Tag Archives: sustainability

Berk Birand, Fero Labs

Is the Future of Food Quality in the Hands of Machine Learning?

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments
Berk Birand, Fero Labs

Is the future of food quality in the hands of machine learning? It’s a provocative question, and one that does not have a simple answer. Truth be told, it’s not for every entity that produces food, but in a resource, finance and time-constrained environment, machine learning will absolutely play a role in the food safety arena.

“We live in a world where efficiency, cost savings and sustainability goals are interconnected,” says Berk Birand, founder and CEO of Fero Labs. “No longer do manufacturers have to juggle multiple priorities and make tough tradeoffs between quality and quantity. Rather, they can make one change that optimizes all of these variables at once with machine learning.” In a Q&A with Food Safety Tech, Birand briefly discusses how machine learning can benefit food companies from the standpoint of streamlining manufacturing processes and improve product quality.

Food Safety Tech: How does machine learning help food manufacturers maximize production without sacrificing quality?

Berk Birand: Machine learning can help food manufacturers boost volume and yield while also reducing quality issues waste, and cycle time. With a more efficient process powered by machine learning, they can churn out products faster without affecting quality.

Additionally, machine learning helps food producers manage raw material variation, which can cause low production volume. In the chemicals sector, a faulty batch of raw ingredients can be returned to the supplier for a refund; in food, however, the perishable nature of many food ingredients means that they must be used, regardless of any flaws. This makes it imperative to get the most out of each ingredient. A good machine learning solution will note those quality differences and recommend new parameters to deal with them.

FST: How does integrating machine learning into software predict quality violations in real-time, and thus help prevent them?

Birand: The power of machine learning can predict quality issues hours ahead of time and recommend the optimal settings to prevent future quality issues. The machine learning software analyzes all the data produced on the factory floor and “learns” how each factor, such as temperature or length of a certain process, affects the final quality.

By leveraging these learnings, the software can then help predict quality violations in real-time and tell engineers and operators how to prevent them, whether the solution is increasing the temperature or adding more of a specific ingredient.

FST: How does machine learning technology reveal & uphold sustainability improvements?

Birand: Due to the increase in climate change, sustainability continues to become a priority for many manufacturers. Explainable machine learning software can reveal where sustainability improvements, such as reducing heat or minimizing water consumption, can be made without any effect on quality or throughput. By tapping into these recommendations, factories can produce more food with the same amount of energy.

Food Safety in 2022: Sustainability, Supply Chain Issues, Consumer Preferences and Technology at the Forefront

By Maria Fontanazza
No Comments

The ongoing pandemic, food fraud, food insecurity, supply chain disruptions and shortages, maintaining and fostering a robust food safety culture, and foodborne illness outbreaks kept the food industry very busy last year. Looking ahead to 2022, these challenges will continue, but many food companies are becoming better at forecasting and course correcting. During a recent interview with Food Safety Tech, Waylon Sharp, vice president and chief operating officer at Bureau Veritas, discussed trends affecting food safety this year, along with how companies should respond to incoming challenges.

Waylon Sharp, Bureau Veritas
Waylon Sharp leads North American food and agriculture testing, inspection and certification operations at Bureau Veritas.

Food Safety Tech: What challenges did food companies face in 2021 and how can they apply their lessons learned in the new year?

Waylon Sharp: Supply chain disruptions were a big challenge for food companies in 2021, as much of the North American food system is reliant on production or raw materials from international locations. This theme will continue into 2022, as logistics become more costly and challenging from a labor perspective, food companies will naturally gravitate to exploring alternatives. This shift in supply will increase the need for verification of product quality and safety of new suppliers. In addition to, or alternatively, some producers may choose more local options to reduce delays and increase stability of supply.

FST: What are the key trends impacting food safety in 2022?

Sharp: This year we’ll see food safety impacted by sustainability, consumer preferences and health and wellness:

  • Sustainability: Connecting with a purpose will be a key driver for both attracting new customers and enticing top talent to join food organizations. All aspects are critical, including sourcing raw materials, the packaging used, and minimizing the CO2 footprint in production and logistics. Consequently, I suspect there will be bad actors that see the advantage of appearing to be responsible but not doing what they say. Services that hold these organizations accountable will likely continue to grow.
  • Consumer Preferences: Migration to hyper-local, community supporting businesses can be directly correlated to the COVID financial fallout. Buying local helps support the areas we reside in, and this trend will likely persist. The feel-good support should also result in fresher product with less supply chain challenges for consumers.
  • Health & Wellness: Sustainable, plant-based products are expanding in prevalence. Traditional meat alternatives witnessed an increase in volume and new entrants such as seafood alternatives also grew in consumer acceptance. I expect more to launch in 2022 to meet the rising demand for healthy and environmentally conscious alternatives.

FST: What technologies will play a role in helping food companies tackle their biggest hurdles this year?

Sharp: Technology will continue to play an important role in the industry this year. Additional automation and digital tools to manufacture, assess food quality and safety, and distribute food are all likely to grow. Staffing challenges will continue to impact those highly manual production environments and the more work that can be performed without human intervention will gain favor over labor-intensive functions. In addition, remote audits and inspections allow for an experienced individual to assess a situation without traveling and being present on-site to limit human contact.

