- Email: [email protected]
The basis of dietary fat preferences
26
tacr;bmn. MS..
Price. M.C.. Shamw, A.E. and HeaId, F.P.(19851 57, 209-217 lacobson, M.S. (19871 lancef /i, 656-658 hl,acCregor, I.T.. Wilson, R.E., Ne?, W.E. and Frankel, E.N (i985) Fowl Chem. Toxicol. 23, 1041-1047 Ansari. C.A.S.. Walker, R.D., Smari, V.B. ar,d Smith, L.L. i1982i F&
31
Atherosclerosis
27 28 29
Chem.
30
&icol.
20.35-41
K., Neff, W.E. and Fmnkr!, E.N. !I9841 Bx.rhim.
Acra X5,
t0?%~0?
Wophyi.
and market conditicz
of their energy
at this leve! and, correspondingly,
America
and
to select their
fat preferences
as fat. It is unclear
choose to consume fat
why compliance
with rec-
D.J, Mela
to reduce fat intakes has been so poor. A bet-
ter understanding
of the
mechanisms tmderlvjng implications
North
of food items, yet they consist-
hundreds
35-40s
in
allow the inhabitants
why humans in a free-choice situation
ommendations
Cao, F.P., Bint. W.I., Zheog. W., Ershw A-C., Hw, S.W., Lew. L.I., Zhang, R. and Fraui;Kai, J.F.ii%% hf. /. CancerJO,
The basisof dietary
Westerr; Europe generally
ently consume
Toxicoi. iY. 75..80
603-609
ViewDoint
diets from among
Chcm.
33 34
FujimoW
Economic
32
Tayior, S.L., Beg, CM., Shoptaugh, N.H. and Traisman, E. (19831 1. Fim. Oil Chem. Sot. 60,5X-5&0 Hagemat?, C., Hermans. R., Ten tioor, F. and Kteinja?s, 1. {1990! F&
phys’ological
this behaviour
and psychological could have important
for nutritional counsellirlg and the production
and acceptance of reduced-fat
products.
Fat consumption among western populations has been linked to several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, obesity and certain forms of cancer. These associations have led to numerous recommendations from private and public health authorities for reductions in dietary fat intakes over the past 30 years (e.g. Ref. I). While these recommendations remain conEoversial in some quarters, the basic message has remained much the same during ithis time. Certainly, there can bc little doubt that the message has Fegistered in the minds of consumers and fooCI producers and.marketers. The study of food selection and acceptability with respect to fats is difficult because fat sources are diverse and may contain many metabolically and organoleptitally significant constituents. Sensory work on fats is complicated by the fact that. in common use, fats are rarely, if ever, consumed in pure or even simple form, and are usually acceptable only when presented as one component of a complex food. The overall composition of the food matrix and the process by which the fat is incorporated into the matrix may also affect fat acceptability. Such problems are often overlooked, and research results overgeneralized. In studies with hpmans, individual relative preferences fi>r salt or sugar are 0.1. Mela is ;II the Department of Food Acceptability. institute ai Food Research, Reading L&oratory, Shinfield, Reading RC2 YAT UK.
generally correlated across a variety of f&xi stimuli’-+; this is apparently not the case with fat content”.‘. From a physiological perspective, fats in foods serve three basic func:ions: as sources of essential fatty acids, carriers for fat-soluble vitamins, and energy sources, The only nutritional requirements that must be fulfilled by lipids are those established for essential fatty acids and fat-solub!e vitamins. and it is clear that the needs for these can be satisfied by diets extremely low in total fat content. Why do we eat fat? The capacity to recognize, select and ingest dietary fats must. like all other abilities and behavioun. have learned and/or innate components. The contributions of fats to the sensory attributes of foods are commonly ascribed a significant role in acceptance. This may imply the existence of an innate recognition and preference (perhaps similar to the apparendy innate human preference for sweet tastes) for a fat-ass&a&d volatile aroma or textural feature. Are there innate flavour prekences? Minimally processed fats may retain lipid-associated compounds that confer characteristic aroma profiles, while freshly processed (i.e. refined) oils lypically have no intrinsic flavour. In either case. by-products with perceptib1.a. chemossnsory attributes may develop through interac,ions with enzymes. heavy metals or other food components, as well as: with atmospheric gases, light and heat. Some fat-derived compounds, such as those formed during frying, are generally considkred to be such as those associated with desirable; others. rancidity, are usually considered 10 be unpleasant by Western societies. Such hedonic judgments may.
