Advances in 3D food printing technology: innovation and applications in the food industry

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) food printing technology is rapidly emerging and offers endless innovation opportunities for the food business. The introduction of 3D food printing technology is transforming the food industry and providing new perspectives on food innovation. This technology allows for complex food compositions, customized nutritional options, and innovation, such as alternative meat and organoids. The potential of remote and automated food production opens up new possibilities for future food production. This review aims to provide an update on the field by highlighting the different technologies used in 3D food printing and their advantages and challenges. To this end, this review explores the integration of 3D food printing to address nutritional foods and 3D cell culture challenges. By providing a comprehensive introduction to current knowledge, this review provides valuable insights into the revolutionary impact of 3D food printing on the food industry and paves the way for future developments and applications.

Introduction

Three-dimensional (3D) food printing, an emerging application of additive manufacturing (AM), has transformed the way edible products are designed and produced by enabling the layer-by-layer deposition of edible materials based on digital models. This innovative technology involves depositing edible ingredients layer by layer and building a three-dimensional structure based on a digital model or design (Jiang et al., 2019; Lee, 2021). The fusion of culinary arts, engineering, and materials science is fundamental to the development and application of 3D food printing technology (Gulzar et al., 2023). Additive manufacturing (AM), a broader term that includes 3D printing, encompasses a variety of technologies that create objects by adding material layer by layer. In the context of food, additive manufacturing involves creating edible items by incrementally adding food ingredients. This approach can improve customization, nutritional management, and overall efficiency in food production (Demei et al., 2022). 3D food printing offers benefits such as streamlining the supply chain, custom molding, personalizing nutrition, and expanding the range of available food sources (Vancauwenberghe et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2022a). The diverse applications of 3D food printing have beneficial impacts on social, environmental and economic factors, supporting the achievement of nine Sustainable Development Goals (Hai Alami et al., 2024).

Additive manufacturing (AM) enables the creation of complex models without the need for traditional tools like molds, dies, or cutting machines (Sun et al., 2015a, b). Originally applied in industries such as automotive, architecture, and healthcare, AM has also found use in food production, allowing for the creation of intricate culinary designs (Annoni et al., 2016; Dunham et al., 2018). 3D food printing offers a digital, automated method for producing aesthetically pleasing foods with desirable textures, consistency, and enhanced nutritional content (Prakash et al., 2019). The primary goal is to create individualized, visually appealing, and nutritionally optimized foods with complex shapes that are difficult to achieve through traditional methods (Dankar et al., 2018a, b). Advanced techniques like multi-nozzle extrusion allow for the fabrication of products with varying textures, colors, and geometries (Voon et al., 2019). Although 3D food printing has applications in industries like healthcare and packaging, more research is needed for broader adoption in food production (Varghese et al., 2024). The technology also contributes to waste recycling by transforming waste into appealing, familiar food products, increasing consumer acceptance (Wong et al., 2022). Its growing use in the food and pharmaceutical sectors signals a promising future (Kuo et al., 2022).

While promising, 3D food printing technology faces several challenges that hinder its widespread adoption. Key issues include a limited understanding of ingredient interactions in multi-material systems and difficulties in balancing rheological properties for optimal printability. The long-term stability of printed foods, particularly texture and nutritional composition, remains uncertain (Agunbiade et al., 2022). Scalability is a major concern, as current printers are slower and less efficient than traditional food processing methods, raising questions about their economic viability for large-scale operations. The environmental impacts of 3D food printing are not fully understood, and comprehensive studies comparing life cycle impacts to traditional manufacturing are lacking. While the technology offers potential benefits such as precise portion control and sustainable ingredient use, more research is needed to address these unknown areas and limitations (Attarin & Attaran, 2020; Baiano, 2022). Overcoming these challenges is critical to realizing the full potential of 3D food printing in commercial and industrial applications.

However, a 3D bioprinter that uses only pressure on extruded materials has been developed to apply 3D printing to the life sciences field. This printer can print not only low melting point biomaterials but also aqueous hydrogel supports called 3D bio-ink (Kim et al., 2022a, b, c; Nakamura et al., 2010). Recently, 3D bioprinters, the next-generation 3D printers, have been applied to various life science research such as food printing, organ regeneration, tissue engineering, cultured meat, and meat substitutes (Dick et al., 2019; Handral et al., 2022; Volova et al., 2023). Currently, the third-generation 3D bioprinter has been developed using multiple axes, such as high-temperature polymer-biopolymer, biopolymer-biopolymer, and 6-axis type (Volova et al., 2023). 3D bioprinter technology with tissue regeneration capabilities has been attempted for application in alternative animal experiments using organoids (Hockney et al., 2023). The EU has banned animal testing for cosmetic purposes since 2013 and has been trying to apply the ban on animal testing to medicines and functional foods as well (Commission, 2013). One of the alternatives to animal testing worldwide is organoid testing through tissue regeneration using 3D bioprinters. Tissue regeneration technology involves differentiating and proliferating stem cells or primary cells into organs with the desired three-dimensional structure in the laboratory. In Korea, functional foods must undergo functional and toxicity tests on mice or rats in order to receive domestic approval (MFDS, 2024). Korea's Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) has been attempting organoid experiments to replace animal testing for functional foods. In the future, interest in tissue regeneration technology using 3D bioprinters is expected to increase.

Recently, as interest in 3D bioprinters has increased, the importance of 3D bio-ink is being highlighted depending on the type and crosslinking method of biopolymer, crosslinking method with biopolymer, and various elements of 3D bio-ink. The type of base solution used to dissolve or disperse the biopolymer can affect printability (Volova et al., 2023). Hydrogel biopolymers, which are bio-inks such as alginate, agarose, and gelatin, can easily change shape from liquid to solid through thermal crosslinking and have been used in food 3D printing. However, when these polymers are used alone, the quality of the final product is undesirable (Acevedo et al., 2018; Enrione et al., 2017). Therefore, to overcome the food quality shortcomings of using single hydrogels, 3D bio-inks containing various polymers for meat replacement have been developed (Caron et al., 2024).

This review aims to bridge this gap by examining recent technological innovations in ingredient compatibility and multi-material systems that can overcome these limitations. It explores research that is improving the speed and efficiency of 3D food printers and the potential for integrating this technology into large-scale production environments. By analyzing current trends and challenges, this review provides a clearer understanding of the untapped potential and limitations of 3D food printing and provides insight into future development paths and commercialization strategies.

3D food printing process

The 3D food printing process involves building edible items step by step by layering different food materials. This complex technology allows the precise formation of custom, complex edible structures. This technology has a variety of applications, from creating complex dish designs to solving problems such as personalized nutrition (Sun et al., 2015a, Sun et al., 2015b; Waseem et al., 2024;). The 3D food printing process involves layering various food ingredients to create an edible item step by step.