Waylon Sharp, Bureau Veritas
FST Soapbox

You Are What You Eat: Meeting the Demand For Sustainable Practices and Transparency

By Waylon Sharp
No Comments
Waylon Sharp, Bureau Veritas

A very volatile sector, there are always new trends, opportunities and challenges in the food space, as a multitude of factors—including global climate and geopolitical challenges—can cause supply chain disruptions. Sustainable audits are heightening in demand, in order to validate company claims and provide consumers with peace of mind, as the industry continues to evolve with new ingredients, processes and technologies in play.

Consumers Today Demand Sustainable Practices and Transparency

The shift towards sustainability has further been accelerated by COVID-19, as the pandemic has made for more ethical and conscious consumers. According to research from Forrester, 68% of highly empowered consumers plan to ramp up their efforts to identify brands that reduce environmental impact. While there are numerous audits to measure sustainability and social responsibility, trending focus areas in the food space today are around sustainable packaging, water usage and food waste.

Three Ways Food Processors and Manufacturers Can Reduce Their Footprint

Key players across the food industry are stepping up to the challenge and finding innovative ways to minimize their environmental impact. The following are three ways food processors and manufacturers can reduce their footprint.

  • Use Environmentally Friendly Packaging: Food packaging is a major source of waste and pollution. In fact, containers and packaging make up a major portion of municipal solid waste (MSW), amounting to 82.2 million tons of generation in 2018, according to the EPA. Unfortunately, most packaging is designed as single-use, and is typically thrown away rather than reused or recycled. Given the impacts of packaging on the environment, more manufacturers are looking into packaging options that reduce waste and boost sustainability, including wood- and paper-based alternatives. Other manufacturers are developing innovative alternative packaging from biodegradable materials. The same rings true for takeout and grocery delivery, as the demand for home consumption grows, retail and foodservice companies are considering utilizing more sustainable packaging or reduce the use of virgin plastics to offset their impact.
  • Increase Energy and Water Efficiency: Food processing and manufacturing are energy- and water-intensive. In fact, according to the World Resources Institute, the 1.3 billion tons of wasted food annually also includes 45 trillion gallons of water. Water conservation methods can be implemented throughout the entire food chain—from selecting more efficient crops, to using less water within processing facilities and ultimately reducing food waste on the backend of the chain.
  • Reduce Food Waste: According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), nearly one-third of food produced for human consumption gets wasted each year. In fact, the carbon footprint of food waste is greater than that of the airline industry. This also includes the waste of resources used to produce the food including water, soil, transportation and labor. By improving processing and manufacturing efficiencies, we can reduce waste and better manage resources. Implementing systems to categorize and assess food waste can help identify areas for improvement and enable your team to develop a plan to correct.

Value-Add of Sustainability

Sustainability provides benefits to the consumer, the manufacturer and society-at-large. The consumer feels better about making a purchase that is not only better for the planet, but that may also provide health benefits to themselves and their families. The Organic Trade Association’s 2021 U.S. Organic Industry Survey highlights this trend, as organic food has the reputation of being better for your health and more sustainable for the planet. Organic food sales were up 12% in 2020, the highest growth rate in this category in over a decade.

Intrinsically, manufacturers with sustainable programs in place feel better about the work they are doing, knowing that they are supporting a better world. Companies that publicize their green programs and back them up with the applicable certifications can also attract top employees, despite today’s talent wars. Employees are zeroed in on corporate social responsibility and desire to work for a company that aligns with their purpose.

As it relates to the bottom line, the common misconception is that the sustainable choice will cost more. However, as sustainable supply increases due to consumer demand, companies are able to source sustainable inputs more affordably. Furthermore, they can communicate their commitments via certification bodies, through public forums and by labeling products based on their certifications. These approaches help reach and educate consumers at different levels—from their initial research of products to purchases from the store shelves.

Key Certifications and Auditing Technology

To reduce their environmental footprint throughout the value chain and implement more sustainable business practices, food companies can move toward a circular economy business model. By renewing, reusing and recycling materials at every stage of the food supply chain, companies can preserve the critical resources that allow their business to flourish.

There are a wide range of services help food producers make the transition to a more sustainable business model. This includes the GHG emissions verification, and management system auditing and certification or training to standards like ISO 14001 (Environmental Management System), ISO 24526 (Water Efficiency Management System), AWS (Alliance for Water Stewardship), ISO 50001 (Energy Management System) and SA8000 (Social Accountability standard), as well as SMETA (Sedex Members Ethical Trade Audit) audits. There are also a range of food sustainability-related product certifications including Organic, MSC, ASC and RSPO.

Auditing technology supports a range of requirements and helps teams set achievable targets. It can be used to analyze packaging materials, categorize and assess food waste, and monitor water usage. Newer auditing technology is now blockchain enabled to assess raw materials and packaging, and to ensure third party partners are also socially responsible. This information is packaged into a blockchain solution so that food companies can be confident that the auditing information is correct and secure. Furthermore, this technology provides the added visibility into their network should they have a recall.

