Food Eng Rev
DOI 10.1007/s12393-017-9164-8
REVIEW ARTICLE
Food Industry and Processing Technology: On Time
to Harmonize Technology and Social Drivers
Vivian Lara Silva 1 & Alberto M. Sereno 1,2 & Paulo José do Amaral Sobral 1
Received: 6 February 2017 / Accepted: 29 May 2017
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract Through an extensive literature review, includ-
ing scientific publications and organizational reports of
food processing companies, our main goal in this paper
is to identify the trajectory of the food industry and pro-
cessing technology from its birth in the nineteenth century
to the present time. In this paper, the following questions
are addressed: How have we got here? And where are we
going? In essence, this review perceives three main para-
digm shifts in the food industry, supported by four main
knowledge development cycles of Food Science and
Technology. Furthermore, this paper also surmises that
we are now at the most challenging moment considering
the two centuries of history of the food industry. Despite
an unquestionable technological development, while en-
suring the scale production of microbiologically safe, nu-
tritious, and appealing foods, the industry has apparently
not effectively engaged its stakeholders. Particularly, the
industry needs to improve its approach towards the con-
sumer. The contemporary challenging situation outside
the box urges the development of new processes and tech-
nologies considering present-day consumption drivers as-
sociated with processed food. This is important for the
industry to reinvent itself so as to understand that more
than creating textures, the opportunity is also to preserve
and enhance attributes derived from the raw material and
Alberto M. Sereno died before publication of this work was completed.
* Vivian Lara Silva
vivianlara@usp.br
1
Food Engineering Department, University of Sao Paulo (FZEA/
USP), Av. Duque de Caxias Norte, 225,
Pirassununga, SP 13635-900, Brazil
2
Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
from the relationships established throughout the value
chain in which it operates.
Keywords Paradigm shifts . Value added . Relationship .
Food chain . Shared value
Introduction
Throughout the evolution witnessed during the last two cen-
turies of the food industry history, the search for safe and
healthy foods continues to drive the development of this sec-
tor, as well as scientific knowledge of the field, but through a
new and more complex context [56].
This context reveals new opportunities that can no longer
be overlooked by the food industry, and requires a reposi-
tioning of the processing sector—the third in less than two
centuries of existence, and perhaps the most complex experi-
enced so far.
This paper is particularly interested in understanding the
food industry and the trajectories of processing technology,
in a critical viewpoint and historical approach, while
discussing perspectives of what can be expect in the following
chapters of this exciting story. In other words, it may lead
people to understand more about the food they eat, besides
helping the general public (including politicians) to recognize
misinformation, since they would understand a little more
about food and food processing.
To broaden the discussion, this paper provides a fresh and
attractive approach by combining and comparing in parallel
the progress achieved in the food science and technology do-
main with cocoa processing. This comparison highlights the
irreversible process that seems to be approaching, i.e., the
relevance of social drivers on future advances of food tech-
nology dynamics.

Where We Came from
Food preservation is a human knowledge domain. Historical
records indicate the extensive and widespread use of tech-
niques such as salting, drying, smoking, and cooking by our
ancestors [41] as a form of modifying animal and vegetable
raw materials into a storable food product [45, 57]. The three
most important foods in Ancient Greece—bread, olive oil, and
wine—were all products of a complicated process that trans-
formed perishable, unpalatable, or hardly edible raw materials
into safe, flavorful, nutritious, stable, and enjoyable foods
[21].
Despite this ancient knowledge, the modern concept of
food processing only emerged in the early nineteenth century,
particularly stimulated by war. The need to supply troops in
combat with an energy source resulted in the development of
food processing technologies tailored to ensure shelf life in-
tegrity and stability, even after long periods of storage.
This concept oriented the food industry to focus on the pre-
processing and processing of agricultural products in order to
control both the seasonality and the perishability of raw ma-
terials. Within this context, Napoleon Bonaparte granted an
award of 12,000 francs to the French chef and confectioner
Nicolas Appert for an achievement that became the corner-
stone for a technological disruption in food preservation
knowledge in 1809 [6]. The technique proposed by Appert
consisted of heat treating hermetically sealed foods in boiling
water. Appert’s achievements and experiments were published
in the book BL’art de conserver, pendant plusieurs années,
toutes les substances animales et vegétales^. Originally, the
technique was based on the use of glass containers sealed with
cork. Appert considered the meticulosity in filling operations
as the decisive factor in prolonging food preservation. The
Bappertization^ technique spread throughout Europe when
his book was published in 1809, contributing to its further
development [6].
Two important advances in this direction are noteworthy.
The first advance, registered in England, was an adaptation of
Appert’s technique for metal packaging, which was compara-
tively cheaper and more resistant than the originally employed
glass packaging. This advance was then conceived and pat-
ented by Peter Durand in 1810 [8]. The second advance was
the retort of equipment for food sterilization, allowing heating
at temperatures well above 100 °C, which was patented in
France in 1852 by Raymond Chevallier Appert, Nicolas
Appert’s nephew [25].
The processed food business then spread across Europe,
originally with products derived from vegetables and animal
protein, as shown in Table 1. However, the scientific basis of
the technique developed by Appert was only presented in
1864 by the also French Louis Pasteur. At the time, Pasteur
was invited to solve a problem that affected the French wine
industry, i.e., early acidification of wine due to uncontrolled
Food Eng Rev
Table 1 Food industry timeline
1809—Nicolas Appert, French cuisine chef, is awarded by Napoleon
Bonaparte for the development of a food preservation technique (in
glass packaging).
1810—Peter Durand adapts Appert’s technique for metallic packaging.
1815—First canned goods factories are installed in England and France,
countries that began supplying their troops with the product (cans
opened with rifle or ax).
1828—Invention of the hydraulic press by Van Houten.
1831—Diversification of Cadbury’s activities (founded in 1824), which
began processing cocoa and chocolate.
1838—Foundation of Knorr.
1840—Foundation of Mars.
1841—Dissemination of the appertization technique, canned goods are
no longer exclusive to the military.
1845—Foundation of Lindt.
1847—Extraction of cocoa butter and foundation of the first chocolate
factory (Fry’s Chocolate and Cocoa).
1849—BEasy-open^ cans emerge (displacement and transfer belt).
1852—Raymond Chevalier Appert patents the autoclave technique.
1858—Development of the first patented can opener, used in the
American Civil War.
1864—Conception of the pasteurization technique by Louis Pasteur.
1866—Foundation of Nestlé.
1869—Foundation of Campbell.
1875—Development of the first milk chocolate bar (partnership between
confectioner Daniel Peter and Henri Nestlé).
1876—Foundation of Hershey’s.
1877—Foundation of Quaker.
1878—Foundation of Swift.
1879—Rodolphe Lindt develops the conching technique.
1886—Foundation of Coca-Cola.
1891—Emergence of the Hormel Company, proprietor of the brand
SPAM (Spiced Ham).
1896—Foundation of Kellogg’s and registration of the patent for
production of cereal flakes.
Source: The authors, based on: <http://www.cancentral.com/can-stats/
history-of-the-can>
fermentation. Pasteur observed that microorganisms were re-
sponsible for the deterioration of wine and the general deteri-
oration of food [36, 37]. The technique proposed by Pasteur
benefited from Appert’s original concept, using thermal treat-
ment as a form of decontamination. The application, originally
destined for the wine industry, was quickly disseminated
through other sectors and countries, and Pasteur obtained his-
torical recognition [36, 37]. This is often considered a mile-
stone of the contemporary food processing industry, which
thrived within the context of two almost simultaneous
revolutions.
The development and introduction of new mechanisms in
the field (arising from the agricultural revolution) culminated
with the increasing supply of agricultural commodities and,
consequently, a decline in prices and cheaper food processing.
Food Eng Rev
Furthermore, with the industrial revolution, the food process-
ing industry faced a modification of its energy matrix (from
wood to coal and steam), as well as of its production paradigm
(substituting artisanal production for industrialized large-scale
continuous production lines and machinery).
