Bioharmonized Eating and Associated Foods: A Novel Integrated Concept for Multilevel Food Quality Assessment

Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists

Series on Agriculture, Silviculture and Veterinary Medicine

ISSN 2344-2085

Volume

15

, Number

2

/

2026

21

BIOHARMONIZED EATING AND ASSOCIATED FOODS:

A NOVEL INTEGRATED CONCEPT FOR MULTILEVEL

FOOD QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Romulus GRUIA

2

, Liviu GACEU

3

Abstract.

This

paper

proposes

the

integrated

concept

of

Bioharmonized

Eating

and

Bioharmonized Food as a novel framework for the multilevel assessment of food quality and

value. The conceptual framework extends the conventional, predominantly energy-nutritional

approach based on

Energy–Substance (E–S)

by explicitly introducing

Information (I)

and the

Information–Energy–Substance (I&E&S)

Matrix

. Food is therefore assessed not only through

its composition and nutritional value, but also through the dynamic relationship among food, the

food act, the organism, diet, and the food system.

The proposed

Multilevel Bioharmonized Assessment (MBA)

integrates the characteristics of

food, the food act, meals, dietary patterns, and food systems and introduces a set of original

indicators: the

Food Bioinformation Index (FBiI), Bioinformational Density of Food (BiDF),

Food Biohomeorhesis Index (FBhI)

, and the composite

Bioharmonized Food Quality (BFQ)

indicator. The I&E&S matrix hypothesis conceptualizes the food act as a process through which

the informational, energetic, and substantial matrix of food is restructured and integrated into

the organism's I&E&S matrix, through processes conceptually associated with biohomeoresis

and the tendency toward bioharmony.

A prospective component of the study concerns the

market valuation of bioharmonized foods

,

by relating their monetary market price to their bioharmonized performance. The paper

proposes

a

gradual

transition

from

market

price

as

monetary

value

toward

a

broader

bioharmonized economic value

, through the progressive recognition and internalization of

nutritional, bioinformational, biohomeoretic, ecological, and systemic qualities. Thus, the

bioharmonized price is conceived not as an administratively imposed price, but as a progressive

economic expression of additional quality that can be measured, certified, and communicated to

consumers.

The

proposed

approach

establishes

a

conceptual

bridge

between

food

quality,

food

bioinformation, biohomeoresis, bioharmony, and food economics

, enabling the simultaneous

assessment of monetary value and bioharmonized value.

Keywords

:

Bioharmonized

Food;

bioharmonized

diet;

food

quality;

food

bioinformation; Food Bioinformational Density (FBD); Bioharmonized Food Quality

(BFQ); bioharmonized price

.

DOI

10.56082/annalsarsciagri.2026.2.21

Introduction

2

Prof.PhD. Eng.

University of Transilvania from Brașov, Romania, Full Member of the Academy

of the Romanian Scientists, Associate member of Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences

"Gheorghe Ionescu-Sisesti", Researcher CE-MONT & CSCBAS – National Institute of Economics

Research, Romanian Academy, (e-mail: ecotec@unitbv.ro)

3

P

rof. PhD. Hab. Eng. University of Transilvania from Brașov, Romania, Coresp. Member of the

Academy of the Romanian Scientists, Researcher CE-MONT & CSCBAS – National Institute of

Economics Research, Romanan Academy, (e-mail: gaceul@unitbv.ro).

22

Romulus

Gruia

, Liviu

Gaceu

Nutrition

is

a

fundamental

component

of

human

existence,

situated

at

the

intersection of biology, health, economics, culture, society, and the environment.

Within the contemporary agri-food system, food is analyzed primarily in terms of

its

compositional,

energetic,

nutritional,

microbiological,

and

safety

characteristics, while its economic value is expressed mainly through market

price. Although these forms of assessment are indispensable for the functioning of

modern food systems, the complexity of the relationship between food, the human

body, nutrition, and the environment in which they evolve calls for an approach

that goes beyond the isolated evaluation of individual components. For a truly

objective analysis, it is useful to consider the conceptual evolution of dietary

practices (Table 1).

Table 1.

Evolution of the eating & nutrition paradigm

STAGE

PERIOD

SPECIFICS

CONCEPTUAL

VALUE

Nutrition 1.0



The caloric

paradigm

19th Century

Food is energy.

Indicator: kcal

Focus:

energy metabolism

Nutrition 2.0



The nutritional

paradigm

20th Century

Food is: energy;

proteins;

carbohydrates; lipids;

vitamins; minerals.

Model:

Energy + Substance

Nutrition 3.0



The biofunctional

paradigm

The transition

from the 20

th

to

the 21

st

century

Emerging areas

include: the

microbiome;

nutrigenomics;

metabolomics;

epigenetics;

bioactive compounds.

It is acknowledged that

biological structure and

organization influence

the effects of foods.

Nutrition 4.0



The bioharmonist

paradigm

21

st

Century

Food, too, is part of

the complementarity

of the ontic triad:

Information &

Energy & Substance

Nutritional bioinforma-

tion is the conceptual

contribution proposed by

the bioharmonism

paradigm.

In light of the above, we observe a number of significant implications within the

EU Commission itself as it prepares "Food 2040" through a European consultation

process. We are referring to the explicit references to the need for SYSTEMIC

APPROACHES, measurable impact, and the translation of research results into

policy, practice, and the market.

It is evident that, in recent decades, food system research has evolved from a

predominantly

quantitative

and

energy-nutritional

assessment

toward

a

Bioharmonized Eating and Associated Foods:

A Novel Integrated Concept for Multilevel Quality Assessment

23

multidimensional approach that simultaneously encompasses health, nutritional

quality,

environmental

sustainability,

economic

accessibility,

social

equity,

resilience, and consumer behavior. However, these dimensions are still frequently

analyzed using relatively separate frameworks and indicators, and integrating

them into a unified concept of food value and quality remains a scientific and

methodological challenge. Against this backdrop, we address the assessment of

food quality, which—as is well known—relies on numerous sectoral indicators

regarding

nutritional

composition,

energy

value,

nutrient

density,

safety,

bioavailability, degree of processing, functionality, environmental impact, and

sustainability.

