Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Nutrient Loss as a Function of Packaging, Processing, and Food Waste for Tomatoes, Kidney Beans, and Spinach by Dr. Claire Sand

269 views

Published on

A presentation on Nutrient Loss as a Function of Packaging, Processing, and Food Waste for Tomatoes, Kidney Beans, and Spinach by Dr. Claire Sand.

Published in: Food
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Nutrient Loss as a Function of Packaging, Processing, and Food Waste for Tomatoes, Kidney Beans, and Spinach by Dr. Claire Sand

  1. 1. November, 2017 Nutrient Loss as a Function of Packaging, Processing, and Food Waste for Tomatoes, Kidney Beans, and Spinach Claire Sand1, Ziynet Boz2 1Packaging Technology and Research, LLC Adjunct Faculty, Michigan State University & California Polytechnic University 2Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Florida
  2. 2. Dr. Claire Sand, is CEO of Packaging Technology & Research, LLC Offering food science and packing expertise in: • Coaching • Consulting • Technology • Strategy www.PackagingTechnologyandResearch.com IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 2
  3. 3. OVERVIEW Research Process Nutrient waste during processing shelf life • Spinach • Tomatoes • Kidney Beans Direction Dives IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 3
  4. 4. IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 4 Topline findings Canned nutrient loss and food waste loss is less than fresh in: • 8 core nutrients exhibit less waste vs fresh • In addition, an Antioxidant blend of 8 antioxidants and digestible Lutein exhibits less waste vs fresh • 8 core nutrients exhibit less waste vs fresh • In addition, Antioxidants exhibit less waste vs fresh: • Lycopene, Lutein, Phenols, tocopherols, zinc show values higher than fresh Tomatoes • 7 core nutrients exhibit less waste vs fresh • In addition, digestible protein and amino acids, and Antioxidants (w/o Vitamin C) exhibit less waste vs fresh SPINACH TOMATOES KIDNEY BEAN
  5. 5. Research Process IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 5
  6. 6. Research Review Process 1. Focus on Spinach, Tomatoes, and Kidney Beans 2. Compare data on canned, aseptic, MATS, infrared, and cooked beans 3. Assess fresh/processed nutrient loss over shelf life 4. Determine food waste as a function of processing and nutrient loss 5. Define direction IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 6
  7. 7. IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 7 SPINACH: Nutrient waste during processing shelf life
  8. 8. Spinach - Insights 1. Nutrients • 8 Nutrients not related to antioxidants show higher values in canned spinach than fresh 2. Processing • Fresh processing methods advancing rapidly with focus on chlorophyll vs nutrient levels • Retort finesse increases nutrient retention • HPP has potential to lower micro-loads • MATS has potential when linked with aseptic packaging 3. Food and Nutrient loss • Antioxidants, Vitamin C, and Protein degrade during fresh Spinach shelf life • Antioxidant blend and most antioxidants show values higher than fresh Spinach IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 8
  9. 9. Antioxidant Blend • Antioxidant Blend of A, C, and E, beta carotene, selenium, lycopene, flavonoids, carotenoids, zinc, lutein, folate, alpha tocopherol Lutein • Lutein is the main carotenoid found in spinach • Lutein at 12,198 and canned at 10,575 ug/100g • This does not reflect the increase in digestible lutein during canning process Digestible Lutein • Canned spinach is 7624.1 + 1038 ug/100 g digesta • Fresh Spinach is 2705 + 167 ug/100 g digesta Spinach - Insights - Nutrients IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 9
  10. 10. Economic loss due to spoilage has led to new approaches in fresh processing and storage Processing methods include: 1. Sodium Hypochlorite 2. Peroxyacetic acid 3. MCP 4. EOW + NaCL 5. Ozonated water 6. Chlorinated water Storage methods include: • 4 or 10C • Pulsed light so spinach remains in stasis Spinach - Insights – Fresh Processing IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 10
  11. 11. Spinach - Insights - Nutrient loss after fresh processing Antioxidants • Under MAP, Antioxidant activity was reduced from 0.56+0.02 to 0.18+0.03 Trilox equivalent • Losses of digestible Lutein result in Lutein levels of 1474.23µg/100g at 4-20C • Anthocyanic content in fresh at harvest decreased 85% at 10C in 6 days Flavonoids • ~55% loss at 4C during a 12-day period Ascorbic Acid • MCP treated spinach then 8 days at 4C storage results in a AA range of 15 vs 30mg/100g for untreated Spinach • Canned spinach is 14.3 and fresh is 28.1mg/100g • Continuous light ameliorates AA degradation during storage of spinach • Depending on harvest, Ascorbic Acid varies from 50 to 230mg/100g Protein • Protein degrades 70% with no processing/washing during 6 days dark storage at 23C • Protein degrades 35% after storage following a MCP wash IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 11
