Educational Programs in Food Science - Institute of Food

Educational Programsin Food Science:

A Continuing Struggle forLegitimacy, Respect, and Recognition

o. Fennema

The image of food science is muddled. Typical highschool seniors and high school counselors areunable to conjure up an accurate mental image of

what food science is all about (Anonymous, 1982;Hegenerand Hunter, 1980). What relevance does this have to thehistory of educational programs in food science? Plenty.This is not meant to be critical, since our profession hasmatured greatly since its origin in the early 1900s, and abetter course of maturation, at least one that would havebeen feasible, is hard to imagine. This article will explainwhat has led to this muddled image and present ways tohelp rectify this situation.

The Muddled Image of Food ScienceThe roots of food science lie in two disciplines-food

chemistry, mainly analytical chemistry as it developed inthe late 1800s and early 1900s,and microbiology, beginningwith the work of Pasteur (Bushill, 1968).Food engineeringwas a latecomer to the fold. The development of foodscience departments and their course offerings followedclosely the transitions in the food industry. In the early19OOs,food companies were small, technologically unso-

The image of food science ismuddled. Typical high schoolseniors and high school counselorsare unable to conjure up anaccurate mental image of whatfood science is all about.

phisticated, and poorly regulated. Artisans, tradesmen, andthe like were the type of personnel most needed. Gradually, food companies became larger, technologically moreadvanced, and better regulated, creating a need for personnel with greater skills.

In 191,3, two universities, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology and Oregon State University, responded toexisting technological needs of the food industry by offering the first courses in food technology (Prescott, 1950;

The author, 1982-83 President of the Institute ·ofFood Technologists, is Professor, Dept. of Food Science, University of Wisconsin, 1605 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706

'70 FOOD TECHNOLOGY -SEPTEMBER 1989

Proctor, 1950; Schultz, 1964). During 1920-50, a fewuniversity curricula in food technology (about five,depending on the criteria used) were developed (Schultz,1964). Thus, creation of the Institute of Food Technologists in 1939 occurred when university education in foodtechnology was in its infancy.

The rapid growth phase for establishment of universityprograms in food science occurred during the 1950s and'60s (Livingston, 1972). These departments were generallyformed by restructuring a single-commodity department,such as dairy processing, animal science, or horticulture, ormerging several single-commodity departments (Lineback,1986). During the latter stages of this period, manydepartments of foods and nutrition were absorbed intofood science departments.

Accompanying the rapid establishment of these newdepartments was a proliferation of departmental names anddramatic changes in curricula. Names such as Dairy andFood Science, Food Science and Industries, HorticultureProcessing, Food Technology and Nutrition, Food Scienceand Biochemistry, Nutrition and Food Science, and FoodScience and Technology emerged, with Food Science andFood Science and Nutrition eventually becoming mostcommon.

Most food science curricula in the 1950s were stronglyoriented to commodities, and this probably correspondedfairly well to industry needs at that time. Since then,courses in specific commodities have been deemphasized,with the new emphasis being given to pertinent background sciences, and to scientific principles that apply to allfoods, or at least to large groups of foods. Again, thischange reflects the transition of the food industry in thedirection of larger, technically more-sophisticated companies.

The development of food science undergraduate curricula in the United States was influenced greatly by theestablishment in 1958 of an 1FT "model curriculum"(Schaffner, 1958), and by the formalization in 1966 and1977 of guidelines ("minimum standards") pertaining toundergraduate curricula (Anonymous, 1962; 1966; 1977;Schaffner, 1958).

Considering the dramatic changes that have occurred inthe names of food science departments and the profoundalterations in curricula, small wonder that food science hasa muddled image.

Before leaving the historical component of this article, Iwould like to draw attention to a fascinating documentthe first report of the 1FT Committee on Education and

Curricula, which was issued in 1944 (Stewart, 1947). Thefollowing propositions were considered to be requisite for asatisfactory curriculum in food technology:

A. That the students first acquire as a foundationcertain basic courses applicable to all phases of foodtechnology; such as courses in chemistry, physics,mathematics, microbiology and biological chemistry.

B. That it is impossible for any person to becomeproficient in all phases of food technology and therefore it would be better to train students in the basicsciences with perhaps a limited knowledge of theirapplication to food technology, rather than to turn outstudents with a superficial knowledge of a large number of food industries and operations but lacking inbasic training.

C. That the students' specialized training in theapplication of these basic science principles to the fieldof food technology be reserved for periods toward theend of their college training.

D. That the student acquire some knowledge of theprinciples of engineering, either in the field of mechanical engineering or in the field of chemical engineering.

E. That the student acquire training in subjectmatter auxiliary to the scientific training but verynecessary to his proper functioning in industry; suchas law, business, accounting, statistics, personnel rela-

Our profession has maturedgreatly since its origin in theearly 1900s.

tionships, English, report writing, recordkeeping, geographical agriculture.

F. That it is probably not desirable for all students toreceive the same training. Some might specialize in thesanitary aspects of food technology, others in the biochemical, physical, organic, or the engineering, but allshould have such a knowledge of the field as a whole asto enable them to understand the literature and language of the whole field.

G. That during summer vacations a student work infood processing plants or perhaps drop out during hiscollege course to gain a year of practical experience in aprocessing plant.

H. That probably five years of college work will berequired.I find it nothing short of incredible that these proposi

tions, composed 45 years ago, describe so well the currentbeliefs of leading educators in food science.

-Continued on next page

SEPTEMBER 19B9-FOOD TECHNOLOGY 171

Educational Programs (continued)

The Current Situation andTrends

It is appropriate to comment brieflyabout colleges of agriculture, sincemost food science departments areadministratively situated in colleges orschools of this kind and it is obviousthat they have a bearing on foodscience departments.

In general, undergraduate enrollments in agriculture are declining;graduate-level enrollments are fairlyconstant (Bruene et al., 1987); thestudent body is increasingly nonruralin background; and the quality ofentering students, on the basis ofScholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) andGraduate Record Examination (GRE)scores, is below that of the averagestudent entering the physical and biological sciences, medicine, and engineering (Anonymous, 1985; Smith,1986).

Ta persons not well acquaintedwith colleges of agriculture, the imageis usually one of cows, farms, andshallow science-none too helpful inrecruiting top-quality, science-oriented high school students into foodscience programs that also are afflictedwith a muddled image.

Approximately 69 U.S. universitiesoffer programs that can be broadlycategorized as food science, and 42 ofthese offer one or more curricula thatmeet the 1FT minimum standards(Anonymous, 1977; 1986). The number of degrees awarded in food science

To assess programquality in a foodscience department,one must consideras relevant

components thestudents, faculty,curricula, andresources / facilities.

and various sub-areas during 1982-85are shown in Table 1. It is apparentthat the number of B.S. and M.S.degrees awarded in recent years do notfollow a distinct trend, but annuallyaverage about 1,300 and 350, respectively. The number of Ph.D. degreesawarded annually during 1982-85 hastended to increase and in 1985 was161.

A few other relevant points that arepoorly documented but generally believed to represent national trendsare as follows:

- The proportion of females enrolled in food science has increasedduring the past 10 years to a pointwhere females exceed males in manyundergraduate programs; the ratio isapproaching one to one in graduateprograms; and more females than males

win 1FT-administered scholarshipsand fellowships.

-Freshmen enrolled in food science continue to represent a smallpart of the total undergraduate enrollment in most departments of foodscience.

-Something on the order of 50%of the students entering graduate programs in food science do not holdundergraduate degrees in food science.

-A sizable proportion of the students enrolled in graduate programsin food science are not U.S. citizens,anq most of the foreign students comefrom lesser-developed countries.

To assess program quality in a foodscience department, one must consider as relevant components the students, faculty, curricula, and resources/facilities:

• Students. Two approaches toassessing quality of students can beconsidered-measures of the qualityof students entering programs in foodscience, and measures of long-termperformance of graduates. Emphasizedin this discussion will be the formeraspect, not because it is more important, but simply because data do notexist regarding the latter.

Tools of some value in judging thequality of students entering universities at the undergraduate level areSAT scores and high school rank, andat the graduate level are baccalaureategrade-point averages (GPAs), GRE

Table I-Degrees Awarded in the food scienceand human nutrition areas by land grant collegesof agriculture. From Bruene et al. (1986)No. of degreesDepartment or

awarded

subspecialty

YearB.S.M.S. Ph.D.

Food Science/ Human Nutrition19821,034388124

19831,323326117

19841,251396139

19851,329322161

Subspecialty Food Sciences,1985499233101

General Dairy Processing19852533

Food Distribution198518600

Food Engineering1985627

Food Packaging198518940

Food Technology198598179

Nutritional Sciences19853267341

172 FOOD TECHNOLOGY -SEPTEMBER 1989

Table 2-Suggested Criteria for assessing newoptions in food science

• Specialty courses in the proposed optionmust have an intellectual content consistent withaccepted university standards; Le., courses dealingwith "tricks of the trade" should be avoided, andcourses dealing with long-enduring principles ofsubstantial importance should be stressed.

• Primary aspects of the option must be compatible with a strong, science-based program infood science; Le., the option must not subvertscience prerequisites and core courses that arenormally required in the food science program. Anobvious result is that the option may require fiveyears to complete.

• The anticipated pool of students enteringthe option must be sufficient to permit specialtycourses in the option to be offered at least onceannually with enrollments sufficient to satisfy theuniversity's minimum requirements.

• Faculty should be sufficient in number andexpertise to teach, in an academicallyacceptablemanner, all specialty courses required in theoption.


For information circle 201

LUXTRON1060 Terra Bella Ave., Mountain View, CA 94043 Tel: (415) 962-8110 Fax: (415) 961-5978

THE PRODUCT AND PACKAGE TEMPERATURE

INSIDE YOUR MICROWAVE OVEN?

pelling observations that support thisstatement:

First, it would be extremely difficultfor a department to claim that it isrigorously screening the quality ofentering graduate students, unlessapplicants are abundant enough thatsome domestic students with GPAs of3.2 (4.0 basis) or greater and GREscores of 1,200 (verbal + quantitative)or greater are routinely rejectedbecause more qualified persons areavailable.If a U.S. food science department exists that is able to operate inthis fashion, its identity is unknown tome. Yet, some basic science departments are able to function in thismanner. It is also apparent that somedepartments of food science are ableto attract larger numbers of highquality graduate students than others,leading to the conclusion that thequality of graduate students in foodscience varies significantly from oneuniversity to another.

Second, if one assumes that mostdepartments of food science areaccepting students who are less wellqualified than those in other highlyregarded, science-based departments(which I believe to be true whenconsidering all U.S. departments offood science), then to assure that students receiving advanced degrees conform to acceptably high standards,some of the entering students shouldregularly fail to complete their degreesbecause of shortcomings in expectedcapabilities. It is my observation thatthis does not generally occur, for tworeasons: (1) It is difficult to assess withreasonable accuracy and unanimity ofopinion the kind and nature of deficiencies in capabilities that are sufficient to cause a degree candidate tofail; and (2)professors are reluctant tofail students who are well into theirresearch because of the need toproduce timely research results forgranting agencies. Thus, if studentsare admitted to graduate programs infood science, they are likely to graduate, provided that they (1)maintain anacceptable GPA in course work, (2)develop moderately adequate laboratory skills, and (3) display a reasonablelevel of determination. When theseconditions are satisfied, and they usually are, then admission is tantamountto graduation. This situation need notbe undesirable, provided that the quality of students being admitted is sufficiently high (e.g., as in medicalschools), but this is often not true infood science programs.

The number of students also has animpact on program quality. Manydepartments of food science have toofew students, which often results in an

1986). Judgments on the quality ofstudents in food science must, therefore, be based on other considerations, and the only meaningfulremarks I can make concern graduatestudents.

It is my opinion that typical graduate students in food science are usuallynot the worst, nor the best, among thespectrum of graduate students in science-based departments at typical universities. There are two rather com-

The flexible fiber optic probes are

unaffected by microwave energy making

them completely microwave oven compatible.

Measurements are easy, repeatable and

require no calibration.

For over 10 years, Luxtron has set the

industry standards for reliable, real-time,

in-the-oven temperature measurements.

Take the guesswork out of your microwave

food product development, call or write

Luxtron and let the leader in fiber optic

thermometry help make your product amarket leader.

Take the guesswork out of microwave food

product development. Measuring tempera

tures in the oven is the only way to optimize

microwave product performance.

Whether you're developing prepared

foods or "active" packaging, Luxtron hasthe solution.

Luxtron's unique fiber optic thermometer

will save you time and money. This systemmakes reliable surface or immersion mea

surements at multiple points during the

microwave cooking process.

scores, and ratios of applicants to acceptees in the department.

Currently available data on SATand GRE scores are not useful forevaluating students in food sciencebecause these tests do not include"Food Science" as one of their statistical categories. For SAT s, the mostdetailed category containing food science is "Agriculture," and for GREsthe most detailed category is "AppliedBiology" (Anonymous, 1985; Smith,

174 FOOD TECHNOLOGY-SEPTEMBER 1989

Be sure to visit us at the DFISA Show, Booth #710

...small batch processing

...minimum sample loss

...reproducibility

...simple to use andeasy to clean

...assured scale-up

...wear-resistant, reversiblevalve assemblyfor long life

...pressures to 23,000 psig(1,500 bar)

APV Gaulin, Inc.44 Garden Street, Everett, MA 02149·4512

Tel: (617) 387·9300. Fax: (617) 387-4431 Telex: 0174275.

APV Gaulin International

Hilversum, Holland

Tel: (035) 212645 Fax: (035) 218047. Telex: 43860.

APV Gaulin GmbH

Lubeck, West Germany

Tel: (0451) 693010. Fax (0451) 690866. Telex: 26355.

Stop expensive fermentation brothloss. Our new Micron Lab 40 CellDisruption Homogenizer will processsamples from 20 ml to 40 ml. ..inseconds ...with 95% recovery.

Since our first cell disruption laboratory test in 1952, APV Gaulin hasbeen working with researchers todevelop efficient and cost-effectiveequipment. This latest laboratorymodel incorporates the features youwanted most. ..

From 20 ml to 3,000 liters (800gph) at pressures from 8,000 psig(500 bar) to 23,000 psig (1,500 bar),APV Gaulin manufactures a cell disruption homogenizer to match yourneeds ...from the laboratory to fullproduction.

For over 80 years APV Gaulin hasbeen providing a complete line of

labscale, pilot plant and production

size homogenizers to match yourproduction needs. Labscale unitsare also available for rent.

MINIMUM SAMPLE

MAXIMUM RECOVERY

.~APV

TyPical graduatestudents in foodscience are usuallynot the worst, northe best, among thespectrum ofgraduate studentsin science,baseddepartments attyPical universities.

inability of the department to offer therange of courses generally deemedappropriate for a high-quality program.

• Faculty. Discussion of this important aspect will be short, since dataare unavailable. The pertinent questions are, "Is faculty quality improving?" and "How does the quality offaculty in food science compare to thatin other highly regarded scientificfields?"

Based on personal observations ofvarious departments of food scienceand of universities in general, and ondiscussions with other professors infood science, it would seem safe toconclude that faculty quality in foodscience is following a steady trend ofimprovement. This is clearly true withrespect to competency in pertinentanalytical skills, but less certain withregard to innate intellectual qualities. Iam persuaded that average facultyquality in food science is not quiteequal to that of faculty in departmentsinvolved with more-basic sciences.This conclusion, although unsubstantiated, is not illogical, based on therelative newness and still-developingacademic stature of the field of foodscience, the average quality of Ph.D.students graduating from departmentsof food science (these are the primarysource of faculty members in foodscience), and the lack of intense competition for open academic positionsin food science.

The number of faculty also has abearing on program quality. Manydepartments are still plagued by having too few faculty members. This hasseveral undesirable consequences: (1)faculty members are required to teacha broad array of courses, some involving subject matter in which they maynot be highly proficient; (2) highquality, graduate-level courses in foodscience will be inadequate in number;(3) teaching and public-service obliga-



tions for faculty members will be sufficiently time-consuming to impair afaculty member's ability to establish asound research program-an essentialpart of high-quality, graduate-leveleducation; and (4) few opportunitieswill exist to hire discipline-orientedfaculty members who can contributegreatly to in-depth teaching andresearch programs.

• Curricula. Quality of the curriculum at the undergraduate level hasclearly improved during the past 20years, and the 1FT minimum standards have helped greatly in thisregard. However, curriculum quality

Quality of thecurriculum at theundergraduate levelhas clearlyimproved during thepast 20 years, andthe 1FT minimumstandards havehelped greatly inthis regard.

at both the undergraduate and graduate levels is, not surprisingly, highlydependent on the specificfood sciencedepartment and also on the quality ofdepartments that provide supportingcourses required in food science programs.

A definite bright spot with respectto curriculum is that textbooks forfood science have risen from a point ofcritical inadequacy in the 1950s toacceptability for most subject areas in1989.

At the graduate level, nothing comparable to the 1FT undergraduateguidelines have been developed. Thus,considerable variability in program design exists among the various departments of food science. This has somedesirable aspects, but contributes to atleast two problems. A graduate-leveldegree in food science from one university may· represent qualificationsquite different from those expected atanother university. This does not helpclarify the image of food science. Furthermore, under this system, a desirable national dialogue does not exist tothe extent that it should, regardinggoals and solutions to problems thatare common to almost all graduatelevel programs in food science.

• Facilities and Resources. Not tobe forgotten in evaluating program

176 FOOD TECHNOLOGY-SEPTEMBER 19B9

quality is the adequacy of facilities,equipment, instrumentation, libraries,and operating funds. Unquestionably,facilities for food science have, in general, improved markedly during thepast 20-30 years. However, manyinstances can still be found wherefacilities are substandard to the pointat which program effectiveness isadversely influenced. Moreover, it isnot difficult to find food science programs in major universities where serious problems exist with respect to theadequacy of equipment, instrumentation, library support, and/or operatingbudgets. In fairness, it should be notedthat these problems are not confinedto food science, as is clearly evidentfrom a report dealing with a nationwide assessment of this matter(NCSFA, 1983).Unresolved Issues for FutureAttention

Undisputably, the nature and quality of education in food science haveimproved over the past 50 years to thepoint where food science is now amoderately to well-respected field ofacademic endeavor in almost all universities that have agricultural offerings, and in several universities that donot. Additional growth in terms ofestablishing food science programs inuniversities that do not have them islikely to be slow, so future changesprobably will occur through enlargement, reorientation, and refinementof existing food science programs.

A number of unresolved issues,however, deserve attention:

• Weare already well into a phasewhere nutrition and toxicology arebecoming important aspects of foodscience programs. This desirable trendis likely to continue and should beprominently publicized in titles andinformation describing our profession.

• Refinement of the basic undergraduate program in food science is asubject of active discussion, and this ishealthy. Some have suggested thatoptions in areas such as quality assurance (Blanchfield, 1980; Lawrence,1980; Nelson, 1978), nutrition (Francis, 1977), food engineering (Toledo,1977), processing (Lukes, 1977), andbusiness management (Miller, 1977)should be accommodated in the 1FTminimum standards. Suggestions suchas these are worthy of careful assessment, but implementation should bedone with care, because in someinstances establishment of the optioncan undermine the core sciencerequirements that are generally recognized as essential in any food sciencedegree program. Criteria which I con-

sider useful in assessing the appropriateness of any new option are listed inTable 2.

Others believe that B.S. graduatesin food science are deficient in communication skills (a vigorously registered and common observation byindustry scientists; Bauman, 1979;Buchanan, 1972; Lauro, 1977; Sloanand Labuza, 1979), skills in humanrelations (Albrecht, 1979), food law(Bauman, 1979; Hutt, 1985; Lauro,1977), problem solving, knowledgeabout professional ethics, and laboratory skills needed for graduate studies.Obviously, the minimum curriculumrequirements cannot be expanded toaccommodate all of these suggestedneeds. The only reasonable approach,it seems to me, is for the 1FT Committee on Education to conduct surveysand workshops to ascertain, from asizable and representative sample offood scientists, what are the strengthsand weaknesses of our current minimum standards. Only then can soundrecommendations for change be formulated.

• Yet another suggestion deservingserious attention is an internship program for science-oriented, collegebound high school students. Thiscould involve summer placement ofthese students in food companies justbefore their freshman year in college,with the most outstanding studentsbeing accommodated in research facilities and the remainder in productionfacilities. This could be a powerfultool for recruiting capable high schoolstudents into food science programscurrently a serious national deficiency.

• A few individuals have alsoobserved that current doctoral programs in food science do not providethe kind of education which is mostappropriate for those students intending to pursue careers in lesser-developed countries (Bourne, 1980). Thecriticism is that, in addition to currentPh.D. requirements, these studentsneed to be exposed to a broad array ofpractical, hands-on experiences. Thisis a valid observation that deservescareful consideration. But extremecare needs to be exerted to assure thatcurrent standards in food science doctoral programs, which have beenpainstakingly established over manyyears, are not subverted by new programs of this kind. My suggestionwould be that interested individualsbe allowed to engage in a one-year,post-Ph.D. residency in industry orgovernment, where these neededpractical skills can be gained.

• A need exists to monitor the


309A McLaws Circle Williamsburg, Virginia 23185Telephone 804-220-2900 TWX: 7108822260 Lovibond'" WMBG

FAX: 804-229-0472

Use Lovibond® fortesting and see what

color your world really is!

vide a philosophical background.These views are, of course, my personal opinions, but they are shared by agood many of my respected colleagues:

1. Above all else, graduates in foodscience must be well grounded inpertinent background sciences such asphysics, mathematics, biology, microbiology, and various subspecialties ofchemistry (inorganic, organic, physical, and biochemistry).

2. The background sciences mustbe well integrated into the core foodscience courses, with emphasis givento long-enduring scientific principlesand critical thinking rather than tocommodity-specific approaches. Twoquotations are appropriate in supportof this position. The first is by R.M.Hutchins, former president of theUniversity of Chicago (Hutchins,1953):

Universities are not well adaptedto teaching the tricks of trades.And it is unwise for them to makethe attempt. The great problem ofthe university is the problem ofpurpose. What is it for? If itundertakes to teach the tricks ofsome trades, why should it not bewilling to assume the sameresponsibility with regard to any?But why should it try? Unless itsprofessors are engaged in thepractice of the occupation, theyare unlikely to be adept at thelatest tricks; and, if they areactively engaged in the occupation, they are unlikely to begood professors. This is not because of any defect in their character but because the demands ofactive professional life do not allow them time for study and reflection. The best division of responsibility between the university and the occupation would beto have the university deal withthe intellectual content of theoccupation, if there is any, andto have the occupation itself takecharge of familiarizing its ownneophytes with the technical operations they have to leam .The second quotation is from the

1962 1FT Conference on Undergraduate Education in Food Science andTechnology (Anonymous, 1962):

In discussing the requiredcourses, some industry representatives expressed satisfaction inthat progress had been considerable in improving the caliber andcontent of Food Science coursessince the First Educational Conference. However, there was criticism of the amount of time devot-

Lovibond•

A Few Philosophical PointsI will close this article with pro

posed guidelines for assessing thestrength of undergraduate and graduate programs in food science; butbefore doing so, I believe it is appropriate to raise a few points that pro-

student quality to be determined, andthe effectiveness of recruiting effortsto be assessed.

For further information contact:

The Tintometer CompanyTesting the Colors of the World

Accurate and economical, Lovibond®color measuringsystems offer reproducibility for industries as diverse asagricultural, biological, chemical, cosmetics, plastics, foodbeverage processing, industrial, manufacturing, medical,paints, pharmaceuticals, printing and textiles.Supplying: Visual/Manual- Tristimulus Colorimeters-Spec-

trophotometers to provide data for:• AOAC • Inhouse• AOCS Developed• ASTM Standards• CIE • Lovibond®• FDA • USDA

·US Pharmacopeia

Through: Transmittance·Reflectance· Absorption·Color Comparison·Full Spectrum AnalysisOn Line· Bench· Portable


quality of students entering food science programs. This can be done bycollecting information on high schoolrank and SAT scores of studentsentering undergraduate programs infood science, and on ORE scores andOPAs of students entering graduateprograms in food science. This information would allow student quality infood science to be compared to that inother science-based fields, trends in

Your worldis not all

black and white



ed to descriptions of practices andprocesses, particularly in relationto individual commodities orgroups of commodities. Industryrepresentatives stated that a student could readily learn industrypractices and details pertaining toindividual commodities duringindustrial employment, and it wassuggested that if a student is ableto learn a subject within industry,then that subject should not betaught at a university. This wouldafford a university more time forinstruction in the basic sciencesand principles of food processing.It was further suggested that

greater emphasis be placed onteaching students to think quantitatively and encourage them inthe application of principles, rather than in amassing descriptiveinformation that is generally common knowledge to industry people.

I should hasten to add that adoptionof this philosphy should in no waydiscourage the offering of commoditycourses on an elective basis, providedthat they are taught in a mannerconsistent with accepted universitystandards; or of conducting researchon commodities, provided that this

research is conducted in a mannercompatible with sound graduate-leveleducation.

3. The approach to core courses infood science should be (and increasingly is) predominantly quantitativerather than descriptive. The increasing influence of food engineers on thefood science curriculum has beenespecially positive in this regard.

4. The concept of options in foodscience, especially at the undergraduate level, should be approached withgreat caution. It seems likely that proliferation of options at the undergraduate level cannot occur without sacri-

T~ble 3-Proposed Guidelines for assessing the strength of existing or proposed academic programs in foodsCIence

Curriculum• Does the department offer high-quality

courses that are sufficient in kind and number tocover the subject matter deemed essential for thedegree program? Are the course requirements inaccord with standards developed by a relevantprofessional organization?

• Are essential courses from supporting departments of a kind and quality that equal or exceedstandards applied to courses in the major?

• At the M.S. level, are several high-quality,advanced-level courses required that are notrequired at the B.S. level?

• At the doctoral level, are several high-quality,advanced-level courses required that are notrequired at the M.S. level?

• For graduate programs, has the departmentestablished minimum course requirements thatmust be fulfilled by all graduate students regardlessof subspecialty?

• Especially with regard to subspecialties, is theintellectual content of the program in accordancewith generally accepted university standards thatprevail in well-regarded, science-based programs?

Students• Are the number of qualified students current

ly enrolled in the program (or likely to enroll in theprogram in the near future) sufficient so that allrequired undergraduate courses can be offered atleast once a year, and all required graduate coursescan be offered at least once every other year withenrollments of no less than 7-8 students percourse?

• Are procedures in place to assure, with reasonable certainty, that entering graduate studentspossess capabilities consistent with those in wellregarded, science-based programs? (This is a pointof great importance with regard to the quality ofgraduate programs in food science, since, in mostsituations, admittance to a department is tantamount to graduation.)


Faculty and Staff• Does an adequate pool of highly qualified

applicants exist when open positions occur? Thisconsideration is of special importance for subspecialties.

• Are the numbers of capable faculty and staffsufficient to support high-quality programs for alldegrees offered? If not, is there reasonable hopethat the needed number of personnel can be soonadded without impairing the quality of other essential departmental programs? (For departmentsoffering graduate-level research degrees in foodscience, acceptable program quality cannot occurunless faculty numbers are well in excess of theminimum needed to teach required courses. Furthermore, high-quality education in research is notpossible unless departmental research programs arestrong, and these programs cannot be strong unlessseveral faculty positions are filled on the basisprimarily of research needs; faculty members whoare expected to be major participants in researchhold at least 50% appointments in research; andthe number of research faculty is sufficient-perhaps six-to sustain a "critical mass"-perhaps30-of graduate studenrs in the department.)

Resources• Are library materials and services sufficient to

properly support the degree programs offered?• Are facilities, equipment, and instrumenta

tion sufficient to properly support the degreeprograms offered?

• Are budgeted departmental operating fundssufficient to properly support the degree programsoffered (e.g., maintenance of departmental facilities, equipment, and instruments; payment of telephone and duplicating services, provision of adequate clerical support)?

• For departments offering graduate degrees,are research funds adequate in kind and amountto support projects that are suitable for educatinggraduate students in accordance with standardsthat generally apply in high-quality, science-basedprograms?

ficing program quality and detractingfrom efforts to establish a clear imageof the capabilities possessed by individuals with degrees in food science.

5. Care must be exercised to assurethat research projects for graduate students are consistent with generallyaccepted standards pertaining to graduate-level education in the biologicaland physical sciences. Projects that donot provide the student with substantial experience with experimentaldesign, advanced methodologies andinstrumental techniques, problemsolving, and data analysis are of questionable suitability for thesis projectsin food science.

6. The best teachers are generallythose who are engaged in activeresearch programs. In support of thiscontention, I quote from a presentation by Duane Acker, who at the timewas associate dean of agriculture anddirector of resident instruction atKansas State Univ. (Acker, 1964):

Research tends to keep the mindactive and questioning. The process provides daily reminders thatnew knowledge continues toflow, that the mind must perceive,accept, integrate, adapt, and usethis new knowledge. The real value of research to the teachingprocess is not the length of thepublication list that develops, butthe health and vigor of the mind itstimulates.

7. For those who carefully ponderthe question, "What are the two mostimportant determinants of success forstudents graduating in food science?" Ibelieve many would choose "technicalcompetence" and "personal attributes," but not necessarily in thatorder. "Technical competence" ismeant to include problem-solvingskills, and "personal attributes"includes personal motivation andskills in human relations. Some mightquestion whether personal attributesdeserves equal ranking with technicalcompetence. I firmly believe that itdoes, in part because (1) it is myunderstanding that failure to advancein or retain a job is caused morefrequently by deficiencies in personalattributes than by deficiencies in technical matters, and (2) a common complaint among senior industry personnel is that recently graduated foodscience students are lacking in communication skills (Bauman, 1979;Buchanan, 1972; Lauro, 1977).

If one accepts these factors as determinants of success, then a troublingrealization becomes evident. Universities expend great effort, and generallysucceed, in imparting technical com-

Almond Fondue

Almond Butter &Jelly

Blue Point Almond

Almond AnythingYour ideas. Our almonds. Together, we can do almost almond anything.

You see, we're not only the source of the world's finest almonds. We're alsothe world's best resource for creating new almond products.•

Call for our latest brochure. TEL: 916-442-0771. FAX: 916-446-8461.

P.O. Box 1768, Sacramento, CA 95812



petence, but they exert little effort andare notably unsuccessful in affectingpersonal attributes. This is not entirely the result of oversight, as somemight conclude, but rather tacit recognition of the fact that the universitiessimply do not know how to alter theinner person (personality, motivation)in a consistently positive manner. Thislack of effectiveness, I might add,extends to all other institutions,including, in many instances, the family. It is, of course, possible for universities to improve communication skillsof graduates, but even this is not beingdone to the satisfaction of manyemployers. Cocurricular activities (internships in industry, involvementwith student clubs, and the like) mayhelp develop desirable personal attributes, but our present state of knowledge does not allow us to prove ordisprove this possibility. Clearly, thisproblem deserves greater thought anddiscussion by planners of universitycurricula than it has received.

Guidelines for AssessingProgram Quality

Surely, agreement must exist as tothe need for continual evaluation andimprovement of degree programs infood science. 1FT, by means of severaleducation conferences (Anonymous,1962; 1977; Schaffner, 1958) and itsEducation Committee, has contributed greatly to this task at the undergraduate level. However, the time hascome for an expansion of these effectsat all degree levels.

I am not suggesting certification ofdegree programs, because I find theadvantages with regard to upgradingweak programs insufficient to counterbalance the cost, bureaucratic burdens, and stifling of innovation thataccompany certification programs.What I am advocating is the establishment of a set of guidelines that shouldencompass all degree programs (B.S.and above) and should include abroader range of educational issues infood science than have heretoforereceived serious attention at thenational level. It is with some trepidation that I propose recommendationsrelating to this matter, since I don'tpretend to have a comer on all of theproper concepts. Nonetheless, I feelstrongly that 1FT must discuss theseissues more actively, and I am hopingthat what I am setting forth will stimulate this discussion and result indesirable actions.

The proposed guidelines, presentedin Table 3, are self explanatory andfairly general. I hope that some wiseand knowledgeable group, such as the1FT Education Committee, will see


fit to flesh out these guidelines withmore-detailed recommendations, e.g.,minimum student and faculty numbers for B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. programs, specific means of measuringprogram quality, etc.

I truly believe that food science isentering an exciting phase that will bedominated, academically, by improvements in program quality and programidentity rather than by growth innumbers. My sincere hope is that thisarticle will stimulate discussion aboutissues in food science education andthereby help assure that 1FT, duringits second 50 years, will continue toexert strong leadership in this important aspect of our profession.

ReferencesAcker, D. 1964. Bottlenecks to effective

teaching. Presented at 2nd meeting ofthe Midwestern Section, Am. Soc. Animal Science, Chicago, Ill., Nov. 28.

Albrecht, J.J. 1979. Graduate training for acareer in industry. Food Technol.33(12):26.

Anonymous, 1962. Conference on undergraduate education in food science andtechnology. Food Technol. 16(8):42.

Anonymous. 1966. 1FT Council adoptsundergraduate curriculum minimumstandards. Food T echnol. 20: 1567.

Anonymous. 1977. 1FT undergraduatecurriculum minimum standards-1977revision. Food Technol. 31(10): 60.

Anonymous. 1982. "Index of Majors 198283," 5th ed. College Entrance Examination Board, New York.

Anonymous. 1985. "National CollegeBound Seniors, 1985." College Entrance Examination Board, Evanston,Ill.

Anonymous. 1986. 1FT-administered fellowship/scholarship program 1987/88.Program description and applicationinstructions. Inst. of Food Technologists, Chicago, Ill.

Bauman, H.E. 1979. Changes in industrialresearch require changes in graduateeducation. Food Technol. 33(12): 30.

Blanchfield, J.R. 1980. The mastership infood control in the United Kingdom.Food Technol. 34(1):56.

Bourne, M.C. 1980. Graduate educationneeds for students from less-developedcountries. Food Technol. 34(1):53.

Bruene, R., Chapman, S., Conneman, G.,Branen, L., and Mugler, D. 1986. Resident Instruction Committee on Organization and Policy, Natl. Assn. of StateUniversities and Land Grant Colleges,Washington, D.C.

Bruene, R., Chapman, S., Conneman, G.,Branen, L., and Mugler, D. 1987. Fall1986 enrollment in NASULGC Colleges of Agriculture. Resident Instruction Committee on Organization andPolicy, Natl. Assn. of State Universitiesand Land Grant Colleges, Washington,D.C.

Buchanan, B.F. 1972. The mission of foodscience programs-An industry view.Food Technol. 26(10): 76.

Bushill, J.H. 1968. Food science-Development and current internationalneeds. Food Technol. 22(9): 1096.

Francis, F.J. 1977. A nutrition option in afood science/technology program. FoodTechnol. 31(10):58.

Hegener, K.C. and Hunter, J. 1980. "Pe. terson's Annual Guide to Undergraduate Study, 1981 Edition." PetersonGuides. Princeton, N.J.

Hutchins, R.M. 1953. "The University ofthe Utopia." Univ. of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Hutt, P.B. 1985. Food technology andfood law: An uneasy partnership.FoodT echnol. 39(8): 14.

Lauro, G.J. 1977. Attitudes of industrytoward the minimum standards. FoodTechnol. 31(10):53.

Lawrence, H. 1980. A quality assurance/quality control option in food scienceeducation. Food Technol. 34(1):59.

Lineback, D.R. 1986. Issues in U.S. foodscience and technology education. FoodTechnol. 40(12): 131.

Livingston, G.E. 1972. Food Science graduate programs-Current trends. FoodTechnol. 26(9):76.

Lukes, T.M. 1977. A processing option ina food science/technology program.Food Technol. 31(10):57.

Miller, M.W. 1977. A business management option in a food science technology program. Food Technol. 31(10): 59.

NCSFA. 1983. Signs of trouble and erosion: A report on graduate education inAmerica. Natl. Commission on StudentFinancial Assistance, Washington,D.C.

Nelson, P.E. 1978. Training for employment in quality assurance. Food Technol. 32(10): 51.

Prescott, S.c. 1950. Beginnings of thehistory of the Institute of Food Technologists. Food Technol. 4: 305.

Proctor, B.E. 1950. Food Technology curricula. Food Technol. 4: 303.

Schaffner, R.M. 1958. What trainingshould a four-year food technology student receive? Summary report on theeducational conference, Institute ofFood Technologists. Food T echnol.12(9):7.

Schultz, H.W. 1964. Educating our foodscientists and technologists. Food Technol. 18: 1295.

Sloan, A.E. and Labuza, T.P. 1979. Preparing food science graduate students fornew and diversified opportunities. FoodTechnol. 33(12): 32.

Smith, H.R. III. 1986. A summary of datacollected from Graduate Record Examinations test takers during 1984-1985.Educational Testing Service, Princeton,N.J.

Stewart, G.F. 1947. Instruction in foodtechnology in the universities and colleges of the United States. Food Technol. 1: 299.

Toledo, R.T. 1977. A food engineeringoption in a food science/technologyprogram. Food Technol. 31(10):55.

-Edited by Neil H. Mermelstein, SeniorAssociate Editor

Pioneers in Food Scienceand Technology:

"Giants in the Earth"Richard L. Hall

At the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of FoodTechnologists, we properly look back to our beginning, and forward to tomorrow. This article will

focus on some of the people who played key roles in the development of food science and technology and ofIFT. Theyexemplify the Biblical quotation (Genesis VI, 4), "Therewere giants in the earth in those days ... mighty men whichwere of old, men of renown."

There are difficulties and risks in doing this. There were832 founder or charter members (Collins, 1989),and not allof those who deserve to be mentioned were among them.This brief review will mention some in passing, and a mereten in some detail. Inevitably, this becomes an act of bias,an accident of acquaintance, or the result of a woefullyincomplete education on my part. Food science andtechnology forms too complex and detailed a fabric to bewoven from so few threads.

Rather than a history, then, this is a collection ofvignettes with a central theme-that food science andtechnology, and 1FT, have succeeded because they filled aneed. Their founders, their teachers before them, and theirstudents since, brought talents, knowledge, and insightsappropriate to the times. Those we honor here broughtscience and system to what had been art and invention. Ifthis useful role is to continue, food science and technology,and its practitioners, must continue to supply what thepresent and the future require.

The Gradual Evolution of the FieldFood science and technology did not suddenly appear. It

was no Athena, emerging mature and fully armed from thehead of Zeus, although it did, in fact, result from manyheadaches. Food science and technology did not so muchemerge as evolve, with the technology preceding thescience.

This discussion focuses on four periods: the preindustrial era, prior to 1795;the industrial, dawn-of-scienceera, 1795-1894; the age of nutrition and the beginning offood science, 1895-1938; and the early years, 1939-1955.The rationale for these dates is that 1795 is when NicolasAppert began his experiments on canning; 1895 is whenPrescott and Underwood began their historic work thatbrought canning under scientific control; and 1939 is when1FT was founded. I end the "early years" at about 1955, anarbitrary date for the purposes of this article.

Even where the written record is largely blank, we can

The author, 1971-72 President of the Institute of Food Technologists, is Consultant, 7004 Wellington Ct., Baltimore, MD21212


be sure that the earliest beginnings stemmed from homefood preparation's being precariously-and sometimesdangerously-adapted to commerce.

Originally, the only difference between the kitchen andthe factory was one of scale and purpose. The original foodtechnologists were the nameless discoverers, inventors, andimprovers of cheesemaking, winemaking, beer brewing,sun drying, salting, and smoking. That was art. Later,invention improved upon art. Later still, science improvedon invention, with enormous gains to human health andsafety, and to the provision of a safe, nutritious, varied, andeconomical food supply. In this process, food science andtechnology evolved-first out of chemistry, then out ofmicrobiology and medicine. Still later, biochemistry, nutri-

Some of the people who playedkey roles in the development offood science and technology andof 1FT exemplify the Biblicalquotation "There were giantsin the earth in those days ...mighty men which were of old,men of renown."

tion, toxicology, mathematics, physics, engineering, physiology, psychology, and the law have shaped our peculiarlyinterdisciplinary field.

Between 1795 and 1801, Nicholas Appert responded tothe needs of his time by inventing canning, so thatNapoleon's armies could move with less dependence onlocal provisions (Birch et al., 1972). Shortly after, FredrickAccum applied the growing, though still primitive power ofanalytical chemistry to the detection of adulterants then inwidespread use in food. His "Treatise on the Adulterationof Food, Culinary Poisons, etc." (Accum, 1820)marked thecommencement of the effectivebattle for a safe and honestfood supply.

Baron Justus von Liebig was a pioneer organic chemistand an incredibly talented analyst. With the crude equipment of his day, he determined the molecular weights ofcreatine and creatinine to be 131 and 113, respectivelycompared to modern values of 131.14 and 113.12. In 1847he published the first ever book on food chemistry. VonLiebig was a great teacher; his pupils included Hermann

Kolbe and Ira Remson. He was also an entrepreneur. Heinvented the first patented food, Liebig's Meat Extract, andthereon founded a large and profitable industry (Anonymous, 1908). His application of quantitative analysis tofoods and soils led directly to transforming nutrition andagriculture from art and folklore into science.

Perhaps the greatest of these "early moderns" wasanother chemist, Louis Pasteur. His interest in fermentation led to research on the production of alcohol, vinegar,wines, and beer, and the souring of milk. He developedpasteurization-the process of heating milk and milkproducts to destroy food-spoilage and disease-producingorganisms. In breaking these paths that led to modern foodscience and technology, Pasteur the chemist became thefather of bacteriology and of much of modern preventivemedicine.

I often worry that we weary our readers and listeners bytiresome repetition of that octasyllabic phrase "food science and technology." Thus, the following quote fromPasteur has great appeal for me: "No, a thousand times no;there does not exist a category of science to which one cangive the name applied science. There are science and theapplications of science, bound together as the fruit to thetree which bears it" (Pasteur, 1871). Under the protectionof Pasteur, I will usually, hereafter, refer only to "foodscience," but I will mean both the tree and its fruit.

The productive lives of these four pioneers cover all butthe last few years of the 19th century. Their discoveriesmade later progress possible, progress that became constantly more interdisciplinary and international in scope.The period on which we now focus is the third period, the44 years from 1895 through 1938.

Food science and technology, and1FT, have succeeded because theyfilled a need. Their founders,their teachers before them, andtheir students since, broughttalents, knowledge, and insightsappropriate to the times.

The Beginning of Food ScienceAt the beginning of that period, vitamins were

unknown; the earlier term "vitamines" was not coined byFunk until 1912. The work of Pasteur and others had ledto the recognition of the existence of enzymes, but the term"enzyme" had been suggested by Roberts only 14 yearsearlier (Anonymous, 1971). The word then meant "anunorganized ferment." Scientists were just beginning torealize that when food made people sick, it was often due tocontamination by specific microorganisms, most of themnot yet identified.

During those 44 years, the role of the essential aminoacids was discovered and described. All of the vitaminsexcept vitamin B-12 were discovered and named. Welearned how to prevent rickets and pellagra, goiter andberi-beri. That was incredible progress, even though in1939 there were in every community a few who bore silent

SEPTEMBER 1989-FOOD TECHNOLOGY 187

Pioneers in Food Science and Technology (continued)

but visible testimony that this knowledge was recent, andincompletely implemented.

Our knowledge of foodborne illness in 1939 was largelyrestricted to botulism, staphylococcal infections, and salmonellosis, but systematic-if grossly incomplete-reporting of foodborne illness outbreaks was routine.

Canning was reduced to a technology firmly underscientific control. By 1939, the use of refrigeration in thetransport and storage of perishable food became widespread, and frozen foods had begun to reach the retail level.There were roadblocks, however. Home refrigerators hadreplaced the icebox, but their freezers held only fourice-cube trays. A popular venture capital business wasinstalling neighborhood frozen-food-Iocker centers whereyou could conveniently keep your frozen foods only a fewblocks away. Except for the recent and incomplete entry offrozen foods, there was no fresh seafood more than ahundred miles from the coast. Dried and salted was therule. Lent was hell. Fresh oranges and lemons, apples,cabbage, and turnips were common, but most other fruitsand vegetables were available fresh only when locally inseason, and you enjoyed them when you could.

All of this was in the traditional, conservative, slowlymoving food business. Put this against the background ofrapid advances in transportation-the automobile and theairplane-and in communication-the radio, with television just around the corner-and one can begin to recapture that giddy feeling that material progress was unstoppable. There were no cynical snickers at the DuPont slogan,"Better things for better living through chemistry."

But there were enormous problems. The Great Depression was 10 years old-and continuing. American agriculture had been in a slump since 1920. The Dust Bowl hadrecently added to the misery, and John Steinbeck's Grapesof Wrath simply reflected a reality many of us remember alltoo well. Moreover, though some chose to ignore it, mostof us realized that the world stood at the brink of war.

Key Individuals: The First GenerationThe remainder of this article will treat briefly-indeed,

all too superficially-ten of the key figures in this periodand in 1FT's early years, and their roles in bringingcontributions from other sciences that have shaped thefield of food science that we know today.

My choice of these ten individuals results from severalcriteria. First, they must have played a key role in settingfuture direction for food science. Second, applicable to allbut two, they must have had significant activity within 1FT.Third, they must have made significant contributions inthe third and fourth periods, between 1895 and 1955.Unfortunately, a fourth criterion was availability of information about these individuals. Nevertheless, the choice isinevitably arbitrary, and other individuals and their contributions would have served-and deserved-as well. Theseindividuals succeeded because they met effectively theneeds of the times just described.

• Samuel Cate Prescott is the only possible choice forthe first of the ten trailblazers. Pioneer food scientist and firstpresident of 1FT, Prescott was born in rural New Hampshire in 1872. He received his bachelor's degree in chemistry from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1894and worked briefly as a bacteriologist and assistant chemistat the sewage purification plant in Worcester, Mass. In1895 he returned to MIT and began, with William LymanUnderwood, the research on canning that transformedthat industry from pragmatic practice "into a technologyunder scientific control" (Goldblith, 1981).