In

light

of

this

premise,

the

approach

proposed

in

this

paper

is

one

of

complementarity

and

anticipation—*not*

substitution—regarding

the

existing

European

framework.

We

refer

to

a

multi-level

approach

concerning

the

interactions

and

emergent

properties

that

arise

when

a

high-quality

food

(possessing both energetic-nutritional and informational value) is *integrated*

into the act of eating. We analyze this

integration

across different dimensions

(within a menu, a dietary pattern, or a comprehensive food system) and through a

multi-level

scope

that

encompasses

complementary

quality

criteria

and

is

expressed via specific indicators described in the paper. To clarify terminology:

"multi-level"

refers to administrative, structural, or power hierarchies;

"multi-

scalar"

concerns

spatial

or

temporal

dimensions;

and

"multi-dimensional"

analyzes the various facets or variables of a phenomenon. The aforementioned

dynamic (Table 2) is expressed—within the concept of bio-harmonism—through

the process of bio-homeorhesis. We define

biohomeorhesis

as the dynamic,

evolutionary

process

by

which

a

living

system

transforms

disturbances,

imbalances,

and

entropic

tendencies

into

adaptive

reorganizations,

thereby

maintaining or restoring the system's functional and relational coherence [21, 24].

Table 2.

Levels of the biohomeorhesis process monitored through the bioharmonist

paradigm

LEVEL

MANIFESTATION OF BIOHOMEORHESIS

L.1

= molecular



biochemical regulation and self-regulation

L.2

= cellular



cellular adaptation and reorganization

L.3

= organismal



integration of organism functions

L.4

= population



adaptation and co-regulation

L.5

= ecosystem



regulation of relationships between components

L.6

= societal



adaptation of institutions and their behaviors

L.7

= planetary



civilization–biosphere relationship

L.8

= cosmic



integration of the living system into cosmic environmental

dynamics

24

Romulus

Gruia

, Liviu

Gaceu

Thus, the process of BIOHOMEORESIS becomes a procedure and a connecting

tool between levels—serving a restructuring and bioharmonizing role—rather

than merely an internal process of the organism.

Building upon modern trends in nutrigenomics and systems biology—as well as

other compatible perspectives—we propose approaching the act of eating and its

components

through

the

paradigm

of

Bioharmonism

.

We

note

that

Bio-

harmonism can be presented as an extension of the sustainability paradigm,

grounded

in

the

integration

of

the

bio-informational

dimension

and

bio-

homeorhesis into the assessment and design of food systems.

We

are

referring

specifically

to

an

expanded

approach

to

the

concept

of

Information (I)—

one that goes beyond the usual reduction to digital data or

genetic code. In the context of this topic, it can be understood in an integrated

manner

as

"bioinformation"

(a

relevant

concept,

though

not

yet

universally

established): the set of organizational and functional characteristics that endow a

foodstuff

with

specific

biological

properties.

Examples

include

the

genetic

diversity of the biological resource, tissue structure and organization, bioactive

compounds, the food matrix, associated microbiota, and the degree of processing

and preservation of the natural structure. Consequently, we consider "FOOD

BIOINFORMATION" to be an appropriate term, as food provides not only

calories

but

also

active

genetic

and

metabolic

messages

(many

as

yet

unsuspected), acting as an amplifier or degrader of information throughout the

farm-to-fork chain—spanning soil, genetics, processing, and preparation.

The primary

objective

of this work is to establish the foundations and structure of

the "Bioharmonized Nutrition" concept and to propose an integrated framework

for

assessing

food

quality.

Specifically,

the

study

aims

to:

(i)

clarify

the

conceptual relationships between nourishment, food, the act of eating, nutrition,

and

food

systems;

(ii)

establish

the

complementarity

between

the

energy-

nutritional and bioinformational dimensions; (iii) define an indicator architecture

comprising

ENI, FBiI, BiDF, and FBhI

; (iv) substantiate the

BFQ

meta-indicator

;

(v) explore the applicability of this framework to individual food items, dietary

configurations, and agri-food systems; and (vi) identify the research directions

required

for

the

operationalization

and

empirical

validation

of

the

proposed

indicators.

The

conceptual

novelty

of

this

approach

lies

in

the

introduction

of

"bioinformation" as a complementary, explicit

,

and measurable dimension of

food quality

—alongside energy and substance—and in linking it to the process of

biohomeorhesis

and the concept of

bioharmony

. Thus, the work proposes a

transition from a predominantly energy-nutritional representation [E-S] to an

integrated representation [I

&

E

&

S] aimed at achieving bioharmony:

[

I & E & S

]

Biohomeorhesis

Bioharmony

Bioharmonized Eating and Associated Foods:

A Novel Integrated Concept for Multilevel Quality Assessment

25

Looking ahead, this approach may also contribute to a reconsideration of the

concept of

food value

. While economic assessment primarily reflects a food's

market value, bioharmonized assessment targets a

multidimensional value

that—

beyond

the

monetary

dimension—may

encompass

resource-use

efficiency,

energy-nutritional

value,

bioinformation,

biohomeorhetic

potential,

and

the

contribution to food system sustainability.

Literature review

The

bibliography

for

the

topic

at

hand

extends

beyond

a

mere

nutritional

bibliography, as it must support the

four stages

of the argument:

food quality →

food matrix → diet quality and sustainability → the need for an integrated

assessment.

In

the

literature

concerning

the

food

matrix,

structure,

digestion,

and

bioavailability, there are pertinent references to the food matrix as a physiological

interface between food and health [1, 7, 14, 29, 31].

