food australia journal, Vol.73 (3), July - September 2021

ISSN 1032 5298 • PRINT POST APPROVED PP241613/00096 VOL 73 ISSUE 3

JULY – SEPTEMBER 2021

Organisational culture is key to food safety

New sensors measure food quality

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF AIFST

Rice breeding ensures nutrition & quality

Key trends in sustainable packaging

Regulars By the Numbers People Food Files Fast Four

Help the food and agribusiness industry achieve its full potential FIAL’s Capturing the Prize identified 19 Growth Opportunities to grow the food and agribusiness sector to $200B by 2030, creating 300,000 jobs.

!

Food Science Community - we want your input on how we can realise these opportunities.

$200B 300K+

New Jobs (Total 842k)

2030

2020

$82.5B 2030

Sign-up to Project 2030 and provide your feedback today: foodmatrix.fial.com.au/project2030

#project2030

The Food and Agribusiness Growth Centre

JULY – SEPTEMBER 2021

10

16

26

IN THIS ISSUE 10 From flour to fermentation: the many facets of breadmaking How do flour properties and sourdough microbiology affect bread quality?

14 Sensors for monitoring food quality and safety Advances in sensing mechanisms and materials provide the opportunity to design more selective sensors

43

REGULARS 05 06 09 20 46

By the Numbers People AIFST News Sensory Fast Four

16 Culture and its impact on the modern food business A healthy organisational culture can underpin the success of food safety programs 22 New sensor technologies to measure the quality and integrity of foods Electronic tongues and noses - a central part in applying Industry 4.0 to the issue of rapid food quality assessments 25 Tax reform: a smart way to drive reductions in food waste How tax incentives could help drive down food waste 26 Food safety auditor intern program An initiative to develop the food safety auditors of tomorrow 28 Rice: a healthy option Rice breeding ensures quality and nutrition 30 Maximising Australian agri-food through an integrated approach to value addition An integrated value chain is essential to unlocking the value of our agrifood sector

COVER Help the food and agribusiness industry achieve its full potential.

32 ‘Nutritional capsules’ in plant foods - let’s keep it intact How food processing techniques can preserve the structure of plant foods and deliver nutritional benefits 36 What’s been cooking in Seedlab?

A look at how this Tasmanian incubator program is delivering value 40 Innovative packaging of fresh food products Key trends in fresh food packaging 43 HPP gains ground as batch and bulk capabilities advance New equipment innovations are increasing the efficiency of high pressure processing

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 Fariba Dehghani, Dr Sushil Dhital, Dr Syamak Farajikhah, Fiona Fleming, Dr Russell Keast, Dr Tatiana Koutchma, Dr Gie Liem, Alexandra Locke, Dr Hazel MacTavish-West, Deon Mahoney, Dr Barry McGookin, Dr Sina Naficy, Dr Farshad Oveissi, Sarah Pennell, Dr Mirjana Prica, Dr Georgie Russell, Dr Samantha Sawyer, Annli Tee, Dr Rachelle Ward, Dr Matthew Wilson, Anna Wittwer.

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

Subscriptions AIFST | aifst@aifst.com.au

Production Bite Communications

Subscription Rates 2021 Subscription Rates for 4 editions Australia $116; Overseas (airmail) $184; single copies $29.00; Overseas $46.00 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 here.

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

Welcome to the Winter edition of food australia. It has been a busy time for the AIFST and food australia team – just as we were about to put this issue ‘to bed’, Sydney went into a COVID-19 lockdown, and we were faced with the challenge of moving our annual Convention. This year’s Convention is certainly proving to be true to its theme - Food Science – delivering in a changing world! AIFST21 will now be held on October 11 and 12, still in Sydney.

This year’s Convention will focus on some of the challenges and opportunities presented to food science and the food industry in a world where ‘change’ can seem to be the only constant. The Convention will once again bring together an exciting and experienced line-up of local and international presenters to address this theme and share their knowledge and insights about what the future holds for the food industry both here and beyond our shores. Visit our website for all the details and to register.

This edition of food australia features a broad range of articles across the many facets of food science and technology.

Food safety culture and its role in producing safe and suitable food is important - our article on this topic looks at introducing food safety culture and shares learnings into what have been the successes. In the nutrition space, our articles on rice breeding and plant foods provide insights into research in delivering on the nutrition benefits of these foods. In the article on ‘flour to fermentation’ we feature our student contribution on flour processing and sourdough fermentation. The use of sensors for monitoring food quality, safety and integrity is discussed in two articles with an update on future directions in this space. We also look at innovative packaging of fresh food products – supporting shelf-life extension and food safety and reducing waste. In the area of food processing, we look at HPP – high pressure processing – the most widely implemented nonthermal preservation method in the food and beverage industry.

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

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

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

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

BY THE NUMBERS

Breakfast cereal category reflects global trends Words by Alexandra Locke As the number of breakfast cereals on Australian supermarket shelves continues to increase, new research by the Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council (GLNC) published earlier this year, has highlighted key areas of innovation in a rapidly growing market.1 A number of global trends were represented in this expanding sector, with the granola and cluster category leading the expansion – increasing three-fold since 2013. Changes in onpack claims reflect one of the biggest trends in food, with a nine-fold increase in plant-based claims in the last eight years.

Highlighting another key trend, data analysis revealed that the majority of breakfast cereals on Australian supermarket shelves were a source of dietary fibre, an important nutrient for good gut health. Mounting evidence suggests a healthy gut microbiome may assist in supporting our immune system and maintaining overall health.

Results also reflected significant industry efforts to boost the nutrient profile of Australian cereals, with improvements in protein, carbohydrate, sugar, dietary fibre and sodium in the majority of products since 2013.

Whole grain cereals emerged as the clear winners, containing significantly more protein and fewer carbohydrates, sugar and salt than non-whole grain options.

Findings from this data shows that cereals can be a convenient and valuable source of whole grains, plant protein and gut friendly dietary fibre.

Read the full paper on GLNC’s website here (https://www.mdpi. com/2072-6643/13/2/489).

Alexandra Locke is Marketing & Communications Manager at the Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council (GLNC)

SINCE THE LAST AUDIT IN 2018:

56

new breakfast cereals on shelf

of fibre, min 2g per serve 83% source

of whole grain, in sodium, less min 8g per serve 66% source 65% low than 120mg per 100g

low in sugar, with less than 15g per 100g 58% are

a Health Star Rating of 4 or above 62% had

References 1. Crosier, E, Hughes, J, Duncombe, S, Grafenauer, S. (2021). Back in Time for Breakfast: An Analysis of the Changing Breakfast Cereal Aisle. Nutrients. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020489

food australia 5

PEOPLE

AIFST non-executive director movements The AIFST is pleased to welcome two new non-executive directors to the Board. Julie Cox and Bronwyn Powell were both appointed for a three year term at the 2021 AGM held on 26th May.

Julie Cox Julie is a commercial lawyer with nearly 20 years’ experience advising leading food, healthcare and technology businesses on intellectual property, consumer, product safety and regulatory compliance matters.

Julie spent the majority of her legal career with global law firm Baker McKenzie across London and Australia before establishing her own specialist legal consultancy for the FMCG industry.

With a background in both science (biochemistry) and law, Julie is passionate about the food industry. Her long standing work with food businesses, ranging from multinationals to start ups,

Bronwyn Powell Bronwyn is a senior marketer and specialist in digital transformation and food innovation. She has more than 30 years’ experience transforming and positioning for growth, many well-known, global food brands across FMCG to Retail/Quick Service Restaurants (QSR).

At the heart of her success has been her ability to develop innovative new concepts, products and communications, and strategies that change businesses.

She is a recognised leader for new, brave, disruptive campaigns. Such as the introduction of the McDonald’s digital menu and the transformation

6 food australia

has enabled her to develop close working relationships and a deep understanding of the opportunities and challenges facing the industry.

Julie also has extensive experience advising media and technology businesses having previously worked as an in-house lawyer at British Sky Broadcasting.

In addition to her undergraduate degrees in science and law, Julie is a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and a current MBA candidate with the AGSM at the University of New South Wales.

Julie is passionate about innovation, continuous learning and promoting the Australian food industry as sustainable, innovative, and safe.

of the in-store experience, in which she played an instrumental role.

Strategically, her leadership in transforming business can be seen in her close to 10 years’ experience as Global Marketing Director and Chief Marketing Officer for YUM Brands KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut Canada – where she grew the brands globally.

Her experience in strategy development and execution extends beyond transformation and growth to customer experience across all touchpoints including digital, especially within Retail/QSR. Her passions are brand purpose and food innovation and she loves’ breathing life back into brands such as her launch of Abbott’s Village Bakery bread and most recently the rejuvenation of the 75-yearold Australian pantry favourite, MasterFoods manufactured by Mars Food Australia.

Other notable food experience includes her integral part in the team which secured the Victorian Government’s support for SPC Food Manufacturing transformation for Coca-Cola Amatil.

Other brands she had led include Kellogg’s, Patak’s, Tip Top, Burgen, Smith’s Crisps, and Dolmio. Bronwyn

is already working on her next major brand transformation: Uncle Ben’s to Ben’s Original.

Bronwyn is a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and of University of NSW Bachelor of Commerce (Marketing).

And she is a Certified Practising Marketer with Australian Marketing Institute.

She is currently Marketing Director for Mars Food Australia and is leading Australia’s favourite food brands including MasterFoods, Dolmio, and Uncle Ben’s across retail and food service channels.

Bronwyn is passionate about quality Australian sourced food and using these home-grown ingredients to inspire her own cooking journey.

She loves to spend time teaching her twin girls the joy of great food and how home cooking and great food brings us together.

Outgoing Director Dr Chris Downs retired as a nonexecutive director having served a four and a half year term.

The Board and AIFST team thank Chris for his years of support and wise counsel and acknowledge his contribution throughout his term.

PEOPLE

Mary Sharma appointed as Head of NPD at SPC Mary Sharma has been appointed as the new Head of New Product Development at SPC, the leading Australian manufacturer of packaged fruit and tomatoes. SPC is owned

by Shepparton Partners Collective following the sale of the business

by Coca-Cola Amatil in 2019. Mary comes to SPC following a 30-year career in food innovation, product development and research in FMCG and research organisations in Ireland, New Zealand, Denmark and Australia.

Projekt1_Layout 1 08.03.2021 10:35 Seite 1 She brings strategic innovation, people leadership capabilities and passion for designing healthy and tasty food for all Australians. Mary is thrilled about the opportunity for innovation to deliver business growth at SPC and realise their vision of ‘Better Food for the Future’.

For the last 12 months, Mary was CEO at OzScientific Pty Ltd, a product development and testing consultancy in Melbourne. Prior to that, Mary spent 13 years at Goodman Fielder in various R&D roles, mostly recently 5 years as Head of R&D Australia, and 6 years at National Foods Dairy business (now Bega) in R&D and Market research roles.

Her food expertise ranges from milk, yoghurt and dairy desserts to spreads, dressings and mayonnaise, and bread.

Mary has a BSc (Hons) in Food Chemistry and Nutrition and MSc Food Chemistry from University College Cork, Ireland. She also earned an MBA from Mount Eliza Business School (now University of Melbourne).

You can read about Jason Romagnesi and Mary’s research on ‘Protein Ingredients for plant-based egg formulations’ in the April-June 2021 edition of food australia.

COLOUR For extra boost!

I N D U S T R I E S

www.cathayindustries.com.au

food australia 7

PEOPLE

A well-earned retirement In 2020, Peter Schutz OAM, retired from the Board of the AIFST after six years of service including four as President and Chair. His term as President and Chair capped off many years of involvement with the Institute, throughout which he gave generously of his time, expertise and wise counsel.

In this short piece, we look back over Peter’s quiet achievements.

After completing an Honours Degree in Biochemistry and Microbiology from the University of Sydney and a Bachelor of Applied Sciences in Wine Science from Charles Sturt University, Peter’s industry career began as a Brewer with Tooth and Company where he spent eleven years, advancing to the position of Brewery Manager.

In 1983, he moved to sales and marketing, initially with the NSW Egg Corporation and then Good Food Products Ltd. After five years, and with these new skills and experiences he ventured into the baking industry with Quality Bakers Australia, spending four years as their National Operations Manager and a year as National Technical Manager.

In 1994, he took up the role of General Manager with Serrol Ingredients, specialist formulators of bread improvers and premixes for commercial bakery markets within Australia, NZ, Asia, South Africa and the USA. Peter then spent two years as Commercial Business Director for Meadow Lea Foods prior to joining George Weston in 1999, becoming CEO of George Weston Technologies in 2001. He officially retired in 2011 after an illustrious and fulfilling career as an advisor, innovator, director, and chairman, spanning four decades.

Throughout his working career, Peter served the sector generously by taking on voluntary representation, advocacy, and advisory roles, and continued to do so in his nominal retirement underpinned by his passion for the industry. In addition to his involvement with AIFST, Peter has

8 food australia

Peter presenting the 2020 President’s Award to Dr Lisa Szabo. served as Chair of Food Innovation Australia Limited, as a member of the Commonwealth Government’s Growth Centres Advisory Committee and a member of CSIRO’s Food and Nutrition Advisory Committee.

Other Board roles included the Grains and Legumes Nutrition Council, Lupin Foods Australia and the Victorian Centre for Sustainable Chemical Manufacture. He was also Chair of the Food Safety Advisory Committee at the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture. Peter has delivered over 250 papers at food industry conferences in Australia and overseas, including chairing sessions and participating in expert panels.

Joining the Institute in 1984, Peter became a staunch supporter of the organisation and its objectives - he was the recipient of the Food Innovation Award in 2003, was made a Fellow in 2009 and served as Chairman of the Institute’s Publications and Editorial Committee between September 2011 and September 2013. In 2015 he was awarded the AIFST Keith Farrer Award of Merit, in recognition of his outstanding contribution to food science and technology across the areas of education, research, industry and government, as well as furthering the aims and objectives of AIFST. Peter has always given generously

of his time and expertise to support, mentor and champion those who were fortunate enough to have worked with and alongside him – he has particularly supported women in research and leadership.

We wish Peter and his wife Helen well in his ultimate retirement and thank him for the significant contribution that he has made to not just the Institute and its members, but to the industry as a whole.

AIFST NEWS

WA AIFST branch careers night The WA AIFST Careers night was held in Perth on May 25th (a year late and after two cancellations). The program was well supported by more than twelve industry representatives, Murdoch University, Curtin University and Edith Cowan University and forty students. The program included great presentations from Justin Whitely (Compass Group), Stuart Johnson (Vesco) and Samantha Fewster (Quality Produce International) and an Industry Forum with panellists Mei Yong (Turban Chopsticks); Haelee Fenton (Intergrain); Elli Wang (Mrs Macs); Stuart Johnson (Vesco); Samantha Fewster (Quality Produce International); and Justin Whitely (Compass Group).

Vicky Solah from Murdoch University, chaired the evening. Nicki Hall from DPIRD commented that the night was very successful and was engaging.

