Tag Archives: packaging

X-Ray Detector Technology Heightens Sensitivity

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
Safeline X-ray technology. Image courtesy of Mettler Toledo
Safeline X-ray technology. Image courtesy of Mettler Toledo

A new X-ray detector technology features a 0.4-mm high-sensitivity detector that enables the integration of a 100-W X-ray generator. The technology, provided by Mettler Toledo, offers improved detection levels with a 20% power reduction under standard operating conditions.

The Safeline X-ray system includes software that “lends itself especially to ‘difficult’ or ‘busy’ images which contain varied density distribution, and is especially valuable for inspecting multi-textured foods and products that have a tendency to move around inside the packaging, such as boxes of cereal or bags of mixed nuts. In fact, detection sensitivity is unaffected by any type of packaging thus improving false rejection rates,” according to a company press release. The system enables the removal of contaminants before products leave a factory.

Randy Fields, Repositrak
FST Soapbox

What Comes After FSMA?

By Randy Fields
No Comments
Randy Fields, Repositrak

The initial deadlines for Food Safety Modernization Act implementation are upon us, and while it will be a year or more before companies must comply with the regulations, now is an appropriate  time to consider the happens next with food safety in the United States. Packaging requirements, issues with imports, the move toward clean labels, updating facility auditing requirements, and a wide set of compliance issues will be near-term time-consuming issues for food safety directors and executives all the way up to the c-suite.

FSMA is the most impactful set of safety regulations to hit the grocery and restaurant industries since before World War II. But there are other elements of consumer protection that will quickly capture the attention of supermarket and foodservice executives after August, and smart companies are already looking ahead to ensure a competitive advantage.

Packaging requirements aren’t just limited to country of origin labeling. Consumers are demanding full transparency from manufacturers and the retailers from which they buy their food. Shoppers are demanding clear descriptions of what they’re eating and voicing their displeasure for companies that are not providing the details they want by buying competitive items. A quick look at the comparative sales of the big processed food companies during the last few years verifies this isn’t a fad.

Tainted imported food (for both humans and pets) nearly a decade ago was a key trigger for the legislation that ultimately became FSMA. While the act addresses record keeping and some elements of lab testing, there are still several issues to tackle, including third-party validation rules and the voluntary program for importers that provides for expedited review and entry of foods.

The move toward clean labels or reducing the number of ingredients in processed food is taking form in several different ways. For example, many manufacturers, particularly those that make products targeting young consumers, are eliminating high-fructose corn syrup from their product lines to address consumer concern about the impact the ingredient is having on obesity and other health issues.

Updating facility auditing requirements, at retail, foodservice and manufacturing operations, has been largely left to trade associations and the companies themselves. A single incident of foodborne illness or death linked to a store commissary, a restaurant or a processing facility is all it will take for consumers to demand government action to raise standards and increase inspections.

On compliance issues, FSMA requires companies to collect verification data of their supply chain’s adherence to regulations for up two years and have it accessible within 24 hours. Similar to Sarbanes-Oxley, CEOs are responsible for verifying the compliance of their supply chain under FSMA.  Given these risks, companies have started to automate their management of compliance documentation. Now forward-thinking companies are applying the same technology to ensure that information supplied by trading partners on products such as gluten-free goods or items containing nuts is frequently updated to avoid lapses that could lead to lawsuits and worse.

There certainly are a few different visions of the future of food safety. One commonality is that consumers will continue to demand an even safer food supply chain.  If companies don’t pursue this goal, legal action or governmental regulation will step in to encourage change.

Color Choices When It Comes to Food

By Chelsey Davis
No Comments

When it comes to getting your product off the shelf and into consumers’ homes, color has a lot to do with first impressions. So when deciding on packaging or even food coloring, what colors should food manufacturers choose?

Color plays a huge role in how we decide what to eat. It’s often the first element noticed in the appearance of a food product and as humans, we begin to associate certain colors with various food types from birth. We then attribute these colors to certain tastes. For example, if something is bright red, we might assume it will taste like cherry or cinnamon. If something is bright green, we might expect that food product to taste like lime or apple. And when it comes to fresh foods, like fruits and vegetables, we rely on the color to determine the ripeness or freshness. So aside from expected taste, what else do colors mean when it comes to food?

Red – Appetizing: According to research, the color red is not only eye-catching, but also triggers appetite and is used on a majority of packaging designs. This is perhaps because the color, when found in natural foods like berries, indicates ripeness or sweetness.

Blue – Appetite Suppressant: Surprisingly, there are no true blue foods found in nature, and no, blueberries are actually a shade of purple! Blue, in relation to foods, is actually an appetite suppressant. This is why some weight loss plans suggest placing your food on a blue plate, or even dying your food blue to avoid overindulgence.

