Richard Gueterbock of Clearfleau and Andrew Winship of Aker Associates explain the benefits of using biomethane generated on-site from food and drink process residues as a fuel for HGVs.

As a major consumer of natural resources, the food industry is under increasing pressure to reduce its carbon emissions and its wider impact on the environment. Food and beverage businesses also need to access alternative clean sources of energy not only for their production processes but also for the transport of raw materials and products. Generating bio-energy on-site, including biogas from factory process residues, can offer an attractive solution to both these requirements.

Developing bio-energy solutions, such as bio-methane for commercial transport fuels, offers an opportunity to employ innovative engineering skills to make better use of available resources. The circular economy requires new sources of raw materials, more efficient production and packaging systems and low-carbon fuels for production and delivering products within the retail system.

The food industry is already replacing more traditional, energy-intensive solutions for disposal of its processing residues with on-site bio-energy generation. Developing clean transport fuels can further transform outdated business models that evolved when resource efficiency was of less concern. Production of bio-fuels from residues is already happening and bio-methane is available from existing supply chains, including an increasing number of anaerobic digestion (AD) plants on factory sites.

Developing clean transport fuels can further transform outdated business models that evolved when resource efficiency was of less concern.'

Decentralised on-site bioenergy

Food and drink manufacturers are recognising the commercial benefits of decentralised energy from bio feedstocks. This includes deploying AD to convert energy-rich process residues, such as those from distilleries and dairies, into valuable renewable energy for use in the factory, while minimising disposal costs and cutting fossil fuel consumption by up to 30%. In the past decade, about 30 such AD plants have been built on UK factory sites, reducing emissions and providing an attractive return on investment.

For example, one of Europe’s largest cheese creameries, First Milk’s Aspatria in Cumbria, uses this technology to provide energy to power the factory. The on-site AD plant converts unwanted cheese-making residues into biogas, supplying upgraded biomethane via the gas grid to the site and other local users. The process allows First Milk to save money on its fuel bills, avoid previous costs of disposing of the residues and reduce the site’s carbon emissions. AD is converting co-products from Diageo whisky distilleries in the Scottish Highlands to biogas to heat the stills and is also being used in the dairy, food and biofuel sectors. Decentralised energy potential in these sectors is based on the latent calorific value of energy-rich liquid (and solid) process residues. Ongoing technology improvements (e.g. process control, biogas yield, COD removal efficiency, ability to recycle grey water or plant footprint) have enhanced potential payback. The challenge faced by industry and its regulators is to extend this approach across the food processing sector.

Enabling smaller factory sites to make use of the calorific value in their residues, rather than export their potential energy value, represents progress towards a more circular economy.

Bio-energy alternatives to fossil-fuel based energy are not limited to biomass and bio-digestion but include fuel cells and hydrogen energy. Benefits include improved bio-security, as residues are converted to energy where they arise without having to be stored or transported. Substituting fossil fuels with biogas, biomethane, biodiesel or hydrogen adds value to discarded materials, reducing production costs. The benefits of on-site bio-energy are clear but, particularly with smaller sites, the technology must meet energy needs, be affordable and match the space available.

With on-site digestion, individual facilities are tailored to the specific requirements of the site. Developing a more modular approach to plant design helps to facilitate export opportunities and make plants affordable on smaller industrial sites. As the government continues to curb the incentives that have stimulated investment in renewable heat and power, bio-based fuels are becoming an increasingly attractive alternative to high-emission fuels, such as diesel, for use in heavy goods vehicles (HGVs).

Fill 'er up: truck refuelling with biomethane fuel Courtesy of CNG Services – www. cngservices.co.uk

Biogas as vehicle fuel

The food and drink sector is intimately linked with the wider environment. With the majority of its feedstocks derived from agricultural processes, the industry can do more to limit the environmental impact of its operations. Transport is also a key function for any business. Raw materials need to be brought to the processing site and finished products distributed to the wider market.

To date, utilising biogas on factory sites has mainly involved Combined Heat and Power (CHP) engines, which both generate electricity and provide heat. However, biogas can also be used in the transport sector. A recent study, undertaken by Aker Associates for Clearfleau, investigated smaller scale, onsite production of biomethane and showed that it has a viable future in the food sector as a low carbon alternative to diesel in commercial vehicles and HGVs.

This approach is especially appropriate in the dairy sector, using biomethane generated on site from milk processing residues as a fuel for trucks that collect milk from local farms and deliver cheese, yoghurts and other products to retailers.

To use biogas in existing truck engines, they must be converted to operate on Compressed Biomethane (CBM) or Liquid Biomethane (LBM). However, more truck manufacturers are now supplying new trucks with gas engines. There are five principle technologies for converting raw biogas into biomethane by removing the carbon dioxide and other impurities: Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA), Water Scrubbing, Amine Scrubbing, Membrane and Cryogenic processes. The biomethane must be compressed or liquefied to produce the fuel. The Clearfleau study included a detailed financial evaluation of both CBM and LBM conversion, showing an attractive return on investment, which will improve as diesel prices rise.

Simple payback at a smaller milk creamery for CBM was estimated at 5.7 years and for LBM at 7.5 years, comparing favourably to using biogas in combined heat and power (CHP) units to generate electricity at 5.6 years. The economic viability of biomethane for industrial transport also depends on a range of site-specific factors, such as the number and type of trucks and how they operate from the site, the quantity and nature of organic residues available, volume of biogas produced and site location.

Currently, the dominant fuel for commercial vehicles is diesel. Concern about air pollution contributing to premature deaths of thousands of people each year has resulted in the emergence of clean air zones in cities to restrict the movement of the most polluting vehicles. It may even result in a ban on the use of diesel in major cities, as reported recently in Paris. This will have a major impact on the operations and profitability of food and drink manufacturers, which will need to find alternatives to diesel. While there has been huge growth recently in the uptake of electric vehicles, this is not a viable solution for commercial transport, as the technology is not suitable for larger, heavier trucks.

Converting process residues from food and drink manufacture into biomethane is therefore an obvious solution. Vehicles are continuously entering and leaving the site making it an ideal location to set up the refuelling infrastructure, with the feedstock (residues) to produce the fuel readily available. By producing renewable fuel on-site, a business can help insulate itself from rising prices and make fuel cost budgeting more predictable.

Elsewhere in Europe, use of biomethane as a transport fuel is not new. Other European countries have developed a market for gas-powered vehicles, with production and refuelling technology having been in use for many years for commercial transport fleets using gas to power HGVs. Companies like Arla and Waitrose are using compressed or liquefied natural gas (CNG and LNG) and biogas alternatives, with trials showing the potential to deliver significant greenhouse gas savings.

Gas-powered HGVs have been demonstrated to produce lower emissions of NOx, particulates and CO2 and are claimed to be quieter. Biomethane provides an even lower carbon alternative to the CNG and LNG powered trucks already being used in some commercial vehicle fleets.

In the UK, incentives are in place to encourage wider adoption of biomethane as a transport fuel through the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) and by development programmes like the recently announced Future Fuels for Flight and Freight Competition. Converting process residues into renewable transport fuels is economically viable, giving the food and drink industry another option in its progress towards emissions reduction, improved sustainability and embracing the circular economy. Government could do more to encourage the wider use of gas engine technology.

While there has been huge growth recently in the uptake of electric vehicles, this is not a viable solution for commercial transport, as the technology is not suitable for larger, heavier trucks.'

Promoting a low carbon economy

After the 2015 Paris COP21 ClimateChange Convention, a group of leading food and drink sector multi-nationals made commitments to change their practices, signing a statement of intent: ‘We wantthe facilities where we make our products to be powered by renewable energy, with nothing going to waste, as corporate leaders, we have been working hard toward these ends, but we can and must do more.’

With global food companies setting ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing a more circular economy, British firms need a supportive policy framework.Companies that have installed onsite bioenergy plants are benefiting from incentive revenue and cost savings, while boosting their CSR profile - compelling reasons for the Government to promote the decentralised generation of bioenergy as part of its industrial strategy.

The bio-economy (including forestry and the agri-food sector) contributes about £36 billion in gross value added (GVA) to the UK economy, of which over 80% is from food and farming. In 2012, industrial biotechnology and bio-energy contributed 3% to the sector’s GVA; with the right support this can grow substantially.

The technology for producing low carbon bio-fuels from process residues is already well established and biomethane offers an existing supply chain with an increasing number of AD plants on factory sites.

The Government’s Policy Green Paper ‘Building our Industrial Strategy’ highlighs the value of cleaner technologies but does not indicate how bio-engineering and renewables will be promoted when existing incentive regimes expire. Development of the biomethane sector for HGV fuel needs on-going support through the RTFO and other taxation measures; biomethane should be included among the low carbon development fuels.

In developing its ‘Clean Growth Strategy’ the Government needs to provide a period of policy stability for industrial bio-energy to fulfil its potential. Smaller businesses need support if they are to match investment in the circular economy by larger companies. With British bio-energy companies developing smaller on-site solutions, wider adoption of industrial bio-energy can stimulate economic growth, boost engineering jobs, help the UK meet sustainability goals and encourage innovation.

Richard Gueterbock, Marketing Director for Clearfleau, has been with the company since it was founded. He has a background in the agri-food sector and is a former trustee of the Royal Agricultural Society of England. Clearfleau is a provider of on-site bioenergy plants for food and beverage processing factories, with operational plants and others in build in the food, dairy, drinks and biofuel sectors.

Andrew Winship, Director Aker Associates, has more than 25 years of experience gained from working in the oil, chemicals and clean energy sectors. His areas of expertise cover combustion processes, biogas/biomethane, hydrogen and CO2

Aker Associates is an independent consultancy and advisory business to the clean energy sector specialising in business development, technology commercialisation, innovation management and project development.

To find out more about using Biomethane as Transport Fuel or to download a summary of Clearfleau’s report, please visit http://clearfleau.com/summary-of-report-on-biogas-forcommercial-vehicle-...

References

1. Building Our Industrial Strategy – Government Green Paper January 2017

2. Glyn Chambers, Alexandra Dreisin and Mark Pragnell, “The British Bio-economy - an assessment of the impact of the bioeconomy on the United Kingdom economy” Capital Economics Ltd, 11 June 2015, http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/documents/capital-economics-british-bioeconomy-report-11-june-2015

Could nutrition-packed, freshly-picked local produce, grown using energy and fertiliser made from food waste become the norm in cities of the future? Helen Theaker, Mark Walker and Rokiah Yaman have been exploring a circular organic model that could yield social, environmental and economic benefits.

Background

Every year, an estimated 10 million tonnes of food waste in the UK is thrown away – including 5.7 million tonnes from households. In the move towards a low-carbon society, managing this problem needs to be a priority. The best solution is to avoid creating waste, but some cannot be avoided and other solutions need to be explored. Food waste collection by local councils is continually rising and is now provided to 100% of households in Wales and Northern Ireland, 91% in Scotland and 52% in England. This means that diverting food waste away from landfill is becoming more feasible, opening the door to other treatment options, which can help to realise the inherent value contained in organic waste.

An alternative to landfill and the more energy-efficient option of ‘energy from waste’ (normally incineration) is anaerobic digestion (AD). This is a renewable energy system that can be used to break down ‘wet’ organic matter in a controlled way, which allows the products to be captured. Energy is released in the form of biogas, made up of methane and carbon dioxide, which can be collected and used for cooking, electricity generation, heating, transport, or can be upgraded and injected into the national gas grid. A nutrient and fibre-rich fertiliser, known as digestate, is also produced, which can be returned to farmland to boost the health of the soil and replace artificially produced fertilisers.

It has been widely reported that the concentration of nutrients in our fruit and vegetables has declined since the 1950s^[1], most probably due to a combination of early harvesting, longer transportation journeys, extended storage times, crop selection for disease resistance and reduced nutrients in the soil.

An innovative system of circular organic resource management could help to address these issues. AD can form an important part of this system, where instead of losing nutrients and energy when food is thrown away, it is put back into the soil, allowing it to re-invigorate. At the same time, emissions from waste in landfill are avoided and renewable energy and heat are created.

There is currently 430 MW of AD installed in the UK, providing about 1.4% of the UK’s electricity demand, with 40% of this coming from foodwaste. However, if all of the food waste produced in the UK was processed by AD, it could supply up to 4% of our electricity demand and satisfy 5% of our fertiliser requirements. In general, AD facilities are, by economic necessity, large-scale plants located in the countryside away from built-upareas. However, there is a growing interest in building smaller plants in urban areas, in an effort to capture more of the available food waste and reduce transport miles.

The micro-AD systems used by LEAP are around 1/1000^th the size of their industrial counterparts but are still able to convert food waste into valuable products by the same process.'

The LEAP project

Established in 2012, LEAP (Local Energy ADventure Partnership) has developed a decentralised, urban closed-loop model, where food waste is processed on-site using microscale AD. Biogas is used to supply local energy needs, while the digestate replaces artificial fertiliser supporting local, intensive urban agriculture. The micro-AD systems used by LEAP are around 1/1000th the size of their industrial counterparts but are still able to convert food waste into valuable products by the same process. LEAP’s vision is clear: prioritise local organic resource management to create a recipe for low carbon, resilient, economically viable food production.

In moving towards the organic circular economy, LEAP seeks to embrace not only environmental and economic aims, but also social aspirations, including public engagement, educational, training and employment benefits (Figure 1). Its initial focus on the viability of micro-AD in the urban context addressed issues of odour, cost, user friendliness and lack of food growing space.

During 2012-13, LEAP compiled two feasibility reports. The first focused on the potential for a micro-AD network in the London Borough of Camden and how resources, such as technical expertise and smart data analysis, could be shared. The second narrowed down twelve sites identified in the first study and described four detailed scenarios for implementation.

Currently, three pilot plants have been established, with two in Central London up and running and the third nearing commissioning. Each plant is designed to test different equipment configurations as well as various end-uses of biogas and digestate.

The first plant in Camley Street Natural Park, near Kings Cross (Figure 2), sits overlooking a canal in a beautiful nature reserve. Zero carbon collections within a 1-mile radius use a cargo bike to transport catering and office food waste to the digester (Figure 3).

Biogas is used for cooking on-site by Wildwood Community Café – set up as an intrinsic part of the closed-loop model, while café food waste is fed to the digester. Digestate is used as a fertiliser for food growing on a nearby railway embankment site and the produce supplies the café.

The second plant is situated at the Calthorpe Project, a community centre and garden with an established food-growing area. Here, another closed-loop café has been set up, feeding the digester with food preparation waste, while biogas is used on-site for cooking and generating heat. In colder months, the growing season will be extended in the polytunnel, where hydroponic experiments are underway to see whether soilless or soil-based growing is the way forward for using digestate in limited urban spaces (Figure 4).

The third plant in East London is part of R-Urban, an EU funded project developed in conjunction with public works, an architect and artist collective that specialises in participatory design. The AD system was assembled in a shipping container by participants over a series of knowledge-sharing workshops. This system, sited on a social housing estate as part of a community reuse resource that will include a tool library, workshop space, café and community energy hub, will soon be commissioned (Figure 5).

Figure 1. A closed-loop visualisation for Camden’s Future Cities Feasibility Study

Figure 2. LEAP's first pilot system at Camley Street Natural Park

Figure 3. Zero carbon food waste collections using a cargo bike

Figure 4. Hydroponic experiments in the Calthorpe polytunnel

Figure 5. Learning together - practical, participatory workshops attract like-minded individuals across London

Case study

The 2m³ AD plant at Camley Street was commissioned in October 2013 and was monitored by researchers from January to November 2014. The plant was profiled in terms of its stability, ability to digest waste and its energy usage in comparison to larger AD facilities.

The study was the first detailed assessment of a community-based micro-AD in the UK and was recently published by the University of Sheffield in Waste Management Journal^[2]. At its target feeding rate, the AD system was fed on an average of 24kg a day of food waste, mostly from local businesses.

As the project progressed, maintenance and improvements were made to the plant to keep it running smoothly. This included the automation of the feed system, which gave the plant a predictable and regular feeding pattern, and the development of a bespoke boiler and hob to burn the gas.

Many measurements were taken from the AD plant during the study, which allowed researchers to confirm its stable and successful operation. In fact the micro-scale system showed very similar operational characteristics to a standard large-scale facility. However, the energy balance of the plant was very different because, unlike a standard large digester, the plant was housed indoors. Anaerobic digesters typically need to be run at 37-40°C, but the heating required by the plant was far less than normal. The carbon emissions savings were calculated and are broken down in the illustration in Figure 6 (p31). The largest carbon saving is from the diversion of waste from landfill, followed closely by the production of green energy, which displaces energy from fossil fuels.

Figure 6. Carbon emissions savings from the Camley Street AD plant

Lessons learned

Five years into the project, a number of very valuable lessons have been learned from the research carried out:

• Digestate is the single biggest challenge for managing organic waste with AD in the urban context. While this is the case across all scales of AD, cities pose specific challenges with limited growing space and the high value of land. Despite having a number of potential options for digestate deployment, managing the volume produced in real time requires good planning and knowledge of the most effective ways of utilising this valuable byproduct.

• User friendliness of micro-AD systems is key to their success. AD is already a more complex process than composting, so simplifying user operation through good design is essential. Having straightforward procedures, monitoring and maintenance routines makes it easier to maintain a healthy and efficient biological process.

• Odour is another key issue, which good design can help eliminate. Housing digesters within a structure not only helps minimise heat losses but also keeps odour during operation inside the building. Hygiene protocols also reduce smells and maintaining steady operation of the system makes a difference, as irregular feeding causes instability, which can increase odour generation.

• Good engineering design and training are both critical to the success of a plant. While the technology is relatively simple, it benefits hugely from AD design experience and the operator understanding the process, since mistakes can easily be made without knowledge of the subtle interactions between feedstock, process, design and operation. LEAP has found that its operators can become effective trouble-shooters, especially when given ongoing training from experienced AD engineers.

Tomorrow’s circular organic scenarios

Organic resources are too valuable to be wasted in landfill. The potential exists to implement smart urban solutions that integrate the waste, energy and food sectors. Although this would require changes to current systems and infrastructure, LEAP has demonstrated it to be feasible, practicable and capable of providing great benefits, both social and economic. It boils down to a matter of will - a change in thinking at the political, institutional, business and individual level.

LEAP is engaging with researchers from a broad range of fields and with many potential stakeholders. Some examples of potentially feasible scenarios emerging from this work include:

1. Social housing flats and new developments where recycling rates are typically low could incorporate floor-by-floor collections for food waste. This waste digested on-site could supply gas to heat communal areas and/or a polytunnel with food grown using digestate. Energy and waste management savings could finance running costs and residents could be incentivised to separate food waste with the offer of low cost organic food grown on-site.

2. Supermarkets could utilise car parking space to manage unusable food waste on-site. Coupled with intensive food growing in on-site polytunnels, this could provide training and employment opportunities for local people and supply fresh produce to the store. Biogas could be used to power an in-store refrigerator or even a community fridge.

3. Municipal parks have a range of suitable organic waste streams from cafes, offices and horticulture. These could be digested and the liquid fertiliser applied to land for turf strengthening, amenity horticulture and food production, while the biogas could be used to power a park vehicle or provide heat/electricity for park buildings.

4. Office blocks with flat roof space could install rooftop greenhouses or vertical growing walls for

hydroponics, which could supply fresh food to local cafés and restaurants. The structures would also help insulate the building reducing energy costs. Biogas produced from local food waste could be used to generate electricity, heating and cooling to regulate the greenhouse environment as well as providing carbon dioxide to boost plant growth.

5. The final example translates the model into the refugee camp context. Designed for temporary deployment, the average lifespan of a camp is now eight years with some pushing over six decades. Infrastructure in these camps is typically poor and lack of resources means that achieving a good quality of life for residents is a constant struggle. A closed-loop food-energy-waste solution here would allow human waste to be sanitised and converted into energy, fertiliser and food, while providing valuable opportunities for learning, improved health, income generation and nutrient recovery.

Helen Theaker, PhD student, University of Sheffield

Dr Mark Walker, Energy2050 Researcher, University of Sheffield

Rokiah Yaman MA, Director, LEAP micro AD, London

LEAP is looking for partners to help develop this circular organic resource model to achieve both commercial and humanitarian aims. We can provide technical expertise and excellent academic contacts. If you are moving in the same direction and could contribute to the process of realising this vision, do get in touch:

Email:info@communitybydesign.co.ukTel: 07864 002189

Web:www.communitybydesign.co.uk

References

1. Davis, D. R., Epp, M. D. & Riordan, H. D. 2004. Changes in USDA food composition data for 43 garden crops, 1950 to 1999. Journal of the american College of nutrition, 23, 669-682.

2. Walker, M., Theaker, H., Yaman, R., Poggio, D., Nimmo, W., Bywater, A., Blanch, G. & Pourkashanian, M. 2017. Assessment of micro-scale anaerobic digestion for management of urban organic waste: A case study in London, UK. Waste Management, 61, 258-268.

Helen Munday and Lindsey Bagley consider the contribution of food science to nutrition through reformulation of foods in the last 50 years and predict future trends.

Introduction

The proportion of household income British consumers are currently spending on food and soft drinks is just 15% – less than half the share it took 50 years ago^[1]. In the 1960s, foods were literally fuel and concerns about malnutrition were very real. Fifty years on and it can be argued that malnutrition still exists in the UK, with obesity being the major public health concern of our time. Nowadays, consumers seek affordable, convenient and palatable foods and these drivers of food choice can impact negatively on health, with concerns including high blood pressure, raised blood cholesterol and obesity. The health profession has specifically targeted the need to reduce salt, sugars and saturated fat in foods and drinks. In the context of preventing cancer, there are also concerns about a lack of dietary fibre.

Advances in nutrition science over the last 50 years have increased our understanding of what constitutes a healthy diet; food science and technology have helped to develop foods to meet these needs. This article compares larders of the 1960s with the store cupboards, fridges and freezers of today’s consumer, highlighting the role of food science and technology in implementing changes in a number of food categories.

Milk and milk-based beverages

Milk

Milk is the single most frequently bought grocery item. It is a complex food that has played an important part in the human diet for millennia. Fifty years ago, most consumers received milk daily in 1-pint reusable glass bottles via doorstep delivery. Most of the milk was pasteurised and consumed as whole milk. Pasteurisation of milk can extend the shelf-life from a day to a week with only a slight impact on taste and nutritional content.

Today most milk consumed in the UK is still pasteurised but less than 5% reaches consumers via delivery. It is mainly purchased from retailers in various volumes in plastic containers or laminate board cartons. This illustrates the developments in both packaging and control in the distribution chain, which ensure that milk gets to market in temperature-controlled conditions the day after it leaves the cow.

Milk is also available in ambient-stable, flexible laminate packaging following ultra-high temperature (UHT) processing. This technology, pioneered by Tetrapak, has transformed milk and beverage distribution globally. Its introduction followed a breakthrough in carton assembly and aseptic packaging technology in the 1960s. Aseptic processing sterilises the product and the package separately and then combines and seals them in a sterile atmosphere. This is in contrast to canning and bottling, where product and package are first combined and then sterilised. UHT processing has resulted in a dramatic improvement in the flavour quality of milk compared to canned or bottle-sterilised milk, which was the previous ambient format. However, UHT affects flavour and nutritional profile (i.e. vitamins) slightly more than pasteurisation.

An alternative process being explored by the dairy industry is ultrafiltration, whereby milk is processed without heat by passing it through a membrane which ‘sieves’ out the microbes. This produces a product with a very low microbiological count and therefore a longer shelf-life than traditional pasteurisation and it also has minimal effects on flavour as there is no heat damage.

However, despite these technologies to extend the availability of milk, the amount of milk being consumed at home has decreased substantially over the past 50 years^[2]. Semi-skimmed is now the preferred fat content as consumers follow the public health advice to reduce saturated fat intake.

Reformulation of milk through reduction of fat and saturated fat by ‘skimming’, means that consumers can reduce fat intake, without affecting intake of the essential nutrients present in milk, such as calcium, riboflavin and vitamin B12. Work is underway to modify further the fat profile of milk by changing the diets of dairy cows and to investigate the health benefits of this approach.

Milk contributes protein, carbohydrate (lactose) and several micronutrients, for example, calcium, which can be lacking in modern diets of some population groups. It can also be a source of iodine, phosphorus and potassium, as well as riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin B12 (Table 3).

The nutritional value of milk is in direct contrast to that of sugars-sweetened beverages, as at around 10% sucrose (by volume) they deliver 100% of their energy as sugar with little in the way of additional nutrients.

Table 1: Milk purchases in litres per person per annum in the UK in 2003 compared to 2013 Defra family food survey (2003, 2013)

Table 2: Macronutrient profile of milk Calculated from information presented in McCance & Widdowson’s ‘The Composition of Foods’ (2014) 7th Edition3

Table 3: Vitamins and minerals present in 250 ml whole milk. Calculated from information presented in McCance & Widdowson’s ‘The Composition of Foods’ (2014)

Milk-based beverages

Using milk as a base for beverages introduces a number of potential benefits for consumers:

• Natural

• Pure

• Safe

• Clean label

• Nutritionally complex

• Positive nutritional benefits

These milk beverages generally require sweetening and flavouring. The final product may be thick or thin in consistency and chilled or ambient-stable, so they can be consumed on many different occasions. These drinks extend the consumption of milk to those who do not find milk attractive in its original state and therefore may miss out on its positive nutritional benefits. They also give the opportunity to remove fat and add vitamins and minerals for fortification.

To improve the clean label credentials of food products, sweeteners, colours, flavours and hydrocolloid thickeners are all moving to a ‘natural’ position. Fifty years ago, azo dyes were the only colours available and flavours were mainly composed of synthetic compounds and therefore labelled as ‘artificial’. Whilst these are still available, the natural options, although significantly more expensive, are generally preferred by consumers. Sweetness for these products is derived by hydrolysing the naturally occurring lactose. Naturally derived low-calorie sweeteners, such as stevia, are likely to become increasingly popular as manufacturers avoid adding refined sugars.

The food industry has developed a variety of milk offerings for different sectors of the population (Table 4).

Table 4: Types of milk beverage

Free-from

Lactose-free milk was initially launched in the late 1970s as a medicinal food for a small number of lactose-intolerant consumers. It was manufactured by enzyme hydrolysis of the lactose [sucrose equivalence value (SEV) of 0.16] to glucose (SEV 0.74) and galactose (SEV 0.60) and was then UHT processed. The additional sweetness and caramelised flavours caused by the Maillard reactions during the heat processing of the reducing sugars severely limited consumer acceptability and so the market was very limited. The use of reverse osmosis, which allowed some of the lactose to be removed from the milk prior to enzyme treatment, subsequently led to improvements in the flavour profile. This process results in a more equivalent sweetness to regular milk and greater consumer acceptability. This, along with lactose-free becoming a lifestyle choice, increased market size to the point where chill-chain distribution became economical. Lactosefree milk is now found alongside regular milk in the chill isle of most retailers.

Dairy-free is another lifestyle choice that has influenced the milk market. A large number of vegetable-based alternatives to milk have been developed in recent years. First were soy-based drinks and today we have rice-, oat-, almond- and coconut-based milk alternatives. These are fortified with calcium but do not have the nutritional complexity of milk either at the macro- or micro-nutrient level.

Gluten-free products have also moved from medicinal foods to the mainstream. Technical developments in ingredients and processing have improved the quality and flavour of these products to increase their appeal. It is thought that less than 10% of gluten-free products are purchased by those with a coeliac condition and there are concerns that overall dietary balance may be negatively impacted by a gluten-free lifestyle choice, as gluten-free foods can be lower in fibre and certain micronutrients than their regular counterparts.

Yogurt

Yogurt and other varieties of fermented milk product, including kefir and leben (or labneh) have been consumed for thousands of years. Active fermentation of milk with specific bacteria is a natural way of preventing spoilage by undesirable bacteria and extending the shelf life.

Yogurts are available with a range of additional ingredients, leading to a vast choice from thick, strained or Greek-style yogurts to flavoured drinking yogurts. Although yogurt tends to have a good nutritional profile, recent concerns about the level of sugars added for sweetening purposes have resulted in many variants using high-potency, low-calorie sweeteners, rather than sugars.

