International Journal 7 - Issue 2.pdf · International Journal of Food Studies The International Journal of Food Studies (IJFS), a journal of the ISEKI_Food Association, is an international

International Journalof Food Studies

ISSN: 2182-1054

Volume 7 | October, 2018

International Journal of Food Studies

The International Journal of Food Studies (IJFS), a journal of the ISEKI_Food Association, is an international peer-

reviewed open-access journal featuring scientific articles on the world of Food in Education, Research and Industry.

This journal is a forum created specifically to improve the dissemination of Food Science and Technology

knowledge between Education, Research and Industry stakeholders. Core topics range from raw materials, through

food processing, including its effect on the environment, to food safety, nutrition and consumer acceptance. To enrich

this forum the journal is also open to other food-related topics such as food policy and food anthropology.

Editor-in-Chief

PROFESSOR CRISTINA L. M. SILVA

Catholic University of Portugal - College of Biotechnology,

Rua Arquiteto Lobão Vital 172, 4200-374 Porto, Portugal

Vice Editors-in-Chief

Professor Margarida Cortez Vieira

High Institute of Engineering of University of Algarve,

Estrada da Penha 139, 8005-139 Faro, Portugal

Professor Paulo José do Amaral Sobral

University of São Paulo - Faculty of Animal Science and

Food Engineering, Av. Duque de Caxias Norte, 225,

Campus Fernando Costa – USP, CEP 13635-900

Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil

Associate Editors

Professor Liliana Tudoreanu

University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary

Medicine Bucharest, Romania

Professor Margarida Cortez Vieira

University of Algarve, Portugal

Professor Paulo José do Amaral Sobral

University of São Paulo - Faculty of Animal

Science and Food Engineering, Brazil

Professor Petras Rimantas Venskutonis

Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania

Professor Rui Costa

College of Agriculture - Polytechnic Institute of

Coimbra, Portugal

Dr. Rui Cruz

University of Algarve, Portugal

Professor Tanaboon Sajjaanantakul

Kasetsart University, Thailand

Professor Victoria Jideani

Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South

Africa

Advisory Board

Afam Jideani

University of Venda, South Africa

António Vicente

Universidade do Minho, Portugal

Brian McKenna

University College Dublin, Ireland

Elisabeth Dumoulin

Paris Institute of Technology for

Life, France

Ferruh Erdogdu

Ankara University, Turkey

Gerhard Schleining

BOKU, Austria

Gustavo V. Barbosa-Canovas

Washington State University,

United States of America

Gustavo Gutiérrez-López

National School of Biological

Sciences, Mexico

José António Teixeira

Universidade do Minho, Portugal

Kristberg Kristbergsson

University of Iceland, Iceland

Mustapha El Idrissi

Mohamed Premier University,

Morocco

Pablo Ribotta

School of Exact Physics and

Natural Sciences, Argentina

Paul Singh

University of California - Davis,

United States

Paola Pittia

University of Teramo, Italy

Peter Ho

University of Leeds, United

Kingdom

Pilar Buera

School of Exact and Natural

Sciences, Argentina

Sam Saguy

Hebrew University of Jerusalem,

Israel

Teresa Brandão

Catholic University of Portugal,

Portugal

V. Prakash

Central Food Technological

Research Institute, India

Venkatesh Meda

University of Saskatchewan,

Canada

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL

OF FOOD STUDIES

Volume 7, nº 2 (2018)

(Published 18 October 2018)

CONTENTS

1 Are We Doing Our Homework? An Analysis of Food Engineering Education in Brazil

VIVIAN-LARA SILVA, FAUSTO MAKISHI, MARCUS MAGOSSI, IZABEL CRISTINA FREITAS MORAES,

CARMEN SILVIA FÁVARO TRINDADE & PAULO JOSÉ DO AMARAL SOBRAL

17 Food Safety Implementation in the Perspective of Network Learning

ZAM-ZAM ABDIRAHMAN, LESLIE D. BOURQUIN, LOÏC SAUVÉE & DEEPA THIAGARAJAN

30 Antioxidant and Antibacterial Activities of Exopolysaccharides Produced by Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Yogurt

ZOUAOUI BENATTOUCHE, DJILLALI BOUHADI & GHALEM BACHIR RAHO

38 Consumers’ Willingness to Consume Cassava Leaves as a Leafy Vegetable in the Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana

FRED NIMOH, GODFRED O. ASARE, ISMAEL TWUMASI & RICHMOND ANAMAN

51 Production of Camel Milk Yoghurt: Physicochemical and Microbiological Quality and Consumer Acceptability

OBAKENG GALEBOE, EYASSU SEIFU & BONNO SEKWATI-MONANG

64 Antioxidant Activities of Aqueous Extracts from Nine Different Rose Cultivars

HAMADIA KHURSHID, SYED MUBASHAR SABIR, SHAHID IQBAL AWAN, SYED RIZWAN ABBAS &

MUHAMMAD IRSHAD

76 Extraction Kinetics of Saponins from Quinoa Seed (Chenopodium quinoa Willd)

R. M. TORREZ IRIGOYEN & S. A. GINER

89 Physicochemical and Antioxidant Properties of Banana Varieties and Sensorial Evaluation of Jelly Prepared from those

Varieties Available in Sylhet Region

ABDULLAH A. SAD, M. M. HOQUE & WAHIDU ZZAMAN

98 A Nutritional Evaluation of the Berry of a New Grape: ‘Karaerik’ (Vitis vinifera L.)

AYNUR KURT, NESRIN COLAK, AYDIN SÜKRÜ BENGU, ALI GUNDOĞDU, ERDAL AKPINAR & SEMA

HAYIRLIOGLU-AYAZ & FAIK AHMET AYAZ

117 ‘Made-in-transit’ Yoghurt Processing: A Review of Basic Concepts and Technological Implications

M. A. R. NOR-KHAIZURA, S. H. FLINT, O. J. MCCARTHY, J. S. PALMER, M. GOLDING & A. JAWORSKA

International Journal of Food Studies IJFS October 2018 Volume 7 pages 1–16

Are We Doing Our Homework? An Analysis of FoodEngineering Education in Brazil

Vivian-Lara Silvaa*, Fausto Makishib, Marcus Magossia, Izabel Cristina FreitasMoraesa, Carmen Silvia Fávaro Trindadea, and Paulo José do Amaral Sobrala

a Food Engineering Dept., University of São Paulo, 225 Duque de Caxias Norte Avenue, Zip code: 13635-900,Pirassununga (SP), Brazil

b Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Federal University of Minas Gerais, 1000 University Avenue, Zip code:39.404-547, Montes Claros (MG), Brazil

*Corresponding [email protected]

Tel Fax: (+55 19) 35 65 42 84

Received: 2 November 2016; Published online: 18 October 2018Invited paper from the 4th International ISEKI Food Conference - ISEKI Food 2016 - Bridging Training andResearch for Industry and the Wider Community - Responsible Research and Innovation in the Food Value

Abstract

What is the profile of Food Engineering education in Brazil? Are we following the contemporaryprofessional renewal trend? Driven by these questions, the present study analyzed data regarding 21academic courses, which represent approximately 22% of the total bachelor’s degree in food engineeringcourses offered in the country. Samples were defined considering a Brazilian annual ranking of under-graduate programs: very good (four stars) and excellent (five stars). Next, information was recoveredfrom both the Brazilian Ministry of Education and institutional homepages of each analyzed program.The results suggest that food engineering programs exhibit relative identity, naturally due to their his-tory and the path of each program and their faculty, shaping particularities in how fields of knowledgeare constituted, in addition to their representativeness in the total workload of the program. However,initial analysis is suggestive regarding understanding that Brazil is not properly doing its homework,based on global movement, concerning food engineering education. The need to rethink Braziliantechnical education, without culminating in additional workload, is emphasized, not only regardingnew materials and technologies for learning and teaching, but also in terms of bringing a human andmarket approach. The achievement of this complex goal seems to be provided by the encouragementof student associations, transversal learning processes, and learning experiences outside the classroomas a means of improving undergraduate programs and human resources.

Keywords: Food science and technology; Engineering education; Curriculum development

1 Introduction

Over the past decades, Brazil has consolidateditself not only as a global food producer but alsoas an important consumer market in terms ofindustrialized goods. This context follows therecent development of the Brazilian manufactur-ing industry, in which the food industry plays

a unique role. Part of this contemporary phe-nomenon reflects the growing demand for humanresources in general, and engineers in particular(Batalha et al., 2005). In response to this con-text, an increasing amount of food engineeringprograms has been instituted across the countryin the last decades.

