Handbook of waste management and - WordPress.com · 2013-03-14 · Handbook of waste management and...

Handbook of waste management and co-product recovery in food processing

Related titles:

Environmentally-friendly food processing(ISBN-13: 978-1-85573-677-1; ISBN-10: 1-85573-677-2)With both regulation and consumer pressure increasing, the food industry needs to ensure that its production methods are sustainable and sensitive to environmental needs. This important collection reviews ways of analysing the impact of food processing operations on the environment, particularly life cycle assessment (LCA), and techniques for minimising that impact. The fi rst part of the book looks at the application of LCA to the key product areas in food processing. Part II then discusses best practice in such areas as controlling emissions, waste treatment, energy effi ciency and biobased food packaging.

Maximising the value of marine by-products(ISBN-13: 978-1-84569-013-7; ISBN-10: 1-84569-013-3)Overexploitation and declining fi sh stocks are creating an urgent need for better utilisation of seafood by-products. Currently a large proportion of the fi sh catch is wasted, even though marine by-products contain valuable protein and lipid fractions, vitamins, minerals and other bioactive com-pounds benefi cial to human health. Edited by a leading authority and bringing together key experts in the fi eld, this collection covers marine by-product characterisation, recovery, processing techniques, food and non-food applications, providing essential information for those involved in seafood by-product valorisation.

Details of these books and a complete list of Woodhead’s titles can be obtained by:

• visiting our web site at www.woodheadpublishing.com• contacting Customer Services (e-mail: sales@woodhead-publishing.

com; fax: +44 (0) 1223 893694; tel.: +44 (0) 1223 891358 ext. 130; address: Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Abington Hall, Abington, Cambridge CB21 6AH, England)

Handbook of waste management and

co-product recovery in food processing

Volume 1

Edited byKeith Waldron

Cambridge England

Published by Woodhead Publishing Limited, Abington Hall, AbingtonCambridge CB21 6AH, Englandwww.woodheadpublishing.com

Published in North America by CRC Press LLC, 6000 Broken Sound Parkway, NW,Suite 300, Boca Raton FL 33487, USA

First published 2007, Woodhead Publishing Limited and CRC Press LLC© 2007, Woodhead Publishing LimitedThe authors have asserted their moral rights.

DisclaimerEvery effort has been made to trace and acknowledge ownership of copyright. The publishers will be glad to hear from any copyright holders whom it has not been possible to contact.

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the authors and the publishers cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials. Neither the authors nor the publishers, nor anyone else associated with this publication, shall be liable for any loss, damage or liability directly or indirectly caused or alleged to be caused by this book.

Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfi lming and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from Woodhead Publishing Limited.

The consent of Woodhead Publishing Limited does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Specifi c permission must be obtained in writing from Woodhead Publishing Limited for such copying.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation, without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataA catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Woodhead Publishing ISBN-13: 978-1-84569-025-0 (book)Woodhead Publishing ISBN-10: 1-84569-025-7 (book)Woodhead Publishing ISBN-13: 978-1-84569-252-0 (e-book)Woodhead Publishing ISBN-10: 1-84569-252-7 (e-book)CRC Press ISBN-13: 978-0-8493-9132-3CRC Press ISBN-10: 0-8493-9132-6CRC Press order number: WP9132

The publishers’ policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainable forestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp which is processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free practices. Furthermore, the publishers ensure that the text paper and cover board used have met acceptable environmental accreditation standards.

Typeset by SNP Best-set Typesetter Ltd., Hong KongPrinted by TJ International Limited, Padstow, Cornwall, England

Contents

Contributor contact details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiiiPreface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

Part I Key drivers for waste management and co-product recovery in food processing

1 Waste minimization, management and co-product recovery in food processing: an introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

K. Waldron, Institute of Food Research, UK 1.1 Introduction: food processing waste – the scale of

the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.2 Diversifi cation and risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3 Biological basis of biowastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.4 Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.5 Implementation of the waste hierarchy concept in

relation to food processing co-products and wastes . . . . 15 1.6 High-value components and whole-waste exploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.7 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1.8 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

vi Contents

2 Consumer interests in food processing waste management and co-product recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

L. J. Frewer and B. Gremmen, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

2.1 Introduction: consumer interests as a key driver to improve waste management in food processing . . . . . . . 21

2.2 Societal issues related to sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2.3 Implications for food processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.4 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Part II Optimising manufacturing to minimise waste in food processing

3 Chain management issues and good housekeeping procedures to minimise food processing waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

R. Sherman, North Carolina State University, USA 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.2 Key reasons to minimise waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3.3 Chain management to minimise waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3.4 Good housekeeping procedures to minimise raw

material waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.5 Effective implementation of measures to

minimise waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3.6 Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.7 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.8 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3.9 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4 Process optimisation to minimise energy use in food processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Jiři Klemeš and Simon J. Perry, The University of Manchester, UK 4.1 Introduction: energy use in food processing . . . . . . . . . . 59 4.2 Energy saving and minimisation: process integration/

pinch technology, combined heat and power minimisation and combined energy and water minimisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.3 Renewables in the food industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 4.4 Overview of selected case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 4.5 A case study: sugar processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4.6 Further studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 4.7 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 4.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Contents vii

5 Process optimisation to minimise water use in food processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Jiři Klemeš and Simon J. Perry, The University of Manchester, UK 5.1 Introduction: water use and wastage in food

processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 5.2 How to minimise water usage and wastewater

treatment – present state-of-the-art and future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

5.3 Overview of selected case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 5.4 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 5.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Part III Key issues and technologies for food waste separation and co-product recovery

6 The importance of microbiological risk management in the stabilisation of food processing co-products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

T. F. Brocklehurst, Institute of Food Research, UK 6.1 Introduction: importance of microbiological risk

management in the stabilisation of co-products . . . . . . . 119 6.2 Strategies for microbiological risk management . . . . . . . 120 6.3 Strategies for controlling micro-organisms:

methods of preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 6.4 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 6.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

7 Effects of postharvest changes in quality on the stability of plant co-products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

M. E. Saltveit, University of California, USA 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 7.2 Changes during fruit ripening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 7.3 Response to adverse environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 7.4 Changes in composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 7.5 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 7.6 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 7.7 Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

8 The potential for destructuring of food processing waste by combination processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

A. C. Smith, Institute of Food Research, UK 8.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 8.2 Effect of destructuring on foods and their components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 8.3 Lessons from other industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

viii Contents

8.4 Preservation processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 8.5 Tools for breakdown/disassembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 8.6 Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 8.7 Examples of combination processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 8.8 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 8.9 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 8.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

9 Enzymatic extraction and fermentation for the recovery of food processing products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

K. Bélafi -Bakó, University of Veszprém, Hungary 9.1 Introduction and key issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 9.2 Biocatalytic methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 9.3 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 9.4 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 9.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

10 Supercritical fl uid extraction and other technologies for extraction of high-value food processing co-products . . . . . . . . . 217

T. H. Walker, P. Patel and K. Cantrell, Clemson University, USA 10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 10.2 Key reasons for use of supercritical fl uid extraction (SFE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 10.3 Supercritical fl uid extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 10.4 Modeling of solubility and mass transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 10.5 Other technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 10.6 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 10.7 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 10.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

11 Membrane and fi ltration technologies and the separation and recovery of food processing waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

B. Ditgens, University of Bonn, Germany 11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 11.2 Established membrane technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 11.3 New fi elds of application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 11.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 11.5 Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278 11.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278

