Adaptando novas tecnologias para o processamento da carne


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Adaptando novas tecnologias para o processamento da carne

  1. 1. Adapting Novel ProcessingTechnologies to Meat Operations Tatiana Koutchma, PhD
  2. 2. OutlineSafety Risks of Modern Food ProductionReview of Novel Processing TechnologiesTechnology Assessment and Gaps in KnowledgeFSWG’s Survey :Food Safety and Novel Technologies
  3. 3. Safety Risks of Modern Food ProductionProducts New Risks Higher quality - Mild treatment  Incomplete microbial inactivation Extended product shelf-life  Possible non respect of adequate “Fresher” quality, storage conditions and expiration RTE pre-cooked dates Convenience  Undercooking Low salt, sugar, fat  Overcooking Globalization of food supply  Generation of stress-resistant organisms  Emerging pathogens
  4. 4. Food TechnologiesBranch of food science and engineering which deals with the actualproduction processes to make foods.Traditional processing concepts1. Application of thermal energy to 5. Novel or emerging elevate product temperatures to technologies achieve long term or extended stability or preservation2. Removal of thermal energy to Contemporary technical reduce product temperature and innovations which represent extend shelf-life progressive developments within3. Removal of water from products a field for competitive advantage structure and thus achieving of extended shelf-life4. Packaging or the step required to maintain product properties achieved during processing
  5. 5. Future Processing Trends Traditional vs Novel Technologies TechnologiesImprovements in Designs and Control. Redesign Novel ProcessesImproved Manufacturing Transformation & Performance PreservationImproved Product Quality Improved Quality and SafetyTraditional Foods Novel Foods
  6. 6. The Novel Foods• Non-traditional foods with • Definitions available no history of safe use and manufactured, prepared, in 6 countries preserved or packaged by a process that has not been previously applied to that food
  7. 7. Key Drivers Freshness & convenience & less preserved Enhanced safety and extended shelf-Life Heat labile functional ingredients Engineering functional ingredients for delivery of healthy foods Lower carbon footprint Reduce water volume used Lower energy Lower waste Need for sound regulatory policy  U.S., Canada, EU
  8. 8. Novel Processing Options Pressure - 6 Electromagnetic energy - 7 Electrical energy - 5 Sonication - 3 Chemical – 5 Plasma, magnetic field -2 Mechanical energy - 3 Total - more than 30 OPTIONS!
  9. 9. High Pressure Hydrostatic Pre-Packed Foods 2000 (HHP) MPa Hydrodynamic Raw Meats 100 (HDP) MPa Hydrodynamic Beverages 300 Homogenization MPa (HDH)Pressure and CO2 Juices 100 MPaPressure Cycling Extraction 300 (HPC) MPa Hyperbaric Fresh Produce 900 kPa
  10. 10. Novel Processing Technologies Transform raw materials into food products Preserve fabricated foods and raw ingredients during transportation, retailing and consuming foods Control safety at different points of supply chain With Potential Provide Safety attributes HIGHER than those of raw products Maintain Health and Quality attributes at least EQUAL to raw products Enhance Functional properties or create New Products Provide Broader Sustainable and Environmentally friendly benefits
  11. 11. UV Technology
  12. 12. Technology Assessment and Fundamental Physical Methods Technology Performance Technology Readiness Risk Assessment Regulatory Status Life Time Cycle Cost Efficacy
  13. 13. NASA Assessment 9 - Ready for full-scale commercialization 8 - Economic feasibility and regulatory issues Emerged addressed Technology Development 7 - Economic feasibility demonstrated or regulatory issues addressed (but not both) 6 – Systems available commercially Emerging 5 - System or prototype demonstration in relevant environment (pilot scale) 4 - Component validation in relevant environment 3 - Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept Under 2 - Technology concept and/or application formulateddevelopment 1 - Basic principles observed and reported