Thanks to the WA Branch Committee!

L-R Mei Yong, Turban Chopsticks; Haelee Fenton, Intergrain; Elli Wang, Mrs Macs; Stuart Johnson, Vesco; Samantha Fewster, Quality Produce International and Justin Whitely, Compass Group.

L-R Gemma Burro, Stuart Johnson, Angus Annan, Nicki Hall and Laura Matthew.

SA AIFST branch event WA AIFST branch careers night

The AIFST SA Branch organised a factory tour of Openbook Howden in late April. Openbook Howden is a print and design company – their end-to-end service includes design and rebranding, stock management and distribution, mail house services and a variety of e-publication solutions.

Thanks to the SA Branch Committee!

William Angliss Institute event On 20th May the Victorian Branch of AIFST was invited to attend an event at William Angliss Institute for students of the Diploma in Food Science and Technology. It was an exciting day, where students and speakers learnt from each other’s experiences in the food industry and provided an opportunity to connect with talented minds eager to grow and champion the profession in their forthcoming careers. As a former student of William Angliss Institute, it was an honour to come back after six

years and to represent the Victoria Branch of the AIFST as their Chair.

A big part of belonging to a professional community like AIFST is not only the benefits you get but

also the opportunity to help others to develop their careers and nourish our industry.

Pilar Oyarzun, Victoria Branch Chair.

food australia 9

STUDENT CONTRIBUTION

From flour to fermentation: the many facets of breadmaking Words by Annli Tee and Anna Wittwer

B

read exists in many forms depending on flour type, leavening agent and parameters like proving time, baking time and baking temperature.

Sourdough bread is an increasingly popular kind, known for its ‘clean label’ status and its nutritional and sensory properties. This article provides an overview of the ‘starting points’ of bread - flour processing and sourdough fermentation. As the main ingredient of bread, we wanted to understand how the properties of flour affect the final product. We also studied the microbiology of sourdough starters and how this affects sourdough bread.

two stone plates.1 Roller milling - a popular industry method - uses steel rollers to break wheat kernels into bran and endosperm fractions. These constituents are then separated and recombined into the desired ratios for specific flour types.1,2 Wheat bran and germ contain protein, fibre, omega 3/6 lipids and B vitamins, which are mostly lost during refinement.1,3 However, these fractions can be reincorporated to produce wholemeal flour, which provides nutritional benefits of the germ and bran layers that would be inaccessible from consuming the whole kernels.4

yeast is the dominant leavener used in modern bread production, but sourdough bread is still made in artisanal and specialty bakeries and is increasingly popular among Australian consumers.6

Sourdoughs are populated by bacteria and yeasts

Flour is composed of ground wheat kernels, mainly the endosperm, with varying bran (the outer layer) and germ (the embryo) portions. Flour can be classified according to milling

When flour and water mix, a natural fermentation can occur. This resultant sourdough starter contains bacteria and yeasts and is used to leaven bread. Until pure cultures of baker’s yeast - concentrated

Sourdough starters usually contain one to several lactic acid bacteria (LAB) species and one or two yeast species.7 There are more species of bacteria (mostly belonging to the Lactobaciliaceae family) and more bacterial cells present, outnumbering yeast cells 100:1.7,8 The two most prevalent yeast species are S. cerevisiae and Kazachstania humilis.

The five Victorian sourdoughs we studied matched this general description. Fructilactobacillus sanfranciscensis, the most common sourdough bacterium, was detected in all starters, and was the only LAB species in four of the five

techniques and the degree of sifting.

The most common methods are stone and roller milling. Stone milling involves grinding kernels between

Saccharomyces cerevisiae cells were developed in the 19th and 20th centuries5, bread was leavened with sourdough starters. Baker’s

starters (Companilactobacillus paralimentarius was also detected in one). All yeasts isolated were either S. cerevisiae or K. humilis, and only

Composition and production of wheat flour

10 food australia

Fermenting flour to make sourdough

two of the starters contained both.

Sourdough bacteria are highly fastidious Most bacteria in mature sourdough starters are heterofermentative lactobacilli, which consume maltose or glucose, and produce lactic acid, ethanol, acetic acid, and carbon dioxide.9 These LAB also need amino acids, peptides, nucleotides, and vitamins for optimal growth.9 This is probably because their capacity to synthesise these nutrients has disappeared as they have adapted to food environments.

While creating a medium to grow sourdough organisms and other bacteria simultaneously, we found further evidence for the fastidious nature of sourdough LAB. We attempted to replicate the composition of the standard medium used for LAB cultivation as closely as possible. However, on 10 of our 12 trial formulations, four of the F. sanfranciscensis strains demonstrated poor or no growth.

Fineness, density and porosity values can be obtained via Digital Image Analysis (DIA) and used to quantify bread properties.

Sources of sourdough microbes The flour in sourdough starters affects microbial composition, but not necessarily through direct microbial contribution. Studies monitoring species composition from grain to sourdough commonly observe that sourdough microbiota are different from those derived from the grains.10 The main effect flour has on microbial composition is most likely through its constituent carbohydrates that select for or against certain species.

Sourdough microbes can also come from bakeries or factories the ‘house microbiota’; sourdough starters made in laboratories, where flour is the only non-sterile component, have different microbial profiles from bakery sourdoughs.11 Sourdough bacteria might be able to persist in bakeries in biofilms - communities of bacterial cells embedded in extracellular substances that form on surfaces.12 In this study, after 48 hours of incubation, all five samples showed a large increase

Milling technique and leaven type affect bread properties. in LAB biofilm formation. However, as the levels recorded were lower than those observed for some other species13, the LAB may not be strong biofilm formers. Of the four strains of F. sanfranciscensis tested, only two showed biofilm formation potential, suggesting that biofilm formation

with higher bran content and starch damage created bread with a less porous crumb structure. It is known that increased bran content can decrease loaf volume by weakening and reducing the elasticity of the dough structure.15,16 The presence of hard bran particles has been

may be affected by a strain’s origin.

previously shown to dilute and

Different flour types affect crumb quality We compared crumb structures and aroma profiles of sourdough and baker’s yeast loaves baked using stoneground and roller milled flour. Crumb structure was analysed using digital image analysis (DIA), a method involving running bread cross section photographs through a custom algorithm.14 This allows us to quantify crumb fineness, density, and porosity.

In this study, we found that flour

disrupt the gluten network, lowering gas-holding capacity.15 Loaves made with stoneground flour in general (regardless of using sourdough or baker’s yeast) displayed a more uniform crumb and smaller gas pockets. This could be due to higher protein content, which increases flour ‘strength’. This prevents larger air pockets from forming during fermentation and baking, yielding a more homogenous crumb structure.17 Acid produced by LAB in sourdough also weakens the gluten network, which lowers gas

food australia 11

STUDENT CONTRIBUTION

retention.18 In this study, roller milled flour produced bread with a finer and uneven crumb, regardless of whether sourdough or baker’s yeast was used, indicating a reduced flour strength. These results suggest that stoneground flour with a moderate bran content would produce optimal crumb structures in terms of uniformity, porosity, and volume.

Impacts of milling on gut microbe activity in vitro We compared the nutritional properties of refined and unrefined stoneground and roller milled flours.

Stoneground flours contained more bran- and germ-derived nutrients than roller milled flours, regardless of refinement. Fibre from these flours reportedly provides many health benefits, especially through interactions with gut microbes.19 An indication of nutrient effects on gut microbe activity can be provided by the amount and types of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) produced in simulated digestion assays.

We measured levels of the three main SCFAs - acetate, propionate,

12 food australia

and butyrate - after in vitro digestion of bread made with wholemeal and refined stoneground and roller milled flours. There was no significant difference in total SCFA output between any samples. Butyrate levels, however, were lower in stoneground flour bread samples.

This was possibly due to larger particle size, which reduced the surface area accessible for microbial digestion.20 Stone grinding also generates more heat, causing protein and starch damage; our stoneground flours had up to twice the amount of starch damage of roller milled flours. This may have produced more sugars accessible to sourdough and/ or baker’s yeast microbes during dough fermentation, and left fewer simple carbohydrates available for fermentation in the gut.

Flour and leavens alter bread aroma Aroma profiles of sourdough baked using various flours were compared with baker’s yeast loaves, using head space solid phase microextraction gas chromatography-

mass spectrometry (HS-SPME GC-MS) to identify and semi-quantify the volatile aroma compounds.14 We found a total of 40 aroma compounds, of which 28 exhibited a distinct scent and/or flavour. Each bread type displayed unique aroma profiles, indicating that milling and leaven effects interact to produce different sensory properties. Flour composition directly contributed to aroma and depended on interactions with microorganisms in the leavens.

Although baker’s yeast produced more volatiles than sourdough, interactions between sourdough microorganisms were sufficient to produce desirable aroma profiles that were characteristic of sourdough breads.

Conclusion We found that the species richness and composition of all five samples of Victorian sourdough starters were similar to those described in published studies. All sourdough samples contained LAB that were able to form biofilms, although the species composition and extent of

biofilm growth differed and may depend on the strain’s origin. Both flour milling technique and leavens type can influence bread structure and composition, impacting both flavour and nutritional properties.

Stoneground, wholemeal flours may require further processing or fermentation to improve the carbohydrate accessibility during digestion.

Quality Endorsed Company ISO 9001:2015 SAI Global

QUANTUMCLEAN

References 1. Liu C, Liu L, Li L, et al. Effects of different milling processes on whole wheat flour quality and performance in steamed bread making. LWT - Food Sci Technol. 2015;62(1):310-318. doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2014.08.030 2. Ross AS, Kongraksawech T. Characterizing whole-wheat flours produced using a commercial stone mill, laboratory mills, and household singlestream flour mills. Cereal Chem. 2018;95(2):239-252. doi:10.1002/cche.10029 3. Korem T. Bread Affects Clinical Parameters and Induces Gut MicrobiomeAssociated Personal Glycemic Responses. :17.

4. Jonnalagadda SS, Harnack L, Hai Liu R, et al. Putting the Whole Grain Puzzle Together: Health Benefits Associated with Whole Grains—Summary of American Society for Nutrition 2010 Satellite Symposium. J Nutr.

2011;141(5):1011S-1022S. doi:10.3945/jn.110.132944 5. Catzeddu P. Sourdough Breads. In: Flour and Breads and Their Fortification in Health and Disease Prevention. Elsevier Science & Technology; 2011. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unimelb/detail.action?docID=625340 6. IBIS World. Bread Production - Australia Market Research Report.; 2019.

7. Kerrebroeck SV. Sourdoughs as a function of their species diversity and process conditions, a meta-analysis. Published online 2017:8.

8. Zheng J, Wittouck S, Salvetti E, et al. A taxonomic note on the genus Lactobacillus: Description of 23 novel genera, emended description of the genus Lactobacillus Beijerinck 1901, and union of Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2020;70(4):2782-2858. doi:10.1099/ijsem.0.004107 9. Abdel-Rahman MA. Recent advances in lactic acid production by microbial fermentation processes. Biotechnol Adv. Published online 2013:26.

10. Alfonzo A, Miceli C, Nasca A, et al. Monitoring of wheat lactic acid bacteria from the field until the first step of dough fermentation. Food Microbiol.

2017;62:256-269. doi:10.1016/j.fm.2016.10.014 11. De Vuyst L, Harth H, Van Kerrebroeck S, Leroy F. Yeast diversity of sourdoughs and associated metabolic properties and functionalities. Int J Food Microbiol. 2016;239:26-34. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.07.018 12. Donlan RM, Costerton JW. Biofilms: Survival Mechanisms of Clinically Relevant Microorganisms. CLIN MICROBIOL REV. 2002;15:27.

13. O’Toole GA, Pratt LA, Watnick PI, Newman DK, Weaver VB, Kolter R. Genetic approaches to study of biofilms. In: Methods in Enzymology. Vol 310. Elsevier; 1999:91-109. doi:10.1016/S0076-6879(99)10008-9 14. Winters M, Panayotides D, Bayrak M, Re G, Zhang P, Howell K. Defined co cultures of yeast and bacteria modify the aroma, crumb and sensory properties of bread. J Appl Microbiol. Published online 2019:16.

15. Rizzello CG, Coda R, Mazzacane F, Minervini D, Gobbetti M. Micronized by-products from debranned durum wheat and sourdough fermentation enhanced the nutritional, textural and sensory features of bread. Food Res Int. Published online 2012:10.

16. Salmenkallio-Marttila M, Katina K, Autio K. Effects of Bran Fermentation on Quality and Microstructure of High‐Fiber Wheat Bread. :7.

17. Zghal MC, Scanlon MG, Sapirstein HD. Effects of Flour Strength, Baking Absorption, and Processing Conditions on the Structure and Mechanical Properties of Bread Crumb. Cereal Chem J. 2001;78(1):1-7. doi:10.1094/ CCHEM.2001.78.1.1 18. Clarke CI, Schober TJ, Arendt EK. Effect of Single Strain and Traditional Mixed Strain Starter Cultures on Rheological Properties of Wheat Dough and on Bread Quality. Cereal Chem J. 2002;79(5):640-647. doi:10.1094/ CCHEM.2002.79.5.640 19. Scott KP, Gratz SW, Sheridan PO, Flint HJ, Duncan SH. The influence of diet on the gut microbiota. Pharmacol Res. 2013;69(1):52-60. doi:10.1016/j. phrs.2012.10.020 20. Lioger D, Leenhardt F, Demigne C, Remesy C. Sourdough fermentation of wheat fractions rich in fibres before their use in processed food. J Sci Food Agric. 2007;87(7):1368-1373. doi:10.1002/jsfa.2862

Anna Wittwer is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences (FVAS) at the University of Melbourne. She wrote her Honours thesis on the microbiology of Victorian sourdoughs. Annli Tee completed her Honours thesis on wheat processing and metabolism at FVAS and is now a PhD candidate at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research. f

Concentrate

Detergent and Decontaminant for your laboratory cleaning needs.

For manual cleaning (including radioactive decontamination) of all laboratory and industrial glassware, plastics, ceramics and stainless steel.

• Ideal for use in ultrasonic cleaners

• Phosphate free • Biodegradeable

HELP SUPPORT Every purchase of Rowe Quantumclean (CQ1050, CQ1000, CQ1100) results in a $2.00 per item donation to the Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia.

www.rowe.com.au Stirring and Mixing

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

Queensland

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

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

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

Western Australia

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

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

food australia 13

FOOD ENGINEERING

Sensors for monitoring food quality and safety Words by Drs Farshad Oveissi, Syamak Farajikhah, Sina Naficy and Fariba Dehghani

P

opulation growth and environmental concerns urge the necessity of agile assessment of food quality and safety, particularly in the increasingly complex food supply chain. According to the World Health Organisation, there are nearly 600 million cases of foodborne diseases, among those, 420,000 deaths each year.1 Aiming to minimise food waste and health risk for consumers, food products must be shipped and distributed under highly controlled conditions along the food supply chain. Hence, it is essential for food suppliers to identify the provenance and traceability of the food. There are commonly four classes of analytes for designing advanced food sensors: (i) biological and chemical contaminants, (ii) allergens, (iii) nutritional ingredients, and (iv) food additives which may be harmful at a higher dose. The identification of some analytes can be used to determine the freshness of a desirable food product.

