food australia Journal, Vol. 75 (3) July - September 2023

ISSN 1032 5298 • PRINT POST APPROVED PP241613/00096 VOL 75 ISSUE 3

JULY – SEPTEMBER 2023

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF AIFST

Harnessing the potential of seaweed bioactive compounds

Building resilience in the Australian seafood industry

Turning research into action

Swift and reliable milk allergen quantification

Food scientists as heroes

Creating food texture with plant protein

&

&

ADVERTORIAL

PEOPLE BEHIND SAFER FOOD AT BVAQ ARE A BIG DEAL

BVAQ has been supporting the Australian food industry since our establishment in 1954 and the Southeast Asian food industry since 1996. We pride ourselves on providing businesses with the analytical and technical services required to ensure food safety and product quality, from the farm gate to the end consumer.

Whether your organisation requires risk management support, technical solutions, training or access to results with our online solutions, our team of technical specialists can assist your business by providing technical and practical advice.

Historically, the leading causes of product recalls in Australia are the presence of undeclared allergens, labelling errors, microbial contamination and foreign matter. When you need support to manage this risk, BVAQ is here to help.

Our technical specialist team can assist to review and implement your risk management strategies, significantly reducing your business risk with respect to brand exposure and consumer protection. We specialise in providing technical solutions to state and territory councils, and conducting food safety risk assessments across all food industry sectors.

BVAQ can also work with your

2 food australia

business to review sampling and testing regimes, ensuring your risks are not only identified but properly managed.

In addition to our risk mitigation solutions we can support your business with technical solutions, providing your technical staff and departments with shared industry and regulatory experience, knowledge and know-how.

We understand that product development and production processes directly impact your product’s stability and food safety, and so our team of technical specialists can work with your business to design and carry out microbiological validations and challenge studies.

At BVAQ our people are what makes the difference. Nowhere is this more obvious than with our team of customer-focused technical specialists. Between them, they boast over 150 years’ combined experience in laboratory and manufacturing operations.

The vast expertise of our technical specialists covers all aspects of microbiological, chemical and allergen analysis as well as process improvement, risk mitigation and management within food manufacturing. They work not only for the benefit of BVAQ and our clients but also volunteer their time as National

Association of Testing Authority assessors, key stakeholders in industry working groups, serve on Australian and International (ISO) technical committees, as well as board directors of not-for-profit organisations - shaping the future of the food industry.

They are our distinct point of difference, able to provide technical and practical advice, to allow you to stay one step ahead. Our solutions complete the services we offer at BVAQ. Access to our technical specialists allows your business to be proactive, rather than reactive. They can provide guidance with an existing problem or assist in identifying gaps in your systems or procedures. BVAQ can assist your business to reduce potential risks, reduce cost and increase the food safety of the products you produce.

To find out how BVAQ can support your business with technical solutions, contact us at: Phone: 03 8371 7600 Email: sales.au@bvaq.com Web: www.bvaq.com

JULY – SEPTEMBER 2023

8

14

IN THIS ISSUE 8

Creating food texture with plant protein

Controlled gelling technology as an alternative to extrusion 14

Bioaccessibility and bioavailability of seaweed bioactive compounds

Future directions in further understanding the potential of seaweed 18

36

32

REGULARS 05

By the Numbers

06

People

12

AIFST News

30

Food Files

47

Fast Five

The opportunity for Australia to take its place on the global innovation stage

20

Building food safety and market access resilience in the Australian seafood

industry: A blueprint for industry collaboration?

An actionable risk register to help manage risk 24

Embedding a food safety culture that prioritises people

BSI’s new guidance provides a clear and detailed roadmap 26

ISSN 1032 5298 • PRINT POST APPROVED PP241613/00096 VOL 75 ISSUE 3

Turning research into action - principles to enable research translation

JULY – SEPTEMBER 2023

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF AIFST

Harnessing the potential of seaweed bioactive compounds

Building resilience in the Australian seafood industry

What’s the beef? An overview of the regulation of plant-based ‘meat’ and

‘dairy’ claims in Australia

Turning research into action

Swift and reliable milk allergen quantification

A look at the legal and industry landscape 28

Functional properties of gluten can be modified during fermentation

Food scientists as heroes

Creating food texture with plant protein

An alternative approach to the processing of gluten-free products &

32

Unlocking nature’s hidden defenders: anti-microbial peptides are abundant

in digested food proteins Research provides window into the potential of food-derived AMPs 36

Food scientists as heroes

&

COVER People behind safer food at BVAQ are a big deal.

Recognising the role of food scientists and technologists in managing the safety of our food supply 40

Swift and reliable milk allergen quantification for better food safety

A new faster method to enable milk allergen detection 43

Hunting for new starter cultures with useful properties for plant-based

food fermentations Investigating the potential of plant-isolated lactic acid bacteria 46

What do sensory and consumer scientists do?

An insight into the world of the sensory and consumer scientist

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 Dr Osman Tuncay Agar, Brandon Archbell, Dr Claus Heiner Bang-Berthelsen, Dr Colin Barrow, Dr Louise Bennett, Dr Ixchel Brennan, Rozlynne Clarke, Dr Andrew Costanzo, Dr Dan Dias, Dr Pauline Dhordain, Natalie Dowsett, Dr Frank Dunshea, Dr Milton T. W. Hearn, Jodie Hill, Dr Kate Howell, Wenkang Huang, Woojeong Kim, Dr Cristina Lesseur, Feijie Li, Dr Djin Gie Liem, Deon Mahoney, Dr Greg Martin, Dr Lisandra L. Martin, Dr Jordi (Joost) LD Nelis, Dr Sangeeta Prakash, Todd Redwood, Ciska de Rijk, Dr Carolyn Ross, Dr Sara Sayanjali, Dr Cordelia Selomulya, Dr Hafiz Suleria, Dr Alison Turnbull, Dr Mark S. Turner, Anders Peter Wätjen, Dr Yong Wang, Annesley Watson, Shi Ting Wong, Shuyu Yang, Canice Chun-Yin Yiu.

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

Subscriptions AIFST | aifst@aifst.com.au

Production Bite Communications

2023 Subscription Rates Australia $130.00 (incl. GST); Overseas (airmail) $205.00.

Single copies (Australia) $32.50 (incl. GST); Overseas $52.00 food australia is the official journal of the Australian Institute of Food Science and Technology Limited (AIFST). Statements and opinions presented in the publication do not necessarily reflect the policies of AIFST nor does AIFST accept responsibility for the accuracy of such statement and opinion.

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

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

AIFST Board Chair: Mr Duncan McDonald Non-executive directors: Mr Marc Barnes, Ms Julie Cox, Dr Michael Depalo (Deputy Chair), Dr Heather Haines, Dr Gregory Harper, 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

The theme for AIFST23, The Science of Food Security & Sustainability, speaks to the challenges and exciting opportunities ahead for the agri-food industry and the important role food science and technology and food scientists will play.

In October 2022, the Commonwealth Government House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture commenced an inquiry into food security in Australia.

The Committee will inquire into and report on strengthening and safeguarding food security in Australia, including examining: • National production, consumption, and export of food • Access to key inputs such as fuel, fertiliser and labour, and their impact on production costs • The impact of supply chain distribution on the cost and availability of food, and • The potential opportunities and threats of climate change on food production in Australia.

The terms of reference suggest a focus of the Committee will be on agricultural production, which in Australia underpins food security for Australians. Upon that foundation, however, stands the food manufacturing sector which transforms agricultural products and produce into the foods Australians eat every day.

Noting the terms of reference, AIFST framed a submission around a report, Exploring the growth potential of Australia’s food manufacturing sector: a new narrative for Australia’s agrifood system, published in January 2021 by AIFST and RDS Partners.

In that report, the AIFST’s key recommendation called upon the Government to urgently work with food system stakeholders to establish an industry-led, food system strategic advisory body, chaired at the Ministerial level, to develop a National Food Plan.

Perhaps the most important message arising from this report was the need to reimagine the way we understand and manage food production in Australia – to think about an Australian food system, not just ‘agriculture’, ‘production’ or ‘manufacturing’ silos. If the Australian agri-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 must occur. AIFST has called for a well-coordinated and resourced national food system plan and strategy.

How are you ensuring food science and food scientists and technologists support food science for food security? What could your role in the development of a National Food Plan look like and what can AIFST do to support you?

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

BY THE NUMBERS

Plastic is pervasive in our food supply: new study Words by Dr Jordi Nelis Micro and nanoplastics are entering our agricultural systems and our food. This may be affecting food safety and security on a global scale according to a new study led by CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency.

The study analysed the academic literature on microplastics from a food safety and food security risk viewpoint.

It showed that plastics and their additives are present at a range of concentrations in many everyday food products including meat, chicken, rice, water, take-away food and drink, and even fresh produce.

A primary way these plastics enter the human food chain is through food processing and packaging. Fresh food can be plastic free when it’s picked or caught, but can contain plastics by the time it’s been handled, packaged and makes its way to the consumer.

Machinery, cutting boards and plastic wrapping can all deposit micro and nanoplastics into our food.

Plastic contaminants also enter our agriculture system via various sources such as natural and synthetic fertilisers.

For instance, biosolids, which are sourced from wastewater treatment, are a great fertiliser for agricultural land that promotes sustainable practices by using organic waste as fertiliser. However, biosolids can contain plastic particles from multiple sources, such as from the washing of synthetic clothing.

There are currently no definitive studies that demonstrate micro and nanoplastics cause harm to humans, however more research is needed to fully understand health effects.

More research is also needed to develop better analytical techniques for the monitoring, assessment and establishment of safe levels in food, drinking water and agroecosystems.

Dr Jordi Nelis, CSIRO analytical chemist, food safety specialist and lead author of the paper. f

Micro and nanoplastics pollution In Australia,

~4,700 metric tons of plastics are released into the terrestrial environment through biosolid use every year

The micro - and nanoplastic pollution concentration in biosolids can be

100-fold

above levels previously found to significantly affect the growth and metabolism of important food crops

Mouse brains have been shown to be affected by nanoparticle inhalation, with polystyrene particles of

80 nanometres

passing the blood-brain barrier causing neurotoxicity and affecting animal behaviour

Plastics can contain more than

10,000

chemical additives.

More than

700,000

2,400

More than compounds have been identified as substances of potential concern by the European Union

microfibers can be released from synthetic clothing during an average

6kg

washing machine cycle

Source: The measurement of food safety and security risks associated with micro- and nanoplastic pollution, TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Volume 161, April 2023, 116993 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2023.116993

food australia 5

PEOPLE

Todd Redwood appointed to MD role at BSI BSI has appointed Todd Redwood as the new Managing Director of its Global Food and Retail Sector.

Todd brings a wealth of experience to the role, both from within the industry and supporting it. Since joining BSI Group in 2013, Todd has been pivotal in driving BSI’s commitment to the food industry in multiple roles. He has delivered solutions to support global brands and retailers to achieve their sustainability, digital trust, product quality and safety goals, as well as health, safety and wellbeing aspirations.

Mr Redwood said he is delighted to take on this role at a crucial time when global food and retail supply chains have never been under more pressure.

“With complexity, risks increase, and along with the age-old concerns about product safety and quality, new risks requiring vigilance have become prominent, including increased attacks by cyber criminals, worker health and wellbeing, and modern slavery,” Mr Redwood said.

“Overlay all this with increasing universal awareness of, and demand for sustainability through ESG frameworks, including ambitious commitments to net zero, client’s and stakeholder’s agendas are very full. Along with our team at BSI, I look forward to helping them effectively manage these risks and grow sustainably,” he said.

AIFST non-executive director movements AIFST is pleased to welcome three new Non-Executive Directors to the Board. Mr Marc Barnes, Dr Gregory Harper and Dr Heather Haines were each appointed for a three year term at the 2023 AGM held on 25 May.

Mr Marc Barnes Marc is a highly motivated, results-driven and internationally accomplished business leader with innate commercial acumen, who tracks his success back to growing up in an entrepreneurial family in rural Tasmania.

Within that environment he was primed to manage the family business, building strong

6 food australia

foundations as a proactive, goal-oriented professional. He subsequently moved into the food and beverage sector, achieving tangible results and driving sustainable growth and profitability whilst managing risk for multiple enterprises throughout his career.

Outgoing and engaging, he is recognised for being outcomes focussed, able to get people onboard and build momentum through inspiring individuals, teams, colleagues and associates.

He has a strong track record of engaging across all levels of organisations, building collaborative, high performing, multi-functional teams that exceed business targets and are aligned to company values.

His 20 years of experience in food safety assurance and eight years as Managing Director of BSI Group have given him a wealth of experience and knowledge. This has helped shape best practice standards to equip an organisation

with the discipline and mechanisms for compliance and continuous improvement.

Key to this success has been leading and coaching employees, senior leadership and business owners to deliver beyond expectations within often complex global matrix environments, and establishing a culture committed to sales and organisational growth (organic and M&A), durable stakeholder relationships and delivery of exceptional client service.

Marc currently runs his own management consultancy, Flinders Lane Advisory, is a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) and has previously held senior roles at British Standards Institute, NATA Certification Services, St Vincent’s & Mercy Private Hospital and Sheraton Hotels.

Dr Gregory Harper Gregory is a biological scientist who focuses on the translation of scientific discoveries into commercial, environmental and

Dr Heather Haines Heather has a strong applied science background with more than 35 years’ experience as a microbiologist. She has worked in the areas of (human) diagnostic microbiology, education and training, food safety research and food safety policy.

While working in the Food Safety Unit of the Victorian Department of Health, she managed projects to deliver tools for food businesses and staff to improve food hygiene, improve the Victorian government

social benefits. He is a senior manager at the University of Melbourne and Director of Business Development in the Faculty of Science.

Gregory has previously been a member of the senior academic staff at the University and held management and governance roles in other contexts. Adaptability has been a key attribute of his career and he sees himself as an engaged global citizen.

Gregory has spent his career in the global R&D community and has expertise in management and governance of public and private R&D funds. The agrifood innovation system has been a particular focus and this probably has its roots in his childhood, when his parents ran a suburban meat retailing business in Brisbane.

He has worked in five countries and for multiple Australian innovation system actors. His partnership building experience includes Australian R&D organisations, urban and regional universities, international universities, international public entities and small, focussed service organisations.

Gregory holds multiple Fellowships and was proud to become a Fellow of the AIFST in 2022. His work has been recognised internationally as a Registered Technology Transfer Professional (RTTP).

Gregory is looking forward to helping guide the AIFST and its members into the future as a member of the Board.

food surveillance activities and contribute to national initiatives on food surveillance and food safety research.

Examples include the first version of the free online food safety learning tool ‘Dofoodsafely’ and a food surveillance app which is used by many local government officers in Victoria. Latterly her role, and that of her team at the Department, was to analyse proposed amendments to the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, then brief and support senior officers and representatives of the Food Ministers’ Meeting in their deliberations on these amendments, with the imperative of protecting the health and safety of consumers.

Heather completed a Bachelor of Applied Sciences (Medical Laboratory Sciences), and a Master of Applied Science (Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology - Food Stream) at RMIT. Her PhD studies were undertaken at the University of Tasmania, supported by scholarships from Meat and Livestock Australia (through Mintrac) and the (then) Department of Agriculture. She has been a longstanding Professional Member

of AIFST, involving periods on both the Victorian and Tasmanian Branch Committees, and is a member and previous Victorian committee member of the Australian Society for Microbiology. She is also a member of the AICD.

Outgoing directors Deon Mahoney, Suz Allen and John Kavanagh have retired as nonexecutive directors. The Board and AIFST team thank them for their three years of support and wise counsel and acknowledge their contribution throughout their terms.

food australia 7

FOOD ENGINEERING

Creating food texture with plant protein Words by Woojeong Kim, Canice Chun-Yin Yiu and Drs Yong Wang and Cordelia Selomulya

P

lant-based foods, exemplified by plant-based meats, have taken the world by storm. Nowadays, we can purchase plant-based burgers at popular fast-food chains and access an array of plant-based products such as chicken nuggets, sausages and minced meat from supermarket shelves dedicated to the plant food category.

Despite the growing popularity of plant-based foods, the ultimate vision of creating a plant-based steak, often used as a model for showcasing the innovative capabilities of food technology to consumers, remains unfulfilled.

The primary reason for this is that the current mainstream manufacturing process for plant-based foods relies heavily on extrusion, which can successfully create fibrous structures from plant proteins to mimic animal muscle. However, extrusion is not suitable for replicating the structure of animal fats, such as the marbling often found in steaks, or for mimicking other heterogeneous structures found in animal meats.

Texture is important to boost repeated purchases, with 26% of US consumers saying ‘texture’ is the reason they are willing to try plantbased meat but do not continue to purchase it.1

Although extrusion remains the most prevalent practical technique for creating plant-based meats, the high temperature and pressure involved in the process have long been a cause

8 food australia

for concern among professionals and consumers alike, due to the potential to degrade the nutritional content of the food.