In the middle of the last century cream was a luxury. Skimmed milk (left behind as an afterthought) and whey (waste stream from cheese) were often used for animal feed because they had such little value. Cream, butter and certain cheeses were the higher value products.

Yogurts and fermented milks were developed to add value to skimmed milk. ‘Regular’ yogurt was initially a skimmed milk product so it was probably the original low-fat food. However, this healthy aspect of yogurt did not appeal to consumers for several decades. In the 1960s, the acceptance of yogurt was based on its flavour and the eating occasion, with sweetened fruit yogurts offering an alternative to cereal and toast for breakfast. Thereafter, yoghurt has carved a niche in consumers’ shopping baskets as a healthy food/dessert.

Yogurt is a versatile food that lends itself to a wide variety of products. In today’s market, it is used as the basis of drinks, snacks, meal replacements, condiments and desserts. It is considered a nutrient-dense food, but added ingredients and production methods will dictate the final nutritional content. Being made from milk, yogurt is typically a good source of high-quality protein and is a highly bioavailable source of calcium. The fat content of yogurt varies widely, ranging from ‘fat-free’ (less than 0.5% fat) to 10% fat in some Greek-style varieties.

There is a wealth of evidence about the relationship between dairy foods and health. Whilstn several studies have suggested that yogurt consumption may be beneficial to bone health, cardiovascular health^[4], diabetes^[5] and obesity^[6], any such claims are based on the nutrient content derived from milk. Yogurt provides many of the nutrients needed for optimal bone health, such as calcium, protein, magnesium, zinc and phosphorus. The low pH in yoghurt ionises the calcium present, increasing its bioavailability and facilitating uptake in the intestine. There are many nutrition claims for yogurt, such as a source of calcium, phosphorus, iodine and riboflavin^[7], and it can often be tolerated by people with lactose maldigestion due to the lower lactose level and the gut effects of the yogurt cultures.

As more is understood about the influence of well characterised bacterial strains present in such products on the gut flora and wider physiology, other health benefits may be revealed^[8]. Manufacturers have been researching the cultures used to make yoghurts, some of which have been specifically selected, not so much for their role in eating enjoyment, but for their potential positive impact on gut microflora and overall health^[9]. For many years, especially during the early 21st century, the term ‘probiotic’ became a common sight on yogurt labels. But data to support the health benefits of probiotics has fallen short of the scientific threshold set under the health claim regulations and this term is not currently permitted in the EU. Thus, specialist reformulation continues in this area.

Yogurt naturally contains less lactose than milk, suggesting that it may be better tolerated than milk in people with lactose intolerance, possibly due to slower gastric emptying and gut transit. An Opinion by the European Food Safety Authority^[10]confirmed that live yogurt can be included in the diets of people with lactose maldigestion because, within the gut, the cultures in live yogurt improve the digestion of lactose, breaking it down to lactic acid. This led to an authorised European Union health claim of ‘improved lactose digestion’ for yogurts and fermented milks containing minimum levels of live cultures.

Yoghurts are consumed daily in the UK and the sweetened varieties are particularly popular. Many are sweetened with fruit but some are also sweetened with refined sugars. Whilst there has already been much reformulation activity to reduce fat content (fat-free options are common), there are now reduced sugar options too, sometimes using low/no calorie/sugar sweeteners. Given that Public Health England (PHE) has identified yoghurts as one of the categories that significantly contribute to children’s sugar intake^[11]there is likely to be further focus on this area in the future.

To improve the clean label credentials of food products, sweeteners, colours, flavours and hydrocolloid thickeners are all moving to a ‘natural’ position.'

Beverages

Juices

The benefits of citrus fruits have been known for centuries. A Scottish physician, James Lind, was one of the first to appreciate the importance of vitamin C, when in 1753 he advocated fresh vegetables and ripe fruit to prevent scurvy. The British Navy adopted his advice some forty years later; sailors were nicknamed ‘limeys’ because they took lime-juice on long sea voyages to prevent scurvy.

After the Second World War, recognising the poor nutritional status of many people, the Government authorised the National Health Service to give young families access to free orange juice. This came in the form of a bottled orange concentrate, which was unlike the juices available today. As affluence grew and food technology developed, UHT juices were produced, almost all from concentrate, in flexible packaging and some pasteurised versions became available in glass. This was sometimes offered as a ‘starter’ to a meal and eventually became a regular for breakfast occasions. Next came the ‘not from concentrate’ variety of juice, which retained more of the original natural qualities of the fruit. As control of the chill chain distribution has become more sophisticated and efficient, there has been an enormous growth in sales of freshly squeezed juice with a shelf-life that would not have been viable a few decades ago. Today ‘cold pressed’ juices employ a non-thermal technique, using high pressure to kill microbes and preserve nutrients that would otherwise be impacted by heat treatment.

A combination of availability, global trading and processing and packaging techniques has resulted in the availability of apple, grapefruit and tomato juices and blends of fruit including the more exotic, such as mango, peach, passion fruit, kiwi and guava. Some of the fruits considered ‘exotic’ are everyday items in other countries but ‘tropical’ has been a significant part of the marketing message.

Many studies have been undertaken on the potential health benefits of certain fruits and/ or their extracts (for example polyphenols). Research aiming to establish links with health and wellbeing continues, but to date, few health benefits are supported by approved health claims. Where claims are made, they usually relate to nutrition content e.g. vitamin C.

More than any other type of food, fruit benefits from being considered healthy and this extends to juices, even though there is a significant process step involved. Some recent concerns about the free sugar content of juices has diminished this perception, but juice is still recognised as making a contribution to fruit and vegetable intake. This has led to juice-based products with lower sugars content and other nutritional benefits, such as added minerals (e.g. calcium), fibre and vegetables.

The regulatory approval of the naturally derived sweetener stevia, has enabled production of half juice products with corresponding half sugar/calories: 50% of the beverage is made to taste like the juice that makes up the other 50% by adding flavourings, acid and sweetness.

Most consumers are aware that fruit and vegetables are important for health and this has been heavily promoted by governments in ‘5 A DAY’ campaigns. But, the 5 A DAY messaging in the UK has now been amended to indicate that whole fruits have more benefits than juice. The sugars in juices have been categorised as the less desirable ‘free sugars’, which are associated with weight gain and poor dental health^[12]. Unsweetened 100% fruit juice, vegetable juice and smoothies can now count as a maximum of one portion of the 5 A DAY, no matter how much is consumed, and it is recommended that the combined total of drinks from fruit juice, vegetable juice and smoothies should not be more than 150ml a day. However, beverage producers are embracing the opportunity to develop serving sizes to meet the guidelines and to increase the content of positive nutrients, such as fibre. Most UK diets are now far from deficient in vitamin C, as was the case 50 years ago, despite our whole fruit and vegetable intake still being lower than is recommended.

Table 5: High Potency Sweeteners (HPS) providing sugar-free ‘sweetness’

Soft drinks

In the 1960s, carbonated beverages were available in glass bottles that were returned by the consumer and reused by the manufacturers. Drinks were sugars-sweetened as there were no High Potency Sweeteners (HPS) of quality available and in any case sugar consumption was not the concern it is today.

Technologies developed for alternative, disposable packaging of these beverages helped them to become more available and affordable. The aluminium can started to make inroads in the soft drinks market by the mid-1960s and moulded PET bottles by the late 1960s. These were cheaper, lighter and suffered less breakage, compared to glass and today have almost completely replaced glass in the food industry.

Nowadays, sugars-sweetened carbonated beverages are an everyday item but have been subject to extensive criticism because of their high sugar content without additional nutrition, which has been linked to poor dental health and overweight and obesity conditions. Most soft drinks reflect the sweetness of fruit juices at about 10% and a 330ml can contains about 8 teaspoons of sugar and 132 kcals/561 kJ.

Sugars in most formulated soft drinks primarily provide sweetness and, of course, energy. HPS have found wide-spread application in soft drinks, where they provide sweetness without adding energy. HPS are much sweeter than sucrose on a gram for gram basis (30-10,000 times sweeter), so very little is needed to achieve the desired sweetness level. They also vary in their quality and stability. Most HPS are not metabolised and therefore contribute no calories to the diet.

The number of natural HPS currently available is limited and their use is highly regulated; flavour quality is an important issue. Thaumatin and glycyrrhizin are better described as flavour modifiers than sweeteners. Lo han guo or monk fruit is approved for use in a number of territories, but not the EU. Stevia’s use is more widely permitted but limited by category and use level in the EU^[13].

EU regulations require a 30% calorie reduction as a minimum for the use of HPS^[12]but, in practice, 50% or 100% reduction is a clearer position for consumers to understand. Nowadays, soft drink manufacturers, assisted by sweetener and flavour suppliers, have extensive experience of developing low/no sugar beverages. The industry has learnt to manage the significant flavour differences between a sugars-sweetened beverage and one sweetened with HPS to offer consumers palatable sugar-free/calorie-free/no added sugar products.

However, market success depends not only on flavour quality and parity with the full calorie product, but marketing position and ingredient use. The HPS that are effective in sugarfree beverages are synthetic and some consumers want only natural ingredients in their foods. Currently no permitted ‘naturally derived’ HPS can deliver the same flavour quality as a full sugar version.

Bread

Historically, bread was unleavened, much like today’s Indian chapattis, as there were no raising agents and it was made from available grains. In time, yeasted doughs developed and wheat became the grain of choice; milling the wheat allowed the production of white bread. Even in early civilisations, white flour became synonymous with refinement and was highly desirable, a situation that for many still exists today. Although the ability to make sliced bread was pioneered in the US in the early 20th Century, the war years saw the introduction of the National Loaf, which was withdrawn in 1956. As bread was an important staple, it was around this time that laws were introduced requiring all flour other than wholemeal to be fortified with calcium, iron, vitamin B1 (thiamin) and nicotinic acid.

The Chorleywood Bread Process (CBP), developed in 1961 by the British Baking Industries Research Association, revolutionised bread making in the UK. It started to impact the industry in the mid- 60s. Compared to the older bulk fermentation process, the CBP used lower protein wheat (which is typical of domestic wheat versus that from other geographies, such as Canada) and crucially produced the bread in a shorter time. Simultaneously, the time to make a loaf was dramatically reduced whilst allowing a much greater proportion of home grown wheat to be used in the grist. This led to the dominance of sliced and wrapped bread, with white bread being the most popular because consumers saw it as being unadulterated. Bread had achieved a level of quality, affordability and convenience that could not have been envisaged just a few years before and it remains a staple of most UK diets and an important contributor to our nutritional status.

However, more recently, it has been recognised that these sliced, typically white, loaves may not be providing an optimal combination of nutrients. Given that bread is such a staple, any ingredients that are out of step with recommendations can have a major impact on the overall diet. Hence bread, salt and to a lesser extent, fibre consumption are intrinsically linked.

The COMA (Committee on Medical Aspects of Food) report of 1994^[14] was the first Government report to make recommendations on salt reduction proposing ‘A reductionin the average intake of common salt (sodium chloride) by the adult population from the current level of about 9g/day to about 6g/day’.This would require action fromfood manufacturers, caterers andindividuals. The recommendationwas driven by the relationship ofsalt intake to blood pressure, a riskfactor for cardiovascular disease. Itwas followed by the SACN (Scientific, Advisory Committee on Nutrition)report of 2003^[15], in which thetarget consumption of 6g/day wasconfirmed and there was a specificrecommendation to reformulatefoods that were significantcontributors to salt consumption.‘Cereal and cereal products’, whichinclude bread, breakfast cereals,biscuits, cakes and pastries, wereshown to the biggest contributorof salt at 2.5g salt/person/dayand 37.7% of the total intake asmeasured by the Defra NationalFood Survey (2003)^[16].

A series of targets for different food categories were set over the next few years, initially by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and then by the Department of Health, as nutrition policy moved from one organisation to the other. In March 2006, the FSA published voluntary salt reduction targets to encourage a reduction in the amount of salt in a wide range of processed foods by 2010. It later produced updated targets for 2012, which were published in May 2009. These targets were superseded by those of the Public Health Responsibility Deal from the Department of Health in 2011, which were the same as the earlier FSA targets with respect to bread. An updated pledge on salt for bread was introduced in early 2014 as a 2017 target, which requires a sales weighted average of 0.9g/100g salt or 360mg/100g sodium (average)^[17].

Reformulation across a wide variety of foods including soups, sauces, ready meals and snacks has been achieved using taste enhancers and innovative salt replacers. Achieving salt reductions in bread has not been an easy task for manufacturers given that the salt not only provides taste benefits but also impacts on the handleability of the raw dough and the keeping quality and texture of the finished product. Developments have included the use of alternative non-sodium containing salts, but also changes to the processing, especially regarding the handling of dough prior to baking. This work has resulted in significant reductions in the salt content of bread and since the formal targets were introduced in 2006, salt in bread has reduced by 27% according to the Federation of Bakers which represents the branded bread makers^[18].

Whilst bread reformulation has largely focused on salt, fibre should not be ignored. As the SACN report of 2015 on Carbohydrates and Health clearly highlights, there is insufficient fibre in the average UK diet. Many forms of bread (especially those containing bran, such as wholemeal) are already excellent sources of fibre and even white bread contributes to dietary fibre. CBP-produced bread has been formulated with added fibre so that ‘high’ fibre bread is available in a format familiar to consumers. Whilst artisan produced bread has seen a resurgence, even CBP bread is now formulated with seeds and multi-grain and has become a very popular part of the bread offering.

Bread spreads

In the 1960s, bread spreads were butter or hard margarine. The latter was available in blocks and was made by hydrogenating liquid vegetable oils to generate solid fat. It was mainly used for cooking as it did not offer an equivalent taste to butter as a bread spread.

In 1977, St Ivel launched a half-fat spread. This was a water-in-oil emulsion using proteins and hydrocolloids as stabilisers to form a solid spread. It consisted of 40% fat compared to 80% found in butter and regular margarine and had immediate appeal to the calorie conscious. Reformulation at this time was aimed at reducing fat to the lowest level technically possible – almost regardless of flavour. The value of fat from a nutritional perspective was poorly understood by both nutritionists and consumers, who saw it as an undesirable, calorie-dense food component. It was another decade before the nutritional values of different fats and their constituents, including the level of saturation, started to be better appreciated.

As understanding of flavours and hydrocolloids gradually improved, so did the quality and popularity of reduced fat spreads, not only because of their lower fat content but also the convenience of spreading straight from the fridge.

By the late 1990s, the safety of hydrogenation had started to be questioned. In this process, liquid oils are ‘hardened’ by adding hydrogen to stabilise the fat, making it easier to use in recipes for spreads and also biscuits, cakes and pastry.

Usually, the hydrogen slips into the fat at gaps (‘unsaturated bonds’) in the structure, taking up the ‘cis’ position, which occurs in nature as well. Sometimes, however, the hydrogen slips into the gap in a different position (trans position), altering the overall shape of the fat and making it difficult for the body to process. Foods containing hydrogenated vegetable oil may therefore also contain trans fats.

Industrially produced trans fats were shown to increase blood cholesterol levels and independently increase the risk of heart disease. Therefore, the WHO (World Health Organisation) recommended that the intake of trans fat should be significantly reduced^[19].

The industry was quick to respond and reformulated most foods to replace hydrogenated fats. This rapid action caused trans fat intakes to quickly drop below the level of concern, pre-empting the setting of any formal Government recommendations^[20].

The relaunch of trans-fat-free spreads enabled positive messaging about their composition, which has helped drive their acceptance. Olive, sunflower and rape seed oils were positively marketed as healthier fats containing omega 3 fatty acids. In the late 1990s, spreads with cholesterol-reducing stanol esters were introduced as an active ‘nutraceutical’.

Reformulation has had to simultaneously meet consumer expectations and support good dietary practices. Consumers make purchasing decisions in a constantly evolving environment. For example, the current upturn in sales of butter is thought to be driven by its desirable ‘natural’ perception and perhaps unfounded beliefs that saturated fats are not as ‘bad for us’ as was once thought.

Breakfast cereals

In the 1960s, breakfast cereals were limited to a small range of options, whereas today consumers expect variety. Muesli products first appeared in the early 1970s. Positioned as healthy, unprocessed and a good source of fibre, these products quickly found a place in our diets. Granola cereals led the way to cereal bars, a category that has grown significantly in recent years.

Breakfast cereals have several positive nutritional attributes that can impact the diet overall. Many of today’s most popular cereals contain a wide range of vitamins and minerals including, folic acid, thiamine, riboflavin, vitamin B6, vitamin D and iron. Research has shown that fortification can improve the status of such nutrients in deprived populations^[21]. As breakfast cereals are customarily served with milk, there is also a positive impact on calcium intake. Dietary fibre present in the cereals is an important bulking component in the diet, reducing energy density and assisting the passage of food through the digestive system.

In the 60s, fibre was considered to be an insoluble, indigestible component in foods that contributes zero calories. However, understanding of the role of fibre in the diet has increased in recent years. Food fibre now includes soluble as well as insoluble fibres and it is recognised that the various non-digested carbohydrates, known as ‘dietary fibre’, provide a fuel source for gut microflora. They are partially digested in the lower colon and so contribute 2 kcals/g. Since many breakfast cereals are already high in fibre and carry a fibre nutrition claim, current concerns about a lack of dietary fibre^[12]are likely to fuel further development in this category.

Whilst breakfast cereals contain valuable nutrients, they have recently come under scrutiny for salt and sugar content amid concerns over high consumption of these components. Like bread, there are salt reduction targets for breakfast cereals. Some breakfast cereals contain added refined sugars, but many (especially mueslis) contain dried fruits, which make sugar reduction virtually impossible and perhaps inappropriate. It is likely that those containing added refined sugars will be subject to further reformulation.

Food fibre now includes soluble as well as insoluble fibres and it is recognised that the various nondigested carbohydrates, known as ‘dietary fibre’, provide a fuel source for gut microflora.'

Conclusions

The main difference between consumers’ experiences in the 1960s and today is choice. The contribution of food science and technology to our diets over the last half century has been to increase the range of products available so that consumers can choose foods to suit their own lifestyles and nutrition-related goals. It has also helped to increase the affordability of safe food for all.

Consumers have a hierarchy of needs, which they meet through their food choices. Traditionally, these have been centred on affordability, quality and taste. Today convenience and nutrition can also be added. Consumers today make lifestyle choices, such as vegetarian, vegan, lactose-free and gluten-free, because convenience foods meeting these needs are widely available.

Manufacturers are doing much to make eating healthily the default position, be it through making overt nutrition or health claims or by so-called ‘stealth’ reformulation. In the latter case, foods are made healthier, but this is only apparent if the consumer carefully reads the ingredient or nutrition information. The food or drink looks and tastes the same as before, but contains reduced levels of the now less desirable components, such as salt, fat or sugar and, of course, energy.

Indeed, such is the appetite for reformulation by the industry that a recent review by the Consumer Goods Forum^[22]estimated that during 2016, 180,000 products globally had been reformulated. This is an indication not only of the pressure being brought to bear on the industry by Government, NGOs or consumers themselves, but also the potential that catering to the ‘healthier’ category offers.

The food industry and regulators understand, and therefore manage, dietary considerations much more specifically than in the past (for example levels of inorganic arsenic in rice products), using reformulation and food science to enhance dietary performance. Moreover, where specific legislation is not enacted but there are Government policy guidelines, this also drives reformulation. The current PHE recommendations on sugar reductions aim to reduce the amount of sugar in foods that contribute most to children’s intakes of sugars, such as breakfast cereals and yoghurts. The aspiration is to reduce the sugar in these foods by 20% by 2020, with a 5% reduction in the first year (2017) and this will require further reformulation work.

Alongside nutrient reformulations, there have also been enabling developments in ingredients, processing and packaging. For example, salt reductions would not have been possible without adaptions to other elements of the product, such as controlled atmosphere packaging or alternative ingredients that maintain shelf-life.

Salt was originally used as a preservative and when removing it, adjustments to other ingredients are necessary. New HPS, including naturally derived sweeteners from stevia leaf, have enabled greater sugar reduction in soft drinks and beverages while maintaining acceptability to the consumer. Novel fibres and alternative protein and carbohydrate sources have all added to reformulation options with improved nutrient profiles.

Whilst consumers might not automatically choose foods that make up a balanced diet, food science and reformulation have allowed enhancements in the nutritional value of everyday foods. The changes in food provision highlighted here often go unrecognised, but most people will agree that the choices we have today have never been greater. Food science will continue to strive for safe, affordable, tasty and nutritious food for all.

Helen Munday Chief Scientific Officer, Food and Drink Federation, 10 Bloomsbury Way,

London, WC1A 2SL. Emailhelen.munday@fdf.org.uk

Lindsey Bagley, Flavour Horizons, Maidenhead, UK

Helen Munday was Director of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs for Coca-Cola from January 2010 to April 2015 and Lead Technologist AgriFood at InnovateUK from April 2015 to July 2016.

References

1. Office for National Statistics (2015) Results of the living costs and food survey. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-spending/family-spending/2015-edition/index.html

2. Defra National Food Surveys (1942 – 2000) http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130103014432/http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/foodfarm/food/familyfood/nationalfoodsurvey/

3. McCance and Widdowson's the Composition of Foods. (2014) Seventh Edition  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/composition-of-foods-integrated-dataset-cofid

4. Sánchez NB, Sánchez GM, Salas-Salvadó J (2016) http://nutriciohumana.com/pdf/informe_beneficios_yogur_ENG.pdf

5. Chen M, Sun Q, E Giovannucci, et al (2014) Dairy consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis BMC Medicine 12:215

6. Eales J, Lenoir-Wijnkoop I, King S, et al. (2016) Is consuming yoghurt associated with weight management outcomes? Results from a systematic review. International Journal of Obesity 40(5):731-746.

7. European Commission (2017) Register of nutrition and health claims.  http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling_nutrition/claims/register/public/?event=search

8. Parvez, S., Malik, K.A., Ah Kang, S. and Kim, H.-Y. (2006) Probiotics and their fermented food products are beneficial for health. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 100: 1171–1185.

9. Guillemard E, Tondu F, Lacoin F, Schrezenmeir J. (2010) Consumption of a fermented dairy product containing the probiotic Lactobacillus casei DN-114001 reduces the duration of respiratory infections in the elderly in a randomised controlled trial.  Br J Nutr. 103(1):58-68.

10. EFSA (2010) EFSA Journal 8(10):1763 [18 pp.].  Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to live yoghurt cultures and improved lactose digestion (ID 1143, 2976) pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1763/epdf

11. Public Health England (2017) Sugar Reduction. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/sugar-reduction

12. SACN (2015) Carbohydrates and Health. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445503/SACN_Carbohydrates_and_Health.pdf

13. Official Journal of the European Union, (2008). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32008R1333

14. Department of Health (1994), The COMA report on "Nutritional Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease", HMSO, London

15. SACN (2003) Salt and health. The Stationary Office.  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/338782/SACN_Salt_and_Health_report.pdf

16. Defra Family Food Surveys (2002 - 2013) https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/family-food-statistics

17. Department of Health (2014) Salt reduction targets for 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604338/Salt_reduction_targets_for_2017.pdf

18. Federation of Bakers (2015) Factsheet 21 https://www.fob.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/FS-21-Salt-in-Bread.pdf

19. Uauy R et al. (2009) WHO Scientific Update on trans fatty acids: summary and conclusions. Eur J Clin Nutr 63:S68-S75

20. Food Standards Agency (2007)   http://tna.europarchive.org/20110116113217/http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/reestimatetransfats.pdf

21. Holmes B.A., Kaffa N, Campbell K, Sanders TA. (2012) The contribution of breakfast cereals to the nutritional intake of the materially deprived UK population Eur J Clin Nutr, 66 (1): 10-17

22. The Consumer Goods Forum, Health and Wellness Progress Report 2017 http://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/files/Publications/201703-CGF-Health-and-Wellness-Progress-Report-Final.pdf

Michael Walker and Kirstin Gray of LGC discuss choking risks from jelly confectionery and technical appeals to the Government Chemist in this area.

Introduction

A child choking must be one of the most frightening experiences for any parent or carer. Foreign body aspiration continues to be a common paediatric problem, with food a major cause, especially in the under-fives, the main at-risk population. A second incidence peak typically occurs in the age range 8 – 11 years, when more non-food items are implicated. Although many choking episodes resolve spontaneously, when they do not, the consequences can be severe – from immediate death to brain injury owing to hypoxia^[1].

A typical incident in the media illustrates the tragic consequences. Toddler Adam Milner died in 2009 after choking on a piece of chipolata sausage, with his parents making the agonising decision to turn off his life support four days after he was hospitalised. The inquest revealed he had suffered oxygen starvation and a heart attack. An intensive care consultant gave expert evidence that airway clearance and resuscitation within minutes of him choking would have been required for Adam to have made a full recovery^[2].

There are key provisions in toy safety legislation and standards to address choking risks but for food, guidance is preferred (Table 1). The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), noting that legislation on reducing the risk of choking on food by children was introduced, but never enacted, in the US Congress, made a number of recommendations in 2010^[3]. These included avoiding characteristics that increase choking risk to children to the extent possible in new product development. AAP also recommended that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) should establish a systematic process of risk assessment on food-related choking, followed by surveillance and public education.

But if regulation seemed a step too far in the US, in the EU, the deaths from jelly mini-cup aspiration prompted a change to food additives law, which now contains specific provisions addressing choking risks by ‘jelly mini-cups’. How did this come about and what are the current issues?

Adapted from Lluna, et al., 2017. Recommendations for the prevention of foreign body aspiration. Anales de Pediatría (English Edition), 86(1), pp.50-e1.

Jelly mini-cups

Jelly confectionery, known as jelly cups or jelly mini-cups, first came to prominence in 2001^[4]with instances worldwide of children and elderly people choking to death on soft slippery dome-shaped jellies that were designed to be placed in the mouth in one bite (Figure 1). A UK fatality occurred in 2003 in Bolton, when an 18-month-old boy died. The original small dome-shaped products contained a core of hard material, ‘konjac’ E425, a glucomannan that forms gels that are difficult to dissolve. The inclusion of konjac in such products was banned and manufacturers reformulated jelly mini-cups with gums other than konjac with the intention that the sweets could be dissolved in the mouth more easily.

However, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) considered these also gave rise to the formation of firm gels that did not solubilise easily and would be unlikely to initiate a coughing reaction if they were ingested as a whole and became lodged in the human airway. EFSA therefore considered these types of products also constituted a risk of choking^[5]. As a consequence, the European Commission went on to propose a ban on a range of gel-forming additives in jelly minicups. This is currently given effect by food additive legislation that also includes a definition of jelly mini-cups. Annex II of Regulation 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on food additives implemented in the UK by the Food Additives, Flavourings, Enzymes and Extraction Solvents Regulations 2013, made separately in each of the home countries, lists the food additives approved for use in foods and their conditions of use. Part C contains the relevant listed additives each with an attached condition reading ‘May not be used in jelly mini-cups’. The prohibition of the relevant additives in jelly mini-cups is reinforced in Part E of Annex II, which also provides the definition of a jelly mini-cup:

‘The substances listed under numbers E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403, E 404, E 406, E 407, 407a, E 410, E 412, E 413, E 414, E 415, E 417, E 418, E 425 and E 440 may not be used in jelly mini-cups, defined, for the purpose of this Regulation, as jelly confectionery of a firm consistence, contained in semi rigid mini-cups or mini-capsules, intended to be ingested in a single bite by exerting pressure on the mini-cups or mini-capsule to project the confectionery into the mouth; E 410, E 412, E 415 E 417 may not be used to produce dehydrated foods intended to rehydrate on ingestion. E425 may not be used in jelly confectionery.’

Figure 1: Example of jelly mini cups

Difficulties with the definition

Although at first sight the definition of a jelly mini-cup seems straightforward, it contains several elements that pose difficulties. What does ‘firm consistence’ mean? And how can we interpret ‘intended to be ingested in a single bite…’? No further guidance has been issued by the European Commission or the Food Standards Agency.

In the UK, the Government Chemist is required to act as the national focus of technical appeal where there is an actual or potential dispute between food businesses and a regulator in the agrifood sector. The Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC) was involved in the original work for EFSA in 2004 on jelly mini-cups. Since then, disputes in this area and requests for advice from food businesses and regulators have been a regular feature of our work. This led us to publish a paper in 2012 setting out how we approach the issues^[6]. The paper remains the only publically available advice on jelly mini-cups and is regularly used by Public Analysts and trade laboratories to assess submitted samples.