Copyright ©2018 ISEKI-Food Association (IFA) 10.7455/ijfs/7.2.2018.a1

http://www.iseki-food-ejournal.com/mailto: [email protected]

2 Silva et al.

Currently, according to the Brazilian Ministryof Education, there are 96 undergraduate bach-elor degree programs in this field in the country,equivalent to 7,000 admissions per year (MEC,2016). It is important to state that Brazilianfood engineering programs in the EU are equiv-alent to integrated masters courses (BSc+MSc)in Europe, being completed in five years, on av-erage.Therefore, the main purpose of the present studywas to make observations regarding food engi-neering education in Brazil, emphasizing a par-ticular issue: are we aligned with the effervescentdiscussion that occurs at the international levelconcerning future challenges of the career?In this regard, the American Society for Engi-neering Education (ASEE) introduced a series ofdiscussions through the “Advancing the Schol-arship of Engineering Education: A Year of Di-alogue”, in order to ensure greater consistencybetween engineering education and current de-mands from society (Melsa, Rajala, & Mohsen,2009).This initiative counted on the support of theNorth American industry, which was interestedin promoting changes in the curricular and edu-cational matrix, given the alignment of humanresources with their particular needs. Similarmovements were also observed in different partsof the world, such as Europe, Americas andOceania (Alves, Restivo, & da Silva, 2015; Bor-rego & Bernhard, 2011).It is interesting to note, however, that despitethis, in the European Union, Flynn, Bejarano,Wahnstrom, Echim, and Quintas (2013) carriedout a profile analysis of professionals in the fieldof Food Science and Technology in order to anal-yse why the sector exhibits low innovation rateswhen compared to other industries.Flynn et al. (2013) suggested that the educa-tion of these professionals is on track. How-ever, it has not yet reached sufficient ampli-tude or required depth in soft skills, which en-compass abilities such as leadership, teamwork,and proactivity, as well as resilience and com-munication skills. Moreover, Saguy and Co-hen (2016) highlight food engineering educationshould address entirely new topics and dimen-sions such as sustainability, economic environ-ments, social responsibility, population growth,

and aging. This is because a food engineer-ing career is now confronted with unique chal-lenges involving health, food security, and well-being (Silva, Sereno, & do Amaral Sobral, 2018);and must play a proactive role in the ecosys-tem of innovation. At least in part, this move-ment comes from the most challenging momentthat food engineering faces in the two centuriesof history of the food industry (Aguilera, 2006).Indeeed, food engineers face increasingly com-plex challenges, such as a growing concern forhealth and wellness, development of functionalfoods, adapting nutritional profiles and foods forthe elderly, high performance products for ath-letes, foods with lower calorie density, socioenvi-ronmental performance, ethical food trades andproduction and so on (Besterfield-Sacre, Cox,Borrego, Beddoes, & Zhu, 2014; Saguy & Co-hen, 2016). As a result, a multi and interdis-ciplinary approach is required (Saguy & Cohen,2016). Indeed, the need for scientific and tech-nological development is intertwined with the so-cial dynamics in which the food processing in-dustry operates (Kasemodel, Makishi, Souza, &Silva, 2016). Culminating in new, distinct andinterrelated knowledge domains that must be ap-proached in an articulated manner by food en-gineering education, such as biology, medicine,molecular gastronomy, new materials, and nan-otechnology, in addition to concepts of market,and business economics (Saguy, Singh, Johnson,Fryer, & Sastry, 2013).An interesting highlight, however, is that whilethe topic of new routes of training in food engi-neering is increasingly discussed in different in-ternational forums around the world, in Brazil,the agenda remains unexplored and restricted tothe specific context of undergraduate programsand their departments. With this in mind, theprimary objective of the present study was todiscuss if we are doing our homework in Brazil.

2 Materials and Methods

The curricula of 21 food engineering programs(approximately 22% of those offered in Brazil)were analyzed. The sample was defined by con-sidering the 2016 Brazilian Student Guide (“Guiado Estudante 2016”), a traditional annual assess-

IJFS October 2018 Volume 7 pages 1–16

An analysis of food engineering education in Brazil 3

ment of undergraduate programs in the country.This annual report contains the evaluation re-sults of programs classified in stars: good (threestars), very good (four stars), and excellent (fivestars). The evaluation system consists of anannual collection of qualitative and quantita-tive data per program, in electronic format, ofa commission formed by at least seven experts(referees), including course coordinators, depart-ment directors, and professors. The analyzedcriteria gather information on faculty, didactic-pedagogical projects, scientific production, ex-tension activities, internationalization, insertionof students in the job market, infrastructure, andsupply of postgraduate courses. Each of theseven referees awarded grades according to cri-teria: excellent (5), very good (4), good (3), reg-ular (2), poor (1) and “I’d rather omit myself”;in which case a new assessor is invited to par-ticipate. The top and bottom scores were dis-regarded to eliminate distortion. The mean wascalculated from five assigned scores. The finalgrade was calculated from the weighted averageof the grades obtained in the last three years.Programs receiving scores between 4.3161 and 5were classified as five stars, and those receivingscores between 3.6322 and 4.3161 (Guia do Es-tudante, 2016).For the 2016 Brazilian Student Guide, the anal-ysis was performed using programs certified asfive stars ( a total of 5 programs) and four stars(a group of 16 programs). Once selected, un-dergraduate program information was recoveredfrom the official databases of the Brazilian Min-istry of Education (MEC, 2016), as well as fromthe institutional homepages of each program.The following data were collected: 1. year ofestablishment; 2. location; 3. annual numberof admissions; 4. required and elective courses;5. credit hours per course, and 6. total work-load. Required and elective courses were dividedinto groups, representing their particular field ofknowledge, totaling nine groups: 1. Basic Sci-ences; 2. Engineering Sciences; 3. Food Sci-ences; 4. Human Sciences; 5. Technologies; 6.Supervised Internship; 7. Monograph; 8. Elec-tive Courses, and 9. Learning Experiences Out-side the Classroom. The proposed division wasbased on the model and taxonomy utilized by theUniversity of São Paulo (USP).

Table 1 summarizes the criteria applied for theproposed division. The data collection processcovered the period from 15 to 25 December, 2015.Data were grouped into a spreadsheet in Excelformat, which formed the basis for further anal-ysis and discussion.Additionally, in order to analyze the role of learn-ing experiences outside the classroom (not in-cluded in the educational plan), an assessmentof student associations linked to food engineer-ing programs was carried out. These associationsare organizations that are formed exclusively byundergraduate students who represent the stu-dents’ interests, and which retain civic, cultural,educational, sporting, business, and social pur-poses.The following student associations were consid-ered: 1) AIESEC (originally a French acronymfor Association Internationale des Etudiants enSciences Economiques et Commerciales; dedi-cated to empowering young people for peaceand fulfillment of mankind’s potential); 2) Ath-letic Associations; 3) Enactus (whose namecomes from the combination of three words:Entrepreneurial, Act, and Us; representing acommunity of student, academic, and businessleaders committed to using the power of en-trepreneurial action to transform lives and shapea better, and more sustainable world); 4) JuniorCompanies and 5) Program of Tutorial Educa-tion (PTE).The selection of this set of five student associa-tions was deliberate. Athletic Associations, Ju-nior Companies, and PTE are a few of the lead-ing traditional and disseminated student organi-zations in Brazil. In turn, AIESEC and Enactusemerge as distinctive international student asso-ciations around the world. These student associ-ations have been identified as strategic organsia-tions for learning outside the classroom throughinterdisciplinary exposure to the real-world prob-lems (Gair, 1997; Dillon et al., 2006; Paisley, Fur-man, Sibthorp, & Gookin, 2008).


4 Silva et al.

Table 1: Characterization of areas of knowledge: Main content and course examples

KNOWLEDGE GROUPS MAIN CONTENTCOURSES

EXAMPLES

Basic Sciences Related to basis of engineering knowledge and Calculus, Physics,that are used as tools for other courses throughout the program. and Statistics

These courses are common to all engineering programs.

Engineering SciencesLinked with chemical Transport Phenomena,and food processing. Unit Operations, and

Biochemical Engineering

Food SciencesCourses that study the reactions, Food Biochemistry,composition, and analysis of food. Food Analysis, and

Food Microbiology

Human SciencesRelated to humanities Sociology, Economy, and

and social sciences. Food Distribution

Technological ProcessesLinked with the study of food processing, Processing of Meat and Derivatives,

in terms of specific methods or Milk Technology,technological packaging. and Packaging Technology

MonographRelated to the concluding

Final Projectcourse assignment.

Supervised InternshipRelated to the

Training Programsupervised internship.

Elective Free courses chosen by the student Excel, Autocad, Emerging TechnologiesCourses (having to attend a minimum amount of credits). for Food Processing, Eco-Design

Technical visits,Learning Experiences Linked with culture and extension activities Participation inOutside the Classroom (with a maximum amount of hours to benefit). Student Associations,

Attendance in Workshops and Conferences.