12 Separation technologies for food wastewater treatment and product recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

H. M. El-Mashad and R. Zhang, University of California, USA 12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282

Contents ix

12.2 Principles for separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 12.3 Separation and recovery technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 12.4 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 12.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 12.6 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 12.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299

Part IV Waste management in particular food industry sectors and recovery of specifi c co-products

13 Waste management and co-product recovery in red and white meat processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

P. Roupas, K. De Silva and G. Smithers, CSIRO-Food Science Australia, Australia; and A. Ferguson, Alamanda Enterprises Pty Ltd, Australia

13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 13.2 Waste minimization and processing effi ciency. . . . . . . . . . 306 13.3 Responsible waste disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 13.4 Waste value-addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314 13.5 Conclusions and future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 13.6 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 13.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

14 Waste management and co-product recovery in dairy processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

R. J. Durham and J. A. Hourigan, University of Western Sydney, Australia

14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 14.2 Worldwide dairy production trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 14.3 Current status of waste problems faced by the dairy

industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 14.4 Cleaner production in the dairy industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 14.5 Co-product recovery in dairy processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 14.6 Improving end-waste management in dairy

processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 14.7 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 14.8 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 14.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377

15 Waste management and co-product recovery in fi sh processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388

S. Goldhor, Center for Applied Regional Studies, USA, and J. Regenstein, Cornell University, USA 15.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388 15.2 Co-product recovery and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388

x Contents

15.3 Shellfi sh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 15.4 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413 15.5 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 15.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415

16 Recovery and reuse of trimmings and pulps from fruit and vegetable processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

M. Panouillé, M.-C. Ralet, E. Bonnin and J.-F. Thibault, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, France

16.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 16.2 Origin and general characterisation of the

by-products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418 16.3 Use of the whole by-products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 16.4 Recovery of functional biopolymers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423 16.5 Upgrading of the mono-/oligomeric components . . . . . . 431 16.6 Conclusion and future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 16.7 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 16.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439

17 High-value co-products from plant foods: nutraceuticals, micronutrients and functional ingredients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448

F. A. Tomás Barberán, CEBAS (CSIC), Spain 17.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448 17.2 Residues generation and key reasons for

co-product recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 17.3 Phytochemicals present in plant food residues . . . . . . . . 450 17.4 Uses of plant food residues as sources for

phytochemical extracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453 17.5 Important sources of high-value co-products . . . . . . . . . . 455 17.6 Examples of phytochemical extracts from plant

food wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 17.7 Technological processes for phytochemicals

extraction from residues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463 17.8 Safety issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 17.9 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 17.10 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 17.11 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466

18 High-value co-products from plant foods: cosmetics and pharmaceuticals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470

A. Femenia, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Spain 18.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470 18.2 Key reasons for exploiting plant-derived

compounds from co-products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472

Contents xi

18.3 Recovery of plant-based co-products for use in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474

18.4 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 18.5 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 18.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491

19 Natural dyes from food processing wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502 T. Bechtold A. Mahmud-Ali and R. Mussak,

University of Innsbruck, Austria 19.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502 19.2 Natural dyes in technical textile dyeing operations . . . . 502 19.3 The extraction step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512 19.4 Sources for natural dyes – results of a screening

for sources in food processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514 19.5 Natural dyes from food processing wastes –

representative examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517 19.6 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 19.7 Sources of further information and advice . . . . . . . . . . . . 530 19.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530

20 Improving waste management and co-product recovery in vegetable oil processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534

M. Arienzo and P. Violante, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy

20.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534 20.2 Key reasons to improve waste management in

vegetable oil processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539 20.3 Co-product recovery in vegetable oil processing . . . . . . . 542 20.4 Reducing waste in vegetable oil production . . . . . . . . . . . 554 20.5 Improving end waste management in vegetable

oil production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556 20.6 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565 20.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566

Part V Minimising disposal: wastewater and solid waste management in the food industry

21 Treatment of food processing wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573 D. Bolzonella and F. Cecchi, University of Verona,

Italy, and P. Pavan, Cà Foscari University, Italy 21.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573 21.2 Food wastewater production and characteristics . . . . . . . 574 21.3 Analysis of conventional technologies for treatment

of food processing wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578

xii Contents

21.4 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587 21.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 592

22 Dewatering systems for solid food processing waste . . . . . . . . . . 597 V. Orsat and G. S. Vijaya Raghavan, McGill University,

Canada 22.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 22.2 Waste conditioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598 22.3 Dewatering methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 598 22.4 Combining dewatering methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 22.5 An environmental and economic choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606 22.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607 22.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607

23 Fermentation, biogas and biohydrogen production from solid food processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611

C. L. Hansen and D. Y. Cheong, Utah State University, USA 23.1 Introduction: fermentation, biogas and

biohydrogen production from food waste . . . . . . . . . . . . 611 23.2 Key reasons to consider using anaerobic processes . . . . 612 23.3 Biochemical and microbiological principles of

the anaerobic process: hydrolysis, acidogenesis, methanogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 615

23.4 Environmental and operational variables of anaerobic treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617

23.5 High-rate anaerobic bioconversion system . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 23.6 Requirements for high-rate anaerobic

bioconversion systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 23.7 Single-stage high-rate anaerobic digesters . . . . . . . . . . . . 625 23.8 Continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) . . . . . . . . . . . . 630 23.9 Separation of anaerobic processes in reactor systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630 23.10 Biohydrogen production by anaerobic fermentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 632 23.11 Producing other chemicals and useful products from

food waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637 23.12 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640 23.13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 649

Contributor contact details

(* = main contact)

Editor and Chapter 1Dr Keith W. WaldronInstitute of Food ResearchNorwich Research ParkColneyNorwichNR4 7UAUK

email: [email protected]

Chapter 2Professor Lynn Frewer and Dr Bart GremmenGewoon HoogleraarWU MaatschappijwetenschappenHollandseweg 16706KN Wageningen5022The Netherlands

email: [email protected] [email protected]

Chapter 3Professor Rhonda L. ShermanExtension Solid Waste SpecialistNC State UniversityBiol. & Agri. EngineeringRaleighNC 27695USA


Chapters 4 and 5Dr Jiři Klemeš and Simon John PerryCentre for Process IntegrationCEASThe University of ManchesterPO Box 88ManchesterM60 1QDUK


Chapter 6Professor Tim F. BrocklehurstHead of Microbial Biophysics GroupInstitute of Food ResearchNorwich Research ParkColneyNorwichNR4 7UAUK


Chapter 7Professor Mikal E. SaltveitMann LaboratoryDepartment of Plant SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaOne Shields AvenueDavisCA 95616-863USA


Chapter 8Dr Andrew C. SmithInstitute of Food ResearchNorwich Research ParkColneyNorwichNR4 7UAUK


xiv Contributor contact details

Chapter 9Dr Katalin Bélafi -BakóUniversity of VeszprémResearch Institute of Chemical and Process EngineeringVeszprém 8200Egyetem u. 2.Hungary


Chapter 10Terry H. Walker*, Paresh Patel and Keri CantrellBiosystems EngineeringClemson University225 McAdams HallClemsonSC 29634USA


Chapter 11Dr Birgit DitgensInstitut für Ernährungs- und LebensmittelwissenschaftenBereich Lebensmitteltechnologie und -mikrobiologieUniversität BonnRömerstraße 164D-53117 BonnGermany