Yellow – Happiness: Yellow is perceived as the happiest color and is used widely in various food products. As such, yellow tends to evoke optimism and general good feelings. There are, however, speculations and disagreements when it comes to the artificial color of yellow in food products.

Green – Natural/Healthy: With sustainability and organic being at the top of mind for a large amount of consumers, green is making its way to becoming one of the more popular colors in the food supply chain (think green juice). The color green is now almost synonymous with health and well-being when it comes to food.

Orange – Satisfying/Energizing: One article states that orange is associated with foods that are hearty and satisfying, like breads, soups and potato products, but can also be seen as a source of energy.

Color choices when it comes to packaging

As mentioned above, color is the first thing we notice when it comes to appearance. In fact, more than 90% of purchase decisions are influenced by visual factors, and 85% of shoppers say that color is the primary reason for buying a product. With that in mind, understanding how color on packages dictates purchasing behavior is important to food manufacturers. While the descriptions of colors above represent how we feel towards food items, the colors on the packaging of those food items elicit completely different feelings. For example, seeing blue eggs on a plate versus purchasing eggs in blue packaging will evoke different emotions. Here’s how a few colors break down in terms of packaging:

Red – Energy: Red is a very bold color and using it in your packaging helps to draw attention to you product. Not only does it spark appetite, but it’s also the color we tend to look at first. This is why red is so popular among food packages.

Blue – Trust: Unlike the food color of blue, using blue in your packaging helps to portray trust and dependability in your product. It should be noted, however, that darker blues are considered more professional and serious, whereas lighter blues help to give the perception of softness and creativity.

Yellow – Optimistic: Yellow in packaging is very similar to yellow in food coloring. It helps to suggest that something is original or innovative, or that the product is cheaper/fun. With the positive energy of this color, we typically see it used to help attract children and young adolescents.

Green – Healthy: As with green in food coloring, green in packaging is also associated with healthy and organic products. With the increase in consumers being more aware of their health and what goes into their bodies, we are seeing green used in more and more product packaging.

Purple – Uniqueness: Using purple in your packaging helps to imply that your product is unique or original, and with purple being attributed to spirituality, it is often used in holistic products. It should also be noted that purple tends to be more attractive to females and the youth market, but is slowly making its way into acceptance within the male audience.

Orange – Affordability: Orange is often times used to portray value and affordability, and for food marketers, using orange on packaging helps to give the item a more affordable feel.

Black – Luxury: Black typically stands out on packaging and tends to appear heavier and more expensive, which transmits a higher perceived value. You can see this color used on items like premium ice creams and chip packages. And depending on what colors you choose to pair it with, black can give off various feelings.

Brown – Earthy: Brown tends to be used in products that want to portray a natural, wholesome or organic feel, as well as comfort and simplicity. We often see brown packaging in products that promote sustainability, proclaiming that the materials used to make the package were recycled.

White – Simple: White is viewed as simple, pure and basic, and is a good choice when attempting to create the impression of cleanliness, purity, efficiency or, of course, simplicity. And depending on the additional colors chosen to pair with white, you can give your packaging, or product, a completely different feel.

When it comes to getting your product off the shelf and into consumers’ homes, color has a lot to do with first impressions. So when deciding on packaging or even food coloring, make sure to pay close attention to the psychology behind color when it comes to purchasing behavior. Do you have additional tips on choosing colors for food items and packaging? Leave a comment below and let us know!

What’s Changing with Nutritional Labeling and Serving Sizes?

By Michael Biros
No Comments

Bailey Pudenz, Nutritional Coordinator at Eurofins Nutrition Analysis Center, explains what the proposed changes are, and how the labeling would need to change under the new requirements.

FDA has proposed changes to the current nutritional labeling. Currently both the proposed nutritional labeling and serving size rules are in comment period which will close June 2, 2014. Once the final rule is published, it will become law 60 days after the publication date. Industry will then have two years to achieve compliance.

Calories

Calories, calories from saturated fat, the 2000 calorie reference, and percent daily value for calories will remain the same. However, calories from fat will be removed completely. FDA wants consumers to be more aware of the amount and type of fat they eat rather than the calories the fat contributes.

Fat

Total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, poly and monounsaturated fat, and cholesterol will remain the same. FDA considered changing the cutoff value for declaration of zero trans fat, but they have chosen not to change this either. Currently this value is 0.5g per serving. Anything less than this can be declared as zero. FDA is not allowing mandatory or voluntary declaration of the omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA.

Carbohydrates

There are no proposed changes to mandatory declaration or daily reference value for total carbohydrates. However, FDA has proposed changing the name to total carbs. Other carbohydrates, such as starches, are no longer allowed to be voluntarily declared on the label.

FDA is also proposing to change the calories from carbohydrates calculation. The calories from carbohydrates would then be used to calculate the total calorie content in the product. This proposal would exclude soluble and insoluble non-digestible carbohydrates from the calculation. Calories from carbohydrates would then be calculated using 4kcal/g less the amount of non-digestible carbohydrates. Soluble carbohydrates will then be added at a value of 2 kcal/g.

Sugars

There are no proposed changes to mandatory declaration or daily reference value for sugars. However, the name will be changed to total sugars and and a new category of added sugars will be mandatory to declare. FDA has developed an extensive list of what is considered an added sugar: brown sugar, corn sweetener, corn syrup, dextrose, fructose, fruit juice concentrate, glucose, high fructose corn syrup, honey, lactose, maltose, malt sugar, molasses, raw sugar, turbinado, sugar, and sucrose. FDA acknowledges that there is no analytical method available to determine added sugars and will rely on ingredient records to determine the amount and type of added sugars. There are no proposed changes to sugar alcohols.

Dietary fiber

Dietary fiber will still be mandatory to declare, however FDA is proposing to increase the daily reference value to 28g per day. They will adopt the Institute of Medicine’s definition of total fiber which focuses on fiber that is beneficial to human health. There are no proposed changes to soluble or insoluble dietary fiber. 

Protein and Sodium

There are no proposed changes to protein. Sodium is still mandatory to list and FDA is considering lowering the daily reference value from 2400mg to 2300mg.

Essential Vitamins

Vitamins A and C will no longer be mandatory to declare on the label, but can still be voluntarily listed. Vitamin D will be mandatory to declare. FDA has proposed changing the units for vitamin A from IU to µg RAE (Retinol Activity Equivalents) and for vitamin D from IU to µg.

Vitamin K, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, thiamin, riboflavin, biotin, and pantothenic acid will still be voluntary to declare. FDA is proposing the voluntary labeling of choline. The units for vitamin E will be changed from IU to mg. Folate/folic acid will still be voluntary, but they will no longer be interchangeable and the units will be changed from µg to µg DFE (Dietary Folate Equivalents). Niacin is still voluntary to declare, but the units will be changed from mg to mg NE (Niacin Equivalents).

Vitamins
Current RDIs
Proposed RDIs
Biotin
300 µg
30 µg
Choline
550 µg
550 µg
Folate 
400 µg
400 µg DFE
Niacin 
20 mg  
16 mg NE
Pantothenic Acid 
10 mg  
5 mg 
Riboflavin 
1.7 mg 
1.3 mg 
Thiamin 
1.5 mg 
1.2 mg
Vitamin A 
5000 IU 
900 µg RAE
Vitamin B6 
2.0 mg 
1.7 mg
Vitamin B12 
6 µg 
2.4 µg
Vitamin C 
60 mg 
90 mg
Vitamin D 
400 IU 
20 µg
Vitamin E 
30 IU 
15 mg
Vitamin K 
80 µg 
120 µg

Essential minerals

Calcium and iron will both remain mandatory to declare. It will be required to declare potassium. 

Phosphorus, iodine, magnesium, zinc, selenium, copper, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, and chloride will still be voluntary to declare. Fluoride will be voluntary to declare and FDA is not defining a daily reference value. 

Minerals
Current RDIs
Proposed RDIs
Calcium
1000 mg
1300 mg
Chloride
3400 mg
2300 mg
Chromium
120 µg
35 µg
Copper
2.0 mg
0.9 mg
Iodine
150 µg
150 µg
Iron
18 mg
18 mg
Magnesium
400 mg
420 mg
Manganese
2.0 mg
2.3 mg
Molybendum
75 µg
45 µg
Phosphorus
1000 mg
1250 mg
Potassium
3500 mg
4700 mg
Selenium
70 µg
55 µg
Zinc
15 mg
11 mg

Serving sizes

Changes to RACCs (Reference Amount Customarily Consumed) were proposed if consumption data increased or decreased by 25 percent or more. Based on this, about 17 percent of the RACCs will change. FDA will also be adding 25 new RACC categories. Changes in the RACC can potentially change claims such as “low fat” or “a good source of calcium.”

FDA has proposed specifications for how to determine servings per container. Products containing 200 percent or less than the RACC are considered a single serving. Products containing 200-400 percent of the RACC can be labeled with dual columns (single serving and per container). Products with more than 400 percent of the RACC are multi-serving.

  

Nutrition Labels – Old and New
Nutrition-Label-Old-May-2014 Nutrition-Label-New-May-2014

Formatting

Calories and servings per container will be increased in size. The location of servings per container and serving size will be switched. Serving size will be right justified. The phrasing of amount per serving will be changed to include the serving size. Calories from fat will be removed. Percent daily value will be located on the left side of the label. Added sugars will be included below sugars. Mandatory vitamins and minerals will have quantitative amounts in addition to percent daily value. FDA is requesting comments on how the footnotes should be adjusted.