Source: The authors, based on information available on the websites of the analyzed food engineering programs

3 Results and Discussions

3.1 Food engineering:professionals to relieve worldhunger and more

Before presenting the results obtained in thisstudy, we will present an overview of food en-gineering in the world and in the Brazil.The search for a better-aligned preservation forsafe and healthy foods drives the developmentof this sector and its profession. Although eachcountry seems to have developed its own iden-titity in structuring food engineering as a pro-fession and a career, Karel (1997) identified twoprimary branches at the origin of contemporaryfood engineering education: 1) food engineering,which originated as an agricultural engineeringspecialization; and 2) food science and technol-ogy, which is mainly associated with chemistrybut also incorporates elements of microbiologyand agronomy. The first is related to the Eu-ropean school, more specifically the French one,

while the second refers to the American or Anglo-Saxon school (Kostaropoulos, 2012).Indeed, in some European countries, suchas France, food engineering is a derivationof agricultural engineering, l’Ingénieur Agro-alimentaire, and emphasis should be given tothe formation of l’École Nationale des Indus-tries Agricoles (ENSIA), which occurred in 1893(Agroparistech, 2018). Starting from that andbenefiting from the European industrial revolu-tion that occurred in the early 1900s, food engi-neering was strongly associated with small-scaleagroindustrial production (nearly one centurybefore the emergence of food engineering in theUSA), which began to supply the growing Euro-pean working class (Abramovay, 1992). Preser-vation techniques, such as appertization and pas-teurization, date back to the same period.On the other hand, in the USA, food engineer-ing developed differently and was initially intro-duced as Food Technology, consolidating itself asa career in the early 1920s and having maturedrecently in the academic field (Kostaropoulos,



2012; Saguy et al., 2013). The profession empha-sizes the industrialization process and the com-petitiveness of the segment, particularly in gain-ing scale. In other words, the American Food En-gineering School was developed amidst the greenrevolution, based on large-scale rural and indus-trial production, retaining a high degree of au-tomation and increasing productivity. In thiscontext, Loncin (2012) described food engineer-ing as an adaptation of techniques from chemicalengineering, focusing on the food industry.Besides these two branches discussed by Karel(1997), Kostaropoulos (2012) described a thirdbranch concerning the origin of contemporaryfood engineering, which originated from the com-bination of mechanical and chemical process en-gineering in Germany. In that view, Kupriano(Kostaropoulos, 2012) emphasized that the Tech-nical University of Karlsruhe launched its firstfood engineering program, denominated FoodTechniques, in 1948. In Germany, agriculturaldevelopment was followed by strong industrialadvancement in the mechanical and chemicalfields. This path led to a direct unfolding in Ger-man food engineering programs, which are dis-tinguished by knowledge production in the fieldof projects and industrial process dimensioning(Costa, Mozina, & Pittia, 2014). The programwas primarily structured as a field of chemical en-gineering, particularly associated with food sci-ence, food chemistry, physical chemistry, and,on a smaller scale, biology and microbiology(Kostaropoulos, 2012).In summary, the three previously describedschools (European, American and Germany)contributed considerably to the contemporaryunderstanding of food engineering. Evidently,the distinction among them is much less sensi-tive in the current global context in which sim-ilarities and differences between curricula occurand in which new and more complex challengesseem to be placed on this profession.As observed by Barbosa-Canovas and Ibarz(2002), food process engineering aims to studythe principals and laws that govern the physi-cal, chemical, or biochemical stages of distinctprocesses, as well as the apparatus or equip-ment by which such stages are industrially car-ried out. It incorporates food engineering princi-ples, such as essential elements of food process-

ing, transformation, preservation, material sci-ences, food equipment, and plant design to dealwith operations of whole food processing units,including storage and logistics, instrumentationand automatic control, and feasibility studies(Kostaropoulos, 2012).But this seems to be only part of the trainingcurrently required of the food engineer. Withthe increasing demand for products that meet thespecific needs of particular consumer groups, thefood engineer’s education is undergoing a timeof review. The future seems to cover profes-sional responsibility for operationalizing the ef-forts conducted so far in food science and tech-nology, while respecting the constraints of eco-nomic viability, social impact, and environmen-tal conservation (Karel, 1997; Saguy et al., 2013;Silva et al., 2018).This discussion is globally underway in differentfood engineering programs and, of course, it isstill necessary to adjust to the local context. In-deed, although food production and distributionoccur at a global level, each country seems tohave developed its own identitity in structuringfood engineering as a profession and a career. Inparticular, the present study aims to assess howthe topic is perceived in Brazil, as discussed inthe following section.

3.2 Food engineering in Brazil

With a delay, relative to the development of thesector in Europe and the USA, the history offood engineering in Brazil only began to developproperly in the late 1960s, early 1970s.This time marks a beginning to the develop-ment of the food industry in Latin America.The industrial sector as a whole was incipientin these countries, including Brazil, in whichthe exportation of commodities was the primaryeconomic activity (Bulmer-Thomas, 2003; Skid-more, 2009). Particularly within the Braziliancontext, the industrial process was encouragedand stimulated by the government, which pre-dominantly focused on the steel and transporta-tion industries. The Brazilian food industry inturn developed during this period, absorbing ex-ternal technologies, such as UHT milk processing(a memorable example of the role of a food en-


6 Silva et al.

gineering career and the offer of products withlow cost, and extended shelf life, versus longerdistribution routes). Moreover, the oil crisis andincrease in prices led to a concern regarding foodproduction. It was exactly in this period thatthe first engineering programs were founded inBrazil.However, the awakening of Brazil to food engi-neering training would pass through another mo-ment of numbness. This was due to another eco-nomic crisis that paralyzed Brazilian industrialdevelopment and impacted negatively on indus-trial food processing. More specifically, the 1980swere considered a lost decade, in which economicand political uncertainty prevailed in differentLatin American countries, including Brazil.In turn, in the 1990s, economic stabilization,market deregulation, and trade liberalization ledto a new impulse for the Brazilian food indus-try. And so, from the second half of the 1990s,the country consolidated itself as a global foodproducer, becoming one of the leading agricul-tural product suppliers in the new millennium.The development of the Brazilian consumer mar-ket awakened the interest of many multinationalfood companies, significantly increasing the jobsupply in the sector.Following this story, the origin of Brazilian foodengineering was related to the creation of ITAL(Food Technology Institute) in 1962, resultingfrom the dismemberment of a section of the IAC(Agronomic Institute of Campinas, situated inthe State of São Paulo). A few years later, in1967, the first food engineering School was insti-tuted by UNICAMP (State University of Camp-inas), followed by UFV (Federal University ofViçosa) in 1975, UFPB (Federal University ofParáıba) and UFC (Federal University of Ceará)in 1976, and UFSC (Federal University of SantaCatarina) and FURG (Federal University of RioGrande) in 1979.Afterward, as illustrated in Table 2, the programwas introduced to UNIFEB (Educational Foun-dation of Barretos) in 1980, UNESP (São PauloState University) in 1983, FENVA (EngineeringCollege of Varginha) in 1984, Maua EngineeringSchool in 1986, UNIMEP (Metodista de Piraci-caba) in 1988, and PUC/PR (Pontifical CatholicUniversity of Paraná) in 1989. São Paulo Uni-versity (USP) inaugurated its course in 2001.

The UNICAMP program was structured by amultidisciplinary team of professors from thefields of mechanical, agronomic, agricultural, andchemical engineering, as well as mathematics andbiology, having as its main reference the Amer-ican school, as discussed in the previous sec-tion. More specifically, the influence came fromthe Food Science and Technology curriculum ofthe University of California. In turn, at UFV,the program evolved from the Food Technologyspecialization offered in the Agronomy program;while at UFPB, the food engineering programwas associated with the Department of Chemi-cal and Food Technology.In addition to the mechanical, agronomic, agri-cultural and chemical engineering programs,other fields of knowledge are also verified in thegenesis of other food engineering programs cur-rently active in Brazil (MEC, 2016), such asproduction engineering, animal science, economyand business. From its establishment, food engi-neering programs have been implemented in var-ious colleges and universities in several regions ofthe country. Figure 1 shows their distribution inBrazil.But it is precisely from the end of 1990s thattraining in food engineering reached its boom inBrazil. Regarding the previous discussion, Fig-ure 2 outlines the relatively recent disseminationof food engineering programs in Brazil, with re-spect to the number of students entering the pro-grams, which has become more pronounced overthe past 15 years, when approximately 70% ofthe existing courses were instituted. This pe-riod corresponds to the increasing stability of theBrazilian economy, inferring an attractive eco-nomic context to the growing mass of food engi-neers provided annually by schools since then.As illustrated in Figure 1, there is a greater con-

centration of food engineering programs in theSouth and Southeast regions of Brazil, highlight-ing São Paulo and Minas Gerais states that to-gether account for 36% of all programs offered.The mentioned states are known for retainingsome of the largest centers of consumption in thecountry, and the highest concentration of largefood processing industries.However, another result should not be overshad-owed. The progression of food engineering pro-grams towards the countryside (Figure 1) sug-



Table 2: Top 21 Brazilian food engineering programs: Characterization by year of course establishment,location, and the number of students enrolled annually

ProgramYear of course Location Number of studentsestablishment (City/State) enrolled annually

UNICAMP – Universidade Estadual de Campinas 1967 Campinas-SP 115UFV – Universidade Federal de Viçosa 1975 Viçosa-MG 60UFC – Universidade Federal do Ceará 1976 Fortaleza-CE 100UFPB – Universidade Federal da Paráıba 1976 João Pessoa-PB 30FURG – Universidade Federal do Rio Grande 1979 Rio Grande-RS 50UFSC – Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina 1979 Florianópolis-SC 50UNIFEB – Fundação Educacional de Barretos 1980 Barretos-SP 40

UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista 1983S. J. do

30Rio Preto-SP

FENVA – Faculdade de Engenharia de Varginha 1984 Varginha-MG 30Instituto Mauá 1986 S. C. do Sul-SP 40UNIMEP – Metodista de Piracicaba 1988 Piracicaba-SP 60PUC/PR – Pontif́ıcia Universidade Católica do Paraná 1989 Curitiba-PR 60UFRRJ – Universidade Federal Rural

1991 Seropédica-RJ 60do Rio de JaneiroUNISINOS – Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos 1992 São Leopoldo-RS 90UFRGS – Universidade Federal do

1995 Porto Alegre-RS 30Rio Grande do SulUPF – Universidade de Passo Fundo 1998 Passo Fundo-RS NFUFG – Universidade Federal de Goiás 1999 Goiânia-GO 60UESB – Universidade Estadual do

1999 Itapetinga-BA 40Sudoeste da BahiaUFPa – Universidade Federal do Pará 2000 Belém-PA 32UEM – Universidade Estadual de Maringá 2000 Maringá-PR 40USP – Universidade de São Paulo 2001 Pirassununga-SP 100UCS – Universidade de Caxias do Sul 2001 Caxias do Sul-RS 50UFS – Universidade Federal de Sergipe 2001 São Cristovão-SE 50UFLA – Universidade Federal de Lavras 2003 Lavras-MG 100UFRJ – Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro 2004 Rio de Janeiro-RJ 40IFGoiano – Instituto Federal Goiano 2007 Rio Verde-GO 50

Note: NF (Information not found). Source: The authors, based on information obtained from the Brazilian Ministry of Education (MEC,2016)

gests an open issue: the impact on the standardcurricula regarding topics of regional or local in-terest, such as Amazon and Cerrado fruit pro-cessing, reductions in water use, and technologiesto generate income in vulnerable populations.