  14. 14. Thermal Processing Technologies Traditional Emerging UnderRetorting Pressure + Heat (8) Development Microwave dielectric (8)Aseptic High frequency or RF (5-6)Pasteurization Infrared (6-7) Conductive Hot, Cold-Fill Ohmic (6-7) HeatingSous vide
  15. 15. Non-thermal Processing Technologies Emerged Emerging Under Irradiation (9) Development Pulsed Electric Fields (6-7)High Hydrostatic Cold Plasma (3-4) Pressure (8-9) UV light (6) Electrolyzed water (5) Filtration (9) Pressure and CO2 (6) Sonication (5) Ozone (8-9) Low dose e-beams (5)
  16. 16. Technology Knowledge Traditional/Thermal Novel  Established organism of public  Target organisms of concerns and health concern surrogates has to be determined  Understood destruction  Detailed knowledge of microbial kinetics/mathematics dose-response behavior Knowledge of products heating in  Complete representation of given processing systems distribution of the lethal agent  Relationships between the  Process uniformity organism of public health concern  Process monitoring &verification and spoilage  Process Equivalency (FSO)  Equivalent safety of different  Chemical safety processing systems express in “Lethality” terms  Risk assessment
  17. 17. What Understanding is Needed when Establishing a Novel Process? A B B ProcessIngredients Product B z ard is Regulatory Process Ha alys Acceptance Design An V alid ationA
  18. 18. Challenges of Novel Processing Safety Equivalence O O OTraditional Foods Vs Novel Foods OH• Nutritional, Allergenicity, Toxicological, Chemical & =Traditional Process Vs Novel Process• Performance Objective, Food Safety Objective• Validation, Verification, Monitoring
  19. 19. Safety of Novel ProcessesTechnology Microbial Risks Chemical Risks OtherHPP Incomplete Chemical reactions Spore inactivation microbial at elevated inactivation, temperature recoveryPEF No spore Electrochemical Non homogeneity inactivation reactions arcing Metal transfer from electrodesUV light and pulsed Repair Photo oxidation Non-homogeneitylight reactionsOhmic heating Survivors Metal transfer from under/over heating electrodesMicrowaves Survivors Chemical reactions Non-homogeneity Possible reduction of power
  20. 20. Risk Assessment of Novel Foods• Details of novel process• Dietary Exposure O• History of organism O O• Nutritional considerations – Dietary intakes OH• Toxicology considerations• Allergenicity considerations• Chemical considerations
  21. 21. Microbiological Assessment Product Food Chain• Raw ingredients • Production – Contamination – Local/Imported• Semi-finished/ • Food Processing – pH, Aw, composition, ToC• Finished • Transportation – Packaging/Storage • Storage & Distribution• Predictive modelling of – Food Services/Retail growth/death/survival • RTE – Indigenous flora – Shelf-life – Safety in terms of target • Consumption pathogens of concern – Preparation
  22. 22. Chemical Hazards Product Process• Natural - Endogenous • Formed during food toxicants processing • Trypsin • Mycotoxins  Migration  from packaging• Synthetic  Biphenols Produced, through  Acrylamide contamination of food  Furans material or processing environment  Lipid oxidation products  Maillard reaction • Pesticide residues in fruits and vegetables • Heavy metals, nitrites • Drug residues in foods of animal origin • Allergens
  23. 23. Global RegulationsNovel Foods No Definition European Union  USA United Kingdom  Japan New Zealand  India Australia Canada China
  24. 24. USANo definition can not be found• US FDA considers food ingredients as novel that have not been previously used• New dietary compounds (NDI)• As food additives under existing law, the principal law being the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.• The ‘Generally Recognised as Safe’ or GRAS concept is the bench mark by which all foods, including novel foods, are assessed.• GRAS substances are: substances used before 1958 (excluding prior sanctioned food ingredients); and substances for which there is scientific evidence of safety as determined by competent experts and by published and available safety information.
  25. 25. US Approvals of Novel Processes• 2001, Code 21 CFR Part 179.39 was published to improve the safety of fresh juice products: Source of UV radiation (LPM at 254 nm) defined as a food additive• 2004, USDA has approved High Hydrostatic Pressure as an intervention method for Listeria contaminated pre- packed ready-to-eat (RTE) meat products• 2008, 73 FR 49593 The FDA published a final rule that allows the use of irradiation for fresh iceberg lettuce and fresh spinach• 2009, the US FDA approved a petition for the commercial use of Pressure Assisted Thermal Sterilization process (PATS) for application in the production of LAF 2010, US FDA first time approved novel sterilization processing using 915 MHz microwave energy (MATS) for producing pre-packaged, LAF
  26. 26. Novel Food Decisions in Canada• Use of High Hydrostatic Pressure for Processing Ready to Eat (RTE) Meat-containing Entrees, Meat-containing Salads and Meat Products (Maple Leaf, December 2006)• Use of High Hydrostatic Pressure for the Control of L. monocytogenes in Ready to Eat (RTE) Meats and Poultry (Santa- Maria, Foods, October 2006)• Use of the Rinse and Chill Process as a Slaughter Process Technology (MPSC Inc. of St. Paul, MN , October 2006)• Applesauce and Applesauce/Fruit Blends Treated by High Hydrostatic Pressure (Orchard Inc., Franklin Centre, QC, in November of 2004)• Ultraviolet light treatment of apple juice/cider using the CiderSure 3500 (Moore Orchards, July 15, 2003 ) 26
  27. 27. Why High Hydrostatic Pressure Independent of product mass, size and geometry Minimizing treatment time and scale up Inactivates all vegetative bacteria and spores Destroys enzymes Minimal impact on quality and nutrition Commercially economical processes Emerged as a post-lethality treatment Emerging as Harvesting treatment Pre-treatment before cooking Sterilization of Low Acid Foods
  28. 28. HIGH HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE Preservation Transformation Value Added Shelf-life MeatSterilization Pasteurization Seafood extension Protein PATS RTE RTE meats LAF meals Raw meats
  29. 29. HHP process parameters• Process Pressure • Constant holding pressure • >700 MPa – “sterilization” • 200-600 MPa – “pasteurization” • <300 MPa – raw meat treatment• Process Temperature • Final product temperature after pressurization• Process hold time • Time recorded between end of • compression and start of decompression
  30. 30. Other parameters affecting HHPProduct Packaging• pH, water activity • Type of packaging: vacuum or• Composition: MAP • Fat • Packaging and material • Salt content influence the log reduction data • Design and geometry• Physiological state of bacterial cells• From exponential or stationary growth phase
  31. 31. Raw Meat Processing Ambient Temperature at Pressure < 350 MPa Harvest Processing Fresh Meats Hair/feather removal  Shelf-life Extension  Loosens hair/feather follicles  Stops post-mortem glycolysis  Eliminates scald tank  Improves meat quality  Stabilizes pH >6.0  Improves color Toenail removal  Increases water-holding capacity  Loosens toenails from hoof  Decreases shear force Reduces fecal contamination  Increases tenderness
  32. 32. Fundamental Mechanisms• The modifications of meat structure are strongly dependent on the time post-mortem• Pre- or post-rigor when HPP is applied• Pressurisation of pre-rigor meat usually results in a – rapid pH decrease – intense contraction – phenomena depend on treatment time, meat temperature and muscle type.• Pressurization of post-rigor meat – no contraction was induced, – Extensive modifications in sarcomere structure – Cheftel, Meat Science, 1997 – Sun and Holley, JFS, 2009
  33. 33. HPP Preservation of RTE meals Shelf Life Extension Sterilization Pasteurization Marinated Meats  Pre-packed RTE meats and poultry (ESL)  Low Acid Foods (LAF) MREs  Pre-treatment  Pressure Assisted Thermal  Post-Lethality Sterilization (PATS) Ambient & Mild Temperatures Elevated Temperature (>100oC) 400 – 600 MPa 700 MPA
  34. 34. Product and Process conditions for Establishment of HHP preservation HPP pasteurization HPP sterilization Product parameterspH, aw 3.5 <pH<4.6; pH<3.5 pH>4.6; aw >0.86 Process parametersTemperature, oC ≤ 45 > 100Pressure, MPa ≤ 600 > 700 Target microorganismsPathogenic E. coli; Listeria; Salmonella C. botulinum spores Bacillus cereusSpoilage Lactic bacteria, yeasts, molds Geobacillus spp.Storage Refrigerated conditions Ambient temperaturePackaging Hermetically sealed Hermetically sealed flexible containers flexible containers
  35. 35. Microbial Safety and Functionality in Reduced Sodium Chloride Foods High sodium intake is a risk factor for hypertension, cardio vascular and other diseases The WHO has set a target for daily intake of 5g or less of salt (<2g sodium) Sodium intake  commercially processed foods (CPF) (77 %)  naturally occurring (12%),  addition at the table (6%) and added during cooking (5%) NaCl is an important ingredient added to meats formulations  increases gelation, water holding capacity and fat retention.  decreases Aw  retards growth of spoilage and pathogenic microbes, Listeria monocytogenes.
