research studies on food technology

REVIEW article

Insight on current advances in food science and technology for feeding the world population.

• 1 Department of Food and Nutrition, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
• 2 Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

While the world population is steadily increasing, the capacity of Earth to renew its resources is continuously declining. Consequently, the bioresources required for food production are diminishing and new approaches are needed to feed the current and future global population. In the last decades, scientists have developed novel strategies to reduce food loss and waste, improve food production, and find new ingredients, design and build new food structures, and introduce digitalization in the food system. In this work, we provide a general overview on circular economy, alternative technologies for food production such as cellular agriculture, and new sources of ingredients like microalgae, insects, and wood-derived fibers. We present a summary of the whole process of food design using creative problem-solving that fosters food innovation, and digitalization in the food sector such as artificial intelligence, augmented and virtual reality, and blockchain technology. Finally, we briefly discuss the effect of COVID-19 on the food system. This review has been written for a broad audience, covering a wide spectrum and giving insights on the most recent advances in the food science and technology area, presenting examples from both academic and industrial sides, in terms of concepts, technologies, and tools which will possibly help the world to achieve food security in the next 30 years.

Introduction

The capacity of Earth to regenerate its own resources is continuously and drastically reducing due to the exponential growth of the human population ( Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971 ; Henderson and Loreau, 2018 ). Over the last 50 years, the global human population has doubled, while the Earth overshoot day—the day on which humanity has exhausted the annual renewable bioresources of the Earth—has continuously become earlier, reaching its earliest date (July 29) in 2018 and 2019. Exceptionally, the Earth overshoot day was delayed to August 22 in 2020, due to the novel Coronavirus pandemic ( Global Footprint Network, 2020a ) ( Figure 1 ). However, this delay is the result of a pandemic disease and it is not the consequence of any long-term planned strategy, which is still required to improve the sustainability of our society. Bioresources are necessary to feed people. However, the production, including loss and waste of food account for 26% of the human ecological footprint ( Global Footprint Network, 2020b ). This is due to low efficiency in food production coupled with non-optimal waste management. By taking action and promoting sustainable behavior in the entire food chain and among consumers, the Earth overshoot day could be delayed, preserving Earth's regenerative capacity ( Moore et al., 2012 ).

Figure 1 . Earth overshoot day (blue) and global population (orange) evolution over the last 50 years.

By 2050, the population is expected to reach 9.7 billion and ensuring global food security will be a priority ( Berners-Lee et al., 2018 ). The first step toward food security is the reduction of waste and loss of food. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), ~1.3 billion tons of food are lost/wasted in the food chain from production to retail and by consumers annually ( Wieben, 2017 ), which highlights the importance of the circular economy and consumer education. In addition, economic barriers should be addressed to give access to healthier and sustainable food to low-income consumers ( Hirvonen et al., 2020 ). However, the reduction of waste and economic barriers is not enough to reach global food security. Indeed, to feed the world population of 2050, food production should increase by 70% ( Floros et al., 2010 ). Additionally, diets should change and rely less on animal products, including more plant-, insect-, and microalgae-based products ( van Huis and Oonincx, 2017 ; Caporgno and Mathys, 2018 ; Lynch et al., 2018 ). This change is necessary as animal-based diets are less sustainable comparatively due to their demand for more natural resources, resulting in more environmental degradation ( Sabaté and Soret, 2014 ). Unfortunately, changing food production and consumption habits is not a straightforward process; it has to be efficient, sustainable, and economically feasible. New food products have to be nutritionally adequate, culturally and socially acceptable, economically accessible, as well as palatable. Moreover, new food products should aim to maintain or improve the health of consumers. Food science and technology can help address these problems by improving food production processes, including novel ingredients from more sustainable sources, and designing new highly-accepted food products.

However, the benefits of consuming novel and upgraded food products is not sufficient to obtain an effect on consumers. Indeed, the acceptability of, and demand for food varies around the world, based on, for example, geographic location, society structure, economy, personal income, religious constraints, and available technology. Food safety and nutritionally adequate foods (in terms of both macro- and micronutrients) are most important in low-income countries ( Sasson, 2012 ; Bain et al., 2013 ), whereas medium- and high-income countries prioritize foods to reduce risk of chronic disease, and functional and environmentally friendly food ( Azais-Braesco et al., 2009 ; Cencic and Chingwaru, 2010 ; Govindaraj, 2015 ). The concept of food has evolved from the amount of nutrients needed by a person to survive on a daily basis ( Floros et al., 2010 ) to a tool to prevent nutrition-related diseases (e.g., non-communicable diseases: type 2 diabetes, coronary diseases, cancer, and obesity), and to improve human physical and mental well-being ( Siró et al., 2008 ), and to slow/control aging ( Rockenfeller and Madeo, 2010 ). Therefore, the development of new food products should consider the needs and demands of consumers. In spite of this, across countries, personal income can limit the access to sufficient food for survival, let alone new and improved food products that have extra benefits.

Coupled to this complex scenario, food demand is also constrained, and affected by human psychology ( Wang et al., 2019 ). The naturally-occurring conservative and neophobic behavior of humans toward new food can lead to nutrition-related diseases due to poor dietary patterns already established during childhood ( Perry et al., 2015 ) and can lead to acceptability problems related to food containing novel ingredients such as insects in Western countries ( La Barbera et al., 2018 ). Additionally, the introduction in our diets of new food products obtained by means of novel technologies and ingredients from food waste and by-products can be undermined by low acceptability caused by human psychology ( Bhatt et al., 2018 ; Cattaneo et al., 2018 ; Siegrist and Hartmann, 2020 ). Therefore, to increase the successful integration of the solutions discussed in this paper into the diet, consumer behavior has to be considered. Finally, it should not be forgotten that food consumption is also determined by pleasure rather than just being a merely mechanical process driven by the need for calories ( Mela, 2006 ; Lowe and Butryn, 2007 ). The latter concept is particularly important when consumers are expected to change their eating habits. New food products developed using sustainable ingredients and processes should be designed to take in consideration sensorial attributes and psychological considerations, which will allow a straightforward transition to more sustainable diets.

The actions needed in the area of food to develop a sustainable society allowing the regeneration of Earth's bio-resources are several. They include changing our eating habits and dietary choices, reducing food waste and loss, preserving biodiversity, reducing the prevalence of food-related diseases, and balancing the distribution of food worldwide. To promote these actions, new ingredients and technologies are necessary ( Table 1 ).

Table 1 . Challenges/solutions matrix for the development of the food of the future using the most recent advances in food science and technology.

This review discusses the most recent advances in food science and technology that aim to ensure food security for the growing human population by developing the food of the future. We discuss (i) the circular economy, where food waste is valorized and enters back into the food production chain improving the sustainability of the food system and reduces Earth's biodiversity and resources loss; (ii) alternative technologies and sources for food production like cellular agriculture, algae, microalgae, insects, and wood-derived fibers, which use Earth's bioresources more efficiently; (iii) the design of food in terms of creative problem-solving that fosters food innovation allowing transition to more sustainable and nutritionally adequate diets without undermining their consumer acceptability; and (iv) digitalization in which artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), and blockchain technology are used to better control and manage the food chain, and assist the development of novel ingredients and food, boosting the technological shift in the whole food system; (v) we also briefly discuss the effect of COVID-19 on the food supply chain, showing the need to develop a resilient food system.

Food Science and Technology Solutions for Global Food Security

The circular economy.

The unsustainable practice of producing and consuming materials based on the linear (take-make-dispose) economic model calls for a shift toward innovative and sustainable approaches embodied in the principles of the circular economy ( Jørgensen and Pedersen, 2018 ). In contrast to a linear economic model, where materials are produced linearly from a presumably infinite source of raw materials, the circular economy is based on closing the loop of materials and substances in the supply chain. In this model, the value of products, materials, and resources is preserved in the economy for as long as possible ( Merli et al., 2018 ).

Integrated into the food system, the circular economy offers solutions to achieve global food sustainability by minimizing food loss and waste, promoting efficient use of natural resources and mitigating biodiversity loss ( Jurgilevich et al., 2016 ), by retaining the resources within a loop, i.e., the resources are used in a cyclic process, reducing the demand for fresh raw materials in food production. This efficient use of natural resources for food in a circular economy, in turn, helps to rebuild biodiversity by preventing further conversion of natural habitats to agricultural land, which is one of the greatest contributors to biodiversity loss ( Dudley and Alexander, 2017 ).

This measure is highlighted by the fact that an enormous amount of waste is generated at various stages of the food supply chain. Food loss and waste accounts for 30% of the food produced for human consumption globally, translating into an estimated economic loss of USD 1 trillion annually ( FAO, 2019 ). Food loss and waste also takes its toll on the environment in relation to the emission of greenhouse gases associated with disposal of food waste in landfills, as well as in activities associated with the production of food such as agriculture, processing, manufacturing, transportation, storage, refrigeration, distribution, and retail ( Papargyropoulou et al., 2014 ). The various steps in the food supply chain have an embedded greenhouse gas impact, which is exacerbated when food is wasted and lost.

Addressing the challenge of minimizing food loss and waste requires proper identification of what constitutes food loss and waste. The FAO defines food loss and waste as a decrease in the quantity or quality of food along the food supply chain ( FAO, 2019 ). Food loss occurs along the food supply chain from harvest, slaughter, and up to, but not including, the retail level. Food waste, on the other hand, occurs at the retail and consumption level. From the FAO's definition, food that is converted for other uses such as animal feed, and inedible parts of foods, for example, bones, feathers, and peel, are not considered food loss or waste. The Waste and Resources Action Programme ( Quested and Johnson, 2009 ), a charity based in the UK, has defined and categorized food waste as both avoidable and unavoidable. Avoidable food waste includes food that is still considered edible but was thrown away, such as vegetables or fruits that do not pass certain standards, leftover food, and damaged stock that has not been used. Unavoidable food waste arises from food preparation or production and includes those by-products that are not edible in normal circumstances, such as vegetable and fruit peels, bones, fat, and feathers. Despite the lack of consensus on the definition of food loss and waste, the reduction in food loss and waste points in one direction and that is securing global food sustainability.

In a circular food system, the strategies for reducing food waste vary with the type of waste ( Figure 2 ). The best measure to reduce avoidable food waste is prevention, which can be integrated in the various stages of the food supply chain. Preventing overproduction, improving packaging and storage facilities, reducing food surplus by ensuring balanced food distribution, and educating consumers about proper meal planning, better understanding of best before dates, and buying food that may not pass quality control standards based on aesthetics are some preventive measures to reduce avoidable food waste ( Papargyropoulou et al., 2014 ). For unavoidable food waste, reduction can be achieved by utilizing side-stream products as raw materials for the production of new food or non-food materials. The residual waste generated, both from the processing of avoidable and unavoidable food waste, can still be treated through composting, which returns nutrients back to the soil, and used for another cycle of food production ( Jurgilevich et al., 2016 ). Indeed, in a circular food system, waste is ideally non-existent because it is used as a feedstock for another cycle, creating a system that mimics natural regeneration ( Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2019 ).

Figure 2 . Strategies to reduce food waste in the food supply chain in a circular food system: prevention for avoidable food waste (yellow curve) and valorization for unavoidable food waste (orange curve).

The valorization of unavoidable food waste, which mostly includes by-products or side-stream materials from the food processing industries, has resulted in novel food technologies that harness the most out of food waste and add value to food waste. These novel food technologies serve as new routes to achieving a circular food system by converting food waste into new food ingredients or non-food materials. Several ongoing examples of side-stream valorization have been explored and some of the most recent technologies are presented herein and summarized in Table 2 .

Table 2 . Summary of potentially functional and nutritional food components from cheese production, meat processing, seafood processing, and plant-based food production by-products.

One of the most famous success stories of side-stream valorization is the processing of whey, the leftover liquid from cheese production. It is an environmental hazard when disposed of without treatment, having a high biological oxygen demand (BOD) value of >35,000 ppm as well as a high chemical oxygen demand (COD) value of >60,000 ppm ( Smithers, 2008 ). These high BOD and COD values can be detrimental to aquatic life where the untreated whey is disposed of, reducing the available dissolved oxygen for fish and other aquatic animals. However, whey is loaded with both lactose and proteins, and therefore in the early days cheese producers sent their whey for use as pig feed, as still occurs in some areas today. As dairy science advanced, it was discovered that lactose and whey protein have great nutritional and technological potential. Lactose and its derivatives can be separated by various filtration and crystallization methods, which can then be used in infant formula or as a feedstock for glucose and galactose production ( Smithers, 2008 ; de Souza et al., 2010 ). Whey protein has also gained popularity for use in sports performance nutrition and as an enhancer of the functional properties of food, and so has experienced a significant increase in demand, both as isolate and concentrate products ( Lagrange et al., 2015 ).

The meat-processing industry produces various by-products that can also be further processed to obtain food ingredients. The plasma fraction of animal blood, which can easily be obtained by centrifugation, contains various plasma proteins, some of which can stabilize colloidal food systems, just like whey proteins. Others, like fibrinogen and thrombin, can act as meat glue and are therefore useful to make restructured meat product. Leftover skin, bones, and connective tissues can be processed to produce gelatin, an important gelling agent, as well as short peptides that impart an umami taste and are used in flavor enhancers. However, the use of non-muscle tissue from farm animals, especially from cows, would require strict toxicology assessment to ensure safety. There is a risk of spreading transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, a deadly disease caused by prion proteins which might spread to humans through the consumption of materials derived from non-meat tissues ( Toldrá et al., 2012 ).

The by-products of the seafood industry also provide great opportunities for valorization, with several known products and many other yet to be discovered. Fish-derived gelatin from leftover fish skin and bones can be presented as a gelatin alternative for several religious groups, for whom cattle- and swine-derived gelatin products are unacceptable ( Karayannakidis and Zotos, 2016 ). Rich in carotenoid and chitin, shells of common seafood such as crabs, lobster, and prawns can be further processed to extract functional ingredients. The extracted chitin from the shells can be treated to produce chitosan, a well-known biopolymer with the potential to be used as food packaging. One can also extract the red carotenoids present in the shells, most prominently astaxanthin, which can then be used as a nutritional and technological food additive ( Kandra et al., 2012 ). The liquid side stream of the fish-canning industry also has potential as a source of bioactive lipids, such as polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids ( Monteiro et al., 2018 ).

The increasing demand for plant-derived functional ingredients to cater for the vegetarian and vegan market can also be complemented with ingredients isolated from plant food processing side streams. Nixtamalization, the alkaline processing of maize, produces wastewater that is highly alkaline with a high COD of 10 200–20,000 ppm but is rich in carbohydrates and polyphenols ( Gutiérrez-Uribe et al., 2010 ). Microfiltration and ultrafiltration methods are used to isolate enriched fractions of carbohydrates and polyphenols from nixtamalization wastewater, which can later be integrated into various subsequent processes ( Castro-Muñoz and Yáñez-Fernández, 2015 ). Waste from the cereal, fruit, and vegetable industry can also be fermented by microbial means to produce various pigments for food production ( Panesar et al., 2015 ). Pigment extraction can also be performed on the leftover waste of the fresh-cut salad industry, which includes leafy vegetables and fruits that are deemed to be too blemished to be sold to the customer. Aside from pigments, such waste can also be a source of natural gelling agents and bioactive compounds that can be refined for further use in the food industry ( Plazzotta et al., 2017 ). Extraction of carotenoids, flavonoids, and phenolic compounds from fruits and vegetables waste as well as from wastewater (e.g., from olive mill) can be achieved using green technologies such as supercritical carbon dioxide, ultrasound, microwave, pulsed electric fields, enzymes, membrane techniques, and resin adsorption ( Rahmanian et al., 2014 ; Saini et al., 2019 ). Additionally, waste from potato processing, such as potato peel and potato fruit juice (a by-product of potato starch production), can yield various polyphenols, alkaloids, and even protein extracts by using different refining methods ( Fritsch et al., 2017 ).

In addition to food waste, there are also other, often unexpected, sources of food ingredients. For example, while wood cannot be considered part of the food industry by itself, the extraction of emulsifier from sawdust can serve as an example of how the waste of one industrial cycle can be used as a feedstock for another industrial cycle and in effect reduce the overall wasted material ( Pitkänen et al., 2018 ). Straw from grain production, such as barley and wheat, can also be processed to extract oligosaccharides to be used as prebiotic additives into other food matrices ( Huang et al., 2017 ; Alvarez et al., 2020 ). While young bamboo shoots have been commonly used in various Asian cuisines, older bamboo leaves can also act as a source of polyphenolic antioxidants, which can be used to fortify food with bioactive compounds ( Ni et al., 2012 ; Nirmala et al., 2018 ).

Alternative Technologies and Sources for Food Production

To feed the growing population, the circular economy concept must be combined with increasing food production. However, food production has been impaired by depletion of resources, such as water and arable land, and by climate change. Projections indicate that 529,000 climate-related deaths will occur worldwide in 2050, corresponding with the predicted 3.2% reduction in global food availability (including fruits, vegetables, and red meat) caused by climate change ( Springmann et al., 2016 ). Strategies to overcome food production issues have been developed and implemented that aim to improve agricultural productivity and resource use (vertical farming and genetic modification), increase and/or tailor the nutritional value of food (genetic engineering), produce new alternatives to food and/or food ingredients (cellular cultures, insects, algae, and dietary fibers), and protect biodiversity. Such solutions have been designed to supply current and future food demand by sustainably optimizing the use of natural resources and boosting the restructuration of the food industry models ( Figure 3 ).