While extrusion is particularly effective for specific categories of plant proteins such as soy protein and wheat gluten, other types of plant proteins, including those widely produced in Australia (pea, chickpea and faba bean) may not be suitable for extrusion and require various preprocessing steps and formulation to achieve the desired texture.

We have recently developed a controlled gelling technology as an alternative to extrusion for constructing plant protein gels, published in Food Hydrocolloids.2 This technique utilises food-grade pea protein and naturally-derived gums to create tailored gel structures based on the specific requirements of the end products, including the mechanical strength of the final gel to suit the targeted chewiness of the product for example. The control is achieved mainly through two process parameters: gelation temperature and gelation time.

The main advantage of this approach is that it avoids the use of any additives that may raise concerns among consumers and satisfies clean label requirements. Another benefit is that there is no specialised equipment required for the process, offering the potential for direct implementation in existing food manufacturing environments.

The controlled gelling technique Unique role of curdlan gum Curdlan gum is a naturally-derived food polysaccharide that can now be produced at a large scale through fermentation. It has been approved as a food additive in countries such as Japan, the United States and China and also has potential as a prebiotic.3 Curdlan gum has the unique ability to form both thermally reversible gels and thermally irreversible gels under different heated conditions.4 As a result, it can play specific roles in food texturisation, depending on the requirements of the end product.

The gelling process employs curdlan and pea protein as its main components. When combined and heated, these two ingredients form a temperature-dependent gel network.

The gel undergoes thermal irreversible transformation above 80°C, leading to a substantial increase in its storage and loss modulus. A continuous gel network can be formed as evidenced by the increasing storage modulus, a rheological parameter to represent the gel strength (Figure 1).2 The role of pea protein in the gel structure Our research also discovered that temperature not only controls the strength of the gel but also affects their microstructures. Within the range of 50-60°C, the pea protein particles remain relatively intact and large, as shown in the scanning electron

subsequently reassembling them into a single gel, lies in the fact that the gel developed exhibits thermal reversibility at around 60°C.

Can we make the texture more tuneable?

Figure 1. Two main parameters, temperature and isothermal duration, to manipulate the gel formation from pea protein and curdlan gum to mimic heterogeneous structures in foods (reprint from Wang et al. (2023)2 with permission from Elsevier). microscope image in Figure 1 (bottomright), where the green areas represent protein particles.

As the temperature increases, the pea protein particles decrease in size. At 80°C the protein particles were completely integrated into the curdlan gum gel network.2 This finding suggests that a similar strategy could be applied to other varieties of weakgelling plant proteins.

New rheology tools to monitor texture change Large Amplitude Oscillatory Shear (LAOS) rheology is used to explore the unique role of temperature in regulating the texture of curdlan gum-pea protein hybrid gels.2 This rheological method offers a more comprehensive understanding of texture changes and is used to measure the storage modulus, loss modulus and loss tangent of curdlan-pea protein gel at varying temperatures in the large amplitude range.

The large amplitude here means that the food samples, gels in this study, will experience visible deformation at a similar level to chewing, while the conventional small amplitude rheology only measures sample deformation of less than 1mm (barely visible to the naked eye).

These findings reveal that the gel strength can be estimated by the

combination of heating temperature and duration, as shown in the diagram at the centre of Figure 1 (more details in [2]). We have also published a comprehensive review of various LAOS rheology methods, mathematical models, and their potential applications and approaches for food research and development.5 Potential applications in plant-based meat alternatives Plant-based seafood sales have increased by 15% in terms of dollar value in 2022, while unit sales grew 5%, outpacing the plant-based meat sales, yet they remain as a small fraction of the total plant-based category.1 This controlled gelling method could potentially help create new plant-based alternative products.

We used curdlan-pea protein gel in different colours to demonstrate a heterogeneous/mixed structure by incorporating different plant proteins (white and orange layers, shown in Figure 1, bottom-left).

Two layers of curdlan-pea protein gel were formed at distinct temperatures (60°C and 80°C), with potential to add a higher amount of protein to the 80°C layer. These two layers were then combined to generate a final product that exhibited a firm texture and a unique salmon-like appearance. The key to forming different layers, and

Building on this work we are developing further improvements in formulations, for example, by using pea protein and two types of polysaccharides to create an emulsion gel that can mimic animal fat tissue.

Structurally, curdlan is a neutral linear ß-1,3 linked glucan. When we introduce another polysaccharide, glucomannan, we can create a gel with dual functionality. This has promising applications for encapsulating fat and oil, forming stable emulsion gels with pea protein.

The dual functionality offers: 1. Thermally reversible gels by curdlan to create a solid structure 2. A dense shell by glucomannan to control the rate of oil release.

The standout advantage of this emulsion gel is its ability to mimic the state changes of animal fat tissue during processing. Before cooking, the emulsion gel is opaque and milkywhite. As the cooking progresses (eg. in an oven or pan), the emulsion gel gradually becomes translucent and releases an appropriate amount of oil, mimicking the colour (Maillard reaction) and state changes of animal fat during cooking, as shown in Figure 2.

Other strategies to improve plant protein’s functionality Although plant-based foods are gaining popularity, plant proteins still have limited use in the food industry due to the excessive processing required, except for a few types of legumes and nuts. Replacing animal proteins partially with plant proteins can reduce the consumption of animal protein.

Our recent study revealed that the use of microbial transglutaminase (typically called meat glue) to crosslink pea and whey proteins helped improve the emulsifying properties

food australia 9

FOOD ENGINEERING

Figure 2. Mimicking animal fat with plant protein – polysaccharide systems (unpublished results from Canice Chun Yin Yiu, Yong Wang, & Cordelia Selomulya, 2023).

Figure 3. A schematic of cross-linked pea/whey protein complex formation via transglutaminase treatment with modified protein structure analysed with MMS. (reprint from Kim et al. (2023)7 with permission from Elsevier). and encapsulation ability of lipophilic bioactive compounds. The plant protein could successfully substitute more than half of the dairy protein in the production of stable emulsions with no phase separation for 30 days and effectively encapsulated ß-carotene.6 Understanding the structurefunction relationship is also essential to developing suitable processing methods for enhancing the functionality of plant proteins.

Microfluidic modulation spectroscopy (MMS), a cutting-edge technology from RedShift Bioanalytics for characterising protein structures, shows higher sensitivity and accuracy than conventional circular dichroism at a wide range of protein concentrations. Using this technique, we found enzymatic cross-linking induced isopeptide bond formation between pea and whey proteins and increased the ß-sheet content,

10 food australia

making the protein more amphiphilic (Figure 3).7 The studies of methods such as ultrasound, complex formation of plant proteins with other macromolecules and small molecular weight compounds, and the use of a synchrotron in food research, are currently being undertaken in our lab.

Conclusion In summary, the innovative gelling technique utilising curdlan-pea protein hybrid gels offers a unique approach to developing plant-based alternative products with a wide array of textures and flavours. This method could enable manufacturers to create plant-based products that more closely resemble their animal-based counterparts.

By controlling the gelation temperature, the texture and rheological properties of the gel can be easily modified, paving the way for multiple possibilities in food product

development to fulfill the demands of the growing consumer base for plantbased alternatives.

Ongoing and future research in our group includes plant protein conjugation or enzyme hydrolysis to improve emulsifying/antioxidant properties,8, 9 controlled roasting pre-treatment to enable higher solubility and emulsifying property of pea protein isolate/concentrate, rice protein-polysaccharide nano/microparticles for Pickering emulsion, and others.

References 1. GFI, U.S. retail market insights for the plant-based industry. 2023.

2. Wang, Y., W. Kim, R.R. Naik, P.T. Spicer, and C. Selomulya, Tuning the pea protein gel network to mimic the heterogeneous microstructure of animal protein. Food Hydrocolloids, 2023. 140.

3. Verma, D.K., A.K. Niamah, A.R. Patel, M. Thakur, K. Singh Sandhu, M.L. Chávez-González, N. Shah, and C. Noe Aguilar, Chemistry and microbial sources of curdlan with potential application and safety regulations as prebiotic in food and health.

Food Research International, 2020. 133: p. 109136.

4. Yuan, M., G. Fu, Y. Sun, and D. Zhang, Biosynthesis and applications of curdlan.

Carbohydrate Polymers, 2021. 273: p. 118597.

5. Wang, Y. and C. Selomulya, Food rheology applications of large amplitude oscillation shear (LAOS). Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2022. 127: p. 221-244.

6. Kim, W., Y. Wang, Q. Ye, Y. Yao, and C. Selomulya, Enzymatic cross-linking of pea and whey proteins to enhance emulsifying and encapsulation properties. Food and Bioproducts Processing, 2023. 139: p. 204-215.

7. Kim, W., Y. Wang, M. Ma, Q. Ye, V.I. Collins, and C. Selomulya, Secondary structure characterization of mixed food protein complexes using microfluidic modulation spectroscopy (MMS).

Food Bioscience, 2023. 53: p. 102513.

8. Naik, R.R., Y. Wang, and C. Selomulya, Spray-drying to improve the functionality of amaranth protein via ultrasonic-assisted Maillard conjugation with red seaweed polysaccharide.

Journal of Cereal Science, 2022. 108: p. 103578.

9. Wang, Y., Z. Li, H. Li, and C. Selomulya, Effect of hydrolysis on the emulsification and antioxidant properties of plant-sourced proteins. Current Opinion in Food Science, 2022. 48: p. 100949.

Dr Yong Wang is Lecturer with the School of Chemical Engineering, UNSW Sydney.

Ms Woojeong Kim is a PhD candidate in the School of Chemical Engineering at UNSW Sydney. Mr Canice Chun-Yin Yiu is a Masters student studying Food Process Engineering at UNSW Sydney.

Professor Cordelia Selomulya is a Professor in the School of Chemical Engineering at UNSW Sydney and is the Research & Commercialisation Director of the Future Food Systems CRC. f

AIFST NEWS

NZOZ Sensory & Consumer Science Symposium Words by Rozlynne Clarke

Dr Joanne Hort, Dr Heather Smyth, Dr Mei Ping, Dr Djin Gie Liem and Jodie Hill.

T

his year marked the 17th anniversary of the New Zealand and Australian Sensory & Consumer Science Symposium (NZOZ). The 2023 event, held 13-15 February, was hosted in the scenic town of Wanaka, New Zealand, one hour from Queenstown.

The theme of this year’s Symposium was ‘Sensory Is Coming Together’ and it was fantastic to be amongst 55 sensory scientists, industry professionals and students who came together to workshop and share their knowledge on new research projects, learnings and approaches.

The event commenced with an opening address by Dr Mei Peng, Chair of the Symposium and the Organising Committee. This was followed by the first of the two keynote speakers, Professor Carolyn Ross, Director of the Sensory Evaluation Facility at Washington State University.

12 food australia

Professor Ross shared her innovative analytical and sensory research techniques used when exploring texture sensitivities in children. This was followed by a practical workshop assessing food texture in food products from our mobile phones with Compusense®. Conference data was collected and shared in real time and then compared to the actual study results for interest.

It is research such as this that can inform product developers and manufacturers on how to produce products that specifically appeal to a particular target audience, ultimately saving time and money during development, not to mention an increased likelihood of new product success.

Associate Professor Michael Hautus, Director of the Psychophysics Laboratory at the University of Auckland, was our second keynote

speaker with a clear passion for the quantitative assessment of sensory systems, modelling sensory judgements, and modelling the cognitive processes involved in judgement. Focus during the Symposium related specifically to signal detection theory and a practical workshop of utilising software to aid in the analysis of this.

Over the course of the two days, we were fortunate to have a wide range of topics presented by speakers from both industry and academia.

Fonterra was a key sponsor of this event, offering first, second and third prize awards for the top three student presentations. Congratulations to the following winners for their research: • 1st prize: Stephanie McLeod for her presentation on ‘PregNut Survey: Knowledge, attitude, and, practices of midwives in relation to plantbased diets’

NZOZ 2023 Delegates from Australia and New Zealand.

Sensory evaluation of texture samples using Compusense.® R+K_AD_2023_Icecream_118x162 Australian.qxp_Layout 1 16.04.23 19:23 Seite 1

• 2nd prize: Clarissa Guow who shared her study about ‘Investigating response time testing as a measure of consumer emotional response to yoghurt’ • 3rd prize: Jasmine Ngo who spoke about ‘Multiple sip progressive profiling model beverage emulsions with alternative plant-based emulsifiers’ One of the most enjoyable aspects of this Symposium, apart from networking with passionate and like-minded individuals, was exposure to new research methods, constructive and challenging feedback, and the support that comes from sharing with colleagues which can lead to future project possibilities - in both academia and industry.

A heartfelt thanks is extended to the organising committee located in New Zealand and Australia (Joanne Hort, Mei Peng, Heather Smyth, Gie Liem, Jodie Hill and Anne Watson), along with NZIFST and AIFST for their support. You all did an outstanding job and I very much look forward to attending the 18th Annual NZOZ Symposium in Sydney, February 2024.

Rozlynne Clarke is Sensory Manager at Goodman Fielder Australia. f

THE NATURAL COLOUR CHALLENGE Our distributor in Australia

I N D U S T R I E S

food australia 13

HEALTH & NUTRITION

Bioaccessibility and bioavailability of seaweed bioactive compounds Words by Drs Hafiz Suleria, Osman Tuncay Agar, Colin Barrow and Frank Dunshea

S

eaweed, also known as marine macroalgae, is a renewable resource rich in bioactive compounds and has potential applications in various industries, including food and medicine, as well as being a source of biocompatible materials and environmentally friendly fertilisers.1 Seaweeds have been consumed as a nutritious food for centuries, particularly in Asian countries such as Japan, Korea and China. Recently, there has been growing global interest in seaweed-derived products and their potential health benefits.2 Apart from being a rich source of vitamins, minerals and dietary fibre, seaweed also contains diverse bioactive compounds that can offer significant health benefits.

These bioactive compounds include polysaccharides (eg. fucoidans, laminarins and alginates), proteins and peptides (eg. phycobiliproteins and lectins), polyphenols (eg. phlorotannins) and pigments (eg. chlorophyll, carotenoids and fucoxanthin). These compounds have been linked to various health benefits, such as antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer and cardiovascular health-promoting effects. Seaweedderived bioactive compounds, such as polyphenols and pigments, can protect cells from oxidative stress by

14 food australia

neutralising free radicals.

Certain polysaccharides and proteins in seaweed can modulate the immune system, reducing inflammation and promoting overall health. Some seaweed bioactive compounds have anticancer properties, inhibiting the growth of cancer cells and inducing apoptosis. Seaweed bioactive compounds such as polyphenols, polysaccharides, peptides, carotene and sterol can help maintain cardiovascular health by reducing blood pressure, improving blood lipid profiles and preventing blood clot formation.3-5 To maximise the health-promoting effects of these compounds, understanding the factors influencing their bioaccessibility and bioavailability is crucial. In recent years there has been a burgeoning interest in understanding the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of these seaweedderived bioactive compounds.6 Table 1 summarises the bioactive compounds found in some of the most commonly cultivated seaweed species, such as Laminaria sp., Porphyra sp., Sargassum sp., Undaria sp., Enteromorpha sp., and Eucheuma sp. These species contain a variety of bioactive compounds including polysaccharides, proteins, minerals, vitamins, carotenoids, polyunsaturated fatty acids and polyphenols. Research

has shown that these bioactive compounds have various potential health benefits.7-11

Bioaccessibility: the first step towards bioavailability Bioaccessibility is defined as the fraction of an ingested bioactive compound that is released from the food matrix in the gastrointestinal tract and becomes available for absorption. It is influenced by several factors, including the chemical structure of the compound, the food matrix and the processing methods.

Understanding the bioaccessibility of seaweed bioactive compounds is crucial because it directly impacts their bioavailability. For instance, the cell walls of seaweeds, which are composed of complex polysaccharides, can hinder the release and solubilisation of bioactive compounds.

Enzymatic hydrolysis, mechanical disruption and thermal processing can each help break down these cell walls, thereby enhancing the bioaccessibility of the bioactive compounds. Moreover, the chemical structure of the compounds plays a major role in determining their solubility, which in turn influences their bioaccessibility. For example, lipophilic compounds, such as carotenoids, have low bioaccessibility in aqueous

Seaweed species

Bioactive compounds

Laminaria sp.

Fucoidan, laminarin, alginate, fucoxanthin, iodine

Porphyra sp.

Protein, minerals, vitamins, carotenoids, polyunsaturated fatty acids

Sargassum sp.

Fucoxanthin, fucoidan, polyphenols, carotenoids, minerals, vitamins

Undaria sp.

