There’s a real sense of urgency surrounding our food supply today. There’s increasing competition for shelf space challenging legislative requirements in Europe, coupled with a difficult economic environment, greater consumer awareness of and interest in food, etc. These and other concerns provide the backdrop for companies deciding on future R&D strategies and investment policies.
Given the breadth of responses from readers to our ‘Foods of the Future’ questionnaire, there are clearly many opportunities out there, and the pressures being put on the industry, although tough, are helping to drive innovation into new technologies. And, a diverse, demanding and more informed consumer is forcing manufacturers to push the barriers of their new product development.
Ian Blakemore, project leader for Appetizing Innovation, pointed out in his response: “Increasing food costs as a proportion of income will drive change, reduce waste and see consumers value food more. Technology will drive increased yields with the use of GMO and biotechnology, and help to ensure the security of our food supply. Nutrigenomics and mood food will strengthen their offerings and could become more popular with mainstream consumers, and packaging will have to become more recyclable or biodegradable in order to bring a reduction in landfill and CO2 targets.”
His comments highlight the myriad challenges, yet equally the opportunities, for food manufacturers. Consumers will continue to become aware of the impact of food on their health and the impact of their buying decisions not just on their wallets and health, but also on future food supply, as governments take on the responsibility of driving home these messages.
In the UK, the government has set up a Council of Food Policy Advisors (headed by Dame Suzi Leather) to produce practical, independent advice to government on how to effect the adoption of sustainable (low greenhouse gas foods) and healthy diets. This is a tough remit and one that’s fraught with the same dilemmas facing manufacturers.
“One of our key priorities is to define what we mean by a sustainable, healthy diet; what are the lifestyle and behavioural changes we need to effect to bring it about; and how do we communicate this to consumers,” said Ms Leather. The committee will look for answers to questions such as: “What are the food equivalents of turning lights off and turning the heating down? What are the long-term impacts of malnutrition at an early, even foetal stage? And once the findings are clear, the government will look at how to influence consumers to make the right purchasing decisions.
“It took years for the British public to adopt simple messages such as the need to ‘wear seat belts in cars’,” said Ms Leather, “so even simple messages to encourage people to ‘eat seasonally’ for example, are likely to take a long time to embed.”
However, it’s clear that whatever the outcome of the committee’s research, future government policy on sustainable and healthy foods will impact the choices consumers will make in the future. Therefore, products that can bring ‘healthy’ and ‘green’ credentials to the fore will stand the greatest chance of prevailing – in the UK at least.
As outlined by the CIAA, throughout Europe, health will continue to be a key driver in the short- and long-term, yet what form will they take?
“In the past, low-fat and low-calorie were the hallmarks of good nutrition and dieting, but today, that lifestyle seems passé,” said David Jago, new product expert at Mintel, who pointed out that even fortified products appear to be falling out of favour. “Food and drink manufacturers realise that natural and pure have become healthy eating ideals, as people look for holistic, genuine nutrition they can trust.”
In the latest Mintel Global New Products Database review, products featuring fortified or ‘plus’ claims, such as added vitamins or calcium, took the hardest hit in 2008, with new product launches falling by 20%. Similarly, ‘minus’ claims (low-fat, reduced sugar, low-calorie, etc) have begun to stagnate.
Perhaps, as the answers to the questionnaire reflect, low-fat and low-sugar products with enhanced vitamins and minerals have now become mainstream, and the discerning consumer is likely to be looking for more. Recent research from Reuters Business Insights suggests that specific health products targeted at relaxation, energy and beauty, for example, will continue to grow. The carbohydrate specialist Beneo-Palatinit predicts growing demand for next-generation candy: confectionery with additional health benefits for physical and mental well-being.
“There will be more focus on niche growth areas,” said one (anonymous) reader in response to our questionnaire. “The increasing diversity of people, needs and markets will be a key theme,” said another respondent from General Mills Inc.
“Consumers will require constant and truthful education,” said a Hormel Foods respondent on his ‘Foods of the Future’ form. “New generations lack food preparation/cooking skills and are easily influenced by 15-second infomercials, hot graphics and cool tunes, but lacking any substance on ‘what’s’ and ‘whys’. They’re very trendy until they have children. Then there appears to be a real desire to learn what’s good or what’s right for their family.”
Responding to these trends in the plant is the next challenge for manufacturers. Thomas Ohlsson, professor emeritus, Swedish Institute for Food Research said: “Integration in the factory will be needed. Sensory and NPD departments will have to work together closer with manufacturing, much more than they do currently.”