Figure 3 . A view of future food based on current prospects for optimizing the use of novel techniques, food sources, and nutritional ingredients.

Cellular agriculture is an emerging field with the potential to increase food productivity locally using fewer resources and optimizing the use of land. Cellular agriculture has the potential to produce various types of food with a high content of protein, lipids, and fibers. This technique can be performed with minimal or no animal involvement following two routes: tissue engineering and fermentation ( Stephens et al., 2018 ). In the tissue engineering process, cells collected from living animals are cultured using mechanical and enzymatic techniques to produce muscles to be consumed as food. In the case of the fermentation process, organic molecules are biofabricated by genetically modified bacteria, algae, or yeasts, eliminating the need for animal cells. The Solar Foods company uses the fermentation process to produce Solein, a single-cell pure protein ( https://solarfoods.fi/solein/ ). This bioprocess combines the use of water, vitamins, nutrients, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from air, and solar energy to grow microorganisms. After that, the protein is obtained in powder form and can be used as a food ingredient. Most of the production in cellular agriculture has been focused on animal-derived products such as beef, chicken, fish, lobster, and proteins for the production of milk and eggs ( Post, 2014 ; Stephens et al., 2018 ). Compared with traditional meat, the production of cultured meat can (i) reduce the demand for livestock products, (ii) create a novel nutrition variant for people with dietary restrictions, (iii) favor the control and design of the composition, quality, and flavor of the product, and (iv) reduce the need for land, transportation costs (it can be produced locally), waste production, and greenhouse gas emissions ( Bhat and Fayaz, 2011 ). Moreover, the controlled production of cultured meat can eliminate the presence of unwanted elements, such as saturated fat, microorganisms, hormones, and antibiotics ( Bhat and Fayaz, 2011 ). One of the most important events for cultured meat took place in a 2013 press conference in London, when cultured beef burger meat was tasted by the public for the first time ( O'Riordan et al., 2017 ). After this, cultured meat has inspired several start-ups around the world and some examples are presented in Table 3 ( Clean Meat News Australia, 2019 ).

Table 3 . Examples of start-ups producing different cultured products around the world.

However, cellular agriculture has the potential to produce more than only animal-derivative products. A recent study conducted by the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland explored the growing of plant cell cultures from cloudberry, lingonberry, and stoneberry in a plant growth medium. The cells were described to be richer in protein, essential polyunsaturated fatty acids, sugars, and dietary fibers than berry fruits, and additionally to have a fresh odor and flavor ( Nordlund et al., 2018 ). Regarding their use, berry cells can be used to replace berry fruits in smoothies, yogurt, jam, etc. or be dried and incorporated as ingredients in several preparations (e.g., cakes, desserts, and toppings).

Insects are potentially an important source of essential nutrients such as proteins, fat (including unsaturated fatty acids), polysaccharides (including chitin), fiber, vitamins, and minerals. Edible insects are traditionally consumed in different forms (raw, steamed, roasted, smoked, fried, etc.) by populations in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia ( Duda et al., 2019 ; Melgar-Lalanne et al., 2019 ). The production of edible insects is highly efficient, yielding various generations during the year with low mortality rates and requiring only little space, such as vertical systems ( Ramos-Elorduy, 2009 ). Additionally, the cultivation of edible insects utilizes very cheap materials, usually easily found in the surrounding area. Indeed, insects can be fed by food waste and agricultural by-products not consumed by humans, which fits well in the circular bioeconomy models (section The circular economy). The introduction of insect proteins could diversify and create more sustainable dietary alternatives. However, the resistance of consumers to the ingestion of insects needs to be overcome ( La Barbera et al., 2018 ). The introduction of insects in the form of powder or flour can help solve consumer resistance ( Duda et al., 2019 ; Melgar-Lalanne et al., 2019 ). Several technologies are used to transform insect biomass into food ingredients, including drying processes (freeze-drying, oven-drying, fluidized bed drying, microwave-drying, etc.) and extraction methods (ultrasound-assisted extraction, cold atmospheric pressure plasma, and dry fractionation) ( Melgar-Lalanne et al., 2019 ). Recently, cricket powder was used for enriching pasta, resulting in a significant increase in protein, fat, and mineral content, and additionally improving its texture and appearance ( Duda et al., 2019 ). Chitin, extracted from the outer skeleton of insects, is a precursor for bioactive derivatives, such as chitosan, which presents potential to prevent and treat diseases ( Azuma et al., 2015 ; Kerch, 2015 ). Regenerated chitin has been recognized as a promising emulsifier ( Xiao et al., 2018 ), with potential applications including stabilizing yogurt, creams, ice cream, etc. Whole insects, insect powder, and food products from insects such as flavored snacks, energy bars and shakes, and candies are already commercialized around the world. However, food processing and technology is currently needed to help address consumer neophobia and meet sensory requirements ( Melgar-Lalanne et al., 2019 ).

Algae and microalgae are a source of nutrients in various Asian countries ( Priyadarshani and Rath, 2012 ; Wells et al., 2017 ; Sathasivam et al., 2019 ), that can be consumed as such (bulk material) or as an extract. The extracts consists of biomolecules that are synthesize more efficiently than plants ( Torres-Tiji et al., 2020 ). Some techniques used for improving algae and microalgae productivity and their nutritional quality are genotype selection, alteration, and improvement, and controlling growing conditions ( Torres-Tiji et al., 2020 ). Although their direct intake is more traditional (e.g., nori used in sushi preparation), in recent years the extraction of bioactive compounds from algae and microalgae for the preparation of functional food has attracted great interest. Spirulina and Chlorella are the most used microalgae species for this purpose, being recognized by the European Union for uses in food ( Zarbà et al., 2020 ). These microalgae are rich in proteins (i.e., phycocyanin), essential fatty acids (i.e., omega-3, docosahexaenoic acid, and eicosapentaenoic acid), β-glucan, vitamins from various groups (e.g., A, B, C, D2, E, and H), minerals like iodine, potassium, iron, magnesium, and calcium, antioxidants (i.e., ß-carotene), and pigments (i.e., astaxanthin) ( Priyadarshani and Rath, 2012 ; Vigani et al., 2015 ; Wells et al., 2017 ; Sathasivam et al., 2019 ). The latter molecules can be recovered using, for example, pulsed electric field, ultrasound, microwaves, and supercritical CO 2 ( Kadam et al., 2013 ; Buchmann et al., 2018 ).

Finally, in addition to proteins, lipids, and digestible carbohydrates, it is necessary to introduce fiber in to the diet. Dietary fibers include soluble (pectin and hydrocolloids) and insoluble (polysaccharides and lignin) fractions, which are usually obtained through the direct ingestion of fruits, vegetables, cereals, and grains ( McKee and Latner, 2000 ). Although appropriate dietary fiber intake leads to various health benefits, the proliferation of low fiber foods, especially in Western countries resulted in low dietary intake ( McKee and Latner, 2000 ; Anderson et al., 2009 ). This lack of consumed dietary fibers created the demand for fiber supplementation in functional foods ( McKee and Latner, 2000 ; Doyon and Labrecque, 2008 ). As additives, besides all benefits in health and well-being, dietary fibers contribute to food structure and texture formation ( Sakagami et al., 2010 ; Tolba et al., 2011 ; Jones, 2014 ; Aura and Lille, 2016 ).

Sources of dietary fibers include food crops (e.g., wheat, corn, oats, sorghum, oat, etc.), vegetables/fruits (e.g., apple and pear biomasses recovered after juicing process, orange peel and pulp, pineapple shells, etc.) ( McKee and Latner, 2000 ) and wood ( Pitkänen et al., 2018 ). The use of plant-based derivatives and waste aligns with the circular bioeconomy framework and contributes to the sustainability of the food chain.

It is worth mentioning that new and alternative sources of food and food ingredients require approval in the corresponding regulatory systems before commercialization. In Europe, safety assessment is carried out according to the novel food regulation of the European Union [Regulation (EU) 2015/2283]. Important aspects such as composition, stability, allergenicity, and toxicology should be evaluated for each new food or food ingredient ( Pitkänen et al., 2018 ). Such regulatory assessments are responsible for guaranteeing that new food and food ingredients are safe for human consumption.

Food Design

Humans are at the center of the food supply ecosystem, with diverse and dynamic expectations. To impart sustainability in food supply by utilizing novel materials and technologies discussed in the preceding chapters, the framework of food production and consumption should go beyond creating edible objects and integrate creativity to subvert neophobic characteristics of consumers and enhance acceptability of sustainable product innovations. These innovations should also consider changing consumer demographics, lifestyle and nutritional requirements. Food design is a newly practiced discipline to foster human-centric innovation in the food value chain by applying a design thinking process in every step of production to the disposal of food ( Olsen, 2015 ). The design concept utilizes the core ideas of consumer empathy, rapid prototyping, and mandate the collaboration of a multitude of sectors involved in designing food and the distribution of food to the space where we consume it ( Figure 4 ) ( Zampollo, 2020 ).

Figure 4 . Neural network graphical representation of the major disciplines (black dots) in the food design concept and their interconnections. Sub-disciplines arising through communion of ideas of some major disciplines indicated by gray dots.

The sub-discipline of food product design relates to the curation of food products from a technological perspective utilizing innovative process and structured engineering methodologies to translate consumer wishes into product properties. In the future, food producers need to shift their focus from the current conventional approach of mass production, to engineering of food products that emphasizes food structure-property-taste. Through food product design, it is possible to influence the health of consumers by regulating nutrient bioavailability, satiety, gut health, and developing feelings of well-being, as well as encompass consumer choice by modulating consumers sensorial experience. These aspects become important with the introduction of new materials and healthy alternatives where the neophobic characteristic of humans can lead to poor food choices and eating habits due to consumer prejudices or inferior sensorial experience. For example, environmental concerns related to meat substitutes were less relevant for consumers, and sensorial properties were the decisive factor ( Hoek et al., 2011 ; Weinrich, 2019 ). In this regard, food designers and chefs will have an important role in influencing sustainable and healthy eating choices by increasing the acceptability of food products, using molecular gastronomy principles. Innogusto ( www.innogusto.com ), a start-up founded in 2018, aims to develop gastronomic dishes based on meat substitutes to increase their acceptability.

To stimulate taste sensations, electric and thermal energy have been studied, referred to as “digital taste” ( Green and Nachtigal, 2015 ; Ranasinghe et al., 2019 ). For example, reducing the temperature of sweet food products can increase sweet taste adaptation and reduce sweetness intensity ( Green and Nachtigal, 2015 ). On the other hand, electric taste augmentation can modulate the perception of saltiness and sourness in unsalted and diluted food products leading to a possible reduction of salt ( Ranasinghe et al., 2019 ). Another external stimulus that can modify the sensorial experience during food consumption, is social context. In this case, interaction with other people leads to a resonance “mirror” mechanism, that allow people to tune in to the emotions of others. Indeed, positive emotions such as happiness increase the desirability and acceptability of food, contrarily to neutral and negative emotions (angriness) ( Rizzato et al., 2016 ). Also, auditory responses such as that to background music, referred to as “sonic seasoning” ( Reinoso Carvalho et al., 2016 ) have been studied in the context of desirability and overall perception of food. Noise is able to reduce the perception of sweetness and enhance the perception of an umami taste ( Yan and Dando, 2015 ). Bridging the interior design concepts with the sensory perception in a holistic food space design is an interesting opportunity to influence healthy habits and accommodate unconventional food in our daily lives.

Food packaging which falls under the Design for food sub-discipline is expected to play an integral role to tackle issues of food waste/loss. Potential solutions to food waste/loss at the consumers level can be realized by the design of resealable packages, consideration of portion size, clear labeling of “best by” and expiration dates, for example. Although a clear understanding on the interdependency of food waste and packaging design in the circular economy has not yet been established, the design of smart packaging to prolong shelf life and quality of highly perishable food like fresh vegetables, fruits, dairy, and meat products has been considered the most efficient option ( Halloran et al., 2014 ). Packaging is a strong non-verbal medium of communication between product designers and consumers which can potentially be used to favor the consumption of healthier and sustainable options ( Plasek et al., 2020 ). Packaging linguistics has shown differential effect on taste and quality perceptions ( Khan and Lee, 2020 ), whereas designs have shown to create emotional attachment to the product surpassing the effect of taste ( Gunaratne et al., 2019 ). Visual stimuli such as weight, color, size, and shape of the food containers have been linked to the overall liking of the food ( Piqueras-Fiszman and Spence, 2011 ; Harrar and Spence, 2013 ). Food was perceived to be dense with higher satiety when presented in heavy containers compared with light-weighted containers ( Piqueras-Fiszman and Spence, 2011 ).

In light of emerging techniques in food production, it is envisioned that technologies like 3D printing, at both the industrial and household level, will be widely used to design food and recycle food waste ( Gholamipour-Shirazi et al., 2020 ). Upprinting Food ( https://upprintingfood.com/ ), a start-up company, has initiated the production of snacks from waste bread using 3D printing. These initiatives will also encourage the inclusion of industrial side streams (discussed in section the circular economy) in the mainstream using novel technologies. In addition to the increasing need for healthy food, it is envisioned that the food industry will see innovation regarding personalized solutions ( Poutanen et al., 2017 ). In the latter, consumers will be at the center of the food production system, where they can choose food that supports their personal physical and mental well-being, and ethical values. Techniques such as 3D printers can be applied in smart groceries and in the home, where one can print personalized food ( Sun et al., 2015 ) inclusive of molecular gastronomy methods ( D'Angelo et al., 2016 ). A challenge will be to incorporate the food structure-property-taste factor in such systems. In a highly futuristic vision, concepts of personalized medicine are borrowed to address the diverse demands of food through personalized or “smart” food, possibly solving food-related diseases, while reducing human ecological footprint.

Digitalization

Many major challenges faced by global food production, as discussed previously and presented in Table 1 (eating habits and dietary choices, food waste and loss, biodiversity, diseases, and resource availability), can be addressed by food system digitalization. The most recent research advances aim to overcome these challenges using digitalization (summarized in Table 4 and Figure 5 ). The rapidly advancing information and communication technology (ICT) sector has enabled innovative technologies to be applied along the agri-food chain to meet the demands for safe and sustainable food production (i.e., traceability) ( Demartini et al., 2018 ; Raheem et al., 2019 ).

Table 4 . Recent research advances in digitalization solutions to overcome challenges in global food production.

Figure 5 . Digitalization solutions for the development of future food. Red area represents digitalization-enabled targets. IoT, Internet of Things; ML, Machine Learning; RFID, Radio Frequency Identification; AI, Artificial Intelligence.

An interesting part of ICT is artificial intelligence (AI). The latter is a field of computer science that allows machines, especially computer systems, to have cognitive functions like humans. These machines can learn, infer, adapt, and make decisions based on collected data ( Salah et al., 2019 ). Over the past decade, AI has changed the food industry in extensive ways by aiding crop sustainability, marketing strategies, food sales, eating habits and preferences, food design and new product development, maintaining health and safety systems, managing food waste, and predicting health problems associated with food.

Digitalization can be used to modify our perception of food and help solve unsustainable eating behaviors. It is hoped that a better insight into how the neural network in the human brain works upon seeing food can be discovered using AI in the future and can thus direct consumer preference toward healthier diets. Additionally, it can be used to assist the development of new food structures and molecules such as modeling food gelling agents (e.g., using fuzzy modeling to predict the influence of different gum-protein emulsifier concentration on mayonnaise), and the design of liquid-crystalline food (by predicting the most stable liquid crystalline phases using predictive computer simulation tool based on field theory) ( Mezzenga et al., 2006 ; Ghoush et al., 2008 ; Dalkas and Euston, 2020 ). In addition, the development of aroma profiles can be explored using AI. Electronic eyes, noses, and tongues can analyze food similarly to sensory panelists and help in the optimization of quality control in food production ( Loutfi et al., 2015 ; Nicolotti et al., 2019 ; Xu et al., 2019 ). Companies like Gastrograph AI ( https://gastrograph.com/ ) and Whisk ( https://whisk.com/ ) are using AI and natural language processing to model consumer sensory perception, predict their preferences toward food and beverage products, map the world's food ingredients, and provide specific advertisements based on consumer personalization and preferences.

With the advancement of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR), in the future, digitalization can offer obesity-related solutions, where consumers can eat healthy food while simultaneously seeing unhealthy desirable food. This possibility has been studied by Okajima et al. (2013) using an AR system to change visual food appearance in real time. In their study, the visual appearance of food can highly influence food perception in terms of taste and perceived texture.

AI also provides a major solution to food waste problems by estimating food demand quantity, predicting waste volumes, and supporting effective cleaning methods by smart waste management ( Adeogba et al., 2019 ; Calp, 2019 ; Gupta et al., 2019 ).

AI-enabled agents, Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, and blockchain technology can be combined to maximize the supply network and increase the revenue of all parties involved along the agri-food value chain ( Salah et al., 2019 ). Blockchain is a technology that can record multiple transactions from multiple parties across a complex network. Changing the records inside the blockchain requires the consensus of all parties involved, thus giving a high level of confidence in the data ( Olsen et al., 2019 ). Blockchain technology can support the traceability and transparency of the food supply chain, possibly increasing the trust of consumers, and in combination with AI, intelligent precision farming can be achieved, as illustrated in Figure 6 .

