This blog ran as the Editorial in the June edition of Meatingplace magazine:

If you like ketchup, and you’ve slathered it on a hot dog in Chicago, then you’ve probably received some type of verbal shaming from a local. Putting ketchup on a hot dog in the Windy City, where yellow mustard is the rule, is considered sacrilegious.

If you like your steak cooked to medium, and you’ve ordered that way in front of any so-called meat aficionados, you’ve probably taken a good ribbing, too, for going anywhere beyond medium rare — and “ruining” the meat in the process.

Axioms of this sort can be productive. They serve as standards, ideas on which people generally agree and in which they can more likely find a comfortable identity; meeting those standards in business translates into sales. Axioms also can be counterproductive, restricting choices, throwing up blinders and leaving other ideas in darkness.

In the June issue, on p. 30, we begin the process of shedding light on a concept that will stretch the meat industry’s thinking on product traits that consumers want — beyond the two most common targets: tenderness and juiciness. Original research around “Mouth Behavior” will pose new ideas for processors in product development.

That someone prefers medium-cooked meat over medium rare has nothing to do with a person’s desire to comply with a certain cultural doctrine and browbeat others with differing tastes. According to this research, which dates back decades but is just now being applied to meat, the way their mouths (and brains) interpret texture dictates those preferences for them.

Someone who likes a steak with more bite — something that can be achieved by cooking it longer — would likely put that person in the ranks of those consumers whose Mouth Behavior centers around using their teeth to break down food. Those who are more likely to enjoy manipulating food between their tongue and roof of the mouth would be more likely to favor a cut and preparation that doesn’t take as much work.

One can already see evidence of food companies recognizing such concepts. Walk down the grocery store aisle to see granola bars, for example, from the hard and crunchy to the soft and chewy. Look at a selection of brownies, and read how the baking directions help consumers achieve various textures.

But the textural options in the meat case aren’t quite as varied, with processors more or less feeling their mission was accomplished so long as their product is “tender” and “juicy.” No doubt those are important attributes, and those attributes help sell a lot of product, but processors could be missing out on selling more meat to a more varied set of consumers with different meat-eating priorities.

Processors already have the tools necessary to control the textures of their meats, from selection of cut, to processes such as marination and injection, to selection of sides in prepared meals. With this research, we hope to further equip processors, with some new thinking on meat sales and marketing, where meat processing and preparation at home combine to better hit consumers’ textural sweet spots.

Our first batch of research will focus on ground beef and appear in our August issue, while research on whole muscle cuts will follow later in the year. And just as a starting point: 80/20 ground beef is not the best bite for everyone.

Smart mouth

Join for free* to continue reading.