Technical appeals follow a well-developed work flow (Table 2). LGC has developed a battery of tests to assess whether jelly confectionary products meet the legislative definition.

Gel-forming additives

The presence or otherwise of gel-forming additives listed in the definition is usually a matter of agreement between the parties based on the specification and ingredients list.

Physical characteristics of the product

The physical characteristics are important to the definition and the potential of the product to represent a choking risk.

In the laboratory, the products are described, photographed, weighed, measured and tested for size in relation to a ‘Small Parts Cylinder’ (SPC)^[7] (Figure 2). The SPC originates from the American Code of Federal Regulations, CFR Title 16, Part 1000, §1501 and is included in the toy standard EN71-1 to ensure toys and toy components have a minimum size to avoid the hazards of asphyxiation and choking as described in the section on particular safety requirements in the European Directive 2009/48/ EC on the safety of toys. Toy items, which fit completely within the SPC without the application of pressure, are deemed not suitable for children less than 3 years of age. The dimensions of the SPC mimic those of a child’s mouth and pharynx. However, containment or otherwise within the SPC is a useful but not a definitive aspect in assessing size and shape in relation to choking risk.

When introduced tip first, some products fit into the SPC but not when introduced base first. The slippery nature of some products and their cone shape might lodge one in the human airway if it went down the throat tip first. But clearly if a product is too large to fit at all into the SPC, it is unlikely to present a choking risk.

The behaviour under compression and when bitten into are telling characteristics. Thus, items are tested using a Hounsfield H10K-S Materials Testing Instrument. The data obtained includes the force required to penetrate the end seal of the products and the jellies themselves with a tooth-shaped indentor (Figure 3). How the products behave under compression with a flat surfaced disc is also investigated.

The konjac material originally used in jellies was very hard, some requiring forces up to 170 Newtons to penetrate. By way of comparison, the maximum mean vertical biting forces for children 18 months of age are 111 N, rising to 222 N for children 36 months of age and 445 N for children 3-8 years of age.

Non-konjac products can be penetrated with forces much less than 1 N. Many of the products we examine simply squeeze out from under the flat disc at forces around 30 N without appreciable damage or distortion, something that goes towards the assessment of firmness (Figure 4).

Figure 2: Small parts cylinder

Figure 3: Force required to penetrate a jelly with a tooth-shaped indentor

Figure 4: A jelly mini-cup squeezes out undamaged from under the compression disc

Solubility characteristics

Solubility is another key characteristic. If the jelly confectionery does not dissolve quickly and becomes lodged in the airway, bronchospasm or laryngospasm may be induced, exacerbating the possibility of asphyxiation.

Thus, the products are tested for solubility by immersion in artificial saliva^[8]at 37°C in a 500mL glass conical flask with the addition of 10 glass balls and mechanically shaken by a wrist action shaker in a water bath maintained at 37°C (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Solubility test

The four questions

In the final assessment four questions need to be addressed:

(1) Are the products jellyconfectionery?

This is usually self-evident.

(2) Are the products contained in semi rigid mini-cups or mini-capsules?

Again, this is usually self-evident.

(3) Are the products intended to be ingested in a single bite by exerting pressure on the mini-cups to project the confectionery into the mouth?

This aspect depends on the size, shape and packaging. For most products, the pressures required to eject the product from its container without separately breaking the end seal are too great to be exerted by children.

The end seals of the products may be easy or difficult to tear off – often beyond the strength of a child.

But the seals are always easy to bite through and it is probably best to assume a child will get access to the jelly by a variety of means.

Any labelling advice must be carefully considered. Some products are labelled with cautions, such as ‘Must be chewed thoroughly or cut into small pieces …’ or ‘Not recommended for children under 5 years old without adult supervision'. But reasonably foreseeable use should also be taken into account, e.g. the unpredictable behaviour of children.

The European Commission’s view on labelling at the time the legislation on jelly mini-cups was introduced was that safety labelling is not enough to protect children’s health.

(4) Do the products have a firm consistence?

This is really the crux of the problem. The indentor, compression and solubility characteristics must all be considered. LGC views ‘firm’ as representing a choking risk either (a) by being hard, so that it requires considerable force to bite into (the original konjac products) or (b) not being readily disrupted or brought into solution by saliva (or its simulants) in a time of two minutes.

Although there are some instances of people surviving hypoxia for longer periods of time, the two-minute limit was decided in the light of medical advice and in discussion with a forensic pathologist with experience of choking fatalities.

Foreign body aspiration continues to be a common paediatric problem with food a major cause, especially in the under-fives, the main at-risk population.'

Recommendations summary for laboratory examination

Laboratories asked to examine jelly confectionery for compliance with Regulation 1333/2008 should consider the following work flow:

• Record details of labelling and appearance of the unopened items and weigh all intact items.

• Remove items from their containers by pulling on the end seal, noting the subjective ease/difficulty of doing this and measure the force required if equipment is available.

• Note the appearance of the unpacked item, e.g. fluid present and nature of surface (slippery, elastic, malleable), subjectively how compressible the item is and its standing attitude (whether or not upright and self-supporting).

• Weigh the items after patting dry with paper tissues and/or weigh the dried empty container and any liquid released, obtaining the item weight by difference.

• Record the shape and measure the base diameter and height of three items as a minimum. Apply at least three items to a small parts cylinder and note whether or not and at what attitude the items are contained.

• Investigate the solubility of an item by observing its behaviour submerged in saliva simulant maintained at 37°C (±0.5°C) in a 500mL Erlenmeyer flask in a wrist action shaker running at a medium setting with 10 glass balls (diameter around 8mm) included to mimic a mouthing effect. The experiment must be closely observed for the first 10 minutes, every 5 minutes thereafter and may be discontinued after 30 minutes. On completion of the test, if dissolution has not taken place, recover the item, pat dry with paper tissues and weigh.

At this stage, LGC believes it is possible to form an opinion on the product under test. If it has a slippery surface and does not dissolve in artificial saliva in two minutes and largely fits into a small parts cylinder in any attitude, then it can be regarded as a choking risk.

Conclusions

Many food items are capable of choking us if accidentally aspirated into the airway. Most such events resolve spontaneously, but some have tragic consequences.

Only jelly mini-cups have attracted the attention of European legislators and in some instances the courts, where in the US, substantial damages have been awarded against firms that sold jelly mini-cups that resulted in the death of children.

The tests developed should enable a conclusion to be arrived at on the question of whether or not any particular product conforms to the legal definition of a ‘jelly mini-cup’. If a product conforms to the definition and contains any of the banned gel-forming additives, it is non-compliant and constitutes a choking risk.

Importers, in particular, are recommended to ensure representative samples of any consignment destined for the UK are forwarded in advance of shipping for testing in the UK by a laboratory familiar with the tests described.

Further experimental details are included in our 2012 paper, which is currently being updated. LGC would welcome any comments from readers of FS&T.

Michael Walker& Kirstin Gray, Laboratory of the Government Chemist, LGC, Teddington, TW11 0LY, UK.

Email Michael.Walker@lgcgroup.comTel +44 (0) 289096 8732

Webhttps://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/government-chemist

References

1. Lluna, J., Olabarri, M., Domènech, A., Rubio, B., Yagüe, F., Benítez, M.T., Esparza, M.J. and Mintegi, S., 2017. Recommendations for the prevention of foreign body aspiration. Anales de Pediatría (English Edition), 86(1), pp.50-e1.

2. Daily Telegraph, 05 March 2011, Child died choking on a sausage at nursery,  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8362418/Child-died-choking-on-a-sausage-at-nursery.html  (accessed 14.07.2017)

3. American Academy of Pediatrics, 2010. Policy Statement--Prevention of Choking Among Children. Pediatrics, 125(3), pp.601-607.

4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1365379/Sweet-alert-after-16-choke-to-death.html

5. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food on a Request from the Commission related to the use of certain food additives in Jelly mini cups, Question number EFSA-Q-2004-054, adopted on 12 July 2004, The EFSA Journal (2004) 82, 1-11 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/82

6. Michael J. Walker, Peter Colwell, Derek Craston, Ian P. Axford and Jack Crane, 2012, Analytical Strategy for the Evaluation of a Specific Food Choking Risk, a Case Study on Jelly Mini-Cups, Food Analytical Methods,  5, 54-61

7. BS EN 71-1:2014- Safety of toys - Part 1: Mechanical and physical properties under Section 8.6 ‘Small parts cylinder’

8. NaCl 4.5 g, KCl 0.3 g, Na₂SO₄ 0.3 g, NH₄Cl 0.4 g, urea 0.2 g, lactic acid 3.0 g dissolved in water, adjusted to pH between 4.5 and 5.0 with 5 M NaOH,  0.29 g α-amylase added and made up to 1,000 mL

Sarah Howarth looks at the contribution of UK food and drink products to overseas trade. She considers some of the export challenges facing the UK after Brexit with a focus on the CODEX food labelling standards.

Food and drink exports and imports

In the wake of Brexit, many more businesses are seeking export opportunities to grow beyond EU borders. Currently the UK is a net importer of food and drink, estimated to be just under 80% selfsufficient.

Total exports to the EU stood at 47% in May 2017. Over the past 18 months, the amount exported to the EU has ranged from 38 to 51% with EU imports over the same period ranging between 46 and 56% ^[1]. Let us not get into the argument of who needs who most.

During 2015, food and drink contributed just under 4% of total export trade. Table 1 shows the top 10 food and drink products exported from the UK with whiskey appearing a clearer leader^[2]. Many of these items appear to be premium and high value with a stable shelf life.

It is surprising that food and drink appears to be such a low overall contributor to total export trade. In their everyday lives, consumers often take for granted that many of the products they use on a daily basis are not made in the UK. Why are food and drink export levels so low from the UK’s largest manufacturing sector?

Some of the challenges with exporting food and drink products can include:

• Likelihood of success?

• Market research

• What will customers find appealing?

• Food labelling and marketing presentation

• Understanding the retail environment

• Having the right contacts

• Logistics

• Food safety and regulatory standards

• Language

• Shelf life

• Customer support

• Consumer communication

• Interaction with government agencies

• Trade tariffs.

One of the key challenges is clear product presentation that meets market regulation and standards as well as being appealing to the consumer. The food label is often the primary source of communication between the producer and consumer at the point of sale. As the UK seeks to increase its export trade beyond EU borders, the global foundation for food labelling, CODEX Food labelling guidelines^[3], will become increasingly important by comparison with the more familiar EU FIC Regulation for food labelling.

Table 1 Top 10 food and drink products exported from the UK in 2015

CODEX Food Labelling guidelines

The CODEX guidelines are published as a reference to safeguard public health whilst facilitating free trade at a global level. The fifth edition of CODEX Food Labelling guide includes sections on:

• Pre-packaged goods

• Food Additives, when sold as such

• Claims on pre-packaged goods for special dietary uses

• Guidelines on claims

• Nutritional labelling

• Use of Nutrition and Health claims

• Use of the term ‘Halal’

The EU FIC Regulation predominantly applies to pre-packaged foods that bear labels, so it is useful to explore further the implications of CODEX for UK food manufacturers of pre-packaged foods wishing to trade outside the EU.

General standard for the labelling of pre-packaged foods (CODEX STAN1- 1985)

Table 2 shows the mandatory information that must be present on the label according to CODEX STAN1-1985 and EU FIC. Bearing in mind that the CODEX STAN1-1985 section on pre-packaged foods consists of 10 pages and the EU FIC Regulation is 63 pages, the table is very much a summary highlighting additional CODEX requirements. By sheer volume of paper, it is clear that the EU regulation is significantly more prescriptive in its approach.

Much of the 10-page CODEX document has been incorporated into the current European regulation, with the few exceptions detailed in Table 2.

Standard for nutritional labelling on pre-packaged foods (CODEX CAC/ GL-2-1985)

Nutritional labelling on pre-packaged foods (CODEX guidelines on nutritional labelling CAC/ GL-2-1985) became a mandatory requirement in December 2016. A comparison with the EU regulation is included in Table 3.

As with the CODEX standard for pre-packaged foods, much of the CODEX nutritional labelling guidelines has been adopted into the familiar EU FIC regulation.

CODEX standards and specifications can often be a helpful starting point in the hierarchy of food safety standards and regulations.’

Table 2 Comparison of mandatory information that must be present on the label between CODEX STAN1-1985 and EU FIC

Table 3 Comparison of mandatory nutritional information that must be present on the label between CODEX STAN1-1985 and EU FIC

Conclusions

As technical managers, it is very easy to become UK centric and rely on the information sources close to home, which have become familiar. CODEX standards and specifications can often be a helpful starting point in the hierarchy of food safety standards and regulations.

Life might be simpler if we all followed the CODEX food label, but we are well beyond that stage and there is no turning back. The EU FIC Regulation has already evolved and extends to 63 pages.

The global trend appears to be a move toward mandatory nutrition labelling. The Codex guidelines were amended in 2012 to recommend that nutrition labelling should become mandatory, even in the absence of health claims. Many countries that had a voluntary approach to nutrition labelling have in recent years adopted measures to make this mandatory.

Businesses seeking to grow through export trade should be sure to check that they meet the food safety standards and regulations for the destination market. CODEX is often a useful starting point followed by the specific country rules. It is important to check who is responsible for what, with written terms for clarification to help avoid nasty surprises and expensive border delays.

Sarah Howarth BSc Hons, C Sci, FIFST, member of IFST Scientific Committee, is an experienced food professional with 30+ years’ experience within the food industry. After having worked for a number of international companies including Unilever, Yum Brands (Pizza Hut; KFC), Cargill, Cott Corporation and Marks & Spencer, she set up independently to support companies with their Food Safety Compliance. She has a keen interest in food and drink labelling, supporting local, national and international companies with labelling compliance advice. Sarah is a member of the SALSA food labelling course development and delivery team.

Email:sarah.howarth@howarthfoodsafety.co.uk

Web:http://www.howarthfoodsafety.co.uk/index.php

References

1. UK trade information:  https://www.uktradeinfo.com/Pages/Home.aspx
2. FDF export statistics https://www.fdf.org.uk/exports/ukexports.aspx
3. CODEX Food and Nutritional Labelling Guidelines http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1390e/a1390e00.htm

Isabel Hoffman, Mark Bloore, Behafarid Darvish and Zoltan Kovacs of Canada and UK-based Tellspec describe a new, miniaturised food sensor able to detect compounds in food at a molecular level. They explain the potential of the sensor for detecting melamine adulteration of foods.

Spectral analysis

Spectral analysis is a standard technique for discovering the chemical composition of substances. Different parts of the spectrum are suited to different types of analysis. The near-infrared (NIR) spectrum is particularly good for studying organic substances, because it responds to bonds between their different types of atoms and thus to the makeup of entire molecules.

A spectrum is obtained by shining NIR light onto a sample and recording the intensity of reflected light at each wavelength in the NIR range. Different atomic bonds will absorb light at different wavelengths and by different amounts creating a pattern, which can be examined for data on the bonds present in a sample.

Until recently, this type of analysis had to be performed in a laboratory with large and expensive equipment to get spectra of adequate quality. However, in 2014, Canada and UK-based Tellspec designed a new sensing system that combines a hand-held miniature NIR spectrometer with a smart phone linked to a cloud-based collection of machine-learning algorithms that can be trained to detect compounds, such as adulterants and contaminants in foods, at a molecular level.

Rapid, mobile food sensing

The internal light source in the miniaturised sensor focuses a beam of light through the front window into the food. Light reflected from the sample is then collected through the same window. This light is dispersed onto a micro-mirror device and measured by an optimised detection system. A digital electronic spectrum is produced, characteristic of the composition of the food.

The digitised spectrum of the food is transmitted wirelessly from the scanner to the Tellspec analysis engine in the cloud. The algorithms analyse the spectrum for information about the food and send the results back to a smartphone in seconds. A combination of machine learning, bioinformatics techniques and traditional spectroscopy provides the ability to extract nutritional information from a spectrum, the unique fingerprint of the food.

Tellspec has built an extensive food database of reference spectral scans and data on the quality and authenticity of the food from all points in the food supply chain, from farm to fork. The patented real-time cloud analysis can help monitor events of food fraud as well as food contamination locally and in specific regions, thereby helping consumers and authorities to make choices to prevent the onset of health issues related to food.

The food sensor (Tellspec Enterprise Food Scanner) uses digital light processing technology developed by Texas Instruments, which improves the scanner performance due to a higher signal-to- noise ratio as well as a more accurate spectrum acquisition. It is targeted at the B2B market and is suitable for rapid, non-destructive food quality and food fraud detection. The company is currently finalising another miniaturisation of the future Tellspec Food Sensor generation 1 (to be launched Q2 2018).

Detecting melamine in infant formula

In 2008 there was an infamous incident of infant formula adulteration in China with the industrial chemical melamine. This allowed producers to dilute the formula but still have it pass protein-content tests. At least six infants died of kidney failure and tens of thousands were sickened.

That was not the first incident. Even today, pet foods, livestock feed and commercial flour shipments are found with added melamine. There is a strong need for quick and easy detection of such adulteration at all levels in the food chain.

Melamine has a characteristic spectrum in near-infrared light (Figure 1), due in part to the many nitrogen-hydrogen bonds present. In addition to the obvious series of peaks, there are subtler features present, which are still significant. Mixing with other substances alters all of these features and may overlay them with the spectra of other substances (Figure 2). Machine learning provides a powerful array of techniques for finding spectral features that distinguish the melamine signature hidden within the complex mix of substances found in any usual foodstuff.

Complicating the detection of melamine in powdered infant formula is the fact that the spectra are different depending on whether the melamine was mixed into the formula before or after it was dried to powder. The melamine signature is less prominent when it is mixed into liquid formula. A detection method must be able to recognise both cases, or even a combination of them.

A rapid, portable sensor able to detect melamine in foods could find wide application in routine food analysis.

A combination of machine learning, bioinformatics techniques and traditional spectroscopy provides the ability to extract nutritional information from a spectrum.'

Figure 1, Melamine NIP spectrum

Figure 2 Adulterated infant formula spectrum

Validation testing

Different infant formulas were contaminated with various doses of melamine (0-10%) and samples were scanned with Tellspec Enterprise Food Scanners. Spectra were recorded in the 900-1700 nm interval, with 2nm spectral step. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) was used for quantitative models to evaluate the relationship between the melamine concentration and NIR spectra. The PLSR models were optimised with cross-validation, where data of single samples with their repeats were left out of the calibration and were used for validation, iteratively.

Average absorbance spectrum of melamine shows peaks at 1021, 1473, 1494 and 1522nm (Figure 3), which is in line with results obtained by other researchers^[1].

The accuracy of the results obtained was assessed by using statistical algorithms for validation. A high coefficient of determination (R2) was found in calibration (0.9821) and in cross-validation (0.9808). The errors of calibration (RMSEC) and cross-validation (RMSECV) were 0.3898 and 0.4032% respectively (Figure 4a). Independent prediction, using newly-prepared samples, closely matched the known concentrations of melamine in samples indicating the accuracy of the built model with 0.9774 R2 and 0.4491% error of prediction (Figure 4b). The results indicate that the food scanner was effective at determining melamine concentration in infant formula down to 1%.

Similar performance testing was carried out in mixed samples of wheat gluten and urea contaminated with melamine up to a concentration of 18%^[2]. Concentration measurements were found to be accurate using statistical models and independent prediction based on data from two scanners.

Figure 3 Smoothed and normalised average NIR spectra of melamine and infrant formula with different concentrations of added melamine

Figure 4 Results of the partial least squares regression calibration (blue and +) and cross-validations (red and •) for melamine (a), and results of the independent prediction (b)

Conclusions

The hand-held food scanner can warn consumers, as well as commercial buyers, of melamine adulteration in infant formula, flour and gluten supplies, pet foods and any other foodstuff that might benefit from a seeming boost in protein content. This has already been demonstrated for powdered infant formula.

It could be a useful tool for users, buyers, inspectors and regulators for rapid melamine detection. It offers the potential for manufacturers to prevent contamination of their products, regulators to track contamination to its source and consumers to be confident in the quality of their food.

Isabel Hoffman, founder and CEO, Mark Bloore, Behafarid Darvish and Zoltan Kovacs

Tellspec, 7B Pleasant Blvd, Suite 991, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4T 1K2

Emailinfo@tellspec.comWebhttp://tellspec.com

References

1. Cantor, S.L., Gupta, A. & Khan, M.A., 2014. Analytical Methods for the Evaluation of Melamine Contamination. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 103(2), pp.539–544. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24327168 [Accessed January 8, 2017].

2. Kovacs, K., Bazar, G., Darvish, B., Nieuwenhuijs, F., Hoffmann, I., 2017. Simultaneous detection of melamine and urea in gluten with a handheld NIR scanner, OCM 2017, 3rd International Conference on Optical Characterization of Materials. pp. 13 – 23.

In this article, Sam Jennings FIFST debunks the myth that the world of food supplements remains highighly unregulated. 

“The unregulated world of food supplements…”¹; “…quality problems of unregulated food supplements”². These comments, and many like them, are frequently heard or read in the media, particularly following an alert or tragedy relating to a product labelled as a food supplement. In 2013, after an inquest into the tragic death of a marathon runner, there was a call for “far better supervision of the so-called health food and supplement industry”³. This latter comment is perhaps the more accurate, although the comment that the victim took a “legal”³ supplement is less so.

The food supplement industry is highly regulated, with numerous laws controlling the composition, packaging, labelling, claims and marketing of food supplements. However, ‘supervision’, i.e. enforcement and control by the authorities, is sadly lacking in the United Kingdom (UK), owing primarily to major cuts to Trading Standards resources over the past decade.

Within the UK and European Union (EU), food supplements are controlled by all ‘horizontal’ food law. In other words, these are laws that apply to all foods consumed by humans, including food supplements. Such laws control hygiene practices, general composition (e.g. food additives), contaminants, general labelling and health claims, to name just a few. There are also laws specific to food supplements, which place additional controls on the composition, labelling and marketing of the products. 

Figure 1 provides an indication of just some of the laws that a food supplement company must follow in order to ensure that the products they manufacture and/or market are legal within the UK.

Figure 1: Some of the many laws controlling the sale of food supplements in the UK // Supplied courtesy of Berry Ottaway & Associates Ltd

As the majority of responsible food supplement manufacturers will advise, to stay up to date and compliant with all laws affecting food supplements requires constant vigilance and an understanding of the impact that a legal change to any law affecting foods might have on the continued compliance of their products.

Unregulated, poor quality food supplements?

The quality of a food supplement relies, amongst other things, on its formulation, the individual ingredients, the manufacturing process, its packaging and its labelling. All of these points are strictly regulated. If a company follows the law at each stage, from development through to placing on the market, it should produce a quality food supplement⁴.

For instance, the formulator must ensure that the ingredients they intend to include are legally permitted in food supplements within the UK. Checking legal permissibility includes ensuring that they are not novel ingredients (i.e. they must have a significant history of use in food or food supplements in the EU before May 1997 or have been officially authorised as novel foods); and if they are ingredients that are controlled by specific lists, they must be present on the list for the use in food supplements. This latter requirement particularly affects vitamin and mineral sources in food supplements, as well as food additives and flavourings. There are many mineral sources, in particular, that are permitted in supplements in countries outside the EU, but are not on the list for use in food supplements marketed within the EU (see Figure 2).

The requirement additionally affects the components of compound ingredients, so the formulator has to check that all such ingredients are legally permitted. In addition, particularly in relation to plant ingredients, the formulator must ensure that the use of a particular ingredient will not push the product onto, or over, the borderline with medicines.

Figure 2. (a) Zinc sources that are permitted in supplements in some countries outside of the EU // Supplied courtesy of Berry Ottaway & Associates Ltd

Figure 2. (b) (b) Zinc sources permitted in food supplements marketed within the EU // Supplied courtesy of Berry Ottaway & Associates Ltd

Another key issue the formulator has to check is the quantity of the ingredients they are using. The use of food additives, for example, is restricted not only by a particular food category, but also by the amount that is permitted in that food category. For vitamins, minerals and certain other substances, the controls on levels may not be specifically laid down in law in the UK, but the legal requirement for food business operators to only place foods on the market that are safe and not injurious to human health means that consideration of a safe daily intake of the food supplement has to be a priority in the formulator’s mind.

The formulation must also be checked for stability, to ensure that each ingredient declared on the label (the ‘active’ ingredients) will be present at the declared amount at the end of the stated shelf life of the product (i.e. at the end of the expiry date stated on the label). This requires knowledge of the individual ingredients, in terms of any known stability issues; checking whether ingredients may lose activity by interacting with each other; being aware, particularly with vitamins, of the differences in losses of activity over time; the factors that impact those losses; and the potential substitution of some ingredients, or the use of e.g. microencapsulated ingredients, where this will improve the stability of the product.  There is a requirement that food supplements must aim to provide the quantities of active ingredients declared on the label right up to the date stated as ‘Best before end’ on the product. Very small upper or lower deviations in the quantity may be accepted, if analysed by the enforcement authorities, as the label declaration should be an average value based on the manufacturer’s analyses of a number of batches, as opposed to being an absolute figure.

Once the general legality of the selected ingredients has been determined, the suppliers of those ingredients have to be sourced, at which point further legal restrictions must be taken into account. It is not acceptable for a company to simply go out and purchase the cheapest source of an ingredient without undertaking a detailed investigation. Each source of an ingredient has to be checked for its compliance with various laws, including controls on contaminant levels (chemical and microbiological), pesticide levels, extraction solvents, genetically modified organisms and irradiation. Food additives must be compliant with the specifications laid down in law, whilst for ingredients of animal origin, further controls are laid down, restricting in some cases the country of origin, the processing requirements and even the specific manufacturer of the ingredient.

The suitability of the ingredients for the formulation, in terms of moisture content; quantity of inert components, such as carriers; extract ratios etc. must also be taken into consideration, as these may all have an effect on the product stability and/or the declarations for the active ingredients in the product.

Once it has been confirmed that the formulation is viable and can produce the desired, stable product at the laboratory scale (and possibly also at pilot scale), the manufacturer can commence full-scale manufacture.  Here there is a legal requirement for the company to meet all relevant aspects of good manufacturing practice (GMP). Under UK and EU law, the GMP legal requirements are not prescriptive, as they are written in a manner that applies to all foods. The principles have to be applied in a manner that is appropriate for each facility. Therefore, an industry sector guideline has been published to assist food supplement manufacturers with ensuring that they meet all relevant requirements of GMP in order to product a quality product. There is a self-assessment questionnaire to accompany the sector guide, which assists companies determine where they may or may not be meeting these requirements⁵.

Having a facility that is working to full GMP compliance is an essential starting point, but the manufacturer also has to ensure that the manufacturing process is capable of producing product that is of consistently high quality. This can involve mixing trials, to determine the most appropriate mixing speed(s) and time(s) for the ingredients; trials on production batch sizes, to determine the best batch size to reduce the risk of de-mixing of the ingredients; and batch tests to confirm that the product is still stable, and still meets its finished product specification, if the ingredient specifications are at the extremes of any of their stated ranges⁴.

Packaging of a food supplement product is another area that is strictly regulated. The selected packaging must be suitable for the finished product, in terms of supporting its stability during shelf life, whilst still being of a form that is consumer friendly, in terms of function and use. In addition, the packaging must meet legal requirements on packaging and packaging waste and also legal requirements on articles and materials in contact with food, both of which have an effect on the composition of the packaging materials.

Another point integral to the quality of a product is its label. It is no use for a company to produce a good quality product if they do not ensure that the label itself is compliant and contains all the information required by law to be provided to the consumer. Food supplement labelling is controlled by the general food labelling requirements, in addition to specific labelling rules laid down by the food supplements specific law. In addition, further mandatory labelling requirements for certain ingredients (e.g. authorised novel ingredients, certain food colours etc.), must be considered. The final label on a food supplement should be clear and legible, and should allow a consumer to view all details that will enable them to select the most appropriate product for their needs.

