Juicy, Crunchy, Chewy:
The Art of Texturising
Meat and dairy alternatives shouldn’t just taste great, they have to feel great as well. And that is no trivial matter. ECBF Deep Dives into the companies and technologies helping us replace animal products, with – dare we say it – better tasting and feeling alternatives, that are sustainable and healthy to boot.
Executive Summary
● Texture plays a critical role in consumer acceptance of meat and dairy alternatives; unexpected textures can lead to negative perceptions and dissatisfaction.
● Replicating the texture of animal products using plant-based ingredients is complex and requires advanced understanding of food rheology and psychorheology.
● Surveys indicate that for consumers aged 25 to 44, texture is the primary reason for disliking plant-based alternatives, with a particular emphasis on the lack of creaminess in plant-based cheeses.
● Companies are enhancing plant-based textures by masking aftertastes, improving creaminess with natural ingredients, and tailoring flavor profiles to meet regional preferences.
● Various extrusion methods (low temperature, cold, cooking, high moisture) are essential in developing meat-like textures from plant proteins, offering versatility in texture customization.
● Emerging methods like 3D printing, mycelium fermentation, freeze structuring, shear cell technology, fiber spinning, and cultivated meat are pushing the boundaries of texture replication in alternative proteins.
● Startups like PeelPioneers are focusing on natural, clean-label ingredients to improve juiciness and bite, addressing consumer demand for less processed and more natural products.
● The EU's Novel Food Regulation poses challenges for introducing new texturising technologies and ingredients, requiring thorough safety assessments that can delay market entry.
● While funding has decreased in line with overall market trends, the texturising sector remains active with ongoing IPOs and M&A activities, especially in process-focused companies.
● The industry is shifting towards not only replicating but also enhancing animal-based products, aiming to create plant-based foods that are superior in taste and texture, ultimately driving higher consumer adoption.
A soggy potato chip. A mushy apple. Lumpy milk. For most people, food texture is not a conscious consideration – unless it’s significantly different than expected.
In haute-cuisine kitchens, this sensory incongruity is often used to surprise and delight, presenting foods that usually appear in one form in an unexpected manner: a foam of parmesan cheese, or a vegetable-flavoured ice cream.
But sometimes, rather than creating the most unexpected combination of flavour and texture, the challenge is doing the complete opposite: recreating precisely a food that people know, but from (completely) different ingredients.
Meat from plants, for example. Which raises the question: How does one make something made of plants feel like a burger?
This question is not one that’s gone unresearched – there’s a whole field called food rheology which studies the behaviour of food under specific conditions (i.e. in a mouth). There are countless machines and devices to measure everything from the stringiness of cheese on pizza to the tenderness of meat. There’s even a sub-field, psychorheology, that investigates the “sensory judgement of rheological properties”.
But measuring is something else than creating.
Survey have shown that for consumers aged 25 to 44, the texture of plant-based alternatives is the biggest reason to dislike it. The same survey noted that “cheese is the final frontier”, with consumers particularly unhappy about the taste and texture of plant-based cheese, lamenting the lack of creaminess.
Apart from texture, the slower uptake of animal-based food product alternatives can be attributed to perception of higher cost – which is no longer the case in some countries –, taste and the ‘clean label trend’, which sees consumers picking alternatives more readily if the foods are made out of natural ingredients rather than artificial or processed.
Consumer expectations for plant-based meat alternatives have evolved significantly over time. In 2018, the primary concern was that alt-meat burgers should maintain their structural integrity. However, by 2023, consumers have come to expect a level of juiciness comparable to traditional meat products.
The sensory experience plays a crucial role in consumer retention for plant-based foods. While initial adoption may be driven by health or environmental concerns, the taste and texture are key factors in ensuring repeat purchases. Research indicates that a significant portion of European consumers find dairy alternatives lacking in certain sensory aspects. The primary complaint is the absence of the rich, creamy, and smooth mouthfeel characteristic of cow's milk
To address these texture issues in plant-based dairy alternatives, typically, creaminess and mouthfeel is enhanced through the addition of natural ingredients and proteins, while undesirable flavors are masked, and flavor profiles are adjusted to match regional preferences for milk.
In the realm of plant-based meat analogues, recent years have seen considerable diversification and innovation, particularly in the burger category. As the market expands, consumer expectations for the performance of these alternatives have increased. For instance, plant-based sausages are now expected to replicate the bite of their meat counterparts, while analogue chicken pieces should exhibit improved juiciness and fibrous texture.
To meet these evolving demands, it's necessary to combine advanced texturizing technology with innovative ingredient solutions.
While the sensory experience of ‘crunchy’ or ‘chewy’ might be obvious to people, it’s slightly more complicated to measure those properties.
The focus extends beyond the measurement of texture properties, but also on the process that goes into making them, the safety of the end-product, the sustainability of the production process and the scalability of production.
Food can be understood as a disperse system in which one substance is dispersed within another substance. For example, margarine is a dispersion of fats or oils in a liquid-like structure, while chocolate is a solid emulsion in which cacao and sugar are suspended within solidified cocoa butter.
