- Email: [email protected]
Linking food waste prevention, energy consumption and microbial food safety: the next challenge of food policy?
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Linking food waste prevention, energy consumption and microbial food safety: the next challenge of food policy? Laurent Guillier1, Steven Duret1,2,3, Hong-Minh Hoang2, Denis Flick3, Christophe Nguyen-The´4 and Onrawee Laguerre2 Food safety has governed food policy for decades. More recently, concerns about sustainability of food chains have emerged. Food sustainability is becoming an increasingly important issue because food systems are not sustainable in terms of consumption of resources, their impact on ecosystems or their effect on health and social equality. A focus is given on how microbial food safety, energy consumption and food waste impact food policy. Potential contradictions between the different aspects of food policy are also reviewed and discussed. Addresses 1 Universite´ Paris-Est, Anses, Laboratory for Food Safety, F-94700 Maisons-Alfort, France 2 Irstea (National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture), Refrigeration Processes Engineering Research Unit, F-92761 Antony, France 3 AgroParisTech, Food and Process Engineering, F-91300 Massy, France 4 UMR408 SQPOV «Se´curite´ et Qualite´ des Produits d’Origine Ve´ge´tale», INRA, Avignon Universite´, 84000 Avignon, France Corresponding author: Guillier, Laurent ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35 This review comes from a themed issue on Food safety Edited by Konstantinos Koutsoumanis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2016.06.006 2214-7993/# 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Another consumer demand of increasing importance is that food products take an increasingly important place, is that the food products should be produced in an environmentally sustainable way [3]. This demand places governmental institutions in charge of food policies in addressing environmental issues in regulations, as well as in exerting pressure on food manufacturers to adopt sustainable manufacturing processes. The establishment of food policy for sustainable food consumption as a whole is difficult as food sustainability covers many different areas. Among the objectives that have been put forward in recent years, the present review focuses on energy consumption and food waste. Energy consumption linked to food production and storage is seen as important in the context of climate change [4]. The reduction of food waste has emerged because it can help to ensure food security and to diminish environmental burdens [5]. Food policy instruments and measures have now to target all these aspects. The policy instruments are diverse [6] as they include information, regulations and standards or tax instrument. One can anticipate that that food policy measures taken for one area may interact with others and, in this context, assessment of the impact of such measures is necessary [7]. This article presents first an overview of the food safety issues or food sustainability challenges that drive food policy interventions. Then the potential contradictions between intervention measures of the different topics targeted by food policy are discussed with a particular focus on the example of the interrelation between energy consumption, food waste and microbial food safety.
Introduction
Microbial food safety and food policy
Consumers are continuing to demand fresh and processed foods that are safe to eat, convenient to consume, contribute to the health and well-being, are of high sensory quality and are affordable. This demand for foods with various qualities will continue to grow as the world’s population and wealth are expected to increase.
The safety of food products is a major topic for defining food policy for decades. The food chain system in place today is far different from that of five decades ago in most developed and developing countries [2,8]. Food safety policy has evolved and adapted in line with the changes in farming and food industry practices, science and technology knowledge, and globalization of food products exchange.
Food safety, that is, the assurance that food will not cause harm to the consumer when it is prepared and consumed according to its intended use, is still a global issue that affects the health of populations in both industrialized and developing countries [1,2]. Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35
In this context, the Codex Alimentarius takes an important place for establishing food safety standards. Taking the example of the European Union (EU), the first food hygiene rules came in 1964 after the creation of the Codex www.sciencedirect.com
Food policy triangle Guillier et al. 31
Alimentarius. Previous regulations and standards, as current, are strictly based on the entire body established by the Codex Alimentarius. The regulations were initially limited to the requirements for fresh meat and, over the decades, have been extended to other animal foods. In the 1990s, a set of food hygiene guidelines were then published. Food crises that have occurred over the last 25 years, changing eating habits, the development of new food production process, increased international trade and emerging risks have led consumers through the media to be more sensitive to food safety issues [9]. In this context, risk managers have sought to develop a food safety management system as efficient as possible. In January 2000 the European Commission adopted the ‘White paper on food safety’ [10]. It has defined a strategy for a coordinated and integrated policy on the entire food production chain, to ensure the most effective food safety standards and the highest level of protection of human health possible. This White Paper is the preamble to the relevant provisions that constitute now the ‘Hygiene Package’ and defined the main principles: the rules must be applied ‘from farm to fork’; each operator of the food chain is responsible for food safety; Member States and their competent authorities are responsible for verifying the correct application of EU legislation and its implementation; dangerous products should not be placed on the market and it is necessary to intervene when it is considered that these non-compliant products are placed on the market; traceability throughout the food production logistic chain should be ensured; the legislation is based on risk analysis. This change in food safety policy is not limited to Europe. In other countries, like China, food scandals that have struck over the past decade have spurred a significant reform of food safety policy [11]. In USA, because of growing public concerns over outbreaks and food safety issues highly covered by the media, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) passed the Food Safety Modernization Act in 2011 [12,13]. In this context, risk analysis has gained international recognition as the most effective tool for managing food safety issues [14]. Risk analysis is used to develop an estimate of the risks to human health and safety, to identify and implement appropriate measures to control the risks, and to communicate with stakeholders about the risks and measures applied. It can be used to support and improve the development of standards, as well as to address food safety issues that result from emerging hazards or breakdowns in food control systems. It provides food safety regulators with the information and evidence they need for effective decision-making, contributing to better food safety outcomes and improvements in public health. The three main components of risk analysis are risk assessment, risk management and www.sciencedirect.com
risk communication. Risk assessment is considered to be the ‘science-based’ component of risk analysis. In risk assessment, quantitative risk assessment, rather than qualitative risk assessment, is the widest applied methodology as the outputs can directly be confronted to quantitative objectives defined by risk managers. The agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures points out that Member States have the right to adopt SPS measures to achieve their self-determined health protection level [15]. This level is defined as ‘Appropriate Level of Protection’ (ALOP), and it is estimated for the country establishing a sanitary measure to protect the lives or the human health (also applicable for animals, or plants) within its territory. In the context of food safety, an ALOP is a statement of the degree of public health protection that is to be achieved by the food safety systems implemented in a country. It is typically expressed in terms relevant to public health such as a number of cases per 100 000 population per year. Typically, an ALOP would be articulated as a statement related to the disease burden linked to a particular hazard–food combination and its consumption in a country. In order to facilitate risk management, other metrics have also been proposed for risk characterization throughout the food production chain [16]. Food safety objective (FSO) and performance objective (PO), respectively defined as the maximum frequency and/or concentration of a microbiological hazard in a food at the time of consumption and at a specified step in the food chain before time of consumption, are good examples of these metrics. In practice, the emergence of new hazards, rationalization of costs or the contribution of risk analysis have recently changed regulations, or are expected to do so. Recent examples can be found for illustrating these three levers of changes and adaptations of food safety policy. The recent crisis related to sprouts involving E. coli O104: H4 has led to amendment of the Regulation (EC) No 2073/ 2005. For illustrating rationalization of cost, the example of meat inspection method is of interest. Meat inspection methods can be seen as disproportionate to the risk involved [17] and evolution of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 is expected. Finally, the assessment conducted by Efsa to measure the impact of the maintenance of the cold chain during storage and transport of meat on microbial risk opens the way for a possible change in temperature laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 for meat transport [18].