Regarding nutrient density, the density and nutritional profiling along the E-S

dimension are relevant [8,9,11]. Insights into the use of various indices can be

found in the literature [10,12]. With respect to food quality [2] and the quality of

specific menus and diets, the literature describes over 80 indices [30,40,41], while

also addressing aspects of global food security [4,27]. The factors underpinning

these issues—which influence regulatory processes and systemic harmonization—

are strongly supported in the analyzed literature, ranging from biodiversity to the

impact of pollution on health [3,5,13,18,28,32,37]. We also note the guidelines

provided

by

global

organizations

regarding

health

assurance

through

dietary

habits [45,51].

Analyses

conducted

within

the

framework

of

integrated

health-environment-

economy assessments [49] comprehensively illustrate the relationship between

these

factors

and

the

food

system

[33,

35,

36,

39].

The

concept

that

food

assessment

is

shifting

towards

a

multi-criteria

and

sustainability

-oriented

approach is explored in depth; however, integrating these various dimensions

presents challenges regarding weighting, comparability, and aggregation [6, 25,

26, 34, 38]. Key references in this study include those that explicitly define the

need to combine health considerations with sustainability, economic affordability,

and socio-cultural acceptability [42, 44, 47]. This increasingly comprehensive

approach is reflected in studies addressing integrated food systems [43, 46, 48, 50,

52, 53].

It is evident that the literature has already progressed from food composition to

nutrient density, from nutrient to food matrix, from food to diet quality, and

subsequently toward the integration of health, sustainability, economics, and the

26

Romulus

Gruia

, Liviu

Gaceu

sociocultural context. We have contributed to this area through our recent research

at the BIOSALT Study and Research Center [15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23].

The Bioharmonist paradigm proposal [21, 22] introduces an additional step—

namely,

the

representation

of

food

via

the

I

&

E

&

S

Matrix

and

the

conceptualization of bioinformation as an integrating dimension—followed by an

analysis of the biohomeorhesis potential and emerging bioharmony [24].

1.

Materials and Methods

The

analysis

was

conducted

using

principles

of

multi-criteria

analysis,

comparisons, and statistical processing. Structurally, the research methodology

relies on an extensive review of specialized literature, legislation, and public

policies regarding food security and governance typologies at both national and

European levels. This research is

exploratory-descriptive

in nature, incorporating

elements of both qualitative and quantitative analysis. A mixed-methods approach

was

adopted

to

capture

both

objective

(quantitative)

data

and

subjective,

contextual (qualitative) perspectives. The bibliography extends beyond the scope

of

nutrition

alone,

as

the

study

required

an

approach

encompassing

four

argumentative

stages:

food

quality

→

food

matrix

→

diet

quality

and

sustainability → the need for an integrated assessment.

2.

Results and Discussions

We consider a few conceptual-semantic clarifications useful: food is the object;

the act of eating is the action; nutrition (or feeding) is the process; and the food

system is the systemic framework that produces, conditions, and sustains the

process. Furthermore, we consider the processes through which food systems

evolve to be linked to the concept of biodevelopment:

The biodevelopment of food systems

refers to their evolution across five

stages and levels: from productivity to integrated quality; from quantity to

informational value; from entropy to biohomeorhesis; from exploitation to

regeneration;

and

from

quantitative

food

security

to

bioharmonized

food

security.

Biodevelopment

is,

in

essence,

a

mode

of

development

that—through

the

intelligent utilization of biodiversity—simultaneously yields better food, healthier

people, a more robust natural environment, and more prosperous communities. It

manifests primarily through the process of bio-harmonization.

Bioharmonization

is the

systemic process

by which biological information is preserved, amplified,

and efficiently transferred throughout the entire agri-food chain. It is a process

Bioharmonized Eating and Associated Foods:

A Novel Integrated Concept for Multilevel Quality Assessment

27

that enables organisms and ecosystems to maintain and adapt to their natural

functional balance amidst constant change (biohomeorhesis). Consequently, they

become more resilient to change and more capable of recovery, possessing the

ability to harmonize the relationships between systemic components.

In light of the foregoing, the paper proposes the concept of BIOHARMONIZED

NUTRITION (grounded in the paradigm of Bioharmonism) as an integrated,

multi-level approach to the relationship between food, the act of eating, the

organism, and the food system

The central premise is that food should not be viewed solely as a source of energy

and nutrients, but rather as an

integrated matrix of information, energy, and

substance (I&E&S)

that enters into a dynamic relationship with the organism

during the act of eating. From this perspective, the energetic and nutritional

dimension of food remains fundamental but is

complemented

by a dimension

linked to biological information (a bioinformational dimension)—specifically, the

relevant biological, structural, and functional characteristics of the food matrix

and the potential of its components to participate in the food-organism interaction.

The study’s working hypothesis

is that integrating the bioinformational dimension

alongside

the

energy-nutritional

dimension

can

enable

a

superior

level

of

understanding and quality assessment regarding the specific interrelationships of

the food matrix network (M)—which, as previously noted, is expressed through

the interpretation of the I

&

E

&

S ontological triad

.

Empirical observations indicate that the process is not merely a mechanical

transfer

of

food

components,

but

rather

a

dynamic

restructuring

of

the

relationships between information, energy, and substance

—a process contingent

upon the organism, the context, and dietary interactions. Specifically, we analyze

this

process

as

a

restructuring

dynamic

interpreted

through

the

concept

of

biohomeorhesis.

Biohomeorhesis

represents the dynamic-evolutionary process of

integration, regulation, and adaptation within a living system; in the context of

this study, it serves to operationalize the link between food characteristics and

their potential contribution to

systemic bioharmony.

