food technology essay

• Internet of Things

Getty Images/iStockphoto

The future of the food industry: Food tech explained

Food tech shows how technology can improve the way the world grows, produces, distributes and supplies food by using technology such as ai and automation..

• Amanda Hetler, Senior Editor

As businesses turn to technology to fight inflation and improve efficiency, food tech is reshaping the food industry using the latest technology to manage production, distribution and consumption.

The food industry is worth more than $1 trillion in the U.S. gross domestic product, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. With an industry this large, there are several challenges, including food sustainability. Food tech is leading the way in transforming the global food sector.

What is food tech?

Food tech is any technology that improves food production, distribution and supply, and it affects the way people sell, produce and distribute food.

Even though this term may sound new, technology and food have been connected since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1700s and early 1800s . This period led to the emergence of industrialized agriculture and set the standards for farming. During this time, industry leaders and inventors worked together to help increase food production and quality. Major developments included the use of artificial fertilizer, creation of pesticides, development of electric power, and the start of horse-powered and then steam-powered machines.

But in the last few years, food tech has become its own sector with the rise of big data, AI and the internet of things ( IoT ). Food tech helps the food industry to be more sustainable by using IoT in all stages.

Challenges of food sustainability

Food systems are responsible for nearly one-third of the world's greenhouse gas admissions, according to a study by Nature Food. These emissions continue to rise due to land-use change, waste management, raising livestock, production and packaging.

The world also wastes about one-third of its food, according to a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Even with all this food waste, the World Health Organization estimates that nearly 828 million people don't have enough food.

Farming, the food industry and people's diets affect the environment with the energy consumed for food production and waste generation. Farming affects the land and strips it of its nutrients. Along with water shortages, the world faces a reduction in arable land to produce food.

Food tech is looking to address some of these issues. Startups are taking the newest technology and applying it to various points of the food cycle to create jobs, reduce hunger, and promote responsible production and consumption.

Impact of food tech

The global food tech market was worth $220.32 billion in 2019, according to Emergen Research , and is estimated to grow to $342.52 billion by 2027.

Food tech is increasing food production to help reduce the rate of hunger and feed the world. Agriculture is becoming more automated by using digital and advanced technology to produce food and raw materials with smart farming . Some uses of technology in food production include the following:

• Genetically modified organisms. GMOs are inserted in a plant's genes to help it become disease resistant and grow in areas not favorable for production. GMOs are used in large crops such as rice, wheat and corn.
• Drones. Drones can provide satellite imagery to monitor crop growth and deal with problem areas.
• Meat industry technology. AI is effective in poultry production where it helps detect health issues with birds by the sounds they make. AI robots can work at poultry farms to collect eggs or assist with butchering.
• Crop monitoring. Along with the use of drones, AI can detect pests and diseases in crops. Digital apps -- such as AgroPestAlert, Farm Scout Pro and IPM Toolkit -- can help detect pest infestation and changing soil conditions to prevent large losses.
• 3D food printer. Food printers can create food -- such as pizza, snacks and candy -- at a faster pace. AI helps design the layers and structure of the food by placing one ingredient at a time. This could eliminate waste, as leftover ingredients can be reused.

Various sectors in food tech

In addition to lab-grown meats and vertical farms, food tech is a broad ecosystem of technologies that can be divided into subcategories for each food cycle.

Startups work to increase the quality of crops with technologies such as sensors, drones and software that replace manual labor. AI and machine learning are used to understand how plants and fungi grow and how they can grow effectively. Other parts of ag tech include fertilizer management, automated machinery , soil sensors and water solutions.

Ag tech can help farmers practice regenerative agriculture, which goes beyond preserving the environment and aims to actively improve it through agricultural practices. With enhanced data and automation provided by ag tech, regenerative agriculture can mitigate climate change, restore biodiversity and improve the work environment for farmers.

Food science

Startups are researching new ways to develop products that are both environmentally friendly and can address health concerns. Plant-based meat substitutes -- such as Beyond -- are an example of a recent product in this category. Scientists work with high-moisture extrusion and shear cell technology to find meal replacements -- such as using vegetable proteins in place of meat -- for individuals with health issues, and to find ways to remove common allergies such as lactose intolerance.

Food service

Food-related businesses -- including restaurants, cafeterias, hotels and cafes -- are looking at automation to help them run more efficiently. Robotics is being researched for use by restaurants of the future to help prepare and serve food, such as at the 2022 Beijing Olympics .

Restaurants are also using IoT technology to manage supply orders and track ingredients from initial order to arrival. Using sensors, restaurant owners can track the temperature of storeroom shelves and delivery trucks. They can watch the entire journey to ensure all safety standards are followed.

Smart appliances help make cooking easier with the use of meat temperature sensors and set-and-forget technology so staff can maximize their time while they wait for items to cook. Kitchen automation systems can also help chefs manage time and orders by tracking what needs to be cooked or how long something has been in a hot bin.

Businesses face the challenge of transporting food due to supply chain disruptions. With the growing demand for direct delivery to consumers, including restaurant and grocery delivery and meal kits, technology is needed to track and ensure food is packaged and delivered safely.

Consumer services

Consumers are looking to technology apps to improve diets, find restaurants, search for recipes, and track allergy or specialized diet information. For example, there are apps to find restaurants that meet certain dietary requirements so consumers can avoid allergens and follow their diets.

There are also startups working to educate people on their food choices and the benefits of proper nutrition to manage chronic health conditions and other personal fitness goals.

Food safety

Technology can help restaurants, grocers and other food suppliers manage the shelf life of food. This includes using technology to trace ingredients and check for recalls.

Some businesses are turning to blockchain technology to manage their supply distribution. For example, a grocery store can track a package of chicken to ensure it came from an antibiotic-free supplier.

Surplus and waste management

Technology is working to help reduce waste and improve sustainability in the food industry. Technology -- such as LeanPath -- combines software, smart scales and cameras to monitor and calculate food waste in kitchens. Staff uses the scale to classify and weigh all food thrown out, and the software identifies patterns to help minimize waste.

Manufacturers are turning to more sustainable packaging made of biopolymers that can also help extend the shelf life of a product. Drones and smart sensors can oversee display shelves and take inventory in real time to track product movement and shelf life.

Related Resources

• Managed Workplace Package With Smart Spaces For Manufacturing –Spectrum Enterprise
• World’s Leading Planet-Protecting Technology Secured by Trend Micro Security ... –Trend Micro
• 5 Questions to ASK When Selecting An Advanced Analytics Solution For Process ... –Seeq
• A Proactive Approach To Field Service 5 Priorities For Implementing Strong ... –ServiceNow

Dig Deeper on Internet of Things

French datacentre operator to prototype using site's waste heat to generate renewable energy

Government hands over £12.5m to farming tech innovators

How the US Farm Bill Contributes to Adverse Human Health Outcomes

A URL (Uniform Resource Locator) is a unique identifier used to locate a resource on the internet.

File Transfer Protocol (FTP) is a network protocol for transmitting files between computers over TCP/IP connections.

A virtual private network (VPN) is a service that creates a safe, encrypted online connection.

Cloud computing requires a security approach that is different than traditional protections. Where does cloud detection and ...

An endpoint protection platform (EPP) is a security technology that safeguards endpoint devices.

Endpoint security is the protection of endpoint devices against cybersecurity threats.

Demand shaping is an operational supply chain management (SCM) strategy where a company uses tactics such as price incentives, ...

Data monetization is the process of measuring the economic benefit of corporate data.

C-level, also called the C-suite, is a term used to describe high-ranking executive titles in an organization.

Employee self-service (ESS) is a widely used human resources technology that enables employees to perform many job-related ...

Diversity, equity and inclusion is a term used to describe policies and programs that promote the representation and ...

Payroll software automates the process of paying salaried, hourly and contingent employees.

Voice or speaker recognition is the ability of a machine or program to receive and interpret dictation or to understand and ...

Customer segmentation is the practice of dividing a customer base into groups of individuals that have similar characteristics ...

Customer experience (CX) is the sum total of customers' perceptions and feelings resulting from interactions with a brand's ...

• [email protected]
• Login / Register

Advantages and Disadvantages of Food Technology: Pros and Cons

Article 01 Jun 2023 8683 0

Advantages and Disadvantages of Food Technology: Pros and Cons Explained

Food technology plays a pivotal role in the food industry, revolutionizing the way we produce, process, and consume food. It encompasses a range of techniques, innovations, and scientific advancements aimed at improving food safety, extending shelf life, enhancing nutritional value, and increasing production efficiency. However, like any other field, food technology also has its advantages and disadvantages. In this article, we will delve into the pros and cons of food technology, shedding light on its impact on food safety, nutritional value, production efficiency, as well as the potential health, environmental, cultural, and ethical concerns associated with its use.

Definition and Explanation of Food Technology:

Food technology refers to the application of scientific knowledge, engineering principles, and technological innovations to various aspects of food production, processing, preservation, and distribution. It encompasses a wide range of disciplines such as food science, microbiology, chemistry, engineering, and packaging. The primary goal of food technology is to improve the safety, quality, nutritional value, and accessibility of food products while optimizing production processes.

Advantages of Food Technology:

1. Improved Food Safety: Food technology plays a crucial role in ensuring food safety by implementing various techniques and processes. Pasteurization, for instance, is a widely used method to eliminate harmful microorganisms from food products, significantly reducing the risk of foodborne illnesses. Similarly, irradiation can effectively eliminate pathogens, pests, and spoilage microorganisms, extending the shelf life of certain products while maintaining their nutritional value. Advanced packaging technologies also contribute to food safety by providing a protective barrier against contamination.

"Food technology has revolutionized the way we address food safety concerns. Techniques like pasteurization and advanced packaging help safeguard consumers from foodborne illnesses." - Dr. Sarah Thompson, Food Safety Expert.

2. Extended Shelf Life: One of the key advantages of food technology is its ability to extend the shelf life of perishable food items. Through techniques like canning, freezing, and dehydration, food products can be preserved for longer periods without compromising their quality or nutritional value. This not only reduces food waste but also enables the availability of seasonal produce throughout the year, improving accessibility and reducing dependence on imports.

"The use of food technology in preserving fruits and vegetables has been instrumental in reducing post-harvest losses and increasing the availability of nutritious food year-round." - John Anderson, Food Preservation Specialist.

3. Enhanced Nutritional Value: Food technology offers opportunities to enhance the nutritional value of food products, addressing nutrient deficiencies and improving public health. Fortification, a common practice in food technology, involves adding essential nutrients, vitamins, and minerals to processed foods. For example, the addition of iodine in salt has been effective in combating iodine deficiency disorders, while the fortification of flour with folic acid has helped prevent birth defects.

"Food technology allows us to fortify staple foods with essential nutrients, significantly improving the nutritional status of populations and preventing micronutrient deficiencies." - Dr. Maria Hernandez, Nutrition Scientist.

4. Increased Production Efficiency: Food technology has revolutionized production processes in the food industry, leading to increased efficiency, reduced waste, and cost-effective manufacturing methods. Automation and advanced machinery have streamlined operations, resulting in higher yields and improved productivity. Additionally, technologies such as precision agriculture and vertical farming have the potential to optimize resource utilization and reduce environmental impact.

"By leveraging food technology, we have witnessed significant improvements in production efficiency, allowing us to meet the growing demand for food while minimizing waste and resource consumption." - Mark Roberts, Food Industry Consultant.

5. Convenience and Accessibility: Food technology has contributed to the development of convenient food products, catering to the needs of busy consumers. Ready-to-eat meals, processed foods, and pre-packaged snacks have become increasingly popular, providing quick and easy meal options. This convenience has transformed the way we consume food, particularly in urban areas where time constraints often limit cooking and food preparation.

"Food technology has played a pivotal role in developing convenient food options that align with the modern lifestyle, making nutritious meals more accessible to a wider audience." - Jane Reynolds, Food Product Developer.

Disadvantages of Food Technology:

1. Health Concerns: While food technology has numerous benefits, some techniques and additives raise health concerns. The use of certain additives, preservatives, and flavor enhancers in processed foods has been associated with adverse health effects, including allergies and sensitivities. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are another area of concern, as the long-term impacts on human health are still under scrutiny.

"A significant challenge in food technology lies in addressing the potential health risks associated with certain additives, preservatives, and genetically modified organisms." - Dr. Michael Turner, Food Toxicologist.

2. Environmental Impact: Food technology can have negative environmental consequences. Excessive packaging, energy consumption in food processing, and water usage in large-scale production can contribute to environmental degradation. Moreover, the reliance on intensive agricultural practices, including the use of pesticides and fertilizers, can have detrimental effects on ecosystems and biodiversity.

"The food industry must consider the environmental impact of various food technologies to ensure sustainable practices and minimize the carbon footprint of the food supply chain." - Dr. Emily Johnson, Environmental Scientist.

3. Quality and Taste Considerations: While food technology aims to improve food safety and shelf life, some techniques may affect the quality, texture, and taste of food products. For instance, certain processing methods can result in the loss of natural flavors and nutrients, leading to a decline in overall product quality. This can impact consumer satisfaction and preference for processed foods over fresh alternatives.

"Food technology should strike a balance between safety and sensory attributes, ensuring that the taste, texture, and overall quality of food products meet consumer expectations." - Chef Michael Reynolds, Culinary Expert.

4. Loss of Traditional Food Practices: The widespread adoption of food technology has led to a decline in traditional food practices and the homogenization of food culture. Traditional food preparation methods, regional specialties, and artisanal techniques have become less prominent as large-scale food production takes precedence. This loss of cultural diversity in food practices raises concerns about preserving culinary heritage and local food systems.

"The rise of food technology has inadvertently led to the erosion of traditional food practices, impacting cultural identity and the unique flavors and techniques associated with them." - Dr. Ana Martinez, Food Anthropologist.

5. Ethical Concerns: Food technology raises ethical dilemmas, particularly in areas such as animal welfare, sustainable farming practices, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few large corporations. Concerns arise regarding the treatment of animals in intensive farming systems, the environmental impact of industrial agriculture, and the control exerted by multinational corporations over the food supply chain.

"Ethical considerations are critical when discussing food technology, as we need to address issues of animal welfare, sustainable production practices, and equitable distribution of resources." - Dr. Sarah Collins, Ethical Food Advocate.

Conclusion:

Food technology presents numerous advantages and disadvantages in the food industry. While it enhances food safety, extends shelf life, improves nutritional value, and increases production efficiency, there are concerns regarding health risks, environmental impact, quality considerations, loss of traditional food practices, and ethical implications. Striking a balance between the benefits and potential drawbacks is crucial to harnessing the full potential of food technology while ensuring the well-being of consumers, the environment, and cultural diversity. By staying informed and critically evaluating the use of food technology, individuals, professionals, and policymakers can make informed decisions that align with their values and contribute to a sustainable and inclusive food system.

• Latest Articles

How to Stand Out in the Job Market with a Professionally Written Resume

Improve your writing skills: a beginner's guide, how to develop a reading habit for beginners: simple tips for success, how to read faster and effectively | top reading strategies, improve focus with daily reading practices: a path to cognitive boost, 9 practical tips to start reading more every day, top study strategies for student success, top study tips for exam success: effective strategies for academic achievement, what do colleges look for in an applicant: top qualities and traits , brain vs. consciousness: a new perspective, why financial literacy is vital for young adults, how to study smarter, not harder: tips for success, 10 important roles of technology in education, the real reason why you can’t learn something new, apply online.

Find Detailed information on:

• Top Colleges & Universities
• Popular Courses
• Exam Preparation
• Admissions & Eligibility
• College Rankings

Sign Up or Login

Not a Member Yet! Join Us it's Free.

Already have account Please Login

Food Technology: What It Is + Why It Matters

Technology touches every facet of our lives, and our food is no different

Technology touches every facet of our lives, and our food is no different. From growing crops to processing ingredients to preparing delicious meals, food technology plays a key role in the lifecycle of the food we eat. To grow and process tasty and nutritious food on a scale to feed billions of people, nature sometimes needs a little help. That’s where food technology comes in.

What is Food Technology?

While the word “technology” may conjure thoughts of robotics, and computer algorithms nowadays, the definition of food technology isn’t tied to the latest tech innovations of today. Even the process of canning (developed in 1810 by Nicolas Appert) is considered a part of food technology because it uses technology (stoves and containers) to preserve food and make it last longer. 

According to the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) , one can define food technology as the application of food science to the various foods we eat, and it includes:

• food selection
• food preservation
• food processing
• food packaging
• food distribution, and
• food usage.

Fields of study related to food technology can include: 

• analytical chemistry, 
• biotechnology, 
• engineering, 
• nutrition, 
• quality control, and 
• food safety management.

Food systems represent a massive industry that touches virtually everyone on the planet in some way. Many universities offer diplomas, degrees and certificates in food science and technology and have laboratories where new food technology is developed and tested. Sometimes these laboratories are also owned and run by governments or corporations.

The Importance of Food Technology

Regardless of whether it’s a school, government, food scientist, or corporation developing food tech, the purpose of it is to meet the growing demand for safe and healthy food across the globe. Advancement in food science, food system innovation, and technology leads to: 

• reduced plant and crop disease, 
• improved food quality, 
• safer food consumption, 
• a wider variety of food items, 
• more affordable food items, 
• better food preservation techniques, and 
• less food waste.