He continued: “If you look at the properties of functional ingredients and formulations, most are susceptible to shear, and so manufacturers need to look more closely at the processes involved – for a thermally sensitive ingredient, spray drying may kill it, for example. The need for flexibility will see individual products made as late as possible in the process (ie mixing cream and milk together at the last moment so that you can alter the fat content of the finished dairy product). Companies are also working with the depositing process in beverages (to facilitate last-minute changes to flavour and colour, etc).”
The responses for the technology section are consistently at the higher end of the scale in terms of importance, indicating the need for further development of new and existing technologies, which will mean continuing investment during this difficult economic period.
A new report, ‘The Vital Ingredient – chemical science & engineering for sustainable food’ by the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institution of Chemical Engineers in the UK, points to technology as the answer to our food supply chain in the future. It highlights the application of novel enzyme chemistry and technology (biotechnology) for use in ingredients, processing and preservation as a key area for development. This includes product structure and flavour release, taste and textural development, and product changes at different stages of processing.
Processing areas identified in the report include heat transfer systems, low-energy separation technologies, rapid heating and chilling technologies, and fermentation technology. ‘Innovation in engineering can increase operational efficiency, improve use of energy and the management of water and waste, and develop extraction technologies for the recovery and use of by- and co-products’, it says. In particular, it suggests that nano-scale techniques offer major advantages for biosensors throughout the food chain, and may lead to the development of new functional materials, food formulations and improvements in diet.
It also echoes Professor Ohlsson’s points: ‘the development of small-scale but highly efficient processes, with flexibility to accommodate small production runs, is necessary to meet the demands of retail production under current commercial conditions’.
A high proportion of respondents agree with the findings of several experts, including the authors of the ‘Vital Ingredient’ report, that genetic modification holds great potential for the future in Europe. The Institute for Food Science & Technology has recently issued a position statement regarding the development and use of GM techniques: ‘Food scientists and technologists can support the responsible introduction of GM techniques provided that issues of product safety, environmental concerns, information and ethics are satisfactorily addressed. IFST considers that they are being addressed, and need even more intensively to be so addressed. Only in this way may the benefits that this technology can confer become available, not least to help feed the world’s escalating population in the coming decades’.
During the City Food Lecture, retailer Sir Terry Leahy, CEO of Tesco, suggested that it was perhaps time to relook at GM: “There may be a new opportunity for GM to play a vital role in nutrition and supply,” he said. “I ask the question whether there is an opportunity for more debate now, 10 years on.”
Nanotechnology also holds great potential, yet is fraught with risk, uncertainty and legislative inadequacy. In its recent scientific opinion on nanoscience and nanotechnologies, the Scientific Committee of The European Food Safety Authority concluded that established international approaches to risk assessment can also be applied to engineered nano materials. Yet, it concluded that a case-by-case approach would be necessary and that, in practice, current data limitations and a lack of validated test methodologies could make risk assessment of specific nano products very difficult and subject to a high degree of uncertainty. The EFSA Scientific Committee has recommended that additional research and investigation is needed to address the many current uncertainties and data limitations.
“The Scientific Committee has concluded that, in principle, it’s possible to undertake risk assessments in this emerging scientific area by making use of available international approaches,” said Professor Vittorio Silano, chair of the EFSA Scientific Committee. “However, given current data gaps and limitations in a number of cases, it may be difficult to provide fully satisfactory conclusions. This issue will remain a priority for EFSA’s Scientific Committee.”
Whatever the debate, it’s clear that legislation is going to be key to the potential of any trends or technologies. In her comment on the questionnaire, Dr Yasmine Motarjemi, assistant vice president, corporate food safety manager, Nestlé Ltd said: “I think we’ll see an increased role for regulation and control by the authorities on food production and processing to ensure proper management and verification in the food industry.
“This trend has already been seen in the financial sector, where there has been a public call for tighter regulations and greater intervention by governments as a result of the current financial crisis,” she explained. “In the food sector, this is even more critical because for many contaminants such as chemicals, consumers rely on the government ultimately to control and verify product safety. We have also experienced that after each outbreak of food-borne illness or incident of food contamination, regulatory authorities have strengthened their food safety requirements – for example, the outbreak of botulism related to carrot juice in the US, cases of E. sakazakii related to infant formula or the recent incident of melamine contamination.”
And it’s not just food safety that will be under government and legislative scrutiny. It remains to be seen how effective the EC’s revised Novel Foods regulations will be, and whether upcoming stakeholder dialogues on nanotechnology or GMOs will open the door for further development of these technologies in Europe.
Whatever the developments, Food & Beverage International and FoodBev.com will continue to bring you the latest news as it happens. The full results of the ‘Foods of the Future’ survey are available in the February issue of Food & Beverage International. Click here to subscribe.
© FoodBev Media Ltd 2024