At the Intersection of Science and Sustainability: A Qualitative Study of Food Scientists’ Personal and Professional Perspectives

Abstract

Although sustainability has become a priority in the food industry, few studies have analyzed the roles of food scientists in the development of sustainable products. Prior research has primarily focused on other food system professionals, creating a gap in understanding how food scientists conceptualize and implement sustainability. Therefore, this study examined the perspectives of 22 food scientists related to personal and professional sustainability practices. A qualitative research design using semi-structured interviews was implemented to uncover insights from food scientists with diverse professional backgrounds. Data analysis followed a thematic model informed by scholarly frameworks. The data indicated that food scientists assume a complex role in enhancing sustainability, as they are usually seen as problem-solvers, innovators, and advocates in their respective organizations. The results highlighted participants’ perceptions on environmental goals, cost limitations, regulations, market innovations, role of organizational culture, interdisciplinary collaboration, and ongoing professional education in enhancing sustainability practices. The analysis resulted in five overarching themes: (1) Environmental Impact and Food Waste at Home; (2) Sustainability Awareness at Work; (3) The Role of Processed Foods and Preservation within the Food System; (4) Barriers, Trust, and Perceptions of Corporate Sustainability; and (5) Lack of Advocacy and Need for Change.

1. Introduction

Food sustainability is a major 21st-century challenge requiring shifts in production, consumption, and policy [1]. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emphasizes reducing waste, improving renewable resource use, and protecting the environment [2], while the Food and Agriculture Organization highlights environmental, social, and economic factors as central to sustainable food systems [3]. The Institute of Food Technologists, a global professional organization representing food scientists, technologists, and food industry leaders, adds that progress depends on addressing resource inefficiencies, strengthening production resilience, and reducing food loss and waste across the supply chain in response to climate change [4,5].

Despite these goals, implementation faces barriers such as regulatory constraints, climate change, supply shortages, and shifting consumer preferences. With global food demand expected to rise by at least 70% by 2050, sustainability will require improved production methods, adoption of sustainable resources, and technological innovation [6]. Key strategies include enhancing farming practices, supporting policy development, and making sustainable products more accessible. Collectively, these efforts can reduce waste, conserve resources, and lower environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions [2,3,4,7].

The food industry spans manufacturing, ingredient production, food service, and retail, with food scientists and technologists playing key roles across this system [8,9]. Food science underpins innovation by applying chemistry, microbiology, and engineering to ensure food quality, safety, and nutrition. This supports a global network of manufacturers such as Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Unilever; ingredient and flavor companies including International Flavors and Fragrances (IFF), Symrise, Ingredion, Givaudan, DSM-Firmenich, and the Kerry Group; and product innovators like Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat, and Kite Hill, alongside food service chains such as McDonald’s, Chick-fil-A, and Taco Bell, all of which rely on advanced technologies to produce, improve, and deliver sustainable food products [8,10]. Building on this system-wide role of food science across manufacturing, ingredient production, retail, and food service, it becomes important to consider how these technical and industrial functions are increasingly situated within broader societal sustainability expectations.

Recent literature and institutional reports emphasize that agri-food systems must balance environmental protection with social equity to meet future food needs, requiring coordinated collaboration among scientists, policymakers, and industry stakeholders [4,6,7]. Within this framework, food scientists potentially play a key role in driving sustainable innovation through product development and research, though they face challenges such as aligning sustainability with social responsibility, ethical decision-making, and corporate and consumer priorities [6]. Sustainable food systems are broadly defined as balancing environmental, economic, and social factors, though current practices often fall short.

As sustainability concerns increasingly shape priorities across the agri-food sector, the literature has not clearly demonstrated that the responsibilities of food scientists have expanded beyond product innovation and food safety to include broader environmental and social considerations tied to long-term food system resilience. The potential of expanding their roles reflects a broader shift within the agri-food sector toward integrating sustainability principles into research, production, and policy initiatives aimed at addressing complex global food system challenges [8,10]. Despite extensive literature on sustainability challenges, employee advocacy, and food system innovation, limited attention has been given to food scientists’ own perceptions of sustainability. Existing research has largely focused on farmers, students, educators, and consumers, and while broader conceptual discussions of sustainable practices exist, food scientists’ individual and professional perspectives remain underexplored [11,12,13,14]. For example, it has been suggested that food science students should be exposed to the socioeconomic and multidimensional nature of sustainability issues [12]. Food scientists also have been identified as being well positioned to support sustainable solutions through its engagement with environmental, social, and economic dimensions [15]. However, to the present investigators’ knowledge, this proposition has not yet been empirically substantiated, thereby highlighting a significant gap in the current literature. The present study addresses this gap by examining food scientists’ attitudes and behaviors toward sustainable food practices across both personal and professional contexts, as well as the factors that shape their engagement in sustainable practices at home and at work.

Given food scientists’ central role in food product development and manufacturing, understanding their views is important for identifying barriers and opportunities for implementing sustainability in the food industry. The present research addresses this by exploring the challenges and opportunities related to implementing food sustainability in workplace settings, linking home practices with organizational contexts to better understand the potential for food scientists to have an evolving role in sustainable food systems.