Food sustainability and food policy Sustainability has taken importance in the food industry. This stems from the observation that food systems in industrialized countries contribute, by diets that are related to them, to the generation of nutritional diseases, despite the unparalleled access to a great diversity of safe food products. Their generalization to the whole planet will exhaust the resources and exacerbate the negative Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35
32 Food safety
effects on biodiversity and the environment, including pollution or emission of Green House Gas (GHG) effects [4]. The concept of sustainability in general and food sustainability, in particular, entails many aspects and many interpretations [19,20]. What is generally meant by sustainable food then? Researchers proposed that a multifunctional food should ensure health, pleasure, conviviality and identity. It is also based on a resilient economic sector that promotes the well-being of all, creates jobs and reduces social inequalities. A sustainable food system also respects the environment and the biological and cultural diversity. In other words, it is a system that should find ways to reach socially and environmentally desirable conditions and that do not penalize future generations [21]. Environmental impact
Food systems make a significant contribution to climate change throughout the food chain from primary production through processing, retail storage to consumers [4]. Development of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has taken an important place in decision making [22]. LCA is a technique to assess environmental impacts considering all stages of a product’s life. In order to set goals and monitor sustainable performance in the food processing industry, it is necessary to define quantitative measures to assess sustainability of a food supply chain. These measurements can include the amount of GHG emissions, water usage and waste generation associated with food production [4]. Cold chain plays an important role in sustainability of food supply chains [23]. More precisely, refrigeration plays a particularly important role in climate changing and greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated that 15% of the electricity consumed is used for refrigeration worldwide. The most important user is the food industry which totalizes 40% of this amount. Increasing the efficiency of the refrigerating equipment along the cold chain can provide a real decrease of the global consumption, and will also decrease the global equivalent CO2 emission. Overall figures would indicate that approximately 50% of the total energy used in food refrigeration is consumed in retail and commercial refrigeration and 50% in chilling, freezing and warehouse storage [24]. In 2002, it was estimated that there were 322 000 supermarkets and 18 000 hypermarkets worldwide and that the refrigeration equipment used on average 35–50% of the total energy consumed in these supermarkets [24]. There is also more than 1 million refrigerated road vehicles [25] and more than a billion domestic refrigerators that are used in the world [24]. Food waste
Today, in developed countries, a major part of the population has access to an abundant choice of healthy and Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35
good quality food. Because of this product offering, consumers in these countries put little concern on food loose and waste. However, over the past few years, a conscience burst helped to highlight food waste. This subject has emerged as a widely treated topical subject. Citizen initiatives have appeared in all countries to raise awareness and reduce food waste. There is no single definition for food waste [26,27]. Food loss and waste are often distinguished [26]. Food waste can be defined as ‘unintended losses of food produced for human consumptions occurred in the distribution and consumptions stages of the supply chain’ [27]. Food loss can be defined as a waste of the first stages, that is, during agricultural production or harvest, of the food supply chain [27]. Food waste is a more recent food policy concern than food safety. In the past few years, it has taken a rapid ascendancy. In EU, the main reasons of this emergence are linked to the appearance of statistics in the field and the global concern on climate change. Food household wastes have been shown to play a significant role in greenhouse gas emissions. Other reasons include the household budgets in situation of economic crisis as well as a quite common moral reluctance to any form of waste [27]. The EU has called for halving waste in the member countries by 2025. France has launched its own National Pact fight against food waste in 2013. Many of the food chain actors acceded and proposed solutions and actions to reduce waste. Thus, it is necessary to achieve the objectives of finding ways to reduce waste to unequal accents while protecting public health. It is important to appreciate the waste emitted at every step of the food chain for each of the actors.
Potential contradictions between food policy measures Food systems are complex and are driven by economic, cultural and environmental factors. Better understanding of these drivers and their interrelation could help to improve food policies. Because of this interrelation, there is a demand for anticipating and evaluating impacts of food policy [7]. Cost effectiveness analysis could help to evaluate food policy measures but their reliability and completeness are often unsatisfactory [7]. As food policy could also generate a risk in the same time as beneficial effects, a risk–benefit assessment can be conducted. Yet, risk–benefit assessment is still an emerging and challenging scientific subject [28]. Moreover, food policy can also potentially impact areas that were not thought to be impacted [7]. Some conflicts between ensuring safety of foods products and moving towards more sustainability may thus exist [20]. For this reason, after a public consultancy, EU has recently identified the improvement of food policy coherence as a major topic [29]. www.sciencedirect.com
Food policy triangle Guillier et al. 33
Food safety and preventing food waste
Public discourses on food safety and food waste prevention can be perceived by consumers as conflicting [30]. While concern on food safety means impelling people to throw out food which has passed the shelf-life, a concern on food waste means the opposite. Although ‘use-by’ and ‘best before’ labels help to distinguish between hazardous products and products with qualities that may begin to deteriorate, confusion can occur for some consumers conducting them to throw away or eat food products that should not be. Moreover, finding a recipe for safely preparing the left-over is not so convenient for most of people. Outside the household, recycling food wastes from for example, caterers or supermarkets, raises difficult issues with regards to regulations, particularly when containing foods of animal origins. Despite evident relation, very few studies take into account spoilage, a major cause of food waste, in exposure assessment through the incorporation of kinetic modelling of specific spoilage organisms. It consists in incorporating kinetic modelling of specific spoilage organisms along with pathogen exposure [31]. Abusive storage conditions result in microbial spoilage of foods and hence these products are not consumed. By incorporating a model for spoilage it is possible to determine the percentage of unsafe food product that would be really consumed.
illustrates this global approach that addresses the three areas, that is, food safety, spoilage and energy. The objective was to develop a global model for a ready-toeat meat product that provides three different outputs, that is, energy consumption, percentage of spoiled products and exposure levels of Listeria monocytogenes. First a cold chain model was developed, and it was then coupled with (i) predictive microbiology models and (ii) energy consumption models for cold equipments. Various scenarios were tested for assessing the consequences of potential changes in cold chain equipment on safety, food waste and energy cost. Figure 1 shows the effect of communications for consumers that aim at improving safety or reduce energy consumption. Intervention measures that would induce beneficial effects for the three aspects (green area in Figure 1) may be hard to identify, meaning that policy makers will have to find a fine compromise between advantages and drawbacks. For cooked ham, current situation (Figure 1, centroid) of cold chain implies that the percentage of consumed ‘not safe’ (not compliant with microbiological criterion) product is 0.6%, and that 8.1% of products are wasted because of spoilage. A mean of 118 kJ/package is spent. The proportion of ‘not safe’ and spoiled products could be mitigated by 43% and 59%, respectively, if the domestic fridges would be set at the recommended temperature at 4 8C while the energy consumption would be increased by 10%. Energy consumption could also be slightly reduced
Energy and food waste
Considering the three aspects together
Recently, an EU funded project developed new innovative mathematical modelling tools that combine food quality and safety together with energy, environmental and economic aspects to predict and control food quality and safety in the cold chain [38]. Guillier et al.’s work [39] www.sciencedirect.com
Less energy
waLes
s s od te uc t
pr e or e M ast w
d
fo od More safe
le
Unsafe food product
oi
Less safe
Sp
In the same way as energy and food waste, energy saving might be seen in contraction with food safety, that is a lower temperature setting in the cold chain would increase the energy cost (for equivalent equipment). Few studies tackled the potential link between energy and risk. To consider these two dimensions, food chain logistic has to be well characterized and modelled [35,36]. Until now, the food chain logistic has only been proposed for determining significance of modifications in the logistic chain with respect to food safety [37].
Energy/product
Energy and food safety
Figure 1
More energy
Within the cold chain a higher storage temperature can be seen as attractive for energy saving purposes but, because of the accelerated degradation of the quality of products [32,33], the global cost may be increasing [23]. Another example of the interaction between energy consumption and food waste can be found with the role of packaging: while packaging increases energy consumption, it also helps to prevent waste across the food supply chain [34].
Current Opinion in Food Science
Impact of different message dedicated for consumers. The figure was adapted from Guillier et al. [39]. Grey point corresponding for current situation for cooked ham. Percent change that would be observed if the domestic fridges were set at the recommended temperature of 4 8C (blue point); if mean temperature of domestic fridge temperature was 7 8C instead of 6 8C (dark point); if a better menu planning was used by consumers (violet point).The tops of the cube represent percent change (increase or reduction) of 100%. Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35
34 Food safety
by setting domestic fridge temperature at 7 8C but the proportion of ‘not safe’ and spoiled products would increase by 30% and 17% respectively. A weekly menu planning used by consumers would reduce the storage duration of products and reduce the proportion of spoiled products by 57% and unsafe products by 14% while energy consumptions would not be changed.
Acknowledgments This work received funds from The French National Research Agency under the project ANR-15-CE21-0011 OPTICOLD, from Region Ile de France and European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ 2007–2013) under Grant agreement No. 245288.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest
Conclusion Decision making for defining food policy needs to be supported by different analytical tools, [22] while the impact of intervention measures also need to be taken into account [40,41]. Although food safety might be seen as predominant with regard to food sustainability [42] this hierarchy is not obvious for all stakeholders. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that safety considerations are not the most important criterion in suppliers selection compared to quality and price [43]. In addition, both food safety and food sustainability are multifactorial allowing for potential compromises. For instance, in the example from Figure 1, changing consumer’s menu planning improved safety without compromising sustainability. In this context, multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) shows promise for supporting complex decision making [7,40,41]. MCDA allows for the systematic structuring of a decision problem from the perspective of multiple dimensions (e.g. risk, energy consumption and food waste). Implemented as an element of structured decision support, it can assist in decision making by integrating different outputs, qualitative as well as quantitative measurements within a transparent framework. This solution appears to have the most promising potential towards the implementation of a balanced food policy (Figure 2).
1.
Lam H-M, Remais J, Fung M-C, Xu L, Sun SS-M: Food supply and food safety issues in china. The Lancet 2013, 381:2044-2053.
2.
Doyle MP, Erickson MC, Alali W, Cannon J, Deng X, Ortega Y, Smith MA, Zhao T: The food industry’s current and future role in preventing microbial foodborne illness within the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2015, 61:252-259.
3.
Sellahewa J, Martindale W: The impact of food processing on the sustainability of the food supply chain. Delivering food security with supply chain led innovations: understanding supply chains, providing food security, delivering choice Aspects of applied biology. Assoc Appl Biol 2010, 102:91-98.
4.
Garnett T: Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. Proc Nutr Soc 2013, 72:29-39.
5.
Priefer C, Jo¨rissen J, Bra¨utigam K-R: Food waste prevention in Europe — a cause-driven approach to identify the most relevant leverage points for action. Res Conserv Recycl 2016, 109:155-165.
Nissinen A, Heiskanen E, Perrels A, Bergha¨ll E, Liesimaa V, Mattinen MK: Combinations of policy instruments to decrease the climate impacts of housing, passenger transport and food in Finland. J Cleaner Prod 2015, 107:455-466. The authors proposed an innovative attempt to combine analytical work on climate policy with a collaborative process in which policy instrument packages for sustainable consumption were designed together with policy makers.
6.
7.
Mazzocchi M, Ragona M, Zanoli A: A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for the ex-ante impact assessment of food safety policies. Food Policy 2013, 38:177-189.
8.
Anonymous: 50 Years of Food Safety in the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2007.
9.
Hugas M, Tsigarida E, Robinson T, Calistri P: Risk assessment of biological hazards in the European Union. Int J Food Microbiol 2007, 120:131-135.
10. Commission EU: White Paper on Food Safety. Commission of the European Communities, Bruxelles, COM; 2000:. 719 (1999).
Figure 2
Food Safety
11. Chen K, Wang Xx, Song H-y: Food safety regulatory Systems in Europe and China: a study of how co-regulation can improve regulatory effectiveness. J Integr Agric 2015, 14:2203-2217. 12. Wiseman SR: The implementation of the food safety modernization act and the strength of the sustainable agriculture movement. Am J Law Med 2015, 41:259-273.