  36. 36. HHP for Low Sodium ProductsPre-treatment Post-lethality• HHP may have beneficial • HHP is effective intervention effects on meat product methods against Listeria and quality other pathogenic bacteria – Improves water holding capacity and decreased water losses • Pressures: 500 up to 600 MPa – Induce changes in protein • Temperature: ambient• Pressures: 50 up to 300 MPa Refrigerated or Ambient• Temperature: Refrigerated or • Time: up to 3min Ambient• Time: up to 5 min
  37. 37. Commercial HHP systemsVessel layout – horizontalAutomatic loading / unloading• Wave 6000 / 55 L• Wave 6000 / 135L• Wave 6000 / 300T L• Wave 6000 / 420 L• Maximum pressure – 600 MPa• Pressure Hold Time – 3 min
  38. 38. Commercial HHP systems• Wide range of HHP systems – 100 L - 600 – 215 L - 600 – 350 L - 600 – 687 L - 300• 7 contract services facilities in US
  39. 39. Lab scale HP units • AvureLaboratory Scale Pressure Test The QFP-2L-700 high pressure unitSystem Model PT-100
  40. 40. BaoTou HHP Technology Lab size equipment  3-5L 600 Mpa Commercial equipment  30-50 L 600 MPa  2 x 300L 600 MPa  4x 600 L 600 MPa
  41. 41. Vessel Technologies Wire winding Autofrettage Vessel is subjected to over-pressure which locks plastic strain in an internal core Autofrettage pressure is selected according to plastic behaviour od steel used (15-15PH)
  42. 42. FresherTech• Mono - Single Chamber Systems• Duo - Dual Chamber Systems• Quattro - Four Chamber Systems
  43. 43. Multivac and Uhde • Multivac for HHP packaging lines • Fully automated and integrated production lines – Filling, loading and unloading robots, inspection, weighting • Continuous production flow
  44. 44. HHP - What are PROS? HHP is commercially available technology that solves consumers demands for safety, healthiness, clean label and low sodium refrigerated foods HHP solves the retailers needs for fresh foods with long shelf life Capital and operating costs of HHP systems are now line with the cost of chemical additives 2 to 8 cent per pound. HHP allows processors to meet both retailer and consumer demands while potentially selling clean label products at a premium with the advantage of post package food pathogen inactivation
  45. 45. What are Cons?CONS Batch process for pre-packed products Cost is still can be an issue Most popular applications – post-lethality treatment of RTE meats, seafood Process uniformities needs to be monitored Application of HHP is limited :  to fresh meat and sea products due to resulting discolouration  Fresh produce – texture
  46. 46. Why UV? Effective against microbial and chemical hazards Physical non-thermal method Chemicals free Cost effective Energy efficient 38 39 Approved by Regulatory Agencies 33 33 25 23  EPA 16 17 14  US FDA (2001) 12  Health Canada (2003) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
  47. 47. Ultraviolet UV lightEnergy per photon: UV-V UV-C UV-B UV-A 6.20 – 12.4 eV 4.43 – 12.4 eV 3.94 – 4.43 eV 3.10 – 3.94 eV
  48. 48. Effectiveness of UV light Against Food microflora- Eschierichia coli O157:H7- Listeria monocytogenes - Hepatitis A virus- Salmonella enteredius - Norovirus- Staphylococcus aureus Bacteria Spores Viruses Spoilage Parasites microflora- aerobic microflora - Cryptosporidium- yeasts parvum- molds - Giardia lamblia- Lactic acid bacteria
  49. 49. Development and Applications of UV sources Food Regulatory Environment UV source Applications Industry Approval impact Implementation Low Pressure Air Water Surfaces YES MercuryMercury (LPM) Surfaces Water US FDA (2000) GlassAmalgam (LPA) Juices Health Canada Since 1930 (2003)Medium Pressure Water Water NO Mercury Mercury (MPM) Glass Eximer Medical – Packed Surfaces Glass Blood Plasma Cost NO Curing Pulsed (PL) Curing Produce Glass RTE Food YES Surfaces, Dry ingredients Light Emitting Lightings Diodes (LED) Air NO NO NO
  50. 50. Why LEDs will replace UV lamps? UV Lamps: Wavelength are not  UV Lamps: short life time, optimized for applications mercury, glass • LEDs: Emit single peak  LEDs: Energy efficient, NO Tunable mercury, long time, COST LEDs are Building Blocks for Future UV systems
  51. 51. Guidelines For Choice of UV source1. Emission spectrum – related to applications2. Electrical and UV efficiency3. Lifetime4. Cost5. Availability6. Size7. Shapes
  52. 52. Air, water Non-food contact Pathogens Safety surfaces inactivation Food contact surfaces Liquid foods and beverages Pasteurization Preservation Shelf-life extension UV Whole and freshLIGHT cut produce Vitamins Functionality Antioxidants Enhancement Microbial resistance Toxins Chemicals Patulin Allergens destruction Aflotoxins Pesticides
  53. 53. UV on Food Plant Air and water treatments OFFERS UV-PROTECTION Non-food contact surfaces  Walls, ceilings, floors • Airborne – Molds Spores, human Food contact surfaces pathogens  Conveyor belts • Waterborne  Packaging materials – Viruses and Bacteria  Equipment surfaces spores • Foodborne Food surfaces – Bacteria, spores  RTE meats • Spoilage  Fresh produce – Yeast, molds, lactobacilli
  54. 54. Microbial Resistance to UV Air Water Food FluidsViruses Cryptosporidium ParasitesBacteria Bacteria Bacteria Yeasts YeastsSpores Spores Spores Viruses Viruses (Adenovirus) Molds sporesRH, T,oC Turbidity pH, Aw composition
  55. 55. Commercial UV unit to Treat Odors
  56. 56. UV resistance of Listeria on Surfaces• Agar: • Products – D10= 0.5 mJ/cm2 – Frankfurters D10 = 300 mJ/cm2• Surfaces of packaging materials, conveyor belts – Cut Pear – D10 = 2.55 – 3.2 mJ/cm2 D10~ 2000 mJ/cm2
  57. 57. UV for Poultry, Fish and RTE productsRaw RTE Continuous UV• Poultry reduction of Salmonella without affecting • Effective against Listeria on the color or increasing rancidity of surface of frankfurters the meat • Up to 2-log reduction at 4 J/cm2• Chicken Breast Fillet - L. • No changes in colour monocytogenes without negatively affecting meat color Pulsed UV• Raw Salmon Fillets - PL • Effective against Listeria on the caused visual color and quality surfaces of steel coupons changes due to T increase • Up to 4 log reduction at 6 J/cm2
  58. 58. Challenges of UV surface inactivation  Surface characteristics  Quality parameters  Duration of the treatment  Continuous UV vs Pulsed Light
  59. 59. Decontamination of SurfacesUVC Tumbling Machines by Reyco Systems • Frozen • Fresh • RTES • Products prior to bulk storage: onions, potatoes, fruits, grain Heraeus, Blue Light ModuleClaranor: Packaging,Caps, Cups
  60. 60. Novel UV Processes UV pasteurization /Transformation / Added value Shelf-life Extension  Fresh Juices Milk - Vitamin D synthesis – Apple, apple cider, carrot, Mushrooms - Vitamin D2 synthesis orange Peanut butter, soy - reduce  Liquid sweeteners allergenicity – Sucrose, fructose, glucose Fruits – increased nutrients content  Ice teas, soft drinks Carrots - increased AO capacity  Liquid egg products Fresh Cut Fruits/ Juices -  Milk, cheese milk and calf milk enzyme Inactivation  Whey protein concentrates  Brewery & winery  Emulsions, brines, marinades
  61. 61. Challenge High UV ~ 2 log reduction UV overdosing absorbance Low microbial at UV fluence of can lead toof liquid foods at reduction 190 mJ/cm2 sensory changes 253.7 nm Solutions Improve designs of UV systems Efficient mixing: Turbulent flow Dean, Taylor-Coutte Flows Match UV source for the application Optimized UV dose
  62. 62. Commercial ApplicationsProcessing Finished product  CIP water  Bottled water  Packaging and product rinse  Fruit juice and fruit water concentrates  Isotonic and fortified drinksRaw material application  Iced tea  Wine  Dilution water  Tetra-hopped beer  Sugar syrup  Dairy  Brines  Liquid egg
  63. 63. UV units for Low UVT Liquids Annular reactor “UltraDynamics” Thin film reactor “CiderSure” L-NN L-NThin film mixers “Pure UV”/ “Iatros” Static Mixers – Dean Flow “Salcor” Outlet UV lamp NL- Teflon tube NL- NN wound in helix pattern NN Inlet