Figure 6 . Digitalization in the food supply chain: intelligent precision farming with artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain. IoT, Internet of Things; ML, Machine Learning. Modified from Salah et al. (2019) and reproduced with permission from IEEE.

The physical flow of the food supply chain is supported by the digital flow, consisting of different interconnected digital tools. As each block is approved, it can be added to the chain of transactions, and it becomes a permanent record of the entire process. Each blockchain contains specific information about the process where it describes the crops used, equipment, process methods, batch number, conditions, shelf-time, expiration date, etc. ( Kamath, 2018 ; Kamilaris et al., 2019 ).

Traceability and transparency of the complex food supply network are continuously increasing their importance in food manufacturing management. Not only are they an effective way to control the quality and safety of food production, but they can also be effective tools to monitor the flow of resources from raw materials to the end consumer. In the future, it will be essential to recognize the bottlenecks of the entire food supply chain and redirect the food resource allocation accordingly to minimize food waste.

The digital tools reviewed here can be combined with all the solutions proposed before, enabling fast achievement of the necessary conditions for feeding the increasing world population while maintaining our natural resources.

The Effect of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic on the Food System

Although the strategies examined in this review can possibly help reaching food security in 2050, the entire food system has been facing a new challenge because of COVID-19 pandemic. Since December 2019, a new severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) caused by a novel Coronavirus started spreading worldwide from China. To contain the diffusion of the novel Coronavirus and avoid the collapse of national sanitary systems, several governments locked down entire nations. These actions had severe consequences on global economy, including the food system.

As first consequence, the lockdown changed consumer purchasing behavior. At the initial stage of the lockdown, panic-buying behavior was dominant, in which consumers were buying canned foods and stockpiling them, leading to shortage of food in several supermarkets ( Nicola et al., 2020 ). However, as the lockdown proceeded, this behavior become more moderate ( Bakalis et al., 2020 ). The problems faced by the food supply chain in assuring food availability for the entire population have risen concerns about its architecture. Indeed, as discussed by Bakalis et al. (2020) , the western world food supply chain has an architecture with a bottleneck at the supermarkets/suppliers interface where most of the food is controlled by a small number of organizations. Additionally, as noted by these authors, problems with timely packaging of basic foods (such as flour) led to their shortage. Bakalis et al. (2020) suggest that the architecture of the food system should be more local, decentralized, sustainable, and efficient. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the vulnerability of the food system, indicating that the aid of future automation (robotics) and AI would help to maintain an operational supply chain. Therefore, the entire food system should be rethought with a resilient and sustainable perspective, which can assure adequate, safe, and health-promoting food to all despite of unpredictable events such as COVID-19, by balancing the roles of local and global producers and involving policymakers ( Bakalis et al., 2020 ; Galanakis, 2020 ).

Another problem caused by the lockdown was food waste. Indeed, restaurants, catering services, and food producers increased their food waste due to forced closure and rupture of the food chain ( Bakalis et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, consumers become more aware of food waste and strived to reduce household food waste. Unfortunately, the positive behavior of consumers toward reducing food waste has been more driven by the COVID-19 lockdown situation rather than an awareness ( Jribi et al., 2020 ).

COVID-19 has also showed the importance of designing food products that can help boosting our immune system and avoid the diffusion of virions through the entire food chain ( Galanakis, 2020 ; Roos, 2020 ). Virions can enter the food chain during food production, handling, packing, storage, and transportation and be transmitted to consumers. This possibility is increased with minimally processed foods and animal products. Therefore, packaging and handling of minimally processed foods should be considered to reduce viral transfer while avoiding increasing waste. The survival of virions in food products can be reduced by better designing and engineering foods taking into consideration for example not only thermal inactivation of virions but also the interaction between temperature of inactivation, water activity of food, and food matrix effects ( Roos, 2020 ).

Therefore, to reach food security by 2050, besides the solutions highlighted in section (Food science and technology solutions for global food security), it is of foremost important to implement actions in the entire food system that can counteract exceptional circumstances such as the global pandemic caused by the novel Coronavirus.

Conclusions and Outlook

To achieve food security in the next 30 years while maintaining our natural bioresources, a transition from the current food system to a more efficient, healthier, equal, and consumer- and environment-centered food system is necessary. This transition, however, is complex and not straightforward. First, we need to fully transition from a linear to a circular economy where side streams and waste are valorized as new sources of food materials/ingredients, leading to more efficient use of the available bioresources. Secondly, food production has to increase. For this, vertical farming, genetic engineering, cellular agriculture, and unconventional sources of ingredients such as microalgae, insects, and wood-derived fibers can make a valid contribution by leading to a more efficient use of land, an increase in food and ingredient productivity, a shift from global to local production which reduces transportation, and the transformation of non-reusable and inedible waste into ingredients with novel functionalities. However, to obtain acceptable sustainable food using novel ingredients and technologies, the aid of food design is necessary in which conceptualization, development, and engineering in terms of food structure, appearance, functionality, and service result in food with higher appeal for consumers. To complement these solutions, digital technology offers an additional potential boost. Indeed, AI, blockchain, and VR and AR are tools which can better manage the whole food chain to guarantee quality and sustainability, assist in the development of new ingredients and structures, and change the perception of food improving acceptability, which can lead to a reduction of food-related diseases.

By cooperating on a global scale, we can envision that in the future it may be common to, for example, 3D print a steak at home using cells or plant-based proteins. The understanding of the interaction between our gastrointestinal tract and the food ingredients/structures aided by AI and biosensors might allow the 3D printed steak to be tailored in terms of nutritional value and individual preferences. The food developed in the future can possibly also self-regulate its digestibility and bioavailability of nutrients. In this context, the same foodstuff consumed by two different people would be absorbed according to the individuals' needs. In this futuristic example, the food of the future would be able to solve food-related diseases such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, while maintaining the ability of the Earth to renew its bioresources.

However, the strategies and solutions proposed here can possibly only help to achieve sustainable food supply by 2050 if they are supported and encouraged globally by common policies. Innovations in food science and technology can ensure the availability of acceptable, adequate, and nutritious food, and can help shape the behavior of consumers toward a more sustainable diet. Finally, the recent COVID-19 global pandemic has highlighted the importance of developing a resilient food system, which can cope with exceptional and unexpected situations. All these actions can possibly help in achieving food security by 2050.

Author Contributions

FV wrote abstract, sections introduction, the effect of novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on the food system, and conclusions and outlook, and coordinated the writing process. MA and FA wrote section the circular economy. DM and JS wrote section alternative technologies and sources for food production. MB and JV wrote section food design. AA and EP wrote section digitalization. FV and KM revised and edited the whole manuscript. All authors have approved the final version before submission and contributed to planning the contents of the manuscript.

FV, MA, FA, and KM acknowledge the Academy of Finland for funding (FV: Project No. 316244, MA: Project No. 330617, FA: Project No. 322514, KM: Project No. 311244). DM acknowledges Tandem Forest Values for funding (TFV 2018-0016).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We thank JV for drawing Figures 2 – 6 , and Mr. Troy Faithfull for revising and editing the manuscript.

Adeogba, E., Barty, P., O'Dwyer, E., and Guo, M. (2019). Waste-to-resource transformation: gradient boosting modeling for organic fraction municipal solid waste projection. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 7, 10460–10466. doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b00821

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ahlswede, S., Asam, S., and Röder, A. (2021). Hedgerow object detection in very high-resolution satellite images using convolutional neural networks. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 15:018501. doi: 10.1117/1.JRS.15.018501

Alfian, G., Syafrudin, M., Farooq, U., Ma'arif, M. R., Syaekhoni, M. A., Fitriyani, N. L., et al. (2020). Improving efficiency of rfid-based traceability system for perishable food by utilizing iot sensors and machine learning model. Food Control 110:107016. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.107016

Alvarez, C., Gonzalez, A., Alonso, J. L., Saez, F., Negro, M. J., and Gullon, B. (2020). Xylooligosaccharides from steam-exploded barley straw: structural features and assessment of bifidogenic properties. Food Bioproducts Process. 124, 131–142. doi: 10.1016/j.fbp.2020.08.014

Anderson, J. W., Baird, P., Davis, R. H. Jr., Ferreri, S., Knudtson, M., Koraym, A., et al. (2009). Health benefits of dietary fiber. Nutr. Rev. 67, 188–205. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00189.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aura, A. M., and Lille, M. (2016). Wood Components to Boost the Quality of Food Products . VTT – Technical Research Center of Finland Ltd. Available online at: https://news.cision.com/vtt-info/r/wood-components-to-boost-the-quality-of-food-products.c2020810

Azais-Braesco, V., Brighenti, F., Paoletti, R., Peracino, A., Scarborough, P., Visioli, F., et al. (2009). Healthy food and healthy choices: a new european profile approach. Atheroscler. Suppl. 10, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosissup.2009.09.001

Azuma, K., Nagae, T., Nagai, T., Izawa, H., Morimoto, M., Murahata, Y., et al. (2015). Effects of surface-deacetylated chitin nanofibers in an experimental model of hypercholesterolemia. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 16, 17445–17455. doi: 10.3390/ijms160817445

Bain, L. E., Awah, P. K., Geraldine, N., Kindong, N. P., Sigal, Y., Bernard, N., et al. (2013). Malnutrition in sub-saharan africa: burden, causes and prospects. Pan Afr. Med. J. 15:120. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2013.15.120.2535

Bakalis, S., Valdramidis, V. P., Argyropoulos, D., Ahrne, L., Chen, J., Cullen, P. J., et al. (2020). Perspectives from co+re: how covid-19 changed our food systems and food security paradigms. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 3, 166–172. doi: 10.1016/j.crfs.2020.05.003

Berners-Lee, M., Kennelly, C., Watson, R., and Hewitt, C. N. (2018). Current global food production is sufficient to meet human nutritional needs in 2050 provided there is radical societal adaptation. Elementa Sci. Anthropocene 6, 52–66. doi: 10.1525/elementa.310

Bhat, Z. F., and Fayaz, H. (2011). Prospectus of cultured meat—advancing meat alternatives. J. Food Sci. Technol. 48, 125–140. doi: 10.1007/s13197-010-0198-7

Bhatt, S., Lee, J., Deutsch, J., Ayaz, H., Fulton, B., and Suri, R. (2018). From food waste to value-added surplus products (vasp): consumer acceptance of a novel food product category. J. Consum. Behav. 17, 57–63. doi: 10.1002/cb.1689

Buchmann, L., Bocker, L., Frey, W., Haberkorn, I., Nyffeler, M., and Mathys, A. (2018). Energy input assessment for nanosecond pulsed electric field processing and its application in a case study with chlorella vulgaris. Innovative Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 47, 445–453. doi: 10.1016/j.ifset.2018.04.013

Calp, M. (2019). An estimation of personnel food demand quantity for businesses by using artificial neural networks. J. Polytech. 22, 675–686. doi: 10.2339/politeknik.444380

Caporgno, M. P., and Mathys, A. (2018). Trends in microalgae incorporation into innovative food products with potential health benefits. Front. Nutr. 5:58. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00058

Castro-Muñoz, R., and Yáñez-Fernández, J. (2015). Valorization of nixtamalization wastewaters (nejayote) by integrated membrane process. Food Bioprod. Process. 95, 7–18. doi: 10.1016/j.fbp.2015.03.006

Cattaneo, C., Lavelli, V., Proserpio, C., Laureati, M., and Pagliarini, E. (2018). Consumers' attitude towards food by-products: the influence of food technology neophobia, education and information. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 54, 679–687. doi: 10.1111/ijfs.13978

Cencic, A., and Chingwaru, W. (2010). The role of functional foods, nutraceuticals, and food supplements in intestinal health. Nutrients 2, 611–625. doi: 10.3390/nu2060611

Clean Meat News Australia (2019). Clean Meat Startups: 10 Lab-Grown Meat Producers to Watch . Available online at: https://www.cleanmeats.com.au/2019/07/24/clean-meat-startups-10-lab-grown-meat-producers-to-watch/ (accessed: October 30, 2019).

Google Scholar

Dalkas, G., and Euston, S. R. (2020). “Modelling and computer simulation approaches to understand and predict food structure development: Structuring by gelation and self-association of biomolecules,” in Handbook of Food Structure Development , eds F. Spyropoulos, A. Lazidis and I. Norton, editors. (The Royal Society of Chemistry), 383–401. doi: 10.1039/9781788016155-00383

D'Angelo, G., Hansen, H. N., and Hart, A. J. (2016). Molecular gastronomy meets 3d printing: layered construction via reverse spherification. 3D Printing Addit. Manuf. 3, 153–159. doi: 10.1089/3dp.2016.0024

de Souza, R. R., Bergamasco, R., da Costa, S. C., Feng, X., Faria, S. H. B., and Gimenes, M. L. (2010). Recovery and purification of lactose from whey. Chem. Eng. Process. 49, 1137–1143. doi: 10.1016/j.cep.2010.08.015

Demartini, M., Pinna, C., Tonelli, F., Terzi, S., Sansone, C., and Testa, C. (2018). Food industry digitalization: from challenges and trends to opportunities and solutions. IFAC-PapersOnLine 51, 1371–1378. doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.337

Doyon, M., and Labrecque, J. (2008). Functional foods: a conceptual definition. Br. Food J. 110, 1133–1149. doi: 10.1108/00070700810918036

Duda, A., Adamczak, J., Chelminska, P., Juszkiewicz, J., and Kowalczewski, P. (2019). Quality and nutritional/textural properties of durum wheat pasta enriched with cricket powder. Foods 8:46. doi: 10.3390/foods8020046

Dudley, N., and Alexander, S. (2017). Agriculture and biodiversity: a review. Biodiversity 18, 45–49. doi: 10.1080/14888386.2017.1351892

Ehrlich, P. R., and Holdren, J. P. (1971). Impact of population growth. Science 171, 1212–1217. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3977.1212

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019). Cities and Circular Economy for Food . Available online at: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/Cities-and-Circular-Economy-for-Food_280119.pdf (accessed: october 30, 2019).

FAO (2019). The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction . Available online at: http://www.fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6030en.pdf

Feng, P. Y., Wang, B., Liu, D. L., and Yu, Q. (2019). Machine learning-based integration of remotely-sensed drought factors can improve the estimation of agricultural drought in south-eastern australia. Agric. Syst. 173, 303–316. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.015

Floros, J. D., Newsome, R., Fisher, W., Barbosa-Canovas, G. V., Chen, H. D., Dunne, C. P., et al. (2010). Feeding the world today and tomorrow: the importance of food science and technology an ift scientific review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 9, 572–599. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00127.x

Fritsch, C., Staebler, A., Happel, A., Marquez, M. A. C., Aguilo-Aguayo, I., Abadias, M., et al. (2017). Processing, valorization and application of bio-waste derived compounds from potato, tomato, olive and cereals: a review. Sustainability 9:1492. doi: 10.3390/su9081492

Galanakis, C. M. (2020). The food systems in the era of the coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic crisis. Foods 9:523. doi: 10.3390/foods9040523

Gholamipour-Shirazi, A., Kamlow, M. -A. T., Norton, I., and Mills, T. (2020). How to formulate for structure and texture via medium of additive manufacturing-a review. Foods 9:497. doi: 10.3390/foods9040497

Ghoush, M. A., Samhouri, M., Al-Holy, M., and Herald, T. (2008). Formulation and fuzzy modeling of emulsion stability and viscosity of a gum–protein emulsifier in a model mayonnaise system. J. Food Eng. 84, 348–357. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.05.025

Global Footprint Network (2020a). Earth Overshoot Day . Available online at: https://www.overshootday.org (accessed: June 20, 2020).