Most commercial food sensors in the market assess the food quality indirectly by monitoring environmental indicators such as temperature, humidity and changes in gasses such as oxygen and

14 food australia

carbon dioxide.2 These sensors, that are mostly colourimetric, aim to model the freshness or safety of the packaged food by showing their thermal histories such as potential temperature shocks and variation, possible thawing cycles, or the extent of exposure to elevated temperatures.

Thus, it is fair to say that the timetemperature sensors are passive indicators as they merely reflect the history of food packaging rather than measuring food’s actual state.

Sensors can also be used to identify the ripeness and freshness of packaged food by detecting the change in pH, or the presence of certain chemicals (e.g., ethylene) and metabolites that are produced in the process of ripening. For instance, SensorQ™, which is a pH-based sensor composed of a polymer matrix decorated with a green dye bromocresol sensitive to pH and is mostly used for identifying the freshness of meat. RipeSense™, developed in New Zealand by Jenkins Group in partnership with Plant and Food Research Institute, is a colourimetric sensor correlating the ripeness of fruit to the release of aromas in the packaging. Recently, several cost-effective colourimetric,

flexible and scalable gas sensors were developed for detection of meat spoilage under various storage conditions and fruit ripeness (e.g., kiwis and avocados), respectively.3,4 These sensors can be powerful decision-making tools that can be used for reducing the food waste as they monitor food quality in the whole supply chain.

Advances in sensing mechanisms and materials provide the opportunity to design more selective sensors which can directly measure the chemicals, toxins, or undesirable pathogens in the food package.

These sensors, that are mostly electrochemical, directly measure the released chemicals rather than the environmental condition. However, most manufactured electrochemical sensors are voltametric or impedimetric, which demands an external energy source. Hence, there is great interest to manufacture cost-effective chemiresistive sensors which can not only measure the chemical component released in the food package, quantitively, but also do not need any external electrical source such as batteries. An example of such sensors is a recently developed hydrogen peroxide paper-

based sensor.5 Hydrogen peroxide is a common side-product of most enzymatic reactions which often occur during the process of food spoilage and perishing. Coupling such sensors with near field communication (NFC) tags assists the food supplier to collect the data.6 Also, the whole system is printable and can be easily manufactured in large scale.

Future direction Although great progress has been reported in the field of food sensors, the current technology has several challenges including its relatively high cost of manufacturing, using non-compostable materials and being limited to a specific operating temperature (i.e., unable to sense accurately at all storage temperatures such as room, refrigeration, and subzero). To date, most sensors that have reached the market are limited to colourimetric sensors because of their ease of fabrication and compatibility with packaging materials.

Also, most manufactured sensors cannot detect multiple components simultaneously. What has been reported in the literature as the selectivity of these sensors was merely sensitivity of these systems against individual chemicals (e.g., gases)4,7 which may not reflect the true selectivity in which the sensor should be exposed to a mixture of gases.

The increasing global problem of waste generated from food and food packaging has also fuelled the further development of sensors for food applications.

Future food sensors should be fabricated from environmentally friendly, compostable, ingestible, bioresorbable or even metabolisable materials preferably sourced from natural resources. Silk is one such example, offering natural abundance, biocompatibility, and suitable mechanical, electrical and adhesive properties. Also, flexible electronics and new active materials can be employed in future electrochemical food sensors to enable their incorporation in flexible food packaging.

Figure 1: Sensors for monitoring food quality and safety Cost is another pivotal factor for the success of food sensors in the market. Here, cost-effective fabrication technologies such as inkjet printing can be utilised for large scale production of sensors directly applied to the food packaging. Economically viable materials such as cellulose and its derivatives can also be used to reduce production costs.

References 1. World Health Organization (2015). WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases: foodborne disease burden epidemiology reference group 2007-2015 2. Oveissi et al. (2021). “Sensors for food quality and safety” In: Food Engineering innovations across the Food Supply Chain (Juliano P., Knoerzer K., Sellahewa J., Nguyen M., Buckow R., Eds), Amsterdam: Elsevier. In-press 3. Nguyen et al. (2020). “Naked-eye detection of ethylene using thiol functionalized polydiacetylene-based flexible sensor” ACS Sensors, 5(7) 1921:1928. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.0c00117 4. Nguyen et al. (2019). “Polydiacetylene-based sensors to detect food spoilage at low temperatures”Journal of Materials Chemistry C, 7 1919:1926. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8TC05534C 5. Giaretta et al. (2021). “Paper-base, chemiresistive sensor for hydrogen peroxide detection”, Advanced Materials Technologies, 2001148 https://doi.org/10.1002/ admt.202001148 6. Barandun et al. (2019). “Cellulose fibers enable near zero-cost electrical sensing of watersoluble gases” ASC Sensors 4(6) 1622:1669. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.9b00555 7. Nguyen et al. (2019). “Nanocellulose for sensing applications” Advanced Materials Interfaces 6(18) 1900424. https://doi.org/10.1002/admi.201900424

Dr Farshad Oveissi is a Loxton Research Fellow at the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at The University of Sydney and a member of the Centre for Advanced Food Engineering.

Dr Syamak Farajikhah is a postdoctoral research associate at the Centre for Advanced Food Engineering at the University of Sydney.

Dr Sina Naficy is a Lecturer at the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the University of Sydney and a member of the Centre for Advanced Food Engineering.

Prof Fariba Dehghani is the director of the Centre for Advanced Food Engineering and a professor of Chemical Engineering at the School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at the University of Sydney.

This article is based on a chapter from the book Food Engineering Innovations Across the Supply Chain, edited by Pablo Juliano, Kai Knoerzer, Jayantha Sellahewa, Minh Nguyen and Roman Buckow, 2021, Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. f

food australia 15

FOOD SAFETY FEATURE

Culture and its impact on the modern food business Words by Deon Mahoney

O

ver the past 20 years much has been written about the concept of food safety culture and its role in producing safe and suitable food. Any scan of the food industry literature will generate a plethora of articles and papers promoting food safety culture and imploring food businesses to embrace the concept and make their food safer.

Food safety culture can be described as all the knowledge, learned values and practices that underpin hygienic behaviours in a food handling environment. With the ultimate objective being that everyone in a food business is striving for a common goal of food safety. The Global Food Safety Initiative defines food safety culture as shared values, beliefs and norms that affect mind-set and behaviour toward food safety in, across and throughout an organisation.1

starting in the 1990s. Since that time there have been various protagonists campaigning for widespread uptake of the principles. This includes publications by Frank Yiannas2 and a coterie of disciples that continue to actively promote the concept.

A key approach for changing culture and embracing food safety is communication and guidance: up, down, and horizontally with all personnel in a processing facility. It commences with senior management demonstrating their commitment to producing safe food and supporting workers within the plant to understand their role and responsibilities to produce safe food.

At the present time, various aspects of food safety culture are being drafted into legislation, guidelines, and

Hygiene (CXC 1-1969) that embraced food safety culture as a general principle and included a section on management commitment to food safety.3 The European Union has recently revised the annexes to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, with the goal of aligning food safety with Codex’s adoption of food safety culture as a general principle.4 The regulation compels management and employees of food businesses to commit to safe food production and distribution. There is now an obligation on management to ensure the integrity of their food safety system, and to establish clear roles and responsibilities, facilitate effective communication, and deliver appropriate training and supervision.

While in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration

Professor Chris Griffith can be considered a leading proponent of the concept, with his observations and writings on food safety culture

codes of hygienic practice. In 2020, the Codex Alimentarius Commission formally adopted revisions to the Codex General Principles of Food

(FDA) launched their New Era of Smarter Food Safety in July 2020.5 Development of a stronger food safety culture along the food supply chain

16 food australia

International developments

Implementing food safety culture Analyse the existing culture, create a vision, and prepare an implementation strategy

Communicate the vision and secure employee buy in

Implementing food safety culture Initiate the food safety culture strategy Upskill and empower employees

Identify and celebrate food safety successes

Implementing food safety culture Consolidate the gains Analyse the successes and document and apply improvements

Continue the food safety journey

oversight, including greater vigilance by employees when things go wrong.

However, research has demonstrated that even where employees are trained in food safety, it does not always result in improved food safety practices in the workplace.

Their behaviour is influenced by their beliefs and situational cues – such as the complexity of the task, social pressure to perform, and the value of a behaviour to the employee. Plus, the value of managerial corroboration of safe food behaviours is often ignored.

What have been the successes?

Figure 1: Stages in the introduction of food safety culture is a foundation pillar of this 10-year blueprint designed to enhance food safety.

In Australia the concept has been widely promoted, but there are currently no regulatory obligations to embrace food safety culture or impose specific culture requirements.

This is due in part to the vague criteria, and concerns about the very subjective nature of assessing a culture. One regulatory agency is undertaking a small trial to monitor food safety compliance in the processing sector, with the focus on culture and behaviours that advance improvements in food safety. There are also developments with private certification programs, for example food businesses signed up to the BRC Global Standards must now meet the requirement that senior management define and maintain a clear plan for the development and continuing improvement of a food safety and quality culture.

Introducing food safety culture The culture that prevails within a food business has a major impact on the efficiency and profitability of operations and the extent to which food safety is a priority. At one end of the scale are business operators that rank profit over food safety, with senior management frequently disconnected from day-to-day

operations and failing to promote food safety behaviours. At the other end are operators that focus on food safety rather than just profit and recognise the importance of individuals and human behaviour in providing safe and suitable food. Commercial and regulatory imperatives mean that most food businesses operate within these two extremes.

The way food safety culture is implemented will vary depending upon the food industry sector, the size of the business, the personnel involved, and their roles. As an initial step it is prudent to review the workplace and establish the extent to which management defines, communicates, and supports food safety goals, and the existence of processes that permit and encourage employees to share their insights with supervisors and management.

Ultimately it relies upon workers being adequately trained and empowered to follow procedures and food hygiene directives, even when not being scrutinised. For example, noticing when raw materials don’t meet specifications, identifying situations where process control has lapsed, ensuring correct packaging and labelling, and adherence to cleaning and maintenance schedules.

Not only does management seek good food handling behaviours, but it wants enhanced food safety

A major focus when introducing food safety culture is an emphasis on the relationship between employee training, food safety behaviour, and accountability for food safety.

Unfortunately, over the past 20 years we have not seen a discernible decrease in cases of foodborne illness.

Despite a multiplicity of food safety educational efforts, incidents involving foodborne illness and ongoing issues with undeclared allergens remain a tangible challenge for many sectors of the food industry. In the same vein, auditors are still identifying elementary non-conformances with documented food safety programs, while food recalls and withdrawals continue at or above levels occurring in recent years.

Analysis of outbreaks of foodborne illness often find a major cause is human error and failure to correctly implement a food safety program.

This suggests there is a disconnect between the focus on culture and increased knowledge and the subsequent practice of good food safety behaviours.

Nevertheless, many food processors have adopted the philosophy and enjoy the benefits of having a motivated and skilled workforce that knows their role and understands their responsibilities. This is underpinned by effective policies and procedures, the provision of ongoing training, adequate resources and equipment, effective supervision, and consistent internal communication.

food australia 17

FOOD SAFETY FEATURE

rights, and the commitment to food safety. This holistic approach enhances employee trust and leads to a deeper commitment to meeting food safety obligations.

Summary

Factors impacting adoption of a food safety culture

seasonal or temporary; working conditions may be challenging e.g.

When introducing the concept of food safety culture, it is essential that senior management clearly communicates the goals in order to establish and build employee belief and trust. Equally important is supporting employees such as farmworkers and personnel in packing and processing facilities to diligently follow hygienic food handling practices and proactively identify system failures.

Workers will be much more motivated to engage if they perceive all the conditions around their employment are fair and equitable.

This involves treating employees with respect and dignity; paying workers a living wage; meeting minimum occupational health and safety standards in the work environment; the provision and maintenance of staff facilities; and ensuring worker grievances are properly aired and remedial action implemented where necessary.

Unfortunately, there are many impediments to changing worker behaviours and attitudes. In some sectors of the food industry there is reliance on a low-wage labour force, and an inequitable power balance between employees and employers.

cold and damp environments; tasks are often repetitive; there may be a risk of injury; or the working conditions may be perceived to be exploitative.

For many employees access to training aimed at changing behaviours is not always available and there are often limited opportunities for career advancement. Plus, employees frequently feel discouraged or disempowered to raise issues, fearing job repercussions if they do so. So, not surprisingly, getting enthusiastic about food safety is not always realistic or feasible.

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, considerable emphasis has been placed on workers in the food industry practicing behaviours designed to keep themselves safe and healthy. This includes adherence to protocols around physical distancing, handwashing, and use of hand sanitisers. Self-interest resulted in workers taking up these behaviours to protect themselves, and this exercise in self-protection had the added benefit of enhancing food hygiene practices.

Ultimately success involves not only focussing on food safety culture, but rather the culture of the entire

This is shaped by factors such as the nature of the work, physical location, gender, ethnicity, and immigration status. For example, work may be

business – encompassing the way senior management operate the processing environment, the support and respect for employees and their

18 food australia

Food businesses are increasingly being encouraged to improve their food safety culture as a means of enhancing product safety, with the benefits of advancing public health goals and maintaining market access. Introducing a food safety culture predictably focuses on educating employees on company policies and expectations, promoting good food hygiene behaviours, and increasing employee responsibility and accountability for managing the safety of food products.

However, any improvements in food safety will be predicated on all those factors that make up that business’s culture. Sustainable improvements in food safety can only be achieved when employees feel valued, are treated fairly, and supported. For this reason, the introduction of a goaloriented food safety culture requires comprehensive support for employees to perform their roles, the removal of barriers to pro-food safety behaviours, simplified procedures and practices, and an environment that respects workers and actively celebrates their achievements.

References 1. GFSI (2018). A culture of food safety: A position paper from the Global Food Safety Initiative. https://mygfsi.com/wp-content/ uploads/2019/09/GFSI-Food-Safety-CultureFull.pdf 2. Yiannis (2009). Food Safety Culture: Creating a Behavior-Based Food Safety Management System. Springer, New York 3. Codex Alimentarius Commission (2020).

General Principles of Food Hygiene (CXC 1-1969). http://www.fao.org/fao-whocodexalimentarius/codex-texts/codes-ofpractice/en/ 4. Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/382 (2021).

Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs as regards food allergen management, redistribution of food and food safety culture. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ eli/reg/2021/382/oj 5. FDA (2021). New Era of Smarter Food Safety Blueprint. https://www.fda.gov/food/new-erasmarter-food-safety/new-era-smarter-foodsafety-blueprint

Deon Mahoney is Head of Food Safety at Produce Marketing Association (PMA) Australia-New Zealand. f

ADVERTORIAL

Kerry Australia opens new food technology and innovation hub in Queensland Words by Christine Giuliano Kerry, the world’s leading taste and nutrition company has opened a new food technology and innovation centre of excellence in Queensland, Australia.

The Kerry Australia and New Zealand Development and Application Centre, located in Murarrie, Brisbane, will provide end-to-end capabilities for local and regional food manufacturers.

Providing pilot plants, laboratories and tasting facilities under one roof, the centre will help to reduce the time-to-market for new product development and enable and support greater food innovation within the region.

The new Development and Application Centre, Kerry Australia’s new headquarters, will complement the Commercial Connect Centre in Sydney, a specialist research and development application hub. It will pave an economical and efficient path for the commercialisation of new products and focus on Kerry’s Global Initiatives in health and wellness, advancing wellness, sustainability, convenience, affordability and premiumisation.

In the midst of an international food and drink revolution, of which Kerry is at the forefront in anticipating and leading the industry response, the new centre will enable SMEs to access the global market by leveraging the global Kerry brand.

Driving innovation across a global network of world class R&D, insights, and culinary and application expertise to help customers create healthier food and beverage products, many with reduced sugar and sodium and sustainable plant-based proteins.

With a focus on clean labels and a promise to provide more than two billion people with sustainable nutrition solutions, Kerry works with brands whose products are commonly found in Australian

Kerry Cullinary Kitchen in the Kerry ANZ Development and Application Centre located in Murarrie, Brisbane. kitchens, supermarkets, service stations, convenience stores and dining and entertainment venues to deliver natural ingredient and flavour solution The new facility aligns with Kerry’s globally recognised innovation strategy focused on value creation for the consumer, as it reflects changing industry needs and unlocks sector growth opportunities in Australia and New Zealand. It will bring the benefits of Kerry’s global technologies to local food and beverage producers, supporting regional industry development.

The food and beverage industry is Australia’s largest manufacturing sector, and with an annual turnover of $50 billion, it represents more than 18% of total domestic manufacturing turnover. Supported by the Queensland Government’s Advance Queensland Industry Attraction Fund, the $2.5 million investment into the food technology and innovation centre will support the ability of businesses to easily adapt and

respond to rapidly evolving consumer needs and changing business and market conditions. This is one of the major challenges, identified by Food Innovation Australia Limited (FIAL) for the food and beverage industry.

Committed to investing in local talent and developing the next generation of Australian food scientists, the Development and Application Centre will also create ongoing employment opportunities for graduates through Kerry’s Graduate Programme and facilitate placements in a world class centre via partnerships with local universities. www.kerry.com Christine Giuliano is the ANZ General Manager of Kerry, the world’s leading taste and nutrition company. f

food australia 19

SENSORY & CONSUMER SCIENCE FEATURE

FOOD FILES Words by Drs Russell Keast, Gie Liem and Georgie Russell

3D printed foods. Will consumers accept it?

3D printed foods is still in its infancy and mostly confined to prototype construction rather than production of foods for the general population.

There are many potential upsides to 3D printed foods, particularly for subpopulations such as the elderly with eating difficulties, or special foods for people with dysphagia. In theory there is promise for 3D printed meat, creating an environmentally sustainable meat product that has characteristics which closely mimic texture and flavour of muscle from animals.

For 3D printed foods to have a future, consumers must be willing to consume these products. When considering consumers there are multiple hurdles to pass including neophobia (avoidance of new foods), fear of new technologies, and safety concerns. In an exploratory study a group from Acadia University, Canada, had n=133 consumers taste a conventional sweet biscuit and a 3D printed sweet biscuit that was clearly labelled as 3D printed. They evaluated liking and attributes of

20 food australia

the biscuits and were given openended questions to provide opinions of the 3D printed foods. Results showed that after consuming the “3D printed” cookie, the participants were willing to eat 3D printed foods.

The authors suggest that the positive experience of consuming a 3D biscuit transferred generally to other 3D printed foods. The one exception was about safety and acceptability of 3D printed meats with open ended questions revealing consumer concerns. It is unfortunate that there is such consumer resistance to 3D printed meat analogues, but there is potential to have tasting events in supermarkets or central locations to provide consumers an initial positive experience, which hopefully is enough to change perceptions.

Manstan T et al (2021). Consumers attitude to 3D printed foods after a positive experience: An exploratory study. Journal of Sensory Studies 36 e12619. DOI: 10.1111/joss.12619

Overeating as a form of food waste Increasingly it is recognised that diets should promote not only human health, but also planetary health.

Recently Denmark released new dietary guidelines, promoting a diet that positively impacts health as well as being climate-friendly, becoming one of the small number of countries to do so. Reducing food waste is a key component of sustainable diets.

Food waste is defined as food that is discarded due to the behaviours of retailers and consumers, while food loss occurs prior to this during the processes associated with producing and processing foods to be ready for consumption. In developed countries like Australia, food waste is the bigger problem, while the converse is typically true in developing countries. Here, food waste is typically associated with throwing away food due to imperfections, food safety concerns or other reasons such as not using up left-over foods. However, another consideration is metabolic food waste. This is food waste created by consumers eating more calories than they need, and due to excess energy being consumed, is associated with overweight and obesity. An analysis

by Toti et al (2019) has shown that metabolic food waste is vast, and

its associated health and ecological impacts are also enormous. Socalled ‘plate-cleaning’ (finishing all food that has been served) is a key contributing factor to metabolic food waste. As consumers become increasingly aware of, and concerned about food waste, many will be faced with the dilemma of whether to discard extra food, or to ‘plateclean’. One solution to this problem is to teach or help consumers to select appropriate serving sizes. As part of this, there are opportunities for food businesses to offer foods in a range of portion or serving sizes for diverse consumer needs, or to utilise packaging designs that allows consumers to portion size appropriately. This will assist consumers to reduce metabolic food waste, which will benefit both human and planetary health.

Toti, E. Di Mattia, C. Serafini, M. (2019) “Metabolic Food Waste and Ecological Impact of Obesity in FAO World’s Region” Frontiers in Nutrition, 23 August 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnut.2019.00126

Questionnaires v biometrics Food liking and intake can, in large part, be predicted by how much we like a food. When we want to know if people like a food, we can simply ask the question: “how much do you like this food?”. The explicit response can, however, be impacted by people responding with what they feel will be more socially desirable answers, inconsistent scale usage, or the cognitive inability to understand the scale or verbalize the reason why certain foods are chosen and consumed. In addition, food choice and intake are driven by factors which the consumer is, to a greater or lesser extent, unaware. Therefore, explicit methods such as a liking or desire questionnaires might not be the best predictor of food choice and intake. To overcome these issues and to obtain a better insight in the psychophysiological responses to food, researchers have tried to find biometric measurements which could potentially replace questionnaires.

A recent paper in the journal Food Quality and Preference continued

the search. In this experiment researchers obtained data from eye tracking to measure visual attention; electrodermal activity to measure the response of the autonomic nervous system and facial expression, and correlated this to food preference behaviour, food choice and food intake. One hundred normal weight adults first looked at pictures of food while wearing sensors which measured eye movement and fixation, electrodermal activity and facial expression. In addition, participants completed questionnaires which measured expected food liking and expected reward. After which participants were led to a room with a buffet from which they could choose anything they wanted to consume. It was found that eye-tracking was able to distinguish between different foods.

Some foods received more visual attention than others depending on fat content and liking. Those foods which received more visual attention where the foods which were more liked and wanted, and which were more often chosen and consumed during the buffet. This suggests that our visual attention

might be one of the first steps we take in food choice and food intake. Neither the electrodermal responses nor facial expression were able to discriminate between different foods in a meaningful way. In contrast, the questionnaires about liking and wanting were able to discriminate between different foods. This suggests that although questionnaires might be old-fashioned, and biometric measurements are innovative, the old way of doing things is not a bad thing per se. This is not to say that biometric measurements have no place in sensory and consumer research, they most likely will, but we are not there…… yet.

Pedersen H. et al. (2021) Investigation of eye tracking, electrodermal activity and facial expressions as biometric signatures of food reward and intake in normal weight adults. Food Quality and Preference, 93, Oct 2021 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104248

Dr Russell Keast is Professor, Dr Gie Liem is Associate Professor, and Dr Georgie Russell is Senior Lecturer.

They are all members of the CASS Food Research Centre at Deakin University. f

food australia 21

INDUSTRY 4.0 FEATURE

New sensor techologies to measure the quality and integrity of foods Words by Dr Samantha Sawyer

Taste sensors that mimic human tastebuds on the e-tongue (Insent).

I

nstrumental analysis of food quality provides an opportunity to objectively measure taste and aroma without the use of human sensory panels, particularly during process development and quality control. For food, this requires methods and technologies that can consistently and accurately assess food quality using approaches that can be related to human sensory perception. New sensor technologies can generate data reflecting taste and quality but require new forms of data processing and storage to handle the large amounts of raw data that is generated. The datasets can then be used to generate usable information on both the consistency and quality of products by using machine learning and artificial intelligence methods.

This new capability is at the heart of the Industry 4.0 revolution. The University of Tasmania (UTAS) has established Industry 4.0 TestLab: Integrity of Food to assist Australian small to medium enterprises (SMEs) understand how Industry 4.0 can

22 food australia

help drive their competitiveness, both nationally and internationally.

Acquiring and testing the capabilities of electronic tongue taste sensors and electronic nose aroma analysis has been a central part in applying Industry 4.0 to the issue of rapid food quality assessments.

Objective measures of food quality Human sensory panels are the gold standard for food and beverage research and product evaluations.

However, they suffer from lack of accuracy and reproducibility when using small panels and cost and time for both training and testing when using large panels to compensate for variability. This makes sensory panels unsuitable for rapid testing and real time quality control. The availability and sophistication of new technologies to instrumentally measure food taste, aroma, and quality, in general, make it a possibility to replace human sensory panels to accelerate food innovation and quality measurements. Thus,

UTAS acquired several new technologies to objectively measure food quality and produce large datasets that can be analysed by machine learning approaches to understand sample variability and correlate results with human sensory perception. Current approaches are using: 1) electronic tongue (‘e-tongue’), 2) gas chromatographymass spectrometry (GCMS) e-nose with an olfactometry unit and 3) BevScan capable of in-bottle spectral ‘fingerprinting’ of liquids.

The e-tongue developed by Insent: Intelligent Sensor Technology Inc., Japan uses membrane embedded taste sensors first developed by Kyushu University. The commercial system has seven sensors that mimic human taste buds and generates responses to sweetness, saltiness, sourness, umami, astringency (initial and aftertaste), bitterness (acidic and basic as well as initial and aftertaste), and richness. These responses can be used to produce more accurate and repeatable profiles of foods and beverages than trained human

Non-destructive in-bottle analysis using the BevScan (Jeffress Engineering). sensory panels. The responses are integrated to measure the initial

Differences in the spectral responses between samples reflect differences

intensity of each ‘taste’ and then the residual or aftertaste which contributes to our human sensory perception of overall taste.

Aroma is what is perceived in the nose by volatile compounds interacting with our smell receptors.

Headspace GCMS as an e-nose approach, measures the volatile compounds associated with the aroma or smell of foods and beverages and complements the e-tongue that measures tastes. It also has a ‘sniffer port’ attachment so that the aroma of individual compounds can also be assessed to distinguish aroma active from non-aroma active compounds. The GCMS generates highly sensitive, and repeatable profiles of the volatiles in the air above foods and beverages and is automated to enable high throughput analyses. The GC-MS generates highly sensitive, and repeatable profiles of the volatiles in the air above foods and beverages and is automated to enable high throughput analyses. Temperature control at sampling allows both ‘fresh’ and ‘cooked’ aroma profiles to be generated.

The BevScan is a portable Vis-

in composition and the data can be analysed using multivariate statistics or machine learning. The nondestructive nature of the analysis means every product deemed acceptable can be analysed and onsold. It has been used successfully to identify oxidised bottles in a pallet of wine due to faulty seals. To date, BevScan has also been used to monitor secondary fermentation to identify in-bottle fermentations that are not progressing and to distinguish the age of sparkling wines up to 18 months.

NIR instrument which generates a spectral ‘fingerprint’ of liquids such as wine or honey through containers (typically glass or plastic).

following process failures, and to detect development of taints and off-flavours. The high sensitivity of the GCMS is particularly useful for

Applicability of objective measures of food quality Collectively, potential applications include process optimisation, quality control, shelf-life assessments and consumer marketing and segmentation. During food production optimisation, instrumental measures of quality can be used to match profiles during new product development and assess impacts of process changes such as ingredient substitution or variability in raw materials. It can be used to assess and minimise batch-to-batch variations, to aid root cause analysis

applications where early detection or characterisation is valuable. This sensitivity is particularly useful in the assessment of shelf-life aroma changes due to storage and packaging including detection of quality changes, taint generation, or food spoilage, even before the human nose can detect the compounds. Compared to the compositional data from the GCMS, the taste responses from the e-tongue are easier for consumers and those without a technical background to understand. The e-tongue can be used to segment the consumer market based on sensory preferences rather than more typical segmentation methodologies, such as demographics, and has been used to segment the Japanese coffee consumer market based on age, sourness and bitterness, and sales. Commercially, e-tongue profiles are being used to market red wines in Japan. Each profile is available for consumers to compare and contrast against their own individual preferences. As well as its applicability during process optimisation and analysis of shelflife stability, the non-destructive nature of BevScan’s spectral analysis means it could potentially be used along the supply chain and at the consumer end to assure customers of authenticity and traceability.

This could be particularly useful in markets where adulteration and counterfeiting are problematic such as the wine industry. All of this is to aid innovation and commercialisation of new products, improve efficiency in food production systems, and provide better ways to communicate and market food to consumers.

But the greatest potential value is when Industry 4.0 principles such as artificial intelligence are linked to food quality.

Industry 4.0 and food The food and beverage industry has been slower to adopt Industry 4.0 principles into their supply chains than other manufacturing industries but there are some key examples of adoption, such as Nestle’s Chain

food australia 23

INDUSTRY 4.0 FEATURE

Olfactometry unit for detecting and assessing volatile compounds after separation by gas chromatography. of Origin. Single origin coffee can be traced from the micro-lot on farm, through roasting, packing and distribution to the retailers.

Companies such as Winely (NZ) and Fermecraft (VIC, AU) are already using machine learning to monitor and control industrial fermentations.

A five-week TestLab demonstration project during the raspberry growing season paired instrumental measures of quality with a series of on-farm sensors. The sensors monitored conditions such as temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, and air quality, and yield was estimated using new computer vision models (developed by industry partner, Bitwise Agronomy).

Underlying trends have started to appear, and the next step will be big data analytics to help growers better understand the factors affecting fruit quality on their farm.

