Well, first, it's an opinion, not a mathematical proof. And secondly, just because you can't see the link between the two doesn't mean there's no link. Perhaps

Well, first, it's an opinion, not a mathematical proof. And secondly, just because you can't see the link between the two doesn't mean there's no link. Perhaps put it this way: 50 years ago, some people thought that highly processed foods were the quality food of the future. Over time it became apparent that quality food was considered to be 'back-to-basics', original and fresh stuff. Now there is a new trend of highly processing food that some think will be the quality food of the future. Of course 3D printing food won't be anything more than a toy. It requires expensive equipment with a lot of maintenance, specific training, and can only be used with a limited subsection of foods (basically anything you can put into a piping bag, which also has to be stiff enough to support it's own weight). The idea of this spreading to the massed public is just ludicrous; who is going to be making the family dinner with a 3D printer? And keep on doing that regularly, once the novelty wears off? A toy for high-end restaurants does not a food revolution make.