A Comparative Analysis on the Performance of AM

against Conventional or Traditional Manufacturing

Practices in the Food Industry
ESTHER OJOKOJO

Goal and Scope

Primarily responsible for provision of nutrition, one of the most important factors for survival, the food
industry is a crucial sector of the human society. Research and innovation into ways to keep this industry
at the apex of its’ abilities have resulted in a delving into various technologies preconceived to be
impossible to reconcile with. One of these technologies is 3D printing. Additive Manufacturing (AM) or
3D Printing is an innovative, relatively young and interdisciplinary technique in manufacturing. It is a
process that attempts to create 3 dimensional parts by gradual addition of the material as opposed to
the conventional methods which are mostly subtractive in nature. In sectors of the food industry, like
creation or manufacture of the food processing implements, actual printing of edible food items,
packaging of food items, AM can be introduced to improve or supplement some processes.
Implementation of 3D printing in the production of edible food results in a term known as food printing.
This paper presents an analysis on the implications and impacts of food printing procedures against the
traditional procedures in the food industry.

Introduction
The pioneering application of AM in food processing done in 2007 by researchers from Cornwell
university [1] proposed a method in which they used the Fab@home open source kit to explore the
possibilities of optimizing food printing with chocolate. The operation followed an extrusion system
based on Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) developed by Crump [2]. Following this, various companies
have designed machines for different applications in the food industry and a lot of studies and research
have gone into the techniques that can adapt AM to the design of food constructs [3]. MakerBot’s
Replicator, DeGrood Innovations’ FoodJet, 3DSystems ChefJet and CocoJet consumers’ printer, RIG’s
FoodForm 3D robot, Foodini by Natural Machines [4] are some of the examples of 3D printers currently
in application.

Traditional Food Manufacturing Techniques

Traditional food processing or manufacturing techniques are dependent on the item to be produced and
its’ raw material. The conversion of raw materials into finished goods involves 3 basic steps: Raw
material preparation, processing and packaging. The steps each have a variety of sub stages each of
which have their required equipment set. Meat preparation is done largely by automated equipment
specific to the industry and the intended application of the animal produce. The processing stages also
depend on the intended food item. Some common processes carried out on meat are cutting/chopping
or grinding, mixing, curing, stuffing, heat treatment amongst others. The processes involved in plant
produce differ completely. They include washing, chopping, sorting, adding preservatives amongst
others. Processing of dairy products include pasteurization, separation, drying, mixing and cheese
making. Basically, depending on the desired product, a host of different techniques need to be applied.

AM Technologies Currently in Use in The Food Industry

Based on the materials used for the different types of food items produced, different technologies are
implemented in the industry. [5] Powder-bed fusion using Selective Laser Sintering(SLS) is carried out on
in the production of food items with sugar and crystalline materials as its base. Binder jetting is used to
produce foods based on sugar as well and on protein powders. The deposition of liquid-based materials
is done by extrusion using FDM processes. The table below gives a summary of the AM techniques,
those currently in use for food printing and the materials available for each of them.
Table 1 Classification of Available Food Manufacturing Techniques

AM category Commercial Technology Food Materials

Powder-Bed Selective Laser Sintering(SLS), Liquid Powders: Sugar, Nesquick, amongst others
Fusion Binding, Hot-air Sintering
Material Fused Deposition Modelling Liquid-based materials: Chocolate, processed
extrusion cheese, meat puree, doughs
VAT Stereolithography Liquid-based materials: Eggs White, Package
polymerization
Sheet Lamination Laminated Object Manufacturing N/A for food
Material Jetting 3D printing- InkJet Printing Powders: Sugar, Protein Powders
Directed Energy N/A for food N/A for food
Deposition
Material Jetting PolyJet N/A for food
Source: [5], [6]

Material Extrusion

The FDM based method developed by Crump [2] is the most common AM technique used in food
printing. The system incorporates the use of a moving nozzle to extrude the liquid-based materials in a
continuous form fusing it to the proceeding layer on cooling. Research on the viscosity of the materials
deposited to allow extrusion and stability of the structure formed post deposition. Extrusion based
processes have been explored by TNO to produce a wide variety of foods using essential food
constituents from alternate sources. In a partnership with an Barilla, TNO has presented the
manufacture of 3D pasta using classical pasta recipes and ingredients. [7]

Powder-Bed Fusion

In SLS, a laser is used as a power source to sinter powder particles. Directing the laser at points pre-
determined by a CAD file builds up the food structure. By scanning cross-sections, areas of the powder-
bed are fused together. The quality of the produce generated by this method is greatly determined by
the interaction of the laser and the particles. TNO has also incorporated this technique in producing
powder-based 3D food items. [3]
Material Jetting (InkJet Printing)

InkJet Printing is based on the accumulation of materials deposited on demand by inkjet printing
nozzles. A technology for dispensing a liquid in layers was developed by Grood et al. [8] This technology
was commercialized by DeGrood Innovations’ in their production of FoodJet, a 3D printer that typically
uses chocolate, liquid dough and other liquid-based materials available for its’ food item production

Impact of AM in The Food Industry

3D printed food has the bulk of its applications and advantages in 2 different market levels [9]:
customized home-made food and small scale industrial production like in shops or restaurants and
bakeries. The most impactful advantage of AM in the food industry is the opportunity for mass
customization it provides. Food can be designed and fabricated to meet individual needs based on color,
texture, nutritional content and others [6].It can enable a precise control of a person’s diet and the
nutritional requirements of people that may face different health challenges and cater to specific needs.
Researchers are currently on track to find a way to harness the possibilities of 3D printing options for
people with dysphagia and other neurological disorders like dementia[10]. Personalized meals for the
aging population are already in practice[11]. Biozoon Food Innovations, in their PERFORMANCE project
produced what they refer to as “smooth food”, an innovative way of using pureed food to create
familiar looking foods that retain their aesthetic and nutritional value for the elderly and people with
mastication problems. Combining the essential components of food and their properties when exposed
to a lot of factors is of major concern to researchers of this technique.

Another advantage of the implementation would be the simplicity of the supply food chains. The
demand for individualized products will call for a shift and reorganization in the research and
development sector, the logistics, asset management, demand signals, and more. Shifting
manufacturing directly into the kitchens additionally improves the time requirements for each of the
individual traditional manufacturing steps, thereby reducing overall time. All these shifts would result in
customized food products brought to consumers in a shortened time reducing overriding costs and
acceptable prices of the produce itself. [4]

Figure 1 Traditional Vs 3D Printing Supply Chain [12]

Another opportunity provided by this implementation is the possibility of the use of alternative or
unconventional sources for food. According to Dr. Jason Clay, Senior Vice President for Market
Transformation at the World Wildlife Fund:
 “We have to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000. By 2050 we’re going
to have to produce twice as much food as we do today. We need to find a way to do this more sustainably.
The biggest threat to the planet is to continue producing food in a business-as-usual fashion.” [13]

Sources of food is one of the major problems of this industry. Because of the exponential growth in
population, global food reserves are depleting as there is a corresponding increase in the demand for
food. 3D printing, shortens and makes the production of food easier allowing the manufacturing
systems to focus more on the sourcing of new materials to be used to supplement the available ones to
ensure continued food production. These sources may be unconventional in nature but rich in nutrients.
AM may allow the combination of materials to produce more nutritious food supply sources.

Analysis
There are several bases for comparison of the impact or performance of AM to that of traditional
manufacturing in the food industry the summary of which is given in the table below.

Materials Costs Equipment Total Time to Skill

Used Required consumer Requirements
Traditional Limited High Multiple different Long Expertise and
Manufacturing Supply Amount of equipment High skill
costs
AM Unlimited Lower Smaller number Significantly Little or no
Supply amount of of equipment shorter skill
costs requirements
Table 2: Comparison of Impacts of Additional and Traditional Manufacturing

Based on Costs

In figure 1, a basic comparison of the supply chains of both traditional and AM is shown. The traditional
manufacturing comprise costs associated with of each of the stages shown. The stages as explained
earlier, have their required equipment set. The machine costs associated with each of the equipment
must be put into consideration. Costs incurred during the distribution, storage and retailing must be
accounted for. Labor costs although not accounted for in the supply chain need to be put into
consideration as well as the costs associated with the transportation of the product between each of the
stages. Because of the reduced supply chain associated with AM technologies, most, if not all the stages
and the costs associated with them would be removed resulting in a reduced overall cost of production.

Based on the Materials Used

AM techniques explores the use of unconventional and alternate sources of food rich in nutrients, but
which were unable to be processed with traditional manufacturing techniques. As a result, AM has a
more infinite and unlimited food supply as compared to traditional techniques. Insects, algae [14] have
been identified as an admissible source for the materials needed for the 3D printing of food. In this
respect, additive can be used to compliment traditional methods because there is still a limitation on the
types of foods that can be 3D printed. Ways to print foods with their base in ingredients like rice and
other food materials that are largely consumed by people daily have yet to be found by researchers and
as a result, the food printing of such items is low. Additionally,
Equipment Required and Time to Consumer

Traditional manufacturing of food items involves a varied number of steps depending on the product or
food item to be manufactured. These steps require the use of various machinery and equipment. With
AM, these steps are skipped making the need for these equipment unnecessary. Additionally, with the
removal of all the intermittent steps, the overall time to consumer is greatly shortened, making
customer satisfaction very timely.

Skill Required

Traditional manufacturing in the food industry requires specific skill and expertise in the creation of
specialized food items. The skillset required with AM is virtually nonexistent as the recipes can be
downloaded and simply sent to the printer for production. The drawback of this is the fact that skilled
personnel run the risk of losing their means of livelihood as the printers would be able to perform the
same functions they do. An additional disadvantage of this is the issue of copyright infringement. Users
of 3D printers can replicate original works by importing files that carry the culinary knowledge and
artistic skills of the designers of the products. Copyright holders will have a hard time of protecting their
rights and businesses producing unique goods may suffer.

The table below, presents a SWOT analysis of food printing

Table 3: SWOT Analysis of Food Printing

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

High Customization of Food Post Processing Eco-friendly materials Lack of cost assessment tools to
designs compare with traditional
methods
Customization of nutritional Food Textures Special sector needs
Content
Simplified food Supply Chains Unconventional
sources of food

Conclusion
The impact of the implementation of AM in the food industry will depend greatly on the intended
application. AM can play a very important role in the mass customization of food items. The cost for said
highly customized items will be much lower using AM because it will be a lot easier to convert
conceptualized patterns or designs of the products into actual physical food items. Additionally, the use
of unconventional sources or ingredients will widen or increase the food supply, a great advantage in
keeping up with the teeming population. AM techniques cannot completely replace the traditional
techniques because there are still some applications for which they cannot be implemented. As such
they can be used to complement the traditional techniques.
References

[1] D. Periard, N. Sachaal, M. Sachaal, E. Malone and H. Lipson, "Printing Food," in 18th Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium, Ithaca, 2007.

[2] S. S. Crump, "Fast Precise Safe Prototypes with FDM," American Society of Mechanical
Engineers,Production Engineering Division PED, pp. 53-60, 1991.

[3] J. V. DIAZ, M. W.-J. NOORT and K. J. C. VAN BOMMEL, "Method For The Production Of An Edible
Object By Powder Bed (3D) Printing and Food Products Obtainable Therewith," Google Patents,
2015.

[4] J. Sun, Z. Peng, W. Zhou, J. Y.H.Fuh, G. S. Hong and A. Chiua, "A Review on 3D Printing for
Customized Food Fabrication," Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 1, pp. 308-319, 2015.

[5] F. C. Godoi, S. Prakash and P. B. R. Bhandari, "3d Printing Technologies Applied for Food Design:
Status and Prospects," Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 179, pp. 44-54, 2016.

[6] C. Pinna, L. Ramundo, F. G. Sisca, C. M. Angioletti, M. Taisch and S. Terzi, "Additive Manufacturing
applications within Food industry: an actual overview and future applications," in Conference: XXI
Summer School Francesco Turco - Industry 4.0 Creating, 2016.

[7] K. V. Bommel, "3D Food printing: The Barilla Collaboration," in Crisp Conference, 2014.

[8] J. P. W. D. Grood and P. J. D. Grood, "Method and device for dispensing a liquid," Google Patents,
2009.

[9] J. I. Lipton, M. Cutler, F. Nigl, D. Cohel and H. Lipson, "Additive Manufacturing for the food
Industry," Trends in Food Science and Technology, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 114-123, 2015.

[10] J. Sun, Z. Peng, L. Yan, J. Y. H. Fuh and G. S. Hong, "3D food printing—An innovative way of mass
customization in food fabrication," International Journal of Bioprinting, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 27-38,
2015.

[11] M. Kueck, "The PERFORMANCE Project- Towards 3D printing of Food," Brussels, 2017.

[12] C. Çetinkaya and E. Özceylan, "Impacts of Additive Manufacturing on Supply Chain Management,"
in Proceedings of the 13th International Logistics and Supply Chain Conference pp. 649-657, ˙Izmir,
Turkey, 2015.

[13] A. Phillips, "What Does 3D Printing Have To Do With Food Scarcity And Climate Change?," 2013.

[14] J. Luimstra, "The Future: a 3D Printed “Insects” Meal," 2014.