OK so GM is bad right?

GM – genetic modification. It sounds sort of science fictionish doesn’t it?

Another way of saying it , is genetic engineering – sounds just as bad, maybe even worse.

So what is GM or GE?

It is a process where either genes from one source are placed into another gene sequence of another organisation, or where the genes of an organism are modified. The aim of GM / GE is to either improve a characteristic of an organism or to give that organism a characteristic it did not previously have.

So is that bad?

Many crops are now available as Gm and there are specific conditions which must be met for growing them. Unfortunately with some of these crops, there are big legal issues about reproducing the seeds and who owns what. A good wind in an area can cause major legal issues with GM.

Some years ago, it was identified that in some countries in Asia, there was a Vitamin A deficiency in the population.

Scientists spliced a gene from a carrot species into a species of rice. Carrots are high in Vitamin A and the people of Asia eat rice every day. It seemed like an easy way to increase the Vitamin A content of the diet and reduce the deficiency. Golden Rice was born through GM and is now commonly available throughout Asia.

Is GM bad?

A cow has particular impressive milking characteristics and so the farmer breeds her with a bull with a record of strong calves. The farmer continues to do the same thing over and over to end up with stock that have specific characteristics. This is also GM, although not done in a lab.

Is GM bad?

Recently the US Food and Drug Administration has just approved the first ever genetically modified animal for human consumption. The GM salmon grows quicker than none GE salmon. This means that product is turned over more quickly getting to market sooner and also reducing feed costs.

Is that bad?

GM has a bad rap and there are good reasons why, but there are also just as many reasons why it is a process which will save us money, reduce chemical usage, increaede yields, flavours etc, get product to market quicker and reduce waste.

The real problem with GM is that we just do not know what the long term effects will be with using lab produced materials and any potential allergy issues, although thousands of years of farm GE has produced much of the livestock, produce and crops we eat today.

As a Foodie, I believe that in general GM is just one of the processes in our toolbox to ensure good quality and safe food, but we have to make sure that the law keeps up with the developments happening daily

In 1989, a logo started to appear on foods in our supermarkets. It was designed and intended to help consumer pick a healthier option by giving a method for comparing similar foods.

What logo? – The Heart Foundation’s red and white Tick.

When it first came out, there was opposition and even suggestions that businesses could just slap it onto foods if they paid enough.

For a company to be able to use the logo, there were many strict tests and requirements which had to be met, besides paying the registration and usage fees.

Now nearly 30 years after it made it’s first appearance, The Tick is very well recognised and respected.

The logo has allowed us all to easily compare foods for components like; saturated fats, kilojoules, fibre, calcium, trans fat and salt, amongst others.

A recent announcement by the Heart Foundation has been a bit of a shock, The Tick will be phased out over the next two years.

It is not because the logo has been unsuccessful, it is due to the introduction of the Health Star Rating (HSR).

The Heart Foundation is one of many organisations which have worked with the Federal Government to develop and introduce the new five star rating system.

The HSR is now being slowly phased onto products in our supermarkets and is giving customers and consumers a standard way of doing the camparison that was once only possible with The Tick.

It seems right now that everyone is talking about raw foods. There is even some very heated discussion going on about hamburgers being served medium rare instead of fully cooked.

I even heard the other day about someone wanting to make and eat Chicken Tartare. In case you don’t know what that is – take a raw chicken fillet, keep it really cold, soak it in lemon juice and place a raw egg on top – and serve. As a Food Safety person, every part of me is saying NO No No to that, but it is just an example of how people are stretching the normal bounds with food and experimenting

The belief by many is that raw foods are just better for you and taste better.

So are raw foods actually better for you?

It is true that by cooking many of the vitamins in foods are either destroyed or reduced and cooking does change the proteins in foods. So the actual make up of the food when cooked is different to when it is raw, whether that means they are better is a personal decision.

The longer int takes for a food to go from harvesting to use, the greater the loss of nutrients.

But cooked foods with fat content will taste richer and stronger than when they are not cooked. The flavour in fats is enhanced by cooking and so the overall flavour is improved.

