- Email: [email protected]
Consumer acceptance, consumption and sensory attributes of spreads made from designer fats1
Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
Consumer acceptance, consumption and sensory attributes of spreads made from designer fats$ M. Michicich a, Z. Vickers b,*, M.C. Martini b, J.B. Labat c a S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc., Racine, WI 53403, USA Department of Food Science and Nutrition, 1334 Eckles Ave., University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA c HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN 55440, USA
b
Received 30 June 1997; received in revised form 19 November 1998; accepted 24 November 1998
Abstract The objectives of this study were to compare liking and consumption measurements of the acceptability of butter, margarine, and two spreads made using designer fats, and to describe the sensory attributes of the products. This study was conducted as part of a nutrition intervention study which included a 1-month baseline data collection period and three 4-week interventions. Subjects for the liking and consumption portions of the study were 33 healthy post-menopausal women. In addition, subjects for a corresponding descriptive analysis panel were students from the University of Minnesota. Products tested by both groups of subjects were: butter and margarines, a dairy spread made with cholesterol-reduced milk fat (CRAMF) and a spread made with cholesterolreduced lard mixed with vegetable oils (Appetize1 Lard). Liking and consumption were measured at normal meal times in the subjects' natural eating environment. Butter was most liked and margarine the least liked spread. Butter eaters (compared to margarine eaters) accounted for the liking dierences among samples; margarine eaters liked all products equally. Butter eaters ate more spreads. Liking ratings were generally unrelated to intake for the entire group of subjects and for individual subjects. Descriptive analysis showed the ¯avor of the two spreads made from designer fats to be more similar to margarine than to butter. The texture of CRAMF was more similar to butter; the texture of the Appetize1 Lard was more similar to margarine. Thus the two designer fat spreads were as well accepted by the subjects as their regularly used margarine. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Fats; Spreads; Acceptance; Consumption
1. Introduction Cholesterol-reduced table spreads made with animalbased designer fats may oer an acceptable alternative to butter and some spreads made from hydrogenated vegetable oils (Hayes, 1996). The general objective of this research was to study the acceptability of butter, margarine, and two spreads made from designer fats. The two designer spreads included a spread made from Appetize1 Lard, a blend of cholesterol-reduced lard with vegetable oils (a registered trademark of Source Food Technology Inc. Burnsville, MN) and a dairy * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-612-624-1290; Fax: +1-612-6255272; E-mail: [email protected] $ Published as paper no. 971180013 of the contribution series of the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment station based on research conducted under Project 18-52. Support was also provided by the Minnesota-South Dakota Dairy Foods Research Center and the Agricultural Utilization Research Institute (AURI) of Minnesota.
spread made with cholesterol-reduced anhydrous milk fat (CRAMF). Product acceptability was assessed by means of both liking ratings and consumption measurements. In addition, descriptive analysis was performed by a trained panel of judges to document the sensory attributes of the products. The product acceptability test was conducted as part of a nutrition intervention study, which provided the opportunity for sensory and consumption research in a natural setting. Subjects in the nutrition study provided both liking ratings and consumption data for butter, margarine, and the two designer spreads. The subjects consumed the test products within the context of their usual meals in their own dining room according to their usual schedules in their familiar social environment. This avoided some of the problems associated with laboratory feeding studiesÐthe need for instructions, the use of single food meals, and the tendency to exclude social and situational variables (Meiselman, 1992).
0950-3293/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0950 -3 293(99)00010 -5
148
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
The primary goal of this study was to explore the relationships between liking ratings and actual consumption. Do dierences in liking among butter, margarine, and designer spreads lead to dierences in consumption? Most research comparing liking ratings and consumption of speci®c foods supports the hypothesis that people consume more of the foods they like better (Bellisle & Le Magnen, 1980; Bobro & Kissile, 1986; Head, Giesbrecht, & Johnson, 1977; Hellemann & Tuorila, 1991; Hill & McCutcheon, 1975; Lucas & Bellisle, 1987; McKenna, 1972; Nisbett, 1968; Sidel, Stone, Woolsey, & Mecredy, 1972; Woody, Costanzo, Liefer, & Conger, 1981). All these studies show signi®cant positive relationships between liking and consumption. However, much of that support is surprisingly weak. Bellisle and Le Magnen (1980), Hellemann and Tuorila (1991) and Lucas and Bellisle (1987) observed that half or more of their subjects had no signi®cant correlations between their individual hedonic ratings and the amount they consumed. Head et al. (1977) and Tuorila-Ollikainen, Saloverra, and Kurkela (1986) showed little impact of dierences in taste test ratings on amounts of bread consumed in cafeteria and restaurant settings, respectively. Others, however, have found that liking measurements obtained under brief exposure test conditions may not necessarily correlate with and thus may not predict consumption. Head et al. (1977), Herbert-Jackson, Cross, and Risley (1977) and Vickers, Mullan, and Holton (in press) showed no impact of dierences in taste test ratings or quality of milk on amounts of milk consumed in a cafeteria setting. Lucas and Bellisle (1987) showed that amounts of sweet yogurts consumed were dierent from the preference pattern based on hedonic responses to the same yogurts. Shepherd, Farleigh, and Wharf (1991) found only a slight variation in the consumption of tomato soups with dierent sodium concentrations, and this variation was unrelated to hedonic ratings. In a study by Bobro and Kissile (1986), intake was positively correlated with the postmeal liking ratings but was negatively correlated with taste test ratings. In most of the cited studies, subjects were served meals consisting of single foods or limited combinations of foods in controlled laboratory settings. Our project provided the opportunity to explore both liking and consumption in a natural eating environment. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Subjects The subjects in the nutrition intervention study provided liking ratings and consumption data. These subjects were members of the Sisters of the Order of St.
Benedict and were long-term residents of their monastery. They ate the vast majority of their meals in the communal dining room of the monastery where a centralized kitchen prepared the food using standardized recipes. Subject selection criteria for the nutrition study required that all subjects be female, healthy, not on certain medications (e.g. cholesterol-lowering medication), post-menopausal, less than 80 years old, with a body mass index less than 30 kg/m2. A total of 36 subjects participated in the baseline data collection period and 33 of these subjects participated in the intervention periods. The mean age of the subjects was 68 years. Subjects for the descriptive analysis panel were 10 students (8 females, 2 males) from the Food Science and Nutrition Department at the University of Minnesota. Selection criteria were availability and willingness to consume a variety of dairy products. 2.2. Foods The nutrition study used the 7-week cycle menu normally featured in the dining room of the monastery. Baseline data collection and the three intervention periods occurred during the last 4 weeks of consecutive 7-week cycles. For the most part, the menus at each meal were the same during each 4-week period; only the type of fat in the table spreads, the dairy products and the baked goods varied among the treatments. The table spreads available during the baseline period were the products normally served at the monastery (Sysco1 butter and Reinhard1 margarine). As was customary at the monastery, butter was available only at breakfast, while margarine was available at breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The butter and margarine were packaged in single pats, approximately 5 g each. During the ®rst intervention period, only CRAMF spread was served at all meals. During the second intervention period, only Appetize1 Lard spread was served at all meals. Both the CRAMF and Appetize1 Lard spreads were packaged in tubs by Source Food Technologies. During the third intervention, only Crystal Farms1 butter was served at all meals. Subjects were free to use as much or as little of the spreads as they chose, according to their normal eating habits. Due to the treatment sequence of the nutrition study, Appetize1 Lard and CRAMF spreads were not available at the same time. Therefore, the descriptive analysis data were collected in two phases. The overall procedure was similar for both phases. During Phase 1, panelists evaluated CRAMF spread, margarine (Reinhard1 and Land O Lakes1), and butter (Sysco1 and Land O Lakes1 salted). During Phase 2, panelists evaluated Appetize1 Lard spread (instead of the CRAMF spread) margarine (Reinhard1 and Lake O Lakes1), and butter (Bongard1 and unsalted Land O Lakes1).