The research on the scientific basis of canning technol-


ogy was pivotal for many reasons beyond the safety of theprocess. It established a precedent of fruitful collaborationwith industry. It led Prescott to develop the first course in"industrial biology." It led him in a direction parallel toPasteur to integrate biology and chemistry, and this reinforced the growth of biochemistry and nutrition. Industrialbiology applied the growing knowledge of bacteriology tofood and beverage production and, most important, to thedairy industry.

Prescott had learned the principles of sanitation as anundergraduate from Ellen Swallow Richards and WilliamThompson Sedgwick. Richards was MIT's first femalegraduate, class of 1873. She was an instructor and gave acourse in sanitary chemistry (note that almost everythingwas "chemistry" in those days). Sedgwick was MIT's firstprofessor of biology. Thus began Prescott's lifelong interestin sanitation. He was a leader in the sanitary milk crusadeand in the pasteurization of milk, and served as a major in

My choice of these tenindividuals results from severalcriteria .... Nevertheless, thechoice is inevitably arbitrary,and other individuals and theircontributions would haveserved-and deserved-as well.

the Army Sanitary Corps during World War 1.Prescott's interests continually widened; they extended

to food dehydration, refrigeration, food additives, and thecomplex chemical composition of foods such as coffee.One of his most valuable contributions was breaking downthe barriers between the basic sciences-barriers thathindered the development of interdisciplinary fields suchas food science.

Beyond all this, Prescott was an able administrator. Hewas Dean of the School of Science at MIT from 1932 to1942. He played a key role in organizing the first two FoodTechnology Conferences at MIT in 1937 and 1939. At thelatter conference 1FT was founded, and Prescott served asits first president (1939-41).

Last, and perhaps most important of all, a great teacher isknown by his students and coworkers. Prescott's includedBernard Proctor, another of our ten pioneers. Prescott diedin 1962, but his name lives on in 1FT's Samuel CatePrescott Award for research.

• Edwin Bret Hart, pioneer nutritionist, was born in1874, two years after Prescott. He obtained a B.S. degree inchemistry from the University of Michigan in 1897,worked at the New York State Experiment Station inGeneva, studied under the biochemist Kossel at Marburgand Heidelberg in 1900 and 1901, and then returned toGeneva. In 1906 he moved to the College of Agriculture atthe University of Wisconsin, attracted in part by thepresence there of the man who would become his mentorand elder coworker, Stephen M. Babcock.

At that time, prevailing opinion held that adequate dietfor farm animals, and, by implication, for man, could bedefined by gross chemical analysis alone-by specifyinghow many calories and how much protein, carbohydrate,fat, and minerals (ash)a diet should contain. At Wisconsin,Hart soon came to share Babcock's skepticism that anadequate diet could be defined so simply.

-Continued on page 190

From his own farm days, Cruess brought to foodtechnology a firm practical orientation, but he supported itwith solid basic science. This was notable particularly in thecolleagues he chose to staffwhat became one of the world'sleading departments, of which he was head from 1938 to1954. Cruess was a superb teacher, memorialized in 1FT'sWm. V. Cruess Award for teaching. Among his studentswere Emil Mrak, e.O. Chichester, Maynard Joslyn, andGeorge Marsh.

Cruess was president of 1FT in 1943-44. He died in1968.

• Clarence Birdseye deserves inclusion because of hisown contributions to the development of frozen foods, andbecause he epitomizes the transition from dependence oninvention to dependence on science. He was the shrewdinventor who transformed chance observation into successful industrial practice. He is the outstanding technicalentrepreneur on my list; more than anyone else, he helpedto create the frozen food industry, and his name is still onour food packages. And he was a master of timing: he andhis partners sold their frozen food business to the PostumCo. -soon to become General Foods-for $22 million justfour months before the 1929 stock market crash.

Birdseye was born in 1886 and graduated from AmherstCollege in 1910. He was a fur trader in Labrador in1912-17. During that time, he noticed that when he caughtfish through the ice in the Arctic winter, they frozeimmediately in the cold air. More remarkably, when thefish were thawed and cooked, the texture and flavor wereas good as with fresh fish. He also noted with disapproval,as did Carl Fellers later, the exceedingly poor and insanitary handling practices characteristic of the commercialfishing industry of that day. In 1923, recalling thoseobservations, he began to experiment with mechanicalmethods of quick freezing as a means of capturing thepotential quality otherwise quickly and carelessly lost. Hedevised several methods, including continuous double-beltand multiplate freezers.

Marketing was more of a problem, due to lack of tradeknowledge and interest, lack of adequate frozen storage inretail stores, and consumer resistance. Until Birdseye'sinnovations, "cold storage foods" were slowly frozen, anddeserved the poor reputation they had. Surmounting theseobstacles required 15 years of patient and ingenious marketing effort, much of it after the General Foods acquisition, but by 1939 substantial retail market penetration hadbeen achieved.

Birdseye obtained more than 300 patents. While not


In a now-classical "single-grain" experiment, four groupsof heifers were raised and bred on diets differing in grainsource but equal in calories, protein, carbohydrate, fat, andash. One group received a wheat diet, another oats, a thirdcorn, and the fourth a blend of the three. Those on thecorn and the blended diets thrived and bred successfully.Those on oats did poorly, and those on wheat worst of all.The work was laborious, but the results were spectacularand conclusive. They clearly showed that gross chemicalanalysis did not define an adequate diet. It ignored thepresence of unknown essential nutrients, the lack of whichresulted in failure to thrive, or death. Indeed, Babcockbitingly observed that, using gross chemical analysis, hecould construct an adequate diet from coal and water.

This experiment was not the only such demonstration-Lind had used lemon juice to cure scurvy in 1753, andEijkman was working on the anti-beri-beri factor in ricepolishings in 1897. But it was the forerunner of much ofthe most productive work on the micronutrients-thevitamins and the minerals. Even more significant, theexperiment involved and stimulated Elmer V. McCollum,who later discovered vitamins A and B, and Harry Steenbock, who discovered the role of carotene as a precursor tovitamin A and who developed irradiated milk as a source ofvitamin D. McCollum found the use of large animals suchas cows troublesome and wasteful, and turned to the use ofrats, a practice that guided much of later nutritional andtoxicological research. As this tradition of excellencespread at Wisconsin, it produced one of our founders,Ellery Harvey.

Hart was a superb organizer and teacher. His youngercoworkers and students included, in addition to McCollumand Steenbock, Conrad Elvehjem (later president of theUniversity of Wisconsin), and Frank M. Strong, chemistand pioneer in developing rapid microbiological assays forvitamins.

Hart and his mentor, Babcock, are remembered in 1FT'sBabcock-Hart Award for contributions to improved nutrition through food science.

• William Vere Cruess was born in 1886 on a farm nearSan Miguel, Calif. Except for professional travel, he spentall his life in that state. Because his family was poor, he hadto work to support himself in high school as well as at theuniversity. We can be grateful that at the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley a friend of the family steered himaway from mining engineering and into chemistry. In hissenior year, Cruess worked part-time in the Food and DrugLaboratory of the State Dept. of Health, then located onthe Berkeley campus. After graduation, he took anappointment as Assistant in Zymology, teaching fermentation technology, in the Div. of Viticulture and Enology ofthe College of Agriculture. Work with wineries in the areafurther deepened his interest and involvement in wines.

Prohibition temporarily changed that, but by then hisinterests had broadened to include sun drying, mechanicaldehydration, and canning of unfermented fruit products.At that time, the California fruit industry was whollyoriented toward the fresh market. The result was mountains of culls that did not meet appearance standards.Developing means to process these culls into acceptableproducts was fruit technology, eventually to become part offood technology. It was crucial to the future of theindustry, but it encountered many barriers. One of thesewas an intellectual snobbery at the university that seemsstrange from this distance. Mrak (1986) observed that "Inthose days, it was all right to teach and conduct research onfertilizers and even manure, but not on the food we eat."Fortunately, Cruess' persistence and economic good senseprevailed.

The original food technologistswere the nameless discoverers,inventors, and improvers ofcheesemaking, winemaking, beerbrewing, sun drying, salting, andsmoking. That was art. Later,invention improved upon art.Later still, science improved oninvention .... In this process,food science and technologyevolved ....



himself a food technologist or 1FT member, he workedclosely with some of the great ones, including DonaldTressler, Clifford Evers, and Ken Dykstra. He died in1956.

• Carl R. Fellers, one of the most intensely energetic ofour early leaders, was born in Hastings, N.Y., in 1893. Hereceived his A.B. degree from Cornell University in 1915,his M.S. from Rutgers University in 1916, and his Ph.D.from Rutgers a year later. He moved through a rapidsuccession of posts, including one with the NationalCanners Association (1921-24) as it was beginning itsdefinitive work that assured the present high level of safetyof canned foods. In 1926, he moved to MassachusettsAgricultural College (now the University of Massachusetts), where he remained.

Once the safety of canned foods was assured, Fellersshared with many early food scientists a strong interest inthe nutritional quality of canned and other processedfoods. This took on added significance in the late 1920sand '30s as we learned the identity of specificvitamins andminerals .

Fellers had an early interest in improving seafood processing, and in 1953, after many frustrating delays, hepersuaded a reluctant legislature and an even more backward industry to fund and support, as a part of theuniversity, a Fisheries School and Laboratory, the secondin the country.

He invented methods for pasteurizing dried fruits andcanning Atlantic crab. His interest in maintaining quality infrozen and canned foods led him to introduce the use ofascorbic acid as an antioxidant. He initiated the fortificationof apple juice, and, in work parallel to that of Cruess, ledthe cranberry growers to use what had been fresh-marketculls in producing the cranberry juices and other processedcranberry products that are now so popular.

He was a restless, dynamic teacher and department head,immensely loyal to his students, among whom are suchfamiliar names as Edward Anderson, Guy Livingston,Kirby Hayes, Jack Francis, John Powers, and Ray Morse,the last three of whom have been president ofIFT. He wasa founder of 1FT and served as president in 1949-50. Hedied in 1960.

Key Individuals: The Second GenerationExcept for Birdseye, our first five pioneers above began

in a narrow basic discipline, usually chemistry. As theyshaped what is now food science, they broadened theirscope, making both themselves and the field interdisciplinary. Our second generation began with this already interdisciplinary background.

• Bernard E. Proctor, a student of Prescott's, was bornin 1901,graduated from MIT in 1923,and received his Ph.D.there in 1927. He stayed on as an instructor in foodtechnology, and rose steadily to become a full professor in1944 and department head in 1952.

One of his initial research interests was food microbiology, and this led him eventually in two novel directions. Hepublished a series of four papers on the microbiology of theupper atmosphere. Later, in the late '40s and early '50s, hebecame one of the earliest to study the use of ionizingradiation for the preservation of food. He took an early andbadly needed interest in the sanitation of frozen foods.Research needs inspired by W orld War II led him toinvestigate the compression of dehydrated foods, and tosolid scientific investigation of effective food packaging,particularly for unusual environments.

Proctor was exceedingly effective and respected for

These giants ... met the needs oftheir times. They brought scienceand understanding,quantification and system, towhat had been art and invention.

meeting the needs of the times. He was consultant on foodsto the Secretary of War, and Director of Subsistence andPackaging Research and Development in the Office of theQuartermaster General. He was member or chairman ofseveral National Research Council committees and a member of the United States delegation to the United Nationsconference in Geneva on the peaceful uses of atomicenergy. He was a superb teacher, a founding member of1FT, and president of 1FT in 1952-53. He died in 1959.

• Emil Marcel Mrak wasborn in San Francisco in 1901,and received all his degrees from the University of California at Berkeley, from his B.S. in food technology in 1926 tohis Ph.D. in botany and mycology in 1936, by which timehe had written or coauthored almost 40 papers. His risethereafter was rapid: instructor in 1937 and full professorand chairman of the department of food technology in1948. He continued and expanded the tradition of excellence begun by Cruess, particularly after the move of thedepartment to Davis in 1951.

Mrak always maintained his basic research interests,particularly those relating to the classification of yeasts; twospecies are named after him. He was a candid, friendly, andchallenging teacher. His broad interests were expressed inseveral ways, among them editing and contributing to theseries of books called Advances in Food Research. He wasan outstanding administrator, approachable, thoughtful,decisive, and clear in communication. He became Chancellor of the Davis campus in 1959, and presided over itduring the period of its greatest growth.

Always active internationally, he was cofounder and firstpresident of the International Committee of Food Scienceand Technology, predecessor to the International Unionof Food Science and Technology. After he retired fromDavis in 1969, his public-service role as advisor, panelmember, or chairman simply increased. He was articulatein an engaging way that never left his listener in doubt ofhis views. Even beyond Prescott and Proctor, Mrakbrought the perspectives of food science into the highestlevels of government and industry. Of our ten early leaders,he is the first I knew not just as a distant eminence, but as awarm personal friend. He was 1FT president in 1957-58,and died in 1987.

• Bernard L. Oser, a biochemist, is noteworthy becausehe brought to the development of food science, at the righttime, needed knowledge and insights from two relatedareas, nutrition and toxicology. Oser received his B.S.degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1920 and hisPh.D. from Fordham University in 1927. Between thoseyears, he worked as a physiological chemist at JeffersonMedical College and as a biochemist at Philadelphia General Hospital before joining Food and Drug ResearchLaboratories (FDRL) in 1926. He became president of thatorganization, and held that position until his retirement in1976.

As the identification of the vitamins proceeded, the needincreased, in both research and commerce, to measuretheir levels in food and drug products, as well as in body



tissues and fluids. Investigators early noted that bioassays,using test animals, very often gave results different fromin-vitro "chemical" tests. Pursuing these differences led tothe concepts of bioavailability, ingredient interactions,absorption and excretion rates, and the urgent importanceof specifications so that one knows with precision what oneis testing. In all of this, Oser was a pioneer. He also was oneof the first to press the need for examining the effects ofexogenous substances on reproduction.

As concern over food additives grew in the 1950s, Osertook an increasing and effective role in educating the foodindustry to meet new requirements for toxicological studiesand safety evaluation. Virtually before anyone else, herecognized the uselessness of rigid concepts, such as "zero

Our pioneers worked at a timewhen America was becoming asingle national market and aworld power. They applied theirknowledge where needed in timeof global war, and to domesticand international development intime of peace. We now facedifferent times and differentneeds.

residue." He has been an effective spokesman for sanity inthe frequently shrill debates on food safety.

His background in physiological chemistry and hisassociation in his graduate work and at FDRL with PhilipHawk led to his editing, over many years, Hawk's Physiological Chemistry, now in its 14th edition.

Oser has repeatedly served on the FAOjWHO JointExpert Committee on Food Additives and on committeesof the National Research Council. He is a foundingmember ofIFT and served as its president in 1960-61. I amproud to add that he is also my professional "uncle,"mentor, frequent coauthor, and friend.

• Loren B. Sjostrom, known to his many friends as"Johnnie," was born in 1912, received his B.S. degree fromNortheastern University in 1935, and joined the consultingfirm of Arthur D. Little (ADL) in 1936. He rose to becomevice-president of ADL from 1962 until his retirement in1977.

Prior to 1939, there were expert tea, coffee, and winetasters, flavorists, and perfumers. They and board chairmenand presidents-not to mention the wives of board chairmen and presidents-made the decisions that determinedhow the foods we ate and the articles we used tasted andsmelled. But that was art, or business judgment, notscience. Some of the individual experts were capable ofincredible feats of detection, discrimination, and creativity,but no one else could readily reproduce or understandthem-indeed, Heaven forbid that anyone should! As thefood-processing and related industries grew, individualexperts retained an essential but more limited role, but amore available, more understandable system becameurgently needed. Sensory analysis began its hesitatingdevelopment.


Organized, large-scale, scientifically focused activity inthe field of sensory analysis is considerably younger than1FT. Very little other than that described here and a fewearly attempts at measuring consumer acceptance occurredbefore 1955.

Sjostrom began his work under the legendary Ernest C.Crocker. Under Sjostrom's leadership, ADL developed aflavor laboratory. This was unusual for a consulting firm todo, and remarkable at the time for being based on ascientific and descriptive approach using trained groupsrather than a highly trained individual expert.

With Stanley Cairncross, Sjostrom developed the flavorprofile method for descriptive testing of food, beverages,and similar products. Their first paper (Cairncross andSjostrom, 1950)was presented at the 1FT Annual Meetingin 1949. The method emerged from a project, begun in1946, testing the effect of MSG on food flavors. It was apioneering method and is still used on hundreds ofproducts in hundreds of locations.

Not only academicians are known by the coworkers theyfind and bring forward-another sensory evaluation pioneer, Jean Caul, is a "graduate" of Cairncross and Sjostrom's flavor laboratory.

Sjostrom has also been active in 1FT and a frequentauthor in its journals.

• Arnihud Kramer also made his contribution by bringing to food science needed skills and insights from anotherfield-mathematics, specificallystatistics. Kramer was bornin 1913 in Austria-Hungary. After coming to this country,he obtained all of his higher education at the University ofMaryland-B.S. degree in 1938,M.S. in 1939, and Ph.D. in1942. From 1941 to 1944, he worked at the NationalCanners Association on developing objective methods formeasuring the quality of canned foods, and on an NR Cproject for revising nutrient tables that eventually led to theU.S. Dept. of Agriculture's Handbook No.8. He returnedto the University of Maryland, becoming an associateprofessor in 1948 and a professor in 1949, and retiring in1980.

Kramer was a leader and prime mover in the development of statistical quality control and of operationsresearch and systems analysis applied to the food industry.His books, particularly Quality Control for the Food Industry (Kramer and Twigg, 1970; 1973), and his courses wereenormously influential in helping industry meet theincreasing quality and cost requirements it faced. Hecontributed a new method for determining the significanceof differences in multiple comparisons in sensory analysis.He was active nationally and abroad in devising proceduresfor providing optimal solutions for production of desirablenutritional and sensory quality at acceptable cost.

Kramer was cofounder and past chairman of 1FT'sQuality Assurance and Refrigerated & Frozen Food Divisions, and was an 1FT Regional Communicator. He wasexceedingly active in advisory groups and committees hereand abroad. His unexpected death at age 68 occurred whilehe was doing something else he also enjoyed-playingtennis.

• Other Individuals. Our set of pioneers really does notend here. Even within the stated time period, many othersare worthy of our gratitude. Among them are Fred Tanner,George Stewart, Maynard Amerine, Fred Blanck, C. OlinBall, Maynard Joslyn, Charles Townsend, Donald Tressler,Philip Bates, David Peryam, John Jackson, Victor Conquest, E.J. Cameron, and Samuel Goldblith. Beyond them,again to mention only a few, the names of J.R. Vickery in

Australia, H. Mitsuda and T. Obara in Japan, Adam Borysand D.J. Tilgner in Poland, and E.C. Bate-Smith, JohnHawthorn, and H.D. Kay in the United Kingdom remindus that science truly knows no national boundaries.

This review of pioneer scientists does not cover theimpact on food science of law and regulation, and of suchgiants as Harvey Wiley, Charles Wesley Dunn, and H.Thomas Austern who shaped that impact. Because of spacelimitations, I have scarcely touched on food packaging andengineering. Thus, I desperately need forgiving readers.

Different Times, Different NeedsThese giants, whose careers I have so quickly reviewed,

met the needs of their times. They brought science andunderstanding, quantification and system, to what hadbeen art and invention. As they dealt with food problems,they applied their knowledge of microbiology, nutrition,biochemistry, irradiation physics, toxicology, sensory analysis, and statistics. In so doing, they, and others, created thefood science we know today. They dealt with a public thatwas well aware of material progress and of the role ofscience in that progress. Our pioneers worked at a timewhen America was becoming a single national market and aworld power. They applied their knowledge where neededin time of global war, and to domestic and internationaldevelopment in time of peace.

We now face different times and different needs. It isappropriate to mark some of the differences between thetimes of our pioneers, and now, and in the future.

Then, as today, the major real problems in food safetywere microbiological, but then they were on the farm or inthe factory-tubercular dairy herds, tainted meat, poorlyprocessed canned goods. Now, the risks, though smaller,have shifted to the point of preparation in the home andthe foodservice facility.

Then, the major nutritional risks were the deficiencydiseases, even in the more developed world. Now, some ofthese, such as vitamin A deficiency, still persist pervasivelyin the developing world, along with simply too little food;but in the developed world, the predominant risks areoverconsumption and the still-unsettled role of diet andnutrition in chronic disease. It is in these areas, I suspect,that the next great advances in nutrition will come. Thereis strong indication that when they do, they will requiresome substantial changes from traditional food composition and preparation. And then the next great challenge tofood science will arise. Those new foods required by thesechanges will need to be highly acceptable, economicallyavailable, and varied to suit our genetically diverse humanspecies.

The last contrast is the most challenging. Then, thepublic accepted enthusiastically the promise of science.Today, even with much of that promise visibly fulfilled, thefailures, flaws, and excesses-and worse yet, the purelyimaginary risks-have impressed many far more than theprogress gained, the promises fulfilled. We see the result infear, rejection, mysticism, and faddism, much of it promoted by fraud. Moreover, every real advance of scienceplaces it that much ahead of lagging public understanding.These challenges to more effective education in scienceand better communication of science are as intimidating asthose to the progress of science itself.

This is sobering, but it should not be a discouragingprospect. Life expectancy is increasing. Death rates are notgoing up but are steady or declining. We have dealt withmany once-major health threats, and we are closer thanever to being able to deal effectively with those we now

Today, to meet new needs, wemust see further still. And if, toparaphrase Albert Einstein, wesucceed in seeing somewhatfurther than they, it is because westand on the shoulders of giants.

face. For this, and particularly for those benefits that havecome to us through the food supply, we owe much to theindividuals whose work we have discussed. In the genesisof 1FT, there truly were "giants in the earth ... men ofrenown." Today, to meet new needs, we must see furtherstill. And if, to paraphrase Albert Einstein, we succeed inseeing somewhat further than they, it is because we standon the shoulders of giants.

ReferencesAccum, F.e. 1820. "A Treatise on the Adulteration of Food,

Culinary Poisons, etc." London.Anonymous. 1908. The Lancet Special Commission on the

Origin, Manufacture, and Uses of Extract of Meat. Lancet, p.1233, London, Oct 24.

Anonymous. 1971. "The Compact Edition of the Oxford EnglishDictionary," Supplement, p. 336. Oxford Univ. Press, NewYork.

Birch, G.G., Cameron, A.G., and Spencer, M. 1972. Foodpoisoning and the preservation of food, Chpt. 6 in "FoodScience," p. 100. Pergamon, Oxford.

Cairncross, S.E. and Sjostrom, L.B. 1950. Flavor profiles-A newapproach to flavor problems. Food Technol. 1: 308.

Collins, J.L. 1989. Institute of Food Technologists. (The professional society of food technologists). Unpublished manuscript,Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Goldblith, SA. 1981. Samuel Cate Prescott. Adv. Food Res. 30:vii.

Kramer, A. and Twigg, BA. 1970. "Quality Control for the FoodIndustry," Vol L AVI Pub Co., Inc., Westport, Conn.

Kramer, A. and Twigg, B.A. 1973. "Quality Control for the FoodIndustry," Vol. II. AVI Pub. Co., Inc., Westport, Conn.

Mrak, E.M. 1986.William Vere Cruess. Adv. Food Res. 30: vii.Oser, B.L 1965. "Hawk's Physiological Chemistry." Blakiston

Div., McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Pasteur, L. 1871.Why France has not found superior men in the

moment of peril. Revue Scientifique.

Based on the celebratory presentation at the 50th AnniversaryAnnual Meeting of the Institute of Food Technologists, Chicago,IlL, June 25-29, 1989.

Beyond the sources specificallyreferenced, the author is greatlyindebted to the following for a rich store of background information that could only be used in small part: A.S. Clausi of GeneralFoods (retired); Owen Fennema and Richard D. Powers of theUniversity of Wisconsin; F.J. Francis of the University ofMassachusetts; Samuel A. Goldblith of Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology; John Hawthorn of the University of Strathclyde;Anne J. Nielson of Arthur D. Little, Inc.; B.S. Schweigert andCarol Cooper of the University of California at Davis; A.J. Siedlerof the University of Illinois; and Neil H. Mermelstein of 1FT.

-Edited by Neil H. Mermelstein, Senior Associate Editor


Food Biotechnology:Yesterday , Today,

and T Ol11.orroW'Susan Harlander

Biotechnology is the buzzword of the 1980s. Fundamental discoveries in molecular biology in the '60sand '70s initiated a biological revolution which has

"the potential to change the technology paradigm of ourpresent society far more than the industrial revolution, totransform the world's workplaces and to enormouslyenhance the quality of human lives" (Schneiderman, 1986).This is the promise of biotechnology!

Every industrial sector, including agriculture and foodprocessing, is attempting to assess the potential impact ofthis revolutionary science on its business. This article willexplore the potential implications of biOtechnology for thefood processing industry. It will include a brief history ofthis revolutionary new science, a discussion of researchcurrently in progress, and a look at how food biotechnology could be used in the next 50 years to meet the demandsof the consumer-driven marketplace.

YesterdayDespite all of the media hype relative to biotechnology,

confusion remains as to what biotechnology actually is.The word biotechnology is derived from "bio," meaninglife or living systems, and "technology," defined as ascientific method for achieving a practical purpose. Biotechnology is broadly defined as the collection of technol-

Biotechnology is not new to theagricultural and food sector.Man has been exploiting livingsystems for the production of foodfor centuries.

ogies that employ biological or living systems of plant,animal, or microbial origin, or specific compounds derivedfrom these systems, for the production of industrial goodsand services.

Biotechnology is not new to the agricultural and foodsector. Man has been exploiting living systems for theproduction of food for centuries. Classical plant and animalbreeding and selection of superior strains are well-acceptedpractices for improving the food production system. Traditional mutation and selection techniques are also employedfor altering bacteria and yeast used to produce a widevariety of fermented foods, such as cheese, sausage, pickles,

The author is Assistant Professor, Dept. of Food Science andNutrition, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108


bread, beer and, wine.Although grounded in the traditional, "modern" bio

technology has a relatively brief history (Fig. 1). It beganwith the elucidation of the structure of DNA in 1953 byWatson and Crick, which was followed by a rapid expansion of our knowledge of the function and organization of

The staggering pace of newdiscoveries in molecularbiology [has stimulated] industrialsectors, including the foodprocessing industry, to evaluate thepotential technological and economicimpact of biotechnology on theirbusinesses.

this molecule. This discovery of restriction enzymes in theearly 1970sheralded a new era in biology, with the centralfocus on the molecular basis of living systems. There hasbeen an explosion of research activity in the public,academic, and private sectors, and the future of thistechnology is limited only by our imaginations.

One of the most significant technologies to emerge fromthe 1970s was recombinant DNA technology or geneticengineering (Fig. 2). Gene cloning allows the transfer ofDNA across natural species barriers in a precise, controllable, nonrandom, and timely manner. DNA, the universalcode of life, is structurally and functionally identical in allliving organisms. Therefore, the basic principles of geneticengineering apply to all living organisms, although thespecific vector and gene-transfer systems vary dependingon the host organism to be engineered.

The first commercially available genetically engineeredproduct, human insulin, was approved for use in 1982. Todate, the major industrial focus of biotechnology has beenits use in the development of human health-care products,diagnostic tools, and vaccines. Many of these products,including human growth hormone, alpha interferon, andtissue plasminogen activator, are high-value therapeuticdrugs which are commercially available and approved foruse by the Food and Drug Administration. Scores of otherproducts are in phase II or phase III clinical trials. Thestaggering pace of new discoveries in molecular biology,coupled with commercial outgrowth of these emergingtechnologies, has stimulated additional industrial sectors,

\

Parent A •• T

T·· A

including the food processing industry, to evaluate thepotential technological and economic impact of biotechnology on their businesses.

TodayThe food chain begins with the planted seed (production

agriculture) and ends with the consumption of products byconsumers (utilization end of the food system). Other thanfruits and vegetables, which are often consumed in thefresh or raw state, most food products are processed tosome extent. The food processing industry is the linkbetween the products of the farm and the consumer; ittransforms relatively bulky and perishable raw agriculturalproducts into shelf-stable, convenient, and palatable foodsand beverages.

Application of biotechnology to the food processingindustry requires cooperation among a number of differentscientific disciplines (Fig. 3). Although economics is animportant factor for applying biotechnology in every industrial sector, it is a critical factor in the food industry, whichoperates with a much smaller profit margin than manyother industries. A number of applications of biotechnology currently under development provide a glimpse of whatis currently happening in the food biotechnology arena:

• Production Agriculture. The first impact of biotechnology on the food chain has been in the productionagriculture sector. The primary focus of agricultural biotechnology is improvement of the yield of plant products atthe farm level. There are numerous examples of diseaseresistant (Hall, 1987),herbicide-tolerant (Shah et al., 1986),


Food Biotechnology (continued)

and insect- or virus-resistant (Fischhoff et al., 1987;Cuozzoet al., 1988)plant varieties developed via selection in tissueculture or by genetic engineering techniques. These samemethods have been used to develop salt-tolerant, temperature-tolerant, or drought-resistant crops, thereby extending the amount of land which can be used for foodproduction. Microbial pesticides such as the insecticidalprotein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Dulmage, 1981)offer aviable altemative to chemical control, and the use ofgenetically modified Rhizobium species with enhancedability to fix nitrogen may decrease our dependence onnitrogen-based fertilizers (Okon and Hadar, 1987). Theultimate goal of such research is to increase the efficiencyof agricultural production.

To meet consumer demands andkeep pace in an increasinglycompetitive global marketplace,the u.s. food processing industrywill need to enlist every availableresource, including biotechnology.

• Custom-Designed Raw Ingredients. Raw agriculturalproducts are often viewed by the food industry as genericcommodities, and the processor has little choice but toprocess what is available, modifying the manufacturingparameters to compensate for inconsistencies in raw ingredients. Recent advances in plant tissue culture technology,genetic engineering, and antisense RNA and DNA technology (Roberts, 1988)offer the potential to custom designraw commodities possessing predetermined traits whichprovide added value for the processor, such as improvednutritional, functional or processing characteristics. Someexamples are provided in Table 1.

• Plant Cell Suspension Cultures. Tissue can be excised

Ultimately, it will be possible todetermine each person'snutritional requirements anddesign an individualized diet tomeet his or her needs.

from the root, stem, leaf, or fruit of plants, and theundifferentiated cells can be propagated in solid or liquidmedia containing all of the essential nutrients required forgrowth.

Plant cell culture for production of natural food ingredients offers several distinct advantages over extraction ofthese components from plants. Seasonal variations, unfavorable weather conditions, and epidemic diseases are notproblems when plant tissue is grown under well-definedand controllable laboratory conditions. Because many ofthe plant-derived specialty ingredients of interest must bepurchased from foreign countries, food processors mustdeal with an erratic supply caused by natural or politicalcalamities in these countries. In addition, they have littlecontrol over how the plants are grown, harvested, transported, or stored. Plant cell culture allows the processor tocontrol the quality, availability, and processing consistencyof the ingredients.

Examples of high-value food ingredients which could beproduced by plant cell suspension culture include colors(betalaines, anthocyanins, saffron) and flavors (vanillin,capsaicin). These compounds are secondary metabolites inplant cells; therefore, current technology is focusing onuncoupling secondary metabolite production from celldifferentiation so that these compounds could be producedeconomically by plant cell suspension cultures. Ruyter andStockigt (1989) have compiled a list of about 80 new cellculture-associated, low-molecular-weight compoundswhich are not found in differentiated plants. Cell culturemay serve as the source of many previously unidentified

Future

Applications

Basic Technology

Development

Fundamental

Information

Genetic Engineering

Monoclonal Antibody

Tissue Culture Technology

Fermentation Technology

1950's

1960's

Human and animal health care products

Custom-design of raw agricultural commodities

Engineered enzymes and proteins Biosensor applications

Natural ingredients and chemicals by fermentation or cell culture

DNA probe and monoclonal antibody-based detection systems

Bioreactor design, down-stream processing and product purification

1970's

1980's

1990's and

beyond

Fig. I-History ofBiotechnology


Fig, 2-Schematic of GeneticEngineering. DNA can beisolatedfrom any livingorganism (plant, animal, or microbial), digested with restrictionenzymes, and inserted into aplasmid vector. The recombinant DNA molecules aretransformed into bacterialcells which can be grown toproduce largequantities of thecloned gene product

Fig. 3-Scientmc Disciplinesinvolved in food biotechnology

substances that have unique properties in foods.• Enzymology. The food processing industry is the

largest user of enzymes, accounting for more than 50% ofworld enzyme sales of $445 million in 1987 (Connor, 1988).Most of the enzymes approved for use in foods are derivedfrom generally recognized as safe (GRAS) microorganisms,plants, or animals. Rennet, the enzyme extracted from theforestomach of calves and used in the manufacture ofcheese, is the first example of a genetically engineeredenzyme to be used in food. The gene which codes for theenzyme has been cloned into a strain of Escherichia coli,and it is now possible to obtain large quantities of pureenzyme via fermentation. Recombinant rennet is currentlyunder review by FDA.

Genetic engineering techniques such as site-specificmutagenesis have been used to specificallyalter the primaryamino acid sequence of enzymes (Wetzel, 1986).The resultis an engineered protein with altered, and sometimesenhanced, properties. Examples of how this technology has

been used to improve enzymes used in food processing areprovided in Table 2.

• Genetic Improvement of Food Fermentation Microorganisms. Microorganisms have been used for centuriesfor the production of fermented foods such as cheese,sausage, sauerkraut, wine, and bread. Genetic engineeringprovides an alternative to classical mutation and selectionfor improving microbial starter cultures. To date, primaryemphasis has been placed on construction of multifunctional food-grade cloning and expression vectors anddevelopment of high-efficiency gene-transfer systems. Theultimate goal is to construct strains with improved metabolic properties.

Genetically engineered starter cultures are not yet commercially available;however, some examples of how geneticengineering could be used to improve organisms forvarious fermentation processes are provided in Table 3.Availability of such strains would have an impact on severalaspects of fermentation, including production economics,



shelf life, safety, nutritional content, consumer acceptance,and waste management.

• Natural Ingredients. Consumer concern regardingchemical additives in foods and consumer demand for"natural" products have resulted in demand for microbialmetabolites which can be used as natural ingredients infoods. A number of food ingredients are already beingproduced by microorganisms (Table 4). Other products ofinterest include flavors, enzymes, biopolymers, surfactants,noncaloric sweeteners and fat substitutes, antioxidants, andnatural preservatives. The primary emphasis to date hasbeen on the use of microbial isolates found in nature;however, genetic engineering of food-grade organisms isalso being investigated.

• Animal Biotechnology. Growth-hormone genes fromseveral animal species have been isolated and characterized.When injected into dairy cows, bovine somatotropin (BST)has been demonstrated to increase milk production andfeed efficiency, and accelerate the growth rate (Hart et al.,1985). The porcine equivalent, PST, has the ability todramatically alter carcass composition, significantlydecreasing the amount of fat and increasing the amount ofportein. Meat from PST -treated animals is leaner than meatfrom untreated animals and might be more desirable tohealth-conscious consumers. BST and PST are currently

under review by FDA. Growth hormones from otheranimals, including fish and chicken, are also being investigated. These applications will have a profound impact onthe efficiency and profitability of animal agriculture, andwill have an indirect impact on the food industry.

• Diagnostic Tools and Rapid Detection Methods.With recent consumer concern over the safety of the foodsupply, the food industry is in need of improved methodsfor detecting foodborne pathogens, toxins, and chemicalcontaminants in raw ingredients and finished products.Rapid and sensitive methods based on the development ofDNA probes and poly- and monoclonal antibodies havebegun to replace classical microbiological techniques fordetection of potentially pathogenic microorganisms (Fitts,1985; Flowers et al., 1988).Kits are currently available fordetection of two of the main culprits of concern, Salmonella typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes.

An emerging technology which will dramaticallyimprove the sensitivity of DNA probe-based assay systems,polymerase chain reaction, allows for the amplification ofDNA sequences (Kazazianand Dowling, 1988). In the nearfuture, it may be possible to detect a single contaminatingmicroorganism in a food product. Some examples offoodborne pathogens for which DNA probes are currentlyunder development are given in Table 5. Development of

Table l-Custom-Designed Crops for the Food Processing Industry

Crop

Tomato

Corn

Rape

Characteristics

Increased solids contentabsence of the enzymepolygalacturonase

Increased level of specificamino acids

Decreased level ofsaturated fatty acids

Impact on processing

Decreased cost for transport,less water to removeduring processing

Longer shelf life,vine-ripened flavor,decreased need forrefrigeration duringtransport

Enhanced nutritional quality

Enhanced nutritional quality

Reference

Lewis (1986)

Roberts (1988)

Hibberd et al. (1985)

Knauf (1986)

Table 2-Examples of Improved Enzymatic Activity through enzyme engineering. From Neidleman(1986)

Enzyme

Alpha-amylaseAmyloglucosidase

Esterases, lipases,proteases, etc.

Glucose isomerase

Limoninase

ProteasePullulanase


Application

Starch liquefactionProduction of

high-fructosecorn syrup

Flavor development

Production ofhigh-fructosecorn syrup

Debittering of fruitjuices

Beer chill-proofingProduction of

high-fructosecorn syrup

Useful improvement

Acid-tolerant and thermostableImmobilizedwith higher

productivity

More specificity

Increased thermostability

More complete limonindegradation

More specificityThermostability

rapid methods will dramatically change the way qualitycontrol and quality assurance are conducted in the foodindustry.

• Waste Management and Value-Added Technology.Environmental concerns and economic issues necessitatebetter utilization of raw materials and reduction of wastegenerated by the food processing industry. Innovativemethods are currently being developed for using thecellulosic materials (peels, skins, leaves, stalks, vines, pods,shells, and pits) from vegetable and fruit processing; the fat,collagen, blood, and bone from meat processing; and thewhey generated during cheese manufacture. Enzymes arebeing used for treatment of food-processing waste streams;food-processing by-products serve as feedstocks for subsequent fermentation processes; and raw agricultural products function as renewable resources for the production ofbiofuels. Improvements in the utilization of food-processing waste streams will provide substantial cost savings andthe potential for development of value-added products, andwill dramatically decrease the contamination and pollutionof the environment.

TomorrowAs a science, food biotechnology is in its infancy. The

currep-t applications of biotechnology in agriculture andfood merely hint at the tremendous potential which couldbe realized in the next 50 years. What does the future holdfor food biotechnology? What can we expect to see by theyear 2039, when the Institute of Food Technologists celebrates its centennial?

• Plant Biotechnology. In the next 50 years, our understanding of plant cells will rapidly expand. Sequencing ofplant genomes will provide information on the structureand regulation of gene function at all levels-from themolecular and cellular to the whole-organism level. Withthis foundation, it will be possible to direct specificstructural changes in components of plants through genetic engineering and predict what effect they will have on thefunctional properties of these components. Rather thanshotgun approaches to plant improvement, predictable,precise, and controllable changes will be possible. Try toimagine:

-Environmentally hardy food-producing plants that arenaturally resistant to pests and diseases and capable ofgrowing under extreme conditions of temperature, moisture, and salinity.

-An array of fresh fruits and vegetables, with excellentflavor, appealing texture, and optimum nutritional content,

Type offermentation

Table 3-Genetic Improvement of Food-Grade MicroorganismsNature of

improvement Benefit

Dairy

Meat

Beer

Accelerated ripeningHigher levels of

beta-galactosidaseProduction of bacteriocin

(natural preservative)Addition of cholesterol

reducing enzymesAddition of fat-modifying

enzymesAlpha-amylaseproduction

Elimination of economic lossesdue to destruction by viruses

Decreased storage costsIncreased digestibilityfor

lactose-intolerant individualsInhibition of pathogenic or

spoilageorganismsReduction of an undesirable

dietary componentAlteration of the ratio of saturated

to unsaturated fatProduction of "lite" or low-calorie

beer

Table 4-Microbial Production of Food Ingredients. From Wasserman et al. (1988)Ingredient-----

Acetic acidDiacetylDextransGlutamic acidLeucineMethylbutanol

MonascinNisinMonosodium glutamateL-phenylalanine

Vitamin B 12Xanthan gum

Function

AcidulantButtery flavorThickenersFlavor enhancerAmino acidMalt flavor

PigmentAntimicrobialFlavor enhancerAspartame

precursorVitaminThickener

Producing organism

Acetobacter pasteurianusLeuconostoc cremorisLeuconostoc mesenteroidesCorynebacterium glutamicumBrevibacterium lactofermentumLactococcus lactis subsp.

maltigenesMonascus purpureusLactococcus lactisCorynebacterium glutamicumBacillus polymyxa

ProPionibacteriumXanthomonas campestris


Table 5-Some DNA Probes Under Development

It is critical that ... regulationbe based on scientific fact ratherthan perceived risk. Withoutclear guidelines for the regulationof biotechnology products, thefood industry will be reluctant toembrace biotechnology .

biotechnology could be used to custom design the foodsupply to meet the nutritional needs of specific targetpopulations. One could imagine that with an increasedunderstanding of animal metabolism it would be possible toengineer meat with reduced saturated fat, eggs withdecreased levels of cholesterol, and milk with improvedcalcium bioavailability. As we unravel the mysteries ofplant cell structure and function, it will be possible toengineer cereal grains with increased levels of specificcomponents that mitigate or even prevent disease, such assoluble or insoluble fiber, omega-3-fatty acids, betacarotene, or selenium. Ultimately, it will be possible todetermine each person's nutritional requirements anddesign an individualized diet to meet his or her needs.

Future ChallengesA number of challenges facing the food industry must be

overcome before the potential of biotechnology can berealized. Prior to their use in foods, the safety of theproducts of biotechnology will need to be verified. Inaddition, products will need to be approved by the variousfederal agencies that regulate the food supply, includingFDA, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. It is critical that the guidelinescurrently under development be consistent among agenciesand that the extent of regulation be based on scientific factrather than perceived risk. Without clear guidelines for theregulation of biotechnology products, the food industrywill be reluctant to embrace biotechnology.

The consuming public will also need to embrace the


that stay fresh for several weeks.-Custom-designed plants with defined structural and

functional properties for specific food-processing applications.

• Food-Grade Microorganisms. An understanding ofthe molecular structure and regulation of gene functionwill extend the uses of industrially important microorganisms. It will be possible to program microorganisms tostably maintain, transcribe, translate, process, and expressan ever-expanding number of characterized genes fromother microbial as well as mammalian and plant sources.Try to imagine:

-Cultures that are programmed to express or shut offcertain genes at specific times during fermentation inresponse to environmental triggers.

-Strains engineered to serve as delivery systems fordigestive enzymes for individuals with reduced digestivecapacity.

-Cultures capable of implanting and surviving in thehuman gastrointestinal tract for delivery of antigens tostimulate the immune response or protect the gut frominvasion by pathogenic organisms.

-Microbially derived, high-value, "natural" food ingredients with unique functional properties.

• Processing Aids. Protein and enzyme engineering willbecome a standard tool for custom designing enzymes thatfunction optimally under the temperature, pH, and moisture conditions used to process foods.

• Analytical Tools. Sophisticated, sensitive, reproducible, and rapid analytical methods will replace conventionaltechniques for identifying and quantifying pathogenicorganisms, microbial toxins. chemical residues (pesticides,

The current applications ofbiotechnology in agriculture andfood merely hint at thetremendous potential which couldbe realized in the next 50 years.

herbicides, heavy metals), and biological contaminants(hormones, enzymes). Try to imagine:

- "Dip-stick" techniques that provide results in minutesrather than hours or days.

-Biosensors that accurately measure the physiologicalstate of plants; temperature-abuse indicators for refrigerated foods; and shelf-life monitors built into food packages.

-On-line sensors that monitor fermentation processes,or determine the concentration of nutrients throughoutprocessing to verify levels declared on labels.

• Waste Management. Creative handling of food-processing waste streams to produce value-added products willbecome a major area of interest and income to the foodindustry. Try to imagine:

- Utilization of waste streams as a feedstock for production of biofuel to power processing plants.

-Conversion of food-processing by-products into specialty chemicals for use by other industrial sectors.

-Production of high-value pharmaceutical productsfrom waste streams, such as whey, which currently cost theindustry millions of dollars in disposal costs.

• The Diet-Health Interface. As we understand moreabout the role of diet in health and chronic disease,


Organism of interest

CampylobacterClostridium botulinum

Escherichia coli

Listeria monocytogenesSalmonetta spp.Staphylococcus aureus

Vibrio cholera

Vibrio parahaemolyticus

Yersinia enterocolitica

Basis of detection

Genus-specificNeurotoxins A, B,

and EHeat-labile and

heat-stableenterotoxins

HemolysinGenus-specificEnterotoxins A,B,

and CEnterotoxin,

hemolysinThermostable

hemolysin"Invasiveness"


technology if it is to survive and flourish in the agricultureand food sectors. If we have learned one lesson from thefood irradiation issue, it is that consumer perceptions canhave a dramatic impact on the implementation and utilization of a technology. We cannot ignore or trivialize theconcerns of the public relative to food biotechnology. It iscritical that the public be made aware of what biotechnol-

It is critical that the public bemade aware of whatbiotechnology is and how it couldbe used to solve some of themajor problems in the world.

ogy is and how it could be used to solve some of the majorproblems in the world: enabling agriculture and foodprocessing to keep pace with population growth, controlling pollution of the environment and contamination ofthe water supply, and ensuring the health of the nation.The food processing industry, particularly the marketingsector, is acutely aware of consumer perception. If saleswould be compromised by the use of biotechnologyderived foods, they would not be used by the industry.

The United States food processing industry, in general,has approached biotechnology cautiously. To pursue biotechnology-related research in corporate research facilitiesrequires a major capital investment and long-term commitment. Unfortunately, trained molecular biologists with anappreciation for food technology are rare, and few univer-

The future will demand creativeapplication of the tools ofbiotechnology to assure a safe,wholesome, nutritious, andaffordable food supply for thegenerations to come.

sities have programs for training individuals to step intofood industry positions in food biotechnology.

