In December 2013, 56 percent of Australians were likely to visit a café for a tea or coffee compared to 54 percent three years earlier.

This is just one of the findings from a recent survey conducted by Roy Morgan Research.

Interestingly in December 2013, 44 percent of people had a coffee machine at home or work, This compared to only 38 percent in 2009.

It seems that coffee consumption is on the increase and the number of coffee machines in use is not impacting on the café trade.

However the survey shows that the actual number of cups an Australian adult is consuming has decreased from 10.5 per week to 9.2 in 2013.

So the survey is showing that we have more machines and are visiting cafes more, but have reduced the amount of cups of coffee we are actually drinking. The reason may be as simple as an developing taste for good coffee, in other words we are looking for quality not quantity.

The survey also showed us who are the biggest coffee drinkers in our community. There seems to be a strong relationship between the number of hours someone works and the amount of cups of coffee they drink. The survey showed that longer hours, most likely means more coffee with an average of 10.1 cups per week, compared to only 8.6 cups for those doing less than 39 hours each week.

It wasn’t only the longer hours that resulted in more coffee consumption, the survey also showed that having children increases the number of cups per week. Those with children were drinking 9.6 cups per week in December 2013, compared to only 7.2 cups for those without children. The older the children, the higher the number of cups drunk each week.

Angela Smith, Group Account Manager Consumer Products, Roy Morgan Research; “While it makes sense that people who work long hours would consume more coffee, their need for caffeine goes beyond this, to the point where they also drink more Cola and energy drinks than people who work fewer hours. The news that parents of older children drink more coffee in an average week than those of infants may seem surprising, considering the stereotype of the sleep-deprived new parent, but this is simply a function of age. Our data shows that older people drink more coffee, and parents of older children are typically older than those of infants. Mind you, their extra caffeine requirements might also be linked to the sleep they lose through lying awake at night, worrying about where their kids are or what they’re up to”.

Written by Rachelle Williams – the Green Food Safety Coach

The National Health and Medical Research Council nutrition guidelines recommend that adult Australians should be eating five to six serves of vegetables each day to ensure a healthy life. A recent survey of 675 people by AusVeg (the representative body for potato and vegetable growers in Australia) shows that the actual number of serves of vegetables being consumed is only 2.5.

Andrew White, AusVeg Manager of Industry Development and Communications, said; “Also of concern was that the consumers that had kids stated their children were only consuming an average of 2.4 serves of vegetables per day, which is in the lower range of the vegetable intake recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council of 2 to 5 serves.”

Chips with a fast food meal and salad on the burger do not really count as reasonable serves. There is a perception by some in our community that this is the case. A serve is actually 75grams or half a cup of cooked vegetables. So we should be eating at least 2.5 cups of cooked vegetables each day.

So why are we not eating our vegetables, when we all know that doing so is healthy and good for us?

It is the big question that AusVeg and it’s members are trying to answer. The next obvious question that flows from that, is how can the growers and their organisation encourage us to eat what we should be eating? More vegetable consumption is going to improve overall health for al of us as well as improve the profits of the growers. It is the classic example of a win win, but what needs to happen for it to occur?

Mr White said; “Eating a range of different coloured vegetables may be an easy way to access a higher intake of proteins, iron, some essential fatty acids, dietary fibres, micronutrients, folate and complex carbohydrates, and can also be an enjoyable way to cook and eat.”

Is the answer more marketing of vegetables and their health benefits, or are Australians just so over the amount of information thrown at them daily that they are not getting the message?

A new website “Veggycation” was set up in December 2013 to promote vegetable consumption and the health benefits of doing so. However it then needs to be promoted so that people will go and look at it.

There is also a move to place vegetable related health claims on food packaging to encourage more consumption. However the question is still, are people just over the information bombardment they get every day and therefore may not see this valuable and useful promotion.

We have to eat more vegetables, that is a no brainer, but how to get us to do so is probably the biggest issue for the fruit and vegetable industries right now.

