Food innovation is a dialogue between science, business and people: at Cibus Tec Forum (28–29 October 2025), OnFoods brings its research on plant-based diets and personalised nutrition to the stage of the Food Valley. 

It will be an opportunity to dimonstrate how advanced technologies and individual data (from genetics to metabolomics) are transforming the approach to diet: it is no longer only about sustainability, but about real effectiveness, health and personal acceptability. We discuss this in this interview with Prof. Patrizia Riso, Full Professor of Human Nutrition at the University of Milan and coordinator of the Personalised Nutrition research group within OnFoods.

Welcome to the future of “tailor-made” nutrition.


Professor, let’s start with the plant-based diet. When we refer to this term, we mean a dietary model that gives space to fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, nuts and seeds, while reducing the consumption of foods of animal origin. This perspective attracts attention, both for potential health benefits and lower environmental impact. In your view, how and to what extent does this approach integrate with the development of sustainable and personalised dietary models, on which OnFoods has been working over the past three years?

Within OnFoods, and in particular in the group I coordinate which focuses on nutrition, we work on developing new models of sustainable, also personalized, diets based on the differences observed in the population from various points of view (simply for differences of age, sex, physiological status and lifestyle up to more specific characteristics, for example of a genetic and metabolic type), so that such models are adequate to meet the needs of all individuals from a nutritional point of view and have an important effect also in the prevention of major chronic diseases.

Our research, therefore, starts from a general framework in which the scientific literature already provides us with data on the favourable impact of sustainable dietary models. Most come from observational studies but also from dietary intervention trials, which compare those who follow a more plant-based diet to those who consume a diet richer in animal-derived products.

But it is essential to strengthen research on the adequacy of plant-based models, to truly understand whether, besides being sustainable, they are also free of critical issues.


What critical issues are we talking about?

For example, there could be insufficient intakes of certain micronutrients that are present in greater quantities or with better bioavailability in animal-derived products, as also highlighted in some recent publications.

In this context, the personalisation aspect becomes even more important because specific groups of people correspond to specific nutritional needs. I am thinking of the requirement for calcium, iron or some essential vitamins. It is possible that a poorly constructed plant-based model may not be able to cover these needs.

This risk can also occur, considering that various alternative products to animal products have increased to help consumers make healthier choices.

It is important to go into detail: when animal-derived foods are replaced outright with alternative sources, consumers must be aware that they do not always receive the same nutrients, and it is not certain that they will be able, independently, to compensate for the intake in subsequent meals. If, instead of consuming a cheese, one chooses a plant-derived analogue which generally contains more fiber and less saturated fat, one must also be sure that the same amounts of micronutrients are being provided to the body and that there are not others in excess, such as sodium present in salt, whose excessive intake can instead be harmful.


Work of this kind is therefore continuously updated, fed by heterogeneous skills. In what way, within OnFoods, do you succeed in making such different approaches and methodologies dialogue to develop dietary models that are truly effective and personalised?

Certainly, there is a huge amount to do, and it is essential to integrate the various skills of OnFoods into a cohesive system that works at multiple levels. In reality, within the project, there are several dietary intervention studies with models that are not identical, even when they deal with the same clusters of people, and the objective is to evaluate their impact. It is unlikely that a “standard” diet could exist for everyone, and we know how sometimes generic approaches do not work and end up discouraging people. Personalised dietary models, however, designed to adapt to everyone's needs, could be useful. It is a great challenge, but only in this way can more effective results be achieved, and perhaps also in shorter time frames.

Here is the scientific strength of working systematically and as a team, combining the different expertise and capacities present in OnFoods to develop sustainable, innovative foods and dietary models, almost handcrafted around the person — but above all, science-based.


When we talk about a “personalised plan”, we are indeed talking about implementation at the individual level, then…

Yes, personalised nutrition represents a true frontier. It is an approach that considers various individual variables, from genetic, metabolic and functional profiles, up to lifestyle.

Within OnFoods, several projects are studying these interactions to promote precision nutrition approaches.

The OBI-WAN-DIET project, coordinated by the University of Parma, for example, analyses, in groups of overweight–obese subjects, the individual response to a diet rich in polyphenols — bioactive compounds present in fruits, vegetables, coffee, tea, olive oil and other foods. Not everyone metabolises them in the same way: the response can vary greatly from person to person, even within the same group. Understanding these differences leads to better results, for example, in strategies for weight loss or for improving metabolic parameters.