Global Footprint Network (2020b). Earth Overshoot Day, Food . Available online at: https://www.overshootday.org/solutions/food/ (accessed: June 6, 2020)

Govindaraj, M. (2015). Is fortification or bio fortification of staple food crops will offer a simple solution to complex nutritional disorder in developing countries? J. Nutr. Food Sci. 5:351. doi: 10.4172/2155-9600.1000351

Green, B. G., and Nachtigal, D. (2015). Temperature affects human sweet taste via at least two mechanisms. Chem. Senses 40, 391–399. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjv021

Guirado, E., Blanco-Sacristan, J., Rodriguez-Caballero, E., Tabik, S., Alcaraz-Segura, D., Martinez-Valderrama, J., et al. (2021). Mask r-cnn and obia fusion improves the segmentation of scattered vegetation in very high-resolution optical sensors. Sensors 21:320. doi: 10.3390/s21010320

Gunaratne, N. M., Fuentes, S., Gunaratne, T. M., Torrico, D. D., Francis, C., Ashman, H., et al. (2019). Effects of packaging design on sensory liking and willingness to purchase: a study using novel chocolate packaging. Heliyon 5:e01696. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01696

Guo, Y. H., Fu, Y. S., Hao, F. H., Zhang, X., Wu, W. X., Jin, X. L., et al. (2021). Integrated phenology and climate in rice yields prediction using machine learning methods. Ecol. Indic. 120:106935. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106935

Gupta, P. K., Shree, V., Hiremath, L., and Rajendran, S. (2019). “The use of modern technology in smart waste management and recycling: artificial intelligence and machine learning,” in Recent Advances in Computational Intelligence , eds R. Kumar and U. K. Wiil (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 173–188. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-12500-4_11

Gutiérrez-Uribe, J. A., Rojas-Garcia, C., Garcia-Lara, S., and Serna-Saldivar, S. O. (2010). Phytochemical analysis of wastewater (nejayote) obtained after lime-cooking of different types of maize kernels processed into masa for tortillas. J. Cereal Sci. 52, 410–416. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2010.07.003

Halloran, A., Clement, J., Kornum, N., Bucatariu, C., and Magid, J. (2014). Addressing food waste reduction in denmark. Food Policy 49, 294–301. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.09.005

Harrar, V., and Spence, C. (2013). The taste of cutlery: how the taste of food is affected by the weight, size, shape, and colour of the cutlery used to eat it. Flavour 2:21. doi: 10.1186/2044-7248-2-21

Henderson, K., and Loreau, M. (2018). How ecological feedbacks between human population and land cover influence sustainability. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14:e1006389. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006389

Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Haedey, D., and Masters, W. A. (2020). Affordability of the eat– lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob Health 8:e59–e66. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30447-4

Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., and de Graaf, C. (2011). Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. a survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite 56, 662–673. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001

Huang, C., Lai, C., Wu, X., Huang, Y., He, J., Huang, C., et al. (2017). An integrated process to produce bio-ethanol and xylooligosaccharides rich in xylobiose and xylotriose from high ash content waste wheat straw. Bioresour. Technol. 241, 228–235. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2017.05.109

Jones, J. M. (2014). Codex-aligned dietary fiber definitions help to bridge the 'fiber gap'. Nutr. J. 13:34. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-13-34

Jørgensen, S., and Pedersen, L. J. T. (2018). “The circular rather than the linear economy,” in Restart Sustainable Business Model Innovation , eds S. Jørgensen and L. J. T. Pedersen (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 103–120. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-91971-3_8

Jribi, S., Ben Ismail, H., Doggui, D., and Debbabi, H. (2020). Covid-19 virus outbreak lockdown: what impacts on household food wastage? Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22, 3939–3955. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00740-y

Jurgilevich, A., Birge, T., Kentala-Lehtonen, J., Korhonen-Kurki, K., Pietikainen, J., Saikku, L., et al. (2016). Transition towards circular economy in the food system. Sustainability 8:69. doi: 10.3390/su8010069

Kadam, S. U., Tiwari, B. K., and O'Donnell, C. P. (2013). Application of novel extraction technologies for bioactives from marine algae. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61, 4667–4675. doi: 10.1021/jf400819p

Kamath, R. (2018). Food traceability on blockchain: walmart's pork and mango pilots with ibm. J. Br. Blockchain Assoc. 1, 47–53. doi: 10.31585/jbba-1-1-(10)2018

Kamilaris, A., Fonts, A., and Prenafeta-Bold?, F. X. (2019). The rise of blockchain technology in agriculture and food supply chains. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 91 640–652. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.034

Kandra, P., Challa, M. M., and Jyothi, H. K. (2012). Efficient use of shrimp waste: present and future trends. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 93, 17–29. doi: 10.1007/s00253-011-3651-2

Karayannakidis, P. D., and Zotos, A. (2016). Fish processing by-products as a potential source of gelatin: a review. J. Aquat. Food Product Technol. 25, 65–92. doi: 10.1080/10498850.2013.827767

Kerch, G. (2015). The potential of chitosan and its derivatives in prevention and treatment of age-related diseases. Mar. Drugs 13, 2158–2182. doi: 10.3390/md13042158

Khan, H., and Lee, R. (2020). Does packaging influence taste and quality perceptions across varying consumer demographics? Food Qual. Prefer. 84:103932. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103932

La Barbera, F., Verneau, F., Amato, M., and Grunert, K. (2018). Understanding westerners' disgust for the eating of insects: the role of food neophobia and implicit associations. Food Qual. Prefer. 64 120–125. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.002

Lagrange, V., Whitsett, D., and Burris, C. (2015). Global market for dairy proteins. J. Food Sci. 1, A16–22. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.12801

Loutfi, A., Coradeschi, S., Mani, G. K., Shankar, P., and Rayappan, J. B. B. (2015). Electronic noses for food quality: a review. J. Food Eng. 144, 103–111. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.07.019

Lowe, M. R., and Butryn, M. L. (2007). Hedonic hunger: a new dimension of appetite? Physiol. Behav. 91, 432–439. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.04.006

Lynch, H., Johnston, C., and Wharton, C. (2018). Plant-based diets: considerations for environmental impact, protein quality, and exercise performance. Nutrients 10:1841. doi: 10.3390/nu10121841

Mazloumian, A., Rosenthal, M., and Gelke, H. (2020). Deep Learning for Classifying Food Waste . arXiv preprint (Ithaca, NY).

McKee, L. H., and Latner, T. A. (2000). Underutilized sources of dietary fiber: a review. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 55, 285–304. doi: 10.1023/A:1008144310986

Mela, D. J. (2006). Eating for pleasure or just wanting to eat? Reconsidering sensory hedonic responses as a driver of obesity. Appetite 47, 10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.02.006

Melgar-Lalanne, G., Hernández-Álvarez, A. J., and Salinas-Castro, A. (2019). Edible insects processing: traditional and innovative technologies. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 18, 1166–1191. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12463

Merli, R., Preziosi, M., and Acampora, A. (2018). How do scholars approach the circular economy? A systematic literature review. J. Cleaner Prod. 178, 703–722. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.112

Mezzenga, R., Bo Lee, W., and Fredrickson, G. H. (2006). Design of liquid-crystalline foods via field theoretic computer simulations. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 17, 220–226. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2005.11.009

Monteiro, A., Paquincha, D., Martins, F., Queiros, R. P., Saraiva, J. A., Svarc-Gajic, J., et al. (2018). Liquid by-products from fish canning industry as sustainable sources of omega3 lipids. J. Environ. Manage. 219, 9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.102

Moore, D., Cranston, G., Reed, A., and Galli, A. (2012). Projecting future human demand on the earth's regenerative capacity. Ecol. Indic. 16, 3–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.03.013

Ni, Q., Xu, G., Wang, Z., Gao, Q., Wang, S., and Zhang, Y. (2012). Seasonal variations of the antioxidant composition in ground bamboo sasa argenteastriatus leaves. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13, 2249–2262. doi: 10.3390/ijms13022249

Nicola, M., Alsafi, Z., Sohrabi, C., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., Iosifidis, C., et al. (2020). The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (covid-19): a review. Int. J. Surg. 78, 185–193. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018

Nicolotti, L., Mall, V., and Schieberle, P. (2019). Characterization of key aroma compounds in a commercial rum and an australian red wine by means of a new sensomics-based expert system (sebes)-an approach to use artificial intelligence in determining food odor codes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 67, 4011–4022. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.9b00708

Nirmala, C., Bisht, M. S., Bajwa, H. K., and Santosh, O. (2018). Bamboo: A rich source of natural antioxidants and its applications in the food and pharmaceutical industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 77, 91–99. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.05.003

Nordlund, E., Lille, M., Silventoinen, P., Nygren, H., Seppanen-Laakso, T., Mikkelson, A., et al. (2018). Plant cells as food - a concept taking shape. Food Res. Int. 107, 297–305. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.02.045

Okajima, K., Ueda, J., and Spence, C. (2013). Effects of visual texture on food perception. J. Vis. 13, 1078–1078. doi: 10.1167/13.9.1078

Olsen, N. V. (2015). Design thinking and food innovation. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 41, 182–187. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2014.10.001

Olsen, P., Borit, M., and Syed, S. (2019). Applications, Limitations, Costs, and Benefits Related to the Use of Blockchain Technology in the Food Industry . Nofima rapportserie. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2586121

O'Riordan, K., Fotopoulou, A., and Stephens, N. (2017). The first bite: imaginaries, promotional publics and the laboratory grown burger. Public Underst. Sci. 26, 148–163. doi: 10.1177/0963662516639001

Panesar, R., Kaur, S., and Panesar, P. S. (2015). Production of microbial pigments utilizing agro-industrial waste: a review. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 1, 70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.cofs.2014.12.002

Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., Steinberger, J. K., Wright, N., and bin Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 76, 106–115. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.020

Pennanen, K., Närväinen, J., Vanhatalo, S., Raisamo, R., and Sozer, N. (2020). Effect of virtual eating environment on consumers' evaluations of healthy and unhealthy snacks. Food Qual. Prefer. 82:103871. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103871

Pentikäinen, S., Tanner, H., Karhunen, L., Kolehmainen, M., Poutanen, K., and Pennanen, K. (2019). Mobile phone app for self-monitoring of eating rhythm: field experiment. JMIR mHealth uHealth 7:e11490. doi: 10.2196/11490

Perry, R. A., Mallan, K. M., Koo, J., Mauch, C. E., Daniels, L. A., and Magarey, A. M. (2015). Food neophobia and its association with diet quality and weight in children aged 24 months: a cross sectional study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 12:13. doi: 10.1186/s12966-015-0184-6

Piqueras-Fiszman, B., and Spence, C. (2011). Do the material properties of cutlery affect the perception of the food you eat? An exploratory study. J. Sens. Stud. 26, 358–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00351.x

Pitkänen, L., Heinonen, M., and Mikkonen, K. S. (2018). Safety considerations of phenolic-rich plant polysaccharides for food use: case study on softwood galactoglucomannan. Food Funct. 9, 1931–1943. doi: 10.1039/C7FO01425B

Plasek, B., Lakner, Z., and Temesi, A. (2020). Factors that influence the perceived healthiness of food-review. Nutrients 12:1881. doi: 10.3390/nu12061881

Plazzotta, S., Manzocco, L., and Nicoli, M. C. (2017). Fruit and vegetable waste management and the challenge of fresh-cut salad. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 63, 51–59. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2017.02.013

Post, M. J. (2014). Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food. J. Sci. Food Agric. 94, 1039–1041. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.6474

Poutanen, K., Nordlund, E., Paasi, J., Vehmas, K., and Åkerman, M. (2017). Food Economy 4.0. VTT - Technical Research Center of Finland Ltd . Available online at: https://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/visions/2017/V10.pdf

Priyadarshani, I., and Rath, B. (2012). Commercial and industrial applications of micro algae—a review. J. Algal Biomass Util. 3, 89–100.

Quested, T., and Johnson, H. (2009). Household Food and Drink Waste in the Uk . WRAP. Available online at: https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/household-food-and-drink-waste-uk-2009

Raheem, D., Shishaev, M., and Dikovitsky, V. (2019). Food system digitalization as a means to promote food and nutrition security in the barents region. Agriculture 9:168. doi: 10.3390/agriculture9080168

Rahmanian, N., Jafari, S. M., and Galanakis, C. M. (2014). Recovery and removal of phenolic compounds from olive mill wastewater. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 91, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s11746-013-2350-9

Ramos-Elorduy, J. (2009). Anthropo-entomophagy: cultures, evolution and sustainability. Entomol. Res. 39, 271–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5967.2009.00238.x

Ranasinghe, N., Tolley, D., Nguyen, T. N. T., Yan, L., Chew, B., and Do, E. Y. (2019). Augmented flavours: modulation of flavour experiences through electric taste augmentation. Food Res. Int. 117, 60–68. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.05.030

Reinoso Carvalho, F., Velasco, C., van Ee, R., Leboeuf, Y., and Spence, C. (2016). Music influences hedonic and taste ratings in beer. Front. Psychol. 7:636. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00636

Rizzato, M., Di Dio, C., Fasano, F., Gilli, G., Marchetti, A., and Sensidoni, A. (2016). Is food desirability affected by social interaction? Food Qual. Prefer. 50, 109–116. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.005

Rockenfeller, P., and Madeo, F. (2010). Ageing and eating. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1803, 499–506. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2010.01.001

Roos, Y. H. (2020). Water and pathogenic viruses inactivation—food engineering perspectives. Food Eng. Rev. 12, 251–267. doi: 10.1007/s12393-020-09234-z

Ryan, C., Gúeret, C., Berry, D., Corcoran, M., Keane, M. T., and Mac Namee, B. (2021). Predicting Illness for a Sustainable Dairy Agriculture: Predicting and Explaining the Onset of Mastitis in Dairy Cows . arXiv preprint.

Sabaté, J., and Soret, S. (2014). Sustainability of plant-based diets: back to the future. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100, 476S–482S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071522

Saini, A., Panesar, P. S., and Bera, M. B. (2019). Valorization of fruits and vegetables waste through green extraction of bioactive compounds and their nanoemulsions-based delivery system. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 6:26. doi: 10.1186/s40643-019-0261-9

Sakagami, H., Kushida, T., Oizumi, T., Nakashima, H., and Makino, T. (2010). Distribution of lignin-carbohydrate complex in plant kingdom and its functionality as alternative medicine. Pharmacol. Ther. 128, 91–105. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2010.05.004

Salah, K., Rehman, M. H. U., Nizamuddin, N., and Al-Fuqaha, A. (2019). Blockchain for ai: review and open research challenges. IEEE Access 7, 10127–10149. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2890507

Sasson, A. (2012). Food security for africa: an urgent global challenge. Agric. Food Secur. 1:2. doi: 10.1186/2048-7010-1-2

Sathasivam, R., Radhakrishnan, R., Hashem, A., and Abd Allah, E. F. (2019). Microalgae metabolites: a rich source for food and medicine. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 26, 709–722. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.11.003

Siegrist, M., and Hartmann, C. (2020). Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies. Nat. Food 1, 343–350. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0094-x

Siró, I., Kapolna, E., Kapolna, B., and Lugasi, A. (2008). Functional food. Product development, marketing and consumer acceptance-a review. Appetite 51, 456–467. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2008.05.060

Smithers, G. W. (2008). Whey and whey proteins—from ‘gutter-to-gold'. Int. Dairy J. 18, 695–704. doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2008.03.008

Springmann, M., Mason-D'Croz, D., Robinson, S., Garnett, T., Godfray, H. C., Gollin, D., et al. (2016). Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: a modelling study. Lancet 387, 1937–1946. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01156-3

Stephens, N., Di Silvio, L., Dunsford, I., Ellis, M., Glencross, A., and Sexton, A. (2018). Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 78, 155–166. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010

Sun, J., Zhou, W. B., Huang, D. J., Fuh, J. Y. H., and Hong, G. S. (2015). An overview of 3d printing technologies for food fabrication. Food Bioprocess Technol. 8, 1605–1615. doi: 10.1007/s11947-015-1528-6

Tolba, R., Wu, G., and Chen, A. (2011). Adsorption of dietary oils onto lignin for promising pharameutical and nutritional applications. Bioresources 6, 1322–1335.

Toldrá, F., Aristoy, M. C., Mora, L., and Reig, M. (2012). Innovations in value-addition of edible meat by-products. Meat Sci. 92, 290–296. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.004

Torres-Tiji, Y., Fields, F. J., and Mayfield, S. P. (2020). Microalgae as a future food source. Biotechnol. Adv. 41:107536. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2020.107536

van Huis, A., and Oonincx, D. G. A. B. (2017). The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37, 43. doi: 10.1007/s13593-017-0452-8

Vigani, M., Parisi, C., Rodriguez-Cerezo, E., Barbosa, M. J., Sijtsma, L., Ploeg, M., et al. (2015). Food and feed products from micro-algae: market opportunities and challenges for the eu. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 42, 81–92. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2014.12.004

Wang, Q. J., Mielby, L. A., Junge, J. Y., Bertelsen, A. S., Kidmose, U., Spence, C., et al. (2019). The role of intrinsic and extrinsic sensory factors in sweetness perception of food and beverages: a review. Foods 8:211. doi: 10.3390/foods8060211

Weinrich, R. (2019). Opportunities for the adoption of health-based sustainable dietary patterns: a review on consumer research of meat substitutes. Sustainability 11:4028. doi: 10.3390/su11154028

Wells, M. L., Potin, P., Craigie, J. S., Raven, J. A., Merchant, S. S., Helliwell, K. E., et al. (2017). Algae as nutritional and functional food sources: revisiting our understanding. J. Appl. Phycol. 29, 949–982. doi: 10.1007/s10811-016-0974-5

Wieben, E. (2017). Food loss and Waste and the Linkage to Global Ecosystems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations . Available online at: http://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/7fed720c-18e6-4be4-83d2-385b05b79ace/

Xiao, J.-R., Chung, P.-C., Wu, H.-Y., Phan, Q.-H., Yeh, J.-L. A., and Hou, M. T.-K. (2021). Detection of strawberry diseases using a convolutional neural network. Plants 10:31. doi: 10.3390/plants10010031

Xiao, Y., Chen, C., Wang, B., Mao, Z., Xu, H., Zhong, Y., et al. (2018). In vitro digestion of oil-in-water emulsions stabilized by regenerated chitin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 66, 12344–12352. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b03873

Xu, M., Wang, J., and Zhu, L. (2019). The qualitative and quantitative assessment of tea quality based on e-nose, e-tongue and e-eye combined with chemometrics. Food Chem. 289, 482–489. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.03.080

Yan, K. S., and Dando, R. (2015). A crossmodal role for audition in taste perception. J. Exp. Psychol. 41, 590–596. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000044

Zampollo, F. (2020). Food Design and Food Design Thinking . Available online at: http://francesca-zampollo.com/category/uncategorized/

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Zarbà, C., La Via, G., Pappalardo, G., and Hamam, M. S. M. (2020). The sustainability of novel foods in the transition phase to the circular economy; the trade “algae fit for human consumption” in european union. AIMS Agric. Food 5, 54–75. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.54

CrossRef Full Text

Keywords: food loss and food waste, circular economy, food production and food security, food structure design, new ingredients, digitalization, food design

Citation: Valoppi F, Agustin M, Abik F, Morais de Carvalho D, Sithole J, Bhattarai M, Varis JJ, Arzami ANAB, Pulkkinen E and Mikkonen KS (2021) Insight on Current Advances in Food Science and Technology for Feeding the World Population. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5:626227. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.626227

Received: 30 November 2020; Accepted: 23 September 2021; Published: 21 October 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Valoppi, Agustin, Abik, Morais de Carvalho, Sithole, Bhattarai, Varis, Arzami, Pulkkinen and Mikkonen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Fabio Valoppi, fabio.valoppi@helsinki.fi

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

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.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional, Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges and Opportunities

Giulia andreani.

1 Department of Food and Drug, University of Parma, 43124 Parma, Italy

Giovanni Sogari

Alessandra marti.

2 Department of Food, Environmental and Nutritional Sciences (DeFENS), Università degli Studi di Milano, 20133 Milan, Italy

Federico Froldi

3 Department of Animal Science, Food and Nutrition (DiANA), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy

Hans Dagevos

4 Wageningen Economic Research, Wageningen University and Research, 2595 BM The Hague, The Netherlands

Daniela Martini

Associated data.

Data will be available upon request.

There is a growing awareness that fostering the transition toward plant-based diets with reduced meat consumption levels is essential to alleviating the detrimental impacts of the food system on the planet and to improving human health and animal welfare. The reduction in average meat intake may be reached via many possible ways, one possibility being the increased consumption of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs). For this reason, in recent years, hundreds of products have been launched on the market with sensory attributes (i.e., taste, texture, appearance, and smell) similar to their animal counterparts; however, these products have often a long list of ingredients and their nutritional values are very different from animal meat. The present review aims to highlight the main opportunities and challenges related to the production and consumption of PBMAs through an interdisciplinary approach. Aspects related to the production technology, nutritional profiles, potential impacts on health and the environment, and the current market and consumer acceptance of PBMAs are discussed. Focusing on the growing literature on this topic, this review will also highlight research gaps related to PBMAs that should be considered in the future, possibly through the collaboration of different stakeholders that can support the transition toward sustainable plant-based diets.

1. Introduction

It is broadly agreed that transitioning away from meat-intensive diets toward increasingly plant-based diets is essential to alleviating the adverse environmental sustainability impacts of the food system and to improving human health and animal welfare. However, our collective meat consumption is still increasing and is projected to keep rising in the coming decade [ 1 ]. To curb the projected global rise in meat consumption, it is argued that a substantial reduction in average meat consumption levels—starting in affluent societies—is critically important.

Meat reduction can be established in various ways: (i) reducing meat portion sizes, (ii) replacing parts of meat-based products with plant-based alternatives (so-called hybrid meats) or applying a “less but better” principle (less quantity, more quality, i.e., more environmentally and/or animal-friendly meat), (iii) leaving the meat out of the dish without a replacement, (iv) replacing meat with another protein source (ranging from animal-based foods, such as eggs or cheese, to plant-derived alternatives, such as legumes, mushrooms, or tofu—not to mention alternative sources of protein with a minimal, i.e., insects and seaweed, or still non-existent market share, i.e., cultured meat), and last but not least, (v) consuming plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) [ 2 , 3 ]. These strategies imply that a flexitarian diet should not be narrowed down to the adoption of (processed) meat alternatives because it is also about substituting meat with other (unprocessed) alternative proteins, both animal- and plant-sourced. Having said this, the broad and varied dietary group of flexitarians is undeniably the key target group of PBMAs and the major group already consuming these products. From the perspective of a flexitarian diet characterized by abstaining from meat (whether this is occasionally, frequently, or often), it is obvious that flexitarians are searching for and interested in meat alternatives to practice their reduced meat foodstyle. Briefly put, there is logic in pointing to flexitarians as launching customers. From the perspective of PBMAs, the dominant market strategy hitherto is to mimic traditional meat as closely as possible in terms of flavor (meaty/savory), texture (mouthfeel), appearance (e.g., “the bleeding burger”), nutritional value (iron, vitamins, etc.), and even product names (using meat-related terms); incidentally, “PBMAs” may also be read as “plant-based meat analogs”. The food industry’s goal to develop meat-like plant-based foods unquestionably facilitates the meat-free choices of many flexitarians and vegetarians and vegans as well, who may feel an aversion to the association with meat surrounding PBMAs.

While food consumers’ adoption and acceptance of PBMAs are not self-evident, as will be shown in the remainder of this review, it seems safe to say that PBMAs facilitate the need of many of today’s food consumers in various high-income countries to be supplied with tasty, affordable, and accessible alternative protein products to satisfy their cravings to eat beyond meat.

Currently, many factors can testify that the field of PBMAs is vibrant and worth being further explored and critically assessed. Among these factors are the remarkable successes of efforts to improve the product qualities of PBMAs in the past few decades and the wide availability of PBMAs on supermarket shelves and in the food service sector (including McDonald’s, Burger King, and KFC, having released plant-based alternative versions of beef burgers and chicken nuggets). Furthermore, the substantial investments in the PBMA market, the significant growth figures it is experiencing in frontrunning countries (such as Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands), and its expected growth rates in global sales in the near future are additional elements that can attest to the key role of PBMAs.

This review aims at highlighting the main challenges and opportunities related to the production and consumption of PBMA products, taking into consideration all of the pivotal aspects of designing new food products. Indeed, after a brief excursus on the formulation and production technology of PBMAs (i), the review addresses their nutritional profiles and their potential impacts on health (ii) and the environment (iii), as well as consumers’ choices (iv) and the state of the market (v). Each of the five sections will provide a sketch of the state of affairs, and overall, this article aims to add to other recent reviews [ 4 , 5 ] by critically assessing recent studies from different disciplines in order to highlight the consensus and controversies on this topic from an interdisciplinary perspective.

2. Production Technology of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Among the earliest examples of meat alternatives, vegetable protein products are traditionally produced and consumed in Asian countries—i.e., tofu and tempeh from soy and seitan from gluten. Unfortunately, these products are not able to replicate the sensory attributes of meat products for Western consumers, who seek vegetable-based products that resemble meat in structure, flavor, and taste. Twenty-first-century meat alternatives have made use of the crosslinking capacity—under certain conditions—of soy proteins from the Asian tradition. Indeed, even today, soy is the main raw material for the production of meat alternatives [ 6 ]. This supremacy undoubtedly depends on the availability of the raw material and the techno-functional attributes of its proteins, including its solubility, its ability to absorb water and oil, and its gelling and emulsifying properties—all important aspects in defining the quality of the finished product [ 7 ]. However, scientific research (and the market) is shifting toward the use of raw materials other than soy because of issues concerning GMOs, allergies, unfavorable climate for soy cultivation, and the preservation and/or valorization of biodiversity. Thus, recent work explored the use of proteins from different raw materials, including peas, fava beans, rapeseeds, and hemp, alone or in combination with soybean [ 8 ]. Regardless of the botanical source, protein isolates—with protein content above 75% (usually close to 90%)—are the most used raw materials [ 9 ].

Protein isolates are produced using wet separation techniques that are often time-consuming, costly, inefficient, and unsustainable, given the high amounts of water, alkalis, acids, or enzymes employed [ 9 ]. Finally, since the functionality of proteins can widely vary depending on the process conditions adopted during protein isolation, the standardization of the technological properties of the isolates is challenging [ 8 ]. Thus, protein isolates are increasingly being replaced by protein concentrates (protein content between approx. 50 and 65%), without neglecting the structural properties required in the finished product [ 10 ]. These high-protein fractions are produced using dry separation processes. The latter type of process is considered more sustainable than wet techniques, as it requires no water or solvents, consumes less energy, and preserves the protein’s native structure instead of forming protein aggregates, thus retaining their technological functionality [ 8 ]. The principle behind the air classification is the different densities of the flour particles, which are richer in starch or proteins. This allows the separation of the flour into a fine protein-rich fraction and a coarse starch-rich fraction as a consequence of the centrifugal and gravitational forces applied during the operation. Therefore, the less-refined protein ingredients obtained with the air classification also contain other components, such as lipids and fibers, which are often included in the formulation of protein-isolate-based products [ 9 ]. Since the lipid and fiber contents in protein concentrates may vary based on the source and processing conditions, the set-up of the air-classification conditions needs to be optimized. So far, there are few examples—albeit with encouraging results—of the application of high-protein fractions obtained using air separation from legumes in the production of meat analogs [ 11 ], suggesting the need for further studies that also use different sources.

In order to expand the range of raw materials that are suitable to be used in the production of meat alternatives and that can maintain the high-quality characteristics of the finished product, various colorants (e.g., leghemoglobin, red beets, red cabbage, etc.) and flavorings (e.g., herbs and spices) have been proposed to reproduce the meat color and flavor profile, as well as to mask the beany off-flavors of some legume proteins. The juiciness, tenderness, and other sensory attributes of meat-like products are also obtained by using fats/oils (such as coconut oil/butter, sunflower oil, canola oil, sesame oil, etc.). However, it is increasingly common to use binding agents (e.g., oleogels, starches, hydrocolloids, or fibers) as fat replacers [ 10 ]. Indeed, high amounts of fat—acting as a lubricant—could interfere with the protein denaturation process, which is the first kind of modification proteins need to undergo in order to obtain a meat-like structure.

The meat-like structure is achieved when the native globular structure of pulse proteins is transformed into a fibrous structure in which proteins are elongated and highly ordered [ 8 ]. This structure can be created using different technologies (including extrusion, flow-induced structuring using a shear cell or a Couette cell, 3D printing, wet-spinning, and electrospinning), the advantages and disadvantages of which were recently summarized by Boukid [ 12 ].

The high productivity, low costs, versatility, energy efficiency, and scale-up potentials of extrusion have led it to be the most widely used technology to produce meat analogs. During this process, raw materials are hydrated and subjected to thermal and mechanical stresses applied during extrusion, and, finally, the product is cooled to room temperature [ 13 ]. As a result of the mechanical stress, the temperature, the pressure, and the final cooling step, proteins undergo a series of structural modifications, ranging from denaturation to unfolding, crosslinking, and alignment, resulting in a fibrous structure that mimics the characteristics of muscle tissues [ 14 ]. These modifications take place in a chamber containing one (i.e., single-screw extruder) or—more commonly—two (i.e., twin-screw extruder) corotating screws that convey the material toward a die that provides the final shape to the product. The extrusion chamber is subdivided into several zones, in which the peculiar profiles of the screws—and, thus, the applied shear—and temperatures cause the material to undergo (from the material inlet to the finished product outlet) mixing, hydration, shearing, homogenization, compression, deaeration, heating, shaping, and expansion. During these operations, proteins are hydrated, unfolded, aligned, and texturized.

Extrusion can be performed at a low moisture level (<30%) to obtain texturized vegetable proteins (TVPs) or at a high moisture level (>50%) to directly obtain meat analogs. When extrusion is carried out at low moisture, the sudden drop in pressure at the end of the extruder causes an immediate expansion of the product due to the rapid evaporation of water. TVPs have a spongy meat-like structure that mimics ground beef or chicken breast. TVPs can take different forms (flakes, chunks, or minced), and, after hydration (and final cooking), they are able to retain their structural integrity and acquire a chewy texture and elasticity, which is typical of meat.

In the case of high-moisture extrusion, a cooling die is connected at the end of the twin-screw extruder to cool the sample at 20 °C, which prevents the expansion and promotion of fiber alignment and stabilization, as is typical of the anisotropic structure desirable for these kinds of products.

Although the use of technologies other than extrusion has shown encouraging results (including high-temperature-induced shearing and 3D printing), some hurdles still need to be addressed before their widespread industrial deployment: cost reduction and/or applicability to a wide range of legume proteins.

3. Nutritional Profiles and Health Impacts of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Among the several reasons related to the growing demand for meat alternatives, a potential explanation is likely related to the increased knowledge about the negative impacts of diets high in red meat and, above all, processed meat on human health [ 15 ]. This, together with an increased concern for the environmental impacts of animal products compared to their plant-based counterparts, supports the transition toward sustainable healthy diets, which are based on a high intake of plant-based foods and the moderate consumption of animal products [ 16 ].

However, to investigate the potential role of PBMAs on human health, it is critical to analyze the nutritional characteristics of these products, also considering that meat is an essential source of high-quality proteins, iron, vitamins, minerals, and varying amounts of saturated fats depending on the type of meat [ 17 ]. A few studies analyzed the nutritional quality of meat alternatives present in different markets and compared meat alternatives and animal meat in terms of energy and nutrient contents [ 18 , 19 , 20 ].

In this regard, a recent study analyzed the nutritional quality of 269 commercial meat analogs currently sold on the Italian market by retrieving data reported on their food labels [ 19 ]. Large nutritional variability was observed among PBMAs, with plant-based steaks showing significantly higher protein and lower energy, fats, and salt contents compared to other plant-based food categories. Comparing the nutritional information with reference animal meat products, the results showed higher fiber content in all PBMAs. Moreover, plant-based burgers and meatballs had a lower protein content than their meat counterparts, while ready-sliced meat substitutes showed a lower salt content than cured meats.

Similar results were obtained in other studies performed in the US [ 18 ], Sweden [ 20 ], and other European markets [ 12 ]. These studies found lower energy and total and saturated fat contents and higher total carbohydrates, sugars, and fibers in PBMAs compared to meat-based products. On the other hand, salt content showed contrasting results. Furthermore, plant-based and meat-based products generally presented similar amounts of total proteins despite large differences in the contents of single amino acids. As a matter of fact, higher amounts of glutamic acid and cysteine and lower contents of alanine, glycine, and, above all, methionine were identified in PBMAs [ 21 ].

These results support the importance of further exploring the use of plant-based protein blends to reduce differences between plant-based and animal-based meats [ 22 ]. In addition, it is noteworthy that plant-based and animal products also differ in protein digestibility and the bioavailability of single amino acids. Indeed, animal meat showed higher protein digestibility than PBMAs, which, in turn, have a negative impact on amino acid bioavailability. These data suggest the possibility to use specific protein sources with high bioavailability (e.g., soy isolate) and stress the importance of considering the real bioavailability of amino acids when investigating the diet quality of dietary patterns that include these products.

Another interesting aspect to be considered regards micronutrients. Data are often limited on this topic, but previous studies highlighted that PBMAs are a good source of minerals, also reporting a higher iron content compared to meat [ 21 , 23 ]. However, it is important to underline that the absorption and bioavailability of iron from plant-based sources and vegetarian diets are lower compared to omnivorous diets, and this shall be considered in future investigations [ 24 ].

Altogether, these results highlight the importance of carefully evaluating the nutritional impacts of switching from animal meat to PBMAs in order to identify potential at-risk nutrients. With this intention, a recent study compared the omnivore diet with diets in which animal products were substituted with either traditional or novel plant-based foods by using NHANES 2017–2018 data. The risk of inadequacies of specific nutrients (e.g., vitamin B12) was highlighted, especially when novel PBMAs were used [ 25 ]. These results once again support the need to consider the nutritional quality of PBMAs when switching to plant-based diets that exclude the consumption of animal foods.

Another area that deserves further investigation is the evaluation of the impact of replacing animal meat on human health through well-designed human intervention studies. So far, different studies have compared the effects of vegetarian/vegan diets with those of omnivorous diets [ 26 ], but trials specifically focused on PBMAs are still lacking. Yet, due to the publication of study protocols in clinical trial registries (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov), it is reasonable to expect the implementation and publication of trials evaluating the impacts of PBMAs on nutritional and health aspects in the near future. A first attempt was recently made by Crimarco and colleagues [ 27 ], who assessed the effects of plant-based meats on biomarkers of inflammation through a secondary analysis of the Study With Appetizing Plant food—Meat Eating Alternatives Trial (SWAP-MEAT). Contrary to expectations, no improvements in biomarkers of inflammation following plant-based meat consumption were identified. However, further long-term studies focused on a large plethora of health markers are necessary before drawing any conclusions.

4. Environmental Impacts of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Meat is a protein food of high biological value; however, the conversion of feed and fodder into animal protein may not be sustainable due to inputs and the use of limited natural resources [ 28 ]. Currently, several farming systems of meat production exist, with the production efficiency per unit of a product depending mainly on feeding, breeds, management, and the technology employed [ 29 , 30 ]. Fewer resources per product unit are required for crop growth, which leads these products to represent an interesting opportunity for sustainable development while meeting the increasing demand for food [ 31 ]. Thus, in developed countries not relying on subsistence animal breeding, PBMAs could bring environmental benefits in terms of biodiversity, land and water use, and reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [ 32 , 33 ].

Nonetheless, the environmental impacts of PBMAs still need to be assessed. In this regard, the life cycle assessment (LCA) approach has been applied. It is a methodology used in various contexts to quantify the environmental impacts of a product based on the ISO 14040 [ 34 ] and ISO 14044 [ 35 ] standards to improve its environmental performance [ 36 ].

Several LCA studies were conducted on PBMAs to detect hotspots in the production process and to compare environmental performances with animal-based products. Indicators such as climate change, land, water, and energy use were considered.