however, vary wi.th rhe specific food and with cultural preference9. In addition, f; ts mfdify the time-intensity profile of flavours, presum&y by affecting the partitioning of flavour compounds between the food matrix, saliva, the ore-nasal headspace and surface receptors within the oral cavity. Such effects, though of great practical iinportance in the sensory perception of foods, await comprehensive scientific examination. While there is increasing evidence of distinct recoghition and transduction mechanisms for selected odours or odour classes, the existence of innate aroma preferences in humans has tiot been established. A major weakness in the supposition that fat-associated aromas might be innately preferred is that rhe profiles of these aromas are, typically, both highly complex and unique to specific foods. Hence, it is difficult to identify a meaningful organoleptic or chemicsl commonality among the aromas of, for example, cream, deep-fried foods and cooked meat’-‘. As discussed above, fats may also be added to foods in which they contribute no flavours of their own, but may modify the perception of flavours already present (e.g. refined oil and vinegar dressings). Finally, as detai!?d below, there is abundant evidence for the predominance of learning processes in the formation of flavour preferences. Are there innate texture preferences? The textuial contribitions of fats to foods are complex, and vary with fat composition and with the levels of other food components”c’3. Nevertheless, it appears that humans may largely rely upon textural propenies to gauge the perception of ‘fat content’ under test conditionsl”,‘5. However, innate texture preferences would seem unIlke!y tecaiihe, while the capacity to discriminate textures may be quite sensitive, it is ultimately a response to nonspecific mechanical and frictiona; forces in the oral cavity. It is possible that there is some form of recognition of selected textural qualities, perhaps of those associated with the presence of hydrophobic materials. Indeed, there is evidence that the different textural properties of selected fat& ran be salient conditioning cues”, and that rats may exhibit innate preferences for fat-associated textures”.‘“. Hswever, as with flavours, there are indications that such preferences may be dominated by post-ingestive effects of fa@.‘V_
conditioning mediaXG.Ji. but similar work with fats has not been conducted. The available evidence suggests that the apparent human preference for the sensory propenies of fats may be secondary t? rhe metabolic properties of fats. This possibility raises questions about the ultimate consumer acceptability and effectiveness of fat-mimicking textural and flavour modifications and low-calorie fat substitutes, which dissociate the sensory and metabolic properties of fats. Future research issues The existing information suggests several ;r:orthwhile lines of additional research tin the basis of dietary fat preferences. Fundamental work on preference conditioning and on the factors affecting the development of ‘long-term’ food preferences in humans may be particularly relevant in light of the foreseen advances in the use of reducedfat and reduced-ecergy food ingredients and processes. .4nimal st.udies strongly indicare that conditioning may be a dominating factor in the development of food sensory preferences. be significant interactions between There may exposure to fats and overall sensory or dietary acceptance. Reizt:m evt,ience from animal studies illdicafes that consumprior, of high- and low-fat diets are associated with enhanced or diminished accepfance of fat, respectively, in a variety of preference testing paradigms?“. Preliminary war-k on humans, in accordance with the animal studies, indicates possibie reductions in sensory preferences for fats during the course of a l2-week period of reduced fat intakez7. This may be analogolls io the reported increase in acceptance of low-fat milk following some period of adaptation after switching from the full-fat product; this phenomenon has received extensive anecdotal support, but has been the focus of limited scientific evaluationzH. Further investigations of the effect of prolonged consumption of reduced-fat foods or diets on acceptance of these zx other
traditional
such
as
hyperlipidaemins. Are time learned preferences for fats? There *are numerous reports (e.g. Refs 20 and 2 I) that preferences of experimental animals for specific sensory qualities (primarily flavours) or foods can be conditioned by pairing the stimuli with energy sources, including fats”.z3. There is additional evidence (e.g. Refs 21 and 23) that this type of conditioned preference is related to the caloric vahue of the energy source and, possibly, is independknt of its physical form or initial hedonic value. Flavour ,preferences of humans are influenced by. tht energy conten! (as carbohydrate) ot
Conclusions Given increasing consumer demand for palatable lowfat foods, and a substantial commitment of industrial resources to developing and promoting such products. studies of the forces rhai promote and maintain the acceptance
economic
of
dietary
fats
may
have
considerable
and public health implications.
