The best example of nano technology being used in food packaging is the introduction of minute silver particles into the packaging. Silver is known to have antibacterial properties, so this makes the packaging containing it, antibacterial as well. This is a wonderful introduction to assist in the prevention of food poisoning.

Nano means extremely small. So the silver particles that are being impregnated into the packaging are microscopic and therefore cannot be seen by the eye.

Nano particles are also used commonly now in sunscreens, as they assist with protecting the skin from sun exposure.

So nano materials have some wonderful properties and are therefore becoming much more commonly used in packaging and other products.

The problem is that these particles can migrate into the food the packaging contains and therefore enter the body. It is really not known at this stage wheat potential health impacts this may have.  The amount entering the food is very small, and there is no evidence to date that there is any harm but the long term effects and impact are yet to be determined.

This has organisations like Friends of the Earth very concerned about the fact that Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has not included nano containing food packaging in it’s current investigation of the safety of food packaging. It believes that the packaging should be banned until the safety has been determined.

FSANZ says that because the risks of such packaging have not yet been defined a separate investigation may be required.

So is nano containing food packaging a good thing or bad?

The answer, like with GM and irradiation, is not a simple one. There are incredible benefits and advantages to this technology as well as significant cost savings and improved environmental impacts. However, there is no real understanding of the long term health impacts that it may have.

The same was probably said about electricity or even many of the other developments that we now take for granted after many many years of using them.

It seems that we have a situation where once again technology has jumped way ahead of the law and even of the studies of long term implications, and we simply have to wait until they catch up. 

The real question is – do we sit around waiting for the law to catch up and not use new technology, or should we keep moving into the future – and if so, how and under what controls?

Written by Rachelle Williams, The Green Food Safety Coach.

The big thing in food safety right now is raw milk. With the potential death of a young child and possible illness of several others due to drinking raw milk, all health authorities in Australia are discussing what can, and should, be done to prevent a recurrence.

Raw milk is not permitted to be sold for human consumption in Australia, it is however allowed to be sold for bathing and other cosmetic purposes.

Raw milk contains a lot of naturally occurring bacteria, many of which are harmful to humans when consumed. It is a recognised source of food poisoning from Listeria, Salmonella and E.coli.

To ensure that this product is safe for human consumption, the milk must be put through a heat process called Pasteurisation. This process heats the milk up rapidly to a temperature that will kill the vast majority of bacteria present, held for a set time period and then quickly cooled down to slow the growth of any remaining bacteria.

This milk is then kept below 5°C to slow bacterial growth. The product then has a use by date, after which the amount of bacteria in the milk will make it unsafe for consumption as long as it is kept below the important 5°C. This is the shelf life of the milk and is usually around 10 days.

Raw milk does not undergo this process, so there is no step used to kill the dangerous bacteria. So the bacteria will continue to grow slowly in the fridge and get to a level very quickly that will make people very sick if it is consumed.

This is why raw milk is not permitted to be sold for human consumption in this country. It must be clearly labelled as Raw Milk and show that it has not been pasteurised. It should not be drunk by anyone, and especially anyone in the high risk groups. Unfortunately, to a child it will look just like drinking pasteurised milk as it is sold in health food shops in the same bottle style and with labels in the same places.

Some people believe that Raw Milk is good for your health, but there has been little scientific support of this. The only real benefit is that the large amount of bacteria in raw milk will force the body’s immune system to work harder and this will make it stronger, but it absolutely is not worth the risk of consuming such dangerous bacteria.

Many cheesemakers believe that cheeses made from raw milk have more depth of flavour and there is still a strong push for this to be allowed in Australia, however at the moment it is the bottles of raw milk available to the public that is the significant food safety issue.

Authorities are meeting across the country to determine if the practice of allowing raw milk to be sold for bathing etc is even to be continued, as there is such a risk for children.

This is really a watch this space situation as we wait to find out what the health authorities across Australia decide.

Written by Rachelle Williams, The Green Food Safety Coach.

