Gastrophysics-do we need it?

The British physicist Ernest Rutherford is quoted to have said ‘All science is either physics or stamp collection.’ A bold statement from a physicist, but probably meaningful in the sense that the history of physics is to have gone repeatedly into other disciplines and made them into modern, quantitative, and universal sciences—basically turning them into physics. Chemical physics, biophysics, geophysics, astrophysics, and econophysics are prominent examples. Hence, we suggest taking Rutherford’s words as an invitation rather than an insult.A recent international symposium entitled ‘The Emerging Science of Gastrophysics’ rallied a number of representatives of the physical, chemical, nutritional, psychological, and cognitive sciences as well as chefs, gastronomical entrepreneurs, and individuals working within gastronomical innovation. By bringing together key actors, the purpose of the Symposium was to help define, shape, and refine the preliminary and somewhat loose idea of gastrophysics. The Symposium concluded that gastrophysics, by its designated move from stamp collection to physics, could well have a significant impact on both gastronomy and tomorrow’s food sciences and how they develop in the 21st century.In this special issue of Flavour, thirteen scientists present nine ‘statements’ on gastrophysics and expose their personal opinion on what gastrophysics may be and whether we need this new term at all.Very strong opinions have been put forward regarding differences and similarities between all these terms. This is not the place to flog that old horse. Clearly, molecular gastronomy relies heavily on well-established sciences, such as food chemistry, general food science, and food processing technology. In their authoritative review on molecular gastronomy, Barham and colleagues [1] present their definition of molecular gastronomy and how it differs from gastronomy, advocating that molecular gastronomy ‘should be considered as the scientific study of why some