Delft University of Technology
FACULTY MECHANICAL, MARITIME AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING
Department Marine and Transport Technology Mekelweg 2 2628 CD Delft the Netherlands Phone +31 (0)15-2782889 Fax +31 (0)15-2781397 www.mtt.tudelft.nl
This report consists of 31 pages and no appendices. It may only be reproduced literally and as a whole. For commercial purposes only with written authorization of Delft University of Technology. Requests for consult are only taken into consideration under the condition that the applicant denies all legal rights on liabilities concerning the contents of the advice.
Specialization: e.g. Transport Engineering and Logistics Report number: 2014.TeL.7886
Title:
Food waste reduction in the food supply chain
through increased traceability of insect based
products.
Author: L.C.A. Sturm
Title (in Dutch): Mindering van voedsel afval door de toegenomen traceerbaarheid van insecten producten.
Assignment: Literature Assignment Confidential: no
Initiator (university): dr. W.W.A. Beelaerts van Blokland Initiator (company): ----
Supervisor: dr. W.W.A. Beelaerts van Blokland Date: Sep 14 2014
2
3
Summary:
High percentages of food waste within the current food supply chain are one of the major contributors of the unsustainability of this system. In order to increase the sustainability of the food supply chain and increase its food delivery, improvements in waste management are required.
One potential new technology that can reduce food waste are insect based processes. Within these processes waste streams are converted to insect based products which can be used as a component in feed and food products. The quality of the different insect products is closely related to the quality of the waste stream used within the insect based process. Therefore there is a large variety of quality within insect products because insect based processes can convert a large variety of waste stream. The quality differences of insect based products is of particular concern for food safety of the application of these products. In order to guarantee the correct use of lower quality insect products, food traceability is required to be able to determine these quality differences. Current methods of food tracing are not able to determine this quality difference. Therefore currently all use of waste streams to produce insect products is prohibited.
A framework of testing is presented in order to improve the traceability of processed animal protein. This framework uses a combination of identification technologies that enables the species specific identification of animal origins of the different protein products. The species specific identification of animal origin of processed animal protein products is able to determine which specific insect species is used.
The quality of insect product can thereafter be determined by restricting specific insect species to be only used in the processing of certain waste streams. This restriction in use of insect species couples the quality of the product directly to these specific insect species. Through this coupling of quality and insect species, the framework of testing is able to determine the quality of insect product used. The application of the framework of testing in combination with the limitation in use of specific insect species in able to increase the traceability of insect species. Allowing waste streams to be safely used as resources in insect based processes. Therefore the full potential of insect based processes to reduce waste within the food supply chain can be used.
4
Contents
Summary: ... 3
List of Abbreviations, Figures and Tables ... 5
Introduction: ... 6
Chapter 2: Method ... 7
Chapter 3: Analysis ... 7
Paragraph 3.1: The need for waste reduction... 8
Paragraph 3.2: Insect based processes ... 10
Paragraph 3.3: food waste within the FSC and waste streams ... 13
Paragraph 3.4: Insect based products and concerns on food safety ... 18
Paragraph 3.5: current food traceability of processed animal protein ... 21
Paragraph: 3.6: new traceability techniques for insect PAPs... 23
Paragraph: 3.7: framework to improve traceability of IBPs ... 25
Chapter 4: Conclusion ... 28
5
List of Abbreviations, Figures and Tables:
Abbreviations:
BSE: Boviene Spongiforme Encefalopathie FSC: Food Supply Chain
IBP: Insect Based Proces MBM: Meat and Bone Meal NIRS: Near InfraRed Spectroscopy PAP: Protein Animal Protein PCR: Polymerase Chain Reaction
WRAP: Waste & Resource Action Program
Figures:
Figure 1: General process of insect based processes
Figure 2: Food waste within the food supply chain (Source: Parfitt et al., 2010) Figure 3: xxxx
Figure 4: Framework of testing to allow for inter-species recycling of protein products (Source: Fumière et al., 2009)
Figure 5: Representation of the coupling of waste streams with specific insect species Figure 6: Adapted framework of testing to allow for the safe use of insect products
Tables:
Table 1: Waste streams in manufacturing stage (Source: WRAP, 2010) Table 2: Waste streams in distribution and retail stage (Source: WRAP, 2010) Table 3: Waste streams in households (Source: WRAP, 2010)
Table 4: Hypothetical restriction in combinations of waste stream and final application Table 5: Restrictions in use of processed animal products in compound feed products
6
Introduction:
The world’s food production is expected to require a doubling by 2050 due to an increase in human population. This increase in food production will further increase the environmental impact of the current agricultural sector. Therefore efforts are being made to increase the sustainability of the current food supply chain. One of the major problems in current supply chain is the large amount of food waste within this system. In order to reduce the environmental impact of the food supply chain and to increase the food deliver improvements in waste management are required. Apart from waste reduction there is also a desire to further improve the waste recycling process.
A new innovative technology that can reduce waste within the food supply chain are insect based processes. Much like the natural role of insects, insect based processes are well equipped to process food wastes. Insect based processes are able to process a large variety of different waste streams into products that can have a number of different applications. However this new technology is still in the development phase and a number of obstacles must still be overcome. Further developments in automation, food safety and process optimization are still required to allow for technology to be used to reduce waste within the food supply chain.
Ensuring the food safety of insect products is one of the major obstacles in the development of insect based processes. Increasing the traceability of insect products is key in ensuring food safety. The quality of insect products is highly depended on the quality of the waste stream used within the process. Therefore insect products can have a large variety of product quality originating from the waste stream quality used. Because of these differences in product quality the traceability of insect products must be able to identify these differences to ensure the safe application of different insect products. However with limited traceability food safety cannot be guaranteed and therefore the use of waste streams in insect based process cannot be allowed.
In this report the current traceability of insect products is analyzed. Furthermore the limitations in current traceability methods are explored. Finally this report explores possibilities to improve the traceability of insect products. These improvements are key in unlocking the full potential of insect based processes to reduce food waste within the food supply chain. Thereby this report tries to answer the following research question:
How can the traceability of insect based products be improved in order enable the new technology to reduce food waste within the food supply chain?
7
Chapter 2: Method
In order to answer the research question this report presents a literature review. The literature review is structured in a concept centered approach using the technique as presented by Webster and Watson (2002).