How To Initiate or Ramp Up Your Sustainable Programs

For companies interested in kicking off a sustainability program, or branching into new levels of sustainability, a great place to start is training, in order to understand the audit standard. Early on in this process, ensure all parties are onboard and aware of the certification process and related costs—from managers who will be implementing the program daily to board level executives providing the final sign off. Doing this helps allocate sufficient time and resources and avoids surprises down the road.

It’s helpful to work with a third-party consultant through this process, as they are able take a birds-eye-view look to identify gaps in the program and help you achieve specific certification requirements that meet your unique food product needs. If your team works with a consultant to put together a plan that includes auditing, testing, inspection and certification, the right partner can verify that the program meets all the requirements necessary for the certification.

To keep your program running efficiently, arrange regular trainings for employees to stay up to date on the latest requirements and fill any gaps. For more specialized programs, it’s also a good idea to set aside standalone training sessions to avoid information overload.

As the industry continues to innovate, there will be more ways to reduce waste throughout the entire supply chain and build more efficient business models that are better for the company, consumers and the planet. Looking ahead to next year and beyond, the trend towards sustainability and transparency will press on. Ultimately, companies that take the extra steps to be more sustainable are setting a higher standard for industry and supply chain partners and building a pathway for long-term success.

Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food Fraud Quick Bites

Fish Fraudsters, Beware (At Least in Canada)

By Susanne Kuehne
No Comments
Susanne Kuehne, Decernis
Food fraud, fish
Find records of fraud such as those discussed in this column and more in the Food Fraud Database, owned and operated by Decernis, a Food Safety Tech advertiser. Image credit: Susanne Kuehne

Fish and seafood mislabeling is rampant in Canada, according to a report published earlier this year by Oceana Canada. To address the rising concerns of Canadian consumers, the Canadian government is finally consulting with the seafood industry on traceability from boat to plate. These suggestions are supposed to tackle mislabeling, illegal fishing, sustainability issues and unregulated fishing. Even restaurant owners and chefs have called Congress for action.

Resource

  1. Taylor, P. (August 22, 2021). “After fraud report, Canada looks at seafood traceability”. Securing Industry.
Emily Newton, Revolutionized Magazine
In the Food Lab

Will a New Method of Freezing Foods Improve Food Quality and Food Processing?

By Emily Newton
No Comments
Emily Newton, Revolutionized Magazine

As the world veers on the edge of serious climate trouble, it makes sense for companies to collectively start looking into greener and more efficient alternatives. While research is ongoing, every so often, there’s a win that can make a huge difference if and when it is implemented. That’s precisely what’s happening with cutting-edge frozen food and processing technologies, thanks to scientists from the University of California-Berkeley who conducted a study on the concept with the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service.

It came at just the right time, too, as both freezing foods and standard food processing technologies have a rather large energy footprint, with extensive carbon emissions. Globally, those levels have to come down or the results will be disastrous. This new method, proposed by researchers, could reduce the global energy consumption of the frozen foods industry by up to 6.5 billion kilowatt-hours per year. Just to put that into perspective, it is the equivalent of removing one million cars from the road, and keeping them out of regular operation.

Called isochoric freezing, the method essentially involves placing foods in a sealed and rigid container. The storage container, made of hard plastic or metal, is then filled with liquid—like water—and frozen. The catch is that not all of the liquid in the container is frozen, so the food does not turn to solid ice. Only about 10% of the volume freezes during the process, and as long as the food remains within the hardened ice, crystallization will not happen. In addition, pressure that builds up inside the container naturally prevents the ice from expanding.

Isochoric freezing also has implications for fresh foods that are significantly affected by standard freezing techniques, such as small fruits, vegetables (i.e., tomatoes and potatoes), and even some meats.

The best part is that this method can be deployed “without requiring any significant changes in current frozen food manufacturing equipment and infrastructure,” according to USDA food technologist Cristina Bilbao-Sainz.

Why Is Icochoric Freezing Better?

Freezing foods may be a quick and relatively accessible way to preserve them, but many chemical changes happen during the freezing process as well as when those items thaw. Some foods deteriorate when frozen, just at slower rates. What’s more, depending on when and how you freeze or store those items, the composition may change during the entire process.

Some frozen products may develop a rancid smell or taste, after being oxidized or exposed to air. Others may see texture or size changes, and moisture loss at any time (or poor packaging) can result in freezer burn.

A lot of these same problems do not occur with isochoric freezing because the items are not frozen solid. Even more promising is that the new method also improves the quality of frozen foods, boosts safety, and reduces energy use. And during processing it actually kills microbial contaminants.

“The entire food production chain could use isochoric freezing—everyone from growers to food processors, product producers to wholesalers, to retailers. The process will even work in a person’s freezer at home after they purchase a product—all without requiring any major investments in new equipment,” said said Tara McHugh, co-lead on the study and director of the Western Regional Research Center in a USDA press release. “With all of the many potential benefits, if this innovative concept catches on, it could be the next revolution in freezing foods.”