The size of the dispersed substance and the concentration of dispersion then lead to different properties of the system that allow for different parameters for quality. Taking chocolate, again, the size of the sugar particles determines the roughness (or smoothness) of the chocolate.
This understanding then allows for the development and application of technologies that can alter the production, extraction or properties of foods in desired ways. Take for example the relatively new application of a process called triboelectric separation, in which protein can be extracted from a source material using electric currents, with increased efficiency and low water-usage.
Another widely applied method is extrution, which is widely used in meat alternative production. Extrusion exists in a few different forms, but all amount to forcefully pushing a mixture of ingredients through a long barrel with a screw mechanism inside.
Roughly speaking, creating a plant-based alternative to an animal product requires mimicking the nutritional composition (fat, fiber, protein and carbohydrates, plus aromatic compounds, water and salt) from plant or microbe-derived sources, and then manipulating those to gain the correct rheological properties.
As the mixture moves through the barrel, it’s subjected to high pressure, shearing forces and heat, cooking the mixture and realigning the protein molecules into a more structured and fibrous mass that’s pushed out the other end of the barrel.
The final product's characteristics can be significantly influenced by the ingredients used (types of plant proteins, binding agents, flavourings), the extruder's configuration (screw design, barrel length), and the process parameters (temperature, pressure, screw speed).
This flexibility is what makes extrusion a highly versatile and widely used technique in the plant-based food industry. Extrusion in its different forms allow for “unlimited diversity” when it comes to creating textures from proteins.
Texturing Technologies
When it comes to the next generation of texturing, there are a few promising examples.
A number of startups, such as Revo Foods from Austria and Cocuus from Spain are working with 3D printing and ‘3D assembly’ of fish and meat analogues to create the texture layer by layer, like in a traditional 3D printer. They are challenging the norm that typical 3D printing is not a scalable way of production.
Another pathway could be through the use of mycelium – the ‘roots’ of mushrooms – that are grown and processed to create structure that resembles that of meat. The most famous example, which has been around since the late 70s is Quorn, but other startups such as Infinite Roots, MATR Foods, Luya Foods and Nosh Bio are all banking on being able to create convincing texture from mycelium.
Covered in a previous Deep Dive, precision fermentation, or the very efficient use of ‘cellular factories’ to create molecularly identical but animal-free products, is being applied to creating foods from milk-free cheese to meat alternatives.
The next generation food texturising in a nutshell
3D printing: As with 3D printing in manufacturing, food substrates can be pushed through a die and ‘constructed’ in layers to achieve desired shape, density and texture.
Mycelium fermentation: As covered in a previous Deep Dive growing or fermenting a mycelium structure under particular conditions can create a fibrous structure that mimics the characteristics of i.e. meat. The most well-known example here would be the products manufactured by Quorn.
Freeze structuring: In freeze structuring, a protein gel or slurry is frozen to generate structure. By unidirectionally removing heat in the freezing process, ice crystals align and form an anisotropic structure – essentially a material that displays different characteristics when tested in different directions, like meat.
Shear cell technology: Proteins in a pressure cooker with moving parts – normally two cones, with the outer one rotating – cause shearing of the protein, pulling it into a fibrous structure that is well suited for whole-meat cut analogues.
Fiber spinning: A production process that can be compared to spinning cotton candy, in which proteins are ejected as a thin fiber and then ‘spun’ to create the desired structure. German startup Project Eaden uses this technique to create a ham analogue.
Cultivated meat: Not a meat-free alternative, as the product is actual meat, but grown in a lab from stem cells on a scaffolding to recreate structure.
New Texturising Processes Already Entering the Market
And most science-fiction of all alternative meat production processes: cultivated meat. Since its first introduction in the early 2000s, and the famous tasting of the lab-grown burger by scientist Mark Post in 2012, the technology has been evolving and maturing, with over €110m being invested in European cultivated meat startups in 2021, according to the Good Food Institute
Texture Ingredients
It’s not just technological innovation that is needed to improve the texture – innovation in the ingredients that create texture are just as important.
Companies are actively working to replace methylcellulose, an ingredient valued for its unique reverse gelling properties, which enable it to form gels when heated and break down when cooled. Despite its functional benefits in food products, methylcellulose is not widely accepted as a "clean label" ingredient due to consumer preferences for more natural and recognizable components. Companies like Meala from Israel are modifying plant proteins to replace methylcellulose in different applications.
Achieving texturizing functionality in food products requires tailored solutions, as no single approach fits all needs. Strategies include replacing egg whites with plant-based alternatives like aquafaba or soy protein, incorporating functional fibers such as psyllium husk or inulin to enhance moisture retention and structure, or reformulating recipes and processing methods. For example, Heura Foods has patented a microstructure technology that replaces traditional additives, modified starches, and saturated fats with plant proteins and healthy lipids, showcasing how innovative processes can create the desired texture while aligning with clean-label trends.
One of ECBF’s portfolio companies, PeelPioneers, is dedicated to upcycle orange peels into high-value ingredients.