3.3 Total Workload

The total workload of the 21 courses analyzedpresents a standard deviation of 300 hours moreor less, which suggests a quantitative differencebetween courses. Reviewed courses rated as fivestars have a leaner workload compared to mostof the courses rated four stars.Figure 3 illustrates the total workload in hours of

each of the 21 programs analyzed in the presentstudy. The light gray bars represent programscertified as four stars by the 2016 Brazilian Stu-dent Guide (Guia do Estudante, 2016), while thedark gray bars characterize programs that wereconsidered as five stars by the same ranking. Ingeneral, the programs rated as five stars exhibitreduced workload when compared to those ratedas four stars.In the international context, some authors sug-gested reduction of hours in the classroom couldencourage students to pursue different activitiessuch as voluntary work, practice in laboratoriesor in industry (following internship programs),as well as the development of research projects(introduction to science research) or even expe-


8 Silva et al.

Figure 1: Distribution of the 96 food engineering programs in Brazil. Source: The authors, based oninformation obtained from the Brazilian Ministry of Education (MEC, 2016)



Figure 2: Number of admissions per year since the implementation of food engineering education inBrazil. Source: The authors, based on information available on the websites of the analyzed programs

rience abroad (in university exchange programs).This in turn allows the enhancement of newand complementary content (Flynn et al., 2013;Saguy et al., 2013; Saguy & Cohen, 2016). Onthe other hand, it is difficult to say if studentswillprefer more free time. Finding the incentiveand monitoring mechanisms for complementarytraining in engineering courses are challenges.Any way, in Brazil, some of the courses anal-ysed have incorporated hours dedicated to ac-tivities outside the classroom as mandatory re-quirements of their programs. This is the caseof UFRRJ, FURG, UESB, UFRGS and Unisi-nos, which account for an average of 180 hoursas experiences outside the classroom. In othercourses, students’ participation in these activi-ties is voluntary.Regardless of the quantitative aspect of theglobal workload of the programs in question, withrespect to the qualitative analysis, Brazilian cur-ricula display a particularly proportional patternregarding ‘fields of knowledge’. This statementwas derived from a complementary assessmentthat refers to an in-depth qualitative analysis ofthe 21 programs analyzed in the present study.

This is shown in detail in the next section.

3.4 Fields of Knowledge Analysis

A comparative analysis of the curriculum of verygood (four stars) and excellent (five stars) foodengineering programs in Brazil is shown in Fig-ure 4. In spite of other classifications of pos-sible courses, the present study proposed a setof knowledge groups, considering the Brazilliancurriculum, as follows: 1. Basic Sciences; 2. En-gineering Sciences; 3. Food Sciences; 4. HumanSciences; 5. Technological Processes; 6. Super-vised Internship; 7. Monograph; 8. ElectiveCourses, and 9. Learning Experiences Outsidethe Classroom.In general, Basic Sciences, Engineering Sciences,Food Sciences, Human Sciences, Supervised In-ternship, Monograph and Elective Courses havesimilar workloads considering the 21 studied cur-ricula, disabling the visualization of significantdifferences between the programs classified asvery good and excellent. A point of difference be-tween the two groups concerns the workload at-tributed to Technology disciplines and Learning


10 Silva et al.

Figure 3: Top 21 Brazilian food engineering programs (four and five stars): characterization by totalworkload in hours. Source: The authors, based on both the Brazilian Ministry of Education ((MEC,2016) and information available on the websites of the analyzed programs. Note: The Brazilian Govern-ment sets a minimum of 3,600 hours for food engineering education (distributed in 5 years)

Experiences Outside the Classroom. Programsclassified as excellent have higher workloads inFood Technology disciplines and lower ones inLearning Experiences Outside the Classroom. Itis noteworthy that the infrastructure, generallyassociated with the disciplines provided by theTechnological processes group, such as labora-tories and pilot processing units, are attributesevaluated by the Brazilian ranking. Includingsubstantial financial investments, the incorpora-tion of this type of discipline in the curriculumcan be difficult for some programs, thus consid-ered an obstacle in curriculum development.

The disaggregated analysis of the Top 5 pro-grams (five stars), in the nine areas of knowledge,assists in understanding the heterogeneity of theBrazilian food engineering programs (Figure 5).The programs developed at the University of SãoPaulo (USP) and the Federal University of Goiás(UFG) proportionally exhibit more hours dedi-cated to core disciplines. The State Universityof Campinas (UNICAMP) and the Federal Uni-

versity of Viçosa (UFV) display smaller represen-tations of these disciplines, with greater impor-tance for technological processes such as meat,grain, fish and fruit processing and baking.

Basic Sciences represent 34.5% of the averageworkload of the 21 analyzed programs.Furthermore, it is noteworthy that theUFG and USP programs exhibit values wellabove average, accounting for 39.9% and39.7%, respectively. This result indicates aconsiderable concern for the solid formationof basic or initial concepts, in addition toproviding a foundation for an improvedlearning experience of supplementary fieldsencountered by the student. Part of the dis-cussion takes place at international debates(Besterfield-Sacre et al., 2014; Roos et al.,2016; Saguy & Cohen, 2016), which haveargued that the solution to increasinglycomplex problems is the deepening of basicsciences, such as mathematics, statistics,



Figure 4: Comparative analysis of the Engineering program curriculum: very good (four stars) andexcellent (five stars), considering nine fields of knowledge. Source: The authors, based on informationavailable on the websites of the analyzed programs

Figure 5: Individualized analysis of the top 5 engineering programs in Brazil according to area ofknowledge: Basic Sciences (BS); Engineering Sciences (ES); Food Sciences (FS); Human Sciences (HS);Technological Processes (T); Supervised Internship (SI); Monograph (M); Elective Courses (EC), andLearning Experiences Outside the Classroom (OC). Source: The authors, based on information availableon the websites of the analyzed programs


12 Silva et al.

physics, chemistry, and biology.

Engineering Sciences represent 24.3% ofthe average workload of the 21 analyzedprograms. Moreover, as shown in Figure 5,this field of knowledge displayed a higherpercentage in programs rated as five starsthan in the combined averages of programsrated as five and four stars. No significantdiscrepancy was verified between the valuescorresponding to each food engineeringprogram. This result indicates certainhomogeneity between the total workloadregarding this knowledge group for all ofthe food engineering programs analyzed,indicating that this factor exhibits similarimportance in all programs.

Food Sciences represent 14.2% of the averageworkload of the 21 programs analyzed.The combined averages of the programsreveal similar percentages. However, it isnoteworthy that UNICAMP showed a valueof 20.3%, which is superior to the mean ofthe 21 programs (14.2%), as well as theaverage of the programs rated as five stars(14.1%).

Human Sciences represent 4% of the averageworkload of the 21 analyzed programs.Programs rated as five stars exhibited alower percentage when compared to thecombined averages of the programs rated asfour and five stars. In addition, emphasisshould be given to the USP program, whichdisplayed a 7.1% average regarding thisknowledge group, superior to the mean ofthe 21 programs (4%).

Technological processes represent 7.9% ofthe average workload with respect to the 21programs analyzed. This field of knowledgedisplayed a higher percentage in programsrated as five stars than in the combinedaverages of the programs rated as fourand five stars. Moreover, it is relevant tonote that UNESP, UNICAMP, and UFV

exhibited superior values when comparedto the mean of the programs rated as fivestars, as well as the combined averages ofthe programs rated as four and five stars.

In turn, the consolidation of the conceptsregarding classroom knowledge, as well asfamiliarizing students with operational andmanagerial routines, occurs mainly by wayof a mandatory Supervised Internship.As observed by Roos et al. (2016) and Flynnet al. (2013), the approach of academia andindustry proves to be a determining factorin the professional training of the engineer.In the present study, approximately 5% ofthe workload was devoted to compulsoryinternship activities, such as a training pro-gram, regarding the average workload of the21 analyzed programs. Moreover, in mostof the courses, students are encouraged todevelop additional hours in this type ofexperience.

Monograph represents 1.4% of the averageworkload of the 21 analyzed programs.A relevant discrepancy was observedbetween each food engineering programand the average of the programs ratedas five stars, as well as the combinedaverages of programs rated as four andfive stars. This occurs because some foodengineering programs do not require the in-tegration of a final project in their curricula.

Elective Courses represent 4.9% of the aver-age workload of the 21 analyzed programs.This percentage refers to the minimumquantity of credits that must be completedin each program. Additionally, a smalldiscrepancy between the average of the pro-grams rated as five starts and the combinedaverages of the programs rated as four andfive stars was verified. However, a relevantvariation was observed among the programsrated as five stars.

Lastly, it is relevant to note that ExperiencesOutside the Classroom are not recog-



nized as workloads in the programs rated asfive stars (USP, UNESP, UNICAMP, UFV,and UFG). In contrast, programs rated asfour stars offer courses regarding this fieldof knowledge. It is worth noting that theprograms rated as five stars do not includeexperiences outside the classroom in theirworkloads since they are deemed voluntary.

After considering the workloads of the top 21Brazilian food engineering programs, it wouldbe interesting to discuss how the reduction inworkload can contribute to promote and/or im-prove the out-of-class activities, contributing tocomplementary education, including certain softskills. In this regard, several authors have sug-gested that the involvement in activities out-side the classroom in real-world problems al-low acquired knowledge to be added to otherskills, forming essential skills for future profes-sionals (Dillon et al., 2006; Paisley et al., 2008).While, in the European Union, professionals arerequired to gain soft skills (Flynn et al., 2013), inBrazil this is not different. However, these char-acteristics are often difficult to develop in theclassic teaching-learning models.

3.5 Student Associations and SoftSkills

The Programme for International Student As-sessment (PISA) defines as a key competency theability to successfully meet complex demands ina particular context. Competent performance oreffective action implies the mobilization of knowl-edge and cognitive and practical skills, as well associal and behavioral components, such as at-titudes, emotions, and values and motivations(Rychen & Salganik, 2003).However, if such skills are valued and further-more necessary, how can they be developed in theacademic environment? Additionally, how cansuch attributes be incorporated into academiceducation?An initial insight was obtained from data shownin Table 3, which indicate the presence or ab-sence of student associations in food engineeringprograms.

Many authors have suggested that the partici-pation in student organizations is an essentialmethod for the development of key competencies(Eccles & Barber, 1999; Knight, 2004; Berman &Ritchie, 2006; Lucena, Downey, Jesiek, & Elber,2008).Aligned to that approach, to integrate stu-dent associations provide a way of developingsoft skills that are usually not fully developedthroughout undergraduate programs. These ini-tiatives allow students to implement competen-cies such as leadership, teamwork, proactivity,resilience, and communication skills, among oth-ers, which will be demanded of them when theyenter the job market.The foundation of these pedagogical tools is sup-ported by a problem-based learning approach,which proposes the students’ exposure to suf-ficient situations in order to enable them toseek knowledge for themselves when faced witha problem (Wood, 2003).The learning experiences outside the classroomrepresent the main incentive that food engineer-ing programs in Brazil provide in order to meetthe market demand for complete professionals,whether in soft or hard skills, whohave the pro-fessional knowledge, tools, and techniques to bequalified for the career in question.Nevertheless according to the evidence in Table3, there is still a long path to follow in food engi-neering education, not only in implementing ini-tiatives in all of the programs but also in dissem-inating them among the entire student popula-tion.

4 Conclusion

The present study developed a critical analysis offood engineering education in Brazil, and its re-sults suggest that the Brazilian programs retainsimilar curricular structures, although variationswere observed. In addition to the curricula, in-centives provided by food engineering programsto student associations were described, culminat-ing in a learning experience of abilities that arecommonly referred to as soft skills. The resultsalso suggest that these programs exhibit relativeidentity, naturally due to their history and thepath of each program and their faculty, shaping


14 Silva et al.

Table 3: Active student associations in each food engineering program

ProgramProgram of Tutorial Enactus Junior AIESEC Athletic

Education Company Association

USP – Universidade de São Paulo X X X X XUNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista - - X X XUNICAMP – Universidade Estadual de

- X X X XCampinasUFV – Universidade Federal de Viçosa - X X X XUFG – Universidade Federal de Goiás X - X X XUFC – Universidade Federal do Ceará - - X X XIFGoiano – Instituto Federal Goiano - - - - XUFLA – Universidade Federal de Lavras X - X - XUFPa – Universidade Federal do Pará - - - X XUEM – Universidade Estadual de

- X X X XMaringáUFRJ – Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - X X X XUFRRJ – Universidade Federal Rural do

- - X - XRio de JaneiroUCS – Universidade de Caxias do Sul - - X - XUPF – Universidade de Passo Fundo - - X X XUFRGS – Universidade Federal do

- X - X XRio Grande do SulFURG – Universidade Federal do Rio Grande X - X - XUFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina - - X X XUFS – Universidade Federal de Sergipe - - - - XInstituto Mauá - X X X XFENVA – Faculdade de Engenharia de Varginha - - - - -PUC/PR – Pontif́ıcia Universidade

- - - - -Católica do ParanáUESB – Universidade Estadual do

- - - - -Sudoeste da BahiaUFPB – Universidade Federal da Paráıba - - - - -UNIFEB – Fundação Educacional de

- - - - -BarretosUNIMEP – Metodista de Piracicaba - - - - -UNISINOS – Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos - - - - -

Note: The “X” indicates the existence, while “-” the absense of an association in the respective program. Source: The authors, based oninformation available on the websites of the analyzed programs

particularities in how fields of knowledge are con-stituted, in addition to their representativenessin the total program workload.However, initial analysis is suggestive with re-spect to understanding that Brazil is not prop-erly doing its homework based on global changesin food engineering education. The most impor-tant task will be the reduction of time spent in-side classrooms. Some other aspects related tothe economic, political, social, and environmen-tal context stand out, giving a particular identityto the profile of the Brazilian school. Neverthe-less, there is still a long way to go to integrateand standardize learning experiences for all stu-dents of distinct food engineering programs.As homework, the initial analysis suggests anearly opportunity to rethink certain issues, suchas workload, transversal content, and teaching

tools required to improve the alignment of Brazilwith the vanguard movement facing food engi-neering education.As well as improving the suggested methodology,a second stage of the study was structured, con-sisting of interviews with program coordinators,in order to search for a comparative analysis ofthe content; and even a comparison between theAmerican, European, and Brazilian food engi-neering schools.

Acknowledgements

Our special thanks to the CORS (Center for Or-ganizational Studies) and the GEPEC (Group ofStudies and Research on Strategy and VerticalCoordination) for providing a rich environment



for the development of the present study. The au-thors are also grateful to Marcia G. Kasemodel,for her comments, suggestions, and technical as-sistance. Finally, the authors acknowledge theSão Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) forthe financial support (CEPID FoRC 13/07914-8), as well as the Brazilian National Coun-cil for Scientific and Technological Development(CNPq) for the Research fellowship of Paulo J.A.Sobral.

References

Abramovay, R. (1992). Paradigmas do cap-italismo agrário em questão-hucitec.Anpocs/Edunicamp-São Paulo-Campinas.

Aguilera, J. M. (2006). Seligman lecture 2005- food product engineering: building theright structures. Journal of the Science ofFood and Agriculture, 86 (8), 1147–1155.doi:10.1002/jsfa.2468

Alves, G. R., Restivo, M. T., & da Silva, J. B.(2015). Special issue on engineering edu-cation: challenges for innovation. EuropeanJournal of Engineering Education, 40 (5,SI), 451–458. doi:10.1080/03043797.2015.1059409

Barbosa-Canovas, G. V. & Ibarz, A. (2002). Unitoperations in food engineering. CRC press.

Batalha, M., Marchesini, M., Costa, M., Berga-maschi, M., Rinaldi, R., & Moura, T.(2005). Recursos humanos e agronegócio: aevolução do perfil profissional (J. Berman& L. Ritchie, Eds.). São Paulo: Novos Tal-entos.

Berman, J. & Ritchie, L. (2006). Competencies ofundergraduate business students. Journalof Education for Business, 81 (4), 205–209.doi:10.3200/JOEB.81.4.205-209

Besterfield-Sacre, M., Cox, M. F., Borrego, M.,Beddoes, K., & Zhu, J. (2014). Changingengineering education: views of us faculty,chairs, and deans. Journal of Engineer-ing Education, 103 (2, SI), 193–219. doi:10.1002/jee.20043

Borrego, M. & Bernhard, J. (2011). The emer-gence of engineering education research asan internationally connected field of in-quiry. Journal of Engineering Education,

100 (1), 14–47. doi:10 . 1002 / j . 2168 -9830 . 2011 . tb00003 . x. eprint: https : / /onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00003.x

Bulmer-Thomas, V. (2003). The economic his-tory of latin america since independence.Cambridge University Press.

Costa, R., Mozina, S. S., & Pittia, P. (2014). Theregulation of food science and technologyprofessions in europe. International Jour-nal of Food Studies, 3 (1). doi:10.7455/ijfs/3.1.2014.a10

Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris,M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Bene-field, P. (2006). The value of outdoor learn-ing: evidence from research in the uk andelsewhere. School Science Review, 87 (320),107–111.

