Innovation alone is not enough

Meat alternatives are considered key to a more sustainable diet – and as a beacon of hope for a growing industry. But whether a product can succeed in the market is not decided in the lab, but by the consumer. Even the most technologically advanced solution will fail if taste and texture don't convince. What truly matters is the actual eating experience – not just the idea behind it.

Texture, in particular, is often perceived by consumers as a weak point. It's more than just mouthfeel: it shapes the perception of naturalness, influences acceptance – and plays a decisive role in whether a product is perceived as “authentic.” Consumers judge plant-based alternatives not only by their fibrousness or juiciness, but by the combination of taste, appearance, and texture. Even minor deviations can be enough for a product to be perceived as underdeveloped.

Taste also presents a major challenge for developers: clean labels, short ingredient lists, and avoiding flavor enhancers align with consumer expectations – but also carry risks. If umami is lacking or seasoning seems unbalanced, acceptance suffers. Flavors can help balance this – but only if they are well integrated. Tests with consumer panels can reveal early on which combinations are convincing – and which come across as artificial or unbalanced.

Many products appear promising during development – but fail in consumer tests. Claims like “30% less salt” or “fat-free” can trigger confusion rather than approval. Consumers also assess how well a product aligns with the brand image. Panel tests show whether a new product works not just in terms of sensory experience, but also in communication – and where expectations are being disappointed.

One often underestimated factor: technically useful ingredients like potassium chloride are evaluated analytically as salt substitutes – but quickly trigger rejection among consumers. Even with minimal substitution, many panel participants report bitter or metallic notes. The combination of multiple reduction strategies – such as reducing both salt and fat – can amplify sensory flaws, even if each individual change is barely noticeable. Deviations in texture are particularly critical here, such as when products appear too uniform, too soft, or “mushy.” These aspects often go unnoticed in standard lab analyses – but become clear in real-world taste tests with consumers.

That’s why one thing is clear: sensory perception is open to interpretation – and must be understood in the context of real consumption situations. Consumer panels provide valuable insights here. They reveal how recipe, texture, and communication are actually received – not just how they are intended. This is how innovation becomes market success.