A significant gain in productivity in manufacturing activi-
ties ensued [64], stimulating new technological developments
in food processing, which led to an proliferation of new prod-
ucts and businesses, and giving rise to some of the most im-
portant contemporary brands such as Cadbury (1831), Knorr
(1838), Lindt (1845), Nestlé (1866), Campbell (1869),
Hershey’s (1876), Quaker (1877), Swift (1878), Coca-Cola
(1886), Hormel (1891), and Kellogg’s (1896) (see Table 1).
As observed during the birth of the food industry in the
early nineteenth century, the first boom was similarly stimu-
lated by war interests, extending up to the early twentieth
century. This growth unfolded into another important mile-
stone for the sector’s development. Since war motivated food
processing to ensure availability and integrity, other qualities,
such as sensorial attributes, were not included in the develop-
ment process. Evidently, the origin of the food processing
industry was not limited to war interests; therefore, several
brands emerged that have no connection to this unfortunate
period for humanity. Notwithstanding, it is also true that the
war influenced, directly or indirectly, many projects that arose
regarding, for instance, the design of deliberately unpalatable
products. The main goal was to postpone consumption strictly
to times of energy source shortage. The chocolate industry is
an emblematic case, as discussed in detail in the next section.
Chocolate and War
The first chocolate bar record dates to 1847, when Joseph Fry
accidentally extracted cocoa butter, which was mixed with
cocoa powder and sugar, forming a Bmoldable paste.^ With
this invention, Fry opened the first known chocolate bar fac-
tory, named Fry and Sons [15].
This new and emerging industrial segment benefited from
other technological advances. The first was the invention of the
hydraulic press by Conrad Van Houten in 1828, providing more
efficiency to the extraction of cocoa butter and powder [66].
Later, the search of Swiss confectioner Daniel Peter for a prod-
uct with a more pleasant taste motivated the already established
entrepreneur Henri Nestlé. From this partnership, the world was
presented with the first milk chocolate bar in 1875. Lastly,
another invention would mark history in 1879, i.e., the
conching technique, developed by Rodolphe Lindt [66]. This
context culminated with the origin of some of the most well-
known brands to date, which were precursors of the rising seg-
ment in the food industry, such as Cadbury (1831), Lindt
(1845), Hershey’s (1876), and Nestlé, as shown in Table 1.
Nevertheless, war interests partially divided the sector’s
initial path, since governments and their Armed Forces were
attracted to chocolate as a strategic energy source due to its
logistic facility. Indeed, it was due to war strategies that Joseph
Fry & Sons became the exclusive supplier of the British Royal
Navy. In 1919, the company was merged with Cadbury busi-
nesses. Through further mergers and acquisitions, Cadbury
launched itself in the chocolate bar market, maintaining sup-
ply contracts with the British government [15].
Notwithstanding, companies had to face the challenge of
creating a heat-resistant product that was also unattractive to
troops, in order to postpone consumption for occasions with
food restriction. With this demand, the United States Armed
Forces requested Hershey’s to develop a product that was
deliberately sensorially unappealing. The request specified
Ba bar weighing about four ounces, able to withstand high
temperatures, high in food energy value, and tasting just a
little better than a boiled potato^ [30]. This was the technical
specification made in 1937 by the United States Armed Forces
commander to the Hershey’s company. The result was the
development of the BRation D,^ an extremely hard product
consisting of a chocolate bar with six tablets that would crum-
ble with some effort and was resistant to temperatures of
120 °F (49 °C) [30].
Simultaneously, the history of the Mars company also goes
back to the battlefields. In this case, its designer was inspired
by a chocolate-based product that composed a ration during
the Spanish Civil War (from 1936 to 1939). This product
consisted of an energy source in the form of sugar-coated
pastilles, which provided greater heat resistance [46, 48]. In
1940, in the USA, the Mars company was founded, dedicated
to the production of a similar chocolate to the one found in
Spain, since then named M&M’s, a reference to the surnames
of its founder and partner, respectively, Mars and Murrie. The
applicability of supplying American troops was almost imme-
diate, as the product was employed in troop rations during
World War II, from 1939 to 1945 [46, 48].
Perhaps influenced by the relatively better flavor of the
sugar-coated M&M’s candies, the American army surren-
dered to their troop’s complaints regarding the excessive bit-
terness of Hershey’s chocolate in 1943. The United States
Armed Forces soon demanded from Hershey’s a more palat-
able chocolate bar, provided that it did not affect the product’s
physical resistance to heat. This moment led to the launch of a
product that would put the company in history’s hall of fame:
BHershey’s tropical chocolate,^ with sales that surpassed pre-
vious records in transactions with the United States
Government [13].
Figures concerning this moment are significant. In 1939,
around 100,000 units were produced daily. In 1945, with the
introduction of Hershey’s tropical chocolate, production was
estimated as 24 million units per week [13]. Throughout the
World War II period, volume was said to have exceeded three
billion units, distributed to troops in combat [13]. It was an
indication that new times were approaching in terms of

industry orientation, with developments regarding the role of
processed foods concerning its representation and function in
society.
Indeed, with the end of global conflicts, a new era
came to light for the food industry, with developments
and different functions assumed by processed food.
After 150 years of an orientation based only on availabil-
ity through extended shelf life and on food safety through
microbiological control, the industry’s core business, as
well as the meaning of processed food, would soon have
the appropriate stimulus to increase.
Opportunities and Post-war Challenges
Processed food entered family life using the same door
that led women to be part of the workforce during global
conflicts, especially in World War II. With re-established
peace, supply contracts with governments were disrupted,
forcing the food industry to search for new clients. At that
time, the economic boom encouraged mass consumption
in general and canned food consumption in particular,
stimulating an appetite not only for curiosity, but for con-
venience and ease. However, what seemed like a strategic
market for the processing food sector was not elementary.
The development of new forms of product differentiation
was necessary, culminating in developments regarding
market orientation, as well as supporting science and pro-
cessing technologies [3, 12].
At this moment, the food industry evolved from being a
mere maker of products in a profitable way to providing, in
addition, service and care [3, 12]. More than food safety and
shelf life, differentiation of processed foods started with taste
and convenience. The envisioned opportunity led to the evolu-
tion of a new industrial sector in the value chain involved in the
transformation of raw materials into processed food (see Fig. 1).
Value chain is here adopted as the evolution of the supply
chain concept, which, in turn, derives from the production
chain view. In addition to flow management (emphasis on
supply chain view), perspective lies in the chain reaction in-
herent to transformation (adding value) as the goods move
through stages that outline the production chain [9].
Following agricultural production processing (first level of
transformation, aiming at the control of raw material season-
ality and perishability), a second level of transformation
emerged, which was a sector concerned with processing more
elaborate products.
Looking at the food industry trajectory, this movement
projected the consumer ahead of innovation drivers for
1
Other protagonists should not be forgotten, such as the government’s role in
regulating the industry through public policies [38]. Furthermore, retailers,
with their quality private policies, led to growth in the food system.
Concerning this matter, Reardon et al. [54] discuss retailers’ role in the conduct
of organizational, institutional, and technological modifications.
Food Eng Rev
Physical flow of transformaon of raw material into final product
Producon Distribuion
of Agricultural and
1st level of 2nd level of
agricultural producion transformaon transformaon commercia-
inputs lizaon
Food Industry
Informaonal, Financial and Negoaon flows
Source: The authors.
Fig. 1 Value chain and its flows
the first time.1 The context that guided three main para-
digm shifts in the food processing industry, supported by
four main Food Science and Technology knowledge de-
velopment cycles lasting over five decades (from 1950 to
2000), focused on the concept of less aggressive2 process-
ing and on the development of ingredients to enhance
food flavor.