Food waste
Environment
13. Drew CA, Clydesdale FM: New food safety law: effectiveness on the ground. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2015, 55:689-700. 14. Liu S, Xie Z, Zhang W, Cao X, Pei X: Risk assessment in Chinese food safety. Food Control 2013, 30:162-167. 15. Rigod B: The purpose of the WTO agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS). Eur J Int Law 2013, 24:503-532.
BALANCED FOOD POLICY Current Opinion in Food Science
Schematic representation of the three objectives to be reached by policy makers. Cubes represent the effort chosen to maintain equilibrium of the system. Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35
16. Definitions on Food Safety Objective, Performance Objective and Performance, Criterion, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards. Programme, Codex committee on Food of the, Hygiene; 2004:. Thirty-sixth, session., Fao/who, rome and, geneva., Press Release. 17. Sta¨rk KDC, Alonso S, Dadios N, Dupuy C, Ellerbroek L, Georgiev M, Hardstaff J, Huneau-Salau¨n A, Laugier C, Mateus A, Nigsch A et al.: Strengths and weaknesses of meat inspection www.sciencedirect.com
Food policy triangle Guillier et al. 35
as a contribution to animal health and welfare surveillance. Food Control 2014, 39:154-162. 18. EFSA: EFSA: Scientific opinion on the public health risks related to the maintenance of the cold chain during storage and transport of meat. Part 1 (meat of domestic ungulates). EFSA J 2014, 12:81. 19. Aiking H, De Boer J: Food sustainability: diverging interpretations. Br Food J 2004, 106:359-365. 20. Nguyen-the C, Bardin M, Berard A, Berge O, Brillard J, Broussolle V, Carlin F, Renault P, Tchamitchian M, Morris CE: Agrifood systems and the microbial safety of fresh produce: trade-offs in the wake of increased sustainability. Sci Total Environ 2016, 562:751-759. 21. Esnouf C, Russel M, Bricas N: Food System Sustainability: Insights from Dualine. Cambridge University Press; 2013. 22. Cowell SJ, Fairman R, Lofstedt RE: Use of risk assessment and life cycle assessment in decision making: a common policy research agenda. Risk Anal 2002, 22:879-894. 23. Zanoni S, Zavanella L: Chilled or frozen? Decision strategies for sustainable food supply chains. Int J Prod Econ 2012, 140: 731-736. 24. Laguerre O, Hoang HM, Flick D: Experimental investigation and modelling in the food cold chain: thermal and quality evolution. Trends Food Sci Technol 2013, 29:87-97. 25. James SJ, James C, Evans JA: Modelling of food transportation systems — a review. Int J Refrig 2006, 29:947-957. 26. Papargyropoulou E, Lozano R, Steinberger JK, Wright N, bin Ujang Z: The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J Cleaner Prod 2014, 76:106-115. The authors examine the factors that give rise to food waste, and propose a framework to prioritize the most appropriate options for management of food waste. 27. Porpino G, Parente J, Wansink B: Food waste paradox: antecedents of food disposal in low income households. Int J Consumer Stud 2015, 39:619-629. 28. Boue´ G, Guillou S, Antignac J, Bizec Bl, Membre´ J: Public health risk-benefit assessment associated with food consumption — a review. Eur J Nutr Food Safety 2015, 5:32-58. This review synthesizes risk–benefit studies associated with food consumption and summarizes the current methodological options carried out in this field. 29. Sustainable food. Available from: http://ec.Europa.Eu/ environment/eussd/food.htm. Press Release (2015). 30. Watson M, Meah A: Food, waste and safety: negotiating conflicting social anxieties into the practices of domestic provisioning. Soc Rev 2012, 60:102-120. 31. Koutsoumanis K: Modeling food spoilage in microbial risk assessment. J Food Protect 2009, 72:425-427.
www.sciencedirect.com
32. Duret S, Gwanpua SG, Hoang HM, Guillier L, Flick D, Laguerre O, Jabri ME, Thuault D, Hezard B, Lintz A, Stahl V et al.: Identification of the significant factors in food quality using global sensitivity analysis and the accept-and-reject algorithm. Part II: application to the cold chain of cooked ham. J Food Eng 2015, 148:58-65. 33. Duret S, Gwanpua SG, Hoang HM, Guillier L, Flick D, Laguerre O, Verlinden BE, De Roeck A, Nicolai BM, Geeraerd A: Identification of the significant factors in food quality using global sensitivity analysis and the accept-and-reject algorithm. Part III: application to the apple cold chain. J Food Eng 2015, 148: 66-73. 34. Verghese K, Lewis H, Lockrey S, Williams H: Packaging’s role in minimizing food loss and waste across the supply chain. Pack Technol Sci 2015, 28:603-620. The authors identified a number of key insights into packaging opportunities to reduce waste. 35. Tromp SO, Rijgersberg H, Franz E: Quantitative microbial risk assessment for Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella enterica, and Listeria monocytogenes in leafy green vegetables consumed at salad bars, based on modeling supply chain logistics. J Food Protect 2010, 73:1830-1840. 36. Duret S, Guillier L, Hoang H-M, Flick D, Laguerre O: Identification of the significant factors in food safety using global sensitivity analysis and the accept-and-reject algorithm: application to the cold chain of ham. Int J Food Microbiol 2014, 180: 39-48. 37. Rijgersberg H, Tromp S, Jacxsens L, Uyttendaele M: Modeling logistic performance in quantitative microbial risk assessment. Risk Anal 2010, 30:20-31. 38. Alvarez G: Cold chain refrigeration innovations the frisbee project. J Food Eng 2015, 148:1. 39. Guillier L, Duret S, Hoang HM, Flick D, Laguerre O: Is food safety compatible with food waste prevention and sustainability of the food chain? Procedia Food Sci 2016. in press. 40. Oria M, Wallace RB: Enhancing Food Safety: the Role of the Food and Drug Administration. 3, Adopting a Risk-based Decisionmaking Approach to Food Safety. National Academies Press; 2010:. Available from: http://www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/books/ nbk220395/.. 41. Ruzante JM, Davidson VJ, Caswell J, Fazil A, Cranfield JA, Henson SJ, Anders SM, Schmidt C, Farber JM: A multifactorial risk prioritization framework for foodborne pathogens. Risk Anal 2010, 30:724-742. 42. Marucheck A, Greis N, Mena C, Cai L: Product safety and security in the global supply chain: issues, challenges and research opportunities. J Oper Manage 2011, 29:707-720. 43. Voss MD, Closs DJ, Calantone RJ, Helferich OK, Speier C: The role of security in the food supplier selection decision. J Bus Logist 2009, 30:127-155.
Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35
ScienceDirect Linking food waste prevention, energy consumption and microbial food safety: the next challenge of food policy? Laurent Guillier1, Steven Duret1,2,3, Hong-Minh Hoang2, Denis Flick3, Christophe Nguyen-The´4 and Onrawee Laguerre2 Food safety has governed food policy for decades. More recently, concerns about sustainability of food chains have emerged. Food sustainability is becoming an increasingly important issue because food systems are not sustainable in terms of consumption of resources, their impact on ecosystems or their effect on health and social equality. A focus is given on how microbial food safety, energy consumption and food waste impact food policy. Potential contradictions between the different aspects of food policy are also reviewed and discussed. Addresses 1 Universite´ Paris-Est, Anses, Laboratory for Food Safety, F-94700 Maisons-Alfort, France 2 Irstea (National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture), Refrigeration Processes Engineering Research Unit, F-92761 Antony, France 3 AgroParisTech, Food and Process Engineering, F-91300 Massy, France 4 UMR408 SQPOV «Se´curite´ et Qualite´ des Produits d’Origine Ve´ge´tale», INRA, Avignon Universite´, 84000 Avignon, France Corresponding author: Guillier, Laurent ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35 This review comes from a themed issue on Food safety Edited by Konstantinos Koutsoumanis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2016.06.006 2214-7993/# 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Another consumer demand of increasing importance is that food products take an increasingly important place, is that the food products should be produced in an environmentally sustainable way [3]. This demand places governmental institutions in charge of food policies in addressing environmental issues in regulations, as well as in exerting pressure on food manufacturers to adopt sustainable manufacturing processes. The establishment of food policy for sustainable food consumption as a whole is difficult as food sustainability covers many different areas. Among the objectives that have been put forward in recent years, the present review focuses on energy consumption and food waste. Energy consumption linked to food production and storage is seen as important in the context of climate change [4]. The reduction of food waste has emerged because it can help to ensure food security and to diminish environmental burdens [5]. Food policy instruments and measures have now to target all these aspects. The policy instruments are diverse [6] as they include information, regulations and standards or tax instrument. One can anticipate that that food policy measures taken for one area may interact with others and, in this context, assessment of the impact of such measures is necessary [7]. This article presents first an overview of the food safety issues or food sustainability challenges that drive food policy interventions. Then the potential contradictions between intervention measures of the different topics targeted by food policy are discussed with a particular focus on the example of the interrelation between energy consumption, food waste and microbial food safety.
Introduction
Microbial food safety and food policy
Consumers are continuing to demand fresh and processed foods that are safe to eat, convenient to consume, contribute to the health and well-being, are of high sensory quality and are affordable. This demand for foods with various qualities will continue to grow as the world’s population and wealth are expected to increase.
The safety of food products is a major topic for defining food policy for decades. The food chain system in place today is far different from that of five decades ago in most developed and developing countries [2,8]. Food safety policy has evolved and adapted in line with the changes in farming and food industry practices, science and technology knowledge, and globalization of food products exchange.
Food safety, that is, the assurance that food will not cause harm to the consumer when it is prepared and consumed according to its intended use, is still a global issue that affects the health of populations in both industrialized and developing countries [1,2]. Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35
In this context, the Codex Alimentarius takes an important place for establishing food safety standards. Taking the example of the European Union (EU), the first food hygiene rules came in 1964 after the creation of the Codex www.sciencedirect.com
Food policy triangle Guillier et al. 31
Alimentarius. Previous regulations and standards, as current, are strictly based on the entire body established by the Codex Alimentarius. The regulations were initially limited to the requirements for fresh meat and, over the decades, have been extended to other animal foods. In the 1990s, a set of food hygiene guidelines were then published. Food crises that have occurred over the last 25 years, changing eating habits, the development of new food production process, increased international trade and emerging risks have led consumers through the media to be more sensitive to food safety issues [9]. In this context, risk managers have sought to develop a food safety management system as efficient as possible. In January 2000 the European Commission adopted the ‘White paper on food safety’ [10]. It has defined a strategy for a coordinated and integrated policy on the entire food production chain, to ensure the most effective food safety standards and the highest level of protection of human health possible. This White Paper is the preamble to the relevant provisions that constitute now the ‘Hygiene Package’ and defined the main principles: the rules must be applied ‘from farm to fork’; each operator of the food chain is responsible for food safety; Member States and their competent authorities are responsible for verifying the correct application of EU legislation and its implementation; dangerous products should not be placed on the market and it is necessary to intervene when it is considered that these non-compliant products are placed on the market; traceability throughout the food production logistic chain should be ensured; the legislation is based on risk analysis. This change in food safety policy is not limited to Europe. In other countries, like China, food scandals that have struck over the past decade have spurred a significant reform of food safety policy [11]. In USA, because of growing public concerns over outbreaks and food safety issues highly covered by the media, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) passed the Food Safety Modernization Act in 2011 [12,13]. In this context, risk analysis has gained international recognition as the most effective tool for managing food safety issues [14]. Risk analysis is used to develop an estimate of the risks to human health and safety, to identify and implement appropriate measures to control the risks, and to communicate with stakeholders about the risks and measures applied. It can be used to support and improve the development of standards, as well as to address food safety issues that result from emerging hazards or breakdowns in food control systems. It provides food safety regulators with the information and evidence they need for effective decision-making, contributing to better food safety outcomes and improvements in public health. The three main components of risk analysis are risk assessment, risk management and www.sciencedirect.com
risk communication. Risk assessment is considered to be the ‘science-based’ component of risk analysis. In risk assessment, quantitative risk assessment, rather than qualitative risk assessment, is the widest applied methodology as the outputs can directly be confronted to quantitative objectives defined by risk managers. The agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures points out that Member States have the right to adopt SPS measures to achieve their self-determined health protection level [15]. This level is defined as ‘Appropriate Level of Protection’ (ALOP), and it is estimated for the country establishing a sanitary measure to protect the lives or the human health (also applicable for animals, or plants) within its territory. In the context of food safety, an ALOP is a statement of the degree of public health protection that is to be achieved by the food safety systems implemented in a country. It is typically expressed in terms relevant to public health such as a number of cases per 100 000 population per year. Typically, an ALOP would be articulated as a statement related to the disease burden linked to a particular hazard–food combination and its consumption in a country. In order to facilitate risk management, other metrics have also been proposed for risk characterization throughout the food production chain [16]. Food safety objective (FSO) and performance objective (PO), respectively defined as the maximum frequency and/or concentration of a microbiological hazard in a food at the time of consumption and at a specified step in the food chain before time of consumption, are good examples of these metrics. In practice, the emergence of new hazards, rationalization of costs or the contribution of risk analysis have recently changed regulations, or are expected to do so. Recent examples can be found for illustrating these three levers of changes and adaptations of food safety policy. The recent crisis related to sprouts involving E. coli O104: H4 has led to amendment of the Regulation (EC) No 2073/ 2005. For illustrating rationalization of cost, the example of meat inspection method is of interest. Meat inspection methods can be seen as disproportionate to the risk involved [17] and evolution of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 is expected. Finally, the assessment conducted by Efsa to measure the impact of the maintenance of the cold chain during storage and transport of meat on microbial risk opens the way for a possible change in temperature laid down in Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 for meat transport [18].