In this regard, Bryant [ 37 ] analyzed 43 studies and concluded that the production of meat analogs is more sustainable when compared to animal products. At the same time, Detzel et al. [ 38 ] stated that PBMAs could help reduce the environmental impacts related to food consumption by overcoming the complexity of the processing stage of ingredients—which has a significant environmental impact—and by optimizing the inputs required to produce protein ingredients (i.e., legumes, trying to stabilize their yields, the main problem in their cultivation) [ 39 ]. Nevertheless, Smetana et al. [ 40 ] reported that the technology employed (i.e., machinery and process equipment) might be a valuable opportunity to improve the sustainability of alternative protein source production. A detailed LCA study by Mejia et al. [ 41 ] on three factories producing 57 different types of meat analogs achieved low GHG emissions, mainly due to the manufacturing process, followed by the agricultural production of food ingredients and their transportation. According to Goldstein et al. [ 42 ], the production stage accounts for 80% of the environmental impact due to the use of electricity from fossil sources; however, alternative energy solutions could mitigate this impact.

In-depth studies are needed since contrasting data are ascribed to energy consumption derived from the use of proxy processes for the implemented energy sources [ 37 ]. Within the meat supply chain, meat production and animal husbandry are the most impactful stages [ 43 ]. Nevertheless, manure production, subsequently applied to the soil, spares the need for chemical fertilizer, contributes to crop yield, and maintains soil fertility. On the other hand, legumes do not require nitrogen fertilization due to their ability to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and at the root level [ 44 ]. This leads to lower N 2 O and NH 3 emissions due to the non-use of manure and/or synthetic fertilizers.

Several studies have considered the impact of meat and meat analogs on the water used and the effects on eutrophication and acidification. In a study comparing patties with and without meat, Smetana et al. [ 45 ] estimated lower acidification and subsequent aquatic eutrophication for PBMAs. Similar conclusions were obtained by Heller et al. [ 46 ], who showed lower water use for plant-based patties. However, guidelines for water modeling are needed to avoid misleading interpretations based on erroneous comparisons.

Lusk et al. [ 47 ] produced a model to study both the economic and environmental effects of the use of alternative plant products over meat in the US. The reforestation of cropland and pastureland, as well as the conversion of land for crops grown for livestock feeding to crops for plant-based products, would result in the sequestration of 0.43 megatons of CO 2 per year. The results imply an increase in crop yields to compensate for the reduction in available cropland. At the European level, Saget et al. [ 48 ] found a reduction in human–animal competition for land use for pea protein production and an 89% lower global warming potential. In more detail, in Germany, a 5% substitution of beef with pea proteins could lead to a 1% reduction in annual CO 2 emissions. However, it is important to assert that agricultural activities impact 9.9% of global greenhouse gas emissions [ 49 ]. There could be scenarios of increased arable land to fulfill the growth of alternative meat products, even when deforestation is limited through environmental policies. The extensification of palm plantations in humid tropical countries could be an example, with an increased demand for coconut oil as an ingredient in plant-based beef substitutes [ 42 ].

It can be concluded that, still, few LCA studies have quantified the environmental impacts of meat alternatives, and many limitations related to the application of the methodology need to be addressed. Relevant considerations are that (i) PBMAs are highly processed foods, and thus, impacts associated with the use of different forms of energy counteract the low environmental impact associated with the production of plant-based ingredients [ 41 ]; (ii) the building of databases for the productive process of complex (multi-ingredient) foods should be a relevant point to focus on; (iii) a functional unit that does not consider the mass of a product but integrates primary nutrients should be implemented, along with a feature required when comparing LCA results from different studies/products [ 48 , 50 ]; (iv) the sustainability of PBMA production must take into consideration good agricultural practices, such as crop rotation, fertilizer, plant protection, and water use [ 38 ].

5. Consumer Behavior of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

In the realm of meat alternatives, despite technological innovations and efforts to design processed plant-based products from different sources, one of the main challenges in successfully replacing animal prom ducts with plant-based ingredients is the re-creation of similar meat sensory properties. Moreover, communication about these new products and individual attributes (e.g., attitude and demographics) should be taken into consideration during the marketing stage—especially in those countries where meat and meat-based products have a key role in consumers’ minds, in terms of habits, culinary traditions, and culture [ 5 , 51 ]. Therefore, both sensory and consumer science can play an important role in understanding how consumers perceive PBMAs, including drivers of and barriers to their acceptance.

First, past studies showed that perceived sensory attributes and consumer acceptance are strongly influenced by the choice of plant/protein sources [ 52 , 53 ]. Therefore, what ingredients to use as a replacement for meat is an important factor to consider in the development of meat alternatives [ 54 ]. Early product developments mimicking processed meat products, for example, those from mycoproteins, have low sensory acceptance in terms of taste and texture [ 55 ]. This results in a low willingness to include such products as a real meat substitute for meat eaters [ 56 ]. As mentioned above, until a few years ago, the first generation of these products was mostly designed for vegetarians and vegans [ 55 , 57 , 58 ]. To achieve acceptability by a wider audience of meat eaters, the new generation of PBMAs shall be developed in a way that texture, appearance, aroma, and taste resemble those of equivalent authentic meat products, before, during, and after cooking [ 5 , 57 ]. Yet, reproducing the complex and delicate sensory profile of farmed meat can be challenging [ 14 , 59 ]. For instance, the color of plant-based products may diminish due to light or oxygen exposure, or the taste could be affected by lipid oxidation and cause undesirable characteristics [ 52 ]. Considering that the appearance of a product is generally the first element to be assessed, it is a critical determinant in food acceptance. Another challenge for these PBMAs is to recall the flavor of real meat while avoiding unpleasant flavors (e.g., bitter, burnt, and earthy) caused by the high level of legume protein [ 5 ]. Therefore, the need to mimic meat characteristics requires the use of many additives in the development stage [ 5 ]. As a result, the product packaging of PBMAs often includes a long list of unfamiliar ingredients [ 19 ], which could convey a sense of processed and unhealthy food among consumers. In particular, PBMAs that are high/ultra-processed could be associated with a certain unnaturalness of the product [ 60 ]. Thus, while reducing the gap between the sensory profiles of PBMAs and their meat equivalents might be important for some companies, the concept of product acceptance goes beyond merely sensory appreciation, including consumers’ perceptions. For example, low product familiarity with PBMAs—including the preparation/cooking method—is one of the most important product-related factors associated with consumer acceptance. This could potentially limit the expansion to the mainstream consumer market. Therefore, fully understanding consumers’ acceptance of PBMAs should require individuals to have a direct experience [ 4 ].

The most investigated meat category in consumer studies, including sensory tests, is burgers [ 53 , 61 , 62 , 63 ]. The reason is that traditional burgers are one of the most popular meat forms due to their composition (e.g., rich in proteins and fats), market availability, convenience, affordability, and sensory qualities [ 64 , 65 ]. Results consistently indicate that respondents generally prefer traditional meat products over their plant-based alternatives. For example, Grasso et al. [ 62 ] showed that individuals had higher sensory expectations for a beef burger than for a plant-based or hybrid patty; however, in terms of acceptability and purchase intentions, the hybrid one (60% beef and 40% vegetables) was the most preferred after the tasting.

In general, product familiarity is also often associated with higher acceptance. For instance, another study by Caputo et al. [ 53 ], which included a choice experiment with a blind–informed sensory study, showed that the beef burger, which had the highest degree of familiarity, also received the highest willingness to pay (WTP) compared to two PBMAs and one hybrid burger. They also found that, in the informed group, the preference and WTP for the plant-based patty labeled as “made with animal-like protein” exceeded those for the hybrid burger (70% beef and 30% mushrooms) and the plant-based burger “made with pea protein”. As reported by several studies, low prices of non-meat protein sources may act as a driver to accept such products [ 66 ]; however, it will probably take some years to reach price parity with traditional meat [ 4 ].

Regarding demographics, habits, and attitudinal factors, being pro-health, pro-sustainability, and young leads to higher acceptability toward PBMAs compared to other consumer segments [ 5 ]. For these reasons, health and environmental sustainability benefits could be included among the main drivers to try such products [ 66 ]. For instance, in a study by Sogari et al. [ 51 ], motivations to process both sustainability and nutrition information were a strong determinant driving the likelihood to purchase a hybrid meat–mushroom burger among US students. Other impacting factors could be the attitude toward meat analogs [ 67 ] and, more generally, consumer attitude toward food innovation [ 51 ]. On the other hand, the main personal-related barriers to acceptability are related to food and food technology neophobia [ 4 , 5 ], attachment to meat, and lower situational appropriateness of consuming non-meat protein sources [ 66 ].

Several studies have shown that heavy meat eaters might be less willing to substitute meat products for plant-based alternatives than flexitarians [ 68 , 69 ]. However, other studies suggested that the greater the number of consumers who are already familiar with plant-based products, the fewer the individuals who will seek products that are similar to meat from a sensory point of view [ 5 ]. This could be explained by the fact that vegetarians and vegans are not seeking meat sensory properties in plant-based products [ 70 ].

Finally, more knowledge about consumer acceptance of PBMAs is also helpful for legislators. For instance, in the EU, policymakers support the production and promotion of alternative meat substitutes and hybrid products by funding research programs toward more sustainable and alternative proteins, such as the Farm to Fork Strategy in the European Union [ 71 ]. Thus, understanding how consumers perceive such products is challenging for the food system, and developing meat alternatives with high consumer appeal requires the full integration of sensory and consumer research.

6. Market Analysis of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Given that the latest market trends of plant-based meat alternatives have not been deeply investigated, we conducted market research to identify the current direction of these products. Retailers and industries could benefit from the data retrieved from this analysis to design new products (in terms of ingredients, claims, labeling, etc.) to better shape their market strategies.

To analyze market trends of PBMAs, we used Mintel’s Global New Product Database (GNPD) [ 72 ], an online database for new products launched in selected countries. The same database was previously used in other research. For instance, several authors employed Mintel’s GNPD to investigate front-of-package information, food labeling schemes, ingredient profiles, and new launches of alternative meat products in the global market [ 65 , 73 , 74 , 75 ].

The objective of our analysis was to use the Mintel database to extract and explore different information on the latest market trends of PBMAs. In order to have an overview of recent years, we searched for new meat alternative launches over the past three years (from January 2019 to December 2021). The dataset was extracted on 26 October 2022, and the search strategy is described in Appendix A ( Table A1 ).

The research returned 5155 results in the form of a spreadsheet, where each column reported different information, such as ingredients, claims, and nutritional values per 100 g. After cleaning the dataset to remove non-meat alternatives (e.g., fish or egg alternatives) using keywords (e.g., seafood, salmon, tuna, and egg) in the “Product” and “Description” columns, the final dataframe was analyzed using descriptive statistics.

During the past three years (2019–2021), the market of PBMAs has seen a remarkable spike in product launches, with 4965 products released worldwide. In more detail, Figure 1 shows the solid growth of PBMAs at the beginning of 2020—when the COVID-19 pandemic broke out—and a slight drop at the end of 2021. This change could be explained by common short-term reductions in meat intake during zoonotic outbreaks, as the same happened for SARS-CoV in 2003 and the African Swine Flu in 2019 (Attwood and Hajat, 2020). Thus, this meat intake reduction could have led consumers to look for new alternatives at the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak. Nevertheless, despite the modest negative trend during the third and fourth quarters of 2021, the overall direction of PBMA launches is positively growing, and this new dietary pattern could represent an opportunity to foster these products. More precisely, this positive market trend is mostly focused on the introduction of new products ( n = 1822; 36.7%) and new varieties ( n = 1910; 38.5%) of PBMAs. The remaining launches ( n = 1232; 24.8%) include new packaging, re-launches, and new formulations.

Number of PBMAs’ launches ( n = 4965—green bar), new varieties ( n = 1910—orange bar), new products ( n = 1822—gray bar), new packaging ( n = 1822—yellow bar), re-launches ( n = 386—blue bar), and new formulations ( n = 58—black bar) launched worldwide over the past three years (2019–2021). Abbreviations: PBMAs, plant-based meat alternatives.

It is also important to highlight that, despite the market for PBMA products experiencing increasing growth, the global market revenue of plant-based meat substitutes is forecast to be worth USD 33.99 billion in 2027 (Global: Meat Substitutes Market Revenue 2016–2027|Statista, 2022), while the meat sector is expected to be valued at USD 1354 billion by 2027 (Global Meat Industry Value Projection, 2021–2027|Statista, 2022). Thus, the market share of PBMAs is, and is estimated to remain, significantly lower than that of the meat market.

Considering the 2019–2021 period, new PBMA products were mostly launched in France, with 417 new launches (8.4%), followed by the UK ( n = 393; 7.9%) and Germany ( n = 391; 7.9%). The top twelve most active markets in this sector are represented in Figure 2 . This figure underlines that European and northern American countries, along with Brazil and Australia, have been more active in launching plant-based meat alternatives during the past few years, showing an increasing interest in meat substitutes in these countries.

Twelve most active countries in PBMA launches over the past three years (2019–2021). Note: Each bar represents the total number of PBMAs’ launches between January 2019 and December 2021. Abbreviations: PBMAs, plant-based meat alternatives.

In the global market, the most represented food categories were general plant-based proteins ( n = 1469; 29.6%)—meaning foods that do not intend to mimic an existing meat product (e.g., burgers, sausages, nuggets, or meatballs) but can still be considered meat substitutes, as they are protein-rich plant foods (e.g., “teriyaki tofu” and “fried gluten with peanuts”)—and patty/burger alternatives ( n = 1331; 26.8%). Every other food category alone—such as sausage, mince, or nugget alternatives—does not represent more than 9% of the total launches, as illustrated in Figure 3 .

Food category distribution of PBMAs launched over the past three years (2019–2021). Abbreviations: PBMAs, plant-based meat alternatives.

In terms of the highest sales value in EUR and the growth rate, according to a recent study of the Smart Protein project [ 76 ] using Nielsen Retail Scanning Data, the UK and Germany lead the sector of PBMAs, i.e., sausages, burger patties, and cold cuts. However, differences in the categories exist between countries; for example, plant-based sausages lead the market segment in the UK, whereas, in Germany, the top category is plant-based refrigerated meat (burger patties, nuggets, minced, etc.), followed by plant-based cold cuts and meat spreads and plant-based sausages.

Regarding the ingredients, we used the data from Mintel to identify which foods are most widely used as the first ingredient. When water was reported to be the first element in the list ( n = 1605; 32.3%), we considered the second one. Using this strategy, we identified 1914 products (38.6%) containing soy-based components —e.g., soybean curd, proteins, or flour—as the first ingredient. After soy , wheat ( n = 520; 10.5%) and other pulses ( n = 702; 14.1%), such as kidney beans, black beans, peas, chickpeas, and lentils, were predominantly used as the first ingredient, followed by mushrooms ( n = 134; 2.7%) and jackfruit ( n = 86; 1.7%).

In terms of information provided on the packaging, a total of 120 different claims were identified. Out of 4965 products, 2849 (57%) included the “Vegan/No Animal Ingredients” claim, and 2099 (42%) reported the “Plant Based” claim. In addition, in line with Cutroneo et al. [ 19 ], the most common nutrition claim was the “High/Added Protein” statement ( n = 1616; 33%). A graphic presentation of the claims is represented in Figure 4 .

Word cloud of the top 20 claims employed in PBMA products launched over the past three years (2019–2021). Abbreviations: PBMA, plant-based meat alternative. Note: A word cloud is a visual representation of word frequency and value. The “Social Media” claim indicates the presence on the packaging of a logo/claim to entice consumers to join the company’s social media community and follow its channel/website.

Finally, Mintel’s Global New Product Database has been a practical tool to obtain a global overview of PBMA market trends. The data retrieved and analyzed from the database showed that plant-based meat alternatives can widely differ in terms of the food category, ingredients, and/or claims. However, despite these several variations, the increasing trend in product launches—especially in Western countries—highlights a promising global trend to support the transition toward a plant-based diet. However, as previously highlighted in this section, market share differences between the meat and PBMA sectors are still notable, and meat revenue forecasts do not foresee any declining trends. These data underline that the growing market of meat substitutes does not significantly affect the meat market. Therefore, PBMAs are still weak substitutes for animal-based products, as they are often complementary to meat rather than meat replacers [ 77 ]. Previous studies also showed that regular meat consumers are less likely to choose plant-based items over beef than people declaring that they follow different diets (e.g., vegan, flexitarian, or vegetarian) [ 78 ]. Thus, in order to support a dietary shift toward meat reduction, it is critical to study and test strategies that could steer meat eaters’ choices toward plant-based diets and support the growing market of PBMAs.

7. Discussion and Conclusions

Plant-based foods that replace animal foods, such as meat, but also dairy, and even fish and eggs, are gaining increased attention as possible substitutes that can facilitate the transition toward sustainable healthy diets. The idea of processing plant-based ingredients to obtain protein-based foods is not a new concept for consumers since many products, such as tempeh, tofu, and seitan, have been available on the market for hundreds of years [ 4 ], especially in Asian countries. However, these products were not intended to be meat substitutes per se and have never become mainstream in Western countries. A possible explanation could be that these products have mostly been targeted at vegetarians or vegans without any explicit reference to their animal counterparts.

Nevertheless, the development of the so-called “meat alternatives” sector is gaining more and more attention due to growing concerns over the environmental impacts of the food system [ 5 ] and the increasing awareness of the detrimental impacts of high meat consumption on human health [ 79 ].