Fucoxanthin, fucoidan, laminarin, alginate, iodine

Enteromorpha sp.

Polysaccharides, protein, minerals, vitamins, polyphenols

Eucheuma sp.

Carrageenan, fatty acids, minerals, amino acids, vitamins, polyphenols

Table 1: Bioactive compounds of the most commonly cultivated seaweeds.

environments and may require the presence of dietary fats for optimal absorption.5, 6, 12

Bioavailability: the journey from the gut to the target tissue Bioavailability refers to the fraction of a bioactive compound that is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, enters the systemic circulation and reaches the target tissue in a biologically active form. It is influenced by factors such as absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of the bioactive compounds.

For seaweed-derived bioactive compounds, several factors can affect their bioavailability. For example, the

bioavailability of phenolic compounds, which exhibit antioxidant and antiinflammatory activities, is influenced by their molecular size, degree of polymerisation, and the presence of sugar moieties. Smaller, less polymerised phenolics and those with fewer sugar moieties generally exhibit higher bioavailability.

Phenolics are also susceptible to first pass metabolism and so can vary widely in terms of their bioavailability, depending on their specific structures. Additionally, the presence of other dietary components, such as fibre and protein, can also impact the bioavailability of seaweed bioactive compounds by modulating their absorption, metabolism and interactions with the gut microbiota.4, 13 The process of assessing the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of bioactive compounds derived from seaweed involves several steps, including consumption, release, absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of these compounds (Figure 1).

Factors affecting bioaccessibility and bioavailability

Figure 1. Journey of seaweed bioactive compounds from consumption to their target tissue in the human body.

Several factors can influence the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of bioactive compounds in seaweed:5, 6, 14, 15 • Food processing techniques: Cooking, drying, fermentation and

other food processing methods can impact the release of bioactive compounds and their subsequent availability for absorption • Food matrix complexity: The structure and components of the seaweed matrix can affect the release and absorption of bioactive compounds • Interactions with other compounds: Certain compounds in the food, such as dietary fibres, proteins and minerals, can interact with bioactive compounds and influence their bioaccessibility and bioavailability • Chemical structure: The chemical structure of the bioactive compound itself can impact its solubility, stability, first pass metabolic susceptibility and absorption in the gastrointestinal tract • Individual differences: Variations in individual digestive and metabolic processes can influence the absorption and utilisation of bioactive compounds • Release of nutrients from the food matrix: This refers to the process by which nutrients are liberated from the food matrix and turned into a chemical form that can bind to and enter gut cells or pass between them. Chewing, enzymatic digestion of the food in the mouth, mixing with acid and enzymes in the gastric juice, and release into the small intestine are all unit operations of this process. The breakdown of the seaweed matrix during digestion can release bioactive compounds, affecting their accessibility for absorption • Effects of digestive enzymes in the intestine: Enzymes in the pancreatic juice continue breaking down the food matrix in the small intestine, the major site of nutrient absorption.

Certain procedures involved in food preparation, like cooking, chopping or pureeing, combine with mastication and enzymes to improve the digestibility of food matrices. The activity and efficiency of digestive enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract can influence the breakdown of bioactive

food australia 15

HEALTH & NUTRITION

compounds, thereby impacting their bioavailability.

• Binding and uptake by intestinal mucosa: This refers to the process by which nutrients are absorbed into the bloodstream after being released from the food matrix.

Transfer across the gut wall to the blood or lymphatic circulation is necessary for systemic distribution and deposition. The binding capacity and transport mechanisms of the intestinal mucosa play a crucial role in the absorption and bioavailability of bioactive compounds from seaweed • Systemic distribution and deposition: After being absorbed into the bloodstream, nutrients are transported to their target tissues for metabolic and functional use.

Excretion can also affect nutrient bioavailability. The distribution of bioactive compounds in the body and their ability to reach target tissues or organs can impact their bioavailability and overall effectiveness.

Methods to enhance bioavailability and bioaccessibility of seaweed bioactive compounds Bioavailability and bioaccessibility are critical factors in determining the effectiveness of seaweed bioactive compounds. Various strategies can be employed to enhance these properties, which are discussed below: 6, 13, 14, 16 • Optimising food processing techniques: Utilising appropriate cooking, drying and fermentation methods can help preserve or release the bioactive compounds, improving their bioaccessibility • Incorporating seaweed into various food products: The inclusion of seaweed in snacks, supplements and other food items can facilitate the release and absorption of bioactive compounds • Using innovative extraction methods: The development and application of novel extraction techniques can improve the yield of bioactive compounds from seaweed, while

16 food australia

maintaining their stability and bioactivity • Encapsulation of bioactive compounds: The use of nanoparticles or liposomes can protect bioactive compounds from degradation, improve their solubility and facilitate their absorption by the gastrointestinal tract • Conjugating bioactive compounds with other molecules: The attachment of bioactive compounds to other molecules, such as proteins or polysaccharides, can enhance their absorption and increase their bioavailability • Optimising dietary intake of seaweed or seaweed-derived products: Adjusting the consumption of seaweed-based foods and supplements can help maximise the absorption and utilisation of bioactive compounds.

By employing these strategies and considering the factors influencing bioaccessibility and bioavailability, researchers and the food industry can develop innovative seaweed-derived products with enhanced healthpromoting potential.

Methods to assess bioaccessibility and bioavailability Evaluating the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of seaweed bioactive compounds is critical for determining their effectiveness and potential health benefits. A range of methodologies, from in vitro to in vivo models, have been employed to investigate these properties and provide a comprehensive understanding of how these compounds interact with the human body. The following sections detail the most commonly used methods for assessing bioaccessibility and bioavailability of seaweed bioactive compounds: 13, 17, 18 • In vitro digestion models: These models simulate the human gastrointestinal environment and can be used to study the release of bioactive compounds during digestion • Cell culture studies: Intestinal cell lines can be used to investigate

the absorption and transport of bioactive compounds, providing insights into their bioavailability • Animal studies: Animal models can assess the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of bioactive compounds in a whole organism, offering valuable information on bioavailability and potential health effects • Human clinical trials: Controlled clinical trials involving human participants are the gold standard for assessing the bioavailability and health effects of bioactive compounds.

Challenges and future directions in seaweed bioactive compounds research Seaweed bioactive compounds research faces several challenges and offers numerous opportunities for future investigation. Here, we discuss the main challenges and potential directions for advancing the understanding of bioaccessibility and bioavailability of seaweed bioactive compounds: 19-21 • The complexity of seaweed composition: The diverse range of bioactive compounds in seaweeds makes it difficult to study their individual effects and interactions.

Future research should employ advanced analytical techniques to dissect complex interactions and identify key bioactive components • Standardisation of methodologies: Developing standardised methods for assessing bioaccessibility and bioavailability would help provide more reliable and comparable data. Collaborative efforts among researchers and institutions are needed to establish universally accepted protocols and guidelines • Effect of processing techniques: Further research is needed to optimise processing methods that preserve or enhance the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of seaweed bioactive compounds.

This includes exploring innovative extraction, preservation and processing techniques to maximise

the health benefits of seaweedderived products • Inter-individual variability: Investigating genetics, gut microbiota composition and individual metabolism will help tailor personalised nutrition interventions.

This requires large-scale population studies and the development of advanced tools to assess individual responses to seaweed bioactive compounds • Long-term health effects: Future research should evaluate the longterm health effects of seaweed bioactive compounds, as well as their potential interactions with other dietary components and medications. This would provide more comprehensive information on the benefits and potential risks associated with seaweed consumption • Safety and toxicity assessments: Assessing the safety and potential toxicity of seaweed bioactive compounds, including evaluating the risk of excessive iodine intake, heavy metal contamination and potential allergenicity, is crucial.

Rigorous safety testing and monitoring are necessary to ensure the quality and safety of seaweedderived products • Consumer acceptance: Research should focus on innovative product development and effective marketing strategies to increase the popularity of seaweed-based foods and supplements. Understanding consumer preferences and barriers to seaweed consumption will help inform the development of appealing and accessible products.

By addressing these challenges and exploring future directions in seaweed bioactive compounds research, we can harness the full potential of these valuable compounds to promote human health and well-being.

Conclusion In conclusion, seaweed represents a valuable and sustainable source of bioactive compounds with considerable potential to improve

human health and well-being.

Understanding the factors affecting the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of these compounds is crucial for the development of effective and innovative seaweed-derived products.

Addressing the challenges and exploring the future directions in seaweed bioactive compounds research will enable us to harness the full potential of these compounds and contribute to the advancement of personalised nutrition and human health.

As the interest in seaweedderived products continues to grow worldwide, a collaborative effort among researchers, industry and policymakers is essential to establish standardised methodologies, ensure the safety and quality of seaweedderived products, and foster consumer acceptance.

By leveraging the unique properties of seaweed bioactive compounds, and expanding our knowledge of their bioaccessibility and bioavailability, we can unlock new opportunities for the development of functional foods, nutraceuticals and other health-promoting products that can contribute to a healthier, more sustainable future.

References 1. Qiu, S.M., et al., Bioactive polysaccharides from red seaweed as potent food supplements: a systematic review of their extraction, purification, and biological activities.

Carbohydrate Polymers, 2022. 275.

2. Buschmann, A.H., et al., Seaweed production: overview of the global state of exploitation, farming and emerging research activity.

European Journal of Phycology, 2017. 52(4): p.

391-406.

3. Qin, Y., Chapter 29 - Health benefits of bioactive seaweed substances, in Handbook of Algal Science, Technology and Medicine, O. Konur, Editor. 2020, Academic Press. p. 455-466.

4. Choudhary, B., O.P. Chauhan, and A. Mishra, Edible Seaweeds: A Potential Novel Source of Bioactive Metabolites and Nutraceuticals With Human Health Benefits. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2021. 8.

5. Subbiah, V., et al., The Quest for Phenolic Compounds from Seaweed: Nutrition, Biological Activities and Applications. Food Reviews International, 2022.

6. Demarco, M., et al., Digestibility, bioaccessibility and bioactivity of compounds from algae.

Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2022. 121: p. 114-128.

7. Remya, R.R., et al., Bioactive Potential of Brown Algae. Adsorption Science & Technology, 2022.

2022: p. 9104835.

8. Cao, J., et al., Porphyra Species: A MiniReview of Its Pharmacological and Nutritional Properties. Journal of Medicinal Food, 2015.

19(2): p. 111-119.

9. Norra, I., et al., Effect of drying temperature on the content of fucoxanthin, phenolic and antioxidant activity of Malaysian brown seaweed, Sargassum sp. Journal of tropical agriculture and food science, 2017. 45(1): p. 2536.

10. Mamatha, B.S., et al., Studies on use of Enteromorpha in snack food. Food Chemistry, 2007. 101(4): p. 1707-1713.

11. Menaa, F., et al., Marine Algae-Derived Bioactive Compounds: A New Wave of Nanodrugs? Mar Drugs, 2021. 19(9).

12. Barba, F.J., et al., Bioaccessibility of bioactive compounds from fruits and vegetables after thermal and nonthermal processing. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2017. 67: p. 195206.

13. Zhao, W.R., et al., Bioaccessibility and Bioavailability of Phenolic Compounds in Seaweed. Food Reviews International, 2022.

14. Dima, C., et al., Bioavailability and bioaccessibility of food bioactive compounds; overview and assessment by in vitro methods.

Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf, 2020. 19(6): p.

2862-2884.

15. Rodriguez, G.R.V., et al., Bioaccessibility and Bioavailability of Phenolic Compounds from Tropical Fruits. Fruit and Vegetable Phytochemicals: Chemistry and Human Health, Vols I & Ii, 2nd Edition, 2018: p. 155-164.

16. Álvarez-Olguín, M.A., et al., Current trends and perspectives on bioaccessibility and bioavailability of food bioactive peptides: in vitro and ex vivo studies. J Sci Food Agric, 2022. 102(15): p. 6824-6834.

17. Huey, S.L., et al., Bioaccessibility and bioavailability of biofortified food and food products: Current evidence. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 2022: p. 1-23.

18. Rodrigues, D.B., et al., Trust your gut: Bioavailability and bioaccessibility of dietary compounds. Curr Res Food Sci, 2022. 5: p. 228233.

19. Pradhan, B., et al., Beneficial effects of seaweeds and seaweed-derived bioactive compounds: Current evidence and future prospective.

Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology, 2022. 39: p. 102242.

20.Park, E., et al., Seaweed metabolomics: A review on its nutrients, bioactive compounds and changes in climate change. Food Res Int, 2023.

163: p. 112221.

21. Lomartire, S. and A.M.M. Gonçalves, An Overview of Potential Seaweed-Derived Bioactive Compounds for Pharmaceutical Applications. Mar Drugs, 2022. 20(2).

Hafiz Suleria is an ARC DECRA Fellow and Senior Lecturer in the School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences at the University of Melbourne.

Osman Tuncay Agar is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences at the University of Melbourne.

Colin Barrow is an Alfred Deakin Professor and Chair in Biotechnology at Deakin University.

Frank Dunshea is a Redmond Barry Distinguished Professor and Chair of Agriculture at the University of Melbourne. f

food australia 17

INNOVATION

The opportunity for Australia to take its place on the global innovation stage Words by Brandon Archbell and Dr Ixchel Brennan

N

ever before has innovation been more front of mind for governments, industry and universities alike.

Governments and funding bodies are increasing their focus on translational research. Indeed, the policy environment, community expectations and economic imperatives require us to reshape how Australia turns ideas into a better and more productive society.

Across the country, Australia’s universities and institutes are recognised as international powerhouses, particularly for a country of our size. However, it is timely to consider practical actions and solutions so Australia grows its reputation as a world leader – not only through scientific discovery, but through the transformation of ideas into innovations and outcomes.

A recent report by KPMG ‘Supporting world-class research translation in Australia’ provides a clear set of principles that can be applied across all Australian research-intensive organisations, to meet the evolving and long-term needs of society and the economy. It includes a spotlight on the key issues for research organisations, with practical actions to move from the current approach towards a new and innovative research translation approach.

Recent policy changes and scaled investments provide a much-needed boost to Australia’s innovation ecosystem, including through the proactive de-risking of innovative ideas and opportunities to enhance Australia’s sovereign capability, to support and grow research translation.

18 food australia

In our view, world-class research translation needs to be seen holistically as, ‘the development, validation, refinement and implementation of ideas into practical outcomes (eg. improved products, systems or processes)’. Our definition recognises the many different pathways available to achieve world-class research translation (see Figure 1), including through industry partnerships, contract research, patented IP, non-patented IP protections (such as copyright and trade secrets) and other specialised economic strategies, such as simply being first to market.

All these pathways rely on at least two critical concepts: • A fit-for-purpose model to support research activity • The wholehearted embrace of research partnerships.

Change is required within research institutions to solve not only the complex problems, but also the familiar, gradual innovations that accumulate over time to significant breakthroughs. Among this change, various models and approaches to research translation are being explored, tweaked and occasionally completely transformed by research institutions as they attempt to change entrenched ways of working and introduce new approaches.

In addition, the emerging challenges facing industry and our communities are complex and multifaceted. Solutions to these issues will be multidisciplinary. In recognition of this, universities need to be more strategic and redirect funding to actively promote collaboration across traditional boundaries in thematic areas of focus.

Figure 1. Pathways to achieve world-class research translation.

Public policy is focused on industry collaboration and supports research that can make its way out of the lab and office to deliver actionable outcomes. Governments and funding bodies at all levels are increasing their focus on translational research, commercialisation and partnerships with industry to deliver outcomes and connect into private sector investment. Accordingly, Australian researchers, institutions, industry leaders and governments must look to new ways of collaborating to keep pace with a global environment competing for ideas, talent and funding.

Positively, some changes are underway, including the intentional building of scale and focus in areas of research, with government currently focusing investment in identified areas of nation-leading capability across talent, infrastructure and other enablers.

The recent Trailblazer Universities Program is proving the benefit of joint focus between government, industry and universities around complementary core strengths leveraging collective expertise aligned with common objectives and emerging investment through the National Reconstruction Fund. This includes value-adding innovation across agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and fibre and in critical technologies, and aims to provide more opportunity to diversify and transform Australia’s industry and economy.

At the same time, to support growing translational activity, some changes are required across the university-industry ecosystem to

rethink their workforce and cultural models to support capability building across academic and professional teams who deliver or support research translation.

One of the mechanisms to do this is by providing more experiential opportunities for industry to be embedded within a researchintensive institution, and for research academics and students to be entrenched within industry settings. Sustaining this two-way flow will generate a stronger shared experience and understanding of the academic and commercial environments, including shared drivers, expectations, complexities and nuance, and areas of complementarity.

The post-graduate research model must also be redesigned to provide a more flexible and connected experience, where candidates tackle challenges across boundaries, with regular exposure and engagement to a range of external settings that showcase innovation in action, and promote the diversity of career options to our brightest minds. As a nation we must also better leverage the experience of our large expatriate research and innovation community.

Institutions and industry have an opportunity to collectively consider what will incentivise talent to return and set up in Australia and share their knowledge, while growing Australia’s access to global markets, international collaborators and learnings from leading practice.

Measuring the expected benefits of research translation means genuine acknowledgement of the concept that often the outcomes of research

and development (R&D) activities are realised over long timeframes. For this reason, it is important to develop mature approaches to assessing progress against these measures and forming realistic and holistic views of performance, including across both quantitative and qualitative areas such as impact intensity, financial sustainability, economic contributions, enhanced stakeholder engagement, reputational gain and capability uplift.

We know that the moment is now – the consequences of not getting this right are catastrophic for the future competitiveness and prosperity of the nation. Our research leaders and community are emboldened by the opportunities before them. Industry is increasingly seeking an open dialogue about how to work in partnership to tackle their pressing issues.

Governments are willing participants to stimulate long-lasting momentum and growth across the nation’s innovation ecosystem. It’s time to take our place on the global stage.

To access and download KPMG’s recent report, or seek further information, visit: Supporting worldclass research translation in Australia. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/ dam/kpmg/au/pdf/2023/supportingworld-class-research-translation-inaustralia.pdf Brandon Archbell is Director, Queensland Education Sector Lead, and Dr Ixchel Brennan is Associate Director. Both work within the Policy, Economics and Public Impact practice at KPMG Australia. f

food australia 19

FOOD SAFETY

Building food safety and market access resilience in the Australian seafood industry: A blueprint for industry collaboration?

Words by Dr Cristina Lesseur, Dr Alison Turnbull and Natalie Dowsett

T

he rising volatility of local and global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, war in Ukraine and geopolitical challenges, have taught us how important it is to be prepared for disruption and ready to adapt. A program of work run by SafeFish and funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation is designed specifically with this purpose in mind: to increase awareness of food safety and critical risks for market access, and build resilience for the Australian seafood industry.

SafeFish is developing an actionable risk register (ARR) to help Australian seafood sectors identify and manage their most relevant risks in an effective and proactive way.

This process started in 2021 and will run until 2025 with a focus on food safety, trade and market access.

20 food australia

The program aims to build a simple, actionable framework and develop a set of tools that can serve as a compass for industry to navigate through uncertainty, fostering collaborations and improving risk culture.

A structured, systematic approach is being used to help industry identify their top risks and then work in partnership with key stakeholders to move into action, utilising existing knowledge and capabilities to mitigate risks and prepare for any potential consequences.

Following is a review of the program’s progress and the results achieved to date.

The initial phase identified the top material risks at a national seafood level. Insights were gathered from industry and experts in research, regulation, food safety and key

areas of concern such as crisis management, geopolitical (China) and general food industry practices.

Participation was well balanced between sectors and supply chain roles, allowing us to clearly understand the areas that needed attention and preparedness.

Thirty-two risks were identified and ranked into critical, high, medium and low categories (see Figure 3).

The five most critical risks are: 1. The challenges of managing Vibrio species in Australia. These have become more prevalent, virulent, tough to detect and very difficult to manage. New Zealand has recently been dealing with a Vibrio outbreak that has affected many sectors beyond bivalves (finfish, crustaceans and gastropods) and is a pertinent reminder that this risk has the

Figure 1. The Actionable Risk Register process.

Figure 2. Top material food safety and trade and market access risks of the Australian seafood industry.

potential to impact the whole seafood industry 2. Climate change disruptions relating to changes in ecosystems, wider distribution of species and increasing pathogens due to rising water temperatures, just to name a few 3. Geopolitical uncertainties for trade, such as arbitrary trade sanctions or loss of products in exporting markets, for which we have seen many seafood examples (eg. lobster, Coral Trout) 4. Industry not adapting effectively to traceability and authenticity needs. This includes not moving to better and safer technologies, as well as the increasing incidence of food fraud in seafood 5. The increase in impacts from harmful algae blooms, with

low awareness of emerging and existing biotoxins, including ciguatera.

All experts interviewed insisted on building preparedness broadly and boldly. They reinforced the importance of having proper processes and plans in place for managing incidents and anticipating geopolitical and climate threats, including implementing business continuity plans, collaborating closely with communities and working together to unify industry’s strengths.

These additional layers for managing risks can help industry face bigger challenges related to sustainability, governance, regulatory changes and market dependencies.

The key words for the program have been ‘actionable’ and ‘collaborative’. These insights and

teamwork become more valuable when they are translated into material outcomes: risk mitigating actions, roadmaps and guidance tools.

With this in mind, SafeFish has brought together a diverse collaborative team to champion actions on our top critical risk Vibrio. The team has built a roadmap of the existing knowledge and priorities and is getting organised to deliver the most urgent and feasible actions to mitigate this risk and fill the gaps.

We have two working groups: one focused on the research gaps and detection methods, and a second one working on updating and harmonising standards and regulations. These working groups are also working on understanding

food australia 21

FOOD SAFETY

Figure 3. SafeFish summarised risk register 2022 for the Australian fish industry.

the different angles or risk management approaches industry can take, and identifying short and long term actions that could mitigate the risks and improve their ability to deal with the growing uncertainty and impact of multiple factors (such as floods, climate change and cold chain challenges).

They have worked in collaboration to identify gaps, assess the level of risk, understand available knowledge (published or not) that experts can rely on, and determine the most feasible and urgent actions that can be taken. All of this will be developed into an action toolbox (risk roadmap or compass) aimed at supporting key stakeholders, but also setting a template for approaching risk management in a collaborative way.

The lessons learned at a national level have also set us up for delivering tools that we can apply to each

22 food australia

seafood sector. Work has progressed with the bivalve shellfish sectors - who have identified their top risks and will soon be running sessions to share the knowledge and insights gained - as well as determining the next steps and actionable results.

The outputs will be used in a number of projects: • To feed into strategic planning and forecasting • As evidence to direct funding for risk assessment and management • To improve preparedness by educating businesses • To raise awareness of the challenges in their communities of knowledge and practice.

When considering the journey and steps taken to date, the results and outcomes have identified key critical risks at national and sector levels, provided an in depth analysis of the top risks, developed and championed

collaborative groups to address the risks of Vibrio species, and provided a clear roadmap and set of tools to help every stakeholder group approach their actions in relation to their needs and resources.

As we continue to deliver the program and learn more, we have acknowledged that the best results come when the risks are owned and addressed by all stakeholders, as each player has a differentiated role to play. At the same time we find many synergies when collaborating and sharing knowledge between industry, regulators, government and research teams.

SafeFish is providing the right tools for the job, creating a common ground to align collective efforts, and developing a safe place for all areas to share and work together in a precompetitive space. We are supporting the Australian seafood industry to grow and build resilience for the future, and proactively face their food safety and market access challenges.

We are also building a better way to approach risk management that can be used as a blueprint for other food industry groups.

To get involved, or expand your knowledge, contact the SafeFish secretariat, or download the full reports and tools from our website.

Email: info@safefish.com.au Web: https://www.safefish.com.au Dr Cristina Lesseur is an independent advisor and consultant and is Director of CL Advisory.

Dr Alison Turnbull is the program leader fish health, biosecurity and seafood safety at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic studies (IMAS) at the University of Tasmania and Program Manager of SafeFish.

Natalie Dowsett is the Executive Officer for SafeFish.

SafeFish is funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and is run in partnership between the IMAS and the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI). f

FOOD SAFETY

Embedding a food safety culture that prioritises people Words by Todd Redwood

I

ncreased food prices and fresh produce shortages put global food and retail supply chains under significant pressure. But as consumers become more conscious of food safety and hygiene,1 the conversation for food businesses is shifting from what we eat to how we make it.

Food is vital to everyone and so food safety is of paramount concern to us all. We expect that the food we eat will not make us unwell. However, the challenge is to improve consumer confidence in food safety and quality against a backdrop of continued food recalls and contamination.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) point to 4.1 million cases of foodborne illness in Australia each year, with unsafe food causing about 30,800 hospitalisations and 76 deaths.2 Globally, the picture is more concerning. According to the World Health Organisation, consuming contaminated food results in an estimated 600 million people falling ill every year, leading to 420,000 deaths.

This is something the industry will want to improve, and urgent steps for change could have a significant positive impact. HACCP-based food safety management systems have been around and used extensively since they were developed in the

24 food australia

1960s. Yet, data suggests3 food safety incidents and recalls continue to trend upwards. The challenge is complex given that, as identified in new global guidance from BSI, the common factor in these incidents - quality failures and recalls - is usually due to people rather than failures of machinery, technology or systems. Equally, when issues occur, people can be the key to avoiding recurrence.

While international food safety standards explained what food safety culture is and why it was important (including the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) benchmarked certification programs which mandate food safety culture as an essential requirement for food producers and industry experts), global acceptance of how to achieve it was not included.

To tackle these challenges, a roundtable discussion was hosted at the 2019 International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) annual meeting, which led to the creation of an industry steering group. As a result of those extensive discussions, BSI has recently produced new international guidance - Developing and Sustaining a Mature Food Safety Culture (PAS 320).4 Central to the document is a call to embed a robust and positive food safety culture that prioritises

people and supports collaboration in manufacturing facilities, food service businesses, restaurants and retail stores. Doing so has the potential to help improve quality and minimise risks of contamination or recalls, while also benefiting productivity and talent retention.

Developed through consensus with industry giants including Walmart, McDonald’s, Kerry Foods, Compass Group and 3M, as well as an Australian dairy regulator, Dairy Food Safety Victoria, the guidance can help organisations across food, beverage and retail create a culture where all employees embrace food safety, take responsibility for reporting issues and are empowered to initiate change.

The document defines food safety culture as the ‘shared values, beliefs and norms that affect mindset and behaviour toward food safety in, across and throughout an organisation’. Relevant to organisations of all sizes, from manufacturers and factory workers to restauranteurs and baristas, it offers clarity and direction on food safety culture, including what it is, how to measure it and how to ensure continuous improvements.

It notes that creating and maintaining a strong culture that preserves quality and reduces risk

requires management commitment and a mindset that safety is the responsibility of everyone at every stage of the food supply chain. Culture is also highlighted as key for employee retention, improving quality and decreasing contamination risk by decreasing turnover rate.

PAS 320 includes steps for identifying gaps and then implementing a plan for change. It makes recommendations related to leadership (the organisation’s vision, mission, values and policy), organisational structure (responsibilities, accountabilities and authorities), guiding coalition teams, interested parties, change champions, influencers and food safety documentation.

The guidance also includes advice on how prioritising people in the sector not only supports improved food safety, but also brings other benefits including investment return, business performance improvement, reduction of the costs associated with poor quality and enhanced efficiency.

The opportunities to address consumer concerns over food safety and continued deaths associated with contaminated food are not easy to solve. However, the path to addressing them starts with a positive food safety culture that invests in people and gives everyone a stake in driving quality.

This has the potential to have a transformative effect and help reduce the risk that comes from unsafe food.

Ultimately, moving from seeing food safety culture as a compliance issue to an investment in people can offer huge benefits for individuals, organisations and society as a whole.

Food businesses globally can accelerate change and support the realisation of quality and food safety ambitions by strengthening their understanding of what best practice looks like and how everyone in the food sector can play a greater role.

With consumer awareness of food safety rising, BSI’s new guidance on food safety culture provides a clear and detailed roadmap of how to develop and build a food safety culture in a tangible way and demonstrate achievement, helping to bolster consumer confidence in the global food industry and offer long-term benefits for everyone.

BSI’s new guidance on food safety culture can be found here: https://www.bsigroup.com/en-au/Standards/pas320/

Quality Endorsed Company ISO 9001:2015 SAI Global

Elemental Analysis Essential analysis tools for your food laboratory.

CHNS-O

All-IN-ONE SOLUTION Combustion and pyrolysis in a single Analyser avoiding the need for external modules.

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

IA0286

N/PROTEIN VERSATILE Seamlessly choose between Helium and Argon as carrier gas without hardware modifications.

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

IA0070

CARBON / NITROGEN ROBUST AND FLEXIBLE Fully automatic determination of TC, TOC and TIC (after acidification), TN and Carbon/ Nitrogen Ratio.

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

IA0155

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

www.rowe.com.au Stirring and Mixing

References 1. Australian Institute of Food Safety, Food Safety is a Big Concern for Consumers, Survey Says https://blog.foodsafety.com.au/food-safety-big-concern-consumer-survey 2. FSANZ, Food safety culture https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodsafety/culture/Pages/default.aspx 3. New report shows incidents almost doubled for global food safety network in 2021 https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/02/new-report-shows-incidentsalmost-doubled-for-global-food-safety-network-in-2021/ 4. BSI, PAS 320:2023 Developing and sustaining a mature food safety culture – guide https://www.bsigroup.com/en-au/Standards/pas-320/

Todd Redwood is Managing Director, Global Food and Retail, BSI. f

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.SEPT 2022

food australia 25

REGULATORY

What’s the beef? An overview of the regulation of plant-based ‘meat’ and ‘dairy’ claims in Australia Words by Ciska de Rijk

T

here is no doubt there has been a rise of plant-based ‘meat’ and ‘dairy’ alternatives in Australia and New Zealand over the last few years. Despite challenges in more recent times, the plant-based sector is still growing with retail sales of plant-based foods in the United States hitting US$8 billion in 2022.1 Whilst Australia is a smaller market, the CSIRO’s 2022 ‘Protein’ report estimates that the ‘plant-based products’ market in Australia will be worth between $3 billion to $9 billion by 2030.2 However, marketing and selling plant-based protein alternatives requires navigating several regulatory challenges. One of which is the use of meat and dairy descriptors when describing plant-based products. This article summarises these laws and explains ‘what the beef is’ between some of the industry players.

dairy names as descriptors for plantbased products is not possible unless the context makes it clear that the product is not meat or dairy.

Standard 1.1.1-13(4) of the Food Code states: If a food name is used in connection with the sale of a food (for example in the labelling), the sale is taken to be a sale of the food as the named food unless the context makes it clear that this is not the intention.

This allows qualifiers to be used providing the consumer is not misled about the true nature of the product, eg. soy milk or meat-free sausages.

This is also consistent with the requirements under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) whereby a person in trade cannot engage in misleading or deceptive conduct.3 The ACL also prohibits any false or misleading representation that goods are of a particular composition or style.4

So, what is the law?

Whether this is sufficient consumer protection is open to debate and is hotly contested. In June 2021, the Australian Rural and Regional Affairs

The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Food Code) provides that the use of meat and

26 food australia

and Transport Legislation Committee (the Committee) commenced an inquiry into meat category branding.

A key area of focus of the inquiry was product labelling of plant-based proteins, specifically whether plantbased or synthetic proteins: • Could be labelled with references to animal meat (such as beef) • Could use animal pictures on labels and other advertising materials.

The Committee’s final report was tabled in the Australian Parliament on 24 February 2022.5 It is clear from the report that the Committee is strongly opposed to the use of animal descriptions and pictures by the plant-based industry. For the Committee, the crux of the issue is that consumers could be confused and potentially misled by the use of animal descriptors for plant-based products.

The Committee made nine recommendations which include: • The development of a mandatory regulatory framework for the labelling of plant-based proteins • The Australian Competition and

Consumer Commission (ACCC) review the placement of plantbased proteins in retail stores and online platforms • Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) initiate a review in consultation with industry regarding exempting named meat, seafood and dairy category products from the permission under Standard 1.1.1-13(4) of the Food Code • FSANZ develop guidelines to inform labelling and marketing practices for manufacturers of plant-based protein products • The ACCC develop a National Information Standard that defines and restricts the use of meat category brands to animal protein products (including guidance on use of livestock imagery for labelling and marketing of plantbased protein products) • FSANZ consults with stakeholders about amending the Food Code to include a definition of plantbased proteins and minimum compositional requirements for plant-based protein products.

It is also worthwhile noting the position of the ACCC, which enforces the ACL. It stated in its own submissions that it had not received information showing that labelling of plant-based substitute products is an issue causing consumer detriment.

Alternative Proteins Council – Voluntary Industry Guideline The Alternative Proteins Council (APC), the representative group for Australia and New Zealand’s alternative protein sector, has released its “Industry guidelines for the labelling of meat alternative products in Australia and New Zealand” (Guidelines). The release of these Guidelines was in response to the recommendations of the Committee which were largely rejected by the APC. The first version of the Guidelines was issued on 24 June 2022, with an updated version released on 24 April 2023.6 They aim to provide a clear framework for domestic and

international manufacturers of meat alternative products sold in Australia and New Zealand and provide advice on the use and prominence of qualifiers and product imagery on packs.

