New Bioplastic packing material-Poly butylene succinate for food packing

For any food to be preserved after it is processed needs a packaging material to keep out vectors, air, water and external flavor taints. The world has been used to the fossil fuel based packaging materials since long which offer a wide variety of them with different functional properties and no one thinks seriously what will happen once fossil fuels run out as they are non-renewable in nature. Not that world is not concerned about this because there are attempts here and there to develop new packaging materials based on renewable sources though their production is not very substantial yet compared to conventional plastics now in vogue. A major demand from the consumer and policy makers is that such plastics should be biodegradable as current plastics some time take as much as 800 years to degrade in soil after disposal. While biodegradable plastics are now being produced they need not necessarily be natural plant based and also all bioplastics are not necessarily biodegradable. The new breed of bioplastics now being touted around comes through fermentation route deploying microorganisms. Here is some information regarding the recently developed bioplastic from succinate generated by fermentation of organic carbon sources from plants.

"The research consortium has developed a way to mass produce succinic acid, one of the major ingredients of PBS. To do so, they use bacteria to convert the glucose in the "feedstock", or the raw material used to produce such bioplastics, such as wheat. "The idea is to replace the succinic acid coming from petrochemicals with bio-resourced products such as plant waste and materials from plants in agriculture," says Christophe Cotillon, project coordinator and deputy manager of the French Association for the Technical Coordination of the Agrifood Industry (ACTIA), headquartered in Paris, France. PBS has "similar qualities as existing packaging, for the interaction between the food and the packaging and in terms of texture and transparency," Cotillon tells youris.com.  In tests, bio-resourced PBS was a better oxygen barrier than other bioplastics. Water barrier properties, however, need more tweaking to compete with existing packaging at keeping out water which can spoil dried food and promote microbial growth and contamination. The packaging has already been successfully tested for ricotta cheese and for beef. This product presents quite a few additional advantages. Bioresourced PBS can be used in existing production lines, meaning no financial penalties for manufacturers switching to greener materials. "Industry gets the same properties for approximately the same cost, and using the same machines," says Cotillon. Bio-resourced packaging also boosts brands' eco credentials. "If you tell the consumer that they are using bio-resourced packaging, they will prefer the idea to preserve nature." The manufacturing process could be made even greener by using energy from renewable resources, or by optimising the manufacturing process. To compete against petrochemical-based plastics, bioplastics need to meet several requirements. "If we want to push this material, we have to have better properties at the same costs," says Cotillon, "A future development step will be to improve the quality by coating the surface. And we can mix the molecules with other bio-resourced molecules to make a better quality of packaging." Bioplastics, however, could raise public concern in that it could be grown on land that would otherwise be used for food crops, and reduce food availability. "Certainly food competition is a problem," says Markus Schmidt, research associate in the Department of Materials Development, Fraunhofer Institute, in Freising, Germany. "In my opinion it would be best to use real waste products or by products from food manufacturing so there is no food competition." A statement that meets Cotillon's opinion "the biosources for PBS packaging can come from plant waste." Consumers could also struggle to distinguish between biodegradable and bio-resourced. "The feedstock used [to produce bioplastics] has nothing to do with whether a material is biodegradable or not," says Kristy-Barbara Lange, head of communication at the industrial organisation European Bioplastics, "this is a misunderstanding often encountered. Biodegradability depends on the chemical structure of a material." The biodegradability of SUCCIPACK, explains Cotillon is "the same as petrochemical or current packaging."

The technology development cannot automatically lead to acceptance by the user industry, especially food processing industry for which there are strict functional and safety requirements. According to available information provided on this new plastic material, succinate based bioplastics are compatible with products like cheese and frozen meat but cannot fare well when it comes to packing moisture sensitive foods. Probably further modifications may be required to improve moisture impermeability by modifying the surface through secondary coatings and this should be technically feasible with the available knowledge in coating technology. Also relevant is the costing and unless succinate based bioplastics can compete with fossil fuel based materials currently available, it may face a rough time in the market. A big controversy that may follow such fermentation driven plastic materials is the desirability of using edible plant foods for non-food purpose, as such a "pull" might affect the food supply chain adversely. The contention that food wastes can be a feed source may work out if provend true.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

SPROUTS THAT ALLOWED THE DEADLY E.COLI ALSO TO SPROUT-THE UNSOLVED MYSTERY!

Though the E.coli food poisoning episode has become just another quirks of history, it is difficult to forget the tragedy so easily considering the lives lost and people affected gravely by this little known pathogenic microorganism. It is a great relief to see the culprit product identified as organic sprouts from a German processor and how much damage this high profile industry is going to suffer due to this incidence is any body's guess. Now that the processor and the product that caused this episode have been identified, what next? Do we have sufficient wherewithal to avoid a repeat of another such calamity? Another little known fact is that this microorganism, derived from its innocuous cousin found commonly in feces, is resistant to more than 12 antibiotics currently used to fight infection in humans. Food pathologists have the onus to find out how a harmless bacteria like E.coli can assume such monstrous proportion, the reasons for the same and ways and means to prevent such transformation in nature.

