The Financial Times has an excellent piece about how not-meat burger companies are endeavoring to mimic the traditional burger’s taste, texture and look as they develop their product lines.
What this means, FT writes, is that “instead of concocting new foods, flavours and textures, our culinary innovation seems to be focused obsessively on reinventing things we already have. But imitations designed to compete with a much-loved original will always be overshadowed by the comparison.
“A synthetic burger will always be a less good, slightly funny tasting non-meat meat, rather than something profound and extraordinary in its own right … Food-tech companies position themselves as offering the food of the future, yet they rely on yesterday’s ideas. Wouldn’t it be better to design truly new foods, or focus on evolving cultural preferences for different flavours?”
Interesting perspective about the nature of disruption and you can read it here.
What this means, FT writes, is that “instead of concocting new foods, flavours and textures, our culinary innovation seems to be focused obsessively on reinventing things we already have. But imitations designed to compete with a much-loved original will always be overshadowed by the comparison.
“A synthetic burger will always be a less good, slightly funny tasting non-meat meat, rather than something profound and extraordinary in its own right … Food-tech companies position themselves as offering the food of the future, yet they rely on yesterday’s ideas. Wouldn’t it be better to design truly new foods, or focus on evolving cultural preferences for different flavours?”
Interesting perspective about the nature of disruption and you can read it here.
- KC's View:
