Creating ventures online course in sustainable and personalized food

Creating ventures online course in sustainable and personalized food

EIT Food online course for university students in creating ventures in sustainable and personalized food starts 23rd of October.

Fifty students with different academic backgrounds will meet online and share their scientific experience and university knowledge to create new concepts and ideas that will lead to development of sustainable and personalized food. This 3-week course managed by professional tutors will introduce participants to several topics such as: innovations in food sector, human nutrition in food systems, food and digital disruptions, as well as business model generation and presentation pitching. Participants will work in interdisciplinary teams, identifying problems, prototyping viable solutions with a validated value proposition and pitching their projects in front of a panel of experts.

The EIT Food RIS Venture Creation School is organized by Matis (Iceland), University of Cambridge (England), VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland and Institute of Animal Reproduction and Food Research PAS (Poland). A special input will be also delivered by Finnish start-up businesses operating in the agri-food sector.

Programme structure

This course is delivered online through a variety of methods, including real-time video conference sessions delivered by the course leaders, group ideation sessions with other participants and electronic material to work outside of class.

The programme will take place over 3 weeks starting 23rd October, with 30 hours’ online contact time and 15 hours’ asynchronous learning time during that period.

Application dealine is 11. October.

See video.

More information and application portal.

MAKEathon in Iceland during a pandemic

MAKEathon in Iceland during a pandemic

From the 10th to the 18th of September, Matís (Iceland) organised not one, but two MAKEathon events all around Iceland: MAKEathon Westfjords – a physical event and MAKEathon Reykjavík, Akureyri and Neskaupstaður – a hybrid online event.

Organising a MAKEathon during a pandemic comes with its own challenge: how can we plan physical interaction without putting individuals at risks? Strong partnership, last minute decisions and the help of the „Þetta reddast“ Icelandic saying helped us to overcome this challenge by making it not only feasible, but also successful!

MAKEathon in Iceland is part of a European project called MAKE-it! funded by EIT FOOD and gathering 11 partners all around Europe that will host their own MAKEathon in the next month focusing on their own food value chain.

A MAKEathon is an innovation competition focusing on making and creating something with your hands to answer a challenge. MAKEathon in Iceland tackled the sustainability challenge of the seafood industry regarding their leftover raw material: how can we add value to them?

In total, 46 participants building up 10 teams with different background and nationalities took on the challenge for a better future of our food system. The initiative was supported by 19 partners across the country from industrial to academic and entrepreneurial sector.

Over the course of 3 days, 25 of them were able to meet physically in the Westfjords, in Bolungarvík, thanks to our collaboration with the University Centre of the Westfjords lead by Peter Weiss. The students were previously COVID tested for going to school and they already lived in the same building together. The risks were accordingly really low and well contained.  

Teams in Bolungarvík, were presented with salmon muscle from the back bones as raw material. They had access to an industrial kitchen for their prototyping in Djúpið where the event was hosted. Gunnar Þórðarsson (Matís) and Gunnar Ólafsson (Djúpið) worked hands in hands to make the event happen! Strong actors from the region came along to support the initative, such as Artic fish, Eðalfiskur and Vestfjörðastofa, to name a few. Þórarinn B.B Gunnarsson from Fablab Ísafjörður supported the teams and helped them in their prototyping. The jury composed of Jón Páll Hreinsson, mayor of Bolungarvík, Sigríður Kristjánsdóttir and Þórkatla Soffía Ólafsdóttir from Vestfjarðastofa overviewed 5 different and really good teams presenting their edible ideas. The team so called SOS – Salmon on Seaweed won with their alternative salmon snack to well know product containing beef or pork such as salami or pepperoni.

On the other hand, for MAKEathon Reykjavík, Akureyri and Neskaupstaður, 21 participants met online and interacted together for over a week through Zoom meeting and a Slack channel. Unlike Bolungarvík, participants were presented with different raw materials from the seafood industry like cod bones, blue within otoliths and lumpfish skin in different shapes and textures (i.e. whole bones or powdered) that were studied and processed by our student Sylvía Lind Birkiland (LHÍ) thanks to the Student Innovation fund of Iceland (Rannis). Participants were also provided with a box containing all kinds of tools, crafty objects, papers, glue along with the raw materials to prototype their ideas.

They had the opportunity to go at the Fablab Reykjavík or Akureyri over the weekend to learn more about prototyping and gain access to the incredibly experienced staff there and all their tools.

