Currently, all of our tools are used by beverage producers (beer, coffee, spirits) internally for quality and process optimization - it would be great to apply our models and create a subscription reporting and claim verification.
[0] www.Gastrograph.com
Edit: clarity and repetition.
Also, Any ideas? What would you like to see in a service like this?
For example, this could have helped in [1][2][3] where toxic food products were very mislabeled.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal
If your references are wrong, or you miss out on the identification of a nuance, you haven't learned from the experience.
For example, individuals who say "I can't taste the difference between a $30 and $300 bottle of wine" are not _wrong_ - they just lack the formative experiences and education to appreciate the attributes that the more expensive product has.
Thus, if you decide that wine or beer or chocolate was of interest to you, it may be worthwhile to validate and trust your reference products.
TaaS: Taster as a service.
I got lots more, including a few choice ones I decided not to post :-)
I have this awful feeling it'll wind up like the whole organic beef fiasco. USDA certified organic is pretty meaningless, thanks to the lawsuits of large beef producers.
If you we're to use Mast Brothers chocolate as your "high quality" reference, you would be learning to identify the wrong attributes as indicators of quality.
Does that really matter though? Taste is highly subjective. Friends have given me what they consider very high quality, expensive chocolate, often complete with some fancy marketing blurb, and yet it doesn't taste any better to me than the more generic stuff I can get for far cheaper; but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Your second point is dead-on though. Only food obsessives would really notice or care that Mast Bros are frauds.
> Quality is a tricky word, but in terms of the appreciation of craft goods, your ability to identify the subtleties that make more higher quality products _better_ is a learned trait.
If your references are wrong, or you miss out on the identification of a nuance, you haven't learned from the experience or you've learned bad information.
For example, individuals who say "I can't taste the difference between a $30 and $300 bottle of wine" are not _wrong_ - they just lack the formative experiences and education to appreciate the attributes that the more expensive product has.
There is an entire world of great flavor out there that is very hard to perceive; for example, I don't eat any artificial flavorings, preservatives, or food coloring, and when actually doing tastings for work, there are lists of black list foods and cut-off times for a clean palate - we go to that extent because anything less would cause us to miss what makes that product unique and special - we would be entirely unable to perceive it, learn from it, and appreciate it.
If I can derive just as much pleasure from regular, mass-produced chocolate (perhaps because my taste buds aren't adjusted sufficiently), what exactly is the incentive to train my taste buds so that I have to spend more money on chocolate to gain the same pleasure?
More seriously, it's not always a choice - I got into it because a few products hit me and I said "WOW, s/coffee|chocolate|beer|wine|tea can taste like that?".
It's Pandora box and I'll never be satisfied knowing better is out there now!