Ok, so what about whether raw foods are actually safe to eat?

Cooking to at least 75C kills most bacteria, raw foods do not have this kill step and so are naturally higher in food poisoning bacteria.

Raw eggs are used to make many dishes, with homemade mayonnaise and aeoli being particular favourites right now. At Christmas, egg nog is made with raw egg.

Salads are full of potentially hazardous foods and so will have a higher bacterial load unless processed in such a way to reduce it.

Sushimi is essentially raw fish and other seafood.

None of these examples of raw foods have been heat treated, in fact that process would ruin the food. So to make sure they are raw foods which are safe to eat, we have to do extra things in our kitchens or businesses.

Keeping all contact surfaces clean and sanitised is just the first step. Making sure that hands are washed often and properly to reduce cross contamination is essential. Keeping all food temperatures very cold to slow bacterial growth is crucial. Washing the salad parts in clean chlorinated water will not necessarily remove all dirt and bacteria but it is much better to do it than not.Using acids like lemon juice or other natural preservatives (eg; sugar, honey or salt) will also help control the bacteria.

We should not be making mayonnaise or aeoli ourselves, buy it in from recognised suppliers, who have processes in place to ensure safety.

So are raw foods better for you?

Raw foods do have more nutrients but only if eaten very soon after harvesting but may not necessarily taste better because cooking does enhance fat flavours.

The real problem with raw foods is that they have not undergone a kill step (cooking) to reduce / eliminate the potential food poisoning bacteria. So if a person wants to eat raw foods, it is essential to do a few specific things to make sure that they are safe.

There are charges for cakeage and corkage, we now have the first vomit charge.

A child in a restaurant on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast vomited on the floor and a staff member had to clean it up.

The child’s mother was charged $10 to go toward the cost of the clean up.

The clean up required that that section of the restaurant be closed until it was completed as well as the time for the staff member to do the cleaning, equipment clean / sanitise and to recover from it afterwards. It would certainly have cost more than the $10 charge.

The mother has reported the charge on social media and there has been a lot of negative feedback to the restaurant.

The restaurant has apologised for imposing the charge and has offered to refund it.

The question is – was the restaurant right in making the charge to start with?

Secondly – should it have to make the apology and refund offer?

Do we now live in a society where others are just supposed to clean up after you with no recognition that they are doing it (including payment)?

Or is the restaurant just trying to make money?

So was the vomit charge right or wrong?

This an article from www.ausfoodnews on 10 May 2016, and is an excellent summary on what is use by date and how it is done.

Food and beverage products must have date codes; those without attract harsh penalties, because consumer health and safety is the intention behind them. Rather critical! Date codes give a guide to an item’s shelf-life — how long it can be kept before its quality begins to deteriorate, or it becomes potentially unsafe to consume.

In Australia, it’s the manufacturer’s or food supplier’s responsibility to determine shelf life. The Food Standards Code states that all packaged foods with a shelf life of less than two years must have a date mark.

But retailers also benefit from using date codes. So let’s go through the difference between use-by and best-before dates so you know which one to use, including five essential tips for date coding. Then we’ll look at which are the best technologies to code dates.

Firstly, it’s important to know that it’s not only consumers who benefit — otherwise it would just be an added cost. Retailers use date marking on secondary packaging to ensure better turnaround of your stock and reduce food wastage.

USE-BY DATE

What is it?

Foods marked with a use-by date must be consumed before that date. If the use-by date has expired, the food may be unsafe to eat, even if it looks and smells “okay”.

Foods cannot legally be sold after the use-by date because they may pose a health or safety risk, which is why retailers put such great emphasis on having clear and accurate date coding. Nutrients in the food may become unstable after the use-by date has expired or a build-up of bacteria may occur.

When do you use it?

Foods that must be eaten before a certain time for health or safety reasons should be marked with a use-by date. This includes most perishable food items, especially those stored in the fridge:

• Dairy produce, g.: milk, soft cheese

• Meat produce, g.: sliced ham and shaved meats

• Ready-prepared salads

• Prepared fish, g.: smoked salmon

  BEST-BEFORE DATE

  What is it?

