The food innovator's dilemma
In industries like technology, constant product and experience reinvention is par for the course and expected by its consumers. In food, legacy FMCG especially, products that succeed tend to stay the shame. How does this culture of maintaining the status quo in food product innovation have implications for the future of food?
In technology, it’s expected that every couple of years our apps and digital devices will be upgraded.
The fact that the version numbers on our mobile devices and operating systems consistently goes up reminds us that someone is hard at work making these tools better over time.
We may moan about being forced to buy a new phone case or charging cable, but we don’t expect our technology to become stagnant.
In food, the expectations of innovation are mostly the opposite of what we have for technology. For the things we love, we want them to more or less stay the same.
Like how the formula for Coca-Cola hasn’t changed since 1886, save for an unfortunate debacle in April 1985 where the company reformulated it and simply called it “New Coke.” Backlash to this new formula was strong and swift.
The company hotline, 1-800-GET-COKE, was flooded with calls protesting the new formula.
Coke even hired a psychologist to listen to calls who told executives that people sounded like they were mourning the death of a family member.
RELATED: Growing our food future with Fern Ho
To be fair, the fear of change mostly applies to foods that have some form of nostalgia or longstanding affinity.
Coke is one of those things (recipe invented in 1886). The Big Mac is another (recipe invented in 1967). Oreo Cookies are yet one more (recipe invented in 1912).
The original iPhone (2007) sits in the Smithsonian Museum as a marvel of innovation but would be totally useless in 2024.
Yet when it comes to food, millions of people each day still go to McDonald’s and eat a hamburger whose recipe was invented in 1967.
Where does this dynamic leave innovators in the food industry who want to catalyse change?
If you’re an ambitious employee at a company like McDonald’s, Coke, or Mondelez, are you even allowed to float ideas in a brainstorm about how to renovate or replace those companies’ flagship products?
The Big Mac recipe has stood the test of time.
Usually, the biggest follow-on innovations at established food companies are derivatives of the crown jewels, like the Quarter Pounder or Diet Coke.
More radical innovations are typically done under different brand names, like how Coke owns orange juice company Minute Made, iced tea brand Honest Tea, and Monster Energy Drink amongst others.
Innovation can happen at these big brands, but it seemingly can’t happen at the expense of the lead product that pays the majority of the bills.
When it comes to sustainability and health, big food companies can be a victim of their own success. Mass appeal is great for the bottom line, but it means creating massive monoculture supply chains to support the production and sale of those foods and beverages that consumers cannot do without.
iPhone users are no stranger to upgrading cables – but people don’t form emotional connections to chargers the way they do with food.
These companies are left in a tough spot, having to do a ton of public relations to show off their efforts in sustainability and health, but never pointing out the fact that their core products are one of the reasons why we have landfills full of plastic bottles or childhood obesity fuelled by sugar-filled soft drink consumption.
Cash cow products that create significant, negative externalities but are ingrained in the eating and drinking habits of consumers will continue to thrive as long as people buy them.
There are almost no examples of a company discontinuing a hit product on their own free will because they felt it was too damaging to the environment or people’s health.
So instead, mission driven innovators have to focus on ways to reduce, but not completely eliminate, the negative impacts of those cash cow brands.
It’s a cautionary tale for anyone designing a new food product to make sure they don’t create a billion-dollar brand with a supply chain that degrades the planet and an ingredient label that makes people unhealthy.
RELATED: Feeding the world one gene at a time with Tress Walmsley and Ponsi Trivisvavet
Consumers also have a role to play in keeping antiquated food products in business. Even though it’s widely accepted that the world eats more than its fair share of red meat and sugar, consumers still eat those things on a daily basis.
In America, a burger and a Coke isn’t just a meal, it’s a patriotic act and some might see renouncing those foods akin to flag burning. McDonald’s recently completed a test of their McPlant Burger, made in partnership with Beyond Meat.
It failed miserably and the McPlant won’t be coming back.
Fast food is not in the business of selling facts, they sell emotions.
The McPlant simply couldn’t deliver those emotions.
Meanwhile, a company like Apple is willing to endure customer complaints in order to push the quality of their products into the next generation.
Take the evolution of the myriad charging and data cables the company has forced on its users over the past 20 years. With each iteration, consumers are frustrated by having to spend lots of money on new cables or dongles to extend the usability of their old cables.
But while some consumers will complain, Apple has been dedicated to moving the industry forward and new cables mean faster charging and data transfer, which Apple thinks is worth the pain of transition.
RELATED: ‘This one is not going away’: How agrifood can create value through the circular economy
But while the human brain usually doesn’t form emotional connections with their USB cables, they do with their food.
The formula for Coca-Cola hasn’t changed since 1886, except for once in 1985 where the company reformulated it and simply called it “New Coke.”
Changing the recipe of the Big Mac every year the same way Apple introduces a new line of products would never happen. People who love the Big Mac love it because it has never changed, not because it constantly evolves and improves.
In Silicon Valley, disruption happens with technology, but in food, it has to happen emotionally.
To make the Big Mac obsolete, you can’t just spend hundreds of millions of dollars to invent a plant-based burger that tastes just like it.
You need to figure out how to disrupt decades of emotional attachment and cultural tradition tied to that burger, on top of creating a burger that tastes better at an equal or lower price.
Food is one of those rare things in society where people still hold old, established ideas up on a pedestal.
As a result, the sharpest food innovators need to constantly ride that razor thin line where they respect tradition, while tactfully introducing something new.
It can be a difficult and stressful journey but is absolutely necessary to make the future of food better than the history of food.
Mike Lee is a food futurist, innovation strategist, and author of the book Mise: On the Future of Food.
Tickets are now on sale for evokeAG. 2025 to be held on 18-19 February 2025 in Brisbane, Queensland. Following a sell-out event in 2024 we are encouraging delegates to secure their tickets, flights and accommodation early.
We look forward to seeing you in Brisbane for evokeAG. 2025. In the meantime, catch up on the other conversations about sustainability, climate resilience and the role of agtech in meeting those challenges from here.