Building on this premise—including the standard "energo-nutrititional" (ENI)

approach—this paper proposes an evaluation framework in which the energo-

nutritive dimension is integrated with the informational dimension, represented by

several specific indicators. These include the

Food Bioinformation Index

/ FBiI

(the

primary

level

of

characterizing

a

food's

informational

component);

Bioinformational Density of Food

/ BiDF (an expression of the concentration of

a food's bio-informational dimension relative to a reference unit, complementing

energy

and

nutrient

density);

the

Food

Biohomeorhesis

Index

/

FBhI

(conceptually

enabling

the

shift

from

the

intrinsic

evaluation

of

food

to

a

28

Romulus

Gruia

, Liviu

Gaceu

relational food–organism evaluation via potential biohomeorhetic integration);

and

Food Bioharmonized Quality

/ FBQ (a meta-indicator of the new framework

that

integrates

energo-nutritive,

bio-informational,

and

biohomeorhetic

dimensions into a multi-level assessment). All of this leads to the proposed

evaluation, which can be schematically represented by the following relationship:

ENI + FBiI + BiDF + FBhI

FBQ

It should be noted that this framework does not aim to replace established

nutritional

and

food

safety

indicators,

but

rather

to

complement

them

by

introducing

a

new

conceptual

and

operational

dimension.

Although

these

dimensions may appear similar, their interpretation can be nuanced through in-

depth study; therefore, we adopt a three-perspective approach:

"multi-level"

(i.e.,

comprehensive, relating to administrative or power hierarchies),

"multi-scalar"

(referring to spatial or temporal dimensions), and

"multi-dimensional"

(when

analyzing the various facets or variables of a phenomenon).

In this work, the

bioharmonized approach

proposes shifting from a focus

primarily on food composition to an evaluation of the relationships between

composition, bioinformation, interaction, and biological integration. This allows

for the objective assessment of

quality

across different levels—going beyond the

mere sum of the qualities of individual components. This perspective leads to a

multi-level concept of quality

, where evaluation can begin with the food itself

and extend to the meal, the diet, the individual, and ultimately to the food system

and society. Within such a framework, bio-harmonization becomes a

process of

progressively correlating

the flows of information, energy, and matter across the

system's various levels.

The information presented reveals a difference in approach compared to the

classical one, as summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.

Difference between the proposed approach and the classical approach

Classical approach

Bioharmonized approach



Calories



biological information



nutrients



bioinformation



food safety



nutritional biohomeorhesis



chemical composition



sustemic organization



yield



biological harmonization



food



information system

2.1.

The bioharmonization process

Bioharmonized Eating and Associated Foods:

A Novel Integrated Concept for Multilevel Quality Assessment

29

The process described allows for the interpretation of

quality

within the food

system through differentiated modes of expression. Thus, we can identify the

CONVENTIONAL EXPRESSION OF FOOD QUALITY

through its

energetic

and

nutritional (substances)

dimensions (E–S). While fundamental to characterizing

food, this approach does NOT fully capture the complexity of the relationship

between

[

Food and Organism] & Environment.

Q

E−S

= quality assessed via standard energy and nutritional indicators

IN-DEPTH COMPLEMENTARY ASSESSMENT

based on the

bioinformational

dimension (I)—

evaluated additionally and holistically within the

Information–

Energy–Matter/substances

(I

&

E

&

S)

matrix

—can

provide

the

of

understanding and evaluation regarding food quality; specifically, it highlights the

relevant

biological

information

intrinsically

linked

to

the

food's

structure,

composition, biodiversity, processing, bioavailability, and interactions with the

organism. This constitutes a comprehensive assessment of food quality:

Q

I−E−S

= quality evaluated through

multilevel I & E & S

integration

In this relationship, the evolutionary dynamic is sustained by

biohomeorhesis

,

which is essentially the process of multilevel reorganization through which the

living system transforms disturbance into evolutionary continuity.

Within

the

matrix

structure,

BIOHOMEORESIS

represents

not

merely

the

Information (I) component, but the functional effect of biological information

integrated with energy (E) and substance (S). Essentially, based on this process,

the

multilevel

food

matrix

can

influence

the

stability,

absorption,

and

bioavailability

of

bioactive

substances

(e.g.,

phytochemicals),

given

that

processing can alter these relationships. This perspective is particularly significant

for the hypothesis of the present study, as it enables a conceptual transition along

the following flow:

nutrient → food

→ food matrix → food–organism interaction

Consequently, FOOD is no longer viewed merely as a "container" of nutrients, but

as an organized system of components linked by

structural and functional

relationships

. Thus, "food" is the carrier of the

I&E&S Matrix

, the "act of

eating" is the transformation operator, "nutrition" is the temporal organization of

these

transformations,

and

"biohomeorhesis"

represents

the

operational

link

between food (the matrix) and nutrition (bioharmony).

30

Romulus

Gruia

, Liviu

Gaceu

In

the

multilevel

approach,

the

bioharmonization

process

unfolds

based

on

specific principles—listed here to illustrate the process's complexity, though not

detailed,

as

they

form

the

subjects

of

various

BIOSALT

Center

studies:

-

preservation of biological information; - minimization of informational entropy; -

maximization

of

biohomeorhesis;

-

optimization

of

trophic-nutritional

biodiversity; - integration of information, energy, and substance; - ecological

compatibility;

-

metabolic

adaptability;

-

food

system

resilience;

-

bioinformational traceability; - multigenerational sustainability.

In

the

multilevel

approach,

the

bio-harmonization

process

unfolds

based

on

specific principles—listed here to illustrate the process's complexity, though not

detailed

as

they

form

the

subjects

of

various

BIOSALT

Center

studies:

-

preservation of biological information; - minimization of informational entropy; -

maximization

of

bio-homeorhesis;

-

optimization

of

trophic-nutritional

biodiversity; - integration of information, energy, and substance; - ecological

compatibility;

-

metabolic

adaptability;

-

food

system

resilience;

-

bio-

informational traceability; - multigenerational sustainability.

2.2.

