The most advanced taste tool we have is still a Chef

The most advanced taste tool we have is still a Chef

Some universities are trying to build an artificial tongue - a sensor system that can “measure” mouthfeel. And to be fair, the ambition makes sense. Mouthfeel is hard to quantify, and harder still to replicate at scale.

But at UPP, we back the Mark 1 human, or “Joe”.

Because food isn’t for sensors. It’s for people.

And if you want to innovate in food - really innovate, in a way that survives the journey from idea to supermarket shelf - you need to keep people at the heart of the process. That starts with the person who understands the eating experience better than anyone else: the chef.

The chef is the hero - not the lab

There’s a myth that food innovation is mainly about technology: new processing, new ingredients, new data, new optimisation.

In reality, the breakthrough usually comes from a much simpler place:

A chef tasting something and saying, “Not yet.”

That moment matters because it’s where the real standard is set. Not “does it meet the spec?” but:

Does it feel right when you chew it?

Does it eat like food?

Would you actually want a second bite?

A supermarket product doesn’t win because it’s clever. It wins because it’s comfortably familiar - and quietly better.

That’s the chef’s territory.

The creation journey: from idea to shelf

When we build a new meal concept for retail, it starts the same way most great food does: with a simple question.

What are we trying to make people feel when they eat this?

Not nutritionally. Emotionally. Practically. In the real world.

Because the moment it lands in someone’s basket, the rules change. It’s no longer a prototype. It’s dinner on a Tuesday. It has to work when someone is tired, hungry, price-sensitive, and not interested in being educated.

So the chef begins building - testing flavour, texture, aroma, and structure. The goal isn’t novelty. It’s confidence.

And this is where “mouthfeel” stops being a buzzword and becomes a make-or-break reality.

Mouthfeel is where good intentions go to die

You can have the best nutrition profile in the world and still fail on shelf if the eating experience is wrong.

Too dry.

Too grainy.

Too bouncy.

Too “engineered.”

Consumers don’t describe it that way, of course. They just say:

“I didn’t like it.”

Or worse - they don’t say anything at all, and they simply don’t buy it again.

That’s why mouthfeel is one of the highest-leverage parts of product development. It’s also why we don’t believe the solution is to remove humans from the loop.

We don’t want food assessed by something that simulates a tongue.

We want it assessed by the people who actually eat it.

Technology matters - but it plays a supporting role

UPP is technology-enabled, and we’re proud of that. We work upstream, turning under-utilised vegetables into functional ingredients that help food manufacturers improve nutrition, efficiency, and resilience.

But we’re clear-eyed about something: Technology doesn’t make food good. People do.

Our ingredients are designed to integrate into real manufacturing and real products - but they still have to pass the same test every time:

Does it taste good? Does it feel right? Does it work as food?

That’s why chefs are not an optional extra in innovation. They are the decision-makers who protect the eating experience as products scale.

Keeping people at the heart of innovation

The food industry is under pressure from every angle: cost, labour, emissions, reformulation, protein targets, fibre gaps, clean label scrutiny.

In that environment, it’s tempting to treat product development like a maths problem.

But food isn’t just a system of inputs. It’s a human experience.

And the fastest way to build the wrong future is to optimise everything except the thing that matters most: whether people actually enjoy eating it.

That’s why we keep coming back to the same principle:

Food is for people. So people belong at the centre of innovation.

Not as an afterthought. Not as a “consumer test” at the end.

Right at the beginning - with a chef, a spoon, and an uncompromising standard for what belongs on a plate.

Closing thought: trust the classical approach

We’re not against artificial tongues - they may well become useful tools for R&D.

But the best instrument we have for building food that works in the real world is still the simplest: A chef tasting, refining, and insisting that it eats like something you’d actually want to buy again.

The Mark 1 human remains undefeated.

We are not about restricting progress – we are leading the charge on utilisation and hybridisation – it’s about blending emerging technologies with classic approaches. Like everything else in food, it’s all about getting the blend right. And in a world obsessed with engineering the future of food, we think that’s worth remembering.