Research and development benefits Instruments capable of objective measures of food quality, the e-tongue, GCMS, and BevScan can be used by food producers

24 food australia

and processors to expand their research and development activities without the cost impost and ethical considerations of human sensory analysis. In theory, it could allow them to be more exploratory with their processes while helping them to better monitor and ameliorate critical control points by developing digital twins of their processes. Integrating instrumental methods of aroma and taste in the digital twin with human sensory panels and consumer responses with machine learning and artificial intelligence could one day give ‘suggestions’ for how the value chain can be modified to generate new products with particular aroma and taste profiles. This could be applied to the blending of products such as wine and coffee for consistent product profiles despite differences in raw materials due to varied sources and seasonal variation, or to segment the consumer market and create new products for each segment.

The potential for near real-time quality assurance and quality control is incredible. These new methods for measuring quality and Industry

4.0 are the way to help the food industry provide transparency and personalisation to consumers while helping them to optimise their own processes and foster innovation.

If you would like to know more, please visit https://www.utas. edu.au/community-and-industry/ industry-4-0

Useful reading https://www.fpsa.org/news/foodindustry-4-0/ https://foodmag.com.au/industry4-0s-firm-hold-on-iconic-australianbrand/ Dr Samantha Sawyer is a Lecturer and Research Fellow in Food Science at the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture.

After completing a PhD in Industry Biotechnology (Biocatalysis) at the University of Sydney, she has worked as a researcher for the poppy industry and in academia. Her research focus areas are food quality, utilisation of agricultural seconds, and Industry 4.0 concepts including machine learning/ artificial intelligence for predictive and eventually prescriptive analytics. f

FOOD WASTE

If tax settings were recalibrated to incentivise donations to food relief, then the sums would add up for a lot more Australian food businesses.

Tax reform: a smart way to drive reductions in food waste Words by Sarah Pennell

A

t a time when the reduction of food loss and waste has been placed front and centre in the battle to increase sustainability of the food supply, Foodbank Australia, KPMG Australia (KPMG), and the Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre (FFWCRC) are proposing changes to Australia’s taxation legislation so that more food businesses will donate surplus to food relief charities rather than it going to landfill.

Catherine Dean, KPMG Tax Partner, says “Currently, it is often more practical and cost effective for businesses to discard food rather than to donate it. Given that the costs of immediately disposing of food can be far lower than the cost incurred in donating it, and the tax deductions allowed for donating food compared to simply discarding it are the same in many instances, therefore providing no incentive to do the right thing.”

KPMG Partner, Consumer and Retail Sector Lead Robert Poole, said the experience of other countries has shown that the most effective way to support the food industry to do the right thing is via reforms to the tax system. “We can certainly see the benefit of tax reform in this area, in particular it would be a tipping point for the many small food businesses

which want to do the right thing but just don’t have the margins to make it work,” Mr Poole said.

FFWCRC Chief Executive Officer, Dr Steven Lapidge, says that KPMG provided advice to Foodbank Australia as part of a critical project aimed at helping the food relief sector at the same time as addressing the goals of the National Food Waste Strategy of halving food waste by 2030. The proposal has since been submitted to the Treasurer for consideration.

“Australia’s current tax framework does not adequately motivate retailers, manufacturers and producers to donate surplus stock – in fact, it is no better than if they send it to landfill.

This must change. If tax settings were recalibrated to incentivise donations to food relief, it would be a win win,” Dr Lapidge observes.

“Proposed reforms to the tax legislation will increase the volumes of surplus, safe, near date food to food relief and divert it away from landfill, as tax exemptions and deductions have the capacity to incentivise and facilitate meaningful and appropriate giving.”

Foodbank Chief Executive Officer, Brianna Casey, adds that food relief in Australia is a partnership between the charity and food sectors with food donated by industry to food relief organisations being distributed to front

line charities for dissemination to the public.

“But, there is currently not enough food being redirected with only 37% of charities saying they are meeting the full needs of hungry clients. This is a gap that will only increase during the economic recovery from COVID-19 if the need to expand food relief efforts is not addressed. We know there is plenty more food out there for donation. However, it currently just doesn’t make good business sense for a lot of industry to donate this to us”, she says. “If these donations could be incentivised through tax reform, then the sums will add up for a lot more Australian food businesses.”

“At the same time as being an innovative industry-based mechanism to meet the growing demand for food relief and emergency support in Australia, these reforms would assist in reducing food waste and support industry, particularly small enterprises such as farmers, during these tough times.”

A short video on how the tax incentive would work can be viewed here https://fightfoodwastecrc.com. au/project/tax-reform/.

Sarah Pennell is a General Manager at Foodbank Australia responsible for research and development. f

food australia 25

FOOD SAFETY FEATURE

Food safety auditor intern program Words by Fiona Fleming and Dr Barry McGookin

A

ustralia has a good track record and reputation for safe, quality food built up over many years. Our prosperity is tightly bound to maintaining this reputation.

Food production in Australia must meet several regulatory and customer requirements. Compliance with these requirements is typically demonstrated through the auditing of company operations and records.

Individual companies may be audited many times over short time periods for customers or by enforcement agencies. While independent corroboration of compliance is vital, companies continue to produce foods in line with the regulations and food safety principles.

Auditing may be conducted by certification bodies (CBs) who are independent companies accredited by government agencies in the jurisdictions in which they operate.

For example, a CB may conduct a third-party audit, or alternatively

26 food australia

2014

2019

Average number of food safety auditor cohort

49.3

57.6

Number of auditors

216

187

Audit days per year per auditor

122

159

Table 1 = Change in auditor numbers and audit requirements 2014 - 2019. *Values are averages from CBs a customer may audit a supplier directly as a second party audit. CBs can also be engaged to conduct second party audits.

As the food industry transforms to a more connected, digital environment, so too the people, most certainly food safety auditors, will need to adapt from analogue processes to digitally savvy analysts.

The auditors of tomorrow will need to be capable of homogenising artificial intelligence and machine learning based industry data to undertake their interpretive analysis.

surveillance setting. These auditors will effectively be constantly digitally connected in a living compliance assessment program, potentially conducting several assessments in parallel on the same day. In a world with an increasing trust deficit, having auditors who can interpret this new way of working will help enable trust mechanisms critical to maintain business and consumer confidence in the food and beverage sector.

In 2015 the Australian Food and Grocery Council was contracted

At the same time, they will need to transition from traditional audit processes through an immersive environment to a continuous

by Food Innovation Australia Ltd (FIAL) and AusIndustry to conduct a Scoping Project to gather information on food safety auditing

of industry and the associated costs and gaps for businesses.

Among the specific issues identified, auditor availability and competencies across all food categories was highlighted as an increasing challenge. The reducing numbers of auditors has impacts on time, compliance, and costs. The change in auditor numbers and audit requirements is shown in Table 1.

The challenges identified 1. Food safety auditor age is increasing with retirements now an emerging factor 2. Qualified food safety auditor numbers in Australia are declining resulting in an increased workload for remaining auditors 3. Declining numbers of auditors is increasing the difficulty of scheduling audits at the required frequency for compliance to the standards 4. Auditor skill set is changing due to increasing variety of standards and retailer addendums expected to be reviewed during an audit as well as an increasing complexity and areas of interest within standards, for example - food defence, food fraud, information security, animal welfare criteria 5. Food safety auditing is not seen as a career option for graduates or most of the technical professionals in food manufacturing and supply chains 6. The impact of COVID-19 has seen audits move from the real world to the virtual world. While the virtual auditing world will most certainly become part of the future fabric of food safety, the auditors of tomorrow will need to go a step further and be required to be capable of homogenising artificial intelligence and machine learning based industry data to undertake their interpretive analysis. At the same time, they will need to transition from traditional audit processes through an immersive environment to a continuous surveillance setting.

7. There is currently no systemic

approach to developing an auditor pipeline.

FIAL is working with key industry stakeholders to develop a program to address the challenges identified.

Program outcomes 1. Attraction to Food Safety auditing career path has been tested and supported by food science /food technology students, universities, and industry 2. Raise industry awareness of the challenge of attracting new and younger professionals to food safety auditing 3. In a world with an increasing trust deficit, having auditors who can

interpret this new way of working will help enable trust mechanisms critical to restore business and consumer confidence in the food and beverage sector.

If you are interested in learning more about this initiative or becoming involved, please contact Fiona Fleming at the AIFST (aifst@aifst. com.au).

Fiona Fleming is Chief Executive Officer, AIFST and Dr Barry McGookin is General Manager of Innovation at the Food and Agribusiness Growth Centre, trading as FIAL. f

food australia 27

HEALTH & NUTRITION FEATURE

Rice: a healthy option Words by Dr Rachelle Ward

Sunset in the Riverina as key SunRice clientele inspect freshly harvested rice . Image courtesy of SunRice.

A

lmost every research article on rice begins by highlighting the importance of rice as the staple grain for more than half the world’s population. In Australia, we currently consume about 14kg of table rice each year, equivalent to a total of 340,000 tonnes of milled rice.1 The high demand for rice was most evident during the initial outbreak of COVID-19 when panic buying led Australian supermarkets to introduce limits on rice purchases alongside other essential commodities.

Due to the popularity of rice in Australia and globally, it is an ideal commodity to deliver population-wide health gains to combat the rising incidence of noncommunicable health conditions (e.g. cardiovascular diseases, cancers, respiratory diseases and diabetes).

Non-communicable conditions include those linked to modifiable behaviours such as diet, smoking and inactivity. The incidence and cost of treating non-communicable conditions is rising globally and in Australia. At the time of writing the

28 food australia

Australian Government Department of Health were finalising the National Obesity Strategy and Preventative Health Strategy and reviewing the Australian Dietary Guidelines to address these issues.2,3,4 Common to all activities is the need to ‘ensure our food system favours the production of healthy and sustainable products’.2

Rice quality in Australia For more than 50 years the NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) Rice Breeding and Quality Program has bred rice varieties relevant to the local climate, resource availability and consumer expectations.5 This clear vision to integrate quality into all breeding selections improves market opportunities and grower profits.

Each year, advice to optimise yield and quality of nine varieties of Australian bred rice is provided to growers across the Murrumbidgee and Murray Irrigation Areas.6 These varieties include a range of rice quality types that you can expect to purchase at your local supermarket.

Rice quality is typically defined in context of its physical appearance and cooking qualities. Physical appearance of rice is typically described by grain shape (short, medium, long and bold), colour (white if milled and various if unmilled) and uniformity (no broken or immature grains). Cooking qualities describe the composition of the rice (amylose and protein content), texture of cooked rice (fresh and re-heated), temperature the rice begins to absorb water and fragrance profile. Different combinations of these physical and cooking qualities traits underpin the various quality types available in supermarkets. From soft-cooking short grains to firm-cooking long grains, there is a rice quality type for almost every cuisine.

Australian low GI rice With improving health literacy around food choice, consumers are seeking healthy alternatives within the same food category.

The two widely accepted healthy

rice choices consumers seek are brown or coloured rice as a source of antioxidants and fibre and low GI rice to improve energy levels.7 However, the only certified low GI rice consumers can reach for in Australian supermarkets is the long grain, firm cooking variety Doongara.

By introducing certified Australian grown low GI white alternatives in other rice quality classes, there is enormous potential for rice to deliver population wide health advantages.

Building capacity for low GI rice selections As consumer expectations evolve, so too do the range of quality traits that need to be considered when breeding new rice varieties. Breeding a new rice variety can take up to 10 years. Early generation selections are typically based on molecular markers and quality traits that can be measured on very small sample sizes. By mid-generation, there is sufficient sample size and purity to conduct physical and eating quality evaluations. Evaluation in later generations focuses on the stability of traits across locations, allows associated agronomic packages to be finessed and confirms quality selections on a commercial scale sample size. Each of these stages is an opportunity to introduce or create methods to select for low GI lines.

Implementation or development of methods should ideally satisfy the sample, seasonal and economic constraints of a breeding program.

Two approaches to achieve this are: either be sufficiently high-throughput and cost effective to assess up to five thousand breeding lines within the three to four month window between rice harvest and sowing, or validate quality traits of interest with molecular markers to enable early generation marker selections.

To build capacity to select for low GI rice within the breeding and quality program, three collaborative research projects targeted at early, mid and late breeding generations were established. Collaborations included researchers and students

from a range of disciplines including food scientists, polymer chemists, instrument scientists, cereal chemists and breeders as well as industry partners involved in the commercialisation and certification of rice as a low GI product.

Both the early and late generation targeted projects focused on the adoption of in vitro screening methods to suit constraints of the breeding program. The early generation screening project optimised a high-throughput, small sample size in vitro method that uses common lab equipment to rank the digestibility of samples. The project targeted at late generations used a genetically diverse sample set to validate an in vitro method against the in vivo method required for low GI certification.

The mid generation research project focused more on the characterisation of starch structure at each level of starch organisation.

Relating neighbouring levels of starch structure was novel, then linking this information to digestibility created an entire suite of potential low GI selection options.

Low GI is one of many quality targets when developing a new variety, so there is also merit in using existing methods and processes to illuminate breeding lines that are also low GI. This has already been done with some success. By identifying anomalies both within and between quality traits, several breeding lines have been identified with low GI potential.

What’s next?

Implementation of new methods in a breeding program scenario often requires a method to be scaled up from measuring tens to hundreds, even thousands, of samples. With this comes a myriad of practical considerations around sample preparation, equipment usage and maintenance, and data analysis.

Even more important is to consider if promising results based on ten samples remain valid for a larger and potentially more diverse sample set.

Low GI is just one of many quality traits that consumers look for, so it is important that low GI rice also tastes great. Additional research may be required when low GI selections compete against other quality goals such as physical and eating qualities.

Or in other words, is it possible to have a low GI option in every rice quality type?

A greater focus on selecting for quality traits with a molecular marker or combination of markers is required. The establishment of a reliable method to select for promising low GI lines, creates an opportunity to identify linkages with markers that can best explain the low GI trait.

The search for cheaper, faster and more accurate ways to characterise rice quality traits including low GI is ongoing. Researchers in the NSW DPI rice team welcome collaborative opportunities that enhance the Breeding and Quality Program5 and support the Rice R&D strategy.8 Sincere thanks to research and funding collaborators at NSW Department of Primary Industries, Sunrice, AgriFutures and FIAL, GI Foundation, The University of Sydney, Western Sydney University, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and Charles Sturt University.

References 1. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/ research-topics/agricultural-outlook/ data#2020 2. https://consultations.health.gov.au/populationhealth-and-sport-division/national-obesitystrategy/ 3. https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/ publishing.nsf/Content/national-preventivehealth-strategy 4. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health-advice/ nutrition/australian-dietary-guidelines-review 5. https://www.agrifutures.com.au/relatedprojects/australian-rice-partnership-2/ 6. https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/ broadacre-crops/summer-crops/ricedevelopment-guides/rice-variety-guide 7. https://www.gisymbol.com/ 8. https://www.agrifutures.com.au/product/ rice-program-five-year-rdande-plan-2016-17to-2021-22/

Rachelle Ward is a Cereal Chemist with NSW DPI where she is a member of the Grain Quality Group https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/ agriculture/grain-quality-group. f

food australia 29

AUSTRALIA’S AGRI-FOOD SYSTEM FEATURE

Maximising Australian agri-food through an integrated approach to value addition Words by Dr. Mirjana Prica

T

here is increasing awareness of the agri-food sector’s untapped potential, and persistent debate on how to realise it. There are those advocating for the continued export of raw and minimally transformed agri-food products. In contrast, it is argued that this focus on trade in raw products is sacrificing opportunities for value creation. Research by the Food and Agribusiness Growth Centre, trading as FIAL, shows that if the agri-food sector is to realise its potential, it cannot focus on raw or processed products in isolation, it must work as an integrated value chain.

