This article was written by

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Thailand wants to be the “Kitchen of the World.” But who will do the cooking when the food scientists’ are overworked, underpaid,  and fewer young people want to study food science in the first place? 

The “Kitchen of the World” slogan sounds confident and modern. It suggests global ambition. But behind the slogan lies a quieter, less glamorous question: does the country actually have the necessary people to make this dream real? 

One of the economic policies across political parties, including the reigning Bhumjaithai, now forming the government, is to push the food industry as a new engine of growth.  

The logic is simple. Thailand has long been one of the world’s major food exporters. “Kitchen of the World” has become part of its international brand. So why not move up the value chain, invest in technology, and turn food into a high-income industry? 

The key players in this plan are not farmers or factory owners, but food science professionals. They are the technical architects who apply biology, chemistry, and engineering to turn raw ingredients into something delicious, safe, consistent, and durable enough to survive a global supply chain. 

According to a survey by the Office of National Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation Policy Council (NXPO) and Iris Consulting, between 2025 and 2029 the processed food and future food sectors will need more than 47,000 workers. 

That sounds like good news. But real-world data tells a more complicated story.

An analysis of online job advertisements from more than 23 online job posting websites  by the TDRI Big Data research team—funded by Thailand Science, Research and Innovation (TSRI) through the Programme Management Unit for Human Resources & Institutional Development, Research and Innovation (PMU-B)—shows that demand for food science workers is not growing as expected. Even more worrying, interest in studying the field is actually declining. 

Comparing job postings in the third quarter of 2024 with the same period in 2025, positions requiring food science and technology graduates increased only slightly from 1,219 to 1,257. 

At the same time, job postings in the food processing sector fell by -6.33%, and in the broader agriculture and food sector by -6.83%. In other words, private sector demand is flat. Not collapsing, but not expanding either.  

The problem becomes clearer when looking at new graduates

Based on a one-year period, Between the fourth quarter of 2024 and the third quarter of 2025,  there were 5,134 job ads seeking food science graduates. In 2025, 3,389 students graduated in the field. On paper, demand seems higher than supply. 

But dig deeper, and the picture changes. For entry-level jobs, those requiring less than three years’ experience, there were only 2,408 positions. That is fewer than the number of fresh graduates at 3,389 entering the market. 

There is another problem. Fewer students want to study food science in the first place. 

Data from the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research, and Innovation shows that the number of food science graduates has fallen every year—from 4,015 in 2021 to just 3,389 in 2025. That is a drop of -15.6% in five years. 

Why the loss of interest? One simple reason: money

MyTCAS data shows that median salaries in the food science sector are low, especially compared with how demanding the degree is and how tough the jobs tend to be. Pay is also lower than in other science and engineering  fields such as electrical engineering or chemical. 

Students are making a rational choice. Same effort, heavier workload, lower pay. So they go elsewhere. 

Are food science wages low because the industry does not really need that many high-skilled workers? 

The structure of the food industry offers part of the answer. According to the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises Promotion, more than 87% of food businesses in Thailand are micro enterprises. That is far higher than in sectors like transport and warehouses (49.22%) or construction (62.34%). 

Microfirms mean limited capital. Limited capital means limited ability to pay higher salaries to highly trained specialists. leading to lower wage levels. 

So Thailand is left with a strange contradiction. The country wants to become a global food powerhouse. But the key people to drive that transformation are stuck in an industry that is structurally unable to reward them. 

If this is the real problem, then simply producing more graduates will not fix it. More people competing for the same stagnant pool of jobs will only push wages down further. 

The real solution lies in upgrading the industry itself. Then the demand for food scientists grows. wages will rise accordingly. 

First, small businesses must gain access to modern production technologies — from food safety systems like GMP and HACCP to better packaging, automation, and productivity tools. This requires state support: subsidies, technical advice, and shared facilities across regions. Higher productivity means lower costs, higher income, and eventually, real demand for food scientists. 

Second, Thailand needs to move beyond contract manufacturing to creating its own brands. The government must support SMEs to invest in research and development so they can develop their own products and brands. Value-added goods will enable the food industry to grow further, leading to more demands for food scientists and higher pay. 

Third, develop a network to link food science graduates to food producers with different regions. Many provinces have growing food industries but cannot attract skilled workers. Job matching schemes, long-term internships, and cooperation between universities, local authorities and firms can help shift talent from central areas to where it is actually needed. 

None of this is glamorous. None of it fits neatly into campaign slogans. 

But without these changes, “Kitchen of the World” will remain what it already is: a proud label built on a fragile foundation—an industry that dreams of global status while failing to invest in the people who are supposed to make it happen. 

Napapop Thongraya is a researcher at the Thailand Development and Research Institute (TDRI). Policy analyses from the TDRI appear in the Bangkok Post on 25 March 2026 . 

Read More

Other People are Reading

The war between Iran and US-Israel has wiped out massive sums of investors’ wealth as the skyrocketing rally in oil prices rattled markets. Rich Dad Poor Dad author Robert Kiyosaki feels that war is not good for anything, but it is tragically profitable.

Taking to X, the popular author quoted a Vietnam-era protest song: “War: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.” He, however, noted that if wars were not profitable, there wouldn’t have been any wars.

Kiyosaki said that he served Vietnam’s military twice, once in 1966 and then in 1971-72. During this time, he lost many friends. “I returned to Vietnam three weeks ago to find my own answers, say goodbye to lost friends, and make peace with myself. My concern about this war in the “Holy Lands” is for those killed and wounded in this war,” he said.

The author added that his concern also includes those of us at home who are far from this war but will suffer financially due to inflation. “Our national debt, poverty, and homelessness are how we all pay for this war,” he further said, adding that this is why financial education is essential in times of peace and especially in times of war.

“Your greatest asset is you, and your choices as to what financial education you choose to put into your brain. War may be a time for you to get smarter and richer….if you choose your teachers and your financial education with care,” he wrote.

https://x.com/theRealKiyosaki/status/2038050835574472771
In another post earlier, Kiyosaki reiterated his view that investors can get richer in case of a crash in 2026, as predicted by the renowned French astrologer Nostradamus in the 1500s and Edgar Cayce in the early 1900s.“I started with nothing while still flying for the US Marines and rarely sell. Like many of you, I had no money to start with… but I just bought small assets, held them for years, and rarely sold. Most of you know I bought my first six Bitcoins for $600 — all the money I had — and did not eat for days. It took plain and simple US Marine Corps discipline and close friends, not with money but with spiritual support,” he wrote in his post on X.

Kiyosaki claimed that even billionaire investor Warren Buffett has sold billions of dollars worth of stocks and is sitting on large cash reserves, waiting for markets to fall so he can buy assets at lower prices.

“Rich lesson on investing: Investors who can see the future are the investors who get richer. The ‘buy, hold, and pray’ crowd will be the biggest losers,” he added.

The rising hostilities in the oil-rich Middle East have led to the prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz, resulting in a mind-boggling rally in oil prices. Brent crude is currently hovering above the $110-level. The sharp surge has triggered inflation worries back in India as well, leading to a massive selloff on Dalal Street.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)