We are increasingly aware of the food that we eat, the nutrition intake that food brings and the impact of our shopping and consumption habits have on the planet. That is as it should be.
The food we consume, that is, ourdietary habits, contributes in one degree or another, to our health, but also, to the planet health by leaving a climatic footprint. Specifically, food production contributes to the effect on global warming through cultivation system, how animals have been raised, how they have been stored, processed, packaged and transported to the different markets around the world.
The current world food production system is affecting the terrestrial and marine ecosystems in a significantly way, thus contributing to the obvious climate change. It is not about being an alarmist, but is about becoming aware of a reality that is already happening.
On 8 august, the new report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 107 experts from 52 countries) on “Climate Change and Earth”. The figures speak in this report and show that the current food system – which includes farming, animal husbandry, processing, packaging and transport – is responsible for the 37 % of the total greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that are generated annually and that, food losses and food waste also collaborates with 8-10 % of the total.
The consequences of these emissions are directly related to the increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere, the increase in the temperature of the planet, the climatic disasters or the rise in the sea level, which turn into a clear threat to the quality and quantity of current crops. Therefore, affecting food security for the population, for the inhabitants of the planet, for all of us.
It is necessary to address the risks that are already present and reduce vulnerabilities in food production and distribution systems and land management.
According to the data from the IPCC report, climate change will affect food security by limiting access to certain foods, reducing nutritional quality and increasing their prices. The effects will be much more marked in low-income countries.
The Report stated that is necessary limiting global warming to 1.5 oC instead of 2 oC … And yes, this difference of half a degree is crucial on the effects on the soil, marine species and ecosystems and, also about the benefits that this would bring in nature for all humans; fishery, water supply and food insurance, in addition to health, safety and economic growth.
To limit warming, a reduction in CO2 and other GHG emissions is required by 45 % by 2030 (compared to the levels of 2010) and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. This requires a profound change and a rapid action in reducing these emissions in all sectors (energy, land, cities, transport, buildings, industry) so is necessary a greater investment in the application of new strategies and technology breakthrough.
With the focus on these actions aimed at adapting and mitigating the effect of climate change, the report indicates as better opportunities; an urgent change in human diet to achieve a reduction in GHG emissions linked to food production, an improvement in livestock and farming production systems to reduce the energy and water consumption currently used and, a reduction, to get eliminate, losses and food waste.
A healthy and sustainable diet includes foods with a lower carbon footprint so that, such diet, would be based on the consumption of vegetables, legumes, cereals, nuts and seeds as essential foods and foods of animal origin produced in resilient, sustainable and low GHG emission systems.
The report expressly states that, currently, livestock systems for meat and meat products production demand more water and soil and generate higher emissions of gases compared to those of cereal and seed production. This effect is greater in developed countries where breeding is carried out intensively and is urged to produce them in a sustainable manner.
In the study carried out by Poore & Nemecek (2018) it was also evidenced that the environmental impact of the production of food of animal origin exceeds that of plant production, highlighting the need to reformulate the practices carried out in this activity . They also showed that, although producers are a vital part of the solution to this problem, their ability to reduce environmental impact is limited. These limits mean that the same product can have a greater impact than another nutritionally equivalent and therefore, they also urge a change in the pattern of the diet.
The need to adapt our diet to the limits of sustainability aspects is evident and, so much so, that the IPCC refers to it as “low-GHG carbon diet”.
Low-greenhouse gases emission diets are balanced diets that require less water and less land use and cause less GHG. These are diets with more foods based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables nuts and seeds and foods of animal origin produced in a sustainable way.
Other actions aimed at diversifying the food systems proposed in the report in relation to the form of food generation are; the implementation of integrated production systems, the improvement of broad-genetic resources, more intelligent and integrated agricultural systems, best livestock production practices and the reduction of fertilizers use. All of them, in order to reduce the environmental impact through better soil management as a strategy to achieve sustainable use and, therefore, quality food production.
Regarding the reduction of food waste, it is aimed at curbing the need to produce more and, therefore, to reduce the overexploitation of the soil and the consumption of water and nitrogen-based fertilizers, deforestation of areas to convert them into agricultural land and, in the cycle in which we are currently, worse crops are getting worse, poorer in nutrients and the consequent and foreseeable increase in the cost of cereals.
There is no one ideal solution, but a sum of many different actions.
We need to rethink our current food system and find new solutions to feed ourselves on a planet that continues growing. We are facing the challenge of finding effective solutions to produce food in a sustainable way. The way we produce food matters, in other words how we select what we are going to eat matters since it can face climate change and with the reduction in the pressure we are exerting on the land.