An integrated approach to unlock potential For the agri-food sector to maximise its economic contribution, it must know its potential. The National Farmers Federation (NFF) $100B target has increased awareness of pre-farmgate’s untapped potential.

However, focusing on half the value chain will not unlock the sector’s full potential.

Established under the Australian Government’s Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda to catalyse growth for the agri-food sector’s 180,000 businesses, FIAL is the only organisation with this whole-ofvalue-chain perspective. Recognising a gap in the information available to inform industry, business, and policy makers, FIAL commissioned strategic economics consultancy firm, AlphaBeta based in Singapore, to quantify the potential value of the whole agri-food value chain – pre- and post-farmgate – by 2030.

FIAL found that the agri-food sector has the potential to reach $200B by 2030. In reaching this conclusion, 10 future trends and 19

30 food australia

Figure 1: Impacts of the 10 future trends on pre- and post-farmgate activities. growth opportunities were identified.

FIAL’s research has subsequently played a key role in guiding the development of the Australian Government’s Food and Beverage Roadmap, recently released under the $1.3B Modern Manufacturing Initiative.

Whereas the $100B target set by the NFF focused only on prefarmgate potential, FIAL’s analysis covers the whole value-chain. The second difference between the two sets of research are the metrics used; NFF’s target is based on ‘economicopportunity’, whereas FIAL’s is based on ‘value-add opportunity’.

Future trends FIAL’s research identified 10 future trends as having important implications for the Australian agrifood sector over the coming decade, highlighted in Figure 1.

FIAL found that the 10 future trends will impact the pre- and post-farmgate components of the value chain differently, as illustrated in Figure 1. Most of the future trends

will create significant opportunities for post-farmgate and challenges for pre-farmgate.

Growth opportunities FIAL’s research identified the 19 growth opportunities shown in Figure 2. The growth opportunities fall into four categories: the future consumer, food security and sustainability, enhanced production and value addition, and a global marketplace.

Implications for pre- and post-farmgate activities The current $61B value of the sector is made up of a 57% contribution from pre-farmgate and 43% from postfarmgate activities. In 2018-19, 45% of the sector’s employment and 63% of the sector’s exports were from postfarmgate activities. The ten future trends and 19 growth opportunities will see post-farmgate activities contributing a greater share of the $200B potential value-added by 2030 than pre-farmgate activities, as shown in Figure 3.

Pursuing both pre- and postfarmgate opportunities will create several synergies that will support growth across the value chain: a. Post-farmgate activities grow demand for pre-farmgate activities: many of the post-farmgate opportunities support growth in pre-farmgate production. For example, direct-to-consumer models are a post-farmgate opportunity that facilitates growth in pre-farmgate production. b. Market information informing product mix to capture more value-added: an integrated value chain can quickly relay market information and demand trends to pre-farmgate production to capture greater value-added opportunities. c. Greater opportunities to strengthen supply chain resilience: pre-farmgate activities and locally produced inputs could strengthen Australia’s domestic processing capabilities.

The current operating environment is radically different to what it was 18 months ago, let alone what it was 20-50 years ago. Yet the way we operate has not changed. It is time to review how we operate and whether we are fit for our new future. It is time to review how we operate, and honestly question whether we are fit-for-purpose for the future. That includes how we operate individually, and how we come together. Are we working collectively to grow and produce food, or just to grow raw commodities? Do we need to modify our supply chain arrangements? Do they help or hinder to reaching our potential?

We need to work as a value chain, pooling our collective expertise to focus on targeted growth, value adding and the opportunities that will position us strongly to respond to future trends. We need to work as one industry, not multiple industries working separately often at cross purposes. We need to refocus efforts away from a production focus, towards a market and consumer focus, ensuring we are continuing to meet their requirements, demand, and

Figure 2: The 19 growth opportunities available to the agri-food sector.

Figure 3: The current and future economic potential of Australia’s agri-food sector. continue to be viewed as a source of premium quality food and fibre around the world.

Agri-food has an important role to play in driving Australia’s economic recovery over the next decade. FIAL’s analysis confirms that the answer to the question of how the sector can maximise its economic contribution is an ‘and’, not an ‘or’, as traditionally positioned. An integrated value chain approach is essential to unlocking the $200B of value-add and 300,000 jobs available to the sector by 2030.

2. CSIRO (2017), Food and Agribusiness: A roadmap for unlocking value-adding growth opportunities for Australia, retrieved 7 April 2021, from https://www.csiro.au/en/Dobusiness/Futures/Reports/Ag-and-Food/Foodand-Agribusiness-Roadmap 3. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2021), Trade Statistical Pivot Tables, retrieved 7 April 2021, from https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/ publications/trade-statistical-pivot-tables 4. Food Innovation Australia Limited (2020), Capturing the prize: the $A200 billion opportunities in 2030 for the Australian food and agribusiness sector, retrieved 7 April 2021, from https://workdrive.zoho.com.au/file/qx576 9e1e310483ee4389b5d9f6cc55e768fe 5. Greenville, J, Duver, A, and Bruce, M (2020), Value creation in Australia through agricultural exports: Playing to advantages, ABARES Insights, issue 11, retrieved 7 April 2021, from https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resourcefiles/2020-12/apo-nid310348.pdf

References 1. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Resources (2001), Getter a better return: Inquiry into increasing value added to Australian raw materials, retrieved 7 April 2021, from https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj1343939727/view?partId=nla.obj-1349958672

Dr Mirjana Prica is Managing Director, The Food and Agribusiness Growth Centre (FIAL). f

food australia 31

FEATURE& NUTRITION HEALTH

‘Nutritional capsules’ in plant foods let’s keep it intact Words by Dr Sushil Dhital

P

lant foods, specifically cereals, tubers, legumes etc., are ‘nutrient storage’ for offspring germination. During germination, the shoots get nutrients from the seeds until their roots are grown, can absorb the required nutrients from the soil and have sufficient leaves for photosynthesis. Nature has evolved these seeds with the hierarchy of structure that provides slow and continuous nutrient supply until the shoots become independent as “plants.” These hierarchies of the structure in plant foods, more specifically in cereals and legumes, also provide balanced nutrition throughout the gastrointestinal tract (GI tract) in humans.

Considering the complex structure of the human GI tract, it is evident that humans are not evolved for consuming processed or high protein foods. The GI tract of carnivorous animals is short (3-5 times the head to anus distance) but has efficient protein digestion capability (extremely low pH in the stomach). However, the human GI tract is longer (>10 times the head to anus distance) and is designed to slowly extract and absorb nutrients from complex foods.

32 food australia

Furthermore, in contrast to carnivores, the active fermentation in the colon of undigested foods (primarily fibres), is essential in maintaining overall human health.

Whilst our GI tract and body physiology remain the same as our ancestors, eating habits have massively evolved. The food we consume today is either highly processed (fine particle size; pre-cooked) or has an unbalanced amount of nutrients (e.g., excessive simple carbohydrates, sugars, proteins, lipids) affecting the overall health.

Unhealthy diets and eating habits are linked to increased metabolic diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases.

Whole vs refined grains The natural hierarchy of structure in plant-based foods can be preserved in diverse ways - first and foremost is to avoid the excessive milling of grains to retain their natural form.

Research has shown that compared to finely milled grains, coarsely milled, or intact grains, (e.g., bread) have a lower glycemic response due to the physical barrier to digestive enzymes to access the starch molecules in intact grain particles. Further, the residence

time of intact grains in the stomach is longer than refined grains that turn to soft liquidly mass and flow to the small intestine more quickly. It is noted that the glycemic response of wholemeal bread (prepared from milled whole grains) and white bread are similar.1 However, wholemeal bread provides numerous health benefits down the GI tract due to a comparatively high amount of fibre, phytochemicals, and micronutrients, primarily associated with the bran layer. White bread (refined bread) is always more energy dense compared to wholemeal bread.

The choice should follow the order of whole grain> wholemeal>white bread.

Worldwide, dietary regulators emphasise the consumption of whole grain and wholemeal flours instead of refined or finely processed flourbased foods. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) Standard 1.1.22 defines ‘whole grain’ food as a product that has every part of the grain (outer layers, bran, germ, and endosperm) even if these parts are separated during processing. This definition is similar to several other definitions proposed by the Whole Grain Council3 and the American Association of Cereal Chemists International.4 ‘Refined

grain’ is the term used to refer to grains that are not whole because they are missing one or more of their three key parts (bran, germ, or endosperm). White flour and white rice are refined grains, for instance, because both have had their bran and germ removed, leaving only the endosperm. In Australia, the Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council (GLNC) has developed three whole grain ingredient content claims (contains whole grain; high in whole grain; very high in whole grain) based on industry-endorsed minimum whole grain content levels of 8g, 16g and 24g of whole grain per manufacturer defined serve.5 The nutritional functionality of whole grain comes from the intact structure of the grains. Although the chemical composition of wholemeal flour and whole grains are the same, the functionality is different. Thus, in the author’s view, the current generalisation of structured grain to being similar to milled whole grains (wholemeal) is not scientifically justifiable. A definition that includes the ‘grain structure’ needs to be adopted to differentiate ‘wholemeal flours’ from ‘whole grain.’

Figure 1: Hierarchy of structure in plant foods and its nutritional functionality.

Figure 2: In vitro digestion of intact cells (structured food) and broken cells (less structured foods).

Nutritional capsules in plant foods - barrier and binding effects We studied how the intact structure of cereals/legumes endosperm and cotyledon affects the glycemic response and the gut microbial response in in-vitro conditions.

Figure 1 shows the hierarchy of structure of chickpea.

Whole grains are made from interlinked tissue structure, which are further made up of single-round/ hexagonal units called cells. Each cell contains starch, proteins and lipids based on the type of grains.

For example, in chickpea, most of the cellular content is starch and protein, whereas in nuts such as peanuts, the majority of enclosures are lipid and protein. The cell is enclosed in cell walls, the non-starch polysaccharide components (dietary fibre) mainly composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, and pectin.

Figure 3: Intact raw cells (top and bottom - left) showing the granular birefringent starch; intact cooked cells (top and bottom - middle) showing the residual birefringent starch; partially ripe banana showing the intact starch granules (top right); the difference between in-vitro starch digestion in raw and cooked starch (bottom right) To understand the barrier provided by the individual cells, we isolated the intact cells by using the physical method. The intact cells are the lowest “structured” unit in plant foods. The isolated intact cells were subjected to enzymic hydrolysis mimicking intestinal digestion. The broken cells were taken as an example of finely milled flours. As shown in Figure 2, the starch digestion in intact cells is very low (less than 5%), but once the cells are broken, the starch digestion increased up to 50%. The in-vitro starch digestion can

be related to the ‘glycemic response’ after consumption of starchy foods.

This clearly shows the importance of food structure in the modulation of glycemic response. We studied the mechanisms, how the intact cells lower the starch digestion and proposed the two mechanisms: a) barrier effect and b) binding effect.6 The barrier effect refers to the inability of digestive enzymes such as alpha-amylase to penetrate the cell wall barriers due to the limited porosity of cell walls. This suggests that if the

food australia 33

HEALTH & NUTRITION FEATURE

food structure is kept intact, e.g. in the case of legumes, the chances of starch hydrolysing to glucose in the small intestine is lower compared to finely milled flour where the structure is broken.

Along with the barrier effect on enzyme diffusion, the intact cells provide a barrier for water diffusion and complete swelling of starch during cooking. We found that intact cells retained integrity during cooking and the starch inside the cooked cells were still birefringent which indicates the retention of the native starch crystallinity. In the absence of an intact cell wall (e.g. in finely milled flours), the free starch is ‘pasted’ and lose all their molecular order. These starches are more glycemic compared to raw granular starch. The health benefit

starch inside the intact cells is termed ‘resistant starch’. The outer cell walls and resistant starch are both dietary fibres. For the overall mechanisms, readers are referred to the author’s recent publication Natural capsule in food plants: cell wall porosity controls starch digestion and fermentation.7

of partially ripe banana comes from the presence of raw granular starch (Figure 3). So intact cells, to some extent, provide the ‘structured’ starch and is less digestible compared to fully pasted (cooked) starch, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 3.

The binding effect refers to the noncatalytic binding of enzymes to cell wall surfaces. The digestive enzymes, in fact, are non-catalytically attached

associated with the up-regulation of satiety hormones, increasing both short-term and long-term satiety.

SCFAs are also known to contribute to immune function as well as have an anti-inflammatory function.8 The rate of fermentation depends upon the source of fibre and is important as it also determines the site of fermentation.9 Based on the chemistry and density of packing, the

slow rate compared to the control (fructo-oligosaccharide). The starch treated at 60 °C (resembling the partially cooked starch) is fermented at an almost equal rate to the cell walls and slower than the cooked (pasted) starch (80 °C and 100 °C).

to the surface of the fibres and thus are unable to hydrolyse the macronutrients.6 This will lead to lower glycemic responses. The undigested

soluble fibre is more rapidly fermented than densely packed insoluble fibre like wheat bran and cellulose, which predominately gives the majority of

of structure. Thus, the design of food processing techniques that preserve the intactness of the natural capsules is necessary to deliver

34 food australia

Nutritional capsules in plant foods - colonic fermentation The intact cells not digested in the small intestine are now excursed to the large intestine. They are fermented by indigenous colonic microorganisms that utilise dietary fibre as a substrate for energy. The colonic fermentation of fibre produces short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) such as butyrate, acetate and propionate.

The SCFA in the large colon is also

bulking. However, for better colonic health, a balance between these two fibres is necessary as the combination provides a sufficient carbon source for active carbohydrate-based fermentation throughout the large intestine. The rate of fermentation of resistant starch falls between the soluble fibre and insoluble fibre, thus providing the carbon substrate to the microorganisms throughout the colon. The in-vitro fermentation of intact cells processed at various temperatures (Figure 4, left) and starch (processed at various temperature), cell wall, and the isolated proteins (Figure 4, right) are presented below. The rapidly fermentable fructo-oligosaccharide is taken as control. It is clearly seen the intact cells are fermented at a very

Conclusion The nutritional benefits of plant foods come from the intactness

Figure 4: The figure (left) shows the in-vitro fermentation of intact cells cooked at various temperature (60, 80, 100°C) compares with rapidly fermentable oligosaccharides. The figure at the right shows the in-vitro fermentation of cooked starch, raw starch, cell wall, and isolated proteins.10 foods’ functionality. The author and his collaborators have developed the isolation methods of intact cells and are progressing towards developing intact cells as commercially viable functional ingredients that can be applied to many bakeries, and dairy as frozen and liquid products. Research is ongoing towards understanding intact cells on glycemic response and colonic fermentation, including the

production of short-chain fatty acids and shift in microbiota.