Founded in 2017, the Dutch company is on a mission to tackle the massive waste stream of orange peels—estimated at 5000 kilotons annually— by transforming them into functional and sustainable products.
Their innovations include flavouring agents, essential oils, and their signature orange fiber. This unique fiber boasts exceptional emulsifying and water/oil-binding properties, making it perfect for improving the juiciness and texture of alternative meat products.
texturizing technologies
Analysis: Processes and Ingredients
Venture Dynamics
Global Capital Invested and Deal Count
by Mridul Pareek, Investment Associate at ECBF
Financing is following the overall market trend, with less funding being allocated to texturising startups in 2022 and 2023. ECBF has made the distinction between ‘process’ and ‘ingredient’ startups. Companies in the process bucket are focused on creating or improving production processes, while companies in ingredients are producing the compounds necessary for texturising, such as starches or methylcellulose.
Israel, the Netherlands and Spain stand out in terms of number of companies in the texturising space.
New texturising companies founded saw a strong uptick from 2017, peaked in 2020, with a slow dropoff to 2021 and a more marked drop in 2022 and 2023. This could also be an artefact of available data, with younger companies too immature to be picked up by Pitchbook.
ECBF tracked data for 90 companies active in the space, finding that more capital flows into process companies than ingredient companies, possibly due to process companies’ B2C models.
Extrusion companies are most represented, mycelium and 3D printing companies trailing slightly.
Companies on the process side have raised the most funding versus the ingredient space.
M&A Corporate Acquirers are mostly US-based
US corporate acquisitions dominate the space, with EU deals falling behind. Ingredient companies currently dominate the corporate M&A activity, but expect more process company acquisitions to follow as new texturising techniques develop.
Analysis shows that startup failures are mostly due to high costs and lack of funding.
Investor Attention Points
Conclusion
Texturising technologies promise to improve functionality and performance of products, leading to higher adoption. Caveat: Existing texturizers are multi-functional. One ingredient can have several functionalities, i.e. binding, gelling and emulsifying. Replacement ingredients are thus facing stiff competition. If they need to be incorporated into a product, they need to prove the same amount (or more) advantages, most of the time.
The market is still growing, with an active IPO and M&A landscape. Clean label products show promise when tech matures and cost decreases. Texturising is an important enabling technology and ECBF is actively seeking investment opportunities in the space.
Regulation
The big hurdle for these next-gen texturising technologies – aside from scaling up technologies that are still not capable of large-scale mass-production – has been regulation.
The EU in particular, boasts the “safest food market in the world”, according to Deep Dive speaker Katia Merten-Lentz, a founding partner of the law firm Food Law Science and Partners, which, as you might surmise, focuses on food law and science.
Merten-Lentz explains that the EU adopted the 1st Novel Food Regulation in 1997 reviewed in 2018, which essentially bans - for safety reasons - any foods that were not regularly consumed in the EU before 1997, AND are included on a ten-point list of categories, before being thoroughly evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
And unfortunately - but not dramatically - for alternative protein innovators, “to be as similar as possible to the foods they replace, alternative proteins must be produced or processed in a way that makes them highly likely to fall under the EU’s Novel Food Regulation to be authorised to enter the EU market,” she says.
Novel Food Regulation Diagram
The ten-point list of the Novel Food Regulation covers products made from mycelium and fungi, but also animals or their parts (i.e. insects) and cell and tissue culture.
But Merten-Lentz explains that even products that are not on the ten-point list and could have been consumed in some forms before 1997 might still fall under the EU regulation and be required to go through the safety assessment procedure – which at the very minimum takes 18 months, but often a bit longer.
This is because the production process is taken into account as well as the source and end products. “It’s a combination of both production and source, and food that is non-novel, could become novel,” she says, giving the example of sunflower seed protein isolate.
While sunflower seeds and sunflower oil have been consumed since far before 1997, the process of extracting the protein from the seeds was not regularly used.
The same goes for fermentation, in many cases. “Because fermentation alters the organoleptic sensory and nutritional properties, these foods might fall under the Novel Food Regulation,” she explains.
The Future
One example of a company taking the holistic approach is the Spanish startup, and ECBF portfolio company, Heura. By combining a deep understanding of what makes for texture that approaches that of animal-based products with novel ingredient research, the company has created a process they call microstructure design.
Essentially, the process tries to control the properties of the end-product along a number of parameters that are measured versus the animal-based alternative. This involves not only the textural properties, but also the oral response and controlled release of flavour.
The company labels their products not as analogues or alternatives, but as successors, because they’re trying to actually improve some of the properties where animal meats are lacking – for example, their plant burgers contain ingredients that allow for a longer after-taste versus a meat burger.
This approach might just be a window into the future of texturising meat and dairy alternatives; instead of just trying to replace existing animal-based products, try to improve on them with the knowledge and technology available to humans.
New foods would thus not only be better for the environment and more healthy for consumption – they might be more scrumptious in the mouth as well.
Authors
-
Marie Asano
Partner
-
Mridul Pareek
Associate