The 3D food printing process progresses through three stages: 3D model building, object printing, and post-processing. This printing technology is divided into several stages, starting with the selection of materials and ending with the creation of the required pattern. The initial steps involve carefully selecting printable materials and formulating a mixture to suit the specific needs of the printing process. Computer-aided design software (CAD) is then used to create a model representing the intended structure. Alternatively, you can scan an existing object and use it as a geometric model (Derossi et al., 2021). The shape and size of the final 3D-printed product can be determined by how it is designed using a CAD program. Therefore, various open-source websites support several models already designed for food 3D printing. Early research on 3D printers used CAD programs or open sources for 3D design, which was a major challenge for life science researchers in customizing new designs. Recently, some companies producing 3D bioprinters have resealed automatically designed programs using artificial intelligence (AI). AI can calculate, design, and produce the values ​​of 3D axes and CAD files with just a photo captured in the tablet PC camera (Chae et al., 2022; Volova et al., 2023). This technology is still only used in many medical and tissue engineering fields, but it is expected to be applied to 3D food printing as well.

Once the model is created, it is converted into a computer code language for performing 3D printing and then transferred to slicing software. Slicing software is responsible for creating layers and configuring various printing parameters such as speed, temperature, fill, and layer height. In the final step, a G-code file containing dimensions and printing instructions is sent to the 3D printer. This step is one of the most important steps in printing high-quality prints. The shape of the 3D model is an important factor as it sets the basis for the entire printing process. Material flow performance is essential to ensure consistent and controlled deposition of food ingredients, directly influencing the visual and structural aspects of the final print. Post-processing effects, such as additional processes or treatments applied after printing, can affect the overall appearance and texture of printed food. Structural accuracy is essential to maintain the intended design and prevent distortion or deformation throughout the printing process. Finally, the dimensional stability of printed food is a key factor in determining its durability and integrity over time (Attarin & Attaran, 2020). The structural accuracy of 3D-printed foods is greatly influenced by additional considerations related to the properties of the food ingredients used. In particular, the rheological properties, thermal properties and chemical composition of these ingredients play an important role in determining the precision of the final printed product (Liu et al., 2017).

3D ink

The main technology of 3D printing is 3D ink, but a 3D printer is only a tool for converting 3D ink. The texture of 3D-printed food that an individual feels can be affected by various factors, such as surface texture and internal structure, as well as material characteristics, such as the viscosity, hardness, and brittleness of 3D ink. The most important thing in 3D printing is the appropriate viscosity of 3D ink, i.e., printability. The printability of a material for 3D printing is a complex interaction between the formulation of the material itself and the specific printing parameters used. Rheological properties, focusing on flow, viscosity and yield stress, serve as important indicators of a material’s suitability for complex 3D printing processes. Although the rheological and physicochemical properties of 3D ink, such as viscosity and cohesion, are the most important factors for printability, the relationship between the viscosity and cohesion of 3D ink and printability has not been studied yet. The exact values ​​of the viscosity and cohesion of 3D ink for printability can guide the development of 3D ink and the setting conditions of 3D printing. If the high cohesion of 3D ink is not suitable, the 3D ink in the syringe may be extruded by the motor pressure of the 3D bio and food printer, making printing impossible. If the low viscosity of 3D ink is not suitable, the 3D structure of the printed product cannot be maintained (Oliveira et al., 2020). Therefore, an appropriate viscosity of 3D ink is required. By carefully considering and managing these factors, manufacturers and researchers can increase the efficiency of the processes used in 3D printing and achieve desirable results in terms of form and structural integrity (Park et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2019).

Recently, as reducing carbon emissions has become a major topic of scientific research around the world, interest in alternative meat and cultured meat is rapidly increasing. Early food markets used a variety of insect and plant proteins to replace meat (de Carvalho et al., 2020; Lange & Nakamura, 2021; Simet al., 2021). However, consumer acceptance of edible insects, including their sense of sight, smell, and scent, has been considered a challenge (Lange et al., 2021). In order to overcome these problems, a method of using minced insect protein mixed with various pastes has been proposed (de Carvalho et al., 2020). Accordingly, a method was proposed to overcome the visual aspect as well as vegetable protein by extruding minced insect protein paste into a meat-like shape using a 3D food printer.

Cultured meat is another new technology that can replace meat. 3D bioprinting is expected to be a core technology for 3D cell culture. Traditionally, cell lines are cultured in Petri dishes, which means that the cell lines can attach to the surface of the Petri dish and increase, which is called two-dimensional (2D) cell culture (Fig. 1). In the field of tissue engineering, there is a tendency to apply 3D bioprinting for three-dimensional (3D) cell culture. Stem cells (SC) and primary cells (PC) are seeded into 3D structures extruded with 3D ink using a 3D bioprinter, which allows for 3D cell cultures called organoids. To grow and spread SC and PC in 3D structures, the properties, formulation, and polymer type of 3D ink are key important factors.

Fig. 1.

Schematic representation and microscopic views of two-dimensional and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) cell cultures

The extracellular matrix (ECM) is mainly composed of various types of collagen for its cellular scaffold function in all organs (Fig. 2) (Bielajew et al., 2020). The SC responds to signals from the target tissue’s ECM, adult cells, and growth factors to induce and accumulate them for differentiation and proliferation into the desired tissue cells (Lee, 2019). Therefore, 3D structures created by extruding 3D inks for cell scaffolds must be homogeneously mixed while maintaining a specific shape. The main goal of using 3D bioprinters is to preserve cell density uniformly to minimize overgrowth and cell death due to local necrosis (Lee, 2019).

Fig. 2.

Composition of the extracellular matrix of the human body. Adapted with permission from Bielajew et al. (2020)

The essential properties of 3D cultured meat scaffolds are i) cell attachment to the scaffold, ii) edibility, iii) non-toxicity to SC, PC and consumers, iv) permeability to the culture medium and v) suitable mechanical properties (Kim et al., 2023). The rate of cell attachment to the scaffold is one indicator of initial cell viability. Protein-derived fibers, such as collagen, gelatin, and soy protein, are more likely to attach to cells than carbohydrates or fats (Ong et al., 2021). The use of edible materials in the 3D ink support is for food approval of cultured meat according to food regulations, and 2D culture is possible only when cells or tissues are separated from the non-edible materials of the support. The degree of biocompatibility of a 3D ink material for cell growth affects the overall cell culture time. In the cultured meat industry, shortening the total time of 3D cell culture is one of the important technologies for reducing production costs. Nutrients and growth factors can penetrate through the highly hydrophilic material and the large porosity of the support surface. However, high hydrophilicity and large and numerous porosity reduce the mechanical properties, i.e., hardness, cohesiveness, elongation, and tensile strength of 3D ink. Although the scaffold’s high hydrophilicity and the large and numerous porosity of the surface result in low mechanical properties, the scaffold for 3D cell culture should have strong mechanical properties with crosslinked polymers because the 3D-printed structures containing SC and PC are immersed in a liquid culture medium for at least 2 weeks. However, due to the conflicting principles of 3D ink permeability and mechanical properties, little research has been conducted on 3D ink for cultured meat scaffolds.