Chapter 12Ruihong Zhang* and Hamed M. El-MashadDepartment of Biological and Agricultural EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaOne Shields AvenueDavisCA 95616USA


Chapter 13Dr Geoffrey W. Smithers*, Peter Roupas and Kirthi De SilvaCSIRO-Food Science Australia671 Sneydes Road (Private Bag 16)WerribeeMelbourneVictoria 3030Australia


Alan FergusonAlamanda Pty Ltd77 Temple StreetCoorparooBrisbaneQueensland 4151Australia

Chapter 14Dr Rosalie J. Durham* and J. A. HouriganCentre for Plant & Food ScienceUniversity of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury CampusLocked Bag 1797South PenrithNew South Wales 1797Australia


Contributor contact details xv

Chapter 15Dr Susan Goldhor*Center for Applied Regional Studies45-B Museum StreetCambridgeMA 02138-1921USA


Professor Joe M. RegensteinDept. of Food ScienceStocking HallCornell UniversityIthaca, NY 14853-7201USA


Chapter 16Maud Panouillé, Marie-Christine Ralet, Estelle Bonnin* and Jean-François ThibaultInstitut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueUnité de Recherche Biopolymères, Interactions, AssemblagesRue de la GéraudièreB.P. 71627-44316Nantes Cedex 03France


Chapter 17Francisco A. Tomás-BarberánCEBAS (CSIC)P.O. Box 164Espinardo (Murcia)30100Spain


Chapter 18Antoni FemeniaDepartament de QuímicaUniversitat de les Illes BalearsCtra Valldemossa km 7.507122 Palma de MallorcaSpain


Chapter 19Thomas Bechtold*, Amalid Mahmud-Ali and Rita MussakInstitute for Textile Chemistry and Textile PhysicsUniversity of InnsbruckHoechsterstrasse 73A-6850 DornbirnAustria


Chapter 20Professor Michele Arienzo* and Professor Pietro ViolanteDipartimento di Scienze del Suolo della Pianta e dell’AmbienteVia Università 10080055 PorticiItaly


Chapter 21David Bolzonella and Professor Franco Cecchi*Department of Science and TechnologyUniversity of VeronaStrada Le Grazie 1537134VeronaItaly


Paolo PavanDepartment of Environmental SciencesCà Foscari UniversityDorsoduro 213730123 VeniceItaly

Chapter 22Valérie Orsat* and G. S. Vijaya RaghavanBioresource Engineering DepartmentMcGill UniversitySte-Anne de BellevueQuebecH9X 3V9Canada


Chapter 23Professor Conly L. HansenNutrition and Food Sciences DepartmentRoom 242Utah State University8700 Old Main HillLoganUT 84322-8700USA


xvi Contributor contact details

Preface

The global intensifi cation of agriculture and food production has led to the creation of vast quantities of food co-products and wastes, often in central-ised locations as food processors seek to achieve economies of scale. Typically, the food industry produces considerable amounts of biodegrad-able wastes, including large volumes of effl uent and residues with a high biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) content. Their uncontrolled spoilage and decomposition lead to the produc-tion of methane and other toxic moieties that are environmentally hazard-ous. In Europe alone, over 220 million tonnes of food-related waste are disposed of annually.

As a consequence of increased environmental awareness, the food industry is facing mounting pressures to reduce food processing and related wastes, for example in the form of legislation such as the EU Council Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfi ll of waste. Such pressures have con-tributed to an increase in costs of disposal and a reduction in landfi ll availability in many member states. Hence, methods to (a) reduce waste production, (b) valorize unused co-products, and (c) improve the manage-ment of unavoidable wastes, are becoming increasingly important to the food industry. Coincidentally, there is an increasing body of scientifi c lit-erature relevant to exploiting food processing co-products. However, much of it is published in journals that do not focus specifi cally on this topic. This makes it more diffi cult for food technologists and industrialists to evaluate the ‘state-of-the-art’, and to exploit knowledge and expertise currently available.

It is in this context that the Handbook of waste management and co-product recovery in food processing has been conceived. The current volume

comprises contributions from an array of internationally recognized experts who have reviewed the latest developments in this area, with special refer-ence to optimizing manufacturing processes to decrease waste, understand-ing how to reduce energy and water loss, and methods that may be used to valorize co-products.

The book provides expert opinion on topics relevant to the minimization of waste, and maximization of co-product recovery in food processing. There are fi ve parts:

Part I Key drivers for waste management and co-product recovery in food processing

This section provides an introduction to the subject, with special reference to the principal drivers. These include legislative pressures (Chapter 1) and the interests of the consumer (Chapter 2).

Part II Optimizing manufacturing to minimize waste in food processingThis section focuses on the minimization of waste, both in terms of biowaste and effi cient energy management. Chapter 3 highlights the importance of chain management and good housekeeping practices. Such management is important in reducing instances of irregular waste production that arise from managerial and technical problems. The waste is usually ‘one-off’ in nature, and hence is diffi cult to upgrade because of the absence of a regular co-product, thus negating any opportunities for economies of scale. This chapter also emphasizes chain management from an environmental and life-cycle analysis perspective. Chapter 4 explores the potential for minimi-zation of energy use in food processing, highlighting the energy-intensive nature of the industry. For example, a typical energy requirement for the delivery of 1 J in the form of food consumes almost 10 J from natural resources. Chapter 5 completes Part II by evaluating opportunities to mini-mize water use and wastage. Such activities have the concomitant knock-on effect of reducing the effl uent production, thereby reducing the requirement for additional treatment.

Part III Key issues and technologies for food waste separation and co-product recovery

This is a broad section bringing together expert opinion on research and technology associated with stabilization, fractionation, extraction and fi ltration of waste streams. Chapter 6 focuses on the microbiological stabi-lization of food processing waste which is fundamental to retaining food-grade quality characteristics and ensuring that maximum value can be obtained from subsequent processing activities. The chapter introduces the importance of HACCP development, not only before and during stabilization but during subsequent exploitation. Chapter 7 extends the concept of stabilization by considering the autolytic and natural deteriora-

xviii Preface

tion of waste materials of biological origin once they have been damaged or taken out of their natural environment. Chapter 8 provides a general overview of combination processes that may be used in disassembling co-products – taking into account their structural, chemical and biochemical heterogeneity – whilst Chapter 9 looks at the use of biochemical routes for extraction and waste exploitation. This is followed by an evaluation of modern separation technologies. Chapter 10 explores supercritical CO2 methods whilst Chapter 11 highlights the emerging and rapidly growing arena of membrane fi ltration technologies. This part is then completed by Chapter 12 on separation technologies used for food wastewater treatment, with special reference to the recovery of valuable products and water recycling.

Part IV Waste management in particular food industry sectors and recovery of specifi c co-products

The aim of this section is to provide specifi c examples of waste management in the main food processing sectors of meat-, fi sh- and plant-derived co-products. Chapter 13 provides a comprehensive account of waste manage-ment and co-product recovery in red and white meat processing, highlighting the diffi culties encountered during the past decade due to legislation and food safety concerns. Chapter 14 focuses on dairy processing, an arena that has demonstrated huge improvements in effi ciencies during the past 20 years; Chapter 15 gives a general overview of waste management and co-product recovery in fi sh processing. The remaining chapters in this section relate to the exploitation of plant-based wastes: Chapter 16 reviews the recovery and exploitation of trimmings and pulps from fruit and vegetable processing with emphasis on cell-wall polymer exploitation; Chapter 17 focuses on the extraction and exploitation of intracellular phytochemicals, revealing their potential for use in functional foods and pharmaceuticals. Chapter 18 takes this concept further by extending it into the cosmetics and pharmaceuticals arena. Chapter 19 explores the non-food exploitation of phytochemicals in relation to the production of natural dyes from food processing wastes, and Chapter 20 completes Part 4 by considering the problems of waste and co-product exploitation in the vegetable oil processing industry.

Part V Minimizing disposal: wastewater and solid waste management in the food industry

The fi nal part of the book considers research and development and technologies relevant to the disposal of food processing wastes. Chapter 21 explores the treatment of wastewater generally with emphasis on general macro pollutants, COD, BOD, suspended solids, etc., and introduces anaerobic and aerobic treatments. Chapter 22 evaluates the technologies available for dewatering solid food processing waste streams, including

Preface xix

the use of modern electric fi eld enhancement; Chapter 23 takes the anaerobic concept further by looking at the potential for generating a return on the waste through energy recovery in the form of biohydrogen production.

Keith Waldron

xx Preface

Part I

Key drivers for waste management and co-product recovery in food processing

1

Waste minimization, management and co-product recovery in food processing: an introductionK. Waldron, Institute of Food Research, UK

1.1 Introduction: food processing waste – the scale of the problem

The global food and drink industry is one of the largest industry sectors and is essential to all economies. This refl ects its role in contributing to the basic needs and requirements of every living person (Maslow, 1970). Consequently, the last 50 years has witnessed an immense increase in the demand for food due to the rapid growth in world population (Fig. 1.1) and the associated increase in wealth. The response to these drivers has been an intensifi cation of agriculture, food production, transport and storage. Values for global food production are substantial. Annually, meat production is in the order of 200 million tonnes; dairy milk production is about 514 million tonnes, cereal production (including rice, wheat and coarse grains) is approximately 2 billion tonnes (OECD, 2004). In money-rich but time-poor ‘developed countries’, the increased consumption of food has been accompanied by the explosive growth in food processing, with particular emphasis on the development of energy-intensive, ready-to-heat/eat canned, frozen, dried and fresh meals. As globalization increases across all sectors, such processing is now being carried out throughout the world, and many fi nal products are then transported to appropriate markets.

Food processing creates waste. Of approximately 3 billion tonnes of waste generated each year in Europe it has been estimated that the member states produce in the region of 222 million tonnes of food waste and by-products across the key sectors (AWARENET, 2004; Fig. 1.2). A

4 Handbook of waste management and co-product recovery

Fig. 1.1 Estimated previous and projected growth of the global human population (Source: Various).

Fig. 1.2 European food waste across the different sectors (AWARENET, 2004).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060

Year

Pop

ulat

ion

(bill

ion)

2006

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Meat Fish Milk Vegetablesand fruit

Wine

Sectors

Mill

ions

of t

onne

s

Waste minimization, management and co-product recovery 5

signifi cant proportion of this is exploited (valorized) to some extent, for example as a substrate for animal feed. However, large quantities of material are disposed of by landfi ll and other environmentally sensitive routes.

There are a number of reasons why so much food processing waste is produced, some economic and some technological. Traditional methods of food preparation result in relatively small amounts of locally produced domestic waste which, in the past, would have been disposed of as feed, by composting or through municipal waste disposal. However, industrial food processing, particularly that associated with the production of ready-to-eat meals, has created large, geographically localized waste streams which have generally increased over time as fi rms have sought to benefi t from economies of scale. Furthermore, the majority of food processing systems were developed at least 20–30 (or more) years ago when waste disposal – particularly in the vegetable, cereal and fruit processing industries – was not the issue it is today. The amounts of waste, as a proportion of the raw material, are shown in Fig. 1.3. In the past, the value added by processing a portion of a raw food material to create a high-priced product outweighed the costs of disposal and, for many processes, there was little incentive to fi nd alter-native means to deal with the waste streams. Indeed, from a strategic viewpoint, such an approach would involve signifi cant business risk (see Section 1.2 below). As a result, the development of technologies and approaches for exploiting waste streams was not such a priority; waste production remained integral to the development of food processing systems.

1.2 Diversifi cation and risk

The diffi culty of exploiting food processing waste may be considered from a business management perspective. Because of the specifi city of a given raw material and its processing in relation to a particular product, surplus and waste food processing co-products are not readily utilized by the parent processors. Exploitation of the waste would necessitate a degree of diversifi cation which would probably include the formulation of new products for current or new markets. This would create a high degree of risk (Ansoff, 1957; Fig. 1.4), which is not attractive to food industry players, especially since the industry is in a mature state, and the products are mostly commodities. It is not surprising that processors generally prefer their waste streams to be removed from their premises by third parties. The diffi culties of dealing with wastes are compounded by the rapid deterioration of biological materials due to autolytic, chem-ical and microbial spoilage, resulting in a loss of food-grade potential and

6 H

andbook of waste m

anagement and co-product recovery

Fig. 1.3 Indication of the quantity of non-utilized raw material (light grey, minimum amount; dark grey, maximum amount) (AWARENET, 2004).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Fish canning

Fish filleting, curing, salting, smoking

Crustaceans processing

Molluscs processing

Beef slaughtering

Pig slaughtering

Poultry slaughtering

Milk, butter and cream production

Yoghurt production

Fresh, soft and cooked cheese

White wine production

Red wine production

Fruit and vegetables juice production

Fruit and vegetables processing

Vegetable oil production

Corn starch production

Potato starch production

Wheat starch production

Sugar production from sugar beet

Percentage non-utilized raw material

PR

OC

ES

S


associated value. Such materials would be fi t only for non-food applications, or disposal.

1.3 Biological basis of biowastes

Food processing waste is derived from the processing of biological materials and is, in the main, biodegradable. Biowaste is defi ned in the landfi ll directive as ‘waste capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobic decomposition such as food and garden waste, and paper and cardboard’. The waste may be derived from plant, animal, fungal and bacterial sources, with the plant and animal origins predominating. A list of key production processes that create waste streams has been identifi ed in the AWARENET handbook (2004; see also Fig. 1.3). A variety of waste streams will be created by the different stages of each process; these have also been described generically (AWARENET, 2004). Biological wastes are highly complex since they have been derived from highly intricate living organisms and can range from whole, unused (rejected) materials through to fractions and mixtures produced by physical, thermal, chemical and biochemical processing of the original raw material. Plant wastes include vegetable and fruit trimmings (comprising whole/partial organs and tissues) and cereal residues such as bran and extracted barley grain through to pulps and residues remaining after oil, starch, sugar and juice extraction. Animal-derived processing

Fig. 1.4 Ansoff’s matrix (after Ansoff, 1957).

Mar

kets

Products

Current New

Market penetration / consolidation

Productdevelopment

Marketdevelopment

DIVERSIFICATION

Cur

rent

New


wastes include blood, bone and neural tissues along with wastes from dairy processing. In addition, large quantities of wastewater are often produced. More complex mixed wastes are often produced in the pro-duction of ready meals which are composed of both animal and plant material. Hence, food processing wastes are heterogeneous in their composition due to the impact of the varied processing activities on the complex raw materials.

1.4 Legislation

This section provides a general and historical overview of some of the legislation relevant to the disposal or exploitation of food processing co-pro ducts. It is not defi nitive, and any formal advice and up-to-date informa-tion on legislative requirements should be sought from alternative and accredited sources.

