Emerging challenges and opportunities in innovating food science technology and engineering education

The paper addresses how rapid advances in science, digital technologies, and AI (Industry 4.0→5.0), combined with global pressures such as climate change, population growth to ~10 billion by 2050, food loss and waste, and emerging health threats, necessitate reassessing food science, technology, and engineering (FST&E) education. The study’s purpose is to assess the current status of FST&E higher education globally, identify challenges and opportunities, and recommend directions for future curricula. It posits that FST&E programs are at a crossroads amid reduced funding, declining enrollments, and evolving societal drivers (health and wellness, sustainability, microbiome, food security/safety), and that new paradigms emphasizing open innovation, multi-/interdisciplinarity, and closer integration with nutrition are needed.

The article surveys evolving engineering and FST&E pedagogy: active, student-centered learning; blended and flipped classrooms; project-based and problem-based learning; hybrid learning; design thinking; simulation, virtual labs, and digital tools. Evidence suggests these methods promote critical thinking, teamwork, problem-solving, and entrepreneurial mindsets, and can enhance knowledge acquisition and performance. University-industry collaboration models (e.g., university extension diplomas with internships) strengthen employability and networks. Entrepreneurship and innovation education in the food system (Erasmus+ BoostEdu) highlighted needs for flexible, co-created, digitally supported modules, especially during COVID-19. Online platforms (MOOCs, webinars, social media) democratize access to food-related education. Prior literature also underscores aligning curricula with Industry 4.0 technologies (IoT, big data, AI) and addressing sustainability, consumer trust, and health and wellness.

A global, anonymous, online survey was administered using Qualtrics in English. Key questions captured perspectives on professional values, curricula priorities, partnerships, and educational outcomes using 5-point Likert-type scales (1=Very low to 5=Very high) and one ranking item (1–5, each rank used once). The questionnaire was pretested with a pilot sample (n=12) from academia and industry for clarity and completeness. Distribution occurred via international organizations (IUFOST, ISEKI-Food Association, SoFE, IFT) and global food practitioners by email. The survey was open from late May to late July 2022 and accessible via mobile and desktop. Of 1022 starters, 703 (68.8%) completed the survey; partial responses with missing data were excluded. Demographics included gender, age, and region where the most advanced degree was obtained or current study location across predefined world regions. Data analysis used Microsoft Excel, JASP (v0.16.4), and IBM SPSS Statistics (v28). Statistical tests included one-way ANOVA with post-hoc LSD (p<0.05) for group differences and two-sided t-tests for pairwise comparisons. Ethical approval was granted by The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (AGHS/01.15), with informed consent obtained prior to participation.

