Global Food Security (IGFS) at Queen’s University, Belfast, have undertaken new research that indicates a change in feed for pigs has reduced the UK’s pig farming carbon footprint by 40% over the last 20 years.

The EU funded the research and conclusions have been drawn from historic data on English, Scottish and Welsh livestock systems. Due to the data on agricultural inputs being spare, new research methodology was developed called ‘inverted modelling’. This is a complex metrix involving indicators such as:

• What fuel used on the farm?
• How soil is cultivated?
• Style of land management
• Types of animals
• Types of crops

Pig meat is the most widely consumed and produced meat globally and contributes signficantly to several forms of environmental impacts although the research team claimed that the impact per unit is relatively low.

The Global Warming Potential (also known as carbon footprint) reductions of 37% and 35.4% were seen across the pig farming sector for indoor and outdoor-bred pigs respectively.

The role of feed for the animals was found to be central to the environmental impact accounting for between 75-80% of carbon footprint. Increasing the amount of home-grown crops, such as rapeseed and sunflower meal, in place of soya imported from South America was seen to have a signficant mitigating impact on environmental outputs. This has the potential to alter the carbon rating of pig farms and the industry as a whole.

Professor Kyriazakis said, “The reason this research is so signficant is that it shows an area of livestock farming where carbon foodprint has been reducing over the past 20 years, almost under the radar.”

The UK Government has set a target of being carbon neutral  in farming by 2050.

There are plans for research to also be undertaken in Northern Ireland soon.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has launched the ‘Speak Up for Allergies’ Campaign which is specifically aimed at young people to encourage them to speak up about their food allergy when eating out. This is in a effort to reduce the risk of allergic reaction.

Research shows that young people and children are more likely to experience reactions to food allergies and this in part is due to them not speaking up when they order food – this is especially common when they are at a frequent eating place or ordering takeaway, which has become more frequent since lockdown.

Whilst the food may appear to be the same – recipes, ingredients, even the way the food is being cooked – can change. It is vitally important that young people never assume that food is safe without drawing attention to their allergies.

The FSA are running the campaign on social media – TikTok, Twitter and Facebook using the hashtag #SpeakUpForAllergies. They are also promoting the campaign through partners across the food industry and influencers across many different channels in an effort to get the message out there.

For further information and advice for teenagers and young adults with a food allergy – please click here.

Whilst the majority of businesses invest in trying to prevent cybercrime – would they really be ready if their business became a victim of a Cybercrime?

Ransomeware attacks are one such threat where criminals have the ability to encrypt or steal data from a company’s system with a resulting message to delete or publish the data unless a ransom is paid.

There are several reasons why a business would not want data leaked into the public domain – in the food industry its often secret recipes, ingredients or methods – that could damage the company’s future should they be revealed.

It is also worth noting that both UK and EU business have a responsibility for safeguarding personal data under GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation. So this could not only result in damage to the company reputation but also the possiblity of hefty fines being incurred.

What would you do?

• Should you try to retrieve the data? Sadly, this would probably prove to be impossible.
• Choose to pay the ransom? This could well end up with you paying a terrorist or organised crime. Often the criminals ask for ‘Bitcoin’ ransoms and although this has become more mainstream it doesn’t have the same regulatory controls as ‘actual’ money and offers a level of anonymity for the criminal potentially resulting in companies falling foul of local legislation. However, it is of note that in 2019 the High Court did hold that cryptocurrencies constituted ‘property’ under English Law and is paving the way for granting an interim injuction over such ransoms.
• Whilst another question that must be addressed, if considering payment, has to be: “Does my cyber insurance cover the business or would it be in breach?”
• Finally, it’s worth remembering that even if the ransom is paid there’s no guarantee that the threat will be removed and that the attacker won’t ask for more money.

The first priority for any business must be:

• Stop the ‘attack’ happening in the first place. This means training employees to spot a ‘potential threat’ and giving them the confidence of taking action and not being fearful of repercussions after.