3D food printing technology

3D food printing methods can be broadly classified into different types, but mostly used in in food printing are extrusion-based printing, binder jetting, and inkjet printing. Extrusion-based printing works by forcing edible ink or food ingredients through a nozzle to build up layers of food. Food ingredients must be viscous enough to retain their shape after extrusion to print items such as pasta, chocolate, cheese, and pureed foods (Hussain et al., 2022). Binder jetting uses a print head to selectively deposit liquid binder droplets onto a thin layer of powdered food material (Zhu et al., 2022). Inkjet printing uses food ink cartridges to precisely spray tiny droplets of liquid edible ink onto a surface, building up the printed food layer by layer, ideal for printing foods such as sugar and chocolate, allowing for colorful and detailed designs (Voon et al., 2019). All three methods have unique advantages and are suitable for many types of food and 3D-printed custom on-demand food applications. By leveraging the strengths of these diverse technologies, 3D food printing continues to push the boundaries of culinary innovation to deliver nutritious and visually stunning personalized foods (Cai et al., 2022). These technologies are described below.

Extrusion-based printing

Extrusion-based three-dimensional (3D) food printing is a technology that deposits food materials layer by layer through an extruder nozzle (Fig. 3a). In this process, edible ingredients, often in the form of a paste, gel, or dough, are extruded in a controlled flow onto a substrate to create the desired 3D structure (Kewuyemi et al., 2022). The printability of a material is influenced by a variety of factors, including both the composition of the material and the specific parameters utilized during the printing process. Key among these factors is rheological properties, which examine properties such as flow, viscosity, and yield stress. These properties play a pivotal role in determining whether a material can effectively undergo the printing process and maintain its intended shape after printing (Pitayachaval et al., 2018).

Fig. 3.

Types of 3D food printing technologies: (A) extrusion-based, (B) inkjet, (C) binder jetting. Adapted with permission from Sun et al. (2015a, b)

A major drawback of extrusion-based 3D food printing is the stringent rheological requirements for the printable material. Optimal printability requires specific viscoelastic properties, and studies have shown that the ideal viscosity range is 0.3–200 Pa s, with yield stress values ​​of 100–1000 Pa (Liu et al., 2017). The material should exhibit shear-thinning behavior during extrusion and recover its structure quickly afterward. For example, additives such as xanthan gum or methylcellulose may enable appropriate flow behavior but may introduce undesirable texture changes that affect the sensory quality of the final product. Materials that are too viscous may clog the printer nozzle, while materials with low viscosity may not retain their shape after extrusion. Additionally, the shear-thinning behavior of many food materials during extrusion can result in inconsistencies in the final product. These rheological limitations make it difficult to reproduce the wide range of textures found in many cuisines, which can lead to a less satisfying eating experience for consumers accustomed to a variety of food textures and consistencies (Prabha et al., 2021).

The applications of extrusion-based 3D food printing technology extend to the creation of food pastes rich in essential nutrients. This innovative approach enables precise stratification of edible ingredients, opening up the possibility of highly customized and nutritionally optimized foods (Lille et al., 2018). By leveraging this technology, the food industry can explore new ways, such as personalized nutrition and personalized diets based on individual preferences and dietary requirements. The macronutrient composition of pea-based formulations had a significant impact on extrudability and was positively correlated with manufacturability (Venkatachalam et al., 2023). Bulut & Candoğan (2022) specifically focused on the optimization of 3D printing parameters and control of hydrocolloid levels using gelatin in chicken-based snacks. Incorporating a 3D printing process and hydrocolloids, we achieve an optimal balance in the texture, structure and overall quality of our chicken snacks. Some recent studies using extrusion technology for 3D food printing are listed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Recent studies on 3D food printing using extrusion technology

Technology	Ink	3D printer	Printing process variables	Optimized process parameters	Post-processing operation	Product	References
Extrusion-based printing	Pork paste, xanthan gum, edible salt and mixed spices	F00DD0T-D1, Hangzhou Shiyin Technology Co. Ltd, Hangzhou, China	Nozzle diameter: 0.84–2.5 mm, layer height: 1–8 mm, printing speed: 15- 55 mm/s, printing filling percent: 0- 100%	Nozzle diameter: 1.55 mm, layer height: 2 mm, printing speed: 35 mm/s, printing filling percent: 90%, 6 g/kg XG	Steamed at 100 ◦C for 15 min	pork pastes	Xu et al. (2023)
Micro-extrusion	Jackfruit seed powder, finger millet powder, xanthan gum, baking powder, and vitamin and mineral premix and butter-sugar mixture	FoodBot 3D-printer (Shyin Tech., Hangzhou, China)	printer nozzle diameter: 1.55 mm, print speed:50 mm/s, fill density values: 50%, 70%, 90%, and 100%,water/butter ratios: 3:10 and 6:5	90% fill density and water/butter ratio of 3:10	Baked at 150 ⁰C	Cookies	Varghese et al. (2020)
Extrusion-based printing	Chicken breast and edible salt	FSE-2, BORIMY, China	Nozzle diameter: 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, and 2.0 mm	Nozzle diameter: 1.315 mm, filament:2.434%	Steamed and boiled separately at 100 ◦C for 10 min	Chicken product	Yang et al. (2022)
Extrusion-based printing	calcium caseinate, whey protein concentrate, high-fructose corn syrup, medium-chain triglyceride oil, high-protein chocolate	Single-head 3D printer (TNO, The Netherlands)	Nozzle diameter:2.5 mm, layer height: 1 mm, printing speed: 4 mm/s, printing patterns: layered, rectilinear, and concentric	Nozzle diameter:2.5 mm, layer height:1 mm, printing speed:4 mm/s, printing patterns: layered, rectilinear, and concentric	4 ◦C fridge for cooling	Protein bar with chocolate filling	Zhu et al. (2021)

Inkjet printing

This technology utilizes similar principles to traditional inkjet printing but is suitable for developing three-dimensional food products by depositing edible materials (Fig. 3b). The printer gradually builds the final 3D structure of the food by depositing droplets of edible ingredients layer by layer (Waseem et al., 2024) This layering process allows for complex and customizable designs. The ink used in inkjet 3D food printing is made from edible materials. Edible inks or materials are prepared to meet the specific requirements of the printing process. These materials are often in liquid or paste form and must be suitable for deposition in small, controlled droplets (Zhang et al., 2022). There are two types of inkjet printing techniques: drop-on-demand and continuous jet printing (Liu et al., 2017). Inkjet printers cannot be used to fabricate complex food structures because they are designed to handle low-viscosity materials (Godoi et al., 2016). The droplet size in inkjet 3D food printing can be intentionally varied depending on the intended use of the product. This level of control over droplet size adds a layer of customization to the 3D food printing process, making it adaptable to a variety of applications and culinary creations (Shen et al., 2023).