Another highly relevant project is DE LEGUMINIBUS, from the University of Naples Federico II. Here, the effect of replacing red meat with legumes on various health markers is studied, also analysing the role of the gut microbiota, which can strongly influence the outcome of a dietary intervention.

This brings us to a central theme: the same stimulus can generate very different responses, some positive and others less so. There is also another crucial aspect, that of the acceptability of dietary models.

In the INSTEAD study, which we coordinate at the University of Milan, we are scientifically validating the MED_EAT-IT dietary model: a plant-based model designed to be fully customizable, not only according to individual characteristics but also according to people’s food preferences. The aim is to minimise environmental impact without eliminating animal products, but replacing them in a targeted way to maintain nutritional quality, respect people’s tastes and promote better metabolic responses. We know, in fact, that diets that are too restrictive rarely work.

Early results are promising: this model shows good acceptability and health benefits such as reductions in LDL cholesterol, especially in subjects with higher baseline values. We are now clustering the study volunteers to understand who benefited the most and why. In this way, we can develop predictive models, one of the main objectives of Spoke 4.


Which tools and technologies are making truly personalised nutrition possible today? And what role do biological data — such as those collected through proteomics — play in the development of tailored dietary models and products?

At the University of Milan, thanks to PNRR funds, we acquired a top-level proteomics platform. Proteomics studies the set of proteins expressed by an organism: analysing them allows us to understand in depth how each individual responds to certain stimuli, including dietary ones.

This tool will be fundamental to analyse the biological samples collected through the INSTEAD study — and the other dietary intervention studies in OnFoods — and will produce precious information for building truly tailored dietary models in the future. Clearly, this information will add to other data obtained from the numerous marker evaluations we are analysing in the various studies.

The goal is to respond precisely and personally to each person’s nutritional needs. And obviously, the more data we have — both at physiological, molecular and behavioural levels — the more we can understand into which cluster to place each individual, taking into account their unique characteristics.


Here, the major theme of professional training also connects.

Absolutely. This is a theme pursued in OnFoods and declined across multiple Spokes. When we talk about professionals, we do not only think of doctors or nutritionists. There is the public communication professional who needs training within food companies, for example. There is increasing interest in sustainable foods and technologies, personalised nutrition, “functional” foods and so on. It is important to ensure adequate information and training, including for young researchers.

Certainly, an important focus of communication and training is dedicated to plant-based products for sustainable diets, which we mentioned earlier. We are committed to an interdisciplinary way of defining needs, improving them while reducing possible risk factors. Salt, for example, is one of the biggest problems because, to be palatable, many vegetable alternatives contain even more of it than animal products. Choosing a total replacement of animal-origin foods with plant-based ones could be nutritionally ineffective now, but there is room for improvement, especially if we want to adapt them to all consumer profiles, including those with health risk factors.

For example, in EFFORT, a collaborative flagship project in which we worked to improve the nutritional quality of products on the market (for example, reducing salt and sugars), we also analysed the need for reformulation of numerous categories of foods, including various plant-based substitutes, to facilitate consumers. It’s teamwork, and in the future, it will be necessary to have professionals at different levels with adequate training and information on the topic.


You said: food technology experts must necessarily interact with nutrition experts. How does that happen?

The nutrition expert indicates a need and a direction to follow. The food technologist must develop strategies to obtain a product that, while maintaining its structure and part of its molecular interactions, is also acceptable to the consumer. Among the various Spoke 4 projects, some have developed products dedicated to targets of overweight and obese individuals, but also aimed at vulnerable groups such as the elderly and pregnant women, working precisely along these two fundamental directives: promoting foods that fit into sustainable dietary models, providing all necessary nutrients, and ensuring that they are healthy, safe and palatable. In this context, one of the toughest challenges taken up by OnFoods is the development of biotechnological approaches to obtain fermented plant-based products responding to different needs. It will be a driving force in the market, considering the increasing demand for natural, healthy and sustainable products, driven by consumers. Once again, the connection of different knowledge and skills becomes essential.