Championing the consumer voice

Abstract

Improving the sustainability of food products is a non-trivial challenge. There are multiple product lifecycle stages where innovation can be applied to boost sustainability, but solutions are rarely straightforward. Care must be taken to ensure problems aren’t simply moved rather than solved. Additionally, it is important to consider consumer perspectives, so new or altered products deliver commercial success.

This article covers three food product lifecycle stages where innovation can make a positive difference: reformulation, processing, and packaging. In the case of products that are reformulated to improve sustainability credentials, impacts on consumer experience (taste, texture), benefits (nutrition), and convenience (shelf-life, stability) require attention. The redefinition of processes can play an enabling role here, but lack of consumer acceptance may be a barrier, especially for novel processes involving synthetic biology techniques. It's also important to be pragmatic about sustainable packaging solutions. This includes taking steps to ensure materials end up where they should after fulfilling their purpose protecting and preserving food. Consumer compliance, as well as consumer preference, is central here.

Food product lifecycle stages, as illustrated in Figure 1, provide multiple opportunities for technological advancement. The processing and manufacturing stage can be further broken down into three innovation zones: reformulation; redefining processes; preservation and packaging. Environmental sustainability is one of the most influential forces driving change at present, but any developments may cause repercussions up and down the supply chain. This article considers how food manufacturers can navigate complex sustainability innovation journeys in a consumer-centric manner.

Some sustainability issues can be addressed relatively easily via sourcing. However, reformulation may be necessary to make use of more sustainable ingredients and raw materials. This is a difficult undertaking which can introduce new processing challenges and may also be detrimental to consumer enjoyment of the product.

Any ingredient change can impact sensory qualities such as flavour, aroma, texture, and appearance, which in turn can affect product stability and shelf-life in packaged goods It is important that food professionals carefully weight factors like nutritional value, allergenicity, and the need for additives or preservatives (which may be perceived negatively by consumers).

A systematic approach to reformulation is necessary to identify, manage, and mitigate these challenges. It's important to understand the scientific properties of individual ingredients and how they function with food matrices. Then, when alternatives are being considered, R&D teams can consider how they will affect the end product.

The consumer-driven rise of plant-based proteins in recent years illustrates the complexity of this matter. A study by Sagentia Innovation's sister company Leatherhead Food Research shows 32% of people in the UK are concerned about the environmental impact of meat production (rising to 51% for the 16-35 age group)⁽¹⁾. The same study reveals that 55% of people believe it is healthier to eat less meat.

Reformulating products to switch animal proteins for plant-based proteins presents challenges surrounding ingredient functionality, stability, and supply sustainability as well as the taste, texture, and appearance of end products. The same is true of inherently plant-based products. Extracting and processing plant-based protein from sources such as cereals, grains, legumes, and nuts can be problematic. These steps might involve the reduction of undesirable tastes (e.g. bitterness) or the removal of contaminants. Processes to achieve this include dry fractionation, ultrasonics, and complex techniques involving enzymes or chemicals. In some cases, the expertise of food processing technology specialists may be required. Companies like SiccaDania, a leader in this field, employ a diverse range of protein extraction technologies for starch tubers, leguminous plants, and other crops.

It's important to note that such techniques may be water and/or power intensive. What's more, from a nutritional perspective, plant proteins often contain antinutrients which inhibit absorption, and their amino acid profile is typically different to that of animal-derived products, as well as containing less protein than animal-based products gram for gram. This is where new methods of food processing come to the fore.

Synthetic biology techniques can be leveraged for a wide range of food products. Some offer new ways to address reformulation challenges while potentially delivering benefits, such as:

1. Enabling a greater variety of animal-free food and ingredient production (using less energy, water, and land).

2. Enhancing consumer acceptance and nutritional value of plant-based alternatives.

3. Reducing food spoilage and waste through biosensors that detect food pathogens.

4. Supporting circularity by valorising food waste.

Several synthetic biology techniques – including precision fermentation, cell culture, and tissue engineering – are gaining commercial momentum. Of these, precision fermentation is the most advanced, with market size estimated at USD 2.8 billion in 2023⁽²⁾. It involves use of genetically engineered microorganisms, programmed through a range of in-vitro nucleic acid techniques such as CRISPR, gene editing, or cloning. Various products can be produced, including edible fats or proteins that are biologically similar to animal products. These can be further processed into ingredients or finished goods. As an example, Perfect Day claims its production of animal-free whey-protein results in 91% less greenhouse gas emission and 96% lower water consumption than conventional farming⁽³⁾.

SynBioBeta's 2024 Annual Synthetic Biology Investment Report indicates growing maturity of food and nutrition start-ups⁽⁴⁾. Moolec Science, a specialist in the development of sustainable alternative protein sources through molecular farming techniques, raised USD 50 million to fund growth and expansion. Meanwhile, ENOUGH's Series C funding raised USD 43.6 million to further develop technology for producing protein through fermentation of fungi.

Various food materials and ingredients besides protein can be produced using synthetic biology techniques. In some cases, end products replace natural ingredients traditionally harvested from remote or protected locations. Firmenich and Evolva engineer yeast to produce natural-labelled vanillin, whose raw equivalent is mainly exported from Madagascar. From a consumer enjoyment perspective, sensory properties of plant-based food can be improved using ingredients produced via synthetic biology too. Melt & Marble customises yeast metabolism to produce fats with desired characteristics, such as chain length and saturation. These can be added to plant-based meat alternatives to improve texture and flavour profile. Low-volume ingredients such as heme molecules produced using synthetic biology offer another way to improve consumer experience. Companies including Impossible Foods and Motif Foods add microbially produced heme to plant-based burgers to enhance palatability and simulation of meat flavour. Use of low-volume, high-impact compounds like these circumvents the technoeconomic barriers which can still hinder largescale use of synthetic biology techniques.

Foods manufactured using cell culture and tissue engineering are also making progress, albeit at a slower rate than those produced via precision fermentation. Widely described as ‘cultivated’ or ‘cultured’ meat, the process to create these products involves growing animal cells from meat, poultry, or seafood in a laboratory environment. End product characteristics are nearly indistinguishable from those of their conventional animal-derived counterparts.

Singapore's approval of cultured chicken meat captured headlines around the world in 2020. Then, last year, the USA Department of Agriculture granted Eat Just and Upside Foods permission to sell cultured meat. However, a few months later Italy banned its production and marketing. This is a complex landscape, and there could be much variation in consumer acceptance across markets too. A 2023 study by Leatherhead Food Research covering the UK, USA, France, Germany, Brazil, India, and Singapore revealed that just 22% of adults across all seven markets were willing to try cultured meat⁽⁵⁾. Yet the figure was significantly higher in Singapore, at 31%. Respondents in Singapore were also more likely to say they don’t have enough information on the benefits and safety of cultured meat, at 35% and 36% respectively. For this method to achieve mainstream uptake in markets where it is permitted, consumer reluctance will need to be addressed. Demonstrating that products are safe, nutritious, sustainable, and well-regulated will be key.

Packaging reduction, reuse, and recycling remains central to the food sector's sustainability scene. The industry must consider many factors to strike a pragmatic, scientifically sound path. Packaging material selection is a case in point. McKinsey's 2023 ‘sustainability in packaging’ study reveals that consumers around the world are not fully aligned in their views on the most sustainable packaging materials. However, paper scores high on average, and especially so in India and the UK⁽⁶⁾.

From a scientific perspective, whole life sustainability credentials of food packaging materials are not easily defined.

One vital aspect to account for is the role packaging materials play in maintaining food products’ safety and stability. This has a direct impact on food waste, another critical sustainability concern. Ideally, barrier properties to oxygen and moisture should be evaluated early at an early stage of development. The migration of any leachable components must be well understood and controlled too. Packaging, ingredients, and manufacturing techniques play an interactive role in safety and shelf-life performance.

While plastic is a controversial packaging material, it's also cheap, versatile, and effective for food protection and preservation. Low weight combined with high strength mean it's transportable, stackable, and resilient to damage. This is combined with durability and low permeability which support longer freshness of perishable goods. Carbon footprint assessments of plastic packaging are frequently better than those for packaging made from alternative materials too. This is partly due to its light weight and the fact that less material may be needed to satisfy the same functionality requirements.

When sustainability is considered holistically, plastic can sometimes be a better packaging material choice. But plastic pollution remains a problem, and one which is highly visible to consumers. Technical steps to reduce the amount of plastic packaging used for food can therefore be beneficial. Nevertheless, they may bring unintended consequences, meaning it's necessary to make trade-offs when selecting the best material for a given purpose. For instance:

■ Using flexible plastic instead of rigid plastic: Changing plastic type (e.g. swapping high-density polyethylene (HDPE) for polypropylene (PP)) may reduce the amount of material needed. However, it replaces a widely recycled material with one for which recycling is less prevalent. Consumer perception is another critical factor. When Sainsbury's introduced vacuum packs for minced beef in the UK, a consumer backlash centred on poor usability and unappetising visual appearance.