1.4.1 OverviewFood wastes and effl uents are rich in biodegradable components with high biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) content. If they are unmanaged and untreated, their uncontrolled decomposition is hazardous to the environment due to the production of methane and toxic materials (Waldron et al., 2004). In order to reduce the impact of waste, a range of waste management strategies have been adopted at national and international levels. In the European Community (EC), a Community Strategy for Waste Management (see Sanders and Crosby, 2004) was published in 1989 and amended in 1996 (COM(96)0339) setting out key legal principles, including: (1) the prevention principle – to limit waste production; (2) the polluter pays principle – i.e. the polluter should pay for dealing with the waste; (3) the precautionary principle – waste problems should be predicted; (4) the proximity principle – as far as it is possible to do so, waste problems should be addressed near or at the place of production. These principles were created to form the framework of European waste policy. Sanders and Crosby (2004) have also highlighted three particular areas of importance within the strategy: (1) a waste management hierarchy (Fig. 1.5; AWARENET, 2004; DEFRA 1) in which priority should be given to the prevention and recovery of waste, and the optimization and minimization of disposal (often referred to as the ‘3 “R”s’ ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’); (2) producer responsibility whereby producers must take back end-of-life products; (3) control of waste shipments, with references to importing and exporting of waste within European Union (EU) countries.


Fig. 1.5 The waste hierarchy.

Waste prevention

Re-use

Recycle/compost

Energyrecovery

Disposal

Pre

fere

nce

Pre

fere

nce

In the EU, legislation comprises directives (to be implemented through the national legislation of member states) and regulations (directly applicable). In the United Kingdom (UK), information on implementation of EU directives via UK Government legislation may be found on the DEFRA website (DEFRA 2), and related links. In 1975, the EU introduced the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) (75/442/EEC) which was later modifi ed by Directive 91/156/EEC to take into account the principles from the Community Strategy for Waste Management (1989 above). The overall regulatory and legislative arena concerning ‘waste’ covers a very broad range of materials and industrial sectors. Therefore it is appropriate to highlight the main legislation relevant to food industry waste as highlighted by AWARENET. These include:

1 Council Directive 96/61/EC on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control – which seeks to prevent/reduce/eliminate pollution at source;

2 Council Directive 1999/31/EC on Landfi ll – which sets national targets for reduction of landfi ll of biodegradable municipal waste;

3 Regulation 1774/2002 on health rules regarding animal by-products not fi t for human consumption;

4 Council Directive 2000/76/EC on incineration – to limit negative effects on the environment and human health.

At the time of the AWARENET report, a future directive on biowaste was foreseen prior to the end of 2004. However, this does not appear to have


materialized. Indications are that biowaste will be dealt with under the auspices of other legislative activites. Further information on EU legislation may be found in Table 1.1. Details of the legislation content may be found on the Europa websites (Europa, 2006). A more comprehensive overview of legislation (as of 2004) may be found in Sanders and Crosby (2004) and AWARENET (2004). A general history of waste legislation in the EU may be found on the EU Environmental Information and Legislation Database (see Section 1.9).

1.4.2 Defi nition of wasteThe defi nition of waste has been surprisingly diffi cult to agree on. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Secretariat of the Basel Convention and the EU Commission each has formally its own defi nition of waste, and information on these can be found on the website of the European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management (2006). According to this source, the ‘most

Table 1.1 Relevant EU legislation; see AWARENET (2004) and Sanders and Crosby (2004) for further details

Legislation on solid and liquid wastesCouncil Directive 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste oilsCouncil Directive 75/442/EEC on wasteCouncil Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous

substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the CommunityCouncil Directive 80/68/EEC on measures and restrictions for the protection

of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substancesWaste Framework Directive 91/156/EECCouncil Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban wastewater treatmentCouncil Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous wasteCouncil Regulation 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments

of wasteCouncil Directive 94/67/EEC on the incineration of hazardous wasteCommission Decision 96/350/EC for the adaptation of Annex IIA and IIB

of Directive 75/442 EEC on wasteCouncil Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfi ll of wasteCommission Decision 2000/532/EC establishing a list of wastesWater Framework Directive 2000/60/ECCouncil Directive 2000/76/EC on the incineration of wasteRegulation 2150/2002/EC on waste statisticsCouncil Decision 2003/33/EC on criteria for acceptance of waste at landfi lls

Legislation concerning added-value products from food wastesRegulation 1774/2002/EC on health rules concerning animal by-products not

intended for human consumptionDirective 2003/30/EC on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable

fuels for transport


Table 1.1 cont’d

Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffsCouncil Directive 90/667/EEC on veterinary rules for the disposal and processing

of animal wasteCouncil Directive 95/53/EC concerning the organization of offi cial inspections in

the fi eld of animal nutritionCouncil Decision 1999/534/EC on measures on animal waste protecting against

transmissible spongiform encephalopothies (TSE)Council Decision 2000/7656/EC on protection measures regarding TSE and

feeding of animal proteinDecision 2001/25/EC prohibiting the use of certain animal by-products in animal

feedRegulation 999/2001/EC for prevention, control and eradication of TSERegulation 811/2003/EC on intra-species recycling ban for fi sh, and burying and

burial of animal by-productsRegulation 809/2003/EC on processing standards for category 3 material and

manure used in composting plantsRegulation 810/2003/EC on processing standards for category 3 material and

manure used in biogas plants

Novel foodsRegulation (EC) No. 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of

27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredientsCommission Decision 2002/150 authorizing the marketing of coagulated potato

proteins and hydrolysates as novel food ingredients

Additional specifi c legislation in specifi c agro-food sectorsCouncil Directive 90/496/EEC on nutrition labelling for foodstuffsCouncil Regulation 91/493/EC laying down health conditions for production and

the placing on the market of fi shery productsCouncil Directive 94/435/EC on sweeteners for use in foodstuffsCouncil Directive 94/435/EC on colours for use in foodstuffsCouncil Directive 95/2/EC on food additivies other than colours and sweetenersCouncil Regulation 2200/96/EC on the common organization of the market in

fruit and vegetablesCouncil Regulation 1493/99/EC on the common organization of the market in

wineCommission Decision 1999/724/EC on specifi c health conditions for hygienic

manufacture of gelatine intended for human consumptionCouncil Regulation 104/2000/EC on the common organization of the markets in

fi shery and aquaculture productsCommission Regulation (EC) No. 1623/2000 of 25 July 2000 laying down detailed

rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No. 1493/1999 on the common organization of the market in wine with regard to market

Council Directive 2000/13/EC on the approximations of the laws in member states on labeling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs

Commission Directive 2001/15/EC on substsances that may be added in foods for nutritional purposes

Commission Decision 2001/471/EC on regular checks on health conditions for production and marketing of fresh meat and fresh poultry meat

Council Regulation 178/2002/EC laying down general principles and requirements of food law


explicative’ defi nition of waste may be found in the Joint Questionnaire OECD/Eurostat that is sent biennially to all EU countries and reads as follows:

Waste refers here to materials that are not prime products (i.e. products produced for the market) for which the generator has no further use for their own purpose of production, transformation or consumption, and which he discards, or intends or is required to discard. Wastes may be generated during the extraction of raw materials, during the processing of raw materials to intermediate and fi nal products, during the consumption of fi nal products, and during any other human activity.

Are excluded:

– Residuals directly recycled or reused at the place of generation (i.e. establishment);

– Waste materials that are directly discharged into ambient water or air.

The legal defi nition of waste is provided by the EU Commission in the Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC, Art.1(a), and is inseparably linked with the EU lists of waste categories and waste types:

‘Waste’ shall mean any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard.

The Commission has drawn up a list of wastes belonging to the categories listed in Annex I.

Categories of waste from Annex 1 that are relevant to food processing are shown in Table 1.2.

In order to make the defi nition of waste more tangible and to reduce uncertainty, the European Commission has drawn up a list of wastes (Table 1.3; see ‘Waste list’ in reference section). This was established by Commission Decision 2000/532/EC.

Once a material is defi ned as a ‘waste’, it is then subject to a range of directives (e.g. the Waste Framework Directive and the Hazardous Waste Directive) and regulations (e.g. the Waste Shipment Directive) concerning the handling and treatment of waste streams. Therefore, the classifi cation of co- or by-products that are currently disposed of as ‘waste’ is of importance if alternative exploitation routes are to be sought. Interestingly, there appears to be no legal defi nition of the term ‘co- or by-product’.

A number of issues have arisen in the interpretation of the above waste defi nitions including the meaning of the term ‘discard’ (which lacks a common understanding) compared with ‘dispose’. A number of disputes have required resolution by the European Court of Justice. The OECD Waste Management Policy Group has produced a guidance document with the aim of clarifying whether or not a material can be


Table 1.2 Categories of waste, Annex 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC

Categories of wasteDirective 75/442/EEC, Annex IQ1 Production or consumption residues not otherwise specifi ed belowQ2 Off-specifi cation productsQ3 Products whose date for appropriate use has expiredQ4 Materials spilled, lost or having undergone other mishap, including any

materials, equipment, etc. contaminated as a result of the mishapQ5 Materials contaminated or soiled as a result of planned actions (e.g.

residues from cleaning operations, packing materials, containers, etc.)Q6 Unusable parts (e.g. reject batteries, exhausted catalysts, etc.)Q7 Substances which no longer perform satisfactorily (e.g. contaminated

acids, contaminated solvents, exhausted tempering salts, etc.)Q8 Residues of industrial processes (e.g. slags, still bottoms, etc.)Q9 Residues from pollution abatement processes (e.g. scrubber sludges,

baghouse dusts, spent fi lters, etc.)Q10 Machining/fi nishing residues (e.g. lathe turnings, mill scales, etc.)Q11 Residues from raw materials extraction and processing (e.g. mining

residues, oil fi eld slops, etc.)Q12 Adulterated materials (e.g. oils contaminated with PCBs, etc.)Q13 Any materials, substances or products whose use has been banned

by lawQ14 Products for which the holder has no further use (e.g. agricultural,

household, offi ce, commercial and shop discards, etc.)Q15 Contaminated materials, substances or products resulting from remedial

action with respect to landQ16 Any materials, substances or products which are not contained in the

above categories

regarded as waste. Nevertheless, the situation appears to be less clear at the European level as to the classifi cation of materials that are to be recovered and used as raw materials in other processes (so-called ‘secondary products’) and is made more complicated by interpretations at the member state level. This seems to be an emergent situation, and will be infl uenced further by the development of technologies and approaches to exploit what would previously be regarded as waste material. A fl ow chart depicting the EC legislative relationships between waste, secondary raw material and product is shown in Fig. 1.6 (AWARENET, 2004).

1.4.3 Novel foods legislationAn important piece of legislation which should be considered in the exploitation of food co-products and wastes concerns the regulation on novel foods and novel food ingredients (Regulation (EC) No. 258/97).


Table 1.3 An extract from the EU list of wastes (see ‘Waste list’ in reference section)

02 02 wastes from the preparation and processing of meat, fi sh and other foods of animal origin

02 02 01 sludges from washing and cleaning02 02 02 animal-tissue waste02 02 03 materials unsuitable for consumption or processing02 02 04 sludges from on-site effl uent treatment02 02 99 wastes not otherwise specifi ed

02 03 wastes from fruit, vegetables, cereals, edible oils, cocoa, coffee, tea and tobacco preparation and processing; conserve production; yeast and yeast extract production, molasses preparation and fermentation

02 03 01 sludges from washing, cleaning, peeling, centrifuging and separation02 03 02 wastes from preserving agents02 03 03 wastes from solvent extraction02 03 04 materials unsuitable for consumption processing02 03 05 sludges from on-site effl uent treatment02 03 99 wastes not otherwise specifi ed

02 04 wastes from sugar processing

02 04 01 soil from cleaning and washing beet02 04 02 off-specifi cation calcium carbonate02 04 03 sludges from on-site effl uent treatment02 04 99 wastes not otherwise specifi ed

02 05 wastes from the dairy products industry

02 05 01 materials unsuitable for consumption or processing02 05 02 sludges from on-site effl uent treatment02 05 99 wastes not otherwise specifi ed

02 06 wastes from the baking and confectionery industry

02 06 01 materials unsuitable for consumption or processing02 06 02 wastes from preserving agents02 06 03 sludges from on-site effl uent treatment02 06 99 wastes not otherwise specifi ed

02 07 wastes from the production of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages (except coffee, tea and cocoa)

02 07 01 wastes from washing, cleaning and mechanical reduction of raw materials02 07 02 wastes from spirits distillation02 07 03 wastes from chemical treatment02 07 04 materials unsuitable for consumption or processing02 07 05 sludges from on-site effl uent treatment


Some of the components extracted and fractionated from co-products may require evaluation under this legislation. One example of how this might be relevant is given by the Commission Decision 2002/150 regarding the exploitation of potato proteins and hydrolysates as novel ingredients.

1.5 Implementation of the waste hierarchy concept in relation to food processing co-products and wastes

Figure 1.7 shows a simplifi ed diagram of the production of waste materials from the food processing sector and highlights criteria consistent with the waste hierarchy (Fig. 1.5) that need to be addressed in order to minimize disposal requirements. Prevention of waste requires consideration of the

Fig. 1.6 Overview of the relationships between waste, secondary raw materials and products, with EC legislation (after AWARENET, 2004). The ‘grey zone’ relates

to an area of dispute between member states.

Was

te c

ycle

Pro

duct

ion

cycl

e

End product

Intermediary product

Coincidental product

ProductPrimary raw

materials

Secondaryraw materials

Waste

Gre

y zo

ne DisposalAnnex II A

RecoveryAnnex II B

Annexes I, IIA and IIB

On-site discard

National/Regional criteriaand 91/156/EEC Art.4

National/Regional criteria

and 91/156/EEC Art.4

Note: all of the references in this figure are to articles or annexes of Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC


Fig. 1.7 Food processing waste in relation to the waste hierarchy.

Food chain

Raw material

End product

Solid and liquidwaste andco-products

Disposal

Processingactivities

Re-usee.g. water

Minimization / prevention•Improved process design•Improved systems management

Rec

over

yAdditionalproducts

Energy Landfill

Potential exploitation of food-chain wastes

reasons for its production. For example, waste that results from mistakes in process management – e.g. excess substrates, breakdowns, human error – might be addressed by improved systems management. In contrast, waste that is inherent to the process may have to be addressed by improving the design of the process and is likely to require investment in new plant. Some wastes, e.g. water, may be recycled if purifi ed effectively, helping in the development of closed-loop factories. Those co-products that are not suitable for recycling may be exploited via the creation of novel products (see below). This approach may be unattractive since it is likely to involve a high-risk strategy on the part of the food processor (see Fig. 1.4). However, due to the increase in legislative pressures (see above) and consumer demand (see Chapter 2, this volume), this option is becoming increasingly relevant. Some very large co-product streams, e.g. whey from the dairy industry and starch from potato processing, have been success-fully exploited for the production of ingredients for the food sector (Waldron et al., 2004). However, this has taken between 10 and 20 years to occur, refl ecting the time taken for development of new technologies and new markets.


1.6 High-value components and whole-waste exploitation

Many waste streams contain small levels of components that command an apparent and attractive market value. For example, phytochemicals from fruit and vegetable trimmings might be exploited for the production of nutraceuticals, cosmetics or even pharmaceuticals. There has been much interest and research dedicated to exploiting such components with a view to adding value to co-product streams (Waldron, 2004; Waldron et al., 2004). However, whilst it is often possible, and even rela-tively straight forward in a laboratory to develop a process to extract a ‘high-value’ component, it is frequently uneconomical to do so com-mercially. This may be because the bulk residues remaining after extraction are of lower value, and may actually cost more in disposal. Therefore, it is important to develop approaches that aim to exploit food co-products in their entirety, ensuring that all components so derived may be of marketable quality. This requires a research and development approach that links all the potential components in the waste stream to the potential markets available. A possible strategy for such an approach is shown in Fig. 1.8 and is based on that which has been proposed in the EU project REPRO (see website). This approach involves exploiting fully traceable, food-grade waste streams. Initially they should be stabilized against microbiological deterioration and autolysis to prevent them from losing their food-grade status. Subsequently they would be disassembled by physical and biochemical approaches (individually and in combination) involving modern enzyme and process-ing technologies. The aim is to provide a range of components, from high value to low value, all of which would contribute to achieving whole-waste exploitation. The process would require evaluation for acceptability, both in relation to safety (via Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) development), novel food legislation, consumer preference and marketing requirements. Such an approach requires close interaction with all stakeholders to maximize knowledge transfer and exploitation.

Finally, some co-products may be unsuitable for exploitation due, for example, to their complexity, uncontrolled spoilage or lack of trace-ability. In such cases, non-food exploitation as energy sources may be appropriate via fermentation and biogas production, and other microbially based disposal systems such as composting. New technologies may provide opportunities to convert such biomass into biofuels. Hence, it should be possible to reduce landfi ll considerably, and in the case of plant-based co-products, to avoid it altogether. Of course, the fi nal arbiter will be the cost-effectiveness of this strategy, as measured by perceived return on investment, and this will have to take into account locally/


sector-relevant factors including seasonality, market potential, and trans-port and storage costs.

1.7 Future trends

The world is changing rapidly. In particular, the large increases in fuel costs and the pressures to reduce carbon emissions are bound to have a signifi cant impact on the food chain. It is likely that over the next 10 years the costs of food processing and transport will increase, as will demands to use more land for non-food crop production. This will be compounded by the costly energy requirements of modern intensive agriculture, including mechanized activities and the use of fertilizers. These drivers, in conjunction with the ‘waste hierarchy’ will add further pressure to ensure that the majority of food processing and food-chain co-products are fully exploited. In order to evaluate this complex arena from environmental and economic perspectives, the demand for user-friendly LCA is likely to increase.

Fig. 1.8 A roadmap for whole-co-product exploitation.

Co-productstabilizedagainstspoilage

Food-gradeco-products

HIGH VALUE

Cosmetics and

nutraceuticals

Food ingredients

Food additives

Feed additives

Feed

Non-food uses

Composting% energy use

LOW VALUEAND

WASTE

Value-addingdisassembly,

extraction and processingmethods

Mar

ket-

rele

vant

pro

duct

s

Sep

arat

ion

tech

nolo

gies

Closed-loopwater recyclingand purification

MINIMIZATION OF RISK: consumer and retailer acceptance, risk assessmentincluding hazard analysis of critical control points (HACCP), traceability, life-cycle evaluation,

novel food legislation, etc.

Energy efficiencyStabilization

Whole-co-product exploitation


1.8 Sources of further information and advice

AWARENET handbook for the prevention and minimization of waste and valorization of by-products in European agro-food industries: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/envirowindows/awarenet/library?l=/awarenet_handbook&vm=detailed&sb=Title

EU Environmental Information and Legislation Database: http://www.ncte.ie/environ/welcome.htm and http://www.ncte.ie/environ/waste.htm

Europa legislation search facility: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/RECH_legislation.do

Forum for the Future: http://www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/Mass Balance UK Project Website: http://www.massbalance.org/REPRO website: http://www.repro-food.net/Resource Effi ciency Network (UK): http://amf.globalwatchonline.com/

epicentric_portal/site/AMFSustainable development commission: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/US Environmental Protection Agency: http://epa.gov/epahome/rules.

htmlWaste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP): http://www.wrap.

org.uk/

1.9 References

ansoff, h. i. (1957), Strategies for diversifi cation. Harvard Business Review, September–October, 113–124.

awarenet (2004), Handbook for the prevention and minimization of waste and valorization of by-products in European agro-food industries. Deposito Legal: BI-223-04.

DEFRA 1: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/wastestratreview/environre-port.pdf.

DEFRA 2: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/topics/landfi ll-dir/.Europa (2006), Website for EU legislation: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/

search/search_lif.html.European Topic Centre on Resource and Waste Management (2006), Defi nitions

of waste: http://waste.eionet.eu.int/defi nitions/waste.maslow, a. h. (1970), Motivation and Personality (Harper and Row, New

York).Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2004), http://

www.oecd.org/home/.REPRO project: http://www.repro-food.net/.sanders, g. b. and crosby, k. s. (2004), Waste legislation and its impact on the

food industry. In Waldron K. W., Faulds C. B. and Smith A. C. (eds.), Total Food 2004 – Exploiting Co-Products, Minimising Waste. Proceedings volume, Institute of Food Research, pp. 16–28: http://www.totalfood2004.com.

waldron, k. w. (2004), Plant residues. In Waldron K. W., Faulds C. B. and Smith A. C. (eds.), Total Food 2004 – Exploiting Co-Products, Minimising Waste. Proceedings volume, Institute of Food Research, pp. 117–131: http://www.total-food2004.com.


waldron, k. w., faulds, c. b. and smith, a. c. (eds.) (2004), Total Food 2004 – Exploiting Co-Products, Minimising Waste. Proceedings volume, Institute of Food Research: http://www.totalfood2004.com.

Waste list http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/2000/en_2000D0532_do_001.pdf.

2

Consumer interests in food processing waste management and co-product recoveryL. J. Frewer and B. Gremmen, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

2.1 Introduction: consumer interests as a key driver to improve waste management in food processing

More than 10 million tonnes of food processing waste are produced within the European Community every year. The costs associated with handling the waste produced within the food industry constitute many tens of mil-lions of euros, attributable to landfi ll costs and other waste disposal routes. However, this waste is also known to contain signifi cant amounts of valu-able components which remain unexploited as a result of current food-waste processing practices. There are many kinds of potentially valuable components in these wastes: nutrients and micronutrients (protein, dietary fi bre, prebiotics, antioxidants and other bioactive polyphenolics), rheologi-cal agents (hydrocolloids, gelling agents, fi lms and coatings), texturised residues, fl avours and colourants (juices) (Cheunk et al., 2003). These could be utilised in pharmaceutical, cosmetic and nutraceutical high-value prod-ucts, as well as in contributing to medium-value food and feed ingredients. In the following we will focus on possible food products that can be repro-cessed from food waste.

In the past, most of the waste of the food processing industry has been used as landfi ll, or has been fed to farm animals. Recent changes in the legislative framework, which have been enacted as a response to various food safety incidences such as the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis, have forced the food industry to reconsider recycling practices. However, at the present time, increasing attention is being paid to the concept of sustainability. As a consequence, this issue is becoming increas-ingly important to the food industry and other food producers. In addition,


the industry also recognises the need to respond to increased regulatory, end-user, non-governmental organisations (NGO) and (to some extent) consumer interest in the need to implement sustainable production systems. Of course, consumers are not just interested in sustainability but also in food safety, food quality and a number of other issues; for example, emotional responses to novel foods, which may arise as a consequence of food reprocessing. In this way consumer attitudes towards reprocessed food products have become a key driver to improve waste management in food processing.

In considering the issue of food-waste recycling as an integral part of the food chain, some key questions regarding consumer attitudes to resultant novel products need to be asked. These include, for example, questions about our understanding of how the public conceptualises sustainability, and whether this differs from expert views regarding sustainable food pro-duction practices. It is also important to understand how these beliefs and attitudes relate to the consumption of specifi c foods and food products. Individual and cross-cultural differences in the conceptualisation of, and attitudes towards, sustainable production processes must also be evaluated and incorporated into the assessment of the utility of emerging technologies and novel foods that may arise as a consequence of food-waste recycling. Research should identify the salient consumer beliefs regarding sustainable and, conversely, unsustainable products and product features, and the way in which people’s values infl uence attitudes and opinions. At the present time, however, there has been little systematic empirical investigation of these various issues and questions. It may be possible to make some predic-tions of possible barriers to consumer acceptance, as well as reasons for consumer acceptance, regarding product commercialisation, by examina-tion of the relevant literature on related topics.

In particular, due consideration of these issues should be made when considering recycling food waste into new food products developed for consumer purchase. Account should be taken of consumer acceptance of the different technological innovations applied during the production process, as well as consumer perceptions of the motives of producers in implementing these new technologies (for example, is there a dominant consumer attitude that industry is engaging in recycling practices in order to increase profi tability, rather than to increase the sustainability of produc-tion processes?) and perceptions of risk. Previous risk events such as the BSE crisis may negatively predispose consumers towards recycling food wastes within the food chain, even if the recycled product is not destined for human consumption. During the BSE scare, consumer concern was underpinned by the recycling of animal waste into the human food chain in the form of animal feed. As a consequence there may be consumer con-cerns about the use of reprocessed waste in novel food production.

One might predict that effective commercialisation strategies will focus on regaining consumer confi dence in food production in general, as well as

Consumer interests in food processing waste management 23

communicating effectively and involving consumers in the broader debate about sustainable food production, and how this might be achieved and implemented.

This chapter aims to discuss some of the consumer issues relevant to sustainable production in general, and recycling food waste into the food chain in particular (either as animal feed or products for human consump-tion). Due account will be taken of factors driving consumer attitudes towards novel food products (for example, risk perception, perceptions of benefi t and consumer trust in food producers and regulators with responsibility for consumer protection). Finally, the need for greater consumer involvement early in the process of food innovation will be discussed.

2.2 Societal issues related to sustainability

2.2.1 SustainabilityThe key underlying driver for upgrading food-chain waste is improved sustainability, linked to the consumer attitude of concern for the environ-ment. Co-product exploitation and waste minimisation are vital to sustain-able development. Literally, sustainability means ‘the ability to sustain’. This implies maintaining something in the same state, or keeping it in the same state for a period of time, or providing support by giving help and encouragement or mobilising resources. In recent decades, the best-known and widely adopted defi nition of sustainable development was provided in the Brundtland report (1987), where sustainable development was defi ned as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Despite wide-spread application of this particular defi nition, there are many different interpretations, modifi cations and reformulations of what sustainability actually is (Gremmen and Jacobs, 1997). A World Bank inventory (Jacobs, 2001) listed no less than 190 different attempts to provide defi nitions. Indeed, sustainability has become linked to a large variety of human activi-ties, concepts and concerns, ranging from biodiversity preservation, through to corporate social responsibility. In addition, sustainability has become a priority for the world’s policy makers. The concept is now at the centre of regulatory activities in many countries around the world and has, as a con-sequence, become a societal norm. Although there is no single defi nition of sustainability over all domains, for the remainder of this chapter we refer to the Brundtland defi nition as a working defi nition.

Generally, people will do what they believe is ‘right’, i.e. whatever is consistent with their personal beliefs and/or the norms of the society in which they live. In the view of many stakeholders, including consumers, the food production system has ceased to be sustainable. The development of increasingly intensive and specialised forms of agriculture has culminated


in what some refer to as ‘industrial food production’ or ‘chemical farming systems’ (Nap et al., 2002). The farm is viewed as a factory with inputs and outputs, aiming at increased yields with reduced costs, often by exploiting the economies of scale. It is accompanied by use of and reliance on agro-chemicals, large-scale mono-cropping, and mechanisation and energy con-sumption. The primary objective of such agricultural systems is to produce as much food and fi bre as possible, for the least cost. According to Lyson (2002), ‘current conventional agriculture is anchored to the scientifi c para-digm of reductionist experimental biology, in combination with the reduc-tionism of neoclassical economics, driven by continued (desire for) industrialisation.’

Although successful in the past in terms of improving food security and food safety, virtually every aspect of conventional agricultural practice is viewed by many as problematic in terms of sustainability. The problems centre on both the environmental aspects and on the social and community aspects of food production. For example, current high-intensity practices in the agri-food sector not only have a negative impact on the supply and quality of water, these practices also cause erosion, unfertile soils, contami-nation by pesticides, excessive use of synthetic chemicals, and various levels of pollution of groundwater, soils and atmosphere. Arguably, existing methods of food production may contribute to negative changes within the ecosystem.

At the present time, there are increased efforts within the food industry to develop more sustainable food production practices, in part a response to consumer and regulatory demands. At the top of the sustainability agenda is conservation of resources related to energy and water use. Although sustainability in its broadest sense focuses on the conservation of natural resources, many of the goals of the food industry specifi cally refl ect the need for increased sustainability in the sense of renewable resource use and a signifi cantly reduced environmental burden of food production. International commitments towards improved sustainability are now under-pinned by demanding legislative controls to minimise the impact of waste on the environment and human health. In the European Community (EC), the importance of reducing waste has been refl ected in stringent legislation, particularly EC Council Directive 1999/31/EC (26 April, 1999) to reduce biodegradable waste disposed to landfi ll, 35% of 1995 levels by 2016, and the Hazardous Waste Directive (91/689/EEC) which includes cereal and vegetable food processing wastes. The Euro-legislation is implemented via appropriate national regulations (such as the UK Landfi ll Tax currently 20 euros per tonne). Across European Union (EU) member states, the amount of organic waste sent to landfi ll will be severely limited in the future. The impact of the legislation on food processors is also being increased by other regulations in the area of food safety. For example, there are now restric-tions on feeding many co-products to animals, and animal husbandry across Europe has been reduced as a result of public concerns such as dietary well

Consumer interests in food processing waste management 25

being and safety issues such as BSE (Windhorst, 20

Handbook of waste management and - WordPress.com · 2013-03-14 · Handbook of waste management and...

Documents

Transcript of Handbook of waste management and - WordPress.com · 2013-03-14 · Handbook of waste management and...