food australia Journal, Vol. 73 (4) October - December 2021

ISSN 1032 5298 • PRINT POST APPROVED PP241613/00096 VOL 73 ISSUE 4

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF AIFST

OCTOBER – DECEMBER 2021

Power to the plants!

Food regulatory insights

Agri-food waste management

Foodborne pathogen tracking Regulars By the Numbers People Food Files Fast Five

ADVERTORIAL

ANZPAC PLASTICS PACT: THE RIGHT TIME TO SHIFT TO SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING Did you know that only 18% of all plastic packaging used in Australia is recycled or composted?1 As Australian consumers become more environmentally conscious, a growing number of companies are responding to this by shifting to sustainable packaging alternatives.

The Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) and the ANZPAC Plastics Pact (ANZPAC) are initiatives aimed at moving the whole value chain towards a circular economy for packaging.

Mérieux NutriSciences and the ANZPAC Plastics Pact: the right time to embrace eco packaging Mérieux NutriSciences has signed ANZPAC and pledged to support the industry in developing sustainable packaging materials by offering a wide range of laboratory services.

As consumer demand for sustainable products increases, it seems that there is no better time for Aussie brands to join the Plastic Pact and shift to more green packaging materials!

How can I shift to sustainable packaging?

Here are the steps to help your business get started with sustainable packaging materials: • Define what type of packaging is best for your product • Different options, such as compostable, recyclable, recycled, and reusable packaging are available • Perform laboratory tests according to official standards For compostable packaging, what happens at the end of the life

cycle of a product needs to be assessed. Mérieux NutriSciences is an accredited laboratory and helps companies with the analytical process to obtain compostable certification. In Australia, the standards to meet the compostable packaging criteria are: > AS 5810-2010 for home compostable certification. > AS 4736-2006 for industrial compostable certification.

• Get certified • The Australian Bioplastics Association (ABA) grants certification for home and industrial compostability • Make your product recognizable by consumers The seedling logo from ABA makes compostable packaging and cutlery identifiable in the Australian market • What other compostable logos are available on the market?

TÜV Austria and DIN CERTCO are internationally recognized to deliver

compostable certificates for the American and European markets.

Mérieux NutriSciences can provide all packaging testing services required by these standards • What is the best sustainable certification for my packaging?

• To start your sustainable packaging journey, please reach out to Mérieux NutriSciences Australia: > Marie Daniells, Packaging Business Development Manager (marie.daniells@mxns.com) or > Visit our website: www. merieuxnutrisciences.com/au > Find out more about Mérieux NutriSciences compostability testing services: https://www. merieuxnutrisciences.com/ au/content/compostablecertification-test

OCTOBER – DECEMBER 2021

8

12

23

32

IN THIS ISSUE

REGULARS

08 Integrated and systemic agri-food waste valorisation: an invitation for collaboration Agri-food waste management - towards building a Circular Economy

05 By the Numbers 06 People 28 Sensory 42 AIFST News 46 Fast Five

11 Salmonella reduction success for NSW NSW Food Authority kicking food safety goals 12 Health claims in the COVID-19 era: key ‘watch-outs’ Keeping your claims on the right side of the law 14 Cold plasma as a postharvest treatment for fresh produce Murdoch University research into a promising non-chemical treatment 16 Insight reports for Australian ‘Save Food Packaging’ design How do manufacturers, marketers and packaging technologists view food waste?

20 Food research roundup - ARC projects Newly funded ARC projects 23 New insights into foodborne pathogen source tracking Whole Genome Sequencing and outbreak investigations 26 Navigating supplemented food regulations Regulatory differences between Australia and NZ 30 Food processors tackling food insecurity A new campaign provides an opportunity for brands to make a difference

COVER Mérieux NutriSciences: the right time to embrace eco packaging.

32 Food engineering learnings from the ICEF13 Congress Showcasing the 13th International Congress of Food and Engineering 36 Keeping a focus on emerging foodborne pathogens Horizon scanning and active surveillance for food safety 40 Power to the plants!

Insight into consumer and nutrition professional views on plant-based products 44 Colouring plant-based foods naturally Selecting colours to meet consumer expectations and improve appeal

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 Kirsty Bayliss; Scott Bouvier; Kesslyn Chen; Dr Andrew Costanzo; Julie Cox; Ciska de Rijk; Shareen Dhillon; Tiffany Fong; Jaimee Hughes; Dr Pablo Juliano; Dr Russell Keast; Nerida Kelton; Jookyeong Lee; Deon Mahoney; Dr Val Natanelov; NSW Food Authority; Dr Martin Palmer; Ruth Purcell; Dr Georgie Russell, Dr Mark Turner.

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

Subscriptions AIFST | aifst@aifst.com.au

Production Bite Communications

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

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

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

AIFST Board Chair: Mr Duncan McDonald Non-executive directors: Ms Suz Allen, Ms Julie Cox, 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

Welcome to the Spring edition of food australia, our final journal for 2021.

The last 12 months have seen tremendous changes in our way of life, way of working and way of thinking. In a world where ‘change’ can seem to be the only constant, the challenges presented to food science and technology and the food industry are providing new and exciting opportunities.

AIFST21, this year’s Convention certainly lived up to the theme – ‘Food Science – delivering in a changing world’. The Convention once again brought 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.

The Australian food system plays a significant role in delivering safe, reliable, and nutritious food products to the Australian population. The breadth of topics featured in this edition of food australia demonstrate the impact the many facets of food science and technology have on the agrifood industry. In this edition we cover food waste; food safety – looking at emerging foodborne pathogens, Salmonella reduction and foodborne pathogen source tracking; food regulation – health claims and supplemented food regulations; food engineering; the Save Food Packaging initiative; food research roundup; food insecurity and health and nutrition – power to the plants.

As this is the last edition for 2021, on behalf of the AIFST team and Board, I would like to thank all our journal contributors, Publications committee members, event partners, our members, and the wider food industry community for your support during what has been another very challenging year.

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

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

BY THE NUMBERS

Precision f​ ermentation drives alternative protein innovation Words by Ruth Purcell and Kesslyn Chen Plant-based meat, eggs, and dairy have seen a significant spike in investment and retail sales over the past year.

However, these alternative proteins still fail to fully recreate the sensory experience of eating animal products.

Precision fermentation technologies are poised to overcome this challenge, with the field attracting record-breaking investment in 2020 and into 2021.

Precision fermentation is an established technology utilising microbes that are genetically modified to produce animal proteins, lipids or enzymes during fermentation. Three key factors underpin its paradigm-shifting potential: • Alternative proteins need hybrid products. Fermentation enables the production of bioidentical animal proteins, lipids, and flavour compounds that are not found in plants. These molecules give plant-based foods sensory and functional attributes that replicate animal products, ensuring consumer expectations are met • Fermentation is highly scalable. Yeast and bacteria replicate quickly and have a propensity for high biomass accumulation and protein production.

• The technology is ancient. Traditional fermentation techniques are wellunderstood, the biochemical principles are transferable to biomass and precision fermentation and considerable technological infrastructure already exist.

Australia hosts both startups and established fermentation, companies such as Nourish Ingredients, Change Foods, Eden Brew and Agritechnology.

References

Investment in Australian precision fermentation companies:

Fermentation attracted

$800 million globally in 20201

Fat & Lipids: $14.4m (Nourish: $14.4million)

Dairy: $8.1m

(Eden Brew: $4m; Change Foods: $4.1 m)

Since 2013

2 28 start-ups

that focus on precision fermentation for food application have been founded globally2

22m metric tonnes

Projection of fermentation powered alternative protein consumption in 2035

Number of precision fermentation products commercially available globally: Clara Foods: (pepsin) Perfect Day: (beta-lactoglobulin)

Cost of precision fermentation product could be

50%-80%

cheaper than the animal products they replace3

1. GFI, 2020 State of the Industry Report: Fermentation: Meat, Eggs, and Dairy (2020) 2. BCG, Food for Thought: The Protein Transformation (2021) 3. RethinkX, Rethinking Food and Agriculture 20202030 (2019)

Ruth Purcell and Kesslyn Chen are science writers at Cellular Agriculture Australia, a nonprofit developing the emerging cellular agriculture research field and industry within Australia.

food australia 5

PEOPLE

Dr Michael Depalo launches ANZ Food Innovation and Compliance Network Michael Depalo has over 40 years experience in the food industry delivering consumer preferred, commercially sound and compliant products through technical insight and cross functional collaboration.

After a distinguished career at the Arnott’s Group, most recently leading the regulatory and specifications team across APAC, Michael has retired but has not yet hung up his boots. He is now the founder of ANZ Food Innovation and Compliance Network, a consultancy established to support and advise food businesses and their stakeholders on new product development, ingredients, food labelling and regulation.

Michael remains committed to the food industry and is a member of the AIFST Scientific and Technical

Advisory Committee, a mentor in the AIFST Mentor Program and recently also participated in the ANSTO Science Week Hackathon as an Industry and Innovation Mentor.

He is a trusted advisor with the ability to build and lead networks at an international level and work across diverse cultures and languages.

He was awarded the 2016 Arnott’s Group ‘Leading with Integrity Award’ for demonstrating consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values, and was also a long serving member of the Australian Food and Grocery Council Health, Nutrition and Scientific Affairs Committee.

He has a Bachelor of Applied Science from UTS and a PhD in Biotechnology from UNSW. Michael

has over 30 years of continuous membership with AIFST and is a Fellow of the Institute. He can be contacted through Linkedin or at ANZFoodInnov@outlook.com.

Professor Michelle Colgrave named as Bowie Medallist for 2021 Professor Michelle Colgrave was recently announced as 2021 recipient of the Bowie Medal from the Australian and New Zealand Society for Mass Spectrometry (ANZSMS). The Bowie Medal honours excellence in research in any area of mass spectrometry (MS) by a young Australian or New Zealand researcher. Michelle leads the Food and Agricultural Proteomics teams at Edith Cowan University and CSIRO. Michelle has pioneered the use of state-of-the-art mass spectrometry and proteomics to benefit Australia’s plant, livestock and aquaculture industries and improve human health. Her contributions include the identification of novel proteins, characterisation of their function and post-translational modifications, as well as development of MS-based quantitative assays for food and beverage products with a focus on food safety. Michelle is recognised for major breakthroughs in the analysis of

6 food australia

gluten, the proteinaceous elicitors of coeliac disease. Her research has had profound impact in the development of an ultra-low gluten barley, now known as Kebari® which is used in the production of gluten-free cereals, beers and food products that contribute the nutritional benefits of whole grains, while being safe to be enjoyed by coeliac sufferers. The new MS protocols Michelle has established for the detection of allergens and toxic proteins in processed food products have allowed regulators and industry to provide accuracy and transparency in food labelling.

Michelle is currently conducting ground-breaking work on the causes of non-coeliac gluten sensitivity and non-responsive coeliac disease. More recently, her lab has been developing methods for allergen detection for novel and emerging allergens, i.e. those from pulses such as lupin, and cross-reactive proteins in alternative protein sources such as crickets,

mealworms and black soldier fly.

Michelle will attend and present at the 28th biennial ANZSMS conference, to be held in Canberra from November 21-25th, 2021.

PEOPLE

Angela Cooper appointed Food Safety Specialist at Goodstart Early Learning Angela has joined Australia’s largest early learning provider, Goodstart, in the newly created role of Food Safety Specialist as part of their national Safety, Health and Wellbeing team.

The specialist role combines Angela’s skills and experience of food technology, allergen management and nutrition plus her passion for helping people.

As the network lead and expert on food safety, Angela will be responsible for defining, developing and maintaining Goodstart’s food safety framework and plan, including food safety policies, procedures, programs and standards in line with current legislation, industry practice and with consideration of

requirements for children.

Prior to Goodstart, Angela has worked in the food industry for more than 25 years with deep expertise in allergen, quality and nutrition strategies for global and Australian brands. Her experience spans all aspects of procedures and processes, compliance, reporting, auditing to liaising and managing relationships across public health, government organisations, regulators and leading industry experts.

Most recently, Angela was Ingham’s National Quality Manager of Further Processing and Distribution. Prior to joining Ingham’s, Angela spent 19 years at Yum! Restaurants International (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell) working across consumer

information, nutrition, quality assurance and product development.

Angela is a proud long-term member of the Australian Institute of Food Science & Technology, first joining in 1998.

Vale Tom McMeekin AO FAIFST Words by Drs Tom Ross and Tom Lewis

There is a cohort in this world who had the good fortune to name Tom McMeekin in their circle. And as circles are wont to do, here we are, then, marking the rounding of another one.

You’ll be able to read elsewhere and elsewhen about all the degrees, fellowships and awards gathered by this legend, including

through his long-term commitment to AIFST. Here, though, we want to mark the passing – and celebrate the being – of a friend, mentor, colleague and teacher. We want to commit these few brief words to who he was to us and many, many others – not just what he did.

Tom had the ability to get on with everyone: from first years to DScs, from weekend hackers to hole-in-oners. He was able to slip between international discussions on food safety policy, detailed data analysis and a cracking impersonation from last night’s episode of ‘The Young Ones’. He didn’t really mind who you were or what you did, as long as you gave it your best shot. And if you did that, he had your back – quietly or overtly, as the situation required.

There are so many who got a start in the world of academe and applied food science and technology through Tom’s

ability to work alongside, nurture and cajole. That mentoring extended beyond graduation to providing sound career advice and opportunities for advancement.

Tom’s modus operandi was to ‘make things happen’ (usually quietly in the background) for the team he led and the individuals within it. That a small group of microbiologists in a small Australian university became recognised internationally is largely due to Tom’s expertise and hard work, his ability to inspire people to perform at the highest standard and his genuine care for people. He was a true leader.

As one of ‘the many’ said recently “Losing him marks the end of where so many of us began”.

Vale, Big Tom, and to quote one of your oft-used sayings, “We’ll see you, Jimmy!”

‘Little’ Tom (Ross) and ‘Young’ Tom (Lewis).

food australia 7

FOOD WASTE

Integrated and systemic agri-food waste valorisation: an invitation for collaboration Words by Dr Val Natanelov

P

roducing food entails a legion of complex processes from harvest to retail. These processes generate a considerable amount of agri-food waste. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations estimated that around one-third of all food, or 1.3 billion tonnes, are wasted with a price tag nearing 1.3 trillion dollars per year.1 In Australia, the National Food

Waste Baseline report2 estimated that 7.3 million tonnes of food waste are generated annually. The cost of lost food is conservatively estimated to be $20 billion per annum.

The agri-food industry has traditionally been under considerable pressure to address cross-cutting issues pertaining to sustainable food production. Traditionally, strategies to deal with waste- or side-streams were rudimentary, to say the least. The outcomes were suboptimal from both an economic and environmental perspective and often included transformation into animal feed, composting, incineration, landspreading and landfilling. Agrifood side-streams intrinsically have high(er) value creation potential due to their biochemical composition.

These materials can be used as suitable feedstocks in different potential commercial applications, which in turn can increase the profitability of businesses and lead to the implementation of a Circular Economy (CE). In recent years, the food production industry has initiated

8 food australia

Figure 1: Agricultural Commodities, Queensland, 201920, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Note: excludes sugar cane, grains, pulses and bananas. (An interactive version is available here: https://foodwastevalorisation.xyz/QLD)

a move towards a CE and sustainable practices. In this context, the Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre (FFW CRC) aims to improve the competitiveness, productivity and sustainability of the Australian agri-food industry. Industry identified problems and opportunities are addressed through high-quality outcome focused research provision.

Traditionally, food supply chains are linear and stakeholders, if at

all, addressed waste valorisation individually. The current trend is however towards a systemic approach of integrated food supply chains complemented by consumers, investors, policymakers, the processing industry and distributors.

The integration of agri-food waste management, including waste valorisation, is the next step towards building a CE.