Multilevel Bioharmonized Assessment Methodology (MBhA)

The MBhA Methodology

can be characterized by a series of principled and

pragmatic approaches (multilevel nature – I&E&S integration – complementarity

– quantification – comparability – validation), as well as by specific indicators.

MULTILEVEL

ASSESSMENT

is

based

on

a

function

involving

"n"

variables, wherein the emergent nature of food quality arises from a systemic

integration evaluated across

five levels

of approach: food item, act of eating,

meal/menu, dietary pattern, and food system. Consequently, the

quality of the diet

can be viewed not as the mere sum of food qualities, but as a function expressing

quality (Q) in the form:

Q

diet

= f (Q

food

, Q

acts

, Q

actions

).

The new methodology does not eliminate classical indicators but integrates them

into a broader architecture based on specific indicators, as previously noted. For

clarification, we refer to the following aspects: the Energo-Nutritional Index

(ENI) answers the question:

"What energy and nutrients does it provide?";

the

Food Bioinformation Index (FBiI) addresses:

"What bioinformational potential

does it possess?";

Bioinformational Density od Food (BiDF) refers to

: "How

dense is this potential within a unit of food?";

the Food Biohomeorhesis Index

(FBhI) relates to the process addressing:

"How can the [I & E & S] matrix

interact with the organism?";

and finally, we can assess the Bioharmonized Food

Quality (BFQ), which indicates the resulting

integrated quality

.

Bioharmonized Eating and Associated Foods:

A Novel Integrated Concept for Multilevel Quality Assessment

31

When evaluating the indicators,

normalization and aggregation are necessary to

enable

the

comparison

of

variables

expressed

in

different

units,

thereby

transforming the indicators into a common scale, as shown in Table 4.

Tabelul 4

.

T

ypology of specific indicators regarding bioinformation complementarity in

bioharmonized nutrition

INDICATOR

ROLE IN EXPRESSING

BIOHARMONIZATION

BASIC FORMULA

Energo-Nutritional

Index (ENI) /

primary indicator

The capacity of a food to

simultaneously provide

metabolic energy and essential

nutrients in a bioavailable and

balanced form, representing

the

Energy + Substance

(E +

S) component of food quality.

ENI = w

E

n

+ w

N

n

+ w

B

n

where:

E

n

= normalized energy value score;

N

n

=

normalized nutritional value score;

B

n

=

nutrient bioavailability score.

w

E

+w

N

+w

B

= 1

Food

Bioinformation

Index (FBiI) /

primary indicator

It expresses the intrinsic

quality of the

bioinformation

contained in a food

and its

capacity to participate in the

organism's regulatory and

biohomeorhetic processes,

representing the Information

(I) component of food quality.

FBiI = w

1

IS + w

2

IC + w

3

IB +

w

4

IP + w

5

IF

where:

IS

= structural integrity;

IC

= biological complexity;

IB

= biological biodiversity;

IP

=

processing impact (inversely

proportional to degradation);

IF

= biological functionality.

Bioinformational

Density of Food

(BiDF) / derived

indicator / primary

indicator

It expresses the

concentration

of bioinformation

relative to a

unit of mass, energy, or

serving.

BiDF= FBiI {B}{E}

where:

FBiI

= Food Bioinformation Index;

B

= bioavailability coefficient (0–1);

E

=

energy (kcal/100 g), normalized.

Food

Biohomeorhesis

Index (FBhI) /

functional indicator

It expresses the organism's

biological response

to the

integration of information,

energy, and substance.

FBhI = w

1

FBiI + w

2

ENI + w

3

BiDF

Where:

w

1

+w

2

+w

3

= 1

Bioharmonized

Food Quality (BFQ /

meta-indicator

Summarily evaluate the

overall performance of the

food, feed, or diet.

BFQ = w

1

ENI + w

2

FBiI +

w

3

BiDF + w

4

FBhI

with the restriction:

w

1

+ w

2

+ w

3

+ w

4

= 1

As a general observation, a food item may possess an excellent energo-nutritional

profile, yet another might achieve a higher bioinformational score under the

proposed model; this demonstrates the value of the new approach by showing how

foods that appear relatively similar in terms of "E–S" can become qualitatively

distinct when the "I" dimension is introduced.

32

Romulus

Gruia

, Liviu

Gaceu

A simulation (for illustrative purposes) yields several calculation examples in

which the proposed formulas are applied to derive the new expression of the

multilevel quality of foods

(tables for all food groups are to be finalized precisely

as research continues). As a methodological demonstration, we use six staple

foods from different food groups: whole-grain oats, lentils, eggs, apples, milk, and

fatty fish (Table 5).

Table 5.

Application for highlighting the meta-indicator regarding Bioharmonized Food Quality

Food

(100 g)

Energy

(E)

Energy-

nutritional

profile

(E-S)

Indicators of food

bioinformation

complementary

Bioharmonized Food

Quality - BFQ

(multiscalar)

kcal

ENI

FBiI

BiDF

FBhI

BFQ

BFQ – ENI =

bioinformational

input

Apple

52

62

80

78

76

78

+ 16

Whole-

grain oats

389

82

84

82

80

82

0

Lentils

116

78

88

86

84

85

+ 7

Whole milk

61

76

74

73

72

74

 2

Egg (large)

143

84

86

85

83

84

0

Fish (oily)

208

86

91

89

88

89

+ 3

NOTE:

To

ensure

the

method

is

reproducible

and

applicable,

the

is

to

create

a

"Calculation

sheet

"

for

each

of

the

S

and

I

components

(

E

represents

existing

values),

comprising:

primary variable → unit of measurement → data source → normalization method

→

weight → score → aggregate score

.

An

analysis

of

the

relationship

between

the

energo-nutritional

profile

and

bioharmonized quality reveals certain differences (e.g., apples, lentils), where the

bioharmonized value is significantly higher; a somewhat larger difference is

observed for fatty fish, whereas for milk, the bioharmonized quality is lower than

the energo-nutritional standard. There are also instances where the values

appear

similar (e.g., oats, eggs).