Processed Food

But, if we look back to our food technology definition, we can see that processed food refers to just about any food that’s a part of a food system. Even the act of picking an apple, washing it, packing it into a box and shipping it to a grocery store is a process. 

Processed food includes: 

• soft drinks,
• snack foods,
• frozen foods, 
• confectionary,
• fresh produce,
• tea and coffee,
• canned products,
• wine and beer, and 
• prepared vegetables.

Food technology plays a pivotal role in making all the various processes these foods go through safer, more cost efficient and more energy efficient, from the farm right to your table.

Food Security

Ensuring that supply chain demands are met to have a sufficient global food supply is crucial to keeping developing nations fed.

Making sure everyone in the world has access to safe, nutritious food doesn’t just mean growing more of it. It means converting as much of that freshly grown raw food as possible into wholesome products while using minimum energy consumption and creating minimal waste throughout the supply chain (processing, packaging and distribution) of the food. Food technology is vital to making sure the entire world is food secure.  

There is increasing demand for convenient food options like ready-made meals that we essentially just heat and eat, but there is also a growing demand for less salt, saturated fats and trans fats in those same types of meals. 

Food science and technology is constantly finding new ways of reducing salt and fat content in our convenience foods while also preserving the usefulness of what salt and fat do for these foods. Salt is key to flavoring these foods, lowering water activity in them, preventing them from spoiling, and increasing stability. Trans fats are important for getting an acceptable texture in them. There is a constant balance going on between lessening the use of salt and fat while finding new formulations that will perform their functions in food.

Developments in Food Technology

Nicolas Appert, a food scientist, is often cited as the father of food science or, at least, the father of canning, as he developed the first canning process in the early 1800s. However, using technology to grow and process food goes back much further than that. 

Dr. ​​Diana Maricruz Perez-Santos, with the Instituto Politécnico Nacional in Mexico City, says food science and technology have been present throughout human history. In her opinion, food science and technology started when humans transitioned from nomadic to agricultural lifestyles, which facilitated practices like growing fruit, domesticating cattle and other animals, and farming.  

As human civilization expanded, the first processed food products, like bread and wine, were introduced to prolong the shelf life of raw ingredients by turning them into edible items that lasted longer than the ingredients otherwise would. 

Dr. Perez-Santos points to Appert’s invention of canning as a “turning point” in food science and technology, as it allowed for food preservation on a much larger, more industrial scale. 

Another notable development in food technology includes the development of the pasteurization process by French scientist Louis Pasteur in the 1860s, who discovered that heating items like milk would kill bacteria and make them safer for consumption.

Food Technology Examples

In addition to the many food technology examples we’ve covered so far, there are a lot of modern technologies being used to grow and process our food. 

Robots also play a huge role in packing and processing foods. For example, some estimates suggest that, in Europe alone, there are approximately 30,000 robots in the food industry.  

Another type of technology that is changing the food industry is software. Like machine learning algorithms, software increases the predictability of crop yields by using data and aids in quality assurance. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence streamlines production lines, making them more efficient.

3D printing is another modern form of technology that has made its way into the food industry. NASA astronauts can now 3D print pizzas in space and the technology can also help develop softer foods for people with swallowing disorders.

In addition to robots, drones (together with data technology) are used for precision agriculture, which is the monitoring and management of crop yields, soil levels, and even weather patterns to increase farming efficiency. If, for example, a disease outbreak occurs in a field, farmers can use the technology to manage the outbreak more precisely than they could before.

Software can be used to reduce food waste. For example, the Copia app connects places that need food, like shelters, after-school programs, and other nonprofit organizations,; with businesses that have surplus food.  

How Food Technology Benefits Consumers

Food technology provides a myriad of benefits to consumers. 

First and foremost is increased food safety. For example, in the Middle Ages, ergotism (poisoning via the ergot fungus) was prevalent in Northern Europe, particularly where rye bread consumption was high. Modern milling techniques – a type of food technology – have largely rendered ergot poisoning a thing of the past.

Consumers also benefit from better quality of food. Food science and technology are used to make foods more nutritious and better tasting, especially the convenient ready-made meals that play a large role in people’s busy modern lives. For example, milder production processes, that use high pressure or steam, better preserve the taste and nutrients in food.

If you have ever kept a can of food for an extended period of time before eating it, you’ve benefited from food technology’s ability to prolong the preservation of food. 

As you marvel at the array of different types of food items in your grocery store, you can thank food technology for developing all of them. The 200 varieties of cookies in the cookie aisle? Food technology. 

Imagine how limited your diet would be if you could only purchase raw ingredients and had to make everything from scratch. 

It also helps cut down on food, energy and general waste by helping to produce food more efficiently, developing more sustainable packaging, and distributing excess food to where it is needed. 

From increased food security via new farming methods to less food waste due to more streamlined supply chains, customers benefit greatly from food technology. 

How We’re Using Food Technology at Bowery

At Bowery, we use the ancient technology of hydroponics to grow our food in vertical shelves , but we also utilize the BoweryOS , a much more modern type of food technology.

We like to think of the BoweryOS as the central nervous system for each of our indoor farms . It collects billions of data points through an extensive network of sensors and cameras that feed into proprietary machine-learning algorithms that the BoweryOS interprets in real time.

That means the BoweryOS can pinpoint an arugula plant that needs more light while also identifying and alerting our farmers to a batch of butterhead lettuce that needs harvesting. The machine learning algorithm gets smarter with each growing cycle, meaning the food we grow also improves exponentially. 

Because we run completely indoor farms that are not directly affected by the weather, the BoweryOS gives us full control over things like:

• spectra of light, 
• photoperiod (day/night cycles), 
• intensity of light, 
• irrigation schedules, 
• nutrients, 
• temperature, 
• humidity, and 

Our farmers control all these variables and can adjust them minute by minute, if necessary, to optimize for plant health and, ultimately, flavor. We use the massive amounts of data we receive from our array of cameras and sensors to tweak our growing schedules and optimize our crops for the very best nutrition and flavor. 

Food technology has helped humans throughout our history to expand and thrive. For as long as humans have been cooking, growing and preserving our own food, we’ve relied on food technology to help us develop more delicious, nutritious, and bountiful harvests while also being able to keep that food for longer. Food technology will continue to be the most important industry on the planet, as we continue to find new ways to utilize technology to feed the world’s population .

Leaf through what’s new.

From tech to farm to table, we’re always cooking up something fresh.

A Letter from our Founder

Q&A with VP of AgScience, Rodrigo Pereyra

Bowery in Forbes

What is Food Science?

Food Science is a convenient name used to describe the application of scientific principles to create and maintain a wholesome food supply.

“Just as society has evolved over time, our food system as also evolved over centuries into a global system of immense size and complexity. The commitment of food science and technology professionals to advancing the science of food, ensuring a safe and abundant food supply, and contributing to healthier people everywhere is integral to that evolution. Food scientists and technologists are versatile, interdisciplinary, and collaborative practitioners in a profession at the crossroads of scientific and technological developments. As the food system has drastically changed, from one centered around family food production on individual farms and food preservation to the modern system of today, most people are not connected to their food nor are they familiar with agricultural production and food manufacturing designed for better food safety and quality.”

“Feeding the World Today and Tomorrow: The Importance of Food Science and Technology”; John D. Foloros, Rosetta Newsome, William Fisher; from Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety; 2010

Food Science has given us

• frozen foods
• canned foods
• microwave meals
• milk which keeps
• nutritious new foods
• more easily prepared traditional foods
• above all, VARIETY in our diets.

The Food Scientist helps supply this bounty by learning to apply a wide range of scientific knowledge to maintain a high quality, abundant food supply. Food Science allows us to make the best use of our food resources and minimize waste.

Most food materials are of biological origin. How they behave in harvesting, processing, distribution, storage and preparation is a complex problem. Full awareness of all important aspects of the problem requires broad-based training.

To be a Food Scientist and help handle the world's food supply to maximum advantage, you need some familiarity with

• Microbiology
• Biochemistry
• Engineering
• Some specialized Statistics.

With this special training in the applied Food Science, many exciting and productive careers with a wide range of employment opportunities exist for the trained professional, such as

• Product Development Specialist
• Sensory Scientist
• Quality Control Specialist
• Technical Sales Representative

UC Davis Department of Food Science and Technology Mission Statement

The mission of the department is to generate knowledge about foods through research, and to apply and disseminate knowledge through teaching and outreach, with the goal of ensuring the availability of safe, nutritious, appealing food, with minimum environmental impact, for the benefit of all people.

More From Forbes

How technology is transforming the food industry.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

When it comes to food, tech isn’t always the first thing that comes to mind. However, technology over the years has changed how we produce and find our food through applications, robotics, data and processing techniques.

According to a recent report from ING, technology helps food manufacturers produce more efficiently for a growing world population. There are 7.5 billion people in the world right now and that means a higher demand for food each year. By using tech to improve processing and packaging, it can improve the shelf life and safety of food.

Robotics and Machines

The use of machines in the food industry also ensures quality and affordability. By using machines, it drives down the costs of keeping the food fresh and increases productivity. According to the report, “The rise of robotics in the food industry is a tangible example of food tech. The number of robots in the European food industry is well over 30,000, while the number of robots per 10,000 employees rose from 62 in 2013 to 84 in 2017. Although Germany is the largest market, robot density is relatively highest in Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Italy.”

Robotic machines can help to eliminate safety issues for the more dangerous jobs in the food industry. In 2016, a tech company rolled out a program for butchery. By using robots to cut the more difficult of the meats, they can save many work injuries. This is just one of the many ways technology can improve the industry.

3D Printing

In the past few years, 3D printing has really taken off across many industries and the food industry is one of them. There have been several applications of 3D printing food from NASA printing a pizza to creating soft foods for those who cannot chew hard food to consume. It opens the door for innovation being able to create many things that we were unable to before while also being able to help with food sustainability. There are many ways 3D printing is shaking up the industry.

Precision agriculture is a major player when it comes to how technology can make a difference. It is the use of GPS tracking systems and satellite imagery to monitor crop yields, soil levels, and weather patterns to increase efficiency on the farm. Not only can they see all that is happening across the fields, but they can also use analysis from the findings to test the soil and the health of the crops. A major way they are doing this is through the use of drones. These drones can locate and identify diseased or damaged crops and tend to them immediately. The use of these robots does not eliminate the need for food workers but helps them be more efficient with their work. With strict product requirements at large volumes and demand for lower pricing, the robotic elements help create a faster environment to produce more goods than regular labor.

Packaging and Waste

One of the biggest concerns for consumers right now is having healthy and sustainable goods. Consumers pay attention to labels and harmful ingredients, especially with social media, there is not much that companies can get away with anymore. Many companies use technology to help them “go green.” By using robotics and digitizing, companies in the food industry are able to find alternatives to plastics and other harmful packaging to the environment.

There are many different ways we are using technology in packaging now from edible packaging, micro packaging and even bacteria fighting packaging .

Consumers are also looking for where companies are sourcing their products and how they are handling their waste. Currently, 40% of America’s food is thrown away each year. With the help of technology, there are strides being taken to reduce that number and utilize the extra food.

One app,  Copia  uses its extensive food waste reduction dashboard to connect businesses with surplus food to local shelters, after-school programs, and other nonprofit organizations.  Copia’s analytic software manages and tracks their surplus to save money and reduce their overall food waste.

With all these advancements in technology, there are so many different ways that it can really change how we produce food. Evolving technology could be the key to eliminating world hunger and solving our waste problem- we will just have to wait and see.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by 2030 (2019)

Chapter: 4 food science and technology, 4 food science and technology, 1. introduction.

As the U.S. food system has evolved, advances in science and technology have helped to provide a huge variety of foods that are safe, convenient, inexpensive, distributed widely, and available year round. Individuals representing many disciplines—microbiology, chemistry, engineering, processing, packaging, sensory science, and nutrition, among others—work under the umbrella of food science to support the integrity of the food supply ( Floros et al., 2010 ). In addition, food scientists collaborate with other disciplines (e.g., agronomists, biotechnologists, material scientists, economists, and social/behavioral scientists) to address problems in the broader “food system,” with the ultimate purpose of transforming raw, frequently inedible, and, in some cases, unsafe agricultural commodities into safe, nutritious, high-quality foods that are accepted and valued by consumers (see examples in Box 4-1 ). Much of this is accomplished by food processing, defined as any intentional change to a food occurring between the point of origin and availability for consumption ( Floros et al., 2010 ). Food is processed for many different purposes and, overall, processing results in improved product characteristics such as safety, shelf life, quality, sensory attributes, and nutritional value. In more recent years, consumers have demanded additional product features such as convenience and variety to their food choices, and they expect greater transparency about the origins of their food and the type of processes utilized in manufacturing a product. New trends such as online food shopping and the use of food-on-demand services

allow for even greater individualization in consumer choice, preference, and demand.

Attaining a food supply that provides safe, healthy, appealing, and affordable foods is the shared responsibility of food and allied industries, local, state, and federal governments, and researchers and educators in academic institutions, along with consumers through their food choices and practices. Most of the necessary research and development (R&D) work to launch new commercial products is naturally initiated and conducted by the private sector. However, investigating overarching concepts in the food sciences, and solving universal, crosscutting problems, is frequently tackled with basic and applied scientific research that is conducted at public and private universities and in government laboratories. Although different stakeholder groups contribute to the funding and intellectual enterprise of

the agricultural and food-related activities, historically the research efforts have been largely supported by both public and private funds. Between 1970 and 2008, the public contribution was relatively stable at about 50 percent of the total private- and public-sector R&D funding ( Clancy et al., 2016 ). Recently, however, the source of funding has shifted. During the period 2008 to 2013, real private investment in R&D in the agricultural and food sector rose sharply (up by 64 percent), while real public investment fell by 20 percent. Private funding has dominated R&D in food manufacturing ( Clancy et al., 2016 ). Public support for human nutrition research has increased over the past several decades. The nutrition research includes nutrition through the life cycle, health (disease, metabolism, and metabolic mechanisms), and food science (monitoring, education, and policy; and supplements). However, the portfolio of research has changed with

increased funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and decreased support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The shift has affected the type of problems addressed through federal support as well as mechanism (shifting from formula funds to nonformula extramural support). From 1985 to 2009, the federal share of research funding for food sciences (food processing, preservation, and other food-related technologies) decreased from 10 to 4 percent of the total funding for nutrition research ( Toole and Kuchler, 2015 ).

This chapter identifies important challenges faced by the postharvest food sector in making progress toward meeting future demands for a safe, nutritious, sustainable, and affordable food supply for all. It also identifies emerging opportunities, largely as a consequence of scientific and technological developments, to address these challenges, along with gaps and barriers. Concrete illustrative examples of these emerging opportunities are provided. The chapter does not address the cost and social implications of these technological advances, including factors that may limit access to new products or processes (e.g., production scale, location, or consumer resources), although it is recognized that these factors are important drivers of their ultimate adoption. Chapter 9 considers some of the socioeconomic considerations related to the scientific innovations.

2. CHALLENGES

Factors such as population growth, more variable weather cycles, and globalization, among others, have changed and continue to dramatically change our food system. Supply networks now offer greater consumer choice over a wide variety of products through large, interconnected markets. However, many challenges to the system have emerged. The committee identified two general challenge areas that need to be addressed over the next 20 years using the newest scientific and technological breakthroughs.

2.1 Challenge 1: Develop High-Quality, Nutritious Foods Produced and Distributed in a Sustainable Manner to Meet the Needs and Demands of a Diverse Consumer Population

The essential role of food is maintaining human life and health. Food promotes health because it contains nutrients that are necessary to provide energy, meet physiological needs and functions, and prevent chronic diseases. As mentioned in Chapter 1 , this report does not address research efforts devoted to understanding the association between human nutrition and health, although it should be noted that this continues to be an important area of future research. Indeed, the increased recognition of the complex, and often personalized, interactions between agricultural produc-

tion, food, nutrients, and human health begs for research to improve our understanding of food and nutrient metabolism and their relationship to diet and health. Findings from this type of research could lead to more healthful foods and better diets in general, and those in accordance with the needs of specific consumer subpopulations.

It is important to recognize that humans eat foods, not nutrients, and so foods must be both nutritious and appealing. Sensory attributes are among the most important drivers of food consumption preferences ( Lusk and Briggeman, 2009 ). The holistic sensory experience is complex, and there is an implicit causal chain of events from sensation, to experiencing pleasure, to food intake. Sensory is not only impacted by the complexity of food components from macromolecules to ingredients to formulation; there is emerging science indicating that human genetic variability plays a major role in the way individuals experience foods. Understanding the interactions between the food chemical composition and the consuming human is critical to developing products that meet consumer preferences for flavor and appearance while delivering nutrition and health benefits.

In addition to consumer appeal and healthfulness, consumers’ eating preferences are driven by many social, behavioral, and psychological factors ( Lusk and McCluskey, 2018 ). For some consumers, ethical and environmental concerns may dominate their preferences (e.g., vegetarian protein substitutes for animal products; insects used as a source of protein); for others, place of origin and local sourcing are predominant considerations; and in other cases, perceived risks weigh heavily in food choice (e.g., choice of organic options, avoidance of genetically engineered foods or other new technologies). Improved understanding of the influence of social, behavioral, and psychological factors on the development and role of these influences is necessary, particularly as consumers are faced with choices about products developed with new technologies for some of which there is conflicting evidence on risks and benefits. One relevant ethical issue is that of consumer behavior around food loss and waste, given that 30-40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted, largely at the retail and consumer stages ( Gunders, 2012 ; Buzby et al., 2014 ; Bellemare et al., 2017 ). Food supply chain participators have joined forces in initiatives to reduce waste (e.g., changing product labeling policies) but important technological innovations can be added to these efforts, including development of ways to increase product quality, shelf life, and/or safety. Other challenges are best addressed through focus on a systems approach and behavioral changes (see Conrad et al., 2018 , for an example of the challenge of improved diet quality being associated with increased food waste and greater amounts of water and pesticide use).

2.2 Challenge 2: Protect the Integrity and Safety of the Global Food Supply Chain

An increasingly globalized and highly networked food supply chain has made it more challenging to protect food from intentional and unintentional microbial and chemical contamination. Although regulatory and surveillance systems are arguably better than they were 25 years ago, in many ways our current food safety system still lacks sophistication and is not nimble enough to respond swiftly when a critical issue arises.

Assurance of food safety relies on preventing contamination or removing/inactivating the contaminant if it occurs along the chain. Large amounts of food safety data are currently being collected from farm to fork, but those data can be somewhat crude (e.g., visual inspection of poultry carcasses along a processing conveyor rather than instrumentation measurements) and when measurements are made, they are simple (i.e., nonquantitative) and delayed; certainly, they most often provide only a snapshot in time. New technologies are making it possible to obtain more sophisticated data, sometimes collected continuously and/or in real time. If more precise, accurate, faster, and less expensive technologies were applied to food protection, testing could occur more often to facilitate the detection of infrequent contamination events, and to more rapidly manage and respond to food safety incidents. For example, the availability of very rapid and sensitive ways to detect harmful biological agents or chemical contaminants would result in a safer food supply, especially if detection occurred before the contaminants were widely dispersed as ingredients or through products entering the retail food system. This would be particularly the case if the methods were easy to apply and inexpensive. Identifying the most relevant data and points of collection and intervention are key to effective and integrated data systems. Field deployability would allow detection technologies to touch every phase of the farm-to-fork continuum.

When a contaminated product enters the market, or an outbreak occurs, we currently rely on piecemeal systems to perform epidemiological investigations, trace back, and trace forward, meaning public health risk remains elevated for extended periods of time, until the right information has been obtained and synthesized. A thorough and integrated data communication and management system that includes all steps in the supply chain would greatly aid traceability and reduce the public health impact of food safety events, particularly in the case of larger processors, distributors, and retailers. As stated above, technological advances over the past few decades have opened the door to faster, more accurate, and more relevant data collection in food safety. When married to algorithms that assess risk and costs and benefits, it is possible to prevent contaminated products from

entering the food chain or, if they do, prevent their further distribution and consumption in a matter of minutes or hours, not days or weeks.

There is also a need to ensure that best practices to maintain food quality are being adhered to throughout the food supply and distribution channels. For instance, data from biochemical analysis can be used to ensure that product traits such as appearance, flavor, or nutritional value are maintained. An integrated system that mapped the flow of products and ingredients, and transferred information about food quality throughout food distribution, would improve efficiency and integrity by contractors all through the supply chain and increase consumer trust. Better assurance of food quality will also aid in optimizing resource efficiencies in the system and ultimately reduce food loss and waste through improved ingredient flow and increased product shelf life.

3. SCIENTIFIC OPPORTUNITIES

3.1 opportunity 1: omics technologies.

The recently coined term foodomics refers to the use of “omics” technologies and data as they relate to the discipline of food science ( Capozzi and Bordoni, 2013 ; Andjelkovic et al., 2017 ). For example, integrated analytical approaches in food chemistry and analysis can be used to increase our understanding of food composition at the molecular and even atomic levels. It is now possible to produce food “fingerprints” of chemical composition, information that is relevant to safety, quality, authenticity, security, and nutritional value ( Gallo and Ferranti, 2016 ). Beyond food fingerprinting, omics technologies provide a means to detect, quantify, and characterize individual metabolites or combinations thereof. This is opening doors to development of improved bioactive absorption and delivery systems, and better colors and flavors, to name just a few of the applications ( Gallo and Ferranti, 2016 ). These technologies are also particularly useful in identifying relevant volatile compounds that may serve as markers of product freshness ( Wojnowski et al., 2017 ), for improving food quality, and for ultimately reducing food loss and waste. They may also identify molecular targets (analytes) during the development of advanced detection methods for harmful microbes, chemicals, and toxins, and therefore further improve food safety. Identification of novel biorecognition molecules used to capture and detect key analytes will make it easier to perform analyses on very complex sample matrices, a long-time obstacle to the application of advanced analytical methods to foods. Production of increasingly miniaturized analytical equipment (i.e., infrared, ultraviolet, mass spectrometry, and nuclear magnetic resonance [NMR] spectroscopy), some of which can automate sampling and analysis for real-time biochemical measurement,

offers opportunities for exquisitely sophisticated chemical analysis that may become field deployable.

The combined use of omics technologies, bioinformatics, and advanced analytical methods provides innovative means by which scientists can explore interactions between systems. In nutrition, for instance, applying omics techniques to human genetics, physiological status, the gut microbiome, and food composition can lead us closer to integrated personalized nutrition ( Grimaldi et al., 2017 ; Kaput et al., 2017 ) (see Box 4-2 ). In sensory science, where we know that the flavor experience is multimodal, omics techniques can be used to characterize genetic and metabolic differences in consumer perception of flavor, allowing for a better understanding

of what drives food choice. When this information is used along with food fingerprinting, it becomes possible to design and produce food having ideal health benefits with greater consumer appeal.

Individual omics technologies focus on one aspect or component of a much larger system. In a health care setting, genomics can be used for genetic fingerprinting, metabolomics for metabolic profiling, sequencing and bioinformatics for elucidating characteristics of the microbiome. For a particular food, various omics techniques can be used to determine its nutrient composition, sensory characteristics, and microbiological profile. Each of these individual analyses provides characterization of what is going on in a patient or a product and constitutes a subsystem. However, to understand the entire person or product, there is also the need to elucidate how these subsystems interact with one another, forming a system of systems. For instance, most chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes and cardiovascular disease) are complex, with diet being only one contributing factor. For such diseases, there are significant gaps in knowledge about interactions between genes, diet, other behaviors (e.g., exercise and stress), and social and cultural factors, among others. Having the full scientific capabilities to understand the interactions and identify the key determinants of any particular illness or trait has yet to be realized (see Box 4-3 ).

3.2 Opportunity 2: Sensor Technologies

According to a recent study, the most common reasons given by consumers for discarding food were concerns about its safety and the willingness to consume only the freshest product ( Neff et al., 2015 ). Having a technology that can “sense” product safety, quality, and/or freshness, preferably in real time, will deliver critical information to processors, distributors, and consumers, potentially resulting in better decisions about safety and food waste. Such technologies ideally would have features such as high sensitivity and specificity of analyte detection, low cost, small footprint, reliability, short time to result, and be field deployable and adaptable, among others.

Sensors are devices that detect or measure physical, chemical, or biological properties and then record, indicate, or respond to those results. Biosensors in particular are analytical devices that combine a biological component with a physicochemical detector. The biologically derived component is a material or biomimetic compound that interacts, binds, or otherwise recognizes the analyte to be detected. Increasingly, these are being identified using various omics methods (see the section above). The

interaction between the biological element and the analyte results in a signal; a detector element physicochemically transforms (transduces) that signal, and frequently amplifies it into a form that is readily measurable and sometimes quantifiable. There are many types of transducers, such as electrochemical, optical/visual, and mass based ( Vigneshvar et al., 2016 ; Alahi and Mukhopadhyay, 2017 ). Table 4-1 provides a summary of some common biosensor technologies.

Nanomaterials are increasingly used as components of biosensors and can serve a variety of functions, including as immobilization supports, for signal amplification, as alternatives to enzyme labels (“nanozymes”), and to aid in signal generation and quenching ( Rhouati et al., 2017 ). In most cases, the choice to use nanomaterials is founded on the desire

TABLE 4-1 Summary of Various Biosensors with Their Advantages and Limitations

SOURCE: Alahi and Mukhopadhyay, 2017 .

to produce assays with greater sensitivity and specificity. Noble metals (e.g., gold and silver) are frequently used for signal amplification because of their unique physicochemical properties; however, carbon, magnetic, metal oxide–based, and quantum dot nanoparticles have also been used ( Rhouati et al., 2017 ). Incorporation of a nucleic acid amplification step into the biosensor design, particularly those that do not require temperature cycling (e.g., loop-mediated isothermal amplification, recombinase polymerase amplification, and rolling circle amplification) can also increase analytical sensitivity ( Giuffrida and Spoto, 2017 ). Examples of nanosensors in developing specific food safety applications are detailed in Wang and Duncan (2017) and in Vigneshvar et al. (2016) (see some examples in Table 4-2 ).

TABLE 4-2 Selected Applications of Nanosensors in Food Safety

a From Vigneshvar et al., 2016 .

SOURCES: Vigneshvar et al., 2016 ; Rhouati et al., 2017 .

Sensor technologies are also highly applicable to monitoring product freshness, such as detecting biochemical parameters that are correlated with product spoilage and shelf life, particularly near product life end ( Xiaobo et al., 2016 ). These types of sensors are usually noninvasive in nature. Examples of product attributes that can be measured are color, the presence of surface defects, and chemical composition. Technological platforms include optical, acoustical, NMR, and electrical. For example, light in the visible/near-infrared spectra can penetrate readily into biological systems, and when applied to a food can provide a “fingerprint” to assess parameters such as freshness, firmness, and texture. Biomimetic devices such as electronic noses, which are already used for personalized medicine ( Fitzgerald et al., 2017 ), are being piloted for evaluating spoilage and shelf life of meats ( Wojnowski et al., 2017 ).

At the end of the sensing phase, an electronic reader allows signal processing so that results are displayed in a user-friendly manner. Mobile diagnostics that use Internet-of-Things technologies to link sensor output to smartphones and cameras, and are even coupled with data entry on servers or the cloud, have been reported, particularly for detection of foodborne pathogens, food allergens, antibiotic residues, and shellfish toxins, in relevant sample matrices ( Rateni et al., 2017 ). Although handheld mobile readouts are still in development with significant need for improvement (e.g., reducing signal-to-noise ratios, miniaturization, sample preparation, data interpretation, cost, and reliability), their future is bright because they provide options for portability and real-time results, important features for managing an already complex food chain.

There are a number of practical impediments to successful, routine use of biosensor technologies in foods and environmental samples. Many different biosensors for detecting pathogens such as Salmonella in foods have been reported, but they vary widely in performance, particularly analytical sensitivity (detection limit), frequently ranging from a low of one single cell to a high of millions ( Cinti et al., 2017 ; Silva et al., 2018 ). While of lesser importance in clinical settings where samples come from ill individuals and pathogen concentrations are high, this is not the case for food, water, and environmental samples. These sample types may be infrequently contaminated and when the contaminant is present, concentrations are low. Hence, for sensors to be of the greatest value in food safety, analytical sensitivity (detection limits) must be high (<10 cells) and specificity needs to be high. In addition, sample size should be large and testing done frequently in order to account for low contaminant prevalence.

In short, assay sensitivity and specificity (detection limits and low pro-

pensity for false positive and false negative results) will need to improve for sensor technologies to gain more widespread use in food and agriculture. In addition, there is a pressing need to develop sample preparation methods and protocols that will efficiently concentrate and purify an analyte from the matrix prior to use in the sensing device ( Brehm-Stecher et al., 2009 ). This includes validating sensor performance in relevant natural sample matrices (i.e., various waters, foods, and environmental samples). Other factors related to conditions and ease of use, robustness, and cost are critical for success. Solving these practical scientific problems—along with ensuring that sensors are “fit for purpose”—will require extensive, transdisciplinary effort.

3.3 Opportunity 3: Integrated Data Management Systems

The development of omics and sensor technologies will augment the capabilities to collect increasing amounts of data in the food processing, safety, and quality realms (e.g., process validation, optimization and control, environmental, and public health data). Ultimately, the value of data to the food supply chain is to provide more and better information on which to base system optimization and management decisions regarding food processing, safety, quality control (e.g., preservation of product traits), food waste reduction, and system monitoring, among others. That means there must be an infrastructure to house massive amounts of records, and a means by which those records can be integrated and effectively used for decision-making purposes. Associated with these changes is the need to identify and understand the design and behaviors in emerging food supply chains.

In the area of food safety, there are a number of large, publicly accessible online databases used by the public health sector (inventoried in Marvin et al., 2017 ). Examples are the National Outbreak Reporting System, the Genome Trakr Network (whole-genome sequences of pathogens), and others used by industry, such as Combase (data for quantitative microbiology and models predict growth and inactivation of microorganisms). The availability of online searchable databases (e.g., JIFSAN’s FoodRisk.org , a metadatabase for tools and models) and of social media and crowdsourcing (e.g., iwaspoisoned.com ) platforms provide other capabilities. These and other databases have clear utility for different types of applications. However, that utility would be enhanced if data and databases were integrated with one another, particularly with less publicly accessible data such as industry process monitoring and product tracking systems (e.g., GPS and radio frequency identification [RFID]; Mejia et al., 2010 ), quality control systems, or public food safety monitoring efforts (see also Chapter 7 on data science). There are some early examples (see Box 4-4 ), but a much more concerted effort is needed toward data integration to

support food-safety decision making. Hill et al. (2017) provided a proof of concept for the use of genomic and epidemiological metadata integration along with sophisticated data analytics and modeling for early detection of human infection with foodborne pathogens. The model allowed this group to find associations between DNA sequence, location of the food animal across the production chain, and human illness. With technologies that collect, transmit, store, and analyze data obtained from real-time sensors, along with a centralized system of databases with sampling and processing data, their approach holds promise and would theoretically allow the tracking and tracing of individual food units.

Integrated data and data management systems can also be applied with the goal of improving resource efficiencies in the food system. Implementation of such a data management system in food networks supports efforts to optimize food processes and recycle and reduce waste during and after manufacturing as an operational concept in order to achieve a “circular economy” that makes best use of the range of waste streams in the agricultural and food system (see, for instance, the North American Initiative on Food Waste Reduction and Recovery [ CEC, 2018 ] and the European Union’s AgroCycle [ UCD, 2018 ]). A more integrated and holistic data management systems approach to thinking about minimizing product and food waste may focus on identifying food waste conversion methods for edible and nonedible purposes. In such a distribution system, a seamless supply

chain of foods and ingredients with a leaner, simpler, and transparent data management system would be vital. Considerations of system design and science are discussed in Chapter 8 .

An example of an innovative exchange system developed to facilitate the diversion of surplus retail food products to distribution sites is the one recently developed with food banks. Efficiencies are gained through the development of networks and exchanges for distribution of surplus foods from retailers to food banks and distribution centers. Integration of real-time data on available foods and existing needs provides a mechanism for redirecting food to help feed the hungry and reduce food waste ( Prendergast, 2017 ). Within the industry itself, goals for reducing food waste can be accomplished by setting standards for ordering, receiving, preparing, processing, packaging, serving, and tracking food production.

One technology that has enormous potential to revolutionize the management and storage of data and to facilitate the integration of food distribution systems, among other applications, is blockchain (see Chapter 7 on data science). Blockchain (also called open, distributed ledgers) is a system in which a continuously growing list of decentralized and encrypted records (blocks) are linked so that it can be securely distributed across peer-to-peer networks. Blockchain allows for highly transparent and instantaneous transfer of product data associated with many attributes, including the safety and quality of food, as well as environmental stewardship, all arising from activities such as routine monitoring, inspection and audit, accreditation, and laboratory analyses. The improvements from implementation of blockchain technology will also benefit consumers as they demand more detailed information about product sourcing, origin, processes, and production methods. For example, offering verified product sourcing, non-GM (genetically modified) or “organic” products to the consumer requires systems to preserve and track segregation through the supply chain. Consumers and other buyers are able to access information on the product via smartphone applications and other data platforms. Although in its infancy, blockchain is an important emerging technology (although it has its detractors) that may allow integration of detailed information across different platforms and ownership structures and provide verifiable information that consumers seek from manufacturers’ claims. Although some applications that link purchases to specific retail outlets or consumers have benefits at the consumer level (e.g., in the case of food safety or other product recalls), little is known about consumer response to data systems extended to the retail consumer level. See Box 4-5 for more concrete examples of the application of blockchain technology to the management of data on the food supply chain.

As companies are increasingly exploring the uses of blockchain technology in the agriculture and food arena, both challenges and solutions are arising. A recent report aimed at better understanding the implications and needs of the blockchain technology to stakeholders (e.g., producers, manufacturers, traders, and product standard organizations) identified the following key challenges: access and implementation of the technology, the need for a workforce that can adapt and learn new competencies, privacy concerns, considerations related to regulatory frameworks, interoperability, and compatibility with existing systems ( Ge et al., 2017 ). Specific stakeholder groups have identified cost and knowledge of the technology as main challenges ( IFIC Foundation, 2018 ).

3.4 Opportunity 4: Materials Sciences and Engineering

Food scientists apply engineering principles to design novel processing and packaging technologies that result in profound improvements to the quality, safety, acceptability, and shelf life of foods. Depending on the technology (e.g., thermal, aseptic, microwave, pulsed light, ohmic heating, high pressure, freezing, and refrigeration), these processes offer advantages such as improved product quality (organoleptic characteristics that resemble the fresh product), reduced energy usage, smaller footprint (better portability), and lower environmental impact ( Neetoo and Chen, 2014 ). Some of these technologies may be particularly well suited for certain foods or venues, especially those in which large capital outlay for food processing is not possible or economically feasible.

Advances in materials science and nanotechnology, as applied to production of packaging materials, holds great promise for advancing quality and safety of food products. Active packaging, of which modified atmosphere packaging is an early example, is a system in which the food, the material, and the environment interact dynamically by incorporating oxygen scavengers, antimicrobials, and/or moisture adsorbents into the food packaging materials ( Mlalila et al., 2016 ). These active compounds may or may not be released into the food, or prevent unwanted substances from entering the package, and, in so doing, they can improve product quality, ensure safety, and/or extend shelf life. For example, nanocomposite materials (i.e., polymers in combination with nanoparticles) provide both barrier and chemical protection to foods ( Pradhan et al., 2015 ). “Smart” food packaging refers to a system that undergoes automatic changes in micro- or nanostructures as a consequence of dynamic changes to the environment ( Mlalila et al., 2016 ). The materials that have smart properties are those able to control their interfacial properties. These largely consist of self-cleaning, self-cooling, and self-heating technologies, already designed for the health care sector, that are now being applied to food systems. Intelligent packaging systems are able to monitor the conditions, quality, and/or safety of a food, particularly during distribution and storage, and provide the consumer some evidence of product status ( Mlalila et al., 2016 ). In some ways, this technology relates back to the biosensors discussed above in Opportunity 2. The output of intelligent packaging can be expressed in the form of data (e.g., at the level of specific product or lot using barcodes, RFID, or digital watermark) or as light (e.g., light-emitting diodes or holograms). All of these provide information that can then be included as a basis for decision-making and management systems. While monitoring food quality and freshness with indicators is routine in the food industry sector, intelligent packaging technologies are extremely well suited for detecting metabolites occurring as a consequence of food spoilage, and thus may

have relevance for reducing food loss and waste at both the industry and consumer levels (see example in Box 4-6 ). From the consumer perspective, communicative packaging has emerged as a potential tool to address concerns about product quality, safety, and the consumer demand for specific product information as they make purchasing decisions.

Although alternative food processing and packaging technologies have the potential to deliver better quality, nutrition, safety, and acceptability to food products, some questions related to the need to decrease the energetic footprint (e.g., energy and water savings, reliability) and environmental impacts (e.g., emissions or environmental degradation due to the use of plastic packaging materials) are unresolved. Likewise, acceptability of these

relatively new technologies by the consumer still poses questions. Relative to nanomaterials, consideration of potential unintended consequences of their use is critical. Safety concerns focus on the potential interactions between nanomaterials and the food matrix, particularly potential toxicity to consumers and environmental impacts. Because these materials are very recent in their introduction to the market, there are relatively few data available to systematically assess health or environmental risks, and legislators err on the side of caution when it comes to regulatory decision making. Similarly, consumer acceptance of new technologies may be an issue and depend ultimately on the degree of trust consumers place on the products themselves ( Roosen et al., 2015 ).

4. BARRIERS TO SUCCESS

4.1 barrier 1: consumer acceptance.

One important barrier to the implementation of technological advances in the food science and technology area is the need to better understand and anticipate consumers’ food-related behaviors and choices, including the role of social and environmental factors, and underlying receptiveness to and understanding of information about products and processes. Identifying factors that determine consumer acceptance and choices over product attributes and qualities is essential information to determining the success in producing foods that will be purchased and consumed (e.g., Lusk et al., 2014 ).

Traditionally, consumers respond to market prices and other monetary signals in their product selection. However, there is increased evidence that financial incentives (such as taxes and subsidies applied to products), social factors, and context of food choices, as well as other behavioral motivators or nudges can encourage or discourage food-related behavior. Ignoring the need to better understand and anticipate consumer food behaviors, drivers, and trade-offs may limit consumer acceptance of new products, technologies, and market innovations. The need to better account for consumers’ perceptions of risk around new technologies also underpins the need for education and strategies to best communicate the nature of food production, processing technologies, and the science involved so that consumers can make thoughtful and informed decisions in food selection, handling, and preparation. This applies to the need for effective food labeling approaches as well as basic communication about scientific and technological advances. A 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report ( NASEM, 2017 ) highlights the need to understand the optimal communication approaches for use under different circumstances,

and to recognize that many people do not make food selection and choice decisions based solely on scientific evidence.

4.2 Barrier 2: Regulatory Context

Scientific advancements in technologies related to food processing and product design, packaging, and handling may be limited by existing regulations, such as food law and product identity standards. A few examples are provided here. Many of the emerging food processing technologies (i.e., ohmic heating, ultrasound, or pulsed light) have not been validated for their ability to meet the mandated microbial inactivation standards for protection of public health. It may not be prudent from food safety and liability standpoints to use these processes commercially until such validations are conducted and reviewed. The inclusion of nanotechnology-based products (e.g., in packaging materials and for microencapsulation) may be met with regulatory scrutiny because these are not composed of materials that are generally recognized as safe. There is also the possibility that sensor devices or novel packaging materials may be prohibited based on current food adulteration regulations. The replacement of pathogen culture methods with whole-genome sequencing is being questioned because historically, proof of product adulteration in recall or outbreak situations relies on having a pure culture of the implicated organism, not simply evidence of the presence of its DNA. The practical use of technologies intended to collect data at a faster rate may be hindered if they have negative effects on other aspects of the process that fall under regulatory scrutiny, such as adhering to maximum line speeds in meat processing plants. Integrated and blockchain data systems offer the opportunity to digitize record keeping, some of which may be relevant for regulatory purposes (e.g., data from hazard analysis and critical control points or other preventive controls plans). However, relevant agencies may not yet be able to accommodate transfer of information using their current data management systems.

4.3 Barrier 3: Economics and Other Considerations

A relatively large share of investment in innovation and technologies for foods is done through the private sector where private returns to investment dictate technology choice with less emphasis placed on the public benefit. However, there remains a critical need for basic sciences and applications in which the payoffs advance science more broadly to benefit the public’s and the private sector’s interests. Furthermore, some basic research requires significant investment in underlying infrastructure. As an example, system-wide innovation and data networks often require large, upfront expenditures to develop and support data infrastructures.

However, interoperability of systems and data networks between the various participants in the supply chain is required to effectively monitor and maintain the safety and integrity of the food system, and to support efforts to integrate sustainability opportunities. With funding predominantly from private sources, the allocation of resources to research and research infrastructure may not address the highest-priority public needs.

Several of the scientific advances discussed above will provide more improved instrumentation and allow for collection of more sophisticated data. Training will be necessary to ensure that the existing and emerging workforce has the scientific skills to use these instruments, analyze the data, and make appropriate decisions that capitalize on the value of these new technologies.

Ultimately, consumer practices and food choice will determine the ability of product and process development to successfully improve product safety, quality, and design. Advances in behavioral sciences and effective communication about science, technology, risk, and decision-making communication are required to underpin successful adoption in the market.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

Emerging technologies (e.g., omics, biosensors, and nanotechnology) have the potential to advance or transform the production of high-quality, safe, nutritious, and sustainable food products that meet the needs and demands of a diverse consumer population. Solving the fundamental and applied scientific problems necessary to use these technologies more widely will require multidisciplinary collaboration and funding mechanisms. Research efforts need to be transdisciplinary, involving not only food scientists but also those in other disciplines ranging from data and computer science, engineering, synthetic biology, and the social sciences, and many more. The committee identified the following high-priority research areas:

• Profile and/or alter food traits for desirability (such as chemical composition, nutritional value, intentional and unintentional contamination, and quality and sensory attributes) via improvements in processing and packaging technologies, the design and functionality of sensors, and the application of “foodomic” technologies.
• Provide enhanced product quality, nutrient retention, safety, and consumer appeal in a cost-effective and efficient manner that also reduces environmental impact and food waste by developing, optimizing, and validating advanced food processing and packaging technologies.
• Support improved decision making to maximize food integrity, quality, safety, and traceability, as well as to reduce food loss and

waste by capitalizing on data analytics, integration, and the development of advanced decision support tools.

• Enhance consumer understanding and acceptance of innovations in food production, processing, and safe handling through expanded knowledge about consumer behavior and risk-related decisions and practices.

Alahi, M. E. E., and S. C. Mukhopadhyay. 2017. Detection methodologies for pathogens and toxins: A review. Sensors 17:1885.

Andjelkovic, U., M. S. Gajdosik, D. Gaso-Sokac, T. Martinovic, and D. Josic. 2017. Foodomics and food safety: Where we are. Food Technology and Biotechnology 55(3):290-307.

Beans, C. 2017. Inner workings: Companies seek food safety using a microbiome approach. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114(51):13306-13308.

Bellemare, M., M. Cakir, H. H. Peterson, L. Novak, and J. Rudi. 2017. On the measurement of food waste. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 95(5):1148-1158.

Brehm-Stecher, B., C. Young, L. Jaykus, and M. L. Tortorello. 2009. Sample preparation: The forgotten beginning. Journal of Food Protection 8:1774-1789.

Buzby, J. C., F. W. Hodan, and J. Hyman. 2014. The Estimated Amount, Value, and Calories of Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States. Economic Information Bulletin EIB-121, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Capozzi, F., and A. Bordoni. 2013. Foodomics: A new comprehensive approach to food and nutrition. Genes & Nutrition 8:1-4.

CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation). 2018. Characterization and Management of Food Waste in North America: Foundational Report. Available at http://www.cec.org/islandora/en/item/11774-characterization-and-management-food-waste-in-north-america-foundational-report (accessed July 6, 2018).

Cinti, S., G. Volpe, S. Piermarini, E. Delibato, and G. Palleschi. 2017. Electrochemical biosensors for rapid detection of foodborne Salmonella : A critical overview. Sensors 17:1919.

Clancy, M., K. Fuglie, and P. Heisey. 2016. U.S. agricultural R&D in an era of falling public funding. Amber Waves , November 10. Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/november/us-agricultural-rd-in-an-era-of-falling-public-funding (accessed May 9, 2018).

Conrad, Z., M. T. Niles, D. A. Neher, E. D. Roy, N. E. Tichenor, and L. Jahns. 2018. Relationship between food waste, diet quality, and environmental sustainability. PLoS ONE 13(4):e0195405.

Corella, D., O. Coltell, G. Mattingley, J. V. Sorli, and J. M. Ordovás. 2017. Utilizing nutritional genomics to tailor diets for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: A guide for upcoming studies and implementations. Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 17(5):495-513.

Fitzgerald, J. E., E. T. H. Bui, N. M. Simon, and H. Fenniri. 2017. Artificial nose technology: Status and prospects in diagnostics. Trends in Biotechnology 35(1):33-41.

Floros, J. D., R. Newsome, W. Fisher, G. V. Barbosa-Cánovas, H. Chen, C. P. Dunne, J. B. German, R. L. Hall, D. R. Heldman, M. V. Karwe, and S. J. Knabel. 2010. Feeding the world today and tomorrow: The importance of food science and technology. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 9 (5):572-599.

Gallo, M., and P. Ferranti. 2016. The evolution of analytical chemistry methods in foodomics. Journal of Chromatography A 1428:3-15.

Ge, L., C. Brewster, J. Spek, A. Smeenk, and J. Top. 2017. Blockchain for Agriculture and Food: Findings from the Pilot Study. Wageningen Economic Research Report 2017-112. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University and Research Centre.

Giuffrida, M. C., and S. Spoto. 2017. Integration of isothermal amplification methods in microfluidic devices: Recent advances. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 90:174-186.

Grimaldi, K. A., B. van Ommen, J. M. Ordovas, L. D. Parnell, J. C. Mathers, I. Bendik, L. Brennan, C. Celis-Morales, E. Cirillo, H. Daniel, and B. de Kok, A. El-Sohemy, S. J. Fairweather-Tait, R. Fallaize, M. Fenech, L. R. Ferguson, E. R. Gibney, M. Gibney, I. M. F. Gjelstad, J. Kaput, A. S. Karlsen, S. Kolossa, J. Lovegrove, A. L. Macready, C. F. M. Marsaux, J. A. Martinez, F. Milagro, S. Navas-Carretero, H. M. Roche, W. H. M. Saris, I. Traczyk, H. van Kranen, L. Verschuren, F. Virgili, P. Weber, and J. Bouwman. 2017. Proposed guidelines to evaluate scientific validity and evidence for genotype-based dietary advice. Genes & Nutrition 12(1):35.

Gunders, D. 2012. Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill. NRDC Issue Paper IP:12-06-B. Washington, DC: Natural Resource Defense Council. Available at https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf (accessed July 6, 2018).

Gutierrez, J. C., F. Amaro, and A. Martin-Gonzalez. 2015. Heavy metal whole-cell biosensors using eukaryotic microorganisms: An updated critical review. Frontiers in Microbiology 6:48.

Hill, A. A., M. Crotta, B. Wall, L. Good, S. J. O’Brien, and J. Guitian. 2017. Towards an integrated food safety surveillance system: A simulation study to explore the potential of combining genomic and epidemiological metadata. Royal Society Open Science 4:160721.

IFIC (International Food Information Council). 2018. Blockhain: A Possible Breakthrough in Food Safety? Available at https://www.foodinsight.org/blockchain-technology-foodsafety-foodwaste (accessed June 22, 2018).

Kaput, J., G. Perozzi, M. Radonjic, and F. Virgili. 2017. Propelling the paradigm shift from reductionism to systems nutrition. Genes & Nutrition 12:3.

Lee, S., D. O’Dell, J. Hohenstein, S. Colt, S. Mehta, and D. Erickson. 2016. NutriPhone: A mobile platform for low-cost point-of-care quantification of vitamin B 12 concentrations. Scientific Reports 6:28237. doi: 10.1038/srep28237.

Lusk, J. L., and B. C. Briggeman. 2009. Food values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(1):184-196.

Lusk, J. L., and J. McCluskey. 2018. Understanding the impacts of food consumer choice and food policy outcomes. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 40(1):5-21.

Lusk, J. L., J. Roosen, and A. Bieberstein. 2014. Consumer acceptance of new food technologies: Causes and roots of controversies. Annual Review of Resource Economics 6:381-405.

Mandal, P., A. Biswas, K. Choi, and U. Pal. 2011. Methods for rapid detection of foodborne pathogens: An overview. American Journal of Food Technology 6:87-102.

Marraza, G. 2014. Piezoelectric biosensors for organophosphate and carbamate pesticides: A review. Biosensors 4:301-317.

Marvin, H. J. P., E. M. Janssen, Y. Bouzembrak, P. J. M. Hendriksen, and M. Staats. 2017. Big data in food safety: An overview. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 57(11):2286-2295.

Marwaha, S. S., and J. F. Kennedy. 1988. Whey—pollution problem and potential utilization. International Journal of Food Scienc e 23(4):323-336.

Mejia, C., J. McEntire, K. Keener, M. K. Muth, W. Nganje, T. Stinson, and H. Jensen. 2010. Traceability (product tracing) in food systems: An IFT report submitted to the FDA, volume 2: cost considerations and implications. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 9(1):159-175.

Mills, A., and D. Hazafy. 2008. A solvent-based intelligence ink for oxygen. Analyst 133(2): 213-218.

Mlalila, N., D. M. Kadam, H. Swai, and A. Hilonga. 2016. Transformation of food packaging from passive to innovative via nanotechnology: Concepts and critiques. Journal of Food Science and Technology 53(9):3395-3407.

NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NASEM. 2018. Nutrigenomics and the Future of Nutrition: Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Neetoo, H., and H. Chen. 2014. Alternative food processing technologies. In Food Processing: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed., edited by S. Clark, S. Jung, and B. Lamsal. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 137-169.

Neff, R. A., M. L. Spiker, and P. L., Truant. 2015. Wasted food: U.S. consumers’ reported awareness, attitudes, and behaviors. PLoS ONE 10(6):0127881.

Ogi, H. 2013. Wireless-electrodeless quartz-crystal-microbalance biosensors for studying interactions among biomolecules: A review. Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B, Physical and Biological Sciences 89:401-417.

Pak, Y., S.-M. Kim, H. Jeong, C. G. Kang, J. S. Park, H. Song, R. Lee, N. Myoung, B. H. Lee, S. Seo, J. T. Kim, and G.-Y. Jung. 2014. Palladium-decorated hydrogen-gas sensors using periodically aligned graphene nanoribbons. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 6:13293-13298.

Pérez-López, B., and A. Merkoçi. 2011. Nanomaterials based biosensors for food analysis applications. Trends in Food Science & Technology 22:625-639.

Pradhan, N., S. Singh, N. Ojha, A. Shrivastava, A. Barla, V. Rai, and S. Bose. 2015. Facets of nanotechnology as seen in food processing, packaging, and preservation industry. BioMed Research International . Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/365672 .

Prendergast, C. 2017. How food banks use markets to feed the poor. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31(4):145-162.

Pundir, C. S., and N. Chauhan. 2012. Acetylcholinesterase inhibition-based biosensors for pesticide determination: A review. Analytical Biochemistry 429:19-31.