Inkjet food printing faces a number of challenges, particularly those related to the flow and viscosity properties of food inks. The viscosity of food inks must be carefully controlled to ensure proper droplet formation and deposition, which can be difficult with natural food ingredients that can have variable consistencies. High-viscosity materials can clog nozzles, while low-viscosity inks can result in poor print quality or uncontrolled spread. The flow behavior of food inks, including flow characteristics and time-dependent properties, can also affect print accuracy and stability (Mantihal et al., 2020).

Binder jetting

This technique involves depositing layers of powdered food material and selectively spraying a liquid binder onto the powder to bind them together, ultimately forming a solid structure (Fig. 3c). Edible powder is commonly used as the base material. These may contain ingredients such as flour, sugar, or other powdered food substances. Liquid binders, either water or food-grade binders, are applied precisely to specific areas of the powder bed to bind the particles together. In this process, small binder droplets, typically less than 100 μm in diameter, are precisely sprayed onto the powder bed surface. These binder droplets perform the important function of bonding individual layers together, allowing for the creation of solid, coherent 3D objects. As the stacking and bonding process continues, the powdered material forms the desired shape and the binder acts as a binder to promote adhesion and accumulation of the powder particles (Baiano, 2022). Unlike other 3D printing technologies that melt or sinter the material, binder jetting creates the desired object by selectively depositing a liquid binder onto a bed of powder material (Zhu et al., 2022). Binder jetting is versatile and can be applied to a variety of food products, including bakery items, snacks, and confectionery. Composite food structures can be created by incorporating multiple materials in a single print (Sun et al., 2015a, b).

Binder jetting food printing presents significant scientific challenges. The process is highly sensitive to powder bed characteristics, including particle size distribution and flowability, which affect layer uniformity and final product texture. Binder viscosity and surface tension must be precisely controlled to ensure proper jetting and wetting behavior, and limited food-grade binder options limit formulation flexibility. Complex interactions between binder and powder, governed by capillary forces and wetting phenomena, can result in non-uniform solidification and structural instability. Hygroscopic food powders complicate moisture management, resulting in inconsistent bonding and dimensional inaccuracy. Post-processing steps can induce thermal and rheological changes that can result in shrinkage or warping, compromising the integrity and design fidelity of the printed structure (Pitayachaval et al., 2018).

Multi-jet printing

This technology improves the quality of 3D printing materials by applying two or more axes, such as melt-dissolution, melt-extrusion, and extrusion-extrusion, to a 3D printer. Combining extrusion and melt electrowetting in 3D printers is the most popular type for extruding high-quality 3D structures with improved mechanical properties and excellent biological properties (Ke et al., 2022). This 3D printer can print both high-melting-point polymers with the melt electric writing axis and low-melting-point biopolymers with the extrusion axis. 3D printed structures can be mixed or layered with a variety of 3D inks because the dual axes can be easily translated during printing. Hydrogel, which is mainly used in 3D ink for food and bioprinters, has a lower viscosity than plastic polymers, making it difficult to form a high layer. Therefore, in order to maintain the three-dimensional structure of the hydrogel, a plastic polymer with a high melting point is extruded as an outline. Some recent 3D bioprinters feature six axes for hybrid polymers and dispensers for cell culture well plates (DR. INVIVO 4D6, ROKIT Healthcare Ltd., Seoul, Korea).

UV-cross-linking jet

The most widely used 3D ink for tissue engineering, such as cultured meat and organ regeneration, is GelMA, which is gelatin crosslinked with methacrylate. Activating methacrylates as crosslinkers requires irradiation with UV-C wavelengths. Some recent 3D bioprinters have UV-C lamps to activate GelMA when the 3D bioprinter extrudes it directly (DR.INVIVO 4D2 and 4D6, ROKIT Healthcare Ltd., Seoul, Korea).

Benefits of 3D food printing

3D food printing offers several advantages that contribute to its growing popularity and potential impact on food companies. Over the past few decades, interest in 3D printing technology has grown significantly, mainly because of its distinct advantages in the areas of personalized nutrition, optimized ingredient utilization, adaptability to different food substances, and customization capabilities. Accordingly, the food industry can design food to suit individual tastes. This technology has attracted attention for its potential to revolutionize the way we approach food production and consumption. Their versatility to accommodate a variety of food ingredients and the ability to customize their design offers exciting possibilities for both the culinary and nutritional aspects of the food sector (Anukiruthika et al., 2020; Thangalakshmi et al., 2021). The main advantages of 3D printing are described in the following sections.

Customized, personalized nutritional food recipes

3D food printing is an emerging technology that can be used to create individualized and customized food products. 3D food printers can create more interest in food and nutrition. Additionally, 3D food printers can be used to produce visually appealing food (Gosine et al., 2021). 3D food printing allows precise control over the content, texture, and shape of printed food. This feature allows you to customize foods to suit individual preferences, accommodate specific dietary restrictions, and address unique nutritional needs. Many conventional food manufacturing methods are geared toward large-scale production, but often at the expense of culinary creativity and the ability to customize taste, structure, and appearance. This innovative technology not only challenges traditional manufacturing constraints but also empowers individuals to experiment and personalize their culinary creations, fostering a new era of creative expression in the food realm (Sun et al., 2015a, b). Certain 3D printed products require post processing steps to improve their overall quality to meet consumers’ sensory expectations. These post-processing techniques include drying, baking, frying, and steaming. These additional steps play an important role in improving the texture, taste and appearance of printed foods (Hussain et al., 2022).

Food printing provides an effective way to digitize an individual’s energy and nutritional intake and improve dietary management. Online data about nutritional content, personal preferences and social norms can be used to make personalized nutritional decisions for foods. This application aims to increase children’s appetite for nutritious snacks by presenting them in fun and innovative shapes (Dankar et al., 2018a, b).

3D printing technology offers promising potential for nutritional and texture customization of food for older adults with dysphagia. This advanced manufacturing method can precisely control food composition, texture, and shape, allowing for the creation of personalized meals that meet specific nutritional needs while maintaining a safe and easy-to-swallow consistency (Chao et al., 2023). By manipulating ingredient ratios and printing parameters, we can produce foods with customized viscosity and shear thinning properties that facilitate safe swallowing. This technology can incorporate nutrient-rich ingredients to address common deficiencies in older adult diets, such as protein, vitamins, and minerals, without compromising texture (Chao et al., 2024).