The genetic sequence of the bacterium in question (a wholly new version of a strain of E.coli called O104:H4) has been found by scientists in Germany and China to contain at least eight genes that make it resistant to the majority of antibiotics. Many of the patients with HUS will need kidney transplants or require dialysis for the rest of their lives. The source of the tainted bean sprouts has been traced to an organic farm in northern Germany. The owner claims not to have used cattle manure, nor any of the three dozen or so non-organic additives widely employed in organic farming. Apparently, the only ingredients were seeds and water. The usual procedure for sprouting is to steam the selected seeds in drums at a temperature of 38ºC. Such conditions are ripe for breeding bacteria. The question is how the O104:H4 got there in the first place? The usual route is via animal faeces that have contaminated the water used for sprouting, or from manure used directly as organic fertiliser. But both have been ruled out. By all accounts, the farm also complied with the industry's highest standards of personal hygiene. The conclusion is that the seeds themselves must have been contaminated before hand. Microbiologists have long known that E.coli can bind tightly to the surface of seeds and even penetrate them, and then lie dormant for months. On germination, the population of bacteria can expand 100,000 times or more. Apart from contaminating the seeds, the bacteria get inside the stem tubers as the seeds begin to sprout. No amount of washing can then eradicate the bugs completely.

If the seeds used for sprouting are responsible for the contamination, why not evolve effective technology to treat and destroy them? If irradiation is not considered for consumer foods for fear of backlash, there should be no objection to subject the seeds to radiation sterilization before being used for sprouting. Alternately knowing well about the ability of E.coli to adhere to seed surface tightly, is it not possible to evolve a pre-treatment process for the seeds that will loosen the bacterial cells for subsequent washing? Probably some thing positive in this direction can be expected to happen, thanks to this unfortunate episode in Europe.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

ORGANIC FOOD INDUSTRY UNDER THE SCANNER-CAN THEY BE TRUSTED?

Will the latest E.coli food poisoning episode in Europe adversely affect the credibility of the multi billion dollar organic food industry? Probably to some extent, at least temporarily. It is not logical to blame the entire industry for the fault of one single producer as it has happened in Germany. Of course the loss of precious lives and handicapping thousands of consumers due to serious kidney damage cannot be condoned and it is incumbent on the part of industry not to repeat such costly lapses through better and fool proof safety assessment of products before releasing into the market. There will be many critics including the mainstream food processors baying for the blood of organic food industry and under the prevalent situation any response taken must be based on rationale, logic and reality on a long term basis. A set of useful suggestions was recently made that looks reasonable and unavoidable. Here is a take on the issue.

"The core of organic farming is the rejection of a century's worth of scientific advances. The same risks that Christian Scientists take with their own children when they reject modern medicine, organic farmers are eager to take with your children when they reject modern agriculture. First, the Obama administration needs to impose a timeout in the expansion or opening of any new organic farms while regulators and federal safety experts examine the ongoing dangers presented by organic food. Third, each obsolete technology should require public health and environmental disaster planning for all foreseeable risks while each organic farm pays into a national fund designed to implement organic farms' disaster plans. Such plans could be accepted only after wide-ranging public comment and the opportunity to strengthen plans through extensive litigation. Afterward, a strict - and independent - inspection regime would be required to keep tough protections in place. Obviously, the powerful organic industry would object, but the case against it is easily understood. No one would allow an electric utility to build and operate a new nuclear power plant with 1950s-era-technology without proof the design was safer than modern technology. Those who cling to the 1850s feces-based agricultural technology should face the same hurdles. As should those who reject key safety advances such as the E. coli-killing practice of irradiating suspect foods and genetic engineering, which holds promise in using natural biological processes to limit the spread of food-borne illness.Second, before organic farms are allowed to expand again, the industry must prove that ignoring modern technology does not hold hidden risks to public health or the environment. A permitting program for obsolete technology, perhaps as part of the existing agricultural or environmental permitting program, should demand that old technologies outperform new ones at each site where a business proposes to open or expand using obsolete technology".

The point about technology is well taken and there is no dispute regarding the need for continuous upgrade of the same keeping in view modern developments. However more critical is the preventive protocol that needs to be put in place without bothering about investments required for the purpose. There can be no compromise as far as consumer safety is concerned and semantics will have to be replaced with actionable strategy. It is a tragedy of the highest order that the well proven irradiation technology is languishing without being used by the industry for consideration other than merit and consumers must understand the seriousness of pathogenic microorganisms which can only be preempted by using ionizing radiation process, especially those foods not undergoing any heating before consumption. Governments all over the world must make irradiation compulsory for all fresh produce and sprouts without insisting on labeling them, in the over all interest of their citizens.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com