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
2.3. Liking and consumption procedures Liking surveys were administered at selected meals during the baseline data collection period and during each of the interventions. The surveys listed the table spread(s) being oered at the particular meal as well as other food items on the menu in order to disguise the fact that only the spreads were being targeted. The subjects knew that some of the food items available during the study were modi®ed. For this reason, the CRAMF and Appetize Lard spreads were identi®ed on the liking surveys as ``modi®ed butter'' during the ®rst and second intervention periods. (Margarine was labeled ``margarine'' and butter was labeled ``butter'' during the baseline and the third intervention periods.) Of the food items listed on the surveys, subjects were instructed to rate their liking only for the foods which they ate during the meal. In this manner, post-meal liking ratings were obtained for single food items which were consumed as part of a mixed meal. The survey used a 9-point, labeled hedonic scale, the labels ranging from dislike extremely on the left to like extremely on the right. Baseline liking ratings were collected at 13 dierent meals during the last 4 weeks of the menu cycle. Data collection was repeated at the same 13 meals during each of the 4-week menu cycles. Due to menu changes and various special events, the meals and menus targeted for data collection were not perfectly matched across the baseline and treatment periods. The subjects also completed diet records at every meal during the baseline period and each of the intervention periods. There were separate diet record forms for every meal during each of the 4-week cycles. The diet record forms listed all menu oerings at the particular meal. Subjects indicated which foods and how much of those foods they consumed during the meal. Prior to the study, subjects had been trained by a dietitian to estimate portion sizes. For the purposes of this study, the amounts of the table spreads consumed were recorded only from the diet records from those meals at which liking surveys were administered. 2.4. Descriptive analysis procedures The panelists used descriptive analysis to characterize the sensory attributes of the various spreads. The products were evaluated for several appearance, ¯avor, odor, and texture attributes. Panel activities included three distinct tasks: ®rst, the training sessions for vocabulary development (three 2-h sessions) during which the panelists developed the terms for the sensory attributes; second, the practice rating sessions (three 2-h sessions) during which the panelists improved their reproducibility and accuracy; and the actual evaluation sessions (two 2-h sessions). The score cards included a line scale for each attribute identi®ed by the panelists.
149
The line scales were 17 cm long, anchored 1.5 cm from the left and right with the descriptors low and high, respectively. Score cards were identical for each of the products evaluated. For the ®nal evaluation, panelists received replicate, coded samples of all the spreads, a list of attribute de®nitions, rinse water (bottled spring water and warm tap water), spit cups, and a score card. All the samples were presented at the same time. Panelists rated the intensity of each attribute for every sample. The panelists were allowed to evaluate the samples in the order of their choosing. 2.5. Data analysis 2.5.1. Liking and consumption Analyses of variance were performed using the SAS General Linear Models (GLM) procedure across all meals and all menus to determine if there were signi®cant dierences in overall liking or consumption among the various spreads. The data were then grouped by meal time and ANOVAs (GLM) were performed separately for the breakfast, lunch, and dinner meals to determine if there were dierences in liking or consumption among the spreads by meal time. The Bonferroni multiple comparison test was performed to determine which pairs of products were signi®cantly dierent. In addition, the subjects were classi®ed by their selection preference for butter or margarine and the data for each group were analyzed separately. As indicated earlier, margarine was normally served at the monastery during breakfast, lunch, and dinner, while butter was served only at breakfast. Subjects who chose butter at any breakfast meal at which liking surveys were administered during the baseline period were classi®ed as butter eaters (n=25); subjects who exclusively chose margarine at such meals were classi®ed as margarine eaters (n=11). 2.6. Descriptive analysis The line scales from the descriptive analysis were digitized to be 100 discrete units. Higher scores correspond to higher intensities. All analyses were performed by SAS. ANOVAs were performed to determine if there were signi®cant dierences in attribute intensity among the spreads. The Bonferroni multiple comparison test was used to determine which pairs of products were signi®cantly dierent for each attribute. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 data were collected at different times and were, therefore, analyzed separately. In order to better compare the sensory characteristics of the CRAMF and Appetize Lard spreads, contrasts were used. The Phase 1 contrast of CRAMF versus the other samples was compared to the Phase 2 contrast of
150
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
spread selection at breakfast meals during the baseline period as described already. Further analyses suggested that the observed preferences among the spreads can be attributed to the butter eaters. The butter eaters discriminated among the spreads (F=60.5; df=3, 174; p=0.0001); there were signi®cant dierences between all possible pairs of spreads (Fig. 1). There were no signi®cant dierences in liking among the spreads for the margarine eaters (F=1.17; df=3, 31; p=0.34). Fig. 1 shows the overall mean liking ratings for the spreads (across all meals) for the butter eaters versus the margarine eaters. Note that the butter eaters sometimes chose margarine at lunch or dinner meals and, therefore, the ®gure shows mean margarine ratings for the butter eaters. The margarine eaters never chose butter at surveyed meals during the baseline period, but the ®gure shows mean butter ratings for the margarine eaters. These ratings re¯ect a third intervention period during which butter was the only spread oered.
Appetize Lard versus the other samples. The ``other'' samples included the butter and margarine samples which were evaluated by the panel during both Phase 1 and Phase 2. (Aside from the Land O Lakes butter, the brand of butter included in Phase 1 was dierent than the brand included in Phase 2; however, both were salted butters and were, therefore, included in the contrasts. The Land O Lakes butter products were excluded from the analysis.) The sensory characteristics of those spreads which were included in the consumer acceptance test were graphically summarized by spider plots showing the mean intensity scores for each attribute for each of the spreads. For ease of comparison, the mean intensity scores plotted for butter and margarine represent the average rating across Phase 1 and Phase 2. 3. Results 3.1. Liking ratings
3.2. Consumption
Butter was the most preferred spread (Table 1). Appetize Lard and CRAMF spreads were liked second and third best, respectively, while margarine was least preferred (F=46; df=3, 295; p=0.0001). Meal time did not in¯uence preference for the spreads (F=1.37; df=2, 295; p=0.26). The analyses of liking ratings by meal time yielded similar patterns of preference as the overall analysis. There were no signi®cant dierences in liking between either CRAMF or Appetize Lard and margarine at breakfast; however, CRAMF and Appetize Lard were both signi®cantly preferred over margarine at lunch and dinner (Table 1). Butter was the most preferred spread at breakfast. However, at both lunch and dinner, the mean liking ratings for butter were not signi®cantly different than the ratings for Appetize Lard. The fact that margarine seemed to perform better at breakfast (when both butter and margarine were served) than at lunch or dinner (when only margarine was served) suggested some dierence among subjects depending on their choice of spread when both butter and margarine were available. The subjects were classi®ed as butter eaters or margarine eaters based on their
The subjects consumed signi®cantly more butter during the average meal than Appetize Lard spread (F=3.2; df=3, 234; p=0.02). There were no signi®cant dierences in intake between any other pairs of spreads. Meal time in¯uenced the amount of spread consumed during a meal (F=13.6; df=2, 234; p=0.0001). The mean intake values by meal time are listed in Table 2. There was a higher average intake of spreads at breakfast than at lunch or dinner. The high mean intake of margarine at dinner re¯ects three relatively high reported intakes from a single meal at which French toast was served. Fig. 2 suggests that the butter eaters consume more spreads than the margarine eaters. The mean intakes across all meals for the butter eaters versus the margarine eaters are displayed in Fig. 2. On average, the butter eaters ate more spreads at breakfast (7.7 g across all spreads, SEM=0.44) than at lunch (4.9 g, SEM=0. 47) or dinner (6.1 g, SEM=0.68); meal time had a signi®cant eect on spread intake for the butter eaters. Spread consumption for the margarine eaters was not signi®cantly aected by meal time (F=1.8; df=2, 19; p=0.19).
Table 1 Mean liking ratings for spreads (n) Margarine All meals combined Breakfast Lunch Dinner
a
5.6 (46) 6.6ab (11) 5.3a (15) 5.3a (20)
CRAMF b
6.3 (149) 5.8a (61) 6.7b (63) 6.2b (25)
Appetize Lard c
7.0 (122) 6.8b (33) 7.1c (56) 7.0c (33)
Butter d
7.7 7.9c 7.3c 7.4c
Means in the same row with the same superscripts are not signi®cantly dierent (p>0.05). n, number of observations.
(92) (56) (22) (14)
p-Value 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
151
The descriptive analysis panel identi®ed 29 sensory attributes in the spreads category. The spider plots in Fig. 3±6 provide graphical comparisons of the descriptive analysis data for butter, margarine, Appetize Lard spread and CRAMF spread. The CRAMF spread, Appetize Lard spread and margarine were all more yellow than the butter (Fig. 3). Butter by far exceeded the other spreads for butter odor intensity; the reverse was true for margarine odor intensity (Fig. 4). The most notable features about the ¯avor spider plot are that butter rated lower on greasy ¯avor, lower on margarine ¯avor, lower on plastic aftertaste, and higher on butter ¯avor than CRAMF, Appetize Lard or margarine
(Fig. 5). The texture spider plot suggests that CRAMF spread was texturally similar to butter, while Appetize Lard spread was texturally similar to margarine (Fig. 6). Overall, the CRAMF spread was similar to margarine in color, odor and ¯avor, but the texture more closely resembled butter. The CRAMF spread was crumbly and dull in appearance (like butter) and it looked the most ¯aky. The CRAMF spread was characterized by a margarine odor and margarine ¯avor, lacking the ``mild, sweet, clean, pleasant'' odor and ¯avor of high quality butter. There were no o-¯avors in the CRAMF spread that were not present to some degree in the margarine samples except for a marked greasy odor. Although texturally more similar to butter than margarine, the CRAMF spread was ®rmer and melted more slowly in the mouth than butter. The spread made from Appetize Lard was generally similar to margarine in appearance, odor, ¯avor and texture. It was characterized by a shiny, yellow appearance, margarine odor, margarine ¯avor and plastic aftertaste. As with the CRAMF spread, there were no o-¯avors or odors in the Appetize Lard spread that were not present to some degree in the margarine samples. Texturally, the Appetize Lard spread was soft and melted quickly in the mouth like margarine. Although both the CRAMF and Appetize Lard spreads were generally similar to margarine, the contrast analysis highlighted several dierences. The largest dierence between the two spreads was texture. Appetize Lard was much softer and had a faster rate of melting (in the mouth) than CRAMF. In addition,
Fig. 1. Mean liking scores for butter eaters versus margarine eaters. Vertical lines represent SEM.
Fig. 2. Mean intake (g) for butter eaters versus margarine eaters. Vertical lines represent SEM.
3.3. Liking as a predictor of consumption The simple linear regression of liking scores on intake values for the spreads across all meals and across all subjects indicated there was no linear relationship between liking ratings and intake (R2=0). Regressions for the breakfast, lunch, and dinner meals separately also indicated no linear relationship between liking ratings and intake by meal time. Only 25 subjects had enough observations to allow calculation of within subject correlations between liking and intake. These within subject correlation coecients were not signi®cant except for two judges, both exhibiting a negative relationship between liking and intake (r=ÿ0.56, p=0.05; r=ÿ0.80, p<0.0001). 3.4. Descriptive analysis
Table 2 Mean intake (grams) for spreads (n) Margarine All meals combined Breakfast Lunch Dinner
ab
5.5 3.4a 4.4a 8.1a
(37) (9) (14) (14)
Appetize Lard a
5.5 (94) 6.5ab (30) 5.1a (42) 5.0b (22)
CRAMF ab
6.1 (123) 7.0b (56) 5.3a (48) 5.6b (19)
Butter b
6.7 (90) 8.3b (54) 4.1a (22) 4.4b (14)
Means in the same row with the same superscripts are not signi®cantly dierent (p>0.05). n, number of observations.
p-Value 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
152
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
Fig. 3. Appearance attributes for spreads. Each spoke of this ®gure represents a single sensory attribute. The intensity scales each go from ``none'' at the center to ``very intense'' at the outer end of the spoke. The intensity of an attribute in a speci®c product is represented by the point on the spoke at which the connecting line for that product crosses.
Appetize Lard was shinier and less ¯aky in appearance than CRAMF. Appetize Lard had distinctly less greasy odor than CRAMF. Finally, Appetize Lard had more margarine ¯avor and tasted saltier than CRAMF. The sensory characteristics of both the Appetize Lard and the CRAMF spreads were generally comparable to margarine, consistent with the conclusion that both products are acceptable substitutes for margarine when used as a table spread. Texturally, however, while the Appetize Lard spread was similar to margarine, the CRAMF spread more closely resembled butter. Despite its textural similarity to butter, the most preferred spread, the CRAMF spread was not liked as well as the Appetize Lard spread (by subjects in the acceptance test). This suggests that texture attributes are not the primary determinants of preference for spreads. If, however, consumers are willing to give up the distinct ¯avor of real butter, then perhaps spreadability gains importance, giving Appetize Lard spread the edge over CRAMF spread. 4. Discussion 4.1. Consumer acceptance Overall, butter was preferred over Appetize Lard spread, CRAMF spread and margarine, which is consistent with Hellemann et al.'s ®nding that butter was preferred over a variety of margarines and low-fat
Fig. 4. Odor attributes for spreads. Each spoke of this ®gure represents a single sensory attribute. The intensity scales each go from ``none'' at the center to ``very intense'' at the outer end of the spoke. The intensity of an attribute in a speci®c product is represented by the point on the spoke at which the connecting line for that product crosses.
spreads (Hellemann, Tuorila, Lampi, & Matuszewska, 1990). Also, Hellemann and Tuorila (1991) found that samples of bread spread with butter were preferred over those spread with margarine. Similarly, Schroder and Baer (1991), who conducted a home-use test market study to compare butter and reduced-cholesterol butter, found that butter was signi®cantly preferred over reduced-cholesterol butter (p<0.01). The reduced-cholesterol butter in the Schroder and Baer (1991) study was comparable to the CRAMF spread used in this study. Overall, Appetize Lard and CRAMF spreads (both cholesterol-reduced products) were liked second and third best, respectively, while margarine was the least preferred spread. This suggests that Appetize Lard and CRAMF spreads may both be acceptable alternatives to margarine. However, for consumers who prefer butter but choose a reduced-cholesterol spread, Appetize Lard appears to be the most appealing alternative. When subjects were categorized as butter or margarine users (as described earlier), it became apparent that butter users were more discriminating than margarine users, who had no preference among the spreads. If preferences in¯uence purchase behavior, then consumers who regularly purchase margarine might be a more receptive target for Appetize Lard or CRAMF spreads than butter users. Subjects in the Schroder and Baer (1991) study might be considered butter users, since 62% of them reported using butter daily and 26% weekly. Interestingly, 83% of the subjects in the Schroder
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
Fig. 5. Flavor attributes for spreads. Each spoke of this ®gure represents a single sensory attribute. The intensity scales each go from ``none'' at the center to ``very intense'' at the outer end of the spoke. The intensity of an attribute in a speci®c product is represented by the point on the spoke at which the connecting line for that product crosses.