  Best-before indicates the date from which the quality of the food starts to deteriorate from its peak. Typically, foods with a best-before date are still safe to be consumed after that date and will retain their colour, taste, texture and flavour — provided they have been stored correctly and have not deteriorated beyond being fit for human consumption. As a rule, if the food looks and smells as the consumer expects, it should be safe to eat, even after the best-before date.

  Foods with a best-before date can still be sold after that date, again provided the food is still fit for human consumption.

  When do you use it?

  Foods frequently marked with best-before dates, rather than use-by dates, are those that tend to last longer, such as canned foods, frozen foods, cereals, biscuits, sauces, confectionery, dried goods, sugar, flour and so on.

  EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES

  Of course, there are some exceptions: foods that typically don’t require date marks of any kind include:

• Foods where the best-before date is two years or more (such as canned foods); this is because it’s difficult to give an accurate guide as to how long these foods will keep, and will likely be consumed before spoiling.

• Foods in packages smaller than 100mm² — unless the food should be consumed before a certain date for health or safety reasons.

• Individual portions of ice-cream or ice-confectionary.

• Bread, which can be labelled with an individual “baked on” or “baked for” date.

  If you’re unsure, it is always best to double check the Food Standards Code (see end of article).

  So what technology is best for date codes?

  WHICH TECHNOLOGY FOR DATECODING & BATCHCODING?

  There are various technologies available for date coding, and which you choose will depend on the type of packaging and your production environment. This infographic on the top 5 things to consider when you need a date coder is very handy.

  Some of the most popular technologies include Small Character Continuous Inkjet (CIJ), Drop-On-Demand Inkjet Printers (DOD), Thermal Transfer Overprinter (TTO), and laser:

  Continuous Inkjet Printers are a highly reliable and low-cost option for high-volume applications because they have the ability to date mark goods with fast-drying ink at speeds of up to 120,000 drops per second. They can also print variable information on most packaging surfaces, sizes and substrates (even with moisture on the surface), as well as secondary packaging (cartons and trays) — all of which makes them ideal for date coding.

  Thermal Transfer Overprinters produce crisp and durable codes on flexible packaging surfaces, such as film packaging, labels and gloss surfaces. This makes them ideal for date coding of snackfoods, confectionery, pharmaceutical products, smallgoods and fresh produce.

  Lasers are an extremely fast way to apply date codes onto both primary and secondary packaging. They can code onto glass, plastics, metal and cardboard, meaning they are a great option for liquids, water, beverages and snack foods. Because of the high-quality mark, they are particularly suited to the wine industry.

  Five essential tips

• Make date codes indelible. Because it’s law to have a date code in most cases, the code must be indelible and highly durable.

• Make date codes visible. Codes must be easily visible to the end consumer, as well as being crisp, clear and easy to read.

• Future-proof your business. Choose a date coder that can print on a variety of packaging materials, especially if you’re looking to launch new product lines in the future.

• Eliminate date-coding errors. Look for a date coder that can be integrated into a software solution, such as Matthews iDSnet, to ensure the right date code is printed on the right product at the right time. This can also be supplemented by vision inspection to check that the code is both present and in the right format.

• A word about storage. In many cases, products need specific storage conditions to maintain quality until the best-before or use-by date, so you must include these storage instructions on the label, “Keep in a cool, dry place.”

  You may find this blog on 5 codes every manufacturer must know helpful; it includes date codes, batch numbers, ID codes, barcodes and QR and other promotional codes.

  If you’re unsure whether your product needs a use-by, best-before or other date code, it’s always best to double check the Food Standards Code.

  Need more advice on date coding your products? Speak to our experts.