2.3.

Interpretation of the bioharmonized price via value tiers

The most important pragmatic aspect concerns the

price correlation

between the

current market price (based on standard quality and market demands) and the

price reflecting multi-scalar integration, as expressed by the bioharmonized value

(Fig. 1).

Bioharmonized Eating and Associated Foods:

A Novel Integrated Concept for Multilevel Quality Assessment

33

Figure 1.

Price correlation regarding the multi-level quality of bioharmonized foods.

Based on the elements shown in Figure 1, a coherent architecture emerges,

featuring indicators currently undergoing experimental validation, namely:

E–S

→

describe what is provided by food;

I

→ introduces the bioinformational dimension;

I & E & S

→

describes the multi-level integration of the dimensions considered;

Biohomeorhesis

→

explains the dynamic process of integration and adaptation;

Bioharmony

→ expresses the targeted emergent property;

BFQ

→

offers the possibility of an integrated evaluation of the results

regarding the quality of bioharmonized foods.

To transition from a one-dimensional value to a multi-scalar one

, a very

interesting idea (currently under testing) would be *not* to artificially convert

bio-harmony into monetary units (lei), but rather to construct two parallel values:

monetary value (MV) within the standard economic paradigm and bioharmonized

value

(BHV)

within

the

bioharmonism

paradigm.

The

bioharmonized

value

encompasses the Bioharmonized Food Value (BFV)—estimated via a function

with

seven

variables reflecting the multidimensional nature of bioharmonized

food quality, namely:

BFV = f

(

M, E, S, I, BH, BA, SYS

), with details provided in

Table 6.

Table 6. Components of the value matrix in bioharmonized eating / nutrition

34

Romulus

Gruia

, Liviu

Gaceu

No.

Multilevel

dimension

Variable

symbol

Explanatory questionnaire

Unit / indicator

1

Monetary

M

How much does it cost ?

Lei/kg, €/kg

2

Energetic

E

How much energy does it provide ?

Kcal / KJ

3

Substanțial

S

What nutrients does it provide ?

g, mg, µg

4

Bioinformational

I

What relevant information does it

contain ?

FBiI ; BiDF

5

Biohomeorhetic

BH

How does it play a role in the food-

organism relationship ?

FBhI

6

Bioharmonized

BA

What is its integrated value ?

BFQ

7

Systemic

SYS

What contribution does it make to

the food system ?

Composite

indicator

Following normalization, weighting, and aggregation,

the values

for the composite

indicators are calculated according to the employed methodology, completing the

transition to the integrated nutrition process

:

BFV

food

→ BFQ

nutrition/diet

. It should be

noted that the economic dimension is included within the scope of the bioharmonized

nutrition approach; consequently, the

integrated value

is estimated using the following

function:

BFV = f (M, BFQ)

From a methodological standpoint, applying the

BFV equation

reveals differences in

quality among various bioharmonized foods (Fig. 2).

Figure 2

. Example regarding the interpretation of the qualitative value of bioharmonized foods

Bioharmonized Eating and Associated Foods:

A Novel Integrated Concept for Multilevel Quality Assessment

35

Based on the information presented, an innovative analysis within the market economy

can

be

conducted—specifically,

a

comparison

between

the

Food

market

and

Bioharmonized

value

.

This

analysis

focuses

on

the

relationship

between

Bioharmonized Food Quality (BFQ) and Price (P). Thus, a relationship of BFQ↑ and

P↓ indicates a food product with high bioharmonized value and good economic

accessibility—qualifying it as a strategic bioharmonized food. Conversely, the scenario

of BFQ↑ and P↑ implies high bioharmonized value but limited accessibility. Finally,

the combination of BFQ↓ and P↑ represents a situation where the market price is high,

yet lacks a commensurate level of bioharmonized performance.

To avoid arbitrary price increases and to accurately and consistently assess the

simulated

difference

between

monetary

value

and

the

additional

economically

recognized bioharmonized value, an analysis presenting a

new "Price–Quality"

matrix

is

appropriate. As a strategic necessity for a gradual transition from market

price to a price reflecting the bioharmonized quality value, the dynamics of price (P) in

relation to the food's bioharmonized quality (BFQ) can be schematized using a four-

quadrant matrix (Fig. 3).

Figure 3.

Price-quality (P-Q) dynamics enabling the consumer to discern value and make a

comprehensive comparison:

price → quality → bioharmonized value.

Ensuring food quality—and assessing it as objectively and accurately as possible in

terms of price—is essential to articulating the

bioharmonization process

, which is

grounded in the relationship between technology and quality. The value tiers within the

bioharmonized nutrition concept and the associated foods

(which are energetically

36

Romulus

Gruia

, Liviu

Gaceu

and nutritionally balanced as well as bioinformationally harmonized) combine classical

scientific nutrition (optimal macronutrient and micronutrient intake) with holistic,

ecological, and metabolic approaches, thereby ensuring systemic coherence among

„Humans, Technology, and Nature”. This entails a complementarity of processing

levels: ranging from a state as close to natural as possible (e.g., rich in biophotons) to

gentle processing based on biological and biotechnological methods that preserve the

integrity of bioactive substances.

Consequently, the study outlines a new framework that involves supplementing the

market's economic mechanism through the progressive internalization of food value —

an aspect not currently reflected in price— specifically by integrating energo-nutritional

value with bioinformational, biohomeorhetic, ecological, and systemic values. This

concept can serve as the foundation for a new generation of research, quality standards,

food

technologies,

and

public

policies

simultaneously

oriented

toward

health,

sustainability, and resilience.

Conclusions

(1)

The integrated

concept of Bioharmonized Eating and Foods

proposes a

paradigm shift: food is no longer merely a source of energy and nutrients, but a

vector of bioinformation and an active factor in the process of biohomeorhesis

—a process that enables the coherent integration of the ontological triad of

Information–Energy–Substance

(I

&

E

&

S)

with

the

biodiversity

and

functionality of food systems.