Last Friday 18th, after a week of MAKEathon, Matís closed MAKEathon in Iceland in company of Kristján Skarphéðinsson, permanent secretary of the ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture. Kristján Skarphéðinsson reminded us on the limitation of the natural resources and the importance of innovation and entrepreneurship in the seafood sector. He then announced the winner of the hybrid MAKEathon that has been selected after a long debate by the jury composed of Sunna Halla Einarsdóttir (Icelandic Startups) Rannveig Björnsdóttir (University of Akureyri) and Benedikt Stefánsson (Egersund).

Otoseed new paper was the winner! The Otoseed members form a diverse and dynamic team that just met for the event and presented a solution not only reusing raw material from the seafood industry but also left over of coffee and others. The happy team shared their solution on their website: for everyone to see.

Organising a MAKEathon during a pandemic is a definite challenge but it is not impossible! Good relationship with your partners, flexibility and technology are the keys to succeed! We, at Matís, believe that our partners all around Europe from the MAKE-it! project, can do it and we are wishing them good luck for the next coming month!

We hope to reiterate this event in the future and are welcoming any potential partner interested in hosting a MAKEathon!

Contact us, and let‘s do it!

Mole Valley Feed Solutions join the SeacH4NGE team


Mole Valley Feed Solutions join the SeacH4NGE team

Mole Valley Feed Solutions  are committed to sustainable farming aligning perfectly with the aims of SeaCH4NGE.

Mole Valley Feed Solutions is the largest farmer owned, independent feed manufacturer in the UK and their priority is to continue to innovate, developing new products and services, investing in research along with exploring new technologies and understanding how they can be applied effectively within agriculture.

The addition of Mole Valley Feed Solutions to the SeaCH4NGE project is a welcome and much needed addition in order to better understand the feed industry perspective when researching and developing a seaweed feed ingredient which may reduce methane emissions from cattle as well as have other beneficial attributes. 

We warmly welcome Mole Valley Feed Solutions to the project!

State-of-the-art Technologies in Intelligent Packaging


State-of-the-art Technologies in Intelligent Packaging

Dr. Nyi-Nyi Htun
KU Leuven, Belgium

Due to the increasing demand towards sustainable productions that calls for ensuring the safety and quality of food and reducing incident risks and environmental impact, contemporary food business organisations have begun to focus on the possibilities to expand the shelf life of perishable food products by reducing the demand for additives and preservatives, and at the same time considering changes in quality. To this end, smart packaging systems which utilise technologies, for example oxygen scavengers, antimicrobial agents, sensors and status indicators, have emerged (Realini and Marcos 2014).

While traditional packaging focused on the use of inert materials which comes in contact with food, smart packaging systems are based on the useful interaction between packaging environment and the food to provide active protection to the food and a better understanding of product condition for consumers (Biji et al. 2015). Smart packaging systems involve two concepts: active and intelligent packaging (Biji et al. 2015; Vanderroost et al. 2014). The following figure shows a framework proposed by Yam et al. (Yam, Takhistov, and Miltz 2005) which encapsulates various packaging technologies.

Framework of active and intelligent packaging. (Yam et al. 2005)

Fundamentally, active packaging aims to achieve better protection of the product whereas intelligent packaging to achieve better communication with consumers. Intelligent packages allow monitoring the quality/safety condition of a food product and can provide early warning to the consumer or food manufacturer, whereas active packages release a type of substance such as an antimicrobial or antioxidant within the package to protect the food product. Typically, intelligent packaging systems contain smart devices which are small, inexpensive labels or tags that are capable of acquiring, storing, and transferring information about the functions and properties of the packaged food (Fang et al. 2017).

This article presents an overview of available technologies in intelligent packaging by synthesing a number of existing research papers (Biji et al. 2015; Chowdhury and Morey 2019; Fang et al. 2017; Ghaani et al. 2016; Kuswandi et al. 2011; Lloyd, Mirosa, and Birch 2018; Mohebi and Marquez 2015; Müller and Schmid 2019; Singh et al. 2018; Vanderroost et al. 2014). To begin with, intelligent packaging includes 3 distinct technologies; these are indicators, sensors and data carriers. The following table (curated from (Fang et al. 2017; Mohebi and Marquez 2015; Pavelková 2013) highlights an overview of indicators, sensors and data carriers that are being used in the domain of intelligent packaging.

TechnologyPrinciples/reagentsInformation givenApplicationAdvantagesDisatvantages
Time-temperatures indicatorsMechanical, chemical, enzymaticStorage conditions  Foods stored under chilled and frozen conditionsEasy to integrate, can be checked by naked eye, cheap and economical, can be measured by electronic devicesNo information about quality of food, must be conditioned before use, no contact with food
Freshness indicators (e.g. microbial growth)pH dyes, all dyes reacting with certain metabolitesMicrobial quality of food (i.e. spoilage)Perishable foods such as meat, fish and poultrySensitive, can be checked by naked eye, cheap and economical, can be measured by electronic devicesProne to false negatives results, may interfere in food quality
Gas indicatorsRedox dyes, pH dyes, enzymesStorage conditions, package leakFoods stored in packages with required gas compositionCan be integrated into the packaging films, can be checked by naked eye, cheap and economical, can be measured by electronic devicesNo information about gas concentration, chemical dye may interfere in food quality
Biosensor (e.g. pathogen)Various chemical and immunochemical methods reacting with toxinsSpecific pathogenic bacteria such as Escherichia coli O:157Perishable foods such as meat, fish and poultryCan be integrated into the packaging films, can be checked by naked eye, cheap and economical, can be measured by electronic devices, pathogen and microbial detectionCannot detect low concentrated contamination, may have chemical effect on the food
Gas sensorsMetal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs), piezo-electric crystal sensors, amperometric oxygen sensors, organic conducting polymers, and potentiometric carbon dioxide sensorsConcentration of carbon dioxide, oxygen, hydrogen sulphide  Perishable foods such as meat, fish and poultrySensitive, can be integrated into the packaging films, high spatial resolution, can be checked by naked eye and optical devices, not affected by heat, electromagnetic and stirringFouling of sensor membranes, cross-sensitivity to carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide, consumption of the analyte (e.g., oxygen)
BarcodesSymbologyProduct and manufacturer informationProduct identification, facilitating inventory control, stock reordering, and checkoutFast, cheap, easy to printRequires line of sight
RFID tagsRadio wavesProduct and manufacturer informationProduct identification, supply chain management, asset tracking, security controlAccurate, fast, can be printed into barcodes.The signal can be lost due to interference, printed tags can be expensive.


Indicators are devices that convey information associated with the presence or absence of a substance, the amount of the substance, or the degree of interaction between two or more substances (Chowdhury and Morey 2019). Typically, such information is displayed to consumers through visual changes, for example, different colour intensities or the diffusion of a dye along a straight path (Biji et al. 2015). Literature has highlighted three different types of indicators: time temperature indicators, freshness indicators and gas indicators (Biji et al. 2015; Chowdhury and Morey 2019; Müller and Schmid 2019).

Time Temperature Indicators

Time temperature indicators (TTIs) can be placed in individual or bulk packages to convey time-temperature history of a product (Chowdhury and Morey 2019). They are particularly useful to warn consumers of temperature abuse for chilled or frozen food products (Pavelková 2013). A subcategory of TTIs known as thermochromic ink uses a type of functional ink that changes colour with exposure to different temperatures (Vanderroost et al. 2014). By definition, function inks are printable inks that react to environmental changes with colour change (Glicoric et al. 2019). Other examples of functional ink include photochromic inks that change their colour when the intensity of incoming light changes, invisible fluorescent inks that can be seen under UV or IR light, phosphorescent inks that glow in the dark after exposure to a source of light, hydrochromic inks that change colour after contact with water, and touch’n smell inks that release aroma when rubbed with a finger, among others (TagItSmart, 2017).

Vitsab® L5-8 TTI seafood label. Image:, accessed on 26 May 2020. The green boxes are examples of the TTI labels at various stages of thermal exposure and the orange boxes are examples of potentially compromised food product (red dots) and faulty indicator (white dot)
QR code printed on a beer bottle with thermochromic ink that activates and becomes visible when the temperature is lower than 8 °C. Image: (Gligoric et al. 2019)

Freshness Indicators

Freshness indicators provide direct product quality information resulting from microbial growth or chemical changes within a food product (Chowdhury and Morey 2019). Certain metabolites that are targeted in detecting freshness are organic acids, ethanol, volatile nitrogen, biogenic amines, carbon dioxide, glucose, and sulfuric compounds (Kerry, O’Grady, and Hogan 2006). Freshness is determined through reactions between indicators included within the package and said compounds (Ghaani et al. 2016).