■ Switching from plastic to paper (or other materials): This is viable if the necessary barrier properties can be achieved. Note that alternative materials may require treatment (e.g. paper often needs a plastic or wax coating to satisfy moisture and oxygen barrier requirements). It must also be possible to recycle the material cost-effectively and to source it sustainably. Other factors, such as water consumption during processing and the potential for a higher overall carbon footprint, require consideration too. Quaker Oats has enjoyed success here, eliminating the need for a plastic liner for its paper-based porridge pots. Previously, the liner had to be removed for recycling, but now consumers simply need to rinse the pot.

■ Replacing recycled plastic with compostable materials: Using compostable materials for packaging can be beneficial if end-of-life conditions are right. This is an active research area with new commercial developments emerging. Xampla's Morro materials claim to be home compostable and meet several coating and barrier property targets, whilst also being edible. However, other compostable materials including polylactic acid (PLA) derived from organic materials such as corn starch require industrial composting to successfully biodegrade. This is further complicated by the fact that some industrial composting facilities don’t accept PLA. Another factor to consider is the loss of raw material resources to manufacture these materials (e.g. depletion of feedstocks).

Where plastic is used for packaging, recyclability is a priority. As with all household recycling, consumer compliance has a role to play. This is partly about willingness to participate and dispose of materials properly, but it's also about consumers’ understanding of what can be recycled where. In one international study, only 33% of adults said they understood on-pack logos advising them how to dispose of packaging⁽⁵⁾. Regulation can influence compliance and understanding, for instance through the standardisation of recycling logos. There is also a widespread need for better collection and sorting of food packaging materials to improve recycling rates and outcomes.

Several recycling methods exist for plastics, each with its own constraints. Mechanical recycling is widely used, but material degradation after several cycles compromises properties such as strength and transparency, meaning it cannot be repeated indefinitely. An alternative is chemical recycling which breaks plastic down into its starting material feedstock. This reduction to base components can enable the creation of new materials with the same physical properties⁽⁷⁾. Further development is required before the approach can be applied at scale. What's more, chemical recycling processes are energy intensive.

Other technology-driven approaches are emerging to facilitate better recycling and reuse of plastic packaging. In some markets, these have had a high level of success. One example is reverse vending machine (RVM) systems which promote a circular economy via accessible, user-friendly machines for the deposit of used packaging. Monetary incentives, such as the return of prepaid deposits, vouchers, credit, or charitable donations, can reinforce the strategy. TOMRA is a global provider of RVMs with an installed base of 30,000 in Germany where widespread rollout and convenience bolster adherence. According to Bloomberg's NetZero Pathfinders, Germany's deposit return scheme is the most successful in the world, with a return rate for single-use plastic bottles of 98%⁽⁸⁾.

Independent platforms enabling more efficient reuse of food packaging have also gained traction in some markets. Loop, currently available in the US, Japan, and UK, positions itself as a ‘reverse supply chain’. Used packaging is collected from consumers or retailers, then cleaned and returned to manufacturers for reuse. Loop works in partnership with major brands and retailers and considers region-specific consumer preferences. In some regions, it handles home delivery of products, and home collection of used containers; in others, consumers may return packaging to the retailer.

AI-enabled sorting of used packaging could also enhance strategies for reuse and recycling, mitigating issues such as recycled plastic contamination. The world's largest recycling plant constructor, Bollegraaf, collaborated with AI start-up Greyparrot to retrofit thousands of facilities with AI sorting technologies. Computers identify and analyse items passing through a waste plant using data from visual and infrared cameras. The goal is to increase the proportion of plastic, glass, metal, and paper that enter recycling streams, which could have a positive impact on the environmental outcomes of food packaging waste. Closely linked to this is the rise of connected packaging which integrates digital technology, with Print Week reporting that 88% of packaging-buying companies plan to use it in 2024⁽⁹⁾. Another study shows that 33% of consumers would welcome the inclusion of recycling information via a QR code on food product labels⁽⁵⁾.

Harnessing the consumer voice at every stage of the sustainable development process can increase the likelihood of acceptance, preference, or compliance. For instance, when the microstructure of plant-based ingredients produced using synthetic biology techniques mimics that of animal-derived ingredients it may achieve the mouthfeel consumers expect in reformulated products. However, consumer attitudes to novel food processing techniques are an important consideration, especially for products such as cultivated meat. In terms of packaging, consumer preference needs to be balanced with pragmatic approaches that consider the bigger sustainability picture, even if that means opting for materials that are less popular. Consumer education may form part of the solution here. When it comes to promoting the reuse or recycling of packaging, consumer ease, convenience, and motivation are the three pillars of success.