(2)

The new perspective on the

act of eating

can be viewed as a process of

transforming and integrating information, energy, and nutritional matter within

the

organism;

biohomeorhesis

is

proposed

as

the

dynamic,

evolutionary

process underlying this coherent and adaptive restructuring of nutrition and the

associated foods, such that bioharmonization becomes the integrating criterion

for the biodevelopment of the food system toward systemic bioharmony.

(3)

The multilevel quality assessment is supported by a series of specific indicators

regarding nutrition and bioharmonized foods, namely: the Food Bioinformation

Index (FBiI), Bioinformational Density of Food (BiDF), Food Biohomeorhesis

Index (FBhI), and Bioharmonized Food Quality (BFQ)—a meta-indicator of

the new framework that integrates energy-nutritional, bioinformational, and

biohomeorhetic dimensions into a multilevel assessment.

(4)

The

Multilevel

Bioharmonized

Assessment

Methodology

(MBhA)

regarding

food

quality—based

on

an

integrated

approach

and

complex

quantification—demonstrates

how

the

bioharmonization

process

and

its

associated price

are complementarily configured, as well as the strategy for

transitioning from the market price to the bioharmonized price, the latter

Bioharmonized Eating and Associated Foods:

A Novel Integrated Concept for Multilevel Quality Assessment

37

reflects the given food's contribution to the dynamic, evolutionary equilibrium

of the complex "food–organism–eating & nutrition" system.

R E F E R E N C E S

[1]

Aguilera, J. M. The food matrix: Implications in processing, nutrition and health.

Critical Reviews

in

Food

Science

and

Nutrition,

59

(22),

3612–3629.

(2019).

https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2018.1502740

[2]

Alkerwi,

A.

Diet

quality

concept.

Nutrition,

30

(6),

613–618.

(2014).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2013.10.001

[3]

Burlingame, B., & Dernini, S. (Eds.).

Sustainable diets and biodiversity: Directions and solutions

for policy, research and action

. FAO. (2012).

[4]

Cafiero, C., Viviani, S., & Nord, M. Food security measurement in a global context: The food

insecurity experience scale.

Measurement, 116

, 146–152. (2018).

[5]

Cannon, W. B. Organization for physiological homeostasis.

Physiological Reviews, 9

(3), 399–

431.

https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.1929.9.3.399

(1929).

[6]

Clark, M. A., Springmann, M., Hill, J., & Tilman, D. Multiple health and environmental impacts

of foods.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116

(46), 23357–23362. (2019).

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906908116

[7]

Dima, C., Assadpour, E., Dima, S., & Jafari, S. M. Bioavailability of nutraceuticals: Role of the

food

matrix,

processing

conditions,

the

gastrointestinal

tract,

and

nanodelivery

systems.

Comprehensive

Reviews

in

Food

Science

and

Food

Safety,

19

(3),

954–994.

(2020).

https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12547

[8]

Drewnowski, A. Concept of a nutritious food: Toward a nutrient density score.

The American

Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82

(4), 721–732. (2005).

https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/82.4.721

[9]

Drewnowski, A., & Fulgoni, V. L., III. Nutrient profiling of foods: Creating a nutrient-rich food

index.

Nutrition

Reviews,

66

(1),

23–39.

(2008).

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-

4887.2007.00003.x

[10]

Drewnowski, A. The nutrient-rich foods index helps to identify healthy, affordable foods.

The

American

Journal

of

Clinical

Nutrition,

91

(4),

1095S–1101S.

(2010).

https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2010.28450D

[11]

Drewnowski, A., & Fulgoni, V. L., III. Nutrient density: Principles and evaluation tools.

The

American

Journal

of

Clinical

Nutrition,

99

(5),

1223S–1228S.

(2014).

https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.113.072215

[12]

Fulgoni, V. L., III, Keast, D. R., & Drewnowski, A. Development and validation of the nutrient-

rich foods index: A tool to measure nutritional quality of foods.

The Journal of Nutrition, 139

(8),

1549–1554. (2009).

https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.108.097816

[13]

Garnett, T. Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food

system

(including

the

food

chain)?

Food

Policy,

36

(Supplement

1),

S23–S32.

(2011).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.010

[14]

Gibson, G. R., Hutkins, R., Sanders, M. E., Prescott, S. L., Reimer, R. A., Salminen, S. J., Scott,

K., Stanton, C., Swanson, K. S., Cani, P. D., Verbeke, K., & Reid, G. Expert consensus document:

The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the

definition and scope of prebiotics.

Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 14

, 491–502.

(2017).

https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2017.75

38

Romulus

Gruia

, Liviu

Gaceu

[15]

Gruia, R., Modular agriculture – paradigm of globalization dynamics within the context of climatic

and scientific changes, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal „Gh. Asachi”

Technical University Iași, ISSN 1582-9596, Vol.9, nr.12, 1601-1606. (2010).

[16]

Gruia, R.,

Bazele managementului și direcțiile viitoare de evoluție, Editura Lux Libris, p.137-198.

(2013).

[17]

Gruia, R.

Montanologic memento: Water in the Carpathians, water from the Carpathians, Journal of

Montanology, CE-MONT-INCE / Academia Română, FMR, București, Vol.

I (1) 2014, p.87-102.

(2014).

[18

]

Gruia, R. et al.,

Integronic alimentation through whole natural food biodiversity, in relation with

altitude

Gradation,

2

nd

International

Conference

ESPERA

2014,

Book

Series:

Procedia

Economics and Finance, Vol.22/2015, p.114-123. (2015).

[19]

Gruia, R.,

Zootehnia bioeconomică, Ed. Lux Libris, 43-100, 143-172, 253-304. (2016).