Written by Rachelle Williams – the Green Food Safety Coach

The Blewett review of food labelling conducted a few years ago, highlighted that the current way used by the food industry to show how much of certain nutrients are present in a food compared to that allowed for a normal healthy adult, is not working all that well for much of the Australian population.

Therefore one of the Review’s recommendation was some form of front of pack labelling using traffic lights or similar to show the general healthiness of each food.

This concept was agreed to by the Health Ministers around the country, however it was not in the form of traffic lights.

The whole issue has raised nothing short of a furore between the food industry, consumer groups, governments and anyone else who wants to have a say.

Therefore the concept of some form of Health Star Rating has been raised as a suitable alternative. It does not use the daily intake guide (DIG) currently referred to be the food industry, but is based on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) nutrient profiling criteria. So it includes; kilojoule, saturated fat, sodium and sugar content, and considers the amount of; protein, fruit, vegetables, fibre and nuts / legumes present in the food.

The star rating system was originally developed in the USA by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and although not the preference of consumer groups in Australia, is more acceptable to the food industry in general than traffic lights.

Obviously the more stars a food has, the healthy it is.

The IOM model displays the energy content (kJ) and then a star rating for each food, like this; 2134kJ 2.5stars.

A website was recently developed by the federal Government including a Health Star rating calculator, however due to political reasons, the website was pulled down a short time later.

In the meantime, Choice has used the Calculator to work out a rating for some of the big names in our supermarkets and the results were not thrilling.

It is important to remember that as the actual amounts of some of the components used in the rating calculation are only available to the product manufacturer in their recipes, the results were based on some estimates.

What was particularly interesting is that there were some significant variations between the products from different manufacturers, as anexample;one peanut butter brand scored 5 stars whilst another only got as high as 3 stars.

Ms Angela Cartwright, CHOICE Campaigns Manager, said; “Our health star snapshot shows that it is possible to have considerably healthier versions of the same type of product. CHOICE thinks the Scheme will not only give consumers information they can use at-a-glance but spur companies to improve their product offerings, creating a healthier food supply in the long term.”

It is now well recognised that some form of front of pack labelling system will most likely make it easier for consumers to compare one product in terms of health with another, but which method it will be and how soon it will finally be agreed to is indeed another issue entirely.

It really is a case of watch this space.

Written by Rachelle Williams – the Green Food Safety Coach

A recent study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has shown that there is a strong relationship between the consumption of heat processed meat based foods and the onset of both brain changes, like Alzheimers disease, and a pre-diabetes condition.

The research done by researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, found that increasing the consumption of these foods, increase the amount of Advanced Glycation Endproducts (AGEs) in the blood, which results in the suppression of a vital defence against both

Alzheimer’s disease and the pre-diabetic state called metabolic syndrome. This defence is called SIRT1, and in mice it was found that in high levels, it helps protects us from the onset of these diseases and conditions.

Many people may not realise but there is a strong co-relation between someone having diabetes and later developing Alzheimers Disease. So anything that reduces the likelihood of diabetes onset will further reduce the possible development of Alzheimers.

Dr Helen Vlassara, MD, Professor and Director of the Division of Experimental Diabetes and Aging in the Brookdale Department of Geriatrics at Mount Sinai said; “Age-associated dementia or Alzheimer’s disease is currently epidemic in our society and is closely linked to diabetes. While more research needs to be done to discover the exact connection of food AGEs to metabolic and neurological disorders, the new findings again emphasise the importance of not just what we eat, but also how we prepare what we eat. By cutting AGEs, we bolster the body’s own natural defense against Alzheimer’s disease as well as diabetes.”

Dr Simon Ridley, Head of Research at Alzheimer’s Research UK said; “Diabetes has previously been linked to an increased risk of dementia, and this small study provides some new insight into some of the possible molecular processes that may link the two conditions. Although these findings add to some earlier evidence linking a decrease in SIRT1 protein to Alzheimer’s, the most common cause of dementia, it’s important to note that the people in this study did not have dementia. This subject has so far not been well-studied in people, and we don’t yet know whether the amount of AGEs in our diet might affect our risk of dementia. The diseases that cause dementia are complex, and our risk of the condition is likely to be affected by a number of genetic and environmental factors that are not yet fully understood.”

So does this mean that a vegetarian diet is what we should all be following? Or does it suggest that we should all be followers of the raw food movement?

The study was done on mice and also a small group of people who did not currently have dementia. It is simply too early to state conclusively if either of these diets choices are where we should all be.

More study needs to be done in this area, before anyone can come close to stating one way or another whether the Western diet should be abandoned. The interesting thing about this is whether people in the west would ever be able to completely and totally give up their cooked meat products, even if it is found eventually that this food may be causing them health issues.

I know of people who have said when they found out that I am a vegetarian, “how could you give up meat?, I could never do that.”

Until the final studies are done and the results are in conclusively, the best option for us all to remain healthy is a little bit of everything in moderation.

Written by Rachelle Williams – the Green Food Safety Coach

I was running some training for a client recently and a discussion started about the plastic water bottle that one of my students was using. She had finished the juice and had washed out the botlle to use as her water bottle at work.

Half the class were telling her that she should not have done that because of all the bad chemicals in the plastic, which she was now absorbing every time she drank from the reused bottle.

The other half of the class were just as adamantly saying that with all the laws that are now in place in this country, reusing bottles like this is fine and is very good because it also helps the environment due to less waste.

So which argument was correct?

Dr Ian Musgrave, a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine Sciences, within the Discipline of Pharmacology at the University of Adelaide has commented that “Formaldehyde is also present in many foods naturally, to consume as much formaldehyde as is present in a 100g apple you would need to drink at least 20 litres of mineral water that had been stored in PET bottles. Obviously the concern about formaldehyde from food packaging is significantly overrated, unless we are willing to place ‘potential cancer hazard’ stickers on fresh fruit and vegetables. While we should not be dismissive of the potential for undesirable materials in packaging to migrate into food, the risks are exceptionally small.”

The comments were made after the Food Packaging Forum Foundation claimed that many of the materials in food packaging could leach into the food they contain.

The Food Packaging Forum Foundation (FPFF) is based in Switzerland and aims “to enhance basic understanding of scientific principles and recent scientific findings that are relevant to the field of food packaging health”, through working with scientific experts. The Forum is funded by corporates as well as the European Environment and Health Initiative.

The FPFF suggest that at this point too little is actually known about the potential long term effects of many of the chemicals that are used to make food packaging. The comments about the food contact materials (FCMs), including formaldehyde, were published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health in February2014.

The article recommends that there is an urgent need for population-based assessment and biomonitoring to determine if there is any health issues associated with food packaging.

Dr Oliver Jones, Co-director of the RMIT University Centre of Environmental Sustainability and Remediation agrees with Dr Musgrave and said; “The overwhelming weight of scientific opinion (including that from Food Standards Australia and New Zealand) is that there is no health or safety issue from these chemicals at the levels people are exposed to. More research is always welcome from a scientist’s point of view, but I would hazard a guess that the high levels of fat, sugar and salt in a lot of today’s processed food are more of a health concern than any migration of chemicals from the packaging.”

So it seems that, as with the two groups in my class, even the experts have differing opinions.

Written by Rachelle Williams – the Green Food Safety Coach

All over much cereal based foods of late have been the words X% wholegrain. The public have been led to believe that wholegrains are good for them and so manufacturers and marketers are now ensuring that processed foods contain them and the labelling reflects this.

However, if asked it would be a fair bet that most people, including those in the food industry, would have difficulty in actually defining what wholegrains means.

Finally a major food body, has come up with an agreed definition for wholegrain.

There are three parts to a cereal grain; the endosperm (the largest part), the germ (the sprouting and smallest part) and the bran (this is the high in dietary fibre outer husk). Traditionally it is expected that a wholegrain product will contain a least a small proportion of each of these cereal parts. The complication is that not all countries have the same requirements or the same levels. This means that a wholegrain ingredient from one country will not be the same as one from another country, even if the percentage in each is stated as being the same.