Making the Discovery

Boris Rubinsky, a UC-Berkeley biomedical engineer and co-leader of the project, developed the freezing method while trying to cryopreserve tissues and organs that were designated for use during transplants. The goal was to better preserve these items, under more optimized conditions, with a minimal quality loss after thawing.

While this certainly does have major implications for the frozen foods, cold storage, and food processing industries, it can also be used elsewhere. For example, areas like medicine, science, or space travel can all benefit.

It may be some time before the technology is ready, but the research team is now working on developing commercially viable options, to match modern industry needs.

Will It Lower Carbon Emissions?

If the technology, and method, are adopted on a wide scale, it could vastly lower carbon emissions across many fields, and it may even lower emissions of consumer applications, too. Imagine applying isochoric freezing on a smaller scale, at home, to better preserve leftovers, frozen meals, and much more.

Of course, it will be interesting to see major organizations adopt this method, if and when the resources are available. The food processing industry could see revolutionary reductions in carbon emissions and energy consumption in the years ahead.

Anthony Macherone, Agilent
FST Soapbox

The Link Between Exposure to Xenobiotic Pesticides and Declining Honeybee Colonies and Honey

By Anthony Macherone, Ph.D.
No Comments
Anthony Macherone, Agilent

According to data from the Bee Informed Partnership, a national collaboration of leading research labs and universities in agricultural science, managed honeybee populations declined by nearly 40% between Oct. 1, 2018 and April 1, 2019. This is a 7% greater decline compared to the same timeframe during the previous winter.1

Scientists are examining different environmental factors such as the increased use of pesticides and the use of chemicals in agriculture as causes for the rapid decline in global honeybee numbers.

Recent research conducted by my team and I revealed a potentially key reason for the decline in honeybee populations as a result of Nosema ceranae (N. ceranae), a prevalent infection in adult honeybee populations. My team established a link between N. ceranae-infected honeybee colonies and changes in pheromone levels, which in turn, may have a social impact on communication in honeybee colonies.

Moreover, the significant decline in the global honeybee population is likely to be driving an increase in fraudulent honey, meaning that both governments and regulators need to invest in the latest technology to test honey products for authenticity, nutritional values and safety.

The Significance of Honey in Our Global Diet and the Problem at Hand

Honey has been a part of our diet for the past 8,000 years, and with numerous health benefits in addition to having a favorable taste, it is one of the most popular foods across the globe.2

Honeybees produce honey from the nectar of flowering plants, and they are considered a “keystone species” since one-third of human food supply depends on pollination by honeybees.3The species is responsible for pollinating numerous fruit, nut, vegetable and field crops such as apples, almonds, onions and cotton.

The increase of pesticides and chemicals in the environment has been cited as a reason for the decline in bee populations, which has occurred in Western European countries such as France, Belgium, Germany, the UK, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands, as well as countries such as the United States, Russia and Brazil.4 In fact, the number of honeybee colonies in Europe fell by an average of 16 per cent over the winter of 2017–2018, according to findings published in the Journal of Apiculture Research.5

Global pesticide usage was predicted to increase to 3.5 million tons globally in 2020, which could mean that honeybee populations will continue to diminish at an exponential rate due to the increased use of pesticides.6

The Impact of Pesticides on Global Honeybee Populations

In 2019, a research project was initiated to explore the link between exposure to xenobiotic pesticides and increasing susceptibility to the N. ceranae infection in honeybee colonies, one of the most common infections in adult honeybee populations. The findings suggested that it is not the amount of pesticide exposure, nor a particular kind of pesticide exposure, but rather the number of exposure events from different xenobiotics that is associated with N. ceranae, which infected hives, thereby causing them to diminish.7

For discovery-based (non-targeted) exposome profiling of honeybee extracts, a gas chromatography/quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer (GC/Q-TOF) was used. Additionally, spectral library searches and compound annotation were performed using the NIST 14, RTL Pesticides and the Fiehn Metabolomics libraries to provide efficient and timely research outputs.8

Expanding on this research further in 2021, a scientist’s team established a link between N. ceranae-infected honeybee colonies and changes in pheromone levels, which showed a potential impact on social communication in honeybee colonies. While it was concluded that further analysis is required, as research points to the real possibility that N. ceranae-infected honeybee colonies show increased alarm pheromones and may affect hive communication, which could ultimately, be a reason for the collapse of colonies.9

As N. ceranae is causing honeybee populations to dwindle worldwide, the decline in ‘real’ honey supplies is correspondent with an increase in ‘fake’ honey. Inauthentic honey products cause businesses and consumers to lose out, as ‘fake’ honey floods the market and makes producing ‘real’ honey more expensive.

Growth in Fake Honey

The global honey market has grown from 1.5 million tons produced annually in 2007 to more than 1.9 million tons in 2019 and the market is estimated to be worth $7 billion, however the decline in bee populations has led to an increase in honey adulteration to fill the global demand for honey.10

Declining supplies of authentic honey combined with the strong consumer demand for honey has driven significant adulteration of this product. Honey is considered to be one of the most adulterated foods after milk and olive oil, with every seventh jar of honey opened daily around the globe thought to be fake.11, 12 Consequently, legitimate honeybee keepers and business owners are forced to slash costs, which is problematic for those who depend on selling authentic honey.