Another case has gone to the Federal Court for the alleged “false and misleading “ use of the term “free range’.

Two egg producers are now being pursued by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), under the national label Ecoeggs, and the NSW labels of Port Stephens and Field Fresh Free Range Eggs.

The $300 000 penalty against Pirovic Enterprises by the Federal Court in September 2014 for the false and misleading use of free range representations, should have been a major warning to all in the egg industry, according to the ACCC.

As a result the ACCC is actively pursuing this issue and the case is set down for early February 2015.

ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said; “The ACCC considers that free range means more than animals just having potential access to the outdoors. Consumers expect free range to mean animals genuinely can and do go outside on most days.”

The pictures, images and representations on the packaging and internet for the two latest companies does not meet this expectation and that is the reason that the ACCC is pursuing legal action.

There are factors which may affect whether hens can move freely on open range, but regardless in this case the representations do not meet expectations.

However, the big difficulty is that there is still no agreed national definition for “free range” eggs even though work on it has been underway for some time.

It is of increasing urgency as many big businesses are now currently, or planning to, only purchase or sell non-cage eggs. This will mean that an agreed definition for organic, barn and free range will be needed sooner rather than later.

Written by Rachelle Williams, The Green Food Safety Coach.

Oats do not actually contain gluten but do include other proteins called avenins, which cause a similar reaction for some Coeliacs. Because of this, oats are included with wheat, barley and rye as the grains which those with Coeliac Disease must avoid.

Those with Coeliac Disease have an unusual immune reaction when they eat gluten. The small intestine is damaged and the symptoms can range from gas, vomiting, bloating, to potential loss of part of the bowel. There is an increased likelihood of both cancer and osteoporosis.

The only confirmed way of avoiding these symptoms and outcomes is to not eat any foods containing gluten or, in the case of oats, gluten like proteins.

Research recently undertaken in Melbourne by the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Monash University and US biotechnology company ImmusanT, has identified the actual parts of the avenin proteins which cause the immunological reaction in some Coeliacs.

The findings were published in November 2014 in the Journal of Autoimmunity.

It is hoped that the findings will lead to the development of improved oat toxicity tests and treatments for those with Coeliac Disease.

Oats do not cause an immune reaction in all Coeliacs but in the study it was found that eight percent of the 72 people involved reacted adversely to consuming oats. This is significant enough to confirm that oats should be avoided by all Coeliacs.

Walter and Eliza Hall Institute researcher Dr Melinda Hardy said ; “The significance of previous studies performed in test tubes was unclear. By studying people with coeliac disease who had eaten oats, we were able to undertake a detailed profile of the resultant immune response in their bloodstream. Our study was able to establish the parts of oat avenins that cause an immune response in people with coeliac disease.”

Coeliac Australia, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, BTG International plc, ImmusanT Inc. and the Victorian Government were the supporters of this study.

Written by Rachelle Williams, The Green Food Safety Coach.

We all know people who are now either only eating gluten free food or are choosing to eat it primarily. Is it a fad or is it a real need or is it in fact a combination? Does eating less gluten really make people feel better or not?

Gluten is a protein found in wheat, oats, barley and rye. It has a significant role to play in the baking industry, particularly with bread as it plays a major part in the texture and structure we associate with bread. Without gluten bread does not rise to the same degree and has a much denser texture.

There are a small number of people in our community who cannot eat gluten without suffering from gas, bloating, pain or potentially loss of sections of their bowel or even death. These people suffer from a specific disease and their digestive systems are simply not able to accept gluten. They are known as Coeliacs. There is no known current cure for this disease, and the only way that these people can avoid these symptoms is to simply not eat foods containing gluten.

There are also people in our community who have not been tested to confirm that they are Coeliacs but believe that by limiting the amount of gluten they eat, actually feel better and more energetic. This is an increasing number of people, as a recent survey in the USA shows.

