1.
CREATED BY PTR www.PackagingTechnologyAndResearch.com
CREATED FORLeveraging Protein
Waste With Novel
Products, Processing,
and Packaging
Solutions
PRESENTED BY
CLAIRE KOELSCH SAND, PH.D.,
PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
LLC.

2.
TakeAways
• Food waste reduction of alternative proteins has different solutions that with
meat
• Value Chain analysis from Farm to Fork provides solutions
• Nutrient waste and especially protein waste is just as critical as food waste
• Since Economic drivers differ, Systems-thinking and Category leadership are
needed
More
Sustainable
Systems to Get
Protein to
Consumers
Case Studies on
Kidney Beans
Consumer/Market
Drivers for less
waste of
Alternative
Proteins

3.
Dr. Claire Sand
Founder & Owner PTR, Food Packaging Expert
3
Claire Sand's mission is to enable a more
sustainable food system with packaging that
increases shelf life and prevents food
waste. She is a Global Packaging Leader with
30+ years of broad experience in the food
science and packaging spectrum. She leads
cross-functional efforts, infuses innovative
solutions, provides compelling business
technology strategies and business cases, and
generates implementation roadmaps for the
packaging and food industry. Sand has held a
“I lead efforts to reduce climate change by preventing
food waste with more sustainable packaging.”
Michigan State University
Adjunct Professor
CalPoly
Adjunct Professor
IUFoST Global
FoodPackaging
CurriculaHead
PackagingScience and Technology
EditorialBoard
Journal of Food
Science Reviewer
PAC Consortium on
Food Waste
IFT Fellow
Packaging columnist for Food
Technology magazine
University of Minnesota
Adjunct Professor
Current Affiliations
Include:
variety of roles across the food science and packaging spectrum from basic
research and development to marketing and everything in between. Her
portfolio includes working with Gerber-Nestle, Pillsbury-General Mills, Kraft
Foods-Kraft Heinz, Dominick’s-Safeway, and research institutes in
Germany, Colombia, and Thailand. Dr. Sand holds a doctorate degree in
Food Science and Nutrition from the University of Minnesota and MS and
BS in Packaging from Michigan State University.
Let’s Connect on https://www.linkedin.com/in/clairekoelschsand/

4.
Alternative proteins have alternative impacts
Sustainability means less food waste and more sustainable packagingComparative environmental impact of processing, packaging and
supply chain is higher for alternative proteins
More Sustainable Packaged Food | Poore and Nemecek, 2018

5.
Alternative proteins have alternative impacts
Sustainability means less food waste and more sustainable packagingComparative environmental impact of processing, packaging and
supply chain is higher for alternative proteins
More Sustainable Packaged Food | Poore and Nemecek, 2018

6.
Solutions to reduce protein food waste are
focused
Sustainability means less food waste and more sustainable packagingCauses/ Categories
Category
Z
Category
Y
Category
X
Catgeory
W
Category
V
Category
U
Category
T
Category
S
Oxidation
Moisture Change
Microbial
Browning
Water resistance
MVTR
Antimicrobial
Reduce impact of contamin. ingredients
Reduce contamin. during product fill
Assess initial microbial load
Reduce initial microbial load
Reduce cross contamin.
Enable processing of some ingredients
Enable HACCP
Address chilled worker conditions
Time &Temp monitoring system
Oxygen level monitoring system
Control tempertaure
Measure microbial load at POS
Enable safe package reuse
Reduce consumer contamin. from repeat use
Expand time for safe product use
Enable oven/ MWmonitoring
Address eating hygiene through packaging
Enable freezer storage
Packagingand
Handling
Pkg
Prop.
Product
Degradation
Causes
Distributio
n&Retail
ConsumerUse
More Sustainable Packaged Food | Poore and Nemecek, 2018

7.
Case Studies on
alternative proteins

8.
Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans
PTR’s Approach
PTR partnered with AURI to assist in developing AURI focus and path forward on FLW by quantifying
opportunities that sustainably decrease FLW in Minnesota

9.
PTR & AURI quantified opportunities to decrease FLW in Minnesota
Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans
PTR partnered with AURI to assist in developing AURI focus and path forward on FLW by quantifying opportunities that
sustainably decrease FLW in Minnesota
PTR identified and quantified 287 viable product, process, packaging, and
systems solutions in the value chain (farms, distribution, manufacturing, and
retailing, consumer) that reduce FLW by 1.1 Billion pounds for 7 Minnesota
products.

