity Growth for Food Security and Resource Conservation • Food is Never Waste.

In his statement, The Minister for Agriculture, Hon. David Littleproud, reiterated Australia’s commitment to FSS and sustainable food systems and mentioned the Government’s investments in R&D and new technologies (eg, soil science, global commitments to carbon abatement and the biodiversity stewardship program).

The Minister said Australia would continue to work with other nations and share the appropriate science to ensure the production of high-quality food within a better environment and a healthier and more sustainable food production system.7 As members of the HFST Group, some Australian food scientists and technologists from CSIRO, several universities and the AIFST, are actively contributing to increasing awareness of the role of FST in sustainable food systems and are taking part in implementation plans in collaboration with UN agencies and other global partners.

Conclusions and outlook Food systems are crucial in connecting and nourishing people. However, the current food systems are not sustainable, have an adverse impact on the environment and have not solved the prevailing problems relating to global food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition.

Following recognition by the UN of the need to transform food systems to achieve the SDGs by 2030, and the establishment of the FSS in 2020, significant progress has been made through the engagement of many stakeholders from all over the world.

The pre-Summit in Rome in June

2021 and the main Summit held during the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2021 brought together governments and other multi-sector stakeholders and discussions were had on key issues that will make a difference to human and planetary health by transforming the current food systems. The UN must be commended for initiating and organising this Summit with extensive consultation across many different and diverse global stakeholders.

Despite the extensive consultation processes that took place to identify the problems in current food systems and developing strategies to resolve current shortcomings, the important role of FST in post-harvest operations has not been adequately addressed in any of the five action tracks.

Therefore, it is important that the FST community continues to increase its involvement in, and contribute to the development of, sustainable global food systems.

Furthermore, appropriate stakeholders (governments, relevant UN agencies, NGOs, the research community, the private sector and other appropriate actors in the food system) should work collaboratively and urgently and shift the focus from development to the implementation of plans so the UN SDGs can be achieved by 2030.

The UN should continue to take a leadership role in this initiative and should work closely with governments and other key stakeholders to ensure progress is made in a timely manner.

However, it is up to everyone, including individuals and communities, to take responsibility to ensure positive changes to food systems take place.

This should result in a better world for all. A world that is devoid of the prevailing global humanitarian problems related to hunger, malnutrition, conflicts, poverty and inequality, without adverse impacts on the environment. A world that is able to face current and future threats and is sustained by resilient and sustainable local and global food systems.

References 1. It’s time to reconsider our food system, https:// www.wwf.org.uk/what-we-do/food 2. Environmental impacts of food production

(2021), https://ourworldindata.org/ environmental-impacts-of-food 3. Sustainable Food Systems, FAO (2018), https:// www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf 4. UN Food Systems Summit (2021), https://www. un.org/food-systems-summit 5. UN Food Systems Pre Summit (2021), https:// www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/presummit 6. Secretary General’s Chair Summary and Statement of Action on the UN Food Systems Summit (2021), https://www.un.org/en/foodsystems-summit/news/making-food-systemswork-people-planet-and-prosperity 7. Member State Statements, UN Food Systems Summit (2021), https://www.unfoodsystems. org/statements-summit.php 8. Commitments from stakeholders, UN Food Systems Summit (2021), https://www.un.org/ en/food-systems-summit/news/nearly-300commitments-civil-society-farmers-youth-andindigenous-peoples-and 9. Coalitions, UN Food Systems Summit (2021), https://foodsystems.community/coalitions/ 10. Bounie et.al (2020). The role of food science and technology in humanitarian response.

Trends in Food Science and Technology, 103,367-375, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tifs.2020.06.006 11. CFS-HLPE. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on Food Security and Nutrition. Rome: FAO, HLPE Interim Issues Paper (version 1), http://www. fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs1920/ HLPE_2020/New_HLPE_paper_COVID_EN.pdf 12. Humanitarian Food Science and Technology Group (2021), The Food Systems Summit - A call for integrating the role of food science and technology in sustainable food systems, https:// www.aifst.asn.au/resources/Documents/ The%20Role%20of%20FST%20in%20 Sustainable%20Food%20Systems_Final_9%20 Sep%202021.pdf 13. Humanitarian Food Science and Technology Group (2021), Including the specific role of Food Science & Technology in the Food Systems Summit agenda, https://www.change. org/p/fst-and-un-food-systems-summit-2021agenda?utm_source=share_petition&utm_ medium=custom_url&recruited_by_ id=dbee4640-55cb-11eb-b5f6-0b660d8c5e7c 14. Food Systems Summit Community, Commitments to Action, A call for integrating the role of food science and technology in sustainable food systems, https:// foodsystems.community/commitmentregistry/#commitments 15. Australian Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, UN Food Systems Summit (2021), https://www.awe.gov.au/biosecuritytrade/market-access-trade/un-food-systemssummit-2021

Jay Sellahewa is an Adjunct Senior Lecturer of Food and Health in the School of Chemical Engineering at UNSW, Sydney. He is also the coordinator of the global Humanitarian Food Science and Technology Group whose main objective is to increase awareness of the role of food science and technology in humanitarian response, and facilitate humanitarian projects where the application of food science and technology would lead to capturing social, economic, environmental and health benefits to affected communities. f

food australia 23

FOOD SAFETY

Has food safety certification reached its use-by date?

Words by Bill McBride

I

n December last year I stepped aside (try not to say ‘retired’ - never say never) from my direct involvement in food safety certification – after twenty years in food and beverage manufacturing followed by thirty as a journeyman food safety professional.

During that time I had the good fortune to meet and work with dedicated and committed people in many sectors and countries colleagues I audited, trained or consulted with, debated with, even argued with, but ultimately learned from and respected.

Food safety certification started in the nineties. Yes, there were second party Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and hygiene audits before that – I was on the receiving end of some of them - but the nineties was the decade when third party food safety management certification took off.

There were many reasons for this.

The launch of ISO 9000 in 1987 familiarised industry in general with management system certification, although the food industry soon recognised that a generic quality management standard did not adequately cover the fundamental

24 food australia

needs of the food supply chain.

A number of unfortunate global food events brought this into stark focus and spooked the industry.

The fatal 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli O157:H7 outbreak became a catalyst for food safety reform in the USA. In our own backyard, E. coli 0111 in Garibaldi mettwurst resulted in haemolytic-uremic syndrome (HUS) in 23 consumers in 1995, including one young death. The very next year, around 500 Australian consumers were seriously ill from consuming peanut butter laced with Salmonella.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) peaked in the UK in 1993 and resulted in the onset of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) in 1994-96.

The global food industry became increasingly nervous as consumer confidence waned. Food safety standards and second party audits became more formalised and more frequent, encouraged by regulatory changes that permitted a due diligence defence (eg, the UK Food Safety Act, 1990).

The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) methodology, which had been available in various

forms for decades, was recognised by the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene in 1993, and adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the joint body of the FAO and WHO, in 1997. By the mid-nineties, the seven principles and twelve steps of Codex HACCP became the norm for identification and control of microbiological, chemical and physical food safety hazards.

Third party standards appeared, along with accreditation processes, to maintain the rigor and integrity of food safety certification based on the pre-established ISO 9000 model.

The second half of the decade saw the birth of third-party standards – the Australian SQF Code, the BRC Global Standards and EurepGAP (now GlobalGAP). The European-based retailer standard IFS followed in 2003.

(As a footnote, it was not until 2005 that the international HACCP based food safety management standard ISO 22000 was published. Had it been earlier, would we have needed the commercial third-party food safety standards? It’s a moot point.)

In 2000 the Paris-based retail network CIES established the Global Food Safety Initiative – GFSI (now

part of the Consumer Goods Forum) in part to benchmark the requirements of food safety standards and counter the proliferation of second and thirdparty standards which were causing supplier confusion and audit fatigue.

“Once certified, accepted everywhere” was, and continues to be, the intent.

Thirty years on, how have we gone?

Have we achieved our objectives?

I think not. There is an improved understanding and management of food safety in the food supply chain, and many hundreds of thousands of FSM certificates globally. Undoubtedly lives have been saved and illnesses prevented.

However, we still have a long way to go. A DNV-GL 2019 survey commissioned by GFSI suggests the wrong motivation for food safety certification. The report indicates that most surveyed companies (79%) only view certification as a ‘passport to trade’, with just over half (53%) considering certification as a means of improving food safety.1 This was a similar outcome to previous efficacy studies.

Food poisoning outbreaks remain high. A 2020 WHO fact sheet reports“more than 200 diseases are spread through food, one in 10 people fall ill every year from eating contaminated food and 420,000 people die each year as a result”.2 The Food Safety Information Council reports that, “in an average year there are an estimated 4.1 million cases of food poisoning in Australia that result in 31,920 hospitalisations, 86 deaths and 1 million visits to doctors”.3 Of course, not all emanate from food safety certified sites, but the numbers suggests that many do.

There are many reasons for this – emerging food safety threats, a reliance on score/ratings rather than outcomes, misalignment between standards and regulations, poor audit processes, gaps in supply chains, and increasingly complex food safety requirements that are difficult to implement and audit.

In the nineties it was HACCP and GMPs. Then came allergen management, food defence and food

fraud, and now the ubiquitous and often misunderstood food safety culture – all important aspects, but often clouding the key objective of supplying safe food and protecting public health.

What can be done to improve outcomes? I read many articles on ‘the future of food safety systems’ which quite simply tweak the existing paradigm – there’s a reliance on digital technology and remote audits, which seem to be more about protecting the food safety certification industry rather than improving outcomes.

With respect to the innumerable practitioners and auditors who passionately toil to keep the food supply chain safe, we talk about root cause analysis (RCA) for our clients, we need the same on food safety systems. I suggest that food safety certification in its current form has reached its use-by date.

Food safety audits were necessary and effective in the nineties and noughties. But now, with an ageing auditor cohort, complex requirements and the urgent need to integrate food safety systems with the oft competing sustainability and social welfare requirements, we need a reboot. Perhaps it’s time to reengineer the audit process so that it is more consultative and less punitive, to provide guidance and assistance to food businesses rather than a set of rules on which they will be scored.

Too many food businesses abdicate their responsibility to standard owners. It’s about surviving the audit, not improving food safety.

Data and digital technology are often proposed as the answer and developments in digital technology undoubtedly will continue to be a valuable resource. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that food safety occurs (or sometimes doesn’t occur) at the interface between people and product. It is in the design of processes, the protection of materials and product, and the cleaning of equipment, that the focus must remain.

Remote food safety auditing has limited application. It can

work effectively for document and record review and was an adequate compromise during the pandemic, but food safety auditing is about implemented practices. The auditor must be able to look into dark corners, inside vessels, hoppers and tanks, and not simply rely on a staff member with a camera.

The world has changed, industry needs have changed, and community expectations have changed. Food security to meet a burgeoning population, and sustainability as per the UN SDGs are just as urgent now as food safety, yet we work on them as stand-alone and often competing priorities. We deal with, promote and work on safety, security and sustainability individually when integration is required. The food supply chain needs a synergistic approach.

I don’t have all the answers. I’m just sharing my thoughts and expecting a collective horrified response from many who will feel I am undermining food safety practitioners. I am not. It’s the system that needs an overhaul, not the people in it. But I strongly feel we need the debate. The model that was established in the nineties and noughties is not the one that is needed to protect the community and continue to supply it with safe, sustainable food moving forward.

References 1. “Food safety: What’s next to assure its future?”; DNV GL; February 2019 https://mygfsi.com/wp-content/ uploads/2019/09/DNV-GL-Viewpoint_report_ FSM.pdf 2. “Food Safety; Key Facts;” World Health Organisation; 30 April 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/ detail/food-safety 3. “Australia’s Food Safety Report Card released for the UN World Food Safety Day 7 June 2021”; Food Safety Information Council; https://foodsafety.asn.au/topic/australiasfood-safety-report-card-released-for-the-unworld-food-safety-day-7-june-2021/

Bill McBride is the Principal of Foodlink Asia Pacific and a forty year veteran of food safety and quality management in the global food industry - https:// www.linkedin.com/in/bill-mcbride2018221b/ f

food australia 25

FOOD SCIENCE

A2 or not A2?

A cautionary tale in dairy (goat) science Words by Dr Martin Palmer, Dr Xu Li, Garrick Spencer, Dr Lydia Ong and Dr Sally Gras

O

ver the last 20 years, following the formation of the a2 Milk Company in New Zealand, the publication of “Devil in the Milk” and some very successful marketing campaigns, foods with compositional and/or nutritional claims relating to “A2 protein” or “A2 beta-casein protein”, now account for a significant share of the global market for bovine milk and dairy products (including infant formulae).1,2 Although there has been some controversy around the validity of some biochemical and nutritional studies that purport to indicate beneficial health effects of such products and/or undesirable effects of milk containing A1 beta-casein (A1 β-casein), there remains strong consumer interest in this category.

More recently, the dairy goat industry has taken an interest in the β-casein content of caprine milk and

26 food australia

milk products to better understand some apparently beneficial nutritional characteristics of goat’s milk and potentially to provide a stronger basis for health claims. Although there is some inconsistency in the scientific literature, it is generally accepted that the main protein in most commercial types of caprine milk is caprine β-casein, which has often been characterised as “A2” or “A2-like”, with reference to bovine β-casein.6 This, together with the reported absence of A1 β-casein in goat’s milk, has led many to equate caprine milk directly with A2 bovine milk biochemically and in relation to some nutritional and health claims.

A Google search on “goat milk A2” reveals numerous examples of commercial, research and consumer advisory sites that make these assumptions.

Our interest in this topic started

with some analytical work on locally sourced goat’s milk. This gave results on protein composition that were inconsistent with some scientific and commercial publications, in that the major proteins corresponded to caprine β-casein A and C, which differ in amino acid sequence to both bovine β-casein A1 and bovine β-casein A2.6,7 This led us to undertake a thorough review of recent advances in the science of both bovine and caprine β-caseins, to try and understand reasons for inconsistency in the scientific literature and possible implications for physiological functionality and health claims.6 The following is a summary of the main findings - please refer to the original review for a detailed analysis and discussion of this issue.6 The complexity of these protein families is shown in Figure 1, based on a compilation of data from both

Figure 1. Relationship between (a) the 12 reported bovine β-casein protein variants and (b) the 12 reported caprine β-casein alleles/protein variants, based on amino acid sequence. Variants shown in yellow are bovine β-CN A1 or A1like proteins with histidine (H) at position 67, while the variants in blue feature proline (P) at position 67 and are bovine β-CN A2 or A2-like proteins. The caprine β-CN variants (in red) also feature (P) at position 67 but are structurally distinct in other respects. A2 and A are considered to be the ‘ancestral’ types of bovine and caprine β-caseins, respectively. Adapted from Li et al.6

Figure 2. Schematic showing the possible enzymatic release of peptides from the “BCM-7 region” of the most commonly occurring bovine and caprine β-casein variants. Both A1 and A2 forms of bovine β-casein are susceptible to enzymatic cleavage between residues 59 and 60 (valine-V and tyrosine-Y) but A1 is more prone to cleavage between residues 66 and 67 (isoleucine-I and histidine-H) than A2, which has proline (P) at position 67. With caprine β-caseins A and C, there are some sequence similarities with bovine β-caseins in this region but heptapeptide release from caprine β-caseins has yet to be investigated.

Other amino acid residues are: phenylalanine (F), threonine (T) and glycine (G).

Adapted from Li et al.6 genetic/nucleotide-level studies, as well as studies of milk protein. Bovine A2 and caprine A and C have been identified as the most commonly occurring β-casein alleles in their respective species.8,9 The caprine family is further complicated by the identification of at least four ‘silent’ alleles and two null alleles in some goat types – gene mutations that code for β-casein but are either not expressed in

the phenotype or produce shorter proteins. Thus, caprine β-casein A1, which is a silent allele, produces a protein the same as caprine β-casein A that differs in sequence to bovine β-casein A1. The nomenclature itself may well be a source of some confusion, in that it was developed independently for bovine and caprine β-caseins and reflects the historical order of discovery as much as any biochemical relationship.

Much of the original interest around bovine β-casein polymorphism centred around the susceptibility of the molecular variants to enzymatic cleavage between amino acid residues 66 and 67, and 59 and 60, during digestion, to yield β-casomorphin 7 (BCM-7) and possibly other bioactive peptides.1,6 In this respect, bovine β-caseins can be grouped into an A2 and “A2-like” (A3, D, E, H1, I and H2) family, some of which show less susceptibility to BCM-7 generation by this mechanism, and an A1 and “A1-like” (B, C, F and G) family, some of which show greater susceptibility to enzymatic cleavage, as shown in Figure 1.

There are very few published studies of the release of bioactive peptides in general from caprine β-casein and apparently none on the potential or actual release of BCM-7 during digestion.6 As shown in Figure 2, the equivalent of the ‘BCM-7’ region in caprine β-casein A or C is similar to the BCM-7 region of bovine β-casein A2, in that it is bounded by proline at residue 67, but has a clear sequence difference – threonine at residue 63, compared to proline at the same position in both bovine A2 and A1 β-caseins. It is not known how this might affect enzymic hydrolysis which, if it occurred, would release a heptapeptide of different amino acid sequence and unknown functionality, compared to BCM-7.6 Quite apart from the focus on the BCM-7 region, it should also be noted that there are at least 19 other sequence differences between these bovine and caprine proteins that may also give rise to different protein properties.6 The devil may or may not be in the milk but is certainly in the detail! On this basis, there is very little justification for describing goat’s milk as “A2” or “A2-like”, as is commonly seen in the literature and associated with some food products.

“A2 milk” is an unusual case of a very specific food constituent term, “bovine A2 β-casein”, being abbreviated and appropriated commercially to name and brand milk and dairy products that contain

food australia 27

FOOD SCIENCE

development, there is clearly a need for the food industry and scientific community to pay more attention to the detail around the terminology associated with β-caseins and other milk proteins, to avoid misleading consumers and researchers alike.

The review also highlighted the need for more research on the structure and function relationships of β-casein in food systems and in human nutrition.6 There have been many studies on bovine β-casein in relation to peptide generation, but relatively few in other aspects of physical and physiological functionality. Even less is known about caprine β-caseins, although it is likely that some of the beneficial effects observed on goat milk digestibility, for example, could be related to the properties of its most abundant protein.

References

this protein. However, with the global growth and diversification of this category over the last 20 years, unlike the standard biochemical nomenclature for the protein itself, there now seems to be no universally accepted, scientific definition of “A2” milk and dairy products.

For example, the current Wikipedia definition is: “A2 milk is a variety of cows’ milk that mostly lacks a form of β-casein proteins called A1, and instead has mostly the A2 form”.11 This definition is so loose that it could arguably include many ‘standard’ milk types, not widely marketed as A2, that commonly contain a mixture of A1 and A2 β-casein, but mostly in the A2 form! This type of inconsistency has no doubt contributed to the overall confusion and misunderstanding in this field, which is now extending to nonbovine milk.

Some of the confusion with this topic may also be related to the original marketing strategies and resultant consumer perceptions associated with A2 bovine milk

28 food australia

products, where the key value proposition has essentially been around the absence of A1 rather than the presence of A2 β-casein.

Does this provide an entry point for “A2” or “A2-like” goat’s milk, which also contains no (bovine) A1 β-casein? Perhaps so, from a marketing perspective, but from a food science perspective, caprine milk does not contain protein that resembles bovine A2 β-casein and the use of such terminology is inconsistent with established caprine β-casein nomenclature.

Although apparently not in the scientific literature, it’s also concerning that a similar error is creeping into sources of commercial information and consumer advice about sheep’s milk (try a Google search on “sheep milk A2”). Five distinct ovine β-caseins (A, B, C, X and Y) have been reported to-date but, from a scientific perspective, sheep’s milk, like goat’s milk, does not contain protein that resembles bovine A2 or A2-like β-caseins.6 In future research and product

1. Woodford (2009). Devil in the Milk: Illness, Health & the Politics of A1 and A2 milk. Chelsea Green Publishing. 240pp. ISBN10: 1603581022 2. Imarc (2022). A2 Milk Market: Global Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2022-2027. Imarc Market Report.

3. Truswell (2005). The A2 milk case: A critical review. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 59, 623-631.

4. Ul Haq, Kapila, Shandilya & Kapila (2014). Impact of Milk Derived β-Casomorphins on Physiological Functions and Trends in Research. International Journal of Food Properties 17, 1726-1741.

5. Kay, Delgado, Mittal, Eshragi, Mittal & Eshragi (2021). Beneficial Effects of Milk Having A2 β-Casein Protein: Myth or Reality? Journal of Nutrition 151, 1061-1072.

6. Li, Spencer, Ong & Gras (2022). β-casein proteins – A comparison between caprine and bovine milk. Trends in Food Science & Technology 121, 30-43.

7. Li, Spencer, Ong & Gras (2021). Unpublished data 8. Caroli, Chessa & Erhardt (2009). Milk protein polymorphism in cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5335-5352.

9. Selvaggi, Laudadio, Dario & Tufarelli (2014). Major proteins in goat milk. Molecular Biology Reports 41, 1035-1048.

10. Daniloski, Cunha, McCarthy, O’Callaghan, McParland & Vasiljevic (2021). Bovine β-casomorphins: friends or foes? Trends in Food Science & Technology 116, 681-700.

11. Wikipedia (2022). A2 milk entry at https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2_milk

Dr Xu Li, Garrick Spencer, Dr Lydia Ong, Professor Sally Gras and Associate Professor Martin Palmer are with the Department of Chemical Engineering and the Bio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute at The University of Melbourne, Parkville.. f

Accelerate innovation.

Global Strength.

Local Action.

Get an edge with our unparalleled portfolio, technical ingenuity and accelerated speed-tomarket capabilities.

We bring more than a century of global expertise to Australia and New Zealand.

Your Edge.

Our Expertise.

Let’s innovate.

NutritionANZ@adm.com | adm.com

FOOD SAFETY

Egg safety: Salmonella culturability in acidified raw egg-based foods Words by Dr Andrea R McWhorter

R

aw or lightly cooked eggcontaining foods are frequently identified as sources of Salmonella during outbreak investigations of human gastroenteritis cases.1,2,3 Despite health and safety recommendations, raw egg-based foods continue to be linked with salmonellosis outbreaks and remain a public health issue.

Between 2001 and 2011, 36% of the total number of Australian Salmonella outbreaks were attributed to the consumption of contaminated raw egg-based foods.3 Mayonnaise and mayonnaise-like sauces (aioli, Bánh mì butter) are among the most common egg-based foods linked with salmonellosis.4 Over the past 30 years, egg safety research has demonstrated that there are several factors contributing to the persistence of Salmonella in raw egg-based food items. Storage temperature and acidification of raw egg-based sauces have been highlighted as the most important parameters in controlling Salmonella culturability.5,6,7,8,9,10 Consequently, many food safety recommendations regarding the use of raw eggs have been based on these outcomes.

In Australia, health and safety regulators recommend that raw egg-based foods should be prepared using fresh eggs, acidified to pH ≤ 4.2, and stored at 5°C for no more than 24 hours.11,12 pH ≤ 4.0 inhibits Salmonella culturability after a short incubation.5,6,7,8,9 Counter to safe food recommendations, however, Salmonella culturability is reduced faster at temperatures ≥ 25°C. Following four to six hours of incubation at room temperature (23-25°C), Salmonella are not culturable from acidified mayonnaise preparations.5,6,7,9,10,13 At 5°C, however, bacteria remain culturable for longer periods.5,6,7,9,10,13

30 food australia

Recipe variation is another factor that could contribute to Salmonella persistence in raw egg-based foods.10 Many recipes call for the use of different egg components such as yolk only, whole egg, or a combination of both. Whole eggbased sauce preparations have recently been shown to support culturable Salmonella significantly longer compared with yolk only preparations.10 The pH of egg white is higher (8-9) than yolk (6-8)14 which may interfere with the acidification of sauce preparations.

Over time, egg quality changes which can also affect the physical properties of raw egg containing sauces. As an egg ages, carbon dioxide is lost through the egg shell pores leading to an increase in pH for both the yolk and egg white.15 Additionally, egg white contains bactericidal proteins, such as lysozyme and ovotransferin, which also decrease in activity over time.15 Thus, for raw egg-based sauces, the use of fresh eggs should be strongly recommended.

Many mayonnaise recipes also vary in the type and quantity of recommended food acids. The effectiveness of two common food acids, lemon juice and white vinegar, added singly or in a combination of different ratios, has recently been investigated.10 Acidified sauces limit Salmonella culturability regardless of acid type or combination used as long as the sauce pH was ≤ 4.0.5,7,8,10,13,16 Yolk - food acid ratios (as defined by mass) have also been proposed to serve as guidelines for sauce acidification. A ratio of 1.0 produces a pH of approximately 3.5 and reduces culturable bacteria after a few hours of incubation.8,16 In McWhorter, Sexton et al. (2020)10 and McWhorter, Khan et al. (2021),17 the yolk:acid ratio for laboratory

sauce experiments was consistently 1.78, which yielded a pH of 3.8.

A comparison of commercially prepared sauces found that yolk:food acid ratios ranged between 0.22 and 5.33, depending on preparation.

Sauces with lower ratios were more successful at reducing Salmonella culturability.10 Egg yolk mass, however, can vary significantly and is linked with the age and breed of layer hen.18 Additional research is necessary to establish more broadly applicable egg:food acid ratios that consider yolk mass variability and the use of egg white.

Salmonella culturability from raw egg-based foods is also linked with the initial bacterial load. Acidified mayonnaise preparations (pH 3.5) inoculated with a high Salmonella load (109 CFU/g) supported culturable bacteria for eight hours at 25°C and 60 hours at 5°C, longer compared with preparations containing 106 CFU/g bacteria and stored under the same conditions (Figure 1).17 These results highlight the importance of minimising Salmonella in the egg supply chain as well as maximising good kitchen hygiene behaviours that prevent cross contamination and bacterial amplification.

To date, the disease potential for Salmonella in acidified raw egg-based foods has not been well characterised. A recent study investigated the effect of storage temperature and acidification stress on bacterial virulence. A decline in bacterial culturability was linked with a reduction in both in vitro and in vivo bacterial virulence and viability.17 Bacterial motility was significantly reduced in acidified mayonnaise compared with bacteria grown to stationary phase.

Salmonella motility is thought to contribute to virulence by enabling bacteria to come into proximity with host intestinal epithelial cells,

Figure 1. Culturability of Salmonella is affected by temperature, pH, and bacterial load. Data are presented as mean log10 transformed CFU/gram mayonnaise ± the standard error of the mean. Culturability of bacteria was tested over a 96-hour period in mayonnaise preparations at pH 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, or 5.0 and stored at 5°C (A) and 25°C (B). Mayonnaise (pH 3.5) inoculated with 109 CFU/gram and stored at 5°C or 25°C exhibited culturable bacteria (C). facilitating invasion.19,20 In the same study, Salmonella also exhibited reduced invasiveness into cultured intestinal epithelial cells following isolation from mayonnaise. It has been hypothesised that in acidic environments Salmonella reduces the expression of flagellar proteins and this may be linked with a reduction in cell invasion.

Salmonella in acidified mayonnaise preparations stored for 12 hours at either 5°C or 25°C has also been shown to have reduced virulence in mice.17 To date there have been no other studies investigating the in vivo virulence of Salmonella in acidified raw egg-based sauces.

Non-motile Salmonella, however, are known to have reduced virulence in mouse models.19,21 During in vivo infection, bacteria would experience additional stress associated with passage through the gastrointestinal system of mice.22 Combined with prior acid exposure in mayonnaise, the harsh host environment would present further challenges for injured bacterial cells. Therefore, where possible, acidification of foods containing raw eggs should be recommended.

Worldwide, food safety authorities generally do not recommend the use of raw eggs in food. A significant body of egg safety research has demonstrated that acidified raw egg-based sauces, when stored at room temperature for at least four hours, significantly reduces the culturable form of Salmonella and that immediate storage at 5°C may facilitate persistence of viable

bacteria.

Heat treating egg components has also been shown to reduce the risk of viable Salmonella and is the recommended practice in the USA.23 Future research is needed to determine whether sauce acidification and heat treatment followed by cold storage further minimises the culturability of Salmonella in acidified raw egg-based sauces.