In the USA, there has been an increase in the sales of gluten free food in the last two years of 63 percent, to hit $8.8 billion. This research was done by Mintel, a market research organisation. It would be a similar jump in Australia with every restaurant and café now with a gluten free option and the massive number of gluten free products now in the supermarkets. Gluten free is no longer a fad, it is now mainstream and eaten daily by choice by thousands of people in this country.    

Whether for the majority of those thousands there is a real physical benefit (as there is for diagnosed Coeliacs) or a complex psychological one, is now a question that is being hotly debated. Regardless of the answer, there is an increasing consumption and purchase of gluten free food worldwide.

Amanda Topper, Food Analyst at Mintel, said; “Overall, the gluten-free food market continues to thrive off those who must maintain a gluten-free diet for medical reasons, as well as those who perceive gluten-free foods to be healthier or more natural. The category will continue to grow in the near term, especially as FDA (Food and Drug Administration in the USA) regulations make it easier for consumers to purchase gluten-free products and trust the manufacturers who make them. Despite strong growth over the last few years, there is still innovation opportunity, especially in food segments that typically contain gluten.”

Written by Rachelle Williams, The Green Food Safety Coach.

In what is now the biggest food safety related settlement in Australian history, the owner, manufacturer and distributor of a soy milk product with excessive iodine will be paying out $25million.

The final decision on the case will be made by the Victorian Supreme Court in January 2015.

Hundreds of customers of Bonsoy will be sharing in this payout. There were three companies involved in this class action, but no liability will be admitted as part of the settlement.

Bonsoy soy milk sold between 2004 and 2009 was found to have dangerous iodine levels and nearly 500 people will see their pay out for damages within 12 months. The solicitors acting for the class action will also be taking a percentage of the settlement fund.

A recall was conducted on the product around Christmas 2009 due to the high iodine levels.

Iodine, although needed in small amounts for health, should not be consumed in large quantities as it can have bad effects on the Thyroid Gland. This can lead to significant health issues, resulting in long term problems, including job and business loss due to the inability to work.

Kombu, an iodine-rich seaweed, was being added to the soy milk, which resulted in a single glass of the milk containing seven times the safe dose of iodine. Allegedly the three companies ignored a test in 2006 that showed the excessively high iodine levels and also did not listen to consumer complaints at the time.

This potential payout and settlement must be a warning to all food businesses that even if one person’s claim is only small, when many group to together it becomes a potential major payout and public event.

Written by Rachelle Williams, The Green Food Safety Coach.

Sustainability is all about doing the right thing and looking to the future. Although that is not the formal definition, the principle has been taken up by the World Cocoa Foundation (WCF).

Cocoa is the base material for one of the most popular foods in the world – chocolate. The material comes from the cacao bean, which is predominately grown in the tropical areas in Africa, and particularly in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire (The Ivory Coast).

To keep costs low, historically the growers and harvesters of these beans have been poorly paid and treated, including the use of child labour. This has raised the very real concern of the sustainability of cocoa and therefore chocolate.

With the Ebola virus now common in these two countries, there is a very real risk that cocoa will not be available for some time. This added to the sustainability issues of the bean farming, has prompted the WCF and it’s members to make some significant decisions at it’s recent convention in Copenhagen, Denmark.

CocoaAction has now been implemented and is a strategy designed to improve the lives of the cocoa farmers through better productivity and support of community development. It is intended that there will be work being done with at least 300 000 cocoa farmers by 2020.

The strategy has been agreed to by 11 of the world’s biggest chocolate related companies to date and has a set of expected key performance indicators that each must work on, measure and report.

The President of the World Cocoa Foundation, Bill Guyton, said; “Our industry is at a critical moment, and CocoaAction is our strategy to ensure that collective cocoa sustainability efforts go deeper and wider. With CocoaAction, industry leaders are embarking on an unprecedented effort to improve farmers’ lives and ensure they benefit more from the cocoa they grow. This meeting has been critical in engaging all stakeholders in helping to co-create the future of standards, measurement and certification.”

The convention also included an announcement by the WCFG leadership of a donation of more than $700 000 toward the fight against Ebola in the cocoa growing areas. The money will be donated to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and Caritas

Written by Rachelle Williams, The Green Food Safety Coach.

