A possible reconceptualization of food engineering discipline

Food industry is critical to any nation’s health and well-being; it is also critical to the economic health of a nation, since it can typically constitute over a fifth of the nation’s manufacturing GDP. Food Engineering is a discipline that ought to be at the heart of the food industry. Unfortunately, this discipline is not playing its rightful role today: engineering has been relegated to play the role of a service provider to the food industry, instead of it being a strategic driver for the very growth of the industry. This paper hypothesises that food engineering discipline, today, seems to be continuing the way it was in the last century, and has not risen to the challenges that it really faces. This paper therefore categorises the challenges as those being posed by: 1. Business dynamics, 2. Market forces, 3. Manufacturing environment and 4. Environmental Considerations, and finds the current scope and subject-knowledge competencies of food engineering to be inadequate in meeting these challenges. The paper identifies: a) health, b) environment and c) security as the three key drivers of the discipline, and proposes a new definition of food engineering. This definition requires food engineering to have a broader science base which includes biophysical, biochemical and health sciences, in addition to engineering sciences. This definition, in turn, leads to the discipline acquiring a new set of subject-knowledge competencies that is fit-for-purpose for this day and age, and hopefully for the foreseeable future. The possibility of this approach leading to the development of a higher education program in food engineering is demonstrated by adopting a theme based curriculum development with five core themes, supplemented by appropriate enabling and knowledge integrating courses. At the heart of this theme based approach is an attempt to combine engineering of process and product in a purposeful way, termed here as Food Product Realisation Engineering. Finally, the paper also recommends future development of two possible niche specialisation programs in Nutrition and Functional Food Engineering and Gastronomic Engineering. It is hoped that this reconceptualization of the discipline will not only make it more purposeful for the food industry, but it will also make the subject more intellectually challenging and attract bright young minds to the discipline

Barnes Hospital Bulletin

https://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/bjc_barnes_bulletin/1157/thumbnail.jp

Half in Ten: Why Taking Disability into Account is Essential to Reducing Income Poverty and Expanding Economic Inclusion

Disability is both a fundamental cause and consequence of income poverty. The income-poverty rate for persons with disabilities is between two to three times the rate for persons without disabilities. Yet, contemporary policy debate and research about income poverty in the United States is largely silent about disability. This paper argues that we need to have a broader view of what poverty is and also that disability must be taken into account in anti-poverty policy

How Has The Food Industry Manipulated The Way Consumers Perceive Food And Health?

Food is the most advertised commodity in the United States and food corporations spend on average over $36 billion a year on marketing and advertising (Albritton 172). Seventy percent of total advertising goes to market convenience foods, candy, snacks, soft drinks, desserts and alcohol (Albritton 172). As a result of the wide range of marketing on an even wider range of products, consumers have been taught to feel they have a considerable amount of choice. Ironically despite the array of brand-name commodities that give off this impression, only a few giant corporations control much of what is being offered

Public health nutrition and food policy

C/O PUBLISHING DIVISION, WALLINGFORD, ENGLAND, OXON, OX10 8D

Cooperation or Compromise? Understanding the Farm Billas Omnibus Legislation

The Farm Bill (the Bill) is the principal driver of U.S. food law and policy. Its substance spans the food system including commodities, conservation, trade, nutrition, credit, rural development, forestry, and energy. These substantive titles command much scholarly analysis yet there is comparatively little review of the law-making process that yields the Bill. Given increased focus on Congress’s ability to use its legislative powers effectively, this essay questions whether the Bill’s traditional treatment as omnibus legislation leads to beneficial coherence or too much compromise in food system policy. Interestingly, disparate stakeholders prioritize maintaining the Bill as omnibus legislation. Some scholars suggest that the omnibus process unifies because it requires producers and rural interests to be understood by consumers and urban priorities. Others suggest that nutrition spending provides powerful incentives to maintain adequate supports for farmers. These theories suggest that lawmakers transcend their interests and consider the larger food system. Viewed in this light, the Bill’s omnibus status may be beneficial. However, it may also lead to compromises and concessions that stymy innovation and progress in the food system at a time when climate change and socio-economic disparities demand new approaches. The essay’s structure follows: first will be a general history of omnibus legislation including the Bill’s omnibus treatment; second, the benefits and burdens placed on the food system by the omnibus process will be explored; and finally, it will conclude with specific ideas about the merits of the Bill as omnibus legislation in 2018 and beyond

The Capitalist Kitchen: Chemicals, Food Safety, and Public Awareness

Overview: Capitalism is a system based on individual rights with the principles of laissez-faire and the free market. In a capitalist economy, one has the individual right to succeed or fail. One is supposed to have the right to rise from poverty to riches, if they possess the skills and willpower to do so. While Ayn Rand’s notion of capitalism persuades one to believe it is a system of justice, corporate greed and political persuasion have taken a functional system and corrupted it. The system is rampant with insatiable hunger for more wealth, and the principles of capitalism allow for those with the most wealth to exponentially increase their wealth, even though it means taking from those who already have little or none to give. The system is not concerned with ethics or morality, rather how much profit they can make and how fast. Although this is a concern in all areas of the economy, this entirely and specifically applies to the agricultural industry. We cannot live without nutrition; we are all consumers and victims of agribusiness. The system has allowed for consumers to have their rights stripped and information withheld. Corporations and agribusiness take precedent over the basic rights of the human. Capitalism is no longer a system of justice and freedom, rather a system of exploitation and deception. This applies specifically in agribusiness by means of nutritional support of the poor, genetically modified crops and the labeling debate, industrial farming and the meat industry. By drawing on research in these areas, I will argue that capitalism and its policies have led America off the right path and down a track of corruption and immorality

Incentives and disincentives for reducing sugar in manufactured foods: An exploratory supply chain analysis

This policy brief presents the results of a novel food supply chain analysis that identifies insights for governments to consider when designing sugar reduction strategies. It explores the incentives and disincentives to using sugar in manufactured foods throughout the “sugar supply chain” – the actors and activities that take sugar from farm to fork. It draws on the perspectives of entities working inside this sugar supply chain to explore the following key questions: • What are the incentives and disincentives for industry to reduce the amount of sugar in manufactured food and drink products? • At what point along the supply chain do these incentives and disincentives operate? • Are there opportunities to effectively enhance the incentives and/or lessen the disincentives for reducing sugar