References 1. Threlfall, E. J. et al. (2014). “Egg-borne infections of humans with Salmonella: not only an S. enteritidis problem.” World’s Poultry Science Journal 70(1): 15-26.

2. Glass, K. E. et al. (2016). “Bayesian source attribution of salmonellosis in South Australia.”

Risk analysis 36(3): 561-570.

3. Moffatt, C.R.M.. et al. (2016). “Salmonella Typhimurium and outbreaks of egg-associated disease in Australia, 2001 to 2011.” Foodborne pathogens and disease 13(7): 379-385.

4. Ford, L. et al. (2018). “The Epidemiology of Salmonella enterica outbreaks in Australia, 20012016.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 2: 86.

5. Perales, I. and M. Garcia (1990). “The influence of pH and temperature on the behaviour of Salmonella Enteritidis phage type 4 in home-made mayonnaise.” Letters in applied microbiology 10(1): 19-22.

6. Erickson, J., P. and P. Jenkins (1991).

“Comparative Salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes inactivation rates in four commercial mayonnaise products.” Journal of food protection 54(12): 913-916.

7. Lock, J. and R. Board (1995). “The fate of Salmonella Enteritidis PT4 in home-made mayonnaise prepared from artificially inoculated eggs.” Food Microbiology 12: 181-186.

8. Xiong, R. et al. (1999). “The fate of Salmonella Enteritidis PT4 in home-made mayonnaise prepared with citric acid.” Letters in applied microbiology 28(1): 36-40.

9. Keerthirathne, T. P. et al. (2019). “The Combined Effect of pH and Temperature on the Survival of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium and Implications for the Preparation of Raw Egg Mayonnaise.” Pathogens 8(4): 218.

10. McWhorter, A. R. et al. (2020). “The effects of varied food acid ratios and egg components on Salmonella Typhimurium culturability from raw egg-based sauces.” Food Microbiology: 103555.

11. Anonymous. (2012). “Egg Food Safety.” https://www.sahealth.sa.gov.au/wps/wcm/

connect/public+content/sa+health+internet/ public+health/food+safety+for+businesses/ food+safety+issues/egg+food+safety.

12. Anonymous. (2016). “Food safety guildelines for the preparation of raw egg products” https://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/sites/ default/files/_Documents/retailfactsheets/ safe_preparation_of_raw_egg_products.pdf.

13. Lock, J. and R. Board (1994). “The fate of Salmonella enteritidis PT4 in deliberately infected commercial mayonnaise.” Food microbiology 11(6): 499-504.

14. Fromm, D. (1966). “The influence of ambient pH on moisture content and yolk index of the hen’s yolk.” Poultry Science 45(2): 374-379.

15. Guyot, N. and S. Réhault-Godbert (2017).

Understanding the natural antibacterial defences of egg white and their regulation Florence Baron, INRA–Agrocampus Ouest, France.

Achieving sustainable production of eggs Volume 1, Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing: 181-214.

16. Zhu, J. et al. (2012). “Survival of Salmonella in home-style mayonnaise and acid solutions as affected by acidulant type and preservatives.”

Journal of food protection 75(3): 465-471.

17. McWhorter, A. R. et al. (2021). “Acidification and extended storage at room temperature of mayonnaise reduce Salmonella Typhimurium virulence and viability.” Food Research International 141: 110117.

18. Silversides, F. and K. Budgell (2004). “The relationships among measures of egg albumen height, pH, and whipping volume.” Poultry Science 83(10): 1619-1623.

19. Jones, B. D. et al. (1992). “Invasion by Salmonella typhimurium is affected by the direction of flagellar rotation.” Infection and Immunity 60(6): 2475-2480.

20.Saini, S. et al. (2011). “Continuous control of flagellar gene expression by the -28–FlgM regulatory circuit in Salmonella enterica.”

Molecular microbiology 79(1): 264-278.

21. Haiko, J. and B. Westerlund-Wikström (2013).

“The role of the bacterial flagellum in adhesion and virulence.” Biology 2(4): 1242-1267.

22. Palmer, A. D. and J. M. Slauch (2017).

“Mechanisms of Salmonella pathogenesis in animal models.” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 23(8): 1877-1892.

23. Anonymous. (2019). “Shell eggs from farm to table.” https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/ safe-food-handling-and-preparation/eggs/shelleggs-farm-table

Dr Andrea McWhorter is a postdoctoral research fellow in the School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences at the University of Adelaide. f

food australia 31

SUPPLY CHAINS

COVID and the chicken meat industry impacts and learnings to date Words by Dr Vivien Kite

Background Chicken is the most popular meat consumed in Australia, representing nearly half of all meat eaten. ABARES estimates we will consume nearly 49kg each this year.

Australia produces more than 700 million chickens per annum. This means that more than 2.5 million chickens need to be brought into processing plants from farms every single week day to be slaughtered and dressed. It also means there are another 2.5 million day-old chicks hatching out in hatcheries, waiting to go out onto farms to replace them.

Chicken meat production is effectively a pipeline - one that can’t be simply turned off and on again.

In this respect, the chicken industry is, by its very nature, perhaps the most vulnerable of all agricultural industries to disruptions in the supply chain.

March 2020 The World Health Organisation officially declared the COVID-19 pandemic on 11 March, 2020. Acutely aware of its vulnerability to supply chain disruptions, the Australian Chicken Meat Federation (ACMF) was quickly on the front foot, releasing guidelines for the most vulnerable of our workplaces within a week of the pandemic being declared.

These detailed guidelines provided

32 food australia

recommendations to help businesses manage the risks of COVID in chicken processing plants. These workplaces present the greatest risk to our people, given the large numbers of employees working in close proximity indoors and within cold environments, and are the ‘choke point’ in the chicken supply chain. By 2pm on 16 March 2020, the six major chicken companies, which between them produce 90% of Australia’s chicken, had all agreed to adopt these guidelines.

These initial guidelines were subsequently adapted for use by a number of other industries and were also adopted by several government agencies. In the month following their release, these guidelines were updated four times to reflect new information and knowledge about COVID, including how it manifests and spreads.

Interestingly, it was a full two months before any government agency came out with guidelines specific for meat processing businesses, despite this sector being identified early on as a high-risk environment for COVID transmission.

own expertise and knowledge to develop response strategies in an emergency, rather than waiting for government to provide advice.

While the industry’s guidelines were based on the best possible scientific advice at the time, the medical and scientific community’s imperfect understanding of how the virus spread also hindered the success of our efforts in the early phase of the pandemic, as we were working under the belief that transmission was primarily via contact or large droplet spread, rather than by aerosols.

Therefore, the use of face masks was not a key element of the industry’s early advice to participants other than in the most exposed roles in processing plants. Had the critical role of aerosol transmission been known, an emphasis on the use of face masks to reduce the risks of transmission would have been adopted much earlier.

The industry also learned that it lacked a strong, direct relationship with health departments, and this proved to be a hindrance in terms of managing the challenges created

by COVID. Nevertheless, our strong

Learnings from the first six months of the pandemic

relationships with food safety regulators provided a critical conduit to health departments and assisted in overcoming any obstacles.

We also realised very early on in the pandemic that there was a need

Perhaps the most pertinent learning from the early phase of the pandemic was the importance of the industry itself being proactive and using its

for better understanding amongst governments and policy makers about how chicken meat is produced, and specifically the fact that it is simply not possible to just turn chicken production on and off.

The ACMF therefore invested a significant amount of time and effort in the early stages of the pandemic, cultivating a better understanding amongst decision-makers of what the chicken supply chain looks like, what it involves, and what inputs and services are necessary to ensure its smooth operation. A one-page schematic of the chicken supply chain was developed to assist in this respect (see graphic on p.34).

A positive insight from the early phase of the pandemic was the importance of separating our workforces into work teams or ‘bubbles’, which was a key element of the industry’s guidelines from the start. The implementation of this strategy was possibly the most important factor in the industry’s relative success in terms of staving off incursions of COVID early in the pandemic.

Another contributing factor to the industry’s success in negotiating this early stage of the pandemic was its deep understanding of the principles of biosecurity. It is worth noting that one of the most critical poultry diseases relevant to the chicken industry, infectious bronchitis, is also a coronavirus.

The first incursions of COVID into the chicken production sector Victoria’s second wave of COVID in mid-2020 marked the first incursions of COVID into chicken processing plants. Three Victorian chicken processing facilities were ultimately impacted in this wave. Two of these facilities were fully closed for a period of time following their incursions and one was partially closed, but cooperation between chicken processors, both within the state and interstate, allowed all chickens on farm to be brought into the plants to be processed, thereby avoiding

animal welfare and food waste issues and minimising disruption of chicken supply to consumers.

It is believed that the sources of these incursions and, potentially, spread of the virus within the impacted workplaces, included knowingly symptomatic staff coming to work, breaches of workforce bubbles, interaction of staff between shifts and interaction of staff outside the workplace and outside work hours.

A critical development for the chicken industry during this phase was the introduction of workforce caps for the meat processing sector in Victoria. For the poultry industry, this involved a 20% reduction in staff numbers allowed to work at poultry processing plants.

Unfortunately, the introduction of workforce caps occurred at a time when some chicken processing plants were still closed or partially closed due to prior incursions, exacerbating the challenge of ensuring that all chickens that needed to be brought into processing plants to be processed could be processed.

Chicken companies negotiated this crisis by implementing a number of strategies, including the simplification of their product range (meaning that the production of more labour intensive or complex products was paused), and cooperation between processors to ensure birds were processed and turned into products to meet customer orders. The latter strategy was facilitated by an ACCC interim authorisation that allowed the three major Victorian

chicken companies and the ACMF to collaborate in order to process chickens and meet demand.