What was for a short time, the biggest food poisoning event in Australia happened in Canberra on the 2013 Mother’s Day.

A raw egg mayonnaise was made that ended up causing 100 people to have food poisoning. 15 people were hospitalised. The mayonnaise was used in the potato salad on offer that day and many people became sick from Salmonella as a result.

The restaurant immediately apologised, then removed all raw egg products from the menu, and has since shut it’s doors. However, the former owners have already had to pay out around $1 million to the victims.

An ACT court now requires that two juvenile victims be paid $5,446 and $5,379 respectively on top of the payment already made. The juveniles will have to wait until they are 18 to receive the payment.

The civil action for thes, and the total payment is believed to be the largest in the ACT, so although this is no longer the biggest food poisoning in Australian history, it is certainly historic for the compensation to be paid.

There is also criminal court action in progress on top of this civil action, as it is against ACT law to knowingly or negligently sell unsafe food. The investigation done by ACT Health determined that the contaminated eggs came from a supplier in Victoria.

This event and the subsequent payouts and potential criminal charges, highlight how important it is that all food businesses manage their food safety and supplier control programs.

Written by Rachelle Williams, The Green Food Safety Coach.

Most of us would have the limp carrot or similar out of date fruit or vegetable in our fridge at some time. We just don’t get around to using them when we should and eventually do the big throw out and thereby contribute to the absolute problem that food waste is. At least a third of all food grown is thrown away. It is a massive waste of money, water, time and resources.
Extending the shelf life of fresh fruit and vegetables would certainly help all of us forget about what is in the fridge and reduce food waste. Improving the shelf life would also give the opportunity to be able to take food into places that have been difficult until now. This means that world hunger could also be reduced.
A lot of research has been ongoing to do just this and recently a new formula has been developed in Israel that will do this.
The formula is actually based on Stabilised Hydrogen Peroxide (STHP) and a fungicide. The amazing thing about this specific formula is that it will not only extend shelf life of produce to remain fresh for up to 10 weeks but will break down into harmless and environmentally friendly components.
Slightly different formulations have been developed to suit specific fresh produce. There is still more work being done before fresh produce coated in this formula appear on our shelves but it will not be long coming.It will most likely be only one of the many ways we will have in future of having good quality fruit and vegetable when we want and where we want.

Written by Rachelle Williams, The Green Food Safety Coach.

We all know that arsenic is poisonous and we should avoid it. However not that many years ago, arsenic was still be adding to potions for medicinal reasons.

There is a very small amount of inorganic arsenic present in plants, so we are all consuming tiny amounts regularly and it does us no long term harm.

Recently research has shown that at least 50 percent of the rice based food products in the UK have arsenic levels which exceed those being proposed by the European Union (EU)

81 different products were tested and of the rice based products 58 percent had arsenic higher than the incoming maximum levels.

So it seems that rice may have more than slight levels of arsenic. This is a big issue for manufacturers, who will be required to meet the new maximum arsenic levels when they come into effect in the northern summer.

It seems that some major reformulation work may be required and this is going to have a significant impact on flavour, texture, appearance and, of course, cost of a lot of well-known favourite foods.

These new levels – 200 parts per billion (ppb) for adults and 100ppb for children – will be the first time that maximum arsenic limits have been set for food.

These limits are for any serving of food, but do not consider the long term exposure. There are some scientists now raising long term exposure as a significant issue.

With rice being the single biggest crop in the world (followed by wheat) and is consumed by more than half of the Asian population at least once daily, there is certainly a lot of cause for concern in these findings.

Interestingly, the levels of arsenic seem to vary depending upon the type of rice, with Indian Basmati having only 40ppb and Italian brown rice reaching 160ppb.

More information about the research and it’s finding can be found at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2817542/More-half-rice-products-exceed-new-EU-limits-ARSENIC.html#ixzz3IAgEQgPm

Written by Rachelle Williams, The Green Food Safety Coach.