10.
PTR & AURI quantified opportunities to decrease FLW in Minnesota
The Agricultural Utilization Research Institute
Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans
Valorizing food waste in Minnesota
PTR partnered with AURI to assist in developing AURI focus and path forward on FLW by quantifying
opportunities that sustainably decrease FLW in Minnesota
1.PTR blended in-field
application expertise,
research, databases to
quantify FLW throughout
the value chain and derive
coproduct, packaging,
processing and systems
solutions
2.AURI-PTR team screened
solutions for AURI
alignment and a shortlist of
12 FLW opportunities
emerged
3.AURI-PTR team assessed
implementation processes,
developed deliverables, and
assessed the opportunity
Food Waste Identified and Quantified Solutions and Deep Dive
Canned
Corn
127,743,000 Pounds
$6,756,668
34 % Waste
• Deep Dive on 1 of 67 solutions
• Canned Foods Lids
Canned Kidney
Beans
41,230,035 Pounds
$33,547,800
35 % Waste
• Deep Dive on 2 of 52 solutions
• Canned Foods Lids
• Kidney Beans and Canning – Co-Products From Bean Pieces & Agra-H20 waste solids
Wine 318,901 Pounds
$27,106,551
60 % Waste
• 81 solutions
• No deep dive
Cider 690,000 Pounds
$556,110
77 % Waste
• Deep Dive on 2 of 42 solutions
• Apples & Cider Vision sorting of bad apples
• Apples & Cider Patulin removal
Small Cheese
Processors
(excluded-above graph)
93,240,000
90 % Waste
• Deep Dive on 1 of 3 solutions
• Enable extraction valuable ingredients at small-scale dairies
Unsalable
Cheese at Retail
(excluded-above graph)
45,584,000 Pounds
$244,330,240
22 % Waste
• Deep Dive on 3 of 9 solutions
• Equipment to remove cheese from packaging and develop food or animal feed coproducts
• Apply a WTE program of combined packaging and cheese
Unsalable
Milk at Retail
(excluded-above graph)
786,092,535 Pounds
$237,655,883
25 % Waste
• Deep Dive on 3 of 9 solutions
• Equipment to remove milk from packaging and develop food or animal feed coproducts
• Apply a WTE program of combined packaging and milk
Sugar Beets
(excluded-graph and
project total pounds)
Variable at 9.4B Pounds
$171,117,107
26 % Waste
• 24 solutions
• No deep dive

11.
Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans
 Farm-derived Mn Canned Kidney Beans - Valorization Map of Food Loss & Waste

12.
Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans
 Cannery-derived Mn Canned Kidney Beans - Valorization Map of Food Loss &
Waste

13.
Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans
 Distribution-derived Mn Canned Kidney Beans - Valorization Map of Food Loss &
Waste

14.
Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans
 Retail-derived Mn Canned Kidney Beans - Valorization Map of Food Loss & Waste

15.
Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans
 Retail and Consumer-derived Mn Canned Kidney Beans - Valorization Map of Food Loss
& Waste

16.
Case Study 1 - Kidney Beans
 Retail and Consumer-derived Mn Canned Kidney Beans - Valorization Map of Food Loss
& Waste
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
Total
Distribution
Retail
Consumers
Manufacturing Food Shelf/Bank
Farm

17.
Case Study 2 - Kidney Beans
 Food waste is higher for canned kidney beans than raw kidney
beans
 Kidney Bean food waste from farm to consumer was:
• 32.4% for raw Kidney Beans
• 33.8% for canned Kidney Beans
 For canned and dry Kidney Beans:
• 12% loss in agricultural production (USDA-ERS, 2010)
• 5% loss in processing and packaging (USDA-ERS, 2010)
 For dry beans:
• 6% distribution and retail (USDA-ERS, 2010)
• 14% consumption (Defra, 2010; Quested and Johnson, 2009)
 For canned beans:
• 6% distribution and retail (USDA-ERS, 2010)
• 15.8% consumption (Defra, 2010; Quested and Johnson, 2009)
 Connecting Nutrient and Food Waste

18.
Case Study 2 - Kidney Beans
 Nutrient waste is higher for raw kidney beans than canned kidney
beans
 Connecting Nutrient and Food Waste

19.
Case Study 2 - Kidney Beans
 Nutrient waste is higher for raw kidney beans than canned kidney
beans
 Connecting Nutrient and Food Waste

20.
Consumer/Market Drivers
for less waste of
Alternative Proteins

21.
Differing drivers are due to economic imbalance
Economic Drivers to Reduce Food Waste
Differ
Less Food Waste
• Brand Owners
• Have made major progress in economically driven food waste reduction from
farm to retail
• Have limited economic drivers reduce consumer-derived food waste
• Gap in clear information filled by non-fact based misinformation
• Extending the value chain to Consumers who waste 30% of packaged food is
needed
• Link to convenience and adding value of food waste reduction
• Drivers on consumer sustainability
• Drivers on Nutrient waste
• WTP for less nutrient waste and less money lost on spoiled food
• “Easy to empty” connects with consumers due to food waste reduction
• Other packaging solutions are plentiful

22.
• Employ Systems Solutions
• Rethink who needs what shelf life
• Urban vs Rural specific packaging
• Change packaging consumers handle
• Pursue Category-wide initiatives on food waste reduction and more
sustainable packaging
• Extend value chain beyond Retail to Consumers at Food Banks and Food
Donations
• Use equity in Food Service use of alternative proteins as means to guide
Consumers
• Food waste reduction at Consumer and BOH & FOH Food Service
• Opportunity and value drivers are higher
Direction-Leadership
Path Forward

23.
Dr. Claire Sand, CEO, Packaging Technology &
Research, LLC.
Offering food science and packaging
expertise in:
 Coaching
 Consulting
 Technology
 Strategy
www.PackagingTechnologyandResearch.com
Questions?
LET’S CONNECT: