By: Chad Ellis, Vice President, Imports

Every hour, high-speed production lines in food and beverage plants turn out thousands of packaged products trusted to remain safe in unpredictable real-world conditions. In this environment, “sterile” is no longer a static measure. Instead, it’s a moving target shaped by tighter regulations, cleaner-label demands, and mounting sustainability pressure.

For decades, sterility in manufacturing was defined almost exclusively as the absence of microbial contamination. If a package or container was free of harmful bacteria or spores, it was considered safe. In today’s market, sterility has taken on a much broader meaning. Companies are facing simultaneous pressures: stricter global regulations, customer demand for cleaner labels with fewer preservatives, and corporate goals to conserve water, energy, and materials. To keep pace, manufacturers now require aseptic technologies that don’t just stop spoilage but also improve efficiency, lower resource consumption, and provide complete visibility into the process. In other words, sterility today must be sustainable, auditable, and reliable in real world production environments.

Dry vs. Wet Sterilization: Two Different Approaches

The way containers are sterilized depends on several factors, including the type of material being used, the product being filled, and the desired shelf life. The two main categories for sterilization methods are “wet” sterilization and “dry” sterilization.

Wet sterilization most often relies on peracetic acid (PAA), a liquid sterilant that is applied to the inside and outside of bottles. PAA is highly effective, but it requires a rinse step to remove residuals. This rinse uses a significant amount of water, and managing the chemical byproducts adds another layer of complexity. Wet sterilization is typically used for high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles, particularly larger containers or those delivered in bulk on pallets or through air conveyors.

Dry sterilization, by contrast, uses sterilants that do not require a water rinse. The most common are atomized hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) vapor and electron beam (EB) technology. Both are especially effective for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. H₂O₂ vapor sterilizes by distributing a fine mist of peroxide that kills microorganisms, while EB systems bombard the bottle with high energy electrons that destroy microbial DNA. Because neither method requires water rinsing, they save large volumes of water compared to PAA systems. EB sterilization has the added benefit of eliminating chemical sterilants entirely, making it the cleanest of the three approaches. In terms of performance, both H₂O₂ and EB methods can achieve extremely high production speeds, sterilizing and filling up to 72,000 bottles per hour. Electron beam sterilization is specifically used for PET bottles and, in real-world industrial practice, is implemented in select global systems where PET’s properties allow rapid, chemical-free sterilization. Currently, sixteen EB lines are operating globally, reflecting broad industry adoption.

Why Sustainability Matters

Sterility is non-negotiable, but how it is achieved makes a significant difference to both costs and the environment. Traditional wet systems require constant water use for rinsing, and they introduce more chemicals into the production environment. By eliminating or reducing these steps, dry aseptic technologies lower water consumption, chemical use, and energy requirements.

For example, H₂O₂ aseptic systems integrated with a blow molder eliminate the need for a water rinse step to meet FDA’s strict requirement of less than 0.5 parts per million residual peroxide. This change translates into thousands of gallons of water saved over the course of a production run. EB aseptic systems go even further by eliminating the need for chemical sterilants for bottle sterilization altogether, delivering a double sustainability benefit: no water consumption for bottle rinsing and no chemical use for bottle sterilization. Although dry aseptic technologies require increased air consumption for high-efficiency rinsing, operators report no meaningful operational trade-offs compared to wet sterilization. The overall impact on total cost and sustainability remains substantially positive.

These gains are not just environmental; they also reduce operating costs. Lower water and chemical usage means fewer utilities, less waste treatment, and less downtime for cleaning. In many cases, the total cost of ownership (TCO) of dry aseptic systems ends up being significantly lower than that of wet systems. Sustainability is also tied to packaging. Because dry systems maintain sterility without relying on thick container walls or preservatives, manufacturers can use lighter-weight bottles. This reduces the amount of plastic used per unit and lowers transportation emissions because lighter bottles weigh less to ship.

Engineering Consistency into Sterility

The method of sterilization is only one part of the equation. For sterility to be reliable, systems must ensure that every container, cap, and chamber surface receives consistent sterilant exposure. Modern aseptic designs achieve this through a combination of mechanical precision and thoughtful engineering. Dynamic seals prevent leaks between moving and stationary parts, eliminating opportunities for contamination. Chamber design minimizes hard-to-reach spaces where microbes can hide. Systems are also designed to prevent condensation, which can create microbial harborage points. To further support production safety and environmental compliance, chemical off-gassing that may occur with certain sterilization processes is mitigated by engineered facility solutions such as scrubbers or direct ventilation, maintaining industry-standard best practices.

These design choices matter for more than just safety, they also influence uptime. Aseptic fillers from leading suppliers such as Shibuya Hoppmann consistently achieve mechanical efficiency rates above 95% and can operate for more than 200 continuous hours before needing to stop for clean-in-place (CIP) or sterilize-in-place (SIP) procedures. That kind of reliability is critical for industries where production schedules leave little room for downtime.

Monitoring, Traceability, and Regulatory Confidence

As regulations grow more stringent, manufacturers need systems that do more than sterilize. They need systems that prove sterility. That is why today’s aseptic platforms are designed with advanced monitoring and control. Operators can view real time data on system speed, valve operations, alarms, and overall efficiency. Trend charts and embedded reports can be generated directly from the interface, and all operational data is securely stored for years to support audits. These systems can also integrate into plant-wide networks, allowing centralized oversight and streamlined data collection. This level of transparency helps manufacturers demonstrate compliance and quickly identify and correct any process deviations. In highly regulated environments, the ability to show verifiable proof of sterility is as important as achieving it in the first place.

It’s here that companies like Shibuya Hoppmann have set a benchmark. With more than 250 aseptic systems installed worldwide and over 300 billion products produced without a single spoilage event, the company has proven how carefully engineered designs can combine sterility assurance with sustainability and long-term reliability. For instance, multiple beverage brands in Japan have adopted EB aseptic systems to achieve significant utility savings and lower packaging costs through lighter-weight PET bottles, reflecting the tangible operational benefits observed in the field. Their dry aseptic and ESL filling platforms, whether using H₂O₂ vapor or electron beam, are engineered for high-speed, high-accuracy operation while conserving resources.

Scheduled annual system overhauls and dedicated service support , supported by US based service teams, have enabled some aseptic lines to remain operational for more than two decades, including examples installed as early as 2000, demonstrating the reliability possible with expert system design and maintenance.

A New Definition of Sterility

Sterility in manufacturing is no longer defined solely by the absence of contamination; it now includes the ability to conserve resources, meet regulatory demands, reduce costs, and adapt to evolving consumer expectations. In response to the increasing demand for cleaner-label products, next-generation aseptic lines support ambient-temperature filling and flexible adaptation to changing regulatory requirements through close collaboration with quality authorities and compliance experts. In food and beverage, this means enabling ambient transport without preservatives.

By combining sustainability, precision engineering, and real time intelligence, modern aseptic technologies are redefining what sterility looks like in practice. Companies at the forefront of this shift are showing that sterility can be about more than just safety, it can be about efficiency, environmental responsibility, and long term innovation across industries.

By Dr. Alejandra Regand, Senior Director, Research & Development and Baking Technology, Bimbo Canada

Protein has shifted from a once-niche ingredient to a mainstream dietary priority – and it’s reshaping how Canadians shop, including in the bakery aisle.

Today, seventy percent of Canadians are actively seeking more protein in their diet and demand is extending well beyond traditional sources like meat, dairy, and supplements. Consumers are now looking for ways to add protein to everyday staple foods like bread, bagels, and tortillas.

Meeting this demand, however, is not as simple as adding protein to a tried-and-true recipe. It requires a fundamental rethinking of how bakery products are developed, processed and scaled.

The addition of plant-based protein to baked goods significantly alters dough behaviour. Plant-based proteins react with dough differently than regular wheat flour, affecting hydration, gluten network formation and shelf life. Without optimized recipes and proper manufacturing processes in place, protein-enriched baked goods can suffer from weak structure, inconsistent performance and compromised texture, ultimately leading to inferior product quality.

The real challenge is not simply increasing protein content, but doing so while preserving the taste, texture, and overall experience consumers expect from their favourite bakery products.

This means protein fortification isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach – each product category presents unique recipe and processing challenges. For example, high-protein breads require careful optimization of hydration and dough strength to maintain volume and softness. Bagels demand a stronger, more resilient dough structure to withstand boiling, while tortillas require pliability and flexibility without cracking.

Overcoming these challenges requires deep technical expertise grounded in bakery science and supported by iterative testing and process optimization to fully unlock the potential of protein ingredients. Equally important is continuous consumer validation to ensure the final product delivers not only on nutritional value, but also on taste, texture and appearance.

Consumers are not looking to compromise. They want food products that are both nutritious and enjoyable while fitting seamlessly into their lifestyle. For bakeries, this raises the bar: protein-enriched products must deliver the same quality and experience as traditional offerings, while delivering clear and meaningful nutritional benefits.

At the same time, there is a growing interest in where protein-rich ingredients come from. As demand for protein grows, sourcing strategies are also becoming a larger part of the conversation, with many seeking local Canadian sources.

For commercial bakeries, protein is no longer a trend. It is a structural shift that is redefining how products are developed and how value is delivered on the shelf.

The next wave of innovation will not be defined by how much protein is added, but by how seamlessly it can be integrated into everyday foods – balancing nutrition, taste and consumer experience at scale.

By Carl Rodgers

Disclosure: I run ClearBorder, a Canadian customs compliance tool. I have a commercial interest in this topic. Every source below is public and can be checked directly.

For independent grocers and specialty food importers across Western Canada, managing margins has never been harder. But the biggest emerging threat to operating cash flow in 2026 isn't coming from supply chain costs or inflation — it's coming from a shift in Canadian customs liability that most importers haven't fully priced in.

There is a chart on CBSA's own website that tells the story.

These are targeted verification results, not random-market rates. CBSA selected importers in these categories because risk-profiling flagged them. That distinction makes the numbers more meaningful, not less: when CBSA decides to look at a category, this is what they find.