Of course, alongside the compulsory label information, companies also want to be able to entice consumers to purchase their particular product. Therefore, voluntary information may also be placed on the food supplement label. Such voluntary information may relate to the presence or absence of certain ingredients or components; the suitability for particular dietary regimen; the relative bioavailability of certain ingredients; or the benefits to health of certain ingredients contained in the product. All claims, whether related to health, the product composition or its individual ingredients, have to be supported by strong scientific evidence and must not be misleading to the consumer.

In the case of nutrition and health claims, these are strictly regulated and only authorised claims may be used. There are currently some ‘on hold’ health claims, which may be utilised in the UK until a decision is made regarding their status, but these claims can only be made on a product if particular conditions of use are followed.

Unregulated, unsafe food supplements?

Another complaint often made in the media is that food supplements are generally unsafe and unregulated. What is not recognised, however, is that in the (relatively few) cases where a food supplement product is found to be unsafe, it is usually because it has failed to comply with UK/EU law in one or more ways.

The tragic death of the marathon runner, referred to in the introduction above, occurred following her consumption of a food supplement containing dimethylamylamine (DMAA). Although the runner and her family assumed that the product she was consuming was a legal food supplement, the ingredient DMAA, before being determined to be a medicinal ingredient, was a novel ingredient under food law. Thus, the product was never compliant under UK/EU food law. Once determined to be a medicinal ingredient, the product then became non-compliant under medicines law. Hence, at no time was the product legally on the market.

Products often mistaken as food supplements are so-called diet or slimming pills. These frequently contain illegal ingredients, under food and/or medicines law, and are usually not labelled in a manner that is legal for food supplements. Sadly, severe illness or death is more common with these types of products, and the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) periodically run campaigns to warn consumers about the dangers of consumption of such pills and other illegal medicinal products⁶.

Unauthorised novel ingredients are a key concern in the food supplements sector. The UK authorities have recognised this concern and have ensured that, under the incoming new and revised novel foods legislation in January 2018, the enforcement powers to deal with products containing novel ingredients will be far greater than those currently in existence.

The safety of vitamins and minerals in food supplements, and the need for maximum levels to be set, is an issue that has been under discussion in the UK and EU for over almost 25 years, commencing long before food supplements were granted their own piece of legislation. Nutrient reference values (NRVs, formerly Recommended Daily Allowances, RDAs) have been set and periodically revised for the 13 recognised vitamins and for 14 minerals and trace elements. These values are not the maximum safe amount to consume, but are the levels that a person should aim to be ingesting as part of their daily diet. In certain cases, such as vitamin D, the NRV level is lagging behind current science and is lower than the daily intake amount recommended in public health messages.

Vitamins and minerals can be roughly separated into three groups⁸:

• Group 1: those that have no evidence of risk to human health at high levels of intake (i.e. no adverse effects have been found at levels dramatically higher than the NRV);
• Group 2: those that have a large margin between the NRV and the tolerable upper intake level (UL), which is defined as the maximum level of habitual intake from all sources of a nutrient or related substance judged to be unlikely to lead to adverse health effects in humans⁷; and
• Group 3: those with a smaller margin between the NRV and the UL.

• GROUP 1	GROUP 2	GROUP 3
  Vitamin B1 (Thiamin)	Vitamin B6 (as Pyridoxine)	Vitamin A (as retinol)
  Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin)	Vitamin C	Beta-carotene
  Biotin	Vitamin D	Calcium
  Vitamin B12 (as Cobalamin)	Vitamin E	Copper
  Pantothenic acid	Nicotinamide	Iodine
  Vitamin K	Molybdenum	Iron
  Chromium III	Phosphorus	Manganese
  	Selenium	Zinc
  	Magnesium
  	Folic acid (as  pteroylmonoglutamic acid)
  	Potassium

  Adapted from Food Supplements Europe, 2014⁸

• Some EU Member States have set national maximum levels for some or all of the vitamins and minerals permitted in food supplements. Although supposed to be based only on safety, in certain cases the maximum levels are based on multiples of historic RDA values. Currently there are no harmonised maximum levels for vitamins and minerals across the EU. The UK has taken a pragmatic approach to upper levels of vitamins and minerals in food supplements, accepting that certain consumers demand the option of being able to purchase a food supplement with a higher level of certain micronutrients. In order to retain that consumer choice, whilst also protecting consumers, the UK authorities require specific warning statements to be applied to food supplement products that contain higher levels of specific vitamins or minerals⁹.

•  

   

  Highly regulated, legally compliant food supplements: good quality and safe!

  The majority of food supplements on the UK market are produced by responsible companies who take pride in the quality, safety and legality of their products. Many of these companies are members of relevant trade associations, thereby ensuring that they are kept up to date on the frequent changes to laws affecting the marketing of their products.

There is a small percentage of the entire UK food supplements market that is non-compliant in the ingredients the products contain and/or the product labelling and marketing information, especially with regard to nutrition and health claims. These products, though only a small percentage of the whole market, are the ones that end up gaining adverse media attention and lead to the belief that food supplements are ‘unregulated, poor quality and unsafe’.

•  

  A large proportion of the non-compliance of products is down to simple ignorance by the manufacturer or seller of the many laws with which they should be complying in order to produce a legal food supplement. Many non-compliant products are sold via the internet or via less traditional retail outlets, such as beauty salons and gyms. The Food Standards Agency is aware of the risk of lack of knowledge leading to non-compliance and has produce a leaflet to enable these less traditional retail outlets to gain an understanding of their legal responsibilities and how to assess whether the products they are selling should be on the UK market¹⁰.

•  

  Advice has also been prepared for consumers, retailers and would-be importers of food supplements by the trade body the Council for Responsible Nutrition UK (CRN UK), to help with the assessment of compliance of the product they wish to purchase or sell. The document outlines seven easy steps that can be followed to determine compliance, three by just looking at the label and four steps using lists¹¹.

  Misuse of health claims on food supplements is currently a particular cause for concern for both the UK authorities and the reputable food supplement companies, as it creates an unfair market place and some of the claims may be misleading to consumers. The lack of resources at enforcement level has meant that the food supplements industry, via relevant trade associations, is now working with the authorities to determine a means by which self-regulation at industry level may assist with reducing the degree of non-compliance confronting the enforcement agencies.

•  

  Food supplements are highly regulated food products. There are numerous laws in place to ensure that food supplements are safe to consume and that they do and say what they claim on the label. The food supplements that may be a cause for concern tend to be non-compliant with at least one piece of legislation, often more, and much of this non-compliance is down to ignorance of the law. The food supplements industry would welcome greater enforcement by the authorities against non-compliant products, especially those sold via the internet, but the industry acknowledges that enforcement agencies are now having to operate with far lower resources than were available in the past. A closer relationship is being built between food supplement trade associations and the UK authorities, to enable a cooperative approach to challenging non-compliance. 

•  

  Sam Jennings FIFST

  Director

• Berry Ottaway & Associates Ltd

• Web:http://www.berryottaway.co.uk/

•  

  References

  1 http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/healthy-living/up-to-40-per-cent-of-some-herbal-supplements-are-mislabelled-a7208776.html

  2 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/pharmacy/pharmacy-news/food-supplements

  3 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/london-marathon/9837419/London-Marathon-death-Claire-Squires-boyfriend-calls-for-more-checks-on-supplement-industry.html

  4 Council for Responsible Nutrition UK. Technical Aspects of Manufacturing Food Supplements. 2017 (https://crnuk.org/)

  5 http://www.foodsupplementseurope.org/publications-guidelines

  6 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dodgy-diet-pills-dying-to-lose-weight

  7 World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization. A model for establishing upper levels of intake for nutrients and related substances. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Technical Workshop on Nutrient Risk Assessment. Geneva: WHO/FAO, 2006

  8 Risk management approaches to the setting of maximum levels of vitamins and minerals in food supplements for adults and for children aged 4–10 years. Food Supplements Europe, 2014 (http://www.foodsupplementseurope.org/publications-guidelines)

  9 Food supplements Label advisory statements and suggested reformulations, Department of Health, 2011. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-supplements-guidance-and-faqs)

  10 Food Standards Agency. Do you sell or supply food supplements? 2017 (currently hosted on the CRN UK website https://crnuk.org/safe-and-legal/)

  11 Council for Responsible Nutrition UK. Seven easy steps to assess non-compliance of a food supplement. 2015 (https://crnuk.org/)

   

Phil O’Driscoll, Head of Innovation and NPD at Parkside explains the benefits of using sustainable packaging. 

As environmental consciousness gains momentum among consumers, increasing pressure is being placed upon manufacturers, brands and retailers to provide viable packaging solutions that have minimal impact on the planet. A common misconception is that recyclability is the sole signifier of sustainability, however genuine manufacturing responsibility considers a product’s entire lifecycle from material sourcing through to disposal and recovery. This has led to a growing trend in the development of innovations that enable a circular economy, of which advancements in plastics is a key factor.

Why is sustainable packaging needed?

A common public belief is that packaging is harmful to the environment, with many considering plastic in particular to be wasteful and damaging to ecosystems. A 2017 study by Populus for example found that plastic-free supermarket aisles are supported by 9 in 10 respondents, who would prefer for the material to be replaced with alternative solutions. This is backed by resource management organisation Veolia’s 2017 study, which found that 30 per cent of respondents regard recyclability ‘important’ when selecting beverages, over considerations such as the brand (26 per cent) and the ‘look’ of the bottle (9 per cent). Brands and retailers deemed to be irresponsible are thus being increasingly shunned by consumers, resulting in major profit losses.

Although the packaging, food and beverage industries understand that such concerns are well-intentioned but misguided, manufacturers, brands and retailers must nonetheless allow public desires to drive the future of sustainable product development.

Moving towards a circular economy

This trend is evident in the growth of eco-friendly packaging innovations that support a circular economy and developments in plastics is integral to this. Organisations demonstrate a commitment to sustainability when choosing plastic as it requires fewer resources than many other alternatives to support its lifecycle; its sturdiness means that less protection is needed throughout the supply chain, while its light weight incurs a smaller carbon footprint in transport.

Plastic furthermore promotes sensible resource management by providing greater food protection and preservation than most other alternatives, significantly helping to curb the 1.3 billion tonnes per year global food waste problem as well as the energy squandered in producing and transporting wasted food.

Although plastic’s durability, light weight and food waste prevention credentials offer environmental advantages, the material only reaches its green potential when it is managed through a circular economy – starting with responsible sourcing and ending with sensible recovery.

By sourcing from eco-friendly supplies, organisations start packaging off on a sustainable life cycle. Raw materials can be conserved by using recycled rather than virgin plastics, which requires 75 per cent less energy and saves an average two tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of recycled substance. Its carbon footprint can also be reduced by using alternative materials in production; Lego^® for example is experimenting with using bioplastics such as wheat to replace petroleum-based bricks, while breweries are increasingly selling waste spent grain for use in bioplastic manufacture.

The lifecycle is next secured by ensuring the materials used are recyclable or compostable (organically recyclable) after the packaging has served its primary function, allowing it to be repurposed into anything from clothing to car parts, or to return to nature.

This is only helpful to the environment however if consumers dispose of products responsibly, so to ensure their eco efforts aren’t wasted at this stage of the journey brands are actively encouraging the public to recycle, reuse or (where appropriate) compost plastic packaging. Coca-Cola for example announced in 2017 its commitment to closed loop recycling by doubling the current amount of recovered plastic in its bottles by 2020, as well as working on a bottle deposit return scheme with the Government and launching an advertising campaign to encourage sensible disposal.

It is therefore easy to see that sustainable packaging is about so much more than simply recycling, and that we must take into account the product’s entire resource management journey from design through to disposal and recovery when exploring the subject.

How are manufacturers creating sustainable packaging?

For manufacturers, the demands of full lifecycle viability mean that extensive work must be invested in creating progressive, cost-effective solutions that consider every aspect of packaging’s environmental impact. These will need to be capable of performing the protective and preservative functions required by food and beverage products while also providing the stand-out shelf appeal and convenience needed to compete in a crowded marketplace.

It’s a big ask, and one that is particularly problematic for flexible plastics manufacturers. This material can be less straightforward to recycle than others, meaning it is often simply thrown away, leading to widespread end-of-life incineration and landfill. The flexibles industry may be going strong at the moment with global growth 3.4 per cent per annum predicted to 2020, but forward-thinking organisations such as Parkside realise that this prosperity will be short-lived unless they come up with tenable developments to combat sustainability issues.

Breaking down barriers with compostables

Parkside is addressing these challenges with a host of pioneering packaging innovations under its Park-2-Nature brand, including compostable and organically recyclable solutions derived from trees and other bio-based materials.

After a four-year research and development project, the company has become the first in the world to successfully deliver a line of multi-layer paper and film barrier compostable laminates able to fit in a circular economy. Produced from responsibly sourced, bio-based materials including a compostable adhesive, the laminates have been shown in tests to break down with excellent eco-toxicity levels.

The laminates are approved for industrial composting to EN13432 and have been subject to a 12-week test where 90 per cent of material must degrade at temperatures between 55c and 60c and no more than a 10 per cent residue may remain after passing through a 2mm vibrating mesh plate.

For the home compostability accreditation, the materials were subject to a 26-week test where 90 per cent of material must degrade at no more than 28c (ambient temperature) and no more than 10 per cent residue may remain after passing through a 2mm vibrating mesh plate. This means that once the consumer has used the contents, the pack can be mixed with other organic household waste and composted in a home composting bin, avoiding the need for landfill and without any detrimental effect on the environment.

This important advance allows flexibles to rival alternative materials as an environmentally friendly solution, with packaging returning to the ecosystem rather than finding its way to landfill and its light weight incurring a smaller carbon footprint than other heavier formats. Not only does this give brands and retailers more sustainable options, but it also provides excellent food protection and preservation with moisture and oxygen barriers offering extended shelf life and minimising food waste. The laminates also deliver outstanding graphic shelf appeal on par with non-compostable counterparts, enabling products to stand out and compete on the shelf.

Is the industry ready for compostables?

When we talk about recycling in the UK, the prevalent associations are with the traditional mechanical methods for items like plastic bottles, paper and glass. But there is an alternative, and in many parts of Europe, organic recycling has equal standing to mechanical recycling.

Organic recycling through composting, whether at home by the conscientious consumer, or industrially via curbside collection, is an extremely good method of preventing both waste from going to landfill, and returning resources to nature to continue the cycle. 

Legislation will dictate further investment in curbside collections of biodegradable materials, like food and garden waste, and the inevitable increase means compostable packaging, which is also biodegradable, will become an ever more important element in the UK’s drive towards a circular economy. Consumer confidence is vital, so it is important that the industry adopts standards like Vincotte and Seedling to ensure that all claims of compostability have been credibly validated. 

How is Parkside meeting demand?

Parkside’s breakthrough in sustainable flexible plastics is already proving popular with organisations which are keen to leverage the circular economy trend and meet the demands of environmentally conscious consumers. Natural food company Rhythm 108 for example tasked the company with the challenge of packaging its organic Ooh-la-la tea biscuits in a material that is reflective of the brand’s ‘clean’ philosophy. Parkside delivered with a leading-edge solution derived from the eucalyptus tree, comprising a triple-layer construction of metallised NatureFlex, paper and a bio polymer sealant web.

The Ooh-la-la packaging innovation demonstrates full lifecycle viability with its naturally sourced materials and

Photo courtesy of Parkside

compostability. The biofilm is produced from wood pulp from sustainably sourced Brazilian eucalyptus plantations, in which every tree used is replaced. Its superb oxygen and moisture barrier then helps the environment by extending product shelf life and reducing food waste, while the pack’s ability to break down to Vincotte’s OK Compost Home and Seedling certification standards allows it to be disposed of in an eco-friendly manner.

Other packaging developments that support a circular economy include Parkside’s solution for Next Step Foods Ltd.’s Yumpa energy bar. Made from natural ingredients including powdered cricket flour and free from sulphites, dairy, gluten and soya, the bars’ value proposition to health-aware, clean eaters had to be met with a pack as conscientious as its food content. Parkside delivered with a compostable pack made from 93 per cent plant-based materials, which has since won the Best Sustainable category at 2017’s World Food Innovation Awards.

It is therefore clear that, although flexible plastics may pose sustainability challenges, manufacturers committed to progression and catering for consumer demands are becoming more able to support circular packaging economies.

In a marketplace that is increasingly demanding a return to cleaner, more natural ways of living, it’s up to manufacturers to provide products equipped to meet these evolving requirements. Public awareness of plastic’s environmental credentials may be lacking, but its potential for full lifecycle sustainability is becoming more recognised thanks to the efforts of forward-thinking brands and manufacturers. Responsible sourcing, bioplastics and innovations in compostability are making plastics credible choices as eco-conscious packaging materials, and the future of the industry is likely to see continued developments in these areas.

Parkside is an innovative speciality packaging manufacturer specialising in printing, lamination, laser, thermal and sustainable solutions for the food, drink and tobacco packaging industries.  Established for over 40 years, the company is a global supplier with manufacturing sites in both the UK & Asia and is headquartered in Normanton, West Yorkshire. 

For more information on Parkside and their activities, please contact PHD Marketing Ltd. The Nickols Suite, The Barracks, Wakefield Road, Pontefract, West Yorkshire WF8 4HH.  Tel: 01977 708 643 or Email: hello@phdmarketing.co.uk.

Tim G. Benton of the University of Leeds and the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, addresses the challenges facing food supply chains resulting from the, often unpredictable, impacts of climate change on food systems.

At one level, climate change is simple. It was appreciated in the 19th century, when early experimental studies were carried out, that emissions of some gases, primarily from fossil fuels, would lead to warming via the greenhouse effect. Furthermore, the potential for global warming has been public knowledge for well over a century. For example, a snippet from 1912 in an Australian local newspaper recently came to light^[1]describing how burning coal created carbon dioxide, which ‘tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth, and to raise its temperature’.

The article concluded that ‘the effect may be considerable in a few centuries’. One century later, we are finding that already the effect is considerable.

Where climate change is more complex is in understanding exactly how it will affect us and the weather we experience. As we all appreciate, a weather forecast’s accuracy declines over days – as small, random, differences in the real weather diverge from the weather model’s predictions.

Understanding exactly how the weather will play out over decades and what impacts it will have, is a real scientific challenge. Nonetheless, it is one where advances are being made rapidly.

Climate change can affect us, and the food system, in three broad ways:

1 There will be a gradual increase in global temperatures: ‘global warming’

When most people think of climate change, they imagine a gradual increase in global temperatures over decades or longer. For example, the annual mean Central England Temperature (CET) for the first decade of this century is 10.22°C. We are currently on course for the world to be 2.6-3.1 degrees warmer by 2100^[2]. This would imply a CET of approximately 13 degrees. Whilst not an exact analogy, Spain has a climate ~3 degrees warmer than the UK (the 1961-1990 average temperature in Spain was 13.3 degrees)^[3]. What adaptation in crops, management, infrastructure (e.g. water storage) would we need to cope if we experienced a Spanish climate?

Recent analyses^[4]of the effect of changing average climate on yields indicate a mixed picture. Generally, for the next two decades, yields in the temperate zones may increase. This is due to a combination of warmer, longer growing seasons and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which acts as a fertiliser providing more building blocks for plants to turn into sugar by photosynthesis. Whilst CO₂ fertilisation may increase yields, it also reduces the nutritional quality of the food produced, by lowering a range of nutrients, in particular iron, zinc and proteins^[5]. Unlike the more temperate zones, yields in the tropics are likely to decline as extreme heat becomes more common. The proportion of places that are ‘winners’ from climate change decreases in the latter half of the century. The most recent analysis suggests that with each degree of increase in global mean temperatures, the yields of wheat would decline by 6.0%, rice by 3.2%, maize by 7.4%, and soybean by 3.1%.^[6]

2 There may be sudden changes in climate in different places.

The climate experienced in any one place depends on largescale circulation patterns in the atmosphere and oceans. These have the potential to change, causing relatively large-scale shifts in the patterns of weather locally. For example, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is a global oceanic conveyor of heat from the tropics to NW Europe, carrying 6-8 degrees of warmth to NW Europe.

Recent evidence shows an unprecedented slowdown in its strength^[7]. If weather models are run many times, in a significant proportion this conveyor slows^[8] or stops (and the proportion of cases where it stops grows with cumulative emissions), such that it is as likely as not to turn off over the next two centuries under high emissions scenarios^[9]. A climate model experiment, where the AMOC was slowed to about one third its current value^[10]suggests European temperatures would plummet with much deeper winters, more storms, shorter growing seasons and a fall in food production. This change in oceanic circulation would also affect the inter-tropical convergence zones, affecting monsoon distributions and creating desertification in Sub-Saharan Africa and drying out the Cerrado. Were such a low probability event to occur, perhaps as much as 20-30% of the world’s agricultural output would be at risk^[11].

Whilst an AMOC-driven high impact change in climatic patterns in large-scale weather patterns is unlikely in the next decades, there is emerging evidence that arctic melting is creating a weakening, and more meandering, northern jet stream^[12]. This impacts the flows of hot and cold air, increases the likelihood of blocking (where conditions persist much longer than usual) and alters storm tracks.

Much of the recent variability in European climate in recent years (e.g. long wet stormy winters associated with an unusual storm track, late spring or early spring, heat waves or wet summers) is associated with changing jet stream patterns^[13]. Such shifts in largescale weather patterns, which have not been extensively studied in relationship to agricultural productivity and water availability, have the potential to impact both global and local food systems.

3 The weather will change

Whilst most studies of the impact of climate change on food supplies have focused on the average climate and yields, the impact of variability in weather has been receiving increased attention^[14]: Patterns of high-impact weather are changing fast on a global basis: heatwaves, droughts, extreme rainfall and high-intensity storms^[15]. A warmer atmosphere has more energy and holds more water, so rainfall and storms can become more intense relative to the past and a hotter atmosphere can generate more heat stress on the ground. In addition, changes in large scale weather patterns can bring new sorts of weather to localities.

Whilst we are only just beginning to ask questions about changing weather and therefore to understand how it may impact, past analyses already indicate that variability in yields is going to increase in future^[16](and this work may underestimate how much). A recent report comparing the next three decades to the last^[17] has suggested that the risk of a very severe disruption in global production has increased by over three-fold. Given that weather is often interconnected across large parts of the world (e.g. by the Jet stream or El Niño), there is emerging evidence of risks affecting multiple bread-basket regions at the same time^[18].

Any food product that falls short on supply relative to demand because of a weather or climate impact is likely to increase in price. Not only does this affect availability, it creates opportunities for food fraud through substitution of cheaper ingredients^[19]. Similarly, climate change can increase contamination risk from a range of sources^[20]. Fluctuating supply and prices suggests an increasing need to concentrate on food safety and authenticity.

Climate change will inevitably also impact on agricultural pests and diseases. Existing problems in an area may become more pronounced because less severe winters will reduce over-winter mortality and early springs and later autumns will allow longer seasons for pest populations to multiply^[21]. Furthermore, changing climate will allow pests and vectors to disperse to new areas (both in changing the ‘climate envelope’ – the envelope of temperature and rainfall within which species can exist – and by changing oceanic and atmospheric currents).

Future distributions of pests and diseases are uncertain for a range of methodological reasons^[22]but current indications are that effects might be significant for many fungi, insects and even nematode worms in the soil. Over 50% of the 65 most common livestock diseases are sensitive to climate^[23]. Of course, climate can affect crops and livestock during production, but also can affect pests in stored product (like beetles and mites) as well as fungi, affecting food spoilage, toxin load and quality.

Climate-risk to the global food system is not simply from production, it also potentially affects distribution via impacting on transport infrastructure and logistics. Significant proportions of total food trade are funnelled through a small number of ‘chokepoints’ (such as the Suez Canal, Straits of Hormuz, Malacca, South China Seas)^[24]: disruption to any such area might have significant impacts on food supplies.

Given that weather is often interconnected across large parts of the world (e.g. by the Jet stream or El Niño), there is emerging evidence of risks affecting multiple breadbasket regions at the same time’

Impacts of climate change on food systems

Climate change is likely to create a downward pressure on yields globally, and at the same time, rising CO₂ may reduce nutritional quality. Reducing yields would require a greater area of land and more water to compensate and achieve a fixed level of demand, but at the same time, sea level rise and reduction in river flows is also affecting the availability of resources. In future, due to the competition for land and water, less may be available, not more. This would potentially drive an increase in both the intensity of agriculture and the price of food.

On top of increasing the pressure on the whole system, through changing patterns of extreme weather, climate change is creating greater exposure to ‘shocks’, locally and globally. This is likely to lead to increasing volatility in production. As our global food system is characterised by long supply chains, extreme weather almost anywhere in the world could affect us. Furthermore, as we are globally inter-connected in complex ways, the impact of events elsewhere can be magnified by market and policy responses to cause indirect impacts^[25]. Many recent analyses indicate the complex causation between events and global prices, including energy policy and price, stocks, financial speculation, transparency and policy responses^[26]– all can be important and interact in complex ways, but production shortfalls generated by weather extremes are often the initial spark that drives the volatility ^[27](Figure 1).

For example, the 2007/8 food price spike was related to the loss of a fraction of a percent in global productivity from the Australian drought, coupled with biofuel policy incentivising farmers out of food production, low stock-to-use levels, low transparency in stocks and an oil price spike. Rice prices rose even though they were not subject to a supply shortfall.

The 2010/11 spike was sparked by Europe’s 2010 exceptional heatwave, extending from Europe to the Ukraine and Western Russia^[28]. In Russia, the heatwave was extreme in both temperature (over 40°C) and duration (from July to mid-August in 2010), creating a shortfall in yields of about a third^[29]. At the same time, the Indus Valley in Pakistan, received unprecedented rainfall creating flooding that disrupted the lives of 20m people^[30]. These two events were causally linked through the more meandering jet-stream created by Arctic warming^[31].

In response to its shortfall in yields, Russia imposed an export ban, which fuelled price rises on the global markets^[32]. Other countries responded in a largely uncoordinated way, each driven by internal politics as well as national self-interests^[33].

Analysis of responses to food prices in the developing world showed that the poor (a) worked harder, (b) ate less, (c) lived more frugally, (d) spent savings and (e) responded politically. People often identified their problems as stemming from collusion between powerful incumbent interests (of politicians and big business) and disregard for the poor^[34]. This politicised response contributed to food-related civil unrest in a number of countries in 2010/11^[35]. In Pakistan, where there were food-related riots in 2010, food price rises were made worse by the economic impacts of the floods.

In the UK, the upturn in global commodity prices influenced food inflation, with approximately a 5-fold increase in food inflation in the latter half of 2010. Analysis of purchases in the 5 years from 2007 to 2011 in the UK indicated that consumers bought 4.2% less food, but paid 12% more for it. The poorest 10% spent 17% more in 2011 than in 2007^[36]. People also traded down to save money by buying cheaper alternatives. However, in extremis, people simply could not afford food. Use of emergency foodbanks increased by half^[37]in 2010.

Both of these food price spikes (2007/8 and 2010/11) had far reaching consequences and as the impacts of climate change are likely to increase in frequency and magnitude, this will drive increased food system volatility both locally and globally. This is likely to result in short term shocks, such as disruptions to supply chains, displacement of vulnerable populations and violent conflicts over food or socially.

Supply chain managers need to work with suppliers to reduce their exposure to risks'

Likely impacts on UK supply chains

As described above, there are a number of key issues for supply chains to the UK. First, as areas wax and wane in production suitability, source areas are likely to need to change in the medium-to-long term.

This is likely to create stress on the ability of supply to match demand. For example, as competition for water and heat stress increasingly undermine Spain’s ability to supply to its markets, other areas need to adapt to supplying the foods that Spain currently produces. Whilst areas like South Africa are often mooted as alternative suppliers, in reality, their water availability and ability to supply the quality (and quantity) demanded by UK consumers is uncertain.

Second, as climate introduces volatility in production, prices and responses, supply chain resilience is threatened – as demonstrated in 2017 with avocados, cucumbers and lettuces. Supply chain managers need to work with suppliers to reduce their exposure to risks (e.g. by better water management, better soil management) and perhaps hedge their bets by having multiple supply chains. Such actions are likely to come at a cost: managing resilience often trades off against absolute efficiency.