The first concepts which is analyzed is the future perspective of the food demand and the need for sustainable changes to the world’s food production system. Through this analysis the importance of more sustainable solutions becomes apparent. Additionally the need to reduce waste within this system is explained.
The next paragraph is an analysis of insect based processes. The potential of insect based processes to reduce waste are further explained. Additionally the requirements of the waste stream to be able to be processed by this technique are put forward.
The third concept which is examined are the food losses arising from the food supply chain. The extent of the food losses become evident by analyzing the food supply chain. Furthermore the different types of waste streams that can be processed by insect based processes are determined. Additionally the quality differences of these waste streams are uncovered.
The fourth paragraph is an examination of the products which are produced by the insect based processes. Through this analysis the quality demands of different possible applications of insect based products are determined. Additionally the need for traceability of insect based products to guarantee food safety is explained.
The fifth concept which is analyzed are the methods and techniques currently in the tracing of animal protein products. The limitations of current techniques in traceability are hereby uncovered. Additionally through this analysis the desire to allow for inter-species recycling becomes apparent. The sixth paragraph is an analysis of possible new techniques to improve the traceability of animal protein products. The limitations of these new techniques to determine the specific animal origins of animal protein products are hereby uncovered. Additionally a framework of testing that uses a combinations of identification techniques is analyzed. The ability of this framework to allow for inter-species recycling of conventional protein products is hereby explained.
The final paragraph presents a proposal for a method of testing that is able to improve the traceability of insect based processes. This method of testing uses a combination of restricted use of specific insect species and a framework of testing that is able to determine specific animal origins. Through the use of this testing method the safe application of different quality insect products is guaranteed. This enables insect based processes to use a wide range of waste streams. Thereby unlocking the full potential of insect based processes to reduce food waste within the food supply chain.
8
Chapter 3: Analysis
Paragraph 3.1: The need for waste reduction
In order to understand the need for changes in the current food supply chain and the potential of insect based processes the agricultural sector is analyzed next. Therefore the future perspective of the agricultural sector is analyzed. Secondly the need for better waste management to improve the sustainability of the sector is explored.
The world’s human population has seen an explosive growth in the last 60 years from an initial estimated 2.5 billion people in 1950 to an estimated 6.9 billion in 2010.1 This explosive population growth has been made possible by an equally explosive growth in food production. This ‘green
revolution’ in food production was made possible by increased use of fertilizers and pesticides, the
development of higher yielding crop strains, the mechanization of the industry and increased usage of arable land. (Foley, 2011) (Galloway, 1998)
Predictions concerning the world’s human population in 2050 range from an estimated 8.3 to 10.8 billion people with a medium prediction of 9.5 billion people by the year 2050.1 In addition to the predicted 2.6 billion additional people to feed, the food intake per capita is predicted to increase as well. The food intake per capita is predicted to increase because of rising income in developing countries, increased urbanization and changes in consumer attitude and behavior in food consumption. (Kearney, 2010) (Cirera & Masset, 2010) Food production is therefore estimated to require an additional overall increase of 70% and an estimated doubling in developing countries by the year 2050. (Bruinsma, 2009)
According to researchers this required increase in food production can be achieved by further use of previously mentioned methods and a 20% increase of used arable lands. (Bruinsma, 2009) (Neumann, 2010) (Tester, 2010) While conventional productivity intensification and additional development of arable lands are able to provide the necessary increase in food production, doing so will have increased negative effects on the environment. Presently food production is responsible for an estimated 22% to 35% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions can largely be contributed to deforestation, methane releases from livestock and nitrous oxide releases from fertilized soils. Future emissions are expected to rise even further by more extensive use of conventional production intensification techniques. (Foley, 2011) (McMicheal, 2007) (Koneswaran, 2008) Moreover further development of arable lands will result in increased deforestation and irreversible losses in biodiversity which threatens the natural sustainability for all forms of life. (Hooper et al., 2005) (Gibbs et al., 2010) Likewise increased use of fertilizers causes the leaching of nitrogen and phosphorus to surrounding ecosystems which has detrimental effects on these surrounding ecosystems. Furthermore added usage of irrigation will cause accelerated declining water tables in addition to increased water pollution. (Galloway, 1998)
The use of the conventional approach will therefore be insufficient in meeting the world’s future food security and also reducing agriculture’s environmental harm. However a proposed combination of four strategies is able to meet both the goal of acquiring future food security while simultaneously minimizing the environmental impact of agriculture. (Foley, 2011)
1http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm
9
The first of these four strategies is to stop the expansion of agriculture as the increases in food production from these new lands are limited while the negative effects on the environment due to deforestation and lose of biodiversity are immense. The negative impact on the global crop production can be offset by further improvements of other parts in the food production system. (West et al., 2012) The second strategy that needs to be implemented is to close the existing yield caps. With the correct use of existing crop varieties and improved management it is possible to bring crop yields closer to their potential yield. If yields of existing arable lands are improved to within 95% of their potential yield, an increase of 58% food production can be achieved. (Neumann, 2010)
The third strategy that will need to be applied is to increase the agricultural resource efficiency. Presently there are ‘hotspots’ of low nutrient use and large volumes of excess nutrients in other lands. If policies and management of these regions improve the balance between yields and environment by reducing excessive fertilizer use, improving manure management and recycling excess nutrients it is possible to maintain the benefits of intensive agriculture while reducing the environmental burden. (Foley, 2010)
The last of the four required strategies is to increase food delivery by shifting diets and reducing food waste.
First of all a large part of the food production system is allocated towards the inefficient production of livestock. For example an estimated 33% of the total caloric production of crops in Europe is allocated as feed for livestock. Approximately only 43% of these caloric production is returned as food fit for human use while the rest is lost as manure or as heat. (Kummu, 2012) Because of the economic and cultural aspects of meat production and consumption is will be hard to change this demand. However if just a small reduction in this demand can be achieved, it will have major influences on the overall availability of food. (Foley, 2011)
Secondly it is estimated that currently one third of all food which is produced is wasted and is never consumed. These food wastes take place along the entire Food Supply Chain (FSC) and are often hard to reduce or eliminate entirely. Many of the food waste streams are discarded from the food supply chain entirely and are incinerated to retrieve some residual (electric) energy. In order to mitigate the food losses, more waste streams should be recycled within the food supply chain itself and used as a resource for food production. Furthermore efforts need to be made to reduce food waste itself. The implementation of these four strategies demands a wide range of management and policy changes in addition to the development and applications of new technologies.
