Why hasn't modern technology realised Willy Wonka food science yet?

Why hasn't modern technology realised Willy Wonka food science yet?

Timothée Chalamet in the Wonka movie proves you can’t get away with everything just because you’re super hot. This, in my circle, was the initial point of discourse surrounding the new Wonka movie. I feel particularly passionate about this topic as a long-time Charlie and the Chocolate Factory fan. To me, besides the more superficial Chalamet discus- sion, the movie also lacked a certain whimsy surrounding candy. Without sweets, it would just be Charlie and the Factory, which, unless you are really into the industrial revolution, is kind of boring. The lack of candy fantasy in the contemporary remake made me think about the general lack of creativity in our modern confectionery industry. In a world with Bluetooth and drone warfare, where is  the  three-course-dinner  chewing  gum?

"Without sweets, it would just be Charlie and the Factory, which unless your really into the industrial revolution it is kinda boring"

My first instinct in answering this question was that, however fantastical Wonka’s inven- tions were, there may be no market for these goods in our world. This can be true on two levels: firstly, producers may not have incen- tive            to          produce          everlasting-gum   because it's not profitable. A gum that never loses its flavour almost never has to be replaced. People would buy less gum, which would incur losses at current gum prices. To compensate for this, producers would have to increase prices, and then the question would be, “would people be willing to pay that much?” I did the math: in the Netherlands, a piece of gum costs, on

average, 10-20¢ cents; if someone chews 2-4 pieces a day, that is around 1,000 pieces a year, which would cost 100-200€ yearly. But if a producer sells one piece of gum instead of 1000, one piece would have to cost 100-200€ per piece to be equally profit- able. This is assuming that a person would keep the everlasting-gum in a container or something between chewing sessions. Besides the fact that putting your gum aside and then putting it back into your mouth is gross, this is also

unattractive because behavioural economics teaches us that it ‘hurts’ less to spend little bits of money over time rather than one big bulk at once.

"If it were normalised to eat in this fashion, would school

start earlier? Would we have shorter lunch breaks? Longer working hours? And what about the agricul- ture and food sector?"

Secondly, do people actually demand these goods, like the three-course-dinner chewing gum? On the surface, it sounds attractive, getting all the flavour and nutrition of a dinner from one piece of chewing gum. It's definitely practical, but it overlooks cooking and dinner as an important social and cultural aspect. The act of preparing a meal and consuming that meal alone or with others are corner- stones of human daily activity. Replacing meals with gum means you can easily eat on the go, eat in class (which is admittedly attrac- tive), eat on your bike etc. If it were normal- ised to eat in this fashion, would school start earlier? Would we have shorter lunch breaks? Longer working hours? And what about the agriculture and food sector? Discarding it would create mass unemployment, some- thing that unions and industries would surely lobby against, rendering this develop- ment infeasible. To me, the idea of putting a piece of gum in my mouth and it tasting like a poke bowl also seems sort of perverted.

When I pitched this article idea to my dad, he said, “but what if cool candy inventions do exist?” This, I hadn't considered. Most obvi- ously: Beanboozled. For those who are unfa- miliar, the Beanboozled challenge includes 10+ different jelly beans, each being part of a set: a conventional flavour, such as juicy pear, with an evil twin flavour, like booger, that look visually identical. So you don’t know if the tutti-frutti-looking jelly bean you have might

actually taste like stinky socks. Our modern confectionery industry also conceived of the Post-Malone Oreo, which tastes like caramel and shortbread. Although the sweet in itself may not be radical, imagine explaining what a Post-Malone Oreo is to a Victorian child. A cool new product is Glow-Ups, which are Swedish Fish and Sourpatch Kids that have edible confetti on them that glow under blacklight, because obviously everyone has a blacklight.

Japanese developers have been leading efforts to pioneer novel candies, for example, Kracie Nerunerunerune kits, which include a powder that you mix with water, making a ‘paint’, which you can consequently lick off. They are also the ones helping bring intru- sive thoughts to life with Oblaat, which are candies wrapped in edible plastic, so you can eat both the candy and its packaging.

Researching this article has taught me that there may be more whimsy in this world than I thought. But although I claim to be a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory fan, I don’t know how attracted I am to any compa- rable modern candies. The book and the 2005 film will always hold a special place in my heart, but when I consume them again, it will be from a more critical perspective. I suspect some things are better left in a fantasy world (except, maybe, the chocolate river).