When Washington announced billions in CHIPS Act funding to support Intel’s domestic semiconductor manufacturing capacity, many observers were surprised. Why Intel and not NVIDIA? After all, NVIDIA has become the market leader in artificial intelligence chips, posting record profits and fueling much of the AI revolution. Intel, meanwhile, has struggled to keep pace technologically.

The distinction comes down not to innovation, but to resilience and control. NVIDIA designs its cutting-edge GPUs in California, but it manufactures them almost entirely overseas — primarily at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). This reliance on a single foreign producer creates a massive strategic vulnerability. Intel, by contrast, both designs and fabricates chips, and is investing heavily in new plants in Arizona, Ohio, and New Mexico. For U.S. policymakers, Intel represents a critical hedge against supply chain disruption, geopolitical conflict, and national security risks.

This same story plays out daily in the foodservice industry. Manufacturers, like governments, must weigh the trade-offs between innovation and resilience, efficiency and redundancy, cost and control.

Overreliance Creates Fragility

In semiconductors, the concern is Taiwan. In foodservice, it may be a single co-manufacturer, an ingredient supplier, or even a packaging converter. The risks are similar: what happens if that supplier goes offline due to labor strikes, raw material shortages, weather events, or shipping constraints? For a food manufacturer, production can grind to a halt, disrupting downstream operator and consumer trust.

Innovation vs. Infrastructure

NVIDIA represents breakthrough innovation, while Intel represents infrastructure and stability. In foodservice, we see an echo of this tension. Startups and niche suppliers bring innovation — plant-based products, functional beverages, or novel packaging formats. But they often lack the infrastructure to scale reliably. Incumbents may not be as flashy, but they control the plants, distribution systems, and redundancies that guarantee supply. Successful food companies learn to balance both — leveraging innovation while ensuring infrastructure can support demand.

Rethinking “Cost Efficiency”

NVIDIA chips are more powerful, but also more expensive and harder to secure. Intel’s products may not always lead on performance, but they are available and increasingly made in the U.S. Similarly, in foodservice, the lowest-cost supplier is not always the best choice if it creates exposure to disruption. Forward-thinking companies are reframing efficiency — not as “paying the lowest unit price,” but as “ensuring continuity of supply at the right cost.” That shift places risk management on par with cost control.

A Strategic Lesson for Foodservice Leaders

The CHIPS Act is about more than semiconductors. It is a reminder that control of critical inputs matters. Food is, at its core, national security. Just as policymakers back Intel to safeguard domestic chip capacity, food companies should ask: Do we have our own version of Intel? Do we have suppliers and partners who provide resilience, not just efficiency?

At Foodservice IP, we help manufacturers evaluate these trade-offs, balance innovation with infrastructure, and prepare for the unexpected. By connecting insights to decisions, we ensure that when the next disruption arrives, your supply chain can flex, not fracture.

To learn more about FSIP’s Management Consulting Practice, click here.

Like the content? Sign up to receive our communications.