The first cycle occurred in the first half of the twentieth
century and originated the milestone regarding quality control
studies and reduced water activity, which, in turn, were the
basis for the development of new drying techniques and other
innovations, such as osmotic dehydration, thermal microbial
inactivation, refrigeration, and freezing. These technological
advances allowed processed food to be explored in a new
context, in new formats (frozen and refrigerated), textures
and flavors, and establishing the industry as a supplier of food
solutions.
At the same time, the processed food business was influ-
enced by the consolidation of retail activity, highlighting self-
service formats (which emerged in 1910), supermarkets
(1930), and drive-through facilities (such as Burger King in
1954, and McDonald’s in 1955).
The 1950s were also the decade that marked the beginning
of American public regulations on food processing activities.
This milestone was strongly influenced by protests against the
adulteration and contamination of meat products, which
gained repercussion in the USA. This movement was one of
the pioneers in sanitary control [38].
Throughout the 1970s, the food industry, especially
that of the second level of transformation, increased
2
Aiming at the preservation of sensory characteristics inherent to raw materi-
al, advances relied on positive externalities from the development of the re-
frigeration industry that emerged. The dispute of two meatpacking industry
forerunners (Arnold and Company, founded in 1867, and Swift) resulted in the
development of the refrigeration industry (transportation and industrial equip-
ment) in the late nineteenth century. The context from which the concept of
domestic appliances was derived, such as the first refrigerator, was created in
1913. Details regarding the materialization of this invention can be found in
Bruce-Wallace [11].
Food Eng Rev
efforts to improve production and efficiency. Production
was altered from batch to continuous, with investments in
process reliability and the study of new energy sources,
resulting in waste reduction and generation of energy
through utilization of industrial waste [12]. Investments
made by second level industries led to a concentration
due to mergers and acquisitions as a strategy for eliminat-
ing competitors and increasing scale and scope economies
in processing, logistics, and marketing.
In the late 1970s, a second cycle of scientific development
in food processing began, focusing on milder processes that
enhanced nutritional and sensorial characteristics of raw ma-
terials. In this phase, the sector became interested in consumer
studies, especially in sensorial analysis and the packaging in-
dustry, with new materials and designs. At this moment in
history, the industry was consolidated as a food supplier, mi-
grating from the Bmake^ to the Bservice^ era [12]. During this
period, comprising 1950 and 1970, the first Food Engineering
books appeared, helping industries in their scientific and tech-
nological development (see Table 2).
Regarding the significant technological advances
concerning milder processing, effective application and dis-
semination of new knowledge seems to have been postponed
when analyzing the development of the food processing in-
dustry in its first phase of reprogramming. In fact, what was
witnessed was the emphasis on engineering deliberately pal-
atable formulations regardless of milder processing technolo-
gies. The attractiveness of a product was enhanced with pack-
aging and marketing strategies under the orientation that
would mark an entire generation [64]. With this orientation,
the 1980s represented the peak of an explosion of flavors,
colors, textures, options, and formats of processed food, dis-
seminated in the everyday lives of families as a convenient
and affordable option of attractive and tasty food.
Once again, the development path of the chocolate industry
illustrates the development of the food processing industry in
general. Throughout the period that marked the first two cy-
cles, and, in some ways, the third cycle that was yet to happen,
which is the chocolate industry that specialized in supplying
an attractive and tasty product regardless of the quantity and
quality of its essential raw material, cocoa. In fact, formula-
tions were based mainly on other ingredients, such as sugar,
hydrogenated fat, and milk. As an example, milk chocolate
was strategic to the industry and became a market success,
supplying flavor at a smaller cost.
In addition to chocolate, other products also illustrate this
moment in history, such as soft drinks, non-carbonated bever-
ages (powdered, concentrated, or ready-to-consume versions),
and snacks (cookies, crackers, and chips). Furthermore, baby
food was also influenced and deliberately formulated to in-
crease attractiveness and enhance acceptance. However, the
supply of easy and quick accessible flavor, within arm’s reach
and without the same concern for nutritional aspects,
eventually led the food processing industry to a new moment
of reprogramming, the second in its history. This moment was
registered in the late 1980s, when the food processing industry
began to contemplate health and fitness differentiators in its
products. The new demand gained momentum throughout the
1990s, supported by the third cycle of investments in products
and processes.
The emphasis of the industry was now on the replacement
or removal of ingredients and on the addition of nutrients and
supplements [12],3 categories that would later be designated
as reformulations. Moreover, functional products originated in
this period and spread globally, becoming a reality in super-
market shelves worldwide.
An icon of this stage in chronology is the commercial focus
on functional yogurts, soft drinks in light and diet versions,
snacks enriched with fiber and differentiated in terms of pro-
cessing, and baby food reformulations, with reduced salt and
no added sugar, establishing a new generation of classic proc-
essed foods. As a result of four cycles of investment on re-
search and development, the differentiation movement of
processed food highlighted the relevance of systemic thinking
regarding the value chain involved in the processing of raw
materials into final products. According to Bruin and Jongen
[12]4: BThe more the food industry moves to include service
and care, the more effective its make sector must become in
order to keep economic margins. This implies very effective
value chain management. […] The major challenge is to de-
liver to consumers branded products that satisfy consumer’s
needs through the various stages of an optimum supply chain.
This means a supply chain with short lead times […] in
customer/consumer demands, with lower stocks and mini-
mum off-spec products and minimum waste/by-products.^
In this discussion, the Food Science and Technology field
has awakened to consider that organizational competitiveness
transcends firm boundaries. The capacity of the food industry
to give more efficient answers to business opportunities (with
a reduced lead time and lower costs) became related—with
greater intensity—to the coordination of activities developed
by other sectors throughout the value chain.
This, in turn, brought on continuous planning with commer-
cial partners, upstream and downstream, by management of
3
Once more, the role of other protagonists should not be forgotten. Institutions
had—and still have—important roles due to their regulation. For instance, in
June 2015, the agency that regulates foods and drugs in the USA, the FDA
(Food and Drug Administration), banned the use of trans fats in the American
market, stipulating 3 years for the adjustment of the processing sector, remov-
ing the substance completely from industrialized foods and beverages. In
Brazil, although there is no specific regulation, the Ministry of Health and
the ABIA (Brazilian Association of Food Industry) established a combined
effort to reduce trans fats content in 2007. The arrangement limits trans fats to
5% of the total fat in processed foods and to 2% of the total fat in oils and
margarines.
4
The dissemination of Information Technology applied to the business world
fomented the search:Be-commerce will be applied to the hilt in order to achieve
this optimum^ [12].
 Food Eng Rev

Table 2 Example of reviews on technological aspects of chocolate processing

Objective Reference

This review examined the factors that influence flavor volatiles of cocoa beans and the volume of work that needs to be done on Kongor et al. [34]
these factors and their impact on the flavor volatiles of commercial cocoa beans.
This paper provides an overview on cocoa flavor from a compositional and a sensory perspective. The nonvolatile and volatile Aprotosoaie et al. [5]
chemical components of cocoa and chocolate flavor, and their sensory properties correlated to the main influences involved
in flavor formation, are reviewed.
This review deals with the growth of fungal species and formation of mycotoxins during the various steps in cocoa processing, Copetti et al. [16]
as well as reduction of these contaminants by good processing practices. Methodologies for fungal and mycotoxin detection
and quantification are discussed while current data about dietary exposure and regulation are also presented.
This paper details the governing mechanisms of sonocrystallization. Proven and potential applications of the process in foods Deora et al. [17]
are reviewed including chocolate, honey, fats and frozen foods. Challenges of process adoption such as scale-up are
discussed.
The rheological behavior of chocolate can help to know the characteristics of application of the product and its consumers. Goncalves and Lannes
Foods are generally in a metastable state. Their texture depends on the structural changes that occur during processing. [26]
Molten chocolate is a suspension with properties that are strongly affected by particle characteristics including not only the
dispersed particles but also the fat crystals formed during chocolate cooling and solidification. Chocolate rheology is
extensively studied, and it is known that chocolate texture and stability is strongly affected by the presence of specific
crystals.