The arrival of Delta Mid 2021 marked the arrival of the Delta strain of COVID to our shores.

To this point, the only incursions of COVID into our most critical facilities were those in Victoria, referred to above.

Following the arrival of Delta, however, a large percentage of our major poultry processing and distribution facilities in both Victoria and NSW ultimately experienced incursions. While complete facility closures were not required, similar strategies were implemented by chicken companies to manage production and supply as had been adopted in the earlier Victorian outbreaks, most notably the simplification of product ranges, resulting in only relatively minor impacts on products reaching the market.

Omicron lands in Australia The arrival of the highly transmissible Omicron strain of COVID in late 2021 undoubtedly resulted in the most visible impacts of COVID on chicken supply.

Arriving at the same time that Australian and interstate border restrictions were lifting and internal restrictions were easing, incursions of Omicron into chicken processing and distribution over the Christmas and New Year period resulted in significant spikes in staff absenteeism in key chicken industry workplaces

food australia 33

SUPPLY CHAINS

availability of chicken was quite ‘shocking’.

As at May 2022, the chicken industry has largely recovered from the supply issues experienced at the beginning of the year. Staffing levels are recovering, although still problematic in many regions where it is proving difficult to get all staff lost over the crisis back to work within the industry, particularly the chicken processing sector.

Key issues and learnings

across Queensland, NSW, Victoria and SA. This absenteeism was due to a combination of staff becoming infected or requiring to isolate due to being close contacts in their home or community environment.

During the chicken industry’s January / February 2022 staffing crisis, chicken companies were operating at times with less than 50% of their required staff. Again, companies managed by rationalising the product range to those that

34 food australia

required minimal processing, such as raw whole chicken.

This resulted in significant disruptions in supply of chicken products to consumers. For consumers, many of whom had never previously witnessed a situation where they couldn’t purchase their preferred chicken products at their local supermarket or favoured quick service restaurant, the significant impacts of these staff shortages in the chicken supply chain on the

The chicken industry has historically grown year on year and has quietly gone about the business of meeting Australian consumers’ desire for an increasing range of products and total volume of product. Indeed, the industry’s stability is reflected in the fact that the real price of chicken meat to the consumer has effectively stayed the same for the past 50 years. We expect chicken to remain as Australia’s favourite meat for many years to come.

Nevertheless, we have learned much from the challenges posed by COVID over the past 26 months.

We have learned how ‘close to the wire’ the industry operates in terms of staffing. The development of a strategy for ensuring the industry has access to sufficient staff to meet its future needs should be a priority for the industry going forward.

In terms of resourcing, we learned that the industry body was seriously under-resourced for emergency situations.

On a positive note, the chicken industry’s response to the pandemic and its management of the many challenges it created has reinforced the industry’s self-reliant attitude, resilience and adaptability attributes without which it could not have navigated the pandemic as successfully as it has.

Dr Vivien Kite is Executive Director, Australian Chicken Meat Federation (ACMF) f

Reduce food waste and improve food safety Work with industry experts and find out why thousands of businesses trust our solutions to protect their brand Greenlight Quality Management

Greenlight Supplier Management

Ensure quality, increase efficiency with real time reporting. Take control of your product and delight your customer.

Transparency of supply chain, ensure compliance and manage risk. Improved security of supply with end-to-end visibility of supply chains.

Cold Chain Management Reduce food waste, improve food safety and track product temperature.

Accurate cold chain management at every stage of it’s distribution journey.

Scan it. Rip it. Stick it. Ship it. muddyboots.com/cold-chain

LEARN MORE

SENSORY & CONSUMER SCIENCE FEATURE

FOOD FILES Words by Drs Russell Keast and Gie Liem

Is there a multi-sensory fingerprint, and does it link to obesity?

In general terms, sensory sensitivity refers to an individual’s ability to perceive small intensity differences of a sensory stimulus. There are multiple measures to determine sensitivity with detection and recognition thresholds providing estimates of the lowest chemical concentration that can be perceived by an individual.

For example, a food may contain salt at a concentration undetectable to the general population, but as the concentration is increased, a detection threshold is reached such that the food can be discriminated from a food without added salt. As the concentration of salt is further increased, a recognition threshold is attained, and this is the point where the salt is perceived as salty.

Suprathreshold intensity refers to the perceived intensity of saltiness at concentrations above recognition threshold. As the salt concentration increases, the perceived intensity will also increase, eventually reaching a plateau of saltiness intensity.

For a number of years numerous investigations have attempted to

36 food australia

link sensory sensitivity to food consumption and obesity. Research has separately investigated relationships between BMI and olfactory, gustatory, visual and auditory sensitivities. While strong evidence emerges of links between sensory sensitivity and BMI, the direction of these relationships is not consistent. For example, those more sensitive to fat taste consume less energy and have lower BMI, while individuals who are more sensitive to carbohydrate taste consume more energy and have greater waist circumference.

Overall, the approach of linking mono-modal sensory sensitivities to obesity has provided an interesting and varied story of the relationship between sensory sensitivity and the relationship to overweight and obesity.

So what about multi-modal sensitivity (more than one sensory system: taste and texture, or smell and audition) and the concept of generalised sensory sensitivity.

Mei Peng’s research group at the University of Otago combined a review, meta analysis and an empirical study to investigate

whether multi-sensory sensitivities are generalised and whether individuals possess a multi-sensory ‘fingerprint’ that makes them susceptible to overweight and obesity.

The review and meta analysis kept taste-olfaction-trigeminal sensitivities and audio-visual-tactile sensitivities separate as there is little data assessing correlations across these groups of senses. For the chemical senses, n=232 articles were screened and 14 were included in the metaanalyses. There were significant and positive associations between olfaction and taste, olfaction and trigeminal, but not taste and trigeminal.

The authors suggest that olfaction (sense of smell) is an important sense for multisensory relationships.

For vision, audition and touch n=306 articles were screened and n=12 were included in the meta analyses.

There were significant and positive associations between the three senses and it was noted that there is strong evidence for compensatory associations between vision, audition and touch – when one of these senses is diminished, the other two

are enhanced. This was not noted for the chemical senses. Overall, there was some evidence of a generalised sensitivity although there was also contrary research showing no associations.

To further investigate the area, the team from Otago collected data from n=98 participants on olfactory, gustatory, visual and auditory discriminability over nine sessions.

While there was little evidence of generalised sensitivity across all modalities and all participants, cluster analysis revealed three broadly distinct multisensory groups.

Cluster 1 (n=34) was represented by enhanced sensitivity to all senses tested. Cluster 2 (n=18) was characterised by reduced sensitivity to all senses tested. Cluster 3 (n=46) had reduced chemosensory sensitivity, but enhanced visual and auditory sensitivity. In terms of BMI, cluster 3 had significantly higher BMI than cluster 1.

So, multi-sensory fingerprints are measurable and may influence factors such as the development of overweight and obesity.

Ginieis R, et al (2022) Searching for individual multi-sensory fingerprints – new insights from meta analysis and empirical data. Food Quality and Preference 99 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodqual.2022.104574

Exercise and eat!

In simple terms, weight increase is a result of an imbalance between energy intake and energy expenditure. During the COVID pandemic, consumers were forced to stay at home, which is still the case if you are unlucky enough to see two lines appearing on your COVID test.

Two interesting energy related phenomena took place during the periods of lockdown in Australia.

First, the number of online meal orders rapidly increased. Which, given the average energy density of online ordered meals, would not be beneficial for your waist-line. Second, the ordering of in-home exercise equipment such as smart bikes steeply increased. As with online food delivery apps, smart bikes can be connected to the internet, which

can provide an immersive game-like experience when riding your bike in your garage.

A recent study in the journal Appetite suggests this virtual reality exergaming may have a positive impact on your food consumption, at least if you are worried about eating too much while in isolation. In this small, but well controlled study, 34 inactive adults completed two exercise sessions on a stationary bike.

During one session they were just cycling, in the other session they were cycling while being immersed in a VR exergame. In a VR exergame, you can ride through a virtual world, with or against others. The game responds to how fast you pedal and the bike responds to the terrain you encounter in the VR exergame. The researchers made sure that heart rate during the cycling sessions, energy expenditure and duration were kept constant across the two sessions.

After each cycling session, participants were asked, amongst other questions, about their enjoyment, appetite and perceived level of physical exertion. In addition, participants could eat from an all you can eat buffet on completion of each session.

The results show that the VR condition, compared to the non-

VR condition, resulted in greater enjoyment, but not in different levels of appetite or perceived exertion.

However, when participants were munching away at the buffet, the researchers did see that after the VR condition participants consumed on average 12% less calories than they consumed after the non-VR condition.

The results fit with previous studies which suggest that negative emotional responses after exercising tend to drive food consumption.

Participants who did not enjoy the exercise might think “I went through all this trouble, now I deserve something nice”. This in contrast to those who enjoyed the exercise who may not feel a need for such compensating eating behaviour.

So, next time you start your exercise, focus on the fun part, rather than on exercise for the sake of exercise. Your waist-line will thank you for it.

Sauchelli S, Brunstrom JF. Virtual reality exergaming improves affect during physical activity and reduces subsequent food consumption in inactive adults. Appetite 175 (2022) 106058 https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106058

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

food australia 37

FOOD SAFETY

Strategic approaches to addressing food safety Words by Deon Mahoney

I

t has long been recognised that illness associated with contaminated food is a widespread health problem across the world and a significant cause of reduced economic productivity. It also significantly impacts consumer confidence in the food supply.

Regrettably, national plans and strategies seeking to manage food safety have a tendency to be ad hoc, prepared largely in response to an emergent crisis or a critical incident impacting public health.

