Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Ift20 leveraging protein waste with novel products^lj processing and pkging-final

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad

Check these out next

1 of 23 Ad

Ift20 leveraging protein waste with novel products^lj processing and pkging-final

Download to read offline

With 30 years of experience across the food science and packaging spectrum, Dr Claire Sand through her company, Packaging Technology & Research, offers clients solutions using Strategy, Technology, Consulting and Coaching. ​



Want to know more about how this article affect your business? Reach out to Dr Sand on Linked In - https://www.linkedin.com/in/clairekoelschsand



Want to keep learning from Dr. Sand? View more of her presentations and articles at http://www.packagingtechnologyandresearch.com/thought-leadership.html

Dr. Claire Sand | Owner, Packaging Technology & Research, LLC; Adjunct Professor, Michigan State University; Columnist for Food Technology Magazine

http://www.packagingtechnologyandresearch.com/

With 30 years of experience across the food science and packaging spectrum, Dr Claire Sand through her company, Packaging Technology & Research, offers clients solutions using Strategy, Technology, Consulting and Coaching. ​



Want to know more about how this article affect your business? Reach out to Dr Sand on Linked In - https://www.linkedin.com/in/clairekoelschsand



Want to keep learning from Dr. Sand? View more of her presentations and articles at http://www.packagingtechnologyandresearch.com/thought-leadership.html

Dr. Claire Sand | Owner, Packaging Technology & Research, LLC; Adjunct Professor, Michigan State University; Columnist for Food Technology Magazine

http://www.packagingtechnologyandresearch.com/

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

More from Packaging Technology and Research, LLC (16)

Advertisement

Ift20 leveraging protein waste with novel products^lj processing and pkging-final