and Baer (1991) study said they would buy reduced-cholesterol butter in place of butter, suggesting the preference is not an overriding factor in the purchase decision. Although Tuorila and Pangborn (1988) found liking to be the dominant predictor of reported consumption of high-fat foods, they also found that concerns about health, harmful ingredients and weight had a signi®cant negative in¯uence on reported consumption. By appealing to such concerns, butter users might be persuaded to use a product such as Appetize Lard spread. The liking and consumption data for the spreads used in this study were measured only when the products were used as table spreads; therefore, conclusions regarding their acceptability apply only to similarly used products. This limitation may not be serious cause for concern, given that 74% of the subjects in Schroder and Baer (1991) study indicated their primary use of butter was as a spread. The discussion thus far suggests that Appetize Lard or CRAMF spreads would be acceptable products, even with little or no product improvements, given their preferred status over margarine. However, the results suggested that the butter eaters generally consumed more spreads than the margarine eaters. This observation, together with Schroder and Baer's (1991) ®nding that 83% of their subjects would buy reduced-cholesterol butter in place of butter, suggests that butter users would be an important target market despite their discriminating palate. The potential bene®t of broader
153
Fig. 6. Texture attributes for spreads. Each spoke of this ®gure represents a single sensory attribute. The intensity scales each go from ``none'' at the center to ``very intense'' at the outer end of the spoke. The intensity of an attribute in a speci®c product is represented by the point on the spoke at which the connecting line for that product crosses.
consumer acceptance (by appealing to both butter and margarine users) might warrant eorts aimed at narrowing the gap between the sensory characteristics of Appetize Lard or CRAMF spreads and butter. Beyond optimizing the ¯avor and odor of the designer spreads, eorts to in¯uence consumer awareness of nutrition and healthy lifestyles may also contribute to consumer acceptance. 4.2. Liking as a predictor of consumption The post-meal liking ratings for the spreads were not useful indicators of the amounts consumed by subjects in the feeding study. This is consistent with Bobro and Kissile's (1986) ®nding that intake correlated poorly with post-meal liking ratings. The percentage of individual subjects with signi®cant and positive correlations between post-meal liking ratings and consumption reported by other investigators have ranged from 41% (Hellemann & Tuorila, 1991) to 83% (Lucas & Bellisle, 1987). In this study, of the 25 within-subject correlations between liking and intake which were calculated, only two (8%) were signi®cant, but both were negative. 5. Conclusion Appetize Lard and CRAMF spreads, both cholesterolreduced table spreads made with animal based designer fats, were liked as well as or better than margarine. This
154
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
is consistent with the observed similarity in sensory characteristics between the cholesterol-reduced spreads and margarine. The implication that margarine users were less discriminating in their spread preferences than butter users suggests that margarine users may be a receptive target for Appetize Lard and CRAMF spreads. Butter was the most preferred spread and had a unique sensory pro®le. Butter users, who are accustomed to butter's unique odor and ¯avor characteristics, were very discriminating in their spread preferences. The butter users actually preferred Appetize Lard over margarine, suggesting that Appetize Lard oers an appealing alternative to margarine for cholesterol-conscious consumers. Although butter users tended to consume more spreads than margarine users, preferences among spreads were generally not related to consumption. Acknowledgements The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the participation and support of the Sisters of the Order of St. Benedict at St. Joseph, Minnesota, for their eort, dedication and the hospitality extended to the research team. We also acknowledge the assistance provided by the sta at St. Benedict's Campus Foodservice, and the assistance of Hilary Hasz, Julie Amon and Tim Garry, undergraduate dietetic students in the Nutrition Department at the College of St. Benedict, who helped the Sisters with food records. References Bellisle, F., & Le Magnen, J. (1980). The analysis of human feeding patterns: The edogram. Appetite, 1, 141±150. Bobro, E., & Kissile, H. (1986). Eects of changes in palatability on food intake and the cumulative food intake curve in man. Appetite, 7, 85±96. Hayes, K. C. (1996). Designing a cholesterol-removed fat blend for frying and baking. Food Technology, 50 (4), 92±97.
Head, M. K., Giesbrecht, F. G., & Johnson, G. N. (1977). Food acceptability research: Comparative utility of three types of data from school children. Journal of Food Science, 42, 246±251. Hellemann, U., & Tuorila, H. (1991). Pleasantness ratings and consumption of open sandwiches with varying NaCl and acid contents. Appetite, 17, 229±238. Hellemann, U., Tuorila, H., Lampi, A. M., & Matuszewska, I. (1990). Hedonic responses and attitudes related to fats used as spreads on bread. Food Quality and Preference, 2, 29±38. Herbert-Jackson, E., Cross, M. Z., & Risley, T. R. (1977). Milk types and temperatureÐwhat will young children drink? Journal of Nutrition Education, 9 (2), 76±80. Hill, S. W., & McCutcheon, N. B. (1975). Eating responses of obese and nonobese humans during dinner meals. Psychosomatic Medicine, 37 (5), 395±401. Lucas, F., & Bellisle, F. (1987). The measurement of food preferences in humans: Do taste-and-spit tests predict consumption? Physiology and Behavior, 39, 739±743. McKenna, R. J. (1972). Some eects of anxiety level and food cues on the eating behavior of obese and normal subjects: A comparison of the Schachterian and psychosomatic conceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22 (3), 311±319. Meiselman, H. L. (1992). Methodology and theory in human eating research. Appetite, 19, 49±55. Nisbett, R. E. (1968). Taste, deprivation, and weight determinants of eating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20 (2), 107±116. Schroder, B. G., & Baer, R. J. (1991). Consumer evaluation of reduced-cholesterol butter. Food Technology, 45, 104±107. Shepherd, R., Farleigh, C. A., & Wharf, S. G. (1991). Eect of quantity consumed on measures of liking for salt concentrations in soup. Journal of Sensory Studies, 6, 227±238. Sidel, J. L., Stone, H., Woolsey, A., & Mecredy, J. M. (1972). Correlation between hedonic ratings and consumption of beer. Journal of Food Science, 37, 335. Tuorila, H., & Pangborn, R. M. (1988). Prediction or reported consumption of selected fat-containing foods. Appetite, 11, 81±95. Tuorila-Ollikainen, H., Saloverra, H., & Kurkela, R. (1986). Eect of saltiness on the liking and consumption of bread and butter. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 18, 99±106. Vickers, Z., Mullan, L., & Holton, E. (in press). Impact of dierence in taste test ratings on the consumption of milk in both a laboratory and a foodservice setting. Journal of Sensory Studies. Woody, E. Z., Costanzo, P. R., Liefer, H., & Conger, J. (1981). The eects of taste and caloric perceptions on the eating behavior of restrained and unrestrained subjects. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5 (4), 381±390.
Consumer acceptance, consumption and sensory attributes of spreads made from designer fats$ M. Michicich a, Z. Vickers b,*, M.C. Martini b, J.B. Labat c a S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc., Racine, WI 53403, USA Department of Food Science and Nutrition, 1334 Eckles Ave., University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA c HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN 55440, USA
b
Received 30 June 1997; received in revised form 19 November 1998; accepted 24 November 1998
Abstract The objectives of this study were to compare liking and consumption measurements of the acceptability of butter, margarine, and two spreads made using designer fats, and to describe the sensory attributes of the products. This study was conducted as part of a nutrition intervention study which included a 1-month baseline data collection period and three 4-week interventions. Subjects for the liking and consumption portions of the study were 33 healthy post-menopausal women. In addition, subjects for a corresponding descriptive analysis panel were students from the University of Minnesota. Products tested by both groups of subjects were: butter and margarines, a dairy spread made with cholesterol-reduced milk fat (CRAMF) and a spread made with cholesterolreduced lard mixed with vegetable oils (Appetize1 Lard). Liking and consumption were measured at normal meal times in the subjects' natural eating environment. Butter was most liked and margarine the least liked spread. Butter eaters (compared to margarine eaters) accounted for the liking dierences among samples; margarine eaters liked all products equally. Butter eaters ate more spreads. Liking ratings were generally unrelated to intake for the entire group of subjects and for individual subjects. Descriptive analysis showed the ¯avor of the two spreads made from designer fats to be more similar to margarine than to butter. The texture of CRAMF was more similar to butter; the texture of the Appetize1 Lard was more similar to margarine. Thus the two designer fat spreads were as well accepted by the subjects as their regularly used margarine. # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Fats; Spreads; Acceptance; Consumption
1. Introduction Cholesterol-reduced table spreads made with animalbased designer fats may oer an acceptable alternative to butter and some spreads made from hydrogenated vegetable oils (Hayes, 1996). The general objective of this research was to study the acceptability of butter, margarine, and two spreads made from designer fats. The two designer spreads included a spread made from Appetize1 Lard, a blend of cholesterol-reduced lard with vegetable oils (a registered trademark of Source Food Technology Inc. Burnsville, MN) and a dairy * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-612-624-1290; Fax: +1-612-6255272; E-mail: [email protected] $ Published as paper no. 971180013 of the contribution series of the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment station based on research conducted under Project 18-52. Support was also provided by the Minnesota-South Dakota Dairy Foods Research Center and the Agricultural Utilization Research Institute (AURI) of Minnesota.
spread made with cholesterol-reduced anhydrous milk fat (CRAMF). Product acceptability was assessed by means of both liking ratings and consumption measurements. In addition, descriptive analysis was performed by a trained panel of judges to document the sensory attributes of the products. The product acceptability test was conducted as part of a nutrition intervention study, which provided the opportunity for sensory and consumption research in a natural setting. Subjects in the nutrition study provided both liking ratings and consumption data for butter, margarine, and the two designer spreads. The subjects consumed the test products within the context of their usual meals in their own dining room according to their usual schedules in their familiar social environment. This avoided some of the problems associated with laboratory feeding studiesÐthe need for instructions, the use of single food meals, and the tendency to exclude social and situational variables (Meiselman, 1992).
0950-3293/99/$ - see front matter # 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0950 -3 293(99)00010 -5
148
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
The primary goal of this study was to explore the relationships between liking ratings and actual consumption. Do dierences in liking among butter, margarine, and designer spreads lead to dierences in consumption? Most research comparing liking ratings and consumption of speci®c foods supports the hypothesis that people consume more of the foods they like better (Bellisle & Le Magnen, 1980; Bobro & Kissile, 1986; Head, Giesbrecht, & Johnson, 1977; Hellemann & Tuorila, 1991; Hill & McCutcheon, 1975; Lucas & Bellisle, 1987; McKenna, 1972; Nisbett, 1968; Sidel, Stone, Woolsey, & Mecredy, 1972; Woody, Costanzo, Liefer, & Conger, 1981). All these studies show signi®cant positive relationships between liking and consumption. However, much of that support is surprisingly weak. Bellisle and Le Magnen (1980), Hellemann and Tuorila (1991) and Lucas and Bellisle (1987) observed that half or more of their subjects had no signi®cant correlations between their individual hedonic ratings and the amount they consumed. Head et al. (1977) and Tuorila-Ollikainen, Saloverra, and Kurkela (1986) showed little impact of dierences in taste test ratings on amounts of bread consumed in cafeteria and restaurant settings, respectively. Others, however, have found that liking measurements obtained under brief exposure test conditions may not necessarily correlate with and thus may not predict consumption. Head et al. (1977), Herbert-Jackson, Cross, and Risley (1977) and Vickers, Mullan, and Holton (in press) showed no impact of dierences in taste test ratings or quality of milk on amounts of milk consumed in a cafeteria setting. Lucas and Bellisle (1987) showed that amounts of sweet yogurts consumed were dierent from the preference pattern based on hedonic responses to the same yogurts. Shepherd, Farleigh, and Wharf (1991) found only a slight variation in the consumption of tomato soups with dierent sodium concentrations, and this variation was unrelated to hedonic ratings. In a study by Bobro and Kissile (1986), intake was positively correlated with the postmeal liking ratings but was negatively correlated with taste test ratings. In most of the cited studies, subjects were served meals consisting of single foods or limited combinations of foods in controlled laboratory settings. Our project provided the opportunity to explore both liking and consumption in a natural eating environment. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Subjects The subjects in the nutrition intervention study provided liking ratings and consumption data. These subjects were members of the Sisters of the Order of St.
Benedict and were long-term residents of their monastery. They ate the vast majority of their meals in the communal dining room of the monastery where a centralized kitchen prepared the food using standardized recipes. Subject selection criteria for the nutrition study required that all subjects be female, healthy, not on certain medications (e.g. cholesterol-lowering medication), post-menopausal, less than 80 years old, with a body mass index less than 30 kg/m2. A total of 36 subjects participated in the baseline data collection period and 33 of these subjects participated in the intervention periods. The mean age of the subjects was 68 years. Subjects for the descriptive analysis panel were 10 students (8 females, 2 males) from the Food Science and Nutrition Department at the University of Minnesota. Selection criteria were availability and willingness to consume a variety of dairy products. 2.2. Foods The nutrition study used the 7-week cycle menu normally featured in the dining room of the monastery. Baseline data collection and the three intervention periods occurred during the last 4 weeks of consecutive 7-week cycles. For the most part, the menus at each meal were the same during each 4-week period; only the type of fat in the table spreads, the dairy products and the baked goods varied among the treatments. The table spreads available during the baseline period were the products normally served at the monastery (Sysco1 butter and Reinhard1 margarine). As was customary at the monastery, butter was available only at breakfast, while margarine was available at breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The butter and margarine were packaged in single pats, approximately 5 g each. During the ®rst intervention period, only CRAMF spread was served at all meals. During the second intervention period, only Appetize1 Lard spread was served at all meals. Both the CRAMF and Appetize1 Lard spreads were packaged in tubs by Source Food Technologies. During the third intervention, only Crystal Farms1 butter was served at all meals. Subjects were free to use as much or as little of the spreads as they chose, according to their normal eating habits. Due to the treatment sequence of the nutrition study, Appetize1 Lard and CRAMF spreads were not available at the same time. Therefore, the descriptive analysis data were collected in two phases. The overall procedure was similar for both phases. During Phase 1, panelists evaluated CRAMF spread, margarine (Reinhard1 and Land O Lakes1), and butter (Sysco1 and Land O Lakes1 salted). During Phase 2, panelists evaluated Appetize1 Lard spread (instead of the CRAMF spread) margarine (Reinhard1 and Lake O Lakes1), and butter (Bongard1 and unsalted Land O Lakes1).
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
2.3. Liking and consumption procedures Liking surveys were administered at selected meals during the baseline data collection period and during each of the interventions. The surveys listed the table spread(s) being oered at the particular meal as well as other food items on the menu in order to disguise the fact that only the spreads were being targeted. The subjects knew that some of the food items available during the study were modi®ed. For this reason, the CRAMF and Appetize Lard spreads were identi®ed on the liking surveys as ``modi®ed butter'' during the ®rst and second intervention periods. (Margarine was labeled ``margarine'' and butter was labeled ``butter'' during the baseline and the third intervention periods.) Of the food items listed on the surveys, subjects were instructed to rate their liking only for the foods which they ate during the meal. In this manner, post-meal liking ratings were obtained for single food items which were consumed as part of a mixed meal. The survey used a 9-point, labeled hedonic scale, the labels ranging from dislike extremely on the left to like extremely on the right. Baseline liking ratings were collected at 13 dierent meals during the last 4 weeks of the menu cycle. Data collection was repeated at the same 13 meals during each of the 4-week menu cycles. Due to menu changes and various special events, the meals and menus targeted for data collection were not perfectly matched across the baseline and treatment periods. The subjects also completed diet records at every meal during the baseline period and each of the intervention periods. There were separate diet record forms for every meal during each of the 4-week cycles. The diet record forms listed all menu oerings at the particular meal. Subjects indicated which foods and how much of those foods they consumed during the meal. Prior to the study, subjects had been trained by a dietitian to estimate portion sizes. For the purposes of this study, the amounts of the table spreads consumed were recorded only from the diet records from those meals at which liking surveys were administered. 2.4. Descriptive analysis procedures The panelists used descriptive analysis to characterize the sensory attributes of the various spreads. The products were evaluated for several appearance, ¯avor, odor, and texture attributes. Panel activities included three distinct tasks: ®rst, the training sessions for vocabulary development (three 2-h sessions) during which the panelists developed the terms for the sensory attributes; second, the practice rating sessions (three 2-h sessions) during which the panelists improved their reproducibility and accuracy; and the actual evaluation sessions (two 2-h sessions). The score cards included a line scale for each attribute identi®ed by the panelists.
149
The line scales were 17 cm long, anchored 1.5 cm from the left and right with the descriptors low and high, respectively. Score cards were identical for each of the products evaluated. For the ®nal evaluation, panelists received replicate, coded samples of all the spreads, a list of attribute de®nitions, rinse water (bottled spring water and warm tap water), spit cups, and a score card. All the samples were presented at the same time. Panelists rated the intensity of each attribute for every sample. The panelists were allowed to evaluate the samples in the order of their choosing. 2.5. Data analysis 2.5.1. Liking and consumption Analyses of variance were performed using the SAS General Linear Models (GLM) procedure across all meals and all menus to determine if there were signi®cant dierences in overall liking or consumption among the various spreads. The data were then grouped by meal time and ANOVAs (GLM) were performed separately for the breakfast, lunch, and dinner meals to determine if there were dierences in liking or consumption among the spreads by meal time. The Bonferroni multiple comparison test was performed to determine which pairs of products were signi®cantly dierent. In addition, the subjects were classi®ed by their selection preference for butter or margarine and the data for each group were analyzed separately. As indicated earlier, margarine was normally served at the monastery during breakfast, lunch, and dinner, while butter was served only at breakfast. Subjects who chose butter at any breakfast meal at which liking surveys were administered during the baseline period were classi®ed as butter eaters (n=25); subjects who exclusively chose margarine at such meals were classi®ed as margarine eaters (n=11). 2.6. Descriptive analysis The line scales from the descriptive analysis were digitized to be 100 discrete units. Higher scores correspond to higher intensities. All analyses were performed by SAS. ANOVAs were performed to determine if there were signi®cant dierences in attribute intensity among the spreads. The Bonferroni multiple comparison test was used to determine which pairs of products were signi®cantly dierent for each attribute. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 data were collected at different times and were, therefore, analyzed separately. In order to better compare the sensory characteristics of the CRAMF and Appetize Lard spreads, contrasts were used. The Phase 1 contrast of CRAMF versus the other samples was compared to the Phase 2 contrast of
150
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
spread selection at breakfast meals during the baseline period as described already. Further analyses suggested that the observed preferences among the spreads can be attributed to the butter eaters. The butter eaters discriminated among the spreads (F=60.5; df=3, 174; p=0.0001); there were signi®cant dierences between all possible pairs of spreads (Fig. 1). There were no signi®cant dierences in liking among the spreads for the margarine eaters (F=1.17; df=3, 31; p=0.34). Fig. 1 shows the overall mean liking ratings for the spreads (across all meals) for the butter eaters versus the margarine eaters. Note that the butter eaters sometimes chose margarine at lunch or dinner meals and, therefore, the ®gure shows mean margarine ratings for the butter eaters. The margarine eaters never chose butter at surveyed meals during the baseline period, but the ®gure shows mean butter ratings for the margarine eaters. These ratings re¯ect a third intervention period during which butter was the only spread oered.
Appetize Lard versus the other samples. The ``other'' samples included the butter and margarine samples which were evaluated by the panel during both Phase 1 and Phase 2. (Aside from the Land O Lakes butter, the brand of butter included in Phase 1 was dierent than the brand included in Phase 2; however, both were salted butters and were, therefore, included in the contrasts. The Land O Lakes butter products were excluded from the analysis.) The sensory characteristics of those spreads which were included in the consumer acceptance test were graphically summarized by spider plots showing the mean intensity scores for each attribute for each of the spreads. For ease of comparison, the mean intensity scores plotted for butter and margarine represent the average rating across Phase 1 and Phase 2. 3. Results 3.1. Liking ratings
3.2. Consumption
Butter was the most preferred spread (Table 1). Appetize Lard and CRAMF spreads were liked second and third best, respectively, while margarine was least preferred (F=46; df=3, 295; p=0.0001). Meal time did not in¯uence preference for the spreads (F=1.37; df=2, 295; p=0.26). The analyses of liking ratings by meal time yielded similar patterns of preference as the overall analysis. There were no signi®cant dierences in liking between either CRAMF or Appetize Lard and margarine at breakfast; however, CRAMF and Appetize Lard were both signi®cantly preferred over margarine at lunch and dinner (Table 1). Butter was the most preferred spread at breakfast. However, at both lunch and dinner, the mean liking ratings for butter were not signi®cantly different than the ratings for Appetize Lard. The fact that margarine seemed to perform better at breakfast (when both butter and margarine were served) than at lunch or dinner (when only margarine was served) suggested some dierence among subjects depending on their choice of spread when both butter and margarine were available. The subjects were classi®ed as butter eaters or margarine eaters based on their
The subjects consumed signi®cantly more butter during the average meal than Appetize Lard spread (F=3.2; df=3, 234; p=0.02). There were no signi®cant dierences in intake between any other pairs of spreads. Meal time in¯uenced the amount of spread consumed during a meal (F=13.6; df=2, 234; p=0.0001). The mean intake values by meal time are listed in Table 2. There was a higher average intake of spreads at breakfast than at lunch or dinner. The high mean intake of margarine at dinner re¯ects three relatively high reported intakes from a single meal at which French toast was served. Fig. 2 suggests that the butter eaters consume more spreads than the margarine eaters. The mean intakes across all meals for the butter eaters versus the margarine eaters are displayed in Fig. 2. On average, the butter eaters ate more spreads at breakfast (7.7 g across all spreads, SEM=0.44) than at lunch (4.9 g, SEM=0. 47) or dinner (6.1 g, SEM=0.68); meal time had a signi®cant eect on spread intake for the butter eaters. Spread consumption for the margarine eaters was not signi®cantly aected by meal time (F=1.8; df=2, 19; p=0.19).
Table 1 Mean liking ratings for spreads (n) Margarine All meals combined Breakfast Lunch Dinner
a
5.6 (46) 6.6ab (11) 5.3a (15) 5.3a (20)
CRAMF b
6.3 (149) 5.8a (61) 6.7b (63) 6.2b (25)
Appetize Lard c
7.0 (122) 6.8b (33) 7.1c (56) 7.0c (33)
Butter d
7.7 7.9c 7.3c 7.4c
Means in the same row with the same superscripts are not signi®cantly dierent (p>0.05). n, number of observations.
(92) (56) (22) (14)
p-Value 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
151
The descriptive analysis panel identi®ed 29 sensory attributes in the spreads category. The spider plots in Fig. 3±6 provide graphical comparisons of the descriptive analysis data for butter, margarine, Appetize Lard spread and CRAMF spread. The CRAMF spread, Appetize Lard spread and margarine were all more yellow than the butter (Fig. 3). Butter by far exceeded the other spreads for butter odor intensity; the reverse was true for margarine odor intensity (Fig. 4). The most notable features about the ¯avor spider plot are that butter rated lower on greasy ¯avor, lower on margarine ¯avor, lower on plastic aftertaste, and higher on butter ¯avor than CRAMF, Appetize Lard or margarine
(Fig. 5). The texture spider plot suggests that CRAMF spread was texturally similar to butter, while Appetize Lard spread was texturally similar to margarine (Fig. 6). Overall, the CRAMF spread was similar to margarine in color, odor and ¯avor, but the texture more closely resembled butter. The CRAMF spread was crumbly and dull in appearance (like butter) and it looked the most ¯aky. The CRAMF spread was characterized by a margarine odor and margarine ¯avor, lacking the ``mild, sweet, clean, pleasant'' odor and ¯avor of high quality butter. There were no o-¯avors in the CRAMF spread that were not present to some degree in the margarine samples except for a marked greasy odor. Although texturally more similar to butter than margarine, the CRAMF spread was ®rmer and melted more slowly in the mouth than butter. The spread made from Appetize Lard was generally similar to margarine in appearance, odor, ¯avor and texture. It was characterized by a shiny, yellow appearance, margarine odor, margarine ¯avor and plastic aftertaste. As with the CRAMF spread, there were no o-¯avors or odors in the Appetize Lard spread that were not present to some degree in the margarine samples. Texturally, the Appetize Lard spread was soft and melted quickly in the mouth like margarine. Although both the CRAMF and Appetize Lard spreads were generally similar to margarine, the contrast analysis highlighted several dierences. The largest dierence between the two spreads was texture. Appetize Lard was much softer and had a faster rate of melting (in the mouth) than CRAMF. In addition,
Fig. 1. Mean liking scores for butter eaters versus margarine eaters. Vertical lines represent SEM.
Fig. 2. Mean intake (g) for butter eaters versus margarine eaters. Vertical lines represent SEM.
3.3. Liking as a predictor of consumption The simple linear regression of liking scores on intake values for the spreads across all meals and across all subjects indicated there was no linear relationship between liking ratings and intake (R2=0). Regressions for the breakfast, lunch, and dinner meals separately also indicated no linear relationship between liking ratings and intake by meal time. Only 25 subjects had enough observations to allow calculation of within subject correlations between liking and intake. These within subject correlation coecients were not signi®cant except for two judges, both exhibiting a negative relationship between liking and intake (r=ÿ0.56, p=0.05; r=ÿ0.80, p<0.0001). 3.4. Descriptive analysis
Table 2 Mean intake (grams) for spreads (n) Margarine All meals combined Breakfast Lunch Dinner
ab
5.5 3.4a 4.4a 8.1a
(37) (9) (14) (14)
Appetize Lard a
5.5 (94) 6.5ab (30) 5.1a (42) 5.0b (22)
CRAMF ab
6.1 (123) 7.0b (56) 5.3a (48) 5.6b (19)
Butter b
6.7 (90) 8.3b (54) 4.1a (22) 4.4b (14)
Means in the same row with the same superscripts are not signi®cantly dierent (p>0.05). n, number of observations.
p-Value 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
152
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
Fig. 3. Appearance attributes for spreads. Each spoke of this ®gure represents a single sensory attribute. The intensity scales each go from ``none'' at the center to ``very intense'' at the outer end of the spoke. The intensity of an attribute in a speci®c product is represented by the point on the spoke at which the connecting line for that product crosses.
Appetize Lard was shinier and less ¯aky in appearance than CRAMF. Appetize Lard had distinctly less greasy odor than CRAMF. Finally, Appetize Lard had more margarine ¯avor and tasted saltier than CRAMF. The sensory characteristics of both the Appetize Lard and the CRAMF spreads were generally comparable to margarine, consistent with the conclusion that both products are acceptable substitutes for margarine when used as a table spread. Texturally, however, while the Appetize Lard spread was similar to margarine, the CRAMF spread more closely resembled butter. Despite its textural similarity to butter, the most preferred spread, the CRAMF spread was not liked as well as the Appetize Lard spread (by subjects in the acceptance test). This suggests that texture attributes are not the primary determinants of preference for spreads. If, however, consumers are willing to give up the distinct ¯avor of real butter, then perhaps spreadability gains importance, giving Appetize Lard spread the edge over CRAMF spread. 4. Discussion 4.1. Consumer acceptance Overall, butter was preferred over Appetize Lard spread, CRAMF spread and margarine, which is consistent with Hellemann et al.'s ®nding that butter was preferred over a variety of margarines and low-fat
Fig. 4. Odor attributes for spreads. Each spoke of this ®gure represents a single sensory attribute. The intensity scales each go from ``none'' at the center to ``very intense'' at the outer end of the spoke. The intensity of an attribute in a speci®c product is represented by the point on the spoke at which the connecting line for that product crosses.
spreads (Hellemann, Tuorila, Lampi, & Matuszewska, 1990). Also, Hellemann and Tuorila (1991) found that samples of bread spread with butter were preferred over those spread with margarine. Similarly, Schroder and Baer (1991), who conducted a home-use test market study to compare butter and reduced-cholesterol butter, found that butter was signi®cantly preferred over reduced-cholesterol butter (p<0.01). The reduced-cholesterol butter in the Schroder and Baer (1991) study was comparable to the CRAMF spread used in this study. Overall, Appetize Lard and CRAMF spreads (both cholesterol-reduced products) were liked second and third best, respectively, while margarine was the least preferred spread. This suggests that Appetize Lard and CRAMF spreads may both be acceptable alternatives to margarine. However, for consumers who prefer butter but choose a reduced-cholesterol spread, Appetize Lard appears to be the most appealing alternative. When subjects were categorized as butter or margarine users (as described earlier), it became apparent that butter users were more discriminating than margarine users, who had no preference among the spreads. If preferences in¯uence purchase behavior, then consumers who regularly purchase margarine might be a more receptive target for Appetize Lard or CRAMF spreads than butter users. Subjects in the Schroder and Baer (1991) study might be considered butter users, since 62% of them reported using butter daily and 26% weekly. Interestingly, 83% of the subjects in the Schroder
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
Fig. 5. Flavor attributes for spreads. Each spoke of this ®gure represents a single sensory attribute. The intensity scales each go from ``none'' at the center to ``very intense'' at the outer end of the spoke. The intensity of an attribute in a speci®c product is represented by the point on the spoke at which the connecting line for that product crosses.