Design flexibility

3D printing allows the creation of intricate and complex shapes and structures that are difficult to achieve with traditional methods, opening up new opportunities for artistic food display and developing unique culinary innovations. In other words, 3D food printing offers more creative opportunities to test food development ideas in never-before-possible ways (Enfield et al., 2023). This 3D food printing allows the food industry to experiment with textures, flavors, and ingredient combinations in ways that were not easily achievable before. They can print one ingredient in a different pattern or modify both ingredients to create new patterns to suit consumers’ tastes throughout the printing process (Sun et al., 2018). Traditional methods involve time-consuming adjustments and tooling changes for each custom item, increasing production costs. Conversely, 3D printing’s rapid prototyping process allows rapid adaptation to a variety of designs without extensive rework, significantly reducing costs associated with customization. These economic benefits position 3D printing as an efficient and flexible solution, especially in scenarios where personalized or unique items are sought, ultimately streamlining production processes and improving cost-effectiveness (Kuo et al., 2022). Unlike traditional manufacturing methods, 3D printing does not require significant costs for complex geometries, allowing the creation of complex and sophisticated designs at no additional cost, making it ideal for developing complex and innovative products. Product design changes do not require changes to the 3D printing machine (Jiang et al., 2022).

Waste reduction.

3D food printing allows for accurate measurement of ingredients, which can reduce the amount of food waste generated during the cooking process, which is important for addressing issues related to food sustainability and resource efficiency. 3D printing promotes the effective utilization of edible ingredients through personalized portion sizes and designs, reducing the potential for overproduction and resulting waste. The exact amount of ingredients is calculated by the 3D printer using a pre-planned recipe. The method is also food reproducible, meaning the same ink can be used to create the same dish every time (Soni et al., 2022). Traditional subtractive manufacturing methods often result in large amounts of material wastage. 3D food printing enables on-demand production, enabling the creation of food on demand, reducing the need for extensive storage and the potential for spoilage (Le Ferrand, 2020). Food can be customized to suit individual tastes, allowing you to create meals with precise portion sizes, preventing overproduction and reducing food waste associated with unused or leftover portions. By leveraging this technology, the food industry can improve quality control processes, minimize waste through accurate use of ingredients, and offer a wider range of customized foods. The benefits of 3D printing for food go beyond novelty and promise a transformative role in improving efficiency, sustainability and diversity within the broader food supply chain environment (Verma et al., 2023). A unique challenge is using 3D printing to create biodegradable packaging from agricultural food waste. For example, Nida et al. (2021) discovered that adding guar gum to non-printable rice husks creates 3D-printed boxes for food storage.

Food production efficiency

This technology can increase the efficiency of commercial kitchens by streamlining and automating certain aspects of food preparation, which could be especially helpful for large-scale food production. It has been shown that 3D food printing technology can be used to optimize baking times for biscuits with different food structures. The control group consisting of traditionally manufactured biscuits required a baking time of 38.60 min to produce the desired level of product, while the 3D printed sample showed a significant reduction in baking time from 16.50 min to 30.05 min (Derossi et al., 2023). 3D food printing is currently slow and expensive compared to traditional food manufacturing, making it unsuitable for mass production. However, it holds potential in areas such as creating custom molds or templates for existing processes and combining customization with efficiency. Multi-material and multi-nozzle systems are being explored to increase speed, but these technologies are still in development. Overall, 3D food printing excels at customization and small-volume production, especially in niche markets, but significant advances are needed to compete with mass production methods. If 3D printing is to make a real contribution to mass food production, significant technological advances might be needed to address current limitations in speed, scalability, and cost-effectiveness (Shabir et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2022).

Support for individuals with dietary restrictions

3D food printing could be a lifeline in creating meals for individuals with specific allergies, intolerances, or dietary restrictions, providing a level of control and precision that is not easily achieved with traditional cooking methods. Dysphagia is a disease that causes difficulty swallowing and is a common problem among older people. This problem may also affect people who have had head or neck surgery or a stroke, so that these people may need a soft diet, also called a dysphagia diet. Diets for dysphagia are created by modifying the texture of food through 3D printing methods (Sungsinchai et al., 2019).

Frozen and fresh vegetables such as bok choy, carrots, and peas provide inexpensive and nutritious foods (Pant et al., 2023), and these vegetables were also mixed and used to prepare edible 3D printing ink. The addition of hydrocolloids can improve the rheological properties of food inks. In addition, tests for the International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI) were conducted to evaluate the ink quality for dysphagic diets. The printed foods were found to be easy to swallow after a variety of tests. In the future, 3D food printing technology may enable the production of customized nutritious meals and increase product functionality. One example is printing personalized soft food to help the elderly swallow and chew while also addressing issues like vitamin D deficiency (Azam et al., 2018; Zawada et al., 2018).

Liu et al. (2023) investigated using Hypsizygus marmoreus by-product for 3D-printed dysphagia food. The researchers evaluated its suitability using IDDSI standards and oral processing tests. They found that adding xanthan gum improved both swallowability and 3D printing performance, suggesting a promising new approach for creating texture-modified foods for dysphagia patients. Xiao et al. (2024) explored the use of white mushroom-based materials for 3D printing food suitable for dysphagia patients. They found that adding 3% soybean protein isolate to the printing ink improved its suitability for individuals with swallowing difficulties. They examined how microstructures and rheological properties of the printed food relate to both 3D printing performance and swallowing characteristics. Lim et al. (2023) explored creating protein-enriched 3D-printable food for dysphagia patients using pea protein isolate (PPI) and pea protein hydrolysate (PPH). Adding PPH to PPI improved printability and reduced the hardness of printed products, potentially making them easier to swallow. They evaluated printing quality, texture, and adherence to IDDSI guidelines. Their findings show that incorporating PPH can enhance the printing quality of high-PPI food inks, contributing to the development of nutritious, texture-modified foods for people with swallowing difficulties. Mirazimi et al. (2022) focused on developing 3D-printable, nutritionally-enhanced food for elderly and dysphagia patients by modifying potato puree with soy protein (3–7%) and agar (up to 0.2%). All modified samples met IDDSI standards for swallowing safety. Agar-containing samples showed better print shape retention and viscosity, while soy protein improved nutritional value.