Therefore, the overall objective of this study is to understand how food scientists conceptualize sustainability and incorporate it into their personal and professional decision-making.

2. Literature Review

Despite growing recognition of sustainability, food companies face significant internal and external barriers, including poor coordination, cultural differences, high costs, weak regulations, AI integration challenges, supply chain complexity, and skills gaps [16]. Cultural barriers include limited awareness of consumer preferences, economic constraints, linear corporate models, and strategic uncertainty [17]. Financial challenges, such as low consumer trust in sustainable products, managerial misconceptions, lack of expertise, high prices, and weak performance evaluation, further hinder progress [18,19].

Sustainability is also shaped by consumption patterns. Diets high in ultra-processed foods contribute to environmental strain, including greenhouse gas emissions, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, and packaging waste [20,21]. Intensive livestock production and ultra-processed foods require more resources and generate higher emissions than plant-based or minimally processed diets, while plant-based diets reduce energy use and biodiversity impacts [20,22]. Addressing these issues requires circular production, reduced waste, and more sustainable consumption, alongside managing population growth, rising consumption, and reliance on imported, resource-intensive foods [20,21,23].

Balancing sustainability with cost-effectiveness and competitiveness remains a major challenge. Achieving this requires integrated strategies including cost analysis, innovation, efficiency improvements, stakeholder collaboration, clear sustainability goals, leadership commitment, supplier engagement, technological advancement, and workforce training [24]. While these efforts can reduce emissions, improve resource use, and minimize waste, sustainable food systems remain constrained by interconnected technological, social, educational, and organizational challenges [24].

Technological advances in food science and manufacturing are increasingly recognized as key enablers of sustainable food practices, with growing academic and public interest in sustainable innovation [25]. Emerging technologies including artificial intelligence, machine learning, drones, robotics, automated vehicles, and gene-based tools such as biofortification and genome editing, enhance nutritional quality, water efficiency and supply chain management [26,27,28]. Across the food system, these innovations are applied by manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, to improve food quality, sustainability outcomes, and food security [8,9,29]. However, technology alone is insufficient, as its impact is constrained by barriers such as unequal access, unclear data ownership, governance challenges, behavioral limitations, restrictive regulations, controversial technologies, slow market adoption, limited understanding of consumer preferences, inadequate legislation, and organizational rigidity, underscoring the need for integrated policy frameworks, education, and cross-sector collaboration [26,27,30,31,32].

Taken together, these constraints illustrate that technological innovation, while necessary, does not automatically translate into systemic change without corresponding shifts in organizational practices, governance structures, and professional roles. Within this broader context, food scientists are increasingly expected to participate in public discourse and policy development to ensure that innovation aligns with societal values [6], given that their work influences product development, food safety, environmental impacts, and consumer health. Despite this, their capacity to shape a food system that balances nutrition, affordability, and environmental sustainability remains limited [29,33,34].

Prior research highlights constrained roles for food scientists in advancing social responsibility, including improving sustainability awareness, reducing food waste, enhancing packaging, educating consumers, and developing resource-efficient alternatives. Although organizational transparency is often emphasized, persistent knowledge gaps and uncertainty continue to hinder progress. Food scientists are also framed as having ethical responsibilities to minimize harm to consumers, the environment, and biodiversity, supported by calls to integrate ethical principles into food system practice [35,36,37,38,39]. However, it remains unclear how and when food scientists will fully acquire the competencies needed to implement effective sustainability strategies. This gap is particularly evident when considering how food science education and early career pathways are structured in practice.

After earning a degree in food science, many graduates begin their careers in a variety of roles, including food safety and quality assurance, product development and research and development (R&D), sensory evaluation, food engineering, research, and technical sales. In manufacturing settings, common positions include quality assurance roles, technician positions, and sensory evaluation. Sensory scientists, in particular, design and analyze tests to help develop new ingredients or products. Because of the technical and research-focused nature of these roles, companies often prefer candidates with advanced degrees in food science, especially for research positions. However, training in advocating for sustainable change is rarely included in food science education, nor are the skills typically expected for industry positions [16,18,40].

Employee advocacy within organizations generally remains underexplored, particularly regarding the influence of corporate social responsibility, which has been widely studied in relation to consumer advocacy but less so in food-related sectors [40]. However, increasing recent attention is being given to the role of professionals as advocates at the intersection of environmental sustainability and food systems, highlighting their potential to drive sustainable practices. Evidence suggests that employees who perceive their organizations as socially responsible are more likely to promote and defend them, particularly when supported by strong supervisor relationships [40]. Existing research emphasizes that internal communication plays a key role in fostering advocacy behaviors, with strategies such as transparency, openness, positive messaging, employee empowerment [41]. This is significant, as employees influence brand visibility, organizational reputation, and public relationships through their interactions and expressed sentiments. Advocacy can be further strengthened through alignment with business goals, clear policies, engaging content, and interdepartmental collaboration [41,42].

The present research adopts a phenomenological approach and draws on Stake-holder Theory to examine food scientists lived experiences and perspectives on sustainability, with particular attention to how these perspectives shape their engagement with sustainable practices [43,44]. Stakeholder Theory has been widely applied in organizational sustainability research, emphasizing that firms create or diminish value not only for shareholders but also for a broad range of stakeholders, including customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and the environment. By foregrounding these diverse interests, the theory responds to longstanding critiques of corporate behavior, such as profit maximization, unethical practices, and unsustainable production systems, by promoting a more ethical, long-term, and holistic approach to organizational decision-making [44].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Recruitment

The participants of this investigation were U.S.-based food scientists recruited from national and international companies, organizational lists, attendance at industry events, suppliers’ seminars, personal emails, and publicly accessible professional networking platforms. Participants were recruited purposefully based on predefined criteria, which included a minimum of 5-years working in the food industry, willingness to participate, and working for a prominent local, national, or international food technology, food manufacturing, ingredient or flavorist company. These criteria have been used to make sure that all participants had firsthand and pertinent experience of the phenomena being studied.

A purposive sampling strategy was utilized to recruit participants to gain the most pertinent data that directly answers the research question. Recruitment was conducted from February 2025 to January 2026 through a multi-stage process, using email invitations via professional networks [45], and designed to achieve diversity in organizational size and role type within the industry. The final sample consisted of 22 scientists who worked in a variety of organizations, including start-ups and local companies, medium-sized national companies, and large multinational firms. This distribution reflected the diversity of the industry and allowed for a better understanding of how organizational size, resource availability, and operational complexity shape scientific work [46,47]. Demographic information included gender, years of professional experience, size of the organization, and primary job role. See

Table 1. Participants’ Demographic Data.

Participant Code	Gender	Age	Race	Ethnicity	Total House-Hold Income	Highest Level of Education	Company Classification	International Operations	Role	Experience
EE05	M	60+	Other	Non-Hispanic	Prefer not to answer	Master’s	Food technology	Yes	Product development	35+ years
PP16	M	26–59	White	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	Master’s	Ingredients and additives	Yes	Other	16 to 25 years
TT20	F	26–59	White	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	Master’s	Food production and manufacturing	Yes	Marketing, Technician, and Sales	5 to 15 years
LL12	F	26–59	Caucasian	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	Master’s	Ingredients and additives	Yes	Other	16 to 25 years
KK11	F	60+	White	Non-Hispanic	Prefer not to answer	Master’s	Ingredients and additives	Yes	Other	35+ years
FF06	M	60+	Caucasian	Non-Hispanic	$76K–$96K	Master’s	Other	Yes	Flavorist	26 to 35 years
UU21	M	26–59	Other	Hispanic	>$96K	Master’s	Chemical manufacturing	Yes	R&D	5 to 15 years
VV22	F	26–59	Black or African American	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	PhD	Ingredients and additives	Yes	R&D	5 to 15 years
QQ17	F	26–59	White	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	PhD	Food production and manufacturing	Yes	R&D	16 to 25 years
GG07	F	26–59	Caucasian	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	Master’s	Flavors and fragrance	Yes	Other	16 to 25 years
BB02	M	60 or over	Caucasian	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	PhD	Others	Yes	Product development	26 to 35 years
OO15	F	26–59	Other	Hispanic	>$96K	Bachelor’s	Food production and manufacturing	Yes	Other	5 to 15 years
CC03	F	26–59	Caucasian	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	Master’s	Ingredients and additives	Yes	Marketing, technician, and sales	26 to 35 years
DD04	M	60+	Caucasian	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	Doctorate	Ingredients and additives	Yes	others	35+ years
NN14	M	60+	Caucasian	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	Master’s	Other	Yes	Marketing, technician, and Sales	35+ years
HH08	F	26–59	Caucasian	Non-Hispanic	Prefer not to answer	Master’s	Ingredients and additives	Yes	Marketing, technician, and sales	16 to 25 years
RR18	M	26–59	White	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	Master’s	Food production and manufacturing	No	Product development	5 to 15 years
II09	F	Prefer not to answer	Caucasian	Non-Hispanic	Prefer not to answer	Master’s	Food production and manufacturing	Yes	Product development	5 to 15 years
JJ10	M	60 or over	White	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	PhD	Other	Yes	Other	35+ years
XX13	M	60+	Caucasian	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	Bachelor’s	Food production and manufacturing	Yes	Flavorist	26 to 35 years
ZZ19	M	26–59	Asian	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	Bachelor’s	Flavors and fragrance	Yes	Other	5 to 15 years
WW01	M	26–59	Asian	Non-Hispanic	>$96K	Master’s	Food production and manufacturing	Yes	Product development	5 to 15 years

: Participants’ Demographic Data for more information. The research was approved by the university’s IRB # FY23-24-3304.

The participants were informed that participation was voluntary, and their data would be kept secure and confidential, as their identifiers were coded. Then, the participants signed consent forms. The interviews were conducted either via Zoom, a one-to-one phone interview, or in person and lasted approximately 45–65 min. All interviews except one were conducted on Zoom due to personal preference, companies’ privacy policies and other restrictions. In addition, the researchers felt that a meeting at the workplace may hinder the ability to obtain candid perspectives. Participants were assigned different codes to anonymize all audio recordings. The researchers transcribed the audio recordings and analyzed them using in NVivo 15 software [48].

The study design corresponds to Blatter’s epistemological approach, which emphasizes generating knowledge tailored to the research question and grounded in established social science protocols [49]. The interview method was informed by Miller & Rollnick’s conversational model for Motivational Interviewing (MI), which empowered participants to draw out their own meanings; and the Iterated Questioning Approach (IQA) developed by Robinson and Schulz, which was designed to elicit multiple forms of responses based on Goffman’s theory of “frontstage” and “backstage” self-presentations [50,51,52]. This approach was employed to help to distinguish corporate performative responses from actual participant perceptions. Overall, the methodology was structured to identify relevant data and organize it into a coherent analytical framework [49].

During the interview, participants responded to semi-structured prompts adapted from previously validated instruments enabling a systematic exploration of relationships and meaning patterns [53,54,55,56]. The prompts and follow-up probes were organized into topics such as individual sustainability experiences and beliefs, sustainability practices, and environmental sustainability concerns. Each participant’s involvement was treated as equally important [57,58]. This practice allowed the researchers to see the key information that stood out and to note similarities between participant ideas and responses.

The interviews began with basic, open-ended, grand tour questions such as, “What does food sustainability mean to you and to your company? What does unsustainable mean to you?” Follow up question examples included “How do you influence your company to produce more sustainable products in the market,” and “What are the obstacle’s that can hinder you and your company to change to more ecological, sustainable food products in the future.” Food scientists were asked to explain their personal perspectives of sustainability and then explain how this comports with their professional experiences in the field. For instance, they were asked opinions as food consumers and then discussed whether their sustainable practices are being employed at their jobs.

Field notes and reflexive memos were recorded during the Zoom and the in-person meeting to document impressions, tones, and initial analytical perceptions. Following Robinson and Schulz’s Iterated Questioning Approach (IQA) model, interviews were structured from formal to informal topics and from public to private reflections to uncover authentic meanings and enhance the validity of the findings. The researchers also engaged in ongoing reflexivity, examining how their assumptions, expectations, and interactions might shape interpretations. These steps were especially important for interviewing seasoned professionals, as they helped reduce impression management, the tendency to present oneself in a favorable light, thereby increasing confidence that responses genuinely reflected participants’ perspectives [51,58].

3.2. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed primarily using the frameworks of Braun and Clarke and de Farias et al., with additional guidance from Lincoln and Guba, Patton, Tisdell et al., and Leech and Onwuegbuzie [57,59,60,61,62,63]. Analysis included keyword identification (e.g., practical, cost, values, scientific), discourse analysis, and categorization of themes such as environmental issues, policies, product development, packaging, and consumer preferences. Hierarchical and structural analyses distinguished between personal and professional perspectives, revealing broader influences on attitudes and behaviors. Researchers conducted an iterative process of reading, coding, categorizing, and interpreting transcripts, beginning with repeated readings to identify patterns of meaning. Descriptive and interpretive codes were developed without predefined assumptions to enhance validity, then grouped into categories and organized into overarching themes and sub-themes, which were refined and visually mapped alongside a detailed codebook. Inter-rater review of transcripts by two researchers was conducted independently to resolve discrepancies and ensure consistency [64]. An audit trail documented coding decisions, thematic development, and methodological reflections to ensure rigor and transparency.

Code and meaning convergence were monitored throughout data collection, which continued until no new codes or meanings emerged, indicating that thematic saturation had been reached [63,65,66,67,68]. This was achieved by the 22nd participant, when emerging redundancy was observed in statements concerning the distribution of responsibility between consumers and corporations, levels of sustainability awareness, cost-related barriers, ineffective messaging, and perceived limited influence. This point was defined not only by repetition in responses (“heard it all”), but also by the researchers’ full comprehension of underlying meanings (“understood it all”), consistent with Hennink et al.’s model of meaning saturation [67,68]. This determination was further reinforced through iterative analysis and confirmation of thematic meaning agreement during final follow-up sessions and telephone interviews with participating food scientists.

In addition, the data were interpreted through the framework of Stakeholder Theory, which provides a way of understanding how food scientists perceive their organizations’ efforts to balance sustainability within a broader system that includes organizations, consumers, and the environment. Within this framework, organizational barriers, financial constraints, and perceptions of corporate sustainability were understood as outcomes of competing stakeholder pressures. Likewise, discrepancies between personal and professional sustainability practices were interpreted as reflecting tensions between individual values and organizational priorities in the food industry [44].

4. Results

Five major themes were identified that influence perceptions of sustainability: Environmental Impact and Food Waste at Home; Sustainability Awareness at Work; The Role of Processed Foods and Preservation Within the Food System; Barriers, Trust, and Perceptions of Corporate Sustainability; and Lack of Advocacy and Need for Change. The themes represent food scientists’ personal and professional attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors about sustainability, as well as different obstacles that hinder them and their companies from moving towards more ecologically sustainable food products in the future. Quotations are presented verbatim, only edited to reduce redundancy. Figure 1, based on the qualitative interview data, outlines the impact chain connecting food scientists’ views to sustainable practices in the food industry. Sub-themes were also identified that reflect nuances in participants’ responses. The themes and sub-themes are discussed below.

4.1. Theme 1: Environmental Impact and Food Waste at Home

Participants shared a general consensus (n = 22) about the importance of environmental sustainability, as it emerged as an important concern at home, particularly in terms of proper packaging, food waste, and consumer responsibility. Many of the food scientists (n = 15) reported composting, recycling, and repurposing leftover food. While there were participants (n = 14) who professed conscious sustainable decisions when they purchase food product. For example, as one scientist professed:

As a consumer, we have a vote in the grocery store by the choices we make, and that’s where we can really make the change. We can look at packaging, how things are packaged and think about, is that responsible? We can purchase and make conscious decisions or just become more educated about those choices.

(XX13)

In addition, many participants (n = 12) discussed their household waste and active efforts to reduce the waste such as repurposing leftovers and composting (n = 15). For instance, as one scientist described:

Yeah, I’m pretty careful with that, actually  my family eats leftovers. We try and compost as much organic food waste as we can. As a family of four, we’re putting out, like, max two bags of trash a week. I am still making food, plenty of food waste because I’m just putting things that we don’t get around to eating into the compost. But I try to minimize that.

(GG07)

However, this became a daunting task for one scientist who decreased these activities due to a number of other responsibilities:

I used to do more of it than I do now. Since I’ve had a kid, I used to make my own marinara sauces and jellies and jams. Like if I go apple or strawberry picking or raspberry picking, I would make my own jellies. And then when I get tomatoes from neighbors, then I’d make marinara sauces and can or jar those. But I don’t do much of it anymore just because lack of time.

(VV22)

A different perspective was presented (n = 2) situating sustainability as a societal or collective effort for choosing the correct product and packaging materials:

I think in terms of, you know choosing the right products and choosing the right packaging materials and having a commitment to recycle and perhaps even composting food waste. You know, a single individual isn’t going to make a difference. If everybody were committed to that, I think it could make a difference.

(KK11)

Some respondents (n = 8) had also identified difficulties in the balancing food purchasing decisions among biodegradable packaging, shelf-life limitations, and food safety choices.

4.2. Theme 2: Sustainability Awareness at Work

All participants (n = 22) had their own professional interpretation of sustainable practices, though it was unclear whether their broad interpretations are being fully implemented at their companies. Moreover, some participants (n = 11) articulated that there is still a gap in consumer awareness, as consumers may not know the difference between sustainable and unsustainable products. Seven scientists (n = 7) highlighted that food sustainability requires minimizing the environmental impact of supply chains, acknowledging the inherent complexity of these processes. They noted that sustainable and unsustainable practices may occur at any stage of the food supply chain, with examples including the reduction of carbon emissions, the use of environmentally friendly raw materials, and the minimization of waste. One scientist described sustainability as

reducing our carbon footprint, minimizing our global gases, minimizing waste, you know, stepping delicately in everything that we do.

(II09)

While another emphasized the need for companies to move at a slower pace and exert less pressure on the environment and the need to reduce emissions, as was expressed:

Minimize coming from very far away and trying to minimize the footprint of those ingredients.

(WW01)

Similarly, one participant argued that sustainability should be based on efficiency:

So, being able to produce something as efficiently as possible without you having an extended carbon footprint.

(VV22)

Moreover, when discussing unsustainability, two respondents highlighted the impact of industrial agriculture and deforestation. For example, unsustainability was defined as:

wasting food or practices such as growing palm oil and cutting down forests to be able to grow palm trees, and that, to me, is unsustainable.

(BB02)

Or:

[Unsustainability is being:] Wasteful, inconsiderate, abundance of unnecessary ingredients in packaging.

(II09)

The need to advance product packaging and preservation technologies to achieve greater sustainability was strongly articulated (n = 15), but is problematic as stated:

You have issues with product packaging that, on one hand, you’re trying to make things more biodegradable…but you have to look at the cost and how the cost affects profitability.

(JJ10)

The difficulties of managing food waste were mentioned not only for consumers but for retailers and manufacturers, as follows:

Some of that is still quite nutritious, edible and shouldn’t be dumped or pulled off the shelf because you can’t pass [a] particular shelf-life date (JJ10). I mean, from a manufacturing perspective, I think most manufacturers really you know, food waste is money out the door. I think that people try to be mindful of waste. Regardless, if there is waste, I don’t know how we manage it. I know in our R&D lab, we don’t have, like, a separate stream for composting. It all just gets dumped.

(HH08)

In sum, the professional opinions of food scientists demonstrated that sustainability and unsustainability are understood differently and are confounded by differing interpretations of environmental impact, food waste, improper production, cost and overall sustainability awareness.

4.3. Theme 3: The Role of Processed Foods and Preservation Within the Food System

Many participants (n = 6) considered their professional expertise, their personal experience, and broader public needs when describing processed foods as a complex concept. Their descriptions (n = 5) were mixed without a clear consensus on the beneficial attributes of processed foods. Responses (n = 8) articulated no obvious opposition to processed foods, but the food scientists (n = 9) acknowledged the practicality of processed foods in current food systems while also noting the possibility of future health effects and excess. They should be consumed in moderation, as was mostly reported, with some exception:

Try to avoid them [processed food] at all costs. However, as a food scientist, I tend to produce them. So, I hope that people eat them in moderation and consider a well-balanced diet. On my position on processed foods, I think they hold a place in society because of shelf life and shipping and transportation, but I also try to eat as healthy and natural and close to the earth as I can.

(II09)

Many food scientists (n = 11) agreed that people do not need to avoid processed foods entirely, as consumers can balance it with natural foods:

The more natural that people eat, it’s probably the better. Although even natural, you have to watch out for certain things like, again, the levels of nutrients. Some natural foods are probably not the best either. And if the processed foods, don’t have any of the artificial ingredients that we talked about before, then it’s fine.

(QQ17)

Several respondents (n = 10) were concerned about quality and costs in the food system and how they affect sustainability efforts. Furthermore, participants (n = 13) addressed a complex understanding among their colleagues about what processed food means to sustainable practice. For instance:

I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding about what a processed food is. The definition could mean many, many things to many people. In fact, there is no specific definition to processed foods from my perspective of food science, food engineering.

(LL12)

This same scientist professed that “processed and engineered foods” contribute to a sustainable environment by:

Help [ing to] insulate our sustainable food, by creating foods that have longer shelf life that can be nutritionally supplemented.

(LL12)

In summary, the respondents discussed processed foods by their advantages, on low prices, shelf life, and food systems, as well as paying attention to moderation and balance. They accepted trade-offs between quality and cost, especially at an institutional level, and have characterized attempts to balance personal values with professional roles. Though, any disadvantages of processed foods on a sustainable ecology were hardly discussed.

4.4. Theme 4: Barriers, Trust and Perceptions of Corporate Sustainability

Participants discussed sustainability practices at their organizations, highlighting issues with barriers to sustainability. Food scientists (n = 11) were concerned regarding communication and their company’s struggles to understand consumer perceptions during the process of planning more sustainable food products. Many respondents (n = 18) emphasized that while cost was an obstacle for corporate sustainability, companies must also effectively communicate sustainable practices to consumers. For example, one participant balanced the cost hurdles for sustainable products with the company’s ethical outlook:

I would say the main one that comes to mind is cost because cost is always the big one that shuts things down immediately. Outside of cost, I’m struggling to understand whether consumers do genuinely care about sustainability… If the company can’t communicate it on a package on a product, then why would I use this ingredient if nobody’s going to know that it’s sustainable? And that comes down to morals and so how moral a company can be or not is really dependent on each company.

(OO15)

Similarly, another respondent highlighted the challenges as fears of “greenwashing” and “greenhushing” (or the underreporting of sustainable goals to avoid public attention) has led some companies to remain silent about sustainability goals. While, on the other hand, labelling transparency signals credibility, as was explained:

Right now, companies are avoiding messaging that communicate[s] sustainable [practices] just because of a lot of the greenwashing that was happening. Companies now are, like, greenhushing. [Conversely] if I see, for example a brand that on the back says working with farmers or supporting farmers, then that’s a good indication that it’s a sustainable brand. For example, even like logos for international programs like Rainforest Alliance give me a good indication that they’re investing money in sustainability.

(QQ17)

The food scientists generally believed their companies are engaged in sustainable practices, with some exceptions. For instance, when participants were asked if they trusted their own company’s sustainable claims, the responses were as follows: Yes (n = 16), no (n = 2), mixed (n = 1), and did not answer (n = 3). None of the scientists indicated the presence of corporate mandates to bring these attributes to the job (n = 6). Others did not view their companies as sustainable at all (n = 3). Several participants noted that responsibility for sustainability was often shifted to partner organizations that purchased their products (n = 5), while one expressed only a limited understanding of their companies’ sustainability practices (n = 1). Statements of trust were exemplified by one scientist who stated:

[I trust them] 100%. I feel my company’s DNA is [sustainability]. You know, sustainably is part of that.

(XX13)

While some others had more mixed feelings:

Tough question. No. When they walk the walk, when they actually show new packaging that is compostable, I totally believe them. When they drag their feet on some things because it’s too expensive or too complex. I’m a little more jaded.

(II09)

Additionally, the respondents (n = 18) discussed the importance of using fewer natural resources in food production such as water and land. For example, one of the food scientists articulated how their companies benchmark their sustainability performance:

Well [in our company], the strategy [is] in terms of using less land, using less resources when it comes to the water usage, using a kind of a controlled environmental agriculture program versus just having farmland, etc.

(RR18)

Another participant described that their company addresses sustainability through specific sourcing programs. For example:

So, we have products that comply with sustainability programs (QQ17) depending on the region where food is being sold.

Ultimately, cost, lack of consumer awareness, and poor communication were a few of the barriers to sustainable food products that were described by participants. Labels and corporate internal and external trust issues contribute to the product development and purchase decisions. Sustainability was either clearly practiced or inconsistently integrated into corporate values.

4.5. Theme 5: Lack of Advocacy and Need for Change

Participants emphasized the need for industry-led innovation to drive meaningful improvements in food sustainability although they often were not engaged in these changes themselves. For example, one participant recommended:

educating the current and new product formulators to create a more conscious product using better formulas to improve the new products [to be more sustainable] and impact people’s life better.

(UU21)

However, when asked about their personal influence in making products more sustainable, one scientist (out of many similar participant responses (n = 11) reported:

I don’t have much influence since the portfolio is already well established.

(RR18)

Another respondent also emphasized the need for his company’s to be more ethically responsible, while expressing confusion about compliance to federal government standards:

Well, I think that, you know, large food companies, big CPGs [consumer packaged goods providers], need to be ethically responsible. Especially that now, we have, you know, pretty major changes in the federal administration. I support that, I just don’t know what we’re facing as we move forward.

(EE05)

The need for future-oriented solutions and education about genomics and alternative food sources, was also expressed:

I think there needs to be increased education, understanding of the benefits of genetic [modification for] our plants, our farming methods. I think there needs to be significant investment in truly understanding the benefits of engineered foods with food scientists, nutritionists, and people in that realm and engineers are able to craft something that is [environmentally] healthy for you. But from my perspective, I really see the power in genomics [and] alternate food sources that may be non-traditional but offer nutritional benefits such as seaweeds and untapped resources, often considered to be weeds and waste. What can we do with our waste streams? I think that’s really a compelling perspective.

(LL12)

Overall, the findings indicate increasing awareness of sustainable food practices in both personal and professional contexts. However, while some participants felt they could contribute to organizational change, few identified clear avenues for advocacy. Standout findings included a notable disconnect between food scientists’ proactive personal sustainability behaviors, their more constrained professional roles, and their limited agency within corporate sustainability decision-making. A few “outlier” comments also suggested skepticism that some company sustainability efforts may rely on selectively presented data, and that industry initiatives promoting “clean” or natural ingredient labels might inadvertently convey the impression that these food products are inherently less wholesome. More expected findings included cost-related constraints and hierarchical organizational structures that restrict their ability to advocate for change.

In summary, many participants (n = 11) mentioned the necessity of innovation in the industry, accountability, and education to enhance food sustainability. Food scientists were optimistic that genetic modification and alternative sources of food were the solutions to the problem but also recognized structural and economic barriers that reduce their individual influence.

5. Discussion

Across the identified themes, food scientists consistently expressed experiential and practical perspectives on food production. While demographic and professional characteristics including race, ethnicity, household income, job role, and the range of food companies were included to demonstrate the breadth and representativeness of the sample, these attributes did not appear to influence or alter the study’s findings or thematic outcomes. The need to balance processed foods was placed in a wider sustainable economic, technological, and social context in which food systems are currently established. Some respondents analyzed the concept of sustainability as a common responsibility that is informed by consumer practices, corporate interests, cost patterns, and regulatory environments. While the food scientists’ professional definitions of sustainability were broad, they still believed it was a multi-level, complex issue that requires the coordination of industry and consumer relationships. The summary presented in Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between the thematic elements (on the left) and their actual and proposed actions for sustainable food products (on the right). In their daily lives, several respondents reported being highly conscious of their “decisions and choices” regarding food consumption, expressing willingness to pay more for sustainable products and a commitment to “minimize impacts” on the environment in their professional roles. This awareness of sustainability issues shaped their perspectives; however, translating these concerns into organizational action remained unclear, particularly given that the participants did not report receiving formal sustainability mandates from their organizations. Some scientists also described balancing the consumption of processed and unprocessed foods, which informed their view that food products should “balance nutrition with shelf life.” While acknowledging the practical necessity of preservation, participants nevertheless emphasized the need to improve these methods to enhance sustainability. Within this context, perceptions of food quality were closely linked to attitudes toward processed foods and preservation practices in the broader food system.

Although food scientists generally expressed trust in their companies’ sustainability efforts, they raised concerns about corporate “communications and the credibility” of messages conveyed to consumers. Despite offering several professional recommendations for improvement, many participants reported a “lack of influence” in corporate decision-making processes. (See Figure 2 for the relationship between themes and scientists’ proposed actions for sustainable food products.)

The findings of this study contrast from those of the limited prior research on this topic. For example, Liu et al. found that employees who believe their organizations engage in corporate social responsibility are more willing to promote and defend their organization [40]. Most respondents in the present study indicated that they trusted in the sustainability activities and promises of companies that they are employed in, although they had little influence in promoting sustainable practices.

Stakeholder theory offers a framework for examining organizational sustainability by emphasizing that business decisions impact and are accountable to a wide range of stakeholders, including customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and the natural environment, rather than focusing solely on corporate profit [44]. It promotes ethical, long term, and holistic decision making in response to critiques of short term, profit driven, and unsustainable corporate practices [46].

Within this framework, the data were assessed to explore how food scientists perceive their own and their organizations’ efforts to balance sustainability within a broader system of organizational, consumer, policy, and environmental demands. While most of the interviewed food scientists professed an understanding and application of sustainable food practices at home, their influence on their organizations’ sustainable policies was protracted. Organizational barriers, financial constraints, and perceptions of corporate sustainability were interpreted as outcomes of competing stakeholder pressures, while differences between personal and professional practices reflected tensions between individual values and organizational priorities. So, it appears that the scientists’ positionality on food sustainability has been influenced by a balance of interactions with family, peers, and their organizations, as well as by their own lifestyle outlook.

Although prior research suggests that transparent communication fosters employee engagement with sustainability goals, participants of this study reported that communication within their organizations was often limited or inconsistent [41]. Many indicated they lacked sufficient information about sustainability initiatives, reducing their ability to actively contribute to or advocate for such practices, contrary to recommendations in the literature [42]. Participants emphasized the need for clearer organizational goals, stronger administrative support, and greater interdepartmental collaboration to improve sustainability outcomes, yet noted persistent difficulty in translating these priorities into practice. These findings align with broader literature highlighting a disconnect between sustainability, resilience, and business models, as well as the limited integration of sustainable value into organizational strategy as corporate sustainability typically focuses on efficiency [69,70,71]. Sustainability is often treated in the industry as external to core operations, with dominant economic priorities taking precedence. Consistent with prior studies, participants identified key barriers including high costs, uncertain consumer demand, and limited internal knowledge and resources constraining sustainable food production [18,19]. Financial considerations were frequently described as overriding environmental priorities, while additional challenges included ineffective communication, misalignment between stated values and actual practices, unclear responsibilities, and rigid corporate structures.

Overall, the findings indicate that economic pressures, communication gaps, and fragmented accountability continue to constrain the effective integration of sustainability into organizational strategy and operations in the food production industry.

6. Implications

This study highlights important considerations for the future of sustainability in the food industry. There is a growing awareness among food scientists that sustainability is becoming an integral part of professional practice. As research in food science continues to expand, new technologies and innovations are expected to play a key role in minimizing environmental impacts while ensuring food safety, quality, and accessibility. Developments in sustainable packaging, alternative protein sources, and improved food preservation methods are likely to be critical in advancing more sustainable food systems.

Importantly, food scientists must have a voice in the development of sustainable food products. Their advocacy involves actively promoting values, practices, and choices that support long-term environmental and social sustainability. It is especially crucial at the institutional level, where coordinated efforts are required to integrate sustainability into organizational norms, decision-making processes, and daily operations [72,73]. Key enablers of advocacy include education, training, and access to sustainability knowledge, which build confidence and competence among employees [73]. Moreover, incorporating ethical education in food science curriculum at universities will make future food scientists more likely to address the challenges more effectively [35]. Education, governance, and organizational support are critical for empowering them to champion sustainability, enabling advocacy behaviors that drive systemic change, improve public health, and reduce environmental impacts [73]. Supportive work environments could encourage employees to advance sustainability initiatives, whereas poor management can hinder such efforts. There is a need for transparency and consumer education to help promote sustainable food systems. Food scientists in collaboration with their administrators can advance this change through facilitating the use of clear labeling, communication related to sustainable ingredients and production techniques, and compliance with corporate sustainability initiatives [73].

7. Limitations

This research prospectively indicates that there is a need to build organizational support toward sustainability efforts. However, this study was limited, as the participants do not completely represent the very broad composition of the food science and food manufacturing industries. The responding food scientists only provided their own personal opinions that do not necessarily comply with each of their company’s practices or outlooks. In addition, some participants sought to confirm that the study was confidential and may have been hesitant to fully disclose information about their companies.

Future research could modify the present study design to elicit different data. For example, a focus group of three or four food scientists would allow them to talk amongst each other to generate new insights and discuss innovations. Researchers could also consider implementing a similar study in diverse regions of the United States to identify any localized variations in perspectives.

8. Conclusions

In conclusion, sustainable food systems will likely rely on the joint actions of various stakeholders, such as researchers, educators, policymakers, food producers, retailers, and consumers. Venues that bring together these constituents will likely promote the mutual understandings of food sustainability issues that will enable progress in this area. Sustainability will demand a global effort to overcome food waste, the lack of resources, and the destruction of the environment. This change will require scientific innovations with responsible business conduct and informed consumerism. By integrating stakeholder interests, organizations can better manage competing demands, enhance legitimacy, and support sustainable outcomes [44]. Food scientists will remain important in developing solutions that contribute to environmental sustainability as well as the resilience of the food industry in the long term.