Should an attack take place and all technical support avenues have failed:

• Then the next move must be ‘damage limitation’ eg should a fraudulent payment have been made then legal remedies can freeze accounts, trace money and even recover the loss.
• As regards the risk of leaked or confidential information then the UK courts may be able to assist. There is an Interim Order , also known as a Non-Disclosure Order, which can be taken to the High Court to prevent the disclosure of data which includes ‘persons unknown’ i.e the cybercrime attacker. In order to qualify for this court order there must be requisite grounds for a claim of ‘break of confidence’ i.e.:

• the data must not already be in the public domain
• the information must have been given under circumstances that import an obligation of ‘confidence’
• there has to be an unauthorised use of information to the detriment of the party communicating it.

The true power of the Non-Disclosure Order lies in its ‘indirect effect’ meaning that it prevents the publication of the stolen data by any third parties that are in possession of it.

Sadly, in some instances the litigation itself can cause damage to the a firm’s reputation and especially in the food industry should food integrity be brought into question and subsequently damage a brand.

Whilst there is still a long way to go – the law is heading in the right direction.

The next dynamic growth area in the ‘Alternative Protein’ area is expected to be in plant-based seafood and fish products. The industry has seen a significant increase in investment in this area as the market has started to expand.

Consumers are encountering the same concerns, relating to the Fish and Shellfish industry, as they do about the Meat industry. They are concerned about the environment with overfishing, marine pollution and the impact on biodiversity.

There is also increasing concern about the health implications of microplastic contamination being found in fish and crustaceans. Not to mention growing levels of mercury being found in some sealife.

This is great timing for this area of the industry, where there is rising demand globally and subsequently price rises too, for them to benefit from providing a more sustainable, healthier and more competively priced alternative fish option.

The real issue for manufacturers preparing to head down this route is the challenges of making these plant-based seafood and fish products not only a regular part of the consumers’ diet but also to look, feel and taste right. Basically if it doesn’t taste right the consumer is unlikely to buy again.

The four key areas for flavour development have to be:

1. Building the taste and body of the basic fish flavour.
2. Masking any ‘off notes’ caused by the protein base i.e. texturised vegetables, soy or bean proteins.
3. Creating a flavour profile for an authentic taste to reflect specific species.
4. Finally, adding culinary cooking eg smoked, grilled, boiled, canned, raw.

Another area to bear in mind is that these fish and seafood plant-based substitutes lend themselves well to pre-prepared dishes. This will give an opportunity to expand global flavours and spice blends from cuisines around the world.

Asian inspired meals are particularly popular at the moment such as red or green curry, teriyaki, soy sauce, sweet & sour as well as chipotle, jalapeno – the South American-inspirations.

Soy tends to be first choice for manufacturers with its high protein content – it is also an allergen. An alternative is Pea which is popular and allergen-free – particularly good for high-quality products. Whilst Soy or Pea tend to the primary base for mixes other popular proteins that can be used include oats, chickpea, lentils, fava and navy beans, sunflower and flaxseed.

Shellfish substitutes can be algae, starches such as konjac power or seaweed. These mimic the texture of shrimp and can be applied to lobster, crab, calamari or prawn alternatives. The main problem with these bases is their low protein level so additional protein needs to be added to boost nutritional content.

To achieve the right feel for the ‘mouth’ – gels, starches and protein isolates can be mixed with the protein base but this will need the knowledge of a food scientist with lots of hands-on experience to achieve the correct ‘feel’ for the seafish alternative.

The next stage must be to make the food look visually appealing by adding colour solutions eg whiten the base mixture for white fish, orange to create pink/red colours for salmon/crustaceans. A challenge will be to achieve the change from red to brown of Tuna during cooking. Keeping in mind the environment, consumers will expect and drive the use of natural, vegetarian and vegan colourings.

So as this exciting area of fish alternatives grows, research will also keep pace with development of cell culture and lab-grown products. The challenge to achieve texture of whole muscle products for fish alternatives is even greater than that faced by those creating meat substitutes.