The extent to which the inherent bean constituents from the cocoa genotype, environmental factors, post-harvest treatment, and Afoakwa et al. [2]
processing technologies influence chocolate flavor formation and relationships with final flavor quality, has not been clear.
With increasing speciality niche products in chocolate confectionery, greater understanding of factors contributing to the
variations in flavor character would have significant commercial implications.
Central to chocolate quality is an appropriate melting behavior so that products are solid at ambient temperature and on Afoakwa et al. [1]
ingestion melt to undergo dissolution in oral saliva, with a final assessment of texture after phase inversion. Particle size
distribution and ingredient composition play important roles in shaping its rheological behavior and sensory perception but
are poorly understood.
After a brief review of chocolates and compound coatings, we summarize past studies on fat bloom formation in both products. Lonchampt and Hartel
A comparison of the effects of various parameters on bloom formation, either as accelerators or inhibitors, provides insight [42]
into the similarities and differences in these phenomena. Based on this analysis, a global view of the mechanisms of bloom
formation in both chocolates and compound coatings is suggested.
This paper reviews the identification of the various levels of structure present in fat crystal networks, and the development of Narine and Marangoni
analytical techniques to quantify these levels. The relationship of the various levels of structure to macroscopic physical [49]
indicators of the mechanical strength of the network is discussed. The analysis of the microstructural level of the network via
fractal geometrical methods is discussed, as well as mechanical models relating the structure to mechanical properties.
From the harvesting of the cocoa beans to the formulation of the final chocolate product many complex changes occur. The Dimick and Hoskin
properties and behavior of the fat and the dramatic change in flow characteristics are most notable. These changes occur in [18]
part during the refining process which includes roasting, winnowing, grinding, and conching. Most notable in influencing the
product is conching which is the agitation of chocolate coupled with aeration and heat.

Source: The authors

different inherent flows, particularly informational, physical
(product), financial (monetary), and negotiation (see Fig. 1).
We have reached the early 2000s, when the challenge faced
by the food industry seemed fully serviced. The two moments
of reprogramming that occurred in the early 1950s, from post-
war to the new millennium, have been structured in four devel-
opment cycles of Food Science and Technology knowledge,
culminating with the capacity to supply more complex food
products, and contemplating safety, shelf life, convenience, fla-
vor, nutrition, and health. This seemed to be the golden ticket
that would allow the food industry to make peace with its con-
sumer. Regarding this matter, Aguilera [3] notes, BThe merit of
the food industry of the 20th century was scaling-up processes
developed by artisans into manufacturing lines that consistently
produced thousands of units per hour of microbiologically safe,
nutritious and appealing foods^ [3].
Nevertheless, history was far from over, as the consumer’s
appetite was influenced by new drivers [24]. Once more, this
context led the processing food sector to a new moment of
change, the third in less than half a century.
Where We Are
In contrast to the technological development registered be-
tween 1950 and 2000, the widespread rejection of processing
and ingredient composition utilized by the food processing
industry is now a worldwide trend [56, 64, 65]. In fact, despite
the big scientific and technological achievements in the pro-
duction of food, human well-being has not been served to a
satisfactory extent. Millions of people are literally killing
themselves by excessive eating or wrong use of food, leading
to obesity and nutrition-related diseases [40]. The extremists
of this trend do not recognize the product supplied by the
industry as food, intoning the following as an emblematic
Food Eng Rev
statement of the movement: BDon’t eat anything your great
grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food^ [53].
This trend quite literally feeds the demand for products that
are not considered processed. The categories of organic and
whole foods are an example, as processed foods gain responsi-
bility over global food-related illnesses, particularly obesity and
cardiovascular diseases [40, 56]. Despite the need for research
related to all perspectives [56, 64, 65], the controversy is
established to the extent that some remarks should be consid-
ered on the critical view of processed foods, especially
concerning what is usually disregarded in the discussion of food
processing. Regarding the matter, we discuss three main topics.
First, understanding the concept and the scope of food
processing. Commonly, additional factors are considered
when analyzing processed food, such as methods of cul-
tivation, as well as the quality of relationships maintained
between companies and their suppliers. As an example,
organic products are often interpreted as comparatively
less processed and, therefore, healthier [64]. Considering
the same logic, the consumer often perceives fair trade5 or
local cooperative products as healthier alternatives, due to
the perceived lower level of processing.6 However, cer-
tificates such as fair trade, in addition to various others
like halal, kosher, vegan, and demeter,7 refer to issues that
transcend industrial processing in terms of the utilized
sequence of unit operations and the characterization or
transformation level of each step. Indeed, every industry
that uses a certain level of processing, whether simple or
complex, with unit or sequential operations, should be
understood as a processing industry. Acquisition of raw
materials, origin certification, first level processing
(cleaning and selection), packaging, distribution, and
commercialization intrinsically represent activities per-
formed by food processing industries [21]. As a conse-
quence of this scope, the food industry has a huge eco-
nomic role in terms of generation of annual sales turnover
and job opportunities, revealing itself as a major sector
for the growth of global economies [3].
5 8
The precept of fair trade aims to promote sustainable development through
better trading conditions and through the guarantee of rights for producers and
workers on the margin of the economic system.
6
Zylbersztajn and Farina [68] broaden the discussion, highlighting the fragil-
ity characteristic to the governance of complex production systems, such as in
the case of organic foods and the information credibility associated with the
product.
7
Halal and kosher, respectively, mean ready-to-consume food in accordance
to Islamic and Jewish principles. More information can be obtained at: http://
www.abiec.com.br/3_hek.asp>. In turn, vegan food denotes a plant-based diet,
free from all animal-derived ingredients; see details at: <http://www.
sejavegano.com.br/> and <https://www.vegansociety.com/>. Lastly, demeter
is an international certification originated from the concept of biodynamic
agriculture, which can be understood as an evolution of the organic
principle. Additional information can be found at: <http://demeter.com.br/>.
Second, all natural, not always safe [21, 64]. Consumers
are often at risk when indiscriminately consuming medic-
inal herb infusions, for example. The presence of toxins
in the composition of unprocessed products, such as me-
dicinal herbs, requires meticulous control in the way of
preparation/consumption (dry or fresh herbs, leaves, or
flowers) and cultivation (soil, pesticide use, and harvest
period, among others), processing. Precautions are essen-
tial for consumer safety and can be assured through food
processing.
Third, a source of numerous benefits to the consumer and
society [21]. As highlighted by Nelson8: BIf you teach a
person how to process food, you can feed a village^ [65].
Besides safety, healthy, preservation, availability and
convenience, food processing ensures quality [21, 51].
Take, for instance, food freezing, which, associated with
convenience in preparation and consumption, controlling
the seasonality of the food supply works at the same time
as an energy source, while preserving vitamins and min-
erals [64]. In that view, a study designed to assess the
health and nutritional status of adults and children in the
USA is evidence that processed foods assume a dual role
in the daily diet, i.e., encouraging minimum consumption
of certain nutrients important for health, while contribut-
ing to the reduction or control of nutrients that can be
harmful when consumed in excess [65].9
But the food industry’s contribution goes further, also in-
cluding sustainability aspects [21]. Quality standards associ-
ated with food processing brands have caused significant de-
velopment of agricultural systems in producing countries,
which are usually developing economies [54]. One of these
standards is related to the maximum utilization of all raw
materials produced and the integration of activities throughout
all stages of the food supply chain [21]. Improvements in food
processing can help to alleviate problems of under- and mal-
nutrition, while reducing food wastage and better ensuring an
adequate food supply as world consumption grows [45, 65].
The debate is open. New and ongoing studies on the role of
processed food in health need to be encouraged [65].
Philip E. Nelson was honored in 2007 with the World Food Prize.