  * Trent Munro is an accomplished business strategist, marketing innovator and speaker specialising in business development and optimisation. Over the past 15 years, he has worked across a range of blue-chip and medium enterprises including Goodyear Automotive, Clariant, Corona Manufacturing and Matthews Australasia. Trent holds a range of postgraduate and graduate qualifications in Commerce, Psychology, Project Management and Science. At Matthews Australasia, he has overseen market development locally and abroad, launching class leading traceability and automation technologies across manufacturing, healthcare and logistics.

So we all want to be healthy and would obviously choose healthier foods over non healthy – right?

Ipsos has just released it’s latest Foods Consumption, Habits, Attitudes and Trends report. It shows that eating more fresh fruit and vegetables is the number one food thing Australians want to do this year.

The others in the top five food priorities for this year are; smaller portion sizes, reducing sugar intake from food, eating healthier snacks and cutting down on fat.

The intent is good but the reality is vastly different as the Ipsos research shows.

In store, the research found, 72 percent of those making the purchase put taste as the main reason for buying the food. Health is not the driving force.

Many businesses are doing all sorts of things to reduce their Carbon Footprint and saying so on the product packaging. These businesses will be disappointed to realise that sustainability is not high in the purchase decision as the second top reason for purchase is price (with 63 percent of shoppers putting this as a priority).

Ipsos Strategy and Research Director, Kathy Benson said; “Our study shows that while making healthier food choices is a key priority for Australians, the typical, everyday shopper is still struggling to balance healthiness against convenience and their budget. Making a quick decision in-store, purchasing products which are familiar and easy to use at home, as well as meeting budget restrictions, are still very important factors when it comes to making food purchases.”

The results from this research highlight a problem for food businesses – what we eat and what we say we’ll eat may well be different. How do food businesses develop new products if what we say is one thing and what we actually buy and then eat are different?

Maybe this helps to explain why several of the big quick serve chains continue to put out huge meals, even though we say we’ll eat smaller portions.

So there is an ad on TV right now about Australia’s most popular brand of biscuits. Some of the products made by this company are what are known as “icon” products because they are likely to be in most pantries or are known by nearly everyone. Tim Tams are such a product and are both well known and very loved by nearly everyone.

This ad is timely, as recent research by Roy Morgan Research shows that we Aussies are eating less sweet biscuits.

26.3 percent of Australians over 14 were eating sweet biscuits weekly in 2011, this number has decreased significantly in the latest research.

There has also been a decrease in savoury biscuit consumption since 2011, although only by less than two percent.

Interestingly, it is those between 14 and 17, and those over 65 who are the biggest sweet biscuit consumers.

Over 50 percent of those over 65 are eating sweet biscuits each week.

Another interesting finding is that more than half of those who eat sweet biscuits do not eat savoury ones. But the same does not apply to those who eat savoury biscuits, as nearly 60 percent partake of sweet biscuits as well.

The current TV ad not only shows sweet but savoury biscuits and is designed to apply to everyone. This manufacturer and others are now faced with a dilemma, how to market to two targets groups, the 14-17s and the over 65s, which have little in common – except liking sweet biscuits.

 Andrew Price, General Manager of Consumer Products at Roy Morgan Research said; “As outlined above, teenagers and the 65+ demographic are more likely than other age groups to eat savoury and sweet biscuits, which presents an interesting challenge for marketers! The plot thickens when we look at the bigger snack picture, and find that young Aussies aged 14-17 are more likely than any other age group to eat just about every snack category measured by Roy Morgan Research, while the older bracket tends to be below average for most snacks. So not only do these two groups sit at opposite ends of the age spectrum, they also have markedly different snacking habits – yet are somehow united by their penchant for biscuits. Of course, despite the decline in consumption, sweet biscuits remain one of the country’s most popular snacks. However, several other snack categories – from natural yoghurt to nuts, icy poles to corn chips – are gaining in popularity, so it is crucial for biscuit brands to do what they can to enhance their competitiveness now.”

 Source: Roy Morgan Single Source (Australia), October 2014 – September 2015 (n=15,668).  *NB: sweet biscuits include chocolate coated biscuits, cream/jam filled and plain (sweet).

The following is a Recall notification from the New South Wales Food Authority.

