When a food writer publicly ended his long-term relationship with Mutti tinned tomatoes, the reaction was as if he had entered a church and declared God wasn't real. Nicholas Jordan, who conducted a blind taste test of 26 tinned tomato products for The Guardian, found that Mutti performed no better than supermarket own brands, despite costing more than double the price.
Jordan's article, which featured a picture of him chugging pulped tomato from a tin, prompted hundreds of comments within 24 hours. Many readers expressed outrage at the suggestion that Mutti, a premium Italian brand, was not superior. Jordan noted that Mutti is often found in the pantries of those who identify with a certain culinary class—people with Alison Roman cookbooks, Broadsheet subscriptions, and knowledge of local specialty coffee options.
In the blind taste test, Mutti received scores ranging from 3 to 7 out of 10 from a panel of six reviewers. Jordan conducted a follow-up test with several Mutti varieties, including diced, whole, San Marzano, and cherry tomatoes, and found similar results. 'Mutti is neither better nor different enough to make it worth buying,' he concluded.
The backlash, Jordan suggests, stems from the fact that brand choices are tied to identity. 'When evidence doesn't match how you understand the world or how you shape your identity, you don't want to believe it,' he wrote. He recalled a previous taste test where he preferred Skippy Super Chunk Peanut Butter, an unpopular opinion among those who avoid penne pasta.
Jordan acknowledged that the findings were 'incredible and horrific'—incredible because he will save money by switching to cheaper brands, but horrific because it challenges his understanding of the universe. 'Ingredients, restaurants, pieces of art—everything we consume and use, however directly or not to define ourselves—maybe they don't make much difference either?' he mused.