In 2000, the Fifty-third World Health Assembly (WHA) formally acknowledged that foodborne illnesses associated with microbial pathogens, biotoxins, and chemical contaminants in food represented a serious threat to the health of millions of people.

The WHA resolution on food safety (WHA53.15) was the first in

38 food australia

the 50-year history of the World Health Organisation (WHO), and it urged member states to integrate food safety as one of their essential public health and nutrition functions, and to deliver sufficient resources to establish and strengthen their food safety programs.

The Assembly also directed the WHO to give greater emphasis to food safety, and to work towards integrating food safety as one of WHO’s essential public health functions. The goal being the development of sustainable, integrated food-safety systems for the reduction of health risk along the entire food chain, from the primary producer to the consumer WHO subsequently launched the WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety: Safer food for better health in 20021 with the goal of reducing the health and social

burden of foodborne illness. Under the strategy, the prevention of foodborne disease and the response to food safety challenges required holistic, risk-based and timely national food safety policies and strategies. Unfortunately the strategy was not adequately underpinned by a comprehensive global action plan focussed on supporting developing economies to build and strengthen their systems.

Global strategy 2022-2030 Twenty years later, in 2020, the Seventy-third WHA again visited food safety and agreed to a resolution titled Strengthening efforts on food safety. The resolution recognised the uncompleted challenge of managing food safety and requested WHO to update the WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety. This included a call to address

Strategic Description priority 1.

Strengthening national food control systems

2.

Identifying and responding to food safety challenges resulting from global changes and food systems transformation

3.

Improving the use of food chain information, scientific evidence and risk assessment in making risk management decisions

4.

Strengthening stakeholder engagement and risk communication

5.

Promoting food safety as an essential component in domestic, regional and international food trade

Table 1 – Priorities of the WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety 2022-2030. current and emerging food safety challenges, incorporate new food control and monitoring technologies, and explore innovative approaches for strengthening food safety systems. The WHA reflected on how food safety risks have increased due to the increasing volume and diversity of foods traded globally.

In 2021, the WHO Secretariat published a draft WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety 20222030.2 In preparing the strategy, feedback was sought from member states, governmental institutions, other United Nations agencies, intergovernmental organisations, academic establishments, nongovernmental organisations, private sector bodies and individuals working in food safety and public health.

It did this through a far-reaching consultation process.

In May 2022, delegates at the WHA adopted the updated WHO Global Strategy. The vision of the strategy is that all people should have access to safe and suitable food, and centres on five interlinked strategic priorities for food safety.

The strategy seeks to inspire WHO member states to intensify and accelerate action on food safety and to guide them as they pursue improvements designed to strengthen their food safety systems. At the member state level, the audience for the strategy includes policymakers, authorities responsible for oversight of food safety, food businesses and the private sector, academics and

consumers. It incorporates four key principles: forward-looking, evidencebased, people-centred and costeffective.

The strategy’s vision is that all people, everywhere, consume safe and healthy food so as to reduce the burden of foodborne illness. Under the strategy WHO will advocate for stronger investment in food safety; synthesise evidence and coordinate scientific advice and research related to food safety; provide and regularly update diagnostic tools and practical guidance; and build partnerships and foster global collaboration to assist countries in implementing the strategy. It will also foster enhanced international cooperation between countries and promote participation in international food safety initiatives and networks.

National food safety strategies During the past 20 years, various countries have tackled the development of national food safety strategies, policies and plans. Some of these activities are described below.

United States – Food safety regulation and control in the United States involves two main federal agencies, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The authority of the FDA is enshrined in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938, while the Meat Inspection Act, the

Poultry Inspection Act, and the Egg Inspection Act establish the authority of FSIS. In 2011, the Food Modernisation Safety Act was introduced, but it mainly impacts the activities of the FDA. A range of other, separate agencies also have food safety responsibilities, plus each state has its own food regulations and agencies.

In 2010, the US Department of Health and Human Services launched Healthy People 2020, with a series of goals and objectives for health promotion and disease prevention across 42 distinct topic areas.

It identified the most significant preventable threats to health and established national goals to reduce these threats.

The goal of the food safety topic areas was to reduce foodborne illnesses in the United States by improving food safety-related behaviours and practices. It involved 33 measurable food safety objectives covering topics such as a targeted reduction in illness across seven foodborne pathogens, addressing antimicrobial resistance, reducing severe allergic reactions to food, and improved safe food-handling behaviours.

Unfortunately, the Healthy People 2020 targets for reducing foodborne illness were not met, and a revised Healthy People 2030 program was unveiled in 2018. Of the seven original objectives tracking foodborne illness caused by pathogens commonly transmitted through food, one objective improved, one objective worsened, and five objectives demonstrated little or no detectable change.3 Overall, only eleven food safety objectives (33%) met or exceeded the 2020 target.

New Zealand – In 2019, New Zealand Food Safety (Ministry for Primary Industries) launched A Strategy for New Zealand Food Safety 20192024.4 The vision was for New Zealand to retain its world-class food safety system and for its food to be trusted and recognised by everyone, everywhere. The focus is on the safety and suitability of domestically

food australia 39

FOOD SAFETY

produced and imported food, whilst maintaining the trust and confidence of trading partners along export supply chains.

The strategy involves five priorities: a robust food safety system; supporting consumers to make informed food choices; active contribution to international forums; partnerships with Māori; and innovative and forward-looking approaches to meet new challenges.

The strategy is supported by an action plan that sets out specific targets and timelines.

The New Zealand food industry contributes strongly to economic and social outcomes. By striving to ensure food is safe and suitable and supporting consumers to make informed choices, food businesses can thrive and innovate while importers can have confidence and trust in exported food.

United Kingdom – The goal of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is to protect public health and consumers. In early 2022, FSA released their latest strategy Food you can trust | FSA Strategy 2022– 2027.5 The strategy sets out how this independent, non-ministerial government department utilises science and evidence to inform ways to protect public health and reduce the burden of foodborne illness, while concomitantly supporting food businesses to meet their obligations.

It is based around their commitment to transparency, proportionality and innovation, and the aspiration to support food businesses to meet food regulations and do the right thing to protect public health.

The strategy arose following a comprehensive independent review of the food system and the publication of the National Food Strategy.6 FSA has developed its work plan for the first year and will set work plans for subsequent years through their corporate planning process. Performance metrics and targets will be reported through FSA’s performance reporting system

40 food australia

and will be published on a regular basis.

Australia – In 2018, the then Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation endorsed Australia’s Foodborne Illness Reduction Strategy 2018–2021+ which identified three priority areas to further strengthen the food regulation system.7 These included reducing foodborne illness, supporting the public health objectives to reduce chronic disease related to overweight and obesity, and maintaining a strong, robust and agile food regulation system.

The development of the strategy followed foodborne illness reduction strategies endorsed in New South Wales (2014) and Victoria (2017).

Specifics around reducing foodborne illness focussed on reducing the incidence of illness due to Campylobacter and Salmonella, with action in the areas of enhancing food safety culture, sector-based initiatives (horticulture, poultry, eggs and food service), consumer and industry information, research, monitoring and surveillance, and national engagement. While a plan to reform the operations of the food regulation system and ensure its jurisdictional consistency is also being progressed.

Summary The means by which we produce, process, distribute, market and consume food are continually evolving, creating challenges for societies which demand safer, healthier and ever more sustainable food. Unfortunately, there is limited evidence that food is safer or that the burden of illness attributed to food is on the decline. In fact, food safety has not always been a public health priority, with few strategies and policies focussing on improving food safety. Plus, where strategies are in place, they have enjoyed only limited success and objective measures of performance have been lacking.

Moving forward it is important

that comprehensive food safety strategies covering the entire food supply chain are drafted. They must both address contemporary issues and look to the horizon for emerging issues.

A vital component of such strategies is identifying probable outcomes and setting, articulating and achieving appropriate objectives such as quantitative targets. This requires measurement of the current burden of illness and negotiating an appropriate level of protection to establish a quantitative reduction target. Such strategies then need to be backed by well-constructed action plans with adequate resourcing and realistic timelines and milestones.

Once in place, food safety strategies need to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they are being properly implemented and are achieving their goals – advancing food safety is an unending process.

References 1. WHO Food Safety Programme (2002). WHO global strategy for food safety: safer food for better health. World Health Organization. https:// apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42559 2. World Health Organization (20218). Draft WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety 2022-2030.

World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/ publications/m/item/draft-who-global-strategyfor-food-safety-2022-2030 3. CDC (2017). Healthy People 2020 Mid course Review – Chapter 14: Food Safety. Centres for Disease Prevention and Control. https://www. cdc.gov/nchs/data/hpdata2020/HP2020MCRC14-FS.pdf 4. New Zealand Food Safety (2019). A Strategy for New Zealand Food Safety 2019-2024. Ministry for Primary Industries. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/ dmsdocument/38951-New-Zealand-Food-SafetyStrategy 5. Food Standards Agency (2022). Food you can trust | FSA Strategy 2022–2027. Food Standards Agency. https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/ files/media/document/Delivering%20a%20 better%20food%20system%20-%20FSA%20 strategy%202022%E2%80%932027.pdf 6. Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2021). National Food Strategy: The Plan.

United Kingdom Government. https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025825/ national-food-strategy-the-plan.pdf 7. Department of Health (2018). Australia’s Foodborne Illness Reduction Strategy 2018– 2021+. https://foodregulation.gov.au/internet/ fr/publishing.nsf/Content/51D7B1FFFCAD05C5 CA2582B900051DDD/$File/FORUM-AUS-FBIRS-2018.pdf

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

ROSEWOOD RESEARCH

Innovation in cereal & grain foods

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

ROSEWOOD RESEARCH

Rosewood Research is an independent self-funded organisation.

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

ROSEWOOD RESEARCH Partnership Program

Innovation in cereal & grain foods

Collaborative Research Partnerships

´

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

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

✔ New product and process development. ✔ Sustainability projects.

Academic Research

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

Contact Us

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

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

Project Management

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

FOOD SAFETY

Disease trends and estimated cost of foodborne illness in Australia Words by Dr Craig Shadbolt

I

n reviewing trends, climate change stands out as having an observable effect on foodborne illness and increased risk of outbreaks, which the food industry and regulators are increasingly forced to grapple with.

What was less predictable (and unforeseen) in 2020 was the impact of COVID-19 on health systems, supply chains, workforces and trends in foodborne disease notifications (in Australia and internationally).

These issues pose real challenges for epidemiologists when interpreting and attributing potential cause and effect of food safety interventions and the impact of other events on disease statistics.

Revised cost of foodborne illness in Australia Food Standards Australia New Zealand1 have recently published updated estimates for the number of foodborne illness cases and their cost, based on 2019 data (as shown in Table 1). Key figures to note are the total estimates for the number of foodborne illness cases per annum (4.68 million) and costs associated with this ($2.44b per annum). The

42 food australia

previous estimated cost of illness was $1.25b, based on 2006 data.

Campylobacter is one of the leading causes of bacterial foodborne diseases, and is estimated to be the single most expensive pathogen in Australia, with an associated cost burden of $375m. By comparison, Salmonella (the most common pathogen associated with foodborne outbreaks) has an annual cost burden of $140m. While there are few notified cases, listeriosis is by far the most expensive foodborne disease with an estimated cost per case of $785,000, due to the severity of associated illness and fatality rate (compared with a cost of $1,390 per case for Campylobacter).

Foodborne disease trends in Australia Australian notifications for nontyphoidal Salmonella, Campylobacter and Listeria in the period 2015-2021 are shown in Table 2. These figures represent laboratory confirmed detections of illness across Australian jurisdictions, but do not account for underreporting of cases which are estimated in the above

FSANZ report.

Campylobacter became notifiable in NSW (Australia’s most populous state) from April 2017, which accounts for a significant rise in notifications around this time.

Irrespective of this, total notifications of this pathogen remain stubbornly high and are of major concern for regulators and food industry commodities that are major sources of Campylobacter.

Listeriosis notifications declined steadily over 2015-2021.

Improvements in understanding and education of the risks to pregnant women and the immunocompromised, along with improved practices in sectors such as the melon industry, may have contributed to this decrease.

Another potential success story is the decline in salmonellosis notifications from 2015-2021.

Several state and territory food safety regulators developed specific interventions targeting causes of Salmonella outbreaks. Improvements across various industry sectors also contributed to the salmonellosis decrease. For example, the majority

of layer hens in the egg industry are now vaccinated against Salmonella Typhimurium (the most common serovar implicated in foodborne disease).

Improvements in throughchain biosecurity as a result of a Salmonella Enteritidis outbreak in NSW and Victoria in 2018-19 are also reducing opportunities for spread within and between farms. More recent outbreaks linked to fresh produce in 2020 and 2021 are being addressed through draft food safety standards across leafy greens, berry and melon production. However, the overall decline in salmonellosis, while promising, is complicated by the impact of COVID-19.

Table 1 – Estimated number of foodborne illnesses and cost in Australia in 2019 (FSANZ, 2022).

COVID-19 and impacts on foodborne pathogen notifications A common statistic in many countries was the reported decrease in foodborne illness coinciding with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and associated control measures. In the UK, there was a 34% decrease of laboratory confirmed gastrointestinal illness during the first six months of the COVID-19 response in 2020, compared to the previous five-year average.2 Similarly, disease statistics published by the US CDC showed a 26% decrease in foodborne illness in 2020, compared to the 2017-2019 average.3 This was the single largest decrease on record in the history of FoodNet reporting in the US. Australia also observed a 27% decrease in salmonellosis during 2020.4 States with stricter, longer periods of movement restrictions generally saw the largest declines in notified salmonellosis cases.

While these restrictions would have had a significant impact on disease statistics, other factors may have included changes to health seeking behaviour (sick people using telehealth instead of physical visits to a health facility where a stool sample might otherwise have been collected); laboratory resources prioritised for COVID-19 over other diseases (including

Table 2 – Australian trends in campylobacteriosis, listeriosis, and salmonellosis notifications, 2015-2021 (extracted from NNDSS, 22 March 2022 and provided by OzFoodNet).

Salmonella diagnostics); reduction of travel-associated cases linked to closure of international borders; and improvements in hand hygiene.

interpreting disease causality and effects of future food safety interventions.

References Conclusion The updated burden of foodborne disease and associated cost estimates demonstrate that Australia still has significant room for improvement in managing illness. Future management efforts will be challenged by the effects of climate change and extreme weather events increasing the likelihood of foodborne outbreaks.

Other confounding factors, including current disruption to health systems arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, are adding to the complexity of

1. FSANZ (2022) “The Annual Cost of Foodborne Illness in Australia” (to be published soon) 2. Love NK, Elliot AJ, Chalmers RM, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gastrointestinal infection trends in England, February– July 2020.

BMJ Open 2022;12:e050469. https://bmjopen. bmj.com/content/bmjopen/12/3/e050469.full. pdf 3. FoodNet 2020 Preliminary Data | FoodNet | CDC 4. Salmonellosis in Australia in 2020: possible impacts of COVID-19 related public health measures. Barbara P F Davis, Janaki Amin, Neil Franklin, Paul J Beggs. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/35092999

Dr Craig Shadbolt is Principal Food Safety Scientist with the NSW Food Authority, regulating food safety from paddock to plate. f

food australia 43

FOOD SAFETY

Where is the fork? The missing link in farm-to-fork food safety strategies Words by Dipon Sarkar

I

n 2015, the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated that one in ten people suffered from foodborne disease, with 420,000 annual deaths globally. Comprehensive strategies to ensure food safety at all stages of production, distribution and consumption, such as farm-to-fork and ‘One Health’ approaches have been identified as possible ways to reduce this burden.

Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) has been established as an internationally recognised tool for supporting food safety risk management over the entire food chain and providing a scientific basis for decision-making.1 According to Codex Alimentarius guidelines, QMRA considers the microbial behaviour from primary production through to processing, retail and the consumer’s plate (the ‘farm-to-fork’ continuum2) to generate final public health risk estimates.

The consumer phase (CP), or ‘fork’ level, is the final step in the supply

44 food australia

chain, where the consumer transports, stores, prepares and consumes food. In QMRA, this stage is represented by a consumer phase model (CPM), that links the production and retail phases with the ultimate public health outcomes generated by the QMRA model.

The CP is unique, as there is a great degree of variability in consumer practices that cannot be enforced by legislation, resulting in reduced interest from food safety professionals in the CP. But consumer risk perception, awareness and practices have been identified as one of the most important interventions for the reduction of foodborne illness.

Several foodborne illnesses such as salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis can be significantly reduced by following proper personal hygiene, avoiding cross-contamination during meal preparation and ensuring correct cold storage and heat treatment steps.3 The cultural, social, and geographical differences in food handling behaviour add further difficulty in gathering

representative data, leading to a scarcity in data in CP.4 However, researchers have established the importance of a representative CPM to generate meaningful risk estimates in QMRA,5 as attempts to use a simplified ‘universal’ CPM represented by a constant factor that ignores the variability in consumer practices have resulted in significant over estimation of the final risk estimate.6 Some important data considerations for CPM are food storage time and temperature, preparation practices, risk perception, kitchen hygiene condition, cooking temperature and crosscontamination probability. Among these, food safety risk perception is the most studied area,7 with data from other areas being scarce, geographically limited or outdated.

In the absence of this data, assumptions and surrogate data are used to design CPM. For example, recent QMRA studies conducted to estimate the risk of Escherichia

coli O157:H7 from cos lettuce8 and Campylobacter jejuni from chicken consumption9 in Australia have relied on home refrigeration data collected in the USA in 2010 and a consumer behaviour survey conducted in Australia in 1999.

In the absence of contemporary representative data, information collected in other geographical locations is used, or a survey conducted over two decades ago may be one of the most reliable sources of data, even if food habits have significantly changed since the data was originally collected. Moving forward, this limitation will have further implications, with the increasing changes in consumer preference, diets, demography, and the growing popularity of alternative proteins.

Along with academic research projects conducted by government agencies and universities, innovative approaches such as citizen science projects and crowd-sourcing projects can play a key role in addressing data gaps in CP.10,11 Citizen science empowers public participation in scientific research through co-creation, data monitoring and collection programs.

Such approaches can engage the wider community to rapidly generate large amounts of data within homes and capture variability in CP whilst also increasing awareness of the data used for policy decisions.

This approach has been demonstrated in several food-related citizen science projects, such as those used in meat temperature monitoring12 and household waste estimation.13 The UK Food Standards Agency have identified the potential of citizen science methodologies for addressing food safety challenges and funded several projects investigating issues such as antimicrobial resistance, food

hypersensitivity and hygiene conditions in domestic kitchens.

Overall, this article seeks to highlight a significant data gap in ‘fork’ level data that can be used in food safety management and emphasises a need for additional research through citizen science, survey and crowd-sourcing projects. This would help us better understand, monitor and quantify food safety risk at the ‘fork’ level, ultimately providing better food safety education and communication to consumers.

