Is Food Processing R&D Too Small and Too Fragmented to Matter?
Context
India has enormous ambitions for food processing.
We want to reduce post-harvest losses, increase farmers' incomes, create rural employment, improve exports, develop MSMEs and FPOs, and make India a major global food processing economy.
Government has consequently invested thousands of crores in food parks, cold chains, processing infrastructure, testing facilities, subsidies and credit-linked schemes.
But behind all this infrastructure lies a surprisingly basic question:
Who is developing the technologies that India's future food processing industry will use?
India certainly undertakes food research.
Research takes place within CSIR institutions, ICAR institutes, NIFTEMs, IITs, Agricultural Universities, Central and State Universities, engineering colleges, biotechnology institutions and several other organisations.
Some excellent scientists and researchers work within these institutions.
The problem is not that nothing is happening.
The problem is that the effort is too small, too scattered and too fragmented to create the technological impact that an industry of this size requires.
________________________________________
A ₹100 Crore Question
India's food processing sector generates economic activity running into lakhs of crores and supports millions of livelihoods.
Yet, if we try to identify money actually available annually for food processing research and technology development—after salaries, buildings, administration and institutional overheads are removed—the total dedicated expenditure may not even comfortably cross ₹100 crore.
Even this small amount is not available under one mission.
It is scattered.
₹2 crore somewhere.
₹5 crore somewhere else.
A university project here.
An ICAR project there.
A CSIR laboratory working on another subject.
A Ministry scheme funding a few projects.
A professor pursuing something because it happens to be his or her research interest.
Every individual activity may be worthwhile.
But collectively, where is the national technology mission?
An industry of this scale cannot build technological leadership through hundreds of disconnected, small research efforts.
________________________________________
Research Without Critical Mass
This fragmentation creates another problem.
Research needs critical mass.
Developing a commercially successful food processing technology may require food scientists, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, automation specialists, microbiologists, packaging experts, fabricators and finally an industry partner.
One institution may have food scientists.
Another may have excellent mechanical engineers.
Another may have pilot plants.
Another may understand automation.
Industry understands the actual commercial problem.
But rarely are all of them brought together around one clearly defined technology challenge with adequate funding, timelines and commercial responsibility.
Consequently, we produce research.
But do we produce enough machines, technologies and processes that entrepreneurs can actually buy and use?
That should perhaps become the real measure of success.
________________________________________
Are We Researching the Right Things?
Food research also needs a rethink in priorities.
India does not necessarily need hundreds of laboratories inventing another biscuit, beverage, pickle, health mix or snack.
Indian civilization already possesses extraordinary food knowledge and thousands of foods, recipes, ingredients and processes.
Our bigger technology gap is elsewhere.
We need engineering.
We need affordable machines.
We need automation.
We need energy-efficient processing.
We need small-capacity preservation technologies.
We need intelligent sorting, peeling, cutting, separation, drying, extraction, evaporation, fermentation and packaging systems.
And most importantly, we need these technologies at Indian scales and Indian costs.
________________________________________
The Missing Middle of Food Processing Technology
Large food companies can import a ₹5 crore or ₹50 crore processing line.
A small entrepreneur cannot.
At the other end, manual processing remains available.
What India is missing is the enormous space between these two.
Consider some very ordinary examples.
Can somebody wanting to produce only 100 loaves of bread per day buy a compact automatic bread-making line?
Can a milk cooperative handling 500 litres per day buy a small evaporation system?
Can we develop an affordable machine that efficiently removes arils from pomegranates?
Can we separate seeds from custard apple pulp without destroying the pulp?
Can litchi be mechanically deseeded at small commercial scale?
Can citrus fruits be peeled economically?
Can crushed lime and lemon be processed while automatically separating their seeds?
None of these sounds like space science.
Yet each can create an entirely new processing opportunity.
India probably has hundreds of such unsolved everyday technology requirements.
________________________________________
Research Should Start With the Problem
Perhaps we also need to reverse the traditional R&D process.
Instead of:
Research → Paper → Technology → Search for Industry
we should increasingly begin with:
Industry Problem → Technology Challenge → Research Team → Prototype → Commercial Machine
Ask an FPO what machine it cannot afford.
Ask a small processor where labour becomes a bottleneck.
Ask a fruit processor what operation still has to be performed manually.
Ask a dairy entrepreneur what technology becomes uneconomical below 10,000 litres.
Ask a spice processor where quality is lost.
Ask equipment manufacturers which imported technology they have been unable to indigenise.
Within months, India could probably create a database of 500–1,000 genuine technology challenges.
That itself could become the research agenda.
________________________________________
Proposition: National Food Processing Technology Mission
India should consider creating a dedicated:
National Food Processing Technology Mission
It should have its own identity, budget, technology targets and measurable outcomes.
An initial annual allocation of ₹500 crore would still be modest considering the economic size of the industry.
But instead of distributing this money thinly across hundreds of unrelated projects, the Mission could identify perhaps:
100 Priority Food Processing Technology Challenges
and build multidisciplinary teams around each challenge.
Universities, IITs, NITs, ICAR, CSIR, NIFTEM, private engineering companies, equipment manufacturers, startups and food processors could compete or collaborate to solve them.
Funding could follow the problem rather than the institution.
________________________________________
Salient Features
The Mission could work differently from conventional research programmes.
Problem-led research: Technology requirements should emerge substantially from farmers, FPOs, MSMEs, processors and equipment manufacturers.
Indian scale: Technologies should be designed around Indian production volumes—not simply smaller copies of European mega-plants.
Commercial outcome: A working commercially manufacturable machine or process should matter more than another research paper.
Multidisciplinary teams: Food scientists should work alongside mechanical, electrical, electronics, automation and packaging specialists.
Industry participation: Equipment manufacturers should become research partners from the beginning rather than being approached after technology development.
Modular design: Wherever possible, equipment should be available at different capacities and expandable as the enterprise grows.
Open technology challenges: Universities and startups across India should be able to compete to solve identified problems.
Time-bound development: Each challenge should move through concept, prototype, pilot testing and commercialization within defined timelines.
Technology repository: Successful designs, manufacturers and commercial installations should become part of a nationally accessible database.
________________________________________
Measure Research by What Reaches the Factory
The ultimate measure of food processing R&D should not merely be:
How many projects were sanctioned?
How many research papers were published?
How many seminars were organised?
How much grant money was utilised?
A much more meaningful question is:
How many technologies developed through public R&D are commercially operating in Indian food processing enterprises today?
That one question could completely change the orientation of the research ecosystem.
________________________________________
Expected Outcome
A serious national technology mission could create effects far beyond food processing.
Hundreds of new technologies could become available to MSMEs and FPOs.
Small processors could automate operations that are presently labour-intensive.
Farmers could process commodities much closer to where they are produced.
Post-harvest losses could decline.
New food-processing enterprises could become viable at much smaller scales.
India's dependence on imported equipment could reduce.
Engineering companies and startups could build an entirely new Indian food machinery industry.
Universities would gain real industrial problems for students and researchers to solve.
And public R&D expenditure would begin producing visible economic assets rather than remaining scattered across institutions.
________________________________________
The Bigger Question
India has already demonstrated what focused national missions can achieve in areas such as space, biotechnology, digital technology and renewable energy.
Food processing deserves similar ambition.
The problem is not absence of intelligence.
The problem is not absence of institutions.
The problem may not even be absence of money.
The problem is that our research effort is too small, too fragmented and insufficiently connected to the everyday technology needs of Indian food businesses.
India is hoping to invest thousands of crores in building food processing capacity.
Perhaps it is time to ask:
Are we investing even ₹100 crore in inventing the technologies these factories will need tomorrow?
Team Hello Kisan
Note: Through stakeholder consultations, Team Hello Kisan has already begun identifying nearly 100 small and modular food-processing technologies urgently required by MSMEs, FPOs and rural entrepreneurs. This list can be shared and expanded through wider industry consultation.
Team Hello Kisan