[20]

Gruia, R

.,

Evoluția științifică a gastronomiei în cadrul actului alimentar, Editura Clarion Brașov,

p.17-68.

(2018).

[21

]

Gruia, R.

Theory of Bioharmonism, Journal of EcoAgriTourism, Publishing Clarion Brasov

,

Romania,

Vol.14, Nr.2, pag. 17-31

(2018).

[22

]

Gruia, R.

Bioarmonismul – de la teorie la o ideologie de viitor,

Ed. Clarion Brașov, (2019).

[23

]

Gruia, R.

Inginerie gastronomică, Editura Clarion Brasov, 710 pag., 35-238. (2024).

[24

]

Gruia, R.

Complementaritatea Bioarmonismului bazal și generalizat: o teorie unificată pentru

avansarea

la

Civilizația

Bioarmonistă

[analiza

privind

bioarmonismul,

biohomeoreza

și

bioarmonia - în curs de publicare]. (2026).

[25]

Hallström, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., & Börjesson, P. Environmental impact of dietary change: A

systematic

review.

Journal

of

Cleaner

Production,

91

,

1–11.

(2015).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.008

[26]

Heller, M. C., Keoleian, G. A., & Willett, W. C. Toward a life cycle-based, diet-level framework

for food environmental impact and nutritional quality assessment.

Environmental Science &

Technology, 47

(21), 12632–12639. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1021/es4000637

[27]

Herforth, A., Venkat, A., Bai, Y., Costlow, L., Holleman, C., & Masters, W. A. Methods and

options to monitor the cost and affordability of a healthy diet globally.

The Lancet Planetary

Health, 6

(6), e464–e478. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00056-6

[28]

Johnston, J. L., Fanzo, J. C., & Cogill, B., Understanding sustainable diets: A descriptive analysis

of the determinants and processes that influence diets and their impact on health, food security, and

environmental

sustainability.

Advances

in

Nutrition,

5

(4),

418–429.

(2014)

https://doi.org/10.3945/an.113.005553

[29]

Kong, F., & Singh, R. P. Disintegration of solid foods in human stomach.

Journal of Food Science,

73

(5), R67–R80. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00766.x

[30]

Lachat, C., Roberfroid, D., Huybregts, L., Van Camp, J., & Kolsteren, P. Incorporating the

catering sector in dietary assessment: Theoretical arguments and practical suggestions.

Public

Health Nutrition, 16

(4), 675–683. (2013).

[31]

McClements, D. J., & Li, Y. Food and nutritional nanoparticles: How can they be used to improve

the nutritional and health properties of foods?

Trends in Food Science & Technology, 44

(2), 179–

192. (2015).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.04.009

[32]

McEwen, B. S. Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators.

New England Journal of

Medicine, 338

, 171–179. (1998).

https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199801153380307

Bioharmonized Eating and Associated Foods:

A Novel Integrated Concept for Multilevel Quality Assessment

39

[33]

Meybeck, A., & Gitz, V. Sustainable diets within sustainable food systems.

Proceedings of the

Nutrition Society, 76

(1), 1–11. (2017).

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000653

[34]

Riddout, B. G., & Pfister, S. A decade of sustainability assessment of food systems.

Food Policy,

35

(4), 375–383. (2010).

[35]

Springmann, M., et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits.

Nature,

562

, 519–525. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0

[36]

Sterling, P. Allostasis: A model of predictive regulation.

Physiology & Behavior, 106

(1), 5–9.

(2012).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.06.004

[37]

Sterling, P., & Eyer, J. Allostasis: A new paradigm to explain arousal pathology. In S.Fisher & J.

Reason (Eds.),

Handbook of life stress, cognition and health

(pp. 629–649). Wiley. (1988).

[38]

van Dooren, C., Marinussen, M., Blonk, H., Aiking, H., & Vellinga, P. Exploring dietary

guidelines

based

on

ecological

and

nutritional

values.

Food

Policy,

44

,

36–46.

(2014).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.11.002

[39]

Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from

sustainable

food

systems.

The

Lancet,

393

(10170),

447–492.

(2019).

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

[40]

Wirt, A., & Collins, C. E. Diet quality—What is it and does it matter?

Public Health Nutrition,

12

(12), 2473–2492. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1017/S136898000900531X

[41]

Zhang, Y., & et al. Diet quality indices for research in low- and middle-income countries: A

systematic review.

Nutrition Reviews, 77

(8), 515–540. (2019).

[42]

*** -Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Building a common vision for

sustainable food and agriculture: Principles and approaches

.

FAO, (2014).

[43]

*** - HLPE.

Nutrition and food systems: A report by the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food

Security and Nutrition

. FAO. (2017).

[44]

*** - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, & World Health Organization.

Sustainable healthy diets: Guiding principles

. FAO. (2019). https://doi.org/10.4060/ca6640en

[45]

*** - World Health Organization.

Healthy diet

. World Health Organization. (2020).

[46]

*** - HLPE.

Food security and nutrition: Building a global narrative towards 2030

. High Level

Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (2020).

[47]

*** - European Commission.

Farm to Fork Strategy: For a fair, healthy and environmentally-

friendly food system

. European Commission. (2020).

[48]

*** -Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

The state of food security and

nutrition in the world 2020: Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets

. FAO. (2020).

[49]

*** - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

The state of food and agriculture

2021: Making agrifood systems more resilient to shocks and stresses

. FAO. (2021).

[50]

*** - FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO.

The state of food security and nutrition in the world

2023: Urbanization, agrifood systems transformation and healthy diets across the rural–urban

continuum

. FAO (2023).

[51]

*** - World Health Organization.

ealthy diet: Fact sheet

. World Health Organization. (2024).

[52]

*** - European Commission.

Food 2040: A research and innovation policy for sustainable,

resilient and inclusive food systems

. European Commission. (2026).

[53]

*** - European Commission. (n.d.).

Food 2030: Research and innovation

. European Commission.