Finally, for the UK, we are increasingly seeing jet-stream related climate variability, such that weather usually restricted to one season can occur at any time of the year. This introduces variability in demand – at weekly, seasonal and annual time scales. A ‘barbecue summer’ could last a few days or a few months. Can our supply chains keep up?

Tim G. Benton, School of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK and Royal

Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London, SW1Y 4LE, UK

Email:T.G.Benton@leeds.ac.ukTel: +44(0) 113 343 2886 Twitter: @timbenton

References

1. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/100645214

2. Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R., Sha, F., Riahi, K. & Meinshausen, M. (2016) Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C. Nature,534, 631-639.

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_yearly_temper...

4. Challinor, A., Watson, J., Lobell, D., Howden, S., Smith, D. & Chhetri, N. (2014) A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation. Nature Climate Change,4, 287-291.

5. Myers, S.S., Zanobetti, A., Kloog, I., Huybers, P., Leakey, A.D., Bloom, A.J., Carlisle, E., Dietterich, L.H., Fitzgerald, G. & Hasegawa, T. (2014) Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition. Nature,510, 139-142.

6. Zhao, C., Liu, B., Piao, S., Wang, X., Lobell, D.B., Huang, Y., Huang, M., Yao, Y., Bassu, S., Ciais, P., Durand, J.-L., Elliott, J., Ewert, F., Janssens, I.A., Li, T., Lin, E., Liu, Q., Martre, P., Müller, C., Peng, S., Peñuelas, J., Ruane, A.C., Wallach, D., Wang, T., Wu, D., Liu, Z., Zhu, Y., Zhu, Z. & Asseng, S. (2017) Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

7.  Rahmstorf, S., Box, J.E., Feulner, G., Mann, M.E., Robinson, A., Rutherford, S. & Schaffernicht, E.J. (2015) Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation. Nature Clim. Change,5, 475-480.

8. Weaver, A.J., Sedláček, J., Eby, M., Alexander, K., Crespin, E., Fichefet, T., Philippon-Berthier, G., Joos, F., Kawamiya, M., Matsumoto, K., Steinacher, M., Tachiiri, K., Tokos, K., Yoshimori, M. & Zickfeld, K. (2012) Stability of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation: A model intercomparison. Geophysical Research Letters,39, n/a-n/a.

9.  Meehl, G.A., Washington, W.M., Arblaster, J.M., Hu, A., Teng, H., Kay, J.E., Gettelman, A., Lawrence, D.M., Sanderson, B.M. & Strand, W.G. (2013) Climate Change Projections in CESM1(CAM5) Compared to CCSM4. Journal of Climate,26, 6287-6308.

10.  Jackson, L.C., Kahana, R., Graham, T., Ringer, M.A., Woollings, T., Mecking, J.V. & Wood, R.A. (2015) Global and European climate impacts of a slowdown of the AMOC in a high resolution GCM. Climate Dynamics,45, 3299-3316.

11. https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/publications/environmental-tipping-points....

12.  Jennifer, A.F. & Stephen, J.V. (2015) Evidence for a wavier jet stream in response to rapid Arctic warming. Environmental Research Letters,10, 014005.

13.  JA Francis & SJ Vavrus “Box 2.4: consequences of a rapidly warming arctic” in Levy, B. & Patz, J. (2015) Climate change and public health. Oxford University Press.

14.  https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/publications/extreme-weather-resilience-global-food-system.pdf; Thornton, P.K., Ericksen, P.J., Herrero, M. & Challinor, A.J. (2014) Climate variability and vulnerability to climate change: a review. Global Change Biology,20, 3313-3328; Chris, K., Edward, P., Vikki, T., Kirsty, L., Adam, A.S. & Nick, D. (2017) Using climate model simulations to assess the current climate risk to maize production. Environmental Research Letters,12, 054012.

15.  Coumou, D. & Rahmstorf, S. A decade of weather extremes. Nature Clim. Change 2, 491–496 (2012). ; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. in Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (eds Field, C. B. et al.) 1–19 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

16.  Challinor, A., Watson, J., Lobell, D., Howden, S., Smith, D. & Chhetri, N. (2014) A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation. Nature Climate Change,4, 287-291.

17.  Global Food Security (2015) Extreme weather and global food system resilience.The UK's Global Food Security Programme, London.

18.  Kent, C., Pope, E.C.D., Thompson, V., Lewis, K., Scaife, A.A. & Dunstone, N. (2017) Using climate model simulations to assess the current climate risk to maize production. Environmental Research Letters,12, 054012.

19.  Challinor, A., Adger, W., Baylis, M., Benton, T., Conway, D., Depledge, D., Geddes, A., McCorriston, S., Stringer, L. & Wellesley, L. (2016) UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Evidence Report: Chapter 7, International Dimensions.

20. Herrera, M., Anadón, R., Iqbal, S.Z., Bailly, J.D. & Ariño, A. (2016) Climate Change and Food Safety. Food Safety: Basic Concepts, Recent Issues, and Future Challenges (eds J. Selamat & S.Z. Iqbal), pp. 149-160.Springer International Publishing, Cham.

21.  DEFRA Project AC0310 Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation - a Risk Based Approach.  available at http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=9971_DEFRAProje....

22.  Newbery, F., Qi, A. & Fitt, B.D.L. (2016) Modelling impacts of climate change on arable crop diseases: progress, challenges and applications. Current Opinion in Plant Biology,32, 101-109.

23.  Grace D, Bett B, Lindahl J, Robinson T. 2015. Climate and livestock disease: assessing the vulnerability of agricultural systems to livestock pests under climate change scenarios. CCAFS Working Paper no. 116. Copenhagen, Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

24.  Rob Bailey and Laura Wellesley (2017) Chokepoints and Vulnerabilities in Global Food Trade.  Chatham House Report https://reader.chathamhouse.org/chokepoints-vulnerabilities-global-food-....

25.  Challinor, A., Adger, W., Baylis, M., Benton, T., Conway, D., Depledge, D., Geddes, A., McCorriston, S., Stringer, L. & Wellesley, L. (2016) UK Climate Change Risk Assessment Evidence Report: Chapter 7, International Dimensions.

Homer-Dixon, T., Walker, B., Biggs, R., Crépin, A.-S., Folke, C., Lambin, E.F., Peterson, G.D., Rockström, J., Scheffer, M., Steffen, W. & Troell, M. (2015) Synchronous failure: the emerging causal architecture of global crisis. Ecology and Society,20. Puma, M.J., Bose, S., Chon, S.Y. & Cook, B.I. (2015) Assessing the evolving fragility of the global food system. Environmental Research Letters,10, 024007. https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/publications/extreme-weather-resilience-global-food-system.pdf;

26.  Homer-Dixon, T., Walker, B., Biggs, R., Crépin, A.-S., Folke, C., Lambin, E.F., Peterson, G.D., Rockström, J., Scheffer, M., Steffen, W. & Troell, M. (2015) Synchronous failure: the emerging causal architecture of global crisis. Ecology and Society,20, Security, G.F. (2015) Extreme weather and global food system resilience.The UK's Global Food Security Programme, London, Tadasse, G., Algieri, B., Kalkuhl, M. & von Braun, J. (2016) Drivers and Triggers of International Food Price Spikes and Volatility. Food Price Volatility and Its Implications for Food Security and Policy (eds M. Kalkuhl, J. von Braun & M. Torero), pp. 59-82.Springer International Publishing, Cham.

27.  Tadasse, G., Algieri, B., Kalkuhl, M. & von Braun, J. (2016) Drivers and Triggers of International Food Price Spikes and Volatility. Food Price Volatility and Its Implications for Food Security and Policy (eds M. Kalkuhl, J. von Braun & M. Torero), pp. 59-82.Springer International Publishing, Cham.

28.  Barriopedro, D., Fischer, E.M., Luterbacher, J., Trigo, R.M. & García-Herrera, R. (2011) The Hot Summer of 2010: Redrawing the Temperature Record Map of Europe. Science,332, 220-224, Watanabe, M., Shiogama, H., Imada, Y., Mori, M., Ishii, M. & Kimoto, M. (2013) Event Attribution of the August 2010 Russian Heat Wave. SOLA,9, 65-68. Hoag, H. (2014) Russian summer tops ‘universal’heatwave index. Nature,16.

29.  Wegren, S.K. (2011) Food Security and Russia's 2010 Drought. Eurasian Geography and Economics,52, 140-156.

30.  Houze Jr, R., Rasmussen, K., Medina, S., Brodzik, S. & Romatschke, U. (2011) Anomalous atmospheric events leading to the summer 2010 floods in Pakistan. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,92, 291-298.

31.  Mann, M.E., Rahmstorf, S., Kornhuber, K., Steinman, B.A., Miller, S.K. & Coumou, D. (2017) Influence of Anthropogenic Climate Change on Planetary Wave Resonance and Extreme Weather Events. 7, 45242.

32.  Welton, G. (2011) The impact of Russia's 2010 grain export ban. Oxfam Policy and Practice: Agriculture, Food and Land,11, 76-107.

33.  Jones, A. & Hiller, B. (2017) Exploring the Dynamics of Responses to Food Production Shocks. Sustainability,9, 960.

34.  Hossain, N. & Green, D. (2011) Living on a Spike: How is the 2011 food price crisis affecting poor people? Oxfam Policy and Practice: Agriculture, Food and Land,11, 9-56.

35.  Natalini, D., Bravo, G. & Jones, A.W. (2017) Global food security and food riots – an agent-based modelling approach. Food Security.

36.  Defra (2012) Food Statistics Pocketbook.Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and David Heath CBE London, UK.

37.  data from https://www.trusselltrust.org/2016/04/15/foodbank-use-remains-record-high/

Matthew Paul of Rothamsted Research describes recent developments in breeding higher yielding, stress-resilient crops able to withstand the effects of climate change.

Introduction

The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s was a major technological achievement. Yields of wheat and rice increased substantially due to the incorporation of alleles for reduced stem height and for resistance to rust diseases^[1].

This resulted in an estimated saving of a billion lives in Asia. It turned previously net importers of grain into net exporters over the course of a few years. However, the period of low and stable grain and food prices during the latter part of the 20th century came to an abrupt halt in the first decade of the 21^st century, which saw at least one food crisis year, accompanied by food price increases due to poor harvests in different parts of the world.

This has reawakened interest in the importance of food security and highlighted the need for higher yielding resilient crops.

Crop yield potential and resilience and the need to increase them together

The food crisis of 2008 was due to the combined effects of poor weather conditions on yields and progressively stagnating yields. Currently, the rate of yield improvements of the major crops is behind that required to meet the demands of the predicted global population in 2050^[2]. Unless crop yields are increased above the current trend line of around 1% per annum for major food security crops (wheat, rice and maize) to well above 2%, then food shortages are likely to become more prevalent as the century progresses. Yield potential of crops needs to be increased, but this should be combined with resilience to environmental stresses, particularly drought and heat. This is a current grand challenge for agriculture.

Currently, the rate of yield improvements of the major crops is behind that required to meet the demands of the predicted global population in 2050.'

Climate change

Two main effects of climate change, increasing temperature and altered rainfall patterns, are predicted to reduce crop yields. Additionally, there is the likelihood of extreme event scenarios, also expected to have a negative impact. Increasing CO₂ levels may have a beneficial effect on photosynthesis, but interestingly this is not being seen in global trends of crop yields e.g. the plateauing of wheat yields in the UK since 1995^[3].

This would suggest that the benefits of increasing photosynthesis due to year-on-year increase in CO₂ levels, now accelerating at 3 ppm per year, are quite minimal and that limitations to yield lie elsewhere. Global temperatures have risen by 0.5°C in the last 50 years (NASA climate data). For every 1°C increase in temperature, there is a yield loss of wheat (6%), maize (7.4%), rice (3.2%) and soybean (3.1%)^[4]. Changing rainfall patterns may lead to more unpredictable droughts. Drought is already the major widespread abiotic factor that limits global crop yields.

Improving crop yields for the 21^st century

Increases in yield potential need to be combined with resilience to a mix of abiotic stresses. However, this is some task as mechanisms of productivity do not necessarily overlap with mechanisms of stress resilience.

Mechanisms of resilience in the natural environment are more about survival than about high yield. There are examples of genes that confer tolerance and survival of drought, which have been transferred by genetic modification; these produce plants that perform and survive better under drought, but grow less well under full irrigation. This is not an acceptable compromise^[5]. Hence an important goal is to combine improvements in drought and heat tolerance with improvements in overall yield potential under optimal conditions.

Forward and reverse genetic approaches

Conventional breeding has succeeded in feeding world populations, but yield improvements through this route are currently slower than required to meet projected population growth. Ways of speeding up yield improvements are required. Usually the genetic and physiological bases of yield improvements are unclear. This means that more directed and targeted breeding with markers is not possible.

To speed up the breeding process, crop improvement can start from a forward or reverse genetic approach (Figure 1). With the ability to clone genes, reverse genetics became a popular way to understand the functions of specific genes through the creation of knockouts or over expressers in transgenic plants. This has been a very powerful means to understand gene function in the context of whole plant physiology, often termed molecular physiology. It was thought that transgenic crops for enhanced yield and resilience to abiotic stresses would soon become common place in agriculture. However, despite GM crops having been extremely successful for traits, such as insect pest resistance and herbicide resistance, yield and abiotic stress resilience have been far less amenable to improvement by GM. This is often because we do not know the yield or drought genes to target. Additionally, yield and abiotic resilience are complex multigenic processes, hence simple changes are not likely to produce positive outcomes unless master regulator genes that regulate other genes can be identified^[6].

Forward genetic approaches seek to find genes associated with improved traits so that in the absence of other selection methods, genetic markers could be developed to enable more rapid screening of germplasm. However, genomics assisted selection has not yet contributed much to the improvement of stress tolerant varieties. Sequence-based DNA markers, notably single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), are gaining popularity and are expected to advance the dissection of complex traits on complex genomes due to their high linkage with heritable variation^[7]. The regions within genomes that contain genes associated with a quantitative trait are known as quantitative trait loci (QTLs). The full benefits of molecular markers in selecting for quantitative traits is still challenging as most marker techniques are just qualitative measures indicating the presence of a gene with no information on levels of expression and its integration with genetic and regulatory networks. It is necessary therefore to integrate molecular tools with precise high-throughput phenotyping and biochemical analysis to confirm the consistency of molecular markers. Detection of QTLs containing the genes conferring quantitative traits, including drought tolerance, have revolutionised the selection process towards marker assisted and genomic selection. Time will tell if this results in significant improvements in the rates of introduction of new varieties.

Additionally, attempts are being made to increase the genetic diversity of major crops. The National Institute of Agricultural Botany in Cambridge has recreated the original rare cross between an ancient wheat and wild grass species that happened in the Middle East 10,000 years ago. The result is a ‘synthetic’ wheat which, when crossed with modern UK varieties, could offer new sources of yield improvement, drought tolerance and other traits. The synthetic hexaploid wheat breeding programme re-captures some of the variation from those ancient wild relatives lost during the domestication of wheat as agriculture evolved.

Figure. 1. Forward and reverse genetic approaches used in the development of new crop varieties

Breeding for drought

The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) has provided wheat varieties adapted to marginal environments, which have been adopted globally through multi-environmental testing and collaboration with international breeding programmes^[8].

However, the rate of yield increase is still too low to catch up with the projected 70% increase in demand for wheat by 2050. Much of the yield increase under drought is likely to result from spill over benefits of selection for yield improvement under good growing conditions e.g. reduced plant height.

The flowering period is a growth stage particularly sensitive to drought. Delayed silking is a side effect of drought and is commonly used for selection in breeding approaches to drought tolerance for maize. In wheat, reduced number of days to anthesis and maturity enables the crop to evade terminal drought. Leaf width has proved to be a good selection parameter for early vigour to increase water use efficiency because evaporation of water from the ground is reduced due to the faster establishment of leaf canopy^[9]. This is important in regions with Mediterranean-type climates. Root angle is a common trait for selecting drought-tolerant phenotypes, where the root angle directly influences root distribution in the soil allowing for deeper roots to develop and find water.

Wheat traits of reduced evaporative losses and maintenance of assimilate production, seen in leaf rolling and flag leaf persistence, are used as selection parameters. Several phenotypic drought-responsive traits in wheat have been correlated with molecular markers allowing precise mapping of their respective quantitative trait loci (QTLs) on chromosomes. However, QTL identification for tracing drought tolerance remains a challenge due to the large number of genes influencing the trait, instability of some QTLs, the large size of the wheat genome and epistatic QTL interactions. To date, several putative QTLs for drought tolerance-related traits have been mapped in wheat, particularly on the A and B genomes.

Stable carbon isotope (13-C) analysis is an important method of assessing plant responses to environmental stress, especially drought^[10]. Plants discriminate against 13-C during photosynthesis, resulting in a lower 13-C isotopic composition in plant tissue than in the atmosphere. Studies have shown that the degree of discrimination against 13-C is determined largely by intercellular CO2 concentration, which is controlled by the ratio of photosynthesis to stomatal conductance. Stable carbon isotope discrimination may be used to estimate water use efficiency over the crop life cycle integrating physiological responses over time rather than presenting a series of ‘snapshot’ measurements.

Graham Farquhar and Richard Richards from the Australian National University and CSIRO in Australia showed that variation in the carbon isotope composition of different wheat types was correlated with water use efficiency. They screened the leaves of different wheat strains to determine the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 and identify the plants that had higher water use efficiency. They suggested that this carbon isotope analysis could be used to select water efficient wheat varieties in breeding programmes.

Wheat varieties with low carbon discrimination were identified and crossbred with wheat of good quality grain and yield to produce a strain that could use water more efficiently. The researchers succeeded in producing the first commercial wheat varieties to be bred using gene selection techniques that had improved yield for the same amount of water. The first varieties, called Drysdale wheat and Rees wheat, were specifically designed for dry environments like Australia.

These wheat varieties were very successful and the technique of identifying water efficient plants using stable isotopes of carbon has also been applied to other crops, such as rice and barley.

Figure 2: Scanalysern field phenotyping platform at Rothamsted Research used to measure crop growth, development and performance at field scale

Figure 3: Genetic variation displayed in winter wheat plots at Rothamsted Research

GM of drought tolerance

The only commercially available drought-tolerant crop that constitutively overexpresses the Bacillis subtilis cold shock protein B (CspB) is maize. This improves plant performance under drought imposed during vegetative as well as reproductive development. CspB gene expression stabilises plant RNA and helps plant cells to produce proteins that are essential for growth, which supports yield formation when water is scarce. Transgenic plants produced more chlorophyll and had higher photosynthetic rates. The commercially available CspB maize trait improved grain yield by 6% when water-deficit was imposed at mid-vegetative to mid-reproductive stages in multi-year field testing^[11].

Recently, GM, again of just one gene but this time using a developmental promoter rather than a constitutive promoter to control gene expression, has resulted in even larger improvements in yield under drought in maize. Drought during the flowering period can result in the abortion of developing kernels due to impaired sucrose supply. Expression of a trehalose phosphate phosphatase (TPP) gene under the control of a MADS6 promoter, expressed only in reproductive tissue during the flowering period, results in more sucrose in kernels reducing kernel abortion. It is thought that trehalose 6-phosphate (T6P) is a key regulatory metabolite that determines the use and allocation of sucrose at the whole plant level.

By changing T6P abundance with the TPP gene, which encodes a phosphatase enzyme that metabolises T6P, it is thought that a starvation signal is generated by lower abundance of T6P, which results in more sucrose import into the kernels. It is likely that T6P is a master regulator and regulates many genes that determine sucrose use and allocation in crops, a process central in determining yield and resilience. Maize plants with this genetic change were 9-49% higher yielding under mild or no drought conditions and up to 123% higher yielding under more severe drought^[12].

Interestingly, a TPP gene has also been shown to underpin a QTL responsible for germination of rice under flooding anoxia^[13]. In this case TPP enables better mobilisation of starch reserves required during germination under flooding. This means that rice can be directly seeded rather than transplanted saving the drudgery and labour-intensive process of transplanting rice plants to flooded fields. A convergence of different traits around one regulatory pathway centring on T6P means that this pathway may have great potential as a target in crop yield enhancements for different environments.

Heat stress

As with drought tolerance, heat stress tolerance is a complex multigenic trait. An increase in temperature leads to faster development, shorter crop duration and hence less light interception and assimilation during the life cycle; it also increases maintenance respiration rate meaning less carbon is available for yield formation. More extreme heat during flowering can limit fertility, impairing pollen viability and meiosis^[14]. The same constraints for improving crop resilience to drought apply to heat.

More knowledge is required about the fundamental science of which genes could be targeted for yield improvement. It is possible that similar mechanisms could protect against both heat and drought. This will be useful as heat and drought often occur together.

It may be that improvements in carbon use and allocation found to improve performance under drought and flooding could also be targeted for improvements in heat tolerance i.e. increased allocation of sucrose to reproductive structures and slower consumption and respiration of sucrose at higher temperatures.

Conclusions

The development of agriculture and the crop yield improvements of the 20th century have led to and sustain civilisation over much of the globe. Poverty and food shortages are still problematic but could be addressed through further improvements in crop yields. This is particularly important given continuing population growth and climate change predicted over the next 50 years.

For real advances in the production of higher yielding, stress-resilient crops, there needs to be a coming together of different disciplines and sectors of crop research. For example, research on the understanding of the fundamental crop processes that limit yields often conducted in universities and institutes should be combined with phenotyping and the large-scale field trialling facilities of the private sector. Genetic resources should be shared and closer collaborations set up between institutions.

Genetic variation and the power of genomics, coupled with application of knowledge of the processes and underpinning genes that limit yields in the agricultural system, would be the route to the delivery of a second green revolution for the 21^st century.

Dr Matthew J Paul, Plant Science, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Herts, AL5 2JQ, UK

Guest Professor NEF University, Harbin, China

Email:matthew.paul@rothamsted.ac.ukTel: +44 1582 938230

Web:https://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/our-people/matthew-paul

References

1. Khush GS (2001) Green revolution: the way forward. Nature Reviews Genetics 2, 815-822

2. Ray et al. (2013) Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PlosOne 8, e66428

3. Grassini et al. (2013) Distinguishing between yield advances and yield plateaus inn historical crop production trends. Nature Communications 4, 2918

4. Zhao C et al. (2017) Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 114, 9326–9331

5. Paul MJ and Griffiths CA (2017) Targeting carbon for crop yield and drought resilience. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture doi 10.1002/jsfa.8501

6. Paul MJ et al. (2017) Are GM crops for yield and resilience possible? Trends in Plant Science doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2017.09.007

7. Mwadzingeni L et al. (2016) Breeding wheat for drought tolerance: Progress and technologies. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 15, 935-943

8.  Manes Y et al. (2012) Genetic gains of the CIMMYT international semi-arid wheat yield trials from 1994 to 2010. Crop Science 52, 1543-1552

9. Zhang L et al. (2015) Recurrent selection for wider seedling leaves increases early biomass and leaf area in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Experimental Botany 66, 1215-1226

10. Farqhuar GD et al. (1989) Carbon Isotope Fractionation and Plant Water-Use Efficiency. In: Stable Isotopes in Ecological Research pp 21-40, Springer

11. Nemali KS et al. (2015) Physiological responses related to increased grain yield under drought in the first biotechnology-derived drought-tolerant maize. Plant Cell and Environment 38, 1866-1880.

12. Nuccio ML et al. (2015) Expression of trehalose 6-phosphate phosphatase in maize ears improves yield in well-watered and drought conditions. Nature Biotechnology 33, 862-869

13. Kretzschmar T et al. (2015) A trehalose 6-phosphate phosphatase enhances anaerobic germination tolerance in rice. Nature Plants 1, 15124

14. Driedonks N et al. (2016) Breeding for heat tolerance at vegetative and reproductive stages. Plant Reproduction 29, 67-79

John Ingram of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford discusses the different strategies for addressing food system resilience and the new opportunities that these will create in the food sector.

Introduction

One of the great human achievements over the last half-century is that advances in global food production have largely kept pace with global demand. Today, around 6 billion people are not hungry, up from about 2 billion 50 years ago. Nevertheless, there are still about 1 billion hungry people and at least 2 billion more lacking sufficient nutrients. Paradoxically, there are also more than 2.5 billion people who are overweight or obese. Different, overlapping forms of malnutrition are now the ‘new normal’^[1].

With population growth and increasing wealth in a strongly-emerging middleclass apparent in many nations, food demand will continue to rise in coming decades. If diets for the increasingly-wealthy continue to move towards more processed foods, often higher in ‘empty calories’, there will be significant negative impacts on diet-related disease. We also know that current food system activities will continue to have a significant negative impact on the natural resource base. Without radical changes to the methods of production, satisfying this increasing demand will lead to massive environmental degradation, further undermining the natural resource base upon which our food security depends^[2]. The poor and marginalised will be affected first and most strongly.

Much of the change in food demand is linked to urbanisation, with consumers having more-ready access to a wider range of ‘empty calories’^[3]. The change in consumers’ options and preferences, and thereby consumption patterns, drives food systems changes. The challenge ahead is to achieve food security for a growing, wealthier, urbanising population, while minimising further environmental degradation. This needs to be achieved against a background of climate change and natural resource depletion, concurrent with changes in socioeconomic-cultural conditions. Some of these changes are gradual (e.g. global mean temperature increase, demography, sea level rise), and can be thought of as increasing stresses. Others are sudden (e.g. extreme weather events, financial market crashes, disease outbreaks, conflict), and can be thought of as shocks. This then leads to the question of how do we increase the resilience of our food systems to these stresses and shocks?

This question has come into sharp focus in recent years, driven by increasing recognition of the many and varied negative environmental and health trends in food system outcomes, and the nature and potential magnitude of stresses and shocks. There is however also a recognition of the need to maintain vibrant, competitive agri-food enterprises (and their associated livelihoods), which underpin our food systems.

Without radical changes to the methods of production, satisfying this increasing demand will lead to massive environmental degradation.’

Above: Disruption to rail transportation

Below: Food bank distribution

Different notions of resilience

What then do we want from food systems? Food security is of course a primary goal, and a widely-accepted definition is ‘when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’^[4]. We can therefore think of food system resilience in general terms as the system’s capacity to maintain this desired state of food security when exposed to stresses and shocks. There are also a number of additional outcomes that both actors within the food system – as well as the policy and decision makers, NGOs and others trying to influence it – would like to see resilient. Examples are the food system’s environmental performance or its economic and/or social outcomes. The idea that resilience is the capacity to maintain desired states then leads to a number of different notions of resilience. Three are commonly considered:

First, robustness: the ability to resist disruption to desired outcome. Food system examples include developing more heat-tolerant crops, strategic grain reserves and stronger food distribution infrastructure (e.g. harbours, railways). This requires considerable political and financial investment.

Second, recovery: the ability to return to desired outcome following disruption. Food system examples include insurance to re-instate crops or physical infrastructure and emergency food distribution systems. This requires contingency planning and funding.

Third, re-organisation: the ability to make changes in the system so as to maintain desired outcomes. This is commonly termed ‘adaptation’ and food system examples include changing farming systems, diversifying sources of primary ingredients, diversifying food chain operations and better buffered market infrastructure. This requires lateral thinking.

There is, however, a fourth way to think of resilience of food security outcomes – re-orientation: the ability to accept alternative outcomes. But understanding this depends on considering carefully the food security definition quoted above. Key words are ‘sufficient’ and ‘preference’. Sufficient means enough for a given purpose, i.e. the right amount. Changing consumption patterns to reduce the physiologically-unnecessary (and unhealthy) over-consumption would increase food system resilience due to the system not having to produce so much food in the face of perturbations. Changing preferences, i.e. accepting a different diet composition, would also increase food system resilience due to accepting a diet less dependent on either foods more susceptible to disruption, or which have high-environmental impact, thereby reducing the risk of undermining the long-term ability of the natural resource base to produce food.

Elements of ‘robustness’, ‘recovery’ and ‘re-organisation’ will all be important components of increasing food system resilience. However, an extrapolation of recent and current consumption patterns over coming decades due to increases in both population and wealth, together with the potential stresses and shocks, indicates that a radical shift in consumption patterns of the ‘over-consumers’ is needed^[5].