Rateni, G., P. Dario, and F. Cavallo. 2017. Smartphone-based food diagnostic technologies: A review. Sensors 17:1453.

Rhouati, A., G. Bulbul, U. Latif, A. Hayat, Z.-H. Li, and J. L. Marty. 2017. Nano-aptasensing in mycotoxin analysis: Recent updates and progress. Toxins 9(11):349.

Roosen, J., A. Bieberstein, S. Blanchemanche, E. Goddard, S. Marette, and F. Vandermoere. 2015. Trust and willingness to pay for nanotechnology food. Food Policy 52:75-83.

Rosilo, H., J. R. McKee, E. Kontturi, T. Koho, V. P. Hytönen, O. Ikkala, and M. A. Kostiainen. 2014. Cationic polymer brush-modified cellulose nanocrystals for high-affinity virus binding. Nanoscale 6(20):11871-11881.

Silva, N. F. D., J. M. C. S. Magalhaes, C. Freire, and C. Delerue-Matos. 2018. Electrochemical biosensors for Salmonella : State of the art and challenges in food safety assessment. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 99:6678-6682.

Singh, T., S. Shukla, P. Kumar, V. Wahla, V. K., Bajpai, and I. A. Rather. 2017. Application of nanotechnology in food science: Perception and overview. Frontiers in Microbiology 8:1501.

Sun, J.-Z., G. P. Kingori, R.-W. Si, D.-D. Zhai, Z.-H. Liao, D.-Z. Sun, T. Zheng, Y.-C. Yong. 2015. Microbial fuel cell-based biosensors for environmental monitoring: A review. Water Science & Technology 71(6):801-809.

Toole, A. A., and F. Kuchler. 2015. Improving Health Through Nutrition Research: An Overview of the U.S. Nutrition Research System. Economic Research Report No. 182. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45340/50982_err-182_report-summary.pdf?v=42030 (accessed May 4, 2018).

UCD (University College Dublin). 2018. AgroCycle. Available at http://www.agrocycle.eu (accessed June 22, 2018).

Vigneshvar, S., C. C. Sudhakumari, B. Senthilkumaran, and H. Prakash. 2016. Recent advances in biosensor technology for potential applications—an overview. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 4. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2016.00011.

Wang, Y., and T. V. Duncan. 2017. Nanoscale sensors for assuring the safety of food products. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 44:74-86.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2016. Biofortification of Staple Crops. e-Library of Evidence for Nutrition Actions (eLENA). Available at http://www.who.int/elena/titles/biofortification/en (accessed July 6, 2018).

WHO. 2018. FOSCOLLAB: Global Platform for Food Safety Data and Information. Available at http://www.who.int/foodsafety/foscollab/en (accessed June 22, 2018).

Wojnowski, W., T. Majchrzak, T. Dymerski, and J. Gebicki. 2017. Electronic noses: Powerful tools in meat quality assessment. Meat Science 131:119-313.

Xiao, R., D. Wang, Z. Lin, B. Qiu, M. Liu, L. Guo, and G. Chen. 2015. Disassembly of gold nanoparticle dimers for colorimetric detection of ochratoxin A. Analytical Methods 7:842-845.

Xiaobo, Z., H. Xiaowei, and M. Povey. 2016. Non-invasive sensing for food reassurance. Analyst 141:1587-1610.

Zhang, G. 2013. Foodborne pathogenic bacteria detection: An evaluation of current and developing methods. Meducator 1(24):27-30. Available at https://journals.mcmaster.ca/meducator/issue/view/59 .

For nearly a century, scientific advances have fueled progress in U.S. agriculture to enable American producers to deliver safe and abundant food domestically and provide a trade surplus in bulk and high-value agricultural commodities and foods. Today, the U.S. food and agricultural enterprise faces formidable challenges that will test its long-term sustainability, competitiveness, and resilience. On its current path, future productivity in the U.S. agricultural system is likely to come with trade-offs. The success of agriculture is tied to natural systems, and these systems are showing signs of stress, even more so with the change in climate.

More than a third of the food produced is unconsumed, an unacceptable loss of food and nutrients at a time of heightened global food demand. Increased food animal production to meet greater demand will generate more greenhouse gas emissions and excess animal waste. The U.S. food supply is generally secure, but is not immune to the costly and deadly shocks of continuing outbreaks of food-borne illness or to the constant threat of pests and pathogens to crops, livestock, and poultry. U.S. farmers and producers are at the front lines and will need more tools to manage the pressures they face.

Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food and Agricultural Research by 2030 identifies innovative, emerging scientific advances for making the U.S. food and agricultural system more efficient, resilient, and sustainable. This report explores the availability of relatively new scientific developments across all disciplines that could accelerate progress toward these goals. It identifies the most promising scientific breakthroughs that could have the greatest positive impact on food and agriculture, and that are possible to achieve in the next decade (by 2030).

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

The Role of Science, Technology and Innovation in Transforming Food Systems Globally

• Open Access
• First Online: 02 January 2023

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Robin Fears 5 &
• Claudia Canales 5  

21k Accesses

1 Citations

6 Altmetric

Although much progress has been made in past decades, the prospects for food and nutrition security are now deteriorating and the converging crises of climate change and Covid-19 present major risks for nutrition and health, and challenges to the development of sustainable food systems. In 2018, the InterAcademy Partnership published a report on the scientific opportunities and challenges for food and nutrition security and agriculture based on four regional reports by academy networks in Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe. The present chapter draws on new evidence from the regions reaffirming the continuing rapid pace of science, technology and innovation and the need to act urgently worldwide to capitalise on the new opportunities to transform food systems. We cover issues around sustainable, healthy food systems in terms of the whole food value chain, including consumption and waste, the interconnections between agriculture and natural resources, and the objectives for developing a more balanced food production strategy (for land and sea) to deliver nutritional, social and environmental benefits. Our focus is on science, and we discuss a range of transdisciplinary research opportunities that can underpin the UN FSS Action Tracks, inform the introduction of game-changers, and provide core resources to stimulate innovation, inform practice and guide policy decisions. Academies of science, with their strengths of scientific excellence, inclusiveness, diversity and the capacity to link the national, regional and global levels, are continuing to support the scientific community’s a key role in catalysing action. Our recommendations concentrate on priorities around building the science base – including the recognition of the importance of fundamental research – to generate diverse yet equitable solutions for providing sustainable, healthy diets that are culturally sensitive and attend to the needs of vulnerable populations. We also urge better use of the transdisciplinary science base to advise policymaking, and suggest that this would be greatly advanced by constituting an international advisory Panel for Food and Nutrition Security, with particular emphasis on sustainable food systems.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system

Contested agri-food futures: Introduction to the Special Issue

The Food Industry as a Partner for Public Health?

1 introduction: the transformation of food systems.

The world is not on track to meet the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets linked to hunger and food and nutrition security. According to FAO data (FAO 2020 ), the number of hungry people has increased by 10% in the past 5 years and 3 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet. Some countries in Asia and Africa have made significant progress in increasing food and nutrition security alongside reducing poverty in the past decade, but others have not (EIU 2020 ). The risks continue to be compounded by the impacts of population growth, urbanisation, climate and other environmental changes, market instability and economic inequality. Furthermore, the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated problems and imposed disproportionate effects on the economically vulnerable, including marginalised groups in urban areas and smallholder farmers in rural areas (FAO 2020 ; EIU 2020 ). However, while there are unprecedented challenges, there are also unprecedented opportunities to capitalise on science, technology and innovation for the purpose of transforming food systems.

In 2018, the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP), the global network of more than 140 academies of science, engineering and medicine, published a global report on food and nutrition security and agriculture, drawing on information from four regional reports prepared by academy networks in Africa (NASAC), Asia (AASSA), the Americas (IANAS) and Europe (EASAC) and emphasising the value of taking a transdisciplinary approach. In the present chapter, we present an update on some of the issues from that global report linked to the assessments made in the chapters in this volume prepared by the regional academy networks for the UNFSS.

The work of the academies has adopted an integrative food systems approach that considers all points along the value chain, encompassing food processing, transport, retail, consumption, and recycling, as well as agricultural production. Moreover, in the transformation of food systems towards economic, social and environmental sustainability, setting agricultural priorities must take account of climate change and pressures on other critical natural resources, particularly water soil and energy, and the continuing need to avoid further loss in ecosystem biodiversity. Interest worldwide in the sustainability of food systems is accelerating (e.g., Global Panel 2020 ; IFPRI 2020 ; Food Systems Dashboard 2020 ; von Braun et al. 2021 ).

In this chapter, which covers the opportunities and challenges for food systems in tackling malnutrition in all its forms (undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, overweight and obesity), we frame the contribution that science can make to the local-global connectivity of food systems: (i) to strengthen and safeguard international public goods, i.e., those goods and services that have to be provided at a scale beyond that of individual countries or that can be better achieved collectively; (ii) to understand and tackle environmental and institutional risks in an increasingly uncertain world; and (iii) to help to address the SDGs by resolving complexities within evidence-based policies and programmes and their potential conflicts.

2 Regional Heterogeneity

Inevitably, in a summary of the global position, it is difficult to capture the diversity within and between regions relating to the challenges for food systems. The regional chapters are indicative of the territorial dimension in analysing obstacles to food and nutrition security, emphasising specific contexts for marginalised peoples and smallholder farmers, e.g., for the Hindu Kush Himalayan region (AASSA 2021 ). In Africa, although remarkable progress has been made over the last two decades in reducing extreme hunger, there are increasing pressures on food systems that require radical action (discussed in detail in NASAC 2021 ). Most African Union member states are not on track to achieve the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Plan goals (African Union 2020 ). In the comprehensive publication on country-level data in the Americas that accompanied the regional report on food and nutrition security and agriculture (IANAS 2017 , regional update IANAS 2021 ), there was detailed discussion of diversities within the region and of variation in the social determinants of food and nutrition security, e.g., related to gender. Other regional assessments find moderate-severe food insecurity (SDG Indicator 2.1.2) across the FAO Europe-Central Asia region, varying from 6.7% in the EU to 19% in the Caucasus. Obesity throughout this region is higher than the world average, Footnote 1 a challenge that has been examined by EASAC ( 2021 ).

3 Agriculture-Environment Nexus

IAP defines the desired outcome for food systems as access for all to a healthy and affordable diet that is environmentally sustainably produced and culturally acceptable. The IAP report from 2018 cautioned that an emphasis on increasing total factor productivity (TFP, the efficiency in the use of labour, land, capital and other inputs) is not warranted if such a focus leads to reductions in environmental protection. Since then, there has been continuing interest in using research to leverage TFP for sustainable and resilient farming (e.g., Coomes et al. 2019 ). In particular, the paradox of productivity has been highlighted (Benton and Bailey 2019 ), whereby agricultural productivity may generate food system inefficiency. That is, productivity, when leading to the increased availability of cheaper calories, may help to promote obesity, although nutritional content matters as much as calories. Current global competition policies incentivise producers who can produce the most food for the least amount of money, typically with accompanying environmental damage, including biodiversity loss (Chatham House 2021 ). The strategic focus of research and development, as well as production systems, should shift from staple crops, with the current emphasis on production of a narrow range of calorie-intensive staples, to a balanced strategy for crops that are of more value in terms of nutritional, social and environmental benefits, including fruit, vegetables, seeds, nuts and legumes (as food and feed, NASAC 2021 ).

Reform of food systems requires decision-makers to recognise the interdependence of supply-side and demand-side (including dietary change and waste reduction) actions. There must be further consideration given to strengthening coherence between global agreements, e.g., on responsible investment, and national action (Chatham House 2021 ). And, the continuing food system sustainability challenge of balancing production objectives for agricultural exports with satisfying domestic food and nutrition requirements is an issue for some countries (e.g., IANAS 2021 ).

Current intensive agricultural production depends heavily on fertilisers, pesticides, energy, land and water, with negative consequences for environmental sustainability. Changing environmental conditions and competition for key resources such as land and water provoke violence and conflict, exacerbating the vicious circle of hunger and poverty (NASAC 2021 ). Discussion in the NASAC ( 2021 ) Policy Brief exemplifies some of the particular issues for managing water demand, including conservation and the recycling of waste water, and notes the opportunities for science, technology and innovation in new irrigation schemes. Research and innovation play a crucial role in the transformation to sustainable food systems that produce more efficiently by environmentally friendly means. The options for the convergence of technological and societal innovation (including outputs from biotechnology, AI, digitalisation, and from social and cognitive sciences), exemplified later in this chapter, help to underpin the objectives for sustainable food systems.

Agro-ecology encompasses various approaches to using nature-based solutions for regenerative agriculture innovation (HLPE 2019 ) and systems research is still needed to help strengthen the evidence base for agro-ecological (nature-based) approaches. For example, agroforestry in sub-Saharan Africa has the potential to help tackle health concerns associated with a lack of food and nutrition security (non-communicable diseases) and with human migration, but requires additional research to characterise any increased risk from infectious disease alongside the beneficial outcomes (Rosenstock et al. 2019 ).

Developing diverse and resilient production systems worldwide is important in preparing for the likelihood of cumulative threats from extreme weather events through spillover across multiple food sectors on land and sea (Cottrell et al. 2019 ). In this context, it is relevant to note the interest in the potential of oceans for sustainable economies in addressing food security, biodiversity and climate change. One of the UK Presidency’s core themes for UN FCCC COP26 is “Nature,” with objectives for sustainable land use, sustainable and resilient agriculture, and increasing ambition and awareness of the ocean’s potential. This potential is also of great importance for the UN FSS Action Track on nature-positive production. By contrast with difficulties in expanding land-based agriculture, the potential for the sustainable production of fish and other seafood is increasingly recognised (Lubchenco et al. 2020 ; Costello et al. 2020 ) and brings new possibilities for local livelihoods. Fish supplies provide 19% of the animal protein in African diets (Chan et al. 2019 ; NASAC 2021 ). However, currently, one-third of the world’s marine fish stocks are overfished (FAO 2020 ). Realising the potential of the oceans requires technological innovation and policy reform for fishery management and governance, to restore wild fish stocks, eliminate illegal and unregulated fishing, and ensure sustainable mariculture so as to minimise environmental impacts. Oceans can contribute to climate change mitigation as well as to improved food systems, but it is important to be aware of inadvertent consequences of policy action, e.g., adoption of industrial-scale aquaculture can be associated with rapid growth in GHGs (in China, Yuan et al. 2019 ). Genetic improvement of fish species may help to reduce the environmental footprint of aquaculture (for example, in Africa, where aquaculture has been expanding at a faster rate than in some other places, NASAC 2021 ). This exemplifies a general point about seeking co-ordinated policy across sectors to avoid unintended effects and negative trade-offs. Another example is provided by poorly-designed land use policies to increase bioenergy production, which drive increases in land rent with negative implications for food and nutrition security (Fujimori et al. 2019 ).

4 Delivering Healthy Diets, Sustainably Produced, Under Climate Change

An accumulating evidence base demonstrates that climate change exacerbates food insecurity in all regions by reducing crop yield and nutritional content and by posing additional food safety risks from toxins and microbial contamination (e.g., IPCC 2019 ; Park et al. 2019 ; Ray et al. 2019 ; Watts et al. 2021 ). The effects are most pronounced in those groups who are already vulnerable, e.g., children, because of reduced nutrient intake (Park et al. 2019 ) or a decline in dietary diversity (Niles et al. 2021 ). A systematic review of the literature identified climate change and violent conflict as the most consistent predictors of child malnutrition (Brown et al. 2020 ). By increasing the volatility of risks in the global food system, climate change may also reduce the incentive to invest (IAP 2018 ), and rising heat- and humidity-induced declines in labour productivity reduce the income of subsistence farmers (Andrews et al. 2018 ).

Although better international integration of food trade can be a key component of climate change adaptation at the global scale, it requires sensitive implementation to benefit all regions (Janssens et al. 2020 ): in hunger-affected export-oriented regions, partial trade integration may exacerbate food and nutrition insecurity by increasing exports at the expense of domestic food availability. When assessing trade implications, it is also important to appreciate that climate change presents a risk to global port operations, with the greatest risk being projected for ports located in the Pacific Islands, the Caribbean Sea, the Indian Ocean, the Arabian Peninsula and the African Mediterranean (Izaguirre et al. 2021 ).

There are twin, overarching challenges for food systems: how can they adapt to climate change and, at the same time, reduce their own contribution to it, including in regard to GHG emissions? These intertwined challenges are discussed in all of the regional assessments. Multiple scientific opportunities have been identified to adapt by developing climate-resilient agriculture, e.g., from the application of biosciences to breed improved crop varieties resistant to biotic and abiotic stresses, as well as for the social sciences to understand and influence the behaviour of farmers, manufacturers and consumers in responding to climate change (see, for example, EASAC 2021 ). Combining evidence-based measures will also be essential to mitigate GHG emissions from the sector (currently contributing approximately 30% of global GHGs, Watts et al. 2021 ), including improving agronomic practices, reducing waste, and shifting to diets with a lower carbon footprint. For example, a background paper prepared in 2020 for the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) of UN FCCC COP Footnote 2 explored agronomic case studies (in South America, Asia, Africa and Europe) for managing nitrogen pollution (including the powerful GHG nitrous oxide) and improving manure management so as to decrease GHGs and benefit the environment. Capitalising on such research requires better connections between science and the broader community, along with relevant policy processes. There is particular need to dismantle obstacles to the transferability of practices and the scaling up of local research results to guide decision-making at the national and regional levels.

One major mitigation opportunity discussed by IAP ( 2018 ) and in all of the regional assessments relates to the potential to adjust dietary consumption patterns so as to reduce GHGs and, at the same time, gain significant potential health benefits (see Neufeld et al. 2021 for discussion of the definition of a healthy diet). For example, there is evidence that reducing red meat consumption, where it is excessive, can improve population health (Willett et al. 2019 ; systematic review of the literature in Jarmul et al. 2020 ). Red meat supplies only 1% of calories worldwide, while accounting for 25% of all land use emissions (Hong et al. 2021 ), though meat is an important source of protein, minerals and vitamins. The policies for reaching such consumption adjustments require more research to actually identify solutions. The proportion of excess deaths attributable to excess red meat consumption is highest in Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Americas and the Western Pacific (Watts et al. 2021 ). However, some populations consume sustainable diets that are meat-based, e.g., the Inuit Indigenous People in the Canadian Arctic: proposals for dietary change must be carefully designed, evidence-based and culturally sensitive in being adapted to circumstances and protecting nutrient supplies for the most vulnerable groups. It should also be acknowledged that the efficiency of livestock production varies according to farming system, such that conclusions, e.g., about the sustainability of pastoral cattle production, may be different from those for feed-lot cattle production (Adeosogen et al. 2019 ; AASSA 2021 ), and that livestock may be the only agricultural activity possible in dryland regions that do not support the cultivation of crops.

Although Africa accounts for the smallest regional share of total anthropogenic GHG emissions, about half of this is linked to agriculture, and the continent is experiencing the fastest increase of all regions (Tongwane and Moeletsi 2018 ; Latin America and South East Asia are also demonstrating rapid growth, Hong et al. 2021 ). As part of the whole systems approach, formulation of mitigation solutions must decouple increases in livestock productivity (and cereal productivity, Loon et al. 2019 ) from increases in GHGs. Progress is being made (e.g., in China, Cui et al. 2018 ; AASSA 2021 ), and decoupling can be informed by better use of the research evidence available, e.g., for improving herd management and animal health, breeding new varieties (with better feed conversion and energy utilisation efficiencies), improving forage provision (e.g., NASAC 2021 ) and strengthening targeted social protection mechanisms, alongside more generic recommendations for dietary change (EASAC 2021 ).

There are unprecedented scientific opportunities coming within range, but there are also multiple obstacles to mainstreaming climate change solutions into food system development planning. Evaluation of obstacles in India (Singh et al. 2017 ) highlights the limited access to finance, difficulties in accessing research and education, and delays in accessing weather information. Systematic review of the literature on smallholder production systems in South Asia (Aryal et al. 2020 ) notes weaknesses in the institutional infrastructure for implementing and disseminating available solutions: the application of science requires institutional change. At the global scale, there is a need for enhanced access to climate information and services around climate-resilient food security actions (WMO 2019 ), e.g., to aid decisions on the most suitable crops and planting times.

5 Responding to Covid-19

Climate change and Covid-19 are converging crises for health in many respects (Anon 2021 ), including food and nutrition security. Observations early in the pandemic Footnote 3 indicated that the production of staple food crops during critical periods (planting and harvesting) was vulnerable to interruptions in labour supply; food processing, transport and retail were also affected early on, particularly the relatively perishable, nutritionally-important fresh fruit and vegetables (Ali et al. 2020 ). Subsequent comprehensive assessment of consequences for global food security (Swinner and McDermott 2020 ) has evaluated how adverse effects on local practice and routines are transmitted to longer-term impacts on poverty and food systems worldwide in increasingly interconnected trade and markets. In some cases, supply disruption has been aggravated by national decisions to restrict the export of food. Footnote 4 The combined effects of Covid-19 in regard to economic recession and food system disruption are particularly detrimental to the poor (Ali et al. 2020 ; Swinner and McDermott 2020 , which includes case studies in Ethiopia, China, Egypt and Myanmar; NASAC 2021 ). However, in some regions, food systems proved relatively resilient (IANAS 2021 ), and there are also examples of good practice in new safety net programmes, including school feeding programmes that should be more widely shared and implemented. Tackling the consequences for child malnutrition has been identified as a particular priority for action (Fore et al. 2020 ), as has attention to gender bias, whereby women are suffering more adverse effects as a consequence of Covid-19-changed household and community dynamics (Swinner and McDermott 2020 ).

As emphasised by EASAC ( 2021 ), the pandemic has exposed the vulnerability of over-reliance on just-in-time and lean delivery systems, globalised food production and distribution based on complex value chains. Therefore, opportunities for increasing the localisation of production systems should be re-examined. However, there is often a mismatch in the timescale needed to adapt to Covid-19 between the imperative for early action to protect vulnerable groups and the relatively slow policy responses (Savary et al. 2020 ). Capitalising on the scientific opportunities may help to minimise this mismatch, e.g., improving food safety and reducing post-harvest losses (IAP 2018 ), implementing evidence-based social protection measures and using Information and Communication Technologies for e-commerce, food supply resilience, early warning systems, and health delivery. Post-Covid-19 initiatives on novel foods, and urban and peri-urban farming systems, can also strengthen food supply chains and create new livelihoods for expanding urban populations, although it is also important to understand and manage inadvertent consequences for rural employment and the environment (Ali et al. 2020 ).

6 Using Science, Technology and Innovation to Promote and Evaluate Action

Continuing with business as usual will not meet the objectives for transformative change. To reaffirm a core message from IAP ( 2018 ): there is urgent need to use currently available evidence to strengthen policies and programmes, and to invest in initiatives to gain new knowledge. Examples of what is possible are discussed extensively elsewhere (e.g., Fanzo et al. 2020 ; Lillford and Hermansson 2020 ). Footnote 5 It is not the purpose here to provide a detailed assessment of transdisciplinary research priorities, but in Table 1 , we map some onto the UN FSS Action Tracks to emphasise new opportunities that are coming within range and the need for science to achieve its potential. Examples are illustrative, not comprehensive; more detail on these and other research priorities are provided in IAP ( 2018 ), the regional chapters and in Sects. 1 , 2 , 3 , and 4 of this chapter. There are also, of course, many interactions between research streams and objectives that cannot be captured in Table 1 .

Several general recommendations can be made:

There is a need to increase the commitment to invest in fundamental science, and then connect that to applications and align it all with development priorities. There is also an important priority to develop improved methodologies for understanding the levers of change, including the attributes of “game-changers.” That is, how to attribute outcomes and impact to investments chosen and scientific or other actions undertaken.

There are new opportunities to improve collaboration and coordination worldwide, as well as build partnerships among the public and private sectors, NGOs and other stakeholders to co-design and conduct research. Transdisciplinary approaches should be encouraged. There is increasing entrepreneurial activity worldwide, e.g., in the Latin America region, a wide range of start-up company activities includes novel foods, novel production systems, and novel approaches to the optimisation of water and other natural resources (IANAS 2021 ). There are also considerable opportunities in Africa for action on agriculture to stimulate economic growth, reducing poverty while also increasing food and nutrition security (Baumuller et al. 2021 ; NASAC 2021 ).

Training and mentoring the next generation of researchers worldwide is essential: academies of science have a key role in encouraging younger scientists.

Obstacles, especially in low- and middle-income countries, in the use and production of data and in the scaling up of applications must be addressed. For example, although big data/mobile-based communications bring significant benefits (e.g., IANAS 2021 ; NASAC 2021 ) and there have been advances in using mobile technology to deliver climate services for agriculture in Africa (Dayamba et al. 2018 ), more should be done to increase access for small-scale farmers (Mehrabi et al. 2021 ). A digital inclusion agenda is needed for governments and the private sector to increase access to data-driven agriculture.

In addition to generating excellent science, it is vital to reduce the delay in translating research outputs into innovation, public policy and practice (IAP 2018 ). Time lags may arise from negative attitudes associated with perceived risks, from excessive regulatory requirements in some countries or from an absence of regulation in others. This leads to fragmentation in the capture of benefits. For example, there is current heterogeneity in considering whether new plant-breeding techniques – such as those based on genome editing – should be included within older legislation governing genetically modified organisms. Scientific advances are occurring worldwide, e.g., collaborative work in Colombia, Germany, France, the Philippines and the USA to develop rice that is resistant to bacterial blight (Oliva et al. 2019 ; IANAS 2021 ). The controversy created by a situation in which regulatory frameworks are disconnected from robust science is discussed by EASAC ( 2021 ). Figure 1 demonstrates the resulting incoherence that acts to deter science, innovation and competitiveness, creates non-tariff barriers to trade and undermines collective action to enhance food and nutrition security. This may have particular adverse consequences for those already suffering malnutrition; for example, the acceptance of gene-based technologies has been mixed in Africa, even though there may be considerable scientific opportunities for using biotechnology in crop breeding programmes to increase resistance to biotic and abiotic stress and to improve nutrient content and nitrogen use efficiency (NASAC 2021 ).

Variation in the regulation of genome editing for plant breeding

7 Strengthening the Contribution of Research to Policymaking

Alongside action to accelerate investment in agriculture and food systems research (von Braun et al. 2020 ), there must be transdisciplinary integration of priorities at the science-policy interface across all relevant sectors (Fears et al. 2019 ), including agriculture, the environment, health and social care, rural and urban development, and fiscal policy. There must also be linkage of policy at the local, regional and global levels (Fears et al. 2020 ), while taking account of local values and circumstances and recognising the challenges for coordination. One recent example from Asia (Islam and Kieu 2020 ) of developing critical mass in regional policy for climate change and food security discusses criteria for successive steps in policy planning, implementation, cooperation and legal obligation, and observes that the latter two steps often present fundamental barriers to moving from the priorities in a national development agenda to regional coherence. In the African region, the recent Joint Ministerial Declaration and Action Agenda (AU 2020 ) calls upon governments to build greater productive capacity in agriculture and strengthen resilience throughout Africa’s agri-food systems.

Scaling efforts for critical mass requires individual countries to recognise that their policy decisions may have an impact on other countries and regions. For example, some countries export their lack of environmental sustainability by increasing food imports from elsewhere (IAP 2018 ).

Academies and others within the scientific community (STCMG 2020 ) have a key role in overcoming obstacles to effective policy by working together across disciplines to show the value of an inclusive approach, e.g., to the SDGs. Moreover, systematic review of the literature indicates that public support for a policy can be increased by communicating evidence of its effectiveness (Reynolds et al. 2020 ; Fears et al. 2020 ). Therefore, the work of academies in using the evidence base to inform policy development and implementation can help to provide the bridge between policymakers and the public.

What are the implications for the UN FSS? UN FSS discussions have highlighted the place of “game-changers” in driving transformative action, and the scientific community has much to contribute in exploring the potential of game-changers to underpin transformation at the science-policy interface (see AASSA 2021 ). For example, a recent commentary on Action Track 1 Footnote 6 identified some key precepts that can be illustrated by academies’ work at the regional and global levels (Table 2 ).

We suggest that there is an additional game-changer, applicable to all Action Tracks: the development of a new international science advisory Panel on Food and Nutrition Security (IAP 2018 ), with a broad remit for food systems, focused on shaping policy choices and strengthening governance mechanisms. A new Panel, recognising the new opportunities and challenges for food system governance, could help to streamline research efficiency in its linkage to policy action and increase the legitimacy of that science advice by using robust assessment procedures (Global Panel 2020 ). The impetus created by the UN FSS requires the coordination and management of food systems by more sectors of government and stakeholders than had been the case for food security, creating an unprecedented opportunity to develop a framework for greater transparency, accountability and the sharing of knowledge. By consolidating the present myriad, fragmented, array of panels and advisory committees, the proposed international advisory Panel could draw on the large scientific community already working on these topics – including academies – and should be asked to address the most pressing issues for transformative change in the face of the mounting global challenges. Food and nutrition security, particularly for high-risk groups, must be a top priority on every country’s national agenda, yet many countries do not have a national security strategy in place (EIU 2020 ). Furthermore, as already noted, advisory capacities, governance policies, and institutions are sometimes weak at the regional level (AASSA 2021 ; NASAC 2021 ). Thus, in addition to building the critical mass for evaluating complex issues at the global scale, an international advisory Panel could help to drive momentum for a national food system strategy in all countries and engender regional-level initiatives in policy development and implementation.

IAP recommends that the UN FSS now consider options for constituting a new international advisory Panel, so as to make best use of the rapid advances in science, technology and innovation, and to motivate evidence-based policymaking at all levels. IAP and its regional academy networks are eager to be involved.

8 Conclusions

Achieving food and nutrition security worldwide by transforming food systems remains a major challenge, compounded by recent pressures from climate change and the Covid-19 pandemic. Actions to promote food systems are relevant to multiple SDGs. It is essential to identify opportunities for synergies and trade-offs while avoiding inadvertent negative consequences, and to engage everybody, in order to enable change. This requires advances in complex food system modelling.

Food systems are diverse and heterogeneous. Continuing research is needed to inform diverse yet equitable solutions for sustainable, healthy diets that are culturally sensitive, focusing on vulnerable groups. That calls for stronger connections between local and international research entities. The opportunities for complex and innovative remote sensing and web-based data should also be explored for this purpose.

Greater transdisciplinarity is needed in research to progress from the current scientific agenda, which is still too often focused on individual components of food systems or on agriculture separate from its environmental context. Social science research must be better integrated with other disciplines, e.g., to understand and inform consumer, farmer and manufacturer behaviours and to guide policies to deliver objectives for social justice. The development of improved methodologies for understanding the attribution of impact is also a critical research priority.

Science is a public good, yet the conduct and use of basic and other research is often fragmented. There is still much to be done to build critical mass worldwide, to share skills and a research infrastructure, and to collaborate in agreeing upon and addressing research priorities and avoiding unnecessary duplication. There is a continued convening role for academies of science to facilitate the exploration of opportunities and tackle the obstacles to research collaboration between disciplines and between the public and private research communities.

There are also opportunities to improve science-policy interfaces and integrate policy development at the local, regional and global levels. One game-changer would be to constitute an international advisory Panel on Food and Nutrition Security with new emphasis on food systems to make better use of the best science to inform, motivate and implement evidence-based policymaking at all levels.

FAO ( 2020 ) “Sustainable food systems and healthy diets in Europe and Central Asia.” ERC/20/2, on www.fao.org/3/nc226en/nc2262n.pdf . This report discusses multiple issues around diversified and sustainable food systems, improving supply chains and reducing food loss and waste.

SBSTA 52nd Session 2020. “Improved nutrient use and manure management towards sustainable and resilient agricultural systems”. FCCC/SB/2020/1.

CGIAR’s response to COVID-19. www.cgiar.org/news-events/all-news/our-response-to-covid-19

International Monetary Fund “Policy responses to COVID-19”. https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid-19/Policy-Responses-to-COVID-19

See also repositories of recent literature, e.g., Sustainable solutions to end hunger ( https://www.nature.com/collections/dhiggjeagd ); Sustainable nutrition ( https://www.nature.com/collections/fibbgbiebc ); and Socio-technical innovation bundles for agri-food transformation ( https://www.nature.com/documents/Bundles_agrifood_transformation.pdf ).