Food sustainability and food policy Sustainability has taken importance in the food industry. This stems from the observation that food systems in industrialized countries contribute, by diets that are related to them, to the generation of nutritional diseases, despite the unparalleled access to a great diversity of safe food products. Their generalization to the whole planet will exhaust the resources and exacerbate the negative Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35
32 Food safety
effects on biodiversity and the environment, including pollution or emission of Green House Gas (GHG) effects [4]. The concept of sustainability in general and food sustainability, in particular, entails many aspects and many interpretations [19,20]. What is generally meant by sustainable food then? Researchers proposed that a multifunctional food should ensure health, pleasure, conviviality and identity. It is also based on a resilient economic sector that promotes the well-being of all, creates jobs and reduces social inequalities. A sustainable food system also respects the environment and the biological and cultural diversity. In other words, it is a system that should find ways to reach socially and environmentally desirable conditions and that do not penalize future generations [21]. Environmental impact
Food systems make a significant contribution to climate change throughout the food chain from primary production through processing, retail storage to consumers [4]. Development of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) has taken an important place in decision making [22]. LCA is a technique to assess environmental impacts considering all stages of a product’s life. In order to set goals and monitor sustainable performance in the food processing industry, it is necessary to define quantitative measures to assess sustainability of a food supply chain. These measurements can include the amount of GHG emissions, water usage and waste generation associated with food production [4]. Cold chain plays an important role in sustainability of food supply chains [23]. More precisely, refrigeration plays a particularly important role in climate changing and greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated that 15% of the electricity consumed is used for refrigeration worldwide. The most important user is the food industry which totalizes 40% of this amount. Increasing the efficiency of the refrigerating equipment along the cold chain can provide a real decrease of the global consumption, and will also decrease the global equivalent CO2 emission. Overall figures would indicate that approximately 50% of the total energy used in food refrigeration is consumed in retail and commercial refrigeration and 50% in chilling, freezing and warehouse storage [24]. In 2002, it was estimated that there were 322 000 supermarkets and 18 000 hypermarkets worldwide and that the refrigeration equipment used on average 35–50% of the total energy consumed in these supermarkets [24]. There is also more than 1 million refrigerated road vehicles [25] and more than a billion domestic refrigerators that are used in the world [24]. Food waste
Today, in developed countries, a major part of the population has access to an abundant choice of healthy and Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35
good quality food. Because of this product offering, consumers in these countries put little concern on food loose and waste. However, over the past few years, a conscience burst helped to highlight food waste. This subject has emerged as a widely treated topical subject. Citizen initiatives have appeared in all countries to raise awareness and reduce food waste. There is no single definition for food waste [26,27]. Food loss and waste are often distinguished [26]. Food waste can be defined as ‘unintended losses of food produced for human consumptions occurred in the distribution and consumptions stages of the supply chain’ [27]. Food loss can be defined as a waste of the first stages, that is, during agricultural production or harvest, of the food supply chain [27]. Food waste is a more recent food policy concern than food safety. In the past few years, it has taken a rapid ascendancy. In EU, the main reasons of this emergence are linked to the appearance of statistics in the field and the global concern on climate change. Food household wastes have been shown to play a significant role in greenhouse gas emissions. Other reasons include the household budgets in situation of economic crisis as well as a quite common moral reluctance to any form of waste [27]. The EU has called for halving waste in the member countries by 2025. France has launched its own National Pact fight against food waste in 2013. Many of the food chain actors acceded and proposed solutions and actions to reduce waste. Thus, it is necessary to achieve the objectives of finding ways to reduce waste to unequal accents while protecting public health. It is important to appreciate the waste emitted at every step of the food chain for each of the actors.
Potential contradictions between food policy measures Food systems are complex and are driven by economic, cultural and environmental factors. Better understanding of these drivers and their interrelation could help to improve food policies. Because of this interrelation, there is a demand for anticipating and evaluating impacts of food policy [7]. Cost effectiveness analysis could help to evaluate food policy measures but their reliability and completeness are often unsatisfactory [7]. As food policy could also generate a risk in the same time as beneficial effects, a risk–benefit assessment can be conducted. Yet, risk–benefit assessment is still an emerging and challenging scientific subject [28]. Moreover, food policy can also potentially impact areas that were not thought to be impacted [7]. Some conflicts between ensuring safety of foods products and moving towards more sustainability may thus exist [20]. For this reason, after a public consultancy, EU has recently identified the improvement of food policy coherence as a major topic [29]. www.sciencedirect.com
Food policy triangle Guillier et al. 33
Food safety and preventing food waste
Public discourses on food safety and food waste prevention can be perceived by consumers as conflicting [30]. While concern on food safety means impelling people to throw out food which has passed the shelf-life, a concern on food waste means the opposite. Although ‘use-by’ and ‘best before’ labels help to distinguish between hazardous products and products with qualities that may begin to deteriorate, confusion can occur for some consumers conducting them to throw away or eat food products that should not be. Moreover, finding a recipe for safely preparing the left-over is not so convenient for most of people. Outside the household, recycling food wastes from for example, caterers or supermarkets, raises difficult issues with regards to regulations, particularly when containing foods of animal origins. Despite evident relation, very few studies take into account spoilage, a major cause of food waste, in exposure assessment through the incorporation of kinetic modelling of specific spoilage organisms. It consists in incorporating kinetic modelling of specific spoilage organisms along with pathogen exposure [31]. Abusive storage conditions result in microbial spoilage of foods and hence these products are not consumed. By incorporating a model for spoilage it is possible to determine the percentage of unsafe food product that would be really consumed.