To put into perspective the scale of the issue, the European agricultural organization, Copa-Cogeca noted that most honey imported from China into Europe is mixed with syrup.13 In 2018, the Honey Authenticity Project in Mexico commissioned tests for British supermarket honey products, and 10 out of 11 products failed the tests due to suspected sugar adulteration.14

While in the United States, it was recently reported that thousands of commercial beekeepers have taken legal action against the country’s largest honey importers and packers for allegedly flooding the market with hundreds of thousands of tons of “fake” honey.15 Furthermore, a recent workshop led by the South Africa Bee Industry Organization (SABIO) also conducted research on the impact of fraudulent honey, and the organization found that honey imports into South Africa have tripled to 6,000 tons a year, 60% of which come from China.16 As the demand for honey products stays robust but authentic honey supplies dwindle, the issue of counterfeit honey will continue to worsen.

Testing Methods to Identify Authentication

The issue of fraudulent food products like honey has driven governments to set up laws and departments dedicated to food integrity. Examples include FSMA, the UK National Food Crime Unit, Chinese Food Safety Law, and European Commission Food Integrity Project.

Food retailers often have contractual agreements with suppliers that require them to carry out authenticity testing of their ingredients, which can be carried out by third-party laboratories.17 Food adulteration can be identified via targeted and non-targeted testing and common testing methods include molecular spectroscopy solutions for ‘in the field’ screening and more in-depth laboratory analysis to determine quantities of ingredients.

Analytical instrument manufacturers have been working closely with governments to provide the latest methods to test the authenticity of honey products, as well as working with the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC) on the development of both targeted and non-targeted standards for authenticity testing in milk, honey and olive oil.
Measuring contaminants is a key solution to identifying counterfeit honey and gas chromatographs are able to analyze and quantify the absence or presence of hundreds of pesticides in organic-labeled honey.18

Testing and analysis can be done using a range of analytical instrumentation such as solid phase microextraction followed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (SPME-GC/MS), inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), and gas/liquid chromatography/quadrupole time-of-flight (GC/Q-TOF and LC/Q-TOF). These instruments can be coupled with innovative software solutions for advanced data analysis.19

Future Research Must Continue

The spread of diseases such as N. ceranae, which have been shown to be aggravated by human-induced environmental factors, are decimating global honeybee populations, which in turn is negatively impacting ecosystems and humans, and the availability of authentic honey. This demise in authentic honey supplies is additionally fueling a rise in fake honey products, where consumers are misled into buying counterfeit honey.

Future research must continue to seek associations with environmental exposures effects on biological pathways and adverse health outcomes in honeybee populations, and in fact, novel environmental exposures have been found to be associated with seven of the top diseases known to affect honeybees. These putative associations must be validated with targeted follow-up studies to determine if they are causative factors in the decline of honeybee populations. If proven to be causative, scientists and policy makers can work together to mitigate these factors and hopefully reverse the global trend of honeybee colony decline.

References

  1. Loss & Management Survey, Bee Informed. Last accessed: June 2021
  2. Agilent.‘The Buzz around Fake Honey’. 2018. Last accessed: June 2021
  3. University of California – Berkeley. ‘Pollinators Help One-third Of The World’s Food Crop Production’. 2006. Last accessed: June 2021
  4. European Parliament. ‘What’s behind the decline in bees and other pollinators?’. 2021. Last accessed: June 2021
  5. Journal of Apiculture Research. ‘Loss rates of honeybee colonies during winter 2017/18 in 36 countries participating in the COLOSS survey, including effects of forage sources’. 2019. Last accessed: June 2021
  6. SN Applied Sciences. ‘Worldwide pesticide usage and its impacts on ecosystem’. 2019. Last accessed: June 2021
  7. PLOS ONE. ‘Honey bee (Apis mellifera) exposomes and dysregulated metabolic pathways associated with Nosema ceranae infection’. 2019. Last accessed: June 2021
  8. PLOS ONE. ‘Honey bee (Apis mellifera) exposomes and dysregulated metabolic pathways associated with Nosema ceranae infection’. 2019. Last accessed: June 2021.
  9. Royal Society Open Science. ‘Increased alarm pheromone component is associated with Nosema ceranae infected honeybee colonies’. 2021. Last accessed: June 2021
  10. Statista. ‘Global market value of honey 2019-2027’. 2021. Last accessed: June 2021
  11. Insider.com. ‘Honey is one of the most faked foods in the world, and the US government isn’t doing much to fix it.’ 2020. Last accessed: June 2021
  12. Dow Jones. ‘Hi honey. I’m not from home.’ Last accessed: June 2021
  13. Apiservices.biz. ‘Copa-Cogeca Position Paper on the European Honey Market.’ February 2020. Available at: Copa-Cogeca position paper on the European honey market (apiservices.biz)
  14.  WIRED. ‘The honey detectives are closing in on China’s shady syrup swindlers’. 2021. Last accessed: June 2021
  15.  The Guardian. ‘US beekeepers sue over imports of Asian fake honey’. 2021. Last accessed: June 2021
  16.  Times Live. ‘Falsely labelled, mixed with syrup or ‘laundered’: Honey fraud is rife in SA’. 2021. Last accessed: June 2021.
  17.  UK Parliament Post. Postnote, number 624. ‘Food Fraud’. Last accessed: June 2021
  18. Agilent. ‘The Health Benefits of Honey’. 2017. Last accessed: June 2021
  19. Agilent. ‘Protecting our honey against food adulteration’. Last accessed: June 2021.