Innovation and creativity

3D food printing has acted as a catalyst for innovation and creativity within the food industry, opening up new possibilities for cooking (Sethi et al., 2018). The layer-by-layer construction method of 3D food printing allows for intricate detail and precision, facilitating the realization of unique and complex culinary creations. 3D food printing technology enables individual shapes, unique tastes, and textures that consumers have never experienced before (Portanguen et al., 2019). Chefs and culinary artists can use 3D food printing to push the boundaries of traditional cuisine and experiment with new ingredients, flavor combinations, and presentations, allowing to creation of completely new culinary experiences and gastronomic delights (Varvara et al., 2021).

3D bioprinting

In particular, demand for 3D bioprinting is expected to increase further in the cultured meat and food industry. Steaks, meatballs, and patties are produced through 3D cell culture using 3D structures through 3D bioprinting. Currently, cell culture for cultured meat makes it difficult to produce lumpy meat and food-grade meat because the technology for cultured meat is at an early stage. Analyzing the 3D structure using 3D bioprinting with FE-SEM revealed higher tensile properties and a more dense surface shape compared to the handmade 3D structure, demonstrating stable 3D cell culture (Kim et al., 2022a, b, c). Cultured meat using 3D cell culture was found to have higher food quality compared to 2D cell culture (Kim et al., 2023). In the medical, life science, and tissue engineering fields, 3D cell culture technology using 3D bioprinting has already been developed, so 3D cultured meat is expected to be commercialized in the future. Tissue engineering technology in the food field using 3D bioprinting can be applied to organoids and tissue models (toxicity testing, disease modeling, functional testing of functional foods). Applying bioprinting to functional foods is expected to reduce the development budget due to animal testing (Ke et al., 2022).

Although natural extracellular matrix (ECM) production is limited, it can sufficiently produce various types of 3D bioinks, including alginate, collagen, gelatin, GelMA, and poly-N-acryloyl glycinamide (PNAGA) (Erdem et al., 2020; Jia et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2019; Osidak et al., 2020). The advantage of 3D bioinks is that numerous variants can be developed using various polymers for artificial ECM, which can improve the quality and efficiency of artificial ECM for 3D cell culture. Any chemical modification of the 3D bioink must be minimized to maintain its original biocompatibility (Ke et al., 2022).

Use of 3D food printing in the food industry

Three-dimensional (3D) food printing is revolutionizing the food sector by offering a wide range of applications. From personalized nutrition to new food structures, medical nutrition, food waste reduction, food design, and remote food production, technology has provided endless new opportunities. Various research reports cover the use of 3D food printing for a variety of foods, including processed cheese, fruits and vegetables, chocolate, snacks, meat, and mushrooms.

3D food printing technology offers promising solutions for space food challenges in long-duration missions. It addresses key requirements such as nutrition, shelf-life, variety, and personalization of astronaut diets. The technology can potentially provide on-demand, customized food preparation in microgravity conditions, helping to combat the psychological factors that affect food consumption patterns in space (Santhoshkumar et al., 2024). Caulier et al. (2020) explored the acceptance of 3D-printed food in a military setting. Soldiers evaluated various snack bars, including a conventionally manufactured benchmark and increasingly customizable 3D-printed versions. According to these studies, consumer empowerment, personalization options, technology development, and appropriateness of application all influence the acceptance of 3D-printed foods. Recently, Lim et al. (2024) formulated a Pickering emulsion incorporating cholecalciferol using pea protein isolate (PPI)-inulin complex and applied it to three-dimensional food printing to improve the nutritional profile of the printed product.

Ma et al. (2023) conducted a study to develop a computer vision (CV) system to accurately measure the instantaneous extrusion speed and width of filaments extruded under consistent extrusion pressure or force. These measurements are then utilized to implement a feedforward control mechanism for the movement of the printer nozzle in a pneumatic 3D food printing system. By integrating computer vision technology with a 3D food printing setup, the researchers aim to improve the overall printing process, improving the quality and accuracy of printed objects. The key innovation is modifying the texture of the air-fried 3D-printed potato snack by changing its internal structure. By experimenting with different filling levels and patterns, the researchers were able to customize the snack’s texture to suit specific preferences and requirements. This approach not only provides new ways to create snacks with unique textural characteristics but also provides the opportunity to reduce oil content without compromising taste or quality (Liu et al., 2020). Pant et al. (2023) reported on the feasibility of using common vegetable wastes, especially spinach stems and kale stalks, as raw materials for 3D food printing. Food inks were developed from these green leafy vegetable by-products and subsequently analyzed for key rheological characteristics such as shear thinning and yield stress.

Advances in 3D food printing offer promising applications in health improvement and personalized nutrition by precisely tailoring food composition to meet individual dietary requirements. The technology can be customized to address unique health conditions or nutritional needs by incorporating specific nutrients, functional ingredients, and biologically active compounds, such as vitamins and proteins (Escalante-Aburto et al., 2021).

Many studies have been published on meat replacement using 3D food printers (Fig. 4). Meat color 3D printed using a soy protein isolate (SPI) structure mixed with pumpkin powder and beetroot solution demonstrated the stable printing potential of a 3D food printer (Phuhongsung et al., 2020). A mixture of SPI for meat-alternative 3D ink with fiber solutions such as potato starch and xanthan gum mixed with CaCl₂ and KCl and carrageenan mixed with konjac glucomannan and sodium alginate showed hardness parameters similar to beef (Ko et al., 2021). Chen, Zhang, & Bhandari (2021). demonstrated color changes in 3D-printed meat substitutes using textured soy protein and different carbohydrate polymers through deep flight while maintaining the 3D structure. The myomere, a section of the flash of fish such as adipocyte with fibroblast, and myoseptum, the extracellular matrix consisting of various collagen of fish, for salmon were printed using a 3D food printer (Tay et al., 2023).

Fig. 4.

Various 3D printed products to replace meat. (A) SPI mixed with pumpkin powders and beetroot, Adapted from Phuhongsung et al. (2020), (B) potato starch mixed with xanthan gum, carrageenan, konjac glucomannan, sodium alginate, and KCl, Adapted from Ko et al. (2021), (C) the color change of alternative meat through deep frying, Adapted from Chen et al. (2021), and (D) The imitation of myomere and myoseptum of salmon using mixture of various collagens, Adapted from Tay et al. (2023)

Research on cultured meat products using 3D bioprinting is not yet sufficient (Fig. 5). For 3D-cultured meat, 3D bioink using sodium alginate crosslinked with SPI by CaCl₂ showed the potential for 3D cell culture of satellite cells in scaffolds for 4 weeks (Ianovici et al., 2022). 3D printed scaffolds of gelatin containing chitosan by transglutaminase showed stable proliferation of fibroblasts for 96 h (Yang et al., 2024).

Fig. 5.