In the last several years, hundreds of meat-like substitutes, such as plant-based burgers, have been developed and launched globally on the market to imitate the traditional beef burger using either 100% plant-based ingredients or a mix of both meat and plant-based ingredients, i.e., “hybrid meat products”. Although this latter category is not suitable for vegetarians and vegans, these hybrid meat alternatives could exploit consumer barriers to PBMAs (e.g., low sensory quality) and lead to the first approach to reducing meat consumption.

The growing demand for PBMAs has driven the development of ground-breaking process technologies and novel ingredients that can help to obtain products with meat-like sensory attributes that have the potential to attract non-vegetarian consumers [ 52 ]. However, many of these new meat alternatives are highly complex products in terms of ingredients/formulations and require technological investments [ 80 ]. For instance, one limitation of using plant proteins as meat substitutes is the challenge of preserving the shape while dealing with the high risk of crumbling [ 56 ]. For this reason, as of now, most of these proteins have been employed either as a meat ingredient substitute (e.g., in the shape of mince) or as parts of food products (pizza, sauces, etc.) and have not been consumed on their own [ 55 ]. Currently, a new line of familiar alternatives to traditional meat products or dishes, such as imitation-meat burgers, has been launched in supermarkets and restaurants [ 81 ].

While targeting young flexitarians and omnivores is seen as the key to ensuring growing sales of plant-based meat alternatives in the future [ 82 , 83 ], there is still the need to investigate whether and how the sensory appeal will be a barrier for the second generation of plant-based meat alternatives among these consumers [ 5 ].

To achieve acceptability among non-vegetarian consumers, plant-based foods should resemble the texture, flavor, appearance, aroma, and taste of authentic meat products. However, the long list of unfamiliar ingredients used to mimic meat sensory properties leads to different nutrition values of these products compared to animal meats. As a result, even if PBMAs are similar to meat in terms of sensory experience, they cannot be considered a nutritional replacement for animal products [ 4 ]. Thus, further studies are needed not only to monitor the nutritional quality of new plant-based meat products on the market but also to investigate the impact of this substitution on human health markers. In addition, adequate nutritional education programs to improve consumers’ knowledge and awareness about the differences between animal- and plant-based products are required [ 19 ].

Moreover, the discussion on whether manufacturers should describe PBMA products using references to their animal counterparts (e.g., “tastes like meat”), which could create positive expectations for meat consumers [ 5 , 62 ], is still under debate. Specifically, after the recent commercial success of several PBMAs, a strong debate has started on how to label/name such products. For example, in the EU, a regulation clarifying whether “meat-sounding” labels for PBMAs should be allowed does not exist yet. This outcome will probably impact consumer preferences, as shown in a recent study by Demartini et al. [ 84 ], in which consumers’ perceptions of tastiness and healthiness and their willingness to buy plant-based meatballs were negatively affected by the vegan labeling.

As we reported, the sector of PBMAs is launching products on the market that mimic their animal counterparts, and the term “meat substitutes” seems to imply that people will stop eating meat [ 4 ]; however, it is more likely that individuals will consume both traditional and non-traditional meat alternatives. In this scenario, PBMAs may be a useful tool to reduce animal products, especially for populations that consume too much animal meat according to dietary recommendations. We might also expect PBMAs to be regarded as an intermediate phase on our way to (semi-)plant-based diets, in which unprocessed plant-based foods and recipes would take center stage. Achieving this kind of diet would mean that our food habits have really gone beyond meat.

Finally, future studies should consider calls for collaboration, particularly among stakeholders of the food supply chain (i.e., industries and food services) and the scientific community (i.e., nutritionists and dietitians, food technologists, and consumers scientists), to facilitate the transition toward healthier and more sustainable plant-based protein sources.

Search criteria considered in Mintel database.

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.M. and G.S.; visualization, G.A.; writing—original draft preparation, G.A., F.F., H.D., A.M., D.M. and G.S.; writing—review and editing G.A., F.F., H.D., A.M., D.M. and G.S.; supervision, G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Master's Food Technology

Wageningen University & Research is one of the leading universities in Food Science and Technology in Europe and the world. The MSc Food Technology is considered to be one of the best and most innovative programmes in its field and has a academic history of more than 50 years. In this programme, the characteristics of food products and their production process are central. Does your interest lie in sustainable food production, or in innovation and management? Or do you want to focus on product design, or the production of food using micro-organisms and enzymes? With a solid technological background, you will further specialize in any of these directions within two years, at a top program with many options and excellent career prospects.

Why this programme?

• Translate technical and consumer wishes to food and product development.
• Create your own Food Technologist profile by developing the skills that fit your interests.
• Perform an internship in large companies all over the world.

Study programme of the master's Food Technology

The MSc Food Technology is a fulltime two year programme, fully taught in English. Whether your passion lies in knowing all about product design, cheese fermentation, the protein transition or developing the skills to become a researcher, this master programme is set up in such a way that students can excel to become the Food Technologist they wish to be.

During the first year, students follow a set of core Food Technology courses. These provide a solid foundation for other courses, that are based on individual preferences and interests. While some students combine courses from different disciplines as much as possible to broaden their profile, other students prefer to focus on deepening their knowledge about one discipline or a specific topic. In the second year, students conduct an individual research thesis and an internship.

MFT-DL and EMFS

The MFT programme has an on-campus and an online variant (MFT-DL) that lead to the same degree. The DL programme is a part-time programme that allows students to study from the comfort of their homes. For more information about the online programme, please click here. Within the on-campus programme, students may also apply for the European Masters in Food Studies (EMFS); a partnership between several multinational companies, Wageningen University, University College Cork (Ireland), AgroParisTech (France) and Lund University (Sweden). The EMFS offers a holistic and company focused approach and guarantees an integrated thesis and internship at one of the partner companies during the second year.

On the Programme of Food Technology page and in the Study Handbook you can find more detailed information about courses, theses and internships. You can also Compare Food Technology to other master's programmes .

Application and admission

To be admitted to the Master's programme at Wageningen University you need to have:

• A bachelor's degree (or equivalent) in a relevant field of science;
• Sufficient quality of the bachelor's degree;
• Proof of English proficiency, see requirements.

Find out more about the  Admission requirements, application procedures and tuition fees .

Students with a BSc in Food Technology at Wageningen University have direct admission.

Student experiences

The best way to get to know a place is by getting to know the people! Read some student experiences about the master's programme and student life in Wageningen on the page  Student experiences .

What moves me? Strong science and technology are key ingredients for food innovation.

Future career

Food Technologists have good job perspectives. Graduates generally find a job in the food industry, or at the government, universities or institutes. Around 10% of the graduates will pursue a PhD degree. Read more about  Career perspectives and opportunities  and stories of alumni.

Master of Food Technology

I have always been passionate about teaching food science, especially when the focus is sensory analysis.

Koushik Adhikari, Ph.D.

Application Deadlines

News & events, testimonials, contact information, request information.

Offered online through the  College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences , the University of Georgia’s online Master of Food Technology will teach you how to maximize in-line processing efficiencies, improve food product quality and safety and implement good manufacturing practices in line with current regulations, food safety, and HAACP practices.

This fully online, non-thesis master’s provides working professionals the opportunity to learn from food industry experts and top food science and technology researchers. The Master of Food Technology degree offers the opportunity for instruction in core areas of food technology, such as processing, packaging, microbiology, fermentation, chemistry, ingredients, product development, and food regulation. In addition, the degree offers current and up-to-date information on emerging trends, new regulations, and potential innovations. You will learn identification and prevention of product failure, an understanding of the consumer mind and consumer needs, innovation in process optimization for consistent quality and safety, new product formulations to improve human health, and fermentation technology used in the beverage industry.

Whether your bachelor’s degree is in food science, chemistry, biology, nutrition, chemical engineering, environmental sciences, or other science-related fields, the Master of Food Technology will prepare you for a rewarding career in the food industry. Program graduates accept jobs such as Research & Development Director/Innovation, Manager of Quality Assurance, Quality Assurance Auditor, Executive R&D Chef, Senior Process Engineer, Manager of Ingredients, and Manager of Sales.

Accreditations

The University of Georgia is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) to award baccalaureate, master’s, specialist, and doctoral degrees. The University of Georgia also may offer credentials such as certificates and diplomas at approved degree levels. Questions about the accreditation of the University of Georgia may be directed in writing to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges at 1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, GA 30033-4097, by calling (404) 679-4500, or by using information available on SACSCOC’s website ( www.sacscoc.org ).

Credit and Transfer

Total Hours Required to Earn Degree:  33 (credit hours)

Maximum Hours Transferable into Program:  6

Master of Food Technology Degree Program Admission Requirements

Students applying to The University of Georgia must be accepted by the  Graduate School . Persons holding a bachelor’s degree from any institution accredited by the proper regional accrediting association are eligible to apply for admission to the Graduate School.

Two years of work experience in the food industry or food-related occupation in the public sector is recommended for admission to this graduate program.

Master of Food Technology Application Checklist

• Application  – Submit the  Graduate School Admissions  online.  Application fee: $75 Domestic/$100 International.
• Select Campus  – Online 
• Select Intended Program  – MFT, Food Technology (Food Science and Technology) [MFT_FTEC_ONL]
• Résumé or curriculum vita  – Submit online to the Graduate School.
• Statement of Purpose  – Submit a one-two page statement of purpose online to the Graduate School. The statement of intent should clarify the candidate’s relevant background, interests, and goals in relation to the program.
• Transcripts  – Submit unofficial transcripts from all institutions attended as part of the online application. Send official transcripts after you are offered admission.
• Letters of Recommendation  – Submit three letters of recommendation online to graduate school. Letters should be from individuals who can evaluate the applicant’s scholarly ability and potential for success in a graduate program. Preferably at least two of them are from faculty who have instructed the applicant in a previous program of study. The application will prompt your recommenders to submit their letters electronically.

Domestic Applicants 

• Fall:  July 1 – While applications received prior to  April 1  receive priority consideration, the program will review all competitive applications received before July 1.
• Spring:  November 15
• Summer:  May 1

International Applicants

• Fall:  April 15
• Spring:  October 15
• Summer:  February 15
• International Applicants – must submit TOEFL or IELTS scores.

Master of Food Technology Tuition & Fees

Tuition rates and student fees may change each year.

Based on the 2024-25 credit-hour cost, a person who had completed this program at the recommended pace would have paid $21,285 in tuition. Reference  this sheet  to identify the current credit hour rate for your program of interest.

Please use the Estimated Cost Calculator on the Bursar’s Office website to calculate one academic (Fall/Spring) year’s tuition. 

This program is an E-Rate program, so choose “yes” for the E-Rate line item within the calculator.

Fees for those students enrolled in exclusively online programs are $411 per semester. 

Potential additional costs include:

• Exam proctoring fees
• Technology upgrades 

The complete cost of attendance can be found at  https://osfa.uga.edu/costs/ .

Financial Aid

Visit the  Office of Student Financial Aid  for information about financial assistance.

Corporate Assistance

Consult your employer about the availability of tuition reimbursement or tuition assistance programs.

Military Assistance

Active duty military, veterans, and military families should visit  Veterans Educational Benefits  to take full advantage of available financial assistance and educational benefits.

University System of Georgia Tuition Assistance Program (TAP)

The purpose of TAP is to foster the professional growth and development of eligible employees. For more information, see  Tuition Assistance  (refer to the Distance Learning section). 

Technology Requirements

• Computer with current operating system (Windows, Mac, or Linux). Additional peripherals such as webcam, headphones, and microphone are required.
• High-speed internet access.

Master of Food Technology Degree Program Structure

The Master of Food Technology degree program is fully online and consists of at least 33 semester hours. A student working full-time can complete the program in 2.5 – 3 years depending on the number of courses taken per semester. An advisor and graduate committee will work with you to design a program of study that meets your professional needs.

The exit project exposes students to comprehensive literature research and provides training in problem-solving and exhaustive analysis of a current topic in food science. At the end of the course work and exit project, students in the non-thesis master’s program will take a comprehensive final written and oral exam developed by the advisor and a graduate committee. Entrance requirements are the same as those for the Master of Food Technology degree. This is a professional degree program and will not meet the criteria for admission to the Ph.D. program in Food Science and Technology.

Master of Food Technology Area Courses and Electives

33 Semester Hours Required (6 hours required, 12 hours from Area courses, plus 15 hours of elective courses)

Student Handbook

Laurel Dunn, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Extension Specialist

Anand Mohan, Ph.D. Associate Professor

Faith Critzer, Ph.D. Professor

Rakesh K. Singh, Ph.D. Professor

Abhinav Mishra, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Graduate Program Coordinator

Chad Paton, Ph.D. Associate Professor

William Kerr, Ph.D. Professor

Ron Pegg, Ph.D. Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor

Koushik Adhikari, Ph.D. Professor

Fanbin Kong, Ph.D. Professor

Faith Critzer & Ronald Pegg Guide Students Through the Impact of Food on World History and Culture

From the agricultural revolution to globalization, food has always held a defining role for humanity, with foodways serving as the foundation of many cultures and civilizations throughout history. “The Impact of Food on World History and Culture,” a course offered each spring by the UGA College of Agricultural and…

UGA Food Scientists Receive Grant to Build Organic Growers Toolbox

Abhinav Mishra, associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology – as well as faculty member and graduate program coordinator in the online Master of Food Technology program – has received a $3.5 million grant, alongside his colleague, Govindaraj Dev Kumar, as part of their ongoing work in food safety.

The Sweet History of Halloween’s Iconic Treat

Candy corn may be the most controversial treat of the fall season. You either think of the tri-colored candy with nostalgic feelings or you are put off by its waxy texture or the sweet flavor. Whatever your opinions on the candy are, you probably do not immediately think of its…

See more news articles related to this program

“I was excited to be among a network of peers who were similarly interested in this niche world of learning about how food is made and how to make it better. I knew that was something I wanted to be a part of.  The reputation of UGA has opened so many doors for me, led me to meet incredible friends during college, and allowed me to connect with our alumni networks far and wide.” Zane Tackett , ’20

“When I meet with customers I now have a broader understanding of how they are processing their products which helps me to ask better questions, so I can understand the issues they are facing and I am able to make suggestions to improve their product or save them money. The online Master of Food Technology degree made me a more valuable employee to the company I work for and opened doors for more advancements in my career.” David Gill ,’ 20

“The professors in the Food Technology program were highly knowledgeable with impressive credentials and they were very accessible.” Paul Rockwell ,’11 

Contact us using the request for information form or call 706-480-8438 .

Request Info

By submitting this form, you authorize the University of Georgia (UGA) to store the information you have provided on this form. You also authorize UGA to contact you by text message or phone call regarding your inquiry, including by automated texting or calling using the information you have provided on this form. If you provide additional phone numbers including wireless phone numbers to UGA, you also authorize UGA to use those numbers to contact you via any of the aforementioned methods. If you do not want your information stored, please email [email protected].

This site uses cookies.

If you have any questions please email us at [email protected] ..

Food technology, food science and nutrition

• Study areas

Food science and technology focuses on the physical, microbiological and chemical make-up and processing of food, with the aim of meeting increased global demand for safe, nutritious, transportable and sustainable food. Food science and nutrition explores the relationship of food to health and the role of nutrition in disease prevention.

As an undergraduate, you’ll develop expertise in the science and technology that underpins processing, preserving, packaging, storing and distributing food to industry and government specifications and regulations.

You’ll also learn how the body processes food and how to enhance food production from post-harvest raw material to when it reaches the consumer.

Our Bachelor of Science (Honours) program provides an opportunity to pursue an independent research project in either food science and nutrition or food technology.

As a postgraduate, you’ll build on your existing theoretical and practical knowledge, skills and expertise. You’ll gain an understanding of food science research and get industry experience through a placement.

Note: our programs don’t cover domestic cooking, catering or hospitality.

Why choose food technology, food science and nutrition at UQ? 

You’ll learn from industry-leading academics and researchers, with access to world-class facilities at UQ St Lucia, including QAAFI ’s Centre for Nutrition and Food Sciences and the UQ Food Science Innovation Precinct .

You’ll gain a strong theoretical understanding of food science and technology and benefit from invaluable practical experience, networking opportunities and placements with our industry partners.

The food industry is Australia’s largest manufacturing sector and has unmet demand for highly qualified graduates. Our science-based programs prepare you for a career as a food technologist, chemist, microbiologist, production manager, quality or safety control manager, new food product developer, and more.

While studying, or once you graduate, you may be eligible for membership of the Australian Institute of Food Science & Technology.

Choose your program

Browse our programs within this study area.

For answers to frequently asked questions, and information about program structures, applications, fees and student life, visit  Study at UQ .

• Undergraduate and honours
• Postgraduate coursework
• Higher degree by research
• Food Science and Nutrition major
• Food Technology major
• Food Science and Nutrition field of study
• Food Technology field of study
• Graduate Certificate in Food Science and Technology
• Master of Food Science and Technology
• Master of Food Science and Technology Research Extensive
• Master of Philosophy
• Doctor of Philosophy

Search form

• Make a Gift

Comparing Food Systems - Iowa vs California - May 2025

Kate Gilbert

Program itinerary is tentative and subject to change.

This course will review food systems frameworks and considerations, focusing on food supply chains (production systems, distribution, processing, and retail/markets). Discussion topics will include influences such as natural resources (water), innovation and technology, demographics (labor), and economics (price of food). 