Sample and demographics: 703 complete responses from 88 countries; balanced gender (F:M ≈ 1.15:1), broad age distribution; strong academic/private research affiliation (≈71.7%); notable industry representation (~18.2%). Many respondents held doctoral degrees. • Topics affecting future curricula (10 items): Seven scored High to Very high. Top means: Critical thinking (4.50), Problem-solving projects (4.44), Teamwork/collaboration (4.31), Innovation/Open innovation (4.29), Multidisciplinary (4.24), Creativity (4.22), Project/time management (4.05). Lower: Soft skills (3.90), Entrepreneurship (3.77), Business creation/network (3.70). • Academic partnerships/collaborations (ranked): Food industry ranked highest; followed by Nutrition; Government; Private sector; Other academic programs. Top-two rank share: Food industry 53%, Nutrition 38%, Government 36%, Private institutes 35%, Other academic programs 33%. • Topic importance to FST&E (11 items): Top 5 by mean: Sustainability/circular economy/food waste management (4.44); Innovation/Open innovation (4.36); New product development (4.32); Consumer perception & trust (4.27); Nutrition sciences (4.07). Lower: Startups/FoodTech (3.91); Entrepreneurship (3.82); Kaizen/continuous improvement (3.66); AI/ML (3.65; higher among FEs than FSTs); Big data/communication/robotics (3.58); Management/marketing (3.58). FSTs rated sustainability, NPD, consumer trust, and nutrition higher than FEs; no significant difference on Innovation/OI. • Curricula to meet future challenges (Table 4): Research projects (4.34); Apprenticeships/industrial training (4.28); Adaptability (4.22); Revision of current programs (4.16); Employability (4.13); Enhanced integration with nutrition (3.92 overall; FSTs ≈4.00, FEs ≈4.21). Business-related activities (3.92) and Soft skills (3.89) followed; Hybrid teaching lowest (3.78). Significant FST–FE differences on Research projects, Enhanced integration with nutrition, and Soft skills. • Internships: Highest importance for Food industry (4.60), then Start-ups/FoodTech (4.04), Other countries (3.98), Academia (3.96), Other domains/industries (3.46). FSTs rated internships higher than FEs (e.g., Food industry 4.65 vs 4.52). • Organization/vision impact on education: Food industry (3.86) highest; IFT (3.70); IUFOST (3.49); University vision/strategy/leadership (3.49); IFST (3.44); Government/public interest/support (3.42); EFFOST (3.40); ISEKI-Food (3.27); SoFE (2.96); Others (2.65). • Education impact on professional outcomes: Curricula contribution to Success (4.03) and Satisfaction (3.95) higher than Meeting expectations (3.76). FEs rated all three higher than FSTs; differences significant for Success and Meeting expectations.

Findings indicate a strong global consensus to pivot FST&E education toward higher-order cognitive skills (critical thinking, problem solving), collaborative competencies, innovation, and multidisciplinarity, supported by active and project-based pedagogies. Sustainability and circular economy priorities reflect sectoral shifts toward resource efficiency and waste reduction. Despite relatively lower ratings for entrepreneurship and business topics, their near-‘High’ averages and the dominant role of the food industry suggest these themes remain important for employability and innovation. High rankings for industry partnerships and internships reinforce the need to bridge academia-industry gaps through co-designed curricula, real-world projects, and structured placements, which enhance professional identity and readiness. The emphasis on integrating nutrition aligns with consumer-driven health and wellness trends and calls for closer convergence between FST&E and nutrition science in teaching and research. AI/ML’s modest current rating, with higher valuation among food engineers, likely reflects adoption lag; its importance is expected to rise as applications proliferate. Differences between FSTs and FEs suggest tailoring emphasis within curricula (e.g., FST-leaning programs intensifying sustainability/consumer topics; FE-leaning programs further embedding AI/ML) while maintaining common core competencies. The gap between “success/satisfaction” and “meeting expectations” signals opportunities for programs to recalibrate learning outcomes, career guidance, and stakeholder engagement to better align with evolving professional expectations.

The study benchmarks global perspectives on FST&E education, identifying high-priority competencies (critical thinking, problem solving, teamwork, innovation, multidisciplinarity) and curriculum themes (sustainability, circular economy, NPD, consumer trust, nutrition). It underscores the pivotal role of industry partnerships and internships, and advocates stronger integration with nutrition sciences. Programs should revise curricula to enhance adaptability, employability, and research/project experiences, and expand co-creation with industry and professional bodies. Future work could include longitudinal alumni tracking to refine curricula against expectations, deeper qualitative studies to unpack regional differences and stakeholder needs, systematic integration of AI/ML and digital tools, rigorous evaluations of hybrid/flipped models post-pandemic, and pilot programs for FST&E–nutrition convergence and entrepreneurship pathways.

The survey was conducted only in English, potentially excluding non-English speakers; many partial responses were excluded, likely due to language barriers. Regional representation varied, with some areas having low respondent counts necessitating consolidation, limiting granularity. The sample skewed toward academia/private research and higher-degree holders, which may bias perspectives. Self-reported Likert measures and cross-sectional design limit causal inference. No in-depth interviews were conducted to contextualize quantitative findings.