From linear to circular The CE model, in contrast to the linear economic model, aims to avoid or reduce waste, resource depletion and other environmental impacts of the life cycle of products and services through improvement of socioeconomic conditions. To provide a more comprehensive definition, Kirchherr et al.3 posited that a “Circular Economy describes an economic system that is based on business models which replace the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes, thus operating at the micro-level (products, companies, consumers), meso-level (eco-industrial parks) and macro-level (city, region, nation and beyond), to accomplish sustainable development, which implies creating environmental quality, economic prosperity and social equity, to the benefit of current and future generations”.

In the case of agri-food systems, the CE demands the rethinking of current models of production and consumption. The continuously increasing demand for food, feed and fibre with limited arable land makes the food system most vulnerable. This is further exacerbated by the interdependencies, such as food waste, which entail a value loss in supply chains. Technological and business model innovations are key to improve the resource efficiency of agri-food systems. The potential applications of CE are legion in the agri-food sector. For example, transformation or valorisation of food waste into processed food products, nutraceuticals, extracts and ingredients for food manufacturing. Contrary to common belief, reducing environmental damage and optimising the use of resources causes a cost reduction and new economic returns for the agri-food sector. A CE approach has the potential to transform agri-food systems and make them more sustainable and profitable at the same time.

Quality Endorsed Company ISO 9001:2015 SAI Global

LABLIKES ISSUE 11 DOWNLOAD YOUR COPY TODAY. Packed with the latest and most popular products available from Rowe Scientific.

TO DOWNLOAD, CLICK HERE OR VISIT THE WEBSITE LINK BELOW.

www.rowe.com.au/rowe/lablikes Purchase the New HandyStep® touch S

at $2,190

DH0031

and receive the charging stand valued at $654 FREE of charge!

FREE CHARGING STAND

From concept to reality – the case of Queensland The Agri-Food & Data Sciences unit of the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (QDAF) is one of the core partners in the Fight Food Waste CRC. Its vision to improve profitability by value creation for Queensland’s agriculture and fisheries industries through pioneering research and development is closely aligned with the transition pathways towards a CE and the aims of the FFW CRC. In addition to capabilities such as product development, consumer intelligence, product manufacturing and processing, QDAF manages a fully equipped pilot plant to transition research into a scalable and implementable solution for industry.

Combined with the research provision capabilities of the universities participating in the FFW CRC, it is clear that there is plenty of capacity to innovate. But the question remains, where to start and how to achieve industry-wide transformation? In other words, what is the pathway towards integrated and systemic agri-food waste valorisation?

DC0046

Video and more info on our website 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.SEPT 2021

food australia 9

FOOD WASTE

Visual representation of collaborative frameworks for integrated and systemic agri-food waste valorisation.

Identifying clusters The start to answer this question requires a deeper understanding of the regional context. Given the inherent geographical distribution of agri-food production, a mapping exercise of different products is a prerequisite.

Figure 1 shows an overview of the agricultural commodities produced in Queensland. The size of the bubbles indicates the (post-loss) volume of production; the colour indicates the respective region; the number indicates the number of businesses responsible for that volume of production. This visual illustrates the diversity and regional dispersion of the wide variety of produce. Considering the relatively high cost of transport (especially of wet mass), clustering based on regional production lends itself as a starting point. Taking the example of melons (top left corner), we see a relatively high (over 54 kT) post-loss- regional (North Queensland) production by 16 growers. According to a recent CSIRO study on pre-retail losses, the potential loss of melons in that specific cluster could be up to a staggering 37 kT.4

Building capacity The identification of clusters from the mapping exercise is merely the first step. The high level of waste in the

10 food australia

example of melons in the least implies an imperfect non-premium product.

So the question arises, what can we do with these side-streams? In other words, how can we process them, and more importantly, is there existing processing capacity in relatively close proximity? The availability of nearfarm processing capacity is key for successful food waste valorisation. The transport of wet-mass fresh produce is not only tedious and costly but also reduces the gains of emission reductions. Oftentimes, the availability of close-proximity processing facilities is limited. This implies the need for investment in processing capacity development. Infrastructural investments are costly and require a long-term financially positive outlook.

Manufacturing funding provided by national, state, regional and local governments to some extent facilitates and incentivises such investments.

However, the main challenge is structuring collaborative frameworks and business models.

Agri-food waste valorisation requires the development of new innovation-based value chains. It generally entails a cluster of growers; research providers (process or product development); processing partner(s); buyers; distribution; and retail.

While challenging, the development

of new value chains in the agri-food industry, within a CE context, results in business diversification of almost every stakeholder involved and builds much-needed resilience for the businesses active in the sector.

The improved profitability through diversification builds resilience based on the sustainable valorisation of un(der)utilised side-streams.

In conclusion, the only way to build integrated and systemic waste valorisation is – together.

References 1. FAO. (2019) “The State of Food and Agriculture: Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf 2. Arcadis. (2019) “National Food Waste Baseline”.

3. Kirchherr, J. et al. (2017) ”Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions” Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 127, 221–232.

4. CSIRO. (2019) “Mapping of Australian fruit and vegetable losses pre-retail” https://doi.org/10.25919/5d28d8ba0fad5

Dr Val Natanelov is the Queensland Innovation Manager with Fight Food Waste (FFW) CRC supporting projects with the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (QDAF). He is the Director of Nexible Solutions Pty Ltd, with over a decade of experience working on the nexus of the agri-food industry, technology and economics. f

FOOD SAFETY

Salmonella reduction success for NSW Words by NSW Food Authority

T

he results are in and NSW’s food safety regulator has received top marks in its goal of reducing foodborne salmonellosis by 30% as part of the NSW Food Authority’s Food Safety Strategy 2015-2021.

NSW Food Authority CEO, Dr Lisa Szabo said the NSW Food Safety Strategy 2015-2021 was an ambitious undertaking that was born out of need following record numbers of Salmonella infections and food poisoning outbreaks reported over the 2010-14 period.

“We identified a need to combat this increase, and that began with empowering food businesses with information and education, helping to instil a food safety culture within the sector, and introducing world-leading surveillance of foodborne pathogens,” Dr Szabo said.

“By starting with that as a foundation, it was a far easier task to successfully meet the strategy’s objectives which included the specific target of a 30% reduction of foodborne salmonellosis.

“Under that umbrella target, incidence of the main Salmonella strain responsible for food poisoning in NSW and Australia fell by 60%.”

Dr Szabo said in addition to illness in the community, another unwelcome consequence of increasing outbreak numbers was increased health care costs and resource burden for NSW consumers and affected government agencies.

“Achieving a reduced regulatory burden and reduction in health care cost not only ensures the ongoing confidence in the NSW food sector but has a positive impact on the broader community,” Dr Szabo said.

“The direct outcome of achieving the 30% reduction target was an estimated 40,000 fewer people contracting salmonellosis and a saving in health care costs of approximately $196 million between 2017 to 30 June 2021.”

Dr Szabo said key to the achievement was improving capacity for early identification and intervention.

“An analysis of the outbreaks during the reporting period of 2010-14 identified some common root causes of food poisoning including a lack of understanding in some businesses of proper cleaning and sanitising practices, and the mishandling of eggs used in foods that did not involve a cooking step or other processing.

“Working closely with industry and our stakeholders, we focused on measures aimed at addressing those causes.

“This was complemented by improved disease surveillance, supported by whole genome sequencing technology implemented

by NSW Health, to identify outbreaks of illness at the earliest opportunity and halt spread in the community.”

Dr Szabo said the use of genome sequencing enabled the state’s health system to swiftly identify previously undetectable clusters of foodborne disease.

“This is a hugely exciting step forward, because faster detection means faster response and fewer people becoming ill,” Dr Szabo said.

“These achievements cannot be underestimated.

“The use of this technology was instrumental in the control of a Salmonella strain threatening consumers and the egg industry in 2018.

“Interventions to control this strain are estimated to have prevented over $2 billion in losses to the egg industry over a 20-year projection.”

The Strategy’s objectives went

beyond harnessing new technologies and took a holistic approach working with other teams within the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) Biosecurity & Food Safety Branch, NSW Health, local government, Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) and key food industry stakeholders.

“The success of the reduction strategy was in no small part due to our ability to work together,” Dr Szabo said.

“Over the life of the Strategy, about 72,000 people in NSW were trained and certified as Food Safety Supervisors (FSS) for their business, while the Food Authority and local councils developed and implemented a compliance strategy targeting high risk foods and poor food handling in the foodservice sector.”

In addition to the health and safety benefits and savings, the success of the Strategy positions the NSW food sector as a premium product, maintaining its strong brand reputation and providing NSW food businesses with domestic and export market opportunities, in turn contributing to the State’s economic growth and prosperity.

Further food safety information is available at the NSW Food Authority website: www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au The NSW Government Food Safety Strategy 2015-2021 can be found at: www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/sites/ default/files/_Documents/corporate/ Food_Safety_Strategy.pdf . f

food australia 11

REGULATORY

Health claims in the COVID-19 era: key ‘watch-outs’ for food businesses Words by Shareen Dhillon and Scott Bouvier

I

n the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, as consumers are increasingly conscious of the health benefits of the products they are buying, food businesses need to be aware of the risks in making health claims when advertising food products.

Health claims are any claims that are related to the relationship between a food and its health effects.

All health claims must be supported by scientific evidence. There are two types of health claims permitted by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) – general and high level.

General level health claims are about a nutrient or substance in a food, or the food itself, and its effect on health (for example, ‘calcium for

12 food australia

healthy bones and teeth’). These claims must either: • be based on one of the 200 preapproved food-health relationships in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Code), or • be a food-health relationship selfsubstantiated by a food business using the scientific method set out in the Code and notified to FSANZ. High level health claims are about a nutrient or substance in a food and its relationship to a serious disease or a biomarker (for example ‘Diets high in calcium may reduce the risk of osteoporosis in people 65 years and over’). High level health claims need to be based on one of the 13 preapproved food-health relationships listed in the Code.

In addition, under Australian

Consumer Law, it is illegal for a business to engage in conduct that misleads or deceives or is likely to mislead or deceive consumers or other businesses, including by making misleading health claims. This law applies even if you did not intend to mislead or deceive anyone or no one has suffered any loss or damage as a result of your conduct.

When used effectively, health claims help consumers make better purchasing decisions and allow businesses to set their products apart from those of their competitors by highlighting the health benefits of those products. However, businesses could be at risk of breaching a number of rules and standards if their marketing of food products crosses the line into claims that are

misleading, deceptive or inaccurate.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has been active in this space. A prominent case was brought against Heinz for making a misleading health claim that its Little Kids Shredz products were beneficial to the health of children aged 1-3 years. In March 2018, the Federal Court found that Heinz had breached the Australian Consumer Law, and that Heinz nutritionists ought to have known that making claims that a product was beneficial to the health of children when it contained approximately two-thirds sugar was misleading.

Interestingly, the imagery used on the product packaging (an active, healthy young boy exercising and prominent pictures of fresh fruit and vegetables) was found to have emphasised this claim. This was coupled with prominent statements that the Shredz product comprised 99% fruit and vegetables, that the fruit and vegetables had not been adulterated by preservatives or artificial colours or flavours, and the repeated use of the term ‘nutritious’.

Heinz had to pay penalties totalling $2.25 million, and the Court also ordered Heinz to establish a consumer law compliance program and to pay the ACCC’s costs.

Other businesses such as Sanitarium, Unilever and Smith’s have also been subject to enforcement action for misleading representations and false comparisons in relation to food products. ACCC Chair Rod Sims has emphasised that the ACCC will continue to press for strong penalties to deter large businesses from engaging in serious contraventions of Australia’s consumer laws.

The industry body that sets advertising standards for the protection of consumers, Ad Standards, has also cracked down on the use of health claims in advertising food products where they cannot be substantiated. In an Ad Standards Panel decision from June 2021, Smartwater was running advertising with claims that its Awake Water product was ‘structural water’

and made a myriad of health claims including ‘increased energy levels’, ‘weight control’ and ‘improved joint health’. The panel found that whilst many of the listed benefits are benefits of drinking water, the way they were positioned on the website implied that Awake Water could achieve these claims in contrast to other types of water. There was no substantiation of any of the claims on the website.

The panel decided that the advertisement was misleading and deceptive and made claims which the reasonable consumer would interpret as scientifically evidenced health claims. The Panel also considered that the claims were not supported by any evidence as required under the Code, and that the advertisement was in breach of the Code. In response, Smartwater amended its website so that its health claims were qualified with the words ‘we believe’ to emphasise that there was no scientific evidence behind these claims.

Businesses must also ensure they do not market their food products by making prohibited or restricted healthrelated claims about products that are not registered by the Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA). On 21 February 2019, the TGA received a complaint about advertising by ATP Science for claims it was making about its sports supplement products.

ATP Science advertised its products extensively online and through social media. However, the advertising for most of its products (some of which were described as ‘formulated supplementary sports foods’) included therapeutic claims. For example, ATP Science’s advertising for these products included references to treating autoimmune conditions, which is a restricted representation that had not been authorised by the TGA. ATP Science did not fully comply with the TGA’s request to take action to remove the non-compliant advertising content from its website, and were issued with 24 infringement notices comprised of $302,400 for advertising therapeutic goods that

were not entered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and using prohibited and restricted representations without TGA authorisation.

Finally, any claims relating to COVID-19 in the advertising of food products will be subject to increased scrutiny by regulators as any claim that references COVID-19 is also a restricted representation under therapeutic goods legislation and is of significant concern to the TGA given the heightened public concern about the pandemic.

So what can you do to stay on the right side of the law when you want to promote your healthy food? We recommend the following steps: • Create a checklist to help your marketing and technical teams tick off the relevant requirements of the Code so that all health claims comply with the requirements of Standard 1.2.7 and related provisions of the Code • Conduct regular interactive training sessions with your marketing and technical teams with a focus on case studies, claims support and analysis of your own claims and the claims of your competitors • Use a claims tracker database to link your health claims with the supporting evidence • During the sign-off process, review images on pack carefully - the packaging of a food product (including illustrations) can add weight to a finding that misleading health claims have been made in relation to that product • Check websites and social media pages prior to posting and consider livestream content carefully to ensure that all health claims are accurate and can be substantiated.

Scott Bouvier and Shareen Dhillon lead King & Wood Mallesons’ food law practice and advise a range of high profile food and consumer brands on food and advertising regulation, IP, technology, product recalls, therapeutic goods and commercial matters. f

food australia 13

FOOD SAFETY

Exploring cold plasma as a postharvest treatment for fresh produce Words by Dr Kirsty Bayliss

Treatment of avocado with cold plasma.

G

lobally, 30% of all food is lost or wasted. A large proportion of this is due to pests and diseases. If we could reduce this by 25% there would be enough food available to feed 870 million people.

At Murdoch University, we have developed a non-chemical treatment for postharvest pathogens and insect pests, using the most abundant form of matter in the universe - plasma.

Plasma is an ionized gas, and is produced naturally by the sun and by lightning during storms. Plasma technology is also used in television screens and neon lights. It is also commonly used in medicine and dentistry to treat wounds, so it is safe for human use. Plasma is safe to treat food products as it operates at room temperature (termed ‘cold plasma’), so the food is not damaged.

Our trials with cold plasma have focused on high value products including avocados, strawberries, truffles, mango, and also wheat grain. We are working closely with industry partners to ensure that the methods being developed are suitable for packhouses. All of our trials also include an assessment of quality parameters, to ensure that the

14 food australia

treatment does not have a negative impact on the flavour, size, or colour of the produce.

Our avocado trials found that cold plasma could significantly inhibit the germination of spores of Colletotrichum alienum and C. fioriniae, two pathogens associated with anthracnose of avocados.

Electron microscopy studies demonstrated that the treatment was able to cause damage to the spores, including the cell walls, nuclei, and other cell organelles.

It is likely that this disruption at the cellular level is the reason for the reduced germination levels. With less germination occurring on the fruit, the development of anthracnose will also be reduced. The colour and flavour of the fruit was not affected by the cold plasma treatment.

Treatment of wheat grain with cold plasma offers a number of interesting possibilities.2 In our cold plasma wheat trials, the grain showed increased germination with longer radicals and hypocotyls following treatment.

This has positive implications for crop germination and establishment.

We recently also used cold plasma to successfully kill stored grain

insects. More importantly, we have found that treatment of the grain pathogen Fusarium graminearum can significantly slow growth, and trials are currently in progress to test the impact of cold plasma on mycotoxins produced by this pathogen.

Mycotoxins can cause a range of human health issues, with aflatoxins being one of the most well known, particularly in peanuts.

Another aspect of our research is using cold plasma to treat water, producing ‘plasma activated water’, also known as PAW. Plasma treatment of water has a number of advantages - it can break down contaminants, and plasma activated water can also be used as a disinfectant. Currently we have trials in progress that suggest PAW could be used as a misting treatment to stop grey mould (caused

by Botrytis cinerea) on strawberries.

This treatment does not appear to impact the fruit colour or acidity.

There is potential to further explore the use of plasma water as a wash for cut fruit and loose leaf leafy vegetables.

In summary, cold plasma kills the mould spores that grow on fruit, vegetables and grain, reducing the

pathogens including Listeria and Salmonella. A major benefit of this research is that with reduced pest and disease issues, food shelf life can be increased, the food is healthier for consumption, and significantly less food will be wasted.

References 1. Siddique SS, Hardy GEStJ & Bayliss KL. (2021) “Ultrastructural changes observed in Colletotrichum alienum conidia following treatment with cold plasma or plasma-activated water”. Plant Pathology https://doi.org/10.1111/ ppa.13422 2. Kaur M, Huberli D & Bayliss KL (2020). “Cold plasma: exploring a new option for management of postharvest fungal pathogens, mycotoxins and insect pests in Australian stored cereal grain”. Crop & Pasture Science 71: 715-724. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP20078

Schematic of cold plasma treatment of Colletotrichum spores, and the impact it has on cellular structure.1 likelihood of mould and decay. It is known to detoxify mycotoxins produced by postharvest fungi such as Alternaria and Aspergillus, which

are a serious human health hazard.

Other laboratories have demonstrated that plasma water can also be used to control viruses and bacterial

Dr Kirsty Bayliss is a Senior Lecturer at Murdoch University, where she teaches into the Food Science and Nutrition undergraduate degree, and the Master of Food Security at a postgraduate level. f

Embedding resilience into food safety BSI’s new HACCP & GMP Criteria Updated to reflect Codex HACCP 2020, our new programme includes requirements around food safety culture, allergen labelling as well as training and risk awareness to help you reassure your customers about the safety of your products.

Certifying to our criteria can help you demonstrate your commitment to a preventative, risk-based HACCP management system.

For organizations that might need help understanding and implementing HACCP & GMP or improving their current understanding, our related training programme has been updated to include HACCP Refresh and HACCP Requirements courses.

Visit bsigroup.com/food-au or call and speak with one of our food safety experts at 1300 730 134.

food australia 15

PACKAGING FEATURE

Australia’s first industry insight reports for Save Food Packaging design Words by Nerida Kelton

E

very year 1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted or lost around the world, representing one third of all food produced for human consumption. Yet sadly, close to 800 million people live in hunger across the globe every day. The global pandemic has also brought the issue of food insecurity much closer to home in developed countries like Australia.

Sadly, Australia is one of the worst offenders for food waste and loss in the world with a staggering 34% (2.5 million tonnes) of all food wasted in the household, followed very closely with 31% (2.3 million tonnes) in primary production. In economic terms, food waste in Australia has become a $20 billion problem that sees each person waste on average 298kg of food a year. Add to that the environmental impacts that sit behind food production including water, land, energy, labour, capital and the fact that far too much food waste is heading to landfill and creating greenhouse gas emissions.

16 food australia

Australia needs to build a sustainable food system that delivers food security, considers social, economic and environmental impacts and no longer sees food waste heading to landfill. This is where innovative Save Food Packaging (SFP) design has a role to play within the food system.

What is Save Food Packaging (SFP)?

Save Food Packaging uses innovative and intuitive design features that can contain and protect, preserve, extend shelf life, easily open and reseal, provide consumer convenience and portion control; all the while meeting global sustainable packaging targets.

To embed Save Food Packaging design into businesses we first need to understand whether manufacturers consider food waste and loss, how packaging technologists are designing food packaging, if marketing is ensuring that on-pack communication provides the best messaging to consumers and what

the barriers are to implementing SFP strategies.

As a core participant of the Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre, the Australian Institute of Packaging (AIP) Save Food Packaging Design project has released two stakeholder industry insight reports that will help to set a baseline for current design practice and enable a path forward for areas of improvement. The two reports are called 1. Industry Insights Report: Stakeholder Online Survey of Product-Packaging Design Processes and 2. Industry Insights Report: Stakeholder Interviews of Product-Packaging Design Processes.

These reports represent the current landscape of the food and packaging industry regarding perceptions and practices of food waste and Save Food Packaging.

The AIP is the project leader for the Save Food Packaging Criteria and Framework 1.2.1 project which includes a Save Food Packaging Consortium that is made up of

Innovating, with you and for you.

Global Strength. Local Action.

As the world around us changes, so do market trends and consumer demands.

We are ready to support you to adapt and accelerate your success.

Our bespoke solutions leverage our proprietary research, innovation capabilities, technical ingenuity and portfolio breadth, to deliver the essentials for speed to market.

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

Your Edge. Our Expertise.

Let’s Innovate.

NutritionANZ@adm.com

PACKAGING FEATURE

leaders in Save Food Packaging design and innovations to ensure that the guidelines are practical for the industries they will serve.

The Save Food Packaging Consortium is made up of the AIP as project lead, RMIT as the Research Partner, Project Contributors will

be Zipform Packaging, Sealed Air, Multivac and APCO, Project Partners are Plantic Technologies, Result Group and Ulma Packaging.

The Extension Network consists of Australian Food Cold Chain Council (AFCCC), Australian Food & Grocery Council (AFGC), and the AIFST.

Key insights include: 1. A number of key executive and management levels are unfortunately not claiming responsibility for food waste reduction with marketing standing out as the least invested.

2. Food waste mitigation considerations are mostly made in the early stages of the new product development (NPD) process and significantly less in the later stages.

Industry Insights Report 1: Stakeholder Online Survey of Product-Packaging Design Processes Industry Insights Report 1: reviews expert knowledge and perceptions of industry stakeholders in the Australian food industry gathered by assessing

5. There are a number of key Save Food Packaging Design features that have already been adopted in organisations including usage and storage instructions, extension of shelf life and barrier, openability, date labelling and on-pack communication. Active and intelligent packaging and controlled dispensing are areas that are underutilised.

6. Greater Save Food Packaging adoption within the food industry requires leaders to promote and give ‘case study’ examples of SFP value.

7. The greatest perceived barriers to Save Food Packaging adoption is that it adds cost and time to production and organisations lack resources.

3. Approximately 30% of stakeholders are unwilling to redesign a product’s packaging to save on food waste.

Industry will only act on this if it does not increase cost (this was also supported by the business case).

8. Sustainability is also perceived by industry to be a Save Food Packaging function. This is the continued discussion around the balance between Sustainable Packaging Design and Save Food Packaging Design, identifying trade-offs and finding optimum pack design.

4. Terminology and definitions of Save Food Packaging Design features are still unclear and not fully recognised within the industry. There is also a disparity between academic and industry terminology.

18 food australia

9. Most participants are willing to access the Save Food Packaging Design criteria, which are being developed through the AIP led Fight Food Waste CRC Save Food Packaging Design Criteria and Guidelines project, when available.

their current organisational roles and practices regarding food waste and Save Food Packaging (SFP) strategies.

Recommendations 1. Buy-in from decision makers: Equipping ‘CEOs/MDs’ and ‘marketers’ with an awareness of the decision-making power they hold is key to reducing food waste through packaging.

2. Early-stage food waste considerations carried through: More consideration of Save Food Packaging Design criteria was made in the early stages of the design process; however, the consideration of food waste is less considered in the later stages.

3. Opportunity to activate consumer research: ‘Consumer trialling’ appears to be a stage in which food waste implications are not being considered. This insight suggests

that food businesses are not considering consumers’ attitudes to SFP innovations and their benefits.

4. SFP value-creation case studies as a best-practice benchmark: Close to a third of stakeholders were unwilling or unsure if they would re-design a product’s packaging to reduce food loss/ waste.

5. Meaningful SFP language: Clarity of Save Food Packaging Design terminology is essential for widespread industry adoption, e.g. it was indicated that ‘controlled dispensing’ was potentially not fully understood by all participants.

6. Unlocking barriers to SFP adoption through cost-to-value ratio examples, improved resources, and time: Barriers hindering organisations in adopting SFP features include the concern of added costs, a lack of resources, and additional time. Cost-to-value ratio analyses

presented as case studies to the food industry would justify Save Food Packaging adoption and guide hesitant organisations to act on new investments and dedicate resources and time to SFP design strategies.

Save Food Packaging design can help minimise food waste all the way across the value chain to the household.

We look forward to working with food and beverage manufacturers to design innovative Save Food Packaging solutions that offer the lowest environmental impact and minimise food waste wherever possible.

Nerida Kelton is Executive Director of the Australian Institute of Packaging (AIP) and Vice President Sustainability & Save Food at the World Packaging Organisation (WPO). f

What can MaxPeak Premier Columns do for your food analysis?

HIGHERSENSITIVITY AND RECOVERY AT LOW AND HIGH CONCENTRATIONS ACQUITY Premier CSH Phenyl-Hexyl Column

MRM of 30 Channels ESMRM of 30 Channels ES28K18_051 191.2 > 111.2 (Iso/citric acid) 100 1.70e6

0 0.50

1.00

Citric acid 548-fold increase

1.50

2.00

2.50

MRM of 30 Channels ES191.2 > 111.2 (Iso/citric acid) 3.69e7

100

%

%

Isocitric acid 209-fold increase

28K18_054

min 3.00

1 µM Standard concentration

0 0.50

Isocitric acid 11-fold increase

1.00

1.50

Citric acid 35-fold increase

2.00

2.50

Ensure MaxPeak Premier performance for ALL separations

min 3.00

10 µM Standard concentration

3 µL injections of a 100 µM solution

Peak area

Citric acid

ACQUITY Premier CSH Phenyl-Hexyl Column Conventional Column

12000

Available in the VanGuard™ FIT Column format

800 400 0

1

2

3

4

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Injection number

Contact Waters Australia for a quote with a 25% discount on your first Max Peak Premier column order

http://www.waters.com/MaxPeakColumns

food australia 19

RESEARCH ROUNDUP FEATURE

Food research roundup – ARC projects Words by Dr Martin Palmer

T

he Australian Research Council’s (ARC) project portfolio provides a window on current, university-based food research in Australia and can be a useful source of information for networking and collaboration. Taking the broadest definition of ‘food research’ - from production, through processing, nutrition and consumer science - the total ARC funding for new projects announced over the last year exceeded $23 million. These included the following major projects: • ARC Training Centre for Facilitated Advancement of Australia’s Bioactives ($4.9 million). Led by Professor Alison Rodger, Macquarie University, the Centre will apply advanced analytical methods to molecular characterisation of bioactive products derived from foods, food-waste, and cell-based biotechnologies. It will determine modes of action for bioactives with potential lifestyle and nutritional benefits allowing for evidencebased decision-making and regulatory framework development.

Collaborators include Bioplatforms Australia, Botanical Innovations, Change Foods, Factors Group Australia, Gratuk Technologies, Medikane Holdings, Natural Health Science Foundation, NSW Research Facility, Sanitarium, Skretting Australia, Soho Flordis International,

20 food australia

Venus Shell Systems and six additional universities.

• ARC Research Hub for Supercharging Tropical Aquaculture Through Genetic Solutions ($4.9 million). Led

by Professor Dean Jerry, James Cook University, this project will deliver the genetic knowledge to instigate world-leading breeding programs for barramundi, pearl oyster, prawn, grouper and marine algae in northern Australia. It will establish a novel understanding of the genetic basis of disease resistance and how the production environment interfaces with the bacterial microbiome, pathogens and water quality to cause disease.

The research hub will partner with Mainstream Aquaculture Group, Seafarms Group, Cygnet Bay Pearls, The Company One, Sea Forest, the Australian Genome Research Facility and the University of Queensland.

• Understanding how bacteria adapt and function in the complex gut ecosystem. A $3.3 million Laureate Fellowship awarded to Professor Dena Lyras, Monash University.

This project aims to develop multidisciplinary methods to study microbes in their native state, to understand how they adapt to live in the gut, and the mechanisms that lead to bacterial proliferation,

disease and antibiotic resistance.

This research should contribute to improved gut health of animals, and more efficient food production.

Linkage Projects New Linkage projects were also announced in this period, ranging from $261,000 - $760,000 in ARC funding, with additional co-funding provided by industry partners. These included: • Novel Multilevel Modelling Framework to Design Advanced Food Drying Process. Led by Associate Professor Azharul Karim, QUT, with Iccon Solutions. A multilevel modelling framework for food drying will be developed by integrating the micro, macro, and dryer scale transport process and considering the dynamic changes in the drying environment under the intermittent application of microwave energy. This framework will be used in the development of next-generation food drying systems, which are expected to deliver significant improvement in energy efficiency and product quality and reduction in drying time and food waste.

• Understanding engagement to regulate the commercial determinants of health. Led by Professor Sharon Friel, ANU, with the Obesity Policy Coalition,

Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and NCD Alliance.

This project aims to generate new knowledge on how government and non-government organisations can prevent poor health via their effective regulation of harmful commodity industries, specifically alcohol and highly-processed food. Expected outcomes include improved methodologies in health governance, and enhanced capacity among Partner organisations to engage effectively with different industries.

• Agave - a new Australian crop with a resilient spirit. Led by Professor Rachel Burton, University of Adelaide, with Top Shelf International Holdings, Fraunhofer Institute and Prospect Agricultural Trust. This project will support the establishment of Agave as a sustainable, versatile and climateproof Australian crop, and the production of a new high value spirit for domestic and global markets.

Product character and consistency will be optimised by integration and control of the production chain, encompassing plant growth, input materials, and fermentation and distillation steps for a complete plant to bottle pipeline.

• Protein biosensors for detecting smoke exposure of grapes. Led

by Professor Kirill Alexandrov, QUT, with CSIRO; Australian Wine Research Institute, and Molecular Warehouse. This will apply a combination of organic synthesis, protein engineering and directed evolution to develop protein-based biosensors of phenolic glucosides, contaminants that lead to ‘smoke taint’ in wine. These will be used to devise a portable colorimetric test that can be applied in the vineyard or the winery, to rapidly determine the level of grape contamination with phenolic glucosides, as a predictor of smoke taint.

• Transforming residues from meat processing into engineered soil amendments. Led by Professor Dirk Erler, Southern Cross University, with the Department

A commercial Agave crop. of Regional NSW and Northern Co-operative Meat Company.

The aim is to transform organic residues from meat processing into agricultural soil amendments that improve nutrient retention and reduce emissions of nitrous oxide (a potent greenhouse gas).

Hydrothermal carbonisation process will be used to transform organic residues into novel hydrochars.

The influence of these hydrochars on soil nutrient retention and N2O production will then be assessed using stable isotope tracing, genetic characterisation, and numerical modelling.

• Towards ‘zero hunger’: improving food relief services in Australia. Led

by Professor Svetlana Bogomolova, University of South Australia, with The Food Centre, Foodbank of South Australia, Anglicare SA and Department of Human Services.

Following an innovative co-design process with sector stakeholders, this project investigates food relief service models that satisfy emergency needs as well as address root causes of food insecurity.

Expected outcomes include tested best-practice guidelines and auditing tools for improving, monitoring and evaluating food relief services.

• Maximising the value of Australia’s sheepmeat industry with smart photonics. Led by Professor Robert McLaughlin, University of Adelaide, with Meat & Livestock Australia

and Miniprobes. This project aims to investigate new photonics technologies to measure meat quality in lamb and mutton during processing. It expects to develop new knowledge in the areas of fibre optics and 3D printing for use by the red meat and livestock industries.

• Plant based foods: towards sustainable and acceptable meat analogues. Led by Professor Jason Stokes, UQ, with Motif Foodworks.

The project aims to generate new knowledge on the structural drivers for emulating meat-like texture and taste within plant-based burger products. Expected outcomes of this project include new ingredients and food characterisation methodologies, including rheology and sensory, which can be employed in rational food structure design. This should provide significant benefits in enhancing the consumer acceptance of plantbased foods.

ARC Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA) and Discovery Project grants ARC DECRA and Discovery grants, although generally more academic in nature, can be very effective in establishing key elements of scientific knowledge and capability for application in future industrial and social research. Projects funded in this period included:

food australia 21

RESEARCH ROUNDUP FEATURE

• Influence of the food environment near schools on children’s food intake. Led by Dr Gina Trapp, UWA, this project will longitudinally map, measure and monitor the food environment near schools and investigate how the proximity of healthy and unhealthy food outlets near schools impacts on children’s eating behaviours.

The findings will be used to develop recommendations for key stakeholders (e.g. school staff, students, parents, community members, retailers, planners and government) to help create equitable and health-promoting food environments near schools.

• Maximising the beneficial impacts of mycorrhizal fungi on grain nutrition. Led by Dr Stephanie Watts-Fawkes, University of Melbourne, this project aims to determine the effects of beneficial soil fungi on wheat and rice grain quality for human nutrition. It will use a combination of physiological, molecular and agronomic techniques to generate fundamental knowledge in sustainable agriculture, to improve grain quality and value. Expected outcomes include enhanced understanding of the mechanisms underlying improved grain quality, and the capacity to use soil fungi to increase grain micronutrient concentrations and bioavailability.

• A ‘deadly’ solution: towards an Indigenous-led bush food industry. Led by Adjunct Professor Dale Chapman, UQ. This research aims to enable Indigenous businesses from bushfoods and native ornamental plants endemic to the Custodial Lands of four Traditional Owner partners.

The Project will investigate new technologies for horticultural and food products, product traceability, and transparent and secure information flows. Key expected benefits are: sustainable, profitable Indigenous industries, and revitalisation of traditional knowledge and Indigenous biocultural heritage.

22 food australia

• Food and beverage price promotions: An untapped policy target. Led by Associate Professor Kathryn Backholer, Deakin University. Aims to generate evidence on the influence of price promotions on foods and beverages considered to be of concern for human and planetary health and whether policies could be designed to reduce these types of price promotions and understand the feasibility and acceptability of doing so, from a range of perspectives.

Unhealthy diets are the leading cause of disease and death and unhealthy foods account for >30% of the food-related environmental footprint. If this novel policy target can be designed to improve population food choices, this project will ultimately deliver benefits for human and planetary health.

• Understanding algal bloom microbiome function to improve seafood safety. Led by Associate Professor Christopher Bolch, University of Tasmania. This project aims to establish the structure and function of natural phytoplankton microbiomes, and how they contribute to seafood poisoning caused by bacteria and algal biotoxins. Using advanced flow cytometry with single-cell microbial profiling, the study will sample nano-scale plankton microbiomes and synthetic microbiome phylogenomics to establish the link between microbiomes and seafood poisoning outbreaks. The outcomes will enhance predictive modelling of poisoning risk to ensure the safety and security of seafood exports.

• EnzOnomy - an enzyme-based production pipeline for the bioeconomy. Led by Professor Gerhard Schenk, UQ. Aims to harness the potential of protein engineering to develop a technology (EnzOnomy) to convert renewable raw material (e.g. sugar) into platform chemicals (e.g. isobutanol, a building block for jet fuels, fibers, plastics and antioxidants). This will become a

cornerstone for the emerging global bioeconomy, underpinning the sustainable production of high value chemicals (e.g. fuels, foods) from renewable materials. The project will employ a multi-disciplinary, international team to link scientific progress to markets to enhance potential commercial impact in the bioeconomy.

• Biofilm responses to cold atmospheric plasma. Led by Dr Anne Mai-Prochnow, University of Sydney. This project is focused on understanding the interaction of cold atmospheric plasmas with biofilms, with the ultimate aim offering an environmentally friendly alternative method to current detergents and antibiotics, to tackle the ubiquitous problem of biofilm contamination in food, water and medical areas.

The research expects to elucidate the fundamental mechanisms of action for breakthrough plasma intervention technologies, which are sufficiently active to cope with the resistant nature of biofilms, yet are of low energy, do not adversely affect surface properties and critically, leave no residual chemistry.

• The regulation of desire by bodily state. Led by Professor Richard Stevenson, Macquarie University.

Many experiences, like food, wine and sex, are pleasurable. These experiences are also desired, but less so when sated. The aim of this proposal is to understand how satiation regulates desire.

The research proposes to test two memory-based models, using new experimental approaches. This is significant, not only because poorly regulated desire is linked to many social and economic ills (e.g. overeating), but also because it is a key part of human motivation that is poorly understood.

(The above descriptions are an edited version of the summaries available on the ARC website https://www.arc.gov. au/grants/grant-outcomes).

Dr Martin Palmer is Enterprise Fellow, Food & Agribusiness, at the University of Melbourne. f

FOOD SAFETY

New insights into foodborne pathogen source tracking using whole genome sequencing Words by Dr Mark Turner

T

he technique ‘genome sequencing’ has received considerable public exposure recently, with state Premiers and Chief Health Officers regularly referring to its use in analysing COVID-19 virus sequences from infected patients to identify variants (e.g. Delta variant), likely transmission pathways and outbreak clusters. With advances in next generation sequencing technology, the cost and speed of obtaining the entire sequence of genetic material (DNA or RNA) of viruses and bacteria has allowed this to become a relatively routine method.

Whole genome sequencing (WGS) of pathogenic foodborne bacteria has also taken off in recent years. The cost for obtaining a typical bacterial draft genome currently sits at around $100 and data can be obtained within a few days. Pathogen isolates obtained from ill people are now routinely analysed

by WGS to allow for the identification of linked cases (clusters) which would signal the start of an outbreak caused by a common food source. WGS can also be used to genetically match isolates from ill people to isolates from food sources in traceback analysis during an outbreak investigation.

The USA are leading the way with the application of WGS to investigate and control of foodborne outbreaks. In the past seven years, there has been a shift in the way foodborne pathogens

are analysed genetically. The former gold standard method called PulsedField Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) involved the cutting and separation of large genomic DNA fragments in gels and comparing the banding profiles of isolates using a centralised database. This method, whilst effective, gave limited information of a bacterial strain (e.g. 15-30 DNA bands), as compared to WGS which provides millions of DNA bases (A, C, G and T) as information that can be compared.

WGS can be used to compare pathogen strain relatedness at very high resolution. It can also reveal the presence of antibiotic resistance genes which can be used to inform patient treatments. Currently there are more than 600,000 genome sequences from bacterial foodborne pathogens present in a publicly available database (NCBI Pathogen Detection: https://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pathogens/) coordinated by the US FDA GenomeTrakr network.1 Isolates were obtained from a variety of clinical, food, environmental and food processing facility sources. The focus is on the most common or severe foodborne bacterial pathogens including Salmonella (372,000 genomes), Escherichia coli/Shigella (187,000 genomes), Campylobacter jejuni (64,000 genomes) and Listeria monocytogenes (43,000 genomes).

This genome database continues to expand rapidly and has proven

to be a powerful tool in foodborne outbreak investigations. As an example, this technology is allowing the identification of more outbreaks of L. monocytogenes (that would have likely been missed previously) and the average number of illnesses per outbreak has reduced. With the high mortality rates caused by this bacterium, this has undoubtedly saved lives.

In the past year there have been significant foodborne outbreaks in the US involving peaches and onions contaminated with Salmonella and romaine lettuce contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. Investigations into each of these outbreaks involved WGS analysis which has resulted in insights into factors affecting pathogen contamination of food.

Airborne Salmonella contamination of peaches?

Peaches grown in California and contaminated with Salmonella Enteritidis caused 101 illnesses in the USA between June and August, 2020.2 Testing of peaches, peach tree leaves, and environmental samples from packing/holding centres did not reveal a matching Salmonella strain with that of the ill people. However, two different Salmonella strains were obtained from samples from within the source orchard (canopy tree leaves and peaches on trees). Interestingly

food australia 23

FOOD SAFETY FEATURE

these two Salmonella isolates had genome sequences identical or highly similar to genomes of isolates obtained from historical chicken or cattle samples already present in the database. Examination of land near the peach orchard fields revealed adjacent poultry and dairy farms. Investigators have suggested that airborne transmission of dust laden Salmonella from neighbouring animal operations is therefore a plausible route of peach contamination.

Recent research examining bacterial communities present on trees in an almond orchard downwind of a commercial poultry operation provides some support for this hypothesis.

E. coli was detected at a 40-fold higher rate in air from orchards next to the poultry operation, compared to those further away.3 Bacteria of the family Staphylococcaceae, which are commonly found in the chicken microbiome, made up 10% of the bacterial population (relative abundance) on leaves from orchard trees in close proximity to the poultry operation, compared with trees located 120m away in the same orchard (1.7% relative abundance), and also trees in distant orchards (0.47% relative abundance). This outbreak investigation and research suggests that short-range airborne transmission of pathogens onto food crops is possible.

Salmonella on red onions The largest Salmonella outbreak in over a decade, with 1127 cases in the USA and 515 cases in Canada resulting from the consumption of red onions, occurred between June and September, 2020.4 The actual number of cases are estimated to be in the tens of thousands due to under-reporting of mild illnesses and lack of clinical sample testing typically occurring in foodborne outbreaks.

Red onions have not been implicated in a foodborne outbreak until now.

Traceback analysis identified two onion growing locations, from which a large number of samples (2000) were tested for Salmonella from the farm environment and packing house sites. Despite this extensive testing,

24 food australia

Figure 1. A phylogenetic (genetic relatedness) analysis of genomes from a subset of Salmonella Enteritidis strains within a genetically related cluster using the NCBI Pathogen Detection database. Clinical isolates from sick people (red) and environmental/food isolates, including the source (blue) are indicated. the outbreak strain of Salmonella Newport was not found. However 11 samples from water and sediment located near one of the onion growing fields contained several Salmonella isolates of the same serotype as the outbreak isolate (Newport), but with different WGS profiles. It was therefore hypothesised that contaminated irrigation water likely led to the introduction of Salmonella onto the onions. Examination of the farm environment revealed grazing sheep in close proximity to the onion fields and irrigation water supply, and evidence of animal intrusion and large flocks of birds. Whilst the ‘smoking gun’ was not found in this outbreak, like for the Salmonella-peach outbreak mentioned above, the presence of any Salmonella on fresh produce is significant and of concern, since onions and peaches can be consumed raw without any cook/ kill step.

One interesting finding during this investigation was the identification of two strains of Salmonella in water samples taken near the onion growing field, that when sequenced, matched clinical isolates (Salmonella Muenchen and Salmonella Montevideo) from 2016 and 2018 foodborne outbreaks associated with sprout consumption.

Therefore, by chance it appears as though this farming region, which is also involved in seed production for sprouting, has persistent/resident Salmonella strains which have the

potential to contaminate a variety of different produce.

E. coli O157:H7 on romaine lettuce and leafy greens again and again The US has grappled with annual E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks associated with the consumption of romaine lettuce and leafy greens grown in California.

It is particularly concerning that the same E. coli O157:H7 strain is linked to leafy green consumption in 2018, 2019 and 2020, and is closely related as shown by WGS to strains from clinical samples obtained back in 2016 and 2017.5 Therefore it appears to be a reoccurring strain of concern from a reoccurring production environment (the Salinas and Santa Maria valleys of California). E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks have also occurred from romaine lettuce grown in Yuma, Arizona. E. coli O157:H7 produces a nasty Shiga toxin which can cause severe health problems (kidney failure) and even death in susceptible groups (children, elderly and immunocompromised).

Since 2017, there have been >500 illnesses and five deaths from E. coli O157:H7 infections associated with the consumption of romaine lettuce or leafy greens grown in California and Arizona. Environmental sampling and WGS has identified the E. coli O157:H7 strain in a cattle faeces sample taken approximately 2km from leafy green

farms in California and in canal water sample is a genetic match for an samples taken near farms in Arizona. isolate causing illness, it does not Cattle have been shown to be a necessarily mean that the patient common source of pathogenic E. coli picked up that pathogen from that including E. coli O157:H7 and the US food or environment. Other evidence FDA has referred to cattle operations (epidemiological and traceback on land adjacent to fresh produce analysis) is essential to identify the farms as a significant risk factor. In pathogen source and WGS should not Yuma, Arizona, there are 100,000 be the only information used to draw cattle feedlot operations located within conclusions.6 a stones throw of large leafy green fields. Contamination of agricultural References 1. FDA Genome Trackr Fast Facts water sources or airborne transmission https://www.fda.gov/food/whole-genomesequencing-wgs-program/genometrakr-fastof pathogens from cattle faeces, facts as mentioned above in the peach 2. https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaksfoodborne-illness/factors-potentiallyoutbreak, are potential risk factors. The contributing-contamination-peaches-implicatedUS has a lot of work ahead of them summer-2020-outbreak-salmonella 3. Theofel CG, TR, Gutierrez to deal with this recurring food safetyProjekt1_Layout 1 Williams 08.03.2021 10:36 E,Seite 2 issue.

Caution in using WGS data in food safety investigations WGS has been a powerful technology to identify outbreak clusters and support traceback efforts in outbreak investigations. An overwhelming majority of genome sequences from foodborne pathogens in the database are from clinical isolates, however significant efforts are currently underway to increase the number of food and environmental pathogen genomes in the database. This will allow for matching of clinical and food isolates and provide some useful information such as that shown for isolates in Figure 1. This is a phylogenetic tree of Salmonella Enteritidis isolates from various clinical and food sources. There are only seven nucleotides difference between all the isolates’ genomes as determined by WGS, indicating that they are closely related.

The data suggests that this Salmonella strain which has caused multiple infections is associated with poultry.

However caution is needed before conclusions are drawn in many cases when analysing WGS data. Just because an isolate from a food or environmental

Davidson GR, Jay-Russell M, Harris LJ. 2020.

Microorganisms move a short distance into an almond orchard from an adjacent upwind poultry operation. Appl Environ Microbiol 86: e00573-20.

4. https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaksfoodborne-illness/factors-potentiallycontributing-contamination-red-onionsimplicated-summer-2020-outbreak-salmonella 5. https://www.fda.gov/food/outbreaksfoodborne-illness/factors-potentiallycontributing-contamination-romaine-lettuceimplicated-three-outbreaks-e-coli 6. Pightling, A.W., Pettengill, J.B., Luo, Y., Baugher, J.D., Rand, H. and Strain, E., 2018. Interpreting whole-genome sequence analyses of foodborne bacteria for regulatory applications and outbreak investigations. Frontiers in Microbiology, 9, p.1482.

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

COLOUR For extra boost!

I N D U S T R I E S

www.cathayindustries.com.au

food australia 25

REGULATORY FEATURE

Navigating supplemented food regulations – how they differ ‘across the ditch’ Words by Ciska de Rijk LLB(Hons), BSc and Julie Cox LLB (Hons), B.Sc

T

he rise in popularity of supplemented foods is undeniable. From gut friendly ingredients to protein to vitamins galore – what you can do with foods is endless. Or is it?

This article explores how supplemented foods are regulated in New Zealand, and how this differs to Australia - perhaps creating more opportunities and flexibility for health food businesses who can manufacture ‘across the ditch’.

New Zealand law Most foods sold in New Zealand are regulated by the joint Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (Food Code). Prior to New Zealand adopting the Food Code, certain food products were classified as dietary supplements and were regulated under the NZ Dietary Supplement

26 food australia

Regulations 1985 (DSRs) which was enacted under the Food Act 1981 (at the time).

As the Food Code did not extend to these food-type dietary supplements, they continued to be regulated under the DSRs. This was until 2010 when partial reform occurred with the introduction of the New Zealand Food (Supplemented Food) Standard (SF Standard). The intention behind the SF Standard was to provide updated regulation for food-type dietary supplements and to align them as closely as possible with the Food Code requirements.

Practically speaking, this meant that regulation of dietary supplements was split into two categories: • Food-type dietary supplements under the SF Standard; and • Therapeutic-type supplements under the DSRs.1

What are supplemented foods?

The SF Standard defines the term ‘supplemented food’ as follows: A supplemented food is a product that is represented as a food that has a substance or substances added to it, or that has been modified in some way, to perform a physiological role beyond the provision of a simple nutritive requirement.

The SF Standard also makes it clear that some products are NOT supplemented foods. This includes: • Dietary supplements (as defined under the DSRs) • Medicines (as defined under the NZ Medicines Act 1981) • Controlled drugs or restricted substances (as defined under the NZ Misuse of Drugs Act 1975), or • Formulated meal replacements, formulated supplementary food or

formulated caffeinated beverages (as defined under the Food Code).

This means that where a product falls within the definition of any of the above listed products, it cannot be a supplemented food under the SF Standard. However, for all other foods and where there are not appropriate ingredient permissions in the Food Code, it is possible that the food may meet the SF Standard requirements and be regulated as a supplemented food. By way of example, a yoghurt product with added folic acid would not be permitted under the Food Code as the Food Code does not permit the addition of folic acid to yoghurt. However, under the SF Standard folic acid can be added to yoghurt (at restricted levels) and the product could otherwise be a supplemented food.

What compositional requirements apply to supplemented foods?

A key benefit of the SF Standard is that ingredient composition requirements are less restrictive than under the Food Code. In particular: • The SF Standard does not provide a complete list of vitamins, minerals, botanical and bio-active substances that can be added to supplemented foods. Unless it is specifically restricted or prohibited under the SF Standard, any of these substances (which can be nutritive substances) can be added provided it is safe and suitable for the purpose that it is being added.

For example, a food business must still ensure that the substance, when eaten as intended, is unlikely to cause or lead to illness or injury to humans or public health. Ensuring food is ‘safe and suitable’ is a primary duty of all persons who trade in food and is required under section 14 of the Food Act 2014.

• The SF Standard is less restrictive than the Food Code on the use of novel foods. Under the Food Code, a novel food can only be added to a food if it is expressly permitted. However, under the SF Standard, an ingredient that can be

considered novel may be used in a supplemented food so long as it is safe and suitable (as required by the Food Act).

What labelling requirements apply to supplemented foods?

The SF Standard incorporates much of the same labelling and claims requirements as set out under the Food Code. This means that the Food Code labelling requirements relevant to ingredient statements, allergens and nutrition information panels will also apply to supplemented foods, as will the requirements for nutrition and health claims.

Can supplemented foods be sold in Australia?

Australia does not currently have an equivalent to the SF Standard in New Zealand. This means that consumables are regulated in Australia as either ‘foods’ pursuant to the Food Code or as ‘therapeutic goods’ pursuant to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Commonwealth) and associated regulations. This binary approach to regulation continues to present significant challenges and uncertainty for Australian health food businesses who wish to operate at the food/ therapeutic good interface.

While the SF Standard is a New Zealand specific standard and therefore applies to New Zealand only, it is possible in certain situations for supplemented foods to be imported and sold in Australia with no changes to the labels or formulations pursuant to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA).

Under the TTMRA, Australia and New Zealand have agreed that, subject to limited exceptions, food produced or imported in one country that meets that country’s food standards, may be legally sold in the other country.

In theory, this means it is possible that a food may be non-compliant with the ingredient composition requirements under the Food Code (e.g. where it contains a novel food) but be permitted to be sold in New Zealand as a ‘supplemented food’ under the SF Standard. In addition,

and in reliance on the TTMRA, it is also possible for this product to be legally sold in Australia as a ‘supplemented food’ without any changes to its composition or label so long as it is compliant with the SF Standard.

There are some important restrictions on the extent to which the TTMRA may be relied upon to import supplemented foods from New Zealand. In particular, it is not possible to rely on the TTMRA to import a supplemented food from New Zealand if it is a ‘therapeutic good’ as defined in Australia’s therapeutic goods legislation. Given the breadth of the definition of ‘therapeutic goods’ this needs to be carefully considered before seeking to rely on the TTMRA.

What next for supplemented food regulation?

It remains to be seen whether Australia’s food regulatory system will be reformed to provide further flexibility like that under the SF Standard in New Zealand. In the meantime, Australian food businesses that find the novel food or nutritive substance restrictions under the Food Code overly restrictive may wish to explore whether their foods can comply with the SF Standard and rely on the TTMRA to be imported and sold in Australia. While not without complexity, this remains an avenue worth considering for food businesses with trans-Tasman manufacturing capabilities.

Footnote It is worth noting that the DSRs currently remain in force but the intention is for these regulations to be replaced by the Natural Health Products Bill which is currently before Parliament.

Ciska de Rijk and Julie Cox are specialist legal consultants with expertise in food regulation, advertising and marketing law. Ciska is founder and principal of Essence, a New Zealand legal compliance practice. Julie is founder and principal of Provenance, an Australian based legal practice dedicated to the food and beverage industry. f

food australia 27

SENSORY & CONSUMER SCIENCE FEATURE

FOOD FILES

Words by Dr Russell Keast, Dr Georgie Russell, Dr Andrew Costanzo and Jookyeong Lee

Which is more filling: plant-based or dairy-based protein?

Foods with added protein have increased in popularity in recent years. This may be because of their potential health properties, including their ability to regulate appetite due to being highly satiating (or filling).

Whey protein has traditionally been the main source of added protein in foods. There has been an increased interest in plant-based proteins as they are perceived as being more natural, healthy, and better for the environment. However, it is unclear whether plant-based proteins add the same appetite-regulating value as whey protein.

A recent study investigated the effect of protein source on appetite control in healthy adults. In this study, 37 healthy adults were fed breakfast meals with added protein on separate days, which were one of the following: yoghurt with whey protein, yoghurt with pea protein, and a carbohydrate-based meal as a control (no protein). Following the breakfast meal, appetite questionnaires were completed

28 food australia

to assess appetite over the next 4-hours, and then an all-you-caneat pizza lunch was provided to the participants.

Overall, there was no effect of the different protein sources on 4-hour postprandial appetite. The questionnaire responses and the amount of pizza eaten at the all-youcan-eat lunch were similar regardless of which protein was consumed for breakfast beforehand. So, what does this mean for the development of new products with added protein?

Essentially, it means whey and pea proteins are equally effective at regulating appetite. Pea protein can be an effective addition or substitution in novel foods to target health conscious or environmentally conscious consumers without compromising on appetitive qualities.

It should be noted that this study only assessed pea protein, so this may not apply to other plant-based proteins like hemp or soy.

Griffith C, Piacquadio K, Braden M & Leidy H (2021). “Effects of Protein Source and Quantity on Appetite Control, Satiety and Subsequent Food Intake in Healthy Adults”. Curr Dev Nutr 5(Supp 2): 409. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzab038_021

Which sweetener is best in high protein foods?

For a number of years there have been dietary trends/fads for increased protein, low carbohydrate foods and diets. Think about the keto based diets such as South Beach or Atkin or the increase in protein based beverages that use non-nutritive (no sugar) sweeteners for flavour. The use of non-carb based sweeteners can help meet the high-protein low-carb philosophy, however the effectiveness of non-nutritive sweeteners to effectively mask some of the protein off-flavours has been questioned.

Recent developments in sensory science have led to the development of temporal (time course) measurements which yield superior results to a static or moment in time approach. The temporal measurements can be on product attributes or liking. A study utilised temporal methods including an attribute analysis along with liking to assess which sweetener performed best (flavour wise) in a high protein beverage. A penalty analysis was conducted to identify key attributes

that have a negative influence on liking of the high protein beverage.

Results showed that the control sucrose was the best sweetener with no negative attributes identified.

Monk fruit was penalised for metallic flavour over the course of consumption, while stevia was penalised for bitter, metallic and astringency attributes. A combination of monk fruit and stevia was more effective as it reduced the attribute penalties of the individual sweeteners. The positive effect of combining sweeteners to reduce an individual sweetener’s off-flavours is an emerging trend in the food industry and studies investigating combinations of sweeteners have been overwhelmingly positive.

Harwood W and Drake M (2021). Application of temporal penalty analysis for the optimization of sugar reduction in protein beverages. Journal of Sensory Studies 36 e12644 https://doi.org/10.1111/ joss.12644 Mahato et al. (2021). Optimization of natural sweeteners for sugar reduction in chocolate flavoured milk and their impact on sensory attributes. International Dairy Journal 115 https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2020.104922

Understanding links between texture and food acceptance Texture is a dynamic and complex attribute of foods mainly perceived by the sense of touch but can also include visual and auditory perceptions. Food texture can tell us about the quality aspect of foods. For example, tender and juicy steak and crispy chips would be more desirable than tough steak or soggy chips.

Food texture is also an important reason why some foods are rejected by both children and adults. For children in particular, a food’s texture can influence whether a food is rejected. Yoghurts with pieces of fruit, for instance, have been shown to be rejected by children in favour of smooth yoghurts.1 Other studies have shown that foods with slimy or mushy textures also tend to be rejected more often.2 Scientists have tried to understand how and why food texture might affect food acceptance and rejection for some individuals. This has led to the examination of oral tactile sensitivity,

or how sensitive individuals are in their tactile perception. Tactile perception is underpinned by mechanoreceptors in the mouth.

Despite the important role of texture in food acceptance and rejection, studies have rarely investigated the oral tactile sensitivity of children.

One of the challenges to understanding more about oral tactile sensitivity has been the lack of a suitable way of measuring it. We have recently tested a screening tool to determine oral tactile sensitivity in children: the grating orientation task. This task utilises a custom stimulus (the grate) which looks like a lolly pop in the shape of a cube with varying groove widths along its base, and a 4 cm- long handle.

The oral grate is pressed on to the child’s tongue either vertically or horizontally in a random order and children are asked to identify the orientation of grooves. This is done with grooves of varying widths, with the narrower grooves being more difficult to detect the orientation.

We have recently shown that this task is able to measure oral tactile sensitivity in children, distinguishing those who are more sensitive from those who are less

sensitive. It is therefore a suitable and convenient measure of oral tactile sensitivity in children. The result of our study is encouraging in that oral tactile sensitivity using the grating orientation task can be better understood now that we have a suitable measure. The next steps in this research are to examine whether oral tactile sensitivity relates to how much children like and dislike different food textures. This will ultimately advance our knowledge on food acceptance and perception in children, particularly those driven by food texture.

1. Werthmann, J., Jansen, A., Havermans, R., Nederkoorn, C., Kremers, S., & Roefs, A. (2015).

Bits and pieces. Food texture influences food acceptance in young children. Appetite, 84, 181187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.09.025 2. Boquin, M. M., Moskowitz, H. R., Donovan, S. M., & Lee, S.-Y. (2014). Defining perceptions of picky eating obtained through focus groups and conjoint analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies, 29(2), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12088

Dr Russell Keast is Professor, Dr Georgie Russell is a Senior Lecturer, Dr Andrew Costanzo is a Lecturer and Jookyeong Lee is a PhD candidate. They are all members of the CASS Food Research Centre at Deakin University. f

food australia 29

FOOD INSECURITY FEATURE

Tackling food insecurity: a new campaign provides an opportunity for brands to make a difference Words by Tiffany Fong

D

elays in international trade due to COVID-19 brought attention to supply chain vulnerabilities and Australians became more aware of the importance of buying local. Recognising the importance of innovation during the pandemic, food businesses are building on this momentum to connect with local communities and consumers.

As with other industries, the food processing industry continued to operate, providing over 276,000 jobs nationally and contributing $122.1 billion to the Australian economy.1 Prior to the pandemic, values and corporate practices were already becoming increasingly important to branding.2 Consumers were mindful of their spending power, choosing to support local, ethical businesses which promoted healthy and sustainable living while supporting local communities and causes.3 COVID-19 has meant that many Australians are dipping in and out

30 food australia

of lockdown, amplifying the existing problems of loneliness and food insecurity. The pandemic has caused widespread business closures and left many without income, resulting in an increase of Australians facing food insecurity.

Humans are social creatures and isolation takes a toll on our mental health and lockdown has further compounded issues with loneliness. Prior to the pandemic, 1 in 4 Australians reported problematic levels of loneliness but this figure has increased to 1 in 2, a 100% rise that has been compounded by lockdown.

Australia’s food industry is perfectly placed to make a difference to both social issues.

The recent #Cook2Connect campaign exemplifies how food businesses can stand out by making a difference in a meaningful way.

Research shows that when brand advertisers work together with charitable organisations to produce

combined messages about social causes, consumers are more willing to purchase and switch brands.4 #Cook2Connect neatly tackled two social issues simultaneously - loneliness and food insecurity.

Consumers were encouraged to stave off loneliness by ‘Sharing a Plate with a Mate’, making the most out of their fresh produce and pantry items to make restaurant quality meals, and were urged to donate to OzHarvest.

Food processors know how important food is in maintaining our health and nutrition, however, there has been increasing interest and research into how food helps to build community.5 Michael Simonetta, CEO of Perfection Fresh, said: “Perfection Fresh was proud to be a part of the #HomeCooked campaign in 2020, so #Cook2Connect was a natural fit for us in 2021. As an Australian family-owned business for over 40 years, the campaign aligned with our

mission to inspire a healthier world by connecting people to sustainable fresh food.”

MGI Entertainment’s General Manager of Content, Byron Keane notes this trend within the industry, “Consumers today want more from the brands that they engage with.

They want brands to be aligned with causes they care about. The thinking behind #Cook2Connect was to provide an avenue for brands to develop emotional connections with target consumers, while helping raise much-needed funds for OzHarvest”. #Cook2Connect helps participating brands such as Perfection Fresh, D’Orsogna, Kenwood, Nature Nate’s Honey, NH Foods Australia, Patak’s, Rio Vista Olives and TEFAL, to align themselves with social causes and reach new potential buyers through a combination of influencers, digital media platforms and traditional media platforms.

Food businesses benefit greatly from participating in similar campaigns which help them to create a positive brand image through their support of social causes while placing their products at the centre of family meals.

References 1. Australian Food & Grocery Council. (2019) State of the Industry Report 2019. Retrieved from https://www.afgc.org.au/industry-resources/state-ofthe-industry 2. Swaminathan, V., Sorescu, A., Steenkamp, J. E. M., Clayton, T., O’Guinn, G.

& Schmitt, B. (2020). Branding in a Hyperconnected World: Refocusing Theories and Rethinking Boundaries. American Marketing Association, 84(2), 24-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919899905.

3. Australian Food & Grocery Council. (2021) Sustaining Australia Food and Grocery Manufacturing 2030. Retrieved from https://www.afgc. org.au/industry-resources/sustaining-australia-food-and-grocerymanufacturing-2030 4. Schmidt, T. L. & Hitchon J. C. (1999), When Advertising and Public Relations Converge: An Application of Schema Theory to the Persuasive Impact of Alignment Ads. J&MC Quarterly, 76(3), 433-455. https://doi.org /10.1177/107769909907600303 5. Dunbar, R. I. M.(2017). Breaking Bread: The Functions of Social Eating.

Adaptive Human Behaviour and Physiology, (2017), 198-211. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40750-017-0061-4

Tiffany Fong is the Public Relations Account Manager for MGI Entertainment. f

ELISA Systems Processed Egg Residue Detection Kit ESEGGPR-48 The accurate detection of egg protein in heat processed foods, such as bakery products or pasta has previously been challenging.

To overcome these issues ELISA Systems has developed a new Processed Egg Residue Detection Kit that incorporates a novel, straight-forward sample extraction to allow high efficiency detection of egg protein in both heat processed and non-processed foods.

Our new innovative Processed Egg Residue Detection kit is now in stock and is ready to go!

Click here to find out more!

8 Cox Road Windsor QLD 4030 Australia

Phone: E-mail:

+61 7 3625 9000 sales@elisasystems.com

food australia 31

FEATURE FOOD ENGINEERING

Food engineering learnings from the ICEF13 Congress Words by Dr Pablo Juliano

T

he 13th International Congress of Engineering and Food (ICEF13) took place at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre in September 2019 and was an outstanding success. ICEF13 hosted 550 delegates from 40 countries and 5 continents who contributed to a diverse program1 made up from contributions captured in more than 750 accepted abstracts. The delegates represented practitioners from industry, leading academics, equipment and software suppliers, and students. Presentations were delivered across nine keynote sessions, 54 concurrent sessions and 280 posters. ICEF13 was organised by the Australian Food Engineering Association2 (AFEA), Engineers Australia (EA), and Waldron Smith Management. This was a major milestone for AFEA since its incorporation in 2000 to represent Australia as a member of the International Association of Engineering and Food (IAEF).

ICEF is known as the premier event in the field of food engineering and Australia won a competitive bid to host it in 2019. For the first-time, the Congress developed a program that placed food engineering in the context of food supply chains and their relevance to food security

32 food australia

and human health. The Congress expanded beyond its program by creating a legacy book3 and two special issues in Food Engineering Reviews4 and the Journal of Food Engineering.5 The book, which includes 26 chapters, aims to capture many of the learnings from ICEF13 and is expected to be launched in November 2021. It includes a concluding chapter that debriefs and summarises the latest advances in food engineering as captured at the Congress and references the other 25 book chapters plus the 30 papers published in both special issues. The present article briefly introduces a few highlights summarised in the book.

mechanisation of vegetable washing and packing in fresh markets. In the humanitarian context, examples on modular containerised lines designed for fast installation in remote locations and locally made ready-to-use supplementary foods were presented.6 The topic of food systems engineering was introduced with examples of technologies that enable systems decarbonisation (e.g. microwave heating) and reduction of water scarcity footprint, or personalised strategies for sustainable nutrition by including alternative protein sources.

Engineering safe, sustainable and healthy food access for all

The global demand for meat and dairy continues to increase and is not being sustainably matched with current production practices. The Congress addressed the innovations in traditional and emerging technologies for processing sources of sustainable nutrients from plant, insect, algal and cell-based sources (animal, yeast, fungi or microalgal cells). Some engineering examples included: • Industrial integrated aquaculture cropping of green seaweed to deliver protein powders, alginate, sugars, and bioactives • Low-cost production of microalgae

The need to develop and implement food technologies suitable for the realities of developing regions was highlighted. However, a strong gap was clearly identified in this field during the Congress and recommendations were given to raise this issue to the top of the global agenda. A few examples addressed during ICEF13 included low-scale low-cost drying (e.g. ‘Royal’ solar dryer, controlled direct sun drying, solar-hot air dryer, heat pump drying, or hybrid solar-vacuum dryer) or

Alternative sustainable food sources

to manufacture whole-cell ingredients or fractions, and technologies such as pulsed electric fields for ‘algal milking’ of protein without cell damage • Consumer waste upcycling into black soldier fly production and food product development at industrial scale with lower environmental impacts • Mealworm and cricket freeze dried protein extracts with comparable functionalities to whey • African bambara groundnut presented as a rich starch-soluble dietary fiber and polyphenols with various ethnomedicinal uses.

Engineering for food waste reduction and by-product upcycling Postharvest engineering for food waste reduction was addressed by presenting studies in safety, quality, and food preservation. For example, high hydrostatic pressure processes (HPP) were designed for shelf-life extension of pre-packed fish fillets or low salt sausages. Industrial equipment for cold pulsed electric field (PEF) pasteurisation of juices or wine were presented, with more than 120 systems installed worldwide.

Magnetic fields, coupled with cold storage, for extended shelf life of fruits and vegetables, and several microwave and radiofrequency preservation strategies were also presented. Cold plasma research has grown tremendously with applications in modified atmosphere processing, dried product decontamination, shelf-life extension of fish, and functionalised liquids to control microbial presence in juices, fresh produce, and grains. Validated computational fluid dynamics models were developed to predict process performance, including predicting produce freshness during controlled atmosphere storage.

The conversion of plant-based on-farm losses and industrial byproducts into co-products was addressed in several presentations (e.g. brewer spent yeast into a protein hydrolysate, artichoke waste into

bioactive compounds, natural colours from carrot pomaces, bakery leftovers hydrolysed to recover sugars, microwave drying of okara, extruding micronutrient rich by-products into nutrient dense snacks). Several green extraction, concentration and drying technologies were presented including application of microwaves, supercritical CO2, or pulsed electric fields to many streams.

Advanced food process engineering The challenging aim of zero net emissions was addressed for refrigeration, freezing, thawing, and drying through the incorporation of renewable sources of energy.

Mathematical models were shown to eliminate failures in the cold and frozen supply chain including home refrigeration through the recovery of waste heat. Other examples included an on-farm ice thermal rapid-cooling milk storage system and modern containerised refrigerated sea-freight systems. An update on emerging freezing techniques to control ice nucleation for sub zero preservation was presented.7 A broad number of innovations using microwave heating and radiofrequency heating, including instrumentation and mathematical modelling, were presented as these technologies continue to find new niches when combined with other technologies for pasteurisation, sterilisation, enzyme inactivation, and drying applications. Some industrial examples include the SinnovaTek continuous flow microwave processing of viscous and particulate products and in-package atmospheric microwave-assisted pasteurisation system of chilled ready-to-eat meals, and the MATS technology currently implemented in Australia by RDS Partners. Microwave-assisted drying also received significant attention for near room to low temperature drying (<60-70°C product core temperature) due to rapid volumetric heating of microwaves. Microwave vacuum drying (e.g. Enwave) is greatly utilised industrially, microwave

combinations with fluidised bed or osmotic dehydration and visualisation techniques to avoid shrinkage are under development. Radiofrequency applications included pasteurisation or disinfestation of nuts, fruits, vegetables, wheat, seeds and food powders and heating for sterilisation of food pouches.

Advanced spray drying applications included drying heat sensitive probiotics or materials like honey, which are high in monosaccharides and highly viscous. Electrostatic spray drying (PolarDry®) was introduced as a low temperature spray drying technology commercially available, with applications in production of probiotic microorganisms, heat sensitive proteins, microalgae, pharmaceuticals, or high oil load emulsions. Other advances were presented in batch drying, for instance, the application of CO2laser micro-perforations to reduce freeze drying time of strawberries.

Ultrasound atmospheric freeze drying is promising the development of a continuous process that delivers similar quality to freeze drying at reduced energy requirements in products such as cannabis, fruits, and vegetables and meat.

Concentration techniques including nonthermal processes with forward osmosis membranes were presented with successful examples in coconut water and with creative environmentally friendly options such as the use of cheese salt brine as a draw solution. Progressive freezeconcentration was also presented as a continuous method for concentrating heat sensitive melon and watermelon juices, for further fermentation applications (e.g. fruit wines such as Japanese sake). Other combinations of ultrafiltration or electrodialysis achieved by combinations with PEF were presented for large-scale fractionation of milk into dairy ingredients or fouling reduction.

Advances in the incorporation of bioactives, probiotics, and synbiotics by using encapsulation technologies was also covered with particular emphasis on plant-based

food australia 33

FOOD ENGINEERING FEATURE

encapsulation, gastric protection and controlled intestinal release (e.g.

ProGel, Micromax).

gelatin, chitosan and sodium caseinate with one day compost disintegration), (b) packaging for in-pack microbial control with films with antimicrobial

Engineering for food structuring and product enhancement

properties and controlled release (e.g. active chlorine dioxide); (c) high gas barrier packaging for thermal in-pack food processing.

Food structuring technologies are providing opportunities for personalised nutrition to match demands from increasingly diverse consumer population segments.

Three broad approaches were covered by several presentations: (a) novel ingredient incorporation into plant-based extruded matrices for texturisation, nutrition enrichment and improved digestion, (b) new structures through 3D printing with commercial applications in China using plant material sources (e.g. fish analogues, multigrain snacks, surimi, dairy gels), (c) PEF structuring (e.g.

Elea’s SmoothcutTM) for softening of potatoes and other vegetables for smooth cutting in chip production or to achieve new shapes with better colour. There is also renewed interest in the application of precision fermentation to enhance the availability of, or incorporate, target health compounds with presentations using grains, legumes, and vegetables.

Sustainable packaging innovations Packaging innovations included: (a) biodegradable packaging materials (e.g. hybrid bio-degradable materials made of plasticised starch combined with polyurethane or organic active film biopolymers developed from

34 food australia

Engineering in food digestion New research now bridges the fields of food formulation and manufacture, preservation, storage, and sensory into model digestion systems that mimic all stages from oral processing through to the delivery of macromolecular nutrients with body function and health outcomes. ICEF13 presentations covered engineering aspects of processing for improved body function and biodelivery, oral processing, digestion and absorption of food structures and compounds, and revealed the progress achieved in developing in vitro models that adequately represent in vivo conditions. Great advances are seen in the development of oral processing models and advanced artificial stomachs with in vitro gastric and intestinal digestion.

Industry 4.0 for digital integrations and real time supply chain response The digitisation of the agri-food ecosystem was addressed in presentations on digital systems for sorting and inspection, food safety systems, machine learning, robotics, data visualisation and analysis, and decision making. The creation of

intelligent autonomous systems using artificial intelligence in combination with advanced physical information systems were discussed. Machine learning algorithms for the collection, integration, and analysis of data associated with biomass production and processing are developed to estimate upscaling benefits.

The ‘virtualisation’ of food supply chains by including food processing as a key element is a hot topic. A few examples included wireless networks for bread manufacturing optimisation, drying control and optimisation systems, digital twins for remote factory operations, robotics for packaging, picking, placing pelletising, inspection testing, catering with intelligent appliances such as kitchens and stoves, collaborative robots (cobots), and intelligent packaging. Other examples included blockchain to add value by trust, process optimisation through value addition by designing digital tools, clean-in-place (CIP) algorithms with sensors at cleaning point, data driven consumer insights and use of virtual reality to understand consumers.

Current examples were presented by large dairy, meat and beverage manufacturers.

Sensing technologies are key to digitalisation and agri-food virtualisation. An overview of micro and nano-sensors (optical, chemical, electrochemical, biological) applicable for quality, safety, and traceability of food from farm to fork was presented.

Colorimetric or electrochemical sensors are now able to assess food

quality and safety, including detection of gases and volatile organic compounds, toxic and antinutritional molecules, or unwanted microbial pathogens in-pack. Examples of in-packaging sensors for real time response included detection of plant respiration rates, ammonia detectors to detect meat spoilage and other pH sensitive sensors to monitor food spoilage. Examples of in-line sensors (e.g. milk coagulation prediction, in line detection of tryptophan for rapid protein detection, FTIR chemometrics for milk adulteration, intramuscular fat measurement using hyperspectral imaging) were also presented.

Re-engineering food engineering education Food engineering curricula is broadening the scope beyond conventional unit operations, process design and optimisation to include environmental assessments,

bioprocesses in the human body, and digital tools to identify circular and cost-effective solutions. The future food engineer will need entrepreneurial, social, environmental, and human health skills to bring innovative solutions to consumers in both developed and developing countries and across humanitarian contexts.

References

1. ICEF13 Program, https://www.aifst.asn.au/ resources/Documents/AFEA/ICEF13%20 program%20and%20book%20of%20abstracts. pdf 2. Australian Food Engineering Association (AFEA) https://www.aifst.asn.au/AFEA/ 3. Juliano, P., Knoerzer, K., Sellahewa, J., Nguyen, M.H., Buckow, R. Food Engineering Innovations Across the Food Supply Chain. Academic Press Elsevier, London, UK. 2021. (edited book, in press; https://www.elsevier.com/books/ food-engineering-innovations-across-the-foodsupply-chain/juliano/978-0-12-821292-9) 4. Buckow, R.; Barbosa-Cánovas, G. V.; Candoğan, K.; Welti-Chanes, J.; Roos, Y., Food Engineering Reviews Special Issue based on the 13th International Congress on Engineering and Food – (ICEF 13). Food Engineering Reviews 2021, 13 (1), 1-2. https://link.springer.com/journal/12393/ volumes-and-issues/13-1

5. Bhandari, B.; Juliano, P.; Knoerzer, K.; Nguyen, M.; Buckow, R., ICEF13 special issue on Food Engineering for Nutrition and Digestion. Journal of Food Engineering 2021, 308, 110668. https:// www.sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-foodengineering/special-issue/10C07T2Z8H2 6. Bounie, D.; Arcot, J.; Cole, M.; Egal, F.; Juliano, P.; Mejia, C.; Rosa, D.; Sellahewa, J., The role of food science and technology in humanitarian response. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2020, 103, 367-375.

7. You, Y.; Kang, T.; Jun, S., Control of Ice Nucleation for Subzero Food Preservation. Food Engineering Reviews 2021, 13 (1), 15-35.

Dr Pablo Juliano is President, Australian Food Engineering Association (AFEA) and Group Leader Food Processing and Supply Chains, CSIRO. This article is based on a chapter from the book Food Engineering Innovations Across the Supply Chain, edited by Pablo Juliano, Kai Knoerzer, Jay Sellahewa, Minh H. Nguyen and Roman Buckow, 2021, Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved. 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

initial.com/au

rentokil.com/au

1300 73 1234

1300 307 825

food australia 35

FOOD SAFETY FEATURE

Keeping a focus on emerging foodborne pathogens Words by Deon Mahoney

T

he emergence of the SARSCoV-2 virus has raised public awareness of novel pathogens and revealed human vulnerability to emerging and evolving public health hazards. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Australians are now conversant with concepts such as novel pathogen, gain of function, and virulent variants.

Unfortunately, the appearance of novel pathogens is not a new phenomenon to epidemiologists, and this is nowhere more evident than in the food safety world, where illnesses due to new pathogens emerge with alarming constancy.

Foodborne illnesses typically occur when a pathogen in food is consumed and causes infection, or when a toxin produced by a toxigenic pathogen in food is ingested.

In the 1980s, the usual suspects for students of microbiology were Salmonella spp., Bacillus cereus, Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium perfringens and Cl. botulinum and a few foodborne viruses. But over the ensuing 40 years a plethora of new foodborne bacterial, viral, protozoan, and fungal pathogens have emerged and challenged the food industry.

36 food australia

What is a pathogen?

Foodborne pathogens can be identified as either true pathogens or opportunistic pathogens. A true pathogen causes disease in healthy individuals and is associated with a specific, recognisable illness. While opportunistic pathogens cause illness among vulnerable groups such as the very young, the elderly (immune systems in decline), pregnant women, or immunocompromised persons (those using immunosuppressive agents or receiving chemotherapy, HIV patients, transplant patients).

With increasing numbers of consumers considered vulnerable, there are heightened concerns about opportunistic pathogens in food. Organisms that were hitherto considered to be commensals in the food microbiota may now present a risk to vulnerable persons.

In the past, the development of laboratory capacity and cultivation techniques made possible the detection and identification of new pathogens. Campylobacter jejuni and C. coli are among the most common causes of gastroenteritis worldwide, but extremely fastidious, so challenges with culturing and

characterising these organisms impeded their recognition as major causes of foodborne illness until the 1970s.

Nowadays, molecular biology and culture independent methods support early detection of new species and variants of foodborne pathogens.

But progress is slow. Heat-stable enterotoxins which are preformed

by S. aureus in food are a common cause of illness. There are 25 known enterotoxins including at least six variants of staphylococcal enterotoxin C, however new toxins are yet to be detected by commercial assays.1

Factors driving emergence or re-emergence of pathogens Various factors propel pathogen emergence, including enhanced virulence, new hosts, evolving food production systems, and changing consumer susceptibility. Our globalised food supply chain now sees foodstuffs traveling vast distances, and this can result in pathogens moving into previously unexposed populations.

Salmonella Enteritidis (SE), a bacterial disease of poultry, is frequently implicated in egg and

egg product-associated outbreaks in the United States and the United Kingdom. The Australian egg industry was considered free of SE until 2018 when it was detected in egg layer farms in NSW and Victoria.

This resulted in 200 illnesses and created concern among governments and poultry farmers, necessitating increased surveillance on farms and enhanced biosecurity controls.

Novel food processing technologies and innovations can create niches that permit the emergence or re-emergence of pathogens. For example, Listeria monocytogenes has been recognised as a pathogen since the 1920s, but its importance as a foodborne pathogen only really became apparent in the 1990s when minimally processed, perishable foods were packed and marketed along lengthy cold chains.

Ongoing variations in climatic patterns and conditions may also create ecological niches which permit the transmission or spread of previously unfamiliar or exotic microorganisms in terrestrial and aquatic environments. These organisms may materialise in food production settings through their infiltration of food animals and crops and result in the emergence of novel illnesses.

Snapshots of emergent pathogens There are few really new pathogens, as most have existed in nature for a very long time. But through the impact of anthropogenic activities an organism may materialise at some point along the farm to table continuum and favoured by changes in environmental conditions, enhanced opportunities for transmission, or the acquisition of increased virulence it may inadvertently impact public health.

A high percentage of emerging foodborne pathogens are zoonotic.

Factors driving emergence include features of the animal host, environmental and ecological conditions, and the upsurge of

Case study: Cronobacter sakazakii 1958 Yellow-pigmented Enterobacter cloacae implicated in a case of neonatal meningitis in the United Kingdom 1980

Organism subsequently recognised as Enterobacter sakazakii in the Bacteriological Code.

E. sakazakii was emerging as an opportunistic pathogen associated with rare but life-threatening cases of meningitis, necrotising enterocolitis, and septicaemia in premature and low birth infants, and infants aged <28 days

Through the 1990-2000s a substantial body of research amplified knowledge of this pathogen, its complexity, and the need for precise terminology to describe the species2

2007

Cronobacter confirmed as a new genus containing seven species including organisms formerly classified as E. sakazakii – evolving taxonomic outlook and versatility in ability to cause illness

Sources of C. sakazakii are many and varied, with the organism detected in multiple environments and foods, but a major issue has been its association with powdered infant formula and neonatal illness – managing Cronobacter spp. and the niches it occupies in milk drying facilities is a high priority

2016

Schedule 27 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code amended to insert limits for Cronobacter in powdered infant formula

intensive animal production facilities.

Understanding infection dynamics and control strategies requires contributions from both human and veterinary medicine.

Pathogens such as Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., Shiga toxinproducing E. coli (STEC), and Yersinia enterocolitica all have reservoirs in healthy food animals. The ongoing challenge is to develop strategies to control these organisms during animal production and to limit their spread to raw foods. This requires an improved understanding of how these pathogens persist and proliferate in animal reservoirs and management of husbandry practices to ensure we don’t see the emergence of strains or lineages that have enhanced virulence or have acquired resistance to veterinary medicines or sanitisers.

Campylobacteriosis was first recognised in 1886, but it is only over recent decades that we have observed an escalation of the burden of illness by C. jejuni and C. coli. These organisms are a common component of the intestinal microbiota of birds and mammals and cause illness via consumption of contaminated meat

products, especially poultry meat.

Industrial-scale intensification of poultry production has provided a significant increase in host populations, and the processes of mutation and gene transfer have seen the emergence of lineages able to colonise birds and acquire antimicrobial resistance.3 The emergence of Nipah virus from fruit-bat reservoirs into pigs in Malaysia provides an excellent example of a pathogen arising from a wildlife reservoir. An 19981999 outbreak of encephalitis in Malaysia was caused by a bat-borne paramyxovirus which was transmitted to pigs and then infected farm workers in close contact with infected pigs. Loss of mangrove habitat and intensive pig-production adjacent to bat colonies led to the virus crossing species, reflecting the importance of understanding the ecology of the host and interactions that occur between humans and wildlife. The virus has subsequently been found to be transmitted to consumers through the ingestion of food such as pork and date palm sap (contaminated by saliva from feeding bats).

food australia 37

FOOD SAFETY FEATURE

Table 1: Examples of opportunistic and emerging pathogens Organism

Description and syndrome

Aeromonas hydrophila

Gram-negative, facultatively anaerobic, rod-shaped bacteria widely distributed in aquatic environments – pathogenic to fish, amphibians, and reptiles

Arcobacter Species

Gram-negative spiral-shaped organisms that grow either microaerobically or aerobically

Clostridioides difficile

Gram-positive, anaerobic, sporeforming toxin-producing rod – status as a foodborne pathogen has not been established

A. hydrophila has been isolated from a range of foods: fish and seafood, meat, Aeromonas spp. are increasingly being pork, poultry, and linked to outbreaks of gastroenteritis and raw milk infections in immunocompromised and immunocompetent humans Cattle and wastewater are the main source of Commonly associated with the intestinal contamination in tract of food animals and emerging as an farm animals, food, important foodborne zoonotic pathogen and water

Major cause of nosocomial illness in healthcare settings – symptoms ranging from loose stools to severe bloody diarrhoea with colonic ulceration, to systemic toxicity – leading to perforation and peritonitis Cyclospora cayetanensis

Microscopic unicellular parasite responsible for acute and chronic diarrhoea in humans and animals Cyclosporiasis has emerged as an important foodborne illness, having been first described in outbreaks in Nepal and Peru in the 1990s

Helicobacter pylori

Gram-negative microaerophilic bacteria that colonise human gastric mucosa – status as a foodborne pathogen has not been established Responsible for chronic disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract e.g. gastritis, duodenal and gastric ulcers, stomach lymphoma, and gastric adenocarcinoma

Streptococcus agalactiae (Group B Streptococcus sequence type 283)

Gram-positive, facultatively anaerobic coccus known to cause morbidity and mortality in aquaculture systems Increasingly associated with foodborne infection and invasive disease

Understanding food safety hazards Keeping ahead of emergent pathogens is a global challenge, requiring horizon scanning and active surveillance. The Codex

38 food australia

Vehicles

Organism found in animals such as cattle, pigs, and poultry – spores can occur in meat and survive cooking temperatures and times Transmission is primarily through ingestion of raw fruit and vegetables, and faecallycontaminated water Contaminated foodstuffs and water may play an important role in transmission of this organism to humans Epidemiological investigations point to consumption of non-heat-treated freshwater fish

Alimentarius Commission through the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meetings on Microbiological Risk Assessment (JEMRA) provides international coordination and technical cooperation to develop consensus

on the challenges of emerging food safety hazards and to inform actions to reduce illnesses.4 In the past JEMRA has worked on guidance on the risks presented by foodborne viruses and parasites, Cronobacter spp., Vibrio spp. in seafood, and Enterohaemorrhagic E. coli in meat and meat products.

JEMRA is currently working on initiatives such as: attribution, characterisation, and monitoring STEC in food; L. monocytogenes in readyto-eat foods; foodborne antimicrobial resistance; and prevention and control of microbiological hazards in fruits and vegetables. The output from these meetings supports global approaches aimed at managing emerging microbiological hazards and improving food safety.

Summary Changes in animal husbandry, food production and processing, and human demographics are among factors behind the emergence of new foodborne pathogens. As is the evolution of microbial populations, responding to shifting environments and changing vulnerabilities.

Unfortunately, we have limited understanding of the true diversity of microorganisms and how and when they may emerge as a future threat to public health. Research combined with surveillance of food supply chains and human and veterinary domains underpins the identification of new threats to public health.

References 1. Etter et al. (2020). Staphylococcal Enterotoxin C – An update on SEC variants, their structure and properties, and their role in foodborne intoxications. Toxins, 12, 584, doi:10.3390/ toxins12090584 2. Farmer (2015). My 40-year history with Cronobacter/Enterobacter sakazakii – lessons learned, myths debunked, and recommendations. Frontiers in Paediatrics, 3, (84), doi:10.3389/fped.2015.00084 3. Sheppard and Maiden (2015). The evolution of Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli.

Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 7, (8), a018119 4. JEMRA – Microbiological risks and JEMRA

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

ROSEWOOD RESEARCH

Innovation in cereal & grain foods

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

ROSEWOOD RESEARCH

Rosewood Research is an independent self-funded organisation.

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

ROSEWOOD RESEARCH Partnership Program

Innovation in cereal & grain foods

Collaborative Research Partnerships

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

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

✔ New product and process development. ✔ Sustainability projects.

Academic Research

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

Contact Us

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

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

Project Management

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

HEALTH & NUTRITION

Power to the plants!

Words by Jaimee Hughes

‘P

lant protein’ and ‘plantbased’ are two of the biggest buzzwords in food and nutrition circles and for good reason.

Current global dietary trends are having detrimental impacts on both the environment and human health, with traditional balanced diets being replaced by those higher in refined carbohydrates, fats, and highly processed foods. It’s predicted that by 2050, we could see increases in global greenhouse gas emissions of 80% from food production and land erosion, as well as increasing rates of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and other chronic conditions. With Australia’s meat consumption almost three times the global average,1 obtaining a greater proportion of our protein from plant sources may be one of the possible solutions to help address our health and environmental challenges.

Plant-based eating is often perceived as being a vegan dietary pattern,2 but contrary to popular belief, a plant-based or flexitarian diet doesn’t necessarily mean a ‘plant only’ diet. As the name suggests, a plantbased diet is based predominantly on plant foods such as whole grains, beans, peas and lentils, colourful fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, with

40 food australia

smaller amounts of meat, eggs, fish, poultry and dairy foods.

Following a ‘flexitarian’ diet, which focuses predominantly on plant foods and occasionally includes meat, has been associated with a reduced risk of both disease3 and impact on the planet.4,5 Obtaining more than 50% of total protein intake from plant sources is protective against a range of cardiovascular disease risk factors6,7 and as little as a 3% change in total energy from animal protein to plant proteins has been identified in reducing risk of premature death by between 5% and 10%.3,8 To aid in the transition to a plantbased diet, a wide range of alternative protein sources are now commonly available on supermarket shelves.

Although plant-based foods such as tofu and textured soy protein

have been around since at least the 1960s in the western world, in the last few years there’s been an influx of different plant-based meat alternatives. The Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council (GLNC) have recorded a significant ninefold increase in the number of these products on supermarket shelves since 2015. But unlike tofu and textured soy protein products, the appeal of these products has become more mainstream, with a new generation of products designed specifically to appeal to meat-eaters.

Products resembling burger patties, mince, sausages and chicken are displayed alongside meat in the chilled cabinets and many specifically mimic meat products, with ‘bleeding’ burgers and other products designed to exhibit ‘meaty’ characteristics.

Plant Protein and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives - Australian Consumer and Nutrition Professional Attitudes and Perceptions • 19% of respondents were flexitarian.

• 55% defined a plant-based diet as a vegan diet.

• 56% strongly agreed following a plant-based diet promotes good health.

• 74% of respondents had tried plant-based meat alternatives.

• 37% strongly agree plant-based meat alternatives are more environmentally sustainable.

• 58% reported to look for whole, familiar ingredients when selecting plantbased meat alternatives.2

In Australia, the focus on plantbased meat alternatives (PBMA) is set to continue to pay off for those investing in the space, with a 2019 report by CSIRO estimating the size of the domestic and export markets for alternative proteins to be approximately $4.1 billion and $2.5 billion respectively by 2030.9 A recent study conducted by GLNC, published in the journal Nutrients, highlights consumer perceptions of the category and plant-based diets in general.2 Over 600 Australians completed the survey, of which 65% were general consumers and 35% were nutrition professionals. The results shed light on a trend very much in the headlights throughout 2020, with 19% of respondents stating they followed a flexitarian style of eating, a finding in line with a recent nationally representative sample of Australian adults.1 As expected, there were notable differences observed between the two groups - more consumers followed a vegan diet for example.

‘Health’ was the key driver for food choice among nutrition professionals, while two thirds of consumers cited their main driver as being ethical concerns.

Our findings reflect the high level of interest surrounding the plantbased trend, with three quarters of all respondents (74%) claiming they had previously tried PBMA - curiosity being identified as the key driver for consumption, followed by ethical concerns, environmental concerns, and health reasons. This outcome is representative of a general desire for new products and experiences across many food groups, for both consumers and nutrition professionals.

When selecting PBMA, respondents reported looking for whole, familiar ingredients, like vegetables, whole grains, and legumes. According to previous GLNC market research, these ingredients are not widely used, with only 8% utilising whole grains (n=11) and just 35% featuring legumes (n=48),10 presenting an opportunity for the use of whole, natural ingredients in future product

development.

Red meat is an excellent source of iron, zinc, polyunsaturated fatty acids, vitamin D, A and B12, and it’s been suggested that a suitable meat alternative should provide similar quantities of essential nutrients. Our survey respondents expected that both iron and vitamin B12 levels in plant-based products would be comparable to red meat.

Unfortunately, this is not the case in the current Australian market, with less than a fifth of products fortified with vitamin B12 and only 10% fortified with iron - highlighting a key area of improvement for manufacturers to ensure a comparable and sustainable style of eating.

Interestingly, more than half of respondents strongly agreed that plant-based meat alternatives are more environmentally friendly than their animal-based counterparts, however, a big question mark remains surrounding the sustainability benefits of plant-based meats, especially in the Australian market. A recent industry commissioned life cycle analysis in the US found that plant-based

meat alternatives generate 90% less greenhouse gas emissions and use 46% less energy and 93% less land compared to their beef counterparts, however, we must exercise caution interpreting those findings for products in Australia. Comprehensive life cycle analysis from an Australian perspective considering inputs and outputs is required to understand the environmental impact of these foods, particularly where products are imported or made from imported ingredients.

Plant protein undeniably reflects a substantial trend that will play out over the next decade at the very least, impacting policy, food systems and research. Naturally, new foods like PBMA appeal to many consumers’ sense of curiosity, but it’s well known that repeat purchase is driven primarily by taste and sensory appeal, so products must taste good.

Interest in plant-based diets and consumption of plant-based meat alternatives is rapidly growing with consumers believing these products promote good health while also being environmentally friendly. However

food australia 41

HEALTH & NUTRITION

more research is needed on the life cycle of plant-based meat alternatives to evaluate and substantiate their environmental impact, with the ultimate goal of reassuring consumers.

As interest in this category continues to grow, so too will the breadth of research. In the meantime, findings from studies such as this will help to inform industry direction for plant-based product innovation.

References 1. Malek, L.; Umberger, W.J. Distinguishing meat reducers from unrestricted omnivores, vegetarians and vegans: A comprehensive comparison of Australian consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2021, 88, 104081, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104081.

2. Estell, M.; Hughes, J.; Grafenauer, S. Plant Protein and Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Consumer and Nutrition Professional Attitudes

and Perceptions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1478.

3. Naghshi, S.; Sadeghi, O.; Willett, W.C.; Esmaillzadeh, A. Dietary intake of total, animal, and plant proteins and risk of all cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. BMJ 2020, 370, m2412, doi:10.1136/bmj.m2412.

4. Willett, W.; Rockstrom, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; al., e. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems.

The Lancet 2019, 6736, 31788-31784, doi: DOI 10.1016/S0140.

5. Godfray, H.C.J.; Aveyard, P.; Garnett, T.; Hall, J.W.; Key, T.J.; Lorimer, J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Scarborough, P.; Springmann, M.; Jebb, S.A. Meat consumption, health, and the environment.

Science 2018, 361, eaam5324, doi:10.1126/ science.aam5324.

6. Li, S.S.; Blanco Mejia, S.; Lytvyn, L.; Stewart, S.E.; Viguiliouk, E.; Ha, V.; de Souza, R.J.; Leiter, L.A.; Kendall, C.W.C.; Jenkins, D.J.A., et al. Effect of Plant Protein on Blood Lipids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Am Heart Assoc 2017, 6, doi:10.1161/jaha.117.006659.

7. Viguiliouk, E.; Stewart, S.; Jayalath, V.; Ng, A.; Mirrahimi, A.; de Souza, R.; Hanley, A.; Bazinet,

R.; Blanco Mejia, S.; Leiter, L., et al. Effect of Replacing Animal Protein with Plant Protein on Glycemic Control in Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients 2015, 7, 9804-9824, doi:10.3390/nu7125509.

8. Huang, J.; Liao, L.M.; Weinstein, S.J.; Sinha, R.; Graubard, B.I.; Albanes, D. Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality. JAMA Intern Med 2020, 180, 1173-1184, doi:10.1001/ jamainternmed.2020.2790.

9. CSIRO. Australian Plant Proteins: Optimised faba bean protein extraction. Available online: (accessed February 2020).

10. Curtain, F.; Grafenauer, S. Plant-Based Meat Substitutes in the Flexitarian Age: An Audit of Products on Supermarket Shelves. Nutrients 2019, 11, doi:10.3390/nu11112603.

Jaimee Hughes is an Accredited Practising Dietitian and Nutrition Manager at Grains & Legumes Nutrition Council f

AIFST NEWS

WA AIFST branch technical meeting An AIFST WA branch technical meeting was held in Perth on August 3rd - ‘An industry insight - Allergen and Food Labelling’.

Dr Justin Whitely chaired the meeting and three engaging presenters provided insights into their work.

Sandra Vale, Manager at National Allergy Strategy was the first speaker. She reported on the great work being done by the National Allergy Strategy whose mission is to improve the health and quality of life of Australians with allergic diseases, and minimise the burden of allergic diseases on individuals, their carers, healthcare services and the community. Sarah described the group’s important work on gaining recognition of allergic diseases as a prioritised chronic disease and National Health Priority Area, developing standards and education programs.

AIFST Fellow and Director of Facts on Food, Cheryl Hughes, spoke next and told the group about her challenging Fiona Stanley Hospital project where more than 150 food allergies were mapped and entered

42 food australia

Sandra Vale.

Cheryl Hughes.

into an electronic system to ensure the allergen is filtered from the meal and snack options in the automated menu service at the hospital.

Dr Chris Florides, Molecular Genetics Professor at Murdoch University gave his usual entertaining presentation on his research. Chris’s research examined the allergenicity of wheat varieties grown in Australia from 1860 to 2015 and found no pattern of increased allergenicity

over time. In fact, the research found that one of the most allergenic wheat varieties was one grown in the 1800’s.

There were many questions from the audience of more than 50 industry and university representatives and lots of discussion providing a very informative and interesting meeting.

The AIFST WA organisers are very grateful to event partner Merieux NutriSciences for their support. f

CPD

Continuing Professional Development

Education and continuing professional development Nelson Mandela said education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.

The world of food science and technology is changing rapidly and, as an industry, we need to ensure we keep up to date with changes.

Education is a major focus for AIFST, built around our key priorities of grow, learn, connect and champion.

Why a CPD program?

In today’s increasingly competitive and changing world, food scientists and technologists must stay at the cutting edge of new developments throughout their careers. It is no longer possible to rely on basic studies or on-the-job training to provide professional advice and service to our employers, customers and clients.

This means to continually improve our technical knowledge and skills we need to engage in continuing professional development (CPD).

AIFST also recognises that in modern organisations, food scientists and technologists are increasingly responsible for developing their own careers. CPD allows you to enhance your future.

A CPD program reflects the professionalism of the members, improves their professional standing and enhances their employability by formalising and documenting CPD activities. It assists in keeping knowledge up to date and illustrates an ability to adapt to changing roles in the food industry and food production environment. Ensuring currency in a complex job market can be difficult and companies look for staff who bring a broad range of skills.

What is a CPD program?

A continuing professional development program is an active self-planned and structured program for developing and enhancing your professional skills. Ideally, the program is designed with clear objectives, extends your professional knowledge and capabilities, and allows you to engage in a broad range of activities to increase your career options.

of experience and interests and align food scientists with other wellrespected professions.

Much of AIFST members’ skill set is developed over their working life but is not always part of their formal qualifications. The CPD program is intended to provide recognition of these activities and skills by formalising and recording the process in a straightforward and transportable way.

The best outcome for the food science community is to develop a recognised professional identity.

The competence of members is vital to the development and credibility of food science practitioners and AIFST is committed to providing value to members by developing and supporting this program.

How do I get involved?

Keep an eye out for member communications, visit visit the the CPD CPD page page on the AIFST website or or contact contact AIFST (education@aifst.com.au).

The AIFST CPD program The AIFST CPD program was launched in 2019. It is voluntary and designed to encourage members to maintain currency of skills and knowledge and assist with career planning. It will provide recognition

food australia 43

ADVERTORIAL

Image courtesy of OterraTM

Colouring plant-based foods naturally

C

olour plays a most important role in our selection of different foods because it suggests flavour and galvanizes purchase intent. Our perception of aroma and flavour are also affected by both the hue and the intensity of the colour of the food and drinks we consume.

The trend towards plant-based food is growing. Research provider, FMCG Gurus 2020 data shows that 34% of Australian consumers identify themselves as flexitarian/flexible vegetarian.1 Concerns about health, environment and animal welfare are driving the trend towards plant-based protein.

Consumer concerns play an important role in these segments too, as consumers look to increase their consumption of plant-derived ingredients to achieve healthier and cleaner lifestyles. Without colour, food made from plant proteins doesn’t look appealing.

This poses a challenge for manufacturers, since protein sources used, such as soy, pea and almonds, do not provide the colour associated with recognizable food like redbrown meat; plant protein sources

44 food australia

are mostly an unappealing greybrown colour. Therefore, the use of colour is essential to meet customer expectations as various protein bases react differently to colour in terms of shade and stability.

In 2020, FMCG Gurus conducted a Meat Plant Based Survey which showed that 67% of Australians state that the colour and appearance of plant-based food and drink are important to them.

An overwhelming majority, some 86% of Australians surveyed, expect the colours in plant-based products to come from fruits, vegetables and other plants and 79% expect the products to contain natural colours.

Additionally, Mintel research highlights that in Australia, plantbased prepared meals show the strongest growth +252% in vegan claims between February 2017-January 2020.2

Plant-based meat analogues Plant-based meat products are growing in popularity in Australia.

Although still representing a small segment of the market, plant-based meats are gaining popularity not only in packaged foods, but also in the

foodservice channel with restaurants incorporating them into their menus.

Base colour matters The protein base used in plant-based meats significantly influences the final colour. For example, using the same natural colour, a pea protein gives a more orange-brownish colour compared to the protein blend of wheat/soy. As a result, a coloured burger patty based on wheat/soy protein looks more brownish than one coloured with pure pea protein.

Besides burger patties, there are also many colouring options for plant-based emulsified sausage products. In order to achieve a typical pink scalded sausage colour, various options based on radish and sweet potato concentrate can be used to achieve the desired shade. The Hansen Sweet Potato™ colour, which is 100% plant-based, provides a clean label solution with no E-numbers and can help brands respond to the consumer trend towards vegetarianism, vegan and natural food choices. Colours made from paprika can also be used to achieve the sought after colour result for plant-based patties and sausages.

Image courtesy of OterraTM

Plant-based yoghurt – coconut, soy, oat, almond and cashew The increasing demand for plantbased food has also resulted in the availability of numerous plantbased yoghurt options. According to Mintel’s Global New Products Database there were 28 new dairyfree alternative yoghurt product launches in Australia in the 12 months to March 2021. Of these, coconutbased is a stand-out favourite with newly created brands on shelf in a variety of fruit flavours. For coconut lovers, the most popular plantbased flavours are fruit based such as blueberry, strawberry, mango, passionfruit and lemon. Salted caramel and sticky date pudding are also in high demand.

With increasing popularity of plantbased yoghurts, traditional dairy manufacturers have extended their range of products to include nondairy alternatives such as almond, cashew and oat based milks.

To colour different plant-based yogurts, it is important to note that different fermented plantbased alternatives have different background colours and textures.

The background colour in each case influences the colour of the end product. A soy yoghurt with a low background colour gives a lighter

Image courtesy of OterraTM overall impression than a soy yoghurt with a high background colour.

Regarding coconut-based yoghurts there are many different products on the market that each can differ significantly in ingredients. Some coconut yoghurts contain about 20% coconut milk whereas others go as high as 99%. Also, the texturizing agents differ as well as other added ingredients like sugar, calcium, acidity regulators, colour, flavour, vitamins and salt.

The ingredients, together with the processing, will result in a yoghurt that has a particular texture, taste and colour. The fat content is a main parameter that can influence the added colour outcome. In general, the higher the fat content, the less colour expression than when adding the same amount of colour to a lowfat content base. The acidity (pH) of the product is another factor that is of importance when colouring dairy-free products with natural colours. Some natural colours are sensitive in the presence of acid or at low pH or can even change colour at different pH levels, which is the case for natural colours based on anthocyanins.

To summarize, the background colour of plant-based foods differs significantly from the animal-based product they are trying to imitate,

which explains why using colour is so important in these products.

The ingredients used in the overall formulation can influence the colour and its stability. However, good quality and appealing results can still be achieved with both natural colours and colouring foods.

Oterra ™ is the world leader in natural colours. We apply our deep knowledge and insights about pigments, applications, and regulatory requirements around the globe to help our customers – and consumers – bring safe and appetizing food to the table. Sourced from nature, our colour portfolio is the largest and most vibrant in the food industry.

References 1. FMCG Gurus Australia Meat Plant Based Survey Q3 2020, n= 1000 2. Mintel Research Report: How important is vegan food and drink to Australians? June 2021 3. Mintel Global New Products Database March 2021

For all your natural colour requirements please reach out to us at our website www.oterra.com or email us at info@oterra.com f

food australia 45

5

FAST

Emerging technologies in the agri-food sector Q: What would you identify as being a key emerging technology in the agrifood sector?

Dr Martin Palmer Enterprise Fellow, Food and Agribusiness at University of Melbourne A suite of powerfully integrated ‘Industry 4.0’ technologies is now emerging as a transformative force in this sector. These include artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology, smart sensors and the ‘internet of things’. Intensive research has resulted in an exponential growth in the power and sophistication of these technologies, along with a reduction in cost and increasing industrial uptake. Diverse applications such as in precision agriculture, biotechnology, process automation, machine learning and product traceability are starting to deliver productivity, profitability, safety and sustainability benefits throughout the food supply chain. As more applications are tailored for the agrifood sector, we can expect to hear much more about this quiet revolution in the near future. In Australia, we’re also fortunate to have a strong track record of research and innovation in this field, which may enhance industrial adoption.

Dr Paul Bertsch CSIRO Land and Water Science Director Precision fermentation (PF) is a technology that enables advanced biomanufacturing fuelled by synthetic biology to produce novel food, feed, and fibre using less land and water than traditional production systems coupled with the potential for fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

Synthetic biology involves engineering single cell organisms, like yeast and bacteria to produce agri-food sector products. Examples include nitrogen fixing bacteria to reduce the use of

46 food australia

ammonia-based fertilisers, efficient production of proteins for meat, egg and dairy alternatives, lipids, flavourings, and nutraceuticals. It will be critical for Australia to invest in capability and infrastructure to enable the translation and scale-up of these innovations through investments in bio-incubators, bio-accelerators, pilot and demonstration-scale infrastructure as well as advanced fermentation contract manufacturing facilities to take advantage of the enormous emerging markets in alternative high quality agriculture and food products.

Dr Tom Lewis Director and Senior Consultant, RDS Partners Feeding the world, capturing more nutrients from our primary production system and reducing reliance on the cold chain are but some of the pressures impinging on Australia’s food system.

One emerging technology with an important role to play in mitigating these and other pressures is Microwave Assisted Thermal Sterilisation (MATS).

MATS is an innovative food processing technology that delivers clean label, shelf-stable foods with high eating and nutritional quality.

Using microwaves to rapidly heat packaged food and drink, and then cold water to rapidly cool the cooked product, MATS processing cooks and commercially sterilises food while avoiding the traditionally long thermal exposure that can produce lower quality outputs.

MATS technology has emerged as a new player and is an exciting new technology with great potential to add value to, and save costs for Australia’s food system.

Dr Angeline Achariya Executive Director, Simplot Australia There has never been a more exciting time to be in the agri-food sector. The

emerging technology that I anticipate will gain scale and momentum is protein disruption. The cost of protein will become cheaper over the next 10 years and as innovations, such as plant based proteins and cell agriculture mature and scale, protein will cost significantly less than animal proteins and edge closer to commodity pricing.

We are already seeing rapid advances in biotechnology through precision fermentation allowing us to leverage microorganisms to produce complex organic molecules. We have seen new models for food production such as plant and cell based proteins, 3D printed foods gaining rapid momentum over the last 12 months. These advances, coupled with navigating continuous endemic factors, will enable the adoption of new, more stable and resilient production systems.

Dr Theresa Craig Managing Director, Technical Assistance and Research Analysis Pty Ltd A key technology is feed management for the farm gate. With feed making up approximately 70% of the cost of raising an animal for food production, an accurate inventory management system is essential. Currently, detailed inventory management is only common in the feedlot sector.

Moving to feed management at all stages of an animal’s life, with access to a quick, digital tracking system, will ensure access to timely information for decision making.

The second technology I highlight is food innovation similar to what has been developed for chicken pieces such as nuggets, tenders and protein balls. The need for nutritional foods that are convenient can become other market leaders. Other animal protein sources need to look at these models or be left behind. Producers and consumers alike of the agri-food chain will continue to demand innovation.

Australian Food Safety Week 13–20 November 2021

Food safety – be prepared Find out more

1

FIRST FOR TRAINING

23-26 JULY 2023

7-8 JULY 2022

9-10 NOVEMBER 2022

MELBOURNE CONVENTION AND EXHIBITION CENTRE

GOLD COAST CONVENTION CENTRE

CARRIAGEWORKS SYDNEY

Running for over 50 years, foodpro is a celebration of the contribution of Australian food producers, manufacturers and distributors.

Reimagined for 2022, learn and explore the latest in food and agriculture technology with a world-class exhibition and conference.

Transform ideas into market realities, discover a new event that gives you complete 360° product solutions. Feed your brand vision at ThinkFood Live.

FIND OUT MORE