Haddad, L. 2021 “Food systems “game changers”: reflections so far”, on https://un-food-systems.medium.com/food-systems-game-changers-reflections-so-far-d4c8200c5663

AASSA (2021) Regional brief for UN FSSS

Google Scholar  

Adesogan AT, Havelaar AH, McKune SL, Eilitta M, Dahl GE (2019) Animal source foods: sustainability problem or malnutrition and sustainability solution? Perspective matters. Glob Food Secur 25:100325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100325

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali Z, Green R, Zougmore RB et al (2020) Long-term impact of West African food system responses to COVID-19. Nat Food 1:768–770

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Andrews O, Le Quere C, Kjellstrom T, Lemke B, Haines A (2018) Implications for workability and survivability in populations exposed to extreme heat under climate change: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health 2:e540–e547

Anon. (2021) Climate and COVID-19 converging crises. Lancet 397:71

Aryal JP, Sapkota TB, Khurana R, Khatri-Chhetri A, Rahut DB, Jat ML (2020) Climate change and agriculture in South Asia: adaptation options in smallholder production systems. Environ Dev Sustain 22:504505075

AU (African Union) (2020) Joint virtual meeting of the African Ministers responsible for agriculture, trade and finance on the impact of COVID-19 on food and nutrition security in Africa, 27 July 2020. Joint Ministerial Declaration and Action Agenda. AU, Addis Ababa

Basso B, Antle J (2020) Digital agriculture to design sustainable agricultural systems. Nat Sustain 3:254–256

Baumüller K, Admassie A, Hendriks S, Tadesse G, von Braun J (eds) (2021) From potentials to reality: transforming Africa’s food production – investment and policy priorities for sufficient, nutritious and sustainable food supplies. Peter Lang Publ. (Forthcoming, an earlier draft is available at https://www.zef.de/fileadmin/downloads/ZEF_Akademiya2063.pdf )

Benton TG, Bailey R (2019) The paradox of productivity: agricultural productivity promotes food system inefficiency. Glob Sustain 2:e6

Brown ME, Backer D, Billing T et al (2020) Empirical studies of factors associated with child malnutrition: highlighting the evidence about climate and conflict shocks. Food Secur. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01041-y

Chan C, Tran N, Pethiyagoda S, Crissman C, Sulser T, Phillips M (2019) Prospects and challenges of fish for food security in Africa. Glob Food Sec 20:17–25

Chatham House (2021) Food system impacts on biodiversity. ISBN: 978 1 78413 433 4

Coomes OT, Barham BL, MacDonald GK, Ramankutty N, Chavas J-P (2019) Leveraging total factor productivity growth for sustainable and resilient farming. Nat Sustain 2:22–28

Costello C, Cao L, Gelcich S et al (2020) The future of food from the sea. Nature 588:95–100

Cottrell RS, Nash KL, Halpern BS et al (2019) Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat Sustain 2:130–137

Cuevas RP, de Guia A, Demont M (2017) Developing a framework of gastronomic systems research to unravel drivers of food choice. Int J Gastron Food Sci 9:86–99

Cui Z, Zhang H, Chen X et al (2018) Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers. Nature 555:363–366

Dayamba DS, Ky-Dembele C, Bayala J et al (2018) Assessment of the use of Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA) approach by farmers to manage climate risk in Mali and Senegal. Clim Serv 12:27–35

EASAC (2021) Regional brief for UN FSSS

Economist Intelligence Unit (2020) 2020 Global food security index. https://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/index

Eker S, Reese G, Obersteiner M (2019) Modelling the drivers of a widespread shift to sustainable diets. Nat Sustain 2:725–735

Fanzo J, Covic N, Dobermann A et al (2020) A research vision for food systems in the 2020s: defying the status quo. Glob Food Sec 26:100397

FAO (2019) Tracking progress on food and agriculture-related SDG indicators. FAO

FAO (2020) State of food security and nutrition in the world. FAO

Fears R, ter Meulen V, von Braun J (2019) Global food and nutrition security needs more and new science. Sci Adv 5:eaba2946

Fears R, Canales Holzeis C, ter Meulen V (2020) Designing inter-regional engagement to inform cohesive policy making. Palgrave Commun 6:107

Food systems Dashboard (2020) A food systems framework. https://foodsystemsdashboard.org/about-food-system

Fore HH, Dongyu O, Beasley DM, Ghebreyesus TA (2020) Child malnutrition and COVID-19: the time to act is now. Lancet 396:517–518

Fujimori S, Hasegawa T, Krey V et al (2019) A multi-model assessment of food security implications of climate change mitigation. Nat Sustain 2:386–396

Global Panel on Agriculture and Food systems for Nutrition (2020) Future food systems: for people, our planet, and prosperity. Foresight 2.0

High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (2019) Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. Committee on World Food Security

Hodson De Jaramillo E, Henry G, Trigo E (2019) La Bioeconomía. Nuevo marco para el crecimiento sostenible en América Latina/Bioeconomy. New Framework for Sustainable Growth in Latin America. Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá. ISBN 978-958-781-378-4. Available at https://repository.javeriana.edu.co/handle/10554/43705

Hong C, Burney JA, Pongratz J et al (2021) Global and regional drivers of land-use emissions in 1961-2017. Nature 589:554–561

IANAS (2017) Challenges and opportunities for food and nutrition security in the Americas. The view of the academies of sciences

IANAS (2021). Regional brief for UN FSS

IAP (2018) Opportunities for future research and innovation on food and nutrition security and agriculture. The InterAcademy Partnership’s global perspective

IFPRI (2020) Building inclusive food systems. Global Food Policy Report

IPCC (2019) Climate change and land. In: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems

Islam MS, Kieu E (2020) Tackling regional climate change impacts and food security issues: a critical analysis across ASEAN, PIF, and SAARC. Sustainability 12:883

Izaguirre C, Losada IJ, Camus P, Vigh JL, Stenek V (2021) Climate change risk to global port operations. Nat Clim Chang 11:14–20

Jain M, Singh B, Rao P et al (2019) The impact of agricultural interventions can be doubled by using satellite data. Nat Sustain 2:931–934

Janssens C, Havlik P, Krisztin T et al (2020) Global hunger and climate change adaptation through international trade. Nat Clim Chang 10:829–835

Jarmul S, Dangour AD, Green R et al (2020) Climate change mitigation through dietary change: a systematic review of empirical and modelling studies on the environmental footprints and health effects of “sustainable diets”. Environ Res Lett 15:123014

Kongerslev TT, Bertram HC, Bonjour J-P et al (2017) Whole dairy matrix or single nutrients in an assessment of health effects: current evidence and knowledge gaps. Am J Clin Nutr 105:1033–1045

Laar A, Barnes A, Aryeetey R et al (2020) Implementation of healthy food environment policies to prevent nutrition-related non-communicable diseases in Ghana: national experts’ assessment of government action. Food Policy 93:101907

Lillford P, Hermansson A-M (2020) Global missions and the critical needs of food science and technology. Trends Food Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.04.009

Lubchenco J, Haugan P, Pangestu ME (2020) Five priorities for a sustainable ocean economy. Nature 588:30–32

Mabhaudhi T, Vimbayi V, Chimonyo G et al (2019) Prospects of orphan crops in climate change. Planta 250:695–708

Mehrabi Z, McDowell MJ, Ricciardi V et al (2021) The global divide in data-driven farming. Nat Sustain 4:154–160

NASAC (2021) Regional brief for UN FSS

Neufeld LM, Hendriks S, Hugas M (2021) Healthy diet: a definition for the United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021. Scientific Group Report. https://sc-fss2021.org

Niles MT, Emery BF, Wiltshire S et al (2021) Climate impacts associated with reduced diet diversity in children across nineteen countries. Environ Res Lett 16:015010

Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2019) Meat alternatives. Bioethics Briefing Note

Oliva R, Ji C, Atienza-Grande G et al (2019) Broad-spectrum resistance to bacterial blight in rice using genome editing. Nat Biotechnol 37:1344–1350

Park CS, Vogel E, Larson LM et al (2019) The global effect of extreme weather events on nutrient supply: a superposed epoch analysis. Lancet Planet Health 3:e429–e438

Pironen S, Etherington TR, Borrell JS et al (2019) Potential adaptive strategies for 29 sub-Saharan crops under future climate change. Nat Clim Chang 9:758–763

Ray DK, West PC, Clark M et al (2019) Climate change has likely already affected global food production. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217148

Reynolds JP, Stautz K, Pilling M et al (2020) Communicating the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of government policies and their impact on public support: a systematic review with meta-analysis. R Soc Open Sci 7. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190522

Rosenstock TS, Dawson IK, Aynekulu E et al (2019) A planetary health perspective on agroforestry in sub-Saharan Africa. One Earth 1:330–344

Savary S, Akter S, Almekinders C et al (2020) Mapping disruption and resilience mechanisms in food systems. Food Secur 12:695–717

Scientific and Technological Community Major Group (2020) Position paper on the theme of the 2020 High-Level Political Forum. https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Position-Paper-STC-29_June.pdf

Singh NP, Arathy A, Pavithra S et al (2017) Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development planning, Policy Paper 32. ICAR – National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi

Singh BK, Trivedi P, Egidi E et al (2020) Crop microbiome and sustainable agriculture. Nat Rev Microbiol 18:601–602

Smith J, Andersson G, Gourlay R et al (2016) Balancing competing policy demands: the case of sustainable public sector food procurement. J Clean Prod 112:249–256

Swinnen J, McDermott J (eds) (2020) COVID-19 and global food security. IFPRI

Thorrez L, Vandenburg H (2019) Challenges in the quest for “clean meat”. Nat Biotechnol 37:215–216

Tongwane MI, Moeletsi ME (2018) A review of greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector in Africa. Agric Syst 166:124–134

van Loon MP, Hijbeek R, ten Berge HFM et al (2019) Impacts of intensifying or expanding cereal cropping in sub-Saharan Africa on greenhouse gas emissions and food security. Glob Chang Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14783

von Braun J, Chichaibelu BB, Torero CM, Laborde D, Smaller C (2020) Ending hunger by 2030 – policy actions and costs. ZEF Policy Brief

von Braun J, Afsano K, Fresco L, Hassan M, Torero M (2021) Food systems – definition, concept and application for the UN Food Systems Summit. Scientific Group Report. https://sc-fss2021.org

Watts N, Amann M, Arnell N et al (2021) The 2020 report of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: responding to converging crises. Lancet 397:129–170

Willett W, Rockstrom J, Loken B et al (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393:447–492

WMO (2019) 2019 State of climate services. Report WMO-No. 1242

Yuan J, Xiang J, Liu D et al (2019) Rapid growth in greenhouse gas emissions from the adoption of industrial-scale aquaculture. Nat Clim Chang 9:318–322

Download references

Acknowledgements

This IAP Brief was drafted by Robin Fears and Claudia Canales in discussion with Volker ter Meulen. We thank Sheryl Hendriks (NASAC), Elizabeth Hodson (IANAS) and Paul Moughan (AASSA) for their helpful advice.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

European Academies’ Science Advisory Council’s (EASAC) Biosciences Programme, Halle (Saale), Germany

Robin Fears & Claudia Canales

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia Canales .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, Bonn, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

Joachim von Braun

James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Kaosar Afsana

Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Gelderland, The Netherlands

Louise O. Fresco

The World Academy of Sciences for the Advancement of Science in Developing Countries (TWAS), Trieste, Italy

Mohamed Hag Ali Hassan

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Fears, R., Canales, C. (2023). The Role of Science, Technology and Innovation in Transforming Food Systems Globally. In: von Braun, J., Afsana, K., Fresco, L.O., Hassan, M.H.A. (eds) Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5_44

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15703-5_44

Published : 02 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-15702-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-15703-5

eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Food Technology Essays

Research project: food technology and catering, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Food: How Technology Has Changed the Way We Eat? Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Technology plays an essential role in making life more convenient and easier. The use of technology has improved life in the aspect of transport, communication and entertainment among others (Sparks, 2011). Some of the technological products include cell phones, computers, televisions, washing machines and the internet.

Using computers or cell phones, one can easily deliver a message to another person without necessarily having to meet them face to face. On the other hand, technology has made life more difficult for some people especially due to its influence on the change in lifestyle, eating and health habits (Sparks, 2011).

Despite the internet acting as a tool for interaction between people, it has created a wider gap when it comes to social interactions, as well as negatively affected peoples’ personalities. This is mainly attributed to the use of social media and the internet, whereby, people have lost the true meaning of personal interactions (Sparks, 2011).

This has also negatively affected peoples’ eating habits, for example, when people eat while watching TV. This habit has been found to distract an individual’s attention while eating thus it reduces their sensory experience, a factor which could also lead to overeating (Bijlefeld & Zoumbaris, 2001).

Research has indicated that due to the burdening activities and divided attention between eating and using a technological device, one will need to take more quantities of a certain food to experience an optimal taste. This is relevant to the current society where multitasking is very common, especially among the youth, leading to unhealthy eating habits (Bijlefeld & Zoumbaris, 2001). It is, therefore, advisable that one turns off the television while eating or stays away from the computer when taking any meal so as to enjoy the meal.

During the 19 th and the early 20 th century, it was a common ritual for families, especially those in the middle class, to eat dinner at home together every evening. This has, however, changed over the recent past mostly due to the increased use of technology.

One of the factors resulting in to this difference is in the case of the television, for example, where some of the family members prefer watching television before taking meals while others take their meals while watching television, thus distracting their attention from the other family members. Family members are also likely to take part in other activities like using the computer and other gadgets while eating other than spending their time with the other members.

Additionally, playing smartphone and computer games has also been attributed to unhealthy eating habits. Research has indicated that people who play these games are likely to eat more than those who do not while other individuals have been reported to eat less.

One’s attention is likely to be captured by the gadgets at the expense of the meal they are taking. Excessive game playing and use of gadgets like phones could also lead to increased cognitive demands, blood pressure and heart rates and in turn lead to mental stress (Bijlefeld & Zoumbaris, 2001).

Online ordering of food has also been attributed to unhealthy eating habits, which may be unsafe for consumers. Most people with tight schedules prefer ordering their food online rather than cooking it themselves. These foods could cause harm to the consumers, who in most cases are not sure of the ingredients used to prepare them, and that may pose a health risk (Bushko, 2002).

These large quantities of food could also contain harmful ingredients that could affect consumers’ health (Wilson, 2012). It is advisable for people to prepare their meals themselves since they will be sure of the nutrients and ingredients included. Food and Drug Administration bodies warn consumers against buying meals over the internet, with regard to the safety of these foods.

Most people do not know exactly what they consume. Most of these products have most likely not been checked for safety or effectiveness thus they may contain harmful and unapproved ingredients (Bushko, 2002). This is despite the fact that the websites from which they are sold may look professional and legitimate.

The excessive use of technology has also been linked to obesity (Wilson, 2012). People who play computer games have, for example, been said to eat larger quantities of food to replace the calories burned when playing these games.

They are also likely to prefer more fatty and sugary foods as compared to taking healthy meals. Lack of exercise and physical activity are also major factors leading to obesity besides taking the fatty and sugary foods. On the other hand, however, the playing computer and video games has been said to help users burn more calories.

As mentioned above, food supply from most of the online sites is questionable on the ingredients included. Most of these foods contain chemicals and other substances that are not disclosed on the ingredients’ label. Consumers should be keen to read the details on the nutritional information label on the products they consume (Cuthbertson, 2009).

Additionally, due to the increased use of technology, more artificial and chemical ingredients that could be harmful have been invented and used in meal preparation. It is; hence, important to distinguish between the good/ healthy and bad/ unhealthy components in the food supplied.

The good components are the nutritious components that benefit one’s health (Cuthbertson, 2009). Measures should also be taken by the Food and Drug Administration bodies to inspect the foods produced by the online foods producers before it gets to the consumers. The sale and consumption of contaminated foods has also been a cause of the widespread illnesses and chronic diseases.

Taking a healthy diet and having regular exercise is important for the wellbeing of every individual as it helps in increasing energy and promoting good health. One of the main benefits of diet and regular exercise is controlling weight and maintaining weight loss (Cuthbertson, 2009). When one exercises, he or she burns excessive calories that may cause obesity. Exercise could be in form actual workout or taking up house hold chores.

Diet and regular exercise also play a vital role in combating diseases such as diabetes, stroke and depression. This is because it helps in improving blood flow in the body (Cuthbertson, 2009). Exercise also helps in improving one’s moods and in boosting ones energy. A good diet entails taking a variety of foods that contain all the nutrients such as proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins and fats in the right quantities (Cuthbertson, 2009).

Technology in the future, if properly embraced, can be used in enhancing food production in terms of quality and quantity (Bushko, 2002). The use of technology can more highly increase the quantities of food as compared to manual production. It could, therefore, be used to create a sustainable food system for the growing population with the declining quantities of natural resources.

Technology could also be used to improve the quality of food if appropriately used. Additionally, the technological advancements could be used to reduce the time consumed in preparation of meals through the production of healthy instant meals that do not require much time in preparation (Bushko, 2002; Sparks, 2011).

Bijlefeld, M. & Zoumbaris, S. (2001). Food and You: A Guide to Healthy Habits for Teens. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Bushko, G. (2002). Future of Health Technology . Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Cuthbertson, J. (2009). Nutrition: The Importance of a Healthy Diet . Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Sparks, G. (2011). Media Effects Research: A Basic Overview, 4th ed.: A Basic Overview . Connecticut: Cengage Learning.

Wilson, B. (2012). Consider the Fork: A History of How We Cook and Eat . New York: Basic Books.

• Fast Food on Campus: When Affordable Meals Overshadow the Nutrition Issues
• Moist and Dry Heat Cookery
• Healthy Foods and Obesity: Unhealthy Weight Loss Methods and Media Weight Loss Campaigns
• Causes and Effects of Fast Food: Reputation for Unhealthy Eating
• Changing the Food Journal After Every Month
• The High Calories in the Coca-Cola
• Healthy Eating: Australians' Eating Habits
• The Food Impact on Health
• Mood change and impact on eating habits
• Fast Foods More Harm Than Good
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, January 17). Food: How Technology Has Changed the Way We Eat? https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-how-technology-has-changed-the-way-we-eat/

"Food: How Technology Has Changed the Way We Eat?" IvyPanda , 17 Jan. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/food-how-technology-has-changed-the-way-we-eat/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Food: How Technology Has Changed the Way We Eat'. 17 January.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Food: How Technology Has Changed the Way We Eat?" January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-how-technology-has-changed-the-way-we-eat/.

1. IvyPanda . "Food: How Technology Has Changed the Way We Eat?" January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-how-technology-has-changed-the-way-we-eat/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Food: How Technology Has Changed the Way We Eat?" January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/food-how-technology-has-changed-the-way-we-eat/.

• Media Contact
• World Food Prize Week Media Information
• Join Our Media List
• Interview Laureates
• Archived News Coverage
• The President's Blog

The Borlaug Blog

The role of technology in achieving global food security.

Global food security implies that all people throughout the world, including vulnerable groups such as the rural and urban poor, at all times have access to adequate quantities of safe and nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life. Food security is a right that should be embraced by all countries, irrespective of their level of technical, economic and social development. Food security is essential to a country but it is challenged by factors such as: lack of education and political instability; inadequate planning and policies; lack of transparency and improper governance, financing; slow paces in technology development and other governance issues. Improving these factors should contribute to improved food intake and less hunger. I believe that technology can contribute to the achievement of global food security.