References

1. Jenkins, D., Wesson, V., Wolever, T., Jenkins, A. L., Kalmusky, J., Guidici, S., Csima, A., Josse, R. G., & Wong, G. S. (1988). Wholemeal versus wholegrain breads: proportion of whole or cracked grain and the glycaemic response. BMJ, 297, 958-960.

2. FSANZ. (2017). Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – Standard 1.1.2 – Definitions used throughout the Code.

3. Whole Grains Council (2004). Official definition of whole grains, cited on 2/06/2021 https://

wholegrainscouncil.org/definition-whole-grain 4. AACCI. (1999). Whole grain definition. Cereal Foods World, 45-79.

5. GLNC (2020). Code of practice for whole grain ingredient content claims. https://www.glnc.org. au/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GLNC-Codeof-Practice-Handbook_2020.pdf 6. Dhital, S., Bhattarai, R. R., Gorham, J., & Gidley, M. J. (2016). Intactness of cell wall structure controls the in vitro digestion of starch in legumes. Food & Function, 7, 1367-1379.

7. Li, H.-T., Chen, S.-Q., Bui, A. T., Xu, B., & Dhital, S. (2021). Natural ‘capsule’ in food plants: cell wall porosity controls starch digestion and fermentation. Food Hydrocolloids, 106657.

8. Topping, D. L., & Clifton, P. M. (2001). Shortchain fatty acids and human colonic function: roles of resistant starch and nonstarch polysaccharides. Physiological Reviews, 81, 1031-1064.

9. Gidley, M. J. (2013). Hydrocolloids in the digestive tract and related health implications.

Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, 18, 371-378.

10. Huang, Y., Dhital, S., Liu, F., Fu, X., Huang, Q., & Zhang, B. (2021). Cell Wall Permeability of Pinto Bean Cotyledon Cells Regulates In Vitro Fecal Fermentation and Gut Microbiota. Food & Function, https://doi.org/10.1039/D1FO00488C

Dr Sushil Dhital is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Monash University, Victoria, Australia. The author can be contacted at sushil.dhital@monash. edu for further information. f

Improve your business and embrace innovation BSI, your business improvement partner Accelerate innovation, improve efficiency and manage risks with BSI, your business improvement partner. We have shaped best practice for over 100 years, helping organizations around the world embed excellence for sustainable growth.

We can help any business of any size with our expertise and knowledge, delivered through ongoing training, certification, information and performance tools. Want to find out more?

Get in touch with our experts.

For more information Visit: bsigroup.com/en-au or call: 1300 730 134

food australia 35

INCUBATORS

What’s been cooking in Seedlab?

Words by Dr Hazel MacTavish-West

First Harvest - The Bounty of Produce on the Table at First Harvest – when the first ‘crop’ of Cultivators Graduated.

I

n early 2020, shortly after Seedlab Tasmania (Seedlab) had been launched, we contributed a story to this journal about the program and its aims.1 Well…. things sure have been cooking since then.

Seedlab is a unique incubator program which has provided startup Tasmanian food, drink and agritourism businesses with the real world, practical expertise, business support and training required to start, scale and grow to be export-ready, throughout 2020 and 2021. In addition to sponsorship from organisations including Woolworths, the University of Tasmania and Regional Development Corporations in Tasmania, Seedlab has been supported by the Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources through Incubator Support initiative funding as part of the Entrepreneurs’ Program.

This sponsorship is real and valued.

Sixteen of our startups recently presented themselves and their products to senior Woolworths staff

36 food australia

from Sydney Head Office, plus Group and Store Managers from across Tasmania. The Seedlab Woolworths Tassie Taste and Talks Pitch Fest was vibrant, vocal and useful, with several new listings currently under discussion.

One of the most valuable offerings of Seedlab has been ‘Live in Conversation’ where a ‘Global Guru’, or a ‘Local Legend’ comes to Seedlab HQ and has a cuppa and chat with me and with our Seedlabbers participating via Zoom.

The conversations have been open, honest and generous. So far we have chatted with Anthony Houston (Houston’s Farm), Ruby Daly (Hellfire Bluff Distillery), Sam Trethewey (Tasmanian Ag Co) and Ben Crowley (Bulk Nutrients). With Richard Clark (Westerway Raspberry Farm), Susie Daly (Daly Potato Co.), and Lyn Radford of Chobani joining us soon.

Since it began, the Seedlab program has been consistently oversubscribed. Businesses in the program grow, make and share everything from regenerative agriculture beef, to mushrooms, rum, tofu, cheese and

pickled walnuts. We have also worked with a diverse selection of agritourism businesses including New Norfolk Distillery, Guide Falls Farm, Campo de Flori, Tunnel Hill Mushrooms and Plenty Cider. Next week, 28 new food, drink and agritourism businesses are about to start incubating in our third (and final, with current funding) Bootcamp program, bringing the total number of Tasmanian start-up businesses we’ve incubated to 105.

The program Seedlab Tasmania is a unique program, demonstrably different from other business support resources available. The core of Seedlab is a hands-on mentoring and support program provided by experienced people who have previously ‘walked the walk’. We work with people, on their businesses.

Seedlab provides a three-phase program, with all content built around a Lean Canvas framework, covering core business skills and specific topics to help diverse businesses start, scale and grow.

The three phases are:

Bootcamp is an introductory program, delivered over two weeks via 16 hours of live, online and additional on-demand pre-recorded content. Of the businesses that have undertaken Bootcamp, approximately 30% are invited to progress to Cultivate because they are ready to press ‘go’ on their business growth ambitions.

Cultivate is all about scaling and growth. It is an intense Accelerator program, delivered over six months, with a mix of live online and one-onone coaching to help participants develop business skills and their specific proposition - specifically developing a Minimum Viable Product, market testing this, and progressing to being investor-ready.

The program covers a broad range of topics including both business skills and specific topics relevant to the businesses involved.

We have covered food technology issues, nutritional and health claims, packaging, branding, intellectual property, marketing, ecommerce, social media, videography, pitching, presentation skills, export and other sales channels, and financials. You name it, we’ve had a session or three on it. We have a vibrant mix of live, online, formal and informal, and face-to-face delivery. All of our online content is recorded and is available on-demand for listen again, with worksheets and other resources via our online Learning Management System, The Seedlab Academy.

Propagate are our masterclasses.

These are delivered by topic specialists on a wide range of topics, designed to engage and connect with the wider food and beverage ecosystem in Tasmania, Australia and globally. We’ve already covered topics as diverse as sustainable packaging, virtual reality supermarkets, and consumer sensory testing, with many more to come. Participation, engagement, connections and feedback has been outstanding, with many subsequent actions, demonstrating benefits for speakers, and participants.

Specific Masterclasses and other

events can be seen here: https:// seedlabtasmania.eventbrite.com.au

Seedlab Village

Outcomes

Our first crop of ‘Cultivators’ had this to say about their continued involvement in our Seedlab Village:

Outcomes from Seedlab Tasmania have been extremely positive, and our website and social media (FB: @ SeedlabTasmania IG: @seedlabtas) are a testament to this. Key learnings identified by participants include improved business confidence, knowledge and skills, vision and goals for the future, sustainability and profitability.

Outcomes are best illustrated by example.

• New businesses have been established and are now thriving.

The Pop-Up Providore in New Norfolk, for example, arose from an idea at the first Launceston Bootcamp session, and is now expanding into an unused retail space in New Norfolk and building employment and sales opportunities for other local businesses.

“I feel like we have a much better idea of our core brand story, values, and this permeates into everything else we do now.” Clara Ho, New Norfolk Distillery.

• People invested in their businesses and developed new facilities and services - for example, Guide Falls Farm invested in their agritourism venture in North-West Tasmania and now employ up to twelve new staff.

“Gamechanger for our business - really propelled us forward and has been a huge support for us in a big growth phase for our business.

The value of Cultivate is priceless”.

Rachel, Guide Falls Farm.

• Others built local connections and synergies. Lisa at Campo de Flori started organising Art Trails in the Huon Valley and is now leading activity in that area.

“I feel like a real business. I’m more confident in what we are offering and have a plan to go forward and know where I can go for help and or resources” Lisa, Campo de Flori.

• Yet others expanded their sales: MAK Draught Coffee recently

• “Exactly that, the village.

Knowing there is someone who has been there and done that and give you personal advice or encouragement. Knowing there is support and a cheer squad just a zoom or FB message away”.

Anita Crook, Tasmanian Kitchen Pantry.

• “Keeping me motivated to keep developing my products and business”. Chris Stafferton, Bread Architect.

• “It’s exactly the connectedness of the village. It was so great to run in to one of our Alumni at a recent event and have a good old chat. Even just connecting our Seedlab people with various places as we travel around feels like we are part of something special”. Dr Julie Martyn, Artisa.

• “Apart from the knowledge gained from talks/classes etc, it is the knowing that there are others to be able to talk to/listen to who are in a similar situation and can help with advice as and when needed”. Rachel Tulloch, Seedsations. launched in Woolworths, and Red Cow Organics is about to do the same, with many other businesses expanding their supplies to local and national retail outlets. A new export-ready Baijiu brand has also been developed (https://www. sanyou.com.au/) “Much clearer vision of my business, in all aspects. I have a great network to call on for basically any issue. There have been great real opportunities to create connections that will help my business”. Ian, Sanyou Baijiu.

Seedlab Tasmania has already taken over 100 entrepreneurial Tasmanian agri-food businesses on a journey to learn tools and techniques to channel their passion into credible business

food australia 37

INCUBATORS

Andy Jackman at Red Cow Organics making her Triple Cream Brie cheese.

opportunities that are profitable and sustainable. The program was designed to develop exportready businesses, but during these unprecedented times, has re-oriented to focus on the tools and techniques required to survive and become more profitable and sustainable in the first instance.

Participants have felt supported, empowered and enabled to take action to help grow their businesses despite a global pandemic, challenging family and personal situations, and bushfires (particularly in Tasmania’s rural communities).

It has become evident that the desire to start new businesses or enterprises is increasing, especially in the light of recovery from commercial instability through COVID-19 and bushfire events over recent years.

In particular, it has been recognised that a significant number of the businesses that approach Seedlab are

regionally located and/or primarily driven by women (65%) looking to cement control over their own future or carve out areas of personal responsibility within existing rural, generational businesses.

The Seedlab program is recognised by its major sponsors, Woolworths, the University of Tasmania and other bodies including Brand Tasmania, as delivering real value to the State, via its practical, repeatable and scalable model, which is based on best practice commercial reality.

If your region would benefit from a Seedlab program, please talk to me.

References 1. MacTavish-West, H. (2020) ‘From little things, big things grow – a new incubator down under’ food australia, Vol.72(2), p.46

Dr Hazel MacTavish-West is Founder of Seedlab Tasmania.

She can be contacted at: hello@ seedlabtasmania.com.au f

THE

GLOBAL LEADERS

IN PEST MANAGEMENT AND HYGIENE Advancing food safety through: •

Digital Capability

•

Revolutionary Solutions

•

Unrivaled scientific research

•

Consistent global service

•

90+ years of experience

38 food australia

initial.com/au

rentokil.com/au

1300 73 1234

1300 307 825

CONVENTION

AIFST would like to thank our 2021 Convention Partners Gold Partner

Silver Partners

Bronze Partners

Support Partners

food australia 39

PACKAGING

Innovative packaging of fresh food products Words by Dr Matthew Wilson

F

ood packaging is an invaluable part of fresh food systems. It contains and protects fresh food products and can add convenience to consumers while also communicating its quality and value. Key trends and innovations for optimising sustainable food packaging are highlighted below.

Shelf-life extension and safety Packaging has an important role in food safety, in both protecting food from contamination, and in actively preventing contaminants from spreading. Trends towards longer shelf-life of foods, longer supply chains, and the desire for year-round supply are increasing the need for technologies in shelf-life extension such as packaging. This extension could be achieved through active packaging, where antimicrobial gases and other compounds can be released into packaging or are incorporated into the packaging itself to aid in preservation. Sachets that remove or reduce levels of oxygen, carbon dioxide and ethylene can all aid in

40 food australia

the preservation of foods. Intelligent packaging is also available, giving the consumer critical information on the environment inside the packaging.

These in-pack sensors can accurately monitor atmospheric conditions or the microbial load of food, providing a more reliable estimate of shelf-life beyond a pre-calculated use-by-date.1

Sustainability and waste of packaging and its materials Consumers are concerned about the sustainability and waste of packaging; however, the full cost of not using optimised packaging needs to be considered as well. Life cycle assessment reveals that much of the greenhouse emissions associated with food supply chains are non-packaging related.2 Recent estimates concluded that Australia generated 7.3 million tonnes of waste across its food supply chain.3 For food that is wasted at the end of the supply chain, the emissions used to grow, store, transport and sell the food are also wasted, with considerable environmental consequences. Use of biopolymers,

and other plant-derived materials, and reusable and recyclable packaging exist and are being used commercially and combine the beneficial storage effects of packaging while reducing its environmental footprint. The Australian Packaging Covenant has developed several sensible but ambitious targets to improve the sustainability of food packaging (https://apco.org.au/nationalpackaging-targets), and has had widespread industry support for these aims.

A consistent concern raised by consumers is the widespread use of single use plastics, and more and more jurisdictions are looking to curtail their use for take-away and other local use purposes. But there is no denying the advantages of plastic materials. They are lightweight yet strong, easily mouldable, sterile, and can be airtight or allow for a controlled entry or release of gases to achieve an ideal environment for food storage. They are usually suitable for use with a microwave or dishwasher and can be designed with differing

Improved printing technologies allow for clever designs reinforcing the premium nature of foods. insulation and physical protection properties as required. Nevertheless, once they enter landfill or waterways, they can persist for hundreds of years, and the very nature of many foods makes it difficult for the surrounding packaging to be cleaned to the extent necessary for the plastic to be recycled.

Recycling In recent years understanding how to recycle has become easier – detailed instructions are on most packaging, clearly delineating if and how different components of the packaging can be recycled. Yet recycling will not always prove a workable solution.

As an example, plastic films are a useful packaging tool for many foods, however films are often much more difficult to recycle (and clean), and few workable alternatives exist to many of the storage applications for which plastic films are utilised.

In an Australian context, a move towards plastic components that have been recycled and reformed in Australia will continue to grow, as consumers become more aware of the benefits of local recycling systems.

While this may involve additional costs to producers and ultimately consumers, as local systems increase in scale and efficiency a stronger supply of local recycled packaging should emerge. However, the true

willingness of consumers to pay extra for recycled plastics, or more degradable plastics, is not yet clear.