Eccles, J. S. & Barber, B. L. (1999). Studentcouncil, volunteering, basketball, or march-ing band: what kind of extracurricularinvolvement matters? Journal of Adoles-cent Research, 14 (1), 10–43. doi:10.1177/0743558499141003

Flynn, K., Bejarano, B. R., Wahnstrom, E.,Echim, C., & Quintas, M. A. C. (2013).Profile of currently employed europeanfood scientists and technologists: educa-tion, experience and skills. InternationalJournal of Food Studies, 2 (2).

Gair, N. P. (1997). Outdoor education: theory andpractice. Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Guia do Estudante. (2016). Entenda como é feitaa avaliação dos cursos do guia do estudante.Retrieved from http : / / guiadoestudante .abril.com.br/universidades/entenda-como-e-feita-a-avaliacao-de-cursos-do-guia-do-estudante/

Karel, M. (1997). The history and future of foodengineering. Food Engineering 2000, 3–19.

Kasemodel, M.-G. C., Makishi, F., Souza, R. C.,& Silva, V.-L. (2016). Following the trail ofcrumbs: a bibliometric study on consumerbehavior in the food science and technologyfield. International Journal of Food Stud-ies, 5 (1).

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remod-eled: definition, approaches, and ratio-nales. Journal of Studies in International


http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2468http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1059409http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2015.1059409http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.4.205-209http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jee.20043http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jee.20043http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00003.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00003.xhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00003.xhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00003.xhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00003.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/3.1.2014.a10http://dx.doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/3.1.2014.a10http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558499141003http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558499141003http://guiadoestudante.abril.com.br/universidades/entenda-como-e-feita-a-avaliacao-de-cursos-do-guia-do-estudante/http://guiadoestudante.abril.com.br/universidades/entenda-como-e-feita-a-avaliacao-de-cursos-do-guia-do-estudante/http://guiadoestudante.abril.com.br/universidades/entenda-como-e-feita-a-avaliacao-de-cursos-do-guia-do-estudante/http://guiadoestudante.abril.com.br/universidades/entenda-como-e-feita-a-avaliacao-de-cursos-do-guia-do-estudante/

16 Silva et al.

Education, 8 (1), 5–31. doi:10 . 1177 /1028315303260832

Kostaropoulos, A. (2012). Food engineeringwithin sciences of food. International Jour-nal of Food Studies, 1 (2).

Loncin, M. (2012). Food engineering: princi-pals and selected applications. Food scienceand technology. Elsevier Science. Retrievedfrom https://books.google.pt/books?id=YqH1d5FaC20C

Lucena, J., Downey, G., Jesiek, B., & Elber,S. (2008). Competencies beyond countries:the re-organization of engineering educa-tion in the united states, europe, and latinamerica. Journal of Engineering Educa-tion, 97 (4), 433–447. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00991.x

MEC. (2016). Cadastro e-MEC de instituiçõese cursos de educação superior: Sistema e-Mec. Ministério da Educação. Retrievedfrom http://emec.mec.gov.br

Melsa, J. L., Rajala, S. A., & Mohsen, J. P.(2009). Creating a culture for scholarly andsystematic innovation in engineering edu-cation. Journal of Engineering Education,98 (3), 209–209.

Paisley, K., Furman, N., Sibthorp, J., & Gookin,J. (2008). Student learning in outdoor edu-cation: a case study from the national out-door leadership school. Journal of Experi-ential Education, 30 (3), 201–222. doi:10 .1177 / 105382590703000302. eprint: https ://doi.org/10.1177/105382590703000302

Roos, Y. H., Fryer, P. J., Knorr, D., Schuchmann,H. P., Schroen, K., Schutyser, M. A. I.,. . . Windhab, E. J. (2016). Food engineer-ing at multiple scales: case studies, chal-lenges and the future-a european perspec-tive. Food Engineering Reviews, 8 (2), 91–115. doi:10.1007/s12393-015-9125-z

Rychen, D. S. & Salganik, L. H. (2003). Keycompetencies for a successful life and well-functioning society. Hogrefe Publishing.

Saguy, I. S. & Cohen, E. (2016). Food engineer-ing: attitudes and future outlook. Journalof Food Engineering, 178, 71–80. doi:10 .1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.01.009

Saguy, I. S., Singh, R. P., Johnson, T., Fryer,P. J., & Sastry, S. K. (2013). Challengesfacing food engineering. Journal of Food

Engineering, 119 (2), 332–342. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.05.031

Silva, V. L., Sereno, A. M., & do Amaral Sobral,P. J. (2018). Food industry and process-ing technology: on time to harmonize tech-nology and social drivers. Food EngineeringReviews, 10 (1), 1–13. doi:10.1007/s12393-017-9164-8

Skidmore, T. E. (2009). Brazil: five centuries ofchange. New York, NY, USA: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Wood, D. F. (2003). Problem based learning.BMJ: British Medical Journal, 326 (7384),328–330. doi:10 .1136/bmj .326 .7384 .328.eprint: https ://www.bmj .com/content/326/7384/328.full.pdf


http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1028315303260832https://books.google.pt/books?id=YqH1d5FaC20Chttps://books.google.pt/books?id=YqH1d5FaC20Chttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00991.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00991.xhttp://emec.mec.gov.brhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105382590703000302http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105382590703000302https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590703000302https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590703000302http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12393-015-9125-zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.01.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.01.009http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.05.031http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.05.031http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12393-017-9164-8http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12393-017-9164-8http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7384.328https://www.bmj.com/content/326/7384/328.full.pdfhttps://www.bmj.com/content/326/7384/328.full.pdf

International Journal of Food Studies IJFS October 2018 Volume 7 pages 17–29

Food Safety Implementation in the Perspective of NetworkLearning

Zam-Zam Abdirahmana, Leslie D. Bourquinb, Löıc Sauvéea*, and DeepaThiagarajanb

a INTERACT Research unit, UniLaSalle, 60000 Beauvais, Franceb Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University, Michigan, USA

*Corresponding [email protected]

Received: 5 June 2017; Published online: 18 October 2018

Abstract

The food sector frequently faces difficulties in implementing food safety standards. Indeed, there aremany barriers to appropriation of quality management standards which make effective implementationdifficult for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), such as limited access to information, lack offinancing and cognitive resources, food hazard perception, and insufficient access to adequately trainedpersonnel. Consequently, one fundamental objective for practitioners such as managers, public bodiesand development agencies is to help these food SMEs in improving their implementation capacity,which is usually done through the launch of different forms of collective initiatives such as associations,clubs, learning platforms, regional actions and other forms of collaboration. Globally speaking, theobjective of these initiatives typically is to develop a step by step approach providing guidance on goodpractices associated with the implementation of these systems. The objective of the article is to exploreand test the validity of this hypothesis, rooted in a general idea of “organizational network learning”:the capacity of SMEs to adopt new food safety schemes is seen as a whole and necessitates mobilizing,at the same time, 1) formal innovation networks, which bring cognitive resources and institutionalcredibility, and 2) the practice by managers of informal network activities through interactive exchangesof information, benchmarking, knowledge transfer and translation, and experiential learning.

Keywords: Food safety; Implementation; Learning; Network; SME

1 Introduction

In modern agrifood systems, the developmentand effective implementation of food safety andquality management system standards (hereafterFSMS) such as ISO 22000, BRC (British Re-tail Consortium), IFS (International Food Stan-dard) and other similar management standardsis crucial (Scott & Chen, 2010). The food sector,mainly composed of SMEs, frequently faces diffi-culties in implementing these standards. Indeed,there are many barriers to appropriation of qual-ity management standards which make effective

implementation difficult for SMEs, such as lim-ited access to information, lack of financing andcognitive resources, food hazard perception, andinsufficient access to adequately trained person-nel (Trienekens & Zuurbier, 2008).Consequently, one fundamental objective forpractitioners such as managers, public bodiesand development agencies is to help these foodSMEs in improving their implementation capac-ity, which is usually done through the launch ofdifferent forms of collective initiatives such as as-sociations, clubs, learning platforms, regional ac-tions and other forms of collaboration (Abdirah-

Copyright ©2018 ISEKI-Food Association (IFA) 10.7455/ijfs/7.2.2018.a2

http://www.iseki-food-ejournal.com/mailto: [email protected]

18 Abdirahman et al.

man & Sauvée, 2012; Geith, Vignare, Bourquin,& Thiagarajan, 2010; Mensah & Julien, 2011;Trienekens & Zuurbier, 2008). Globally speak-ing, the objective of these initiatives typically isto develop a step by step approach to identify thebenefits of engaging its members in food qualitymanagement programs and providing guidanceon good practices associated with the implemen-tation of these systems. More specifically, theseinitiatives aim to address the following tasks:the enhancement of the awareness in food qual-ity management principles; the selection of ad-equate and competent partners such as consul-tants and coaches; the mobilization of the rele-vant services; the efficiency of the overall coor-dination over time; and the implementation ofsome global managerial recommendations. Nev-ertheless, the underlying hypothesis of these col-lective initiatives is rarely adressed, nor is it an-alyzed and compared in a systematic way. Thishypothesis is rooted in a general idea of “net-work learning”: the capacity of SMEs to adoptnew food quality management schemes is seen asa whole and necessitates mobilizing at the sametime, the following: a) formal innovation net-works, which bring cognitive resources and insti-tutional credibility, and b) the practice by man-agers of informal network activities through in-teractive exchanges of information, benchmark-ing, knowledge transfer and translation, and ex-periential learning.In this context, the aim of this article is three-fold. Firstly, it is to craft an original analyti-cal framework in line with the literature on in-novation networks, managerial innovation, net-work learning and related learning effects, specif-ically devoted to the study of quality manage-ment standards appropriation and implementa-tion. This first part is mainly devoted to theidentification of three categories of so called “net-work effects” that are provided by collective ini-tiatives. The second objective of this article isto apply this framework to specific collective ini-tiatives conducted in two countries (USA andFrance) in order to identify and compare the keyrelevant network effects induced at SME level bythese collective initiatives which occur during theprocess of FSMS implementation by the involvedSMEs. Thus, the research will identify strengthsand weaknesses of these initiatives using a com-

mon grid based upon sound theoretical founda-tions. Indeed, a better understanding of learningprocesses at the individual as well as collectivelevels, both in informal (interpersonal) and for-mal (organizational) relationships, will providinginsights into the major relevant learning prin-ciples and their possible adaptation to specificagrifood system sectors and to different nationalor regional contexts. Finally, we propose someconcluding comments about the managerial im-plications derived from this analysis.