  12. 12. • HPP and MATS are seen as non-viable against gold-standard of fresh spinach • Advancements in the area are stalled due to economics of new technologies • HPP • Microbial loads and color loss decline. Shelf life is extended versus canning • MATS then aseptic is gaining interest • Aseptic • Spinach puree is aseptically processed and chlorophyll loss is 50% • Retort • Reciprocating retorts retain nutrients Spinach - Insights - Thermal Processing IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 12
  13. 13. Spinach - Insights - Food Waste IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 13 Spinach food waste from farm to consumer was determined as: • 59.2 % for ripe Spinach • 41.1% for canned Spinach For canned and ripe Spinach: • 20% loss in agricultural production (FAO, 2011) • 7% loss in processing and packaging (FAO, 2011) For ripe Spinach : • 10% distribution and retail (USDA-ERS, 2010) • 39% consumption (ERS, 2011 ; EPA, 2016; 45% by Defra, 2010; Quested and Johnson, 2009) For canned Spinach: • 6% distribution and retail (USDA-ERS, 2010) • 15.8 % consumption ERS, 2011, Defra, 2010; Quested and Johnson, 2009)
  14. 14. • 8 Nutrients not related to antioxidants show values higher than ripe Spinach 14
  15. 15. Antioxidant blend and most antioxidants show values higher than fresh Spinach
  16. 16. IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 16 TOMATOES: Nutrient waste during processing shelf life
  17. 17. Tomatoes - Insights 1. Nutrients • Antioxidant Blend in addition to 8 other nutrients higher in canned vs fresh tomatoes 2. Processing • MATS linked to aseptic • Retort finesse has promise 3. Food and Nutrient loss • Antioxidants • Antioxidants fade at last stage of ripening • Antioxidant blend and most antioxidants show values higher than ripe tomatoes IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 17
  18. 18. Tomatoes - Insights - Processing • Fresh processing technologies focus on color management and firmness vs nutrient retention • Aseptic & MATS • Lutein increased 559% and 756% • Zeaxanthin decreased 80% and 82% • Lycopene decreases 13.52% • Retort • Reciprocating retorts retain nutrients • Antioxidants are retained • a-tocopherol increased 166% • cis-B carotene increased 110% IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 18
  19. 19. Tomatoes - Insights - Nutrient loss after fresh processing Antioxidants • When slightly ripe, antioxidant activity begins to decline • Lycopene is light and O2 sensitive • Decreases in antioxidant activity of 50% in sunlight • B-carotene content decreases 27% when picked green and matured vs picked ripe • Ripe raw tomato lycopene level is 2,575 by USDA vs 1,800µg/100g in research IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 19
  20. 20. Tomatoes - Insights - Food Waste IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 20 Tomato food waste from farm to consumer was determined as: • 53.8% for ripe Tomatoes • 41.1% for canned Tomatoes For canned and ripe Tomatoes: • 20% loss in agricultural production (FAO, 2011) • 7% loss in processing and packaging (FAO, 2011) For ripe Tomatoes : • 10% distribution and retail (USDA-ERS, 2010) • 31% consumption (7% by ERS, 2011; EPA, 2016; 45% by Defra, 2010; Quested and Johnson, 2009) For canned tomatoes: • 6% distribution and retail (USDA-ERS, 2010) • 15.8% consumption (28% by ERS, 2011; Defra, 2010; Quested and Johnson, 2009)
  21. 21. 8 Nutrients not related to antioxidants show values higher than ripe tomatoes 21
  22. 22. Antioxidant blend and most antioxidants show values higher than ripe tomatoes 22
  23. 23. IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 23 KIDNEY BEANS: Nutrient waste during processing shelf life
  24. 24. Kidney Beans - Insights 1. 7 nutrients higher in canned vs cooked Kidney Beans 1. Digestible protein 2. Amino Acids 3. Antioxidants w/o Vitamin C 2. Processing • Protein losses in canning similar to aseptic • High levels of antioxidant in beans dissipates with canning 3. Food and Nutrient loss • Calcium is higher in canned vs aseptic Kidney Beans • Antioxidant loss is dominated by Vitamin C loss • When Vitamin C is removed, canned Kidney Beans have more antioxidants • All Amino Acids are higher in canned Kidney Beans IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 24