SensorQTM freshness indicator label (Food Quality Sensor International (FQSI), Inc., USA). Image: (O’Grady and Kerry 2008). The colour inside of the letter ‘Q’ on the label indicates freshness (orange = fresh and tan = not fresh)

Gas Indicators

Gas indicators can monitor changes in the inside atmosphere of a package due to microorganism metabolism and enzymatic or chemical reactions on the food (Ghaani et al. 2016). Oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations are most commonly captured by gas indicators (Müller and Schmid 2019) since their concentration is strongly correlated with spoilage (Meng et al. 2014). Gas indicators often use redox dyes, a reducing compound and an alkaline compound to indicate the concentration (Ghaani et al. 2016).

AGELESS EYE oxygen indicator by Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. Image:, accessed on 26 May 2020. The indicator turns to blue or purple when exposed to oxygen and returns to its original pink colour when oxygen in the package is reduced.


Sensors are used to detect a wider range of chemicals inside food packages with greater functionalities. They can detect and respond to some type of input from the physical environment, and the output is generally a signal that is converted to a human-readable display. Unlike indicators which can display the state of a product in the package, sensors are often monitored by an external device (Kerry et al. 2006). Sensors commonly found in literature are biosensors are gas sensors.


Biosensors are used to detect, record and transmit information pertaining to biological reactions of food products (Biji et al. 2015). They contain a bioreceptor that recognises elements such as enzymes, antigens, hormones, nucleic acids, etc. and a transducer which uses optical amperometry, acoustic and electrochemical sensors, connected to data acquisition and processing system (Chowdhury and Morey 2019).

Gas Sensors

Gas sensors are used for detecting the presence of gaseous analyte in the package, such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapour, ethanol, hydrogen sulphide, etc. (Biji et al. 2015). As the spoilage status of a food product can be determined by monitoring the concentration of certain gases, like carbon dioxide or hydrogen sulphide (Müller and Schmid 2019), gas sensors in food packaging often focus on monitoring such gases.

Data Carriers

Data carriers are used as a medium to support traceability of products. Radiofrequency identification (RFID) and barcode are the most common forms of data carrier used in this domain (Robertson 2016). They make the information flow within the food supply chain more efficient by supporting automatization and traceability. Smartphones nowadays are capable of reading most RFID tags and barcodes which makes them the most ideal starting point to enhance communication with consumers.


RFID uses electromagnetic fields to automatically identify and track tags attached to objects. They are the most advanced example of a data carrier (Ghaani et al. 2016). An RFID system includes three main elements: 1) a tag formed by a microchip connected to a tiny antenna, 2) a reader that emits radio signals and receives answers from the tag in return and 3) a middleware (i.e. a network connection, web server, etc.) that bridges the RFID hardware and enterprise applications (Ghaani et al. 2016). With recent breakthroughs in the domain of printed electronics, RFID tags can be printed on flexible substrates such as polyimide, PEEK, PET, transparent conductive polyester, steel and even paper using electrically functional inks (Vanderroost et al. 2014).

An example RFID system showing three main elements: a tag, a reader and middleware (network, web server, etc.). Image: (Fang et al. 2017)


Barcodes are the most basic form of data carrier in intelligent packaging. They have been used in food packaging since 1970 to accelerate inventory control, stock reordering and checkout of products (Manthou and Vlachopoulou 2001). Although barcodes traditionally do not provide any kind of information on the quality status of food, a number of previous work has explored the possibilities of using thermochromic ink to print barcodes (Ghaani et al. 2016; Vanderroost et al. 2014), or combining environmental sensitive areas with 2-dimensional barcodes (aka QR codes) (Gligoric et al. 2019).

