a project paper presented to the faculty of the graduate ... · asthma, arthritis, and poor health...

CONSUMER PENALTIES FOR VANILLA ICE CREAM DUE TO FAT AND SUGAR

REPLACEMENT

A Project Paper

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School

of Cornell University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Professional Studies in Agriculture and Life Sciences

Field of Food Science

by

Elga Lourdes Dias

February 2016

ABSTRACT

The aims of this study were (1) to study the effect of fat and sugar replacement on consumer

acceptability of vanilla ice cream, and (2) to determine consumer penalties in vanilla ice cream

from fat and sugar replacement using scaling methods i.e. Hedonic Scaling and Just-About-Right

Scaling. A central location consumer test at the sensory evaluation center at Cornell University

was carried out with 120 consumers. Four samples of vanilla ice cream i.e. control (full fat & full

sugar), reduced fat & full sugar, full fat & reduced sugar and reduced fat & reduced sugar were

evaluated. There was no significant difference in overall liking, taste & flavor, appearance and

aftertaste between the control and the reduced calorie samples. Although not statistically

significant, highest ratings were received for reduced calorie samples for overall liking and the

control for taste & flavor. The attributes smoothness, mouth feel and creaminess contributed

positively to the acceptance of reduced calorie vanilla ice creams. 17% consumers perceived a

bitter aftertaste with the reduced fat & reduced sugar sample, which contributed negatively to

acceptance with no significant difference when compared to the other samples. A significant

number of consumers rated the reduced calorie samples to have the softest texture resulting in

rapid melting, however, these samples received numerically highest ratings without significance

for overall liking. The most important factors were using an appropriate zero calorie sweetener

system and a complete stabilizer system to improve texture and stability of reduced calorie ice

cream.

KEY WORDS: ice cream, sweetener, sucralose, hedonic scaling, just-about-right scaling

iii

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Elga Dias received her Bachelor of Science degree with a double major in Microbiology and

Biochemistry from University of Mumbai, India in 2009 and a Master of Science degree in Food

Science with specialization in Quality Assurance from University of Leeds, United Kingdom in

2010. Elga Dias will receive her Master in Professional Studies degree in Food Science from

Cornell University in February 2016.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Prima facea, I am grateful to God for good health and wellbeing that was necessary to complete

this project.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my parents, Elizabeth Dias & Gaston Dias, my brother,

Elton Dias and my alma gemela How Lau for their continuous support and encouragement.

I wish to express my sincere thanks to Deanna Simons, QA Manager – Cornell Dairy Plant and

Alina N. Stelick, Manager - Cornell Sensory Evaluation Center for providing me with all the

necessary facilities for the research.

I am also grateful to Dr. Robin Dando, Assistant Professor in the Department of Food Science,

Cornell University for sharing his expertise, sincere and valuable guidance and encouragement

throughout the year.

I take this opportunity to also express gratitude to all of the department faculty members and

staff for their help and support. I would also like to thank Andrew Kaufman, Emma Uible,

Patricia Chau and Rui Chen for their help and special thanks to Marcela Villarreal for her

unconditional support at various stages of the research.

I also place on record, my sense of gratitude to one and all, who directly or indirectly have lent

their hand in this venture.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV

LIST OF FIGURES VI

LIST OF TABLES VII

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER 2: MATERIALS & METHODS 5

ICE CREAM SAMPLES DAIRYBLEND IC EZ CREAMY SUCRALOSE CENTRAL LOCATION TESTING TESTING PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 3: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 9

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 10 CONSUMER DEMOGRAPHICS TEST SAMPLES PENALTY ANALYSIS PURCHASE INTENT

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 21

CONSUMER DEMOGRAPHICS TEST SAMPLES PURCHASE INTENT

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 24

REFERENCES 25

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Spider Plot of Sample Sensory Profile Attribute Means & Overall Liking Scores – Page 11 Figure 1.2 Mean Overall Liking Sample Scores – Page 12

Figure 1.3 Mean Appearance Liking Sample Scores – Page 12

Figure 1.4 Mean Taste & Flavor Liking Sample Scores – Page 13 Figure 1.5 Mean Mouthfeel Liking Sample Scores – Page 13 Figure 1.6 Mean Smoothness Sample Scores – Page 14 Figure 1.7 Mean Creaminess Sample Scores – Page 14 Figure 1.8 Mean Texture Liking Sample Scores – Page 15 Figure 1.9 Mean Meltdown Sample Scores – Page 15 Figure 2.0 Mean Firmness Sample Scores – Page 15 Figure 2.1 Mean Sweetness Sample Scores – Page 16 Figure 2.2 Mean Aftertaste Sample Scores – Page 16 Figure 2.3 Mean Bitterness Sample Scores – Page 17 Figure 2.4 Control Sample – Mean Drop – Page 17 Figure 2.5 Full Fat & Reduced Sugar Sample – Mean Drop – Page 18 Figure 2.6 Reduced Fat & Full Sugar Sample – Mean Drop – Page 18 Figure 2.7 Reduced Fat & Reduced Sugar Sample – Mean Drop – Page 19

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Ice Cream Compositions – Page 5

Table 1.2 Recipal - Nutritional Facts (amount per serving (66g)) – Page 5 Table 2.1 Diet Attitudes of Participants – Page 10 Table 2.2 Differences in Diet Attitudes between Females & Males – Page 10 Table 3.1 Sensory Profile Attribute Means and Overall Liking for each Sample – Page 11 Table 4.1 Initial Purchase Intent without Revealing Information on the Samples – Page 20 Table 4.2 Change in Purchase Intent after Revealing Information on Reduced Fat and Sugar – Page 20

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Overweight and obesity are important clinical and public health burdens worldwide (T Kelly et

al., 2008) and are significantly associated with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol,

asthma, arthritis, and poor health status (Mokdad et al., 2003). The prevalence of diabetes for all

age groups worldwide is estimated to be 2.8% in 2000 and 4.4% in 2030. The total number of

people with diabetes is projected to rise from 171 million in 2000 to 366 million in 2030 (Wild et

al., 2004). The current epidemic of obesity is caused largely by an environment that promotes

excessive food intake and discourages physical activity. Control of portion size, consumption of

a diet low in fat and energy density, and regular physical activity are behaviors that protect

against obesity (Hill et al., 1998).

A combination of sweet and fat does result in increased body weight. Thus, fat may be the

macronutrient that results in excess body weight, and sweet taste may be largely responsible for

producing addictive-like behaviors that include a withdrawal syndrome (Avena et al., 2009). It

has become clear that adjustments in dietary habits are very important to combating the

metabolic syndrome, and the growing interest in healthy eating has given rise to new foods and

products on the market (Bayarri et al., 2011). Modifications in the composition of these products

and the amounts of fat and sugar result in variations in the flavor and texture, which are key

factors for the success of a product on the market (Cadena et al., 2012).

2

The US definition and standard of identity for ice cream specifies that it must contain a minimum

of 10% (wt/wt) of milk fat, 10% non-fat milk solids and 1.6 pounds total solids/gallon (FDA,

CFR Code of Federal Regulations Title 21). Based on milk fat content, ice cream is classified as

super premium (16% to 18% fat), premium (14% fat), regular (12% fat) and economy (10% fat)

(Guinard et al., 1996). The overrun, which is defined as the amount of air whipped into the ice

cream mixture, typically varies from 95% to 100% for economy ice cream to about 30% for the

super premium ice cream. A study of the effect of sugar and fat on the acceptability of vanilla ice

cream found that the level of sugar had a greater effect on all hedonic measures than did fat

(Guinard et al., 1996). Effects of fat replacers on the sensory properties, color, melting and

hardness of ice cream showed that products made with fat replacers melted faster and were

judged by the sensory panel to have less cream flavor than 10% fat ice cream. The sensory panel

scored maltodextrin as the best overall single fat replacer in fat-free ice cream. The overall

results suggested the need for development of fat replacer blends to optimize quality of fat-free

frozen desserts. A study determining the impact of using stevia on physicochemical, sensory,

rheology and glycemic index of soft ice cream revealed that the substitution of sucrose with

stevia might be a choice to produce low calorie ice creams. Replacement of sucrose with stevia

resulted in a significantly lower viscosity and brix with a higher overrun and melting rate in a

dose dependent manner. Total replacing of sucrose with stevia resulted in significant reduction in

calorie value from 143.03 to 105.25 Kcal and GI from 79.06 ± 4.0 to 72.18 ± 5.27 as compared

to those of sucrose based formulation indicating a 37.78% and 6.88% reduction, respectively.

However, using a mixture of the two sweeteners improves sensory acceptance of the

formulations (Mohammad et.al, 2014).

3

A study on the structural, compositional and sensorial properties of US commercial ice cream

products suggested that greasiness and creaminess negatively correlated with drip through rate

and creaminess correlated with percent total fat and percent fat destabilization and percent fat did

not determine the melt rate on a sensorial level. However, drip through rate at ambient

temperature was predicted by total fat content of the samples. Based on sensory analysis, high fat

products were noted to be creamier than low and nonfat products. Iciness did not correlate with

mean ice crystal size and drip through rate did not predict sensory melt rate. Furthermore, on a

sensorial level, greasiness positively correlated with total percent fat destabilization and mean air

cell size positively correlated with density. These results indicated that commercial ice cream

products vary widely in composition, structure, behavior and sensory properties. A recent study

on the effect of fat content on hedonic responses of US consumers to dairy products found that

high fat ice cream was liked significantly more than low-fat ice cream and that making

consumers aware of the higher fat in the regular ice cream (nutrition label) actually increased

their liking for it (Warren et al., 2014).

High-intensity sweeteners and fat replacers are successful if they match perfectly the quality of

sucrose and milk fat (Portmann and Kilcast, 1996). A study of the effect of sugar and fat on the

acceptability of vanilla ice cream found that the level of sugar had a greater effect on all hedonic

measures than did fat (Guinard et al., 1996). Effects of fat replacers on the sensory properties of

ice cream were judged by the sensory panel to have less cream flavor than 10% fat ice cream

(Roland et al., 1999). Using a mixture of sucrose and stevia improves sensory acceptance of the

formulations (Mohammad et.al, 2014). A recent study on the effect of fat content on hedonic

responses of US consumers to dairy products found that high fat ice cream was liked

4

significantly more than low-fat ice cream and that making the consumers aware of the higher fat

in the regular ice cream (nutrition label) actually increased their liking for it (Warren et al.,

2014). Cold tends to numb the taste buds, making them less sensitive. Hence, more sugar needs

to be added to produce the desired effect at the low temperatures in which ice cream is usually

served in order to endow the product with the much rewarding sweet taste, in detriment of our

health (Talavera et al., 2005).

Ice cream is a highly complex food matrix and can be considered as an aerated suspension of fat

and water in a concentrated sugar solution that includes stabilizers, casein micelles, and proteins

(Fr.st et al., 2005; Erkaya et al., 2012) and is one of the most consumed dairy products in the

world (Sun-Waterhouse et al., 2011). The most frequent claim for new product launches in the

dairy-based frozen products is low/ no/ reduced fat (Mintel, Q4 2009). However, little

information exists about the influence of high-intensity sweeteners and fat replacers on the

perception of sensory attributes by trained assessors and consumers. Therefore, the aims of this

study were (1) to study the effect of fat and sugar replacement on consumer acceptability of

vanilla ice cream, and (2) to determine consumer penalties in vanilla ice cream from fat and

sugar replacement using scaling methods i.e. Hedonic Scaling and Just-About-Right Scaling.

5

CHAPTER 2

MATERIALS & METHODS

Ice Cream Samples

Four formulations of vanilla ice cream were used in this study. The first was a control (full fat &

full sugar) containing 14% fat and 14% sucrose; the second contained 14% fat with 7% sucrose

and 0.7% sucralose. The remaining two had a lower percentage of fat i.e. 10% fat of which, one

contained 15% sucrose only and the other both 7.5% sucrose and 0.7% sucralose.

Table 1.1 Ice Cream Compositions

Formulation Fat (%)

MSNF (%)

Stabilizer (%)

Bulk Solids (%)

Sucralose (%)

Sucrose (%)

Total Solids

(%) Control 14 10 0.38 3 n/a 14 41.38

Full Fat & Reduced Sugar

14 10 0.38 3 0.7 7 35.08

Reduced Fat & Full Sugar

10 11 0.5 3.5 n/a 15 40

Reduced Fat & Reduced Sugar

10 11 0.5 3.5 0.7 7.5 33.20

Table 1.2 Recipal - Nutritional Facts (amount per serving (66g))

Formulation Calories Calories from Fat Cholesterol (mg) Total Fat (g) Control 110 40 20 4.5


90 40 20 4.5


100 25 15 3


90 25 15 3

6

All formulations were produced at the Cornell Dairy Plant in 300-ounce batches, homogenized

with an automatic hand blender, pasteurized at 75°C for 15 seconds and chilled for 24 hours. The

ice cream mix was then slow churned using bench top ice cream makers and stored in a

horizontal freezer at -18°C. These formulations were chosen to study consumer acceptability of

the control and reduced fat and sugar versions. In addition, the samples were vanilla flavored

since vanilla was rated amongst the top three consumer favorite ice cream flavors in the United

States in 2014 (http://www.statista.com/statistics/268348/us-citizens-favorite-ice-cream-flavors/)

and for ease of preparation.

Dairyblend IC EZ Creamy

The stabilizer system used was Dairyblend IC EZ Creamy, which comprises of emulsifiers and

hydrocolloids (Propylene Glycol Esters, Calcium Sulfate, Cellulose Gum, Guar Gum,

Maltodextrin, Modified Corn Starch, Carrageenan) that is designed for low fat ice cream

applications. This blend provides a smooth, creamy texture to low fat ice cream that mimics full

fat ice cream without the need for sophisticated and expensive processing equipment and

produces a lower viscosity mix that is easy to process. This stabilizer system manages coarse

(icy) texture, improves flavor release, reduces meltdown and mimics churn-style mouth feel (TIC

Gums).

Sucralose

Sucralose is a non-caloric, non-cariogenic high intensity sweetener, has potencies values ranging

from 400-700 times the sweetness of sucrose on a weight basis and has the ability to retain its

sweetness (Wiet et al., 1992).

7

Central Location Testing

120 consumers were recruited to participate in the ice cream acceptance test conducted at a

central location, the Sensory Evaluation Center at Cornell University, which consisted of

individual evaluation booths so panelists don’t influence each other and was isolated from the

preparation area. The booth and discussion areas were climate controlled and odor free with

excellent ventilation. The temperature and relative humidity for the booth and discussion areas

were controlled at 20-22°C and 50-55% respectively. The study ensured the evaluation occurred

in a quiet, uninterrupted manner free from distractions. The selection criterion was that subjects

liked ice cream or sweet desserts, did not have any food allergies or intolerances and be adults

over 18 years of age.

Testing Procedure

Two ounces of vanilla ice cream at a temperature of -10°C was offered in plastic cups, coded

with 3-digit numbers, together with a transparent plastic spoon. The panelists received samples

in a sequential monadic presentation. All samples were presented in a balanced order using a

balanced complete block design. The subjects were instructed to rinse their palates with distilled

water between samples and eat crackers to avoid “cold” carry over effect. Acceptance was

determined on various attributes in relation to overall liking using a 9-point hedonic scale with

anchors of “like it extremely” on the left and “dislike it extremely” on the right and just-about-

right scales. The ballot also entailed open-ended questions on liking and disliking at the

beginning and purchase intent questions towards the end. To prevent bias, no information about

the samples was given to the consumers except towards to end where information on reduced fat

8

and sugar was revealed to evaluate change in purchase intent for the reduced calorie samples

only. On completion of the test, each participant was given an incentive of $5.00.

9

CHAPTER 3

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Analysis of variance was carried out on each attribute to analyze the differences among group

means and their associated procedures (such as "variation" among and between groups). Tukey’s

honestly significant difference multiple comparison tests were applied to compare the attribute

level differences among samples, considering a 5% significance level (P < 0.05). Results of the

tests were analyzed using Red Jade Software and Excel Stats Package.

Penalty analysis has been used to assist in identifying decreases in acceptability associated with

sensory attributes not at optimal levels in a product. It provides a prioritized list of critical

product characteristics that are most-penalizing to the product’s performance. It is a graphical

technique to reveal the possible penalty paid by the product in terms of reduced overall liking for

not being “just about right” on a characteristic and the penalty is often called mean drop on

overall liking. Penalty analysis was carried out using Excel Stats.

10

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Consumer Demographics

91 females and 29 males participated in the test. The age group category was highly skewed with

91% consumers falling in the 18-34 category. 14% consumers reported ice cream to be their

favorite dessert with 62% consuming ice cream at least once a week. There was a significant

difference between the diet attitudes of males and females. Ten times more females than males

were maintaining or losing weight, consuming reduced calorie foods and products containing

either natural or artificial sweeteners.

Table 2.1 Diet Attitudes of Participants Gender Maintain/Loose

Weight Consume Reduced Calorie Foods

Consume Natural Sweeteners

Consume Artificial

Sweeteners Male 2 4 6 7

Female 28 34 33 37 Table 2.2 Differences in Diet Attitudes between Females & Males

Reduced Fat & Sugar Ice Cream Consumption (%)

Maintain/Lose Weight

(%)

Reduced Calorie Foods

Consumption (%)

Artificial Sweetener

Consumption (%)

Natural Sweetener Consumption

(%)

Male 2.5 1.6 3.3 6.7 5 Female 14 23 28.33 30.8 27.5 p-value > 0.05 0.033 0.032 0.305 0.037

11

Test Samples

Table 3.1 Sensory Profile Attribute Means and Overall Liking for each Sample

A-C means with the same letters in a row indicates that samples do not differ at a significance level of 5% by Turkey’s test

Figure 1.1 Spider Plot of Sample Sensory Profile Attribute Means & Overall Liking Scores

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0

Overall Liking Appearance

Opacity

Smoothness

Taste & Flavor

Sweetness

Vanilla

Bitter Texture Firmness

Density

Melting

Mouthfeel

Creaminess

Aftertaste

Sweetness

Bitterness Full Fat & Reduced Sugar Reduced Fat & Full Sugar Reduced Fat & Reduced Sugar Control

Attribute

Samples Full Fat &

Reduced Sugar Reduced Fat & Full

Sugar Reduced Fat & Reduced Sugar Control

Overall Liking 3.9 A 3.8 A 3.7 A 4 A Appearance 4.3 A 4 A 4.1 A 4.5 A Opacity 5.2 B 5.8 A 5.5 AB 4.5 C Smoothness 4 B 6.2 A 4.4 B 4 B Taste & Flavor 3.7 A 3.8 A 3.5 A 3.5 A Sweetness 3 C 3.5 A 3.1 BC 3.2 B Vanilla 2.8 A 2.9 A 2.8 A 2.9 A Bitter 4.5 A 3.9 A 3.8 A 4.4 A Texture 4.9 A 4.2 A 4.7 A 5.1 A Firmness 3.2 A 2.6 B 3.3 A 3.2 A Density 3 A 3 A 3 A 2.8 A Melting 3 B 3.5 A 3 B 3.1 B Mouthfeel 4.8 A 3.9 B 4.5 A 4.8 A Creaminess 4.2 B 6.1 A 4.4 B 4 B Aftertaste 4.7 A 4.6 A 4.6 A 4.6 A Sweetness 5.2 B 6.1 A 5.3 B 5.1 B Bitterness 4.8 A 4.1 A 4.4 A 5 A

12

There was no significant difference in overall liking between the control and the reduced calorie

samples (p-value 0.26); however numerically, the reduced fat and sugar samples were liked more

Figure 1.2 Mean Overall Liking Sample Scores

than the control. In terms of appearance, taste & flavor and aftertaste, there was no significant

difference between the control and the reduced calorie samples with p values 0.06, 0.4 and 0.94

respectively.

Figure 1.3 Mean Appearance Liking Sample Scores

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Full Fat & Reduced Sugar Reduced Fat & Full Sugar Reduced Fat & Reduced Sugar

Control

Mea

n Sc

ore

Appearance - Liking

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Control

Mea

n Sc

ore

Overall - Liking

13

Although, not statistically significant, the control sample was liked by 61% consumers for taste

& flavor (p-value 0.4).

Figure 1.4 Mean Taste & Flavor Liking Sample Scores

The reduced fat & full sugar and the reduced fat & reduced sugar samples were the most

accepted samples in terms of opacity i.e. appeared to look more like an ice cream and less like a

sorbet with mean values 5.8 and 5.5 respectively.

Figure 1.5 Mean Mouthfeel Liking Sample Scores, *** p-value <0.001

0 0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 3

3.5 4

4.5 5

5.5 6

6.5 7


Control

Mea

n Sc

ore

Taste & Flavor - Liking

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Full Fat & Reduced Sugar Reduced Fat & Full Sugar Reduced Fat & Reduced Sugar Control

Mea

n Sc

ore

Mouthfeel - Liking ***

***

***

14

The reduced fat & full sugar sample was significantly different from the other samples in overall

mouth feel, smoothness and creaminess with mean scores of 3.9, 6.2 and 6.1 respectively and p-

values <0.001.

Figure 1.6 Mean Smoothness Sample Scores, *** p-value <0.001

Figure 1.7 Mean Creaminess Sample Scores, *** p-value <0.001

There was a significant difference with p-values <0.001 between the overall texture, firmness

and rate of melting between the full fat & reduced sugar sample and the other samples. The

former was liked the most for overall texture and it rated to be least firm with the highest rate of

melting by most participants.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Mea

n Sc

ore

Smoothness ***

***

***

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Control

Mea

n Sc

ore

Creaminess ***

***

***

15

Figure 1.8 Mean Texture Liking Sample Scores, *** p-value <0.001

Figure 1.9 Mean Meltdown Sample Scores, *** p-value <0.001

Figure 2.0 Mean Firmness Sample Scores, *** p-value <0.001

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Mea

n Sc

ore

Texture - Liking ***

***

***

0 0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 3

3.5 4


Mea

n Sc

ore

Meltdown ***

***

***

0

1

2

3

4


Mea

n Sc

ore

Firmness *** ***

***

16

The means for the perception of vanilla taste & flavor were either the same or nearly the same

for all samples (p-value 0.08) and the reduced fat & full sugar sample was rated to be

significantly sweeter and having the longest lasting lingering sweetness compared to the other

samples (p-value <0.001).

Figure 2.1 Mean Sweetness Sample Scores, *** p-value <0.001

Figure 2.2 Mean Aftertaste Sample Scores 36% consumers perceived a bitter aftertaste in the samples containing sucralose, however, no

significant difference was observed between the sample for bitter aftertaste (p-value 0.94) and

lingering bitterness (p-value 0.8).

0

1

2

3

4


Control

Mea

n Sc

ore

Sweetness *** ***

***

0

20

40

60

80


Control

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Aftertaste

17

Figure 2.3 Mean Bitterness Sample Scores

Penalty Analysis

Figure 2.4 Control Sample – Mean Drop

0

5

10

15

20


Freq

uenc

y (%

) Bitterness

Sweet Taste JAR

Sweet Taste JAR

Vanilla Flavor JAR

Vanilla Flavor JAR

Texture-Firmness

Texture-Firmness Texure--density Texture--density

Texture--speed of melting


-‐0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Mea

n dr

ops

% Consumers

Control

18

Figure 2.5 Full Fat & Reduced Sugar Sample – Mean Drop

Figure 2.6 Reduced Fat & Full Sugar Sample – Mean Drop

Sweet Taste JAR

Sweet Taste JAR

Vanilla Flavor JAR Vanilla Flavor JAR

Texture-Firmness

Texture-Firmness

Texture--density Texture--density



0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Mea

n dr

ops

% Consumers


Sweet Taste JAR

Sweet Taste JAR

Vanilla Flavor JAR

Vanilla Flavor JAR Texture-Firmness

Texture-Firmness

Texture--density

Texture--density



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Mea

n dr

ops

% Consumers


19

Figure 2.7 Reduced Fat & Reduced Sugar Sample – Mean Drop

The samples were mainly penalized for their texture. The control sample was penalized for being

very firm, not dense enough and having a high rate of meltdown. The full fat & reduced sugar

and the reduced fat & reduced sugar samples were penalized for being too firm. The reduced fat

& full sugar sample received penalties for not being firm enough, rapid rate of melting and being

too sweet in case of the full fat & reduced sugar sample.

Purchase Intent

Initial purchase intent revealed a significant difference between the number of individuals who

definitely/probably/may/may not purchase and individuals who would definitely/probably

purchase but no significant differences between these numbers across the three reduced calorie

products. Towards the end of the questionnaire, information on reduction of fat or sugar or both

for each reduced calorie sample was revealed and the change in purchase intent was determined.

Sweet Taste JAR

Sweet Taste JAR Vanilla Flavor JAR Vanilla Flavor JAR

Texture-Firmness

Texture-Firmness Texture--density

Texture--density



0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Mea

n dr

ops

% Consumers


20

Results showed that numerically there was an increase in the number of consumers who would

definitely/probably purchase the reduced calorie products with numbers increasing from the

reduced fat & full sugar to full fat & reduced sugar to reduced fat & reduced sugar. The latter

showed a significant difference for positive change in purchase intent.

Table 4.1 Initial purchase intent without revealing information on the samples

Category Full fat & Reduced Sugar

Reduced fat & full sugar

Reduced fat & reduced sugar

Definitely/probably would not purchase

51 49 49

May or may not purchase

35 38 34

Definitely/probably would purchase

34 33 37

Percent likely to purchase

27% 28% 31%

Table 4.2 Change in purchase intent after revealing information on reduced fat and sugar