  25. 25. Kidney Beans - Insights – Nutrients Digestible protein • Corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) evaluates the quality of protein based on amino acid digestibility by humans • Adopted by the FDA, FAO/WHO and “best” method to determine protein quality • Increase from raw beans IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 25 % increase in digestable protein from raw Canned Boiled MATS Infared/microionization Canadian Kidney Beans 8.42 16.83 11.13 6.3 Egyptian Kidney Beans 16.11 16.11 10.59 8.2
  26. 26. Canning • Protein losses in canning similar to aseptic • High levels of antioxidant in beans dissipates with canning • 99% of is due to loss of Vitamin C during canning Aseptic • Likely less antioxidant loss with aseptic processing Kidney Beans - Insights - Processing IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 26
  27. 27. Kidney Beans - Insights - Food Waste IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 27 Kidney Bean food waste from farm to consumer was determined as: • 32.4.0% 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)
  28. 28. Kidney Beans - Insights - Food Waste • Food waste studies are variable for Beans • UK study shows beans waste is 29% at consumption • Other data suggest 9-18% for canned beans and 4% for raw beans • Canned food not categorized consistently • Processed vegetables • Storable vegetables • Vegetables • Beans are not categorized consistently • ERS LATA data* and Canadian estimates link beans with nuts • Kidney beans are a seed and do not fit in neatly to classification IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 28
  29. 29. • 7 nutrients are higher in canned vs cooked Kidney Beans • Calcium is higher in canned vs aseptic Kidney Beans 29
  30. 30. • Amino Acids are higher in canned Kidney Beans 30
  31. 31. • All Amino Acids are higher in canned Kidney Beans 31
  32. 32. • Antioxidant loss is dominated by Vitamin C loss • When Vitamin C is not factored in, canned Kidney Beans have more antioxidants 32
  33. 33. IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 33 Direction
  34. 34. Current and possible packaging formats vary retort pouch aseptic carton aseptic bowl MATS Other value propositions current possible current possible current possible current possible Spinach food safety (E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria) outbreaks are serious with fresh and frozen and expected to increase with water shortages and higher food costs Chicken food safety (E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria) outbreaks are serious with fresh and expected to increase with water shortages and higher food costs Kidney Beans Tomatoes food safety (E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria) outbreaks are serious with fresh and expected to increase with water shortages and higher food costs Peaches Shelf Stable Retail packaging format competitors to canning for select products IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 34 LEGEND on market not on market or not viable on market as puree retort pouch aseptic carton a current possible current possible c Spinach Chicken Shelf Stable Retail packaging format competitors to canning for select products
  35. 35. Direction • Sustainability analysis needs to include nutrient loss and food waste as a function of processing for: • Aseptic, Canning, MATS, and HPP compared to “fresh processed” • High food waste after consumer purchase suggests need for packaging to aid in proper consumer product use and reseal IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 35
  36. 36. Direction • New data to replace missing and incorrect data are needed • Need for revitalized and expanded processing research on: • Nutrient retention during processing • Calcium • Magnesium • Protein • Iron • Common Antioxidants with and w/o Vitamin C • Need for research on food waste as a function of processing and packaging IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 36
  37. 37. Selected References • Ali et al, 2017 • Audu and Aremu 2011 • Bergquist, Gertsson, & Olsson, 2006 • Bergquist et al, 2005 • Bergquist et al, 2007 • Bunea et al, 2008 • Edwards and Reuter 1967 • El-Niely 2007 • Gil et al, 1999 • Grozeff et al, 2010 • Guzel and Sayar 2012 • Khattab et al, 2009 • Shimelis and Raksit 2007 IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 37 Lester et al, 2010 Marathe er al 2016 Mudau et al, 2015 Nour, Trandafir, and Ionica, 2014 Pandrangi & LaBorde, 2004 Pusztai et al, 1981 Rickman, Bruhn, and Barrett 2007 Singh, P. et al, 2017 Shimelis and Rakhit 2007 Spinardi et al, 2010 Toledo et al, 2003 USDA, 2018
  38. 38. Dr. Claire Sand, is CEO of Packaging Technology & Research, LLC Call 612-807-5341 or email claire@packagingtechnologyandresearch.com Offering food science and packing expertise in: • Coaching • Consulting • Technology • Strategy www.PackagingTechnologyandResearch.com IAPRI 2018 Claire Sand & Ziynet Boz 38 Questions?

×