One of these promising new technologies is the development of insect based processes. Insect based processes (IBP) can be one of a number of solutions to increase the efficiency and sustainability of the food supply system. IBPs have a number of properties that make them interesting candidates to recycle food waste from the FSC and to produce high value protein and fat products. These protein and fat products can subsequently be fed to livestock or even humans and thereby reduce demand of conventional feedstock or food. However this technology is still in its infancy and a number of issues will have to be resolves before IBPs can be implemented to reduce food waste within the FSC. One of these issues is a lack of traceability of insect products.
10
Paragraph 3.2: Insect based processes
The processes of rearing insects is analyzed to provide an understanding of insect based processes and its ability to reduce food waste. First the benefits of insect as a livestock are determined to clarify its ability to reduce food waste and its potential in process development. Second the general functional process of insect rearing is analyzed in more detail to provide a clear view of the process itself. Finally the minimum requirement for a waste stream to be used as feedstuff are determined.
Benefits of insects as a livestock
Insects have a number of properties which make them interesting candidates for the production of food for animals or humans and for the reduction of waste streams of different origins.
First of all insects have a high food conversion rate in comparison with conventional livestock. This is because they are cold blooded and therefore do not spend energy on controlling and maintaining their body temperature. When compared to beef, pork and chicken the food conversion rate of insects are higher and insects have a greater percentage of edible parts when compared to conventional livestock. (Ooninck & De Boer, 2012) (De Vries & De Boer, 2010)
Secondly insects have high fecundity or offspring rates, high growth rates and short life cycles. This makes insects able to quickly convert food sources into their own body mass with limited land requirements. Additionally insects have less resource requirements for the production of the next generation of insects when compared to conventional livestock. Furthermore it enables the development of highly controlled, automated production processes with relatively short cycle times. (Sealey et al., 2011)
The third beneficial attribute of insects it their ability to be fed on a large variety of organic (waste) materials or streams. Because many insect species are omnivores, it is possible to feed and grow them on product streams like manure, grocery store and consumer waste streams and organic by-products of food production processes. Furthermore inedible parts like glass and plastics do not have to be removed from these waste streams as insects are able to selectively eat the organic parts of the streams and ignore the inedible parts. This enables insects based processes to first reduce waste and secondly to produce high grade products like animal protein. (Sealey et al., 2011)
Finally because there is a large variety of insect species, many of which are still undiscovered, there are almost infinite combinations of insect species, food resources, processes and products. This enables insect based processes to select the best suited insect species for different possible applications. (Erwin, 2004)
These properties of insects have in recent years spurred research in possibilities of rearing insects for their protein and fat content. In addition there are a number of pioneering companies that are developing large scale insect based processes. However there are still numerous hurdles that need to overcome in order for this industry to develop and become economical viable. Apart from technical challenges in rearing and automation there are a number of safety issues related to pathogens, heavy metals, and organic pollutants that still require further research. (Sánchez-Muros et al., 2014)
11
General process of insect rearing
In general the production or rearing of insects for their protein and fat content can be broken down into a number of functional steps as depicted in Figure 1. These steps are:
Feedstuff preparation: Intake, mixing and storage of feedstuff. (Waste stream)
Breeding: Management of adult colonies and the collection of eggs.
Incubate: Production of new adults for next colonies.
Production: Feeding and growth management of larvae.
Separate: Separation of larvae from excrements.
Processing: Cleaning/decontamination with possible mincing and separation of fats and proteins.
Storage: Storage of whole insects or processed components.
The general process revolves around the natural live cycle of insects. This process starts when colonies of adult insects lay enormous numbers of eggs within the breeding stage. In nature the majority of these eggs do not hatch into new adults but within IBP nearly all of the eggs hatch because of increased environmental control. In the production stage the young larvae thereafter experience an enormous growth by strict control of the climate and feedstuff input. The feedstuff used in the processes in prepared and controlled within the feedstuff preparation stage. Because just a small part of the fully grown larvae are needed for the production of the next generation of insects in the incubate stage, the rest of the larvae can be harvested. The harvested larvae are separated from their excrements and decontaminated in the separate stage.
The process can either produce whole decontaminated insects that can be fed to insect-eating livestock like chickens or the insects can be further processed within the processing stage. By mincing and further separation of the insects a fat product and a processed animal protein (PAP) product are produced. These two products can amongst other applications be used as an compound of feedstock or as an ingredient in products for human consumption. (Van Huis, 2013) (Oonincx & De Boer, 2012) The insects do not necessarily have to be harvested in the larvae stage but for most species this is the optimal moment as growth rates diminish after this live stage. (Sánchez-Muros et al., 2014)
12
The operational condition of climate and feedstuff control, the cycle times of the individual process steps and the overall process efficiency and effectiveness are highly depended on the species of insects used. This is because different insect species have different growth cycles and different optimum growth conditions. Apart for the selected insect species, the feedstuff used within the process has the highest degree of influence upon the operational conditions. This is because it greatly effects optimum feedstuff control and equipment and the growth grates of insects. Large scale IBP operations will therefore optimized and design their process around a combination of feedstuff input and used insect species. Consequently large scale operations will not be able to effectively switch either one without sever losses in production and process efficiencies. (Van Huis, 2013)
Minimum requirement of feedstuff for IBPs
There have been a large number of laboratory scale experiments with different combinations of feedstuff and insect species which have shown positive results for the possible development of IBPs for the production of animal fats and PAPs. In these experiments a wide range of different organic by-products and waste streams have successfully been used. These streams include: by-by-products of agricultural food processing, municipal organic waste streams, wastewater sludge and manure from different livestock. (El Boushy, 1991) (Diener et al., 2009) (Brar, et al., 2008) (Ocio & Vinaras, 1979)
These experiments have been focused on the biological feasibility of insects rearing on the different waste stream. A relative high protein content within the waste stream has been identified as the only biological requirement for the successful rearing of insects. However apart from the biological minimum requirements there are additional economic and process requirements.
In order for IBPs to be economically viable the processes requires a large scale of production with high levels of automation. Therefore the process requires large volume waste streams with year-round
availability. Additionally to reduce transportation cost an IBP facility requires a concentrated source of waste streams it is close vicinity.