A 1-dimensional barcode (left) and a 2-dimensional barcode (QR code) (right)


This article presents an overview of the state of the arts in intelligent packaging technology. In general, there are three main components in intelligent packaging technology: indicator, sensor and data carrier. Some of the most popular sub-components of the three main components include time temperature indicator, freshness indicator, gas indicator, biosensor, gas sensor, RFID and barcode. Quite a number of research work has already identified a great number of commercially available smart packaging technologies that are inexpensive (Biji et al. 2015; Chowdhury and Morey 2019; Fang et al. 2017; Ghaani et al. 2016; Kuswandi et al. 2011; Lloyd et al. 2018; Mohebi and Marquez 2015; Müller and Schmid 2019; Singh et al. 2018; Vanderroost et al. 2014). Despite this, we have not yet seen the majority of said technologies being used widely. Research has suggested that end-user acceptance and trust towards a given technology have a strong influence on their adoption of the technology (Suh and Han 2002; Wu et al. 2011). In the next article, we will look at the barriers and enablers influencing the adoption of intelligent packaging technologies from end-user point of view.

Cover Photo: Shutterstock


Biji, K. B., C. N. Ravishankar, C. O. Mohan, and T. K. Srinivasa Gopal. 2015. “Smart Packaging Systems for Food Applications: A Review.” Journal of Food Science and Technology 52(10):6125–35.

Chowdhury, E. U. and A. Morey. 2019. “Intelligent Packaging for Poultry Industry.” Journal of Applied Poultry Research 28(4):791–800.

Fang, Zhongxiang, Yanyun Zhao, Robyn D. Warner, and Stuart K. Johnson. 2017. “Active and Intelligent Packaging in Meat Industry.” Trends in Food Science and Technology 61:60–71.

Ghaani, Masoud, Carlo A. Cozzolino, Giulia Castelli, and Stefano Farris. 2016. “An Overview of the Intelligent Packaging Technologies in the Food Sector.” Trends in Food Science and Technology 51:1–11.

Gligoric, Nenad, Srdjan Krco, Liisa Hakola, Kaisa Vehmas, Suparna De, Klaus Moessner, Kristoffer Jansson, Ingmar Polenz, and Rob Van Kranenburg. 2019. “Smarttags: IoT Product Passport for Circular Economy Based on Printed Sensors and Unique Item-Level Identifiers.” Sensors (Switzerland) 19(3):586.

Kerry, J. P., M. N. O’Grady, and S. A. Hogan. 2006. “Past, Current and Potential Utilisation of Active and Intelligent Packaging Systems for Meat and Muscle-Based Products: A Review.” Meat Science 74(1):113–30.

Kuswandi, Bambang, Yudi Wicaksono, Jayus, Aminah Abdullah, Lee Yook Heng, and Musa Ahmad. 2011. “Smart Packaging: Sensors for Monitoring of Food Quality and Safety.” Sensing and Instrumentation for Food Quality and Safety 5(3–4):137–46.

Lloyd, Kayna, Miranda Mirosa, and John Birch. 2018. “Active and Intelligent Packaging.” Pp. 177–82 in Encyclopedia of Food Chemistry, edited by L. Melton, F. Shahidi, and P. Varelis. Oxford: Academic Press.

Manthou, Vassiliki and Maro Vlachopoulou. 2001. “Bar-Code Technology for Inventory and Marketing Management Systems: A Model for Its Development and Implementation.” International Journal of Production Economics 71(1–3):157–64.

Meng, Xiangpeng, Saehoon Kim, Pradeep Puligundla, and Sanghoon Ko. 2014. “Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen Gas Sensors-Possible Application for Monitoring Quality, Freshness, and Safety of Agricultural and Food Products with Emphasis on Importance of Analytical Signals and Their Transformation.” Journal of the Korean Society for Applied Biological Chemistry 57(6):723–33.

Mohebi, Ehsan and Leorey Marquez. 2015. “Intelligent Packaging in Meat Industry: An Overview of Existing Solutions.” Journal of Food Science and Technology 52(7):3947–64.

Müller, Patricia and Markus Schmid. 2019. “Intelligent Packaging in the Food Sector: A Brief Overview.” Foods 8(1):16.

O’Grady, Michael N. and Joseph P. Kerry. 2008. “Smart Packaging Technologies and Their Application in Conventional Meat Packaging Systems.” Pp. 425–51 in Meat Biotechnology. Springer New York.

Pavelková, Adriana. 2013. “Time Temperature Indicators as Devices Intelligent Packaging.” Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 61(1):245–51.

Realini, Carolina E. and Begonya Marcos. 2014. “Active and Intelligent Packaging Systems for a Modern Society.” Meat Science 98(3):404–19.

Robertson, Gordon L. 2016. Food Packaging: Principles and Practice. CRC press.