Although promises and speculations about what biotechnology might accomplish have been well publicized, thereal impact on new food product development has not, atthis time, been sufficiently demonstrated to encouragemajor research and development commitments by themanagement of most food companies. However, to meetconsumer demands and keep pace in an increasinglycompetitive global marketplace, the U.S. food processingindustry will need to enlist every available resource, including biotechnology. Industry must keep a finger on thepulse of biotechnology-monitor the biotechnology breakthroughs occurring in other scientific disciplines and beready to apply these advances to food processing. Thefuture will demand creative application of the tools ofbiotechnology to assure a safe, wholesome, nutritious, andaffordable food supply for the generations to come.


ReferencesConnor, J.M. 1988. "Food Processing: An Industrial Powerhouse

in Transition." Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Co., Lexington, Mass.

Cuozzo, M., O'Connell, K., Kaniewski, W., Fang, R., Chua, N.,and Turner, N: 1988. Viral protection in transgenic tobaccoplants expressing the cucumber mosaic virus coat protein or itsantisense RNA. Bio/Technology 6: 549.

Dulmage, H.T. 1981. Insecticidal activity of isolates of Bacillusthuringiensis and their potential for pest control. In "MicrobialControl of Pests and Plant Diseases 1970-1980," ed. H.D.Burges, p. 193. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

Fischhoff, D., Bowdish, K., Perlak, F., Marrone, P., McCormick,S., Niedermeyer, J., Dean, D., Kusano-Kretzmer, K., Mayer, E.,Rochester, D., Rogers, S., and Fraley, R. 1987. Insect toleranttransgenic tomato plants. Bio/Technology 5: 807.

Fitts, R. 1985. Development of a DNA-DNA hybridization testfor the presence of Salmonella in foods. Food Technol. 39(3):95.

Flowers, R., Klatt, M., and Keelan, S. 1988. Visual immunoassayfor detection of Salmonella in foods: Collaborative study. J.Assn. Offic. Anal. Chern. 71: 973.

Hall, R. 1987. Biotechnology for plant disease control: Application of biotechnology to plant pathology. Can. J. Plant Pathol.9: 152.

Hart, 1., Bines, J., James, S., and Morant, S. 1985. The effect ofinjecting or infusing low doses of bovine growth hormone onmilk yield, milk composition and the quantity of hormone inthe milk serum of cows. Animal Prod. 40: 243.

Hibberd, K., Anderson, P., and Barker, M. 1988. Tryptophanoverproducer mutants of cereal crops. U.S. patent 4,581,847.

Kazazian, H. and Dowling, C. 1988. Laboratory implications ofautomated polymerase chain reaction. Am. Biotech. Lab, Aug.,p.23.

Knauf, V. 1987. The application of genetic engineering to oilseedcrops. Techniques in Biotechnol. 5: 40.

Lewis, R. 1986. Building a better tomato. High Technol., May, p.46.

Neidleman, S. 1986. Enzymology and food processing. In "Biotechnology in Food Processing," ed. S. Harlander and T.Labuza, p. 37. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, N.J.

Okon, Y. and Hadar, Y. 1987. Microbial inoculants as crop-yieldenhancers. CRC Rev. in Biotechnol. 6: 61.

Roberts, L. 1988. Genetic engineers build a better tomato.Science 241:1290.

Ruyter, C.M. and Stockigt, J. 1989. Neue Naturstoffe aus pflanzlichen Zell-und Gewebekulturen-eine Bestandsaufnahme. GITFachz. Lab. In press.

Schneiderman, H.A. 1986. Joint venturing with Mother Nature:What biotechnology has in store for us. Remarks at the Univ.of Massachusetts at Amherst, Sept. 30. Monsanto Co., St.Louis, Mo.

Shah, D., Horsch, R., Klee, H., Kishore, G., Winter, J., Turner,N., Hironada, c., Sanders, P., Gasser, c., Aykent, S., Siegel,N., Rogers, S., and Fraley, R. 1986. Engineering herbicidetolerance in transgenic plants. Science 233: 478.

Wasserman, B., Montville, T., and Korwek, E. 1988. Foodbiotechnology. A Scientific Status Summary by the Institute ofFood Technologists' Expert Panel on Food Safety and Nutrition. Food Technol. 42(11): 133.

Wetzel, R. 1986. Protein engineering: Potential applications infood processing. In "Biotechnology in Food Processing," ed. S.Harlander and T. Labuza,p. 57. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge,N.J.


A Half Century ofFood Microbiology

E.M. Foster

The history of any science is both tedious to writeand often boring to read. So much depends on theskill, the inventiveness, the dedication, and even

the biases of the historian. I do not present this brief storyas a complete and detailed treatment of all that happened ina half century of food microbiology. Rather, it reflectssome of my personal memories after 50 years of involvement in the subject. There will be serious omissions,oversights, and perhaps even errors. For these I apologizein advance. What I shall try to do in the space available is(1) describe the state of our knowledge of food microbiology when the Institute of Food Technologists was founded50 years ago; (2) highlight some of the key advances andtrends that occurred during the past half century (Table 1);and (3) mention some of the developments that we may expect to see in the years ahead.

What We Knew 50 Years AgoFood microbiology began like all other applied sci

ences-to provide solutions to practical problems. S.e.Prescott of Massachusetts Institute of Technologyresponded to the needs of the infant canning industry.H.L. Russell of the Wisconsin Agricultural ExperimentStation helped get the fledgling dairy industry on a solidbase. He did some of the first work on sanitation of dairyequipment, and he showed the advantages of ripeningcheese at low temperature. Russell also did some of the firstwork on thermal resistance of bacteria important to thecanning industry.

These and a few other academic pioneers stimulated avery productive new generation of microbiologists whoseinterests centered on foods. Prominent among them, toname only a few, were L.A. Rogers of the U.S. Dept. ofAgriculture's Dairy Division, E.G. Hastings and W.e.Frazier of the University of Wisconsin, ].M. Sherman ofCornell University, B.W. Hammer of Iowa State University, Harold Macy of the University of Minnesota, F.W.Tanner of the University of Illinois, and Carl Pedersen ofthe New York Agricultural Experiment Station. For manyreasons, the greatest emphasis was on milk and milkproducts.

In 1939, microbiologists were mainly concerned withfood preservation and spoilage. We knew the basic principles of the 3K system of food preservation: (1) Keep themout. This meant sanitation. (2) Kill them if you can. Heatwas the only lethal agent that could be applied to food. Theseverity of heating, and therefore its bactericidal effectiveness, varied widely among foods and processes. (3)Keep therest from growing. Various inhibitory means were available, all based on inhibiting enzyme reactions and thereby

The author is Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Food Microbiologyand Toxicology, Food Research Institute, University of Wisconsin, 1925 Willow Dr., Madison, WI 53706


delaying growth. These included low temperature (refrigeration, freezing), low availablewater (drying, salting), low pH(acidification, fermentation), or inhibitory chemicals (preservatives).Then, as now, very few antimicrobial chemicalswere permitted in foods. Application of these principles tospecific industries was already well advanced in 1939.

• Canned Foods. After several disastrous outbreaks ofbotulism in the early 1920s, the canning industry wasobliged to develop and adopt safe procedures that wouldeffectively protect consumers against this dread disease.Accordingly, the National Canners Association (NCA;now the National Food Processors Association) undertookto measure the thermal resistance of botulinum spores invarious canned foodstuffs. They also determined the heatpenetration rates in different sizes and types of containersfilled with various kinds of food. With this information,the canners' experts developed systems for determining asafe thermal process for any type of food in any type andsize of container. The heat processes thus developed wereextremely conservative, since their basic premise was toprovide a heat treatment that would destroy 12 billionbotulinum spores (the so-called 12D process.)

Thus, the canning industry was on solid microbiologicalgrounds by 1939. With technical assistance available fromNCA and the can manufacturers' technical staffs,operatingcanneries had very little trouble with botulinum spoilage. Infact, since 1925the United States canning industry has produced more than a trillion containers of canned foods withonly fiveor six known incidents of botulism. Many of theseincidents involved faulty containers, not underprocessing.

For the first time in half acentury, there seems to bewidespread recognition thatfoodborne diseases are importantto the public and need attention.

• Milk and Milk Products. Much like the canners, thedairy industry was driven to microbiological control bydisease. From its beginning in the 19th century, the dairyindustry was plaqued by outbreaks of such milkbornediseases as typhoid fever, diphtheria, septic sore throat,brucellosis, tuberculosis, and others. Finally, the publichealth authorities established requirements covering animal health, sanitation, pasteurization, and refrigeration, allreinforced by bacterial specifications (standards). Thus, thedairy industry encountered mandatory microbiologicalcontrols long before the rest of the food industry, and by1939 pasteurized milk was one of our safest foods. We hadvirtually eliminated bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis; we

had a highly developed system for cleaning and sanitizingmilk-handling equipment; pasteurization was widely adopted for fluid milk products; and refrigeration throughoutthe distribution system assured adequate freshness control.

We also knew a great deal about starter cultures andfermented dairy products in 1939. Many factories culturedcream before churning it into butter. Cultured buttermilkmade from skim milk by a combination starter of Streptococcus lactis and Leuconostoc species was an establishedproduct of commerce. Most cheese makers used knowncultures rather than follow the "back slop" method ofinoculating cheese milk with some of yesterday's whey. Weknew which organisms to use in making each variety ofcheese. By that time, we also knew about bacteriophagesand their effect on acid development, but modern methodsof phage control came later.

• Meat, Poultry, and Seafood. The meat industry waswell developed in 1939. As today, the vast majority of meatproducts were preserved by refrigeration, which allowedonly a relatively short keeping time. We knew the kindsand sources of organisms on meat and were well acquaintedwith the spoilages they caused, but we could do little toextend shelf life. Staphylococcal food poisoning was awell-recognized problem with cured hams. Fermentedsausages were popular articles of commerce, but the production methods were largely empirical. Most manufacturers used the back slop method ofinoculation with its inherent control difficulties.

The poultry industry in 1939 was nothing like it is today.

Most chickens were raised on farms and sold locally. Theturkey market was highly seasonal, the vast majority ofbirds being sold at Thanksgiving and Christmas. Bacterialspoilage was an important factor with both.

Microbial spoilage was the primary concern in connection with refrigerated storage of eggs in the shell. Heavybacterial contamination was a recognized problem withfrozen and dried eggs, but there was little concern aboutfoodborne disease from egg products.

Fresh seafoods were available only near the coastsbecause of their high degree of perishability.

• Fruits and Vegetables. Only those fruits and vegetables that are most resistant to spoilage (e.g., apples, citrusfruits, cabbage, rutabagas, etc.) could be stored and distributed in the fresh state as we do today. Modifiedatmosphere storage was practiced with apples and a fewother fruits for long holding periods or transoceanicshipment. Berries, tomatoes, lettuce, and other perishablefruits and vegetables were available only in season. Weknew the causes of microbial spoilage, but our refrigerationfacilities, both fixed and mobile, were not good enough toassure the prolonged shelf life that we enjoy today.

The microbiology of fermented fruits and vegetables waswell understood in 1939. We were thoroughly familiarwith the organisms involved in both production andspoilage of sauerkraut, cucumber pickles, and fermentedolives.

• Foodborne Disease. Surprisingly, we heard very littleabout foodborne disease 50 years ago. The chief academicinterest in this subject was found in the Bacteriology Dept.


A Half Century of Food Microbiology (continued)

at the University of Chicago. First E.O. Jordan in 1917and later Gail M. Dack in 1943 published books underthe same title, Food Poisoning. Both dealt with varioushuman and animal pathogens that can be transmitted byfood. However, the only conventional food-poisoningbacteria mentioned in either book were Clostridium botulinum, Staphylococcus aureus, and Salmonella spp.

We knew a great deal about botulism in 1939because ofthe work done to save the canning industry. As far as weknew at that time, botulism was primarily a problem ofhome canners. Now we realize it is much more widespreadthan that.

Staphylococcal food poisoning was a frequent problemwith cream-filled baked goods, cured ham, various salads,roast fowl, and, occasionally, certain types of cheese.Outbreaks of this disease almost invariably indicated recontamination from human sources plus mishandling of thefood in a way that allowed S. aureus to grow and produceits enterotoxin.

Fifty years ago, we knew that salmonellosis was commonly transmitted by animal products, but we believedthat those animals were sick. Now we know that apparently

We have discovered several newfoodborne disease agents duringthe past 10 years .... The onlything new about them is therealization that they can betransmitted to man by food.

healthy animals, including man, can shed the organism andpossibly contaminate food.

The statistics on incidence of foodborne disease wereeven poorer in 1939 than they are today, but there is noevidence to indicate that foods were more or less safe thenthan they are now. The apparent lack of concern aboutfoodborne disease 50 years ago may simply indicate thatpeople who had just survived the great depression of the1930swere more concerned with getting enough to eat thanthey were with some vague "ptomaine" that might makethem sick for a few hours.

What We Have LeamedWe have learned a number of lessons in the decades

since 1939:• 1939-59. World War II began 50 years ago, but the

U.S. did not enter the conflict until 1941. Food technologists became heavily involved after the U.S. entered thewar. We had to have better rations to feed our troops, whowere fighting allover the world. The food industry wasmobilized to develop products that would feed and nourishour fighting men in every kind of environment from thefrozen arctic to the humid tropics. We also provided hugeamounts of food for our allies in the European theater.

It was just this circumstance that led to the discovery of apreviously unrecognized health hazard. People in GreatBritain began to suffer outbreaks of salmonellosis caused byserotypes that had not previously been observed in theBritish Isles. In time, it was learned that spray-dried eggsfrom the U.S. and Canada were the vehicle for transmitting the new Salmonella serotypes to the British people.

Although this was one of the first, it was by no meansthe last instance of salmonellosis involving American


processed foods. Dried or frozen eggs were the vehicle inseveral subsequent outbreaks of disease among U.S. civilians. Later, in 1955, dried yeast and dehydrated coconutwere identified as vehicles of salmonellosis.

Meanwhile, there was little change in the overall thrustand activity of food microbiologists. Even though numerous departments of food science were formed in ouruniversities after the war, the primary emphasis of foodmicrobiologists continued to be directed toward preservation and spoilage. The heavy emphasis on dairy productswas balanced somewhat by research on meats and otherfoods; yet there was little interest in foodborne disease.

One notable event of the decade was the discovery ofaflatoxins in 1959,when thousands of turkey poults died inGreat Britain after eating moldy peanut meal. Theretofore,we had regarded molds on food simply as pesky spoilageagents with no health significance. The aflatoxins were thefirst of dozens of poisonous fungal metabolites to bediscovered in food systems. The full significance of thesematerials is still not understood.

• 1960-69. The new decade started with a specialchallenge for food microbiologists and the food industry.In 1960, two people in Minneapolis died of Type Ebotulism after eating smoked fish from Lake Superior. In1962, two other incidents of Type E botulism with at leastseven deaths were attributed to fish caught in the GreatLakes and smoked in Michigan. Two of the three incidentsinvolved vacuum-packaged commercial products that wereshipped across state lines. This was the first time that TypeE botulism had been attributed to freshwater animals.Ocean fish were known sometimes to harbor C. botulinumType E, but these were the first outbreaks involvingfreshwater fish.

Surveys of the Great Lakes revealed C. botulinum TypeE as a frequent contaminant of fish from those waters.Therefore, temperature abuse after processing was the onlyrequirement for toxin to develop. In the outbreaks cited,the fish were transported in warm weather without adequate refrigeration. These incidents provide a classic example of the danger one faces when relying solely onrefrigeration to protect low-acid cooked foods from microbial hazard.

Meanwhile, processed foods continued to serve as vehicles of salmonellosis from time to time. In 1961, anoutbreak was attributed to instant infant cereal manufactured in Sweden. In 1963, cottonseed protein was responsible for a small outbreak; and in 1966, there were fouridentifiable incidents. The vehicles were smoked whitefish,headcheese, carmine red dye (food color), and instantnonfat dry milk.

Government authorities, meanwhile, recognized therepeatedly demonstrated hazard of salmonellosis from processed eggs and in 1965 required that all liquid eggs to befrozen or dried must be pasteurized. This is probably thesingle most important action that our government has takento protect the American people against foodborne salmonellosis.

Perhaps the most significant event of the 1960s from amicrobiological point of view was the appointment of Dr.James Goddard as Commissioner of the Food and DrugAdministration in 1966. Goddard had been Director ofthe Centers for Disease Control and was well aware of theconcerns then held about Salmonella in food. His arrival atFDA shortly preceded a nationwide outbreak of Salmonella New Brunswick infection involving some 28 cases, manyof them infants, where the vehicle was instant nonfat drymilk. Under Goddard's guidance, FDA undertook anintensive surveillance program, testing virtually every dryfood and food ingredient that had ever been associated


with Salmonella-yeast, eggs, milk, gelatin, cottonseedprotein, spices, animal glandular extracts, and on and on.They tested thoroughly, and they often found the organism.

Salmonella was, and still is, considered to be an adulterant, and any product found to contain the organism had tobe removed from the market. This produced some veryexpensive product recalls and severe economic hardship onthe affected industry, but it certainly got industry's attention. For the first time, the U.S. food industry as a wholebecame aware of pathogenic and toxigenic organisms asproblems it had to do something about. The industry hadto find ways to protect its products from contamination.Whether this campaign did much to improve public healthis debatable, but it certainly did a great deal to clean up a lotof food plants in the U.S. Needless to say, it also created alarge number of jobs for microbiologists, in both theindustry and the regulatory agencies.

Meanwhile, efforts to do something about Salmonella inmeat and poultry, where the real health problems arebelieved to exist, were thwarted by a court decision thatSalmonella in poultry (and, by inference, in other rawanimal products) is an unavoidable defect. Thus, neithergovernment nor industry has been impelled to contributethe necessary effort into developing ways to avoid contamination of raw animal products with Salmonella.

• 1970-79. The decade of the 1970s saw little increasein the public awareness of microbial hazards in food. Twoor three small outbreaks of botulism from commerciallycanned foods were publicized briefly but soon forgotten.

During the 1970s ... the newsmedia and the consumer activistsseemed determined to convince

the public that the American foodsupply is unsafe, unwholesome,and dangerous.

The lessons of these events were not lost, however, on theregulatory agencies, nor did they go unnoticed by thecompanies involved, all of whom suffered grievous economic loss. The net result was a new regulatory structurecovering the canning industry. FDA now has vastly broader powers to regulate virtually everything the canningindustry does.

Meanwhile, the food processing industry learned to livewith FDA's requirements for Salmonella control. Manufacturers put pressure on their suppliers, while FDA's fervorto look for Salmonella in processed foods understandablywaned. Neither USDA nor the animal industries didanything of significance to solve the problem of Salmonellain raw animal products.

Throughout all this, foodborne disease continued to becommon, but nobody knew how common. The incidencefigures for botulism, staphylococcal food poisoning, salmonellosis, and the other well-known foodborne diseases didnot change much from year to year. Occasionally, we heardof a new and unfamiliar agent, such as Escherichia coli027:H20, which caused a nationwide outbreak of gastroenteritis in 1971. The vehicle was Brie cheese imported fromFrance. Disease outbreaks caused by Yersinia enterocoliticaand Campylobacter jejuni were heard of near the end of thedecade, but received little attention except from specialistsin foodborne disease control.


Table I-Highlights in Food Microbiology

Early 1920s 12-D process for canned foodsdeveloped

Mid-1920s Universal pasteurization adoptedand safe milk assured

Before 1939 Widespread use of pure culturestarters for fermented foods

1943-45 Salmonella recognizedas a problemin dried eggs

1959 Aflatoxins discovered; many othermycotoxins follow

Early 1960s Type E botulism hazard from GreatLakes smoked fish discovered

1965 Mandatory pasteurization of liquideggs adopted

Late 1960s Salmonella contamination found inmany dried foods

Early 1970s Low-acidacidifiedcanned food reg-ulations adopted by FDA

1975-85 New foodborne pathogens recog-nized: Campylobacter jejuni, Yersinia enterocolitica, Escherichia coli0157-H7, Vibrio cholerae, Listeriamonocytogenes

1985 World's largest outbreak of salmo-nellosis attributed to pasteurizedmilk in Chicago.

Actually, most of the public's attention during the 1970swas devoted to potentially toxic chemical constituents infood. Beginning with President Nixon's order in 1969 toreexamine the safety of substances on the GenerallyRecognized as Safe (GRAS) list, the news media and theconsumer activists seemed determined to convince thepublic that the American food supply is unsafe, unwholesome, and dangerous. Besides scores of unsafe additives,toxic pesticide residues, and dangerous chemical contaminants in our foods, new questions were raised about thedanger of consuming too much salt, cholesterol, andsaturated fats. At the same time, we were urged to eat morefiber. People in government, and many outside of government, did their best to reshape the American diet to fit acommon mold for everybody, even though many of therecommendations were, and still are, hotly debated by thenation's leading nutrition scientists.

• 1980-89. Matters continued about as usual for thefirst half of the 1980s. C. jejuni emerged as the leadingcause of gastroenteritis. According to a survey of some ofthe nation's major hospitals, Campylobacter causes moredisease than Salmonella and Shigella combined. Y. enterocolitica was identified in several sizableoutbreaks of gastroenteritis, most of them from dairy products. One inparticular was worrisome. It involved an estimated 1,200cases attributed to consumption of pasteurized milk processed in a large modern dairy. The milk must have beenrecontaminated after pasteurization, but no one has yetdiscovered the source of the organism.

E. coli 0157:H7 first appeared in 1982 among patrons ofa fast-food restaurant chain. It has subsequently caused serious and sizabledisease outbreaks in nursing homes, retirement homes, schools, and other institutions. This organism


produces a very serious type of colohemorrhagic colitis, or"bloody diarrhea," sometimes followed by hemolytic uremic syndrome, a frequent cause of kidney failure, andsometimes death, in young children. Epidemiologic evidence usually points to beef or chicken as the source.One large outbreak involving Canadian kindergarten children was attributed to consumption of unpasteurizedmilk.

Aeromonas hydrophilia also was recognized in the earlypart of the decade as a possible cause of foodborne disease.There are still doubts about its significance, but theevidence is highly suggestive that it can be transmitted byfood and cause disease. This organism is common in waterand raw animal products.

Finally, the marine vibrios deserve mention. We haveknown for many years that Vibrio cholerae, the cause ofAsiatic cholera, can be transmitted to man by contaminatedfood and water. This organism has been found in seafoodtaken from the Gulf of Mexico. Also, we have known for along time that V. parahaemolyticus, the leading cause offoodborne disease in Japan, can be found in seafood fromour coastal waters. Only recently, however, did we learnthat V. vulnificus also occurs in these same waters. Thishighly invasive organism is one of the most dangerousbacteria known. We can contract it through skin lesions orvia the alimentary tract. The organism is commonly associated with oysters, and infection can be acquired by eatingraw shellfish.

It is clear from the foregoing paragraphs that we havediscovered several new foodborne disease agents during the

During the past 20 years ... wehave become increasinglyconcerned about the safety offoods .... In the minds of many,the term food microbiology hasbecome synonymous with themicrobiology of foodbornedisease .

past 10 years. Many of them are well-known pathogens ofdomestic animals. The only thing new about them is therealization that they can be transmitted to man by food.However, this decade will long be remembered for oneyear, 1985. Just as 1966 was a banner year for foodmicrobiologists, 1985 has served to impress everyoneregulators, congressmen, news media, industry, consumeractivists, and even the general public-that foodbornedisease is an important consideration regarding the safetyof food. For the first time in half a century, there seems tobe widespread recognition that foodborne diseases areimportant to the public and need attention.

This realization was brought about by two events in1985. The first came late in March of that year, whenIllinois health authorities recognized an outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium infection in the Chicago area. Theoutbreak was traced to pasteurized low-fat milk from a largemodern dairy located in a Chicago suburb. By the time itwas over, the authorities had counted almost 20,000laboratory-confirmed cases. Estimates of the total numberof victims approached 200,000. The second critical event of1985 started only a few weeks after the first. Los Angeleshealth authorities recognized an outbreak of listeriosis


among Latin American residents of the city and soonidentified the source as a soft, Mexican-type cheese made inthe Los Angeles area. Before it was over, the authoritieshad identified about 150 cases, of whom almost 50 died.

Needless to say, these two events served to focus thepublic's attention on microbiological problems of the foodsupply as never before. Even the longstanding problem ofSalmonella in poultry was fully aired in the news media.The National Research Council has performed studies;committees of Congress have held hearings; and regulatoryauthorities have changed priorities to focus more directlyon microbiological problems associated with the foodsupply.

The events of 1985 described above had an especiallysharp impact on the dairy industry. Pasteurized dairyproducts have long been considered among our safestfoods. In recent years, however, we have experienced somevery puzzling and disturbing incidents involving pasteurized dairy products. Besides the two large outbreaks in1985,we know of three incidents of yersiniosis attributableto pasteurized milk or chocolate milk. In addition, a largeoutbreak of listeriosis in New England in 1983was believedat first to be attributable to pasteurized milk, though thisconclusion has been disputed. These and other incidentshave impelled FDA to undertake an extensive survey of thedairy industry in a search for evidence bearing on the safetyof milk products. This surveillance program has revealednumerous deficiencies that are being corrected.

The foregoing paragraphs make it clear that food microbiology has undergone a drastic change during the pasthalf century. Fifty years ago, our interest centered on twoaspects of the subject-how best to produce good-qualityfermented products, and how to prevent microbial spoilage. During the past 20 years, however, we have becomeincreasingly concerned about the safety of foods. Thisconcern includes microbial safety, which has becomeespecially acute since 1985. In the minds of many, the termfood microbiology has become synonymous with themicrobiology of foodborne disease.

What lies AheadFood microbiologists face a number of challenges in

several areas in the future:• Methods Development. Fifty years ago, our concerns

for microbiological safety were concentrated on drinkingwater, fluid milk, and canned foods. All of these had ahistory of disease transmission, all had been made safe, andall were monitored by some kind of microbiological controlmechanism. For water and milk, we used plate counts andcoliform tests to indicate possible hazards. For cannedfoods, we relied on process controls supplemented withthermophile counts in sensitive ingredients. We did nottest directly for pathogenic organisms.

Our experience of the past 20 years has shown that theseare not enough for most foods; we must look for thepathogen itself if we are to be sure a food is safe.

Food microbiologists ... face anurgent challenge-how can wedetect very low numbers ofpathogenic microorganisms in afood product quickly, cheaply,and reliably?

Why do morefood processors

specify Red Arrow'snatural smoke

flavorings than anyother brand?

Because of our high quality. Red Arrow's smokeproducts give your smoked and barbequed foods animproved color and flavor profile, naturally, uniformlyand consistently.

Because you have a choice. CharSol Supreme TM

concentrated liquid smoke -designed foratomizationdelivers a traditional old world flavor, eliminates tarprecipitation and shortens smoking time. Aro-SmokeP-50™ imparts a traditional mellow smoke flavor.Formulated for use in brine solutions, it will not causepremature nitrite losses. Chardex TM dry smokeflavoring gives your emulsified meat products a naturalhickory smoke taste.

Because you can depend on us. With more than50 natural smoke products, we produce one for yourapplication. We offer the quality assurance andtechnical expertise you expect from the leader in thenatural smoke flavoring market. For details or a freesample, call 414-683-5500.

~~df:~~roduct" CoIne1[17£}Manitowoc, WI 54221-153 7 ~_,";,,-;..-;..-;..-;..-;..-;..-;..-;..-;..-;..__ ~REDARROW

The Smoke That Signals Success.

© 1989, Red Arrow Products Co" Inc,



Unfortunately, we do not yet have methods that are fastenough and sensitive enough to detect pathogens on aroutine basis in a quality control laboratory. Even anordinary Salmonella test, after 20 years of effort, still takes5-7 days for a definitive answer.

Thus, food microbiologists and others involved in methods development face an urgent challenge-how can wedetect very low numbers of pathogenic microorganisms ina food product quickly, cheaply, and reliably? A side issueto this question is the matter of infective dose. What is asafe level of pathogenic organisms in food? This questionhas always been a concern with Salmonella, and it hasarisen more recently in testing for Listeria monocytogenes.It will continue to plague us until some kind of decision isreached .

• Psychrotrophic Pathogens. For many years, weaccepted the general conviction that pathogenic microorganisms are unable to grow at refrigeration temperatures.This view wasweakened only slightly a quarter of a centuryago when we learned that C. botulinum Type E can growand produce its deadly toxin in refrigerated food. Events ofthe past 10 years, however, have shown that severalpathogenic bacteria can, indeed, multiply in properlyrefrigerated foods and food plant environments. Organismsthat can do this include L. monocytogenes, Y. enterocolitica,A. hydrophilia, and nonproteolytic strains of C. botulinumTypes B and F.

This finding has enormous significance for cooked,low-acid products that are preserved for extended periodsof time under refrigeration. Where other circumstancesallow growth and spoilage, refrigeration may simply provide conditions for selective enrichment of the psychrotrophic pathogens .

• Animal Pathogens. We have known for a long timethat salmonellae are common in raw animal products, Le.,poultry, meat, milk, and eggs. Now we know that Listeriaand Aeromonas are even more common, and Campylobacter is especially numerous on raw poultry.

In the past, we have relied on cooking and properhandling to protect us from these dangerous organisms, yetmistakes occur and illness often results. From a publichealth standpoint, it would be far better if the raw animalproducts were free of pathogens when they enter themarketplace. Thus, eliminating pathogens, or even reducing their number on raw products, offers a challenge to theanimal industries of the future.

• Biotechnological Developments. Aside from its rolein methods development, which now looks very bright,biotechnology is likely to produce fundamental changes infood fermentations. Improved starter cultures and betterorganisms for enzyme production are only two of the areasthat offer great opportunities to the food microbiologist.Equally attractive is the use of microorganisms to producedesirable food flavors, either directly in the food or foraddition to food.

A Bright OudookFood microbiology has gained great significance in the

food industry during the past 50 years, largely because ofincreased recognition of foodborne disease problems. Preventing disease obviously will be an essential part of futurequality control programs. The outlook for food microbiologists in both industry and regulatory agencies is brightertoday than it has ever been.


Nutrition: Past,Present, and Future

John W. Erdman Jr.

This review will focus on decade-to-decade advancesin the nutrition field in the past 50 years, especiallyas they affect food science in the United States. The

present status of nutritional sciences and fertile areas forfuture nutrition research and policy will also be emphasized.

The Discovery Era: 17008-1939We often trace the field of nutrition back to James Lind,

the British naval surgeon who carried out what wasprobably the first controlled human dietary study. In 1747,Lind demonstrated that citrus fruits relieved the symptomsof scurvy in English sailors. However, it was almost 50 yearsbefore his results were practically applied when the BritishNavy officially introduced lemon juice as a prophylacticagainst scurvy (Todhunter, 1976).

Many other giants, such as Lavoisier, Liebig, Prout,Dumas, and Atwater made major contributions before andinto the early part of the 20th century. (For more information on the historical development of nutrition, seeMcCollum, 1957; Lusk, 1933; McCay, 1973; Todhunter,1976; 1984; Darby, 1985; Harper, 1988; and Hill, 1978. Inaddition, an excellent collection of materials can be foundin the History of Nutrition Archives and Collection,Vanderbilt University Medical Center Library, Nashville,Tenn.)

In spite of these contributions, the techniques in analytical chemistry of organic molecules in the early 1900s wereso weak that it remained to be proven that animals neededmore than palatable purified diets containing protein,energy sources, water, and a few minerals to survive (see,e.g., Harper, 1988).

From about 1906 to 1916, two major research groups,that of Osborne and Mendel at Yale University and that ofMcCollum and Davis at the University of Wisconsin, beganthe study of vitamins by showing that previously unknownorganic factors were necessary for adequate growth andviability of animals. They extracted "fat-soluble A" frombutter and "water-soluble B" from natural products anddemonstrated that both were required growth factors.Casimir Funk coined the term "Vitamine" in 1912 toclassify those dietary organic substances that were necessary to prevent dietary deficiency diseases. The researchersfrom Yale and Wisconsin catalyzedthe development of thenutrition field, as researchers from many of the basicand agricultural science fields worked feverishly to identify not only the organic but also the inorganic growthpromoters.

Table 1 is a chronology of selected advances in nutritionin the 20th century. I have termed the period from the1700s to 1939-40 "the discovery era" to reflect the intense

The author is Professor of Food Science and Professor ofNutritional Science, University of Illinois, Dept. of Food Science,580 Bevier Hall, 905 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801


interest of nutritionists during this period in isolating andidentifying essential growth factors in foods.

The nutrition literature began to flourish near the end ofthe discovery era, and nutrition began to emerge as adistinct discipline. In 1939, the British publication, Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, was but 8 years old, Journal ofNutrition was 11 years old, and Food Research (laterrenamed Journal of Food Science) was 3 years old. A reviewof research articles from these and other journals a halfcentury ago reveals a great deal of high-quality work, muchof which is still valid today. Clearly, researchers of that time

A half century ago ...researchers ... were severelyhandicapped by the lack of manyof the advanced analytical toolswe enjoy today. Nevertheless, thepioneers in the field movedforward steadily ....

were severely handicapped by the lack of many of theadvanced analytical tools we enjoy today. Nevertheless, thepioneers in the field moved forward steadily, using quitecareful but often tedious analytical methods.

The Transition Period: 1939-40Nutrition as a scientific discipline was barely past the

toddling stage when the Institute of Food Technologistswas formed 50 years ago. As noted by Sir Walter Fletcher(1932),nutrition "is cross-bred in its origin, being related topractically every branch of biological science and is onlynow becoming recognized as a separate branch of appliedscience." The nutrition researchers a half decade ago werequite capable, their work was thoughtfully and carefullycarried out, and their publications often caused a stiramong fellow scientists. Nutrition was simply a poorlydeveloped science lacking adequate methods of analysis.

1939,the year that 1FTwasestablished, can be considereda major transition point for nutritional science. Mostessential growth factors in foods had by then been discovered, and the research emphasis was shifting towardunraveling the exact function of these nutrients in humanmetabolism. E.V. McCollum, who was president of theAmerican Institute of Nutrition in 1939, provided a snapshot of the nutrition field at this point (McCollum, 1957):

It seems logical to close this history of ideas with theyear 1940. Essentially that year marks the achievementof the primary objectives set by pioneers in their fieldof study. They sought to discover what in terms ofchemical substances constituted an adequate diet for

man and domestic animals, and that purpose wasrealized.He also noted that by 1940 scientists realized that:an adequate diet must provide, in appropriateamounts, forty or more specific chemical substancesidentified as amino acids, vitamins, fatty acids, carbohydrate and inorganic elements. With the exceptionof folic acid and vitamin Bl2, by 1940 these have beenidentified, isolated and characterized chemically.

Krehl (1978), reflecting on McCollum's statements, suggested that the milestone year of 1940 represented "the endof the beginning" of the science of nutrition.

Although the precise end date of the discovery era issomewhat arbitrary, discovery of which "chemical substances constituted an adequate diet" was indeed realizedabout this time. This was also an appropriate date for 1FTto be established.

1939, the year that 1FT wasestablished, can be considered amajor transition point fornutritional science.

The Biochemical Function Era: 1940-89A primary emphasis of nutrition researchers over the

past 50 years has centered on determining the biochemicalfunctions and mechanisms of action of essential nutrients.In this "biochemical function era," numerous advanceswere made as nutritionists progressed beyond the "feedthem and weigh them" studies to utilize the latest biochem-


Nutrition: Past, Present, and Future (continued)

ical techniques. Although much progress has been made inthe past half century, the precise mode of action of some ofthe fat-soluble vitamins and trace elements still eludes us.

Another goal during this era has been to more accuratelydetermine the nutritional requirements for farm animals,pets, and humans. For domesticated animals the emphasishas been to optimize growth, while for humans the primarygoal has been to establish levels of intake which wouldprevent nutritional deficiency diseases.

• Impact of World War II. The outbreak of World WarII in Europe helped to usher in the new biochemicalfunction era. It resulted in a request from the U.S. Dept. ofDefense to the National Academy of Sciences to provideassistance with nutrition planning related to national

defense. This led to the permanent establishment of theFood and Nutrition Board in 1941 and the first edition ofthe Recommended Dietary Allowances two years later. Thefirst of nine editions so far was designed to serve "as a guidefor planning and procuring food supplies for nationaldefense" (NASjNRC, 1943). Clearly, the RDAs havefound great use by nutrition professionals and federalnutrition programs. In addition, the regular publication ofRDAs has fostered a great deal of research on defininghuman nutritional requirements .

World War II also stimulated an increased emphasis onnutrition research. According to Krehl (1978):

During the World War II years, extraordinary effortswere made in a number of laboratories to obtain

Table I-Chronology of Selected Developments in nutrition, 1900-89.Basedin part on Todhunter (1976),Darby(1985),and HHS (1988)

1906

1926

1929

1922

FDA promulgates standards for enrichment of flour and bread with Bcomplex vitamins and iron

Nutrition Foundation chartered

Biotin synthesizedFirst edition of the RDAs published by

the National Academy of Sciences

Crystalline vitamins C and D preparedKwashiorkor identified as a nutritional

diseaseby WilliamsFirst U.S. dietary standards published by

Stiebling of U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

American Institute of Nutritionfounded

Vitamin K discovered by DamZinc found to be essential for the ratThreonine discovered as an essential

amino acid by RoseFirst Household Food Consumption

Survey conducted by USDA (repeated1942, 1948, 1955, and 1965)

Nicotinic acid identified as anti-blacktongue (in dogs)factor by Elvehjem

Classificationof essential and nonessential amino acids by Rose

Pantothenic acid essentiality determined

Institute of Food Technologistsfounded

The End of the Discovery Era (continued)

Conversion of carotene to vitamin A invivo shown by Moore

Magnesium and manganese shown to beessential for the rat

1940-89: The Biochemical Function Era

1941

1942

1943

1938

1937

1939

1935

1936

1934

1930

1931

1932

1933

1928

1924

1917

1918

1912

1913

1900-39: The End of the Discovery Era

Pellagra reported in the U.S.Bomb calorimeter for foods and physio

logical materials designed by AtwaterRespiration calorimeter for human stud

ies developed by AtwaterTryptophan determined to be an essen

tial amino acidFood and Drugs Act passed in U.S.

1906-28 Classic studies on the nutritive value ofproteins performed by Osborne andMendel

The term "Vitamine" coined by FunkGoldberger giventask to cure pellagrain

the U.S.1913-16 Fat-soluble and water-soluble growth

factors discovered by McCollum andDavis and Osborne and Mendel

Iodine treatment shown to be effectiveagainst goiter in children

American Dietetic Association foundedPhosphorus determined to be essential

for rats1921-24 Blindness in children shown to be the

result of lack of vitamin A1921 Rickets treated with sunlight exposure1922-24 Vitamin E discovered by Evans and

BishopVitamin D found in cod liver oilMethionine discoveredIodization of table salt begun in Michi

ganLiver used (in large amounts) in the

treatment of pernicious anemiaGoldberg identified pellagra-preventing

factor in yeastCopper found to be essential for ratsAn "intrinsic factor" in gastric juice

given together with an "extrinsic factor" in beef shown to reverse pernicious anemia in humans

1904

1902

1903


information on the effects of cooking and processinglosses on the nutritive value of foods and the changingnutritional requirements under stress. Extensive studies were conducted on the nutritional quality of foodrations that had been developed by the Armed ForcesQuartermaster Corps. The shocking physical status ofdraftees, showing evidence of present or past malnutrition, alerted the country to the importance ofimproving nutritional status through improvement ofour food supplies.• 1940s and '50s. The 1940s, in particular, marked the

initial application of the results of basic nutrition research.With federal, private, and academic cooperation, technology for the enrichment of flour and bread with certain

B-complex vitamins and iron was developed and implemented in many states as a public health measure toincrease the intake of these nutrients. Following WoddWar II, the fortification of foods flourished, as technological advancements made it possible to add affordable formsof nutrients which were stable in foods during processingand storage. Fortification, restoration, and enrichment offoods have made dramatic impacts on the nutritional statusof Americans and people elsewhere throughout theworld.

The impact of federal agencies, especially the Food andDrug Administration, during this period, must be highlighted. The establishment of the National School LunchProgram and other federal feeding programs, the develop-

Table 1 (continued)

1946

1955

1957

1958

Brown and Goldstein receive NobelPrize for work with lipoprotein receptors

The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health published by HHS

Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk published byNAS/NRC

U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs issues twoeditions of Dietary Goals for the UnitedStates

Selenium used in prevention of Keshandisease in China

Healthy People: The Surgeon General'sReport on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention published by HEW

Nutrition and Your Health: DietaryGuidelines for Americans published byUSDA and HHS

17 nutrition objectivesto be achievedby1990 published by HHS

Diet, Nutrition and Cancer published byNAS/NRC

1988

1989

1977-Present: The Preventive Nutrition Era

1982

1985

1980

The Biochemical Function Era (continued)

1971 1,2S-dehydroxycholecalciferolisolatedasmetabolically active form of vitaminD-3

1977

1979

1971-74 First National Health and NutritionExamination Survey (NHANES) conducted. (NHANES II conducted in1976-80, Hispanic HANES in 198284)

1963 Zinc deficiency in man reported byPrasad

1967 Wald receives Nobel Prize for demon-strating the role of vitamin A in nightblindness

1968-70 Preschool and Ten-State Nutrition Surveys report evidence of hunger andmalnutrition in poverty groups in theU.S.

1968 U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutri-tion and Human Needs established

2S-hydroxy cholecalciferol identified asan active metabolic form of vitaminD-3 by De luca

1969 President Nixon convenes White HouseConference on Food, Nutrition andHealth

First casetreated with home total parenteral nutrition

19491953

1945The Biochemical Function Era (continued)

Pteroylglutamic acid synthesizedFluoridation of water supply begun in

Grand Rapids, Mich.National School Lunch Program estab

lished1947-49 Vitamin B-12 identified, isolated from

liverFramingham Study initiatedMolybdenum found in the essential

enzyme xanthine dehydrogenaseVitamin B-6 shown to be essential for

infants1954-55 Amino acid requirements in young men

determined by RoseVitamin B-12 structure determinedZinc deficiencyin swine describedSelenium demonstrated to be essential

for animals

Food Additives Amendment, Delaneyclause, and GRAS lists estabilshed byFDA

SEPTEMBER1989-FOOD TECHNOLOGY 223


ment of nutrition labeling and fortification guidelines, andthe completion of several nationwide food consumptionand health surveys have greatly advanced our ability toidentify nutritional deficiencies in the U.S. population.These efforts have helped to correct nutritional problemsand have stimulated additional research in human nutrition.

• 1960s and '70s. The 1960s and '70s were notable asa period of continued interest in malnutrition and as thetime of the emergence of federal, professional, and consumer interest in the adverse effects of overnutrition.Evidence of hunger and malnutrition in the poverty groupsin the U.S. was reported from the Preschool NutritionSurvey and the Ten-State Nutrition Survey carried out inthe late 1960s. The White House Conference on Nutritionand Health convened by President Nixon in 1969increasedpublic awareness of undernourished Americans.

At the same time, there emerged concerns over theproblem of nutrient excesses by many Americans, especially intake of excess calories and fat. Because of the rapid andpersistent increase in deaths from heart disease and strokein the 1950s and '60s, the American Heart Associationinitiated in 1957 (and again in 1965, 1968, 1978, and 1988)public education programs advancing the concept of therelationship of dietary risk factors to health. The SenateSelect Committee on Nutrition and Health Needs published two editions of the Dietary Guidelines for the UnitedStates in 1977. The AHA and Senate Select Committeerecommendations for all Americans to reduce the intake ofanimal fats, saturated fats, and cholesterol were highlycontroversial but have largely been echoed in dietaryguidelines published by numerous federal and professionalgroups in subsequent years (for a review of publisheddietary guidelines, see HHS, 1988, and Cronin and Shaw,1988).

The '60s and '70s can also be identified as a time ofincreased sophistication of equipment, methods, andapproaches to research. Advances in chromatographic

The '60s and '70s can ... beidentified as a time of increasedsophistication of equipment,methods, and approaches toresearch.

materials and techniques-particularly with regard to packing materials for open and closed, high-pressure columnsand chromatographic equipment-provided nutritionistswith greater opportunities to isolate and identify metabolicproducts, intermediates, binding proteins, and othermetabolites that were essential for delineating the specificfate of nutrients in metabolism. Nutritionists also becamemore concerned about the bioavailability of nutrients andhow various dietary manipulations and food processingmethods affect absorption and utilization of nutrients. Theinteraction of nutrients occupied a more central roleamong nutrition researchers as consumers increased theirintake of fortified foods and nutrient supplements.

• 19808. The two most striking impressions obtainedfrom a review of the past decade of research are theoverwhelming focus on diet and health and the researchconcentration on the effect of nutrients on genetic expression.

The avalanche of publications in the 1970sand '80s from


ten different federal and professional organizations listing aseries of dietary recommendations for promotion of optimal health (HHS, 1988; Cronin and Shaw, 1988) haveincreased public awareness of possible effects of diet onchronic disease. Along with this increased awareness havecome increased public expectations of the power of goodnutrition, many of which cannot now, and perhaps neverwill, be realized.

For example, it is clear today that the amounts of dietaryfat, calories, and chQlesterol playa role in the incidence ofcoronary heart disease in the U.S. population, and that theamount of dietary fiber affects some diseases of the colon.The specific details, however, such as what types of fattyacids and fiber cause these effects, are still under study.Other issues, such as the role of individual nutrients in theincidence of specific types of cancer, osteoporosis, moodchange, athletic performance, hyperactivity, allergic response, immune function, hypertension, aging, etc., are

The two most striking impressionsobtained from a review of thepast decade of research are theoverwhelming focus on diet andhealth and the researchconcentration on the effect ofnutrients on genetic expression.

also being studied. Unfortunately, health claims in many ofthese areas have often preceded appropriate scientificstudies.