From a technical point of view the waste stream are preferred to have a relative constant quality. Processes which use constant quality waste streams can be further optimized and can be controlled more cost effective. Additionally waste stream with high levels of organic material are preferred as this enables more space efficient processing. Furthermore IBPs are only able to be operated by using
one waste stream and cannot be setup to utilized different types of waste stream. This is because
13
Paragraph 3.3: food waste within the FSC and waste streams
The food waste in the Food Supply Chain is analyzed in a number of steps in order to identify possible waste streams which can be used in IBPs. Additionally by identifying the different waste streams and their characteristics, the quality difference of the possible insect feedstuff becomes apparent. The first step in the analysis is to examine the global food supply chain including the differences in food losses between developed and developing countries. Hereby identifying the needed solutions to reduce food waste. Secondly a more in-depth look is taken on the processing, distribution and consumption losses in developed countries by taking the UK as an example. Moreover the waste streams are identified that are suited for the use in IBPs and the quality differences between the different waste streams are determined.
Food waste in the global food supply chain
Food waste or food losses can have a number of different definitions. In this article food wastes and food losses are defined as losses in the production, postharvest, processing of products, and food waste as losses during distribution and consumption.This definitions therefore excludes food waste caused by overconsumption or the inefficient use of food as feedstuff for the breeding of livestock. Estimates regarding the overall food losses in the global FSC vary widely and range from 10 to 40% of the overall food production. The wide variation in estimates can be explained because of information gaps and uncertainties of the different losses. (Parfitt et al. 2010) Food losses and wastes take place on the entire length on the food supply chain because of different reasons. The food losses along the global FSC can be roughly divided in 5 steps:
Agricultural losses: losses due to damage and spillage during harvest and crop sorting.
Postharvest losses: losses due to storage and transportation between farm and distribution.
Processing losses: losses due to industrial processes.
Distribution losses: losses due to unsold products and transportation in the market system.
Consumption losses: losses due to degrading of food products
14
In Figure 2 the relative size of the different losses in the European Union and Africa in the FSC are illustrated. These two regions are very different and therefore their supply chains have different characteristics.
Developing countries generally use simple agricultural and storage technologies and have relative short supply chains which are poorly integrated. Additionally these regions use limited post-harvest infrastructures and technologies. Furthermore these regions are urbanized to a lesser extent and have a diet with fewer perishable products.
Developed countries generally have access to sophisticated harvesting and storage technologies and have highly integrated supply chains with wholesalers and supermarkets. Additionally these countries have more secondary processing of foods and have better infrastructure. Furthermore developed countries have high levels of urbanization and have a wide ranging diet with many perishable goods. When you compare the losses of the two regions the most notable difference between them are the losses at a consumer level. In the European Union over 50% of all food waste is produced at the consumer level while in Africa only 5% of food is wasted at this level. This difference can be explained because of the relative low economic importance of food in Europe when compared to Africa.
The European losses at the postharvest and the distribution steps are relatively small with 10% each because of sophisticated infrastructure and storage techniques. With 37% and 15% respectively these losses in developing countries are relatively high because of a lack of these same technologies. The lack of more advance technologies is also able to explain the difference in losses at an agricultural level. While European countries have access to more sophisticated harvesting techniques, developing countries do not. Therefore the relative losses at this level are high in developing countries with 40%. The losses in the European Union at the agricultural stage are also high with a relative 25% of all food losses. This can be explained by high standards in crop sorting and overproduction of certain crops caused by low cooperation among farmers.
In absolute terms the food waste in Western Europe is estimated to be 200*109 Kcal/year which is 29% of the total food production. The African region has yearly food losses which is ‘only’ 140*109 Kcal/year which is 21% of the total food production. These numbers are debatable however because of a lack of scientific data and large extrapolations. The number do however provide an understanding of the level of waste which is generated within the two FSCs. (Kummu, 2012)
Because food waste in the two regions has different causes, the solutions for waste reduction are also different. Within the African region most of the food losses are caused by a lack of technology in storage and harvesting and because of a lack of reliable infrastructure. Therefore this region is best served by further introduction of these existing technologies and the development of reliable infrastructure. (Hodges et al., 2010)
Within the European FSC most losses occur at a consumer level. In order to reduce these losses consumer education campaigns and private and public sector partnerships in sharing the responsibility for loss reduction should be implemented. In addition the recycling of these waste streams should be encouraged. (Kummu, 2012) (Hodges et al., 2010)
In order to identify possible waste stream available for IBPs are more detailed analysis on food waste in the European FSC is provided in the next section.
15
Food waste in the European food supply chain and available waste streams for IBPs
One of the most extensive waste management research programs is the Waste & Resource Action Program (WRAP) in the UK. This wide-ranging program aims to reduce all post-agricultural food losses within the UK. In order to do so WRAP has performed extensive research on all types of food waste generated in the post-agricultural FSC and provides solutions to a wide range of waste management problems. For that reason the most all-encompassing data on food waste is available for the UK when compared to data on other European countries. Other European nations have similar FSCs to the UK in terms of technology, consumer attitude and supply chain integration. Therefore the food waste in the British FSC is taken as a basis in analyzing the food losses of the entire European Union. However because of regional differences within the European Union, extrapolating this data to account for the food waste in the whole European region is not possible. However it does provide the best source of information on the topic of food waste within the European region. (WRAP, 2010)
The post-agricultural FSC has four main stages in which food losses occur. These stages and the absolute food losses generated within the UK are depicted in Figure 3. In addition one other stage of institutional and restaurant waste is added as this stage generates an additional waste stream. This additional waste stream could be used as a feedstuff for IBPs and is different from general household waste.
Vistotje nog in te voeren
The waste generated within each category can be further split down into different types of waste streams. Waste generated within the manufacturing stage are depicted in Table 1. The 3 waste streams generated in the manufacturing stage are food, packaging and mixed waste. Apart from these waste there is an additional 2.2 million tons of by-products generated which are sent to animal feed each year. The different waste streams produced are disposed with in a number of different ways. The first of which is recycling or composting in which the resources are reused in such a way as to fit their initial function again. For example food waste is composted to produce natural fertilizer which can be reused in the agricultural production step of the FSC. The second way of waste disposal is recovery in which the waste is used to generate a resource which is not part of its initial function. An example of this is the incineration of waste to produce electric power. The final way of waste disposal is to pile the waste in a landfill.