What we eat has a story to tell us … and that story makes us responsible and complicit in those effects. It is important to take a step forward in our diet and start thinking about what we eat beyond the hedonic aspect, since our consumption actions affect the productive capacity of the soil and, therefore, the quality of what is produced and even to the nutritional value of food. On the other hand, raising awareness of a more sustainable diet, in addition to collaborating in mitigating the effects of climate change, probably offers significant positive benefits on human health in the medium term.
From the creators of “What doesn´t kill you makes you fatter or is a sin” and “You don´t know what to eat” appears “Take care if you like overcooking!” and “Nightmare in the kitchen, there is acrylamide in your food“.
For years it was known that acrylamide was a toxic substance present in tobacco smoke and in industrial processes such as paper manufacturing, metal extraction, textile industry, colorants and other processes such as cosmetic additives or in water treatment. What nobody could imagine was that it also appears naturally when we are cooking foods such as potato crisps, French fries, biscuits and coffee.
It was first detected in foods in 2002 in Sweden when this chemical was found in starchy foods. According to experts, acrylamide is converted in the body into a chemical compound called glycidamide, which causes mutations and DNA damage that could initiate a cancerous process. The main chemical process that causes this is known as the Maillard Reaction; between sugars and amino acids (mainly one called asparagine) that are naturally present in many foods. It is the same reaction that ‘browns’ food (consequence of some pigments called melanoidins) and affects its taste and smell (due to substances such as furans). For this reason, the color could be a very practical guide for detecting acrylamide in foods.
Following, there is a summary of the evolution of the acrylamide topic according to the opinion of experts and different authorities in food safety:
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): classifies it as probable carcinogens in humans (group 2A). This designation is applied when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans as well as sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. For this reason, the authorities recommend that exposure to acrylamide should be as minimal as possible.
World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO/WHO): admits that there are many doubts about the mechanism of action of acrylamide and also about the estimation of the maximum recommended intakes or how the data obtained in animals have been extrapolated to humans. They insist especially on the need for more research on topics such as the associated risks in humans, quantification of acrylamide in diets other than European ones and identify the speed of the human body to neutralize acrylamide. In 2009 FAO/WHO published a code of practice for the reduction of acrylamide in food. A large amount of information on acrylamide is located on the FAO/WHO portal ‘Acrylamide Information Network’.
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA): it is still not clear whether the consumption of this component has an effect on the risk of developing cancer in humans. In the following link you can find all the information published by the EFSA related to acrylamide since 2002. Industry (Food and Drink Europe) has developed a document called ‘toolbox’ containing measures that can be applied by the different sectors of food industry to bring its levels down.
European Commission: in November 20th, 2017 the Reglament (UE) 2017/2158 is published containing mitigation measures and benchmark levels for the reduction of the presence of acrylamide in food. The Regulation establishes mandatory mitigation measures for food companies (industry, catering and restoration). At the moment, there are only levels of reference but everything indicates that in the future they will become maximum limits.
Spanish Agency of consumption, food security and nutrition (AECOSAN): is in full campaign of information to diminish the exhibition of acrylamide among consumers and to sensitize the population on the health risks of it. The motto of the campaign: ‘Choose dorado, choose health’. In the following video and link you can find simple recommendations to control the formation of acrylamide when cooking at home.
Undoubtedly, the issue of acrylamide will continue to give much to talk about over the next few years. In CARTIF we have just launched the COLOR Project: “Acrylamide reduction in processed foods” approved in the FEDER INTERCONECTA 2018 call. In this Project, the companies GALLETAS GULLÓN, CYL IBERSNACKS and COOPERATIVA AGRÍCOLA SANTA MARTA will join efforts to achieve the following objectives:
To reduce acrylamide in biscuit products and chips.
To obtain olive oils capable of counteracting the formation of acrylamide in processed foods.
To develop an indirect analytical method to quantify acrylamide more quickly, easily and economically than conventional analytical methods by measuring the COLOR of foods. In the Project we have the collaboration of the Institute of Science and Technology of Food and Nutrition (ICTAN-CSIC) and the Research Group, Food Quality and Microbiology (GRUPO CAMIALI) of the University of Extremadura.
Entomophagy, or insect consumption by humans, is not a novelty to anyone. Diets based on insects and arthropods are fully accepted in many countries and cultures, especially in South America, Asia or Africa. Even they are a real delicacy for some gourmets experts, for which they pay very high prices. There are markets for edible insects, at prohibitive prices, in cities such as New York, Tokyo, Mexico or Los Angeles, and some of the most famous international chefs include them in their famous recipes.
