The baking industry in Australia produces only about 0.2 percent of total emissions of greenhouse gases generated by the manufacturing industry inAustralia. The cost of the total energy consumed is estimated at $ 30 billion per year. Energy costs typically represent about 3 percent of the totalcost of cookingand 6 percent of controllable costs. The total costs of energy for the plant bakery sector is estimated at $ 12.5 million per year, energy costs for the franchise andthe independent sector at approximately U.S. $ 18.5 million per year.
Improved energy efficiency Internship Program (EEBPP) study of the Bread Industry in Australia was conducted in recent years. The study showedasignificant relationship between the scale of production and energy intensity of production. The biggest consumers of energy, mega-joules in the franchising sector and bakeries were independent.
There is a big difference in energy use between franchisees and independents.Normally franchise operations are more efficient because they have a more consistent operation, the new equipment andless variability in the type of productand division.
In the late 1990s the industry sought to address energy consumption levels in the baking industry. However while energy remains a relatively low cost component of the business, broader industry progress has stalled. There have been some individual initiatives in recent times including a showcase energy efficient bakeryestablished by Bakers Delight as well as projects to measure and manage energy within supermarket in-store bakeries. From an environmental perspective however industry still tends to be driven by the cost of energy rather than consumption.
Barriers to change
The energy management strategies employed within each industry segment are either carried out on an ad-hoc orinformal basis. In particular, plant bakeries tend to only implement energy saving changes with quick returns and/or low up front costs. Barriers to adopting energy efficient management strategies differ between sectors and include:
• the low relative cost of energy to total operating costs • lack of greenhouse drivers and incentives • lack of resources and competition for capital •general awareness and access to assistance to implement energy efficiency strategies.
The Food Standards Code
(the Code) is intended to provide more informed choice and safer and healthier foods for consumers, and greater capacity for food businesses to innovate.
• While offering greater flexibility to manufacturers, the Code remains complex andprovides a comparative advantage to large food businesses who have requisite implementation systems.
• Compliance with the Code is varied and costly – larger enterprises have been able to successfully implement the requirements whereas small businesses have continued to struggle. Implementation and compliance costs are likely to be passed on to consumers. Better tools for communicatingregulatory requirements to small businesses are needed.
• Baking manufacturers are being required to adopt food safety systems by their customers, as an entry price to doing business, and increasingly by regulatory agencies who are legislating mandatory food safety programs for all food businesses.
• Costs for implementing and auditing food safety programs can beconsiderable and may disproportionately affect small manufacturers. Common audit criteria are being developed to address the problem of multiple audit costs.
• arbitrary prescriptiveness and divisions in the old Code – standards were not based on the specific objectives for establishing food regulations and various product specific standards inhibited innovation in the food...