The pre-departure course will include tours of Iowa food production to assist in comparing and contrasting regional food systems in Iowa and California.

While traveling in California, students will visit a variety of farms and food production. Tours include wineries in Napa and Paso Robles, almond orchards and processing, dairy farms and cheese production, fruit and vegetable production including a visit to Driscoll's, coffee production, and seafood fishing.

Students will also have the opportunity to visit Sequoia National Park, the Santa Barbara harbor, and to choose between visiting the Monterey Aquarium or going on a whale watching tour. 

4 credits FSHN 4960B during spring semester

Upcoming Informational Session: 

Thursday, October 3, 2024: 5:00pm to 6:00pm in 2379 Food Science

This program was last offered in spring 2023. 

Enabling a sustainable future

We are a catalyst of change both within the plastics industry, and together with all our value chain partners.

The Plastics Transition

Plastics Europe and its members share societal concerns about the European plastics system’s contribution to climate change and the challenge of plastics waste, and the need to foster the sustainable use of plastics.

Human stool study challenges common assumption that food & beverage packaging is the source of ingested microplastic

Plastics Europe is collaborating closely with the scientific community to better understand the possible impacts of microplastics. In 2022, it launched a fully independent, five-year scientific research project, called Brigid, to assess the potential human health risks from ingesting microplastics.

The first piece of research completed as part of Brigid is a pilot-scale human intervention study investigating potential relationships between three scenarios of plastic use and food consumption and type and quantity of microplastics in human stool.  These scenarios considered different components of plastic use and food consumption: food processing; plastic food packaging; and preparation and serving with plastic cutlery.

The study detected microplastics in 95% of stool samples, with an average of 3.3 microplastics per gram (MPs/g stool). The most common polymer types were PE, PET, and PP, and the most common particle shape was fibre (80%). Interestingly, there was no identifiable correlation between the consumption of plastic-packaged food/beverages and the number or type of MPs in stool. However, a new hypothesis emerged indicating a possible positive correlation between the method of food preparation and the presence of microplastics in stool.

Virginia Janssens, Managing Director of Plastics Europe said, “The finding that packaged food consumption does not influence the amount of microplastics in stool challenges common assumptions. Conversely, the potential link between the level of food processing and microplastic presence highlights the need for further research to better understand the mechanisms behind these observations.”

“Plastics Europe and its members are committed to generating robust scientific research into the presence and risks of microplastic which will allow us to better understand the potential effects of this exposure on the environment and health, and to help develop suitable mitigation measures as needed. We hope this finding will be the first of many useful insights that the Brigid research programme can provide to inform policymakers, our value chain, and other stakeholders.”

-More information-

Plastics Europe launched a multimillion-euro, five-year (2022-2026) scientific research project: Brigid. This project aims to assess the potential risks to human health from microplastic exposure through ingestion. Ingestion, along with inhalation, is hypothesised to be  the main entrance pathway  of microplastics into our bodies.

Brigid stands as a part of the plan which will bring Plastics Europe’s member companies toward their Safety, Sustainability, and Circularity goals. Our aim is to answer important questions about the potential effect of microplastics on humans, and, in the process, contribute to the development of evidence-based and effective policy making.

Please find more information on Brigid here .

Brigid is also part of the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) MARII initiative. Please find more information here .

• Campus Maps
• Campus Tours
• People Directory
• New Students
• Current Students
• Faculty and Staff
• Brightspace
• Get help with your login
• Faculty & Staff

Explore Programs

Find your program here.

Explore the diverse array of undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs supporting over 200 degrees in 13 faculties at Dalhousie University.

View the glossary for help with language on this page.

Already decided on a program? Learn how to apply .

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

An optimization study of 3d printing technology utilizing a hybrid gel system based on astragalus polysaccharide and wheat starch, 1. introduction, 2. materials and methods, 2.1. experimental materials, 2.2. instruments and equipment.

• Lab-made pneumatic-extrusion condensing 3D food printer;
• JA3003 electronic analytical balance, Shanghai Zanwei Weighing Apparatus Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China;
• TL-PRO texture analyzer, Beijing Ying Sheng Heng Tai Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China;
• DF-101S constant-temperature oil bath magnetic stirrer, Shanghai Qiu Zuo Scientific Instruments Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China;
• MC-7K centrifuge, Zhejiang Ou Mai Ke Testing Instruments Co., Ltd., Huzhou, Zhejiang, China.

Pneumatic-Extrusion Condensing 3D Food Printer

2.3. experimental methods, 2.3.1. preparation of printing materials, 2.3.2. the 3d printer extrusion layer height setting, 2.3.3. single-factor 3d printing parameter setting, 2.3.4. evaluation of 3d printing sample molding effect, 2.3.5. measurement of texture characteristics, 2.3.6. determination of gel deposition rate, 2.3.7. optimization of the test design of the printing process response surface, 2.3.8. printing process response surface optimization test design, 3. results and analysis, 3.1. determination of printing layer height, 3.2. the influence of polysaccharide content on the 3d printing performance of astragalus–starch mixed gels, 3.3. the impact of polysaccharide content on the deposition rate of astragalus–starch mixed gels, 3.4. the influence of polysaccharide content on the textural properties of astragalus–starch mixed-gel 3d printing samples, 3.5. the impact of single-factor parameters on the precision of printed samples, 3.5.1. the influence of fill rate on the precision of printed samples, 3.5.2. the influence of nozzle diameter on the precision of printed samples, 3.5.3. the influence of printing speed on the precision of printed samples, 3.6. response surface optimization test design and results and response surface model, 3.6.1. response surface test design and result analysis, 3.6.2. response surface analysis and determination of optimal printing parameters, 3.6.3. verification of optimal printing parameters, 4. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Fan, C.; Cheng, L.; Hong, Y.; Li, Z.; Li, C.; Ban, X.; Gu, Z. Study on the gelatinization and digestive characteristics of wheat starch and potato starch under low moisture conditions. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024 , 269 , 132192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhu, Y.; Wu, H.; Zhu, J.; Shi, Z.; Zou, L.; Shen, R.; Yao, Y. Research progress on food 3D printing based on starch. Food Sci. 2024 , 45 , 257–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shi, S.; Wen, J.; Geng, H.; Zhan, X.; Liu, Y. Physicochemical properties, structural properties and gels 3D printing properties of wheat starch. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024 , 261 , 129885. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abedini, A.; Sohrabvandi, S.; Sadighara, P.; Hosseini, H.; Farhoodi, M.; Assadpour, E.; Sani, M.A.; Zhang, F.; Seyyedi-Mansour, S.; Jafari, S.M. Personalized nutrition with 3D-printed foods: A systematic review on the impact of different additives. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2024 , 328 , 103181. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Warsi, S.B.F.; Panda, B.; Biswas, P. Exploring fiber addition methods and mechanical properties of fibre-reinforced 3D printed concrete: A review. Dev. Built Environ. 2023 , 16 , 100295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• KS, J.H.; Subramaniam, M.P.; KT, M.K.; Sreeram, P.; Parvathi, S.; Sari, P.S.; Pullanchiyodan, A.; Mulhivill, D.M.; Raghavan, P. Fabrication and challenges of 3D printed sensors for biomedical applications-Comprehensive review. Results Eng. 2024 , 21 , 101867. [ Google Scholar ]
• Agunbiade, A.O.; Song, L.; Agunbiade, O.J.; Ofoedu, C.E.; Chacha, J.S.; Duguma, H.T.; Hossaini, S.M.; Rasaq, W.A.; Shorstkii, I.; Osuji, C.M.; et al. Potentials of 3D extrusion-based printing in resolving food processing challenges: A perspective review. J. Food Process Eng. 2022 , 45 , e13996. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, L.; Hao, X.; Li, X.; Wang, L.; Song, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, N. Research Progress on the Effect of Non-starch Polysaccharides on Starch Properties. Sci. Technol. Food Ind. 2024 , 45 , 386–394. [ Google Scholar ]
• Su, H.; Hou, J.; Liu, Q.; Hou, L. Research Progress on Antiviral Substance Basis and Mechanism of Astragalus Membranaceus. Chin. Arch. Tradit. Chin. Med. 2024 , 1–16. Available online: http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/21.1546.R.20240419.1351.024.html (accessed on 6 August 2024).
• Wang, D.; Cui, Q.; Yang, Y.J.; Liu, A.Q.; Zhang, G.; Yu, J.C. Application of dendritic cells in tumor immunotherapy and progress in the mechanism of anti-tumor effect of Astragalus polysaccharide (APS) modulating dendritic cells: A review. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2022 , 155 , 113541. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mushtaq, R.T.; Wang, Y.; Bao, C.; Rehman, M.; Sharma, S.; Khan, A.M.; Elsayed, M.; Eldin, T.; Abbas, M. Maximizing performance and efficiency in 3D printing of polylactic acid biomaterials: Unveiling of microstructural morphology, and implications of process parameters and modeling of the mechanical strength, surface roughness, print time, and print energy for fused filament fabricated (FFF) bioparts. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024 , 259 , 129201. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, X.; Fang, J.; Cheng, L.; Gu, Z.; Hong, Y. Interaction of starch and non-starch polysaccharides in raw potato flour and their effects on thickening stability. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023 , 242 , 124702. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shi, X.; Yu, M.; Yin, H.; Peng, L.; Cao, Y.; Wang, S. Multiscale structures, physicochemical properties, and in vitro digestibility of oat starch complexes co-gelatinized with jicama non-starch polysaccharides. Food Hydrocoll. 2023 , 144 , 108983. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xiao, Y.; Liu, S.; Shen, M.; Jiang, L.; Ren, Y.; Luo, Y.; Xie, J. Effect of different Mesona chinensis polysaccharides on pasting, gelation, structural properties and in vitro digestibility of tapioca starch-Mesona chinensis polysaccharides gels. Food Hydrocoll. 2020 , 99 , 105327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gedrovica, I.; Karklina, D.; Fras, A.; Jablonka, O.; Boros, D. The non–starch polysaccharides quantity changes in pastry products where Jerusalem artichoke ( Helianthus tuberosus L.) added. Procedia Food Sci. 2011 , 1 , 1638–1644. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, B.; Wu, X.; Yan, X. Effect of Cyperus esculentus polysaccharide on Cyperus esculentus starch: Pasting, rheology and in vitro digestibility. Food Chem. X 2024 , 22 , 101511. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, Y.; Yang, B.; Zhou, S.; Han, X.; Jiang, Y.; Zhou, X.; Yang, X.; Zhao, J. Pasting, rheology, structural properties and in vitro digestibility of potato starch complexes co-gelatinized with squash polysaccharides. Food Biosci. 2024 , 61 , 104932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, W.; Jiang, D.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, L. Study on printability of 3D printing carbon fiber reinforced eco-friendly concrete: Characterized by fluidity and consistency. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2024 , 21 , e03589. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, Z.; Dai, H.; Bo, L.; Song, C.; Liu, X.; Ren, J. Set yogurt incorporated with insoluble dietary fiber maintains non-sedimentation: Combined alkaline hydrogen peroxide modification and high-pressure homogenization process. LWT 2024 , 206 , 116617. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• GB/T 8883-2017 ; Edible wheat starch. Chinese Standardization Technical Committee for Edible Starches and Starches Derivatives: Wuxi, China, 2017.
• ElShebiny, T.; Matthaios, S.; Menezes, L.M.; Tsolakis, I.A.; Palomo, J.M. Effect of printing technology, layer height, and orientation on assessment of 3D-printed models. J. World Fed. Orthod. 2024 , 13 , 169–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lan, G.; Xie, S.; Duan, Q.; Huang, W.; Huang, W.; Zhou, J.; Chen, P.; Xie, F. Effect of soybean polysaccharide and soybean oil on gelatinization and retrogradation properties of corn starch. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024 , 264 , 130772. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jia, R.; Cui, C.; Gao, L.; Qin, Y.; Ji, N.; Dai, L.; Wang, Y.; Xiong, L.; Shi, R.; Sun, Q. A review of starch swelling behavior: Its mechanism, determination methods, influencing factors, and influence on food quality. Carbohydr. Polym. 2023 , 321 , 121260. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Min, C.; Zhang, C.; Cao, Y.; Li, H.; Pu, H.; Huang, J.; Xiong, Y.L. Rheological, textural, and water-immobilizing properties of mung bean starch and flaxseed protein composite gels as potential dysphagia food: The effect of Astragalus polysaccharide. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023 , 239 , 124236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zheng, L.; Liu, J.; Liu, R.; Xing, Y.; Jiang, H. 3D printing performance of gels from wheat starch, flour and whole meal. Food Chem. 2021 , 356 , 129546. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, H.; Qiu, J.; Wu, Y.; Ouyang, J. Impact of soluble soybean polysaccharide on the gelatinization and retrogradation of corn starches with different amylose content. Food Res. Int. 2024 , 184 , 114254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, W.; Guan, L.; Seib, P.A.; Shi, Y.C. Settling volume and morphology changes in cross-linked and unmodified starches from wheat, waxy wheat, and waxy maize in relation to their pasting properties. Carbohydr. Polym. 2018 , 196 , 18–26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Y.; Chen, J.; Wu, J.; Luo, S.; Chen, R.; Liu, C.; Gilbert, R.G. Modification of retrogradation property of rice starch by improved extrusion cooking technology. Carbohydr. Polym. 2019 , 213 , 192–198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ai, Z.; Zhang, M.; Li, H.; Ji, S.; Zhang, J.; Yang, Y. Effects of different heat treatments on the quality of wheat flour and its steamed cakes. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2024 , 40 , 317–324. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou, R.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Liu, K.; Wang, Q.; Bao, H. Effects of Auricularia auricula-judae polysaccharide on pasting, gelatinization, rheology, structural properties and in vitro digestibility of kidney bean starch. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2021 , 191 , 1105–1113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ren, Y.; Rong, L.; Shen, M.; Liu, W.; Xiao, W.; Luo, Y.; Xie, J. Interaction between rice starch and Mesona chinensis Benth polysaccharide gels: Pasting and gelling properties. Carbohydr. Polym. 2020 , 240 , 116316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Y.; Wu, T.; Wu, Y.; Zhao, C.; Xu, X.; Liu, J. Effect of Auricularia cornea Ehrenb. Polysaccharide on the Retrogradation and Digestion of Corn Starch. J. Chin. Inst. Food Sci. Technol. 2021 , 21 , 78–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, C.; Zhang, H.; Chen, R.; Chen, J.; Liu, X.; Luo, S.; Chen, T. Effects of creeping fig seed polysaccharide on pasting, rheological, textural properties and in vitro digestibility of potato starch. Food Hydrocoll. 2021 , 118 , 106810. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, X.; Chen, X.; Niu, H.; Shen, M.; Ye, X.; Mo, S.; Xie, J. large and small amplitude oscillatory shear techniques evaluate the nonlinear rheological properties of Ficus pumila polysaccharide-wheat starch gel. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2024 , 270 , 132352. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yi, H.; Li, J.; Li, J.; Wang, P.; Wang, S.; Liu, H. Effect of Fermented Soybean Whey W/O Slow-Release Coagulants on Gel Properties of Soybean Whole Powder Emulsion. Food Sci. 2024 , 1–12. Available online: http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.2206.TS.20240821.1147.006.html (accessed on 6 August 2024).
• Zárybnická, L.; Machotová, J.; Pagáč, M.; Rychlý, J.; Vykydalová, A. The effect of filling density on flammability and mechanical properties of 3D-printed carbon fiber-reinforced nylon. Polym. Test. 2023 , 120 , 107944. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vaneker, T.H.J.; Kuiper, S.; Willemstein, N.; Baran, I. Effects of nozzle design on CFRP print quality using Commingled Yarn. Procedia CIRP 2023 , 120 , 1492–1497. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tian, H.; Geng, M.; Wo, X.; Shi, L.; Zhai, Y.; Ji, P. Development and conceptual design of a sewage Sludge-to-Fuel hybrid Process: Prediction and optimization under analysis of variance and response surface model. Energy Convers. Manag. 2024 , 306 , 118143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Youssef, M.; Ei-Shatoury, E.H.; Ali, S.S.; El-Taweel, G.E. Enhancement of Phenol Degradation by Free and Immobilized Mixed Culture of Providencia stuartii PL4 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa PDM Isolated from Activated Sludge. Bioremediat. J. 2019 , 23 , 53–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, C.P.; Hashimoto, M. Prediction of textural properties of 3D-printed food using response surface methodology. Heliyon 2024 , 10 , e27658. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Xia, G.; Tao, L.; Zhang, S.; Hao, X.; Ou, S. An Optimization Study of 3D Printing Technology Utilizing a Hybrid Gel System Based on Astragalus Polysaccharide and Wheat Starch. Processes 2024 , 12 , 1898. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12091898

Xia G, Tao L, Zhang S, Hao X, Ou S. An Optimization Study of 3D Printing Technology Utilizing a Hybrid Gel System Based on Astragalus Polysaccharide and Wheat Starch. Processes . 2024; 12(9):1898. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12091898

Xia, Guofeng, Lilulu Tao, Shiying Zhang, Xiangyang Hao, and Shengyang Ou. 2024. "An Optimization Study of 3D Printing Technology Utilizing a Hybrid Gel System Based on Astragalus Polysaccharide and Wheat Starch" Processes 12, no. 9: 1898. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr12091898

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals