The Canberra biotech startup is helping processors detect spoilage risks before milk reaches the shelf.
Updated
August 13, 2026 1:01 AM
CYBERTONGUE® Food Testing System, developed by PPB Technology. IMAGE: PPB Technology
Anyone who has opened a carton of milk before its expiry date only to find that it smells off or tastes bitter has experienced the problem firsthand. For dairy processors, the same issue can play out across thousands of litres. Milk may pass routine quality checks, make it through production and still spoil before reaching the end of its expected shelf life.
CYBERTONGUE®, a biosensing platform, is designed to give dairy processors an earlier warning.
Developed by Canberra-based biotech startup PPB Technology, the compact food testing system allows processors to analyse milk on-site and receive results within minutes. Its first commercial application detects protease, an enzyme linked to spoilage, shorter shelf life and production losses across dairy products.
Dairy companies already test milk for fat, protein, bacteria, antibiotics and other indicators. Samples from individual farms may be sent to central laboratories, while tanker loads are tested again when they reach processing plants. These checks provide useful information, but they do not always show whether milk will remain stable in a UHT carton, meet a supermarket’s shelf-life requirements or produce the expected amount of cheese.
Even after heat treatment, protease can continue affecting milk. For processors making UHT milk, fresh milk or mature cheese, that creates a costly blind spot.
“Right now, dairy processors are working blind on this,” PPB Technology founder Stephen Trowell told Ventureport. “It’s becoming more of a problem as customers expect longer shelf lives and higher quality.”
CYBERTONGUE® uses engineered biosensing proteins that emit blue and green light. The balance between the two colours changes when the protein reacts with a target substance. The reader measures that shift and calculates how much of the target is present.
Trowell describes himself as a protein engineer at heart. He spent around three decades at CSIRO, Australia's national science and technology agency, and close to four decades in research before becoming a startup founder. The technology behind CYBERTONGUE® grew out of years of biological research, including earlier experiments involving wine aromas and explosives detection.
PPB initially developed its technology to measure plasmin, an enzyme derived from cows. After feedback from the dairy industry, the company shifted its focus to bacterial proteases, which were identified as a more pressing spoilage problem. The platform can make some existing tests faster, but PPB chose to focus first on a measurement previously unavailable to processors.
“Where we’ve chosen to lead is with a measurement nobody else can do at all,” he said. “The blue ocean, if you like.”
That focused entry point shapes PPB’s wider strategy. CYBERTONGUE® could eventually test for lactose, allergens, microbial toxins and other targets. Yet launching everything at once would stretch a six-person company too far. Protease gives it a clear route into dairy, where the financial value is easier to demonstrate.
A processor that detects high protease activity may redirect a batch of milk away from long-life products and use it for yoghurt, curd or another product where the enzyme causes less damage. PPB also says its tests can help trace problems in the milk supply and detect biofilms on processing equipment, allowing factories to take corrective cleaning measures.
Fresh milk presents another sizeable opportunity, with the global market estimated at around US$81 billion in 2026 and projected to grow at 6.83% annually through 2035. At that scale, even small gains in shelf-life consistency could prevent substantial losses. Supermarkets often require milk to have a minimum amount of shelf life remaining on delivery. Products that fall short may be rejected, discounted or discarded at the processor’s expense. While Australian processors typically aim for a shelf life of 19 to 21 days, they do not always achieve it. CYBERTONGUE® could help them reach that target more consistently.
Cheese producers face a related issue. Protease can create bitter flavours in hard cheeses and reduce production yield. Cheesemakers add another enzyme, chymosin, during production, often without knowing how much protease activity is already present in the milk. Better information could help them adjust the process and get more value from the same raw material.
PPB sells the reader as laboratory equipment, but its long-term business model centres on repeat testing. Customers buy the machine, then purchase a PPB reagent cartridge each time they run an assay. Future tests are intended to work on the same reader, making the system more useful as the catalogue expands.
CYBERTONGUE®’s compact design reflects PPB’s focus on practical onsite testing. The device is small enough to fit into two cupped hands and comes with a tablet running PPB’s software.
At the time of the interview, 13 to 15 systems had been installed with paying customers. PPB had made sales in 11 countries across five continents, with Europe as its largest market.
Trowell describes PPB as “born global”. While Australia and New Zealand have sophisticated dairy industries, Trowell thinks CYBERTONGUE® may offer even more value in regions where milk quality is less consistent, transport routes are longer or refrigeration is harder to maintain.
Trowell also believes PPB has a strong competitive moat, with the combination of manufacturing both the hardware and consumable reagents. Patents form one layer, but he does not consider legal protection sufficient on its own. A competitor would need expertise in protein engineering, reagent production, optical hardware, software and dairy processing.
Calibration adds another barrier. For each new box of reagents, PPB securely uploads the required calibration data to the customer’s machine. A third party could not simply manufacture a cartridge with the same dimensions and expect it to work correctly.
“We own the whole stack,” Trowell said, referring to everything from the sensing molecule to the hardware, software and cloud platform.
That said, he accepts that no technology is impossible to copy. His view is that PPB’s mix of scientific knowledge, integrated system and experience in dairy gives it enough of a head start to build a meaningful position before competitors catch up.
The technology could eventually reach beyond food. Trowell sees possible uses in environmental testing, veterinary care and medical diagnostics, including the analysis of blood, serum or saliva. PPB has already discussed potential applications with organisations outside the food industry.
For now, however, moving directly into clinical diagnostics would create more risk than opportunity. Medical products can require years of trials, extensive regulatory work and large development budgets. PPB would also need to build new sales channels and choose between many possible clinical uses without knowing which one would attract the strongest demand.
For these reasons, food testing offers PPB a clearer path. The regulatory barriers are generally lower, customers have immediate operational problems, and PPB has already built relationships in dairy. Once the platform has proved itself commercially, the company could enter other sectors through partnerships or licensing.
Trowell has held that view for years. The immediate goal is to build a successful food testing company rather than chase the prestige often attached to medical biotechnology.
The opportunity may also expand as food production becomes more complex. Dairy factories increasingly process oat, soy and other alternatives on equipment that also handles cow’s milk. This creates cross-contamination and allergen risks, offering another potential use for CYBERTONGUE®.
PPB still has plenty to prove. It must secure repeat reagent orders, convert early trials into wider deployments and expand its test catalogue without compromising accuracy. Scaling an integrated biotech hardware business across international markets will not be simple.
Still, its approach offers a useful lesson for other deep-tech startups. Instead of beginning with every possible application, PPB picked a specific problem that costs customers money today. It built a product around that pain point, then used the same technology as the foundation for a broader platform.
As Trowell put it, customers “need it fast, and they need it right.” CYBERTONGUE® is betting that food testing can deliver both.
Keep Reading
A global survey shows robot anxiety drops when people encounter robots in real life
Updated
April 1, 2026 8:55 AM
Ameca the humanoid robot, featuring a grey rubber face. PHOTO: ADOBE STOCK
People often assume robots make people uneasy everywhere. But a new global study suggests something more nuanced. Robot anxiety tends to be highest in places where people rarely see robots in real life. Where robots are more visible, attitudes are often far more positive. That insight comes from a global study by Hexagon AB, which surveyed 18,000 participants across nine major markets. The research explored how adults and children think about robots and how those views change depending on everyday exposure.
In the United Kingdom, anxiety about robots is the highest among the countries studied. Around 52% of adults say they feel worried that something might go wrong when they think about interacting with or working alongside robots. South Korea sits at the other end of the spectrum, with only 29% reporting similar concerns. One factor appears to explain much of the gap: familiarity.
British adults are among the least likely to have encountered robots in real life. Only about 30% say they have seen or used one. In contrast, countries where robots are more visible tend to report greater comfort. China offers the clearest example. Around 75% of adults there say they have seen or interacted with robots. At the same time, 81% say they feel excited about the technology’s future potential.
The study suggests that attitudes toward robots are not fixed. Instead, they shift depending on where people encounter them and what tasks they perform. When robots are seen solving clear, practical problems, confidence tends to rise.
Across the surveyed countries, adults report the highest comfort levels with robots working in factories and warehouses. Around 63% say they are comfortable with robots in those environments. These are settings where tasks are clearly defined and safety standards are well understood. Acceptance drops in more personal spaces. Only 46% say they feel comfortable with robots in the home, while comfort falls further to 39% when robots are imagined in classrooms.
In other words, context matters. People appear more willing to accept robots when they take on physically demanding or dangerous work. Half of the respondents say improved safety is one of the main advantages of robotics in those environments. A similar share point to productivity gains as another benefit. Another finding challenges a common assumption about public fears. Job loss is often described as the biggest concern surrounding robotics. But the study suggests security risk worries people more.
Around 51% of adults say their biggest concern about robots at work is the possibility that the machines could be hacked or misused. That fear outweighs worries about physical malfunction or injury, which stand at 41%. Concerns about being replaced at work appear at the same level.
For many respondents, the issue is not simply whether robots can perform tasks. It is whether the systems controlling them are secure. According to researchers involved in the study, these concerns reflect how people evaluate emerging technologies. Instead of having a single opinion about robotics, people tend to judge each situation individually.
A robot helping assemble products in a factory may feel acceptable. The same technology operating in more sensitive environments can raise different questions. Dr. Jim Everett, an associate professor in moral psychology, says trust in artificial intelligence and robotics is often misunderstood. People are not simply asking whether they trust the technology, he notes. They are thinking about specific tools performing specific roles.
A robot assisting in a classroom or helping in healthcare carries different expectations than an AI system used in defense or surveillance. Even though these technologies are often grouped together in public debates, people evaluate them differently depending on their purpose.
Finally, the study also highlights another important factor shaping public attitudes: experience. When people actually encounter robots, fear often declines. Michael Szollosy, a robotics researcher involved in the project, says reactions tend to change quickly when individuals meet a robot for the first time.
The idea of an autonomous machine can feel intimidating in theory. But when people see a small service robot or an industrial machine performing a straightforward task, the reaction is often much calmer. Exposure can shift perceptions from abstract fears to practical understanding.
That shift matters because robotics is moving steadily into everyday environments. From manufacturing and logistics to healthcare and public services, machines capable of autonomous or semi-autonomous work are becoming more common.
As that happens, the study suggests public confidence may depend less on technical breakthroughs and more on visibility and transparency. Burkhard Boeckem, chief technology officer at Hexagon AB, argues that trust grows when people understand what robots are designed to do and where their limits lie.
Anxiety tends to increase when systems feel invisible or poorly understood. Clear boundaries and clear explanations can have the opposite effect. When people see robots working safely alongside humans, performing well-defined tasks and operating within clear rules, the technology becomes easier to accept.
In that sense, the future of robotics may depend as much on public familiarity as on engineering. The machines themselves are advancing quickly. But the relationship between humans and robots is still being negotiated. For now, the study offers a simple insight: the more people encounter robots in everyday life, the less mysterious they become. And once the mystery fades, the conversation often changes from fear to curiosity.