Category Reduced Fat & Full Sugar



Much less/somewhat less likely to purchase & no change in purchase intent

64 54 48

Much more/somewhat more likely to purchase

56 66 72

Percent likely to purchase

47% 55% 60%

p-value 0.523 0.315 0.035

21

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION Consumer Demographics

Our results showed that there was a significant difference in diet attitude between females and

males. Nearly ten times more females than males were either trying to maintain or lose weight

and consuming reduced calories products and products containing either natural or artificial

sweeteners. Studies generally how that, women have a higher awareness and better knowledge of

nutrition than men. They also seek nutrition counseling more frequently than men do. Women

eat more fruits, vegetables, cereals, milk, dairy products and whole grain products, whereas the

consumption of red meat, particularly pork, sausages, eggs, alcohol, high sucrose foods is higher

in men. Gender-specific differences are also obvious as far as nutrient intake and

recommendations for the dietary allowances are concerned. Men's approach towards nutrition is

uncomplicated and pleasure orientated whereas women rather have an ambivalent attitude. They

are less satisfied with their weight. Restrained eating, dieting and eating disorders are much more

common in women. Men, however, control their weight with exercising and implement diets

only for health reasons. Women are more often affected by problems with their eating behavior,

such as craving for special foods, that men are (Kiefer et al., 2005).

Also, the findings of our study showed an increase in purchase intent when information on the

reduction of fat and sugar was relieved to the participants. Studies have shown that pleasantness

and buying probability of chocolate bars were rated higher with regular than with reduced-fat

information. Reduced-fat information increased pleasantness and buying probability for

margarines by those subjects who were concerned about health. Males rated reduced-fat

22

frankfurters and yogurts less pleasant than regular-fat frankfurters. Involvement with each food

was related to a high pleasantness and buying probability for a particular food (Tuorila et al.,

1998).

Test Samples Studies tend to show consistently that the fat particles concentrate towards the surface of the air

cell during the freezing process in ice cream, which imparts a rich characteristic flavor, produces

a smooth texture and gives body to the ice cream (Ice Cream, 4th edition, W.S. Arbuckle). As

seen from our study, the control sample containing full fat (14%) and full sugar (14% sucrose)

received the highest ratings for overall taste and flavor, which was not significantly different

from the other samples. With regards to texture, the full fat and reduced sugar sample received

the highest score for creaminess, smoothness and overall mouth feel, which was significantly

different from the other samples. Sugar influences the texture of ice cream because it affects the

viscosity (how thick the ice cream mix is). This improves the body and texture of the ice cream,

provided that the total solids does not exceed about 42% or the sugar content does not exceed

about 16%. Above these limits, the ice cream tends to become too soft and too dense and chewy.

Sugar also reduces the freezing point of a mix and therefore reduces the amount of ice (Marshall,

Goff, and Hartel, Ice Cream, sixth edition, 2003). The higher the amount of sugar in mix, the

softer the ice cream (Marshall, Goff, and Hartel, Ice Cream, sixth edition, 2003). The reduced fat

& full sugar sample received highest rating for being the least firm and melting too quickly and

was determined to be significantly different when compared to the rest. Even at higher

concentrations, that approximated 6-9% sucrose sweetness equivalency, bitterness scores for

sucralose were low and not significantly different from scores at lower concentration. Therefore,

sucralose displayed extremely low levels of bitterness as a function of sweetness intensity (Wiet

23

et. al., 1992). The reduced fat & reduced sugar sample containing sucralose was rated to have the

highest bitter aftertaste, although this score was not significant.

Purchase Intent Label information (identity, price and nutritional benefit) had a significant effect on intention to

buy, especially when combined with higher liking. Gender, age, health concern and nutritional

knowledge had mostly interactive effects on purchase intent, with females, older subjects and

those with high health concern having higher purchase intent for the proven health benefit label

(Bower et al., 2002). Similarly, from our demographic study we see that females are more prone

to maintaining or loosing weight than males. When consumers have relevant information, they

are empowered to make informed choices. Therefore, access to nutrition information at the point

of purchase may empower customer decisions regarding food selection, and lead to higher

satisfaction and product ratings. When nutrition information was displayed, customers rated the

food quality significantly higher, and had significantly higher intentions to repurchase than when

no nutrition information was supplied. The nutrition information most important to the customers

was total fat, calories, and fat calories per serving. Additionally, higher fat entrees were chosen

less often and lower fat entrees more often, when nutrition information was displayed, than when

no nutrition information was supplied (Cranage et al., 2008). This supports our findings of an

increase in the number of consumers who changed their purchase intent from definitely or

probably would not buy to definitely or probably would buy once information on reduction in

calories was relieved to them.

24

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION Our formulations were successful in developing reduced calorie ice creams that showed no

significant difference in overall liking scores when compared to the control sample. There was a

significant difference in diet attitude between males and females with nearly ten times more

females than males either trying to maintain or lose weight and consuming reduced calorie

products or foodstuffs containing artificial or natural sweeteners. Although the reduced fat & full

sugar samples was rated to be the softest with a fast rate of melting, the sample was given

significantly higher ratings for overall mouth feel, creaminess and smoothness. Although the

reduced fat & reduced sugar sample received the highest rating for bitter after taste, the rating

was not significant when compared to other samples. The stabilizer contributed to a significant

difference in creaminess and smoothness in the reduced calorie samples compared to the control.