Fortunately, for many fresh foods, new packaging material solutions are emerging.

Alternatives to single use plastics Alternative packaging materials are available but need to be tailored to individual fresh food products. Plastic fruit punnets could be replaced with pulp-based materials, however plastic lidding films are usually still required. For packaging of other fresh produce, lightweight packaging materials derived from mushrooms or from plant material waste could also play a role, particularly when foods are unlikely to experience extended periods in moist or wet conditions, or to be kept in non-conventional temperatures. It can be more difficult to find affordable alternatives for storage of liquid foods. Aluminium, one of the very few packaging materials that can be profitably recycled, could be increasingly used for liquids, although further consumer acceptance might be required to aid this shift.

Biodegradable plastics are commercially available and are increasingly being used for food storage. However, many such plastics that have similar functions to normal

plastics are only truly degradable when processed in industrial fermentation settings.4 Previously they were often derived from GM plant sources, which may also concern many potential customers, and many did not fit into conventional recycling streams as they were outside the usual plastic resin types used to improve recycling efficiency.

Increasingly, bioplastic alternatives are being created which closely resemble the physical properties of conventional plastics, and that can be placed in green “biowaste” wheelie bins for eventual fermentation in municipal waste facilities.

Premiumisation As well as its integral role in containing and protecting food, packaging can have a key function in promoting foods. For centuries, packaging has been used to position a product in the market, using materials and imagery to evoke the image wanted by the type of market needed. With the long-standing trend from consumers in demanding increased quality and variety of foods in Australia, the market for premium products continues to expand. Packaging can be a very useful tool in the premiumisation of a food and internationally, many brands have started using clever printing technologies and designs to better

food australia 41

PACKAGING

More detailed disposal guidelines help consumers recycle their packaging more effectively. position the style and distinctiveness of their products. Improved printing technologies allow for metallic and other complex finishes on many packaging material types.

While early adopters in Australia have included producers of high value products such as spirits and

premium fruit and seafood, as these technologies become cheaper and more mainstream we should see them applied for packaging of all kinds of fresh foods.

grower to consumer. The true value of packaging in reducing food waste is often unrecognised, as is the ability of packaging to transform when, where and how we eat fresh foods.

Do we need packaging for fresh foods at all?

References

Packaging is currently used for nearly all fresh foods, however that does not stop the debate as to whether it is required at all. Increasingly, retailers are offering options for customers to bring their own containers to fill.

Reusable packaging will also have a role for fresh foods, although they can present additional safety risks, and are only suitable for some food types.

Higher grade plastics can be used to package some products that could be reused by consumers at home for leftovers or other storage.

Nevertheless, for the majority of foods, packaging is a necessary component of the supply chain from

We’re

Helping you do great things with natural colors Welcome to our world www.oterra.com

42 food australia

1. Janjarasskul T & Suppakul P (2018). “Active and intelligent packaging: The indication of quality and safety” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 58:5 2. Silvenius, F, et al. (2014). “The role of household food waste in comparing environmental impacts of packaging alternatives” Packaging Technology and Science, 27(4):277-292 3. ARCADIS (2019). National Food Waste Baseline – Final Assessment Report https://www. environment.gov.au/protection/waste-resourcerecovery/food-waste 4. Reichert, CL, et al. (2020). “Bio-based packaging: Materials, modifications, industrial applications and sustainability” Polymers, 12(7):1558

Matthew Wilson is a lecturer in food science and technology at the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, a joint venture of the University of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Government. f

PROCESSING

HPP gains ground as batch and bulk capabilities advance Words by Dr Tatiana Koutchma

N

onthermal high pressure processing (HPP) technology is not new, but its application has expanded in recent years thanks to its ability to extend shelf life and kill pathogens without affecting organoleptic and nutritional attributes in a variety of food and beverage products. In fact, HPP is now the most widely implemented nonthermal preservation method in the food and beverage industry. For processors, HPP is relatively easy to use, validate, and scale up. Consumers appreciate its ability to deliver minimally processed products.

The initial investment required has been the main factor limiting HPP adoption; a processing chamber or vessel is the costliest part of the system. Also, until recently, products had to be individually packaged and sealed and processed one batch at a time, adding production costs. In

addition, industrial HPP installations have historically been batch systems and maintenance intensive, which reduces production throughput.

The batch ‘in-pack’ process Traditionally, HPP has been characterised by processing prepacked products using a socalled in-pack process. Although there are variations in the process, in the typical approach, a product is vacuum packed and then pressurized by direct and indirect methods utilising a pressure-transmitting medium (normally water). The pressure is isostatic and thereby acts homogeneously throughout the chamber and product independent of product size, shape, or dimensions.

The HPP operation starts with loading prepacked food products in perforated baskets, which are transported into the vessel. Then

HPP’s History • Late 19th Century — Bertie Hite demonstrates the process can extend the shelf life of milk and fresh produce.

• Japan is the first to launch HPP products commercially, primarily jams and sauces, followed by avocado-based products.

• Late 1990s — HPP comes to be considered as a pathogen intervention step and is used more widely.

the vessel is sealed and filled with water that is pressurised by the use of intensifiers that inject additional quantities of water, consequently compressing the water by almost 15%. After the product has been held for the desired time at the process pressure, releasing the pressure-

food australia 43

PROCESSING

Image courtesy of Hiperbaric.

transmitting fluid decompresses the vessel. For most applications, products are held for 3–5 min at 600 MPa, which allows for approximately six to eight cycles per hour, including time for compression, holding, decompression, loading, and unloading.

Two key improvements—increased vessel size and reduced cycle time— allow for the intensification of batch HPP production capacity. Considering HPP equipment that can operate at 600 MPa, in 1998 the largest industrial vessel had a volume of 215 L. In 2009, the vessel capacity doubled and reached 420 L, and 2014 marked the commercial introduction of Hiperbaric’s largest vessel, which has a capacity of 525 L. However, due to the size and shape of the bottles, vessel filling efficiency is often restricted to 40%–55%.

44 food australia

Uhde High Pressure Technology (UHPT), an HPP technology provider for more than 90 years, established a partnership with Multivac, a provider of high-quality packaging machines, to supply the food market with specialised HPP packaging solutions.

Since 2010, UHPT has manufactured batch HPP machines with a portfolio of 2 L to 350 L and special solutions.

UHPT built the first pressure-assisted thermal sterilisation unit up to a size of 150 L for 700 MPa and a temperature range up to 135°C. To optimise HPP machine filling efficiency, it is important to reduce the amount of air inside the packaging, preferably using optimally designed vacuum packaging. With a smart approach, it is possible to create a honeycomb structure inside the vessel and fill all the space in the basket with products. Vacuum packages and pouches normally achieve filling efficiency of 50% to 60%. This value is reduced when it comes to bottles and is increased when it comes to process pouches.

Semi-continuous HPP for beverages HPP has commercial applications for a broad range of product categories, including beverages, meat, poultry, seafood, dairy, fruit, vegetables, and ready-to-eat meals. The use of HPP for beverages and juices is the fastestgrowing segment with 25%–30% market share. Processing beverages in-bulk in a semi-continuous system

before bottling without any limitations for use of glass or metal packaging is of interest to the industry as an alternative to in-pack configuration.

The early semi-continuous HPP machines were built as single vertical vessels (up to 210 L) or medium or small vessels (up to 3 x 20 L) connected in a series with a free or floating piston that could move up and down within the vessel. After the vessel was filled with a product to 85%—90%, the pressurising fluid was pumped and compressed into the vessel on the opposite side of the free piston, displacing it and consequently compressing the product. However, because of corrosion and sanitation issues caused by direct contact of the product with the piston, vessel, plugs, and seals, semi-continuous HPP systems had limited use and no commercial success.

Continuous ‘in-bulk’ HPP Hiperbaric recently introduced an innovative ‘bulk’ approach that avoids the use of a free piston and the direct product contact with the vessel and plugs and delivers filling efficiency of at least 90%. The continuous HPP system contains a large, watertight flexible plastic bag or container located in the vessel where the liquid is processed. The bag is filled through a clean, pressure-resistant valve in the high-pressure plug. Depending on required productivity, the system can have one or two vessels of 525 L together with a system of tanks to

PROCESSING

Effect of packaging shape, geometry, and size on the HPP filling degree: a) round-shaped bottles of various volume and b) 250 mL bottles of different geometry. Image courtesy of Uhde High Pressure Technologies GmbH. store a beverage before and after pressurisation.

The HPP pressurization cycle of the in-bulk process is similar to a conventional in-pack cycle. However, prior to liquid pressurization, three operations must be carried out: 1) pre-rinsing of the complete circuit with water as part of a clean-in-place protocol, followed by the circulation of a cleaning agent at a high temperature and final rinse step with hot water; 2) steam sterilization of pipes and outlet tank; and 3) mounting a bag in the vessel and attaching it to the hygienic pressure valve in the plug through which the beverage will be filled.

By overcoming in-pack processing limitations, an in-bulk system reduces processing and packaging steps from six to four, increases filling efficiency from 45%–55% up to 90%, and increases productivity from 3,000 L/hr to 5,000 L/hr.

Although the cost of a Hiperbaric 525 Bulk machine is 20% higher than a similar in-pack unit, advantages of the in-bulk process include reduction in operational cost, labor, and energy consumption, as well as added packaging versatility.

French processor Ateliers Hermes Boissons is the first company to put Hiperbaric’s 525 Bulk machine to use commercially.

HPP-enabled product innovation With the COVID-19 pandemic prompting consumers to seek out a variety of more healthful products— some of them highly perishable and prone to contamination by foodborne pathogens, HPP is a good fit for the times.

Beverages processed using HPP help satisfy increased demand for juices and beverages rich in vitamins, functional compounds, and probiotics to strengthen the immune system.

Numerous scientific reports support the fact that HPP doesn’t change nutritional profiles, antioxidant content, or flavors.

Plant-based dips and spreads produced using HPP are also consumer favorites; Uhde has demonstrated HPP’s ability to extend the shelf life of pea protein–based dips and spreads. In addition, Uhde’s HPP technology has been employed for ready-to-eat vegan fitness meals such as a cereal porridge with mango puree and spinach-banana puree; the company reports that the treated products have a shelf life that is 35 times longer than untreated products.

HPP treatment at 600 MPa and three min extended the shelf life of pasta and pizza doughs from

Colucci Innovative Food for more than three months compared with only three days without treatment.

The microbial counts of total aerobic bacteria, Enterobacteriaceae spp., and other bacteria remained under critical values in the company’s Pasta Quark or buckwheat chia dough treated with HPP even after six mo of storage.

A healthy future for HPP The use of HPP is growing; more than 500 units have been installed worldwide. Though the investment cost in HPP technology has not changed substantially, improvements in the machines’ configurations and components have translated to higher productivity and lower production costs. In addition, HPP foods and beverages serve nutritionists’ recommendations to choose raw or minimally processed foods and allow for safe, tasty, and convenient products with extended shelf life. For these reasons, demand for HPP equipment is expected to increase for the next few years.

Tatiana Koutchma, PhD, is a scientist in novel food technologies, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (tatiana. koutchma@canada.ca).

Published with permission from IFT. f

food australia 45

4

FAST

How does food science deliver in a changing world?

Q: What is the most important way food science is delivering in a changing world?

Dr Bianca Le Honorary Fellow in Agriculture and Food at the University of Melbourne and Director of Cellular Agriculture Australia In 30 years time, our planet will have approximately two billion more mouths to feed. Our food system as it currently stands will only exacerbate our world’s most pressing problems, like climate change, biodiversity loss, antimicrobial resistance and zoonotic diseases. How can we keep up with the growing demands for high quality, affordable foods, without sacrificing our planet? Innovative food science and emerging technologies, such as cellular agriculture, will help address this growing global demand for nutrition whilst also mitigating our modern global challenges.

Dr Nenad Naumovski Associate Professor in Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Canberra In modern society, the advances in food science coincide with the rapid global developments of nearly all other sciences. Advances in both agricultural and processing techniques have boosted the progress of several global industries enabling producers to provide an abundance of highvalue agricultural food products.

Despite the increase in production, we are still seeing population based health related problems due to the over or underconsumption of different foods. Nevertheless, the current picture of the changing world is not that bleak as particular dietary patterns and individual nutrients (within those patterns) can serve as platforms for a number of different health related products. The recent

46 food australia

advances in identification, extraction and purification techniques, as well as improvements in encapsulation, have provided pathways for the delivery of food based ingredients as a source of new nutraceuticals. Therefore, the use of foods or underutilised food products can also serve as a source of ingredients for functional food product development. I believe that modern food science has tremendous opportunity to enhance already established platforms of food analysis and use this towards improvements in population health. We are already seeing the outcomes of this transition from analysis to implementation in the emergence of new fields of food related health research. Furthermore, this is also evident in improvements in health related outcomes particularly in the areas of cardiovascular and psychological health.

Professor Michelle Colgrave Future Protein Lead, CSIRO and Professor of Food And Agricultural Proteomics at Edith Cowan University Especially in light of recent times and with COVID, food science is being applied to promote health and wellness more than ever, as well as food security, safety and consumer trust. But with a growing population, we need to do more with less. I’d like to see us better exploit the complete nutritional potential from a given food system – namely reduce post-harvest losses, transform new feedstocks into food, and use all of a given food.

This is where generating shelf-stable food ingredients sustainably, while enhancing or extracting nutrients, can add real value.

However, we also need to explore new food production systems. An interesting example here is precision fermentation where we can use low (or no) value feedstocks to fuel yeast or other single cell organisms to

deliver high value ingredients such as proteins or healthy fats, and do so with a relatively small production footprint.

As we start to reconstruct foods from sustainable nutrient-dense ingredients, innovative and integrated food science programs allow us to understand the impact of novel foods, food processing, and changing dietary patterns on health, of both people and the planet.

Professor Johannes le Coutre Professor of Food and Health, School of Chemical Engineering, UNSW Sydney The short answer to this question is: Mindfulness to the multidimensional complexity of the challenge.

Several global issues are linked with food. Be it hunger or climate change – food and agriculture are at the core.

The interconnectivity of this situation is well identified and framed with the 17 UN-SDGs. Sometimes, science is conducted by scientific experts for an audience of scientific experts. By contrast, food science and its primary output seems of direct relevance to everybody at the individual and the societal level alike.

In the past, food science enabled leaps in history, and today’s food systems require such a leap to happen again. Integrating all sciences, including the social ones, with the goal to improve individual, planetary and economic health, is the most important way that food science is delivering in a changing world. To achieve this goal, it is vital to teach and educate our future workforce in a new and inspiring way.

For this edition we have given our contributors a bit more space to share their thoughts. Fast Five will be back in the next edition.

Monday October 11 - Tuesday October 12 2021 Novotel, Sydney Olympic Park www.aifst.asn.au

Redefine the future of food What you do matters

10 13 OCTOBER 2021 Sydney Showgrounds, Sydney Olympic Park

Register now foodproexh.com