and Baer (1991) study said they would buy reduced-cholesterol butter in place of butter, suggesting the preference is not an overriding factor in the purchase decision. Although Tuorila and Pangborn (1988) found liking to be the dominant predictor of reported consumption of high-fat foods, they also found that concerns about health, harmful ingredients and weight had a signi®cant negative in¯uence on reported consumption. By appealing to such concerns, butter users might be persuaded to use a product such as Appetize Lard spread. The liking and consumption data for the spreads used in this study were measured only when the products were used as table spreads; therefore, conclusions regarding their acceptability apply only to similarly used products. This limitation may not be serious cause for concern, given that 74% of the subjects in Schroder and Baer (1991) study indicated their primary use of butter was as a spread. The discussion thus far suggests that Appetize Lard or CRAMF spreads would be acceptable products, even with little or no product improvements, given their preferred status over margarine. However, the results suggested that the butter eaters generally consumed more spreads than the margarine eaters. This observation, together with Schroder and Baer's (1991) ®nding that 83% of their subjects would buy reduced-cholesterol butter in place of butter, suggests that butter users would be an important target market despite their discriminating palate. The potential bene®t of broader
153
Fig. 6. Texture attributes for spreads. Each spoke of this ®gure represents a single sensory attribute. The intensity scales each go from ``none'' at the center to ``very intense'' at the outer end of the spoke. The intensity of an attribute in a speci®c product is represented by the point on the spoke at which the connecting line for that product crosses.
consumer acceptance (by appealing to both butter and margarine users) might warrant eorts aimed at narrowing the gap between the sensory characteristics of Appetize Lard or CRAMF spreads and butter. Beyond optimizing the ¯avor and odor of the designer spreads, eorts to in¯uence consumer awareness of nutrition and healthy lifestyles may also contribute to consumer acceptance. 4.2. Liking as a predictor of consumption The post-meal liking ratings for the spreads were not useful indicators of the amounts consumed by subjects in the feeding study. This is consistent with Bobro and Kissile's (1986) ®nding that intake correlated poorly with post-meal liking ratings. The percentage of individual subjects with signi®cant and positive correlations between post-meal liking ratings and consumption reported by other investigators have ranged from 41% (Hellemann & Tuorila, 1991) to 83% (Lucas & Bellisle, 1987). In this study, of the 25 within-subject correlations between liking and intake which were calculated, only two (8%) were signi®cant, but both were negative. 5. Conclusion Appetize Lard and CRAMF spreads, both cholesterolreduced table spreads made with animal based designer fats, were liked as well as or better than margarine. This
154
M. Michicich et al./Food Quality and Preference 10 (1999) 147±154
is consistent with the observed similarity in sensory characteristics between the cholesterol-reduced spreads and margarine. The implication that margarine users were less discriminating in their spread preferences than butter users suggests that margarine users may be a receptive target for Appetize Lard and CRAMF spreads. Butter was the most preferred spread and had a unique sensory pro®le. Butter users, who are accustomed to butter's unique odor and ¯avor characteristics, were very discriminating in their spread preferences. The butter users actually preferred Appetize Lard over margarine, suggesting that Appetize Lard oers an appealing alternative to margarine for cholesterol-conscious consumers. Although butter users tended to consume more spreads than margarine users, preferences among spreads were generally not related to consumption. Acknowledgements The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the participation and support of the Sisters of the Order of St. Benedict at St. Joseph, Minnesota, for their eort, dedication and the hospitality extended to the research team. We also acknowledge the assistance provided by the sta at St. Benedict's Campus Foodservice, and the assistance of Hilary Hasz, Julie Amon and Tim Garry, undergraduate dietetic students in the Nutrition Department at the College of St. Benedict, who helped the Sisters with food records. References Bellisle, F., & Le Magnen, J. (1980). The analysis of human feeding patterns: The edogram. Appetite, 1, 141±150. Bobro, E., & Kissile, H. (1986). Eects of changes in palatability on food intake and the cumulative food intake curve in man. Appetite, 7, 85±96. Hayes, K. C. (1996). Designing a cholesterol-removed fat blend for frying and baking. Food Technology, 50 (4), 92±97.
Head, M. K., Giesbrecht, F. G., & Johnson, G. N. (1977). Food acceptability research: Comparative utility of three types of data from school children. Journal of Food Science, 42, 246±251. Hellemann, U., & Tuorila, H. (1991). Pleasantness ratings and consumption of open sandwiches with varying NaCl and acid contents. Appetite, 17, 229±238. Hellemann, U., Tuorila, H., Lampi, A. M., & Matuszewska, I. (1990). Hedonic responses and attitudes related to fats used as spreads on bread. Food Quality and Preference, 2, 29±38. Herbert-Jackson, E., Cross, M. Z., & Risley, T. R. (1977). Milk types and temperatureÐwhat will young children drink? Journal of Nutrition Education, 9 (2), 76±80. Hill, S. W., & McCutcheon, N. B. (1975). Eating responses of obese and nonobese humans during dinner meals. Psychosomatic Medicine, 37 (5), 395±401. Lucas, F., & Bellisle, F. (1987). The measurement of food preferences in humans: Do taste-and-spit tests predict consumption? Physiology and Behavior, 39, 739±743. McKenna, R. J. (1972). Some eects of anxiety level and food cues on the eating behavior of obese and normal subjects: A comparison of the Schachterian and psychosomatic conceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22 (3), 311±319. Meiselman, H. L. (1992). Methodology and theory in human eating research. Appetite, 19, 49±55. Nisbett, R. E. (1968). Taste, deprivation, and weight determinants of eating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20 (2), 107±116. Schroder, B. G., & Baer, R. J. (1991). Consumer evaluation of reduced-cholesterol butter. Food Technology, 45, 104±107. Shepherd, R., Farleigh, C. A., & Wharf, S. G. (1991). Eect of quantity consumed on measures of liking for salt concentrations in soup. Journal of Sensory Studies, 6, 227±238. Sidel, J. L., Stone, H., Woolsey, A., & Mecredy, J. M. (1972). Correlation between hedonic ratings and consumption of beer. Journal of Food Science, 37, 335. Tuorila, H., & Pangborn, R. M. (1988). Prediction or reported consumption of selected fat-containing foods. Appetite, 11, 81±95. Tuorila-Ollikainen, H., Saloverra, H., & Kurkela, R. (1986). Eect of saltiness on the liking and consumption of bread and butter. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 18, 99±106. Vickers, Z., Mullan, L., & Holton, E. (in press). Impact of dierence in taste test ratings on the consumption of milk in both a laboratory and a foodservice setting. Journal of Sensory Studies. Woody, E. Z., Costanzo, P. R., Liefer, H., & Conger, J. (1981). The eects of taste and caloric perceptions on the eating behavior of restrained and unrestrained subjects. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5 (4), 381±390.