Nutrition has been considered a panacea for a variety ofillnesses by far too many people. Although food andcomponents of food have alwaysbeen vulnerable to healthclaims, and indeed to fraud, expectations of the ability ofnutrients to prevent or cure diseases have never beenhigher. To avoid providing incorrect or perhaps harmfulinformation to consumers, the scientists, federal agencies,and professional groups involved must guard against thecurrent trend of making policy decisions, holding newsconferences, and making sweeping dietary recommendations before appropriate studies are completed.

Another notable feature of nutrition in the 1980s is theaggressive pursuit of an understanding of how nutrientsaffect specific intracellular events at the gene level. Nutrition researchers are utilizing a variety of techniques developed by molecular biologists to study metabolic regulationof genes. Many of the recent studies by nutritionists havefocused on the role of a nutrient (usually a vitamin or atrace mineral) in (1) the modulation of enzyme activity; (2)the synthesis, turnover, or degradation of extracellular,intracellular, cell-surface, or nuclear-binding proteins; (3)the expression of specific messenger or other ribonucleicacids in cells and tissues; and (4)the regulation of metabolicsequences (seeRucker and Tinker, 1986,for a discussion ofthe role of nutrition in gene expression).

Other research in the past decade has focused on the roleof nutrients in immune response, an area which hastremendous potential application to the control of infections, diseases, and allergic reactions. Other researchers aredirecting their efforts toward understanding the interrelationship of specific nutrients and hormones in metaboliccontrol. The effects of various types of stress, both dietaryand nondietary in origin, on nutrient requirements and


nutritional status are also under study. In addition, effortsto delineate the factors that affect the bioavailability ofnutrients and the metabolic effects of nutrient-nutrientinteractions have continued (see Bodwell and Erdman,1988).

Another CrossroadsFifty years ago, the nutrition field was at a crossroads.

The discovery era was ending, as most essential nutrientshad been identified, and the biochemical function era wasbeginning, as researchers began concentrating their effortson the mode of action of nutrients. Today, we again findourselves at a crossroads. Clearly, the biochemical functionera is continuing, and there is still much to accomplish onmany fronts. Yet we are simultaneously involved in another period which I call the "preventive nutrition era."

Over the past few years, diet and health issues seem tohave taken on more importance than the more classicalbiochemical function studies. Publicity from various federalagencies, professional and consumer groups, and the massmedia has centered upon preventing coronary heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis, hypertension, and other problems. The focus is no longer upon problems of chronicallylow intakes of a vitamin or mineral and the related nutrientdeficiency diseases. The focus is now upon nutrientexcesses (calories, fat, saturated fat, sodium, etc.); imbalances of dietary intake patterns (low- vs high-fiber foods,high- vs low-fat foods, balance of saturated, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated, w-3 and w-6 fatty acids, etc.); andthe role of nutrients in the prevention or reversal ofchronic diseases.

The preventive nutrition era began in earnest in 1977with the publication of the Dietary Goals for the UnitedStates by the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition andHuman Needs. Table 1 includes a number of the other dietand health publications that were issued (also see Croninand Shaw, 1988).Within the past year we have seen reportsfrom the Surgeon General (HHS, 1988) and the NationalAcademy of Sciences/National Research Council (NAS/NRC, 1989).

While these reports often use caution when discussingdiet-health relationships which have not been verified bysolid scientific studies, the publicity surrounding suchreports often lacks the caution statements, and the resultscan mislead the public as to the soundness of the data.Clearly, there is danger in this approach to nutrition policyand education.

Whether the emphasis on preventive nutrition continues to outweigh biochemical function will depend onresults obtained from appropriate animal and humanresearch studies. Many key long-term nutrition-intervention studies are already under way to test the effects of

For the dedicated nutritionist, thefuture is rich with researchopportunities. There are perhapsmore unresolved than resolvedissues relating foods, diets, andspecific nutrients to health andperformance of humans andanimals.

226 FOOD TECHNOLOGY-SEPTEMBER 19B9

Table I-Future Emphasis Areas for nutrition research

Refinement of human dietary requirementsBiochemicalfunction of nutrientsPreventive health/health claimsNutrient bioavailability/ content of foodsNutrient interactions/toxicityControl of satietyPsychobiology/moodDevelopment of specialdietary foodsImmune responseGenetic manipulation of plants and animalsNutrition educationPublic nutrition policyEradication of malnutrition worldwide

supplementation of diets with specific nutrients on certaindiseases such as cancer. We must wait patiently and hopefor definitive results from these studies. As Harper (1988)put it, the specific interrelationship of dietary pattern andincidence of diseases "can be resolved only through rigorous application of the scientific method."

Future Research OpportunitiesFor the dedicated nutritionist, the future is rich with

research opportunities. There are perhaps more unresolved than resolved issues relating foods, diets, andspecific nutrients to health and performance of humansand animals. Before researchers pursue unanswered questions, we would be wise to read some of the classicnutrition papers from the past 50 years and note the carefulapplication of proper scientific method in those works. AsMunro (1986)pointed out:

We must emulate the spirit of Drs. Goldstein andBrown on hearing of their award of the Nobel Prize onOctober 15, 1985. Dr. Brown said on interview that,in their basic work on lipoprotein receptors, their goalhas been to determine why diet has a determining rolein atherosclerosis. No team of research workers couldbetter demonstrate the resounding success of basicscience as applied to a nutrition-related problem. Backto basics!

Table I lists a number of future emphasis areas fornutrition research. Many of these research opportunitiesrequire the scientist to have experience/expertise in otherfields such as biochemistry, immunology, physiology, psychology, and toxicology.

It is quite clear that most major advances in the nutritionfield in the future will be achieved through an interfacewith other scientific disciplines. We are reminded that in1932 Fletcher suggested that nutrition was "cross-bred" inits origin and "related to practically every branch ofbiological science.... " In the same regard, a successfulnutrition researcher should be well versed in other biological or chemical fields.

The future should continue to provide exciting advancesin our understanding of the' impact of foods and diets onhealth. We will refine our understanding of the role ofnutrients in the classicalareas of growth, reproduction, andlongevity and perhaps in nontraditional areas such asimmunity, hunger, mood, and optimal human performance. The field has come a long way in 50 years, and

thoughtful, basic research will yield greater advances and ahealthier population in the next 50.

ReferencesBodwell, C.E. and Erdman, J.W. Jr. 1988. "Nutrient Interac

tions." Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.Cronin, F.J. and Shaw, A.M. 1988. Summary of dietary recom

mendations for healthy Americans. Nutr. Today 23(6):26.Darby, W.J. 1985. Some personal reflections on a half century of

nutrition science: 1930's-1980's. Ann. Rev. Nutr. 5: 1.Fletcher, W.M. 1932. The urgency of nutritional studies. Nutr.

Abstr. Revs. 1(3):353.Harper, A.E. 1988. Nutrition: From myth and magic to science.

Nutr. Today 23(1):8.HHS. 1988. The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and

Health. DHHS (PHS) Pub. No. 88-50210. U.S. Dept. of Healthand Human Services, Washington, D.C.

Hill, F.W. 1978. "A History of the American Institite of Nutrition1928-1978." Am. Inst. of Nutrition, Bethesda, Md.

Krehl, W.A. 1978. An era of nutritional growth and maturation.In Hill (1978), p. 8.

Lusk, G. 1933. "Nutrition." Clio Medica Series. Paul B. Hoeber,Inc., New York. (Reprinted in 1964 in paperback by HafnerPress, New York).

McCay, C.M. 1973. "Notes on the History of NutritionResearch" (ed. by F. Verz'ar). Hans Huber Pub., Lewiston,N.Y.

McCollum, E.V. 1957. "A History of Nutrition." HoughtonMifflin Co., The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Munro, H.N. 1986. Back to basics: An evolutionary odyssey withreflections on the nutrition research of tomorrow. Ann. Rev.Nutr. 6: 1.

The future should continue toprovide exciting advances in ourunderstanding of the impact offoods and diets on health.

NASjNRC. 1943. "Recommended Dietary Allowances." Foodand Nutr. Board, Natl. Acad. of Sciences/Natl. Res. Council,Washington, D.C.

NASjNRC. 1989. "Diet and Health: Implications for ReducingChronic Disease Risk." Natl. Acad. of Sciences/Natl. Res.Council, Washington, D.C.

Rucker, R. and Tinker D. 1986. The role of nutrition in geneexpression: A fertile field for application of molecular biology.J. Nutr. 116: 177.

Todhunter, E.N. 1976. Chronology of some events in thedevelopment and application of the science of nutrition. Nutr.Revs. 34: 353.

Todhunter, E.N. 1984. Historical landmarks in nutrition. In"Present Knowledge of Nutrition," 5th ed., p. 871. NutritionFoundation, Washington, DC.

The suggestions of Richard Forbes, Paul Lachance, JohnMilner, and Chris Poor during the preparation of this manuscriptare appreciated.


THE NEW CHOICEIN DIETARY FIBER

• 84% DIETARY FIBER, FOUR TIMES ASMUCH AS OAT BRAN

• CONTAINS SOLUBLE AND INSOLUBLEFIBERS

• LOW COST AND EXCELLENT SOURCING

• CREAM COLOR AND BLAND FLAVORALLOW MAXIMUM USE IN YOURFORM ULATIONS

• LESS THAN 1f2 CALORIE PER GRAM

• NO PHYTIC ACID AS IN CEREAL BRANS

LUPRAN is produced from the outer seedcoat of the Sweet White Lupin bean. The fiberis micropulverized and steam processed assuring a high quality fiber source.

for more information call:INTERNATIONALNUTRITION& GENETICSCORP.EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344(612) 941-4525

or our brokers:

West Coast:SARONI TRADING, Jim FoustSAN lEANDRO. CA 94577(415) 895-5681

Illinois Region: ~

TOUHY & ASSOCIATES

ELKGROVE VillAGE, Il 60007 rtrIN-AG~(312) 766-8754 ~ ~ I- ~~7X'~


SEPTEMBER19B9-FOOD TECHNOLOGY 227

Food Packaging in the 1FT Era:Five Decades of Unprecedented

Grovvth and ChangeTheron W. Downes

Today's food package is a versatile and multitalentedperformer. It is called upon to contain, protect,preserve, perform, communicate, sell, and more.

Packaging touches the daily lives of all of us, but each of usconjures up a different image if asked to describe the term.Paine (1962) offered the following definitions of packaging:

1. A coordinated system of preparing goods for transport, distribution, storage, retailing, and use; 2. Ameans of ensuring safe delivery to the ultimate consumer' in sound condition at minimum cost; 3. atechnoeconomic function that minimizes cost of delivery while maximizing sales and hence profits.Purchasing people tend to evaluate the purchase price of

packaging materials, while production people are interestedin the efficiencies and productivity of packaging materialsand systems in the plant. Marketing, advertising, and salespeople tend to view the package with regard to its potentialto differentiate, to communicate, and often to add value tothe product/package system under scrutiny. The traffic,warehousing, and logistics people tend to examine theefficiency of the packaging in the distribution segment ofits journey from manufacturer to consumer. Some view thepackage as an art form, and others believe it offers culturaland historical insights.

To the food technologist and the food packaging professional, perhaps more than to any other specific group,packaging is a discipline based on fundamental sciences.The physical, chemical, and biological interactions of thepackage, the product, the filling and sealing system, and theenvironment produce a branch of scientific investigationwhich is still in many ways in its infancy. Packagingsuppliers, converters, and machinery manufacturers conduct fundamental investigations into the properties ofmaterials and matter in motion.

This article will review packaging from a historicalviewpoint, look at some of the major categories of packaging materials, and examine how packages and packaginghave changed during the 50 years of existence of theInstitute of Food Technologists.

History of PackagingBoorstin (1983) called packaging "one of the most

manifold and least noted revolutions in the commonexperience." Whether revolution or evolution is the moreappropriate term, his point is clear. Packaging tends to betaken for granted when it functions properly by providingwholesome, high-quality, nutritious food products

The author is Professor, Michigan State University School ofPackaging, East Lansing, MI 48825

228 FOOD TECHNOLOGY -SEPTEMBER 19B9

throughout the year. It is most likely to be noticed whenthe bag stretches instead of opening or the easy-openfeature fails or the child-resistant feature is impossible todecipher by anyone other than a child.

Surely no one questions the fact that packaging hasplayed a key role in the development of the food industryin the Western world in the 20th century. Improvedagriculture and efficientproduction, processing, packaging,distribution, and marketing have led to a food supply in the

Packaging has played a key rolein the development of the foodindustry in the-Western world inthe 20th century.

United States which is the envy of the world. We spend asmaller percentage of our disposable income on a morevaried and nutritious food supply than anyone else in thehistory of the world. Prior to this century, the distributionof food products was almost entirely in bulk, with concomitant spoilage, sanitation, and disease problems.

Packaging, in its most fundamental form, serves tocontain, to protect, to inform, and to assist in utilization ofproducts. The most fundamental of the needs whichpackaging fulfills is probably containment. While not asimportant as the decision to stand erect or the opposablethumb, packaging was certainly a prerequisite for thechange from a hunting and gathering style of life to a morestationary society characterized by nurturing and agriculture.

The beginning of commerce as we know it can probablybe traced to the civilizations around the Mediterraneansome 8,000 years ago and coincides with the developmentof pottery around 6000 Be. The early civilization aroundthe Mediterranean depended upon pottery for the tradingof wheat, wine, olive oil, spices, and other products neededto maintain the food supply. This may also be the era inwhich the package began to fulfill the function of communication through painting and decoration which were usedto identify the contents and specify their use. The firstmetals to be used were lead, gold, and silver. Thesematerials could be found in nearly pure form in nature andwere soft enough to be pounded into foils and used as suchfor the packaging of food. The ability to produce and toshape glass evolved between 4000 and 3000 Be. Paper,already developed in the Far East, was independentlydeveloped by the Egyptians from papyrus reed, from whichthe modern English name derives.

It is intriguing to consider Napoleon as one of the earlyproponents of the more modern approach to food packaging in which a product/package system is considered,instead of the more narrow view that had prevailed.Certainly, the development of shelf-stable food products inhermetically sealed containers in the early part of the 19thcentury has to be considered as a major achievement in thehistory of food packaging.

Later in the 19th century, the industrial revolutionfostered five important packaging advances.

1. The metal can for heat-processed foods.2. The collapsible tube, originally intended for portrait

paints.3. The folding carton, a critical development on the

path to the self-service supermarket as we know it.4. The corrugated shipping case, which has almost

entirely replaced the wooden container for shipping.5. The crown closure, which provided an affordable

and efficient method of hermetically sealing narrow-neckbottles.

The latter part of the 19th century saw the introductionand commercialization of the milk bottle and cannedcondensed milk, both of which surely played a role in theimprovement of the quality of life through reduced diseasein general and infant mortality more specifically. Alsointroduced and commercialized was the famous Uneeda

The development of shelrstablefood products ... in the earlypart of the 19th century has to beconsidered as a majorachievement in the history offood packaging.

Biscuit package from the National Biscuit Co. This protective package containing a consumer-sized quantity of crackers is often pointed to as the beginning of the self-serviceera which continues today. It is at least plausible to believethat the phrase "the bottom of the barrel" refers to thecondition of crackers before consumer packaging.

The early part of the 20th century witnessed an explosion in the marketing of products in branded packages. Anew field of design was emerging, and a whole newrecognition of the potent power of the package as "TheSilent Salesman" was being recognized. While the foodindustry produced some notable examples such as the"Black Magic" chocolate box of Rowntree in England, the


Food Packaging (continued)

coffeebags produced for A&P, and theArmour family of products in the1930s, cosmetics and perfumes surelyled the way. The best glass designerssuch as Baccarat, Lalique, and Sabinowere employed to design scent bottles.These containers, often more expensive than the product itself when offered, now command prices of severalhundred dollars at antique auctions.

It is almost axiomatic today to recognize that package design and graphics are fundamental to product differentiation on the shelf. The importance of establishing a link in theconsumer's mind between a packagedesign and the high-quality productcontained leads to carefully plannedpromotional and advertising budgets.

Most of the packaging in the firstpart of this century, before the founding of 1FT, was made of paper, paperboard, or tinplate. Marketers had littlein the way of containers and systemsto use to differentiate their productsand therefore had to rely upon graphics. People recognizing the potentialvalue of the package as a sales toolwere mostly to be found in the tobacco and cosmetics areas. Philip Morrisis thought to have been one of the firstcompanies to recognize the importance of packaging within the overallbusiness strategy for its products. It isironic to note that today, half a century later, Philip Morris has becomeworld's third largest food company.Glass was starting to become an

important packaging material at thattime, with the added advantage of theconsumer's being able to see the product, as well.

World War II, with its food andmaterial shortages and the search forsubstitutes, probably marks the ushering in of the modern era of packaging.The five decades of 1FT's existencehave been marked by an exponentialincrease in packaging materials, forms,and systems for food products.

Packaging MaterialsMany different types and combina

tions of materials are used for foodand beverage packaging:

• Metals. The metals used in foodand beverage packaging are steel, tinplated steel, and aluminum. Theymost commonly appear as cans, or asfoils in combination with paper andplastic in flexible packaging. Somesmall number of tubes and trays areused, but the above forms predominate. Metals are used because they arelargely inert, provide barriers, andoffer reasonable strength and formability. Abundant raw materials, recycling programs, and improved technology have helped to maintain thecost effectiveness of metals in foodpackaging.

Often erroneously attributed toNicholas Appert is the developmentof the tin can for preserved food. It isprobable that Peter Durand inEngland was the first to actually seal

and cook a food material in a vesselmade of tin, while Appert did hisinitial work in glass. It was not untilsome 50 years later that Louis Pasteurdiscovered the principle by which thispreservation occurred, and it tookanother 60 or 70 years for the development of the science of canning as weknow it today.

Probably no single individualdeserves more of the credit for reducing the art of preserving foods by"canning" to the science which weknow today than Dr. C. Olin Ball.While claimed as a food scientist orfood technologist by many who holdthat title, Ball was also a packagingman (he also worked on the development of the heat-sealable milk carton).

The convenient, year-round supplyof food in three-piece sanitary containers requires a systems approachbased on delivering the appropriatethermal process and producing a hermetically sealed package which willmaintain the commercial sterility of itscontents through the distribution system. It is often overlooked today thatthe three-piece sanitary food can, firstwith a soldered side seam and morerecently with welded side seams ortwo-piece construction, was one of thefirst of the truly convenient foodpackages. Processing is built into theproduct, and preparation requires justreheating and/or adding water. Therequirements for maintaining integrity

Table I-Some Significant Milestones in food packaging.Adapted from Sacharow and Brody (1987)Date

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

Development

Boil-in-bags, tear-off aluminum endsfor composite juice cans, plastic tubsfor cottage cheese

Spiral-wound composite juice cans,high-density polyethylene (HDPE)gallon milk jugs, HDPE bleach bottles, bulk palletizingfor glassbottles

All-aluminum beer cans, aerosol anti-perspirants, polyethylene-coatedmilk cartons

Steel coffeecans with plastic reseal lids,plastic loop carriers for beer cans

Shrink-wrapped corrugated fiberboardtrays for canned goods, easy-openaluminum ends for beer cans

Screw-off closures for beer bottles,Saran-coated cellophane for snacks,HDPE margarine tubs, cheese inpolypropylene film, mouthwash inpolyvinyl chloride (PVe) bottles

Date

1967

1968

1969

197019751976

19771980s

Development

Tamper-resistant closures for milk jugs,HDPE jars for institutional mayonnaise, laminated plastic tubes

Plastic-foam egg cartons, clear pvebottles for food

Plastic cans with full-panel end forham

Large bottles for soft drinksMetallizedpouches for coffeeBag-in-boxfor winePolyester soft-drink bottlesAseptic carton introduced in U.S.,

coextruded ketchup bottle, tamperevident closures, gas absorbers,microwavesusceptors, microwavablepolymers, thermal processing andheat sealing of rigid plastics, controlled- and modified-atmospherepackaging


World War II, withits food andmaterial shortagesand the search forsubstitutes, probablymarks the usheringin of the modernera of packaging.

during thermal processing and distribution are one reason that steel-basedcontainers have dominated the marketfor commercially sterile, shelf-stableproducts.

The ability to take advantage of theelevated internal pressures (3-5 atmospheres) in carbonated beverages toprovide structural rigidity andstrength led to dominance by aluminum in the carbonated-beverage fieldbecause very thin walls could be used.Recent increases in aluminum ingotprices have been coupled with increasing research effort by the steel industry in response to competition fromabroad. These pressures on the use ofaluminum are producing the potentialfor some major inroads by two-piecesteel beverage containers which canalso now be produced with extremelythin walls for carbonated beverages.Five years ago, a prediction that steelwould recapture significant portionsof the carbonated beverage marketwould have been met with laughter inmost circles, but it looks as if significant penetration will occur in the nextfew years.

Perhaps the most publicized andleast successful introduction in theshelf-stable foods area has been theretort pouch. Constructed of a combination of polyester, aluminum foil,and a heat-sealing polyolefin, thesepackages, intended for thermal processing and shelf-stable distribution,were first introduced in the U.S. in the1960s. Advantages such as lightweight, space savings, ease of disposal,convenience in reheating, and energysavings in processing (because of thethinner profile's allowing shorter processing times) and distribution led tohyperbole in advertising, with somepeople predicting an end to the metalcan as a food package.

In spite of a few major short-livedintroductions, there has still been nosignificant commercial success withthis product in North America. Thereare those who would point to the useof the retort pouch in military rations

as a commercial success, and certainlywithin that category the products aresuccessful. It is probable that the overenthusiastic individuals working onthis project in its infancy made thefundamental error of improperlydefining the product and the nature ofpotential substitutes.

In contrast, however, the retortpouch is a successful product today inthe Far East and to a lesser degree inEurope, where the "cold Chain"allowing the distribution, storage, anduse of frozen foods is not nearly asdeveloped as it is in the U.S. Here, theconsumer has found similar price/value benefits with frozen boil-in-bagpackaging. The consumer rarely calculates the cost of frozen storage in thehome into the price of a product. Theabsence of frozen distribution andstorage in the Far East to a large extentexplains the commercial success of theretort pouch in Japan and Taiwan andsuggests that a great potential stillexists in the developing world.

The retort pouch introductions inNorth America did lead to the spending of significant time and money inthe development of systems toproduce and inspect for seal integrity,an issue still not as well understoodwith heat-sealed containers as it iswith double-seamed cans or doubleseamed metal ends on plastic packaging.

• Glass. The first manufacture ofglassprobably occurred in Asia Minor.It is thought that the use of glass goesback to 3000 BC and that its development as a package form occurredlargely in Egypt and other Mediterranean trading nations. Prior to themodern era, glass was manufacturedmanually, and its use was thereforelimited to expensive materials such asliquor and perfume. One of the firstliquor manufacturers to recognize thevalue of a brand name put his name onhis private glass liquor bottle in Philadelphia, Pa., in the 1840s. His namewas E.C. Booz.

The ingredients for glass-silicafrom sand, calcium carbonate fromlimestone, sodium bicarbonate fromsoda ash, and traces of alumina andother minerals-are among the mostabundant and least expensive on theplanet. Like metals, however, glassmanufacture requires consumption oflarge amounts of energy, mostly in theform of fossil fuels, to purify, melt,and form containers. Glass is largelyinert and impenetrable by gases andwater vapor. Interaction with products is limited almost entirely to smallamounts of leaching of sodium orcalcium ions from the glass; this is oflittle consequence in the stability of

Prove your process withCherry-Burrell skid-mountedpilot systems.New products mean newopportunities and often the needfor new process systems. 5kidmounted, continuous-flow pilotplant systems from Cherry-Burrellshorten the time between the "go"decision and the delivery ofproducts to test market or regulardistribution channels.

Over the years, skidded pilotsystems from Cherry-Burrell haveranged from very basic to complexmulti-function systems combiningseveral process methods. Each hasbeen completely engineered to thecustomer's specifications anddelivered pre-wired, pre-piped andpre-tested - ready to go to work.

Cherry-Burrell manufacturesseveral types of heat exchangeequipment including plate, tubular(single, double and triple), scrapedsurface, and steam incorporation.More important our long history ofsystem application engineeringencompasses the complete range ofprocess challenges: high-acid, lowacid, liquid, viscous, and delicateparticulate.

To sample the process systemcapability that awaits your nextnew product project call or writefor brochure 5B-1512: Cherry-BurrellCorporation, Po. Box 3000,Cedar Rapids,Iowa 524061-800-5538867.

Icbl~-BURRBLINTERNATIONAL@-------PROCESS EQUIPMENT DIVISION



food products but may be of someimportance to the stability of certainpharmaceuticals.

Its inertness, lack of migration other than minor leaching, and clarityhave led glass to be perceived by thepublic and by marketers as a highquality package. Perhaps the ability tosee the product is coupled in theconsumer's mind with the idea thatthe manufacturers wouldn't let themsee the product if they weren't proudof it.

The development of automatedglass container manufacture by Libbyand Owens, coupled with improvedsealing and resealing capability andautomated inspection, provided foodmarketers with an affordable, highquality package. The total volume offood containers of glass and metal hascontinued to grow in the U.S., butmarket share has been decreasing. Themarket share for glass has alsodecreased in the beverage area, at leastpartly because of the extra weight ofglass containers.

• Paper, Paperboard, and Corrugated. In dollar sales or total numberof containers, this category is far andaway the leader in packaging in theU.S. The U.S. is the world's largestproducer of these products, and thebasic raw material is renewable. Insome ways, this category can bethought of as the backbone of thepackaging industry, in that paper andboard remain the best buy for thedollar for structural considerations.

Paper is used because of its ability toaccept printing well and provide anattractive surface, coupled with theamount of strength that it provides forits cost and weight. The corrugatedcontainer came into widespread use inthe early part of this century, following some disputes among railroadowners, forest owners, and producersof wooden boxes. While clearly providing less structural rigidity thanwood, the corrugated container didprovide a combination of structuralperformance, cost, and weight that ledto its domination of the distributionpackaging category. In fact, so muchof the manufactured output of thiscountry is distributed in packages (7580%), and the corrugated shippingcontainer has such a high percentageof that market, that the corrugatedindustry is looked at as an indicator ofthe economy. Gross national product(GNP) and total shipments of corrugated have tracked together duringbusiness ups and downs during thelast few decades. Milgrom and Brody(1974) drew an interesting correlationbetween the utilization of packagingand paper and per capita GNP around


The five decades of1FT's existence havebeen marked by anexponential increasein packagingmaterials, forms,and systems forfood products.

the world. While the extent to whichutilization of packaging is causative orsymptomatic of development is debatable, a strong case can be made for theimportance of packaging in cash commerce and its close relationship tooutput in the industrialized world.

• Plastics. Plastics as packagingmaterials were virtually unknown atthe beginning of the 1FT era. Somecelluloid eyeglass frames, some appliance parts made of phenolics, andknitting needles made of casein hadbeen produced in the era prior to 1FT.The discovery of polyethylene in 1936and applications of polyvinyl chloridein the late '30s marked the beginningof a major shift in the wayfoods wouldbe packaged.

World War II and the resultantshortages in all materials led to majoradvancements in plastics and theirapplication, as natural polymersources were no longer available. Atthe beginning of the 1FT era, plastichad an image that led to its usage attimes as an adjective meaning artificial,and possibly inferior. During theensuing decades, however, introduction of plastic into everyday articlesled to greater acceptance and approval.In some categories, e.g., shampoos,conditioners, and other products foruse in the bathroom, plastic's lightweight and unbreakability led to itsperception as clearly superior.

In addition to these advantages,plastics can be engineered to provide arange of desirable end-use characteristics, including mechanical performance equal to that of metals on apound-for-pound basis, ease of design,flexibility, ability to provide uniquecontainer shapes and functionalities,dispensing capability, barrier properties, and controlled permeation.

The ability to manufacture containers on site by thermoforming, blowmolding, injection molding, and othertechniques, coupled with the ability toproduce unique containers, has led toa major growth of plastics in foodpackaging. When one further consid-

ers how many polymers are used inconjunction with the closure systemsin glass, the liners and enamels inmetal, or the coatings on cartons containing frozen food or liquids, theexpectation for continued growth inmarket share of plastics in food packaging seems self-explanatory.

Plastics, plastics-containing coextrusions and laminations, and other composites are being developed on a scalewhich would have been unimaginablejust a few years ago. There are literallythousands of primary materials anduncountable possible combinations.Buried platelets of barrier materials,glass-like coatings on polymers, andsurface fluoridation for barrier andcompatibility are some of the morerecent developments. Environmentalconsiderations may shift this prognosis, as will be discussed later.

Developments in TechnologyThe most important technological

developments in the field of packagingduring the 1FT era have probablyoccurred behind the scenes, largelyunnoticed by the public. Some ofthe key developments are listed in Table 1;most are in the realm of the consumer.

During the 1950s and '60s,improved efficiencies of production,lightweighting, and downsizing led tothe consumer price index for packaging's remaining largely below 100through the OPEC embargo of 1974.In other words, the cost of packagingwas decreasing relative to total foodexpenditure or disposable income during this period. Lighter-weight steel,ribs to add strength, better glass distribution, introduction of polymers,lightweighting of papers, and improvement of barrier properties were allleading to less material required percontainer, and packaging lines wereoperating at ever greater efficienciesand speeds.

Today, computer applications arehaving a similar impact on improvedefficiency and reduced cost. Computer-assisted design and computer-integrated manufacturing are typical applications. Programmable controllers arereducing downtime and improvingefficiency on more and more production lines. Machine-readable codesand information-management systemsare changing the way packaging isviewed. The ability to measure directproduct costs and direct product profitability is leading to growing awareness and understanding of the role ofpackaging in sound business planning.

Some technologies seem not tohave the "sizzle" that catches the tech-

nologist's or marketer's eye, yet theyplaya major role in industry. Coextrusion, copolymers, and specialty resinsare examples of such technologies.Others, like the retort pouch, areexpected to change the face of anindustry but rarely do. Irradiation,aseptic packaging, and controlled- andmodified-atmosphere packaging arethree technologies presently beingadvocated by some as the next technologies to change the face of packaging in the u.s.

• Coextrusion, whether for rigidcontainers, such as a squeezable, barrier ketchup container, or flexible packages, enables a supplier to marry theuseful properties of various materialsat the most economical thicknessesand combinations. The developmentof coextrusion is one of the key reasons for the continued growth of plastics in rigid and flexible containers. Italso has the advantage of not requiringlaminating solvents which have to berecovered or controlled because ofenvironmental considerations and regulations; this adds to the economy ofcoextrusions.

The bag-in-box for wine, which wasintroduced in the 1970s, uses a coextruded bag and provides an interestingbackdrop for a discussion of the interface of packaging science, technology,and the market. For many wines, themajor mechanisms of degradationrelate to oxidation catalyzed by light.With the larger (1-, 2-, and 5-gal) rigidcontainer sizes, therefore, repeateddispensing from the container isinvolved, and more air is introducedwith each use. Packaging the wine in abag in an opaque box is ideal becausethe box prevents light transmissionand the bag will collapse withoutallowing air to be introduced.

Clearly, this package provides technical superiority from the standpoint

The discovery ofpolyethylene in1936 and

applications ofpolyvinyl chloridein the late' 30smarked the

beginning of amajor shift in theway foods would bepackaged.

of protecting the contents and delivering a high-quality product. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that people would beinterested in buying expensive, finewines packaged in a bag-in-box.Numerous studies have shown thatfine products such as wine are expected by the consumer to be in certaintypes of packaging, with the shape ofthe glass bottle and the type of labeland closure playing an important rolein the consumer's perception of product quality. It is probable that finewines could not effectively be soldwith plastic closures, even though theplastic might outperform cork forsome products.

• Irradiation seems destined to berediscovered by every new generationof food and packaging technologists. Itprovides a very reliable method forproducing shelf-stable products inhermetically sealed containers. Theorganoleptic quality of the productcontained is another question. Irradiation utilizes very small amounts ofenergy during sterilization; it has beenestimated that the energy absorbed ina sterilizing dose of ionizing radiationis the equivalent of raising the temperature of the product less than 5°F.The mechanism of action-production of free radicals and chemicalinteraction of those free radicals,resulting in destruction of the viabilityof organisms-also produces a number of off-flavors and off-odors whichcan reduce acceptability. There arealso known color and texture effects.

The major advantage of irradiationis the ability to irradiate in a closedcontainer, so that the manufacturerhas close control over the integrity ofthe finished package. These advantages have led to irradiation's beingthe treatment of choice for medicaldevices and various types of implantsand instruments for surgery. Irradiation is also routinely used for sterilization of containers for bulk asepticsystems, as well as for modification ofpolymer properties. The energy levelsinvolved in irradiation are well belowthose required for any radioactivity tobe induced in the materials being irradiated. None of the above facts willmake much difference to the individual consumer, however, and the wellknown phenomenon of NIMBY"not in my backyard" -makes majorincreases of irradiated food in the U.s.unlikely in the near future.

• Aseptic Packaging, wherebyshelf-stable products are produced bysterilizing the product and the packaging material or container separatelyand filling in a sterile environment,has been described by some as the

Your process ideascome to lifein our test lab.

If you're considering newprocess techniques to achievespecific product characteristics ornew methods to gain generallong-range production goals,rely on our experienced staff ofapplications engineers and theirextensive testing facilities tohelp you.

Test process concepts bymeans of a thorough theoreticalstudy, using computer analysisand in-depth knowledge ofprocess technologies.

Test components and subsystems in our fully equipped,in-plant facility. Whatever formof heat exchange you mightrequire-plate, tubular. scrapedsurface, steam incorporation,batch or any combinationyou'll have working equipmentready for hands-on testing.

Experiment with variousprocess parameters, time/temperature relationships or flowpatterns and rates. Analyzeproduct characteristics such astexture, viscosity, particulateidentity, flavor and color

To learn more about use ofour test lab, write or call:Cherry-Burrell Corporation, Po.Box 3000, Cedar Rapids, Iowa52406, 1-800- 553-8867.

Icb I~~-BURRELL''lERNATIONA!.®



next new technology to make the useof cans obsolete. The small brickshaped aseptic carton, sometimescalled the "paper bottle," was certainlya major success in this country duringthe 1980s. The major advantagesclaimed for aseptic packaging-lessenergy use in processing and distribution, less storage requirement forpackaging materials, improved quality,etc.-were not, however, the mostimportant reasons for the success ofthis container system. Rather, thesecombinations of paper and plastic andmetal foils ended up costing the manufacturer and the consumer somewhatless than competing containers of glassor metal. This fact, coupled with thefact that the product did not simplycannibalize existing markets but ratherexpanded into lunches, lunch boxes,brown bags, and convenience consumption on the go, led to a totalvolume increase in the category aswell. Part of the reason for the successcan be traced to what had beenlearned while the package had been inuse in Europe and elsewhere foralmost 15 years before it was approvedfor use in the U.S.

The success of aseptic packaging hasbeen largely in the area of high-acidproducts. Here, a package failure orthe introduction of a pathogen afterprocessing carries a low risk becauseof the low pH of the product. Asepticpackaging of low-acid products, especially those containing particulates, islooked upon as the next major opportunity. Whether aseptic packagingbecomes acceptable for low-acid products with particulates with the samekind of economics, reliability, andsafety that we have come to demand inshelf-stable products remains to beseen. In the near future at least, itlooks like coextruded containers containing barrier materials which provide sufficient shelf life for standardthermally processed foods will be themore likely winner in this category.

• Controlled- and Modified-Atmosphere Packaging. Perhaps the singlemost important trend affecting packaging and the food industry in thenext decade will be the shift fromshelf-stable and convenience productsto a category of fresh prepared andcatered products. Some estimates predict that more than half of all foodconsumed will be in this category bythe year 2000. The implications forthe food industry and the packagingindustry are obvious.

Some of the systems for fresh prepared foods utilize controlled or modified atmospheres in their packaging.Depending on the product involved,reductions in oxygen or elevations in


Irradiation, asepticpackaging, andcontrolled, andmodified,atmospherepackaging are threetech nologiespresently beingadvocated by someas the next

technologies tochange the face ofpackaging in theU.S.

carbon dioxide level can modify respiration and/or influence microbiological growth. As a result, shelf life in awell-controlled distribution systemcan be extended from a small numberof days to many days or even a fewweeks. In almost all instances, theextension of shelf life is dependentupon critical control of temperature inaddition to the changed atmosphericcomposition during distribution.

That such systems are viable and doextend shelf life is at this pointunquestionable. Whether they do soeconomically and efficiently remainsto be answered in each market. Thedistribution channels in a nation thesize of the U.S. are significantly different from those in the United Kingdom, where controlled- and modifiedatmosphere packaging is presentlybeing utilized with excellent results.

Safety problems aside, it is clear thatshifting to fresh prepared and extended-shelf-life products will require amajor rethinking of the way businessis conducted in the U.S. food industry. The industry has been characterized by the development of centralized, high-volume production facilities combined with national distribution. The safety and fragility of freshprepared and controlled-atmosphereproducts simply will not permit theirbeing used in these distribution systems.

Business and MarketingStrategies

Throughout most of history and inmost parts of the world, any strategywhich would enable year-round availability of a broad and varied dietwould have been thought of as worth

any price one had to pay. Kopetz(1984) told of a myth, prevalent inmedieval Europe, of a "magic table."Any knight who was pure of heart andmind could stand before the table andcall upon it to fill itself with bounty,whereupon the table would be covered with fruits and vegetables, meatsand preserves, drink, etc. Such a magic table could only be imagined in theabsence of the preservation and packaging techniques which exist today.But Kopetz's point was that the foodindustry and food packaging profession have turned every table into amagic table which can be filled withbounty year round.

Traditionally, packaging has toooften been thought of as a necessaryevil by the food manufacturing firm.Cost-cutting programs are very wellknown to the package developmentengineer in the food industry. Today,however, this attitude is evolving intoan understanding that packaging isinseparable from quality perceptionand business strategy. The microwaveoven and modern educated consumerswho value their time have led to aconsumer who is willing to pay forvalue added in packaging.

As the food industry examines howto establish and maintain a competitive advantage in an increasingly competitive marketplace, certain facts are

Shifting to freshprepared andextended,shelf,lifeproducts willrequire a majorrethinking of theway business isconducted in the

U.S. food industry.

becoming more clear:Within any given product category,

there can only be one cost leader.Therefore, the bulk of the players inthe game must choose to differentiate.That which makes a product differentmust be valued enough in the marketplace to cover the cost of being different.

There is certainly no doubt that thesuccessful strategies in the 1980s havebeen evolving toward an understanding that it is not possible to separatethe product and the package in thefood area but rather that the valueperception will be closely linked to


TECHNOLOGY

EXPERIENCE

SERVICE

One of the largestconcentrations offood packagingprofessionals in theworld exists within1FT .... It is

incumbent uponthis group ofprofessionals to actresponsibly withregard to the totalenvironmental

impact of ourdecisions and

strategies.

human beings? \X'hen the amendmentwas written, Congressman James ].Delaney included a clause which prevented the approval of any additivewhich had ever been shown to causecancer in man or animal. (It is interesting that the Delaney clause also contained the first exception to itself).

At the time of its passage, the Delaney clause was arguably appropriate.Our analytical capability for detectingsubstances was such that it was possible to have toxic substances in thefood supply at levels at which theymight produce harm but which weretoo low to be detected by thenavailable means. Under such circumstances, a strong case can be made forpreventing the addition of any suchmaterial to our food supply eitherdirectly, or indirectly in the packagingmaterial. With each passing decade,our analytical capabilities roll backmore zeros on our ability to detectsubstances. We now detect nanogram,picogram, and lower levels of materials, where only milligram levelswere detectable before. Under presentanalytical capabilities, it is unreasonable to continue to apply the Delaneyclause to substances of known toxicitypresent at levels so low that it wasclearly not the intent of Congress forthe Food and Drug Administration toregulate them (Rosenthal, 1977).

It is the contention of many that theregulatory environment in the U.S.places us at an economic disadvantagewith regard to foreign producers.Clearly, FDA can be shown to havebeen extremely slow with regard toapprovals for food systems and drug

were felt.Prior to 1958, the government had

to demonstrate a lack of safety or apotential problem of toxicity in orderto take action against a product on themarket. With literally millions of different potential product/packagecombinations, it is obvious that theresources at the federal level weresimply not available for a close monitoring of the food supply.

The 1958 amendment requiredmanufacturers to demonstrate thesafety of product/package systemsbefore they could be introduced intointerstate commerce. This shifting ofthe burden of proof of safety fromgovernment to the industry is accepted by most as one fundamental leadingto a food system which is arguably thesafest and most affordable that theworld has ever seen.

Unfortunately, our knowledge ofboth nutrition and toxicity is too limited to provide definitive answers tomany of the questions which face us.Among the most critical questions is,how does one extrapolate data fromlong-term, high-dose ingestion orexposure in animals to safety in

Call Today. Put us to the Test

~\llu/.t, Balchem Corporation

(~t CAP-SHURE® ENCA~SULATED INGREDIENTS'~/« .l P.O. Box 175, Slate HIli, NY 10973

~IW (914) 355-2861

• Add encapsulated acidulants without slowingyeast growth

• Control leavening

• Reduce dough stiffening with protected salt

• Eliminate bromates and iodates withencapsulated ascorbic

• Encapsulated soda for microwavable bakingmixes

BAKING CONCEPTS BECOMEREALITY

WITH BALCHEM ENCAPSULATES


the package and its form and functionality. In some cases, value added willbe in the package itself, in terms ofdispensability, squeezability, reusability, ability to be heated in either amicrowave or conventional oven, orease of reheating or use.

To be different on the shelf, thepackage and the product togethermust maintain and communicate avalue perception. Never in the historyof the food industry has the understanding of quality packaging and atotal systems approach been moreimportant to success. I believe that thefocus should be neither the productnor the package, but rather the product/package system.

Regulation and theEnvironment

It is probably not purely coincidental that the Institute of Food Technologists was established shortly after thepassage of the 1938 Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act. While thislaw laid the basis for a modern era offood and food packaging regulation, itwas not until the 1958 Food AdditivesAmendment that its major impacts



systems approach. Because it is anexternal cost, little attention has beenpaid to reclamation of packagingmaterials at the end of their service lifeas packages. At the beginning of the1FT era, food packaging was rarelycondemned because of its negativeimpact on the environment. As wecelebrate 1FT's 50th Anniversary, wecannot overlook the fact that one ofthe largest concentrations of food

systems, compared to other countries.But it is hard to accept that the yearsof delay before granting approvals foraseptic packaging and the retortpouch were due only to concerns overresidual hydrogen peroxide or adhesive migration. I believe that it isunfortunate whenever adversarial relationships arise between regulatorsand the industry. It is clear that thegoal of a safe and wholesome food .supply is shared by both the foodmanufacturer and the regulator. Thedifferences of opinion revolve onwhether to select 10-12 or 10-10 asthe safety criterion.

Education and ProfessionalDevelopment

Whether packaging is an industry, aprofession, a discipline, a science, atechnology, an art, or some combination of the above is an interestingtopic for debate and discussion. Whatever position one would take, it isclear that there is growing recognitionof the importance of sound scienceand technology in food packaging.

Brody (1988)observed that the original organizers ofIFT included severalprofessionals from the packagingindustry. Food packaging and foodtechnology were intimately interwoven in those early days. This interdependency was further emphasizedwith the establishment of the FoodPackaging Division of 1FT in the mid1970s. The first symposium presentedby the probationary Food PackagingDivision was probably the first exposure in any depth for many in theaudience to the new possibilities foraseptic packaging in containers otherthan metal and glass. Aseptic packaging in flexible and semirigid heatsealed containers is a prime example ofan area where cooperation amongfood and packaging professionals isvitally important to the future healthand safety of our businesses and ourcustomers. The dialogue can and mustcontinue. The most critical need is fora systems approach to investigationand evaluation of food product/package systems. There is a continuousneed for discussion among suppliersand users, materials specialists, andfood producers.

Since the mid-1980s, the symposiaoffered by the division have usuallybeen standing-room-only in roomsdesigned for more than 500 occupants. Membership in the divisionnow totals more than 1,000 peoplejoining together for the advancementof food packaging science and technology. This group of individuals isprobably the largest single group ofprofessionals in food packaging which

can be identified anyplace in theworld. It is clear that there will need tobe improved professionalism andunderstanding of packaging as a keycomponent of the food system as weprogress into the future.

What's AheadMost definitions of packaging have

overlooked, or at least failed to clearlystate, the importance of a truly total

DeleEI E. coli

befare vau Ean say

4-melhvlumbellifervlWell ... maybe not that fast. But when

traditional tests for the presence of E. coli

often take a week or longer, Marcor's over

night MUG (4-Methylumbelliferyl-{3-Dglucuronide)* testing reagent seems aw

fully fast.How does it work? Almost all strains

of E. coli produce {3-glucuronidase, anenzyme which hydrolyzes MUG. The result

is 4-methylumbelliferone, a fluorogenic

product which can be easily detected under

long wave UV or 366-nm light. When MUG

is incorporated into a modified MacConkey

Agar or Lauryl Sulfate Broth, seeded with

a single E. coli cell, fluorescence is usuallydetectable in 12 to 20 hours.

Plan now for future QC speed and

economy. Perform both gas production and

fluorescent tests simultaneously, and compare the results. For recommended test

procedures and complete product specifi

cation, Marcor is just a phone call away.

• Manufactured for Marcar by Genzyme Carp

In.ReORDEVELOPMENTCORPORATION108 .JOHN STREETHACKENSACK. N.J 07601201 488-5700FAX 201 488-7357TELEX 7108805131MARCORDEV HAK


Get The DropOnAntifoam

Costs.Dow Corning antifoam agents are

concentrated. So a little does a lot.