They do not have a single fault, nutritionally speaking. They are a balanced and healthy food, with high protein content, rich in essential amino acids. They are an important source of unsaturated fatty acids and chitin, besides of having vitamins and minerals beneficial for our body.
However, it is true that these ‘bugs’ have attracted the attention of the media, research institutions and members of food industry in recent months. Why now?
Experts say insects can provide a part of the necessary calories in countries where the consumption of some foods is limited. The Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations (FAO) expects the world population will increase by 2050 in 9700 million people, about 24% people more than now, so there will be a greater need to supply food. Therefore, it could be a solution to help reducing the levels of hunger in the world.
On the other hand, agriculture and livestock, as we know them today, are primary activities that emit greenhouse gases. In comparison, insect could be produced with lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption. Therefore, the incorporation of these new ingredients to our market list can also improve the situation of the planet in the climate change’s fight, as well as contributing to the circular economy process due to insects can feed with agrifood waste.
In addition to these reasons, on January 1st, Regulation (EU) 2215/2283 come into force, which includes insects within the category of ‘novel foods’, which is a big step to simplify the authorization process.
And, if eating insects have so many advantages, why are they not consumed regularly in Spain and in many other Western countries?
Because, in spite of legislation, there is an emotional and cultural rejection to include them in our plates. In other words, they make us feel sick!
This argument has been demonstrated by a pioneering experiment through blind tasting of different foods prepared with insects and monitored with neuroscientific tools, carried out in the context of GO_INSECT and ECIPA projects. These are two innovative initiatives related to the breeding of insects for food as an alternative and sustainable source of proteins. CARTIF takes part in the first one, a Supra-autonomic Operative Group, which has the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply.
This blind tasting has served to demonstrate that taste is not the reason why we do not choose insects for eating. The main reason is the appearance of them, knowing what they are, being aware that we are going to eat something disgusting for us.
How did the experiment carry out?
28 people participated in the tasting, which took place at the Veterinary School of the University of Zaragoza, while the electrodermal activity of us was recorded. Previously, we were warned products of the tasting could contain lactose, gluten, nuts, crustaceans and insects.
Participants tasted four dishes with insects in their composition, and a fifth dish without them, which served as base of comparison. In three of those that contained insects, they were processed and were not visible directly to the eye. In the fourth, insects were easily recognizable.
All these options were carefully elaborated and tested in advance in order to avoid mistakes in the evaluation. Bitbrain Company’s technology measured sensory responses, both when visualizing the food and when eating it. At the end, they evaluated with and individual survey the satisfaction to each elaboration.
And the results?
The non-conscious emotional response to the three first dishes, which have insects in their composition in a non-visible way, fell within the normal parameters to the tasting of the rest. That is, the fact that a plate contains insects does not influence negatively in the taste and is not detected at the physiological level either.
On the other hand, the emotional impact of the participants when we tasted the whole insect (small dry larvae of Tenebrio molitor or flour worm) was much higher than in the resto of the dishes. Even, the emotional impact was greater during the visualization than during the intake. That is to say, what produces that impact is the knowledge of knowing that what we have before us is an insect, not so much the consumption.
At a conscious level, the average score given to the dishes in which the insects were incorporated as flour was 7’6. Only one participant did not agree to taste the plate of the whole insect. Those who taste it marked a 5’9 of average grade.
After knowing that all the products we had tested contained insects, secured we would eat them again. Only one of the participants confirmed in the survey will not buy products that had been fed with insects.
So, at least, we should give them a chance, even if they are masked. More than 2 billion people already incorporate them into their diet, so a quarter of the world’s population cannot be wrong.
Last July, EFSA published a protocol that sets out the strategy to follow for the collection of data that will be used for the development of a Scientific Opinion that establishes the maximum tolerable level of sugar intake. I know it could seem confusing, let me explain…
Tons of tweets and images often appear on social networks that show the amount of sugar that certain processed foods have. Associations such as sinazucar.org have been actively promoting it for some time. Thus, this topic is not new at all. The novelty is related to the publication by EFSA of a protocol that sets the strategy to follow in the collection of scientific data that will be carried out prior to the publication of the Scientific Opinion on the reference dietary level of intake of sugarsfor the European population that EFSA plans to publish.
This document will represent an update of the Scientific Opinion published in 2010 regarding reference dietary values for sugars, carbohydrates and fiber (EFSA NDA Panel, 2010a). With the data available up to 2010, there was no conclusive evidence linking an effect of sugars on micronutrient density, insulin response to glucose, body weight, type 2 diabetes or dental caries significant enough to establish limits of maximum tolerated intake, adequate intake or reference intake of sugars. After 2010, several organizations have published recommendations on the recommended intake of sugars; however, quite disparate among them. For example, the World Health Organization recommends reducing the consumption of free sugars in life. For both adults and children, the consumption of free sugars should be reduced to less than 10% of the total caloric intake. A reduction below 5% of the total caloric intake would produce additional health benefits. Now, EFSA intends to evaluate the scientific basis that has emerged from 2010 to the present and to check if there is enough new evidence to establish a reference dietary level.