So, while there is a clear need to develop more productive food producing systems that are more environmentally benign, a major advance also needs to be made in the demand side of the equation. ‘Re-orientation’ can also be termed ‘transformation’, and ultimately could prove to be the most important as it is the one that most significantly combines the notions of sustainability and robustness. Food system examples include consumer education/ awareness programmes, taxes on more environmental- and health-impactful processes and products, and subsidies for more sustainable food system activities. Thus we need to think of ways not only of how to better understand food system reactions to stresses and shocks, but also how to actively facilitate transformations and manage food system resilience with multiple goals in mind.

All four ways to consider resilience not only challenge the food sector but also offer tremendous opportunities: new methods for primary production; primary and secondary processing, marketing and retail; new, more environmentally-benign formulations aimed at emerging markets; and new professionals coming into the sector equipped with food systems ‘thinking’ to help maintain vibrant enterprises. Identifying and seizing these opportunities will be increasingly important as the nature of stresses and shocks become ever clearer.

Global Food Security’, the UK cross-government programme on food security research, launched a £14.5m set of projects under the banner ‘Resilience of the UK Food System in a Global Context.’

Crop damage from extreme weather

Cross-government programme

It is against this background that ‘Global Food Security’, the UK cross-government programme on food security research, launched a £14.5m set of projects under the banner ‘Resilience of the UK Food System in a Global Context’.

With funding from BBSRC, ESRC, NERC and the Scottish Government, it aims to help policymakers and practitioners optimise the resilience of the UK’s food system to environmental, biological, economic, social and geopolitical stresses and shocks.

The three research themes are:

1. Optimise the productivity, resilience and sustainability of agricultural systems and landscape.

2. Optimise the resilience of food supply chains.

3. Influence food choice for health, sustainability and resilience at the individual and household level.

Ten projects have been funded with research phase lifetimes up to 2020. While most are orientated towards Theme 1, some span a fuller ‘supply chain’ agenda. Ongoing integration of the individual projects’ results, in the context of changing information needs of a range of other stakeholders, will allow a much stronger understanding of how to enhance the resilience of the UK food system to guide policy and practice.

John Ingram, Food Systems Programme Leader, Environmental Change Institute,

University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK

Email:john.ingram@eci.ox.ac.ukWeb:http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/

References

1. IFPRI, 2016: Global Nutrition Report 2016: From Promise to Impact: Ending Malnutrition by 2030. 180 p. Washington DC.

2. Westhoek, H., J. Ingram, S. van Berkum and M. Hajer, 2016: Food systems and natural resources. UNEP.

3. Tilman, D. and M. Clark, 2014: Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518-522.

4. World Food Summit, 1996. FAO, Rome.

5. Ingram JSI. Look beyond production. 2017. Nature544 S27.

Molly E Brown of the University of Maryland and 6th Grain Global, Singapore, describes a new ICT tool that can help farmers use big data to respond to changing climatic and market conditions.

There are more than 570 million farmers in the world, with family farms cultivating over 75% of all land^[1]. The food produced by these farmers is critical to both their food security and rural economic development in the coming decades. Local agricultural production is determined by the amount and quality of both arable land and agricultural inputs (fertiliser, seeds, pesticides, etc.), as well as the farm-related technology, practices and access to market of farmers. If yields continue to grow more slowly than the number of people living on farms, parts of Africa, Asia and Central and Southern America will experience substantial declines in food availability in coming decades, which may lead to increased food insecurity^[2].

Digital agriculture tools and services, delivered through mobile devices, should improve farmers’ access to high value agricultural inputs and rapid and efficient purchasers of the goods they produce. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) will be part of the fundamental transformation of the agriculture sector. The agriculture value chain will be simplified significantly with technology playing a major role at every step, from logistics of input provisions to just-in-time delivery of produce to consumers. The internet, mobile phones, and related technologies that facilitate the collection, storage, analysis and sharing of data and information are changing many aspects of life among a large and growing share of the world’s population. Even among the poorest 20% in low income countries, 70% have access to mobile phones, more than have access to improved sanitation or electricity in their homes^[3]. The internet, mobile phones and related technologies that facilitate the collection, storage, analysis and sharing of data and information are changing many aspects of life among a large and growing share of the world’s population.

Climate change is likely to transform the predictability of the start, characteristics and end of the growing season in every agricultural region. Responding to these changes in climate will require access to a wider variety of seeds, increased responsiveness to disease and pest pressure, and attention to nutrient management.

Farmers and agribusinesses make innumerable decisions every year, agriculture has been an obvious target for big data approaches. Big data can help farmers make critical farming decisions in response to changing climate and market conditions. It has been a key driver of the progress made in precision agriculture in high income markets, whereby farmers and agribusinesses are using the resources at their disposal in the most efficient way possible to achieve maximum yields. This has been the secret to the enormously successful business model of

software companies, such as Monsanto’s Climate Corporation and FarmLogs in the United States and Cropio in Europe. ICTs can provide high quality, mobile, indispensable tools for farmers around the world and then apply big data analytics to aggregate farmers’inputs, connect farmers directly to consumers and transform the value chain.

Expansion of mobile connectivity

The foundation of this transformation is mobile connectivity. By the end of 2016, two thirds of the world's population had a mobile phone subscription - a total of 4.8 billion unique subscribers. Half of these connections were from smartphones^[3]. The arrival of highly connected, web-enabled mobile technologies into the households of billions of individuals around the world provides an opportunity to completely disrupt the way the global agriculture system is organised. The objective of digital agriculture is to create new ways for farmers to identify and purchase high quality agricultural goods and to improve access to traders, wholesalers, restaurants and individuals needing raw agricultural goods. Just as Facebook and Amazon have transformed the way we buy books and consume news articles, digital agriculture systems can transform the way farmers decide which crops to plant, which seeds and other inputs to buy, and who to sell their produce to.

Mobile technology, availability and access to weather data, remote sensing and agricultural modelling are sufficiently well developed to disrupt the current status quo of the agriculture and food industries.

The demand for food across the world will continue to grow, providing new opportunities for technology that leads to improved farm management and increased productivity. Demand for cereals, for both food and animal feed, is projected to reach some 3 billion tonnes by 2050, up from today’s nearly 2.1 billion tonnes. The demand for other food products that are more responsive to higher incomes in the developing countries (such as meat and dairy products, vegetable oils) will grow much faster than that for cereals.

Ninety percent of the growth in crop production globally between now and 2050 is expected to come from higher yields and increased cropping intensity, with the remainder coming from land expansion. Arable land could expand by some 70 million ha (less than 5%), with the expansion in developing countries by about 120 million ha (12%) being offset by a decline of some 50 million ha (8%) in developed countries^[4]. Almost all new cropland expansion in developing countries will take place in sub-Saharan Africa and South America.

The potential to raise crop yields in regions with large gaps between current and potential yields, even with the existing technologies, is considerable. Provided the appropriate socio-economic incentives are in place, there are still ample ‘bridgeable’ gaps in yield (i.e. the difference between agro-ecologically attainable and actual yields) that could be exploited. ICTs are focused on supplying the tools for farmers of all sizes to increase access to agriculture inputs that will help farmers close the gap between actual and potential yields. There are four different ways that information delivered through ICTs can affect outcomes for farmers:

• Short-term information that comes directly to farmers can be used to affect day-to-day decisions, such as whether to apply fertiliser, or when to bring goods to market. This kind of information can be either formal or informal and can be quantitative or descriptive, depending on its source. Examples are weather forecasts, market prices, availability or location of pasture for grazing of livestock, or the availability of less expensive transportation options.

• Short-term information that is mediated through an institution or through formal processes or structures. This includes the farmers’ rights, government services, or agriculture subsidies that can be obtained during the growing season.

• Long-term information that comes directly to farmers to strengthen the livelihood assets of the farmer or community. This includes agricultural extension, information on agriculture technology, such as drought-resistant maize varieties or the availability of disease-free yam shoots, access to fair trade initiatives or channels that encourage the participation in markets by poor farmers.

• Long-term information that is mediated by institutions or governments that can improve farmer incomes or livelihoods, such as the location of education, health services, training, microfinance, insurance or other programmes that are organised and provided by institutions, be they private or public^[5].

A major challenge for ICTs in agriculture is their sustainability and their ability to meet their stated goals and objectives. If information is mediated through an institution, then the design of the system should be different than if its goal is to provide information that can be used directly by the farmer. All mobile applications need to be supported as technology and the ways people use it changes rapidly, with both software and hardware changing through time. To be sustainable, an application needs to evolve as its users’ needs evolve and to provide sufficient benefit to the farmer to ensure a high adoption rate and actual use, as well as to the developer and others involved in its production and support. Many ICTs being developed for low income countries today are either not used widely or fail to have a sustainable business model for their developers beyond donor funding^[6].

Mobile technology, availability and access to weather data, remote sensing and agricultural modelling are sufficiently well developed to disrupt the current status quo of the agriculture and food industries.’

ICTs for small farmers in low income communities

Figure 1 Digitising a field using Google Earth as a base

ICTs start with the farmer. By knowing the location of farmers’ fields, the crop and variety planted and the management strategy used in a field, they can support decisions and improve the profitability of farming businesses. Farmers can digitise their fields, enabling them to take notes online, receive high resolution satellite imagery of crop health, weather and disease alerts all in one place. Mobile agriculture tools can be designed to work just as well for small farmers in Africa and Asia as they do for large commercial farmers in the United States, Europe and Russia. Mobile ICTs can transform how farmers access information and services.

Online and mobile applications can allow farmers to efficiently manage their farm and finances by providing easy access to geospatial data and models to increase access to services and improve farm profitability.

An example of an innovative, new ICT is 6th Grain Global’s FieldFocus, which is an online and mobile tool developed for farmers to digitise their fields and get information about crop health and weather (Figure 1). Through an innovative user interface, FieldFocus allows the user to digitise their fields in the system using a simple online interface, where farmers search a Google Maps image for their community, identify their field and click the mouse along the borders of each field that they manage.

Farmers with limited internet access or limited computer literacy can have their fields digitised by an extension agent, retailer, community leader or by 6th Grain itself.

After adding information about crop planted, variety, start and end dates for the current season and previous years’ yields, FieldFocus then delivers satellite imagery that allows a farmer to visualise how his

Figure 2: Every digitised field has an accurate area calculated, which when combined with farmer-provided production information, will allow for high quality in-season yield estimates updated every day.

crop is doing across a single field. FieldFocus provides weather information, agronomic recommendations, field scouting imagery and daily crop yield estimates. The tool connects farmer information to geospatial data and models. Farmers can upgrade the level of services they receive to improve farm profitability. FieldFocus provides easy outreach mechanisms allowing the farmer to receive agronomic recommendations, field scouting data, and daily crop yield estimates (Figure 2).

By working across all levels of farm commercialisation, 6^th Grain can bring digital tools and information on inputs and off-take to all farmers, regardless of their farm size or capabilities (Figure 3). The tool allows farmers to track their fields and their crop's progress throughout the season using high resolution remote sensing-derived indices:

• Plant health is an index of vegetation that is related to crop biomass and canopy closure.

• Relative health index displays relative vegetation of field areas in comparison with a selected calibration point of the field.

Figure 3: How ICTs can improve the output and profit of farmers

New imagery is acquired every 3-5 days and provided to the farmer without regard to field size or location around the world. Once this imagery is posted, the farmer is notified, drawing him or her to the application several times per week. FieldFocus is a full-feature mobile farm management tool intended to be used by farmers in countries across Africa, Asia and Europe with highly varying field sizes and management approaches. Farmers learn from each other across multiple crops and income levels.

Features of FieldFocus include:

• Exact area calculations for each field, improving yield estimates for all farmers

• Online farmer notebook that is maintained year after year and always accessible

• Daily in-season yield updates depending on crop health, weather and inputs

• Disease alarms for common crop diseases for that crop and location

• Daily weather information

• Management calendar with ‘alerts’ for today’s activities across all fields

• Crop health alerts based on high resolution satellite imagery for large fields (over 5 hectares)

• Income calculators to determine the value of different crop inputs on overall farm income

• Off-season crop planner including logistics and purchasing guide for inputs, automatically calculating exact quantities of crop inputs for each variety being planted.

Future releases of FieldFocus will include a ‘shopping cart’ that will calculate for the farmer exactly how much seed, fertiliser and crop protection is required for each field and crop variety planned. This is enabled by extremely accurate field size information, details about where the farmer is located, and options for purchasing these products. Working with agribusinesses, this field can be populated with seed management protocols, amended by weather and management strategy of the farmer (low, medium or high inputs applied and level of mechanisation). Introducing mobile-based logistics into small, non-commercial agriculture regions can reduce transaction and transportation costs, a significant barrier to improved market functioning in many low income regions^[7]. Aggregating this information over thousands of registered farmers in a market, allows calculation of commission on these products, and helps reduce logistics and transportation costs to both the farmer and to the producer of the products.

Table 1 Benefits of ICTs to different groups in the agriculture sector

Molly Elizabeth Brown, PhD, Associate Research Professor, Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, and Chief Science Officer, 6th Grain Global Private Limited, 391B, Orchard Road #23-01, Ngee

Ann City Tower B, Singapore 238874. Formerly with NASA.

Tel: 703-855-6190 Email:mbrown52@umd.eduWeb:https://6grain.com

References

1. S. K. Lowder, J. Skoet, and T. Raney, “The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide,” World Dev., vol. 87, pp. 16–29, Nov. 2016.

2. C. Funk and M. E. Brown, “Declining Global Per Capital Agricultural Capacity and Warming Oceans Threaten Food Security,” Food Secur. J., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 271–289, 2009.

3. GSMA, “The Mobile Economy 2017,” London, UK, 2017.

4. P. Tittonell and K. E. Giller, “When yield gaps are poverty traps: The paradigm of ecological intensification in African smallholder agriculture,” F. Crop. Res., vol. 143, pp. 76–90, 2013.

5. R. Duncombe, “Using the livelihoods framework to analyze ICT applications for poverty reduction through microenterprise,” Inf. Technol. Int. Dev., vol. 3, no. 3, p. pp--81, 2006.

6. C. I. Pade, B. Mallinson, and D. Sewry, “An exploration of the categories associated with ICT project sustainability in rural areas of developing countries: A case study of the Dwesa project,” in Proceedings of the 2006 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries, 2006, pp. 100–106.

7. C. B. Barrett, M. E. Bachke, M. F. Bellemare, H. C. Michelson, S. Narayanan, and T. F. Walker, “Smallholder Participation in Contract Farming: Comparative Evidence from Five Countries,” World Dev., vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 715–730, 2012.

John Newton of the Carbon Trust explains the value of certification in reducing the environmental impact of food products and building consumer trust.

Introduction

Although many consumers try to make good environmental choices when they go shopping, they often do not have the time to research every decision before buying. This is particularly true as we approach the festive season, when the last thing consumers have time to think about is sustainability during the rush of Christmas shopping.

Fortunately some purchasing decisions are simpler than others, such as the option to buy a completely natural, locally grown Christmas tree versus an imported artificial one. The natural one is obviously better right?

Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The Carbon Trust carried out a study a few years ago, which showed that it depends how long you plan to use the artificial one and how you dispose of the natural one as to which has the lowest carbon footprint. If you are planning to keep using the same tree for more than 10 years, from a carbon perspective, the artificial tree would in fact be the better choice.

There are as many such environmental conundrums facing shoppers, particularly when it comes to choosing food. Because of the number of choices we have to make in a limited timescale, we are forced to make assumptions about environmental impacts. For example, do apples from Spain have a lower carbon footprint than apples from New Zealand? Intuitively it would seem so, but in order to know for certain you would need to ask a whole lot of questions from both producers, and you may find out that the opposite of your assumption is true.

Coupled to this, as consumers, we are often influenced by packaging that makes a product look environmentally friendly, or by suggestive claims made by food producers. So as consumers, how do we make informed and sound choices?

Do apples from Spain have a lower carbon footprint than apples from New Zealand?’

Food labelling

As a starting point, consumers need access to impartial facts about the environmental impacts of the products that they buy.

One solution is to have food producers provide environmental impact information in the form of product labels backed by independent certification, which informs consumers and drives better choices.

There are examples of food companies that have done just that. Quorn is a food producer with a vision ‘to make food that’s better for us and better for the planet’, and was also the first global meat-alternative brand to achieve third-party certification of its carbon footprint data.

Quorn initially gained certification from the Carbon Trust of its most popular product in 2012 and has been adding to its portfolio of certified products ever since. Quorn has significantly built much of its brand equity on its products’ environmental credentials and health benefits. The certified Quorn products carry the carbon label on pack, which communicates to their customers their commitment to show continuous reduction in their products’ carbon footprints year-on- year.

Database

One of the historical constraints of enabling product specific environmental certification has been lack of data and the resource required to obtain it.

However, the once daunting task of looking at full-lifecycle carbon has been made easier by three progressive trends. The first is the advent of new technologies that automate data collection with greater precision and accuracy. The second is the greater availability of both specific and generic data, e.g. transport, packaging etc., which is now available from a powerful database of footprints that the Carbon Trust has collected over one and a half decades of carbon footprinting. Thirdly, the international methodologies for calculating embodied carbon have matured and simplified, allowing us to certify entire categories of similar products simultaneously, rather than calculating a separate footprint for each individual product.

These trends make it a lot simpler and less costly to communicate the environmental credentials of products, which helps to explain why carbon product footprinting and labelling is a resurging trend.

Carbon hotspots

Of course, it is not only about communication. The direct link between cost and carbon means that food producers can make savings to the bottom line by identifying and reducing carbon hotspots in their value chain.

Understanding the interactions between the different elements of the value chain provides insights that inform decision-making and lead to longer term savings through continuous improvement.

The Carbon Trust helped Bord Bia (the Irish Food Board) and Teagasc (The National Agricultural Research & Farm Advisory Body) to explore and model the complicated carbon emissions associated with agriculture, to enable them to understand the resource competitiveness of Irish agriculture, specifically dairy, beef, poultry, pork and lamb.

By conducting sustainability audits, over 50,000 farm assessments have provided bespoke feedback to help farmers identify improvements that deliver financial and environmental improvements.

Sustainable development

Although climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing the food industry, there are many other environmental impacts and resources to consider. Sustainability is a broad church as represented by seventeen UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

In a perfect world, all organisations would include all seventeen goals into their sustainable business strategies. In reality, a more pragmatic approach may be necessary, such as prioritising SDGs linked to externalities that are likely to have the greatest impact on their industry. This could be achieved by identifying which resources an organisation is able to manage, that drive those externalities. For this reason, Bord Bia has extended its assurance scheme from carbon measurement to develop a framework that captures farm performance in relation to other sustainability measures including water, waste, biodiversity and community engagement.

For the food industry, carbon, water and waste are good starting points. The links between climate, food, energy and water have been well articulated by UN Water, which asserts that the water-food-energy nexus is central to sustainable development.

Due to rising global population, rapid urbanisation, changing diets and economic growth, the demand for all three resources, i.e. water, food and energy, is increasing.

Another clear priority in the food sector is waste. According to WRAP, food waste from households, hospitality and food service, food manufacture, retail and wholesale is responsible for 20 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, which directly contribute to climate change and also results in 10 million tonnes of wasted food, 60% of which could have been avoided.

The more companies that certify their own organisations and their products, the more informed procurement choices become for both business and consumers’

Certification schemes

To address these issues, the Carbon Trust developed its Standard for Carbon, Water and Waste (the Triple Standard), to recognise organisations that take a best practice approach to measuring and managing these three environmental pillars of sustainability, and achieving real reductions year-on-year.

The Standard also provides frameworks to enhance sustainability and improve efficiency and resource management at the same time as cutting costs. ABP was the first food producer to achieve the Carbon Trust ‘Triple’ Standard for Carbon, Water and Waste, which was driven by ABP Food Group’s ‘Doing More with Less’ sustainability strategy.

This initiated a number of ambitious targets to be achieved by 2020 with a view to substantially reducing ABP Food Group’s environmental footprint. The Carbon Trust Triple Standard enabled ABP to demonstrate its leadership credentials through achieving significant ongoing reductions in its own environmental impact.

In a similar way, the Carbon Trust developed the Green Kitchen Standard in conjunction with the Soil Association. The certification is designed to endorse best practice in food provenance and environmental management in a catering outlet. It introduces the ‘balanced scorecard’ tool for public food procurement as well as best practice in carbon, water and waste. This certification is used to help public sector procurers identify best practice as well as responsible environmental management when choosing caterers.

Conclusions

The direction of travel for environmental certification is to continue to incorporate more elements of sustainability. Further, with the aid of technology leading to greater data availability and the maturing of certification methodologies, sustainability is becoming easier over time for food producers to achieve. The more companies that certify their own organisations and their products, the more informed procurement choices become for both business and consumers. It would therefore be tempting to think that the problem is solved.

However this would be a misrepresentation of the situation. Many food producers have not yet started on this journey and one of the reasons given for inertia is that ‘our customers don’t ask for it’.

While this was historically true, it is less true today. As the urgency to address climate change through direct experience increases, the more important independent, impartial and factual information becomes.

Companies that are certifying are directly benefiting from lower costs in their value chains and are also already tapping into niche markets. As those niche markets are likely to become more mainstream, they are well placed to lead this sector in future.

John Newton, Associate Director, The Carbon Trust, Certification team

4th Floor, Dorset House, 27-45 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NT, UK

Web:www.carbontrust.comEmail: john.newton@carbontrust.com

Professor Sarah Bridle, Principle Investigator for the STFC Food Network+, describes the launch of the Network and its ambitions to apply the skills and facilities of the Science and Technology Facilities Council to tackling the challenges facing food supply.

The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) Food Network+ (SFN) was created in order to bring together STFC researchers and facilities with research and industry in the agrifood sector.

The SFN is building an interdisciplinary community working to provide a sustainable, secure supply of safe, nutritious, and affordable high-quality food using less land, with reduced inputs, and in the context of global climate change and declining natural resources. The SFN is highlighting and developing key opportunities for the STFC community to make a meaningful contribution to the food system - from sustainable intensification, through building resilience in supply chains to novel technologies to engage consumers and help change behaviour and improve nutrition.

The STFC Food collaborations and research projects working towards safe, sustainable food systems both in the UK and developing countries.

• To enhance the impact of STFC/food interdisciplinary collaborations by encouraging co-design with the non-academic sector.

The Network launch meeting was held in June 2017 and this was attended by around 80 people from the 600+ member group. The meeting enabled lots of introductions to be made and created opportunities for knowledge share between the STFC Physics and AgriFood communities. Since the Launch, the focus has been on building the network and its capabilities together with the appointment of 6 SFN Champions, who are now poised to engage with their respective communities and with each other to catalyse new interdisciplinary ideas.

In order to achieve its objectives, the Network aims to fill the intersections in Figure 1 with active projects and help them to become sufficiently well established to continue beyond the network support through other funding and/or industry backing. Well-connected, collegiate and dynamic experts on each of the 3 food and 3 STFC areas will engage their communities with the potential of the network, brainstorm with each other about possible connections and encourage new interactions. These Champions are working within the Network themes as follows:

Figure 1 Intersections between the STFC Network+ facilities and expertise and the challenges facing food science

Theme 1: Sustainable food production

This theme is focused on developing food production systems that maintain healthy soils, reduce impact on the natural environment and provide reliable yield in the face of changing climate.

SFN Champion for Sustainable Food Production, Simon Pearson, has a wealth of experience within the agri-food sector both in academia (Reading and Lincoln) and industry. His industry domain experience includes 8 years within the Marks and Spencer food group and a further 8 years running farming companies in the UK and Portugal.

Simon now leads the Lincoln Institute of Agri Food Technology that conducts interdisciplinary and collaborative research with industry. Key focus areas are the use of robotics in agri-food (soil sensing, crop picking and the use of autonomous vehicles), the impact of water on agricultural systems (diffuse pollution, salinisation) and the application of digital technology in agri food (IoT, system modelling and control). Simon is PI of an STFC Ag Tech China grant that is deploying novel sensor technology on robotic platforms to measure soil moisture. The data gathered will be used to support the development of radar based EO (Earth Observation) techniques to estimate soil moisture.

The vast and complex food system is ultimately interdisciplinary and consumes biological, engineering, physical, social, digital, environmental and economic sciences. The challenges facing the food system are highly complex and large scale and interdisciplinary approaches are needed to find solutions. The SFN provides an ecosystem that encourages interdisciplinary research by matching industry, academia and funding mechanisms to drive sustainability in the food system.

At the launch meeting, opportunities for deploying STFC facilities within the agri food domain were identified, in particular the STFC capability in data science. There is no doubt that digital technologies (IoT, blockchain, digital connectivity and architectures) will drive productivity and system sustainability in the future, however, the data requirements and opportunity in the food system are so vast that new digital approaches will be required. Simon would like to receive ideas for possible projects.

The challenges facing the food system are highly complex and large scale and interdisciplinary approaches are needed to find solutions.’

Theme 2: Resilient food supply chains

This theme goes from farm to fork, covering the monitoring, modelling and design of food supply chains to enhance resilience, environmental and social benefits, and public health. Sonal Choudhary is SFN Champion for Resilient Food Supply Chains. She is an ardent believer in the potential of multidisciplinary research to combat the complex challenges arising from global food systems.

Sonal has a strong educational and research background in plant sciences, environmental sciences and agri-food supply chains. She is currently working at Sheffield University Management School, where her research focuses on UK agri-food value chain risk analyses, sustainability performance of global food supply chains, identifying inefficiencies within the supply chain and exploring value maximisation opportunities using continuous improvement cycle. Most recently, Sonal has initiated projects co-designed with industrial partners that involve identifying and evaluating risk-based resilience at production, processing and retail level. She is particularly interested in researching how big data and disruptive technologies, such as IoT and Blockchain, can be used for value maximisation and building sustainable food systems.

Owing to global challenges, such as climate change, growing population, dietary transitions and changing supply chain dynamics, it is imperative to understand the potential risks within food supply chains and enhance capabilities to analyse and mitigate them. In addition to building resilience, it is equally important to maximise value in supply chains through the use of disruptive technologies and advanced data sciences.

There is considerable potential for the STFC data science, computational facilities, including e-infrastructure, to support large-scale data analysis and technology for building resilient agri-food supply chains that could provide opportunities for value maximisation for stakeholders. Sonal would like to invite new research ideas and potential projects.

Theme 3: Improved nutrition and consumer behaviours

This network extends all the way to investigating consumers’ dietary needs, food preferences and practices as well as focusing on questions of food supply, affordability and distribution (addressed in Themes 1 and 2), all critical to developing sustainable nutrition.

The SFN Champion for Improved Nutrition and Consumer Behaviours, Christian Reynolds, is enthusiastic about applying STFC facilities, data science, technology, modelling and computational approaches to the challenge of changing consumer behaviour to enhance nutrition and health, whilst reducing waste and demands on land, energy and water.

Christian is currently working at the University of Sheffield, where his research examines the economic and environmental impacts of food consumption with a focus on the energy impacts of cooking, consumer food waste and sustainable dietary shifts.

Running across each of these food themes is existing STFC expertise that can address important research questions within and between the food themes and catalyse new research activity. There are three key areas of STFC expertise: A STFC data science, B STFC technology and C STFC facilities (see boxes on pages 36, 37 and 38).

Both ISIS and Diamond can be used to study particle sizes and aggregation in food samples without the need for any special sample preparation (such as drying). The samples can also be modified (heated, mixed, pressurised etc.) in-situ, which allows users to see how the structures within their samples change in real time. The complementarity of neutrons and X-rays allows scientists to gain a very detailed picture of the materials being studied.

Next steps

Following a survey filled out by over 100 SFN members, STFC has decided to run two sandpits in February, at which the two communities will brainstorm together to come up with new ideas for how STFC can contribute to food.

The first will focus on farm-based measurements to support earth observation to improve food production. The second will look for ways all 3 STFC capabilities can contribute to improving the food supply chain, from farm to fork.

The best proposal from each sandpit will be funded and further proposals will be encouraged to enter the general call for funding, opening soon, leading to several awards of up to 8k each in March.

A ‘handbook’ is being created to provide background information about food challenges, that will be aimed at newcomers, and an introduction to STFC capabilities that will be aimed at food research and industry.

It will be structured around Figure 1, providing basic information about each of the 3 Food and 3 STFC Themes and then exploring the 9 different ways in which they intersect.