Waste stream Recycle/compost Recovery Landfill Not specified Total Food waste 1129 1352 110 0 2591 Packaging waste 264 93 50 0 406 Mixed waste 42 59 476 0 577 Other 0 0 0 1442 1442 Total 1435 1504 635 1442 5016
Table 1: waste streams in manufacturing stage (Source: WRAP, 2010)
The way in which the food waste streams currently are disposed of could be improved by using IBP. Because insects are omnivores and are able to selectively eat only organic materials within a mixed waste stream, it enables the improved reuse of more waste streams. Additionally IBP produce a higher grade product than can be generated from composting or recovering food waste. Therefore the waste streams that are generated from the manufacturing stage can be potentially used as source of feedstuff in IBPs. In addition the quality of the food waste which is generated within this stage is of relative high standards because this food was initially produced to fit human consumption. Furthermore the food waste streams can be easily managed to ensure that no contaminations of for
16
instance heavy metals or medicines is added to the waste streams. In addition the different food waste streams have a limited amount of ingredients as the waste is generated by a single primary source. There is however a large variety of food waste and not all waste streams have to potential to be used. The next two stages within the FSC are the distribution and retail stage. Because of the relative low amounts of waste generated within these two stage their data is combined as depicted in Table 2. The waste streams from these stages have been split into three streams similar to the waste streams in the manufacturing stage. The waste stream is split into food, packaging and general waste. Again these waste streams are either recycled, recovered or pilled upon a landfill.
Waste stream Landfill/other disposal
Recycled Recovered Total
Food waste 234 0 131 366 Packaging waste 120 1011 0 1132 General waste 65 0 0 65 Total 420 1011 131 1562
Table 2: waste streams in distribution and retail stage (Source: WRAP, 2010)
Currently approximately two third of the food waste is disposed of by moving it to a landfill. The other third is incinerated to generated electric energy. IBPs generated a higher grade products when compared to these two methods of disposal. Therefore IBPs have to potential to improve the way in which these two streams are disposed. The food waste generated within these two stage was initially fit for human consumption. The food has either been damaged, gone bad or passed its sell-by-date and therefore cannot be sold any more. Therefore the food waste generated within these two stages is of relative high quality without contaminations like heavy metals or medicines. However the quality of the food waste is lower than the food waste generated within the manufacturing stage as most of the waste has passed its sell-by-date. Therefore the food waste has a higher amount of pathogens when compared to manufacturing waste. Additionally the waste stream is a mix of all products sold and is likely to contain animal products. The waste streams generated within these two stage do however have to potential to be used as a source of feedstuff in IBPs.
The food and drink waste which is generated by households is not split into different categories within this study as depicted in Table 3. The food and drink waste are disposed of by either collection by local authorities, through sewers or by home composting or fed to animals.
Local authority collected Sewer Home composting or fed to animals Total
5800 1800 690 8290
Table 3: waste streams in households (Source: WRAP, 2010)
The food waste collected by local authorities is by far the biggest way of disposal of food waste within this stage. In order for this waste streams to be able to be used as a source of feedstuff in IBPs the food waste has to be collected separately from other domestic waste streams. Further studies based on waste collection trials performed by WRAP have indicated that around 59% of food waste can be successfully collected separately. (WRAP, 2009) Garden waste and other organic non-edible materials should be collected separately from food waste to provide a source of feedstuff for IBPs. The exclusive collection of food waste has been successively tested within this trial and therefore this waste stream can be a potential feedstuff for IBPs. (WRAP, 2009) The quality of this waste streams is relatively low when compared to other more controlled waste streams. First of all the waste streams is a mix of all food produces and can therefore contain animal products. Secondly the waste streams could be mixed
17
non-food products that contain contaminations like heavy metals and medicine. Additionally the separate collection of food waste from other domestic waste streams is relatively expensive and provides the lowest quality waste stream. Therefore the waste stream is technically able to be used for IBPs but further research is required on the economic viability on its use.
Household are not the only final producers of food waste. The hospitality and institutional sector are other important final consumers of food products and producers of food waste. This other group of consumers produces an estimated 2.8 million tons of additional food waste. The quality of this waste stream is of similar quality as household waste but has a higher level of controllability. If managed correctly the contaminations with other waste streams can be avoided. If done so this waste stream can be protected from contaminations like heavy metals and medicine. In addition the collection of the separate food waste can be performed more easily and cheaply. Therefore food waste produces by the hospitality and institutional sector are other important possible waste streams to be used be IBPs.
Apart from the waste streams that are directly related to the FSC, there are two additional waste stream which could be used in IBPs. Manure from livestock and Sludge water from sewers can also be used as source of feedstuff for IBPs. These two additional waste streams are indirectly linked to the FSC.
Excess manure from livestock has been a problem in The Netherlands for many years. Especially the processing of manure from cows and pigs is expensive and problematic because of its high water content. Because of changes in legislation this problem is expected to increase in coming years. It is estimated that the manure processing capacity by 2020 is short by a capacity of 9 million kilograms of phosphate. (PDL, 2013)
Manure has already been successfully used as a feedstuff in IBPs. Therefore IBPs are a possible new technique for the processing of manure. However the quality of manure as a feedstuff for IBPs is low when compared to the previously mentioned waste streams. Manure has high count of pathogens and might contain traces of medicine. In order to operate effectively manure from a number of farms will have to be combined to provide a large enough waste stream. (El Boushy, 1991)
Sludge water from sewer water treatments facilities is another possible waste stream which can be
used in IBPs. Currently this waste stream is recovered by using a gasification process in which electric energy is generated. Using sludge water from IBPs has already been successfully tested and produces higher grade products and therefore might be more economical. (Brar et al., 2008) Sludge water is the lowest quality waste stream possible. Apart from high count of pathogens, the waste stream also contains traces of heavy metals, medicine and other contaminations.
By analyzing the food supply chain a number of different waste streams directly or indirectly related to the FSC have been identified. Furthermore the quality differences of the waste streams have been identified.
