Desperately Seeking Food Scientists

On the heels of last month’s ode to my alma mater’s food science department, a new report prompts me to revisit the theme of food science. Written by Naveen Chikthimmah, Ph.D., instructor of food science, and John Floros, Ph.D., professor and head of the Department of Food Science (and not coincidentally, president- elect of IFT), The Pennsylvania State University, University Park (Food Technology, March 2007; 61:3), it outlines the current dearth of food science students and the implications for the future of our industry. The authors point to declining enrollment, scarcity of qualified scientists and solutions--mostly academic--to increase the pool of food scientists.

I have a few other suggestions that fall more on the industry side of the equation. Basically, it needs to place more value on the profession. While I’m painting with a broad brush, these attitudes are prevalent enough to be valid considerations.

On one hand, for those of us holding a food science degree, the lack of talent might be a good thing: Supply and demand dictates that salaries will increase as companies compete to attract the best and brightest from a limited pool.

While it won’t create six-figure starting salaries, it may supply greater impetus for people to enter the field or to remain in it. Some of the best food scientists I know have moved out of science and into the business end often marketing and sales to ratchet up their income. That’s all good there’s something positive about a business person who “gets” science (hooray for “thinking outside of the box,” but at some point you can’t transcend the laws of nature)  except, it siphons off some key capability. And while new recruits are good, realizing the high value of retaining a grizzled veteran’s knowledge base seems to be catching on in business.

While many scientists get labeled with the starry-eyed geek stereotype, the majority tend to be practical problem solvers. That’s why they studied food science vs. quantum physics in the first place. Many not all of them possess abilities and are more than qualified to hold management positions.

As for that starry-eyed geek contingent, since basic research seems to sink lower and lower on industry’s budgetary priority list every year, their true talents are being squandered. Indeed, a certain spouse of mine in a different industry who happens to be a scientist-turned-businessperson reports his company makes a few bucks by licensing patented technology.

In addition, there tends to be a somewhat perplexing trend to replace food scientists with chefs that somehow have attained rock-star status by donning a toque. (No hate mail from that sector, please: I said “replace.” I consider industrial chefs smart, talented artists and invaluable teammates, and believe a research chef with scientific understanding is a pearl of great price.) But if all the powers that be wanted were products containing butter and eggs and the like, why did they ask us to take them out in the first place?

In short, perhaps one additional strategy to keep enough high-caliber food scientists in the pipeline is to stop looking at them as if they were Rodney Dangerfield and don’t “give them no respect.”