In more detail, the Guidelines provide that: • Where meat alternative products use common meat terms, the description should include a suffix such as ‘-less, -style, -free, -flavour (eg. beef-style, beef-free, beefless) and/or a qualifier that makes it clear that the product is a meat alternative product (such as ‘free from chicken’ or ‘meat free’) • The use of deliberately misspelt common meat terms (eg. Chick’n) should be appropriately qualified with an ‘Ingredient Qualifier’ (as defined under section two of the Guideline) • Use of product formats and utility terms such as ‘nuggets’ or ‘mince’ should be appropriately qualified • The meat alternative product’s packaging should clearly indicate its animal-free contents. This could be via the product name, a description in a prominent position on the front-of-pack and/or in the product’s brand name • Depictions of animals should not give a reasonable consumer the impression that the product contains animal ingredients and should be an insignificant proportion of the label, ie. no more than 15% of the front-of-pack • It is reiterated that all nutrition, health and related claims must comply with the relevant provisions of the Food Code and ACL or the NZ Fair Trading Act 1986.

The APC is recommending that the Guidelines be adopted by relevant companies within two-years from the original Guideline release date (24 June 2024).

that plant-based products are not able to use traditional meat and dairy descriptions with qualifying information. Such as, no more ‘chicken free chicken’.

Further, a National Information Standard is to be developed by the ACL to prohibit livestock imagery from being used in the advertising of plant-based products.

However, to date, the Australian Parliament has not made any decision on whether these recommendations will be implemented, and it remains to be seen whether there is any appetite from the current Government (which differs from the Government of the day when the inquiry was commenced).

The pro-active response by the APC in determining its own Guidelines is also a smart move on their part. These Guidelines address some of the concerns raised by the report but in a voluntary way and without legislative and mandatory change.

In my view, the current Government is more likely to consider the current laws, combined with the APC’s Industry Guidelines, as being sufficient to mitigate any consumer detriment in this regard.

What could all this mean?

Disclaimer: This publication is necessarily brief and general in nature. It is not intended to be legal advice.

The recommendations made by the Committee could result in potential changes to the Food Code and the Australian Consumer Law. For example, it may mean

References 1. According to SPINS data by the trade group Plant Based Foods Association and non-profit The Good Food Institute: https://gfi.org/ marketresearch/ (accessed 8 May 2023) 2. https://www.csiro.au/protein-roadmap (accessed 8 May 2023) 3. Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law 4. Section 29 of the Australian Consumer Law 5. https://www.aph.gov.au 6. https://www.alternativeproteinscouncil.org/ wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Final-APCCompliance-Protocol-24-4-23.pdf

Ciska de Rijk is the founder of Essence Compliance. She specialises in legal compliance advice in all aspects of food regulation, advertising and marketing law across Australia and New Zealand. f

food australia 27

FOOD SCIENCE

Functional properties of gluten can be modified during fermentation Words by Drs Sara Sayanjali, Greg Martin and Kate Howell

G

luten is a storage protein-based structural network in wheat and barley dough. It is formed from the proteins gliadin and glutenin that produce a network in presence of water. The unique network forming properties of wheat gluten proteins is derived from the extent of hydrogen bonding and disulphide crosslinking interactions when hydrated.1 The gliadins are associated with the viscous flow and extensibility of dough, while glutenins are responsible for the elasticity of dough. These network properties are essential for wheatbased products, with the network formed and stabilised during an intermediate cohesive dough stage of food production.

The gliadin fraction of gluten is very important in the context of wheat-related disorders such as wheat allergies and celiac disease in susceptible individuals. The main symptoms that occur due to adverse reactions to wheat flour are celiac disease, baker’s asthma, atopic dermatitis and food-dependentexercise induced anaphylaxis.2 The

growing prevalence of such diseases can be attributed to numerous factors including changes in our diet and

environmental factors.

Avoiding gluten consumption is currently the only effective treatment for these diseases and results in a significant negative impact on the perceived quality of life of consumers.

For a product to be labelled as gluten-free in Australia and New Zealand it must not contain: (a) detectable gluten; or (b) oats or oat products; or (c) cereals containing gluten* that have been malted, or products of such cereals. That is difficult to achieve as small amounts of the gluten components can still be present in food due to cross-contamination or inefficient processing. In addition, gluten-free products are usually expensive and have poor sensory properties such as off-flavours, or textural and shelf-life issues.3 Therefore, adapting alternative strategies to ensure the acceptability of these products is required.

An alternative approach to addressing this problem is to degrade gluten with a microorganism-based enzymatic system during food processing. Indeed, traditional methods of cereal food production with fermentative communities of bacteria

and yeasts (sourdoughs) involve gluten degradation or modification during manufacture. The enzymes produced during extended fermentation are linked to a reduction in the allergenic load via disruption of gliadins and glutenins. However, controlling the rate and the extent of metabolic activity of microorganisms is important, as the properties and quality of the final fermented products are strongly affected by enzymatic hydrolysis.

Fermentation results in significant modifications to food products via the action of microorganisms including bacteria, moulds and yeasts which convert complex organics into simpler compounds. Metabolites produced during fermentation can provide a range of benefits dependent on their biological activities.

Potential benefits range from the creation of unique aromas, flavours and textures4 to increasing the shelf life of a product and reducing the risk of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes.5 These benefits have resulted in an increasing demand for fermented food products as well as developing novel approaches to optimise the fermentation process including the fermentation yield and

*gluten means the main protein in wheat, rye, oats, barley, triticale and spelt relevant to the medical conditions coeliac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis.

28 food australia

Functional properties of gluten influenced by fermentation.

time.

Sourdough is a mixture of flour and water, spontaneously fermented by lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and yeast.

The synergistic effects of the action of bacteria and fungi during sourdough fermentation results in acidification to a pH around 4 (LAB), flavour formation (LAB and yeasts) and leavening (yeasts and LAB). In addition, the excreted microbial enzymes hydrolyse the gluten molecules and have been shown capable of reducing the concentration of immunogenic peptides (or epitopes) in dough by over 5000 times to decrease the gluten allergenicity.6,7 Production of acetic and lactic acids in sourdough reduces the pH, which can change the three-dimensional structure of gluten protein and alter the rheological properties of the dough and the quality of the dough product.8 Acid production during sourdough fermentation also enhances the swelling of polysaccharides that could allow partial replacement of gluten or improve the structure in gluten-free bread. Exopolysaccharides, a major secondary metabolite produced due to the cooperation of yeast and lactic acid bacteria during wheat dough fermentation, can make a network and retain moisture to improve the overall quality of fermented wheat dough.

A combination of enzymatic treatments with novel technologies may improve hypoallergenic or lowgluten wheat flour dough and/or gluten more than that of the individual

methods. Fermented flour (dough) can be used directly to bake products such as bread. Alternatively modified gluten can be extracted from fermented dough and is provided as an additional ingredient to use in the preparation of plant-based products suitable for consumption by people who avoid gluten.

Gluten structure with and without fermentation.

References 1. Wieser, H., Chemistry of gluten proteins. Food Microbiology, 2007. 24(2): p. 115-119.

2. Tanabe, S., Analysis of food allergen structures and development of foods for allergic patients.

Biosci Biotechnol Biochem, 2008. 72(3): p. 64959.

3. Ishamri, I., H. Young-Hwa, and J. Seon-Tea, Meat analog as future food: a review. 2020. p. 111-120.

4. Marco, M.L., et al., Health benefits of fermented foods: microbiota and beyond. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 2017. 44: p. 94-102.

5. Naqash, F., et al., Gluten-free baking: Combating the challenges - A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2017. 66: p. 98-107.

6. Rizzello, C.G., et al., Highly efficient gluten degradation by lactobacilli and fungal proteases during food processing: new perspectives for celiac disease. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2007.

73(14): p. 4499-507.

7. Nutter, J., A.I. Saiz, and M.O. Iurlina, Microstructural and conformational changes of gluten proteins in wheat-rye sourdough. Journal of Cereal Science, 2019. 87: p. 91-97.

8. Ma, S., et al., Sourdough improves the quality of whole-wheat flour products: Mechanisms and challenges—A review. Food Chemistry, 2021. 360: p. 130038.

Dr Sara Sayanjali (PhD, University of Melbourne) is a food science teaching and research academic at the University of Melbourne. Her research interests include the development of functional foods, relationship between the physico-chemical properties of food, and health and application of food waste for biodegradable packaging.

Associate Professor Greg Martin (PhD, University of Melbourne) teaches and leads research at the University of Melbourne. His research group investigates the application of chemical engineering principles to sustainable industrial processes involving enzymes, microorganisms and cells. Applications of interest include the production of sustainable food and biochemicals, and wastewater treatment.

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

food australia 29

SENSORY & CONSUMER SCIENCE FEATURE

FOOD FILES Words by Drs Djin Gie Liem, Andrew Costanzo, Dan Dias and Carolyn Ross

Cultivated meat and consumer acceptance Are you a meat lover? Did you know that over-consumption of meat can contribute to hazardous greenhouse gas emissions? Don’t worry, there’s a solution that’s not only sustainable but also tasty - cultivated meat!

However, getting people to switch to this alternative food option can be a challenge. That’s where psychology comes in.

A recent study conducted in Singapore found that people with higher psychological well-being are more willing to give cultivated meat a try. Why, you ask? Well, it turns out that individuals with higher wellbeing are more likely to recognise the sociocultural benefits of food beyond just satisfying their hunger. They understand that making sustainable food choices can have a positive impact on society and the environment.

But wait, there’s more. The study also found that people are more willing to try cultivated meat if they believe it’s just as healthy and nutritious, safe and tasty as real meat. This means you don’t have to sacrifice flavour or nutrition for the sake of sustainability.

30 food australia

Currently, cell cultivated meat is not yet on the market in Australia, but this might change in the near future.

So, the next time you’re thinking of what to have for dinner, consider giving cultivated meat a try once this becomes available. Not only will you be doing your part for the environment, but you’ll also be making a positive impact on society. And who knows, you might just discover your new favourite dish.

Leung, A.K.Y., Chong, M., Fernandez, T.M. and Ng, S.T., 2023. Higher well-being individuals are more receptive to cultivated meat: An investigation of their reasoning for consuming cultivated meat.

Appetite, 184, p.106496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appet.2023.106496

Designing meals for older adults In Australia, as in other counties including the United States, the population of older adults is growing.

Understanding older adults and their changing nutritional needs, food choices and sensory sensitivity is crucial for determining how food scientists can address their needs.

One way independently living older adults can improve their nutritional intake is through safe and convenient

ready-to-eat meals. Research with 285 older adults living in Canada and the United States evaluated the ‘must have’ elements of a prepared meal.

Protein source was the most important element, with chicken having the greatest positive influence on liking.

The participants were segmented into four clusters. Cluster One preferred chicken and not fish while Cluster Two liked both chicken and fish. Cluster Three was negatively affected by spicy meals while Cluster Four participants preferred vegetarian options.

Building on these results, readyto-eat meals were developed incorporating these elements, with the meals including teriyaki chicken with rice, marinated tofu and carrots, and vegetable ratatouille. Participating older adults were clustered by meal preference and food choices, with one cluster valuing sensory appeal, health and price, and the other cluster valuing sensory appeal, health and weight control. Emotions, particularly nostalgia and comfort, were also important in meal development.

Research continues to explore changes in texture perception in older adults, with collaborations between

Washington State University (School of Food Science) and CASS at Deakin University. Preliminary study results showed that the participating older adults differed in their in-mouth manipulation of food and texture sensitivity, and this influenced their liking of certain food textures.

Older adults may experience changes in sensory sensitivity, but sensory appeal of food remains important.

Food products developed for older adults should be formulated to provide both nutrition and a pleasant sensory experience, while keeping price and convenience in mind.

Chaffee, O., McGillivray, A., Duizer, L. and Ross, C.F. 2022. Identifying Elements of a Ready-To-Eat Meal Desired by Older Adults. Food Research International. 111353.

Chaffee, O. R. and Ross, C.F. 2023. Older Adults’ Acceptance of Ready-to-Eat (RTE) Meals in Relation to Food Choice and Sensory Ability. Journal of Food Science. http://doi. org/10.1111/1750-3841.16573 Romaniw, O., Montero, M., Sharma, M., Ross, C.F. and Duizer, L.M. 2022. Creating foods for older adults: Emotional responses and liking of microwave-assisted thermal sterilization processed meals. Journal of Food Science. 87 (7): 3173-3189. http://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16200

them of the freshness and condition of their food. This allows for greater control and management of food storage systems at home, increasing the shelf life of some categories of food by an impressive two days.

The results of the experiment are nothing short of astounding, with the proposed device showing an accuracy rate of 95%. This not only represents a major step forward in the field of food preservation but also has the potential to revolutionise the way we approach refrigeration systems and food transportation containers.

With future improvements through the incorporation of image processing and machine learning algorithms, the possibilities for this technology are endless. The proposed smart device is a gamechanger that is sure to have a significant impact on the food industry, with potential applications in both home and commercial settings.

AI to the rescue: how cutting-edge technology is revolutionising food spoilage detection and analysis

Sonwant E, Bansal U, Alroobaea R, Baqasah AM and Hedabou M. (2022) An Artificial Intelligence Approach Toward Food Spoilage Detection and Analysis. Frontiers in Public Health 9: Article 816226. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.816226

In a recent article by Sonwani and co-authors, the future of food preservation has been revolutionised through the use of cutting-edge technology. By utilising an innovative Artificial Intelligence (AI) approach, the researchers have developed a smart device that not only detects but analyses the quality of fruits and vegetables to prevent spoilage.

The prototype device, which utilises a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model, is equipped with advanced sensors and actuators to monitor the gas emission level, humidity level and temperature of the food. This results in a highly efficient food spoilage tracking scheme, allowing for a better control of the environment and reducing the likelihood of spoilage.

But the innovation doesn’t stop there. The device also generates alerts to the user through their registered mobile number, informing

Will you bite or fight? Study shows consumers have mixed feelings about sustainable food technologies There is a growing shift towards sustainable technologies in the food industry. However, consumers have mixed feelings towards novel technologies. These feelings can impact consumer acceptance and willingness to consume. To understand more about these perceptions, a study surveyed consumers (n = 2494) on the acceptance of novel sustainable food technologies in four countries - Australia, India, Singapore and the United States. The study found major differences in consumer perception of novel food technologies, with three groups emerging: technologies with high, medium and low consumer acceptance: • High consumer acceptance: urban farming and modified atmosphere

packaging • Moderate consumer acceptance: aquaponics, plant-based alternatives to meat and dairy, and gene-editing • Low consumer acceptance: insect ingredients, and cell-cultured meat and fish.

Consumers associated the high acceptance technologies with health benefits and sustainability but had difficulty identifying specific benefits for the less accepted technologies.

Cross-cultural differences were identified, with Indian consumers responding more positively to all novel food technologies, especially compared to consumers in the United States and Australia.

Four global consumer clusters were identified based on their overall patterns of acceptance towards novel food technologies. The segments varied primarily in terms of baseline willingness-to-consume, indicating that consumers tended to accept or reject novel food technologies regardless of their nature. The segment characterised by high acceptance included only about one fifth of the consumers, showing that willingness-to-consume for most consumers ranged from moderate to outright rejection.

Overall, the study suggests that consumers’ general scepticism regarding technologies in the food domain remains a significant challenge towards achieving more sustainable diets. The findings also highlight the importance of considering individual differences among consumers and crosscultural perspectives in assessing consumer acceptance of novel food technologies.

Giacalone D, Jaeger SR. Consumer acceptance of novel sustainable food technologies: A multicountry survey. Journal of Cleaner Production.

2023 Apr 12:137119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2023.137119

Dr Djin Gie Liem is Associate Professor, Dr Andrew Costanzo is Senior Lecturer, Dr Dan Dias is Senior Lecturer and Dr Carolyn Ross is visiting Professor. All are at CASS Food Research Centre at Deakin University, Melbourne Australia. f

food australia 31

HEALTH & NUTRITION

Unlocking nature’s hidden defenders: anti-microbial peptides are abundant in digested food proteins

Words by Feijie Li and Drs Louise Bennett, Pauline Dhordain, Milton T. W. Hearn and Lisandra L. Martin

F

ood-derived anti-microbial peptides (AMPs) may be important in bacterial infection control.

Historically, the origin of many diseases has been attributed to ‘germs’. The infecting microbes were subsequently visualised, identified and studied using microscopes permitting relationships of infections to disease to be better understood.

Bacteria are prokaryotic, unicellular microorganisms of around 1 μm in size that vary in shape and structure.

Contrary to animal cells, they have cell walls made of peptidoglycans that regulate their sensitivity towards antibiotics. The two major classes of bacteria are called gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, which can have different effects on the host. In healthy people, microbial flora are normally present on the skin and all mucous membranes, including within the gut lumen. These are generally symbiotic and harmless and can be beneficial by producing nutrients or outcompeting other pathogens.