2 Materials and Methods

Yin (2013) case study methodology is followed.The case study is selected with an objective of ananalytic generalization and comparison betweencases. This approach of analytic generalizationis relevant when “a previously developed theoryis used as a template with which to comparethe empirical result of the study”. The researchprotocol in such an approach is based on inter-views, which according to Eisenhardt and Graeb-ner (2007) is a rich source of information andwell adapted when the phenomenon is complex orunknown. Thus, several face-to-face interviewswere conducted. In practice, the data was col-lected from a questionnaire and processed man-ually. Data collection is carried out among fouractors: network coordinator, SMEs (adherentsand beneficiaries of the network), public bodyand consultants (experts). Interviews with SMEsfocused on a number of areas including member-ship motivations and network contributions. Intotal, seven semi-structured interviews were con-ducted: one with the network coordinator (CCIrepresentative), one with the training organiza-tion, one with a consultant of quality and fourwith SMEs. The interviewees within the SMEswere the CEO (three interviews) and a qualityreferent (one interview). The consultant followedthe company for a period of six months in orderto realize a diagnosis, implement an action planand monitor the implementation of the actionplan. The training organization, meanwhile, car-ried out collective training for all companies ofthe collective.This information was augmented by secondarydata about the environment, the quality proce-


Food Safety Implementation and Network Learning 19

dures and the market characteristics relevant tothe case study. The research protocol was con-ducted by the authors and based on extensivediscussions with all members of the initiatives.More specifically, the two case studies followeda strict protocol, with iterative interviews of allthe participants of the initiatives, and completedwith interviews of the SMEs involved in the ini-tiatives through contact with their CEOs andquality managers.

3 Results and Discussions

3.1 Network effects in FoodSafety Management Standard(hereafter FSMS)implementation: emphasizingthe interests of collectiveinitiatives

Based upon a literature review, we consideredthree categories of network effects that are rele-vant to the topic. These effects are categorizedas follows (Abdirahman & Sauvée, 2012):

1. The structural effect which finds its rootsmainly in the structural analysis of net-works;

2. The interactive effect which more specifi-cally questions the idea of a networking ac-tivity that will support the implementationprocess;

3. The cognitive effect which focuses on the im-pact of the time dimension on any network-ing activity, leading to irreversibility, to pathdependency and to the accumulation of newand specific knowledge useful for implemen-tation of FSMS.

3.2 Exploring the structuraldimensions of collectiveinitiatives

For (Conway & Steward, 1998, 2009), the net-work perspective applied to innovation researchhas considerably renewed and extended our

knowledge of innovation processes across differ-ent categories of innovation, including techno-logical as well as marketing and organizationalinnovations. The starting point of the processof structural analysis is to consider any collec-tive initiative, seen as a network, as a combi-nation of actors and relationships (Burt, 2000;Borgatti & Li, 2009). In the structural analysisof networks, the actors are not independent butrather interdependent and influence each other.To take into account the unique situation of eachmember and the network structure as such, thestructural approach combines two complemen-tary perspectives: the global network, that isto say its density, the average distance betweeneach of its members and the existence of sub-sets more or less structured; and the ego net-work, that is to say the situation of an actor (anindividual, a SME) in its environment, its de-gree of inclusion and its mode of insertion intothe global network (Borgatti & Li, 2009, 2009;Coulon, 2005). Another point to be considered isthe evolution over time of the structural aspectsof global and ego networks, which reinforces theimportance of phases in FSMS implementation.Actors are considered as nodes, and relationshipsbetween them as ties. Thus, research on innova-tion, which mobilizes the structural analysis ofnetworks (Coulon, 2005), produces a representa-tion of innovation processes as maps (Conway,Jones, & Steward, 2001) or charts of nodes andrelationships.Consequently, within the FSMS context, twofamilies of components must first be identified:actors and relationships. The identification ofrelationships that these actors have with one an-other is the second component. In line with so-cial network theorists, these relationships can beof several types: continuous (similarities, rela-tionships, interactions, such as common physicallocations and cultural similarities) or discrete (fi-nancial flows, knowledge flows, such as perma-nent exchange of information), directed or not,measured by value or not, and formal or informal(Borgatti & Li, 2009). The systematic processof implementing management system standardssuch as FSMS typically involves two groups ofmajor actors (Abdirahman, Kisempa Muyuala,& Sauvée, 2013; Hatanaka, Bain, & Busch, 2005;Hatanaka, Bain, & Busch, 2006): individuals



(managers and consultants) and organizations(SMEs, standardization bodies such as ISO, theInternational Organization for Standardization,consular agencies, auditors, governmental bodiesand banks). Finally, the network reveals itself, byits structural properties, as facilitating (or hin-dering) the implementation.

3.3 Networking activity withincollective initiatives

When implementing FSMS principles, knowledgetransfer to the organization necessitates the mo-bilization of new cognitive resources and the ac-tivation of formal structures. An analytical ap-proach applied to the implementation of FSMSis, therefore, assumed to provide a better under-standing of the necessary learning processes. ForBoris, Sandra, and Isabelle (2007), the mecha-nistic perspective is an essential step in that ”thetransfer of knowledge, considered as the depen-dent variable, proceeds from an optimal layoutbetween the nature of network and the types ofknowledge. The question is often that of a sys-tematic identification of structural and relationalproperties of the network, as brakes or leversof the knowledge transfer.” However, this struc-tural determinism cannot alone explain the im-plementation process. Implementing FSMS im-plies a set of interdependencies and a permanentadjustment between the actors, their objectivesand the context in question. Thus emerges a vi-sion of co-constructed knowledge. In the end,a more complete representation of the relation-ship between network and organizational learn-ing should show that the network is a ”channelfor learning but, recursively, that the networkis transformed by the learning taking place. Inother words, the network is at least partly con-structed by the learning processes, dynamically,deliberately and in an emergent manner” (Boriset al., 2007).The ambivalent dimension of the network inthe phenomena of innovation is demonstrated byOwen-Smith and Powell (2004), Powell, Koput,and Smith-Doerr (1996), Powell, White, Koput,and Owen-Smith (2005) and Conway and Stew-ard (2009). By distinguishing the network itselffrom the networking event, they show that the

study of the innovation process involves takinginto account both the structural dimension andinteractivity. For Conway and Steward (2009),there is an interaction between the network asa structure and the networking event takingplace in this network, with “on the one hand,the network may constrain or liberate the pat-terns of interaction and exchanges between net-work members; on the other, networking behav-ior may serve either to ossify (i.e. fix) the existingnetwork membership and relationships, or cre-ate a dynamic in the membership and relation-ships within the network” (Conway & Steward,2009). In the FSMS context, mobilizing transfersof knowledge, social networks and learning pro-cesses are involved. Thus, ”the formal structureof network, but also the quality and relationalcharacteristics that are played out, have a roleon the nature of the learning that occurs there”(Boris et al., 2007). According to these authors,simultaneous consideration of structural and re-lational dimensions are necessary, in part, due tothe fact that the individual is demanding of bothresources and information but also demands asense of belonging and social ties.

3.4 Collective initiatives asdrivers of cognitive resources

The implementation of a FSMS goes throughqualitatively distinct stages (Henson &Humphrey, 2009, 2010) with an evolution-ary perimeter of actors involved in the process.These steps are mostly a reflection of the typesof actors mobilized and of their changing statusor role from one phase to another. Therefore,it is necessary to consider explicitly the timedimension and its corollary, namely its influenceover the types of actors involved, and over theprocess of adopting the FSMS. This reflectsthe fact that the implementation is done in thelong run and differentially mobilizes actors andresources. More precisely the time dimensionin FSMS implementation impacts on the degreeand number of involved SMEs and partners,with the idea of threshold effects: as soon asa threshold is reached, for instance in termsof number of consultancy firms involved inthe initiative, a new stage of development is



possible.The corollary of such a time dimension in thelong run is the impact of knowledge creationand accumulation. Consequently, the implemen-tation of a FSMS within a company, with itsdeep impacts on organizational structures andmanagement procedures, requests an originalview of the combination between the imple-mentation process and learning phenomena.Change in organization related to learning is animportant body of literature, stemming mainlyfrom the seminal works of Argyris and Schön(1996) and Levitt and March (1988). Accordingto Pawlowsky (2001) and his extensive surveyof literature on learning, it is clear that “thereare distinct perspectives on organizationallearning that differ in respect to certain basicassumptions”; nevertheless, this author suggeststhat it is possible “to see outlines of a picturethat visualizes basic building stones of anintegrative model of organizational learning”.His review suggests four different dimensionsof learning: system-levels (from individual tonetwork), learning modes (cognitive, cultural,action), learning types (single-loop, double-loop,deutero) and phases (Dierkes, Antal, Child, &Nonaka, 2003).Following Podolny and Page (1998) and authorsin social capital theory (Burt, 2000; Inkpen &Tsang, 2005; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998), we willidentify some characteristics of these cognitiveeffects that are paramount in the understandingof FSMS implementation. The basic idea forthese effects is the fact that at a certain periodof its development, learning processes lead todifferent forms of institutionalization within aformal network, which thus become a kind of“institution”, producing its own rules, norms,values and culture, and aspects themselvesembedded in idiosyncratic resources and skills.In the terms of Powell et al. (1996), the networkbecomes progressively the “locus of innovation”.