However, the stabilizer system did not reduce the rate of melting of the reduced calorie samples.

It is important for formulators to pay attention to the impact on overall taste, flavor and texture

due to reduction of both fat and sugar in ice cream. Also, it is crucial to communicate

information on reduction in calorie content of products to consumers especially when the target

market consists of individuals who have health concerns or those individuals looking for reduced

calorie foods.

25

REFERENCES

1. Lustig, RH, Schmidt, LA & Brindis, CD 2012, ‘Public Health: The Toxic Truth about Sugar’, Nature, vol. 482, pp 27-29.

2. Avena, NM, Rada, P & Hoebel, BG 2009, ‘Sugar and Fat Bingeing Have Notable Difference in Addictive-Like Behavior’, The American Institute of Nutrition, vol. 139, pp 623-628.

3. Adapa, S, Dingeldein, S, Schmidt, KA & Herald, TJ 2000, ‘Rheological Properties of Ice

Cream Mixes and Frozen Ice Creams Containing Fat and Fat Replacers’, Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 83, pp 2224-2229.

4. Drewnowski, A 1997, ‘Taste Preferences and Food Intake’, Annual Review of Nutrition,

vol. 17, pp 237-253.

5. Sandrou, DK & Arvanitoyannis, IS 2010, ‘Low-Fat/Calorie Foods: Current State and Perspectives’, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 40, pp 427-447.

6. Devereux, HM, Jones, GP, Mccormack, L & Hunter, WC 2003, ‘Consumer Acceptability

of Low Fat Foods Containing Inulin and Oligofructose, Journal of Food Science, vol. 68, pp 1850-1854.

7. Wiet, SG & Beyts, PK 1992, ‘Sensory Characteristics of Sucralose and other High

Intensity Sweeteners’, Journal of Food Science, vol.57, pp 1014-1019.

8. Cranage, DA, Conklin, MT & Lambert, CU 2008, ‘Effect of Nutrition Information in Perceptions of Food Quality, Consumption Behavior and Purchase Intentions’, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, vol. 7, pp 43-61.

9. Bower, JA, Saadat, MA & Whitten, C 2003, ‘Effect of liking, information and consumer

characteristics on purchase intention and willingness to pay more for a fat spread with a proven health benefit’, Food Quality and Preference, vol. 14, pp 65-74.

10. Robert T. Marshall, H. Douglas Goff, Richard W (2003). Ice Cream. New York:

Springer. 55-65.

11. Lawless H & Heymann H, (2010). Sensory Evaluation of Foods: Principles and Practices. New York: Springer. 349-365.

12. Arbuckle WS, (1986). Ice Cream. New York: Springer. 256-300.

13. Kahkonen, P & Tuorila, H 1999, ‘Consumer responses to reduced and regular fat content

in different products: effects of gender, involvement and health concern’, Food Quality and Preference, vol. 10, pp 83-91.

26

14. Kiefer, I, Rathmanner, T & Kunze, M 2013, ‘Eating and Dieting Difference in Men and Women’, Journal of Men’s Health and Gender, vol. 2, pp 194-201.

15. Guinard, J-X, Morse, CZ, Mori, L, Panyam, D & Kilara, A 1996, ‘Effect of Sugar and

Fat on the Acceptability of Vanilla Ice Cream’, Journal Dairy Science, vol. 79: pp 1922-1927.

16. Mohammad, 2014, ‘Impact of Using Stevia on Physicochemical, Sensory, Rheology and

Glycemic Index of Soft Ice Cream’, Food and Nutrition Sciences, vol. 5, pp 390-396.

17. Warren, MM, Hartel, RW 2014, ‘Structural, Compositional and Sensorial Properties of United States Commercial Ice Cream Products’, Journal of Food Science, vol. 79, pp 456-459.

18. http://www.ticgums.com/applications/dairy.html

19. Talavera, K 2005, ‘Heat activation of TRPM5 underlies thermal sensitivity of sweet

taste’, Nature, vol. 438, pp 1022-1025.

20. www.mintel.com

21. WBC Ice Cream An Alliance Company

22. www.idfa.org/news-views/media-kits/ice-cream

a project paper presented to the faculty of the graduate ... · asthma, arthritis, and poor health...

Documents