Singh, Bhanu Pratap, Vivek Shukla, Hnialum Lalawmpuii, and Sunil Kumar. 2018. “Indicator Sensors for Monitoring Meat Quality : A Review.” Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 7(4):809–12.

Suh, Bomil and Ingoo Han. 2002. “Effect of Trust on Customer Acceptance of Internet Banking.” Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 1(3–4):247–63.

Vanderroost, Mike, Peter Ragaert, Frank Devlieghere, and Bruno De Meulenaer. 2014. “Intelligent Food Packaging: The next Generation.” Trends in Food Science and Technology 39(1):47–62.

Wu, Kewen, Yuxiang Zhao, Qinghua Zhu, Xiaojie Tan, and Hua Zheng. 2011. “A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Trust on Technology Acceptance Model: Investigation of Moderating Influence of Subject and Context Type.” International Journal of Information Management 31(6):572–81.

Yam, Kit L., Paul T. Takhistov, and Joseph Miltz. 2005. “Intelligent Packaging: Concepts and Applications.” Journal of Food Science 70(1):R1–10.

MAKEathon in Iceland


MAKEathon in Iceland

As part of an European funded project (EIT Food) called MAKE-it!, Matís is hosting MAKEathon in four locations around Iceland to focus on the left-over raw material of the seafood industry. 

From the 10th to the 18th of September MAKEathons focusing on the seafood industry will be held in 4 locations around Iceland: in Reykjavík, Akureyri, Neskaupstaður and in the Westfjörð (Bolungarvík/Ísafjörður). 

A MAKEathon is an innovation competition with a strong focus on making and creating something with your hands to respond to the challenge presented. During these MAKEathons, participants from diverse background will come together to find solution to the challenge:  

How can we add value to left-over raw material from the seafood industry in order to make this industry more sustainable? 

Sustainability is as the heart of the MAKEathon. Our food value chain needs to be resilient to face our fast-growing population. Optimizing the use of the food we produce through innovation and entrepreneurship is the key to resilience by fostering these notions during MAKEathon! 

Participants will be presented with raw materials, bones and skin, from fish and they will have the chance to “play” with it to prototype their idea.  

The project is in tight collaboration with the FabLab in Iceland that will give a great opportunity for the participant to be introduced to innovation throughout the MAKING process.   

The MAKEathon in Reykjavík, Akureyri and Neskaupstaður will be hybrid events with some parts online and some part physical*.  Participants will get the chance to prototype their idea in the FabLab of the MAKEathon location. This part is optional, and the participants can choose to stay at home for prototyping thanks to THE BOX provided containing all the necessary equipment and some raw material.  

The MAKEathon in Bolungarvík/Ísafjörður will be a physical* event in collaboration with the students from the University of the Westfjörð. 

*for the physical part of the event, the governmental guidelines are respected regarding COVID-19.  Please read this for more information.

The MAKEathon is open to everyone, no expertise in fisheries is required and can be done alongside school/work.  

Register here 

To follow all the news from the MAKEathon:  

The MAKEathon á Íslandi are contributing and working towards the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals number 9, 12, 13 and 14. 

Matís is one of the 11 European partners of the project MAKE-it!, an EIT Food funded project, lead by the University of Cambridge.  

Matís COVID-19 statement for the MAKEathon.

A snapshot of EIT Foods Sustainability and Traceability Success Stories – including two Matís led projects, SeaCH4NGE and BLINK.


A snapshot of EIT Foods Sustainability and Traceability Success Stories – including two Matís led projects, SeaCH4NGE and BLINK.

Two of Matís led EIT Food projects, SeaCH4NGE  and BLINK were chosen to be promoted by EIT Food as a snapshot of EIT Foods Sustainability and Traceability Success Stories at the Food Navigator ‘Sustainability & Traceability in Focus‘ webinar which was streamed on July 29.

The webinar revolved around Sustainability and Traceability, e.g. the effect of the COVID-19 on consumer awareness regarding food: “Consumer awareness of where food comes from – and the fragility of our food system – has seen in an outpouring of support for local production. Echoes of the disruption wrought by COVID-19 can be seen in the looming climate crisis, making climate-smart food production high on the agenda for food makers, retailers and shoppers alike.” The webinar can be streamed here.

The EIT Food leaflet containing information about interesting EIT Food projects focused on sustainability, including SeaCH4NGE and BLINK, can be found here.