 

GFSI, The Consumer Goods Forum

Trust, Transparency and Collaboration Are Highlights of 2021 GFSI Conference

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
GFSI, The Consumer Goods Forum

The second and third days of this year’s virtual 2021 GFSI Conference (see GFSI Day 1 Wrap) took the opportunity to recognize the impact of COVID-19 on the industry but more importantly, addressed the future of providing safe food to a global population. “The COVID-19 pandemic has been an exceptional challenge to public health and food systems and everyone in the world, but it has also been an opportunity to reimagine safer, more resilient and sustainable food systems,” said Naoko Yamamoto, M.D., a physician and epidemiologist at the World Health Organization. “We need to seek more collaborative approaches to be inclusive and innovative when working across sectors to achieve food safety.”

Speakers discussed the importance trust and transparency related to food safety and sustainability. With the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals deadline set at 2030, GFSI developed a new code of ethical conduct in its new Governance rules. “We need strong engagement from the private sector for our agrifood systems to become more efficient, more inclusive, more resilient and more sustainable,” said Qu Dongyu, Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

In addition to networking breaks during the event, concurrent special sessions targeted auditing, chemical hazards, pest management and technology solutions. Day three also featured Ask GFSI sessions, which were conducted in Zoom, and allowed speakers to field questions from the live attendees.

Read GFSI’s full update of Day Two of the conference.

Read GFSI’s full update of Day Three of the conference.

 

GFSI, The Consumer Goods Forum

Day 1 of 2021 GFSI Conference Reflects on Leadership and Resilience

By Food Safety Tech Staff
No Comments
GFSI, The Consumer Goods Forum

The 20th annual GFSI Conference convened yesterday, but instead of bringing together an international group of food industry stakeholders in one central location, the event was held online, streamed throughout offices and homes across the globe.

Day one kicked off with a welcome from Wai-Chan Chan, managing director of The Consumer Goods Forum, Qu Dongyu, Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, who addressed the humanitarian and consumer perspective of food safety. “We need a strong engagement of the private sector for our agrifood systems to become more efficient, more inclusive, more resilient and more sustainable,” Chan stated. The conversation about the global importance of sustainability continued with a conversation led by Erica Sheward, GFSI Director, and Howard Popoola, vice president, corporate food technology and regulatory compliance for The Kroger Company and Roy Kirby, global director, microbiology, food safety and toxicology for Mondelez International. They talked about GFSI’s program, Race to the Top, and the /global Markets Programme capability tool, which was established more than 10 years ago to help companies implement continuous improvement to develop an effective food safety management system, and its potential in developing markets. “Think about what this could do for farmers, think about what it could do for families in Africa, in those places described as countries of opportunity, producing niche products, who just need an opportunity to be able to sell their products into the world stage,” said Popoola, who is also a GFSI steering committee member.

During the course of the day, stakeholders also discussed pandemic-specific issues including supply chain disruptions, and the role of crisis communications and messaging to consumers related to the safety of the food supply.

More exclusive updates will be available from Food Safety Tech. Read GFSI’s full update on Day One of the conference.

Stephen Dombroski, QAD
FST Soapbox

Regulatory Issues and Transportation: Critical Factors in the Quest for Sustainability in Food Manufacturing

By Stephen Dombroski
No Comments
Stephen Dombroski, QAD

Over the last several months, we have been exploring the details of several critical factors that are impacting the food and beverage manufacturing sector in terms of sustainability, including:

Two additional factors that food manufacturers now have to manage regarding sustainable practices are transportation and regulatory restrictions. Each can be discussed as a separate topic, but they are intertwined, as there have always been regulations regarding food transportation, and obviously food has always needed to be transported. Now that sustainability is an important topic in all areas of food manufacturing, it makes sense to discuss these two subjects both individually and collectively.

Transportation and Regulatory Joint Concerns

Ensuring that all areas of food transportation incorporate sustainable practices is a critical component of achieving sustainability in food manufacturing. To this point, however, these types of practices have not fully been implemented or even designed. This area is still evolving. From a straight transportation point of view, governments globally have been imposing restrictions for decades. These restrictions vary from country to country, province to province, region to region, and so on, and this causes confusion when inter- or intra-region transportation of food is required. There are also several regulatory differences based on mode of transportation. Land, air and sea transportation can and should have different regulations.

Another ingredient that should be added to this product mix of sustainability, transportation and regulations is food safety and the integrity of the food materials being transported whether it is ingredients, work-in-process foods or finished products. Various modes of transportation can affect the chemical composition, physical appearance, nutritional value and quality and safety of food. It could be straightforward to start implementing restrictions, regulations and new methods of how to package, manufacture and transport food to satisfy the growing trend of sustainable food behaviors. However, what cannot get lost in this is the issue of food safety and integrity.

