Innovation in Food Technology

There is a quiet crisis building inside India’s food ecosystem, and it is not being talked about enough. Over the last few weeks, I have been in conversations with multiple restaurant owners and cloud kitchen operators across cities. Different cuisines, different scales, different geographies. But the underlying story is the same. The pressure is no longer coming from one direction. It is coming from everywhere at once. The economics were already tight. Platforms continue to charge commissions in the range of 20 to 30 percent per order. On top of that, visibility is no longer organic, so restaurants are forced to spend on ads and discounts just to stay relevant. At the same time, GST of 5 percent without input credit further reduces actual margins. What looks like a growing business from the outside is often operating on extremely thin or negative margins on the inside. Now add another layer to this situation. Commercial gas, which is the most basic requirement for any kitchen, has become difficult to access consistently. Supply disruptions and availability issues are being reported by multiple operators. When your entire operation depends on cooking at scale, even a short disruption creates immediate revenue loss. To cope with this, many small entrepreneurs have started experimenting with temporary alternatives like bhattis or makeshift cooking setups. These are not long-term solutions. They are survival tactics. They come with safety risks, inconsistency in output, and additional operational challenges. And this is where the situation takes a more serious turn. Instead of support during a period of stress, there are increasing reports of informal payments being demanded at the local level. In several cases, operators are being asked to pay around five thousand rupees just to continue running these temporary setups without interruption from MCDs. At a time when margins are already under pressure, this is not just an added cost. It is a signal of how vulnerable the smallest players in the ecosystem are. Larger brands can absorb shocks. They have stronger supply chains, better negotiation power, and more operational buffers. Small food entrepreneurs do not have that luxury. If we step back and look at the broader structure, the picture becomes clearer. Platform commissions, rising marketing spends, increasing input costs, supply uncertainty in essentials like gas, and now informal leakages at the ground level. Each layer adds pressure. Together, they create a system where survival itself becomes the biggest challenge. The Indian food services market is estimated to be worth over 4 lakh crore rupees and employs millions of people directly and indirectly. A significant portion of this ecosystem is driven by small and mid-sized operators who bring diversity, innovation, and local flavor to the industry. When they struggle, the impact is not isolated. It affects livelihoods, quality, and the overall health of the market.

To Feed the World, A Rethink in Agriculture is a Must: Harnessing Modern Technology for Food Security!! With the global population expected to surpass 9.7 billion by 2050, the challenge of feeding the world has never been more pressing. The current agricultural system, strained by climate change, declining soil health, and unsustainable practices, is ill-equipped to meet this demand. According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), global food production must increase by 70% to feed the projected population—a daunting task under existing farming methods. A comprehensive rethink of agriculture is essential, and technology must play a pivotal role in this transformation. Modern agriculture is no longer just about growing crops; it's about growing them sustainably, efficiently, and in harmony with our planet's limitations. Digital Technologies are revolutionizing how we farm. The use of AI, machine learning, and data analytics allows farmers to make smarter decisions—whether it's about planting, irrigation, or crop protection. According to a McKinsey report, precision farming technologies can increase farm productivity by 60-70%, significantly boosting yields while reducing resource consumption. In India, startups using digital platforms to provide real-time advice and market insights can help farmers increase income by 20-30%. Biotechnology offers another vital solution. By developing genetically modified crops resistant to pests, drought, and disease, we can ensure higher yields in increasingly unpredictable environments. The success of Bt cotton in India, which led to a 24% increase in yield, is just one example. Biotechnology also enhances nutritional content, with biofortified crops like Golden Rice tackling malnutrition in developing countries. Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA)—from greenhouses to vertical farming—allows for year-round cultivation in any climate, with minimal water and land use. CEA systems can produce up to 10 times more yield per acre compared to traditional farming. Companies like Plenty and Bowery are already proving that urban vertical farms can be part of the solution, growing crops sustainably with 95% less water and no pesticides. If we are to feed the world, embracing these modern technologies is not just a choice—it’s a necessity. Agriculture must evolve to meet the challenges of the future, and the integration of digital technologies, biotechnologies, and controlled environment farming is the pathway toward sustainable global food security. The future of food is here, and it demands our attention today.

Food waste sits low on most people's list of climate priorities. The numbers say it shouldn't. Food loss and waste account for 8-10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization. If wasted food were a country, only China and the United States would emit more. In 2017, Rayner Loi set out to fix a narrower, more solvable slice of that problem: hotel kitchens in Singapore. He was later joined by co-founder Adriel Tan, and together they built Lumitics. I loved the ambition and the focus of the founding team enough to come in early as an investor and advisor. What they built was a full system: computer vision and machine learning that identifies which specific food items a kitchen is throwing away, and what they cost. That is the detail that makes the difference. A hotel that learns it over-orders salmon every Tuesday can fix its ordering, renegotiate with its supplier and cut cost, rather than just log it. 9 years later, Lumitics runs in kitchens across more than 20 countries in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East, working with hotel groups including Accor, Hyatt, Marriott and Four Seasons. That work has saved hotels millions of dollars in food costs, the equivalent of 2.5 million meals, and avoided 1.5 million tonnes of CO2e, roughly 3% of Singapore's annual emissions. In March this year, 11 hotel and travel companies, including Accor and Hilton, stood in front of the United Nations and signed the Recipe of Change pledge: halve food waste by 2030, in line with SDG 12.3. Winnow was one of the organisations in the room. A pledge like that is only as real as the data behind it, and most kitchens still have no idea what they throw away or why. This week, Winnow acquired Lumitics. Together, Winnow's global reach and Lumitics' regional depth in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East give hotel groups a single platform that can actually back up a pledge like Recipe of Change with real measurement. Follow the money. This deal ran on unit economics, not sentiment. Food waste reduction pays for itself fast enough that a global platform will pay a premium to acquire market position rather than build it from zero. This is climate tech consolidation across Asia: global platforms buying the regional depth they cannot build fast enough themselves. I have known Rayner for seven years now, and the growth is obvious. He has gone from a founder chasing his first pilot to someone who runs board meetings, makes the hard people calls and has navigated some brutal years for hospitality. That growth is as much the story here as the acquisition itself. Congratulations to Rayner, Adriel and the whole Lumitics team, and to board member and long-time backer Nicholas Cocks and early investor Franck COURMONT, who backed this through thick and thin. 9 years of grit and regional execution just got them acquired by the market leader. Not bad for a start-up that began with 2 founders staring into hotel bins in Singapore.

When Technology Becomes the Problem what happens when businesses push tech without understanding people’s needs? Dr Maria Panagiotidi shares her experience with a desert place, that forced customers through a horrible journey, involving a QR code, downloading an app, just to order, without the option to even pay in the app in the end. This raises a couple issues, from ageing population who struggled with the lack of alternative option, accessibility problems, and the lost of human connection, something people expect in small cafés. Personal note: I get a feeling a lot of restaurants got sold "no human contact solutions" during the pandemic, and kept those after. I'm baffled they force people to download the app, while most of those things could be done in the browser. Having people create an account, again, very annoying. But not letting people pay in the app in the end (after getting in all the trouble of the horrible journey), this simply doesn't make any sense. If you go "no human contact", at least, do it on a whole journey. I had similar experiences in Japan restaurants (not cafés), but, at least, the QR code sent you to a site, not an app. Which was honestly okay for me, because half of the card wasn't translated, so at least with the site, I could do Papago translate on the page. But, indeed, if the customers are not tech friendly, it can be messy. I've seen a lot of complaints on Gmaps, from people not being happy about having to order via the phone. I also agree this such solution can become accessibility problems, but mostly because I doubt that accessibility is anyway on the roadmap of the companies who sell those tools to restaurants/ cafés. But, if the digital version of the card, and maybe even a checkout/order process were accessible, that could actually be helpful. For example: blind users could use a screen reader to parse the digital menu. But, again, it means, that, the digital version of the menu is accessible, which is rarely sadly the case. At the end of the day, as Maria says, it's about providing options https://lnkd.in/eFsNbWvg

OpenTable’s new terms of service go into effect today. I’ve already shared my perspective on the core issue: requiring restaurants to use OpenTable as the “primary system of record” without real interoperability makes true multi-platform operation impractical. I’ve also seen OpenTable’s response positioning this as a “data security” decision. I find that hard to reconcile with a model that forces restaurants to manually move diner data between systems just to stay operational. But this isn’t new. This is OpenTable asserting more control over restaurants and we’ve already seen how this plays out. Over the last decade, the way diners discover restaurants has fundamentally shifted to search, social, maps, food-focused apps and everywhere in between. But even as diners started discovering restaurants across all of these channels, OpenTable restaurants were still forced to route reservations through a single platform–and pay a fee–regardless of where that demand originated. In other words, the discovery layer evolved… but the conversion layer stayed locked behind a toll booth. With the proliferation of AI platforms, that next shift in discovery is happening right before our eyes. We don’t know exactly what that future looks like–but we do know it will create even more ways for diners to discover restaurants outside of any single platform. And yet, under this model, restaurants are once again being forced to lock themselves into that same toll booth--this time with even more restrictions. So as new channels emerge, restaurants face the same constraint: → Pay to access demand, even when they generated it themselves → Take on operational burden to work around it → Or limit their presence across channels altogether That’s not just a pricing model. It’s a structural constraint on growth. And over time, it compounds: → Higher customer acquisition costs → Less control over the guest relationship → Slower adoption of new channels At a moment when restaurants should have more leverage than ever, they are instead handcuffed to an incumbent with an archaic business model. We’ve already seen what happens when the industry can’t fully capitalize on a major shift in discovery. The last thing this industry should accept is paying yesterday’s tolls on tomorrow’s demand. If you are a restaurant, now is the time to take a closer look at what these changes mean in practice–not just for today, but for the future.

A restaurant owner in karachi messaged me: “we’ve been on foodpanda for months. orders come in… but we’re not growing. it just feels like noise.” i get that. so many small business owners think being “on the app” means visibility. but platforms don’t create connection. psychology does. i looked at their page. - no clear story - no emotional anchor - no reason to care just a list of items and prices. it wasn’t bad. it was just… forgettable. we didn’t redesign anything. we just made sure the first 3 lines of their description answered: why would someone crave this food right now? that’s it. not louder. not trendier. just clearer. in 5 days, repeat orders doubled. not because we hacked foodpanda. but because we tapped into how people actually choose what to eat: they don’t scroll like robots. they scroll with emotions. boredom, stress, cravings, loneliness… that’s what you’re competing against. sometimes the best marketing advice is: don’t optimize the app. optimize for the human using it.

I wonder who really benefits from Zomato, Swiggy, or EazyDiner dining offers? Because it’s clearly not the restaurants. Yesterday, I had dinner at a nice restaurant. The bill was ~ ₹7,000. Just before paying, I casually asked, “Can I pay via Zomato for any offers?” The manager instantly replied: 👉 “Please don’t. I’ll give you a flat 10% discount directly and he gave me new bill.” That hit me. These platforms are supposed to help restaurants with acquisition and retention, right? But most people (including me) only check for Zomato or Swiggy Dineout AFTER they’ve already eaten — not before. So how is this helping the restaurant get new customers? Or even retain them? Instead, restaurants are: ❌ Paying commission on customers they already acquired ❌ Losing margin on discounts decided by the platform ❌ Handing over customer data & loyalty to third parties This isn’t growth. This is a tax on their own success. It reminds me of what happened with Nearby.com. It didn’t drive discovery — it just reduced take-rate for loyal customers who were coming anyway. Why are we normalizing this? If the tech doesn’t genuinely bring NEW footfall, build loyalty, or offer transparency — what’s the point? Restaurants deserve platforms that: ✅ Help build first-party customer relationships ✅ Charge flat, fair fees ✅ Don’t eat into existing business ✅ Actually deliver incremental value Until then, we’ll keep seeing restaurants prefer giving direct discounts over letting someone else profit off their hard work. Curious to hear from restaurant owners, product folks, and marketers — What’s your take? Is this sustainable? Or broken by design? #Zomato #Swiggy #EazyDiner #RestaurantTech #FoodTech #StartupLessons #ProductThinking #Growth

The restaurant tech industry built a religion around dashboards. Only 3% of the operators are attending. Let that sink in for every pitch deck that promised a "single pane of glass." We process $2B+ in GMV across 26 markets with 350+ integration partners. I can tell you exactly what happens at that scale: operators stop logging in. Not because the dashboards are bad. Because the dashboards require a human to interpret them during a dinner rush — when there's no human available to interpret anything. The restaurant tech industry built an entire product category around a flawed assumption: that the bottleneck is awareness. It's not. The bottleneck is execution. An operator running 14 concurrent delivery orders doesn't need a chart showing which ones are late. They need the system to reroute, reprioritize, and resolve — before "late" even registers. More gauges in a cockpit don't help when the plane is already stalling. The pilot needs the aircraft to correct itself. That 3% stat isn't a feature request. It's a post-mortem on a decade of restaurant SaaS that optimized for the engineer's instinct to visualize rather than the operator's need to act. → Visibility without autonomy is just a prettier way to watch things break. → The next generation of this tech won't win by surfacing better data. → It'll win by making the screen irrelevant. What's the last dashboard you shipped that an operator opened more than twice — without being asked to? #RestaurantTech #AutonomousAI #B2BSaaS #RestaurantOperations #ProductStrategy

Five restaurant listings. One kitchen. That’s what an Entrackr investigation found on Swiggy in Gurugram. Five separate restaurant identities operating simultaneously: • Momo Palace China • Crispy Crunch Momos • The Momos House • Momo Factory • Humpty Momos All sharing the same FSSAI license number, same address, and nearly identical menus, pricing, and food photographs. At first glance, this may look like a simple duplicate listing issue. But the deeper questions are far more serious. Food delivery platforms are built on trust systems: Ratings. Reviews. Discovery. Recommendations. Those systems only work if users believe each listing represents a genuinely different restaurant. But what happens if one kitchen can repeatedly reappear under fresh identities? A bad review disappears. A damaged reputation resets. Search rankings restart. Sponsored visibility multiplies. In effect, one physical outlet can occupy multiple positions across the platform economy while consumers believe they are choosing between different restaurants. The story also raises questions around platform verification systems and investor-facing marketplace metrics. If duplicate storefronts can exist at scale, what exactly counts as a “restaurant partner” on large delivery platforms? Most importantly, what happens to consumer trust when digital identities become more important than physical reality? This investigation generated strong conversations across X today because the issue goes beyond one kitchen or one app. It touches the core architecture of how trust works in platform businesses. Impact journalism by Team Entrackr .

People who build food delivery apps in Mozambique often overlook the scale for which local restaurants were designed—and that’s why most of these platforms struggle or fail. The issue isn’t just technology, it’s production capacity and scale. Think about it: if a restaurant with only 15 tables already struggles to meet in-person demand, how can it possibly handle a high volume of online orders efficiently? Just 50 simultaneous online requests can overwhelm most local restaurants, and the reality is that online orders are directly competing with physical customers. The restaurant will always prioritize those who are already there. So, what’s the solution? Forcing them to scale? Good luck with that. Unless you present exceptional numbers, most won’t even consider investing in higher production capacity. Maybe you can convince a few—but that’s a long shot. Any food delivery solution in Mozambique must be designed with this reality in mind. Instead of just pushing demand, it should also consider how to gradually scale production. Otherwise, all you’ll achieve is a bunch of frustrated, hungry customers—and no one wants to wait 4 hours for a meal.