And lasts longer than conventional

antifoams. We offer food-grade anti

foams, ones for high and low pH, for

high temperatures, and for aqueous

and non-aqueous systems.

And, at the drop of a hat, our anti

foam experts can help solve your

problem.

To talk to the experts or request

samples ...

Call

1-800FOAMFREE

Or write: Dow Corning Corporation,

Dept. A-7015, P.O.Box 7604,

Mt. Prospect, IL 60056-7604.

DOW CORNING®

@1988 Dow Corning Corporation.



packaging professionals in the worldexists within 1FT. As landfill becomesmore expensive and unavailable and asalternatives such as reclamation, recycling, recovering energy, etc., are utilized, it is incumbent upon this groupof professionals to act responsiblywith regard to the total environmentalimpact of our decisions and strategies.

As has so often been the case withinour discussion of packaging materialsand types, perception can be as important as fact. Degradability of one formor another is thought to be a significant advantage for packaging materials. Closer examination by thosewho are most involved in waste management indicates that this is not thecase. Degradability is incompatiblewith landfill in that it takes too long,for all practical purposes, and leads tothe potential for groundwater contamination, toxic runoff, ete. Degradability essentially attacks what is literallyand figuratively the tip of the iceberg-litter. Litter both on land and atsea may perhaps be ameliorated by theuse of some degradable types of packaging. It is, however, only a tiny fraction of the solid waste problem. Packaging is both a contributor to the solidwaste as it appears in our garbageand acontributor to reduction of solidwaste by minimizing the amount ofwaste material which has to betransported.

It is rare for there to be any simpleanswers to the most appropriate use ofpackaging, when the total environmental impact of all energy andresources consumed during manufacture, production, distribution, andpost-consumer disposal is included. Itseems obvious to me that the mostenvironmentally friendly packagingsystems will consist of a mix ofmaterials, including metals, glass,paper, and plastic, each used where itis most efficient, together with a mixof post-consumer reclamation techniques, including recycling, refilling,reclaiming, recovering, and reforming.

As this article goes to press, morethan 256 bills are being considered by35 legislatures in the U.S. Two thingsappear clear as we face these challenges: We will need to build on andimprove cooperation and professionalism in food packaging, and we willneed to speak out and to convincegovernments that a unified legislativeapproach at the federal level isrequired; otherwise, without the kindof concerted effort and total systemsapproach which will be necessary topreserve and protect our environment, the myriad of piecemeal

A unified legislativeapproach at thefederal level isrequired [because]the myriad ofpiecemealapproaches at thestate, county, andmunicipal level willerode our economic

well~being andcompetitiveadvantage.

approaches at the state, county, andmunicipal level will erode our economic well-being and competitiveadvantage.

ReferencesAnonymous. 1989. Plastics expected to

retain competitive edge. Chern. Eng.News, Feb. 20, p. 14.

Boorstin, D.J. 1983. "The Americans: TheDemocratic Experience." RandomHouse, New York.

Brody, A.L. 1988. Responsibility: Anindispensable in food packaging. FoodTechnol. 42(9):50.

Ericson, G. 1988. Survey Reveals Plans for'89. Packaging, Aug., p. 39.

Kelsey, R.J. 1978. "Packaging in Today'sSociety." St. Regis Paper Co., Stamford,Conn.

Kopetz, A. 1984. Personal communication.Am. Natl. Can Co., Barrington, Ill.

Leonard, E. 1974. Personal communication. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.

Milgrom, J. and Brody, A.L. 1974. "Packaging in Perspective." A.D. Little, Inc.,Cambridge, Mass.

Nelson-Horchler, J. 1988. Faced with newmandates. Ind. Week 236(12): 19.

Paine, FA. 1962. "Fundamentals of Packaging." Brookside Press, Leicester,U.K.

Paine, FA. and Paine, H.Y. 1983. "AHandbook of Food Packaging." Black& Co., London, UK.

Sacharow, S. and Brody, A.L. 1987. "Packaging: An Introduction." HarcourtBrace Jovanovich, Duluth, Minn.

US. Court of Appeals. 1979. Monsanto etal. v. D. Kennedy as CommissionerFood and Drugs, Case No. 77-2023,77-2024, 77-2026, and 77-2032. US.Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia.

-Edited by Neil H. Mermelstein, SeniorAssociate Editor

Food Processing:Frotn Art to Engineering

Daryl Lund

Ideas,revelations, and opportunities and the changes theyproduce are unparalleled in human history. They areoccurring in every segment of our society and have per

meated our institutions. The food processing industry is noexception in sharing in these changes. When oneconsiders that more than half of all scientists ever born arealive today and that progress in understanding our physicalworld is occurring at an ever-increasing rate, it is inevitablethat there will be significant changes both macroscopicallyand microscopically in the food industry.

The food industry developed largely as a result of forcesgenerated by the progressive nature of man. Canningdiscoveries by Durrant and Appert were responses toforces for industrialization stemming from the development of towns and the movement from agrarianism toindustrialism. Survival of the species under these newconditions would require a food system which wouldsupport the population. In addition, military leaders suchas Napoleon enlisted the help of science to feed theirarmies.

For eons of unrecorded history and for millennia ofrecorded history, there were small but significant developments in food preservation. Cheesemaking, breadmaking,brewing, fermentation, pickling, salting, and drying werefood preservation processes which were discovered andimproved through unorganized, unsophisticated, and ser-

The food industry has movedfrom the concept of "mix,process, and package" to asignificantly more sophisticatedmanufacturing industry.

endipitous occurrences. Approximately a century and ahalf ago, increased food availability fostered the industrialrevolution. According to Toffler (1980), computers andinformation processing will lead to the third revolutionfrom argarianism and industrialism to individualism.

This article will highlight some of the food processingadvances that will drive this revolution for the foodindustry.

50 Years of Processing AdvancesThis year, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the

founding of the Institute of Food Technologists. During itslifetime, from 1939 to 1989, there have been significantdevelopments in food processing (Table 1).

The author is Professor and Chairman, Dept. of Food Science,and Associate Director, New Jersey Agricultural ExperimentStation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903


The 1930s saw the great depression and the adoption ofmass production and mass markets which the auto industryinitiated and championed. Wooden boxes, crates, andbarrels gave way to lighter-weight fiber crates and plasticsfor transporting products. Cellulose packaging was introduced, along with the gable-top, waxed milk carton. Newitems on the store shelf included sliced bread and frozenfoods. Air conditioning of plants meant that dried productscould be prepared, packaged, and ultimately distributed.Products such as Jell-O came into the market because ofthese advances in process technology. Mass productionmeant mass movement of materials in plants, and improvements in conveying led the way. The consumer, spurred byreports of unsafe food practices, heralded the developments in food law which resulted in the enactment of theFederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.In 1939, thefood industry was gearing up for mass production and massmarkets.

The 1940s and the war years increased the emphasis onautomation. There existed a large unskilled labor marketand a tremendous demand for mass public feeding. Thismeant the mass production of frozen, concentrated, anddehydrated foods, using an unskilled labor force. Thus,automation was essential, and containerized handlingbecame the norm, in order to ship products across theoceans to the military and the Allies. The vending machinewas introduced at this time and held promise.

The 1950s saw the introduction of television and thehome food freezer (independent of the refrigerator). Thesetwo innovations resulted in a tremendous change in foodprocessing. Frozen dinners and foreign foods becamewidely accepted. Frozen ready-to-eat bakery goods wereutilized by the working housewife. She was able to get outof the house and join the working force because oftechnological advances in producing higher-quality products for her family. Because of increased prosperity, targetmarketing was introduced, and the food industry tookadvantage of it by introducing a large number of products.Toward the end of the decade, the need for food for bombshelters resulted in advances in technology for producinglong-shelf-life foods.

The 1960s saw improvements in product quality due toadvances in technology. Freeze drying and freeze-driedcoffee hit the market and took it by storm. Computercontrol in the plant was introduced and promised improvements in product quality and efficiency. Rigid and flexibleplastic containers were introduced into the refrigeratordisplay case in the supermarket. Many new ingredientssuch as oil blends and flavoring agents were developed toproduce new food products. Proteins from fish, whey, soy,and other sources were used to produce architectural,engineered, and formulated foods. The clean-in-placeapproach produced improvements in plant sanitation, ultimately resulting in improved products with a longer shelflife. Foam-mat drying and other drying techniques dramat-

ically improved the taste of dried milk powder. Utilizationof enzymes in food processing produced unique products.Automation developed very rapidly for plants producingsingle products such as beer, milk, and baked goods.However, for large, multiple-product plants, instrumentation was not reliable enough for total automation, anddevelopments were slow to come in that area.

By the 1970s, the era of cheap energy was over. By 1974,most plants had instituted energy-saving processes and hadreduced energy consumption by at least 25%. Health foodsand organic foods appeared with greater regularity on thestore shelf, and new, small-scaleprocessors were competingwith the large manufacturers. There were promises of newfood products from restructured materials which ultimately did not appear. Improved ingredients helped the foodindustry but did not radically change it. By the end of the1970s, new, small, easy-to-use, environmentally robustcomputers were introduced into the plant. These allowedautomation and better control of processes, especially forenergy utilization. Membrane-processing systems forchanging the characteristics of food fluids were introducedand commercialized for utilization of by-products from thefood industry.

The 1980s saw a significant optimism on the part of thefood industry and a significant distrust of the food industryon the part of the consumer. By 1981, aseptic processingwas widespread in Japan and Europe, and there wasincreased pressure to adopt this technology in the UnitedStates. The consumer put an increased premium onproduct quality, and this resulted in a new generation of"upscale" products. Gourmet products were in, and food

[/l'T 11'

+ JII.lJJ I

In the past, adoption of newtechnology ... was motivatedprimarily by reduction in costand improvement in yield.Today, technology is also beingadopted because of opportunitiesin market segmentation ...regionalization ... and increasedproduct quality.

processors took advantage of improved freezing systems,frozen distribution, and retail and home freezing to introduce frozen entrees.

This historical review leads to two questions-what arethe possibilities for further significant developments infood preservation processes, and where is the food industrygoing, driven by the consumer and regulation?

Driving Forces for New TechnologyInitially, the prerequisites for a food preservation process

were to produce (1) a "safe" product and (2) a food whichwould have a shelf life such that a person could survivefrom the end of one growing season to the earliest harvest


Food Processing (continued)

of the next growing season. Variety, nutrition, and eatingquality were not considered as important as safety and shelflife. Today, there are several bases for adopting foodpreservation technologies. These include not only thecapability of extending the shelf life of the product anddelivering a safe product to the consumer but also variety,nutrition, cost, and quality. The cost function used tojustify adoption of a technology includes not only theactual cost oflabor, energy, waste treatment, and packagingbut also the cost of marketing the perceived consumerbenefits of the preservation process.

In the past, adoption of new technology by the foodprocessing industry was motivated primarily by reductionin cost and improvement in yield. Today, technology is alsobeing adopted because of opportunities in market segmentation ("niche marketing"), regionalization of products, andincreased product quality. The food industry is aggressivelyseeking preservation technologies which deliver productsto the consumer which "appear" to be fresh (Malkki, 1987).Because of changing lifestyles (two working members perfamily, etc.), the consumer is also demanding "chef-like"products.

Thus, the consumer presents a dichotomy to the foodpreservation industry. On the one hand, the consumerwants products with minimal processing and fresh-likecharacteristics. On the other hand, the consumer is willingto pay a premium for chef-like products which are highlyprocessed. In both cases, the food marketing system wantsto minimize the visibility of manufacturing. Consequently,"invisible" manufacturing will increasingly become a criterion for adoption of new technology. "Invisible manufacturing" is defined as those manufacturing techniqueswhich are applied to produce consumer-ready productswhich appear to be minimally processed.

Quality and fresh-like/chef-like characteristics of foodproducts are undoubtedly strong driving forces for adoption of new preservation technologies. Future developments in food preservation to produce these types ofproducts will rely on both inhibition and destruction ofpathogenic and nonpathogenic spoilage organisms. Thisconcept was excellently expressed by Pivnick and Petrasoviks (1973)when they presented their rationale for preservation of cured meats: protection = destruction + inhi-

Quality and fresh,like/ cherlikecharacteristics of food productsare undoubtedly strong drivingforces for adoption of newpreservation technologies.

bition. To apply this principle, it is imperative to increaseour basic understanding of factors affecting death andinhibition of microorganisms. This was identified as acritical research priority by the Institute of Food Technologists' Committee on Research Needs (Liska and Marion,1985).

The cost function for manufacturing is also an importantconsideration. There are two elements in the cost functionwhich could significantly increase cost and yet be readilyaccepted by the consumer. The first cost element that isreceiving increased consumer and regulatory scrutiny ispackaging. Returnable, recyclable, and/or biodegradablepackaging material is essential for the future, and theconsumer appears ready to accept increased cost to ensurea reduction in environmentally unsound packaging. The


Table I-Some Milestones in Food Processing

1930sFiber cratesCellulose packagingGable-top, waxed milk cartonsSliced breadJell-OFood, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

1940sAutomationMass productionFrozen foodsVending machines

1950sFrozen dinnersForeign foodsFood for bomb sheltersFrozen, ready-to-eatbakery goodsTargeted marketsControlled-atmosphere packaging

1960sDiet foodsProcess control computersClean-in-placeAseptic canningDrying improvements

1970sEnergy efficiencyWater/waste utilizationMembrane processingHealth/organic foodsEnvironmentally robust computers

1980sDechemicalizationAutomationAseptic processingIrradiationPackaging

second significant cost element for which the consumerappears ready to pay a premium is minimization of wastegeneration and water utilization.

Another significant consumer-driven force for adoptionof changes in preservation technologies is the desire toreduce chemicalization of our food. The consumer wouldprefer to see an increase in physical processing with aconcomitant decrease in "chemical" processing.

The Need for Basic KnowledgeAlthough there is a non-zero probability of a serendipi

tous occurrence which would result in significant advancesin food preservation processes, scientists and engineersmust rely on the scientific method. This requires that weunderstand the nature of the problem, the nature of thematerials, and the physical and chemical laws governing theprocesses. Spoilage factors for food products includemicroorganisms, enzymes, chemical reactions, pests, andmechanical damage (Farkas, 1977), and mechanisms ofpreservation include mechanical (including packaging),chemical, and physical (including heat, dehydration, irradiation, and high pressure) phenomena.


Food Processing (continued)

To systematically study and evaluate preservation strategies, it is essential to understand the nature of rawmaterials, including their variability and properties. Thisapplies to intact plant and animal tissues as well as toingredients isolated or derived from them. It is essential tounderstand not only their physical and chemical propertiesbut also the properties perceived by the consumer (Le.,their sensory properties). It is intriguing, for example, touse protein in a unique physical form as a substitute for fat.as NutraSweet Co., Skokie, Ill., does with its new product,"Simplesse" (Anonymous, 1988).Coupling our knowledgeof raw materials with knowledge of spoilage factors willallow us to apply physical and chemical principles topreserve high-quality food.

Significant advances can be made in "hurdle technology," as proposed by Leister, in which a series of barriers tospoilage factors are combined. Pivnick and Petrasoviks(1973)include the concept that inhibition is as important asdestruction of microorganisms. In this strategy, anyone ofthe barriers by itself would not protect the product, but thesum of the barriers provides the necessary protection.

Advances in packaging-including interactive packages(in which the package contains chemicals for preservation

Coupling our knowledge of rawmaterials with knowledge ofspoilage factors win allow us toapply physical and chemicalprinciples to preserve high~qualityfood.

or scavengers of water andlor oxygen), modified andcontrolled atmospheres, and controlled release throughencapsulation-will offer significant improvements in preserved foods (Karel, 1982).Biotechnology, with its potentialto produce "natural" additives and "good" microorganismsthrough genetic engineering, obviously has tremendouspotential in the food industry. Our understanding of theeffects of high pressure and lasers on food ingredients andspoilage factors will lead to new developments in preservation.

Requirements for Advancesin Food Manufacturing

If significant advances are to be made, however, it isincreasingly apparent that the food industry must abandonthe concept of "food processing" and embrace the conceptof "food manufacturing." When the food industry wasprimarily handling food commodities, it could be considered a processing industry. However, today the foodindustry is converting food ingredients from a variety ofsources into finished, manufactured food products. Thefood industry has moved from the concept of "mix,process, and package" to a significantly more sophisticatedmanufacturing industry, and it relies on adopting technology which has first been applied in other high-technologyindustries.

As industry converts from a processing orientation to amanufacturing orientation, it becomes apparent that information is required in three essential areas: (1) chemical,physical, and transport properties, (2) automation, and (3)unit operations:

• Chemical, Physical, and Transport Properties. In thepast 15 years, there has been significant improvement in

246 FOOD TECHr~OLOGY-SEPTEMBER 1989

understanding the chemical, physical, and transport properties of raw and finished food materials. Chemical andphysical rate processes ultimately govern the efficiency ofour unit operations. In many cases, models have beendeveloped for the dependence of chemical, physical, andtransport properties on macro- and microenvironmentaland compositional factors (Okos, 1986;Jowitt et al., 1983).These properties are more complex for foodstuffs than forfeedstocks and products in the chemical process industrybecause of the heterogeneity, anisotropic nature, andbiological activity of foodstuffs. However, complexity ofmaterials is no excuse for not conducting research whichwill yield an understanding based on thermodynamicconsistency.

Today, with the help of numerical methods and computers, it is possible to develop models based on empiricalcorrelations. However, correlations without thermodynamic consideration and foundation are useful only in veryspecific circumstances (Rotstein, 1988). Models based onthermodynamic and structural considerations will allow usto translate from one system to another to predict behavior. In addition, these models will yield mathematical formswhich can subsequently be used in simulation of unitoperations and processes.

• Automation. The food industry is currently in a stateof flux. The advantages of automation are apparent, but thenature of food products does not permit widespreadadoption of automation techniques used in other industries. Research must be done to facilitate adoption offlexible manufacturing systems, computer-integrated manufacturing, robotics, and vision systems. Automationrequires sensors for on-line measurement of properties(chemical, physical, and microbiological).

There is another significant point of departure betweenautomation applied to other industries and that applied tothe food industry. In other industries, automation has beenwidely adopted to improve reliability and replicability. Thatis, each unit should be exactly identical to every other unit.For "chef-like" products and prepared foods, automationwill lead to more consistent quality. However, for foodproducts which are manufactured to resemble naturalfoodstuffs, each unit should have its own individual characteristics reflecting biological variability; complete uniformity is not desirable. Thus, the food manufacturing sectoris faced with the dichotomy of automating for a consumerwho wants "homemade" and "natural" products. Consequently, the industry is challenged to introduce somerandomness into an automated system to mimic "homemade" variability. An example of this controlled heterogeneity is the production of the tube egg, in which the yolk isdeliberately offset from the geometric center, since the yolkin "homemade" boiled eggs is rarely located in the centerof the egg white.

• Unit Operations. The third essential element formaking significant advances in food manufacturing andpreservation processes is a thorough understanding of theunit operations applied to products. Even today, there is alack of understanding of some of the most ancient unitoperations applied to food products. In mixing, for example, most correlations for scale-up do not apply to foodmaterials because of nonuniformity of raw materials andsensitivity of raw materials to shear. Other unit operationswhich require increased knowledge are separation operations (e.g., using vision systems and physical separations toproduce desirable components); heat- and mass-transferoperations (Le., fouling and cleaning, extrusion, drying,electroconductive and microwave heat transfer, non-Newtonian characteristics, freezing); membrane processing and

bioprocessing (including enzymes, whole cells, and cellhomogenates); irradiation; and high pressure.

On the Threshold of a RevolutionAt the end of 50 years of 1FT's existence, the food

industry is on the threshold of a revolution. It is adoptingand adapting strategies from other manufacturing systemswhich require fundamental information on the chemical,physical, and transport properties of materials, applicationof automation, and increased understanding of unit operations. Development of improved and new technologies forfood preservation will depend upon the concept of destruction and inhibition of microorganisms and enzymes, andcontrol of chemical reactions. This will require significantresearch on water relations in foods, sensors, properties ofmaterials, material handling, and package/product/processinteraction. The Institute of Food Technologists has asignificant role to play in the next dynamic half century.

The role of the Institute as a forum for presentingresearch, its influence in increasing the quality of foodscience education, and its recognition by governmentalagencies as the professional society for food science wereessential contributions leading to the food industry oftoday. These and other activities need to be fostered as thefood industry enters the 21st century.

ReferencesAnonymous. 1988. First and only all-natural fat substitute

Simplesse. Food Eng. 60(3):51.Farkas, D. 1977. Unit operations concepts optimize operations.

Chern. Tech. 7: 428.Jowitt, R. 1983. "Physical Properties of Foods." Applied Science

Publishers, New York.Karel, M. 1982. Technological achievements and trends in food

It is increasingly apparent thatthe food industry must abandonthe concept of "food processing"and embrace the concept of "foodmanufacturing."

processing, storing, transportation and handling by consumers.In "The Role and Application of Food Science and Technology in Industrialized Countries," Symp., 18, p. 99. VTT Symposium, Helsinki.

Liska, B.J. and Marion, W.W. 1985. America's food research: Anagenda for action. Proceedings of the Institute of Food Technologists' Workshop on Research Needs, Nov. 11-14, 1984.Food Technol. 39(6): 1R.

Malkki, Y. 1987. Research priorities in food processing. In Proc.of 7th IntI. Congress on Food Science and Technology,Singapore.

Okos, M. 1986. "Physical and Chemical Properties of Food." AmSoc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, Mich.

Pivnick, K.H. and Petrasoviks, A. 1973. A rationale for the safetyof canned shelf-stable cured meat; Protection = destruction + inhibition. In Proc of 19th Reunion Europeene desRecherscheurs on Viande, Paris.

Rotstein, E. 1988. Personal communication. The Pillsbury Co.,Minneapolis, Minn.

Toffler, A. 1980. "The Third Wave." Wm. Morrow and Co.,New York.


The proof is inthe pudding!

Or the cake. Or the ice cream, cookies, chocolate drink ...The proof that Gill & Duffus cocoa powders

are the finest available.

Gill & Duffus cocoa comes in a wide variety of standardpowders, from Natural and Lightly Alkalized to Red and Black.

Or, let our professionals custom blend a powder tomeet your specific requirements.

Gill & Duffus cocoa powders. Because putting in quality means qualityin pudding. Or whatever it is you make. Send or call today for a brochure

and the name of your local representative.1-800-257-8166



The Evolution of Sensory Scienceand its Interaction with 1FT

Rose Marie Pangborn

Sensory analysis and the Institute of Food Technologists share a common history of development in theUnited States. Early founders of 1FT strongly sup

ported and encouraged development of the fledgling sensory field. Later, professional groups such as the AmericanChemical Society, the Society of Chemical Industry, theAmerican Society for Testing and Materials (now ASTM),the International Union of Food Science and Technology(IUFoST), and others joined 1FT in nurturing sensoryscience activities. The following partial chronology represents my view of some of the highlights in the developmentof this young discipline.

From Expert Taster to "Organoleptic" AnalysisSeveral noteworthy histories are available on the neo

genesis of sensory analysis, ranging from Tilgner's (1971)erudite evaluation of international and interdisciplinarylandmarks and Harper's (1977)perceptive review of developments in the United Kingdom, to Pangborn's concatenating summaries and laments (1964; 1979; 1980; 1981;1984a; b; 1987).

The establishment of 1FT in the late 1930s coincidedwith brave attempts to apply the knowledge and experienceof "expert tasters" (tea, coffee, wine, dairy products) to thearray of new foods which were being processed. It was soonrealized that it was not feasible to have an expert for everycommodity. Furthermore, it was risky to base go/no-godecisions on the judgment of one person; hence, thedevelopment of panels of trained judges. However, muchtime and effort were lost in treating employee panels as ifthey were miniature consumer groups and measuringpreferences in the futile hope that they would reflectbehavior of the ultimate product users.

King's (1937) article in Food Research represents one ofthe first attempts to distinguish between preference anddiscrimination testing. The classic review of difference testsand simple scaling by Boggs and Hanson (1949)constitutesone of the first formal approaches to more reliable andscientific sensory testing, Le., the use of trained judges toquantify differences and perceived intensities.

Several occasional users (and misusers) of simple sensorytests for product assessment still refer to their studies withthe picturesque but archaic term "organoleptic"-to judgewith the organs. Since sensory receptors, not "organs,"respond to temperature, pain, touch, pressure, as well as tothe chemical stimuli, the more precise adjective "sensory"is recommended.

From the Kitchen to Sensory AnalysisIn the 1940s and '50s, home economists worked with

commodity specialists to assess sensory changes attributable to new varieties, processing variables, storage times,

The author is Professor, Dept. of Food Science and Technology,University of California, Davis, CA 95616


recipe alterations, etc. Hence, the association of sensoryanalysis with the pejorative, "girls in the kitchen." The1951booklet by Dawson and Harris (Table 1)illustrates thelarge number of sensory measurements which developedalong commodity lines.

A concomitant image was that of the "acceptancelaboratory," devoted to endless testing of hedonicresponses of laboratory personnel. Noteworthy contributions in appropriate acceptance testing of servicemen, aswell as basic sensory psychophysics, were made by Peryamand associates at the Quartermaster Food and ContainerInstitute for the Armed Forces (see, e.g., Peryam et al.,1960), and have been continued by Meiselman, Cardello,and others at the U.S. Army Natick Research and Development Center.

Credit for early development of sound sensory andstatistical procedures is due to investigators such as SylviaCover of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Her

We will witness more activeexchange of expertise andmethods between two types ofsensory scientists-those who usejudges to evaluate products, andthose who use products to studyhuman behavior.

many publications on sensory attributes of beef, as relatedto selected histological, chemical, and physical data,spanned from approximately 1936 to 1962 (see, e.g., Coverand Hostetler, 1960).

As former departments of dairy industry, meat science,foods, etc., merged into departments of food science at theland-grant colleges, sensory analyses of aromas and oftextures began to be compared with, respectively, chemical(e.g., GLe) and physical (e.g., Instron) measurements. Thisled to the use of the term "subjective" analysis, with theimplication of less reliability, in contrast to instrumentalmeasurements called "objective" analyses. As Trant et al.(1981)noted, sensory judgments are derived from subjectsand instrumental measurement from inanimate objects, butone cannot assume there is no subjectivity in the operationof instruments and/or no objectivity in sensory analysis.

ASTM (1967),Guadagni (1968), and Noble (1975) drewattention to the importance of appropriate sensory techniques for meaningful correlation with physical and chemical tests. The classic studies by von Sydow and coworkerson aromas of bilberries and of beef (see review by Pangborn, 1987) merit mention. They were among the first topresent clear-cut relationships between gas-chromato-

SOUI\ \\\\

II17.5%4- 0II

\

graphic separations, mass spectrometric identifications, andquality and intensity assessments by trained judges.

The emergence of descriptive analysis of flavor can becredited to consultants at Arthur D. Little, Ine. (Caul,1957). Classification of food texture and development ofdescriptive terminology and corresponding physical attributes was researched extensively by Alina Szczesniak andcoworkers at General Foods Corp. from approximately1963 to 1985 (see, eg., Szczesniak, 1975).Her achievementsbrought her international recognition, including 1FT's1985 Nicholas Appert Award. Refinements in the application and quantification of descriptive techniques have beenpresented by consulting firms such as Tragon Corp. (Stoneet al., 1980) and Sensory Spectrum, Inc. (Civille, 1987).

Various professional groups have focused on development and utilization of sensory procedures. 1FT's SensoryEvaluation Division, which was established in 1971 andnow has 1,400 members, sponsors yearly symposia andcirculates a quarterly newsletter. ASTM's Committee E-18has published many valuable guidebooks on sensory, methods, physical facilities, etc. The International StandardsOrganization also has been active in promoting sensorymethods. The Sensory Panel of the Society of ChemicalIndustry, organized in London in 1974, sponsors one majormeeting and other smaller ones each year. The AmericanChemical Society continues to sponsor and publish numerous symposia on taste and flavor applications and theirmeasurement, e.g., the September 1988 conference onsweeteners in Los Angeles.

Paradoxically ... the 50thanniversary of 1FT coincideswith side~by~side occurrence ofnonexistent, underdeveloped,develoPing, and developedsensory analysis programs in bothbusiness and academia,nationally and internationally.

Over the past 20 years, several of the prestigious GordonResearch Conferences in New England have concentratedort gustation and olfaction and related psychophysicalmeasurements, and their neurophysiological and chemicalcorrelates. The European Chemoreception Research Organization (ECRO), which originated in France in 1972 andnow has more than 350 members from 28 countries,publishes a quarterly list of references and a newsletter, andsponsors biennial international symposia in Europe.

The Association for Chemoreception Science(AChemS), concerned with the chemical senses acrossspecies, was founded in Florida in 1979 and now has


The Evolution of Sensory Science (continued)

approximately 350 members, distributes a biennial newsletter, and meets annually, The journal Chemical Senses isjointly sponsored by AChemS, ECRO, and the JapaneseAssociation for the Study of Taste and Smell OASTS),

which was organized in 1966, The International Symposium on Olfaction and Taste (ISOT), which promotescross-disciplinary exchange in the chemical senses, firstconvened in Stockholm in 1962, and continues to meet

Table I-A Chronology of Major Books in sensory science, 1945-89a,b

1945 Flavor (Crocker, 1945) 1979 Sensory Evaluation Methods for the Practic-

1951 Sensory Methods for Measuring Differences ing Food Technologist Oohnston, 1979)in Food Quality (Dawson and Harris, 1981 Sensory Evaluation Methods with Statistical1951) Analysis (Gatchalian, 1981)

1954 Food Acceptance Testing Methodology (Pe- Sensorische Lebensmittel Prufung. Lehr-ryam et al., 1954) buch fur die Praxis Oellinek, 1981)

Organoleptisk Laboratorieanalys (Marcuse, Handbok i Sensorisk Analys (Lundgren,1954) 1981)

1957 Analiza Organoleptyczna Zywosci (Tilgner Criteria of Food Acceptance, How Man1957) , Chooses What He Eats (Solms and Hall,

1981)1958 Flavor Research and Food Acceptance (A.D. 1982 F d T t d V' 't C pt dLittle 1958) 00 ex ure an lSCOSl y, once an

, Measurement (Bourne, 1982)1962 Handbook for Sensory Tests in Industry [Evaluation Sensorielle des Denrees Alimen-

(Masuyama and Miura, 1962) taires. Aspects Methodologiques (Sauvageot,1965 Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food 1982)

(Amerine et al., 1965) 1983 Sensory Quality in Foods and Beverages:1966 Guide Book for Sensory Testing (Ellis, 1966) Definition, Measurement and Control

Practice of Sensory Testing in Industry (Williams and Atkins, 1983)(Wani, 1966) Product Testing <;tndSensory Evaluation of

Methodes Subjectives et Objectives D' Appre- Foods: ~arketmg and R&D Approachesciation des Caracteres Organoleptiques (MoskOWitz, 1983)des Denrees Alimentaires (Anonymous, 1984 Statistical Methods in Food and Consumer1966) Research (Gacula and Singh, 1984)

1967 Methods for Sensory Evaluation of Food Sensory Analysis of Foods (Piggott, 1984)(Larmond, 1967) 1985 Sensory Evaluation Practices (Stone and

1968 Odour DescriPtion and Odour Classifica- Sidel, 1985) .tion (Harper et al. 1968) Sensory Evaluatwn of Food. Theory and

1972 H S . A' t' (H 1972) Practice Oellinek, 1985)uman enses In c wn arper,S 'h B 'I ' New Directions for Product Testing and

ensonsc e eurtel ung von Lebensmltteln S A I' f F d (M k .(K' . d H k 1972) ensory na YSlS 0 00 S os OWltz,lermelr an aevec er, 1985)1973 Textur~ Measurement of Foods. Psycho- 1986 Sensory Evaluation of Food. Statistical

physlcal Fundamentals: Sensory, Me- Methods and Procedures (O'Mahonychanical, and Chemical Procedures, and 1986) ,their InterrelationshiPs (Kramer and , , , .Szczesniak 1973) Statlstlcal Procedures m Food Research (Pig-

, gott, 1986)1975 Za:ys Analizy Sensorycznej Zywnosci (Pi- 1987 Food Texture: Instrumental and Sensory

helna, 1975) Measurement (Moskowitz, 1987)1976 Wines, Their Sensory Evaluation (Amerine Sensory Evaluation Techniques (Meilgaard et

and Roessler, 1976) al., 1987)1977 Sensory Properties of Foods (Birch et al., Food Acceptance and Nutrition (Solms et al.,

1977) 1987)Sensorische Erfassung and Beurteilung von 1988 The Sensory Evaluation of Dairy Products

Lebensmitteln (Raunhardt and Escher, (Bodyfelt et al., 1988)1977) Applied Sensory Analysis of Foods (Mosko-

Sensory Quality Control: Practical Ap- witz, 1988)proaches in Food and Drink Production Food Acceptability (Thomson, 1988)(Symons and Wren, 1977) 1989 Metodos Analiticos para la Evaluacion Sen-

1978 Structure-Activity RelationshiPs in Human sorial de los Alimentos (Pedrero-F. andChemoreception (Beets, 1978) Pangborn, 1989)

aSee references for publisherbDoes not include the excellent series of booklets published by ASTM's Committee E-18 or proceedings of symposia published

by the American Chemical Society, European Chemical Senses Research Organization, and International Symposium on Olfactionand Taste



and publish proceedings every three years.On the local level, Chemical Senses Day, an annual

one-day symposium, was established in Northern California in 1983 to provide a forum for formal and informalinteraction among students and established investigators inthe broad area of chemosensory research.

The partial chronology of books on sensory topics givenin Table 1 not only recognizes the pathfinders, but alsoillustrates the geographic and disciplinary distribution ofsensory activity. Articles concerned with sensory method-

The industrial demand forwell~trained professionals at theB.S., M.S., and Ph.D. levelsgreatly exceeds the supply ....The immediate future promises acontinued shortage of sorelyneeded sensory professionals.

ology, physiology, and psychology were abstracted byDrake and Johansson (1969; 1974). They listed 2,000references from 71 periodicals from 1950 and 1968, and800 articles from 70 periodicals from 1969 to 1973.

Milestones can also be traced via the issuance of specialized journals for the growing number of sensory studies(Table 2). The first, Journal of Texture Studies, establishedin 1969, was the brainchild of the pioneering AlinaSzczesniak, with Malcolm Bourne picking up the reins in1979. More recently, Max GaculaJr. developed the Journalof Sensory Studies.

Widespread Use TodayToday, sensory professionals trained in food science are

applying their expertise to a wide variety of nonediblegoods such as household products, personal-care products,tobacco, pharmaceuticals, etc. This imitation, the sincerestform of flattery, coupled with the ever-increasing numberof employment opportunities at very competitive salaries,attests to the growing importance of sensory analysis offoods and other products.

Some universities have progressed from offering onelecture on "taste tests" in the quality control class tooffering a Ph.D. in sensory science with an array ofmultidisciplinary courses. Nonetheless, the industrialdemand for well-trained professionals at the B.S., M.S., andPh.D. levels greatly exceeds the supply. Also, universitiesattempting to fill retirement positions or to initiate newprograms in sensory science are encountering very fewappropriately trained Ph.D. applicants. Unfortunately, theimmediate future promises a continued shortage of sorelyneeded sensory professionals.

Today, sensory professionalstrained in food science areapplying their expertise to a widevariety of nonedible goods. [This]attests to the growing importanceof sensory analysis ....


Table I-Keynote Journals in Sensory Sciencea

Journal of Texture StudiesA quarterly journal initiated in 1969 on rheology,

psychorheology,physical,and sensory testing of foodsand other products. Food & Nutrition Press, Inc.,Westport, Conn.

Chemical SensesA quarterly journal initiated in 1974 which pub

lishes original research articles on taste, smell andother chemical senses, in human and other species.Information Retrieval, Ltd., Oxford, England.

Journal of Food QualityA bimonthly journal initiated in 1977 to publish

articles on all aspects of food quality assurance andregulations, including environmental factors. Food &Nutrition Press, Westport, Conn.

AppetiteA quarterly journal initiated in 1980 to publish

original researchon determinants and consequencesofeating and drinking. Academic Press, London.

Journal of Sensory StudiesA quarterly journal initiated in 1986for the publica

tion of original articles on sensory topics, includingpsychology,chemistry, physiology,psychophysics, statistics,computers, and related areas.Food & NutritionPress, Inc., Westport, Conn.

Food Quality and PreferenceA quarterly journal initiated in 1988 for scientific

and technologicalresearchpapers and reviewson basicfood research, product development, quality assurance, marketing, and consumer research. LongmanScientific& Technical, London, England.

'Many other journals also publish sensory research,includingthe U.S. publicationsFood Technology, Journal ofFood Science (andcorrespondingjournalsof othercountries),Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry, andJournal of theScience of Food and AgTiculture, many food product andspecialtyareas journals,as well as variousnutrition andpharmaceuticaljournals

Most industries have moved beyond the omnipotent"expert" to sensory science departments (Table 3).Government activity has advanced from development of qualitystandards, some of which ignored sensory quality entirely(e.g., meat and poultry grading), to funding of sensoryresearch through the National Institutes of Health, theNational Science Foundation, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, the U.S. Army Natick R&D Center, and many otheragencies. Private consultants in sensory analysis are muchin demand in the United States and abroad, offering adozen or so short courses a year.

Many food companies recognize that reliable sensoryresults are a vital tool for decision making in basic research,quality control, product development, consumer testing,and marketing. Most food research laboratories useadvanced sensory methods-with attention to appropriateexperimental design, sampling, judge selection and training, computerized data entry, extensive data analysis byunivariate and multivariate statistical programs, and continual attention to reliability and validity. It is encouraging tosee cross-disciplinary approaches to sensory measurementamong teams of food scientists, psychophysicists, physiolo-


Table 3-Stages in Evolution of a sensory scienceprogram (industrial,government, private, or academic)

Stage 0: The Boss is Always RightNo sensory facilities."Mr. Management" tastes every

thing himselfProducts succeed or fail independent of sensory

attributes

Stage 1: Organoleptic AnalysisTechnicians untrained in sensory analysis

Small room for sample preparation and testingJudges: Available building personnel; sometimes test

products at their desksNo attention to test designs, sample coding, random

izationUse paired-preference, hedonic scales, rankingData analysis: Consult "Roessler" and "Kramer"

tablesNo measurement of reproducibility, validity, reliabili-

tyManagement is neutral or tolerates sensory work

Stage 2: The Test KitchenTechnicians have short-course backgroundTest room with simple boothsJudges: Building personnel, some screeningSimple test designs, sample coding, randomizationUse difference, preference, hedonic tests, some scal-

ingData analysis: Chi-square, t-tests, correlations, two

way analysis of varianceManagement provides qualified support of sensory

work

Stage 3: The Sensory Analysis LaboratoryLaboratory manager has university training at B.S.

levelAdequate preparation areas and separate testing

roomsJudges: Selected and trained building personnelUse discrimination, scaling,descriptiveanalysis(work

with marketing on preference and hedonic testing)

Appropriate test designs and proceduresExtensive parametric and nonparametric univariate

statistics and use of computer programsManagement supports sensory work

Stage 4: The Sensory Science DepartmentDirector of Sensory Sciences-M.S. or Ph.D. levelExtensive facilities: Several preparation, testing, and

data-processingareas,fully computerized,full statistical services

Use appropriate sensory evaluation and psychophysical methods, designs, and univariate and multivariate statisticalanalyses

Extensive interaction with other scientists and otherunits-research, product development, marketing;thorough knowledge of company products andpolicies and of professional organizations,societies,journals, expertise in field

Conduct developmental sensory research and publishresults

Taleeactive leadership role in profession, internal andexternal

Management strongly supports and takes pride insensory department, and encourages continuingeducation and development


gists, clinicians, cultural anthropologists, nutritionists, andothers as illustrated in recent IUFoST symposia (Solms andHall, 1981; Solms et al., 1987).

Paradoxically, however, the 50th anniversary of 1FTcoincides with side-by-side occurrence of nonexistent,underdeveloped, developing, and developed sensory analysis programs in both business and academia, nationally andinternationally.

Into the FutureMy crystal ball predicts even more computerization of

data entry and analysis (e.g.,Warren and Walradt, 1984),inthe future, as well as more automation of everything exceptthe judges. Since foods will always be purchased andconsumed by humans, we will not see electronic robotsmimicking consumers. Nevertheless, more instrumentalanalyses will be developed to simulate human behavior,such as mastication, to more closely quantify sensorycorrelates. High-speed computers will greatly accelerateinterfaced data collection, permitting enlargement of databases for more representative sampling of judges andproducts and thereby increasing reliability and predictivevalue of the information.

Many advances will be made in our knowledge of thestatistical power of various discrimination tests and ratingscales, and in the development of lexicons of descriptorsfor many products. More attention will be paid to thetemporal aspects of perception, with more extensive utili-

The combined efforts ofneurophysiologists, biochemists,and behavioral scientists willculminate in a betterunderstanding of the mechanismsof taste and odor perception.

zation of time-intensity measurements (e.g., Guinard et al.,1986).

We will witness more active exchange of expertise andmethods between two types of sensory scientists-thosewho use judges to evaluate products, and those who useproducts to study human behavior. The latter include,among others, (1)neurophysiologists who investigate transduction mechanisms of sensory stimulation; (2) clinicianswho analyze the influences of biological states (e.g., age,obesity, disease, drug use) on sensory behavior; (3) psychophysicists who quantify the interactions of behavior, attitudes, beliefs, etc., in attempts to explain and predictindividual and group behavior; and (4) social scientists whodetermine the role of the sensory attributes of a product, inrelation to the myriad of other influences on purchase anduse behavior.

Inherent in the foregoing multidisciplinary measurement will be the need for multivariate statistical analyses toreliably sort out correlations, similarities, and differences,and to improve predictive value (see, e.g., Martens, 1985;Piggott, 1986; Martens and Russwurm, 1983). The necessity of computers in facilitating the use of multivariatetechniques in sensory research is vividly illustrated in thebibliography compiled by Martens and Harries (1983)between 1945 and 1969, 14 articles were published, compared to 211 between 1970 and 1983. Multivariate applications of both sensory and instrumental data will besuperseded by more sophisticated statistics in a relatively


short time.Equally exciting is the expectation that the combined

efforts of neurophysiologists, biochemists, and behavioralscientists will culminate in a better understanding of themechanisms of taste and odor perception. This breakthrough will unleash not only a myriad of scientificadvances, but will provide product developers with unlimited opportunities for customizing the sensory attributes ofmany consumer products.

Compared with other areas of food research, sensoryscience has considerably more "catching up" to do. Consequently, there will be many exciting challenges and rewardsfor the researchers of the future.

ReferencesAnonymous. 1966. "Methodes Subjectives et Objectives D'Ap

preciation des Caracteres Organoleptiques des Denrees Alimentaires." Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique,Paris (in French).

Amerine, M.A and Roessler, E.B. 1976. "Wines, Their SensoryEvaluation." W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco (2nd ed.,1983).

Amerine, M.A, Pangborn, R.M., and Roessler, E.B. 1965. "Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food," Academic Press, NewYork.

ASTM. 1967. "Correlation of Subjective-Objective Methods inthe Study of Odors and Taste." STP 440. Am. Soc. for Testingand Materials, Philadelphia.

Beets, M.G.J. 1978. "Structure-Activity Relationships in HumanChemoreception." Applied Science Pub., Ltd., London.

Birch, G.G., Brennan, J.G., and Parker, K.J. 1977. "SensoryProperties of Foods." Applied Science Pub., Ltd., London.

Bodyfelt, F.W., Tobias, J., and Trout, G.M. 1988. "The SensoryEvaluation of Dairy Products." Van Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork.

Boggs, M.M. and Hanson, H.L. 1949. Analysis of foods by sensorydifference tests. Adv. Food Res. 2:219.

Bourne, M.C. 1982. "Food Texture and Viscosity, Concept andMeasurement," Academic Press, New York.

Caul, J.F. 1957. The profile method of flavor analysis. Adv. FoodRes. 7: 1.

Civille G. Y. 1987. Descriptive analysis techniques. In "SensoryEvaluation Techniques," Vol. 2, ed. M. Meilgaard, G.V.Civille, and B.T. Carr, p. 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.

Cover, S. and Hostetler, R.L. 1960. An examination of sometheories about beef tenderness by using new methods. Bull.947, Texas Agric. Exp. Sta., College Station.

Crocker, E.C. 1945. "Flavor." McGraw-Hill Book Co., NewYork.

Dawson, E.H. and Harris, B.L. 1951. "Sensory Methods forMeasuring Differences in Food Quality." Agric. Info. Bull. No.34. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Drake, B. and Johansson, B. 1969. "Sensory Evaluation of Food.Annotated Bibliography," Vols. 1 and 2. SIK-Rapport Nr. 255.Svenska Inst. for Konserveringsforskning, Goteborg, Swe-

den. \Drake, B. and Jc\hansson, B. 1974. "Sensory Evaluation of Food.Annotated Bibliography. Supplement 1968-1973," Vols. 1 and2. SIK-Rapport Nr. 350. Svenska Inst. for Konserveringsforskning, Goteborg, Sweden.

Ellis, B.H. 1966. "Guide Book for Sensory Testing." ContinentalCan Co., Metal Div. R&D., Chicago.

Gacula, M.C. Jr. and Singh, J. 1984. "Statistical Methods in Foodand Consumer Research." Academic Press, Inc., New York.

Gatchalian, M.M. 1981. "Sensory Evaluation Methods withStatistical Analysis." Univ. of Philippines, Quezon City.

Guadagni, D.G. 1968. Requirements for coordination of instrumental and sensory techniques. In "Correlation of SubjectiveObjective Methods in the Study of Odors and Taste," ASTMSTP 440, p. 36. Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

Guinard, J.-X., Pangborn, R.M., and Lewis, M.J. 1986. Effect ofrepeated ingestion on temporal perception of bitterness in beer.J. Am. Soc. Brewing Chern. 44(1): 28.


Compared with other areas offood research, sensory science hasconsiderably more "catching up"to do. Consequently, there will bemany exciting challenges andrewards for the researchers of thefuture.

Harper, R. 1972. "Human Senses in Action." Churchill livingstone, London.

Harper, R. 1977.A short history of sensory analysis in the UnitedKingdom. In "Sensory Properties of Foods," ed. G.G. Birch, J.G.Brennan, and K.J. Parker, p. 167 Applied Science Publishers, London.

Harper, R., Bate-Smith, E.C., and Land, D.G. 1968. "OdourDescription and Odour Classification. A MultidisciplinaryExamination." American Elsevier Pub. Co., New York.

Jellinek, G. 1981. "Sensorische Lebensmittel Priifung. Lehrbuchfur die Praxis." Verlag D&P Siegfried, Pattensen, WestGermany (in German).

Jellinek, G. 1985. "Sensory Evaluation of Food. Theory andPractice," Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester, England.

Johnston, M.R. 1979. "Sensory Evaluation Methods for thePracticing Food Technologist," 1FT Short Course. Inst. ofFood Technologists, Chicago.

Kiermeir, F. and Haevecker, U. 1972. "Sensorische Beurteilungvon Lebensmitteln." J.F. Bergmann, Munich (1,135 Citations!).

King, F.B. 1937.Obtaining a panel for judging flavor in foods. FoodRes. 2: 207.

Kramer, A. and Szczesniak,A.S. 1973. "Texture Measurements ofFoods. Psychophysical Fundamentals: Sensory, Mechanical,and Chemical Procedures, and Their Interrelationships." D.Reidel Pub. Co., Dordrecht, Holland.

Larmond, E. 1967. "Methods for Sensory Evaluation of Food,"Pub. 1284, Canada Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa (2nd ed.,1977).

Little, AD. 1958. "Flavor Research and Food Acceptance." Reinhold Pub. Corp., New York.

Lundgren, B. 1981. "Handbok i Sensorisk Analys," SIK-RapportNr. 470. Svenska Inst. for Konserveringsforskning, Goteborg,Sweden (in Swedish with English preface).

Marcuse, R. 1954. "Organoleptisk Laboratorieanalys." SvenskaInst. for Konserveringsforskning, Goteborg, Sweden (in Swedish).

Martens, H. 1985. "Multivariate Calibration: Quantitative Interpretation of Non-Selective Chemical Data. 1. Introduction."NR-report No. 786, Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo.

Martens, M. and Harries, J.M. 1983. A bibliography of multivariate statistical methods in food science and technology. In Martens and Russwurm (1983),p. 493.

Martens, H. and Russwurm, H. Jr. 1983."Food Research and DataAnalysis." Applied Science, London.

Masuyama, G. and Miura, S. 1962. "Handbook for Sensory Testsin Industry." JUSE Pub., Toyko (in Japanese).

Meilgaard, M.C., Civille, G.Y. and Carr, B.T. 1987. "SensoryEvaluation Techniques," Vols. 1 and 2. CRC Press, Inc., BocaRaton, Fla.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1983. "Product Testing and Sensory Evaluationof Foods: Marketing and R&D Approaches." Food & NutritionPress, Inc., Westport, Conn.

Moskowitz, H.R .. 1985. "New Directions for Product Testing andSensory Analysis of Foods." Food & Nutritionn Press, Inc.,Westport, Conn.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1987. "Food Texture: Instrumental and SensoryMeasurement." Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.

Moskowitz, H. 1988. "Applied Sensory Analysis of Foods," Vols.


The Foodservice Industry:Continuing into the

Future with an Old FriendAndre Bolaffi and Dicki Lulay

Foodservice as a means of feeding people away fromhome has its roots at least 3,500 years ago in AncientEgypt, where "inns" provided food and drink to

traders. The beginning of modern foodservice as we knowit today can perhaps be traced to the developmentdescribed in the following letter:

My Board of Arts and Manufacturers has reported tome, Sir, the examination it has made of your process forthe preservation of fruits, vegetables, meat, soup, milk,etc.... and from that report no doubt can be entertained of the success of such process. As the preservation of animal gnd vegetable substances may be of theutmost utility in sea voyages, in hospitals and domesticeconomy, I deem your discovery worthy an especialmark of the good will of the government. I have inconsequence acceded to the recommendation made bymy council to grant you a recompence of 12,000francs ....

So wrote Mr. Montalivet, French Minister of the Interior,on January 30, 1810, to Mr. Nicholas Appert, a wine merchant, for his invention in 1809 of a means for preservingfoods. As is well known, Appert's development of preservation of foods in sealed wine bottles was in response toNapoleon Bonaparte's need for feeding his vast armies in thefield.

The historical development of foodservice as an industryis a fascinating one, as illustrated by the brief chronology ofsignificant events in Table 1. This article will focus on thestructure and scope of the foodservice industry; the influence of foodservice on the development of food technologies; the "push-pull" dynamics of the marketplace in whichthe foodservice industry operates and how those dynamicsapply to the use of food technologies in foodservice; andthe future of the foodservice industry.

Structure and Scope of FoodserviceFoodservice is a system whereby foods are primarily

prepared and consumed away from home. According tothe National Restaurant Association (NRA, 1988), thefoodservice industry is divided into three groups:

1. Commercial Feeding. This group comprises establishments which are open to the public, are operated forprofit, and may operate facilities and/or supply mealservices for others. It accounts for more than 85% of

Author Bolaffi, 1FT 50th Anniversary Committee Chairman, isPresident, Bolaffi International, Ltd., 2331 Bush St., San Francisco, CA 94115. Author Lulay is Director, New Products, ChefFrancisco, Inc., P.O. Box 1187, Eugene, OR 97440. Send reprintrequests to author Bolaffi.


industry sales and includes eating and drinking places,foodservice contractors, hotel/motel restaurants, and restaurants in department stores, drugstores, etc. Annual salesare estimated at slightly more than $202 billion (Table 2).

2. Institutional Feeding. This group comprises business, educational, governmental, and institutional organizations that operate their own foodservice. Food is providedas a complement to other activities, usually without theprofit margins which exist in Group 1. Group 2 serves foodprincipally as a convenience for employees, students,patients, ~tc. Annual sales are estimated at slightly morethan $24 billion (Table 2).

3. Military Feeding. This group comprises food andbeverages sold at officers' and NCO clubs and militaryexchanges, as well as the feeding of troops. Because of thisgroup's uniqueness in specification and bidding requirements, it is treated as a distinct entity by most suppliers.Annual sales are estimated at slightly more than $1 billion(Table 2).

While the food and drink sales are estimated at a grandtotal of more than $227 billion for 1989, the total food anddrink purchases by the foodservice industry (also shown inTable 2) are estimated at more than $85 billion for 1989.

Thus, the foodservice industry has evolved into a thriving business. In addition to its sheer size, the industry hascaptured a steadily increasing share of the consumer's fooddollar over the past 50 years, although the overall per capitaexpenditure on foods has declined. According to datafrom the Census Bureau compiled by T echnomic Consultants (1988), during the 16 years from 1972 to 1988, retailconsumer expenditures decreased by 6% (from 58.1% to52.0%),while foodservice consumer expenditures increasedby 6% (from 41.9% to 48.0%).

Food Technology in Foodservice:An Old Friend Revisited

Commensurate with this growth, the evolutionary relationship of food technologies to foodservice is a veryinteresting one and is perhaps not well understood. Onereason is that generally, we tend to equate foodservice onlywith limited-menu establishments (better known as fastfood restaurants) without regard to the other commercialand noncommercial sectors of the industry.

However, the influence of foodservice on the development of food technologies can readily be demonstrated inseveral areas:

• Nicholas Appert' spackaging and preservation of meats,fruits, vegetables, and milk in breakable glass bottles forfeeding troops in the field was to become the forerunner of

the canning and packaging technologies. Appert's discoverysoon led to the development of unbreakable "tin" cans inEngland by Peter Durand, and in 1813 Bryan Donkin andJohn Hall began to can foods (using Durand's patentedmethod) for the British army and navy.

• William Underwood in 1819(two years after his arrivalfrom England) established a small canning plant in Boston,Mass. However, it was the Civil War in the U.S. that pro'pelled the use of canning technology in this country and theacceptance of canned foods not only in the military butamong explorers and civilians as well.

• With the further development of canning, the inven'tion of retorting (or pressure cooking) in 1874 by A.K.Shriver in Baltimore, Md., enabled canners to controltemperature accurately while cooking food in sealedcans.

• Similarly, the need to pack chop suey in No. 10 cansfor restaurants led C. Olin Ball in the early 1950s todevelop the Smith-Ball canning process for LaChoy. Amodification of this process is still in use today.

• The pressing needs for feeding masses of both militarytroops and civilians during World Wars I and II. as well a~the Korean War, led to such technological developments asdehydration, frozen prepared meals, and irradiation:

Dehydration is as old as mankind. Yet not until weunderstood some of the specific changes which occurredduring drying, storage, and deterioration, such as with thebrowning (Maillard) reaction, did dehydration become a

\

Foodservice as a means offeeding people away from homehas its roots at least 3,500 yearsago in Ancient Egypt, where"inns" provided food and drinkto traders.

feasible technology for preserving food quality. The vacu'urn drying of fruits and vegetables and freeze drying ofmeats, poultry, and seafood (especially shrimp) soon fol,lowed.

Freezing of Foods for in,flight feeding was pioneered byPan American World Airways, the first airline to use frozenprepared dinners during flight.

Use of Ionizing Radiation for preserving foods at ambientconditions began some 37 years ago. The stimulus for thesetrials was the need to supply quality, shelf'stable foods at af,fordable costs to our military forces in Korea.

• The application of microwave technology in the foodindustry dates back to the early 1940s. However, in theearly 1950s the Pennsylvania Railroad began to reheatchilled precooked foods for buffet'type service, and soon


The Foodservice Industry (continued)

Table I-Chronology of Significant Events inFoodservice

100B.C.

A.D.1280

1425

1633

1809

1848

1865

1876

1919

1920

1925

1940s

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

A snack bar called "the Thermopolium" prepares and sellshot food anddrinks to the people of Pompeii,Italy

Innkeepers in Florence, Italy, form anassociation to regulate its membership

The Swan Inn of Lavenham, England,opens to travelers, eventuallybecoming one of the world's best-knowninns

The first restaurant in the UnitedStates, a tavern in Boston, Mass., isopened by Samuel Coles

Nicholas Appert, a wine merchant, preserves foods in sealed wine bottles

August Escoffier, one of the world'smost renowned chefs, is born inFrance

Bookbinders Restaurant, a landmark inthe American foodservice industry,opens in Philadelphia, Pa

Fred Harvey innovates foodservice inthe transportation industry when hefounds a company which servicestheentire Santa Fe Railwaywith restaurants at 100-mileintervals

The National Restaurant Association(NRA) is founded

The first NRA annual exhibition isheld in Cleveland, Ohio, with 100exhibitors

Howard Johnson opens his first icecream/drugstore/restaurant in Wollaston, Mass.

White Castle, one of the first fast-foodchains, opens its doors

McDonald's, Burger King, and Kentucky Fried Chicken open as fastfood restaurants

Home delivery of pizzaand other limited menu foods begins to grow

Wendy's popularizes drive-throughwindows

"Healthy" foods evolve as a major staple in foodservice operations

Ethnic foods "explode" into the mainstream of the American diet andfoodservice establishments

Takeout and home delivery of foodsincrease as more women enter thework force

acquired specially designed dining cars and equipped themwith microwave ovens. In 1955, the Kaiser Hospitals inCalifornia began the first full-scale foodservice operationusing microwave ovens. The first line of microwavableprepared foods was introduced by Morton Foods Div. ofContinental Baking Co. Similarly, although the WilsonMenu Pak pouches were used in conjunction with specialelectric heating apparatus to reheat them, Morton first usedhigh-density polyethylene trays with heat-sealed polyesterfilm covers for its line of individual-portion and bulk-packentrees, vegetables, and starches.

• In 1960, Armour Co. introduced its ContinentalCuisine line of gourmet entrees, intended primarily for an ala carte menu in a restaurant. These entrees were packedinto a dual-compartmented pouch, one with the entree, theother with side dishes.

• The retort pouch was pioneered by the u.S. ArmyResearch and Development Laboratories, Continental CanCo., and Reynolds Metals Co. It played a key role in theearly feeding of astronauts in space.

By now, it is evident that the foodservice segment of thefood industry has played an important role in the develop-

The foodservice industry hasevolved into a thriving business.In addition to its sheer size, theindustry has captured a steadilyincreasing share of theconsumer's food dollar over thepast 50 years ....

ment of various food technologies. Although the militarysector has had perhaps the greatest influence on suchdevelopments, nonmilitary segments such as restaurants,health care, and transportation have also made significantcontributions. Today, sales from the commercial andinstitutional segments of foodservice have completely overshadowed those from the military sector (Table 2).

Two important forces at work in the marketplace havecontributed to this nonmilitary growth-one is the consumer's exerting a "pull" effect, and the other is thefoodservice industry's exerting a "push" effect.

Meeting the Push-Pull Dynamicsof the Marketplace

In the 1950s, the increased use of automobiles forpersonal travel coupled with the creation and subsequentexpansion of the u.S. interstate highway system catapultedour society into high mobility. This mobility, in turn,created the need for more foodservice facilities in motelsand bus and railway terminals and along the stretches ofthe newly built interstate system. Also, the "Graying ofAmerica" has dramatically stimulated the growth of thehealth-care segment of the foodservice industry.

With the u.S. population growth rate now leveling off atabout 1% per year (compared to double that figure in the1950s),foodservice companies no longer have the luxury ofa natural market expansion. Growth must be achievedthrough innovative programs which will expand marketshare by fulfilling consumer wants and needs. Such needs,in turn, are fueled by such changing demographics andlifestyles as older population, increased number of women


in the work force, single-parent/person households, twoincome families, increasing nonwhite population (particularly Hispanic), popularity of ethnic foods, impact of diet onhealth and disease, indulgence (the "workout, pigout" syndrome), and "cocooning" (consumers spending more timeat home).

As a result of these changing demographics, as well aseconomic, political, and social influences, the basic American lifestyle is undergoing a fundamental shift. Foremost inthis shift are changes in eating patterns, food choices, andmethods of food preparation. American consumers continue to exert their influence on the marketplace by requiringfoods to have convenience, quality, freshness, variety,nutrition, and safety. These consumer demands in turndictate the innovative application of food technologies forthe development of unique products and processes.

Commensurate with the changing demographics andevolving lifestyles of the American consumer, the foodservice industry has also changed dramatically. Today, foodservice companies are seeking units or chains with concepts that differ from their own, and operators are alteringmenus, revising their recruiting and training programs, andrevamping operational procedures. Foodservice firms aredeveloping joint-venture programs and entering new markets, particularly in such areas as takeout and homedelivered foods (both of which are lucrative and rapidlyexpanding areas) and health-care foodservice, which, withthe aging of the population, is one of the fastest-growingsegments of noncommercial foodservice.

From a product and "health" point of view, we have witnessed the availabilityof fresh fruits and saladsin quick-service, limited-menu restaurants; engineered foods such assurimi; "grazing" foods; "healthy" foods such as meals withlow sodium, calorie, and cholesterol contents; takeout meals(for both away-from-home and in-home dining); and homedelivery of upscale complete meals for a busy but discriminating consumer.

American consumers continue to

exert their influence on themarketplace by requiring foods tohave convenience, quality,freshness, variety, nutrition, andsafety. These [demands] dictatethe innovative application of foodtechnologies ....

With all these changes occurring and in response tothese consumer pulls, the foodservice industry has onceagain turned to using existing, emerging, and/or newtechnologies for improving processes, developing newproducts, and increasing market share. Some examples ofthis technological push include developments in packaging,microwaves, extrusion, engineered foods, hydroponics, andbiotechnology:

• Packaging. In food retailing, packaging serves twoprimary purposes: (1) as a medium for communicatinginformation (Le.,ingredients, nutrient content, promotional material and other messages), and (2) as a functionalpreservative. However, in foodservice, functionality hasalways been the most important attribute, because theprimary user of such packaged food is the operator, not the


The foodservice industry has onceagain turned to using existing,emerging, and/or newtechnologies for improvingprocesses, developing newproducts, and increasing marketshare. Some examples ... includepackaging, microwaves,extrusion, engineered foods,hydroponics, and biotechnology.

consuming public. With the current opportunities intakeout and home delivery, the key to success will bequality meals (hot or cold) delivered in a package that isboth functional and attractive. Packaging technology willplay a major role in upgrading takeout and delivery offoods.

Two major packaging areas which have already had a significant impact on foodservice operators are the retortpouch and aseptic processing/packaging:

Retort Pouch. Originally designed for feeding troops inthe field, this technology soon became applicable to themass feeding of the nonmilitary. Retort pouch technologyis often viewed as the forerunner of aseptic processing/packaging.

Aseptic Processing/Packaging. This technology involves theseparate sterilization of both product and package at hightemperature/short-time conditions and their combination in a sterile environment. This technology has beenused to process soups, gravies, sauces, beef stew, ravioli,meat spreads, and other products.

• Microwaves. The success of this technology for inhouse preparation of meals has led the food industry todevelop a spate of ovenable/microwavable packaged foods.It is well known that microwave technology plays animportant role in heating and cooking meals. However, inaddition to these functions, it has now assumed a broaderdimension, especially in foodservice. For example, microwaves are now being used for finish drying of potato chipsand onion rings, resulting in better-quality products; cooking of potatoes and meat products such as bacon, sausages,and meat patties; proofing of donuts prior to yeastleavening, resulting in lower fat absorption, increased shelflife, better "coatability," higher yields, and superior texture.

In addition to these applications, microwave technologyis being used in proofing of bread, pasteurization, precooking of poultry, fat rendering, puffing of snack foods (the bestexample being popcorn), and a myriad of other foodserviceareas.

• Extrusion. Dating back to the early 1900s, extrusion isa process of forcing compounded ingredients through anorifice and molding products into desired shapes and sizes.It lends itself well to the production of fruit- or paste-filledsnacks and hors d' oeuvres, laminated puff-pastry itemswith sweet or savory filled centers, and half-finished pelletswhich can be further processed at foodservice establishments.

• Engineered Foods, sometimes called architectured orfabricated foods. This technology involves the restructur-


ing of food components into new entities. Some of theearly commercialized engineered foods were those madefrom soybean protein fiber spun into meat and poultryanalogs, flavored and colored, and designed with controlledfat, protein, and carbohydrate contents.

In today's foodservice marketplace, engineered foods arebecoming popular with both operators and consumers. Forexample, engineered breaded onion rings have (at therestaurant level) significantly reduced labor, cut down onwaste, lowered caloric intake, improved quality and product uniformity, and considerably lowered cooking dangerrisks for employees, since there is no hot oil to contendwith.

One of the most interesting engineered foods is onewhich originated in ]apan-surimi. This technologyinvolves deheading, deboning, washing, mincing, andforming fish into blocks, which are then frozen and storeduntil they can be processed into food products such asshrimp and crab analogs. Although this technology hasbeen around for some time, only since the 1960s has theproduction and consumption of surimi steadily increasedin popularity in the Western world. The acceptance ofsurimi is due to (1) increased consumption of fresh andfrozen seafood over the past several years, with most of thatgrowth due to foodservice; (2) product versatility, includingsimulated crab, shrimp, scallops, and a whole series of other

Table 2-Foodservice Industry Food and Drink Projected Sales and Purchases in 1989. From NRA(1988)

Type of foodservicea

Eating PlacesRestaurants, lunchroomsLimited-menu restaurants, refreshment

placesCommercial cafeteriasSocial caterersIce cream, frozen-custard stands

Total eating places

Bars and tavernsCTotal eating and drinking places

Food ContractorsManufacturing and industrial plantsCommercial and office buildingsHospitals and nursing homesColleges and universitiesPrimary and secondary schoolsIn-transit foodservice (airlines)CRecreation and sports centers

Total food contractors

Lodging placesHotel restaurantsMotor hotel restaurantsMotel restaurants

Total lodging places

Other CommercialRetail host restaurantsdRecreation & sportseMobile caterersVending and nonstore retailersf

Total other commercial

Total Group 1

Projectedfood and drink sales

($1,000)

Group 1Commercial Foodservice

74,384,08865,054,426

4,164,1691,714,1041,800,057

$147,116,844

10,331,537$157,448,381

3,657,0461,269,3261,561,1592,433,2771,120,0441,041,5901,734,669

12,817,111

11,750,432850,956

1,339,60513,940,993

9,580,7852,425,474

806,1845,015,693

202,034,621

Projectedfood and drink purchasesb

($1,000)

25,290,59020,817,416

1,457,459599,936511,198

$48,676,599

481,656$49,158,255

1,609,100558,503575,880754,510384,348499,901556,829

4,939,071

3,618,676263,975426,637

4,309,288

3,150,928783,525249,111

1,525,3225,708,886

64,115,500

aData are given only for establishments with payrollbExpenditures by foodservice establishments for their food and drink suppliescFood purchases onlydIncludes drug and proprietary store restaurants, general-merchandise-store restaurants, variety-store restaurants,

food-store restaurants, grocery-store restaurants, gasoline-service-station restaurants and miscellaneous retailerseIncludes drive-in movies, bowling lanes, and recreation and sports centersttncludes sales of hot food, sandwiches, pastries, coffee, and other hot beverages


"grazing" foods which can be engineered with high protein, low fat, and low cholesterol contents and uniqueflavor and textural properties; and (3) high consumerawareness-67% for grocery buyers and 87% for restaurantcustomers .

• Hydroponics. This technology involves the growingof plants in a nutrient-enriched water solution (rather thanin soil) under controlled conditions of lighting, temperature, and humidity. Hydroponic farming technology isclosely related to controlled-atmosphere packaging andstorage technology and is being applied to the growing oflettuce, spinach, herbs, spices, and other products.Although some hydroponically grown produce appears on

supermarket shelves, most of it is destined for the restaurant business.

The stimulus for the increasing usage of this technologyis at least twofold: (1)the focus on pesticide residues by theNational Academy of Sciences, whose studies indicateconcern about pesticide and other chemical residues onfresh produce and other foods, and (2) the consumerdemands for "healthy" meals to go along with a healthylifestyle.

Crops grown hydroponically are free from the dirt andgrit that are common with field-grown produce, as well asherbicides, pesticides, and damage from pests and disease.These crops are of higher quality, are more consistent in

Type of foodservicea

Table 2 (continued)

Projectedfood and drink sales

($1,000)

Projectedfood and drink purchasesb

($1,000)

2,066,049572,904

24,167,723

Group 2Institutional Foodservice-business, educational, governmental, or

institutional organizations that operate their own foodservice

Employee foodserviceg 1,915,622Public and parochial elementary and 3,500,768

secondary schoolsColleges and universities 3,533,337Transportation 1,317,523Hospitalsh 7,706,358Nursing homes, homes for aged, blind, 3,555,162

orphans, and mentally and physicallyhandicappedi

Clubs, sporting and recreational campsCommunity centersTotal Group 2

Group 3Military Foodservicej

Defense personnelOfficers' and NCO clubs ("Open

Mess")Foodservice-military exchangesTotal Group 3Food furnished to foodservice

employees in Groups 1 and 2Grand Total

869,9603,478,048

1,440,789669,618

3,447,8242,184,149

843,051676,015

13,609,454

2,189,961241,170

139,9392,570,800

5,023,961

85,319,715

"Includes industrial and commercial organizations, seagoing and inland-waterway vesselshlncludes voluntary and proprietary hospitals; long-term general, TB, mental hospitals; and sales or commercial

equivalent to employees in state and local short-term hospitals and federal hospitalsiSales (commercial equivalent) calculated for nursing homes and homes for the aged only. All others in this grouping

make no charge for food served either in cash or in kindiContinental u.s. only



size, are fresher, and have a longer shelf life than theircounterparts grown in soil. But hydroponic crops do costmore. However, restaurants will pay higher prices becauseof the quality (especially when the produce is available inthe winter months) and because of the significant reduction in labor involved in trimming and cleaning such cropsbefore consumption .

• Biotechnology. This is perhaps one of the leastunderstood of the technologies, but it is certainly not new.Alcoholic beverages, cheeses, and vinegar are but a few examples of products of this technology which date back toancient times.

Modern argicultural biotechnology combines the blending of molecular genetics, plant breeding, tissue culture,and a whole series of life sciences to produce new foods orrevise current ones with value-added functionality. Biotechnology can produce basic raw materials with specificfunctional properties to achieve better food formulation,processing, and stability after packaging.

One example of this technology is the production ofpotatoes from seed rather than tuber. True Potato Seed(TPS) is disease free, does not require special handling, doesnot rot, is free of waste, and costs less than its seed tubercounterpart. TPS provides for the development of potatoeswith greater uniformity and higher quality. Equally important, these potatoes can be engineered to produce functional attributes desirable in frying and chipping.

• Other Technologies. Although the above list is by nomeans complete, it illustrates the critical role that foodtechnologies have played and will continue to play in thefoodservice industry. There are, of course, a whole series ofother technologies which were omitted from this reviewirradiation, agglomeration, supercritical fluid extraction,intermediate-moisture foods, microencapsulation, membrane technology, and a myriad of others-all of which areassuming greater importance in foodservice operations.

What's in Store for the FutureIn speculating on the future of the foodservice industry,

we view the industry as vibrant and continuing to grow at ahealthy but moderate rate. Furthermore, we anticipate thatfoodservice will continue to command an increasing market share of the consumer's food dollar. However, the industry will also face mounting push-pull pressures in themarketplace:

• Serving the increasing number of older Americanswith their needs for foods low in salt, fat, and cholesterol(three top consumer concerns) will be critical to menu development. Similarly, home delivery of quality, nutritious,and "safe" foods will become more important to the healthyelderly who may be less mobile.

• In takeout and home delivery of foods, there will begreater emphasis on upscale foods and beverages, andtechnological advances in food preparation and packaging

We view the industry as vibrantand continuing to grow at ahealthy but moderate rate ....However, the industry will alsoface mounting "push-pull"pressures in the marketplace.


By remaining sensitive to thepush-pull dynamics of themarketplace and by continuing toapply new technological andmarketing ... systems, thefoodservice industry will becomea dominant force in feeding theworld population.

will improve the quality of both the service and theproduct. The pressures for biodegradable packagingmaterials will increase. Innovative application of microwavetechnology will playa key role in the growing markets fortakeout and home-delivered meals. By the year 2000,automobile manufacturers may offer (at first as an optionand then as standard equipment) mini-microwave units forautomobiles, vans, and trucks.

• Regulatory involvement in labeling and assuring thequality and safety of foods in foodservice operations will accelerate. For example, confirmation of the safety of "sousvide" technology (cooking and vacuum packaging) mightpersuade the Food and Drug Administration to allow use ofthis technology in individual foodservice establishments.

• The trend toward increasing use of fresh ingredientsand foods will continue, increasing the opportunity forapplying hydroponic systems and biotechnology to providefreshness. At one time, the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in NewYork City had its own hydroponic system to grow freshherbs all year round.

• Supermarkets will emerge as aggressive competition tofoodservice, particularly in the areas of takeout, homedelivery, in-store bakeries, indoor and outdoor cafes andrestaurants, and in-store delis (this industry "sizzler,"which has current sales of $6.6 billion annually, could double in sizeby 1991).

• Mergers and acquisitions, both domestic and foreign,will intensify competition in the foodservice industry. TheEuropean Economic Community and the highly competitive "Pacific Rim" market will further facilitate the internationalization of people's lifestyles, tastes, products, travel,and interests. A world community once separated by physical and national boundaries is being transformed into massive central "markets" in which technology, foods, and cultures will be offered on a highly competitive basis.

Weare confident that by remaining sensitive to thepush-pull dynamics of the marketplace and by continuing toapply new technological and marketing ("techno-marketing") systems, the foodservice industry will become adominant force in feeding the world population.

ReferencesNRA. 1988.Foodservice industry forecast. Natl. Restaurant Assn.

Restaurant USA 8(11):2I.Technomic Consultants. 1988. Annual forecast and outlook.

Study for the International Foodservice Manufacturers Association. T echnomic Consultants, Bannockburn, Ill.


Food Toxicology andSafety Evaluation: Changing

Perspectives anda Challenge for the Future

Richard L. Hall and Steve L. Taylor

Toxicology can be simply defined as the science ofpoisons. Food toxicology, then, is the study oftoxins or poisons in food, whether they are natural

or synthetic, or inherent, adventitious, or added. However,toxicology is much more than simply the science ofpoisons. It is a multidisciplinary field drawing from pharmacology, pharmacognosy, chemistry, biochemistry, andnutrition.

The food toxicologist is charged with gathering adequateinformation on the toxicity of foodborne chemicals andtheir mechanisms of action to make reasonable predictionsof the hazards that these chemicals in food might present tothe human population. The prediction of effects onhumans from experimental results on other species ispivotal to toxicology. Thus, food toxicology might best bedefined as the science that establishes the basis for judgmentsabout the safety of foodbome chemicals. It is worth notingthat, in accordance with this definition, the Institute ofFood Technologists has a Toxicology & Safety EvaluationDivision rather than a "Food Toxicology Division."

The Genesis of Food ToxicologyThe recognition of poisons in foods predates written

history. Early man undoubtedly discovered the hard waythat some native plants and animals contained acutely toxicchemicals and were therefore to be avoided.

In the past, foods also were occasionally used as a vehiclefor intentional poisonings. Thus, the royal tasters might beconsidered the first food toxicologists, although they weremore akin to experimental animals. Here, the poisons wereplaced, with evil intent, in otherwise safe foods. Therecognition and avoidance of such tainted foods was not asimple task.

It is difficult to say with certainty when food toxicologybecame a distinct field of science. The early efforts notedabove were unconnected and anecdotal observations thatconstituted a sort of forensic toxicology. The genesis offood toxicology occurred with the recogition that thechemicals found naturally in food, as well as those substances added to food, could have subtle as well as acutely

Author Hall, 1971-72 President ofthe Institute of Food Technologists, is Consultant, 7004 Wellington Ct., Baltimore, MD 21212.Author Taylor is Professor and Head, Dept. of Food Science &Technology, and Director, Food Processing Center, University ofNebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0919. Send reprint requests toauthor Taylor.


toxic effects. Food toxicology as a distinct field of study,then, is not much older than 1FT.

In the 18th century, food adulteration for profit was awidely recognized practice (Accum, 1820). Examplesincluded the addition of chalk to bread and copper topickles. Even though the adulterants were chosen withfraud, not safety in mind, only occasionally were theyhighly toxic. Although laws prohibiting food adulterationdate back at least to the 13th century, increasing numbersof consumers lost control over their food supply as theymoved from the farm to the city and farms became morespecialized.This growing reliance on others to supply foodfueled the concern over food adulteration.

In the United States, a turning point occurred in the

Food toxicology might best bedefined as the science thatestablishes the basis forjudgments about the safety offoodborne chemicals.

early 1900s, when Harvey W. Wiley, Director of theBureau of Chemistry in the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,began to evaluate the safety of common food preservativesand ingredients with the help of his "poison squad," agroup of male volunteers. The use of human subjects inthese experiments attracted the public's attention andspurred the passage of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906,which defined food adulteration and made the distributionand sale of adulterated foods illegal. This act also prohibited the distribution and sale of adulterated drugsfraudulent claims for many of the patent medicines available at the turn of the century and the presence ofadulterants in those drugs were equally powerful arguments for this early legislation. Present concerns over thetoxicity of food additives had their birth in the early effortsof the poison squad. These efforts marked the rudimentarybeginnings of food toxicology and provided the impetus forthe regulation of substances added to foods (Anderson,1958; Wiley, 1930).

Thus, by the end of the Wiley era, we had movedgradually from an outrage over fraud, sometimes practicedwith highly toxic substances, to a growing concern over the

more subtle toxic effects of common food preservatives andadditives. We began to shift our focus from food adulteration to the safety of routinely used food ingredients. At thesame time, concern over food additives began to displaceconcerns over the hazards posed by many naturally occurring substances in foods. The era of modern food toxicology had arrived in earnest.

Evolution of ToxicologicalTesting and Interpretation

Toxicological testing had its crudest beginnings in thework of the royal taster. From the royal taster to Wiley'spoison squad, the use of humans for toxicological experimentation was a common practice, even though humanshad obvious limitations as experimental animals. Despitethese limitations, however, the use of animals to predict thetoxicity of chemicals for humans did not become verycommon until the 1800s.

The genesis of food toxicologyoccurred with the recognition thatthe chemicals found naturally infood, as well as those substancesadded to food, could have subtleas well as acutely toxic effects.

At that time, a Spanish physician by the name of MattieuJoseph Bonaventura Orfila, a professor at the University ofParis and attending physician to Louis XVIII of France, wasone of the first to pioneer the use of animals for toxicological testing. Orfila was the first to correlate the chemicalproperties of poisons with their biological effects; he used


Food Toxicology and Safety Evaluation (continued)

thousands of dogs in his experiments on the classicalpoisons of his day (Casarett and Bruce, 1980). Simultaneously, a number of physiologists were using poisons asexperimental tools to unravel the mysteries of physiologicalfunction in animals. Later, in the 1900s, nutrition scientistsstudying vitamin deficiency diseases would again demonstrate the value of experimental animals in the study ofhuman maladies. Today, nonhuman species are usedalmost exclusively in toxicological studies.

Thus, modem toxicology has drawn heavily from techniques used in physiology, pharmacology, and nutrition. Inthe early 1940s, more elaborate and systematic practices,described below, which we now call "classical" toxicology,began to be developed and used in testing foodbomechemicals in experimental animals. By then, the subject hadgained further impetus from a major revision of our foodand drug laws.

In 1937, a drug known as "Elixir of Sulfanilamide" waswidely marketed in the U.S. as the first liquid form of avaluable new drug, sulfanilamide. The solvent was diethylene glycol, a rather toxic substance which contributed tothe deaths of 105 persons nationwide (Ruprecht andNelson, 1937). This tragic incident coalesced support thathad been gathering for revision of the 1906 Act, andresulted in passage of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. The new Act required the premarket reviewof all new drugs and drug ingredients, and it updated andtightened the definition of adulteration of food. Theincreasing emphasis on safety led to more use of animaltesting.

As the use of animals in toxicological testing becamemore common, the techniques involved were constantly

The ability ... to detect everlower levels of chemicals in foodshas grown dramatically duringthe past 50 years. Today,analytical chemists can oftendetect substances at nanogramand picogram levels.

modified. To enhance the sensitivity of these animalbioassays, various changes were made, including the use ofmore animals per dose, higher doses, more thoroughhistopathological examinations, an increase in test duration, and the use of animals with defined genetic backgrounds. Many individuals were involved in the adaptationof animal bioassays to the safety evaluation of food ingredients. Bemard L. Oser, a nutritional biochemist by training,a past-president of 1FT, and for many years the director ofFood and Drug Research Laboratories, an independenttoxicological testing laboratory, is particularly worthy ofmention, in part because he recognized both the value andthe limitations of animals as models for the humanresponse (Oser, 1981a; b). Today, the use of animals topredict the toxicity of foodbome chemicals in humans isboth common and indispensible, even though it remains aninexact science despite numerous improvements over thepast 50 years.

Orfila was one of the first to point to the necessity ofchemical analysis for legal proof of lethal intoxications, andhe developed numerous methods for detecting poisons.The development in 1836 of a test for arsenic was particu-


lady noteworthy because it removed from the unknownand undetectable one of the substances most widely usedfor murder. The ability of analytical chemists to detect everlower levels of chemicals in foods has grown dramaticallyduring the past 50 years. Today, analytical chemists canoften detect substances in foods at nanogram and picogramlevels.

Safety evaluation, the prediction of effects or noneffectson humans from experimental data obtained from animals,has evolved less far, but still considerably. Philipp us Aureolus Paracelsus (1493-1541), was probably the father orgodfather of toxicology and safety evaluation. The doseresponse concept, the central axiom of toxicology, was firstput forth by him (Paracelsus, 1564).In a frequently quoteddictum, he wrote: "Everything is poison. Only the dosemakes a thing not a poison." The concept that allsubstances are toxic at one dose, and safe at another,continues to escape many scientists and most consumerstoday. The Paracelsus dictum helped scientists realize thatchemicals were not poisonous per se but that the dose ofthe chemical was critical in determining the degree ofhazard. It took much longer for this concept to beincorporated into law. Today, we define toxicity as theinherent ability of a substance to cause harm. Hazard (orrisk) is the probability, considering the dose and conditionsof exposure, that harm will occur.

The 1938Act prohibited the addition of a "poisonous ordeleterious" substance to food. This was a qualitative, not aquantitative definition. Under the Act, substances wereseen either to be "safe" or "poisonous and deleterious" perse. The Act thus failed to recognize the importance of thedose-response concept and the Paracelsus dictum.

The 1938Act also did not require safety evaluation priorto commercial use. In some instances, industrial or university laboratories conducted animal tests to demonstrate thesafety of a substance. In many cases, in the absence of suchtesting, it was left to the Food and Drug Administration toestablish, after commercial use had occurred, that a substance was unsafe.

During the 1940s and '50s, FDA pushed ever higher thelevels fed to test animals. Gradually, it became clear thatParacelsus was right-at some sufficiently high dose, everything is a poison. Fueled by increasing concem over thesafety of additives, Congress passed the Food AdditivesAmendment of 1958and the Color Additive Amendmentsof 1960 and thereby shifted the burden of proof of safetyfrom FDA to industry. The new amendments effectivelyrequired preclearance of food and color additives but, withthe exception of the Delaney clause in each amendment,abandoned the poisonous per se concept in favor of safety"under conditions of intended use." Under these amendments, the pace of animal testing, especially by industry,quickened markedly.

During all of this period, decisions were based onassessment of data from animal bioassays. The usualapproach was to establish a "no-effect level" (NEL) or

We define toxicity as the inherentability of a substance to causeharm. Hazard (or risk) is theprobability, considering the doseand conditions of exposure, thatharm will occur.

"no-observed-adverse-effect level" (NOAEL) by directinspection of the dose-response relationship in animals. Aswith all safety evaluation, then and later, it was limited bythe validity of the individual experiment and requiredextrapolation to humans.

Professor Rene Truhaut pioneered the concept of theacceptable daily intake (ADI) in the 1930s and '40s. TheADI is obtained by dividing the NEL found in animalstudies by a safety factor, usually 100. This 100-to-l safetyfactor originally was rationalized by Arnold Lehman ofFDA as including a factor of 10 for individual variationwithin the human species and a factor of 10 for variationbetween species, e.g., rats to humans. The inspection ofdata, gathered during the Elixir of Sulfanilamide incident,on variation among individuals in the lethal dose ofdiethylene glycol supported the first la-fold safety factor.Later experiments with animals supported the la-foldvariation between species. Thus, the lOa-fold safety factorwas not unreasonable.

If the data are solid and the toxic effects of little concern,a smaller safety factor can be applied, leading to a largerAD!. If the data are less adequate, or the effects serious, alarger safety factor is appropriate, leading to a smaller AD!.The ADI should be a guideline, not a rigid limit. ADI hasbeen used widely in other countries and by internationalorganizations (WHO, 1987). It has not been explicitlyadopted by FDA, but its logic lies behind many of theagency's decisions. Within the past 30 years, more elaborate statistical approaches have been developed for "quantitative risk assessment," as detailed below.

Factors Shaping Food ToxicologyFood toxicology has been shaped by the scientific,

regulatory, and technological developments describedabove. But the field does not operate in a vacuum. Itreflects, for good or ill, a host of social, political, economic,and technical influences. Among them are the consequences of the Industrial Revolution, including increasedlongevity, rising expectations, serious environmental damage, the complexity and remoteness of all technologies,

Disparity between the exquisitesensitivity of our analyticalmethods and the uncertaintiesthat often attend animalbioassays serves to perpetuate our·pervasive "cancerphobia."

including food technology, and the erosion of authority.Public attitudes toward risk have changed; we have

become far less tolerant of perceived risk. We no longeraccept "fate"; we look for someone to blame. Our increasing longevity is largely due to the decreased risk of theserious infectious diseases, leaving us open to the consequences of old age and accompanying chronic diseases, ofwhich the most feared is cancer. Some of this fear findsexpression in laws and programs that seek to preventcancer, even while we are still largely ignorant of many ofits causes.

This increasing focus on cancer has had several impacts:(1) passage of the Delaney clause in the Food AdditivesAmendment and the Color Additive Amendments and (2)an increase in the emphasis on the chronic lifetimetoxicological study or carcinogenicity test. The Delaney

The lack of sensitivity at lowdoses related to human exposureleads to the administration ofhigh doses that often raisequestions of relevance to humansafety.

clause prohibits approval as a food additive of any substance "found to induce" cancer, thus imposing a zerotolerance for added carcinogens. In test animals as inhumans, chemical carcinogenesis is a complex and extended process typically resulting from repeated long-termexposure. Thus, only long-term studies can uncover theserisks. This has resulted in increased emphasis on chronicanimal bioassays, with tumor development as the endpointof principal concern. Scientists have consistently sought topush the sensitivity of such studies to the limit, to increasethe probability of a response, by raising the dose as high aspossible, and by using the most sensitive rodent strains.Unfortunately, as a result, these studies have often takenon the aspect of self-fulfilling expectations.

As noted above, along with changes in testing procedures and legal requirements, there has been enormousgrowth in sensitivity of analytical methods. We moveconstantly closer to being able to find a trace of anything ineverything. The sensitivity and discrimination of ouranalytical methods far exceed the reach of our toxicologicaltests and our ability to interpret the results. For reasonsdiscussed below, toxicological tests often produce resultsthat raise more questions than they answer. Thus, we areaware of substances that may present threats we cannotmeasure, and we can measure effects in animals that wecannot interpret for humans. This disparity between theexquisite sensitivity of our analytical methods and theuncertainties that often attend animal bioassays serves toperpetuate our pervasive "cancerphobia."

All of this has been supported-and frequently initiated-by a complex infrastructure of constituencies, withdiverse, often self-serving, goals. They include some environmentalists and consulting firms, plaintiff's attorneysand consumer activists, granting agencies and grantees, thegenuinely worried, and those whose goal is major politicalchange (Efron, 1984). The confluence of all of these hasproduced the toxicology of 1989.

Food Toxicology TodayThe centerpiece of food toxicology today is the carcino

genicity study in two species, usually rats and mice, lastingfor two years or more. It has often been conducted in a rotefashion, following standard protocols. Fortunately, there isnow a trend toward individualized design that builds onpreexisting knowledge of the particular compound undertest. The test substance may be fed at only two levels,including the so-called maximum tolerated dose (MTD), orthere may be three or more feeding levels. An undosedcontrol group is included for comparison. The number ofanimals in each dosage group is often 50 of each sex. One ofseveral routes of administration (e.g., ingestion, inhalation,skin absorption) may be used. If given orally, the testsubstance may be in the food or drinking water or given bygavage (stomach tube), usually in vegetable oil. An extensive histopathologic examination involving more than 30organs and tissues, plus gross lesions and blood samples, is

SEPTEMBER1989-FOOD TECHNOLOGY 273


conducted at the end of the study. The level of the testsubstance in the diet or vehicle and the level of thesubstance or its metabolites in urine, feces, blood, andtissues are monitored. The costs are large and variable,ranging from $200,000 to $500,000 per species for each testsubstance.

While the test animal should be chosen, and the testdesigned, to most closely approximate human exposure andresponse to the substance, this is often not the case.Professional judgments differ, and compromises are common for many reasons, including cost, background data,and technical difficulties (Food Safety Council, 1980;NTP,1984).

This superficial description begins to suggest the problems that attend the carcinogenicity study-the cost, thecomplexity, and the opportunities for error. The lack ofsensitivity at low doses related to human exposure leads tothe administration of high doses that often raise questionsof relevance to human safety. The use of high doses alsonecessitates statistical extrapolation to lower and morerelevant doses-an imprecise exercise at best. The largenumber of separate and independent histopathologicalexaminations virtually guarantees a substantial incidence of"false-positive" results (Doull, 1981; Fears et al., 1977;Food Safety Council, 1980). The supporters of this testpoint to the high percentage-nearly 100%-of knownhuman carcinogens that can be demonstrated to be carcinogenic in animals. The detractors point to an increasingnumber of cases of irrelevant and uninterpretable results.

Carcinogenicity studies have been extremely useful inconfirming epidemiological results, and in intercepting orterminating the use of potentially dangerous substances,especially when the tests have been well designed and theresults have been clear-cut. However, these carcinogenicitystudies are complex and full of confounding factors.Nevertheless, the chronic study is often "the only game intown."

The emphasis on carcinogenicity testing has tended toreduce subchronic testing to a subordinate role, servingmostly to set the MTD for the chronic study. Subchronicstudies of 28-90 days may remain the terminal study-oreven be dispensed with entirely-only if all test results areclearly negative, the substance is metabolized by knownand safe routes, and there are no other adverse data.

The acute toxicity test, the LDso, is disappearing as auseful measure of anything but the possible risks ofaccidental high-dose exposure. The results do not correlatewith those from longer-term, repeated exposures.

The most significant recent development has been theincreasing use of toxicokinetics, an assessment of the rates,routes, and products of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. This knowledge is useful in settingmore relevant doses in feeding tests and interpreting theresults. It illuminates the relationships between chemicalstructure and physiological activity. When, as often happens, a metabolite, rather than the test substance itself, is theultimate cause of harm, such information carries us towardan understanding of mechanisms of action. It permits, forexample, making the distinction between primary and secondary carcinogens. It makes possible much more realisticrisk estimates. The evolution and application of these techniques, as in the case of methylene chloride, is one of themost constructive results of our more sensitive analyticalmethods (1FT, 1988; Serota et al., 1986).