This request to EFSA, which comes from the competent authorities in the field of nutrition and health of 5 European countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland), will not only respond to the need to update the existing evidence but also will constitute an act of consensus of terms referring to the sugars present in food. Currently, each one calls, labels and understands the sugar content of food at free will, which makes it difficult to study the literature, label food and establish conclusions about the cause-effect relationship and recommendations for the population. Some companies only express the total sugar content in the nutritional labeling of their food, others consider that what is really important is to know the content in “added” sugars, while others demand consensus to label and make recommendations about “free” sugars. Do you know the difference between the three terms?
Total sugars: all mono and disaccharides that are part of a food, whatever its origin.
Added sugars: all mono and disaccharides that are not part of the food naturally but have been added during processing, whether by the manufacturer, the cook or consumers.
Free sugars: all mono and disaccharides except those that naturally form part of whole fruits or vegetables (whether intact, dried or cooked).
That is to say, all the added sugars are free sugars but not vice versa. The key difference between added sugars and free sugars is that the free sugars also contemplate the sugars that are naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates; while the added sugars do not contemplate them. Sugars naturally occurring in whole fruits and vegetables are not included as free sugars since there is no evidence that they have an adverse effect on health. In other words, free sugars would be synonymous with total sugars in all foods except fruits and whole vegetables.
A practical case to help us clear up this mess, please! For example, the sugars naturally present in a carrot juice in brick would be considered as free sugars; while the sugars naturally present in baby carrots packed in a modified atmosphere ready to eat, would not be considered.
Currently in Europe, most companies label their sugars in the form of total sugars. The USA was the first country in 2016 to establish regulations to force the declaration of all added sugars in the labeling of all foods. On the other hand, the Canadian health agency recently published a document in which it proposes to label foods rich in sugars, saturated fats and sodium as “high food in …” In the case of sugars, Canadians propose this declaration to be included in all foods that contain free sugars (not only added), so that this rule also affects fruit and vegetable juices and purées; while only dairy and whole fruits and vegetables stay out of this mandatory declaration.
Needless to say that if this lack of consensus affects the good understanding among professionals and experts in nutrition, even more it will confuse consumers. So in addition to this task of matching key terms to establish recommendations for intake and common labeling standards, education and consumer communication campaigns on the interpretation of nutritional labeling of foods are also necessary.
From CARTIF, we are committed to the dissemination of consumer education on nutrition and food issues, so we will remain aware to the publication of the Scientific Opinion of EFSA and of course, we will inform you of its conclusions in a clear and understandable way.
Who has not practice “trashcooking” in his kitchen? Aren’t you? It is high time to start. Keep on reading to know how.
“Trashcooking” is the new concept to call the old law of “the food is not pulled” coming from our grandmothers or what today could be called “the circular economy of food” in any article of an R & D + i magazine. That is, reusing the leftovers of one meal to make another or take advantage of the remains of an ingredient to make a new recipe. Some easy examples are cannelloni or croquettes with the leftover meat of the stew, the puree with the vegetables that the child did not want to eat the night before or the colorful and sweet fruit salad made with the fruits about to spoil of the fruit bowl.
Currently, the “trashcooking” especially in vegetables, but also in low-priced fish and meat, is putting to the test the knowledge and techniques of the best chefs to take exquisite dishes in which everything is used and nothing is thrown away. This way of proceeding has increasing support both of the heavyweights of haute cuisine who bet on sustainability through creativity, as well as consumers.
This incredibly beneficial initiative for the environment, it would be much more if it began to become fashionable in all European households as up to 88 million tons of food are wasted every year in the EU. These figures are alarming when we value them on the total: 20% of the food produced in the EU ends up spoiling. Food is wasted during all phases of the food chain, from agricultural production to final consumption. However, it is in households (53%) and in the transformation process (19%) where the most food waste is produced.
On average, a European citizen throws away 173 kilos of food a year. With the Netherlands at the top of the list (541 kg of waste per inhabitant per year) and Slovenia as the country that best manages the use of food (72 kg of waste per inhabitant per year). Spain is below the average (135 Kg), in place 17 of the list of a total of 27 countries. However, there is still a long way to go in improving the management of food. (Eurobarometer and FAO data, 2010 estimates).
And it is not the accumulation of waste itself that is solely responsible for the damage to the environment, but that wasting food also supposes an unnecessary use of scarce resources such as land, water and energy. For every kilogram of food produced, 4.5 kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) is thrown into the atmosphere.
Faced with this worrying situation, the European Parliament is proposing measures to reduce these 88 million tons of food waste by 30% by 2025 and by 50% by 2030. Among the proposals include facilitating food donations, allowing VAT exemptions, or to emphasize the need to put an end to consumer confusion between the labels of preferential consumption and the expiration date.
At CARTIF, we have been thinking about circular economy for years, not yet in your kitchen, but in the revaluation of the by-products of livestock, agriculture and industry and its use in the elaboration of other components of added valued that might be used in human, animal, cosmetic, energy generation, etc. Now it’s your turn, you’re in charge of practicing “trashcooking” in your kitchen and helping our environment.
Perfect for decorating, giving, perfuming, infusing… and why not to eat? A few days ago we talked about “Realfooding”, an initiative that is fortunately taking positions in social networks and at the tables of many houses. For those who need a little more variety, color, taste or simply visual impact in their culinary preparations of real food, today we bring you this post in which we explain how to use this maximum exponent of “Realfooding”.
The use of flowers as part of our cuisine dates back centuries. Specifically known is the use of the pumpkin flower in Mexico, the violets in Roman culture, or in India, where the rose petals are part of the decoration of their most typical desserts. In Spain, this practice has not been so common, although perhaps unknowingly we are already using them in our kitchen because the cauliflower, artichoke, broccoli or chamomile are considered flowers.
Currently they have been in vogue thanks to international chefs who are introducing them in their creations, so that now it would not be strange to find as a starter of a menu a roasted artichoke perfumed with pink garlic flower, as a main dish a lamb shank confit with potato flower or as dessert a violets ice cream. And what a good idea! Because flowers, besides giving the dishes a great variety of colors, flavors and different aromas, improving the organoleptic characteristics, also help to increase the nutritional value of the meal.
Flowers are vegetables, with a water content higher than 80% and therefore have a low energy value, but with a high nutritional value, as they provide vitamins such as A, C, riboflavin or niacin; and minerals such as calcium, phosphorus, iron and potassium. In some publications, flowers have been considered functional foods, since they contain bioactive substances such as phenolic compounds, carotenoids or anthocyanins with antioxidant properties.
There are more than 55 species of edible flowers known, with many applications and utilities at culinary level, both in salads and soups and accompanying white and red meats, fish, pasta and rice or desserts. For example, the seeds of the poppy are used to flavor pastry products and their petals for wines and oils; the chrysanthemum confers different colors and bitter taste to salads and sauces; or jasmine, with white and sweet flavor is used in bird or fish dishes. Of course, all of them “Realfooding 100%”
But beware! Not all flowers are edible. There are some toxic species such as belladonna, hemlock, oleander flower, aubergine flower or dulcamara, among others. Although there is not much regulation in this regard, in Europe they are considered traditional foods (EFSA Journal 2016; 14 (11): 4590) and as such, in order to be used in food, flowers must fulfill certain characteristics regarding their chemical composition and the form of cultivation (free of pesticides, herbicides and non-organic fertilizers) as well as being microbiologically harmless. Regarding the use of pesticides, edible flowers must follow Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on the maximum residue limits for pesticides in food and feed of origin plant and animal, which has been modified by EFSA on two occasions to change the maximum residue level of ametoctradin (fungicide) to 20 mg/kg and that of flonicamide (insecticide) to 6 mg/kg (EFSA Journal 2017; 15 (6):4869).
The impossibility of using pesticides and herbicides, together with the highly perishable nature of edible flowers, means that this product has a short shelf life and that during its cultivation, preparation and packaging it is necessary to take care of every detail. The temperature is one of the factors that most affects the quality of the flower, existing different needs between species. In general, refrigeration extends the shelf life of the product, but some species may be sensitive to cold. Another factor to consider is the reduction of perspiration to avoid losses due to dehydration. The high relation between the surface and the volume of the flower, and also the thin cuticle of the petals, makes it highly susceptible to the loss of water. Likewise, packaging will be important, which should be rigid, similar to that of strawberries and other delicate and highly perishable products.
There are already companies that grow, prepare and package flowers for use in gastronomy. Are you one of them? Do you need to expand your product portfolio, improve the performance of your process, change the packaging or increase the half life of your product? In CARTIF we can help you, contact us.
If on the contrary you are not interested in edible flowers at business level, from CARTIF we encourage you to make your own floral menu and to enjoy the real real food. Bon Appetite!