The term technology is broad and is defined as the collection of techniques, skills, methods and processes in the production of goods. The technology required to be food secure is country-specific. It depends on physical environment, infrastructure, climate, culture, literacy, economic conditions and governance. Developing countries typically develop food security strategies following paths and processes that are different from those adopted by developed countries. In developing countries, technologies to achieve food security span a wide range of subject areas, including land preparation, soil and water management, seed production, weed management, pest and disease control, farm management, harvesting and such post-harvest practices like storage, processing, packaging, marketing and distribution. Efficient irrigation technologies, water harvesting and conservation techniques can address water constraints in sub-Saharan Africa. Poor soils, water scarcity, crop pests/diseases/weeds, and unsuitable temperatures are well-known to reduce the productivity of food crops, leading to low efficiency of input use, suppressed crop output and ultimately reduced food security. Post-harvest losses of crops carry the burden of all resources consumed in producing the harvest that is lost. Storage and processing technologies in root and tuber crops, such as cassava and sweet potato, minimizes rates of post-harvest spoilage. Pests and diseases are frequent constraints and can significantly reduce crop productivity. Some of the technologies hasten completion of a task and at a lower cost. Moreover, food diversity is very important to meet required nutrition levels.

Food security in developing countries is further complicated by social equality and political stability. People lacking food security will search for a better life elsewhere. Food insecurity and hunger have led to the displacement of millions, and migration brought about by food insecurity has destabilized several countries. Complicating the situation even more, even when people may have enough to eat, they still may be unhealthy due to poor diets that lead to obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other malign conditions. Technology can help provide basic and extra food choices to vulnerable populations. This can come from improved crop varieties, for example orange-fleshed sweet potato added into a basket of purple- or white-fleshed sweet potato or iron rich beans. It can help restore political stability by ensuring that the production of food is based on: efficient agricultural activities; sustainable practices; high productivity from well adapted, improved crop varieties; dynamic employment and revenue generation for large numbers of people. Technology can support improved economic growth and social well-being; effective harvest and post-harvest practices to minimize food loss; effective storage and conservation practices to increase the value of harvested products; identification of high value added products to improve economic gains for processors and ensure long shelf-life and enhanced marketing of available foodstuffs at competitive prices, based on effective government policies.

Food security can be achieved by using knowledge of the best practices based on science. Technological packages have to be well chosen and be appropriate for local contexts so that they are used by a range of actors along the production to consumption chain. The effectiveness of the whole process will depend on location, farm sizes, farmer literacy, access to information and government policies and their enforcement. For example, some countries may use genetically modified seed whereas others will not. The choice will therefore depend on a deliberate, pragmatic and systematic analysis of the needs of each country.

Technologies used in achieving food security should ensure high quality food products. Low food quality exposes the population to poor nutrition and food safety issues, which in turn create a burden on the society, affecting overall socio-economic well-being. This issue of quality should be taken into account when making choices about types of staple crops, post-harvest practices and processing and packaging of finished products that are safe for consumption.

To ensure that food security is indeed global, the availability and use of technology should include a large number of trained professionals with the expertise needed in the different areas mentioned earlier. Training will be required, but without this there will be very little research and innovation, and adequately sized and dynamic businesses will not be developed to provide the needed sustained output of knowledge, skills and products.

Quick Links

Subscribe to the world food prize newsletter, connect with us, contact world food prize.

100 Locust Street Des Moines, Iowa 50309 USA

Phone:  +1 515-245-3783 +1 515-245-3783

Fax:  +1 515-245-3785

© 2024 The World Food Prize Foundation. All Rights Reserved. Sitemap

Journals, books & databases

• Our journals

Sustainable Food Technology

Cultivating sustainable solutions to food processing and engineering

What would you like to know about Sustainable Food Technology ?

Impact factor: n/a

Time to first decision (all decisions): 33.0 days**

Time to first decision (peer-reviewed only): 49.0 days***

Editor-in-Chief: Jorge Barros Velázquez

Gold open access, APCs waived until mid-2025

Indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Scopus

Read this journal

Submit an article

Sign up for regular email alerts

View all journal metrics

Open. Impactful. Multidisciplinary.

An open access forum for new food technologies.

What can we do to ensure food security around the globe? How do we end world hunger? Where can we find the solutions to produce food more sustainably?

Sustainable Food Technology seeks the answers to these big questions. While our companion journal, Food & Function , focuses on the purpose of food and its relation to health and nutrition, this new journal publishes high-quality sustainable research on food engineering and technologies. Key topics include food preservation methods, shelf life and the creation of greener packaging.

Hear from our Editor-in-Chief

Read and publish in our themed collections

Sustainable Food Technology publishes a number of themed collections every year, guest edited by members of the community on timely and important topics.

Interested in contributing your work? Explore the latest open calls for papers in Sustainable Food Technology

Journal scope

Sustainable Food Technology is a gold open access journal focused on cutting-edge strategies for food production, that aim to provide quality and safe foods in an environmentally conscious and sustainable way.

We welcome novel green strategies applied to both crops and animal foods from every step of the food chain, “from farm to fork”. Circular economy strategies and life cycle analysis are particularly welcomed, from those adding value to food by-products to those focused on the appropriate reuse of food waste.

Manuscripts submitted to Sustainable Food Technology  should focus on either applied or fundamental science and cover the development and optimisation of technologies aimed at improving post-harvest supply-chain of food. All manuscripts must address environmental, economic and/or health challenges associated with food sustainability.

The quantitative and/or qualitative aspect of sustainability e.g. water usage, energy efficiency, process intensification, by-product extraction, or benchmarking of proposed sustainable packaging against conventional should be demonstrated and discussed.

Topics of interest include but are not limited to:

• Novel and sustainable food resources and food ingredients
• Food fortification
• Food production systems requiring less energy and water consumption
• Nanotechnology and biosensors in food processing, packaging and safety
• Data harmonisation, digitalisation and artificial intelligence to assist food production and control
• Omics-based food traceability tools to prevent economic and sanitary threats
• Biotechnology and bioengineering approaches to increase food production, quality and safety
• Emerging food preservation techniques: non-thermal processes, bioactive compounds
• Green active and intelligent packaging and storage systems
• Circular strategies for adding value to food by-products and food waste (recovery and valorisation)
• Life cycle analysis and sustainability metrics in food production
• Sustainable intensification of food production and processing

Manuscripts without a foundation in sustainability, or studies that are purely descriptive in nature are not suitable for publication in this journal.

Manuscripts must show significant novelty and exhibit cutting-edge technologies or engineering advances. Sufficient chemical, microbiological and/or nutritional analysis must be provided to justify claims of novelty, interest and applicability of the research presented.

The following fields of study are not included in the scope of Sustainable Food Technology :

• Nutritional studies – these can be published in Food & Function
• Routine applications of well-established processing and preservation techniques
• Compositional analyses of conventional foods not representing novel food resources
• In-vitro characterization of microorganisms not performed in food models or food systems
• Incremental advances or application of agricultural practices

Outstanding Early Career Researcher Award

We are delighted to introduce the Outstanding Early Career Research Award 2023. This award aims to acknowledge and celebrate exceptional contributions made by early career researchers within the Sustainable Food Technology field. It serves as a means of recognition for their dedication, innovation, and impactful research endeavours. 

Find out more about the award and meet the winners

Submissions.

Submissions are initially assessed and taken through peer-review by our high-profile, internationally-recognised  Associate Editors . The journal operates a single-anonymised peer review model, and a minimum of two reviewer reports are required.

See who's on the team

Meet Sustainable Food Technology  Editor-in-Chief and board members.

Editor-in-Chief University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain

Associate Editor RMIT University, Australia

Associate Editor Institute of Chemical Technology, India

Associate Editor University of Maryland, USA

Editorial Board Member University College Dublin, Ireland

Cristóbal N. Aguilar, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Mexico

Rafael Auras ,  Michigan State University, USA

Maria G. Corradini, University of Guelph, Canada

Sakamon Devahastin, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT), Bangkok, Thailand

Tian Ding, Zhejiang University, China

Hao Feng, North Carolina A&T State University, USA

Elena Ibañez , CIAL-CSIC, Spain

Joe P. Kerry, University College Cork, Ireland

Olga Martín-Belloso, University of Lleida, Catalonia, Spain

Maria Angela A Meireles , Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil

Manjusri Misra , University of Guelph, Canada

Solange I. Mussatto, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark

Indrawati Oey, University of Otago, New Zealand

Umezuruike Linus Opara, Stellenbosch University, South Africa

Federico Pallottino , CREA-IT, Italy

Marco Poiana, Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Italy

Anet Režek Jambrak, University of Zagreb, Croatia

Victor Rodov , Agricultural Research Organization - The Volcani Institute, Israel

Andreas Schieber, University of Bonn, Institute of Nutritional and Food Sciences, Germany

Juming Tang , Washington State University, USA

Paula Teixeira, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Portugal

Long Yu , South China University of Technology, Institute of Chemistry, Henan Academy of Sciences, China

Min Zhang , Jiangnan University, China

Bhesh Bhandari , University of Queensland, Australia 

Anna Rulka , Executive Editor, ORCID: 0000-0002-3236-9801

Audra Taylor , Deputy Editor

Viktoria Titmus , Editorial Production Manager

Angelica-Jane Kechinyere Onyekwere , Assistant Editor

Shwetha Krishna , Assistant Editor

Michael Whitelaw , Assistant Editor

Alexander Whiteside , Assistant Editor ORCID:  0000-0002-1743-1531

Samantha Campos , Editorial Assistant 

Brittany Hanlon , Publishing Assistant

Neil Hammond , Publisher, ORCID: 0000-0001-6390-8874

Open access

We want the research published here to be easily accessible and beneficial to people globally. That’s why Sustainable Food Technology is gold open access with all article processing charges (APCs) paid by us until mid-2025 – so initially you can publish for free. We’re committed to increasing the visibility of your articles and making a difference around the world. As part of the submission process, authors will be asked to agree to the Sustainable Food Technology open access terms & conditions.

We offer Sustainable Food Technology authors a choice of two Creative Commons licences: CC BY or CC BY NC. Publication under these licences means that authors retain the copyright of their article, but users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. Read our open access statement for further information. All published articles are deposited with LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, Portico and the British Library for archiving.

Dive into the benefits of open access publishing

Find out more about open access publishing routes

Explore Royal Society of Chemistry open access journals

Read our Researchers’ voice report in response to Plan S

Transparent peer review policy

To support increased transparency, we offer authors the option to publish the peer review history alongside their article. Reviewers are anonymous unless they choose to sign their reports.

Find out more about our transparent peer review policy .

Article Types

Sustainable Food Technology publishes:

Communications

Full papers.

Our Communication format is ideally suited to short studies - which can be preliminary in nature - that are of such importance that they require accelerated publication.

Communications must contain original and highly significant work whose interest to the Sustainable Food Technology readership and high novelty warrants rapid publication. Authors should supply with their submission a justification of why the work merits urgent publication as a Communication. Referees will be asked to judge the work on these grounds.

Communications are given high visibility within the journal as they are published at the front of an issue. Communications will not normally exceed the length of five printed journal pages.

These must demonstrate an advance in strategies for sustainable food production and are judged according to originality, quality of scientific content and contribution to existing knowledge.

Although there is no page limit for Full papers, appropriateness of length to content of new science will be taken into consideration.

Reviews should be definitive, comprehensive and provide a critical evaluation of the chosen topic area. These are normally commissioned by the editorial board and editorial office, although suggestions from readers for topics and authors are most welcome and should be directed to the editorial office.

Reviews must be high-quality, authoritative and state-of-the-art accounts of the selected research field. They should be timely and add to the existing literature, rather than duplicate existing articles, and should be of general interest to the journal's readership.

All review content should consist of original text and interpretation, avoiding any direct reproduction. If a significant amount of other people's material is to be used, either textual or image-based, permission must be sought by the author in accordance with copyright law and must be made clear in the manuscript. We recommend that systematic reviews and meta-analyses should follow the PRISMA guidelines for the transparent reporting of these studies.

All reviews undergo a rigorous and full peer review procedure in the same way as regular research papers.

Comments and Replies are a medium for the discussion and exchange of scientific opinions between authors and readers concerning material published in Sustainable Food Technology .

For publication, a Comment should present an alternative analysis of and/or a new insight into the previously published material. Any Reply should further the discussion presented in the original article and the Comment. Comments and Replies that contain any form of personal attack are not suitable for publication.

Comments that are acceptable for publication will be forwarded to the authors of the work being discussed, and these authors will be given the opportunity to submit a Reply. The Comment and Reply will both be subject to rigorous peer review in consultation with the journal’s Editorial Board where appropriate. The Comment and Reply will be published together.

Author Guidelines

General author guidelines.

For general guidance on preparing an article please visit our Prepare your article page , the content of which is relevant to all our journals.

To learn more about the Royal Society of Chemistry's policies and processes, including licensing, publishing ethics, peer review, and formatting, please refer to our Resources for authors page .

All submitted papers must include a cover letter that should specify the novelty of the work and give a justification for the publication of the paper.

Sustainability Spotlight Statement

All submitted manuscripts must include a Sustainability Spotlight Statement (120 words maximum) that should categorically state the sustainable advance of the work and how it aligns with the  UN’s Sustainable Development Goals . This statement should be different from the abstract and set the work in a broader context regarding sustainability. It should aim to answer the following questions.

• What is the situation and why is it important to address/understand this?
• What is the sustainable advancement of the work?
• How the work aligns with the  UN SDG(s) ?

This statement will be seen by the reviewers and will help ascertain the relevance of the article for a broad but technical audience and authors should use it to show that they have given serious consideration to problems that are sustainable in nature. If the paper is accepted this statement will also be published. Manuscripts cannot be reviewed without this statement.

Peer review and editorial process

All articles published in  Sustainable Food Technology are subject to external peer review by anonymised experts in the field and all manuscripts submitted are handled by a team of internationally recognised  Associate Editors , who are all practicing scientists in the field.

The peer review for all articles submitted to the journal consists of the following stages:

• Phase 1 : Your manuscript is  initially assessed  by an associate editor to determine its suitability for peer review
• Phase 2 : If the manuscript passes the initial assessment process, the associate editor solicits recommendations from at least two anonymous reviewers who are experts in the field. They will provide a report along with their recommendation.
• Phase 3 : The associate editor handling your manuscript makes a decision based on the reviewer reports received. In the event that no clear decision can be made, another reviewer will be consulted.

Sustainable Food Technology is committed to a rigorous peer review process and expert editorial oversight for all published content. Please refer to  our processes and policies  for full details including our appeals procedure.

All submissions to our Open Calls will undergo an initial assessment by the journal Editors and subsequent peer review as per the usual standards of RSC journals .

Publication frequency

Articles accepted for publication in Sustainable Food Technology are published online with citeable DOIs as Advance Articles after they are edited and typeset. Articles are then assigned page numbers and published in an issue. Issues of Sustainable Food Technology are published every other month. Please find our most recent issue here .

Ethical Requirements

Sustainable Food Technology authors, editors, reviewers and published works are required to uphold the Royal Society of Chemistry’s  ethical standards . The Royal Society of Chemistry is a member of  Committee on Publication Ethics  (COPE) and our ethical standards follow COPE’s  core practices  and  best practice guidelines . In cases where these guidelines are breached or appear to be so, the Royal Society of Chemistry will consult with COPE.

When a study involves the use of live animals or human subjects, authors must include in the 'methods/experimental' section of the manuscript a statement that all experiments were performed in compliance with the author’s institute’s policy on animal use and ethics; where possible, details of compliance with national or international laws or guidelines should be included. The statement must name the institutional/local ethics committee which has approved the study; where possible, the approval or case number should be provided. A statement that informed consent was obtained for any experimentation with human subjects is required. Reviewers may be asked to comment specifically on any cases in which concerns arise.

For further guidance on author responsibilities and code of conduct, which apply to  Sustainable Food Technology and to all manuscripts submitted to Royal Society of Chemistry journals, please visit  our author hub .

Themed Collections

Sustainable Food Technology  publishes a number of themed collections every year on timely and important topics, guest edited by members of the community. All submissions to our themed collections undergo an initial assessment by the journal's associate editors and subsequent peer review as per the usual standards of RSC journals.

Subscription Information

Sustainable Food Technology is fully gold open access – articles can be downloaded free from the website with no barriers to access.

Online only: ISSN 2753-8095

Copyright is retained by authors when an open access licence is accepted, as with our standard licence to publish agreement. Full and accurate attribution to the original author is required for any re-use of the work. Find out more about copyright, licences and re-use permission .

Get email alerts about Sustainable Food Technology

For the latest editorial board news, scope details and announcements, sign up for news and issue alerts by using the form below. For any other queries, please get in touch using the contact us form on this page.

Please update your browser to a newer version to use this form.

Terms and conditions

Please tick this box to acknowledge that:

• You have read, understood and accept the terms and conditions .
• We need to collect and manage your personal data in order to provide this service. Our privacy statement explains how we do this.

Edit your RSC contact preferences .

**The median time from submission to first decision including manuscripts rejected without peer review from the previous calendar year

***The median time from submission to first decision for peer-reviewed manuscripts from the previous calendar year

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.