However, they can become harmful, opportunistic pathogens causing infectious diseases if translocation occurs, or the health of the host is compromised. Alternately, bacteria can simply co-exist as commensals without exerting either benefit or harm to the host organism.

32 food australia

Figure 1. Physicochemical properties of AMPs that drive interactions with and suppression of pathogenic microbes. AMPs are generally cationic, as required for interaction with the negatively charged bacterial membrane, and can adopt an amphipathic a-helical secondary structure whereby hydrophobic (yellow/green) and polar (purple) AAs localise at opposite planar faces (A), as required for membrane localisation (B) and concentration-dependent pore formation (C). Adapted from (Pérez de la Lastra, Asensio-Calavia, GonzálezAcosta, Baca-González, & Morales-delaNuez, 2021).

It is not surprising that there are multiple layers of protection against pathogenic infection, including preventative barriers and internal cellular defences of the immune system. An important host response is the innate immune system, which can produce AMPs as a defence strategy. Also, resident bacteria can produce AMPs to fight against invading pathogens. Indeed, a prevailing challenge is to prevent and suppress microbes that enter the

circulation, which can lead to sepsis - severe infection causing body-wide inflammation.

In spite of these multiple defences, the annual incidence of sepsis in the US is approximately one million cases, with mortality of 5-34% depending on severity.1 Interestingly, the risk of sepsis has been linked to the Southern US dietary pattern associated with fried food including eggs, processed and organ meats, added fats and sugary beverages.2 This linking of

Figure 2. Schematic workflow of the in silico methodology for applying adult enzymatic digestion and estimating AMP yields of peptides released from selected food proteins.

sepsis risk with diet supports a direct or indirect role of diet in managing infection.

AMPs have been identified from various sources, including from proteins expressed by human, animal, plant and micro-organism sources,3 and inducibly expressed by mammalian cells under infection challenge.4 In particular, mammalian milk proteins are known to encrypt AMPs, likely to protect the neonate, that can be released by digestive processes.5 However, the contribution of the pool of ‘passive’ food-derived AMPs to gene-encoded and microbial AMPs has not been specifically recognised or quantified in previous research. In other words, food proteins represent a potentially regular supply of AMPs, but whose contribution to pathogen regulation, compared with host and bacterial AMPs, is poorly understood and likely under-exploited.

Previous research has focused on identifying and studying bioactive properties of individual AMPs from a specific food protein (α lactoferricin derived by the pepsin-mediated hydrolysis of lactoferrin in cow milk).6 In contrast, here, we have employed a holistic, in silico procedure to estimate the total mass yield of AMPs that might be produced from a mixture of food proteins, and estimated the total AMP yield associated with dietary protein when consumed at the

recommended adult daily intake level of 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight (approximately 50-70 grams).

In silico workflow Structure-bioactivity relationship studies indicate that AMPs are generally (1), cationic, as required for interaction with the negatively charged bacterial membrane and (2), can adopt an amphipathic α-helical secondary structure, required for membrane localisation and concentrationdependent pore formation (Figure 1).7 Recent advances in the use of in silico tools has permitted systematic evaluation of the in vivo digestive release of peptides and can predict AMP bioactivity.8 In this research, the AMP prediction tool of choice was from a webserver incorporating the Collection of Anti-Microbial Peptides (CAMP) database, which predicts AMPs based on the following algorithms: Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and Discriminant Analysis (DA). The organism sources of AMPs in the CAMP database includes animalia, mono- and di-cotyledonous plants, bacteria, algae and other protista, fungi, viruses and synthetic peptide constructs.9 A selection of food proteins from plant and animal sources were chosen to represent the most abundant proteins present in frequently

consumed protein-rich foods. Using amino acid (AA) sequences obtained from the UniProt KB database (https:// www.uniprot.org/), each protein was subjected to simulated gastro-intestinal digestion under adult conditions (including pepsin, trypsin and high specificity chymotrypsin), using the ExPASy-PeptideCutter tool (https:// web.expasy.org/peptide_cutter/).

From the full set of digestive peptides, the degree of hydrolysis (Dh) from enzymatic digestion could be determined for each protein: (%Dh = (number of peptides and free AAs - 1)/ (total AA residues - 1) x 100.

There are several tools available for in silico evaluation of AMP bioactivity,8 where machine learning builds a prediction model based on a range of physicochemical and structural properties of peptides, and relationships with experimental evidence of bioactivity.

The CAMPR3 tool (http://www.camp3. bicnirrh.res.in/predict/) is based on random forest (RF) algorithms that build decision trees for categorising the data.10 The CAMPR3(RF) tool was shown to be the best of six such tools, based on their threshold comparisons across four metrics: sensitivity, specificity, precision and balanced accuracy and rank-based comparison (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve).

The CAMPR3(RF) tool derives a range of physicochemical properties

food australia 33

HEALTH & NUTRITION

Table 1: Degree of hydrolysis (Dh) following in silico digestion and percentage yields of peptides designated as AMPs by the CAMPR3(RF) prediction algorithm identified from selected food proteins, reported by mass and by number.

UniProt Accession Number

Organism

Protein Name

AA Residues

Dh (%)

Yield (and number) of AMPs (%, w/w)

P68137, P68138, P68139

Pig, cow, chicken

Actin-alpha

377

28.5

4.0 (4.4)*

P02662

Bovine

α-S1-casein

214

31.5

8.1 (11.8)

P24627

Bovine

Lactoferrin

708

36.5

2.4 (2.2)

O42161

Salmon

Actin.

Cytoplasmic-1

375

28.6

6.8 (7.4)

P01012

Chicken egg yolk

Ovalbumin

386

31.2

8.7 (10.0)

P04776

Soy

Glycenin 1

495

30.4

4.7 (3.9)

P43238

Peanut

vicilin (Ara h 1, allergen)

626

31.7

11.3 (8.6)

P008573

Spinach

Rubisco

475

34.2

10.4 (10.9)

P18573

Wheat

Gliadin

307

19.9

3.5 (5.6)

Q43607

Almond

Amandin (Prunin, 1 Pru du 6)

551

30.4

10.7 (9.9)

*Number % reported as count of AMPs per total peptides in digestate. from peptide sequences, including: structural characteristics of the constituent AAs and dipeptide and tripeptide frequencies of the reduced libraries.8 In this research, all digestive peptides >4 AAs in size were evaluated for their predicted AMP properties using the CAMPR3 (RF) tool. The total yield of AMPs derived in this manner for individual proteins were reported as either percentage by mass (w/w) or numbers of peptides per protein.

Estimating AMP yields from selected food proteins The workflow in Figure 2 was used to generate libraries of digestive peptides from a selection of animal and plant sources of food proteins, before assessing properties of peptides using the CAMPR3(RF) tool.

When calculated by mass, AMP yields of the selected food proteins ranged from 2.4 to 11.3% (Table 1). For this selection of food proteins, the plant proteins had relatively higher AMP yields than animal proteins.

Specifically, for plant-sourced foods, vicilin from peanut had the highest AMP yield (11.3%, w/w), followed by amandin from almond (10.7%, w/w) and rubisco from spinach (10.4%, w/w). The glycinin 1 from soy

34 food australia

and gliadin from wheat encrypted relatively lower AMP yields (4.7% and 3.5%, respectively). For animalsourced foods, the highest AMP yield was estimated for chicken egg yolk ovalbumin (8.7%, w/w), followed by α-S1-casein of bovine milk (8.1%, w/w) and salmon actin (6.8%, w/w).

AMP yields were identical for muscle actin-alpha from pig, cow and chicken sources (4.0%, w/w). Bovine lactoferrin gave the lowest AMP yield, which was 2.4% (w/w), although the lactoferrin-derived AMP, lactoferricin, is recognised as a potent AMP.6 The corresponding AMP yields by calculated number (per protein type) are also shown in brackets beside the AMP yield by mass (Table 1). The highest AMP yields by peptide count for plant-sourced foods came from rubisco of spinach (10.9%, by number), and amandin of almond (9.9%, by number). For animal-sourced foods, α-S1-casein from bovine milk (11.8%, by number) and ovalbumin of chicken egg yolk (10.0% by number).

The total number of peptides reflects the extent of enzymatic hydrolysis or Dh (Table 1) but this parameter is not correlated with yield of AMP peptides by either mass or number (p>0.05). Furthermore, while bovine lactoferrin had the highest

Dh (36.4%), it contained a relatively low yield of AMPs, indicating that the abundance of encrypted AMPs was unrelated to digestibility but was dependent on the primary sequence of encrypted peptides.

Based on the recommended adult daily consumption of dietary protein of 50-70g, it is estimated that the range of AMP supply from food is approximately 1.4-6.8g. However, the yields of AMPs from different dietary proteins are expected to be diverse and have yet to be systematically mapped.

Outlook for foodderived AMPs The mining of genomes and proteomes of intestinal microbes and human-expressed proteins and demonstration of the anti-infective properties of encrypted peptides has been widely reported.

However, we propose that three sources of production of AMPs need to be considered: 1. Those from endogenous expression11 2. Those expressed by microbiota12 3. Those encrypted and released from food proteins,13 as collective members of the immune defence system against infection.

While host- and microbiotaexpressed AMPs maintain ecological balance in the gut,14 the regulating effects of food-derived AMPs, influenced by the food protein intake preferences of the host, have unknown interactive effects, either competitive or synergistic, with host and bacterial AMPs. In support, AMPs appear to be ubiquitously encrypted in all proteins of living organisms including animal- and plant-based foods (Table 1).

Considering the regular intake of dietary protein, potentially significant mass yields of AMPs are released, the major proportion of which are small enough to be absorbed into circulation with potential to suppress adventitious pathogens and provide passive support to the immune system.15-18 In comparison, we have recently shown that AMPs released by infants from human versus cow milk proteins generate significant yields of both absorbing and nonabsorbing AMPs, with potential to also influence diversity of the developing microbiome.19 In general, AMPs from natural food sources are considered to offer advantages in terms of their biocompatibility, and expected safety for use as medicine and food supplements. The totality of food AMPs in terms of mass yields, rather than focusing on specific bioactivity of individual AMPs, has hitherto been overlooked and may represent a ready supply of safe, effective AMPs for supporting the immune system.

By extension, we propose that another essential role of dietary protein is to provide a regular supply of AMPs to the host for passive immune support, perhaps to manage risk of food-borne and other environmental infections. If this potential role of dietary protein to supply of AMPs is correct, then the levels of intake at all stages of life may affect the supply of AMPs and management of latent infections.

This may be of particular concern for older people for whom many factors converge that frequently lead to

lower intakes of dietary protein.

There is more research needed to systematically map the yields of AMPs encrypted in combinations of proteins present in specific foods and in different dietary patterns, and to evaluate their clinical efficacy. This understanding could enable the food industry to make claims regarding the natural concentrations of AMPs in different foods, and to determine the variability of AMP supply from different foods and diets.

Related opportunities include development of food AMP fractions for supplement and food preservation products. If a role of dietary protein is also to supply AMPs and immune system support, then the levels and types of protein intake at all stages of life may affect the supply of AMPs and management of latent infections.

Indeed, better understanding the natural efficacy of food proteins to supply AMPS may unlock nature’s hidden defenders.

References 1. Paoli, C. J., Reynolds, M. A., Sinha, M., Gitlin, M. & Crouser, E. (2018). Epidemiology and Costs of Sepsis in the United StatesAn Analysis Based on Timing of Diagnosis and Severity Level*.

Critical Care Medicine, 46(12), 1889-1897. https:// doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000003342.

2. Gutierrez, O. M., Judd, S. E., Voeks, J. H., Carson, A. P., Safford, M. M., Shikany, J. M. & Wang, H. E. (2015). Diet patterns and risk of sepsis in community-dwelling adults: a cohort study. BMC Infectious Diseases, 15. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12879-015-0981-1.

3. Boparai, J. K. & Sharma, P. K. (2020). Mini Review on Antimicrobial Peptides, Sources, Mechanism and Recent Applications. Protein and Peptide Letters, 27(1), 4-16. https://doi.org/1 0.2174/0929866526666190822165812.

4. Hancock, R. E. & Diamond, G. (2000). The role of cationic antimicrobial peptides in innate host defences. Trends in microbiology, 8(9), 402-410.

5. Mohanty, D., Jena, R., Choudhury, P. K., Pattnaik, R., Mohapatra, S. & Saini, M. R. (2016). Milk derived antimicrobial bioactive peptides: a review. International Journal of Food Properties, 19(4), 837-846.

6. Wakabayashi, H., Takase, M. & Tomita, M. (2003). Lactoferricin derived from milk protein lactoferrin. Curr Pharm Des, 9(16), 1277-1287. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612033454829.

7. Powers, J.-P. S. & Hancock, R. E. W. (2003).

The relationship between peptide structure and antibacterial activity. Peptides, 24(11), 16811691. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j. peptides.2003.08.023.

8. Gabere, M. N. & Noble, W. S. (2017). Empirical comparison of web-based antimicrobial peptide prediction tools. Bioinformatics, 33(13), 1921-1929.

9. Waghu, F. H., Gopi, L., Barai, R. S., Ramteke, P., Nizami, B. & Idicula-Thomas, S. (2014). CAMP: Collection of sequences and structures of antimicrobial peptides. Nucleic acids research,

42(D1), D1154-D1158.

10. Aronica, P. G., Reid, L. M., Desai, N., Li, J., Fox, S. J., Yadahalli, S., . . . Verma, C. S. (2021). Computational methods and tools in antimicrobial peptide research. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 61(7), 31723196.

11. Wang, G. (2014). Human antimicrobial peptides and proteins. Pharmaceuticals, 7(5), 545-594.

12. Ma, Y., Guo, Z., Xia, B., Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Yu, Y., . . . Ye, X. (2022). Identification of antimicrobial peptides from the human gut microbiome using deep learning. Nature Biotechnology, 1-11.

13. Pellegrini, A. (2003). Antimicrobial peptides from food proteins. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 9(16), 1225-1238. https://doi. org/10.2174/1381612033454865.

14. Cardoso, M. H., Meneguetti, B. T., OliveiraJúnior, N. G., Macedo, M. L. & Franco, O. L. (2022). Antimicrobial peptide production in response to gut microbiota imbalance.

Peptides, 170865.

15. Clare, D., Catignani, G. & Swaisgood, H. (2003).

Biodefense properties of milk: the role of antimicrobial proteins and peptides. Current pharmaceutical design, 9(16), 1239-1255.

16. Godden, S. M., Lombard, J. E. & Woolums, A. R. (2019). Colostrum management for dairy calves. Veterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice, 35(3), 535-556.

17. Gokce, E., Atakisi, O., Kirmizigul, A. H., Unver, A. & Erdogan, H. M. (2014). Passive immunity in lambs: Serum lactoferrin concentrations as a predictor of IgG concentration and its relation to health status from birth to 12 weeks of life. Small Ruminant Research, 116(2), 219228. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j. smallrumres.2013.11.006.

18. Phadke, S. M., Deslouches, B., Hileman, S. E., Montelaro, R. C., Wiesenfeld, H. C. & Mietzner, T. A. (2005). Antimicrobial Peptides in Mucosal Secretions: The Importance of Local Secretions in Mitigating Infection. The Journal of Nutrition, 135(5), 1289-1293. https://doi.org/10.1093/ jn/135.5.1289.

19. Li, F., Dhordain, P., Hearn, M. T. W., Martin, L. L. & Bennett, L. E. (2023). Comparative yields of antimicrobial peptides released from human and cow milk proteins under infant digestion conditions predicted by in silico methodology.

Food and Function (14), 5442-52.

Acknowledgement Funding support for the graduate student scholarship for Feijie Li and for this research, by Ingredia S.A., France, is gratefully acknowledged.

Feijie Li is a PhD student in the School of Chemistry, Monash University, Australia.

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

Pauline Dhordain is Scientific and Innovation Manager at Ingredia SA, Arras Cedex, France Milton T. W. Hearn is a Professor in the School of Chemistry, Monash University, Australia.

Lisandra L. Martin is a Professor in the School of Chemistry, Monash University, Australia. f

food australia 35

FOOD SAFETY

Food scientists as heroes Words by Deon Mahoney

I

n a recent edition of food australia, AIFST’s CEO, Fiona Fleming, described food scientists and technologists as heroes. While this may sit awkwardly with some professionals, it is pretty close to the truth because it recognises their ongoing contributions to a safe and suitable food supply.

Australians enjoy a very safe food supply, and this is due in no small part to the efforts of our food scientists and technologists who strive every day to maintain the safety and suitability of our food.

It is everything from the research and development that underpins our knowledge of how to produce safe food to the front-line action of quality assurance and management personnel that implement and then monitor the veracity of our food control systems.

The food scientists and technologists involved in the dayto-day management of the safety

36 food australia

of our food supply play a critical role in safeguarding public health, maintaining consumer confidence and securing market access. The value this provides to the domestic and global food supply should be neither underestimated nor overlooked. Everyone should be congratulated.

What is important to acknowledge is all that has gone before to support contemporary approaches to managing food safety. As Sir Isaac Newton once said, if I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. The endeavours of our growers, fishers, processors, quality managers, quality assurance officers, food microbiologists, analysts and epidemiologists to ensure the safety of our food supply are based upon precepts and insights that are grounded on learnings from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Brief moments in public health history Historically, societies have adopted various strategies for extending the shelf-life of foods and avoiding illness and poisoning. Sun drying, salting, freezing or cooking food have been practiced for millennia with varying degrees of success. But understanding why they are effective, and attempts to improve and monitor these processes, are a relatively recent occurrence.

Many of the important breakthroughs have been made in the last 170 years. We can go back to the mid-1800s when anaesthesiologist John Snow undertook investigations during a cholera outbreak in London.

His mapping of the outbreak and subsequent removal of the pump handle from the Broad Street pump signalled the end of the outbreak and foreshadowed the science of epidemiology. His studies, which involved the characterisation of cases

by time, place and person, led to hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing, and application. It is classic epidemiology and resulted in prompt and appropriate public health action.

This all occurred at a time when the existence of microorganisms was still under discussion and before the advent of a microscope of sufficient power and utility to routinely detect bacteria.

Plus, the water in the pump had tasted and smelled normal, and this led to the insightful reasoning that good taste and smell alone do not guarantee the safety of drinking water. As a result, Snow’s findings motivated changes to water supply and waste handling systems, resulting in significant improvements in public health. Notably, authorities started to install municipal water filters, explore methods of decontamination, and consider the need for regulation and oversight of drinking water.

Early methods of water disinfection involved the use of ozone and chlorine. In 1908, Jersey City was the first jurisdiction in the United States to disinfect public drinking water.

Over the next decade, many cities and towns across the United States introduced chlorination, leading to a dramatic decrease in waterborne diseases such as typhoid fever and cholera.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) considers public drinking water disinfection and treatment to be one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.1 Even so, the ability to access safe water still remains a major issue for the food industry, especially in the production of fresh produce.

Concomitantly there was the introduction of regulations designed to control and assure the safety of the water and food supply. The introduction of pure food acts moved the dial, with the food industry required to address the challenges of the day, which included adulteration, fraud and communicable diseases such as diarrhoeal diseases and tuberculosis.

In Australia, Victoria led the way in consumer protection with the introduction of the Meat Supervision Act, 1900, the Milk and Dairy Supervision Act, 1905, and by the Pure Food Act, 1905.2 Four more states passed similar legislation over the next five years. These Acts sought to address disease and mortality patterns as well as food adulteration from both a public health and fair-trading perspective.

The next stage involved the creation of microbiological standards for food and water and the introduction of testing requirements.

This heralded the development and advancement of laboratory methods of analysis, and the importance of test results in guiding food control decisions. But while the range of analytical tools available to food scientists have exploded exponentially in recent decades, research to create reliable, timely and cost-effective rapid methods of analysis for relevant analytes and key foodborne pathogens remains an enduring pursuit.

An important advance in the past twenty years has seen the application of novel ‘omics’ technologies to gain insights into microbial communities along the food supply chain. Omics tools such as genomics map the structure and functions of genes, while proteomics studies the biochemical properties and functions of proteins, and metabolomics studies cellular processes and metabolites produced by cells. These technologies are increasingly being employed by research scientists to identify markers which can be used to determine information about the types of microbes present in a food and establish their implications for human and health.

Developments in food processing The introduction of controlled heat processing was a major innovation in food technology during the nineteenth century, along with mechanical refrigeration. These industrial processes significantly

extended the shelf-life of foods.

This continued during the twentieth century which heralded significant advances in the way we produce, process and store food.

Requirements such as inspection and testing of incoming raw materials, carcass evaluation and the pasteurisation of milk focussed on hygiene and resulted in dramatic reductions in the incidence of foodborne illnesses.

Alongside improvements in technology was the introduction of systems designed to oversee how the food industry assures food safety and quality. It was in the 1920s that quality control systems began to be introduced into manufacturing.

Quality control focussed on the identification of defects, through inspection, sampling, and testing of finished products.

The next iteration was quality assurance which saw a shift from end-product inspection to the development of practices which concentrated on the prevention of defects earlier in the manufacturing process, bestowing confidence that quality and safety requirements would be met.

Over time, new quality management initiatives emerged and the 1950s saw the concept of total quality management (TQM) become fashionable with its emphasis on business-wide efforts to improve the quality of processes and products.

The ISO 9000 series of quality management standards were first published in 1987, establishing systems for manufacturers to meet customer needs, consistent with regulatory requirements. These standards continue to be revised, with increasing emphasis on customer satisfaction.

Subsequently, food safety programs based on the principles of the hazard analysis and critical control points system were introduced as a means of managing product safety. This evolution has resulted in food industry personnel addressing product quality and safety in real time, at the appropriate

food australia 37

FOOD SAFETY

point along the food supply chain.

This has also occurred at a time where there is increasing regulatory scrutiny imposed by regulators and the markets, and the expectation that food processors are responsible for the marketing of safe and suitable food.

Current and future developments In the third decade of the twentyfirst century, our food scientists and technologists are observing a revolution in the way control over our food supply is being managed. Technological innovations, digitisation and smart sensors are enabling food scientists to more efficiently monitor and document parameters significant to product safety and support enhanced traceability, leading to safer products entering the food supply chain.

Technological innovations are changing how food is grown, processed and marketed. While robotics are augmenting processes such as sorting and inspection, product packaging and the movement of inventories.

Increasingly, sensors are being employed to scrutinise inputs and ingredients, monitor processing attributes, tally inventories, maintain environmental control during storage and transport and facilitate timely distribution of perishable foodstuffs.

The contemporary food scientist utilises this real-time data to inform evidence-based decisions on the way to handle, process and distribute

foods. The associated benefits include reduced likelihood of product surpluses or delays, with reductions in both costs and food waste.

There is also exploration of novel food processing technologies such as high-pressure processing, ohmic heating, pulsed light, electron beams and cold plasma to improve food safety and extend shelf life. Similarly, nanotechnology is assisting in the creation of food packaging materials that can extend the shelf life of food products. While improving safety is a key consideration, an additional need is for technologies which maintain a perception of product freshness and can be clean labeled.

Artificial intelligence is also starting to gain traction in the food industry. Applications can address the entire food ecosystem from sourcing to consumption, supporting the automation of processes and enabling food scientists to generate forecasts, track demand and phase processing to meet demand.

Our food scientists and technologists diligently evaluate incoming raw materials, water, products and surfaces and supervise processing operations to guarantee the production of safe food.

Advancements in new technologies, smart sensors and artificial intelligence will underpin future transformation of the food industry, and the next generation of food scientists and technologists will need to manage rapidly evolving food supply chains and be skilled in how to best utilise new technology to control food safety hazards. They will need to be as clever, innovative and perceptive as their predecessors in addressing current and emerging food safety challenges and implementing innovative solutions that assure the safety of our food supply.

Our food industry heroes will need to double-down on the application of technologies and strategies for addressing future food safety challenges.

Conclusions Whilst advancements in science, technology and food safety systems over the past 170 years have served the food industry well, assuring the safety of the food supply remains an ongoing challenge. Ahead of us is the impact of climate change, the environmental footprint of our food systems, new and evolving pathogens, increasing antimicrobial resistance, a rising number of vulnerable consumers and contracting resources.

References 1.

2.

CDC (1999). A century of U.S. water chlorination and treatment: One of the ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th Century. MMWR, 48, (29): 621-9 https:// www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ mm4829a1.htm Lewis, M.J. (2003). The people’s health: Public health in Australia, 1788–1950. (Praeger, Westport, Connecticut)

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

Errata Two sentences in the People announcement for Dr James A. Broadbent on p.6 of Vol.75(2) contained errors. The correct version of these sentences are: “Eden Brew was founded in 2021 by CEO and co-founder Jim Fader who is vastly experienced in food retail and consumer goods, alongside Main Sequence Ventures, Norco Dairy Cooperative and CSIRO.” “Developing the world-first recombinant 4 casein micelle puts Eden Brew at the vanguard of this technology,...”

38 food australia

&

&

Innovate with Edge.

Global Strength.

Local Action.

Put to work our technical ingenuity and industryleading portfolio to create future-forward nutrition solutions with flavours, colours, specialty ingredients and more.

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

Your Edge.

Our Expertise.

Let’s create. adm.com/ADM-Nutrition-ANZ

FOOD SAFETY

Swift and reliable milk allergen quantification for better food safety Words by Dr Jordi (Joost) LD Nelis

F

ood allergies are a significant public health concern. In Australia, the prevalence of food allergies is the highest globally at 10%, while other developed countries report rates between 1% and 5%.1, 2 Milk allergy is particularly challenging, as milk is a common ingredient in numerous products such as yoghurt, cheese, baked goods and snacks, making it difficult to avoid.

Milk contains six major allergens, including two whey components and four casein components. The characteristics of these milk allergens and their biological function are summarised in Table 1.

Undeclared allergens — present due to cross contamination from ineffective cleaning for example — are a challenge for the food industry and the primary reason for product recalls.

Milk is the most common undeclared allergen, responsible for around 30% of all food recalls.3, 4 To address the risk of crosscontamination, companies frequently use precautionary allergen labelling — “may contain allergen X”— statements on their products. However, these statements may be primarily intended to legally protect manufacturers rather than protect the health of consumers, as they don’t contain clinically relevant limits. The Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling

40 food australia

Table 1: Specifics of Common milk allergens. This table was adapted from Nelis et al., 20239 under a creative commons licence.

Protein

Abundance in milk

Prevalence of IgE in patients

Protein function

a-Lactalbumin

5%

28-63%

Major whey component, regulatory subunit of lactose synthase, enables lactose synthesis.

ß-Lactoglobulin

10%

>75%

Primary component of whey, binds retinol and likely involved in retinol transport.

a-S1-Casein

32%

~50%

Transport of calcium phosphate

a-S2-Casein

10%

77%

Transport of calcium phosphate

ß-Casein

28%

75-81%

k-casein

10%

88-93%

Serum albumin

~1%

~4%

Regulation of the colloidal osmotic pressure of blood (leaches into milk)

Lactoferrin

<1% (~0.0030.05%)

10-67%

Inhibits bacterial growth in milk by chelating iron

Immunoglobulin

<1% (~0.30.7%)

~10%

Providing passive immunity

Controlling the surface properties of casein micelles.

Stabilizes micelle formation, prevents casein precipitation

(VITAL) program offers a quantitative basis for allergen labelling.5

allergen labelling statements and requires allergen-free products to

Using the VITAL reference dose for milk and consumers’ average food intake, we can calculate that 99% of the allergic population can be shielded from very restrictive diets if legislation is adopted that restricts precautionary

contain a maximum of 6 mg.kg-1 milk allergen.

Currently, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) are used for routine food allergen quantification. However, they can be

affected by reduced sensitivity and cross-reactivity in processed foods due to protein modifications.6, 7 Liquid chromatography multiple reaction monitoring mass spectrometry (LCMRM-MS) is a promising alternative with multiplexing potential and no cross-reactivity issues. We recently showed that peanut allergens can be quantified rapidly and cost-efficiently with this technique.8 Current LC-MRM-MS methods do not meet sensitivity, robustness and analysis time requirements for routine milk allergen analysis with total analyses times often exceeding 12 hours. Additionally, only a few peptides from one or two milk allergens are typically used for LC-MRM-MS method development, which can be limiting due to variations in robustness caused by food processing. Moreover, these peptides are often conserved across mammals, making it difficult to detect

adulteration of high-value caprine dairy products with cheaper bovine milk.

In the study discussed here,9 a rapid (~2-hour) protocol was developed for milk allergen quantification. Tryptic peptides from all major milk allergens were evaluated for their robustness to food processing and ability to detect caprine dairy product adulteration. The method’s sensitivity, repeatability and recovery were assessed by quantifying milk powder in baked croissants using the top-performing peptides.

Results Method optimisation The signal (area under the peak) for all milk allergen peptides that matched the selection criteria for the LCMRM-MS method is shown in Figure 1A across commercial bovine dairy products (full cream milk, yoghurt, brie, cheddar and parmesan cheese).

Various a-S1 and S2 casein peptides

Figure 1. Milk allergen method development. A) LC-MRM-MS Peak areas (n=3) for the summed three most intense transitions of peptides for casein, lactalbumin and lactoferrin extracted from various dairy products. B) Peak areas of pan-milk and bovine-specific allergen peptides identified in goat, mixed sheep and goat or cow milk feta digests. C-D) Calibration curves for the peptides NAVPITPTLNR (C) and YIPIQYVLSR extracted from raw (blue) and baked (red) croissant extracts using a 1 µL (circles) and a 5 µL (squares) injection. Figure was adapted from Nelis et al., 20228 under a creative commons licence.

clustered reasonably well across dairy types except for yoghurt. The k-casein peptides clustered well across all dairy types making them good candidates for allergen detection as well.

Verification of bovine specific milk allergen peptides Milk allergen epitopes are conserved across species, and it is common for patients to be allergic to both cow and goat/sheep milk, although this is not always the case.10, 11 Thus, peptides that quantify milk from multiple species are useful. Yet, such panmilk allergen peptides cannot detect adulteration of high-value caprine products with cow milk.

Bioinformatic analyses suggested that various aS-2 and S1 peptides and the k-casein peptide SPAQILQWQVLSNTVPAK are unique for Bovinae and may be useful to detect adulteration of caprine dairy products with common cow milk.

The aS-1 peptide YLGYLEQLLR and the k-casein peptide YIPIQYVLSR, may be excellent pan-milk allergen peptides. This was confirmed experimentally with figure 1B clearly showing consistent peak areas for the aS-2 and S1 peptides YLGYLEQLLR and YIPIQYVLSR in goat, sheep and bovine dairy products while the peptides NAVPITPTLNR, FFVAPFPEVFGK and SPAQILQWQVLSNTVPAK were only detected in bovine dairy products.

Milk allergen quantification Calibration curves were generated for raw and baked croissant dough. The bovine-specific peptide NAVPITPTLNR (Figure 1C) performed exceptionally well with a LOD and LOQ at 1 and 2 mg.kg-1 and a linear range from 2-2,000 mg.kg-1. The panmilk allergen YIPIQYVLSR had a similar performance (Figure 1D).

Importantly, the obtained signal for both raw and baked croissant digests overlapped for both the 1 and 5 µL injections, showing that the baking process had little effect on the peptide abundance. Recovery rates were determined across the 5-80 mg.kg-1 range for baked croissant extracts.

food australia 41

HEALTH & NUTRITION

Again, NAVPITPTLNR had the best performance with excellent repeatability (CV of 10%) and recovery rates (77% on average) across the entire range of milk incursion levels. YIPIQYVLSR performed reasonably well with consistent calibration curves for all days from 30 mg.kg-1 and slightly higher recovery rates (87%) as NAVPITPTLNR, but also higher interday variation (26-28%) versus 10% for NAVPITPTLNR.

Conclusion A rapid (2 hours) and robust LCMRM-MS protocol was developed enabling milk allergen quantification and caprine dairy adulteration detection with cow dairy. The method is significantly faster than previous methods and meets AOAC Standard Method Performance Requirements for milk allergen quantification (AOAC SMPR 2016.002).

Upon further validation for inter-laboratory performance, this

quantitative method may facilitate routine milk allergen quantification for quality control. Implementing a validated method like this could support legislation to limit the use of precautionary allergen labelling statements.

References 1. Renz, H., et al. (2018). Food allergy. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 4(1), 17098. https:// doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2017.98.

2. Warren, C. M., et al. (2020). Epidemiology and Burden of Food Allergy. Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, 20(2), 6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-020-0898-7 3. FSANZ. (2022, December 2). Food recall statistics. Food Recall Statistics. https://www. foodstandards.gov.au/industry/foodrecalls/ recallstats/Pages/default.aspx 4. Martínez-Pineda, M., & Yagüe-Ruiz, C. (2022).

The Risk of Undeclared Allergens on Food Labels for Pediatric Patients in the European Union. Nutrients, 14(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ nu14081571 5. Voluntary Incidental Trace Allergen Labelling. (n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2022, from https:// www.produktqualitaet.com/en/inspections/ allergen-management/risk-assessment-vital. html 6. Marsh, J. T., et al. (2020). Thermal processing of peanut impacts detection by current analytical techniques. Food Chemistry, 313, 126019. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodchem.2019.126019 7. Parker, C. H., et al. (2015). Multi-allergen

Quantitation and the Impact of Thermal Treatment in Industry-Processed Baked Goods

by ELISA and Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 63(49), 10669–10680. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b04287.

8. Nelis, J.L.D., et al. (2022). Targeted proteomics for rapid and robust peanut allergen quantification. Food Chemistry ,383, 132592. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodchem.2022.132592 9. Nelis, J. L. D., et al. (2023). Safe food through better labelling; a robust method for the rapid determination of caprine and bovine milk allergens. Food Chemistry, 417, 135885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.135885 10. Ah-Leung, S., et al. (2006). Allergy to goat and sheep milk without allergy to cow’s milk.

ALLERGY, 61(11), 1358–1365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01193.x 11. del Río, P., et al. (2012). Allergy to goat’s and sheep’s milk in a population of cow’s milk–allergic children treated with oral immunotherapy*. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, 23(2), 128–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3038.2012.01284.x

Dr Jordi Nelis is a researcher at CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency, as an analytical chemist/ food safety expert. He focuses on integrating data science with portable sensors and omic tools to deliver impact to the Australian food industry. f

We do our thing, so you can do great things

Lower the impact and cost of product recalls with an easy-to-use online system, designed for the food and beverage and industry. www.gs1au.org/recall

42 food australia

FOOD SCIENCE

Hunting for new starter cultures with useful properties for plant-based food fermentations Words by Wenkang Huang, Shuyu Yang, Shi Ting Wong, Anders Peter Wätjen and Drs Sangeeta Prakash, Claus Heiner Bang-Berthelsen and Mark S. Turner

D

airy is a crucial dietary component for approximately six billion people, providing high-quality protein and other nutrients.1 Despite its many benefits, milk consumption in Australia has decreased in recent years, mainly due to concerns related to lactose intolerance, environmental impacts and animal welfare.2, 3 A wide variety of milk alternatives now in the market have also prompted consumers to explore new options.

Plant-based milk alternatives (PBMA) have become increasingly popular due to their lactose-free composition and availability in various types, such as soy, almond, oat, cashew, coconut, rice and macadamia.

Soy and almond are the most popular PBMA, with both providing a good source of protein, fibre, vitamins and minerals, and potentially conferring health benefits. However, their undesirable beany or nutty flavour limits their appeal to certain consumers.

Other challenges include antinutritional factors such as phytic acid and saponins as well as undigestible plant oligosaccharides, which can hinder nutrient absorption and digestion. To overcome these

limitations, one of the appealing options is fermentation, which is widely used in the dairy industry, and has recently been proposed as a strategy to enhance the texture and overall sensory profiles of PBMA.4 Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are the most widely used microorganisms in fermentation. They have been utilised to contribute to the development of a wide range of traditional fermented foods and beverages for thousands of years. Most LAB are Generally Recognised as Safe (GRAS) due to their non-pathogenicity and long history of safe use. They are commonly used as starter cultures, adjunct cultures and probiotics, and can be found in various habitats, including plants, animal intestines, and food.

LAB are particularly useful for food preservation, as they produce organic acids, bacteriocins and hydrogen peroxide. In addition, some strains can contribute to the development of desirable flavour and texture in fermented foods, from their production of volatile compounds (eg. acetoin) and exopolysaccharides (EPS).

The current obstacle in fermentation is that the typical dairy starter cultures, used in cheese production

for example, are unsuitable for fermenting PBMA. A key reason for this is the carbohydrate composition of PBMA can vary depending on the type of plant used as the base ingredient. This makes the PBMA a more heterogeneous substrate for fermentation than dairy milk.

Recent research has demonstrated that the use of dairy starter cultures in almond or soy PBMA fermentation requires the addition of glucose or lactose to promote acid production.3, 5 Dairy starter cultures have adapted to the dairy environment where lactose is the predominant sugar, but are unable to acidify PBMA where sucrose is the main sugar.

The limited suitability of dairy starter cultures for plant-based substrates highlights the need for alternative starter cultures that are better adapted to these substrates.

Researchers are focused on exploring wider environmental sources of microbiota, including plants which are home to a variety of LAB, to identify strains of technological significance.

This will require the development of new screening methods and the exploration of non-traditional sources of LAB, including plant-isolated LAB. Addressing these challenges is

food australia 43

FOOD SCIENCE

Strain A

Figure 1. Acidification performance of L. lactis WT and L. lactis sacB in 6 different types of unsweetened PBMA. essential to promote the use of PBMA in food production and providing consumers with more plant-based options.

In our recent study, we investigated the acidification ability of a collection of ~600 LAB, isolated from fresh fruits, vegetables and herbs, in almond PBMA.5 Strains of Lactococcus lactis showed the best acidifying ability in almond PBMA, being able to lower the pH from 6.56 to 4.30 within five hours.

Whole genome sequencing was carried out on the isolates and strains of L. lactis which rapidly acidified almond PBMA all possessed a four gene cluster encoding a sucrose uptake and metabolism pathway.

To determine the importance of sucrose metabolism in other PBMA acidification, a spontaneous mutant, which had lost the ability to utilise sucrose, was selected and analysed for its ability to acidify several PBMAs. The acidification performance of the wild-type (WT) and a sucrose transporter mutant (sacB) was assessed by measuring the final pH of various types of unsweetened PBMA after 24 hours of incubation (Figure 1).

The results were in accordance with our previous study, emphasising that the sucrose utilisation gene cluster in LAB is essential for sucrose-rich PBMA fermentation and supporting the need to find plant-adapted strains.6 LAB have other properties which may have industrial application in the development of fermented plant-based foods, including flavour production

44 food australia

Strain B

Figure 2. Examples of plant-isolated LAB strains with strong EPS-producing (strain A) and non-EPS-producing (strain B) ability on sucrose-enriched agar.

and texture modification. In preliminary work, we screened for plant-isolated LAB for their ability to produce the buttery flavour compound acetoin and for EPS production. Several LAB isolates which produce acetoin were identified using a rapid chemical assay (Voges-Proskauer test). EPS production was evaluated by the formation of slimy colonies on sucroseenriched agar.

As an example, strain A exhibited a strong ability to produce EPS, while strain B was identified as non-EPSproducing (Figure 2). We are currently carrying out further work using whole genome sequencing and metabolite analysis to better understand and control these features of LAB in PBMA fermentation.

In conclusion, our work suggests that plant-isolated LAB have strong potential for use as starter cultures in the production of fermented PBMA products. However, there is still much work to be done in this area to develop innovative plant-based products as quality substitutes for traditional dairy products such as yoghurt and cheese.

References 1. Visioli F., Strata, A. Milk, dairy products, and their functional effects in humans: a narrative review of recent evidence. Advances in Nutrition 5(2):13143 (2014).

2. Rotz, C. A. Modeling greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 101(7):6675-90 (2018).

3. Jan, G., Tarnaud, F., Rosa do Carmo, F. L., Illikoud, N., Canon, F., Jardin, J., Briard-Bion, V., Guyomarc’h, F., Gagnaire, V. The stressing life of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus in soy milk. Food Microbiology 106:104042 (2022).

4. Tangyu, M., Muller, J., Bolten, C. J., Wittmann, C.

Fermentation of plant-based milk alternatives for improved flavour and nutritional value. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 103(23-24):9263-75 (2019).

5. Huang, W., Wätjen, A. P., Prakash, S., BangBerthelsen, C. H., Turner, M. S. Exploring lactic acid bacteria diversity for better fermentation of plant-based dairy alternatives. Microbiology Australia 43(2):79-82 (2022).

6. Huang, W., Dong, A., Pham, H. T., Zhou, C., Huo, Z., Wätjen, A. P., Prakash, S., Bang-Berthelsen, C. H., Turner, M. S. Evaluation of the fermentation potential of lactic acid bacteria isolated from herbs, fruits and vegetables as starter cultures in nut-based milk alternatives. Food Microbiology:104243 (2023).

Wenkang Huang is a PhD candidate at the University of Queensland. He was the recipient of the AIFST 2023 John Christian Young Food Microbiologist Award.

Shuyu Yang is a masters student majoring in Food Science and Technology at the University of Queensland.

Shi Ting Wong was affiliated with the School of Agriculture and Food Sciences at the University of Queensland at the time of the research.

Anders Peter Wätjen is a PhD candidate at the National Food institute, at the Technical University of Denmark.

Dr Sangeeta Prakash is a senior lecturer at the School of Agriculture and Food Sciences at the University of Queensland.

Dr Claus Heiner Bang-Berthelsen is a senior researcher at the National Food institute, at the Technical University of Denmark.

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

AIFST would like to thank our 2023 Major Convention Partners

Gold Partner

Silver Partners

Bronze Partners

Food & Wine Networking Evening

Award winning source of ingredients TransChem has been an award winning source of ingredients for over 30 years for nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals.

Now the food & nutrition sector can benefit from the premium value, quality natural ingredients that we independently source from around the globe.

We know the value of key natural ingredients, which will enhance the health and wellness offering in your product.

Contact us now to find out more about the difference we can make sourcing and distributing for you: TranChem (02) 9887 1688 or visit transchem.com.au/food-beverages SUITABLE FOR: DAIRY I BAKERY I CEREAL I VEGAN I SPORTS NUTRITION I BEVERAGES I CULINARY I SNACKS

TransChem NZ Advert 184x128.indd 1

9/5/23 9:41 am

food australia 45

SENSORY & CONSUMER SCIENCE

What do sensory & consumer scientists do?

Words by Annesley Watson and Jodie Hill Tea samples for quality tasting.

I

n the food industry, the role of sensory and consumer scientists is to understand how human sensory perception works, what factors influence responses to stimuli and what factors influence consumer product-decision making (eg. the choice of one product over another as well as its continued purchase).

Within a university or specialist research establishment, sensory and consumer scientists can also provide an understanding of the physiological mechanisms of food consumption which can lead to better food design.

Particular current examples of this application include development of more appealing foods for cancer patients who may lose taste sensitivity during treatment, and better dietary advice for weight management through understanding satiety.

The focus of sensory and consumer scientists has mostly been on foods, but the focus can be more than that - any product type that consumers interact with (eg. ranging from car seat comfort to can opener functionality).

Their aim is always to help to maximise and maintain consumer satisfaction with minimum business risk. These scientists provide informed guidance for business decision making at any stage of a product life cycle from idea inception to in-market maintenance processes.

During product development and maintenance programs, the sensory and consumer scientist will not work

46 food australia

alone. They will always collaborate with relevant internal teams such as marketing, manufacturing, sales, product development and quality control and external stakeholders such as market research, universities and sensory research companies. Selected examples of a sensory and consumer scientist’s work during product development include: • Early Exploration Stage: a business may want to determine if there is an opportunity to enter an existing market and what the best product to do that may be.

A sensory and consumer scientist can help marketing, using a range of techniques to review existing product appeal and reasons for appeal. This helps to identify desirable, undesirable and potentially unique or differentiating attributes and functionalities, as well as potential gaps in the market. If a gap is found that has business potential, a range of concepts can be developed with marketing for further testing.

• Mid Development Stage: to generate the best product to fit a validated concept, prototypes are usually created by product developers.

A sensory and consumer scientist can assist product developers in prototype creation for consumer testing by assessing products and prototypes with stakeholders. This ensures the consumer-desired sensory attributes of interest are detectably present at different strengths in the prototypes

so consumers can differentiate and indicate appeal for each.

If elements of product design do not meet consumer expectation, advice can then be given on possible changes to help maximise appeal. The sensory and consumer scientist is the voice of the consumer in this process.

• Late Development Stage: when product design is near finalisation, systems to help manage product quality can be developed.

There are several testing regimes and product attribute training programs that a sensory and consumer scientist can help develop for product quality management. The programs are usually developed in the late stages of the product development process.

Among other things, sensory and consumer scientists can contribute to: • Shelf-life validation - ensuring no consumer dissatisfaction during declared shelf-life period (ideally applied pre-launch) • Quality control processes - involving key attribute assessment of a product during manufacture, allowing corrective action to be taken quickly (faster than most analytical tests) and identifying any drift over time which can then be adjusted • Regular in-market product monitoring - (which may include competitor products) with consumers to assess any change in product appeal over time, and causes for this, so any appropriate action can be taken.

Sensory and consumer science is particularly valued for its ability to help make business decisions to terminate a doubtful development project early and limit iterations (both minimising cost) and proceed with a project more likely to succeed. Working in sensory and consumer science is dynamic and satisfying, giving opportunities for interactions and influence within and outside a business.

Annesley Watson is a retired sensory and consumer scientist and Jodie Hill is Research Director at Sensory Solutions, and current chair of the AIFST Sensory and Consumer Science special interest group. f

At AIFST one of our key strategic pillars is ‘Champion’ and we recognise the need for advocacy of the importance of food scientists and technologists – making them heroes! So, we asked some young food scientists to respond to our question:

Q: Why are food scientists and technologists heroes?

Anna Sparks Product Developer, Kellogg (Aust.)

It is nothing short of heroic to develop safe and nourishing food for the general population.

Food scientists have changed the way we feed the world, from the preservation powers of fermentation to the magic of popping candy. I know that so many of my favourite foods on the supermarket shelves are due to food scientists using their superpower (curiosity) to ask: how can we make this food healthier, taste better or feed more people?

With the focus now directed towards improving the health of people and saving our planet, I see food scientists as heroes more than ever.

Dr Koentadi Hadinoto Graduate Implementation Specialist, Foods Connected Food scientists and technologists play a crucial role in ensuring the food we consume is nutritious, safe, sustainable and available at all times. Their tireless efforts have revolutionised the way we produce, distribute and consume food, reshaping our entire food system.

Through their expertise, they foster food innovation and tackle the complex challenges that our food systems face. These professionals are invaluable in discovering new ingredients and designing food structures that are tailored to the diverse geographical and environmental factors. By embracing digitalisation, they have harnessed transformative technologies, such as AI, augmented and virtual reality and blockchain. These tools have revolutionised the management of the entire food chain, guaranteeing quality, sustainability and traceability. In a world where food security and sustainability are paramount, the work of food

scientists and technologies cannot be overstated. Their unwavering dedication and constant innovation ensure a prosperous future for generations to come.

Agnes Mukurumbira PhD candidate at the CASS Food Research Centre at Deakin University Throughout history we have always acknowledged that doctors, teachers and firefighters are heroes, and understandably so. However, if we dare reflect on the role that food scientists play in our society, we can inarguably agree they are unsung heroes. Well, imagine a world where food was just produced without safety checks, nutritional labelling, allergen labelling and there was never any new food product development. Pretty bleak and daunting right?

In a world where there are perpetual threats to food safety, food technologists help detect, control and eliminate threats, thus safeguarding public health.

Food scientists are responsible for analysing the nutritional profile of food, new product development and development of innovative processing techniques thus playing a crucial role in addressing malnutrition, food security and promoting health. Food scientists also help foster food sustainability and resilient food systems through research on alternative food sources and value addition of food waste.

5

FAST

devote themselves to overcoming global food-related crises such as food shortages and food waste.

With their expertise and dedication to food sciences, they create new techniques to optimise the efficiency of food production and distribution.

These professionals develop innovative strategies to improve the quality of food products, promoting sustainability and exploring alternative ingredients. That is to say, food scientists and technologists are heroes because they are advocates for consumer health and contribute to the betterment of people around the world.

Brigette Snell Assistant Product Developer, Coles Food scientists and technologists are heroes because they use their great expertise and problem solving to ensure the food we consume is safe. Beyond that, however, they also make food fun and help offer a wide range of products so that no matter your dietary requirements or time restraints, you can have something to enjoy. I love that I can pick up anything off the supermarket shelf and feel confident it is safe to eat. Thanks to technological advancements, food that once could only be consumed in small parts of the world can now be safely transported and consumed worldwide. Thank you food scientists!

Wenkang Huang PhD candidate in the School of Agriculture and Food Sciences at the University of Queensland.

Recipient of the 2023 AIFST John Christian Young Food Microbiologist Award Food scientists and technologists are heroes as they serve as an important defensive line to ensure that the food we consume daily is safe. They

food australia 47

A D VA N C E D F O O D SAFETY COURSES 2023

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

OUR 2023 COURSE LINE-UP INCLUDES

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

Food Microbiology - Techniques & Analysis

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

HACCP Principles and Applications (Day 1&2) Advanced HACCP (Day 3&4) 2 x HACCP Refresher Courses

BRCGS SQF VITAL Allergen Internal Auditor – Food Safety Lead Auditor (NFSA, SQF, Exemplar, Nationally Accredited) Cook Chill (incl. 2 onsite audits)

BOOK ONLINE OR CALL US TODAY qmsaudits.com.au | 1300 404 505

TRAINING ACCREDITATIONS

Food Safety Culture Freshcare ISO 14001 Environmental Management