References 1. Koutsoumanis, K. P. & Aspridou, Z. Moving towards a risk-based food safety management.

Current Opinion in Food Science 12, 36–41 (2016).

2. Codex Alimentarius Commision. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Assessment. 1–4 (1999).

3. Bearth, A., Cousin, M. E. & Siegrist, M. Poultry consumers’ behaviour, risk perception and knowledge related to campylobacteriosis and domestic food safety. Food Control 44, 166–176 (2014).

4. Redmond, E. C. & Griffith, C. J. Consumer food handling in the home: a review of food safety studies. J Food Prot 66, 130–161 (2003).

5. Nauta, M. & Christensen, B. The Impact of Consumer Phase Models in Microbial Risk Analysis.

Risk Analysis 31, 255–265 (2011).

6. Neves, M. I., Mungai, S. N. & Nauta, M. J. Can stochastic consumer phase models in QMRA be simplified to a single factor? Microbial Risk Analysis 8, 53–60 (2018).

7. Machado Nardi, V. A., Teixeira, R., Ladeira, W. J. & de Oliveira Santini, F. A meta-analytic review of food safety risk perception. Food Control 112, 107089 (2020).

8. Bozkurt, H., Bell, T., van Ogtrop, F., Phan-Thien,

K. Y. & McConchie, R. Assessment of microbial risk during Australian industrial practices for Escherichia coli O157:H7 in fresh cut-cos lettuce: A stochastic quantitative approach. Food Microbiology 95, 103691 (2021).

9. Habib, I., Coles, J., Fallows, M. & Goodchild, S. Human campylobacteriosis related to crosscontamination during handling of raw chicken meat: Application of quantitative risk assessment to guide intervention scenarios analysis in the Australian context. International Journal of Food Microbiology 332, 108775 (2020).

10. Reynolds, C., Pateman, R. & Elliott, C. This is a repository copy of Citizen science and food: A review. Citizen Science and Food: A Review.

(2020).

11. Mei, J., Mei Soon, J. & Sam Saguy, I. Article Crowdsourcing: A new conceptual view for food safety and quality Crowdsourcing: A new conceptual view for food safety and quality 1.

Food Science and Technology 66, 63–72.

12. Developing a Citizen Science Method to Collect Whole Turkey Thermometer Usage Behaviors - International Association for Food Protection. https://foodprotection.org/publications/foodprotection-trends/archive/2019-09-developing-acitizen-science-method-to-collect-whole-turkeythermometer-usage-behaviors/.

13. Pateman, R. M. et al. Citizen Science for Quantifying and Reducing Food Loss and Food Waste. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4, 247 (2020).

Dipon Sarkar is a PhD candidate at the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, University of Tasmania. His research focuses on the development and use of predictive models and risk analysis to ensure the microbial safety of cheese.

Dipon was the recipient of the 2022 John Christian Young Food Microbiologist Award. This article is based on his winning abstract and presentation. f

Errata 2022 1. Dr Dai Suter ‘Opportunities for linseed in Australian food products’ Vol.74(2) April-June 2022, p.23 Table 1. Data for Quinoa. The correct values are: Energy kJ - 1518; Protein % - 10.6; Carbohydrate % - 62.0; Total Dietary Fibre % - 7.7; Total Fat % - 6.0; Alpha Linolenic Acid % - 0; Monounsaturated Fatty Acids % - 0.5; Linoleic Acid % - 0; Saturated Fatty Acids % - 0.8; W-9 Fatty Acids - 0 2. Anne Maree Weston, By the Numbers, Vol.74(1) January-March 2022, p.5 In graphics box titled Composition of food export by value (5 year average) - Top 6, all dollar values should be ‘billions’.

food australia 45

FOOD SAFETY

Food Safety Information Council celebrates its 25th anniversary Words by Lydia Buchtmann

T

he Food Safety Information Council (FSIC) is celebrating 25 years of educating consumers about food safety this year. The Council was originally founded in August 1997 as the Food Safety Campaign Group by the Australian Supermarket Institute, government food agencies, CSIRO and consumer and professional groups. FSIC is now a registered charity with more than 50 members including AIFST, Environmental Health Australia, CSIRO, FSANZ, Choice, state and territory food and health agencies, Dietitians Australia, industry groups and several local government organisations.

The Council’s aim is to reduce the estimated 4.1 million cases of food poisoning in Australia that result in

31,920 hospitalisations, 86 deaths and 1 million visits to doctors every year.

Over time we have seen considerable improvement in consumer knowledge regarding the importance of food safety basics such as effective handwashing, cross contamination, cooking temperatures and safe refrigeration and storage.

Our work is evidence-based, using the best available science and social science. Our main activity is Australian Food Safety Week each November which kicks off our Summer campaign of TV and radio community service announcements, media interviews and videos shown in medical practices.

We also drive numerous campaigns throughout the year including advice not to pick or eat wild mushrooms,

promotion of our latest handwashing research is published each Global Handwashing Day, and warnings not to purchase food sold illegally on social media.

We work closely with schools encouraging younger students to wash their hands properly using the Glitterbug UV light experiment and run a National Science Week project each August – this year we’ll be looking at fermenting and preserving food in glass.

If you would like become involved you can find out more at: www. foodsafety.asn.au Lydia Buchtmann is Communication Director at the Food Safety Information Council. Mob: 0407 626 688.

Email: info@foodsafety.asn.au f

23 26 JULY 2023 Melbourne Convention & Exhibition Centre

Redefine the future of food What you do matters

Find out more & Register now

We are in a time of transition where

Showcasing design innovations,

environmental awareness and

new technology, and the latest

future thinking is stepping up to lead

packaging and processing solutions,

consumer led solutions for the food

foodpro is where the food industry

and beverage manufacturing industry.

gathers to generate solutions towards

foodpro is the leading food and manufacturing event that brings all the

foodproexh.com

46 food australia

industry expertise to one place.

a more sustainable world. It’s about creating. Together.

Because what you do, matters.

The theme for this year’s AIFST Convention is ‘Food Science - Creating the future through collaboration and innovation’

We asked some of the mentees from this year’s National Mentoring Program to respond to our question: Q: What does the AIFST22 theme mean to you?

Min Dillon Food Science & Nutrition student at Murdoch University “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much”, Helen Keller.

As a Murdoch University food science student with a background in health, I think of collaboration as the homeostasis of science’s body of knowledge. Collaboration is how the scientific body of knowledge achieves equilibrium and stability, sustains life (both in theory and in application), thrives now and in the future. At Murdoch we are encouraged and supported to ‘free our think’ and collaborate with other Universities, research institutions, businesses, industry, non-profit organisations and governments. One example is the research undertaken by the Health Futures Institute, looking at the unlocking of chemical secrets in WA’s healthiest food. Another is the Food Innovation Precinct, the new home for the Food Future Institute promoting collaboration between growers, producers, scientists and international Agri-innovation firms. Innovation is the product of a thriving and healthy collaboration, creating sustainable food solutions for the future.

Danielle Mansfield Food Science and Technology Diploma student at William Angliss Institute The AIFST theme of ‘Food Science – Creating the future through collaboration and innovation’ means to me the excitement of future possibilities and technologies born of in person interaction and contact.

We have taken this for granted in the past. After two years of the COVID-19 pandemic it is exciting

to meet with people in person and collaborate, learn from them and network. As a current student at William Angliss Institute’s Food Science and Technology diploma, I have been privileged to collaborate with an amazing group of teachers and students with vastly different backgrounds to myself. Collaboration is important in being able to innovate as we all have our different perspectives and life stories. There is much to be done in this exciting area and I look forward to being a part of the convention so that new ideas will be sparked.

Elerin Toomik PhD candidate at the University of Tasmania The food industry and food science need to work together because perhaps only in that way can there be innovation in this field. The AIFST22 convention is the perfect place where the industry can meet with scientists and broaden their respective knowledge. As a food microbiologist, it is easy to get lost in the laboratory work, but to understand the impact of the work we do, we need to have a conversation with the other side. The food industry can, on the other hand, see what the ‘wacky’ scientists are up to and potentially find new perspectives and partnership opportunities to get ahead of the competition.

Kristi Ngan Product Development Technologist at Frucor Suntory In terms of innovation, it’s about how we do things differently in terms of ingredients we use, what claims we make and new processing technologies. This leads to meeting different consumers’ needs by observing trends, identifying new eating occasions and, overall, developing food products that meet peoples’ needs before they know it themselves. Not only is the future

5

FAST

of food science about collaborating within a business and with their external companies (ingredient suppliers and research agencies), it’s about sharing the knowledge with the food industry (suppliers, manufacturers and universities).

The AIFST conference is a great opportunity to learn about what people are working on and build connections within the industry.

It makes me wonder if we should take more time to understand how companies are approaching food science and their ways of working, especially across different food categories. This may unlock ways to think differently and improve our food science mindset.

Derrick D’Souza Culinarian and PhD Candidate at Victoria University I cannot imagine a young food scientist’s dream turning into reality, ideas becoming international brands, or queries answered, without mentors and guidance. Turning such dreams, ideas and queries into true innovations and breakthroughs is only possible through collaboration and support. Collaboration could be seen as the spark plug of the entire engine, the driving force of innovation.

Collaboration on a national level between growers, manufacturers, technology developers, start-ups and academics, and recognition by the government through grants, research promotion and advocacy, must be at the forefront for innovation to occur. Much has been said, but much more needs to be done if we are to stay relevant and ahead of the competition. Keeping abreast of trends, navigating major movements successfully and making things happen effectively through collaboration must be our vision. The future is in our hands, let us come together - stay together - grow together.

food australia 47