The journal, Food and Nutrition Research for 04 February 2014 published the new European definition. This definition, from the HealthGrain Forum, is the result of work by a team from major universities and food research institutes in Europe.

This new definition will mean that all products made in, and coming out of, Europe will play by the same rules.

Australia’s Grain and Legume Nutrition Council (GLNC) is very pleased with the new European definition, which closely resembles that of the Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Code.

Ms Georgie Aley, GLNC Managing Director, said; “We’re delighted to see that the HealthGrain Forum Association has delivered on a key objective. The European definition also includes additional clarification on permitted grains and pseudo grains, which goes a long way to creating international harmonisation on the definition of a whole grain and is a welcome addition by the industry. Another fact to consider is that while a clear definition of what constitutes a whole grain ingredient is very much welcomed, the next important piece of clarification required for the industry is a detailed definition for what constitutes a whole grain food.”

“The GLNC Code of Practice for Whole Grain Ingredient Content Claims provides a clear definition of what constitutes a whole grain food. The Code sets a minimum of 8 grams of whole grain per serve to allow a food to be labelled as ‘contains whole grain. This new minimum level provides a consistent message to consumers on which products are whole grain, giving clarity on current labelling of whole grain foods in Australia and New Zealand,” Ms Aley said.

Written by Rachelle Williams – the Green Food Safety Coach

I was shopping recently and checked out the quick sale section in the supermarket (as I am sure we all do!!!). After working out whether there is anything of interest, the next step is to look at the use by or best before dates and figure out how many days you have before it has to be eaten.

Most of us don’t then work out whether the amount of packaging is reasonable. This week I saw a product weighing 200g containing only eight small Indian vegetarian patties. Looked yummy, but I did not buy it as each pattie was individually placed into it’s own slot in the specially designed tray and then the whole thing was sealed and then a label was wrapped around the container. It was simply a classic example of excess packaging.

So why is it important to talk about this excess packaging thing on a website that is mainly concerned with food safety?

Simple, food safety is only part of what a business needs to consider and build into it’s products, process, and packaging. It does not stand alone.

Of course a business can be made or broken by food safety, A recent food recall in my local area is going to make it very difficult for that business to get back into the shops it had started selling in. People just expect that their food will not harm them when they eat it. In fact, it is even more than expect, it is really an intrinsic belief that the food they are eating will be safe. That is why a recall can be one of the worst things that ever happens to a business.

However, even if a business gets it’s food safety and quality right, if they do not think about the product, process and packaging at all stages of the product lifecycle, it will still fail as a business.

I did not buy a product that I liked at a good price, because I did not want to have to throw away so much excess packaging. A sale was lost, and I am not alone in making this part of my purchase decision.

Business must realise that they have a responsibility for the product from design to disposal and plan based on that.

This is the basis of the Australian Packaging Covenant, and most of the big companies in Australia have already signed up to it. They have realised that they have this responsibility and design their products and related packaging accordingly.

The hassle is that the vegetable patties that I was looking at are not manufactured by one of these big companies. It is now the turn of the smaller ones to make sure that they not only ensure food safety but also take responsibility for their packaging from design to disposal. They need to consider what will happen to that packaging, and do what they can to reduce it’s environmental impact. It simply makes business sense.

Written by Rachelle Williams – the Green Food Safety Coach

All of us would have been to the beach and seen the seaweed washed up and lying there. We would not have immediately thought of it as food or even possible food. In the future this may be a food of choice.

Seaweed is already heavily used in some countries and industries but is not a food that would be top of mind in most western countries. Thickening, gelling agents, and food colourings are regularly made from seaweed, and are used in a variety of foods.

We have all heard of Sushi, which uses a specific type of seaweed as the outer layer and this means that many have tasted it already and therefore may not be as averse to it becoming a bigger part of their diets. Insects do not have this advantage, but like seaweed, are an outstanding source of excellent nutrition and will form key parts of our future diets.

Seaweed is a common name for just one type of a group of species called Algae. There are basically three types of microalgae; Brown, Red and Green.