3.5 Network effects in FSMSimplementation: synthesisand managerial implicationsfrom a collective initiativepoint of view

The approach developed of FSMS implementa-tion is the delineation of the structural charac-teristics of network, of the characteristics of thenetworking activity and of the network seen asa source of specific cognitive resources (Abdirah-man & Sauvée, 2012). We have seen that thisidea of three categories of network effects finds itssource in the social capital theory (Burt, 2000;Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Inkpen & Tsang,2005) and has already been developed in thecontext of innovation in general (Zheng, 2010)and managerial innovations in particular (Pitsis,2013). Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) for instancedefine social capital as ‘the sum of the actualand potential resources embedded within, avail-able through, and derived from the network ofrelationships possessed by an individual of a so-cial unit, it comprises both the network and theassets that may be mobilized through that net-work”. As suggested by Pittaway, Robertson,Munir, Denyer, and Neely (2004) and Conwayand Steward (2009), the connection has beenmade between the benefits of network and in-novation. But the literature on the role andfunctions of networks on innovation can be ap-proached through at least two interpretations(Conway & Steward, 2009). In the first one, thenetwork is seen as a new way of organizing inno-vation activities, between market and hierarchy:it is thus the governance aspect that is empha-sized. In the second one, the network is not con-sidered per se as a specific mode of organizingactivities benefiting (or not) to innovation. In-stead, it is viewed as a new analytical lens whichis interesting to focus on because it produces awide range of effects, of externalities, that willinfluence the innovation processes. Doing so, thenetwork is tracked via the effects it may produce,as a phenomenon affecting behavior of individu-als and companies.For instance, interaction effects between individ-uals probably will be more important at earlystages of the implementation processes, while



structural dimensions are more predominant inwell-established network relationships. Finally,cognitive effects will be mainly related to the in-stitutionalization of a formal innovation network,especially when it becomes formalized into rules,routines and procedures which also tend to cre-ate path dependency, organizational memory andcommon resources. Through two examples in theUSA and in France, we will show the nature ofthese effects and the necessary conditions underwhich these collective initiatives may be benefi-cial to SMEs.

4 Case study of collectiveinitiatives for FSMSimplementation in the USA andFrance

4.1 In the USA (with globalimplementation): the FoodSafety Knowledge Networkdeveloped by Michigan StateUniversity (MSU)

Beginning in 2008 and in collaboration with sev-eral international partners, Michigan State Uni-versity launched the Food Safety Knowledge Net-work (FSKN) initiative (Geith et al., 2010). Theoverall objectives of the FSKN initiative are to

1. develop internationally recognized compe-tences in relation to food safety for individu-als at all levels and in all sectors of the foodsupply chain, and

2. promote knowledge transfer within the foodsafety community.

The FSKN achieves these aims by harmonizingexisting technical food safety training schemesthrough the development of the competencies offood safety professionals, recognized by interna-tional stakeholders, both from the public and theprivate sectors.The FSKN is a collaborative platform that pro-vides free access to high-quality, standardizedlearning resources in a highly scalable manner.To that end, all content (cognitive resources) is

shared on the internet as Open Educational Re-sources (OER) under Creative Commons licens-ing via the FSKN web portals. The FSKN usesopen source tools and openly-licensed materi-als encouraging development of derivative worksthat only require attribution to source and shar-ing under similar license as standardized FSKNcontent. This approach enables other users tocustomize, translate, and localize content for spe-cific audiences or sectors of the food industry,and share these derivative works through eitherthe MSU FSKN portals or their own web sites.Beyond content development, the FSKN initia-tive utilizes formalized training delivery mech-anisms (e.g. face-to-face training, eLearning,blended learning) as well as coaching and men-toring of participants on effective strategies forimplementing food safety management systems.The FSKN approach has been pilot-tested in anumber of countries in collaboration with nu-merous partners from the food industry (indi-vidual companies and associations), developmentagencies, academic institutions and other ser-vice providers (Heyboer, Kim, Bourquin, & Thi-agarajan, 2010). The specific approach has var-ied somewhat from country to country, but ingeneral the target audience for capacity devel-opment has been small-and medium-scale sup-pliers (both primary producers and food proces-sors) who are seeking to execute sales contractswith multi-national food retailers or other high-value markets within their country, or to engagein regional or distant trade of their products tomore discriminating markets. Gaining access tothese higher-value markets (both domestic andexport) requires the suppliers to reach a muchhigher level of sophistication with respect to foodsafety and quality management systems, and ul-timately the execution of sustainable contracts inthese markets requires certification of the foodsafety management systems that are being im-plemented by these suppliers against recognizedinternational standards.



Organizational level

The FSKN project engages a wide variety of or-ganizations in accomplishing its mission. As theleader of the FSKN initiative, Michigan StateUniversity (MSU) and the faculty leading the ef-fort are principally focused on the creation andtransmission of knowledge to improve the com-petitiveness of primary producers (i.e. farmers)and SMEs in less-developed countries. Beyondimproving food safety systems implemented bythese suppliers, another long-range objective ofthese efforts is to improve the livelihoods of farmfamilies and front-line workers in these less de-veloped businesses.Content development in the FSKN initiative isguided by international standards, with pro-grams being delivered on international foodsafety guidelines adopted by the Codex Alimen-tarius Commission managed by the Food andAgricultural Organization of the United Nations(which are recognized as the de minimis foodstandards in member countries of the WorldTrade Organization) and other programs focusedon helping suppliers meet the expectations of in-ternational private food safety standards such asthose benchmarked by the Global Food SafetyInitiative (GFSI). Individuals from several GFSI-member companies have participated in contentdevelopment for the FSKN since its inception,and engagement with public sector food stan-dards representatives (e.g. UN agency represen-tatives or individual governments) has been en-couraged where possible.Content delivery in the FSKN project typicallyhas been conducted by MSU researchers in part-nership with academic institutions based in thecountries where training occurs. The partneracademic institutions are essential to the effectivedelivery of the content for local clientele becauseof the ability to deliver the training and men-toring in local language(s) and also because oftheir capabilities to localize the content with re-spect to local practices and cultural norms. It ispreferable for MSU to work with local academicinstitutions in this manner as they share a sim-ilar culture of academic inquiry and knowledgedissemination. These collaborations also have ahigh likelihood of sustainability over the longerterm.

The beneficiaries of the capacity development(e.g. farmers or processing establishments andtheir employees) may self-select for participa-tion in these capacity development programs,but more commonly they are identified as poten-tial or existing suppliers for multinational com-panies (either for the domestic market or ex-port) who are in need of training and mentor-ing on the development and implementation ofinternationally-recognized food safety manage-ment systems. Many of the participating ben-eficiary farmers or manufacturers also are mem-bers of cooperatives or other food industry as-sociations, which often work collectively to ad-dress key challenges such as compliance with foodsafety and quality standards. The multinationalcompanies are motivated to identify suppliers forparticipation in these programs for a variety ofreasons, but chiefly it is to help ensure the over-all safety and quality of products sourced fromthese suppliers and, therefore, serves to protectthe brand of these multinationals.A variety of service providers also have engagedin the FSKN project since its inception. Thesehave included third-party certification bodieswho provide food safety certification, organiza-tions offering food traceability support, equip-ment suppliers, sanitation services organizations,chemical suppliers, and providers of other ancil-lary services to farms or food processors.Finally, several donor organizations, UN organi-zations and other NGOs have participated in orcontributed to the FSKN initiative since its in-ception. Donor organizations such as the UnitedStates Agency for International Development(USAID) and the World Bank have provided fi-nancial support for FSKN development and de-livery of programs. In addition, organizationssuch as the United Nations Industrial Develop-ment Organization (UNIDO) and the Interna-tional Finance Corporation (IFC) of the WorldBank Group have utilized FSKN-created mate-rials in their own development projects that arefocused on food safety capacity development ina number of countries. For the FSKN initia-tive, organizations such as UNIDO and IFC havebeen continuously engaged throughout the pro-gram. These collaborations have been critical tothe successful implementation of FSKN and itsdissemination to several economies outside the



US.Clearly, the FSKN initiative has engaged withand benefitted from this large number and vari-ety of international partners. Each has been crit-ical to the successful implementation of FSKNand dissemi

Documents

International Journal 7 - Issue 2.pdf · International Journal of Food Studies The International Journal of Food Studies (IJFS), a journal of the ISEKI_Food Association, is an international