The $55.2 million figure is from eighteen closed cases. That averages roughly $3 million in assessed revenue per closed case — a number large enough to be material for any independent importer it lands on.

What changed on January 1, 2026

Three things came into force on the same day.

Section 17 of the Customs Act was amended. The entity named as importer of record on the customs accounting document is now jointly and severally liable, along with the importer and owner, for duties, taxes, and post-accounting reassessments. CBSA's Memorandum D17-2-5 describes the importer of record as "the primary contact for verifications and the entity with direct liability for post-accounting obligations, including record keeping, making corrections, and payment of duties."

The CARM transition period ended. From January 1, 2026, every entry filed produces structured, queryable data CBSA can analyze at scale.

The four-year reassessment window under Customs Act sections 59–61 started running entirely against the new regime. By 2030, the rolling lookback will be populated almost entirely by CARM-era entries filed under the new Section 17 liability framework.

Why this matters for Western Canada

Western Canada is the centre of Canada's specialty food import economy. BC Asian importers, Prairie wholesale operators, Alberta specialty distributors, and Western independent grocers are disproportionately represented in the categories on CBSA's January 2026 priority list: supply-managed goods (dairy, poultry, eggs), frozen desserts containing 5% or more dairy, spent fowl, animal feed, CUSMA/CETA/CUKTCA origin verifications, China and US surtax verifications, and the 25% steel derivatives surtax in force from December 26, 2025.

If your imports touch any of those categories, you are inside the current verification perimeter.

What "your business is liable" actually means

Section 17's liability attaches to the importer of record as named on the customs accounting document. For most Western importers, that entity is the operating corporation — the BN account holder. This is not automatic personal liability for the human who owns the business. A properly incorporated business remains a legal shield. What Section 17 does is make the business the primary party CBSA pursues — not the broker who filed, not the freight forwarder, not the supplier.

For an SMB owner, that matters because reassessed amounts come out of operating cash flow. The frozen-dessert results show per-closed-case assessments averaging in seven figures. For most Western independents, that's not a line item — it's an event.

The broker-model issue

Most customs brokers are paid per entry. That model prices the work of getting an entry through CBSA today. It does not necessarily price the cost of defending that entry against a reassessment years from now. Many brokers have done good work educating clients about CARM and importer-of-record liability. But release and post-entry defence are structurally different activities. Under Section 17, the entity CBSA pursues for the reassessment is the importer of record — not the broker.

Three things to check this week

First, map CBSA's 2026 verification priority list to your imports. If you import supply-managed goods, frozen desserts, animal feed, goods claiming CUSMA/CETA/CUKTCA preference, or anything caught by the surtax orders, you are in the priority perimeter.

Second, pull a recent CAD and confirm who is named as importer of record. If your business's BN is there, your business is the entity CBSA will contact first.

Third, reconcile your filings against your broker invoices and CARM Statement of Account. This surfaces both reassessment exposure and potentially unclaimed Input Tax Credits — claimable up to four years back.

Many importers have never done that reconciliation. CBSA now has a data environment that makes it easier for the agency to spot inconsistencies. Importers should give themselves the same visibility.

Cows eat grass…everyone knows that. But climate change is forcing producers and scientists to rethink some of our long-held assumptions about livestock nutrition. Crop costs are climbing. Traditional pastures are under pressure. And researchers are casting a wider net for unconventional feed sources that might help the industry adapt.

Wade Abbott, a research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada based in Lethbridge, Alberta, was curious whether cattle can digest seaweed. And if they can, what's happening inside their guts to make it work? Abbott and his colleagues used the Canadian Light Source (CLS) at USask to answer those questions. Seaweed is fundamentally different from grass or hay at the molecular level. Breaking it down requires entirely different enzymes, ones that land-plant digesters wouldn't normally need.

The researchers looked at what happened inside the gut of cows that were fed seaweed. They observed a bloom or proliferation of bacteria they believe was involved in digestion – which suggested the cattle were successfully breaking down and digesting the marine material.

Abbott and colleagues have named this the "latent trait hypothesis": Beneficial microbe digesters persist at very low levels in the gut, essentially waiting, ready to rapidly multiply when the right dietary signal arrives. "Crystallography (at the CLS) gave us the molecular blueprint for how these enzymes work," Abbott said. "We could finally see exactly how the bacteria crack the code of seaweed digestion.” The team's findings are published in the science journal Nature Communications.

Abbott is quick to note that seaweed won't replace hay or traditional animal feeds; it's far too expensive for that. But the health benefits may be significant. "We're seeing potential for seaweed as an alternative to antimicrobials, or as an immunity booster," he said.

Looking ahead, Abbott sees this work as opening a much larger door. "We're only beginning to understand the genetic mechanisms that allow gut microbes to process these marine sugars," he said. "If we can map those pathways fully, the applications go well beyond cattle. We're talking about a new framework for sustainable agriculture, one that embraces unconventional feed sources and works with the biology that's already there, waiting to be activated."