Considered the Nobel Prize in Food and Agriculture, this distinction aims to
recognize and inspire innovative achievements that ensure global food securi-
ty. More information at: <http://www.worldfoodprize.org/>.
9
Regarding the daily values of the American diet, processed foods contribute
55% of fiber intake, 48% of calcium, 43% of potassium, 34% of vitamin D,
64% of iron, 65% of folic acid, and 46% of vitamin B12. In turn, efforts
developed by the sector have also contributed to reducing the intake of nutri-
ents harmful to health. In the USA, processed foods contribute 57% of calorie
intake, 52% of saturated fat, 75% of added sugar, and 57% of sodium ([65], p.
1525). The conclusion of this study is that the decisive factor for health tran-
scends the level of processed food intake, relating directly to food balance [65].
Indices are probably currently lower. The study was conducted prior to the
initiative for reducing these ingredients. For more information, see
International Food and Beverage Alliance (https://ifballiance.org/).

Fig. 2 Cycles of knowledge
development in Food Science and Cycles of development in FS&T
Technology (FS&T) and the three
moments of industry
reprogramming
1800
Shelf life (integrity and stability)
and food safety
(microbiological control)
Notwithstanding, it seems to be equally important not to side-
line the relevance of food processing as well as the advances
made in the Food Science and Technology field throughout
the last six decades.
At least partially, the distorted bias related to processed
food seems to be aggravated by the lack of transparency
from the industry and the consumer’s non-familiarity with
technical terminology [64], feeding the global trend con-
trary to processed food consumption. Considering the dis-
cussion led so far, it seems that the sector has not proven
to be equally efficient in the articulation with different
stakeholders. Furthermore, this context culminates in a
new challenge for the food industry, perhaps the most
complex experienced so far.
Processed food is one of the icons of contemporary society.
Try, for instance, to idealize a single meal experience without
the use of a processed, ready- or semi-ready-to-eat food. The
implicit difficulty of doing so for many consumers corrobo-
rates the following analysis: More than half the volume of
food sold worldwide is already made in the form of processed
food [31]. Nevertheless, despite the technological develop-
ment witnessed, consumers present difficulties in assimilating
the real benefits associated with processing, resulting in a
context that leads the food industry to a new moment of
reprogramming, the third in its history, with expected growth
into new product conception.
We have reached the fourth cycle of investments in Food
Science and Technology since the conception of the sector in
the nineteenth century (see Fig. 2). In fact, an important share
of consumers appear to be unsatisfied when it comes to attri-
butes provided by the food industry. In other words, the in-
dustry is facing a major challenge in that the food chain is
reversing and now it is consumers who tell producers what
they want to eat (from fork to farm).
BThis global tendency is reshaping the food processing
industry into one that provides, in addition to safe and high-
quality foods, products that contribute to the health and well-
ness of consumers. In practical terms, this trend means that
Food Eng Rev
4th Cycle
2nd Cycle
3rd Cycle
1st Cycle
Ground Zero
1950’ 70’ 80’ 2000’ [me, in decades]
’
WELL-BEING
FLAVOR
HEALTH
Phases of industry reprogramming
Source: The authors.
several existing products have to be redesigned and new prod-
ucts will need to be created to satisfy this demand^ [3].
Overcoming yet another moment of reprogramming faced
by the industry requires the development of new technologies
[28], particularly those transgressing the paradigm of process
engineering at the expense of product engineering [3, 12].
This, in turn, demands broader and more interdisciplinary sci-
entific knowledge, including techniques such as nanotechnol-
ogy, molecular gastronomy, and simulation of the digestive
process [3, 56, 67].
On that matter, Aguilera [3] highlighted: BFood product
engineering of the future will be largely based on a wider
scientific knowledge adopted from other disciplines. The
scale of intervention in food fabrication will become in-
creasingly closer to that of key structural elements. The
challenge is to link phenomena at the microscale with
products and properties.^ However, it is important to con-
sider that in addition to the development of novel prod-
ucts and processes, the complexity of the contemporary
context is even more challenging due to the necessity of
establishing a new relationship basis between the food
processing industry and society. Corroborating this dis-
cussion, widely recognized international business intelli-
gence groups indicate Bbased on a true story^ products as
one of the most important trends in consumption of in-
dustrialized foods and beverages in 2016 [47].
Stimulated by economic interests, this trend is already a
reality among different economies, whether developed or in
development [20]. Nutritious and healthy products are obtain-
ed and processed through equally healthy stories of the com-
pany with its suppliers, particularly in terms of relationships
established with the rural link. Food processing is no longer
restricted to preserving and ensuring safety, attributes origi-
nally aimed by the industry as previously discussed.
Furthermore, processing is not limited to enhancing flavor,
favoring convenience, or even contributing to health.
According to Weaver et al. [65], BPeople buy foods for the
benefits they provide, and how the foods fit into personal and
Food Eng Rev
societal values such as sustainability and environmental
concerns.^
New features associated with processed food grant double
social responsibility10 [56] to the food processing industry:
Consumer health (food safety) and health of the society in
which the industry operates. This context can no longer be
disregarded by the Food Science and Technology field and,
moreover, leads to two findings: first, the understanding that a
process attractive to academics does not make it capable of
producing products that improve their marketability or value
through the consumers’ eyes [56]; second, the urgent need for
scientific and technological development to be intertwined
with the social dynamics in which the food processing indus-
try operates [32]. This gives the industry the opportunity to
differentiate its products while considering environmental
attributes.
Subject to this new paradigm, the supplier ceases to be
understood as interchangeable [60], in which cost reduction
prevails, taking on a crucial role in the creation and support of
competitive advantages in companies. According to Nestlé’s
executive vice president of operations: BFood product has a lot
of value, also referring to where (and how) it comes^ [44].
Although attractive, this positioning should not be con-
sidered a trivial solution for companies. Satisfying the
consumer’s new appetite is dependent on a repositioning
of the food processing industry in the value chains in
which it operates, aligned with the necessity of continu-
ous investments in processing technology. Overall, critical
positioning prevails for world leaders (or Bbig players^) in
food processing [40] for their responsibility in an environ-
mental scope, referring to the conscious use of natural
resources, reduction of carbon footprint and deforestation,
management of water resources and stimulation of reduc-
tion, recycling, and reusing principles, for instance, and
moreover, for their responsibility in a social scope, pro-
moting sustainable development, as well as the empower-
ment of local communities.
Once more, the chocolate segment represents an emblem-
atic case in this discussion, as presented in the following
section.
Chocolate and Peace
To discuss chocolate processing means addressing one of
the biggest and oldest passions of humanity. In one of the
most flavorful legends associated with cocoa, this passion
dates to an ancient art of the Aztecs and Mayans, intro-
duced in Europe by the Spanish during the Bdiscovery^ of
the Americas [58]. From Bproduct of the gods^ to a cheap
10
Originally formulated by Bowen [10], corporate social responsability rep-
resents the purpose of aligning organizational activities with societal values in
which organizations are inserted.
energy source composing troop’s ration in war, the choc-
olate, which has also represented the role of villain in
diets, has just recently occupied the position of Bsweet-
heart^ due to its functional properties [58].
Chocolate processing technology has been reviewed and ex-
amples of these reviews are presented in Table 3. Nowadays,
moderate consumption of chocolate is associated with health
benefits for the consumer, especially when regarding products
with higher cocoa content, in addition to low fat [58]. The most
relevant product in this case is the product promoted by Barry
Callebaut, whose company received a patent on chocolate pro-
cessing with 25% reduced fat, in comparison to the conventional
standard in the industry, of around 36% [23].
Concerning healthier products, Nestlé invests in no added
artificial colors and flavorings [50]. The company signed an
organizational commitment in America to remove artificial
colors and flavorings recognized by the FDA, such as Red
40 and Yellow 5, from all of its chocolates and candies [50].