18
Paragraph 3.4: Insect based products and concerns on food safety
The insect based products that are produced can have a number of different application with different demands on product quality and on food safety. The concerns on food safety of insect based products are therefore analyzed next. First the different possible applications of insect based products and their different quality demands are analyzed. Secondly by analyzing the quality difference of the insect based products and its effects on food safety, possible restrictions in use are identified. Finally by determining the restrictions in use, the required increase of food traceability becomes apparent.
Insect based products
The 3 main products of IBP are whole insects, the fat component and PAPs. These products can be used for a number of different applications. (Sánchez-Muros et al., 2014) (Van Huis, 2013) (Ocio, 1979) (Manzano-Agugliaro, 2012) (Parker, 2005) Whole insects can be used to feed insect-eating livestock like poultry and fish. Additionally whole insects can be fed to insect eating pets. However further applications of this product is limited.
Possible application of whole insects: Feedstock for poultry and fish
Pet food
The other two products have a far wider range of possible applications. Firstly the fat and protein component can be used as a component or additive in feedstock for livestock. This is the most promising and most feasible application of insect based products. Secondly the two products can be used as a component or additive in pet food and replace expensive fishmeal. Thirdly the two products can be used as an additive in food product fit for human consumption. Some of these products have already made their way to the market.2 Fourthly the fat component can be used as a source of biofuel. In comparison with other types of biofuels, insect based biofuels have the advantage of not competing with food production. The final application of the fat and protein component are other non-food
related applications. Especially the protein component has possible applications in non-food related
products.
Possible application of fat and protein components:
Feedstock for livestock
Pet food
Human consumption
Biofuel
Other non-food related applications
Similar to other feed and food products, insect based products have to oblige to food safety regulations. These demands of food safety are different for the different possible applications. The food safety regulations for human consumption are the sternest and include strict bans on the certain contaminations. For instance any traces of heavy metals or medicines results in a ban of the food product. The next to sternest food safety regulations concern the use as a feedstock for the feeding of livestock. These food safety regulations currently include the strict ban of any PAP presents in the feedstock. Additionally there are strict regulations on the amount of pathogens and trace elements that are allowed within the feedstock. Non-food application do not have demands on food safety but do have products regulations that are specific for their applications. Therefore the different
19
applications of insect based products have different quality constrains and these quality differences of the insect based products needs to be identifiable in order for the safe use these products.
Quality differences of insect based products
In order to identify the differences in the quality of insect products, the implications of the use of different waste streams is analyzed in greater detail.
The rearing of insects harbors a number of risks concerning food safety by the nature of the production process itself. Within this process insects are bred and fed in the same containers in which the insects expel their excrements. In the final stages of the process the fully-grown larvae are separated from the remaining feed and excrements by a number of process steps. Because of the scaly texture of insects some of the feed and excrements cannot be separated and is carried over with the ‘clean’ insects. In addition to the pollution that is carried on the surface of the insects, the fully grown insects also carry a mixture of feed and excrements in their intestinal organs. The ‘clean’ larvae can technically be degutted to reduce the amount of pollution but this is economically not viable. The final product will therefore contain trace elements of the feed and excrements.
The pollution in the intestinal organs and on the skin of the larvae is of particular concern to food safety. Most of the pathogens carried by larvae are located within this pollution. In addition if insects are fed on organic waste stream that contain animal protein, some of these foreign proteins are carried by over the pollution in the intestines and skin. Heavy metals and trace medicines within the waste stream are also carried over in the final product in the same way. The amount of these contaminations with in the final product is therefore intimately related to the quality and origin of the feedstock used. (Parker, 2005)
In order to reduce the bacterial load of the final product of insect based processes, a drying and additional decontamination step is needed. This final decontamination step needs further improvement as until now it did not entirely inactivated bacterial spores. The type and amount of pathogens in the final product is therefore related to the waste stream used. An example of this is the relatively high presents of E. coli bacteria in insects which were fed on rudiment manure. (Liu et al., 2008) Nevertheless new experimental decontaminations techniques have been shown to completely remove pathogens from insect products. (Klunder et al., 2012) However these techniques still need further development in order for insects with high pathogen counts to be decontaminated completely. Traces of medicines, heavy metals and foreign animal protein cannot be removed from the final product by a decontamination step. Therefore the future quality of the final product and its possible applications is closely linked to the primary quality and nature of the feedstock or waste stream used. (Rumpold & Schlüter, 2013)
The difference in quality of the insect based products will limit lower quality products to be used by all possible applications. For instance insects which contain relative high amounts of heavy metals cannot be used for food purposses. However these products can still potentially be used as a source of biofuel or other non-food related products.
The determination of the differences in quality of the insect based products requires more research. Moreover the level of contamination presents resulting from the specific used waste stream have yet to be determined in greater detail. When the relation between waste stream used and insect based products is determined, the restrictions in the different products applications can be set according the presents of contaminations originating from the waste stream.
20
This link between waste stream and possible applications needs further research but a resulting set of restrictions will restrict and allow certain combinations of waste stream and final application. Such a future restriction in waste stream and final application combination is depicted in Table 4 including hypothetical restrictions between waste stream and final application combinations.
human cons.
petfood feedstock non-food appli. bio-fuel By products Industry waste hospitality waste municiple waste manure sludgewater
Table 4: Hypothetical restriction in combinations of waste stream and final application
Necessity of increased traceability of insect based products
The restrictions in combinations of used waste stream and final applications of insect based products is of concern in ensuring food safety. Because different quality product have different allowed applications there is a difference in economic value of insect based products. This difference in economic value makes the products susceptible for fraud. The possible use of low level products for high value applications is of concern for food safety. The best defense in combating food fraud is the improved traceability of food products throughout the production process. (Liu et al., 2010)
In order to ensure the traceability of food products the origins of the insect products need to be easily determinable. By determining the insect’s origin, the product quality can be determined and the safety of the intended application can be check. However because the insect based products are used as processed ingredient in food and feed applications this traceability is hard to accomplish. With limited traceability techniques the origins of the insect products cannot be determined and therefore the safety of the food products cannot be guaranteed. Consequently with limited insect food traceability and the possibility of fraud with insect products, the food safety of all insect based products is at risk. If the appropriate used of waste stream and product applications combination cannot be checked, the use of any waste stream for the rearing of insects is likely to be banned.
This is similar to the EU wide ban of meat and bone meal (MBM) products as a compound in feedstock. While just a number of product and product application combinations are not allowed from a food safety perspective, all used is prohibited. This is because the current level of traceability is not able to check if the combination of specific MBM product and intended application is allowable or not. Because the allowability cannot be checked, all use is prohibited in order to ensure food safety. (Regattieri et al., 2007)
Improved traceability is therefore key in unlocking the full potential of IBP as technology in waste reduction. Without improved traceability the rearing of insects is only allowed on high quality waste streams like by-products of industrial processes. Only high quality waste streams can be allowed to be used in order to ensure food safety. The lower quality waste streams cannot be allowed to be used as resource in insect rearing because of the risk of food fraud. By not allowing all potential waste streams to be used in IBPs, the potential of IBP of reducing waste streams and producing high value insect based products is reduced.
21
Paragraph 3.5: current food traceability of processed animal protein
The current traceability methods and its limitations for the detection of processed animal protein are explored in this paragraph. First the importance of food traceability of PAPs in compound food is explored. Secondly the current traceability technique is evaluated and its limitations are explored. Thirdly the desire for improved traceability methods is explained and requirements for new techniques are determined.
In recent years there have been a number of incidents affecting food safety concerning the use of animal compound feed. The most noticeably of these was the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or BSE crisis in the mid-1990s. The BSE crisis was caused by the use of meat and bone meals (MBM) in animal compound feed. These MBMs are made from processed sheep, cows, chickens and pigs. The consumption of products made from cows effected by this neuron-degenerative disease is the source of the deadly Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.
Research has since then shown that the source of the disease is the use of specific parts of cattle itself in MBM products. The source of the disease has been traced back to the use of part of the cattle’s nervous system. These parts include the cattle brain, spinal cord, spinal ganglia and distal ileum. (Wells et al., 1998) The removal of these specific risk materials from MBMs in not possible in commercial conditions as removal is simply too expensive. Therefore in order to guarantee food safety intra-species recycling of cattle products is prohibited. (Prusiner, 1997) Fearing the rise of similar diseases in other livestock all other intra-species recycling has been permanently banned as well. (Liu, et al. 2010)
These limitations in the use of PAPs requires the ability to determine the composition of the different compound feed products. Traceability of PAPs is therefore key in guaranteeing their safe use as a component in feed products. Currently the only reliable and readily available identification method for the determination of PAP products is visual inspection with an optical microscope. This technique can also be used to identify the presents of insect PAP in feed products.
The use of this method in the tracing of PAPs has one major disadvantage as this identification method is unable to distinguish between the animal origins of different MBM products. Optical microscope identification can only qualitatively identify the presents of either terrestrial MBM products or aquatic MBM products in compound feedstock. Therefore this method is unable to determine if no intra-species recycling takes place when MBMs are used in compound food.
In order to guarantee food safety the European Union therefore currently bans all use of MBM products of all terrestrial animals, including insects. The use of MBM products for pet food and animals bred for products other than food is allowed as this use does not present a direct food safety risk. The present EU bans and permissions of the use of MBM products and their use can be seen in Table 5.
22
The inter-species recycling ban has been set temporarily as currently no identification method can guarantee that no intra-species recycling can occur. With the aim of reducing food waste and to stop the destruction of valuable protein rich materials, the European Union has the intension to ultimately lift this inter-species MBM ban. In order to do so it is exploring new reliable identification methods which are able to distinguish between MBM products of different species origins and are therefore able to guarantee food safety of inter-species MBM product use.
Moreover this technique is unable to determine the quality difference of the different insect based PAPs. Therefore the current level of traceability of insect based PAPs is not sufficient in guaranteeing the safe use of lower quality insect products. Without improvements in this level of traceability, the use of these lower quality products cannot be permitted without jeopardizing food safety. The traceability of PAPs therefore needs to increase in order for the full potential of IBP in waste reduction to be unlocked.
.
Livestock
Materials Ruminant Pig Poultry Fish Pet animal
and fur Ruminant Permanently prohibited Temporary prohibited Temporary prohibited Temporary prohibited Permitted Pig Temporary prohibited Permanently prohibited Temporary prohibited Temporary prohibited Permitted Poutry Temporary prohibited Temporary prohibited Permanently prohibited Temporary prohibited Permitted Fish Temporary prohibited except for milk replacer of young ruminants
Permitted Permitted Permanently prohibited
Permitted
23
Paragraph: 3.6: new traceability techniques for insect PAPs
New techniques that are able to improve the traceability of PAPs are analyzed next. Firstly the most promising new techniques are identified and their strength and weaknesses are discussed. Thereafter a framework of testing that uses multiple methods is presented. This framework is able to increase the traceability of PAPs and allow for inter-species recycling.
Three new identification techniques have received particular interest by researchers as these techniques have shown promising primary results.
The first of these methods is the use of near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) which is able to distinguish different molecules on the basis of the absorption of light at selective wavelengths by different molecules. This technique has been shown to be able detect the presents of PAP products in compound feedstock with a rapid, non-destructive and easy-to-use testing procedure. The main drawbacks of this technique however are its inability to differentiate between different species origins and a high limit of detection, which is higher than 1 %. The limit of detection is defined as the percentage of PAP product in feedstock required for the accurate identification of its presents. (Chen et al., 2013) (Fumiere et al., 2009)
The second promising new identification method is based on the detection of immunoassays of PAP products. This identification technique can either be used within a laboratory setup or by applying commercially available ‘dipsticks’. These ‘dipsticks’ can qualitatively identify the presents of PAP products in feedstock. The advantages of the use of ‘dipsticks’ to test for the presents of PAP products in feedstock are its ease-of-use, low-costs and testing speed. The commercially available ‘dipstick’ tests can easily be used as a screening tool to qualitatively identify the presents of PAP products. Furthermore it is able to differentiate between some but not all species origins. The main drawback of this type of test is it inability to determine PAP product quantities in feedstock and its inability to differentiate between all species. Furthermore the dipstick test is not 100% accurate and some false positive results have been reported. The dipstick test can however still be uses as a quick and easy-to-use preliminary screening test that can determine the presents of PAP products in feedstock. Thereby is it able to quickly identify feedstock that requires further testing using more powerful testing methods.(Fumière et al., 2009) (Fumière et al., 2010)
The final promising new technique is based on the detection of animal specific DNA using a Polymerase
Chain Reaction (PCR). This method requires the extraction of nucleic acids which are still present in the
feed sample. Within these samples certain well-defined strains of DNA are multiplied several million times to make them detectable. The well-defined strains of DNA are species specific and therefore this technique is not only able to identify the presents of PAP products and its quantities within feedstock, but is also able to determine the specific species of animal of the PAP product used. Furthermore research has shown that this technique can reach a sufficient limit of detection. Additionally it is able to identify PAP presents even when these products have been highly processed by decontamination or dehydration process steps. The main drawbacks of this methods are its limited speed of testing and costs. In addition the PCR method is unable to differentiate between the specific sources of the detected animal DNA when multiple PAP compounds are used. The addition of animal fats, milk and eggs in compound feedstock, which is allowed but rare as these products are far more expensive, can therefore give false positives when using the PCR method. (Fumière et al., 2009) (Fumière et al., 2010) These three new methods of detection in addition to the currently used method all have their own limitations. Because of these limitations not a single method is able to deliver the required increase in traceability. Therefore these techniques are unable to allow for the safe use of PAP and allow for inter-species recycling of protein.
