Alliance for
Sustainable Packaging for Foods

Position Paper

Analysis of published peer-reviewed studies focusing on the role of packaging in food safety and food loss/waste

Scientific peer-reviewed studies carried out by academic scientists around the world and summarized in this position paper are unequivocal: packaging has an indispensable role to ensure safety and quality of foods [1-8], as it:

• creates a barrier to prevent cross-contamination and recontamination,
• reduces spoilage due to mechanical damage and wounding,
• prevents oxidation-associated loss of nutritional value for fresh fruits, vegetables and meats,
• lessens temperature shocks and associated loss of product quality and nutritional value,
• maintains modified atmosphere (which extends shelf-life without the use of harsh chemicals),
• absorbs moisture (and thus reduces spoilage and leaking),
• shields finished product from condensate in refrigeration units (which may contain spoilage organisms and human pathogens),
• serves as a barrier to tampering and bioterrorism,
• contains information for traceability of foods through the supply chain, critical for recalls,
• contains indicators of food safety, quality and integrity,
• ensures integrity of organic, vegan, vegetarian, Halal and Kosher products.

While pending regulations are well-intentioned in their efforts to reduce plastic packaging litter, there is mounting scientific evidence that the implementation of certain provisions will have negative impacts on food safety, increase food loss and waste, and increase the overall carbon footprint of food production and distribution.

Unmasking food safety dangers of unpackaged ready-to-eat foods.

The magnitude of the food safety threat posed by removing packaging of foods that are currently sold packaged is currently unknown. The only direct market surveys compared microbiological safety of foods sold packaged in supermarkets with the same foods sold unpackaged at farmers markets. These studies – carried out over the last 5 years on 3 continents -- revealed significantly higher microbial loads, including human pathogens, on surfaces of unpackaged breads [9], pork [10, 11], mushrooms [12], and leafy greens [13]. Further, in studies conducted on different continents, surfaces of unpackaged foods were at least twice as likely to have been significantly contaminated with E. coli and Salmonella, with Listeria being detected only on the product sold unpackaged [10, 11]. Eukaryotic parasites of humans (helminths and protozoa) were significantly more prevalent on unpackaged lettuce and cilantro, compared to packaged [13]. Cross-contamination was also evident when foods were sold unpackaged [10]. Scientists also reached a conclusion that additional infrastructure is required to maintain hygiene and microbiological safety at places where foods are sold unpackaged [11]. While these limited surveys provide an alarming preview of the food safety consequences of removing packaging from foods, empirical studies summarized below provide further evidence that eliminating packaging for certain types of foods will have dire consequences to consumers.

The imperative to maintain food integrity and prevent cross-contamination: the role of packaging

An analysis of factors that contributed to the outbreaks and recalls over the last decade revealed that undeclared allergens and cross contamination were the top two recorded causes of food safety incidents/recalls [14]. While the current food supply chain is the safest it has been since the dawn of humanity, World Health Organization estimates that 600 million people (of them 23 million in the European Region) suffer from foodborne illness each year, and 420,000 (>4,600 in Europe) lose their lives to foodborne illness. Contamination of foods can occur at any point of the supply chain, and Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) protocols were put in place to minimize the risk the “upstream” hazards by heating or freezing or disinfection followed by packaging to maintain microbiological quality of the food post-treatment [3, 15, 16]. Once packaged, foods can typically move through the distribution and retail, with their safety supported by packaging [15, 16]. For some ready-to-eat products, like fresh and fresh-cut produce, the use of disinfectants can reduce but not eliminate cross-contamination and packaging was shown to be critical important to reducing cross-contamination [17, 18].

Reducing food loss and waste with Modified Atmosphere Packaging and “smart packaging”.

Since the 1970’s, fresh foods have been packaged in a “modified atmosphere”, which contains a different mixture of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and other inert gases to suppress the growth of human pathogens and spoilage organisms [19, 20],[21, 22] thus extending the shelf life of foods without the use of harsh chemicals. Over 240 recent studies document effects of MAP on shelf-life and quality of foods [23]. Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) improves microbial, sensory and overall quality of meats [24, 25], fresh and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables [26, 27] and cheese [23]. MAP was shown to extend shelf life of fresh-cut produce and fish beyond 16-17 days [26, 28, 29], and fresh meats beyond 21 days [25] thus reducing food waste and contributing to food security [4].

In addition to modified atmosphere, some types of polymer-based packaging also contain food-safe antimicrobials (such as enzymes, small peptides, etc) that actively inhibit growth of spoilage organisms [3-5]. Some types of intelligent packaging have time and temperature indicators, scavenge ethylene (volatile plant hormone that induces ripening and spoilage), prevents temperature shocks, absorbs moisture (which impacts food quality, shelf-life, microbiological safety), absorbs odors and protects foods from off-odors and off-flavors, scavenges oxygens. More advanced types of food packaging contain indicators and/or sensors of allergens, foodborne pathogens, microbial spoilage and leakage [4-6].

Food safety-sustainability trade-offs.

There is a growing concern within the food safety academic community with the lack of emphasis on food safety in an emergent body of food regulations and legislations around the world [30] [31]. This focus on food attributes other than food safety and nutritional content is not supported by sound data [30, 31], and – in addition to jeopardizing food safety is unlikely to reach the desired environmental goals.

An in-depth analysis of public health threats exacerbated by the climate change conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) identified two dozen foodborne biological hazards to human health (including 4 foodborne pathogens) as the hazards most likely to be aggravated by the changing climate. Meanwhile, plastic debris was ranked among the least likely chemical contaminants [32]. When sustainability issues are considered outside of public health and food safety, estimated food loss and the associated carbon footprint due to lack of proper packaging has a more significant negative effect on the environment than the positive effect of simplification or complete abandonment of packaging [33] [34]. This is especially true for foods such as fresh produce, meat products or dairy products, which are among most wasted beyond farmgate, with waste due to loss of quality exceeding 30-40% even when the product is packaged [31, 35-37].

Furthermore, a multi-institutional study in 4 EU countries reported that some efforts perceived as “sustainable” unintentionally compromise food safety [1]. Experts agreed that avoiding single-use plastic packaging even when cross-contamination is a threat, and re-use of packaging without proper sanitation were among the high-risk behaviors contributing to food-safety risks [1, 31].

Elimination of packaging will most likely have negative food safety consequences for the disadvantaged shoppers. For example, [38] reported that while consumers are generally aware of the food safety and sustainability trade-offs, it was those with the lower earnings and employment status who de-prioritized food safety and nutritional attributes of foods over perceptions of sustainability.

Integrity of culturally relevant foods and packaging.

Packaging and identifying characteristics (such as seals) are important for halal, Kosher, vegan, organic, fairtrade and other specialty items. Even though comingling and cross-contamination can occur at any point in the production, removing packaging and identifying characteristics associated with packaging will jeopardize access of millions of consumers to culturally-relevant foods, and will result in greater food loss. In fact, consumer surveys revealed this as a significant concern [39].

REFERENCES

1.  Kasza, G., et al., Conflicting issues of sustainable consumption and food safety: risky consumer behaviors in reducing food waste and plastic packaging. Foods, 2022. 11(21).
2. Cutter, C.N., Microbial control by packaging: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 2002. 42(2): p. 151-61.
3. Zahra, S.A., Y.N. Butt, and S. Nasar, Food packaging in perspective of microbial activity: a review. J Microbiol Biotech Food Sci, 2016. 6(2): p. 752-757.
4. Karanth, S., et al., Linking microbial contamination to food spoilage and food waste: the role of smart packaging, spoilage risk assessments, and date labeling. Front Microbiol, 2023. 14: p. 1198124.
5. Yam, K., P. Takhistov, and J. Miltz, Intelligent packaging: concepts and applications. J Food Sci, 2005. 70(1): p. R1-R10.
6. Poyatos-Racionero, E., et al., Recent advances in intelligent packaging as tools to reduce food waste. J Clean Prod, 2018. 172: p. 3398–3409.
7. Panea, B. and G. Ripoll, Sex Does Not Affect the Colour, Shear Stress, and Lipid Oxidation of Pork Meat, but Feed-Added Plant-Derived Extracts, Storage Time and Packaging Type Do. Foods, 2023. 12(8).
8. Golan, E., et al. Traceability in the U.S. food supply: economic theory and industry studies. Research in Agricultural and Applied Economics, 2004.
9. Ali, M., M. Hashish, and F. MM, Microbiological quality of some packed and unpacked bread products in Alexandria, Egypt. J Egyp Public Health Association, 2023. 98(1): p. 16.
10. Wang, W., et al., Differences in bacterial communities of retail raw pork in different market types in Hangzhou, China. Foods, 2023. 12(18).
11. Magqupu, S., et al., Quality and safety of pork sold in the informal urban street markets of the Cape Metropole, South Africa. Meat Sci, 2023. 204: p. 109270.
12. Ban, G.H., et al., Bacterial microbiota profiling of oyster mushrooms (Pleurotus ostreatus) based on cultivation methods and distribution channels using high-throughput sequencing. Int J Food Microbiol, 2022. 382: p. 109917.
13. Rodrigues, A.C., et al., Prevalence of contamination by intestinal parasites in vegetables (Lactuca sativa L. and Coriandrum sativum L.) sold in markets in Belem, northern Brazil. J Sci Food Agric, 2020. 100(7): p. 2859-2865.
14. Soon, J.M., A.K.M. Brazier, and C.A. Wallace, Determining common contributory factors in food safety incidents – A review of global outbreaks and recalls 2008–2018. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2020. 97: p. 76-87.
15. Radu, E., et al., Global trends and research hotspots on HACCP and modern quality management systems in the food industry. Heliyon, 2023. 9(7): p. e18232.
16. Nerin, C., M. Aznar, and D. Carrizo, Food contamination during food processing. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 2016. 48: p. 63-68.
17. Possas, A. and F. Perez-Rodriguez, New insights into cross-contamination of fresh produce. 2023. 49: p. 100954.
18. Carrasco, E., A. Morales-Rueda, and R.M. Garcia-Gimeno, Cross-contamination and recontamination by Salmonella in foods: a review. Food Res Int, 2012. 45: p. 545-556.
19. Wilson, M.D., et al., Innovative processes and technologies for modified atmosphere packaging of fresh and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 2019. 59(3): p. 411-422.
20. Zhang, M., et al., Recent Developments in Film and Gas Research in Modified Atmosphere Packaging of Fresh Foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 2016. 56(13): p. 2174-82.
21. Sun, M., et al., Coupling dynamics of respiration, gas exchange, and Pseudomonas fluorescens growth on fresh-cut cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) in passive modified atmosphere packing. Food Res Int, 2023. 173(Pt 1): p. 113306.
22. Couvert, O., et al., Effect of carbon dioxide and oxygen on the growth rate of various food spoilage bacteria. Food Micrbiol, 2023: p. 104289.
23. Albisu, M., et al., Optimization of Modified Atmosphere Packaging for Sheep's Milk Semi-Hard Cheese Wedges during Refrigerated Storage: Physicochemical and Sensory Properties. Foods, 2023. 12(4).
24. Heir, E., et al., Improved microbial and sensory quality of chicken meat by treatment with lactic acid, organic acid salts and modified atmosphere packaging. Int J Food Microbiol, 2022. 362: p. 109498.
25. Racewicz, P., et al., Impact of packaging system on the microbial quality of chilled rabbit meat over 21 days of storage. Anim Sci J, 2023. 94(1): p. e13852.
26. Barbosa, C., et al., Fresh-Cut Bell Peppers in Modified Atmosphere Packaging: Improving Shelf Life to Answer Food Security Concerns. Molecules, 2020. 25(10).
27. Lourenco, A., et al., Postharvest shelflife extension of minimally processed kale at ambient and refrigerated storage by use of modified atmosphere. Food Sci Technol Int, 2023: p. 10820132231195379.
28. Dai, Y., et al., Effect of 100% Oxygen-Modified Atmosphere Packaging on Maintaining the Quality of Fresh-Cut Broccoli during Refrigerated Storage. Foods, 2023. 12(7).
29. Babic Milijasevic, J., et al., Effect of Vacuum and Modified Atmosphere Packaging on the Shelf Life and Quality of Gutted Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) during Refrigerated Storage. Foods, 2023. 12(16).
30. Guillier, L., et al., Linking food waste prevention, energy consumption and microbial food safety: the next challenge of food policy? Curr Opinion in Food Science, 2016. 12: p. 30-35.
31. Kasza, G., et al., Balancing the desire to decrease food waste with requirements of food safety. Trends Food Sci Technol, 2019. 84: p. 74-76.
32. Maggiore, A., et al., Climate change as a driver of emerging risks for food and feed safety, plant, animal health and nutritional quality, E.F.S.A. (EFSA), Editor. 2020.
33. Silvenius, F., et al., Role of packaging in LCA of food products, in Towards life cycle sustainability management, M. Finkbeiner, Editor. 2011, Springer: Dordecht: Netherlands. p. 359-370.
34. Obersteiner, G., et al., Impact of optimized packaging on food waste prevention potential among consumers. Sustainability, 2021. 13: p. 4209.
35. Williams, H., et al., Avoiding food becoming waste in households - the role of packaging in consumers' practices across different food categories. J Clean Prod, 2020. 265: p. 121775.
36. Buzby, J.C., The estimated amount, value, and calories of post-harvest food losses at the retail and consumer levels in the United States, U. ERS, Editor. 2014. p. 39.
37. Jaglo, K., From Farm to Kitchen: the environmental impact of U.S. Food Waste, U. EPA, Editor. 2021.
38. Civero, G., et al., Food: not only safety, but also sustainbility. The emerging trend of new social consumers. Sustainability, 2021. 13(23).
39. Supian, K., Cross-contamination in processing, packaging, storage and transport of halal supply chain. Religious and Cultural Foods, 2018: p. 309-321.