In turn, Hershey’s invests in the development of a Bclean
label^ product. According to John P. Bilbrey, Hershey’s
President and CEO, an ongoing tendency is to know what’s
in our food [22]. Having this in mind, Hershey’s begins a
transition to using simple and easy-to-understand ingredients
as a way of sharing more information with consumers about
its products [22].
Nonetheless, the investments in the healthiness of a product
refer to only a part of the arsenal employed by the chocolate
industry when considering equally substantial investments
conducted by major industry players, including Hershey’s,
Barry Callebaut, and Nestlé, aimed at simultaneously ensuring
the environmental healthiness of their products. See, for in-
stance, the Barry Callebaut corporate report, which states that
it is an imperative, not an option, to work to ensure a sustain-
able chocolate and cocoa supply chain: BWe have a responsi-
bility to all our stakeholders: cocoa farmers, suppliers, cus-
tomers, consumers, employees, the communities in which
we operate, and our shareholders^ [7].
Table 3 Examples of published books on food engineering in the years
1950–1970
Title References
Elements of Food Engineering Parker et al. [52]
Rewarding careers await technical men in food Lawler [39]
industry
Food Engineer’s Place in the Food Industry Kaufman [33]
The Fundamentals of Food Engineering Charm [14]
Unit Operations in Food Processing Earle [19]
Food Process Engineering Heldman [29]
Elements of Food Engineering Harper [27]
Food Engineering, Principles and Selected Loncin and Merson
Applications [43]
Source: The authors

More than a virtue or an organizational detachment, the
double investment (technological and social) of the chocolate
processing industry must be analyzed under a business per-
spective because, contrary to the consensus of the functional
properties associated with chocolate consumption, controver-
sy related to socio-environmental aspects of cocoa production
have become global issues, a topic discussed in the following
section.
The Dark Side of Chocolate11
The west of Africa controls over 80% of the global supply of
cocoa beans, a volume that represents more than 90% of the
cocoa consumed in Europe [58]. African representation is
mainly driven by two countries, Ivory Coast and Ghana,
which account for 59% of the global supply. In turn, Nigeria
and Cameroon are responsible for 23%. Additionally, the
Americas, both South and Central, as well as Indonesia, are
two important regions in terms of the global supply of cocoa,
each representing around 10% [61]. Until the 1980s, Brazil
retained historical leadership in the global ranking; however,
the activity was affected by a fungus popularly known as
Bwitches’ broom^ in the 1990s, so that the country now oc-
cupies the sixth position globally [58].
Global cocoa production is characterized by small-scale
family activity, with fewer than 4 ha, in which aging of crops
and outdated techniques are pronounced. Furthermore, cocoa
plantations in Africa are also threatened by the context of
social instability, resulting in scandals involving inhumane
working conditions, child labor, and trafficking [58, 63]. In
2010, social instability was the target of discussion in the
documentary BThe dark side of chocolate^.12
That same year, 2010, a Greenpeace campaign pioneered
the topic of the relationship between palm oil, an ingredient
usually used in the process of chocolate manufacturing, and
deforestation, resulting in the extinction of various animal
species. Titled BGive the orangutan a break,^ the Greenpeace
campaign targeted the Kit Kat brand (Nestlé). This was a
milestone in the controversy concerning palm oil, an ingredi-
ent that was considered a great hero in the war against trans fat
in the 1990s, but which soon became the villain in the face of
environmental issues associated with the extraction of its raw
material (palm).
Another milestone in this direction was the testimony of the
French Minister of Ecology, Sustainable Development and
Energy in 2015, calling on the public to stop Nutella con-
sumption due to Bmassive deforestation^ from the use of palm
oil. The speech resonated in a series of developments,
11
Inspired by the eponymous documentary that highlighted this discussion.
Directed by Miki Mistrati and Roberto Romano, the documentary addresses
the controversy regarding child labor and human trafficking in cocoa crops.
12
The complete documentary is available at: <https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=7Vfbv6hNeng>.
Food Eng Rev
including statements from Ferrero Rocher, owner of the
Nutella brand, regarding the sustainability of their practices
in the palm supply and oil processing, as well as from
Greenpeace and governments of several countries, attesting
to the company’s sustainable positioning and opposing the
boycott [62]. This context led the French Minister to publicly
apologize, stressing that the progress made by the company
cannot be despised. Among the mentioned advances is Ferrero
Rocher’s effort in obtaining sustainable palm oil certification
(Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil, RSPO).
Despite the controversy, while seeking to ensure the socio-
environmental security of supply, the leading cocoa process-
ing companies may follow two different paths. The first is to
turn to other cocoa processing regions, such as particular
countries in America. Regarding this perspective, the moment
may point to for Brazil, although the industry still needs to
overcome remnants of the Bwitches’ broom.^ It was only in
the early 2000s that production prospects regarding resistance
to varieties of the fungus were created [58]. Moreover, an
important milestone would be the employment of a new gen-
eration of rural producers in Brazilian cocoa farming. The
second path refers to organizational investments focused on
community development and local empowerment programs
(education and participation of women), recovery of crops
(species most resistant to diseases and pests), production cer-
tification (sustainable agriculture and fair trade), and training
of farmers (good practices and property management, based
on social and environmental issues).
Where We Are Going
This paper does not aim to incite the food processing industry,
but to highlight relevant aspects of the daily controversies
faced by the sector. Disregarding extreme views of all natures,
whether contrary or favorable, one of these aspects is the un-
deniable effort witnessed in the development of the food pro-
cessing sector. Throughout the evolution witnessed in almost
two centuries of the food industry history, the longing for safe
and healthy food continues to drive scientific knowledge and
the development of the sector, while considering new con-
texts. It must always be kept in mind that all food-related
branches must have one certain goal: to provide proper safe
and adequate nutrition [35].
In addition to consumer health, contemplating sensory as-
pects, the industry is challenged with promoting the health of
society. Nonetheless, it is also undeniable that much remains
to be done. Further advances must not be perceived as an
organization detachment. Ahead of this process is the consum-
er, strengthened with the power of instantly exchanging infor-
mation through social networking and with an increasingly
broader food supply, substantiated by retail shelves that dis-
play food with health and well-being appeal. Whether in
Food Eng Rev
cocoa and chocolate production or in food processing in gen-
eral, effectively adapting and adjusting to product conceptions
that are more consistent with social pressure represents an
important business for the food processing industry. BToday
and in the future, the food system must be flexible and resil-
ient, consumer-driven, and sustainable, and it must secure the
environment and natural resources and assure the health and
wellness of an increasing number of consumers^ [21].
In view of this, much is currently being discussed in the
literature concerning where we are going in terms of the future
of scientific knowledge in food processing and engineering.
For some researchers, we are headed for the worst of times.
In this critical and pessimistic view, the golden age of the field
occurred between 1950 and 1975, respectively the first and
second cycle of scientific development, whereas subsequent
cycles are less relevant. This understanding provocatively
suggests that the field should look fondly at its past glories.
In contrast, other researchers have attributed a more opti-
mistic view for the current scenario, believing that the best is
yet to come. This discussion is particularly marked by what
has been conceived as the age of Benginomics^ [56], a term
designated to convey the importance of scientific and techno-
logical development to the social dynamics in which the in-
dustry operates, considering emerging trends such as health
and well-being. For these researchers, the attractiveness and
relevance of what is yet to come is related to interdisciplinary
knowledge. In fact, topics such as the possible connection
between food processing and molecular signaling, new ap-
proaches and processes required for addressing information
and special needs emerging from DNA knowledge,
nutrigenomics, personalization, health and wellness, obesity,
aging, Intent of Things (IoT), big data, and cloud computing
are only a few potential issues for future scenarios.