High power lasers can be used to study the movement of individual molecules in living plant cells to be observed in real time – this information could hold the key to making crops more disease resistant.’

Achievement of objectives

A successful SFN will have instigated multiple new projects between STFC research and facilities and food research and industry, that would not have happened without its involvement.

The seed funding provided by the SFN should enable these projects to become self-sustaining beyond the SFN collaboration. The SFN will build cross disciplinary communities which understand the skill sets and challenges needed to solve agri-food problems.

An example of simulated data modelled for the CMS detector on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN Source: Lucas Taylor for CERN http:// cdsweb.cern.ch/record/628469

Beagle-2 and Rosetta spacecraft’s lander Philae All Rights Reserved Beagle 2 http://beagle2.open.ac.uk/resources/photo-album.htm

X-ray A: United States Department of Energy

X-ray B: © Nevit Dilmen

X-rays (B) and neutrons (A) can provide very different views of the inside of living organisms. Here a classical X-ray image of a hand shows how the X-rays highlight the metallic elements in a sample whereas the neutron image shows how the neutrons highlight the lighter elements (carbon and hydrogen) in the frog

Professor Sarah Bridle, PI for the STFC Food Network+, University of Manchester.

Sarah has spent the last 20 years trying to uncover the nature of dark energy using gravitational lensing - the bending of light by dark matter. She led the first cosmology constraints from the biggest ongoing cosmological imaging survey, the Dark Energy Survey, which is imaging one eighth of the sky and measuring shapes and approximate distances to 300 million objects. Motivated by the need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, she has diversified her research interests and is now spending half her research time on agriculture and food, including applying astronomy techniques to image analysis in agriculture and leading the STFC Food Network+.

Email:sarah@sarahbridle.net

Web:www.stfcfoodnetwork.org, http://www.stfc.ac.uk/funding/access-to-facilities/

Co-Authors: Professor Katherine Denby, University of York, Dr Kieran Flanagan, University of Manchester, Professor Bruce Grieve, University of Manchester, Professor Jason Halford, University of Liverpool, Professor Lenny Koh, University of Sheffield, Professor Mark Reed, Newcastle University, Dr Sonal Choudhary, University of Sheffield, Professor Seb Oliver, University of Sussex, Professor Simon Pearson, University of Lincoln, Sarah Rogers, Science and Technology Facilities Council, Christian Reynolds, University of Sheffield, Professor Stephen Serjeant, the Open University, Alison Fletcher, University of Manchester

To join our mailing list and be kept up to date on all of our upcoming events and activities please get in touch through our website www.stfcfoodnetwork.org. If you have any queries please contact our Project Manager Alison Fletcher – alison.fletcher@manchester.ac.uk

Laurie M. Clotilde, Anthony Zografos, and Molly A. Trump of US-based SafeTraces describe the performance of a new technology for tracing food in the supply chain using DNA barcodes that can be applied directly to the food.

Introduction

Globalisation of food sourcing and political and commercial realities require increasing supply chain transparency, accountability and security. One key to achieving gains in all three areas lies in the ability to trace the source of foods and their ingredients, from fork to farm.

Today, case level traceability entails a complex system of handoffs along the supply chain from producer to packer, distributor, retailer and, ultimately, the consumer.

Printed barcodes on the packaging identify the product lot. But once food, and particularly fresh produce, reaches retail, it is usually removed from the original packaging and traceability is generally lost. Case level traceability traces the packaging and not the food. In the event of a post retail quality or safety problem, such as a foodborne illness outbreak, traceback investigations are frequently inconclusive or take several weeks to complete^[1].

Traceability improvements would benefit: (a) the regulators by reducing the resources required to complete investigations; (b) the public, since reduction of the duration of traceback investigations is key to the containment of quality or safety problems, and (c) producers by facilitating the ability to isolate the source and extent of safety or quality issues, thus improving the implementation of corrective and preventive actions and minimising the delay and scope of the recall and associated liabilities.

US-based SafeTraces has developed a patent-protected, natural, edible, odourless, tasteless, on-food traceability solution. Advances in bio-engineering have produced a material that enables the development of an efficient, effective, and low cost system to trace the food, not the packaging.

This material is a combination of short DNA sequences (i.e., <100 base pairs), which can be either synthetic or genomic DNA drawn from organisms (e.g. Thermotoga maritima) that are not expected to be present in the food environment^[2].

These DNA sequences have already been recognised by the United Stated Food and Drug Administration as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). These sequences, referred to as tracers or tags, can be used to form unique combinations, called DNA barcodes.

This DNA barcoding method is different from the taxonomic method that uses a short genetic marker in an organism's DNA to identify it as belonging to a particular species.

The Safetraces approach employs 64 distinct sequences, with each sequence representing a specific bit in a 64-bit set; presence of the sequence sets the bit to 1, and absence of the sequence sets it to 0. By employing only 64 sequences, 264 unique combinations are created, referred to as ‘DNA barcodes’. An advantage of this approach is that it can analyse 264 unique barcodes by employing only 64 probes and sets of primers for detection via the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) process. This makes it highly scalable and sets it apart from other DNA tagging methods which, in practicality, can only be used for authentication or identification but not traceability, because of the limited number of unique sequences they could economically support. A second advantage is that these barcodes can be applied directly in or on the food, thus allowing tracing of the product even if it has been removed from its original packing.

In its simplest implementation, a unique combination of DNA sequences may be used to identify a grower or producer. In a standard implementation, a unique DNA barcode can identify a single product lot. In an even more complex implementation, multiple 64-tag sets may be used to form multiple barcodes, each associated with a specific step in the supply chain. A single piece of produce might bear many different barcodes. Figure 1 shows how the first DNA barcodes may be used to identify the grower, the field, the picking crew, the machine used and the date. The second barcode can identify the packer, the packing line, the packing date and the ship date. These two barcodes may coexist on the same piece of produce and can be read independently.

Application of the DNA barcodes is very simple. They may be added directly to various coatings already in wide use, such as carnauba or other waxes (e.g. pomme fruits, citrus, stone fruit), silicone oils (e.g. tomatoes, tropical fruit), sprout inhibitors (e.g. potatoes), lipid-, polysaccharide- and protein-based edible coatings. DNA barcodes encapsulated in maltodextrin, salt, starch or other material may be used for dry goods, such as beans and cereals. DNA barcodes may be also added directly to liquid goods, such as juices, milk and oils. The DNA barcodes are added to food in parts per billion or less. If they were applied on every food a person eats, over the course of a lifetime, we estimate that it would add up to just over one gram of material.

The most common concerns regarding DNA barcodes are their stability over time and their integrity when items with different DNA barcodes are mixed (commingled), which presents potential for ‘cross-contamination.’

Figure 1: Examples of two 64-bit DNA barcodes (blue and green) implemented on two supply chain nodes

In its simplest implementation, a unique combination of DNA sequences may be used to identify a grower or producer.’

DNA barcode stability and integrity

In a laboratory experiment, different varieties of fruits were coated with carnauba waxes containing a combination of up to three different tracers, effectively forming DNA barcodes. The amount of wax applied was equal to the rate of commercial applications (i.e. 1 L of wax per 1000 kg of product).

The fruits belonged to different varieties of apples and citrus. They had the following DNA barcodes represented as 0 for absence or 1 for presence of Tracers 1, 2, and 3: 000 for the Red Delicious apples, 100 for Green apples, 010 for Yellow apples, 001 for Jazz apples, 110 for Fuji apples, 011 for oranges, and 111 for lemons. The fruits were commingled in a basket, stored at room temperature, and tested over time on days 0, 4, 5, 7, 11, 20, 21, and 26.

Each fruit was washed individually and swabbed using a dry cottontipped swab. The swab was suspended in a buffer and tested on the Chai Open qPCR system using an internally developed 16-min protocol. The total test time was <18 minutes.

The results (Figure 2) are presented as Cycle Threshold (i.e., Ct; unit of measure of qPCR technology) with the lower values representing higher levels of the tracers^[3].

A threshold of Ct=29 has been established to differentiate positive from negative signals, meaning that a Ct<29 sets the corresponding bit to 1 and a Ct>29 sets the corresponding bit to 0. The fruits that had been originally tagged with the DNA barcodes remained positive for the entire duration of the study (i.e., 26 days). This is generally considered longer than the shelf life of both apples and citrus when stored at room temperature. There is some inconsistency in the measurements on a day-to-day basis, which is likely to be due to normal assay variations, including the swabbing of the produce (i.e. difference in force, duration, etc.). Each fruit was washed before each test and the results suggest that washing does not significantly accelerate the degradation of the barcodes. In fact, the level of tracers on the fruits remained fairly constant for the duration of the experiment.

A trend is more apparent with the ‘negative fruits’ (i.e., those that had one or more bits set to 0). Over time, there is increasing transfer of the DNA barcodes from the positive to the negative fruits, even though both negative and positive fruits were washed prior to each measurement. However, all negative fruits remained negative for the duration of the experiment.

In both cases (i.e., negative or positive), there does not appear to be any dependency on the type of product (i.e., apple or citrus) or the variety.

The experiment identified with 100% accuracy the DNA barcodes on commingled fruits, which were stored at room temperature in excess of their expected shelf life.

Figure 2: Stability of DNA Barcodes over time under commingled conditions

The experiment identified with 100% accuracy the DNA barcodes on commingled fruits, which were stored at room temperature in excess of their expected shelf life.’

Commercial implementation on an apple packing line

The DNA barcodes were also applied on a commercial apple packing line (Figure 3).

An off-the shelf auto sampler (Figure 3, top) creates unique DNA barcodes that can be used to identify product lots. The auto sampler, or dispenser, is loaded with vials containing each sequence and is used to create unique combinations (i.e., mixtures) of these sequences (i.e., DNA barcodes). The dispenser is connected to a main database, which ensures that each barcode is unique. The mixtures are then injected in the carnauba wax stream at a rate proportional to the wax flow rate. For the injection, a simple dosing system is used (Figure 3, middle).

The results from a pilot implementation are presented in Figure 4. In this case, the DNA barcode was introduced in the entire wax tank. The purpose of the test was to evaluate the transition time from the introduction of the DNA barcodes in the wax tank to their actual detections in both the wax and on the fruit.

Under the standard commercial implementation, and because of the proximity of the injection system to the nozzle system, the transition time was expected to be in the order of seconds as opposed to minutes.  One minute after the DNA barcode was introduced in the wax tank, both wax and apples appeared positive for the barcodes.

Over the course of the ensuing 24 hours, the concentration in the wax decreased slightly. This decrease may be attributed to assay variations or degradation of the DNA in the liquid wax environment. Laboratory tests have shown that some degradation does occur through long-term exposure (i.e. several weeks) of the DNA to the liquid wax.

However, in a commercial implementation, the DNA barcodes are maintained in food-grade ethanol and are delivered by the injection system to the wax line just before the spray nozzle. The laboratory tests cited above have demonstrated that the DNA barcodes are stable in ethanol practically indefinitely (i.e. no degradation observed after several months of exposure). As a result, in a commercial implementation the exposure of the DNA barcodes to liquid carnauba wax is reduced to a few seconds.

Similarly, a small decrease in the presence of tracers on the waxed apples was observed over the course of the ensuing 24 hours. This decrease may be due to the decrease in the DNA concentration in the wax or normal assay variation.

However, the apples remained below the positive threshold Ct=29. It should be also noted that a full tank of liquid wax is normally used over approximately 3 days and during such a relatively short time period, the DNA concentration in the wax remains well within the range required to produce apples below the Ct threshold.

Figure 3: Commercial implementation on an apple packing line

Figure 4: Simple DNA barcoding on a commercial packing line.

The technology is very simple to integrate into the apple packing process’

Conclusions

The feasibility of using DNA barcodes for traceability in the food supply chain has been demonstrated. The DNA barcodes are stable for the shelf life of the produce. Cross-contamination does not seem to be an issue when produce with different barcodes is commingled as it is not sufficient to cause errors in the identification of the DNA barcodes.

The technology is very simple to integrate into the apple packing process (which is very similar to those of most pomme fruit, stone fruit and citrus) and ease of detection has been reduced to <18 minutes.

Laurie M. Clotilde, Anthony Zografos, and Molly A. Trump, SafeTraces, Inc., Pleasanton, California, USA

Web:http://www.safetraces.comEmail:laurie@safetraces.com

References

1. Hoffmann S, Maculloch B, Batz M. 2015. Economic Burden of Major Foodborne Illnesses Acquired in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Information Bulletin 140.
2. Jackson S, Rounsley S, and Purugganan M. 2006. Comparative sequencing of plant genomes: choices to make. Plant Cell. 18(5): p. 1100-4.
3. Pohl, G; Shih, leM (2004). "Principle and applications of digital PCR". Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 4 (1): 41–7.

Alex Kent charts the launch and development of the SALSA (Safe and Local Supplier Assurance) scheme, which helps SMEs to demonstrate, and continuously improve, their food safety compliance.

The domestic food industry has evolved from a number of medium to large producers to a plethora of small operators, quaintly referred to as SMEs. Small businesses are defined as having up to 49 employees, medium businesses as up to 249^[1]. There were 17, 375 SMEs in 2016 – some 98.8% of the total number of food manufacturing businesses. Of the £28.2 billion revenue produced by the food industry, around £13.1 billion can be attributed to SMEs and they account for 41.5% of the 400,000-strong work force in the sector. By any measure, they make a very significant contribution to food production.

How then, without jumping through the hoops of the BRC Global Standard for Food Safety or some other GFSi equivalent, do these small producers achieve listing with major retailers?

The SALSA scheme

In 2007, I was involved in the launch of a new scheme by which small producers could demonstrate food safety compliance. The scheme was called Safe and Local Supplier Assurance, or by its acronym SALSA [which has led to endless music hall jokes about Hispanic dancing]. I liked the idea of helping companies to achieve a level of confidence in their processes and procedures. Some ten years on, having completed thirty or so audits a year, I feel sufficiently qualified as a foot soldier to write this review.

SALSA HQ operates from Banbury, but its not for profit status requires a governance involving the main stakeholders [the National Farmers Union, the Food & Drink Federation, The British Hospitality Association and The British Retail Consortium] and is chaired by IFST’s Chief Executive, Jon Poole. Support is via the Technical Advisory Committee which represents the main users of the scheme [retailers, food service companies, sector bodies – such as Cask Marque and the Specialist Cheesemakers Association, IFST and some of the operating staff, including representatives of the auditors]. This body forensically examines, develops and enhances standards and procedures and is currently led by Jane Duddle of Waitrose.

From a pilot scheme in the Highlands and Islands, involving a handful of cheese and pickle makers, SALSA now has 1480 members [as of 09/2017], of which 1238 are approved. An excellent exposition of the development of the scheme has been produced by Richard Bradford Knox [an auditor/ mentor] and Kevin Kane [University of Salford]^[2].

The SALSA retention rate is remarkably high; currently, some 93% of the suppliers have remained with the scheme since inception. Growth rate, even in Year 11, is forecast at 11%. Where suppliers have not renewed membership, the most likely reason is that the business has closed down [29% respondents], followed by the business electing to become BRC certified [25%]^[3].

Figure 1 illustrates how the different food manufacturing sectors are represented. Bakery and dairy suppliers are most common, but the additional value available in two specialist sectors, cheese and brewing [the so-called SALSA + standards] is appreciated by cheese makers and brewers alike. SEAFISH has also recognised that it is the standard of choice for many fish processors. In addition, SALSA is given leave to conduct audits on behalf of STS, the audit body for the public sector [in particular, the NHS], and can now perform a dual audit with the Soil Association.

Recognition by the major players, from the large retailers to food service wholesalers and providers, continues to increase. There are 940 registered buyers^[3]– a testament to the robustness of the scheme – who, at no cost, have access to the SALSA directory of suppliers. A list of supporters is available on the SALSA website. Even as a large manufacturer with BRC or equivalent, discovering that your small supplier of niche ingredients has SALSA accreditation should be of some comfort to you.

Figure 1: Breakdown of audits by sector

The SALSA retention rate is remarkably high; currently, some 93% of the suppliers have remained with the scheme since inception.’

Auditors and mentors

Auditors and mentors are generally self-employed, but are scrutinised both prior to engagement and annually by IFST, not only for sector skills and experience, but for their maintenance of CPD [minimum of 35 hours] and an audit log. If IFST is satisfied, they are registered on the Register of Professional Auditors and Mentors^[4], and The Register of Food Safety Professionals.

There are currently 67 auditor/ mentors, with only four of these electing to act only as mentors^[3]. They are geographically well distributed, as SALSA helps contain the costs to the supplier by generally allocating audits to local auditors, who do not claim travelling expenses.

Great care is taken that the auditor/mentor cohort is well calibrated to ensure that they deliver consistent judgements. There are mandatory annual training sessions, quarterly alignment exercises using brief case studies, face to face interviews and witnessed audits. In addition, each auditor/mentor is given an annual report, where his/ her personal alignment with the scheme is highlighted [e.g numbers and types of non-compliances issued in comparison with scheme averages], as well as feedback from suppliers, who are encouraged to rate their experience of the auditor and of the audit process.

The SALSA Standard

The Standard is broken down into four sections:

1. Pre-requisite Controls –covering everything from Training, Personal Hygiene, Pest Control, through to Shelf life determination [14 subsections, 52 clauses].

2. HACCP & Management Systems- Internal review, Traceability, Complaints – apart from HACCP [6 subsections, 17 clauses]

3. Documentation – document control, specifications, procedures [3 subsections, 3 clauses]

4. Premises [7 subsections, 7 clauses]

As part of each of these, there is an overarching statement of intent, which the supplier must also satisfy.

The SALSA + Standards for beer and cheese, and the STS clauses add further requirements, but the suppliers who subscribe to these standards are both aware and generally prepared for them. The Standards are freely available on the publicly accessible pages of the SALSA website.

The audit

On the day of the audit, the auditor will issue two types of non-compliances:

• Not compliant, or partially compliant for action

• Partially compliant for improvement.

The first group requires the supplier to address these noncompliance issues within 28 days by sending evidence of corrective action, agreed with the auditor, to SALSA for review. These can range from lack of data [for example, on equipment calibration] to a poorly defined recall procedure or an incomplete traceability study.

The second group provides the most fertile grounds for discussion and most of these non-compliance issues relate to best practice. The action required to address these issues is more sustained and longer term – for example, reviews of specifications or establishing refresher training. It is this second group that suppliers view as useful, since it is a way of demonstrating continuous improvement.

Unlike the BRC Global Standard, non-compliances are not graded. In a typical audit, five items require action and four require improvement^[3].

Ultimately, the auditor has to make the judgement as to whether the supplier can be recommended for approval, with or without the submission of an action plan, subject to review by HQ. The alternative – not recommended for approval - does not represent abject failure or an unproductive audit, as the auditor will continue with a ‘preaudit’, completing a gap analysis for the business. This offers similar advice to a successful audit and means that the business should stand a better chance of success at the subsequent re-arranged audit. The failure rate currently stands at 3.1%^[3].

In my experience, the ultimate question is not necessarily gauged by the numbers or nature of non-compliances, but whether I would be happy to consume product manufactured at the site [and consequently underwrite it for all consumers]. Naturally, auditors are cognisant of enforcement activity and would not sign off a business that had not corrected issues raised by previous enforcement body visits.

Unlike the BRC Global Standard, non-compliances are not graded. In a typical audit, five items require action and four require improvement.’

The top ten problem areas

SALSA collates the data relating to non-compliances for all audits (Table 1).

The top ten issues have been remarkably similar throughout the scheme’s history. It is not easy to identify single causes of failure in any given clause as each requirement has embedded in it several elements. For example – the clause covering Glass and Brittle 1.4.4 – which states ‘Where there isa risk to product and/or packaging,a written procedure for dealingwith breakages, along with a list ofrelevant glass and brittle items tobe checked shall be provided’, This expands to the following elements:

1. The company would be expected to have a glass/brittle breakage procedure, [even more so if the company packs into glass], together with a record of any incidents [or blank record if no such incident has occurred].

2. A dedicated glass breakage kit would be expected, with instructions to dispose of the kit after the clean-up.

3. The company would also be expected to have a register of items and a set of recorded checks of the register, completed at a regular frequency, with due regard to the proximity of the glass/brittle to open product zones.

4. In the latter case, it is likely that a daily check on such items would be necessary, for example, on an opening/closing check list.

5. Maintaining and checking the register is also a set of procedures that warrants training.

6. There should be specific instructions for light fitting cleaning and changing. SALSA has not ignored the fact that companies need help and guidance, not only to understand the thrust of the requirement, but to give practical hints on how to achieve best practice and how to demonstrate that the requirements have been met.

These are available as generic guidance notes, and in the form of ‘Tools and Tips’, which are extended guidance notes and, in many cases, offer document and procedure templates. There are 56 guidance notes available, and because Traceability is the Number 1 Problem Area, SALSA has made this particular Tool & Tip freely available to any interested party – not just to paid up suppliers.

As additional support to suppliers, SALSA also offers Level 1 and Level 2 HACCP Training courses, Labelling workshops, mentoring services [either as part of a package, or recommendation of SALSA mentors local to the supplier], and a telephone help line.

Table 1 Top ten noncompliances 2016 (Standard issue 4/ Beer issue 1)

Figure 2: SALSA Tools and Tips

Continuous improvement

Historical SALSA data for each supplier cannot be mined easily to demonstrate that the number of non-compliances or suggestions for improvement have decreased on second and subsequent audits, but there is sufficient anecdotal evidence from auditor/mentors to give strong voice to this sentiment.

Continuous improvement is very much a feature of the scheme and the auditors will find ways in which the supplier can improve on each audit. Equally, as auditors are rotated after three consecutive audits, the alternative auditor may discover new and different findings.

As a supplier progresses with the SALSA scheme, it comes to view the SALSA auditor as a critical friend, rather than a box-ticking official determined to obstruct day to day operations by overloading a small organisation with yet more paperwork and procedures.

Future developments

SALSA will continue to provide a valuable resource to the small manufacturer for the foreseeable future. Work has already started on making the audit process more user friendly [for both parties], by introducing instant on line reporting during the audit. Other Standard + options may be developed, as well as a possible Warehousing and Distribution Standard.

Support services may also include a label checking service in due course, but it is unlikely that SALSA will provide a one-stop shop for all services and products related to food safety.

As the Food Standards Agency looks for novel ways to regulate the industry, there will be opportunities for audit bodies, such as SALSA, to provide the Certified Regulatory Auditors that are needed under the proposed regime^[5].

Where enforcement bodies are aware of SALSA, there is a generous element of earned recognition, as enforcers value the scrutiny that is provided by the scheme.

Conclusions

The SALSA scheme is the ‘must have’ credential for small progressive suppliers to take them to the next level. It has given them the confidence to engage with serious players, where they can match their passion and enthusiasm for their products with sound food safety practices.

Although there is a deal of science involved in the products themselves, food safety systems are not rocket science, merely common sense and good practice. Understanding this allows small suppliers and their customers to sleep soundly at night.

Alex Kent (Honorary Fellow IFST) has spent his career in Technical Management, Quality Assurance and New Product Development within the Food Industry, working for blue chips, such as Marks & Spencer, Unilever [Batchelor’s] and Spillers Foods [Homepride]. Recently retired, Alex helps small businesses, primarily through SALSA but also through the Food Club, an organisation designed for networking and self-help. He is a registered

auditor/mentor for SALSA and has conducted more than 170 audits and advised companies in sectors as diverse as fish processing to breweries, from ingredients to shelf stable sauces.

Alex would be happy to supply an electronic copy of the SALSA Tool & Tip upon request.

Email:alex.kent2013@gmail.comWeb:www.salsafood.co.uk, www.thefoodclub.org.uk

References

1. Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Business Population Estimates 2016

2. Safe and Local Supplier Approval -  a case study of the Third Party Approval Scheme for micro and small food businesses – R. Bradford Knox and K. Kane, International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 2014, I.(i) pp 31-47

3. Data supplied by SALSA Operations – 09/2017

4.  IFST website -   https://www.ifst.org/professional-recognition-specialist-qualifications/register-professional-food-auditors-and-mentors

5. Food Standards Agency – “Regulating our future” https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/rof-paper-july2017.pdf

In a world of instant digital media news it is difficult for the public to tell what is real and what is fake. Sterling Crew explores how to safeguard the integrity of food science communication in a post-truth era. At a time when fake news is on the rise, trust in high quality, honest food science news reporting has never been more important.

The Oxford Dictionary made ‘post-truth’ its 2016 international word of the year. It is defined as an adjective relating to circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals.

By its very nature, food already has a predisposition towards the emotional as it has a very personal impact on our lives. We all have to eat. In an age of fake news, the need for accurate reporting, analysis and comment is clear. In uncertain times, people need trustworthy information on food so that they can make informed choices. It is evident that fake news stories will have an effect on people’s opinions about food and the food choices they make. These stories can be potentially harmful if they are misleading.

Fake news

The term ‘fake news’ has just been named as Collin’s Dictionary’s ‘Word of the Year’ for 2017. Fake news is entirely made up but is contrived to resemble credible journalism and to attract maximum attention. It is

written and published in order to mislead. It was popularised by US President Donald Trump during the presidential election campaign and its ubiquitous use during the year has contributed to undermining the public’s trust in news reporting.

Manipulating food news for political or financial gain is certainly not a new phenomenon. Social media, however, enables fake news to reach more people, more widely and more quickly. Unfortunately, it lacks the editorial and fact checking controls of conventional sources of news. We have moved to a marketplace where quality journalism competes on an equal footing with unqualified boisterous opinion. Billions of people now get their primary information from the internet, social media platforms and smart phones. A quarter of the world is on Facebook. In a world of instant digital media, it is hard to tell what is real anymore and this is potentially very damaging for food safety, integrity and nutrition. The speed of modern day communication is reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s quote ‘A lie getshalfway around the world before thetruth has a chance to get its pants on’.

Anyone can have an idea, publish it and spread it to the public without the permission of the traditional 20th century editorial gatekeepers.’

Clickbait

We live in a world of sensationalistic clickbait - content whose main purpose is to attract attention and encourage visitors to click on a link to a particular web page. This is designed to drive revenue and play on people’s paranoia to get their attention. Despite often overwhelming contrary evidence, fake news stories can still go viral as ideologically and commercially motivated groups take advantage of social media interaction and algorithms. If online news is going to find you, it probably will be because of a targetted algorithm that draws it to your attention.

There is concern that armies of malicious ‘bots’ could be assisting in the spreading of fake news. Bots are web robot software programmes that run automated tasks over the internet. In practice, it is problematic to identify where fake news is being targetted and it is difficult for users to identify it. Asking a number of questions can help to identify whether news is fake or genuine (Table 1). Anyone can have an idea, publish it and spread it to the public without the permission of the traditional 20th century editorial gatekeepers. Scientific evidence can be wilfully misreported and procedures for redress and correction are often absent. A recent report from Members of Parliament on the Science and Technology Committee on Science Communication and Engagement found that the people have a strong desire to know how science impacts on their lives. However, 71% of people believe the media sensationalises science and 67% say they have no option but to trust those governing scientific information. Just 28% believe that journalists check their facts when reporting scientific matters. Fake news could be contributing to their concerns on fact checking.

Public health concerns

Fake news makes it harder for people to understand complex scientific food issues. This creates a food science deficit, a lack of understanding and knowledge about how food science and technology works and how it affects them. Whether reporting on safety, fraud, provenance or nutrition, fake news stories can have real life consequences. The debate on food relies on the quality of the news and the information available. An attribute of fake food news is that campaigners often continue to repeat their points, even if they are found to be untrue by independent, respected food science organisations and experts. This can create a climate of doubt where there should be none. For example, although the case for anthropogenic global warming has been made beyond reasonable doubt, there is still public uncertainty over climate change as a serious public health threat, despite the compelling evidence in the scientific literature. Its impact on food security and safety, as a result of agricultural losses, could be catastrophic. Fake news from special interest groups has fuelled the skepticism. Bad health advice from fake news sources, such as on the MMR vaccine, has had undesirable effects on the lack of take-up of vaccines and on herd immunity.