Recall: Streets Blue Ribbon ice cream tubs

05 May 2016

The NSW Food Authority advises:

Unilever Australia Limited has recalled Streets Blue Ribbon Ice Cream – all flavours and sizes from all major supermarkets and convenience stores nationally due to potential presence of small plastic pieces.

As food products containing plastic pieces may cause injury if consumed, consumers should not eat these products.

Product details are:

•           Streets Blue Ribbon Ice Cream – all flavours and sizes

•           Blue plastic container

•           Best Before dates between 28 April 2017 to 27 April 2018

The product can be returned to the place of purchase for a full refund. If you are concerned about your health, you should seek medical advice.

For more information contact Unilever Australia Limited on 1800 801 885 and consumerrelations.uanz@unilever.com.

Ok, so we have all heard about the “antifreeze” in ice cream and all the terrible preservatives we eat everyday.

What about all those really bad chemicals they spray all over the food before it gets to us????

Only certain chemicals are allowed to be used in connection with foods and this varies to some extent from country to country. These chemicals include; pesticides, herbicides and antibiotics.

In the Food Standards Code there is a section detailing the maximum amount of these chemicals permitted in foods. This is called the Maximum Residual Limits.

Once a chemical is in contact with a food, whether it be chooks, cows or produce, there is a period of time when the animal is withheld from slaughter or the produce from harvest. This is called the withholding period and it varies from chemical to chemical and food to food.

The Maximum Residual Limit (MRL) is the amount of these chemicals permitted to still be in the animal / bird or produce when it is consumed.

The MRL is set by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) after much investigation and testing, to ensure that the amount is not going to cause us harm when we eat the food.

To address the current problem of a chemical being found in foods which are not stated in the Code, FSANZ are working on adjusting the MRLs to include an “all other foods” requirement.

The proposal is now in the submission stage of the process and FSANZ is inviting submissions on it from the public and interested parties.

FSANZ Chief Executive Officer, Steve McCutcheon, said; “This has created issues for enforcement agencies and producers because low levels of chemicals permitted on one food may be accidentally found on other foods not listed in the Code. While these levels (which can result from things like spray drift) don’t represent a public health and safety concern, the presence of chemicals means the food cannot legally be sold. FSANZ is consulting on an approach involving limits being set for some chemicals for all other foods except animal commodities. Some chemicals would be excluded because of high toxicity.”

The all other foods limit will not be a blanket statement but determined on a case by case basis.

Submissions are open until 3 June 2016 at www.foodstandards.gov.au

Although there has now been a decision made on the definition of free range eggs, a ruling made by the Australian Federal Court after the decision, is making waves in the food industry.

The ruling imposed $300,000 penalty on an egg producer because labelling and promotion which occurred between 1 January 2012 to 2 December 2014, had eggs which were not free range and did not comply with Australian Consumer Law.

During the judgement Justice Edelman said the conduct was significant, occurring over nearly a three year period and involving a widely consumed food. He noted that the conduct concerned “representations upon which consumers were heavily reliant” and that the loss and damage suffered by consumers and competitors is likely to be significant.

CHOICE believes the court’s decision was correct, whereas the company and others in the food industry say that it is unfair.

CHOICE spokesperson Erin Turner said; “Ministers responsible for consumer affairs had an opportunity to clean up this market. Instead they bowed to the requests of big industrial egg producers and locked in an information standard that will continue to rip-off consumers as ‘free-range’ hens can still be kept in cramped conditions with no guarantee they go outside.”

Joe Lederman, expert in food law from food compliancy practice, FoodLegal said; “I can understand why the company could feel it was unfairly treated, it was advertising its eggs at a time when free range was not properly defined, it’s a bit rough.”

The case was initiated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said; “This decision reinforces the position the ACCC has taken that any free range egg claim must be backed by farming conditions which allow hens to actually move about on an open range each day.”

The company has responded to the ruling by confirming that the specific farm involved is no longer supplying their business and there have been various changes to it’s farm practices recently as well as a review of labelling.