If engineers have mainly focused on the technical and eco-
nomic feasibilities of systems design in the past, in the future,
they will have the responsibility to address an entire spectrum
of aspects [4], such as innovation, partnerships, creativity,
entrepreneurship, sustainability, economic environment, so-
cial responsibility, population growth, and aging [55]. In this
direction, a rich and fruitful development is still expected due
to important investments and already pronounced results,
aligning food engineering with interdisciplinary knowledge
in medicine, molecular gastronomy, nanotechnology, and
novel materials, among other spheres of the scientific domain.
Furthermore, this future is not distant, even when considering
developing economies. For instance, genetic sequencing can
be ordered online for an estimated value below 300 dollars,
suggesting that the outspread of customized foods tailored to
genetic characteristics and different lifestyles may become
viable, influencing the dynamics of processing technologies
in the near future.
Nevertheless, the future holds what appears to be even
more investigation. In addition to taming the fields of
unexplored scientific domain, food science and technology
can no longer disregard the optics developed in this paper. A
provocation substantiated as a real demand in retail shelves,
where consumers appreciate—and pay a premium price for—
a product with value originated from a company presenting a
real and healthy story shared with the stakeholders in its value
chain, B[t]he challenging context [is] outside the box^ [59],
which induces a rethinking of technologies and a social posi-
tioning of a food processing company in its value chain.
To conclude, food ethics and human concerns should not
be forgotten by the industry, which must associate sustainabil-
ity and innovation strategies as an important pillar for the
development of food and food processing. The impact of re-
thinking processes, products, and packaging considering so-
cial, environmental, and economic impacts on the value chain
must be considered. The industry needs to regain consumer
confidence.
It is necessary to consider that the development of products
and processes must be embedded in the premise that part of
the value of the final product also comes from the relations—
sustainable in time—of the industry with its suppliers (no
longer understandable as interchangeable), besides consumers
and other stakeholders. This constitutes a direct deployment to
Food Science and Technology and its professionals, with a
provocation: as important as product and process engineering
seems to be the relationship engineering, strategies for certifi-
cation of origin, green certificates, as well as social empower-
ment, animal welfare, etc., suggest the relevance of better
qualifying the professionals and reviewing the technological
paradigms of the sector.
Conclusions
More than an extensive literature review, in this critical and
passionate insight source we discussed past and future pros-
pects, sharing an optimistic view considering the two different
paths that the industry may lead due to a new consumer’s
appetite: to create novel products benefiting from important
knowledge in product and process engineering, but also to
conceive new opportunities in industrialized food, harmoniz-
ing technology advances with the relationships established by
a company and its consumers and other stakeholders. In a
pessimistic or optimistic view, social drivers should be con-
sidered in future advances in the food technology dynamics,
anticipating an inevitably exciting future ahead.
Acknowledgements We would like to thank our anonymous Referees
for their care regarding our manuscript and for their valuable comments for
improving the paper. Special thanks also to Carmen S. F. Trindade (Assoc.
Prof., FZEA/USP), Miriam D. Hubinger (Full Prof., UNICAMP), Cynthia
Ditchfield (Assist. Prof., FZEA/USP), as weel to Marcia G. Kasemodel
(Graduate Student in Food Engineering, FZEA/USP) for their comments,
suggestions, and technical assistance. Additionally, we would like to thank

the Center for Organization Studies (CORS), as well as the Group of
Studies and Research on Strategy and Vertical Coordination (GEPEC),
for providing a rich environment for the development of this research.
Finally, the authors acknowledge the São Paulo Research Foundation
(FAPESP) for both their financial support (CEPID FoRC 13/07914-8)
and the fellowship of visiting professor A.M. Sereno (13/19359-9), as well
as the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development (CNPq) for the Research fellowship of Paulo J.A. Sobral.
References
1. Afoakwa EO, Paterson A, Fowler M (2007) Factors influencing
rheological and textural qualities in chocolate: a review. Trends
Food Sci Technol 18(6):290–298
2. Afoakwa EO, Paterson A, Fowler M, Ryan A (2008) Flavor forma-
tion and character in cocoa and chocolate: a critical review. Crit Rev
Food Sci Nutr 48(9):840–857
3. Aguilera JM (2006) Seligman lecture 2005 food product engineer-
ing: building the right structures. J Sci Food Agric. doi:10.1002/
jsfa.2468
4. Alwi SRW, Manan ZA, Klemes J, Huisingh D (2014) Sustainability
engineering for the future. J Clean Prod 71:1–10
5. Aprotosoaie AC, Luca SV, Miron A (2016) Flavor chemistry of
cocoa and cocoa products—an overview. Compr Rev Food Sci
Food Saf 15(1):73–91
6. Barbier JP (1994) Nicolas Appert inventeur et humaniste. Royer, Paris
7. Barry Callebault 2005 Sustanability, Barry Callebault. https://www.
barry-callebaut.com/sustainability. Accessed 20 Nov 2015
8. Berger KR 2002 A brief history of packaging. Agricultural and
Biological Engineering Department Series–Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.
edu. Accessed 16 Jan 2017
9. Besanko D, Dranove D, Shanley M, Schaefer S (2009) Economics
of strategy, 5th edn. Wiley, New York
10. Bowen HRB (1953) Social responsibilities of the businessman.
Harper, New York
11. Bruce-Wallace LG (1966) Biography James Harrison (1816–1893).
Australian dictionary of biography. http://adb.anu.edu.au/
biography/harrison-james-2165. Accessed 19 Jun 2015
12. Bruin S, Jongen TRG (2003) Food process engineering: the last 25
years and the ahead. Crit Rev Food Sci Food Saf. doi:10.1111/j.
1541-4337.2003.tb00015.x
13. Carruth A (2009) War rations and the food politics of late modern-
ism. Modernism/Modernity. doi:10.1353/mod.0.0139
14. Charm SE (1963) The fundamentals of food engineering. AVI
Publishing, Westport
15. Coe SD, Coe MD (2000) The true history of chocolate. Thames &
Hudson, London
16. Copetti MV, Iamanaka BT, Pit JI, Taniwakib MH (2014) Fungi and
mycotoxins in cocoa: from farm to chocolate. Int J Food Microbiol
178:13–20
17. Deora NS, Misra NN, Deswal A, Mishra HN, Cullen PJ, Tiwari BK
(2013) Ultrasound for improved crystallisation in food processing.
Food Eng Rev 5(1):36–44
18. Dimick P, Hoskin JM (1981) Chemico-physical aspects of chocolate
processing: a review. Can Inst Food Sci Technol J 14(4):269–282
19. Earle R (1966) Unit operations in food processing. Pergamon Press,
Oxford
20. Euromonitor (2015) Corporate strategies in health and wellness:
part 2 focus emerging markets. Euromonitor, London
21. Floros JD, Newsome R, Fisher W, Barbosa-Canovas GV, Chen H,
Dunne CP, German JB, Hall RL, Heldman DR, Karwe MV, Knabel
SJ, Labuza TP, Lund DB, Newell-McGloughlin M, Robinson JL,
Food Eng Rev
Sebranek JG, Shewfelt RL, Tracy WF, Weaver CM, Ziegle GR
(2010) Feeding the world today and tomorrow: the importance of
food science and technology. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. doi:
10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00127.x
22. Food Engineering (2015) Hershey transitions to simple, easy-to-
understand ingredients. Food Engineering. http://www.
foodengineeringmag.com/articles/93551-hershey-transitions-to-
simple-easy-to-understand-ingredients. Accessed 19 Jun 2015
23. Food Ingredients First (2015) Barry Callebaut to achieve reduced
fat chocolate. http://www.foodingredientsfirst.com/news/Barry-
Callebaut-to-Achieve-Reduced-Fat-Chocolate.html. Accessed 19
Jun 2015
24. Gendron C, Audet R (2011) In: Boye JI, Arcand Y (ed) Green
technologies in food production and processing. Food
Engineering Series. ISBN: 978–1–4614-1587-9 (Online)
25. Graham JC (1981) The French connection in the early history of
canning. J R Soc Med 74:374–381
26. Goncalves EV, Lannes SCS (2010) Chocolate rheology. Food Sci
Technol 30(4):845–851
27. Harper JM (1976) Elements of food engineering. AVI Publishing,
Westport
28. Heldman DR, Lund DB (2006) Handbook of food engineering.
CRC Press, Boca Raton
29. Heldman DR (1975) Food process engineering. AVI Publishing,
Westport
30. Hershey Community Archives (2011) Hershey’s chocolate plays
important part in war effort. The Hershey Story. http://www.