Cultured meat produced through 3D printing. (A) 3D cell culture of primary cell from bovine mixed with alginate and SPI, Adapted with permission from Ianovici et al. (2022) and (B) 3D cell culture of primary cell from bovine mixed with gelatin and chitosan, Adapted with permission from Yang et al. (2024)

Constraints of 3D food printing

Despite the promising potential of 3D food printing, several challenges hinder its widespread adoption and seamless integration into food. Every technology has its pros and cons, and 3D food printing is no exception (Pulatsu et al., 2022).

Printer and food ink costs

3D food printers are often perceived as expensive and financially unaffordable, especially for small businesses in the food industry. Their design and functionality seem tailored for professionals like pastry chefs, cake artists, and decorators who want to create imaginative, visually stunning, and detailed designs. The pricing structure and advanced features of these printers may currently limit their accessibility, and they are primarily aimed at those who focus on creating complex, aesthetically pleasing dish designs, meaning that the current market positioning of 3D food printers is more aligned with the needs and budgets of professional artisans in confectionery and cake decoration (Agunbiade et al., 2022; Godoi et al., 2016). Economic challenges of 3D printing include the high cost of skilled labor for pre- and post-processing procedures per printed part. As demand for technology increases, machine material costs decrease, but labor costs remain constant (Hai Alami et al., 2024).

Technical constraints

Several technological constraints exist in the area of 3D food printing, limiting seamless integration and widespread adoption. One key challenge is the complexity of precisely controlling the taste, texture, and color of printed foods. The fidelity required to reproduce the sensory aspects of traditionally prepared dishes poses significant technical obstacles. Additionally, the range of food-safe ingredients suitable for 3D printing is limited, affecting the variety of food items that can be printed (Lee et al., 2019). The slow printing speeds of 3D printing technology can slow down mass production. As a result, demand for this technology may decrease, delaying its time to market (Hai Alami et al., 2024). One of the major obstacles facing 3D food printing technology is the slow printing speed. Compared to traditional additive manufacturing processes, such as 3D printing with thermoplastics, food printing often operates at significantly slower speeds. These limitations hinder the practical application of food printing for large-scale food production and require optimization of printing parameters and hardware design to increase printing efficiency (Derossi et al., 2022).

Additionally, limited texture options for printed food are essential to meeting the requirements of people with specific needs. If a machine fails to meet certain criteria, demand may decline, and its launch may be prohibited in some settings (Burke-Shyne et al., 2021). Moreover, printing speed remains a technical constraint. Especially when compared to the time efficiency of traditional cooking methods (Soni et al., 2022). Another challenge facing commercial 3D food printing is production efficiency. Printing speed or nozzle diameter can be increased, but if done frequently, printing resolution and accuracy may decrease. Therefore, this option should only be used if printing precision can be maintained. As an alternative, the researchers proposed using adaptive algorithms to speed up printing by adjusting printing parameters that balance time and quality (Voon et al., 2019). Producing multiple items at once using a multi-nozzle printer is another possible strategy. This feature is not currently available in industrial printers, and it isn’t easy to create affordable, reliable printers that can produce products quickly (Nachal et al., 2019).

The widespread adoption of 3D printing technology faces serious challenges due to the limited availability of suitable materials. Materials used in food 3D printing can be broadly classified into three groups: materials suitable for printing (e.g., gels, pastes, doughs) and materials that cannot be easily printed (e.g., meat, seafood, vegetables) and alternative ingredients (e.g., insects, bacteria, molds) (Severini et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2024). Each category presents unique challenges and opportunities in terms of achieving desirable textures and expanding the range of printable food items (Dick et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2015a, b).

Size constraints

One of the limitations of 3D printing is the size of items that can be produced. The size of a printed object is determined by the size of the printer and print bed and is often limited by cost, space, and power requirements. Moreover, anything larger can take longer to print and use more material, increasing both costs and the potential for inaccuracies. Some 3D printers can print large quantities of items in pieces and then assemble them, but this can compromise the structure and aesthetics of the finished piece (Zhang et al., 2022). 3D printers can only produce objects smaller than the printer case, which limits the size of items that can be made (Attaran, 2017). The two main challenges facing 3D printing technology are printing precision and shape stability. In order to overcome these challenges and achieve accurate printing, further research is essential to understand the complex link between food material properties and printability, including the exploration of new materials with improved performance to ensure improved results in 3D food printing processes. Researchers aim to deeply understand how different food characteristics affect the printing process, with the ultimate goal of innovating and introducing materials that can overcome existing limitations to achieve more accurate and effective 3D food printing. One potential solution is to combine 3D food printing with other emerging technologies (Wang et al., 2022). For example, pre- or post-processing using microwave and ultrasonic technologies can improve the printing accuracy and stability of the material form (Fan et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020).

Shelf life of 3D food

Most printed foods may have a limited shelf life, as factors such as exposure to air, moisture content, and the absence of preservatives can shorten their shelf life, while complex structures and designs may deteriorate over time. Balancing the artistic complexity of 3D food printing with food quality preservation remains an ongoing consideration for researchers and practitioners seeking to improve the technology’s practicality and appeal to the broader food industry (Dankar et al., 2018a, b). Since most 3D-printed foods have a short shelf life, ensuring safety and durability is also an important task. The structural rheology of a 3D-printed puree or paste can change relatively quickly, typically within a few hours of production. Rheology refers to the study of how materials deform and flow and is an important element in understanding the behavior of food materials during and after the 3D printing process. Understanding time-dependent changes in structural rheology is essential to optimize 3D printing processes and achieve desired food product outcomes. This knowledge can help develop strategies to control and stabilize rheological properties to ensure the quality and consistency of 3D-printed foods over time (Lipton et al., 2015). 3D-printed products based on fruits and vegetables have been shown to increase the presence of microorganisms at high concentrations during storage in ambient air, highlighting potential concerns for food safety. These observations suggest that the inherent water content of fruits and vegetables and their exposure to the surrounding environment may combine to create conditions conducive to microbial growth. Addressing these issues is important to ensure the safety and quality of fruit and vegetable-based 3D-printed foods (Derossi et al., 2018).Several factors control the shelf life of 3D-printed food, including ingredient composition, printing technology, storage environment, and characteristics of the food being printed (Sun et al., 2022). Bacterial growths were found in smoothies of selected fruits and vegetables after printing, indicating that each part that comes in contact with food must be sterilized before 3D food printing can be used in restaurants and industrial scales (Severini et al., 2018).

3D bioprinter

GelMA, which is most widely used as a 3D bioprinter for tissue engineering, such as organ regeneration and cultured meat, is mainly composed of gelatin mixed with methacrylate, which is activated when irradiated with ultraviolet rays (Ke et al., 2022). GelMA has several weaknesses: i) to activate that, the GelMA should be boiled for gelation from liquid to solid, which is the property of gelatin; ii) the GelMA should be cooled after boiled because the cells mixed with GelMA for 3D cell cultivation cannot live in a high-temperature condition of GelMA, which needs skilled personnel; and iii) the methacrylate used in the system is easily crosslinked gelatin can be only activated in irradiation of UV light at 230 nm, which is the conditions to kill the cells; therefore, the final number of the viability of cells is usually different in each 3D printed structures. The formulation of 3D bioinks must specifically consider tissue types because the composition of the ECM is not the same in different types of tissues (Ke et al., 2022). Therefore, cell lines such as adipocytes and fibroblasts must be selected as the final product in order to cultivate 3D-cultured meat for food. The maximum size of 3D-printed structures for 3D cell culture is less than 10 × 10 × 10 cm, making large-scale scale-up for mass production difficult (Penolazzi et al., 2010).

Consumer perception

Lupton and Turner (2017) were the first to investigate consumer responses to food produced with this 3D food printing technology. The visual appeal of 3D-printed food plays an important role in consumer perception. Unique, artistic designs can increase the appeal of your food, making it more appealing to those who value aesthetics in their dining experience. As 3D food printing continues to advance, addressing consumer perceptions has become essential for wider acceptance. Establishing positive attitudes toward 3D-printed food requires a multifaceted approach centered on effective communication, transparency, and efforts to meet consumer expectations in key areas such as taste, safety, and sustainability (Brunner et al., 2018). Widespread adoption of printed food faces challenges due to limited consumer understanding of the technology and process. Many consumers may be unfamiliar with the complexities of 3D food printing. This technology involves complex processes and terminology that may be unfamiliar to individuals without a technical background. A lack of awareness can lead to skepticism or hesitation in embracing printed food. The taste and texture of 3D-printed food are important factors in consumer perception. Meeting or exceeding expectations in these sensory aspects is essential for widespread acceptance (Pereira et al., 2021). The price of 3D-printed food also influences consumer perception. If it is perceived as expensive or inaccessible, it may influence the adoption of this technology by certain consumer groups.

Security and safety of 3D-printed foods

The security and safety of 3D-printed food involves ensuring the well-being of consumers throughout the entire process, from material selection to final consumption of the printed product. Cleaning 3D food printers poses challenges primarily due to the complex nozzle structures commonly used, even when equipped with detachable feed tubes. Because a significant portion of the food material comes into contact with the nozzle during the printing process, thorough cleaning is essential to address issues related to food safety and microbiological hazards (Wilms et al., 2021). It is important to emphasize the utilization of nozzles made from food-grade materials as a top consideration. The choice of these materials plays a pivotal role in ensuring that printed components maintain hygiene standards in line with stringent food safety requirements. Maintain a controlled and safe printing environment to prevent contamination or interference during the printing process. Maintaining the integrity and safety of 3D-printed food requires the use of appropriate nozzle materials, as well as regular and effective cleaning (Agunbiade et al., 2022). Food safety is a serious issue. Bacterial contamination is particularly problematic when handling perishable materials. Adhering to strict hygiene practices throughout the entire 3D printing process, including raw material handling and storage, can help minimize microbial risks. Ensuring that the materials used comply with safety regulations and are suitable for direct contact with food is essential to prevent potential chemical contamination (Soni et al., 2022). Strict hygiene protocols are implemented throughout the handling, processing and printing stages to minimize the risk of contamination and maintain the cleanliness of the final food product. Additionally, tracking systems that monitor origin ingredients throughout the entire printing process should be implemented to enhance manufacturer accountability and provide guidance on safety standards. In essence, the safety and security of 3D printed food represents a multifaceted approach to providing consumers with a technologically advanced yet reliable and safe culinary experience (Chen et al., 2021).

Regulations for 3D food printing

Although India’s Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940 does not explicitly mention 3D printed objects, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare took steps in February 2020 to expand the definition of ‘drugs’ within the law. This expansion includes devices used to diagnose, prevent, or treat disease. However, it is unclear whether this bill applies to 3D printing devices. Ensuring product security is of utmost importance in the food sector, and compliance with regulations set by the FDA or the Food Standards Agency (FSA) plays an important role in achieving this goal. A variety of issues that arise during the printing and food supply chain can lead to problems such as limited shelf life, incorrect labeling, and uncontrolled temperatures when the product reaches the market. This regulatory strategy addresses customer concerns about the ultimate safety and quality of food grade (Hai Alami et al., 2024). Food printing technology involves utilizing food ingredients to produce edible items. In future generations, 3D food printing could be used to create new foods from materials, reducing food shortages or crises. In such cases, more detailed regulations are needed (Koskina & Galinas, 2021). Intellectual property, copyright, liability, regulation, and safety are all potential issues associated with 3D printing. For example, 3D printing may allow unauthorized duplication or modification of patented or copyrighted products, infringing the rights of the original creator or owner. Additionally, 3D printing may raise concerns about the quality, reliability, or liability of printed products, especially when used in medical, industrial, or military applications.

Conclusion

In conclusion, 3D food printing technology represents a groundbreaking innovation with significant implications for the food industry. Advances in this field have led to the development of complex and customizable food structures, providing new approaches to culinary creation. The applications of 3D food printing extend beyond mere aesthetics as they address issues related to food sustainability, personalized nutrition, and food waste. The ability to customize nutritional content, texture, and taste according to individual preferences has the potential to meet a variety of dietary requirements. The versatility of 3D food printing technology is highlighted by its potential applications in various sectors of the food industry. From creating complex dessert decorations to creating complex structures for alternative protein sources, this technology could revolutionize traditional approaches to food manufacturing. Advances in 3D printing food have important implications for addressing global food security issues by promoting efficient use of resources and the creation of nutritionally dense meals, especially in non-traditional settings. 3D printing allows the integration of a variety of materials, including alternative and sustainable sources. This diversity expands the range of food options available and reduces reliance on traditional agricultural practices. It is expected that continued research and development on 3D food printing can open up more possibilities in the future. Incorporating smart technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning has the potential to significantly increase the precision, efficiency, and accessibility of 3D food printing technology. The integration of smart technologies allows the development of user-friendly interfaces that simplify the interaction between operators and 3D printing systems, making the technology more accessible to chefs, food manufacturers, and other industry professionals without extensive technical expertise. Collaboration between researchers, chefs, and food scientists is essential to pushing the boundaries of creativity and ensuring that 3D-printed foods meet both aesthetic and culinary standards. As technology continues to advance, it is expected to reshape food production and consumption practices, opening up new possibilities for culinary creativity and sustainability. Although there are challenges to overcome, including regulatory considerations and consumer acceptance, the prospects for 3D food printing remain bright and offer a glimpse into a more personalized, efficient and sustainable future for the food sector.

Funding

Utah Science Technology and Research,Kyung Hee University, KHU-20233671, Jong Whan Rhim

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.