Sustainability More than Recycling and Litter

When discussing regulations around transportation and food, many people immediately think of littering, of some uncaring individual throwing a soda pop can out of a car window. Littering regulations, laws, fines, penalties and public service campaigns have been in place globally for more than 50 years. The next time you go outside, take a look around at how effective those have been. Sustainability goes far beyond the issue of litter. One area that works hand in hand with transportation of food is climate change. Governments have been evaluating the current practices and have begun implementing changes designed to positively affect climate change. Some examples include:

  • 23 American states and Washington, D.C. limit idling by some or all vehicles.
  • The California Air Resources Board adopted the TRU Airborne Toxic Control Measure in 2004 to reduce diesel particulate matter pollutant emissions.
  • In 2020, the International Maritime Organization will implement a new regulation for a 0.50% global sulfur cap for marine fuels.

The food and beverage industry is actively embracing other changes that affect sustainability. Electric trucks fit well with the F&B distribution hub model, with clean, quiet, short-run deliveries. Fuel usage during transportation is being considered from every angle. Local and regional food systems, where farmers and processors sell and distribute their food to consumers within a given area, use less fossil fuel for transportation because the distance from farm to consumer is shorter. This shorter distance also can help to reduce CO2 emissions.

Change Starts with Money

During many conversations I have had with my wife about a variety of subjects, especially those that can be considered controversial, one of us always raises the same question which is: “When in doubt, what is it all about?” And most of the time, the answer is money. Regulations around sustainability in food manufacturing are being driven by demands made by the consumer. The purchasers of the finished food product dictate almost every aspect of that product to the manufacturer because, let’s face it, if the consumer doesn’t like it, they won’t buy it. And if they don’t buy it, what will eventually happen to the manufacturer? That’s right—it goes out of business.

Now there is a good definition of sustainability or at least of what is not sustainable. From the transportation side of things, manufacturers in almost all cases pay the freight of shipping their food products to the members of the value chain. This obviously affects the costs of goods sold, which is a direct component of the bottom line and the profitability of the business. And with margins typically low in food and beverage manufacturing, transportation costs are always on the minds of the executives. So as the drive for sustainable transportation practices rolls into food manufacturing, you can bet that in addition to meeting sustainable practices, they will fit into the financial plans of the organization as well.

Sustainability: Just Another Component in a Long Line of Disruptors in Food Manufacturing

Years ago, when the topic of disruption in food manufacturing came up, many would mention things like a customer changing an order, an ingredient not arriving on time, or a packaging line going down for an hour. Today, these occurrences are just part of the day-to-day process and reality of food manufacturing. They are going to happen, and disruptions are the things that will make a food manufacturer have to change their business model and force them to change their philosophy and begin to evaluate their business practices and systems to adjust to the world in which they operate.

Sustainability is another one of those disruptions that will impact the process of food transportation long term. Sustainability will be an area that eventually forces manufacturers to operate within new regulatory parameters imposed on how they produce and ship their food. Through these changes, manufacturers will have to ensure that food meets the current and future safety regulations while maintaining profitability. That is where real sustainability will be measured. Changes to business, movements like sustainability are adding to the disruption of the food industry at unprecedented rates of speed. In order to survive and thrive, and to meet these disruptions head on and be sustainable themselves, global food manufacturers must be able to innovate and adapt their business models.

Stephen Dombroski, QAD
FST Soapbox

The Drive to Sustainable Food Manufacturing Begins with Three Critical Factors

By Stephen Dombroski
No Comments
Stephen Dombroski, QAD

Sustainability, without question, is one of the hottest social and political topics today. It is as complex as it is simple. Sustainability gets discussed in almost every walk of life, but in the world of food manufacturing, there are few subjects more debated than this one. It is a contentious subject because in the manufacturing arena, it is not just a social or political issue, it is a financial issue—a big financial issue. Sustainability and related issues around it are critical factors and components that are now impacting the bottom lines of food manufacturers. The impact is seen in terms of both red and black.

In a low-margin business like food manufacturing, profits are at a premium and even a minor disruption can negatively impact those profits. Adapting to all the issues that are involved in and around sustainability is, without question, a disruption for manufacturers. At the same time, manufacturers can make positive impacts through smart operational decision-making, which is where sustainability has the greatest presence. When sustainability is discussed in regards to food and beverage manufacturing, a number of topics surface. Some topics are discussed individually and some are grouped together. Consumer preferences, new foods, and packaging are three such areas. At first glance, you might ask why they are lumped together. They are lumped together because they are actually very closely related. Let’s explore those connections especially as they relate to finances.

Consumer Preferences: Paving the Sustainable Path

Consumer preferences have always been one of the leading factors determining what food and beverage manufacturers produce and send to market. For generations, countless amounts of time and money have been spent on trying to predict what consumers want and when they want it. A tremendous amount of data is painstakingly analyzed by manufacturers trying to figure out the consumer’s next move.

According to a 2018 Global Web Index survey, half of digital consumers say environmental concerns influence their purchasing decisions. Millennials—sometimes named the Green Generation—and Generation Z lead the way. About 61% of millennials and 58% of Gen Z’ers say they would pay more for eco-friendly products. Green consumers want brands to embrace purpose and sustainability, and they want their purchases to contribute to the greater good, or at least, do no harm.

These preferences started among millennials and Gen Z’ers, but with the influence of social media, they have expanded to all age groups. This expansion has contributed greatly to a change in what consumers purchase and to what manufacturers produce. In recent years, consumers have changed their eating habits in terms of what they eat, how they eat and when they eat, and those changes have impacted both food service and retail food producers. They have largely centered on healthier foods, pure ingredients and products that promote an eco-friendly culture and a sustainable world. The changes have been felt up and down manufacturing organizations, but most importantly they are reflected in the bottom line.

The industry has been forced to introduce healthier products, with more ethically sourced ingredients and more transparent supply chains. Younger consumers, especially, often trace a brand’s sustainability record with QR codes or smart labels. They want to know where their food originates. They don’t just want to know in which state the potato used in their organic baked potato crisp was grown. They want to know the county, town, farm, field and names of the people who picked it so they can connect with them on Facebook to determine if they practice safe hygiene principles! If a product doesn’t fit the consumers’ predetermined sustainable criteria, they buy a product from another manufacturer. Talk about an impact to profits. The consumer focus on sustainability has increased competition and costs, forced organizational changes and made food manufacturers figure out what processes and systems need to be in place to ensure their decisions keep consumers happy and their profits on the right side of the ledger. These consumer actions and attitudes are now influencing the development of new food items as manufacturers realize consumers are not just taking notice but taking actions as well.

New Foods: Where’s the Beef? Not Here!

As consumers change their food preferences for health and sustainability reasons, food and beverage producers have the opportunity, responsibility and if they want to survive, the mandate to develop new food products built on a reputation for sustainability. Brands have been working on protein alternatives for some time, but not until Burger King and McDonald’s introduced plant-based burgers did plant-based protein go “viral” so to speak. Talk about “Where’s the beef?” In addition to meeting the needs of the drive for sustainable foods, food manufacturers are developing plant-based proteins and many new foods to support the healthier lifestyle movement. As consumers embrace Keto diets, veganism, vegetarianism and other new eating and living practices, tofu, soybeans, seeds, nuts, legumes and other vegetable-based products are now being routinely used as replacements for protein, carbohydrate-heavy flours and food foundation bases.

Ten years ago, if I said in 2021 we would be eating pizza with a crust made of cauliflower, what would the public reaction have been? People in Chicago would have thrown away their deep-dish pans. Food manufacturers now introduce new products on a weekly basis and it is having a tremendous impact on sales and bottom lines. These rapid introductions also impact other key areas of the organization including supply chain, product development cycle and manufacturing cost infrastructure.

Substituting vegetables for carbohydrate-rich grains, of course, costs money. It can increase material costs, manufacturing costs, warehousing costs and distribution costs, which combine to raise retail prices. Luckily, as we have illustrated, consumers are willing to pay more for products that they perceive as having a sustainable footprint. Utilizing products differently to respond to the push for sustainability is a smart tactic that can expand the value chain, open up new markets and drive sales for food and beverage manufacturers.

Packaging Sells Products and Sustainability

Sustainable packaging can mean many things. It can mean packaging made with 100% recycled or raw materials, packaging with a minimized carbon footprint due to a streamlined production process or supply chain, or packaging that is recycled or reused. There is also biodegradable packaging like containers made from cornstarch being used for takeout meals.

For generations, packaging has had a tremendous influence on what consumers buy. Human beings are visual creatures. They are drawn to things that have visual and physical characteristics that appeal to the senses. How many products in the marketplace are known for a certain shape or color configuration? Many times, these shapes or colors can only be created using certain glass, plastic or other materials that might not meet the sustainable criteria. This has caused problems for manufacturers as consumers still want those products but are conflicted if their sustainable beliefs are compromised. Adapting new eco-friendly materials while retaining generations of packaging history and nostalgia can increase costs. But, to keep their customers, manufacturers make these changes, absorb the extra costs and try to make up for lost profits in other ways.

Packaging, especially smart packaging, can also help fight the battle against food waste. Packaging companies are creating and producing intelligent packaging for food products that have built-in sensors and monitors to determine when a product will lose its nutritional value or spoil. Smart labels are being used in conjunction with new packaging materials to monitor external factors that can influence product freshness. Packaging can be a driving force to reaching the goal of sustainability.

Adapting to changing consumer preferences, demand for new foods and new packaging materials and designs is critical for manufacturers trying to reach sustainable goals. Consumer preferences drive what manufacturers produce. Consumer preferences drive the development of new foods that consumers think they need in order to live a healthier lifestyle. Packaging is the wrapper that keeps the new foods fresh and catches the consumer’s eye, which in turn drives sales and thus drives profits. These three critical areas can be the foundation of the sustainable movement and manufacturing’s response to it. Food producers must embrace the sustainable movement if they want to stay in business. To meet this challenge, manufacturers of packaging and food need to evaluate their processes and systems and implement the ones that can help them cost-effectively transition to becoming sustainable manufacturers.