Searching the internet reveals fake news stories that distort and mislead the debate on the safety of regulated food additives and food processing. Scaremongering stories have also targetted the use of agricultural pesticides, causing concern where there should be none. Fake media headlines can encourage people to adopt the latest fad diet with potentially adverse effects on their health. Qualified dieticians and nutritionists base their advice on solid peer-reviewed evidence. The messages on the value of reducing the amount of alcohol, salt and sugar in our diets could be undermined. The ‘Frankenstein food’ stories on genetically modified organisms are favoured targets that misinform the debate. Genetically modified (GM) crops have an essential role to play in safeguarding the security of our food supply, protecting the environment and improving our lives. Fake news on GM crops could hamper the fight against global poverty and could have a disastrous impact on the word’s poorest people.

The need to differentiate

Fake news must be differentiated from obvious parody or satire, which is an attempt to humour rather than mislead. For example, the famous spaghetti tree hoax report broadcast by the BBC’s highly respected current affairs programme, Panorama, on April Fool’s Day 1957, was probably the biggest hoax that any reputable news establishment has ever carried out.

It purportedly showed spaghetti being harvested from trees. Many viewers were taken in as, at the time, spaghetti was largely an unknown novel exotic food, the source was a highly credible one and the filming was very convincing. It is equally important for the public to be able to differentiate between genuine science stories, supported by research and expert opinion, and fake news.

Conclusions

It is evident that it is the news media, rather than science, that is influencing public opinion. Often too much weight has been given to unqualified sceptics, who reject peer review and evidence-based facts. It is not that consumers are credulous, but the conventional news format is easy to imitate and some true food stories are almost unbelievable.

Fake news coupled with new means of media consumption can feed food disinformation and deception, distorting the truth using emotional persuasion. Fake news is not going away. In a post-truth world, food scientists and technologists have an important role in fact checking and keeping the public informed.

We all have a responsibility as news generators and consumers to ensure that we are maintaining a balanced diet of sources to help minimise exposure to misinformation and fake news.

We need to foster and facilitate food science engagement with the media. At a time when fake news is on the rise, high quality, honest food science reporting has never been more essential.

Sterling Crew FIFST, FCIEH, FRSPH. Managing Director SQS Ltd. Strategic Advisor Shield

Safety Group. Vice President Institute of Food Science and Technology. Chair of the IFST

Food Safety Group. Email:Sterlingmcrew@aol.com

Timo Schaffrath of CSB-System talks about the use of IT to optimise business processes.

Food processors today face a number of challenges in achieving and maintaining an effective and efficient operation, such as costly raw materials, lower margins, highly competitive markets and increasing regulatory requirements. 

Digitisation enables companies to reduce costs and increase quality / Photo courtesy of CSB-System

For this reason, the use of best practices and cutting edge technologies has become ever more critical. These are helping to drive improvements in terms of more transparency and improved efficiency through automation and digitisation, full traceability, greater control of complex operations and higher speeds. By embracing this approach, companies will be able to generate the most opportunities and achieve the best returns.

Although the use of automation throughout manufacturing and processing is commonplace in most businesses, many food companies are still handling a substantial part of their planning and order processes in paper format. Nevertheless, it is getting more and more difficult to withstand growing competitive and price pressures when offers, orders, purchase orders, invoices or delivery notes are processed manually. Without proper communication between all relevant departments, there is the possibility that certain data can be processed several times. This not only leads to an unnecessary use of time but carries with it a high risk of errors occurring.

Digitisation enables companies to reduce costs and increase quality.  According to a GSI survey, electronic processing of purchase orders, deliveries and invoicing can save around two thirds of the costs compared to paper-based order processing.

Further gains can be achieved in document archiving. Up to 30 percent of working time can be spent searching for documents; by comparison, an effective document management system can deliver four-fold time savings in archiving and an 18-fold saving in document research, which equates to a two thirds saving in costs compared to normal document filing. Similarly, the use of scanners during picking reduces error rates and returns while increasing order fulfilment times. 

Digitisation throughout the often complex shop-floor processes of many food businesses offers similar potential. For example, tolerance checks in batching for sausage manufacturing can deliver better quality and fewer rejects.

The moment raw materials arrive all relevant data should be entered electronically, allowing these to be supplied to subsequent operations such as cutting, production, packaging and inventory, without any media disruptions. This increases information quality and transparency throughout the entire process, while at the same time reducing errors and costs substantially. It is also important to note that the introduction of IT-aided goods receiving processes, be they stationary or mobile systems, are easily managed since existing weighing technology can be integrated and other existing hardware can be used.

Finding the right balance of stock on hand will save a lot of money in the warehouse, too. A warehouse packed up to its limits results in high availability and good delivery readiness. While a growing stock automatically involves an increase in warehouse management costs and the degree of capital commitment, tight stocks can lead to bottlenecks or even a standstill in production. Conversely, for many businesses, the warehouse may be full of goods that were never sold, or which are presently out of season.

Such challenges can be overcome and optimised relatively easily. ERP systems provide field-tested functionalities for material planning and inventory management. They use intelligent inventory monitoring and are also able to calculate optimal order quantities and notify automatically as soon as the minimum stock is reached in raw materials or at the dispatch warehouses. This ensures complete coverage of material requirements while keeping the capital commitment as low as possible. Such systems can reduce inventory costs by about 30 percent; and these same cutting-edge software solutions are also vital to meet the increasing demand for just-in-time deliveries.

In addition to the inefficiencies and additional costs that can result from manual procedures, there is also the issue of hygiene to consider. The use of industrial non-invasive image processing solutions in the meat sector is another example of where automated systems offer additional advantages.

Specific software programmes can calculate the most cost-efficient composition of recipes while ensuring that consistently high quality levels are maintained / Photo courtesy of CSB-System

Equally important, these mechanical measurement methods are able to deliver objective classification results with minimal errors in the assessment and quality control of cuts, and the optimisation of raw materials and products. They can also provide automatic documentation of these assessment results.

Product quality is equally about product consistency, and this is a particularly important factor in helping companies to maintain consumer loyalty. At the same time, with raw material prices likely to continue to rise, the optimisation of recipes can also play its part in delivering higher margins.

Today specific software programmes are available to accomplish such tasks automatically. They are able to calculate the most cost-efficient composition of a recipe while still ensuring that consistently high quality levels are maintained.

The first implementation of this process can deliver a typical saving of over five percent in material input; further savings then converge at around one to four percent. Such systems can also help to deliver a fast response in the event of any component shortages through the optimal utilisation of alternatives, as well as helping to control overall inventory and eliminate potential bottlenecks.    

Paperless picking procedures minimise error rates and reduce the cost of complaints, re-picking, re-deliveries and cancellations /Photo courtesy of CSB-System

Another vital part of product quality and brand image is the availability of an effective traceability system. Although food products today are probably safer than ever before, traceability – through comprehensive documentation of processes throughout the value chain - offers an extra level to food safety and consumer protection, and therefore valuable reassurance to both customers and end-users. 

In the event of any problem, the system can quickly identify affected batches and remove them from the supply chain. In this way, the logistics costs of any product recall can be reduced and the damage to brand reputation minimised. Importantly, the system can also be used to counter unjustified complaints and claims. 

The fact that traceability systems can contribute towards minimising economic risks is evidenced by the fact that in many cases business insurance premiums are reduced for companies who have introduced them.Another area where automation can substantially benefit food suppliers is logistics.  Software-controlled automation solutions reduce throughput and lead times, and in this way increase delivery readiness and cut costs. State-of-the-art logistics components, such as high bay storage, sorters and gantry robots help businesses deal with growing product ranges and fluctuating sales. Overall, the more individual components that are linked into a network, the more efficient and cost-effective the supply of goods to customers becomes, leading to a typical permanent delivery performance of over 99%.The digitisation of the picking process is another potential source of time and money savings. Paperless picking procedures minimise error rates and thus reduce the cost of complaints, re-picking, re-deliveries and cancellations. The elimination of paper from the process is in itself an impressive figure – it has been estimated that companies can save more than one tonne of paper for every 100 million Euros turnover.

One of the most common picking procedures is the use of mobile data capture devices, and thanks to the introduction and universal adoption of barcodes, the investment is comparatively minimal. Depending on the item range, order structure or locations, different picking methods such as pick by light, pick to light, pick by voice, pick by vision or sorter picking, may be suitable. In many cases, a combination of systems may be appropriate to optimise processing of different items. For example, one CSB customer uses both ‘dynamic’ picking (person to goods) and ‘static’ picking (goods to person) with excellent efficiencies – 700 picks per hour for the former and 500 picks per hour for the latter.With transport costs one of the largest cost factors in logistics, IT-controlled transport logistics are also able to produce great savings by optimising resource capacities. Software-aided planning, control and monitoring can deliver cost reductions of up to 15 percent in freight management. Route planning and optimisation systems help to improve scheduling, routes, capacity utilisation, load weights and volumes as well as vehicle and staff assignments. 

Software-controlled automation solutions reduce throughput and lead times, increasing delivery readiness and cutting costs /Photo courtesy of CSB-System

All these advantages can be delivered as part of an in-house controlled system.  However, the procurement of IT solutions from the cloud has been steadily increasing in recent years, reflecting the growth in digitisation generally and current ICT trends such as Big Data. 

Exchanging an in-house operation in favour of a cloud solution can be very advantageous for food processors in terms of time and costs, with personnel and material expenditures in IT departments reduced to a minimum. Technical jobs such as data backup and system maintenance are then handled by the provider. Such benefits can be valuable to small as well as larger operations.

The effective use of IT software and automation offers many benefits to food companies, with optimised business processes that deliver integrated planning and control from top floor to shop floor. For any business, the most important consideration is that the business software is geared to the precise needs of each operation. This is the best way to keep costs down – and profits up.

CSB-System AG

An Fürthenrode 9-15
D-52511 Geilenkirchen

Tel: +49 2451 625 430

Fax: +49 2451 625 291

Email:info@csb-system.com

Website:www.csb.com

Theo Valich, Head of Growth at tech start up Datum looks at how the problem of food waste can be tackled through Internet of Things (IoT) and blockchain technology.

When the Green Revolution began in the 1960s, idealists saw it as a way to end world hunger. Though it did not succeed in this respect, it did lead to the production of cheap food on a massive scale. While we still talk about the Green Revolution, it has become painfully clear that there was not anything “green” about it, at least not in the way we use the word today. Back then, production was the goal and industrial agriculture was the result.

Today the goal is sustainability and our only hope for that is the smart use of valid data, collected in real-time.

Industrial agriculture was - and largely still is - dependent on fossil fuels. This dependency is not just for the vast amount of machinery needed to plant, harvest, slaughter, process, clean, deliver, cook and store the things we consume. It comes down to the soil itself. Most soil used to grow crops is filled with nitrogen-based chemical fertilizers and sprayed with pesticides derived from oil. We are at the point of diminishing returns since our entire planet’s prime agricultural real estate is being pushed to the limits of production. More and more fertilizer is required to achieve the same results, and even marginal lands are being put into play.

Why is this such a big deal?

Although the Green Revolution may have fallen short of achieving the equitable distribution required to ending world hunger, the abundance of cheap food produced by fossil-fuel intensive technologies did lead to a massive surge in the world’s population.

As of this year, approximately 7.6 billion people call this planet home. The United Nations predicts this number to increase by 3 billion by the end of the century. As unbelievable as it sounds, as much as one-half of all food produced—about 2 billion tones—never makes it to anyone’s plate. In underdeveloped countries, most food loss occurs during production. In wealthier countries, about 100 kilograms (220 pounds) per person per year is thrown out during the consumption stage, the last stage in the supply chain.

When you couple the growing population with the sheer percentage of wasted food and the fact that our agricultural lands are already being pushed to their limits, it is not hard to imagine a looming crisis. If the effects of yesterday’s Green Revolution are a problem, the smart use of today’s data is the solution.

Getting Smart

One of the companies we have partnered with at Datum is Ozmo, the makers of the world’s first smart water bottle. If you use an Ozmo bottle, it tracks your water drinking patterns, helps you set health goals, and lets you know if you are properly hydrated based on factors such as your activity level, body type, and location. It is easy to imagine a time when your Ozmo reminds you to pick up more water at the store and—with your permission—collects data about how much water is being bought. Your Ozmo could then send this information to a database, where it could be combined with other data used to help stores stay stocked.

While bottled water does not spoil like produce or other agricultural products, this is really just the tip of the iceberg and a way to help test and perfect the systems that will be needed to improve distribution efficiency for products with a short shelf life. When consumers use the technology being created today and claim their spot in the growing data marketplace, they will not only have the opportunity to sell their data, but will help the entire supply chain run more smoothly, from producers and distributors to the regulatory bodies governing both within borders and across them.

Using ‘use by’ data

One of the things the United Kingdom’s Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) blames the phenomenal amount of food waste on is overly strict sell-by dates. Letting retailers know exactly what products are on their shelves at any point in time, predicting sales trends and adjusting accordingly is an obvious use for data, but reducing food loss at this stage is just part of the picture.

Data can fuel smart decisions at every link in the supply chain—from saving consumers’ money by helping store managers pick products for a flash sale, to making it possible for truck drivers to cut costs by avoiding traffic, to telling small farmers when and what to plant in particular fields. Data is even having an impact on food fraud, which is the practice of claiming a product is one thing when it is really something else. This makes our food supply safer, prevents “bad actors” from making money by putting dangerous or distasteful products into the mix, and can stop an outbreak of food poisoning before it even begins.

Real-time data can be collected from a wide-range of sources, essentially creating an Internet of Things, or IoT. Because data can be collected by small, inexpensive sensors, even things like oysters and grain silos can become part of the IoT. These sensors, which are put into place by farmers and other food producers, can be relied on to monitor almost anything imaginable, from general weather conditions to water temperature to the amount of sunlight falling on a particular patch of ground. The sensors feed the information they collect to a database, where it can be stored, combined with other data, and analyzed by both machine and human intelligence. A complete picture can be drawn, which can then be used to identify and solve problems.

For example, oyster farmers in Tasmania place sensors near individual oysters so they can know for sure whether or not the runoff created by a particular rainstorm has polluted their beds. Armed with this knowledge, farmers can keep undamaged crops instead of simply waiting for the rain to pass then throwing every oyster out for safety’s sake. This is just one way that the IoT is making the farm-to-table supply chain more sustainable in the face of environmental uncertainty and climate change. While even the best data cannot erase today’s challenges, it can help people see these challenges more clearly. Only by seeing something clearly do you have any hope of fixing it.

Over half the world’s population lives in an urban environment and that percentage will steadily climb over the coming decades. As cities are inherently food insecure, food waste needs to be reduced out of necessity. Collecting data from the IoT is key to doing that, even if it means testing the water flowing past an individual oyster, taking temperature readings from the bottom of a grain silo, or measuring the sunlight falling on fruit in a field. Fortunately, we have the technology to do this.

Right now, momentum and economics are on our side.

Theo Valich is an Entrepreneur & Analyst with 21 years of experience in technology, from GPU to supercomputer design. He is a Co-Founder of Space Image Network, Robotic Systems and VR World.

Email: press@datum.org
Telephone: +6586150924
Website:https://datum.org/

Douglas Moore of Monkfield Nutrition considers the potential for developing insects as an alternative source of protein for human food and animal feed.

Introduction

Eating insects (entomophagy) is a bizarre concept for many of us. However, it is normal for approximately two billion people, from 3,000 ethnic groups in 113 countries, for whom food includes over 2,000 insect species. Even in the UK we unknowingly eat around half a kilo of insects a year. All processed foods include insects; either deliberately added as carmine red food colouring E120, made from cochineal bugs, or accidentally harvested with plants because they are so abundant in nature that it is impossible to remove them all.

These insect fragments make it into coffee, peanut butter, chocolate and much more. Now an enterprising group of entrepreneurs, scientists, foodies and farmers are working to bring insect protein to our supermarket shelves in a big way: as an alternative protein source in food and livestock’s feed. This article will look at the fantastic potential of the emerging insects as food and feed markets and the challenges they face.

The UN is backing insects as a vital source of food and feed to secure global food security due to their nutritional profile^[1]. Although the diversity of insect species makes generalisations difficult, several insect species were shown to have equivalent nutritional value to many meat products. For example the house cricket (Acheta domesticus) has comparable protein content and digestibility to beef and egg providing all 9 essential amino acids; it is also a richer source of polyunsaturated fats than beef, delivered in the ideal ratio of 3:1 omega-6 to omega-3^[3].

Edible insects: the yuck factor

The biggest challenge entomophagy faces in the western world is the ’yuck factor’: an immediate negative reaction, as demonstrated in I’m ACelebrity Get Me Out Of Here.

This repulsion is a learnt psychological aversion, which can easily be overcome by getting people to taste a delicious, highly nutritious food, which happens to be made using crickets. The positive taste experience rapidly overwhelms the immediate knee jerk resistance.

Forty years ago the thought of eating raw fish turned the stomachs of most westerners, but today there are packs of sushi in every garage forecourt and a YO! Sushi on most high streets.

The majority of the effort to use insect protein focuses on disguising the ‘insect character’ within easily recognisable foods, like burger patties and baked goods, apart from a few novelty foods like insect lollipops. Here the challenge lies with chefs and food technologists to develop appealing, tasty dishes and with psychologists, advertisers and marketers to make entomophagy acceptable to the general public.

Adult banded crickets (Gryllodes sigillatus) searching for a suitable egg laying site

Mealworms are the larval stage of a beetle, Tenebrio molitor, and are suitable for use in both food and feed

Insects as feed

Insects are a part of the natural diets of many livestock, including poultry, pigs and fish, and could have a massive impact on the livestock feed industry.

Soaring soybean and fish meal prices mean that the search is on for alternative protein sources for animal feed. Additionally, the incredible diversity of insect species, estimated at over one million, offers the tantalising possibility that insects adapted to regional conditions could be farmed locally, reducing the need for international transport of animal feeds, increasing national and regional protein security and countering the negative environmental impact of some feed sources, for example Chilean fishmeal or Brazilian soybeans grown in what used to be the Amazon Rainforest.

Global food chain

Incorporating insects into the global food chain provides an opportunity to address the huge challenge of feeding 9.6 billion people by 2050 and responding to the expected 57% increased demand for high quality animal protein over the same period. Furthermore, 78% of all agricultural land is currently used in livestock production (grazing = 68%, cropland for animal feed = 10%) with 80% of new croplands replacing forests.

These challenges must be met while facing soil depletion, spreading oceanic dead zones and climate change (animal agriculture is one of the top three emitters of greenhouse gases, producing more than the global transport system). At the same time, the remaining wild spaces and their associated biodiversity and ecosystem services, which maintain Earth’s capacity to support life, must be preserved. Individually these issues would be challenging, together they threaten our very existence.

There are a number of ways in which we can try to address the challenges of increasing demand for protein and environmental degradation. These solutions include eating less meat, transitioning from inefficient ruminants to more efficient poultry and swine, and developing new and emerging technologies including cultured meats and protein from algal, fungal and insect origins.

In comparison to traditional agriculture, insect farming has a tiny foot print: kilo-to-kilo edible insect protein requires 500 times less water, 12 times less feed, and 10 times less land than beef, while producing 613 times less greenhouse gases^{[4, 5]}.

Traditional livestock production has been subjected to selection and improvement for generations, with a recent specific drive for feed conversion efficiency resulting in massive improvements in productivity: under optimal conditions a broiler in 1985 could reach 1.40kg in 35 days using 3.22 kg of feed, but by 2000, broilers could reach 2.44kg on 3.66 kg of feed^[6].

If the toolkit developed in traditional agriculture of breeding, genetics, husbandry, nutrition and veterinary science is applied to insects, the potential for rapid improvement, from an already highly efficient starting point, is huge.

Additionally, certain insect species can be reared on waste by-products of the food production industry. This provides an opportunity to recapture and recycle the potassium, phosphorous, nitrogen and energy stored in these waste substances opening opportunities to make profit from what is otherwise waste.

The ability of desert locusts (Schistocerca gregaria) to naturally form swarms of biblical proportions means that they are ideally suited for farming

Insects as food

The vast majority of insects on the menu are collected in the wild. However, it is vitally important that harvesting from natural stocks is well managed, as with fisheries, to ensure that populations are maintained at sustainable levels to protect both the target species and the complex food webs in which they live. This, coupled with seasonal and yearly population fluctuations, means the best way to incorporate insects into the global food system is through farming.

From the diversity of insects consumed globally, fewer than 20 are currently being developed for use in mass production systems. Favoured species include crickets, grasshoppers, caterpillars and beetles.

It appears that these species are selected for a few key reasons: ease of rearing, cheapness of food source, capacity to be reared at high density, high reproductive rate and high fecundity. These are probably the same reasons that have led to many of these species being reared for some time for niche markets, such as pet food and laboratory supply. As a result, a knowledge base on rearing these insects has developed, while the vast majority of our entomological knowledge focuses on destroying insects as agricultural pests and vectors of disease.

Encouraging insect consumption

There is a range of products entering the European market containing edible insects in a more or less visible format. A large number of novelty snacks are available – from sweet chilli locusts to ant lollipops – and although these perform an important role in getting people to first eat insects, it is likely that whole insects will remain a niche market for the time being.

The majority of companies entering the edible insect trade are incorporating insects into easily recognisable products to fortify the protein content, disguising their visible insect characteristics in cereal bars, pastas and energy bars.

Exciting work is also being undertaken reconstituting insect protein to produce bolognaises, meatballs and chicken style nuggets; we are just beginning to understand the functional properties of insect extracts in industrial applications, such as gel and emulsion forming. The diversity of edible insects is also reflected in their flavours, from nutty grasshoppers to scrambled egg-like caterpillars to citrusy ants, the opportunity is there for enterprising chefs to excite and challenge the palate.

The majority of companies entering the edible insect trade are incorporating insects into easily recognisable products to fortify the protein content, disguising their visible insect characteristics in cereal bars, pastas and energy bars

Challenges for insects as food

Price

Secondary to the yuck factor as a barrier to acceptance of insect foods is the cost: currently the price is around ￡55 per kg. However, this is expected to drop rapidly as production operations increase in size, labour requirements decrease as companies increase the automation of production, and diets are tailored to better suit the requirements of the insect and to improve desirable characteristics. As these improvements come into effect, market analysts anticipate 40% compound annual growth in the edible insect market until 2023.

Allergic reaction

One area of uncertainty with the potential to disrupt the acceptance of edible insects concerns allergic reactions to them, especially in those who are allergic to shellfish. Currently, most companies include warnings on their packaging similar to those on peanut-containing foods. This is an area which will need serious investigation in the future.

The law

Globally, the growing interest in edible insects has been met with varying levels of acceptance. In countries with historic entomophagy, there is wide acceptance. However, in the Eurocentric world, which does not have a history of eating insects, there are varying levels of acceptance.

The European Commission’s Novel Foods Regulations protect consumers from new and potentially dangerous foods entering the market before their safety is proven.

However, these regulations were ambiguous on insect foods, resulting in wildly different regulation across the EU. Italy completely banned their sale while the UK has no specific legislation on insect foods allowing the entry of foods containing several species onto the market.

Finland also banned the sale of insect foods but savvy entrepreneurs marketed them as ‘kitchen ornaments’ in order to get their products on to the market. The Netherlands appears to be leading the way with edible insects, thanks to the concerted efforts of insect researchers across the country spearheading a campaign to get the Dutch eating insects. This was launched in 2006 with a mass insect eating in Wageningen.

To address this discrepancy, the EU brought in an amendment to the Novel Foods process on January 1st 2018, stating that all species of edible insects need to have an application accepted to prove their safety as food. In order to protect businesses, those with products already on the market have been given two years grace to have an application accepted.

Insects as feed

The spiralling cost of soy- and fish-meal is driving demand for new protein sources for animal feed to improve European protein security. Insects offer such an opportunity. The species suitable for animal feeds are as efficient as those for human consumption, but are considered unsuitable for human foods for various reasons, including their feed stock and their general unpalatability.

It is unsurprisingly difficult to persuade people to eat cockroaches and maggots regardless of their benefits! Furthermore, these insects can often be reared on feed stock that is unsuitable for rearing animals for human consumption, including manure and food waste.

It is estimated that approximately 1/3 of all food produced is wasted, that is 1.3 billion tonnes per year worth US$750 billion or the equivalent of 198 million hectares of cropland, not accounting for inedible or undesirable portions of the crop. Insects offer an exciting opportunity to capture and recycle the nutrients currently lost from the food system either to landfill, anaerobic digestion, composting or use as organic fertilisers.

Two species of particular interest for animal feed applications are the house fly and the black soldier fly. The larvae of both can feed on a wide range of organic material providing the opportunity to transition from a linear to a circular food production system, converting wastes of little or no value into high quality protein and fats for use as feed stocks, establishing a food system that more closely replicates the status quo in nature, where there is almost no waste as nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and carbon, are recycled.

The law

Globally there are a number of markets for insects as feed, including crickets in Thailand and the black soldier flies in South Africa.

However, exploitation of this opportunity in Europe has so far been prevented due to laws introduced in the 1990’s to prevent the emergence and spread of diseases, such as BSE (mad cow disease), banning the use of animal products in feed. These laws were amended to allow the use of fishmeal and from 1st July 2017 the EU has allowed the use of insect proteins in aquaculture feeds (EU Regulation 2017/893) albeit under strict regulation.

It is hoped that this regulatory change will pave the way for insects to enter the diets of other livestock. With some initial evidence that replacing both soybean and fish meal with insect protein in broiler chicken feeds improves carcass weights and meat quality^[7], the opportunity may be even greater than simply in protein replacement.

Conclusions

There will be no silver bullet to solve the challenges faced in providing protein for the growing global population. The causes are too complex and entrenched, their effects too wide ranging and diverse. However, the integration of insects into the human food chain can help to ensure global food security for the next century, reducing the impact of our food production systems on the climate and oceans and the capacity of the Earth to sustain our civilisation for future generations.

There is obviously a huge amount of work to be done to bring this niche area into the mainstream and to achieve this will take commitment and investment from across the whole of society.

THE BLACK CRICKET Gryllus bimaculatus

Black crickets, top, (Gryllus bimaculatus) laying eggs into soil Hatchling crickets, above, are known as ‘Pin Heads’ due to their tiny size

Multiple species of cricket are commercially reared as food, with over 20,000 facilities in Thailand alone. The black cricket is one of the favoured species due to its superior taste. They have a high reproductive rate and short life cycle: females can lay over a thousand eggs during their 45-day lives. The crickets are reared in a range of containers from 15L plastic boxes to shipping containers, fed on the cheapest available diet, which is often chicken feed. Adding vertical structures, e.g. bamboo tubes or cardboard egg boxes, increases the number of insects that can be reared in a given area. Stacking rearing containers further improves space use efficiency. Adult crickets have chitinous wings, so for consumption they are harvested as juveniles to avoid additional processing. This is also often the case with locusts and beetles. Upon harvesting G. bimaculatus contains 60% protein and 21% fat[2].

Douglas Moore

Monkfield Nutrition Ltd,

Church Farm Barn, Wendy, Royston, Herts, SG8 0HJ.

Photographs supplied courtesy Adam Singleton, Monkfield Nutrition.

EmailDouglas.Moore@monkfieldnutrition.co.uk

Telephone01223 208261

Webmonkfieldnutrition.co.uk

References

1.  van Huis, A., et al., Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security. 2013, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

2.  van Huis, A.A. and J.K. Tomberlin, Insects as food and feed: from production to consumption. Insects as food and feed: from production to consumption. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

3.  Payne, C.L.R., et al., Are edible insects more or less ‘healthy' than commonly consumed meats? A comparison using two nutrient profiling models developed to combat over- and undernutrition. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2016. 70(3): p. 285-291.

4.  Miglietta, P., et al., Mealworms for Food: A Water Footprint Perspective. Water, 2015. 7(11): p. 6190.

5.  Oonincx, D., et al., An Exploration on Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Production by Insect Species Suitable for Animal or Human Consumption. Plos One, 2010. 5(12): p. 7.

6.  Siegel, P.B., Evolution of the modern broiler and feed efficiency. Annu Rev Anim Biosci, 2014. 2: p. 375-85.

7.  Pieterse, E., et al., The carcass quality, meat quality and sensory characteristics of broilers raised on diets containing either <i>Musca domestica</i> larvae meal, fish meal or soya bean meal as the main protein source. Animal Production Science, 2014. 54(5): p. 622-628.