Food Protection Trends - July/August 2019 - 349

Figure 2. Kathleen glass (university of Wisconsin-Madison).

Although sustainable goals are embraced and supported by
the U.S. federal government and international agencies, there are
no government rules to demand and enforce sustainability in our
food systems in the U.S. As discussed by Kevin Smith, FDA and
CFSAN's missions don't address food waste and sustainability.
However, the remits of both of these agencies do intersect with
food safety, and the government can bring positive attention to
companies that are committed to reducing food waste.
One strong factor driving food companies toward improved
sustainability is marketing opportunity. Consumers are increasingly factoring sustainability into their purchasing decisions.
In particular, as discussed by panelist Katya Hantel (ConAgra
Brands), millennials are driving considerable demand for
sustainable food products, with 50% of these younger consumers
willing to pay more for products they believe are produced more
sustainably.
David McInnes discussed how large food companies
are examining the downstream consequences of their food
production decisions and making changes that may help both the
environment and their business. For example, 85% of General
Mills' water footprint is found in its agricultural supply chain.
To ensure supply chain resilience, this company is going beyond
improving water efficiency across its supply chain; it is pledging
to protect the source of water by improving priority watersheds
by 2050. Another example is the Canadian grocer Loblaws,
Canada's largest chain; it has pledged to eliminate microbeads
from their house-brand cosmetic and beauty products because
microbeads are hazardous to fish and potentially to those who
eat fish, another product sold in their stores (7).
What are the challenges to reducing food waste
and improving sustainability?
Food companies may understand that it is socially desirable
to reduce food waste and improve sustainability, but significant
hurdles exist in doing so. In the words of speaker Cole Doolittle
(Revelation Waste Partners), it often boils down to the "battle
of the greens": money vs. sustainability. It may not always be
clear to decision makers how the investment needed to improve
sustainability will pay off for the company.
The role that consumers play in driving food companies
towards more sustainable practices has already been mentioned.
Consumers demand transparency from companies from whom
they purchase products; this can be both a help and a hindrance
to food companies. Using the analogy of tracking sharks,
David McInnes illustrated how consumers perceive food issues.
OCEARCH is an organization that monitors the precise location
of great white sharks to encourage awareness and the ecological
health of oceans. One shark named "Hilton" is tracked in real
time by a smartphone app (@HiltontheShark). McInnes made

the case that too much information about how food is produced
(or where a single shark is located, such as near beaches and
ocean front cottages) can generate both unwarranted fear from
learning too much and fascination to know more.
Once a technology or an industry has been branded
unfavorably by consumers, it can be difficult to change the
perception. The animal products rendering industry, as
described by David Meeker (National Renderers Association),
has gone a long way to making meat for human consumption
more sustainable by re-purposing leftovers into products such as
pet food, but it still struggles with the negative connotations of
"animal byproducts." Caitilyn Allen (University of WisconsinMadison) discussed the more recent fears and misunderstanding
that consumers have about foods derived from genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). Allen suggested that food
scientists might learn a lesson from Mary Shelley and her
portrayal of the overconfidence of scientists when rushing
to use new technologies. While GM crops can significantly
improve sustainability (by reducing pesticide usage, increasing
yields, etc.) and foods derived from GMOs have been safely
consumed for over 20 years, the perception of such products as
"Frankenfoods" is hard to change.
Even while they profess to support sustainability, consumers
sometimes want food products which are contrary to such
goals. Rob Celin (Tilia Holdings) explained that consumers
are demanding more convenience and variety in the food they
purchase. Fresh foods, in particular, are in high demand. The
increasingly global flow of perishable foods means increased use
of cold chain (and increased energy costs) for the food industry.
More specifically, Will Daniels discussed how consumer demand
has pushed the evolution of the fresh produce industry from
mainly unbranded, seasonal, local produce (with high waste and
a short shelf life) to globally sourced, year-round and fresh-cut
products (which results in different types of waste and increased
energy inputs).
Many of the speakers addressed the question of whether
attempts to reduce food waste could compromise food safety.
As explained by panelist Herman Carni (Greater Chicago
Food Depository), food safety is critical to their organization
and the food pantries they serve, and as a result, they cannot
accept certain types of foods (such as restaurant food) that is
not already packaged and labeled. In the rendering business,
David Meeker explained that the reuse and recycling of meat
wastes for animal feed prevents microbial hazards through
the use of rendering-specific good manufacturing process,
preventive controls, and the use of audits. Consumers rightfully
expect food safety to trump food waste considerations, but as
David Fikes (Food Marketing Institute) described, consumer
confusion regarding date labeling has also led to a lot of food
waste: what does "best by" really mean?
Packaging of food further complicates the potential conflict
between food safety and sustainability. Will Daniels explained
how packaging (bags, plastic shells, etc.) used for value-added
fresh produce can provide a perfect environment for microbial
growth, which can become especially problematic when trying
to maximize shelf life. Packaging itself generates its own carbon
footprint, which recycling attempts to minimize, as discussed by
Eva Almenar (Michigan State University School of Packaging).
By 2030, all packaging in Europe must be reusable or recyclable.
The reuse or recycling of packaging may also generate food
safety concerns. Almenar commented that the temperature at
which plastic melts in some recycling processes might not be
sufficiently high to kill pathogens. Additionally, coatings used
on packaging to retard microbial growth may interfere with their
ability to be recycled.
July/August Food Protection Trends

349

Food Protection Trends - July/August 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - July/August 2019