hersheyarchives.org/essay/details.aspx?EssayId=26. Accessed 20
Jun 20 2016
31. Imap (2010) Food and beverage industry global report 2010. Imap.
http://www.proman.fi/sites/default/files/Food%20%26%
20beverage%20global%20report%202010_0.pdf. Accessed 15
Dec 2014
32. Kasemodel MGC, Makishi F, Souza RC, Silva VL (2016)
Following the trail of crumbs: a bibliometric study on consumer
behavior in the food science and technology field. Int J Food Stud.
doi:10.7455/ijfs/5.1.2016.a7
33. Kaufman CW (1952) Food engineer’s place in the food industry.
Food Engineering (25). McGraw Hill, Albany / NY
34. Kongor JE, Hinneh M, de Walle DV, Afoakwab EO, Boeckxc P,
Dewettincka K (2016) Factors influencing quality variation in co-
coa (Theobroma cacao) bean flavour profile—a review. Food Res
Int 82:44–52
35. Kostaropoulos AE (2012) Food engineering within sciences of
food. Int J Food 1:109–113
36. Latour B (1984) Les microbes: guerre et paix. Anne-Marie
Métailié, Paris
37. Latour B (1988) The pasteurization of France. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge
38. Law MT (2003) The origins of state pure food regulation. J Econ
Hist. doi:10.1017/S0022050703002547
39. Lawler FK (1953) Rewarding careers await technical men in food
industry. Food Engineering (25). McGraw Hill, Albany/NY
40. Lazarides H (2012) Challenges and opportunities for the commu-
nity of food sciences to contribute towards a society of healthier
consumers and better world. Int J Food Stud. doi:10.7455/ijfs/1.1.
2012.a10
41. Lévi-Strauss C (1964) Mythologiques: le cru et le cuit. Plon, Paris
42. Lonchampt P, Hartel RW (2004) Fat bloom in chocolate and com-
pound coatings. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 106(4):241–274
43. Loncin M, Merson RL (1979) Food engineering, principles and
selected applications. Academic Press, San Diego
44. Lopez J (2014) Changing role of business. Creating shared value
forum 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOz5Qw1kc84.
Accessed 15 Jul 2015
Food Eng Rev
45. Lund DB (2002) In: Welti-Chanes J, Barbosa-Cánovas GV,
Aguilera JM (ed) Engineering and food for the 21st century. CRC
Press: Boca Raton
46. Mars (2015) The history of Mars. Mars. http://www.mars.com/
global/about-mars/mars-pia/our-approach-to-business/story-of-
mars.aspx. Accessed 20 Nov 2015
47. Mintel (2016) Food and drink trends for 2016. Mintel. http://www.
mintel.com/global-food-and-drink-trends-2016. Accessed 21
Jun 2016
48. Mirrer L (2012) How World War II changed everything: even our
taste for candy. Huff post New York. http://www.huffingtonpost.
com/louise-mirrer/how-world-war-ii-changed-_b_2024730.html.
Accessed 18 Jun 2015
49. Narine SS, Marangoni AG (1999) Relating structure of fat crystal
networks to mechanical properties: a review. Food Res Int 32(4):
227–248
50. Nestlé (2015) Nestlé USA commits to removing artificial flavors
and fda-certified colors from all Nestlé chocolate candy by the end
of 2015. Nestlé. http://www.nestleusa.com/media/pressreleases/
nestl%C3%A9-usa-commits-to-removing-artificial-flavors-and-
fda-certified-colors-from-all-nestl%C3%A9-chocolate-candy-by-
the-end-of-20. Accessed 03 Jul 2016
51. Nedović V, Raspor P, Lević J, Šaponjac VT, Barbosa-Cánovas GV
(eds) 2016 Emerging and traditional technologies for safe, healthy
and quality food. Food Engineering Series. ISBN: 978-3-319-
24040-4 (Online)
52. Parker ME, Harvey EH, Stateler ES (1952) Elements of food engi-
neering Vols 2, 3. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York {not
found in text}}
53. Pollan M (2009) In defense of food: an eater’s manifesto. Penguin
Books, London
54. Reardon T, Timmer P, Berdegue J (2004) The rapid rise of super-
markets in developing countries: induced organizational, institu-
tional, and technological change in agrifood systems. Electron J
Agric Dev Econ. doi:10.4324/9781849773331
55. Saguy S, Taoukis OS (2016) From open innovation to enginomics:
paradigm shifts. Trends Food Sci Technol. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2016.
08.008
56. Saguy S, Singh RP, Johnson T, Fryer PJ (2013) Challenges facing
food engineering. J Food Eng. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.05
57. Salvadó JS, García-Lorda P, Ripollés JMS (2005) La alimentation y
la nutrition atraves de la historia. Glosa, Barcelona
58. Silva VLS, Leonelli FCV, Gomes TM (2014) In: Menard C, Saes
MSM, Silva VL, Raynauld E (Orgs) Challenges to economic orga-
nization, 1th ed. Atlas, São Paulo
59. Singh RP (2012) Romancing with food engineering: a life-long
second partner. Annual Meeting of the Institute of Food
Technologists, Las Vegas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
23eqfw2aaI8. Accessed 08 Jun 2015
60. Stevenson GW, Pirog R (2013) Values-based food supply chains:
strategies for agri-food enterprises-of-the-middle. <http://www.cias.
wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/valuechainstrategiesfinal
072513.pdf>. Accessed 29 Jul 2015
61. TCC (2012) Cocoa barometer. Tropical commodity coalition.
http://www.cocoabarometer.org/Download_files/Cocoa%
20Barometer%20Full%202012.pdf. Accessed 16 Jun 2015
62. The Guardian (2015) Nutella spat: French minister says sorry over
call to stop eating spread. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.
com/world/2015/jun/17/nutella-italian-minister-demands-apology-
from-segolene-royal. Acessed 18 Nov 2015
63. Tulane University (2015) Survey research on child labor in West
African cocoa growing areas. School of Public Health and Tropical
Medicine Tulane University. http://www.childlaborcocoa.org/
images/Payson_Reports/Tulane%20University%20-%20Survey%
20Research%20on%20Child%20Labor%20in%20the%
20Cocoa%20Sector%20-%2030%20July%202015.pdf. Accessed
21 Jun 2016
64. Wan S (2012) Evolution in the processed foods industry: exploring
the impact of the health foods movement, Ph.D Thesis, University
of Southern California. http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/
collection/p15799coll3/id/8789. Accessed 21 Jun 2016
65. Weaver CM, Dwyer J, Fulgoni VL 3rd, King JC, Leveille GA,
MacDonald RS, Ordovas J, Schnakenberg D (2014) Processed
foods: contributions to nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr. doi:10.3945/
ajcn.114.089284
66. Wilson PK, Hurst W J (eds) (2015) Chocolate and health: chemis-
try, nutrition and therapy. Royal Society of Chemistry, London
eISBN: 978-1-78262-280-2 (Online)
67. Yanniotis S, Taoukis P, Stoforos NG, Karathanos VT (eds) (2013)
Advances in food process engineering research and applications.
Food Engineering Series. ISBN: 978-1-4614-7906-2 (Online)
68. Zylbersztajn D, Farina EMMQ (2005) Dynamics of network gov-
ernance: a contribution to the study of complex forms. Soc Sci Res
Netw. doi:10.2139/ssrn.824964