Together, all of these developments have resulted in anincreased emphasis on priorities. We can afford neither thecosts nor the risks of running all tests on all substances.Increasingly, toxicologists and regulators agree that to do sowould waste scarce resources on trivial or nonexistent


The ability of analyticalchemistry to detect traceimpurities has made the zerotolerance for carcinogens imposedby the Delaney clause impossibleto implement.

risks. Information from past toxicological testing, and onstructure/activity relationships derived in large part fromincreasing knowledge of metabolism, has been the basis forprioritization (Anonymous, 1982; Cramer et al., 1978).

Another result of these developments is the search foralternatives to the chronic study. Chief among these havebeen the short-term tests (STTs), which use microorganisms, cell cultures, and certain cells exposed in vivo asmodel systems for whole animals and, by implication, forhumans. STT s, such as the Ames test with modifiedsalmonellae, are based on evidence that most carcinogensact by modifying the genetic material of cells. The underlying assumption is that substances that show genotoxiceffects in single cells may also exhibit mutagenic orcarcinogenic effects in animals or man.

Initially, correlations of the results of STTs with thosefrom carcinogenicity tests were highly favorable. Thisappears, however, to have been due to the skewed selectionof test substances and testing methods in those comparisons. Substantial doubt now exists that the STT s, in theirpresent state, have useful predictive value (Tennant et al.,1987).

In spite of these costs, complexities, and uncertainties,there remains the need to arrive at informed regulatorydecisions. There is every evidence that the use of the ADIto define safe use has protected the public health very well.But it suffers from the apparent disadvantage that it doesnot purport to tell how safe is "acceptable," Le., it does nottry to estimate the risks.

The ability of analytical chemistry to detect trace impurities has made the zero tolerance for carcinogens imposedby the Delaney clause impossible to implement. To avoid"paralysis by analysis," it has become common practice todefine an exposure, and an associated risk level, so low thatit may reasonably be regarded as "negligible," "insignificant," or "de minimis." Doing this requires extrapolationfrom the data on tumor incidence at high dose levels inexperimental animals to predict the risk of cancer inhumans exposed to much lower doses of the chemical.

A variety of statistical methods are employed in riskassessment. They differ in their assumptions about theshape of the dose-response relationship in humansexposed to very low doses, several orders of magnitudebelow any dose that can realistically be included in theanimal bioassay. One must then generalize from the testanimal, across species, to humans. These efforts to copewith the absolutism of the Delaney clause have laid ontoxicology the need for much greater emphasis on statistics,predictions, and extrapolations. These techniques are agreat convenience to those who need or trust them, but tothe more skeptical they represent no more than ingeniousmathematics to cover missing biological data.

The foregoing discussion thinly covers the major emphasis of toxicology today. Food toxicology in 1989 is still aninexact science, even though it has matured greatly overthe past 50 years. Emerging topics, difficult now to assess,


remain. These include teratogenesis (the evaluation ofreproductive anomalies), neurobehavioral effects, immunotoxicology, and mutagenesis.

The Problems of TodayThe major challenge to toxicology in 1989 is to improve

the assurance that the predictions about human safety arerelevant. Such assurance is easy for any toxicologicalendpoint if:

- The test results are clear-cut.- The animal model is clearly relevant at doses reason-

ably related to human exposure.-All the data are generally adequate and supportive.However, discomfort and doubt increase if:- The effects are marginal or of questionable signifi

cance.- The relevance of the model or the test is less than

clear. For example, humans have no forestomach; rats do.Also, what meaning do results from inhalation studies haveif our concern is solely with ingestion?

-Doses are absurd or irrelevant. Doses in one NationalToxicology Program carcinogenicity bioassay were fed at32,000,000 and 64,000,000 times human exposure. In some

Food toxicology in 1989 is stillan inexact science, even though ithas matured greatly over the past50 years.

cases, the MTD has exceeded the metabolic capacities ofthe test animal, raising considerable concern about therelevancy of the findings.

- There is no support from data on the other sex,another species, epidemiological findings, structure/activity relationships, or STT s.

All of these problems come most frequently and sharplyinto focus in the carcinogenicity test because:

• These tests are often an example of technologypushed far beyond its base of understanding in basicscience.

• Public concern expects a precision of results thatbiology cannot now, or ever, deliver.

• Except for most lung cancers and certain rarer cancersof industrial origin, we do not know the causes of mostcancers.

• Analytical chemistry has made us aware of possiblethreats we cannot directly demonstrate toxicologically.

• Toxicology demonstrates potential risks we cannotevaluate in human terms.

• Available methods of risk analysis used as decision aidsinvolve a succession of mostly conservative assumptions,and these produce unrealistically high estimates of risk.

All of these factors serve to reinforce concerns in analready risk-aversive and mistrustful public. And beyondthese are the personal agendas of many of the participants.

In recent years, toxicology has had to attempt to copewith selective risks-those encountered by only a smallpercentage of the exposed population. Allergies to foodcomponents, natural and artificial, and intolerances tosubstances such as gluten, tartrazine, and sulfites areexamples. Toxicology ignored these in the past. It couldnot deal with them because there were no satisfactoryanimal models. The lack of models persists, but thefreedom to ignore these hazards does not (Taylor, 1985).


Another problem we can only note and not explore isthe issue of what are "acceptable" risks. These depend onwhether they are perceived as voluntary or involuntary,vital or nonvital, familiar or unfamiliar, and large or small(Lowrance, 1976; Starr, 1969).

Current efforts to cope with these problems involve thefollowing:

• Priorities for the allocation of resources toward solutions that can result in the greatest public health protection.

• Improvements in testing methods. These include (1)emphasis on toxicokinetics, and, based on these data, testsdesigned specificallyfor the particular test substance; and(2) efforts to make risk assessment more realistic.

Faced with overstated, or unevaluatable risks, it seemslogical to look for benchmarks of acceptable risk, such asthose naturally present in the food supply. Some of thegreatest hazards in the food supply may be of natural ratherthan human origin. Efforts to use such benchmarks haveonly begun, but they suggest that we should work towardmaking risk assessment only relative, not absolute (Hall etal.; Ames and Gold, 1989; Scheuplein, 1989).

The Challenges of the FutureAssessing the challenges of the future involves, even

more than the past or present, the biases of the observer.What follows requires not merely optimism but "leaps offaith."

It seems clear that the developing science and thecreativity of food technologists will continue to providewholly new foods, such as those from cell or tissue culture;major new ingredients such as the sucrose esters, unconventional sugars, or modified fats; major new processessuch as food irradiation and extrusion cooking; and theproducts of biotechnology.

Conventional toxicology deals very poorly with thesechallenges, for the same reasons that it has had difficulty inthe past with traditional foods and food processes: Wecannot feed high enough levels of foods or major foodcomponents in test animals to reach an acceptable safetyfactor. Such diets may be nutritionally inappropriate orinadequate. All foods contain minor, and often unavoidable, toxic components that we would never permit forintentional addition. Specifications are usually impossible,so knowledge of what one is testing is incomplete. Toxiceffects from one component may precede, overshadow, orpreclude those from another.

In coping with all of this, we may use, rather thanstatistics, the growing power of analytical chemistry tounderstand the composition, metabolism, and toxicokinetics of these new entities at realistic feeding levels and tocompare them with their traditional counterparts. We maythen use the traditional foods and their risks as benchmarks for acceptable risk.

For any food component, major or minor, we may thenbe able to identify its key active metabolites and measuretheir concentrations in target tissues. For risk-assessmentpurposes, this will be far more relevant than the currentpractice of using the amount of the test substance admin-

The major challenge to toxicologyin 1989 is to improve theassurance that the predictionsabout human safety are relevant.


istered to the animal. Through measuring concentrationsassociated with damage at the relevant sites, we may be ableto develop "biochemical markers" as predictors of damageto come (Saffioti, 1977).

All of this, one may reasonably expect, will permitstudies at lower and more realistic doses. When combinedwith comparative metabolic studies, including those inhumans, results will be more relevant, and improvedestimates of risk will be attainable. Even now, it is appropriate to ask how many examples of metabolic thresholdswe will require before the linear model for risk assessmentis no longer accepted as an article of faith.

In spite of their current lack of reliability and interpretability, a future remains for the STTs. They suffer now,not because there is no connection between geneticdamage and carcinogenesis, but because of the artificialityof the model system and the complexity of the wholeanimal. Other processes and events in humans and in testanimals overwhelm and obscure what connections theremay be between genetic damage and carcinogenesis.Increased knowledge of mechanisms of tumor formationand progression may well help design and select STT s thatdo have relevance and interpretability, at least for thosecarcinogens that act by genotoxic mechanisms.

Evidence from epidemiology suggests that as our knowledge of the actual causes and mechanisms of humancancers increases, this will deflect attention away from ourpresent concerns with chemical carcinogenesis from addedand adventitious chemicals toward other factors, includinglifestyle, disease, natural toxicants, promotors and inhibi-

tors, genetic background, and environmental factors otherthan chemical exposure.

Teratogenesis will continue to be an important field ofactivity and interest, particularly for wholly new chemicalentities. Major further developments could stem fromincreases in our currently limited knowledge on themechanisms of growth and differentiation in the embryo.

The increasing knowledge of metabolic mechanisms andmolecular biology may open up ways to deal with the nowrefractory problems of allergenicity and intolerance.

Behavioral toxicology clearly exists as a field of study; it isas near as the neighborhood bar. Unfortunately, it is alsothe softest science of all the emerging fields. The utility ofanimal models is unclear. The lack of physical endpointsleaves the results more uncertain than in the more conventional areas of toxicology.

Immunotoxicology will doubtlessly receive more attention, driven partly by the implications of the usefulness ofimmunosuppressive drugs, and partly by our increasingrecognition of the importance of our immunologicaldefenses and the variety of factors, including nutritionalones, that can compromise them.

Perhaps most hopeful of all, as a better knowledge basedevelops, we may have the means to seek improved publicunderstanding of relative risks, and of steps that enhanceour control of those risks. This may encourage greaterwillingness to assume appropriate individual responsibilityfor risk reduction in our own lives. Herein lies our greatesthope and our greatest challenge. It can properly engage thebest efforts of all of us.

Announcing a new international journal

FOOD CONTROLEditor: G Campbell-Platt AssociateEditor: T A MacMurray

University ofReading H J Heinz CoUK Pittsburgh, USA

Announcing the launch of a new, highly topical journal dealing with all aspects of food control. At a time when the foodindustry throughout the world has to keep pace with changes in food production and consumption, particularly in relationto safety, Food Control will be an essential information tool for all those involved in this field.

Food Control is comprehensive and contains original research papers, reviews and comment on:• Codes of Practice and Legislation • Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment Systems• Good Manufacturing and Distribution Practices • Sensors including Biosensors• Environmental Hygienic Design and Control • Rapid Methods and Novel Methods of Analysis• Impact of Control on Design of Machinery • Microprocessors and Computing Systems• Optimal Food Processing and Packaging Methods Applications

First quarterly issue: January 1990 Price: (US and rest of the world) £110.00 (UK) £95.00 ISSN: 0956-7135-------------------------ORDER FORM

To: Sue Spickernell, Butterworth Scientific Ltd, PO Box63, Westbury House, Bury Street, Guildford, Surrey GU2 SBH, UKo Please send me a sample copy and subscription details of Food Control.o I would like to submit a paper for Food Control. Please send me instructions for authors.

Name.

Address .

o Butterworths 0gg meetil1g fl1Jfrssiol1a/ needs gg



ReferencesAccum, F.e. 1820. "A Treatise on the Adulteration of Food,

Culinary Poisons, Etc." London.Ames, B.N. and Gold, L.S. 1989. Letters. Science 244: 755.Anderson, O. 1958. "The Health of a Nation; Harvey Wiley and

the Fight for Pure Food." Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.Anonymous. 1982. Toxicological principles for the safety assess

ment of direct food additives and color additives used in food.Food and Drug Admin., Washington, D.e.

NTP. 1984. Report of the NTP Panel on Chemical Carcinogenesis Testing and Evaluation. U.s. Dept. of Health and HumanServices, Board of Scientific Counselors, National ToxicologyProgram, Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.

Casarett, L.J. and Bruce, M.e. 1980. Origins and scope oftoxicology. In "Casarett and Doull's Toxicology- The BasicScience of Poisons," ed. J. Doull, e.D. Klaasen, and M.O.Amdur, p. 3. MacMillan Pub. Co., New York.

Cramer, G.M., Ford, R.A., and Hall, R.L. 1978. Estimation oftoxic hazard-A decision tree approach. Food Cosmet. Toxico!. 16: 255.

Doull, J. 1981. Food safety and toxicology. In "Food Safety," ed.H.R. Roberts, p. 295. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Efron, E. 1984. "The Apocalyptics." Simon and Schuster, NewYork.

Fears, T.R., Tarone, R.E., and Chu, K.e. 1977. False-positive andfalse-negative rates for carcinogenicity screens. Cancer Res. 37:1941.

Food Safety Counci!. 1980. Proposed system for food safetyassessment, Final report of the Scientific Committee of theFood Safety Council, Washington, D.e.

Hall, R.L., Henry, S.H., Scheuplein, R.J., Dull, B.J., and Rulis,A.M. 1989. Comparison of the carcinogenic risks of naturallyoccurring and adventitious substances in food. In "FoodToxicology: A Perspective on the Relative Risks," ed. S.L.Taylor and R.A. Scanlan, p. 205, Marcel Dekker, New York.

1FT. 1988. The riskjbenefit concept as applied to food. AScientific Status Summary by the Institute of Food T echnologists' Expert Panel on Food Safety & Nutrition. Food Techno!.42(3): 119.

Lowrance, W.W. 1976. "Of Acceptable Risk." W. Kaufmann,Inc., Los Altos, Calif.

Oser, B.L. 1981a. Man is not a big rat. Toxicology Forum,Washington, D.e.

Oser, B.L. 19811. The rat as a model for human toxicologicalevaluation. J. Toxico!. Environ. Health 8: 521.

Paracelsus. 1564. "The Third Defense, The Carinthian Trilogy."A. Byeckmann, Cologne, Germany.

Ruprecht, H.A and Nelson, LA 1937. Preliminary toxicityreports on diethylene glycol and sulfanilamide. V. Clinical andpathologic considerations. J. Am. Med. Assn. 109: 1537.

Saffioti, U. 1977. Identifying and defining chemical carcinogens.In "Origins of Human Cancer. Book e. Human Risk Assessment," ed. H.H. Hiatt, J.D. Watson, andJ.A Winsten, p. 1311.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.

Scheuplein, R.]. 1989. Perspectives on toxicological risk: Anexample: Food-borne carcinogenic risk. Unpublished manuscript. Food and Drug Admin., Washington, D.e.

Serota, D.G., Thakur, AK., Ulland, B.M., Kirschman, J.G.,Brown, N.M., Coots, R.H., and Morgareidge, K. 1986. Atwo-year drinking water study of dichloromethane on rodents.1. Rats. Food Chern. Toxico!. 24: 951.

Starr, e. 1969. Social benefit versus toxicological risk. Science165: 1232.

Taylor, S.L. 1985. Food allergies. Food Techno!. 39(2):98.Tennant, R.W., Margolin, B.H., Shelby, M.D., Zeiger, E., Hase

man, J.K., Spaulding, J., Caspary, W., Resnick, M., Stasiewicz,S., Anderson, B., and Minor, R. 1987. Prediction of chemicalcarcinogenicity in rodents from in vitro genetic toxicity assays.Science 236: 933.

WHO. 1987. Principles for the safety assessment of food additivesand contaminants in food, Environmental Health Criteria 70.World Health Org., Geneva, Switzerland.

Wiley, H.W. 1930. "An Autobiography." Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Ind.


MAKE THE SAFEST,MOST EFFECTIVE USE

OF FOODADDITIVES

Yours to examine FREE!

New!

FOOD ADDITIVESHANDBOOKBy Richard J Lewis, Sr, 1FT

$64.95, 600 pages, /SBN 0-442-20508-2

Eliminate time-consuming research and

assure safe storage and usage with this

valuable guide to more than 1300 food addi

tives. Separate, alphabetically-arranged

entries give you ready access to a wide

range of data on direct and indirect addi

tives, packaging materials, pesticides, se

lected animal drugs, and much more.

Detailed listings for each substance and two

sets of cross indexes allow you to quickly

recognize important properties, haza rds, and

regulations. With Food Additives Handbook

you'll get such practical information as •

chemical properties (including form, color,

odor, boiling and melting points, and explo

sive limits) • usage and handling require

ments of U.S. federal agencies· recent find

ings on toxicological and carcinogenic

agents· CAS and DOT numbers· synonyms

(including generic and foreign names andcodes)· and unintentional additives such as

pesticides. Coverage also includes the lat

est OSHA recommendations for exposure

levels and CODEN bibliographic citations.

FREE EXAMINATION RESERVATION FORM

Imi5l VAN NOSTRAND REINHOLD~ Mail Order oept.P.O. Box 668, Florence, KY 41022-0668

For faster service: Call 1 (606) 525-6600

or FAX 1 (606) 525-7778

D YES! Please rush me FOOO ADDITIVES

HANDBOOKIO-442-20508-2)$649510r 15days' FREE

EXAMINATION. Atthe end 01that time, I'll send the

purchase price plus local sales tax, or simply return

the book and OWE NOTHING.

Name _

Address _(No shipment to P,O. boxes without prepayment}.

City

State Zip _

D VISA D MasterCard D American Express

Please charge my credit card. Publisher pays ship

ping/handling. II I return the book at the end 01 15

days, charges will be canceled.

Card # _

Offer good in U.S.A. and territorial possessions only and subjectto credit

department approval Prices subject to change. PricesslightlyhigherinCanada. No shipment to P,O, boxes without prepayment.

8/89 F 8944


Developtnent and Gro"Wthofthe Food and Drug Adtninistration

Peter Barton Hutt

The Institute of Food Technologists was formed in1939, one year after enactment of the Federal Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 [52 Stat. 1040

(1938); 21 U.S.c. 301 et seq.] and just as that statute wasinitially being implemented by the Food and Drug Administration. [The FD&C Act became effective one yearfollowing its enactment on June 25, 1938, and portions of itwere postponed for an additional year in 53 Stat. 853(1939).]Thus, the development of food law pursuant to theFD&C Act, under the leadership of FDA, has directlyparalleled the development of food science, under theleadership of 1FT. As food technology has evolved duringthe past 50 years, FDA has sought to keep pace throughchanges in the legal requirements imposed upon the foodand agriculture industry.

Development of Laws Regulating FoodThroughout history, from earliest recorded times, civi

lized societies have instituted governmental controls overthe integrity of the food supply (Hutt and Hutt, 1984).English laws regulating food were brought to America withour early settlers, enacted as colonial laws, and retained asstate laws following the Revolution. Spurred on by wellpublicized reports of widespread food adulteration in themid-1800s, virtually every state enacted laws regulating thefood supply before 1900. At the same time, Congressenacted federal laws regulating the import and export offood products. But Congress stopped short of regulatingdomestic commerce because of the concern during the late1800s about the constitutional power of the federal government to regulate activity that had been regarded as withinthe primary jurisdiction of the states.

As a result of the pioneering work of Harvey W. Wiley,M.D., Congress enacted the first national law regulatingthe American food supply, the Food and Drugs Act of 1906[34 Stat. 768 (1906)].That statute, although much shorterand simpler than the current FD&C Act, represented amajor step forward in public protection against adulteratedor misbranded food. Thirty-two years later, Congressenacted the FD&C Act to expand FDA's regulatoryauthority. Since then, the food adulteration provisions ofthe Act have been amended several times to requirepremarket approval of new food ingredients, but the foodmisbranding provisions have remained essentiallyunchanged (Hutt, 1979).

Structure and Organization of FDAIn 1846, Professor Lewis C. Beck, M.D., of Rutgers

College published the first American treatise on adulteration of food and drugs (Beck, 1846).Two years later, at the

The author, Chief Counsel for the Food and Drug Administration during 1971-75, is Partner in the law firm of Covington &Burling, P.O. Box 7566, Washington, DC 20044


request of Patent Commissioner Henry L. Ellsworth,Congress authorized the Commissioner to conduct chemical analyses of the American food supply [9 Stat. 284, 285(1848)], and Beck was recruited to become the firstchemist of the Patent Office (Caffey, 1916; Weber, 1928).When the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture was created byCongress in 1862, the Patent Office chemical laboratorywas transferred to the Division of Chemistry in the newdepartment. The Division of Chemistry became theBureau of Chemistry in 1901; the Food, Drug, andInsecticide Administration in 1927;and the Food and DrugAdministration in 1931. FDA was transferred from USDAto the Federal Security Agency in 1940 and to the U.S.Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1953, whichbecame the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services in1979. It was not until 1988 that Congress established FDAby statute [102 Stat. 3048, 3121 (1988)].

Food regulation within FDA has always been splitbetween the headquarters, located in Washington, D.C.,and the field offices, located throughout the country

Throughout history, from earliestrecorded times, civilized societieshave instituted governmentalcontrols over the integrity of thefood supply.

(Brannon, 1984). Central policy, including the development of regulations, has been established at headquarters.Inspection and enforcement activities, often includinglaboratory analyses, have been handled in the field, underthe general direction of headquarters.

At the time the FD&C Act was enacted, the policy workat headquarters was conducted by a Food Division. Thefield was divided into three districts, which in turn directedthe activities of 16 field stations. In1948, the three districtswere dismantled, half their people were transferred toWashington to centralize policy and direction, and the 16field stations became district offices. At headquarters,compliance activities were centralized in a new Bureau ofEnforcement in 1956, which was split into a Bureau ofRegulatory Compliance and a Bureau of Education andVoluntary Compliance in 1963 and then recombined as theBureau of Compliance in 1968. Food policy was similarlydelegated to a Bureau of Biological and Physical Science in1956, which was split into the Bureau of ScientificResearch and the Bureau of Scientific Standards andEvaluation in 1963 and then recombined as the Bureau ofScience in 1966.

In 1970, the current agency structure was set in place. A

Bureau of Foods was created (now renamed the Center forFood Safety and Applied Nutrition), with responsibility forall policy, science, and enforcement relating to humanfood. A related Bureau of Veterinary Medicine (now theCenter for Veterinary Medicine) has responsibility foranimal feed and drugs, including their impact upon humanfood. This organizational structure has allowed FDA tofocus upon food issues in a comprehensive and detailedway, and thus has proved to be the most effectivemeans forthe agency to conduct its work.

The FDA BudgetIn 1939, FDA had a total budget of $2.2 million for all of

its responsibilities, including enforcement of the Insecticide Act [52 Stat. 710, 742-743 (1938)]. Of this budget,about 70% was devoted to food matters. At the time of thefirst report of the Citizens Advisory Committee (1955),FDA's budget was $5.1 million, and FDA's staff consistedof about 1,015 people, of whom more than half weredevoted to food matters. By the time of the second reportof the Citizens Advisory Committee (1962), the totalbudget had been increased to $23.1 million and the numberof employees to 3,012, of whom more than half were againdevoted to food matters. As a result of new statutoryauthority, the growth and increased complexity of the regulated industry, and major investigations and reports onFDA since then (Hutt, 1984), the FDA budget and personnel have increased dramatically (Table 1).

During this same time, the American population and thefood and agriculture industry also increased dramatically(Table 2; Bureau of the census, 1960).

FDA Enforcement ActionIn 1939, FDA relied primarily upon direct formal action

The development of foodlaw ... , under the leadershiP ofFDA, has directly paralleled thedevelopment of food science,under the leadership of 1FT.

in the courts to enforce the FD&C Act. These courtenforcement actions involved seizure of the product andcriminal prosecution of individuals and companies responsible for violations of the law (the two court actionsauthorized by the 1906 Act). Later, injunctions (authorizedunder the FD&C Act) against violation of the law werealso used. In addition to these formal court enforcementactions, the agency inspected and detained imported foodand sampled thousands of domestic products.

Under the 1906 Act, FDA had promulgated relativelyfew regulations, and they had remained in place for decadeswithout significant change (Hutt, 1981). Following enactment of the FD&C Act, FDA began to issue additionalregulations, particularly to codify the requirements forfood labeling and food standards.

As FDA increased its emphasis on the promulgation ofregulations to control the food supply, its use of formalcourt enforcement actions was reduced accordingly. After25 years of implementing the FD&C Act, for example, theFDA enforcement statistics relating to food had changedsubstantially, as shown in Table 3.

By the early 1970s, FDA's method of enforcement had


Development and Growth (continued)

changed dramatically, for three interrelated reasons. First,the issues faced by FDA were increasingly more complexand judgmental, and no longer could be characterized asobvious or direct violations of the FD&C Act. Second, forthat reason, FDA increasingly relied upon promulgation ofdetailed regulations and lengthy preambles to impose newrequirements under the FD&C Act, rather than relyingupon direct enforcement action in the courts under theterms of the statute itself. And third, the resulting reduction in ambiguity and uncertainty allowed the agency torely much more heavily on informal enforcement methodswhich were far less expensive and more efficient (Hutt,1973). Within a few years, informal enforcement actionsvirtually displaced formal court enforcement actions. Thisis reflected in the 1987 enforcement statistics (shown inTable 3), which include all FDA activity, not just food.

Food ResearchThe original mission of the predecessor agencies to FDA

was research. Only after enactment of the 1906 Act didFDA turn its attention to enforcement as well. As a result,FDA has had a long and distinguished history in foodresearch.

For the past 50 years, that research activity has beenconducted both internally and through external grants andcontracts. Virtually all of this research has been directed atregulatory issues, to help FDA implement its statutoryresponsibilities more completely and more efficiently. Theresults of this research can be found in the FDA AnnualReports, the Quarterly Reports of Activities, Federal Registernotices, scientific papers published by agency employees,the records of daily enforcement activities, and otherrelated documents.

Since the reorganization of 1970, when the Bureau ofFoods was created, most of the FDA research relating tofood has been conducted within, or arranged by, thatbureau. At the same time that the Bureau of Foods wascreated, FDA acquired the National Center for Toxicolog-

Fundamental to all FDA foodenforcement activities is theability to detect and quantify thepresence of substances in the foodsupply.

ical Research (NCTR), located in Jefferson, Ark. Duringthe past 18 years, NCTR has contributed significantly toresearch on food safety. The Bureau of Veterinary Medicine has also conducted research on the impact of animalfeed and drugs on human food.

Under the FD&C Act, FDA has responsibility forpreventing any form of adulteration or misbranding offood. The evolution of FDA's specific substantive activitiesin implementing these statutory provisions is discussed byHutt (1989)and Middlekauff (1989).The research programof the agency has been closely related to these statutorymandates.

Fundamental to all FDA food enforcement activities isthe ability to detect and quantify the presence of substancesin the food supply (Hutt, 1985a). FDA was the primarymoving force in the founding of the Association of OfficialAnalytical Chemists (AOAC), funded it for decades, andcontinues as a strong participant (Helrich, 1984). FDAtoxicologists took the lead in establishing food safetytesting requirements and developed the 100:1 safety factorthat is still used for acute and chronic toxicity other thancarcinogenicity (Lehman et al., 1949).When it became clearthat trace levels of carcinogens could be found throughoutthe food supply, FDA pioneered the use of quantitativerisk assessment to assure continued public safety (Hutt,1985b).The agency's requirements for food safety are pub-

Table 1-FDA Personnel and Budget, 1988 and 1989. From FDA (1988b)

Estimated 1988 Proposed 1989

No. of Budget No. of BudgetEmphasis employees ($ million) employees ($ million)

Human food 2,088126.42,129132.3Animal food and drugs

44125.444126.0National Center for ToxicologicalResearch

23224.323225.0Administration

39030.934831.5

All FDA

7,073477.57,233533.5

67,578238,025355,360

2,966,000

Total personal expenditures($ million)

131.0159.6186.5244.8

Population(million)

Table 2-Population and Expenditures, 1939-87. From Bureau of the Census (1960)

Total personal foodexpenditures($ million)

19,16465,24184,220

514,500

Year

1939195319621987


Table 3-FDA Enforcement Activities in selectedyears

1FT's 1985 special report on America's needs in foodresearch (Liska and Marion, 1985).

A report issued in February 1988 by FDA's Office ofPlanning and Evaluation and CFSAN found that in 198687 there were 155 firms applying the new scientificprinciples of biotechnology to the improvement of food orfood sources (FDA, 1988d). Experts in the field providedFDA with more than 1,200 examples of future foodbiotechnology advances, virtually all of which are expectedto be technically feasible by 1990. New resources will beneeded by FDA to keep pace with these developments.

Carrying forward with its plans to bolster food research,

No. foodrelated


lished in FDA's "Red Book" of toxicological standards (firstannounced in 47 Fed. Reg. 46141, Oct. 15, 1982)and continue to be revised, based on its research and experience.FDA food standards and food labeling activities have similarly led the agency to establish a strong emphasis onresearch in food technology and nutrition.

For decades, the food research objectives of FDA couldbe found only in various internal documents, usually not

When it became clear that trace

levels of carcinogens could befound throughout the food supply,FD A Pioneered the use ofquantitative risk assessment toassure continued public safety.

available to the general public. When Sanford A. Millerbecame director of the Bureau of Foods in 1978, however,he concluded that a formal research plan should beadopted and made public. That plan was published in 1980and given broad distribution (FDA, 1980).

The research plan emphasized the need to rest FDA'sregulation of the food supply on a sound scientific base:

The need for scientific information on which to baseregulatory decisions is rarely challenged. But it is oftenargued that FDA itself, as primarily a regulatoryagency, has no need to be directly involved in scientific research. This view is mistaken and has had apernicious effect on the agency and the credibility ofagency decisions. It is predicated upon misinterpretations of the Bureau's legislativemandate, the nature ofthe food supply, and the degree of specialization ofcontemporary science.

Activity

Criminal prosecudonsSeizuresImport samplesImport detentionsDomestic samplesInvestigationalsamplesInjunctionsRegulatory lettersRecallsSafety alertsFactory inspectiGlls

'From FDA (1951)

bFrom FDA (1977)

cFrom FDA (1988a)

1939'

3191,599

13,3731,647

11,9095,550

1963b

78564

11,1732,897

23,058

8

TotalNo.,

1987C

15200

31,55021,212

14356

2,39828

20,298

The research plan noted that FDA must play an active rolein developing scientific information because of its responsibility for the food supply, the need for relevant and timelystudies, the need for scientific expertise, and the need toprovide national leadership. It discussed both the researchgoals and the research objectives and needs for each ofthose goals.

In a report prepared in May 1981 at the request of theBureau of Foods, Norman N. Potter of Cornell Universityassessed the needs of the Bureau to regulate the food industry effectively in the 1980sand beyond. The report (Potter,1981)concluded that technological innovation in the foodindustry will increasingly challenge the resources of the Bureau. Potter singled out, for particular emphasis, the needfor greater knowledge about the effects of food processingupon composition, nutritional and microbiological quality,toxicology, and other attributes of food. He concluded thatthe Bureau was ill-equipped, from the standpoint of bothpersonnel and facilities, to conduct research in food science.

In early 1988, the Office of Physical Sciences of FDA'sCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN)released an internal Agency study documenting the needfor substantial changes in the food science research program of CFSAN and describing concepts for the futuredirection of such a program (FDA, 1988c). That reportsummarized the history of the food science researchprogram at FDA, discussed why substantial changes werenecessary to keep up with modern developments in thefood industry, and related specific implementation strategies. In preparing that report, FDA relied heavily upon


FDA food standards and foodlabeling activities have ... ledthe agency to establish a strongemphasis on research in foodtechnology and nutrition.

FDA announced in May 1988 its intention to enter into acooperative agreement to establish a National Center forFood Safety [53 Fed. Reg. 15736, May 3, 1988]. The newNational Center would be a collaborative effort amongFDA, academia, and a nonprofit research organization,located near Chicago on property owned by the IllinoisInstitute of Technology. The purpose of the NationalCenter would be to encourage development of expertise intwo areas: (1) emerging technologies in general, and biotechnology in particular, and the effects of new technologies on food components and on the adequacy of processing variables; and (2) the impact of recent technologicaldevelopments on the composition of foods, particularly onconstituents of public health significance. FDA stated thatit intends to encourage the development of this expertisethroughout the food science community, and that thisexpertise must be developed consistent with industryadvances in modernizing food processing techniques.



An Enduring Partnership with IndustryFifty years ago, when 1FT was founded, food technology

was in its infancy. But even then, FDA had a long tradition,and several decades of actual experience, in regulating thefood supply.

Since 1939, FDA has become a much larger, stronger,and far more sophisticated scientific regulatory agency.Even with today's budget constraints, it has the expertiseand the capacity to assure the American public of a safe,nutritious, and accurately labeled food supply. As foodtechnology has become more complex, therefore, FDA hasin fact been able to keep pace. Thus, the U.S. food andagriculture industry has had the benefit of a strong andenduring partnership with FDA, in making available thenumerous benefits of modern food technology whilepreserving the integrity of the food supply itself.

ReferencesBeck, L.c. 1846. "Adulterations of Various Substances Used in

Medicine and the Arts." Samuel S. and William Wood, NewYork.

Brannon, M. 1984. Organizing and reorganizing FDA. In 75thAnniversary Commemorative Volume of Food and Drug Law,p. 135. Food and Drug Law Inst., Washington, D.C.

Bureau of the Census. 1960. "Historical Statistics of the UnitedStates (1960)" and supplements. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.

Caffey, F.G. 1916. A brief statutory history of the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture. Case and Comment 22: 723, 731.

Citizens Advisory Committee. 1955. Report of the CitizensAdvisory Committee on the Food and Drug Administration.H.R. Document No. 227, 84th Congress, 1st Session, June.

Citizens Advisory Committee. 1962. Report of the CitizensAdvisory Committee on the Food and Drug Administration.Oct.

FDA. 1951. 1940 report of Food and Drug Administration. In"Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law AdministrativeReports 1907-1949," pp. 957, 959. Food and Drug Law Inst.,Washington, D.C.

FDA. 1977. 1963 Annual Report of the Food and Drug Administration. In "Annual Reports on the Administration of theFederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Related Laws1950-1974," p.p. 387, 437. Food and Drug Admin., Washington,D.C.

FDA. 1980. Research Plan, p. 8. Bureau of Foods, Food and DrugAdmin., Washington, D.C.

FDA. 1988a. FDA talk paper T88-5, Jan. 13. Food and DrugAdmin., Washington, D.C.

FDA. 1988b. FDA talk paper T88-21, Feb. 19. Food and DrugAdmin., Washington, D.C.

FDA. 1988c. Food science research program. Office of PhysicalSciences, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Foodand Drug Admin., Washington, D.C.

FDA. 1988d. "Food Biotechnology: Present and Future," Vo!. 1(PB88-177 -993) and V o!. 2 (PB88-178-009), Feb. Food and DrugAdmin., Washington, D.C.

Helrich, K. 1984. "The Great Collaboration: The First 100 Yearsof the Association of Official Analytical Chemists." Assn.Offic. Ana!. Chern., Arlington, Va.

Hutt, P.B. 1973. Philosophy of regulation under the FederalFood, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Food Drug Cosmet. Law J. 28:177, 185.

Hutt, P.B. 1979. Food legislation in perspective. Food DrugCosmet. Law J. 34: 590.

Hutt, P.B. 1981. About fairness in applying the law. FDAConsumer 15(5): 23.

Hutt, P.B. 1984. Investigations and reports on the Food and DrugAdministration. In 75th Anniversary Commemorative Volumeof Food and Drug Law, p. 27. Food and Drug Law Inst.,Washington, D.C.

Hutt, P.B. 1985a. The importance of analytical chemistry to foodand drug regulation. J. Offic. Anal. Chern. 68: 147.

Hutt, P.B. 1985b. Use of quantitative risk assessment in regulatory decisionmaking under federal health and safety statutes. in


Fifty years ago, when 1FT wasfounded, food technology was inits infancy. But even then, FDAhad a long tradition, and severaldecades of actual experience, inregulating the food supply.

"Risk Quantitation and Regulatory Policy," ed. D.G. Hoel etaI., p. 25. Banbury Rept. No. 19. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.

Hutt, P.B. 1989. Regulating the misbranding of food. Food Techno!. 43(9): 288.

Hutt, P.B. and Hutt, P.B. II. 1984. A history of governmentregulation of adulteration and misbranding of food. Food DrugCosmet. Law J. 39: 2.

Lehman, A.J., Laug, E.P., Woodard, G., Draize, J.H., Fitzhugh,O.G., and Nelson, A.A. 1949. Procedures for the appraisal of thetoxicity of chemicals in foods. Food Drug Cosmet. Law J. 4: 412.

Liska, B.J. and Marion, W.W. 1985. America's food research: Anagenda for action. Proceedings of the Institute of Food Technolo gists' Workshop on Research Needs, Nov. 11-14, 1984.Food Technol. 39(6): 7B.

Middlekauff, R.D. 1989. Regulating the safety of food. FoodTechno!. 43(9): 296.

Potter, N.N. 1981. A report to Nutrition and Food Sciences onneeds and recommendations for the '80s and beyond. May.Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.

Weber, G.A. 1928. "The Bureau of Chemistry and Soils," p. 9.Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md.


50 Years of Progress (continued from page 107)

Urbain, W.M. 1986. "Food Irradiation." Academic Press, Inc.,New York.

Van Arsdel, W.B., Copley, M.J., and Olson, R.L. 1969. "Qualityand Stability in Frozen Foods." Wiley-Interscience, New York.

Van Arsdel, W.B., Copley, M.]., and Morgan, A.I. Jr. 1973."Food Dehydration, Va!. 1. Drying Methods and Phenomena,"2nd ed. AVI Pub. Co., Inc., Westport, Conn.

Weiss, S.M. and Kulikowski, CA. 1986. "A Practical Guide toDesigning Expert Systems." Rowman and Allanheld, Publishers, Totowa, N.J.

Whitaker, J.R. 1972. "Principles of Enzymology for the FoodSciences." Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.

Whitaker, J.R. and Tannenbaum, S.R. 1977. "Food Proteins."AVI Pub. Co., Inc., Westport, Conn.

Wodicka, V.O. 1973. The food regulatory agencies and industrialquality control. Food Techno!. 27(10): 52.

Ziemba, J.Y. 1964. "Flash 18"-Sequel to aseptic canning. FoodEng. 36(3): 122.

Zotterman, Y. 1963. "Olfaction and Taste." Pergamon Press,London.

Based on a paper presented during the plenary session, "TheProgress of Food Science and Technology Over the Past 50Years," at the 50th Anniversary Annual Meeting of the Instituteof Food Technologists, Chicago, Ill., June 25-29, 1989.


Regulatingthe Misbranding of Food

Peter Barton Hutt

When Congress enacted the Federal Food, Drug,and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) in 1938, itincluded, for the first time, a number of new

provisions governing the misbranding of food that had notbeen part of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906. It strengthened the prohibition against debasement of food, byauthorizing the Food and Drug Administration to establishmandatory food standards. It required the affirmativelabeling of food with mandatory information specified inthe statute, authorized FDA to require additional labelinformation for special dietary foods, and required thatfood labeling affirmatively reveal all facts material in thelight of any other representations made for the product. Itcontinued the former prohibition of false or misleadingstatements in food labeling. It also prohibited slack fill anddeceptive packaging.

In implementing these provisions, FDA has necessarilyboth relied on and responded to developments in the foodand agriculture industry to guide its activities. Thus, thehistory of FDA regulation of food misbranding during thepast 50 years directly mirrors the development of foodscience and technology during this time.

The statutory provisions enacted by Congress in 1938toregulate food misbranding have remained virtuallyunchanged. Although Congress has considered numerousbills to revise and extend the food misbranding provisionsof the FD&C Act (Hutt, 1979), none has been enacted.This history therefore reflects evolving administrative policy implemented by FDA, not statutory changes adoptedby Congress.

This history is split into two eras, divided by the WhiteHouse Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health held inDecember 1969. The Conference report (White HouseConference, 1970) and the new FDA leadership that wascommitted to implementation of the regulatory policyrecommended in that report profoundly changed FDA'sapproach to food regulation and permitted the full use ofmodern food technology.

1939-69

Following enactment of the FD&C Act in 1938, FDArelied primarily upon five statutory provisions to regulatefood misbranding: (1) the mandatory information requiredby the statute to appear on all food labels. (2) mandatorystandards of identity for food products, (3) the labeling ofimitation food, (4) nutrition information for special dietaryfood, and (5) the prohibition of any false or misleadingclaims.

1. Mandatory Food Labeling. Under Section 403 of theFD&C Act, every food label must bear, at the very

The author, Chief Counsel for the Food and Drug Administration during 1971-75, is Partner in the law firm of Covington &Burling, P.O. Box 7566, Washington, DC 20044


mlmmum, the following four categories of information:the name of the food; a statement of the ingredients;the net quantity of contents; and the name and addressof the manufacturer or distributor. Under the 1906Act, asit was originally enacted, none of this information wasrequired. The Gould Amendment of 1913 for the first timerequired that the net quantity of contents be labeled onfood packages [37 Stat. 732 (1913)].Thus, these provisionsof the FD&C Act represented a major new requirementfor all food packaging, and forever changed the very natureof food labeling.

Within months after the FD&C Act was enacted, FDAhad promulgated regulations to implement these requirements [3 Fed. Reg. 3161, Dec. 28, 1938]. Although theseregulations have subsequently been amended many timesto refine minor details, their basic thrust has never beenchanged.

The White HouseConference ... report [publishedin 1970] and the new FDAleadership that was committed toimplementation of the regulatorypolicy recommended in thatreport profoundly changedFDA's approach to foodregulation and permitted the fulluse of modern food technology.

2. Standards of Identity for Food. Ancient botanists,beginning with Theophrastus (370-285 B.C.), established"standards" by describing the available food supply andwarning against its adulteration with other substances(Hutt and Hutt, 1984). Standards of identity for breadwere established in the Roman Empire and in medievalEngland, to assure the integrity of the food supply. Thesame approach has been pursued to the present.

Even before enactment of the 1906 Act, FDA hadestablished some 200 informal food standards (USDA,1903; 1904; 1906a; b). Although Congress declined toinclude legalauthority for mandatory food standards in the1906 Act, FDA continued with this work until the FD&CAct was enacted in 1938 (Hutt and Hutt, 1984, p. 60).

Section 401 of the FD&C Act authorized FDA topromulgate definitions and standards of identity for anyfood product in order to "promote honesty and fair dealingin the interest of consumers." Because of its long interest in

food standards, FDA promptly moved to implement thisnew authority. Although the FDA food standards activitieswere interrupted by World War II, they continued as ahigh agency priority for the two decades following the war.By 1970, it was estimated that half of the American foodsupply was subject to an FDA food standard.

When these early food standards were adopted, modernfood technology was just beginning to flourish. Somefunctional food ingredients (e.g., preservatives, emulsifiers,thickeners, and so forth) were in use, but many staple foodsremained quite simple and had not yet undergone thetransformation that later occurred. Moreover, at this timeFDA had no independent statutory authority to requirepremarket testing and approval of new food additives forsafety. Accordingly, FDA adopted the policy of establishing"recipe" standards of identity, under which every permitted ingredient was specificallylisted in the standard. Underthis policy, no new ingredient could be used until the

FD A regulation of foodmisbranding during the past 50years directly mirrors thedevelopment of food science andtechnology during this time.

standard was amended to include it. Accordingly, allprogress in food technology for standardized foods depended upon amendment of the applicable food standards.

With enactment of the Food Additives Amendment of1958 [72 Stat. 1784 (1958)] and the Color Additive Amendments of 1960 r74 Stat. 397 (1960)], and the rapid develop-


Regulating the Misbranding of Food (continued)

ment of food technology, use of recipe standards was nolonger warranted. FDA initially experimented with a new,broader form of standard, which permitted any "safe andsuitable" functional ingredient, in the 1960s, but did notmove to broaden all of the existing standards.

One particular aspect of food standards, not specificallymentioned in the statute, became a principal focus of thisactivity. Developing knowledge about essential vitaminsand minerals during the 1930s led the American MedicalAssociation's Council on Food and Nutrition to adopt apolicy that food fortification should be reserved for exceptional cases where there is convincing evidence of a needfor the vitamin or mineral and where the food to befortified is a suitable carrier (AMA, 1933; 1936; 1939).When FDA announced public hearings in 1940 to establish a standard of identity for flour, both AMA and the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the standardestablish appropriate levels for enrichment with vitaminsand minerals. The enriched flour standard of identitybecame effective on January 1, 1942 [6Fed. Reg. 1729,April1,1941; 6 Fed. Reg. 2574, May 27,1941], and set a patternfor numerous subsequent standards for enriched food.

To prevent indiscriminate food fortification, FDA issueda statement in July 1943 setting forth the agency policy onaddition of vitamins and minerals to food [8Fed. Reg. 9170,July 3, 1943]. Following World War II, however, foodfortification continued to grow. By the early 1960s, FDAwas convinced that a more restrictive regulatory approachwas necessary to prevent overfortification of the Americanfood supply. FDA proposed to limit fortification to eightclasses of food, with 12 essential nutrients [27 Fed. Reg.5815, June 20, 1962; 31 Fed. Reg. 8521 June 18, 1966; 31Fed. Reg. 9215, July 6, 1966; 31 Fed. Reg. 15730, Dee. 14,1966; 32 Fed. Reg. 5736, April 8, 1967]. FDA thenconvened formal public hearings on these proposed regulations. The hearings lasted for a full two years during 1968and 1969.

3. Imitation Food. The 1906 Act had prohibited imitation food. Section 403(c) of the FD&C Act provided,however, that any imitation food must be labeled as animitation.

FDA initially sought to apply this statutory provision tocontrol the development of new substitute food products.It argued that any imitation of a standardized product wasinherently illegal, but the Supreme Court overruled theagency on this point in 1951 [62 Cases of Jam v. UnitedStates, 340 U.S. 593 (1951)].When a substitute ice creamwasmade from soybeans and marketed as "Chil-Zert," FDAbrought a successful legal action to require that it belabeled as an imitation ice cream [United States v. 651Cases, More or Less, of Chocolate Chil-Zert, 114 F. Supp.430 (ND.N.Y. 1953)].This was, however, the high point ofFDA's use of the imitation provision to inhibit the marketing of new food products. As food technology progressed,

FD A adopted new regulationsgoverning nutrition labeling forall food .... This has resulted inthe now~familiar nutritionlabeling format estimated to beused on more than half of theUnited States food supply.


and more substitute products were marketed, the agencydid not institute legal action to prevent their sale.

Nonetheless, FDA did adhere tenaciously to the positionthat the name of a standardized food could not be used aspart of the name of a nonstandardized substitute product.The Supreme Court had ruled in 1943 that, once FDA hadestablished a standard of identity, the standard could not beevaded by adding nonpermitted ingredients and revisingthe name of the food to reflect that change [FederalSecurity Administrator v. Quaker Oats Co., 318 U.S. 218(1943)]. Thus, FDA insisted that a reduced-calorie orreduced-fat French dressing be labeled as an "imitationFrench dressing," whereas any reduced-fat or reducedcalorie Russian or Italian dressing could be labeled as such,because the only salad dressing subject to a standard ofidentity was French dressing.

Moreover, FDA took no administrative action to clarifyits position on the imitation provision. Several statestherefore brought action against new substitute food products under comparable provisions in their state laws(Merrill and Hutt, 1980). The resulting confusion led towidespread apprehension about the status of new foodproducts under the law (Cody, 1970).

4. Special Dietary Food Labeling. Under Section 403(j)of the FD&C Act, FDA was authorized to promulgateregulations to require label information concerning thevitamin, mineral, and other dietary properties of foodrepresented for special dietary uses. In November 1941,following a public hearing, FDA promulgated regulationsgoverning vitamin-mineral supplements, fortified foodproducts, and such other special dietary foods as infantfood, hypoallergenic food, and food used in weight control[6 Fed. Reg. 5921, Nov. 22, 1941].

Because these were labeling requirements and imposedno limit upon other claims or permissible formulations, thetypes of special dietary products marketed, and the claimsmade for them, proliferated. In spite of numerous courtactions and educational approaches, FDA could not bringthese products under control. Indeed, one court caseconcluded that nutrient fortification of sugar could not bebanned by FDA [United States v. 119 Cases ... New DextraBrand Fortified Cane Sugar, 231 F. Supp. 551 (S.D. Fla.1963), affd, 334 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1964)].

As a result, FDA concluded that the only reasonableapproach to this matter would be through revision of the1941 regulations. As part of the proposed regulations torestrict food fortification already discussed above [27 Fed.Reg. 5815, June 20, 1962;31 Fed. Reg. 8521, June 18, 1966;31 Fed. Reg. 9215, July 6, 1966; 31 Fed. Reg. 15730, Dec.14, 1966;Fed. Reg. 5736, April 8, 1967],FDA proposed tolimit the number of permitted formulations of dietarysupplements of vitamins and minerals and to ban commonlabeling claims for these products that the agency regardedas false or misleading. These proposals were also part of theformal public hearing conducted during 1968 and 1969.

5. Prohibition of False or Misleading Claims. Like the1906 Act, Section 403(a)of the FD&C Act prohibited anyfalse or misleading statement in food labeling. Most fraudulent or outrageous food claims had long since disappearedas a result of FDA regulatory action taken under the 1906Act. With the advent of food fortification and vitaminmineral supplements, and the gradual unfolding of scientific evidence about the relationship of diet and health, newregulatory problems emerged.

FDA regulation of labeling claims relating to foodfortification and vitamin-mineral supplements has alreadybeen discussed above. Ultimately, the agency sought during the 1960s to control these problems through promul-


gation of restrictive new regulations.The emergence of new scientific information about the

relationship of diet and health, however, created entirelydifferent concerns. FDA readily permitted general healthclaims for food products, but sought to prohibit anyspecific claim that a food or food component wouldprevent a particular disease (Hutt, 1986). Following publication of a major report to the American Heart Associationin August 1957 recommending a reduction in dietarycholesterol and saturated fats, labeling and advertisingclaims for common food products made reference to thisnew information. Faced with these claims, FDA sought toprohibit any reference to cholesterol or saturated fat,considering such reference as "nutritional quackery." Astime wore on, however, and the scientific evidence becamemore compelling, increased pressure was placed on theagency to change its position. By the late 1960s, FDAcontinued to adhere to its policy in public, but tookrelatively little legal action to enforce it.

The White House Conference onFood, Nutrition, and Health

President Nixon announced a White House Conferenceon Food, Nutrition, and Health in May 1969. The conference was held in December 1969, and the final report wasissued in early 1970 (White House Conference, 1970).

Although the White House Conference was convenedin response to charges of hunger and malnutrition inAmerica, and not to consider regulatory issues, its conclusions had a dramatic and unexpected impact on FDA policyin regulating food misbranding. The highly restrictiveapproach to food standards, imitation labeling, special

Although the White HouseConference was convened inresponse to charges of hunger andmalnutrition in America, andnot to consider regulatory issues,its conclusions had a dramatic

and unexpected impact on FDApolicy ....

dietary foods, and nutrition claims that was the subject ofthe formal public hearing conducted by FDA during 1968and 1969 was thoroughly criticized and rejected. TheWhite House Conference report emphasized the need forsound nutrition, the capability of modern food technologyto provide products to fill that need, and the use ofincreased public information about nutrition, rather thanthe problems of nutrition quackery.

Release of the report coincided, moreover, with a majorchange in FDA personnel. Those who had determined theFDA food regulatory approach during the 1960swere gonefrom the agency when the administrative hearing of1968-69 was completed and the matter was ready for a finaldecision in the early 1970s. Many who formed the newleadership in FDA during the early 1970s had participatedin the White House Conference. Within 18 months, fiveindividuals who had helped shape the conference policyand prepare the report had left their former positions tojoin FDA and were ready to implement the regulatoryrecommendations of the report: James D. Grant, Deputy


Commissioner of FDA; Virgil O. Wodicka, Director of theBureau of Foods; Ogden C. Johnson, Director of theOffice of Nutrition in the Bureau of Foods; Allan L.Forbes, Deputy Associate Director of the Office of Nutrition; and Peter Barton Hutt, FDA Chief Counsel. As aresult, FDA policy changed dramatically. When VirgilWodicka left FDA, he was ultimately replaced as Directorof the Bureau of Foods by Sanford A. Miller, who had alsoparticipated in the White House Conference.

1969-89The White House Conference represented the end of

the restrictive approach to food regulation proposed byFDA during the 1960s. In its place emerged a number ofnew regulations, based largely on food labeling requirements rather than on rigid standards for product composition.

1. Mandatory Food Labeling Information. The samefour statutory categories of mandatory information remain.In two respects, however, they have been changed toreflect the new emphasis on provision of adequate information to consumers rather than on establishing rigid standards for product composition.

Under the FD&C Act, a standardized food is notrequired to include on the label any mandatory ingredientin the food, and is required to include on the label onlythose optional ingredients that are specified as required tobe labeled under the standard. Pursuant to its policy ofencouraging full labeling for all food products, FDA urgedfood manufacturers and distributors to include in thestatement of ingredients both mandatory and optionalingredients [37 Fed. Reg. 5120, March 10, 1972, 21 CFR101.6(a)],and began systematically to amend all existingfood standards to make as many "mandatory" ingredientsoptional as possible and to require the labeling of alloptional ingredients [21 CFR 101.6(b)].

FDA also promulgated new regulations governing thenames to be used on the labels for food products. The newregulations emphasized that a food name must accuratelyidentify or describe the basic nature of the food or itscharacterizing properties or ingredients, and distinguishthe food from different foods f37 Fed. Reg. 12327,June 22,1972; 38 Fed. Reg. 6964, March 14, 1973; 21 CFR102.5(a)].Related regulations provided for inclusion, as partof the food name, the percentage of any characterizingingredients, or a statement that the food does not containingredients that might otherwise be expected [21 CFR102.5(b) and (c)]. Specific regulations have been promulgated for particular foods, applying these rules [21 CFRPart 102].

2. Food Standards. In the early 1970s, FDA began asystematic amendment of all existing food standards toeliminate the old "recipe" approach and to permit any "safeand suitable" functional ingredient. Accordingly, it is nolonger necessary to amend existing food standards topermit the use of new food additives and color additivesonce they have been approved as safe for use.

Since 1970, FDA has not proposed or promulgated newfood standards. In a number of instances where foodstandards had been proposed in the past, they werereplaced with regulations that simply establish the name ofthe food, pursuant to the regulations discussed above. Thisapproach has permitted greater flexibility in food labelingand food formulation.

As a related policy, FDA has abandoned its old positionthat any resemblance of a new food to a traditionalstandardized food, or any reference to a standardized foodin the name for a new food, automatically renders the new


food illegal.For example, FDA has stated that "raisin breadmade with enriched flour" does not violate the raisin breadstandard [43 Fed. Reg. 43456, Sept. 26, 1978]; "enrichedmacaroni products with fortified protein" does not violatethe enriched macaroni standard [43Fed. Reg. 11695,March21, 1978]; "tomato juice enriched with vitamin C" does notviolate the tomato juice standard [39 Fed. Reg. 31898, Sept.3, 1974]; and "goat's milk yogurt" does not violate the yogurt standard (Lake, 1986).Although the precise food namethat will satisfy this new policy often results in substantialcontention among FDA, the traditional food industry, andthe new food manufacturer, this represents a major changefrom the restrictive approach pursued by FDA until the1970s.

The limitation of fortification to listed foods, withinspecified levels, was totally abandoned. Fortification ofstandardized foods was permitted, where no enrichmentstandard already existed. Limitations on fortification wereimplemented through the promulgation of nutrition quality guidelines [21 CFR Part 104] and a general statement offortification policy [39 Fed. Reg. 20900. lune 14, 1974; 45Fed. Reg. 6314, Jan. 25, 1980; 21 CFR 104.201.

Finally, FDA adopted new regulations governing nutrition labeling for all food [37 Fed. Reg. 6493, March 30,1972; 38 Fed. Reg. 2125, Jan. 19. 1973; 38 Fed. Reg. 6951.March 14, 1973; 21 CFR 101.9]. Except for breadproducts that must be enriched under state laws, it is not

This continuing review andrevision of food labeling policyrefl.ects the dynamic relationshiPbetween food technology and foodlaw policy. It assures that, asscience progresses, FDAregulatory policy will keep pace.

mandatory that any food product either be enriched withvitamins or minerals or bear labeling relating to its nutritional value. FDA therefore promulgated a requirementthat, if any nutrient is added to a food, or any nutritionclaim is made for a food, the product must bear fullnutrition labeling in the format established by FDA. Thishas resulted in the now-familiar nutrition labeling formatestimated to be used on more than half of the United Statesfood supply.

FDA made a conscious trade-off in adopting this newapproach. It substantially reduced the restrictions onformulation and composition imposed by food standardsand other regulations, and correspondingly increased thelabeling requirements for all food. The food industry wasthus free to pursue the benefits of modern food technology, but only at the price of providing far more informationto consumers through food labeling.

3. Imitation Food. To eliminate the confusion andresulting barrier to innovation in the food industry causedby the lack of a clear policy relating to the imitationlabeling provision, FDA in 1973 promulgated a regulationdefining "imitation" solely in terms of nutritional inferiority [38 Fed. Reg. 2138. lan. 19. 1973; 38 Fed. Reg. 20702,Aug. 2, 1973; 21 CFR lO1.3(e)]. That regulation hasrepeatedly been upheld in the courts against attack byconsumer advocates and by others who have wished to usethis provision to protect traditional food products against


innovative new competition [Federation of Homemakers v.Schmidt, 539 F. 2d 740 (D.C. Cir. 1976); National MilkProducers Federation v. Harris, 653 F.2d 339 (8th Cir.1981); Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc. v. Gerace,755 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1985)].FDA emphasized that a newfood product, rather than being called "imitation," shouldbear its own descriptive name under the rules alreadydiscussed above.

4. Special Dietary Foods. When FDA abandoned itsrestrictive approach to food fortification, it retained limitations upon the composition and potency of vitaminmineral supplements [38 Fed. Reg. 2143, 2152, Jan. 19,1973; 38 Fed. Reg. 20708, 20730, Aug. 2, 1973]. In 1974,however, the courts remanded part of these regulations forfurther action [National Nutritional Foods Association v.FDA, 504 F.2d 761 (2d Cir. 1974)],and in 1976 Congressamended the FD&C Act to add a new Section 411 whichsignificantly curtailed FDA's authority to restrict the composition of dietary supplements [90 Stat. 401, 410 (1976)].When FDA attempted to resurrect at least part of itsregulations, they were again remanded by the courts[National Nutritional Foods Association v. Kennedy, 572F.2d 377 (1978)].Since then, FDA has abandoned furtherattempts to pursue this policy.

In all other areas relating to special dietary foods,however, FDA has successfully completed its modernization of the regulations. Final special dietary food regulations have now been promulgated for hypoallergenic food,infant food. weight-control food, diabetic food, and lowsodium food [21 CFR Part 105].

5. Prohibition of False or Misleading Claims. As part ofits new approach to more expansive food labeling, FDAadopted in the early 1970s a distinction between theprovision of specific information relating to food composition, and the use of specifichealth claims based upon thatcomposition. FDA took the position that product composition information was lawful, as permitted by nutritionlabeling, but that any specificclaim that the composition ofa product would help prevent a particular disease wasunlawful. Thus, FDA permitted cholesterol and fatty acidinformation as an optional part of nutrition labeling, butprohibited any claims linking that information to a potential reduction in heart disease.

In March 1985, however, FDA announced a majorchange in this policy (Hile, 1986). Under the new FDApolicy, specific claims about prevention of disease arepermitted if they are recognized as valid by qualifiedexperts, they emphasize that good nutrition is a function ofthe total diet, the claims are reasonably uniform within themarketplace, and they do not result in dietary "power"races. FDA has since proposed regulations to implementthis policy [52 Fed. Reg. 28843, Aug. 4, 1987]. Althoughthe precise final content of these regulations remainsuncertain, it is apparent that the general FDA policy ofpermitting broader health claims in the future, in order toeducate consumers about the relationship of diet andhealth, is consistent with the entire thrust of FDA foodlabeling policy since 1970 and will remain in place.

6. Slack Fill and Deceptive Packaging. Although Congress considered amending the 1906 Act to prohibit slackfill and deceptive packaging, such a provision was notenacted until the FD&C Act (Hutt, 1987). In large partbecause FDA lost every contested case under this provision, Congress included in the Fair Packaging and LabelingAct of 1966 discretionary authority for FDA to establishregulations governing nonfunctional slack fill [80 Stat.1296 (1966), 15 U.S.c. 1454(c)(4)].After a decade of study,however, FDA concluded that slack fill did not represent a

major problem, and thus no such regulations have beenpromulgated.

Policy Reflects Dynamic RelationshipNo food labeling policy can be permanent. As new

scientific information is obtained, food labeling requirements must change accordingly. Thus, refinements incurrent FDA policy were considered in 1979 [38 Fed. Reg.75990, Dec. 21, 1979]; regulations were adopted in 1984 togovern sodium labeling [147Fed. Reg. 26580, June 18, 1982;49 Fed. Reg. 15510, April 18, 1984]; and regulations wereproposed in 1986 to revise the current provisions forcholesterol and fatty acid composition labeling [51 Fed.Reg. 42584, Nov. 25, 1986]. This continuing review andrevision of food labeling policy reflects the dynamic relationship between food technology and food law policy. Itassures that, as science progresses, FDA regulatory policywill keep pace.

ReferencesAMA. 1933. The mineralization and vitaminization of milk. J.

Am. Med. Assn. 101: 1728.AMA. 1936. Annual meeting of the Committee on Foods. J. Am.

Med. Assn. 107: 39.AMA. 1939. Annual meeting of the Council on Foods. ]. Am.

Med. Assn. 113: 680.Cody, W.F. 1970. New foods and the imitation provisions of the

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Food Drug Cosmet. Law J. 25:220.

Hile, J.P. 1986. Understanding the Food and Drug Administration's position on health claims. Food Drug Cosmet. Law]. 41:

101.Hutt, P.B. 1979. Food legislation in perspective. Food Drug

Cosmet. Law J. 34: 590.Hutt, P.B. 1986. Government regulation of health claims in food

labeling and advertising. Food Drug Cosmet. Law J. 41: 3.Hutt, P.B. 1987. Development of federal law regulating slack fill

and deceptive packaging of foods, drugs, and cosmetics. FoodDrug Cosmet. Law]. 42: 1. "

Hutt, P.B. and Hutt, P.B. II. 1984. A history of governmentregulation of adulteration and misbranding of food. Food DrugCosmet. Law J. 39: 2.

Lake, L.R. 1986. Letter to P.B. Hutt, Nov. 25. Food and DrugAdmin., Washington, D.C.

Merrill, R.A. and Hutt, P.B. 1980. "Food and Drug Law: Casesand Materials," p. 209-210. Foundation Press, Mineola, N.Y.

USDA. 1903. Standards of purity for food products. Circular No.10. Office of the Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA. 1904. Standards of purity for food products. Circular No.13. Office of the Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

USDA. 1906a. Standards of purity for food products. CircularNo. 17. Office of the Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Washington, D.C.

USDA. 1906b. Standards of purity for food products. CircularNo. 19. Office of the Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Washington, D.C.

White House Conference. 1970. Final report, White HouseConference on Food, Nutrition, and Health. U.S. Govt. Print.Office, Washington, D.C.


FromWisconsin's Meadowlandscomes ...

Dried Cream ExtractThe highly concentrated flavor ofmilk fat. So concentrated, one poundequals the flavor of 80 pints ofcream ... at an equivalent cost ofless than 5<: per pint!100% natural ... Water-soluble

powder ... Requires no refrigeration.

Add to icings, sauces, dessert mixes,candy, soup ... anywhere naturalcream flavor and richness is desired.

Circle reader service number for complete informationFOR FASTER ACTION CALL US TODAY AT 1-800-426-1119

Food Ingredients Division, Cumberland Packing Corporation, Racine, WI 53403

Phone (414) 637-9288Fax 414-637-7983



Regulating the Safety of FoodRoger D. Middlekauff

The American public demands food that is colorful,flavorful, nutritious, inexpensive, consistently highin quality, conveniently packaged, readily available,

clearly and informatively labeled, and-above all-safe.Clearly, a fundamental motivating factor in Congress'enactment of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, and itssuccessors, was the need to assure the United Statesconsumers that the food supply would be safe. In thisrespect, the average consumer may be satisfied that he orshe clearly understands the meaning of the term "safe." Incontrast, those who are involved in food regulatory activities consider the term "safe" an elusive concept as they carryout their task of taking this conceptual idea to a definablelimit.

Implementation of the 1906 Act and its successors wasdelegated by Congress first to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture and eventually to the Food and Drug Administration.The interpretation of the Act and application of its termsto the food supply was complicated by changing technologyin the manufacture of food, increases in amounts of foodprocessed, changes in types of food consumed, availableanalytical techniques, and improvements in toxicologicalsciences. Rather than describe in detail all these events, achronology of major events associated with implementation of the safety of food is presented in Table 1, withsupplemental information in this text which describes andinterprets in broad terms the changes which haveoccurred.

Food and Drugs Act of 1906The 1906 Act sought to protect the public health by

prohibiting the marketing of "adulterated" food. At thattime, common food products were modified by the addition of a variety of ingredients designed to give a falseappearance or taste and to dilute the quality of theproducts. The 1906 Act was a manifestation of the graveconcern over this widespread contamination of the foodsupply; it was enacted to resolve the main key issues of thatera.

The Act declared as "adulterated" food that contained"any added poisonous or other added deleterious ingredient which may render such article injurious to health."Over time, this initial legislative effort was found to haveseveral serious limitations, not the least of which was thedifficulty in developing evidence that would prove that asubstance was in fact "injurious to health." Accordingly,Congress enacted several amendments, designed tostrengthen and clarify the applicable law. They wereeventually followed by a comprehensive revision titled theFederal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938The 1938 Act continued to rely on the concept of

"adulteration," but expanded its applicability by describing

The author is Partner in the law firm of McKenna, Conner &Cuneo, 1575 I St., N.W., Washington, DC 20005


in a more elaborate form the various activities which wouldfall within that prohibition. As in the 1906 Act, the 1938Act declared adulterated any food which "bears or containsany poisonous or deleterious substance which may renderit injurious to health," with the additional point, "[blut incase the substance is not an added substance such foodshould not be considered adulterated under this clause ifthe quantity of such substance in such food does notordinarily render it injurious to health." Thus, a distinction was established between those constituents of a foodwhich are inherent and those constituents which areadded. The Act represented the Congressional view thatthe public is willing to accept more risk from nature's ownfoods.

FDA has defined by regulation the procedures forregulating food contaminants and naturally occurring poisonous or deleterious substances in food. The regulationstates that the test of whether a substance is "added," asopposed to "naturally occurring," depends on the level ofthe substance that is intrinsically a part of the food. Such asubstance becomes of concern when the amount present inthe food exceeds the level considered as the "naturallyoccurring" level, whether or not the additional amountpresent is the result of some form of human intervention.Regarding contamination, FDA recognizes that it is notpossible to produce food or food ingredients that areentirely free from contamination by foreign substances orimpurities. The standard of avoidability is whether thesubstance may be avoided by good manufacturing practices.FDA has the choice of developing action levels or, alternatively, tolerances under Section 406 of the Act. Thatsection permits FDA to establish a tolerance where thesubstance is "required in the production" of a food and/orwhere the substance "cannot be avoided by good manufacturing practice." The former will be more appropriate indynamic situations where the extent of the avoidability ofthe substance is changing or where the toxicological dataare scanty or conflicting and additional data are beingdeveloped.

The 1938 Act also declared a food adulterated if it is a"filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit." This provision both protects the estheticsensitivities of the consumer and prevents the developmentof filth and decomposition which could be a public hazard.A food is adulterated if it is unfit for food, even though itmay not be filthy, putrid, or decomposed. FDA is notrequired to demonstrate that the violation is injurious tohealth prior to its seizing the food. FDA is authorized to setdefect action levels but is not required to do so. However,even though a contamination is below the defect actionlevel, FDA may still seizethe food if it has been made underinsanitary conditions. Nor does FDA generally permitblending of contaminated with uncontaminated food tobring the combination below the defect action level. Also,an animal that is diseased or dies other than by slaughter isalso considered adulterated, whether or not the food isactually unfit.

The Act declared as adulterated any food prepared,packed, or held under insanitary conditions. The adultera-

tion occurs whether or not any actual contaminationoccurs. Although the insanitary conditions my not haverendered the food injurious to health or otherwise unsafe,adulteration has nevertheless occurred. Where the foodhas not been contaminated by the conditions, this serves asevidence that the conditions would not likely cause contamination. Despite repeated challenges as to the vaguenessof the terms "filthy," "insanitary," and "insanitary conditions," the courts have held those terms to be clear andwithout need for explanation. Pursuant to this provision,FDA has promulgated general Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) regulations.

The GMPs provide requirements regarding several facetsof the manufacturing process. Included, for example, arerequirements regarding cleanliness, education, training,supervision, and freedom from communicable disease. Thebuildings, facilities, and equipment must be adequatelycleanable, properly designed and maintained to prevent theadulteration of food. Also important are the appropriate

Congress ... changed thetraditional requirement that FDAprove adulteration, byestablishing the then novelapproach that industry mustprove safety.

development and application of quality control procedures.

A food is also considered under the Act to be adulteratedif a "valuable constituent" has been omitted. Similarly, afood is adulterated if another substance has been substitut

-Text continued on page 300


Regulating the Safety of Food (continued)

T able I-Some Significant Events in the regulation of food safety

Year

EventReferenceYearEventReference

1785 First general food law in

Massachusetts Act1947 Federal Insecticide,U.S.e. (1947)the United States

(1785)Fungicide andenacted in

Rodenticide ActMassachusetts

enacted

1886 First federal law dealing

U.s.e. (1886)1948 Congress gives FDAU.s.e. (1948)with color-the

jurisdiction overOleomargarine

products that becomeAct-enacted

adulterated after

1899 Senator A.S. Paddock of

Wiley (1930)interstate shipment

and at all levels ofNebraska introduces distribution, includingthe first bona fide pure food bill to be

retailing

considered by

1950 Two artificialFDA (1950)Congress

sweeteners- Dulcin

1902 Dr. Wiley's "poison

Wiley (1930)and P-4000-banned

squad" over five years

under Section 402 (a)

tests boric acid,

(1)

salicylic acid, sulfurous

1953 Congress gives FDAU.s.e. (1953)acid and sulfites,

authority to inspect abenzoic acid,

plant, after writtenformaldehyde, copper

notice to the owner,sulfate, and saltpeter

without a warrant and

1906 Pure Food and Drugs

U.s.e. (1906a; b)without permission of

Act of 1906 and Meat

the owner

Inspection Act of 1906

U.S. Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme

enacted

holds that individualCourt (1943)

corporate officers may1914 U.S. Supreme CourtU.S. Supremebe responsible for

interprets "mayCourt (1914)strict criminal liability

render ... injurious to1954 Pesticide Chemical

U.s.e. (1954)health" as applying not to the additive but to

Amendment of 1954

the food itself

enacted to bar

1927 Food, Drug and

pesticide residues that

U.s.e. (1927)do not conform to a

Insecticidetolerance established

Administrationunder section 408

(renamed Food and 1957 Poultry ProductsDrug AdministrationU.s.e. (1957)

in 1931) becomes a

Inspection Act enacted

separate unit of the1958 Food AdditivesU.s.e. (1958)

U.S. Dept. ofAgriculture

Amendment of 1958

enacted1938 Federal Food, Drug, andU.s.e. (1938a)

1959 Cranberry sales haltedCosmetic Act of 1938

enactedprior to Thanksgiving

Meat Inspection ActU.s.e. (1938b)Day because of alleged

Amendments of 1938

contamination by

enacted

herbicide

1940 FDA transferred from

Office of the1960 Color AdditiveU.s.e. (1960)USDA to Federal

President (1940)Amendments of 1960

Security Agency

enacted

(predecessor to U.S.

Safrole banned on theFDA (1960)

Dept. of Health and

basis that it is a

Human Services)

carcinogen

1946 Agricultural Marketing

U.s.e. (1946)1967 Wholesome Meat ActU.s.e. (1967)Act enacted

enacted


Table 1-( continued)

Year

EventReferenceYearEventReference

1967

Delaney clause first FDA (1967)1979 US. Court of AppealsD.e. Circuit(cont.)

invoked, to ban Flectol for the District ofCourt (1979)H, a component of

Columbia states thatfood packaging

FDA hasadhesives

administrative

1968 Wholesome Poultry

US.e. (1968)discretion in de

Products Act enacted

minimis situations

1969 Good Manufacturing

FDA (1969a)1982 FDA announcesFDA (1982a)Practices regulations constituents policy forfirst adopted regulating carcinogenicCyclamates banned on

FDA (1969b)chemicals and firstthe basis of applies it to D&CcarcinogenicityGreen No.6

1970 Egg Products InspectionUS.e. (1970)FDA releases to publicFDA (1982b)

Act enacted

defect action levels for

Clostridium botulinumfilthy, putrid, or

type B found in Bon

decomposed substancesVivant canned

in food

vichyssoise 1972 Unavoidable natural

FDA (1972)1985 FDA proposes deFDA (1985)

defect guidelines

minimis exception to

("filth guidelines") first

Delaney clause for a

released to public

food additive in its

entirety, to allow1975 Corporate officerU.S. Supremecontinued use of

criminally convictedCourt (1975)methylene chloride to

for sanitation problemdecaffeinate coffee

in food-containing facility1986 FDA states that foodFDA (1986a)

1976 Provisional listing of

FDA (1976)produced by new

carbon black

biotechnology could

terminated because of

result in a level of

suspicion that it

substance that "may be

contains carcinogenic

injurious to health"

compounds

FDA applies de minimisFDA (1986b)exception to Delaney1977

Provisional listing ofFDA (1977a)clause to color additivegraphite terminated

in its entiretybecause of suspicion

U.S. Supreme CourtU.S. Supremethat it contains

interprets applicationCourt (1986)carcinogenic

of 21 US.e. 346 incompounds

regard to toleranceFDA proposes to ban

FDA (1977b)levels for aflatoxinuse of saccharin Congress allows

U.s.e. (1977)1987 U.S. Court of Appeals

D.e. Circuitcontinued use ofsaccharin despite

rejects FDA's assertionCourt (1987)

FDA's proposed ban

that the Delaney clause

FDA adopts regulation

FDA (1977c)has a de minimis

governing action levels

exception for color

and tolerances for

additives which are

poisonous and

carcinogens, and is

deleterious substances,

upheld by US.

stating that any

Supreme Court

substance which is not an "inherent"1988 FDA announcesFDA (1988)

constituent of a foodcooperative agreement

may be regulated as anto establish a National

"added" substanceCenter for Food Safety

SEPTEMBER 1989~FOOD TECHNOLOGY 299


ed in whole or in part for an ingredient. In both cases, theresult of the omission or substitution is unimportant.These provisions have been employed by FDA to regulatethe formulation of foods that do not have standards ofidentity-but not without some difficulty, since the term"valuable constituent" is somewhat ambiguous anddepends on the representations made for the product, therole of the ingredient in the food, and the level of theconstituent in the food.

The Act provides that a food is adulterated if damage toor inferiority of the product has been concealed; if something has been added to the food to make it seem bigger,heavier, better, or of greater value; or if something has beenadded to reduce its quality or strength. The safety of theresulting product is not an issue under this provision.There must be proof that the ordinary consumer underusual retail circumstances is likely to mistake the inferiorproduct for the product which it purports to be.

In some aspects, the potency of many of the provisionsof the 1938 Act have survived throughout the years.However, other provisions have had to be improvedthrough substantial amendments to the Act.

From "Adulteration" to "Safety"After several years of application, interpretation, and

enforcement of the Act, a significant revision took place.The Food Additives Amendment of 1958 established therequirement of "safety," which led to a major change inFDA's approach to its activities. Congress applied the term"safe" as the criterion for action, thereby supplementing,but not replacing, the use of the term "adulteration." Theresult was a shift in focus-from an approach whichemphasized evaluation of the food in its entirety to onewhich emphasized evaluation of individual food components. Perhaps, in time, FDA might have applied itsadministrative discretion under the "adulteration" provi-

FDA weighs very carefully itsdecision prior to an approval,with the intent of reaching afinding which will withstand thetest of time.

sion to reach the same point that it attained under theprovisions requiring "safety," but the Congressionalauthority allowed FDA to bypass what might have been asomewhat tortuous process.

Congress described the term "safety" as "reasonablecertainty that no harm will result from the proposed use ofan additive," recognizing that it is not possible to prove thatno harm will result under any conceivable circumstances.However, it was generally interpreted to mean that if anadditive is safe, there is no risk associated with it. Accordingly, the amendment directed FDA to consider consumption patterns, the cumulative effect of the ingredient in thediet of man or animals, and appropriate safety factors.

Under the Food Additives Amendment, FDA's regulatory activities became divided between continuing the pastpractices which relied on the prohibitions against adulteration under Section 402 and the even more elaborateprocedures under the new provisions of the Act in Section409, until the activities under Section 409 nearly eclipsedthose under Section 402. Section 409 allows FDA tostretch its scientific capabilities, challenging FDA to applyan increasingly sophisticated scientific analysis to food

300 FOOD TECHNOLOGY -SEPTEMBER 19B9

ingredients to identify that elusive concept of "safe."Congress, furthermore, changed the traditional require

ment that FDA prove adulteration, by establishing thethen novel approach that industry must prove safety.Therefore, FDA was able to place the data-collectionburden on the petitioners. FDA became a reviewer, aspecializedevaluator. It found itself in the enviable positionof taking a somewhat passive role in the food ingredientreview process. As FDA built upon its knowledge of whatmethods are available to evaluate the safety of ingredients,petitioners were in turn forced to expand upon the types ofstudies conducted and to make them more sensitive andmore scientifically sophisticated. Those food additive petitions which were not accepted, those ingredients whichwere not regulated, those products which were not demonstrated to meet the threshold of safety-they establisheda basis of administrative conduct that is at least as significant, if not more so, than the regulatory precedent accompanying those food ingredients which were regulated.Initially, the decisions of FDA were kept, for the most part,from the view of the public. But the advent of the Freedomof Information Act and the decision to use detailedpreambles spread FDA's deliberations before the scrutinyof the public.

As the scientific tools became more sophisticated, FDAwas able to more carefully evaluate the effects found in thetest animals, judiciously sorting out the insignificant fromthe significant effects, the meaningful from the meaninglesseffects. Where significant effects were identified, FDAestablished the precedence of applying a safety factor,depending on the nature of the study and the type of effect.The assumption was adopted that a reasonable safety factorprovides reasonable assurance that the food ingredient issafe at the levels consumed by humans. The safety factor isrelative to a no-observed-effect level (NOEL). Obviously,the more diligently one searches for an effect and themore willing one is to determine that an effect is significant, the lower the NOELs become and, in turn, the lowerthe authorized tolerances become. The logical consequence is that it becomes ever more difficult to demonstrate safety of a food ingredient which will be ingested inany significant amount by the public. Consequently, theincreasingly complex process has severely limited theadvent of new major food ingredients.

FDA's toxicological guidelines for the conduct of animalstudies are oriented toward the procedures for conductingthe studies. There are no written guidelines listing theeffects of interest to FDA. Consequently, FDA retainssubstantial discretion in its review process. FDA hasmaintained the policy of not revisiting its approval of aningredient unless a substantial new issue has been raisedregarding its safety. This approach is indeed meritorious,since it provides a dependable continuity in the foodsupply. Therefore, FDA weighs very carefully its decisionprior to an approval, with the intent of reaching a findingwhich will withstand the test of time.

Over the years, with advancements in science, FDA hasbecome more sophisticated and confident in its safetyevaluation, and the courts have given general endorsementto FDA's decisions.

The GRAS ConceptWere the Food Additives Amendment to have required

that all food ingredients in use in 1958be evaluated as foodadditives, the marketing of the entire food supply wouldhave been severely disrupted. To prevent that from occurring, Congress incorporated into the amendment twograndfather clauses. One provided that if a substance had a"prior sanction" (a specific approval of its use prior to the


amendment), it would not be considered a food additiveand would not necessitate a petition and regulation for itsuse. A prior-sanctioned ingredient would continue to besubject to the "adulteration" limitations of Section 409.The second grandfather clause defined a category ofsubstances which would not be considered food additiveson the basis of general recognition of safetyby the scientificcommunity. The "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS)status would derive from demonstrable common use infood prior to 1958 or from scientific data which demonstrated its safety. Rather than be subjected strictly to thelimitations of the "adulteration" provisions or the samerequirements that are applied to food additives, GRASingredients are subjected to very ambiguous standards of"general recognition of safety."

In an effort to bring some standardization of approach toGRAS ingredients, FDA has tried by regulation to makemore specific the criteria by which GRAS status will bedetermined and the standard of safety which will beapplied. Despite these efforts, there still remains a widevariance of view as to when a substance is GRAS andwhether the GRAS determination should be made by aselect group of scientists, by the community of scientists, orby FDA.

The Delaney ClauseWhile the Food Additives Amendment has had in

general a major impact on FDA's review process for foodingredients, the Delaney clause in that amendment has hadan even more significant impact on the regulation ofcarcinogens. The Delaney clause placed a spotlight oncarcinogens. It has served as a driving force in formulating abetter understanding of the mechanisms of carcinogenicityas it relates to food ingredients. While a somewhat similartreatment is now accorded carcinogens by other federalagencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agencyand the Occupational Safety and Health Administration,the highly focused attention given to carcinogens is no

Application of the Delaney clauseresulted in a furthersophistication in the evaluation ofthe safety of food ingredients ...FDA began to apply an analysisemploying risk assessmentprinciples.

doubt due in substantial measure to the Delaney clause.In the mid-1960s, scientists postulated that carcinogeni

city studies in animals may have some relevance to carcinogenicity in humans. At the outset, the concept wasintroduced as a qualitative consideration, with extensiveadmonitions as to the risks of applying any quantitativeconsiderations when making a comparison between theobserved effect in test animals and the predicted effect inhumans.

Over time, as more carcinogenicity studies in animalswere conducted, data were accumulated and efforts werebegun to interpret the differences in effects betweencarcinogens and their possible relevance to humans. Theories were developed comparing the relative intensity ofimpact of various chemicals. Mechanisms of action wereidentified; differences were noted, depending on the levels


Several bills have beenintroduced ... to carve out anexception to the Delaney clausefor insignificant or negligiblerisks. Until Congress is satisfiedthat voting for such a bill would notin any measurable way increasethe public's risk, there is littlelikelihood of passage.

and types of exposure. Throughout the process of accumulating these data, the lingering issue has been the relevancyof those findings to the consuming public in the U.S.

Application of the Delaney clause resulted in a furthersophistication in the evaluation of the safety of foodingredients. Instead of evaluating the safety of ingredientsin use, FDA began to apply an analysis employing riskassessment principles. As a natural progression, the development of quantitative risk assessment followed the process of statistically relating (1) a lifetime study in a rodentspecies at a high level of exposure to (2) a lifetime study inhumans at normal dietary exposures. All the complicatedaspects of carcinogenicity became relatable in simple,comprehensible numbers. The biological informationcould be expressed in mathematical constructs.

The initial interpretations of the Delaney clause accepted it as an absolute prohibition against food additives whichwere shown to have caused cancer. These interpretationswere dependent on the "no-threshold" or "one-molecule"theory of carcinogenicity. If a substance had a structuresimilar to a known, probable, or even possible carcinogen,it became suspect and a carcinogenicity study was required.Screening tests were developed, with the view that theymight easily and quickly identify suspect carcinogens. As aparallel event, chemists had developed analytical toolswhich identified substances at astonishingly low levels. Theeffective result of these activities was the realization thatmany noncancerous substances were being unnecessarilycondemned and the entire food supply could be foundquestionable. These activities could thereby jeopardize theconfidence of the American public in the food supply.Thus began the process to separate risks from nourisks.

Carcinogens were found to have different mechanismsof action-some were initiators of carcinogenicity, otherssimply promoted the development of tumors. A regulatorydistinction was developed between those two types ofsubstances. Where the mechanisms of action were applicable only to the rodent species being tested, not to humans,another basis for distinction was found. Furthermore,because of the relative difference between the exposure ofthe rodent and the estimated exposure of humans to thesubstances, a quantitative comparison was possible-therisk could be numerically extrapolated to humans. Bybasing the degree of hazard on the level of exposure, anassessment of the extent of risk was possible. A "reasonablecertainty of no harm" could be defined in mathematicalterms.

Having reached a point of confidence in its ability toevaluate the risks associated with carcinogens, FDA reconsidered its traditional interpretation of the Delaney clause.From a blanket prohibition, the clause was reinterpreted toapply in a limited fashion. To start with, FDA stated that


tion Act (US.c., 1970)which covers eggs and egg productsand the Agricultural Marketing Act (U.S.c., 1946),whichfacilitates the trading and marketing of agricultural products in general. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has responsibility for a variety of programsrelating to plant health, plant pests and diseases, pestmanagement, and animal disease control.

As fish and fish products have become more widelyconsumed in the U.S., increasing attention has been givento the need to assure the public of a safe and wholesomesupply of these products. The U.S. Dept. of Commerce'sNational Marine Fisheries Service has established aninspection and grading program for fish products. Thisprogram is in part voluntary and the shared responsibilityof various state and federal agencies. Proposals have beenmade to make inspection of fish and fish products mandatory.

The regulation of pesticides used on food is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency under theFederal Insecticide, Fungicide,·· and Rodenticide Act(US.c., 1947),coupled with Section 408 of the FD&C Act

(US.C., 1938a).EPA has established~acomprehensive safetytesting scheme to assure that the pesticides used and theresidues remaining on food are s~fe for humans andgenerally safe for the environment.

Ingredients in alcoholic beverages and tobacco productsare subject to regulation by the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Thisagency monitors the ingredients used in those products toassure that they comply with applicable standards of safetyand that they are consistent with the product standardsadopted by the Bureau.

To effectively administer the various Acts, the federalagencies by necessity must work closely with state governments and with each other. Only because of the cooperation which has existed over the years have the agenciesbeen able to carry out their responsibilities successfully,resulting in their being able to continually claim that theAmerican public has access to the safest food supply in theworld.

ReferencesD.e. Circuit Court. 1979. Monsanto v. Kennedy. Fed. Reporter

Second 613: 947.D.C. Circuit Court. 1987. Public Citizen v. Young. Fed. Reporter

Second 831: 1108.FDA. 1950. Use of artificial sweeteners in food and drugs. Food

and Drug Admin., Fed. Reg. 15: 321.FDA. 1960. Refusal to extend effective date of statute for certain

specified food additives. Food and Drug Admin., Fed. Reg. 25:12412.

FDA. 1967. Food additives resulting from contact with containersor equipment and food additives otherwise affecting food. Foodand Drug Admin., Fed. Reg. 32: 5675.

FDA. 1969a. Human foods; Current good manufacturing practice(sanitation) in manufacture, processing, packing, or holding.Food and Drug Admin., Fed. Reg. 34: 6977.

FDA. 1969b. Cyclamic acid and its salts. Food and Drug Admin.,Fed. Reg. 34: 17063.

FDA. 19n. Natural or unavoidable defects in food for humanuse that present no health hazard. Food and Drug Admin., Fed.Reg. 37: 6497.

FDA. 1976. Termination of provisional listing of carbon black.Food and Drug Admin., Fed. Reg. 41: 41857.

FDA. 1977a. Provisional listing of graphite: Termination ofclosing date. Food and Drug Admin., Fed. Reg. 42: 60734.

FDA. 1977b. Proposed ban of the use of saccharin. Food andDrug Admin., Fed. Reg. 42: 19996.

FDA. 1977c. Poisonous or deleterious substances. Food and DrugAdmin .. Fed. Reg. 42: 52814.


FDA, 1982a. Policy for regulating carcinogenic chemicals in foodand color additives; Advance notice of rulemaking. Food andDrug Admin., Fed. Reg. 47: 14138, 14464.

FDA. 1982b. Defect action level for adulteration of sauerkraut bythrips; Availability of guide; Revised procedure for establishingand evaluating new FDA defect action levels. Food and DrugAdmin., Fed. Reg. 47: 41637.

FDA. 1985. Cosmetics; Proposed ban on the use of methylenechloride as an ingredient of aerosol cosmetic products. Foodand Drug Admin., Fed. Reg. 50: 51551.

FDA. 1986a. Statement of policy for regulating biotechnologyproducts. Food and Drug Admin., Fed. Reg. 51: 23309.

FDA. 1986b. Listing of D&C Orange No. 17 for use in externallyapplied drugs and cosmetics. Food and Drug Admin., Fed. Reg.51: 28331.

FDA. 1988. Notice of cooperative agreement to establish aNational Center for Food Safety. Food and Drug Admin., Fed.Reg. 53: 15730.

Massachusetts Act. 1785. Massachusetts Act of March 8, 1785.Reproduced in Food Drug Cosmet. Law J. 31: 246 (1976).

Office of the President. 1940. Reorganization Plan No. IV of1940. Statutes at Large 54: 1234.

US.C. 1886. Oleomargarine Act. Statutes at Large 24: 209.US.e. 1906a. Food and Drugs Act of 1906. Public Law No.

59-384. Statues at Large 34: 768.US.e. 1906b. Meat Inspection Act of 1906. Public Law No.

59-382. Statutes at Large 34: 669.US.C. 1927. Pure Food Inspection Act. Public Law No. 69-552.

Statutes at Large 44: 1002.U.s.e. 1938a. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.

Public Law No. 75-717. Statutes at Large 52: 1040.U.S.e. 1938b. Meat Inspection Act Amendments of 1938. Public

Law No. 75-21. Statutes at Large 52: 1235.US.e. 1946. Agricultural Marketing Act. 7 US.e. 1621-27.

Statutes at Large 60: 1087.u.s.e. 1947.Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.

Public Law No. 80-104. Statutes at Large 61: 163.US.e. 1948. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Amend

ments of 1948. Public Law No. 80-749. Statutes at Large 62:582.

US.e. 1953. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Amendments of 1953. Public Law No. 83-217. Statutes at Large 67:476.

US.e. 1954. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Amendments of 1954. Public Law No. 83-518. Statutes at Large 68:511.

US.e. 1957. Poultry Products Inspection Act. Public Law No.85-1n. Statutes at Large 71: 441.

U.S.C. 1958. Food Additives Amendment of 1958. Public LawNo. 85-929. Statutes at Large n: 1784.

US.e. 1960. Color Additive Amendments of 1960. Public LawNo. 86-618. Statutes at Large 74: 397.

u.s.e. 1967.Wholesome Meat Act. Public Law No. 90-201. Statutes at Large 81: 584.

u.s.e. 1968. Wholesome Poultry Products Act. Public Law No.90-492. Statutes at Large 82: 791.

US.e. 1970. Egg Products Inspection Act. Public Law No.91-597. Statutes at Large 84: 1620.

US.C. 1977. Saccharin Study and Labeling Act. Public Law95-203. Statutes at Large 91: 1451.

US. Supreme Court. 1914. United States vs. Lexington Mill &Elevator Co. US. Supreme Court Reporter 232: 399.

US. Supreme Court. 1943. United States v. Dotterwich. US.Supreme Court Reporter 320: 277.

US. Supreme Court. 1975. United States v. Park. US. SupremeCourt Reporter 421: 658.

US. Supreme Court. 1986. Young v. Community NutritionInstitute. US. Supreme Court Reporter 476: 974; remanded,D.e. Circuit Court. 1987. Fed. Reporter Second 818: 943.

Wiley, H.W. 1930. "Harvey W. Wiley: An Autobiography."Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis, Ind.


Documents

Educational Programs in Food Science - Institute of Food