illustrates this global approach that addresses the three areas, that is, food safety, spoilage and energy. The objective was to develop a global model for a ready-toeat meat product that provides three different outputs, that is, energy consumption, percentage of spoiled products and exposure levels of Listeria monocytogenes. First a cold chain model was developed, and it was then coupled with (i) predictive microbiology models and (ii) energy consumption models for cold equipments. Various scenarios were tested for assessing the consequences of potential changes in cold chain equipment on safety, food waste and energy cost. Figure 1 shows the effect of communications for consumers that aim at improving safety or reduce energy consumption. Intervention measures that would induce beneficial effects for the three aspects (green area in Figure 1) may be hard to identify, meaning that policy makers will have to find a fine compromise between advantages and drawbacks. For cooked ham, current situation (Figure 1, centroid) of cold chain implies that the percentage of consumed ‘not safe’ (not compliant with microbiological criterion) product is 0.6%, and that 8.1% of products are wasted because of spoilage. A mean of 118 kJ/package is spent. The proportion of ‘not safe’ and spoiled products could be mitigated by 43% and 59%, respectively, if the domestic fridges would be set at the recommended temperature at 4 8C while the energy consumption would be increased by 10%. Energy consumption could also be slightly reduced
Energy and food waste
Considering the three aspects together
Recently, an EU funded project developed new innovative mathematical modelling tools that combine food quality and safety together with energy, environmental and economic aspects to predict and control food quality and safety in the cold chain [38]. Guillier et al.’s work [39] www.sciencedirect.com
Less energy
waLes
s s od te uc t
pr e or e M ast w
d
fo od More safe
le
Unsafe food product
oi
Less safe
Sp
In the same way as energy and food waste, energy saving might be seen in contraction with food safety, that is a lower temperature setting in the cold chain would increase the energy cost (for equivalent equipment). Few studies tackled the potential link between energy and risk. To consider these two dimensions, food chain logistic has to be well characterized and modelled [35,36]. Until now, the food chain logistic has only been proposed for determining significance of modifications in the logistic chain with respect to food safety [37].
Energy/product
Energy and food safety
Figure 1
More energy
Within the cold chain a higher storage temperature can be seen as attractive for energy saving purposes but, because of the accelerated degradation of the quality of products [32,33], the global cost may be increasing [23]. Another example of the interaction between energy consumption and food waste can be found with the role of packaging: while packaging increases energy consumption, it also helps to prevent waste across the food supply chain [34].
Current Opinion in Food Science
Impact of different message dedicated for consumers. The figure was adapted from Guillier et al. [39]. Grey point corresponding for current situation for cooked ham. Percent change that would be observed if the domestic fridges were set at the recommended temperature of 4 8C (blue point); if mean temperature of domestic fridge temperature was 7 8C instead of 6 8C (dark point); if a better menu planning was used by consumers (violet point).The tops of the cube represent percent change (increase or reduction) of 100%. Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35
34 Food safety
by setting domestic fridge temperature at 7 8C but the proportion of ‘not safe’ and spoiled products would increase by 30% and 17% respectively. A weekly menu planning used by consumers would reduce the storage duration of products and reduce the proportion of spoiled products by 57% and unsafe products by 14% while energy consumptions would not be changed.
Acknowledgments This work received funds from The French National Research Agency under the project ANR-15-CE21-0011 OPTICOLD, from Region Ile de France and European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ 2007–2013) under Grant agreement No. 245288.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest
Conclusion Decision making for defining food policy needs to be supported by different analytical tools, [22] while the impact of intervention measures also need to be taken into account [40,41]. Although food safety might be seen as predominant with regard to food sustainability [42] this hierarchy is not obvious for all stakeholders. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that safety considerations are not the most important criterion in suppliers selection compared to quality and price [43]. In addition, both food safety and food sustainability are multifactorial allowing for potential compromises. For instance, in the example from Figure 1, changing consumer’s menu planning improved safety without compromising sustainability. In this context, multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) shows promise for supporting complex decision making [7,40,41]. MCDA allows for the systematic structuring of a decision problem from the perspective of multiple dimensions (e.g. risk, energy consumption and food waste). Implemented as an element of structured decision support, it can assist in decision making by integrating different outputs, qualitative as well as quantitative measurements within a transparent framework. This solution appears to have the most promising potential towards the implementation of a balanced food policy (Figure 2).
1.
Lam H-M, Remais J, Fung M-C, Xu L, Sun SS-M: Food supply and food safety issues in china. The Lancet 2013, 381:2044-2053.
2.
Doyle MP, Erickson MC, Alali W, Cannon J, Deng X, Ortega Y, Smith MA, Zhao T: The food industry’s current and future role in preventing microbial foodborne illness within the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2015, 61:252-259.
3.
Sellahewa J, Martindale W: The impact of food processing on the sustainability of the food supply chain. Delivering food security with supply chain led innovations: understanding supply chains, providing food security, delivering choice Aspects of applied biology. Assoc Appl Biol 2010, 102:91-98.
4.
Garnett T: Food sustainability: problems, perspectives and solutions. Proc Nutr Soc 2013, 72:29-39.
5.
Priefer C, Jo¨rissen J, Bra¨utigam K-R: Food waste prevention in Europe — a cause-driven approach to identify the most relevant leverage points for action. Res Conserv Recycl 2016, 109:155-165.
Nissinen A, Heiskanen E, Perrels A, Bergha¨ll E, Liesimaa V, Mattinen MK: Combinations of policy instruments to decrease the climate impacts of housing, passenger transport and food in Finland. J Cleaner Prod 2015, 107:455-466. The authors proposed an innovative attempt to combine analytical work on climate policy with a collaborative process in which policy instrument packages for sustainable consumption were designed together with policy makers.
6.
7.
Mazzocchi M, Ragona M, Zanoli A: A fuzzy multi-criteria approach for the ex-ante impact assessment of food safety policies. Food Policy 2013, 38:177-189.
8.
Anonymous: 50 Years of Food Safety in the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2007.
9.
Hugas M, Tsigarida E, Robinson T, Calistri P: Risk assessment of biological hazards in the European Union. Int J Food Microbiol 2007, 120:131-135.
10. Commission EU: White Paper on Food Safety. Commission of the European Communities, Bruxelles, COM; 2000:. 719 (1999).
Figure 2
Food Safety
11. Chen K, Wang Xx, Song H-y: Food safety regulatory Systems in Europe and China: a study of how co-regulation can improve regulatory effectiveness. J Integr Agric 2015, 14:2203-2217. 12. Wiseman SR: The implementation of the food safety modernization act and the strength of the sustainable agriculture movement. Am J Law Med 2015, 41:259-273.