24
O. Fumière has suggested a framework of testing that uses a combination of the new techniques which is able to allow for inter-species recycling. By using a combination of testing methods this framework is able to reach the required level of traceability. (Fumière et al., 2010) The framework as presented by O. Fumière is depicted in Figure 4.
Within the framework first a preliminary screening test is used to identify if any PAP is present within the compound feedstuff. If no PAPs are detected than the feedstuff is safe to use. However if the presents of PAP is detected than further testing is required. By using this preliminary screening test most of the testing is performed with a cheap and easy-to-use method. Furthermore additional testing is required only when the presents of PAPs is detected. Thereby ensuring that the bulk of the compound feedstuff does not require more elaborate testing procedures.
If the presents of PAPs detected a second test is performed to determine which specific animal DNA is present in the compound feed. This second test can either use the PCR or immunology method of testing. If no DNA is found the compound feedstuff will require investigations to determine the origins of the PAP ingredients that has been detected by the preliminary test. A third and final test is required to determine the food safety of the feed if both DNA and PAP are identified by the second test. The third and final test is a combined method that uses both the NIRS and PCR test methods. In this final test the quantity of the present PAPs is determined. This last test is the most time consuming of the three. Because this test is used last within the framework the overall speed and ease of the test framework is least effected.
The food safety of PAP-use can be guaranteed by using this combinations of test methods since this framework enables the determinations of specific animal origins. The determination of specific animal origins is key in assuring that no intra-species recycling takes place.
25
Paragraph: 3.7: framework to improve traceability of IBPs
The framework of testing of conventional PAP presents in compound feed can be used to also increase the traceability of insect products. A method of testing and controlling of insect products is proposed next that can increase the traceability of insect products.
Insect based products can have different qualities therefore it is important to be able to trace these quality differences. The quality differences of insect products are mainly depended on the waste stream used within the different IBPs. Therefore it is important to be able to determine which waste stream is used in the IBP and if the intended application of the insect products is therefore allowable. The framework for the testing of PAP presents in compound feed that is presented by O. Fumière is designed to allow for inter-species recycling of animal protein products. By using this framework in combination with new techniques of identification, this method of testing is able to secure the food safety of inter-species recycling. Thereby making it possible to lift the temporary bans on inter-species PAP use.
Within this framework the compound foods are first tested on the presents of animal protein using preliminary screening tools. These tools are cheap and easy-to-use and only when the presents of any animal protein is detected, more expensive and time-consuming further testing is applied. The further testing involves the PCR techniques which is able to determine which specific type of animal protein is present in the compound feed. The PCR technique is a technique based on the differences in animal DNA and is accurate in determining the specific animal origins of the PAP. This framework of testing is able to identify the specific animal protein used within the compound feed. By identifying the species of animal it is able to determine if the intended application is safe.
Insects are from a different class or kingdom of animals and therefore their DNA is different from other possible animal protein. Consequently the PCR technique is also able to determine the presents of insect protein in animal compound feed. Moreover because the PCR technique is able to differentiate between the different types of regular animal proteins, the technique is also likely to be able to differentiate between different insect species. (Fumière et al., 2010) This is because insects’ DNA profiles are more diverse from one another than conventional livestock’s DNA profiles are from one another.(Parker, 2005) The possibility of determining the specific insects species found in compound feed products is of particular interest for improving the traceability of insect products.
Additionally research has shown that there is a large variety of different insect species that can be used in IBPs and that even more species are still to be investigated. Because there is such a large amount of insect species that can be used it is possible to limit the application of some species without restraining further developments. The possibility to limit the use of certain insect species is of interest for improving the traceability of insect products.
26
The traceability of insect products can be increased by using both the species specific identification and the possibility to limit the use of specific insect species. By limiting specific insect species to be fed only by a particular waste stream it is possible to use the framework to improve the traceability of insect products.
The limited use of specific insect species and the application of the framework of testing to improve IBP traceability is depicted in Figure 5 above. Within this figure the different waste stream which arise from the FSC are separately used by different insect species in IBPs. The different waste streams are processed only by a specific insect species and these insect species are not allow to be fed on any other waste streams. By coupling the insect species to a particular waste stream the quality of the waste stream becomes traceable by identifying the insect species. The regulation and control of this necessary restriction in used insect species can easily be checked by on-site visits.
27
The insect based products that are produced by the different species and its use in compound feed can subsequently be identified by a slightly adapted framework of testing as primarily presented by O. Fumière. This adaptation is required because the framework has been set up for the traceability of conventional PAP products. This slightly adapted framework is depicted in Figure 6 below.
The adaptation to this framework, which is highlighted in yellow, only concerns the identification of the presents of insect based products. If insect based products are identified by using the PCR testing method and the near infrared spectroscopy, the specific species of insects needs to be determined. By determining the specific insect species it can thereafter easily be checked if the specific use of this insect product is allowed and therefore if the product is safe for the intended use. The combination of the restricted use of specific insect species and the adaption of the testing framework is able to determine the quality of the insect products used and is therefore able to secure the food safety of insect based products. The increased food traceability consequently is able to allow for the use of more waste streams to be used as feedstuff for insects. By allowing the use of more waste streams as a feedstuff for insects, the increased traceability enables this new industry to reduce waste in the FSC.