  64. 64. UV units: Turbulent flowSurePure turbulator Salcor 3G UV CiderSure
  65. 65. Commercial UV UnitSure Pure Turbulator Turbulent flow of the liquid over  the lamps ensures a foul-free,  self-cleaning system Multiple-lamp system Dosage of UV-C depends on  Product turbidity and UV absorbance  Initial microbiological load  Flow-rate  Desired log reduction Flow rate 4 000 L.h-1 Retention time 0.608 s Lamp life 5000+ hours
  66. 66. UV treatment of Liquid Eggs and BrinesBrine Water: 235 J/L
  67. 67. UV for Dairy Applications• Raw ESL milk - up 25 day extension of shelf-life• Applied doses up to 1.5 kJ/l were effective to reduce total viable counts, psyhrophiles and coliforms up to 2, 3 and 4-log reductions• E.coli O157:H7, Salmonella, Yersinia, Staphylococcus, Listeria monocytogenes and Campylobacter jejuni – 5-log reduction at 1.3-1.7 kJ/l• Microbiological efficacy is achieved without any discernible denaturing of the product`s consistency, color, flavor or aroma
  68. 68. UV for Meat Applications• Control of Listeria • To reduce aging of beef monocytogenes in recycled carcases chill brines • Extension of retail• Decontamination of poultry, display of fresh beef associated packaging and packages in modified contact surfaces atmosphere• Decontamination of poultry carcasses
  69. 69. Savings Opportunities Energy savings :  Steam, hot water  non-thermal nature of the process Water :  Drinking water  Process water  CIP rinse water Capital cost :  Transportation  Environmental impact  Reduced waste
  70. 70. Energy use in processing of apple juice E. coli Capacity Specific Energy Processing conditions strain (L/s) (kJ/kg)HTST 71.6 °C x 6 s O157:H7 1.0 180.4HPP 500 MPa x 40 °C x 180 s O157:H7 1.25 283.5PEF 25 kV/cm x ~50 °C x 50 ATCC 0.670 137.2 μs* 11775UV 1.56 kW x 25 °C x 89 s K-12 1.1 5.2UF 0.02 μm, 1.474 kPa, 5 Pseudomo 1.0 0.028 L/m2.s nas diminuta
  71. 71. Energy for ProcessingFluid product by Novel Technologies UF UV Technology PEF HTST HPP 0 100 200 300 400 500 Energy consumption (J/g)
  72. 72. Food Safety Working Group (CIGR) Survey: Food Safety and Novel Technologies• To analyze commercial applications of novel technologies and their development level in different countries/continents• To evaluate the role that novel food processing technologies and innovations can play to address global food safety issues and challenges• To analyze knowledge level of novel technologies in different countries and professional groups• To analyze factors that slow down the development of novel technologies• 18 questions• Completion rate: 44.33%• 25 countries
  73. 73. Summary Advances in science and engineering, progress in regulatory approvals make Novel Processing Technologies (NPT) a viable option for commercialization in foods preservation and transformation Preservation NPT comprise two general categories:  (1) technologies suited for pasteurizing high-acid liquid products such as HHP, PEF, US, UV and chemical processes, including gases  (2) technologies for processing shelf-stable foods, e.g., HPP combined with temperature, MW and RF heating, ohmic heating, and irradiation More sustainable NPT will lead to the production of processed products with  safety attributes higher than those of raw products  health and quality attributes at least equal to raw products  broader environmentally friendly benefits  potential saving opportunities in energy and water Safety Quality Sustainability
  74. 74. Conclusion• The scope of novel foods and novel ingredients covered by the international regulations is broad and diverse• Safety evaluation is conducted on case-by-case scenario• Validation of novel processing technologies requires new knowledge• Education of food manufactures and regulators
  75. 75. Thank You !Dr. Tatiana KoutchmaContact info:tnk08@live.comAAFCGuelph Food Research Center93 Stone Road WestGuelph, ON, Canada