Food waste
Environment
13. Drew CA, Clydesdale FM: New food safety law: effectiveness on the ground. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2015, 55:689-700. 14. Liu S, Xie Z, Zhang W, Cao X, Pei X: Risk assessment in Chinese food safety. Food Control 2013, 30:162-167. 15. Rigod B: The purpose of the WTO agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS). Eur J Int Law 2013, 24:503-532.
BALANCED FOOD POLICY Current Opinion in Food Science
Schematic representation of the three objectives to be reached by policy makers. Cubes represent the effort chosen to maintain equilibrium of the system. Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35
16. Definitions on Food Safety Objective, Performance Objective and Performance, Criterion, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards. Programme, Codex committee on Food of the, Hygiene; 2004:. Thirty-sixth, session., Fao/who, rome and, geneva., Press Release. 17. Sta¨rk KDC, Alonso S, Dadios N, Dupuy C, Ellerbroek L, Georgiev M, Hardstaff J, Huneau-Salau¨n A, Laugier C, Mateus A, Nigsch A et al.: Strengths and weaknesses of meat inspection www.sciencedirect.com
Food policy triangle Guillier et al. 35
as a contribution to animal health and welfare surveillance. Food Control 2014, 39:154-162. 18. EFSA: EFSA: Scientific opinion on the public health risks related to the maintenance of the cold chain during storage and transport of meat. Part 1 (meat of domestic ungulates). EFSA J 2014, 12:81. 19. Aiking H, De Boer J: Food sustainability: diverging interpretations. Br Food J 2004, 106:359-365. 20. Nguyen-the C, Bardin M, Berard A, Berge O, Brillard J, Broussolle V, Carlin F, Renault P, Tchamitchian M, Morris CE: Agrifood systems and the microbial safety of fresh produce: trade-offs in the wake of increased sustainability. Sci Total Environ 2016, 562:751-759. 21. Esnouf C, Russel M, Bricas N: Food System Sustainability: Insights from Dualine. Cambridge University Press; 2013. 22. Cowell SJ, Fairman R, Lofstedt RE: Use of risk assessment and life cycle assessment in decision making: a common policy research agenda. Risk Anal 2002, 22:879-894. 23. Zanoni S, Zavanella L: Chilled or frozen? Decision strategies for sustainable food supply chains. Int J Prod Econ 2012, 140: 731-736. 24. Laguerre O, Hoang HM, Flick D: Experimental investigation and modelling in the food cold chain: thermal and quality evolution. Trends Food Sci Technol 2013, 29:87-97. 25. James SJ, James C, Evans JA: Modelling of food transportation systems — a review. Int J Refrig 2006, 29:947-957. 26. Papargyropoulou E, Lozano R, Steinberger JK, Wright N, bin Ujang Z: The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J Cleaner Prod 2014, 76:106-115. The authors examine the factors that give rise to food waste, and propose a framework to prioritize the most appropriate options for management of food waste. 27. Porpino G, Parente J, Wansink B: Food waste paradox: antecedents of food disposal in low income households. Int J Consumer Stud 2015, 39:619-629. 28. Boue´ G, Guillou S, Antignac J, Bizec Bl, Membre´ J: Public health risk-benefit assessment associated with food consumption — a review. Eur J Nutr Food Safety 2015, 5:32-58. This review synthesizes risk–benefit studies associated with food consumption and summarizes the current methodological options carried out in this field. 29. Sustainable food. Available from: http://ec.Europa.Eu/ environment/eussd/food.htm. Press Release (2015). 30. Watson M, Meah A: Food, waste and safety: negotiating conflicting social anxieties into the practices of domestic provisioning. Soc Rev 2012, 60:102-120. 31. Koutsoumanis K: Modeling food spoilage in microbial risk assessment. J Food Protect 2009, 72:425-427.
www.sciencedirect.com
32. Duret S, Gwanpua SG, Hoang HM, Guillier L, Flick D, Laguerre O, Jabri ME, Thuault D, Hezard B, Lintz A, Stahl V et al.: Identification of the significant factors in food quality using global sensitivity analysis and the accept-and-reject algorithm. Part II: application to the cold chain of cooked ham. J Food Eng 2015, 148:58-65. 33. Duret S, Gwanpua SG, Hoang HM, Guillier L, Flick D, Laguerre O, Verlinden BE, De Roeck A, Nicolai BM, Geeraerd A: Identification of the significant factors in food quality using global sensitivity analysis and the accept-and-reject algorithm. Part III: application to the apple cold chain. J Food Eng 2015, 148: 66-73. 34. Verghese K, Lewis H, Lockrey S, Williams H: Packaging’s role in minimizing food loss and waste across the supply chain. Pack Technol Sci 2015, 28:603-620. The authors identified a number of key insights into packaging opportunities to reduce waste. 35. Tromp SO, Rijgersberg H, Franz E: Quantitative microbial risk assessment for Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella enterica, and Listeria monocytogenes in leafy green vegetables consumed at salad bars, based on modeling supply chain logistics. J Food Protect 2010, 73:1830-1840. 36. Duret S, Guillier L, Hoang H-M, Flick D, Laguerre O: Identification of the significant factors in food safety using global sensitivity analysis and the accept-and-reject algorithm: application to the cold chain of ham. Int J Food Microbiol 2014, 180: 39-48. 37. Rijgersberg H, Tromp S, Jacxsens L, Uyttendaele M: Modeling logistic performance in quantitative microbial risk assessment. Risk Anal 2010, 30:20-31. 38. Alvarez G: Cold chain refrigeration innovations the frisbee project. J Food Eng 2015, 148:1. 39. Guillier L, Duret S, Hoang HM, Flick D, Laguerre O: Is food safety compatible with food waste prevention and sustainability of the food chain? Procedia Food Sci 2016. in press. 40. Oria M, Wallace RB: Enhancing Food Safety: the Role of the Food and Drug Administration. 3, Adopting a Risk-based Decisionmaking Approach to Food Safety. National Academies Press; 2010:. Available from: http://www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/books/ nbk220395/.. 41. Ruzante JM, Davidson VJ, Caswell J, Fazil A, Cranfield JA, Henson SJ, Anders SM, Schmidt C, Farber JM: A multifactorial risk prioritization framework for foodborne pathogens. Risk Anal 2010, 30:724-742. 42. Marucheck A, Greis N, Mena C, Cai L: Product safety and security in the global supply chain: issues, challenges and research opportunities. J Oper Manage 2011, 29:707-720. 43. Voss MD, Closs DJ, Calantone RJ, Helferich OK, Speier C: The role of security in the food supplier selection decision. J Bus Logist 2009, 30:127-155.
Current Opinion in Food Science 2016, 12:30–35