  1. 1. CREATED BY PTR www.PackagingTechnologyAndResearch.com CREATED FORLeveraging Protein Waste With Novel Products, Processing, and Packaging Solutions PRESENTED BY CLAIRE KOELSCH SAND, PH.D., PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH LLC.
  2. 2. TakeAways • Food waste reduction of alternative proteins has different solutions that with meat • Value Chain analysis from Farm to Fork provides solutions • Nutrient waste and especially protein waste is just as critical as food waste • Since Economic drivers differ, Systems-thinking and Category leadership are needed More Sustainable Systems to Get Protein to Consumers Case Studies on Kidney Beans Consumer/Market Drivers for less waste of Alternative Proteins
  3. 3. Dr. Claire Sand Founder & Owner PTR, Food Packaging Expert 3 Claire Sand's mission is to enable a more sustainable food system with packaging that increases shelf life and prevents food waste. She is a Global Packaging Leader with 30+ years of broad experience in the food science and packaging spectrum. She leads cross-functional efforts, infuses innovative solutions, provides compelling business technology strategies and business cases, and generates implementation roadmaps for the packaging and food industry. Sand has held a “I lead efforts to reduce climate change by preventing food waste with more sustainable packaging.” Michigan State University Adjunct Professor CalPoly Adjunct Professor IUFoST Global FoodPackaging CurriculaHead PackagingScience and Technology EditorialBoard Journal of Food Science Reviewer PAC Consortium on Food Waste IFT Fellow Packaging columnist for Food Technology magazine University of Minnesota Adjunct Professor Current Affiliations Include: variety of roles across the food science and packaging spectrum from basic research and development to marketing and everything in between. Her portfolio includes working with Gerber-Nestle, Pillsbury-General Mills, Kraft Foods-Kraft Heinz, Dominick’s-Safeway, and research institutes in Germany, Colombia, and Thailand. Dr. Sand holds a doctorate degree in Food Science and Nutrition from the University of Minnesota and MS and BS in Packaging from Michigan State University. Let’s Connect on https://www.linkedin.com/in/clairekoelschsand/
  4. 4. Alternative proteins have alternative impacts Sustainability means less food waste and more sustainable packagingComparative environmental impact of processing, packaging and supply chain is higher for alternative proteins More Sustainable Packaged Food | Poore and Nemecek, 2018
  5. 5. Alternative proteins have alternative impacts Sustainability means less food waste and more sustainable packagingComparative environmental impact of processing, packaging and supply chain is higher for alternative proteins More Sustainable Packaged Food | Poore and Nemecek, 2018
  6. 6. Solutions to reduce protein food waste are focused Sustainability means less food waste and more sustainable packagingCauses/ Categories Category Z Category Y Category X Catgeory W Category V Category U Category T Category S Oxidation Moisture Change Microbial Browning Water resistance MVTR Antimicrobial Reduce impact of contamin. ingredients Reduce contamin. during product fill Assess initial microbial load Reduce initial microbial load Reduce cross contamin. Enable processing of some ingredients Enable HACCP Address chilled worker conditions Time &Temp monitoring system Oxygen level monitoring system Control tempertaure Measure microbial load at POS Enable safe package reuse Reduce consumer contamin. from repeat use Expand time for safe product use Enable oven/ MWmonitoring Address eating hygiene through packaging Enable freezer storage Packagingand Handling Pkg Prop. Product Degradation Causes Distributio n&Retail ConsumerUse More Sustainable Packaged Food | Poore and Nemecek, 2018
  7. 7. Case Studies on alternative proteins
  8. 8. Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans PTR’s Approach PTR partnered with AURI to assist in developing AURI focus and path forward on FLW by quantifying opportunities that sustainably decrease FLW in Minnesota
  9. 9. PTR & AURI quantified opportunities to decrease FLW in Minnesota Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans PTR partnered with AURI to assist in developing AURI focus and path forward on FLW by quantifying opportunities that sustainably decrease FLW in Minnesota PTR identified and quantified 287 viable product, process, packaging, and systems solutions in the value chain (farms, distribution, manufacturing, and retailing, consumer) that reduce FLW by 1.1 Billion pounds for 7 Minnesota products.
  10. 10. PTR & AURI quantified opportunities to decrease FLW in Minnesota The Agricultural Utilization Research Institute Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans Valorizing food waste in Minnesota PTR partnered with AURI to assist in developing AURI focus and path forward on FLW by quantifying opportunities that sustainably decrease FLW in Minnesota 1.PTR blended in-field application expertise, research, databases to quantify FLW throughout the value chain and derive coproduct, packaging, processing and systems solutions 2.AURI-PTR team screened solutions for AURI alignment and a shortlist of 12 FLW opportunities emerged 3.AURI-PTR team assessed implementation processes, developed deliverables, and assessed the opportunity Food Waste Identified and Quantified Solutions and Deep Dive Canned Corn 127,743,000 Pounds $6,756,668 34 % Waste • Deep Dive on 1 of 67 solutions • Canned Foods Lids Canned Kidney Beans 41,230,035 Pounds $33,547,800 35 % Waste • Deep Dive on 2 of 52 solutions • Canned Foods Lids • Kidney Beans and Canning – Co-Products From Bean Pieces & Agra-H20 waste solids Wine 318,901 Pounds $27,106,551 60 % Waste • 81 solutions • No deep dive Cider 690,000 Pounds $556,110 77 % Waste • Deep Dive on 2 of 42 solutions • Apples & Cider Vision sorting of bad apples • Apples & Cider Patulin removal Small Cheese Processors (excluded-above graph) 93,240,000 90 % Waste • Deep Dive on 1 of 3 solutions • Enable extraction valuable ingredients at small-scale dairies Unsalable Cheese at Retail (excluded-above graph) 45,584,000 Pounds $244,330,240 22 % Waste • Deep Dive on 3 of 9 solutions • Equipment to remove cheese from packaging and develop food or animal feed coproducts • Apply a WTE program of combined packaging and cheese Unsalable Milk at Retail (excluded-above graph) 786,092,535 Pounds $237,655,883 25 % Waste • Deep Dive on 3 of 9 solutions • Equipment to remove milk from packaging and develop food or animal feed coproducts • Apply a WTE program of combined packaging and milk Sugar Beets (excluded-graph and project total pounds) Variable at 9.4B Pounds $171,117,107 26 % Waste • 24 solutions • No deep dive
  11. 11. Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans  Farm-derived Mn Canned Kidney Beans - Valorization Map of Food Loss & Waste
  12. 12. Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans  Cannery-derived Mn Canned Kidney Beans - Valorization Map of Food Loss & Waste
  13. 13. Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans  Distribution-derived Mn Canned Kidney Beans - Valorization Map of Food Loss & Waste
  14. 14. Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans  Retail-derived Mn Canned Kidney Beans - Valorization Map of Food Loss & Waste
  15. 15. Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans  Retail and Consumer-derived Mn Canned Kidney Beans - Valorization Map of Food Loss & Waste
  16. 16. Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans  Retail and Consumer-derived Mn Canned Kidney Beans - Valorization Map of Food Loss & Waste 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 80,000,000 90,000,000 Total Distribution Retail Consumers Manufacturing Food Shelf/Bank Farm
  17. 17. Case Study 2 - Kidney Beans  Food waste is higher for canned kidney beans than raw kidney beans  Kidney Bean food waste from farm to consumer was: • 32.4% for raw Kidney Beans • 33.8% for canned Kidney Beans  For canned and dry Kidney Beans: • 12% loss in agricultural production (USDA-ERS, 2010) • 5% loss in processing and packaging (USDA-ERS, 2010)  For dry beans: • 6% distribution and retail (USDA-ERS, 2010) • 14% consumption (Defra, 2010; Quested and Johnson, 2009)  For canned beans: • 6% distribution and retail (USDA-ERS, 2010) • 15.8% consumption (Defra, 2010; Quested and Johnson, 2009)  Connecting Nutrient and Food Waste
  18. 18. Case Study 2 - Kidney Beans  Nutrient waste is higher for raw kidney beans than canned kidney beans  Connecting Nutrient and Food Waste
  19. 19. Case Study 2 - Kidney Beans  Nutrient waste is higher for raw kidney beans than canned kidney beans  Connecting Nutrient and Food Waste
  20. 20. Consumer/Market Drivers for less waste of Alternative Proteins
  21. 21. Differing drivers are due to economic imbalance Economic Drivers to Reduce Food Waste Differ Less Food Waste • Brand Owners • Have made major progress in economically driven food waste reduction from farm to retail • Have limited economic drivers reduce consumer-derived food waste • Gap in clear information filled by non-fact based misinformation • Extending the value chain to Consumers who waste 30% of packaged food is needed • Link to convenience and adding value of food waste reduction • Drivers on consumer sustainability • Drivers on Nutrient waste • WTP for less nutrient waste and less money lost on spoiled food • “Easy to empty” connects with consumers due to food waste reduction • Other packaging solutions are plentiful
  22. 22. • Employ Systems Solutions • Rethink who needs what shelf life • Urban vs Rural specific packaging • Change packaging consumers handle • Pursue Category-wide initiatives on food waste reduction and more sustainable packaging • Extend value chain beyond Retail to Consumers at Food Banks and Food Donations • Use equity in Food Service use of alternative proteins as means to guide Consumers • Food waste reduction at Consumer and BOH & FOH Food Service • Opportunity and value drivers are higher Direction-Leadership Path Forward
  23. 23. Dr. Claire Sand, CEO, Packaging Technology & Research, LLC. Offering food science and packaging expertise in:  Coaching  Consulting  Technology  Strategy www.PackagingTechnologyandResearch.com Questions? LET’S CONNECT:

×