Brown algae is often seen as kelp and grow up toward the water surface. They are high in iodine and other hydrocolloids. Amongst their health benefits are anti-obesity and anti-diabetic properties.

Red algae is high in carotenoids and the B group vitamins. They are commonly processed to form products used in the food industry.

Green algae is an excellent source of chlorophyll, as well as iodine and magnesium. A commonly used type is Spirulina, which is probably the world’s best source of natural blue food colouring. It is used in drinks, ice creams, soft drinks and lollies.

Red algae has around twice the fibre content of most fruit, vegetables and cereals. Therefore species of them can be (and are) used in baking and other industries.

Although algae is already commonly used in many of the foods we eat every day, most of us are simply unaware that they are there. Once the community realises that we have been eating seaweed and algae for some time and therefore don’t fear it, it is certain that the ocean will be a major source of food in the future.

Written by Rachelle Williams – the Green Food Safety Coach

A recent report from the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC) and CHEP (a large packaging and distribution company) is showing that retail food sales haven’t been stronger, since 2010.

The AFGC CHEP Retail Index report, released at the end of January 2014, has the Index was higher in the December 2013 quarter compared to that of the December 2012 quarter. The suggestion for this increase may be that the strong sales expected by analysts for Christmas 2013 were actually stronger. The really good news is that based on these figures, sales for early 2014 should also be better than may have been expected.

The Australian Industry Group Australian Performance of Manufacturing Index has also recorded unexpected growth in January 2014. This seems contrary to the perception out there in the community that manufacturing is declining.

Gary Dawson, AFGC CEO, said; “The combined effect of low interest rates and improved consumer confidence after the Federal election has seen retailers experience a stronger-than-expected rise in retail sales over the past few months. Retailers will be hoping that the labour market also strengthens to support a return to a genuinely strong retail environment.”

Phillip Austin, CHEP Australia and New Zealand President, said; “The strong growth since August 2013 is a welcome change.We’re delighted that the retail industry experienced a stronger than forecasted Christmas peak and that the uplift can be expected to continue into the March quarter of 2014.”

April 2014 will see the release of the next AFGC CHEP Retail Index.

With much being made of the future of manufacturing in Australia, it seems that the food industry is not listening to the doomsayers, and is not dropping sales, in fact it is increasing according to several indexes. This is definitely a watch this space.

Written by Rachelle Williams – the Green Food Safety Coach

It seems that research done by the University of East Anglia (UEA) and King’s College London shows that chocolate may in fact be the sixth food group and essential to life. Well, maybe that is going a little over the top, but it seems that eating chocolate regularly can actually protect us from diabetes and heart disease.

Chocolate and other anthocyanin containing foods have been found, in this study, to modulate blood glucose regulation which reduces the risk of Type 2 Diabetes.

Other anthocyanin containing foods include; tea, red grapes, wine, red coloured vegetables and berries.

The research findings were published in January 2014 in the Journal of Nutrition and involved almost 2000 female volunteers.

Professor Aedin Cassidy, leader of the research, said; “Our research looked at the benefits of eating certain sub-groups of flavonoids. We focused on flavones, which are found in herbs and vegetables such as parsley, thyme and celery, and anthocyanins, found in berries, red grapes, wine and other red or blue-coloured fruits and vegetables.”

“This is one of the first large-scale human studies to look at how these powerful bioactive compounds might reduce the risk of diabetes,” Professor Cassidy said. “But until now little has been known about how habitual intakes might affect insulin resistance, blood glucose regulation and inflammation in humans.”

Higher insulin resistance has been linked to type 2 Diabetes and the consumption of these foods seems to reduce that resistance, leading to the conclusion that they may reduce the likelihood of a person developing Type 2 Diabetes.

This part of the study only looked at the effect of these foods on healthy child bearing age women, so there is now a call for men and post menopausal women to undertake the next part of the research, with a focus on blueberries. This will determine if there is in fact an effect from these foods in all people.

Written by Rachelle Williams – the Green Food Safety Coach