!n my view, the challenge to reduce dietary fa: in:akes has generated specific industrial responses (new products and technologies) and recommendations to
consumers (regarding food sc-lection and preparation) that have, iargely, been deveioped to attain ‘short-term’ More consideration must now be sensory acceptance. given to how such approaches might affect ‘long-term’ food preferences.
References American
Heart Association
Shepherd,
R, Farleigh,
(1961)
Circulation
C.A. and Wharf,
23, l-4
S.G. (19871 Hum.
11
F,.wci TKhncl. Drewnowski,
13
Marshall.
14
Mela.
D.1. (19C9! Appetite
15
Mefa,
D.J. and Christensen,
16
Law,
C. !1978)
Chem.
Hamilton, M:ndell.
19
Reed, D.R., Tordoff. M.C.
C.M.
11988) 1.5~~.
CL. (19641 J. Camp.
Ps~chof. 58, 459-460 D. Physiol.
and Friedman,
Melter,
T. and Aiberts, J.P. i!989!
Mehiel,
R. and Belles, R.C. i1988)
j. Camp.
(I 985) Physic2 Behav. 15,
Ii7-183
22
Lucas, F. and Zafani,
A. !1989)
Mattes,
R.D. and Me!a,
Chem. Sense 1 I,
23
Tordoif,
8.1. and Friedman,
M.G., Teppr,
Ps,vchoi
P,iysiol.
Behav
103, 24.3~~251
Aoim. Learn. B&v.
M.R.C.
16, 383-387
Physsiol. behav. .46,403-4:2 X1.1. [I4871
Phgrjof.
B&v.
41,487-48: D.S. Am. J. C&t.
I. and Numlych,
(Supran, M.K., Shahidi, American
5. (1976)
Chemical
Szcresniak,
De~&p;ner;ts
i. ed::, pp. 188-201,
R.J. and Ho. C-T. !i9781 M.K.,
24
Booth, D.A.,
25
Birch, L.L., hlcPhee,
Sxiety
in Lipids
ed.1, pp. 18-41,
Chemical
Reed, D.R. and Fdedaan,
27
Mela,
28
Tuorila,
29
Marks-Kaufman.
FocdSc~.
Computerized Food Processing Oprations is organized into six chapters: microcomputers; data acquisition in the laboratory; computer control in the food processing plant; on-line control of unit operations; process modeling and simulation; and process optimization. The first chapter provides some basic compliter :erminology. It also outlines the, fundamentals of computer interfaces with common food sensors, processing equipment and conventional laboratory instruments. The second chapter is devoted to data acquisition. Discussions of gas chromatography and heat penetration during retort processing of canned foods are used to demonstrate the principles. Chapter ? deals with computer control, and -ontains a short review of process control systems, followed by five studies from typical food industries, intended to illustrate the intermlationships between computerbased control, specific process requirements and resources. Chapter 4 describes on-line control in several typical food processes, namely sterilization, aseptic processing, evaporaiidn and dehydration. The last two
163-184
5. (1990;
Ph@.
&!.I. (199Oi
iippm&14,219~230
0.j. Int.J. Oberif,v(Abstract, in press) Appetite 8, l-i4
tt. (7987)
R. (19821 Pharmacol.
Biochem.
BehaL,. 16,
Kanarak,
R-6. and Dushkin.
H. 119881 Pharmaco~.
Bicchem.
Behav. 31,
113-I:2 31
28, 385-389
L. ard 5ulliran.
949-955
R.F.. ed.), pp. 94-120,
Society
A.S. 1196311.
P. and Fuller, 1.119821 Appetife3, L.. Steinberg,
26
30 in FlaMrCtrcmisrrviGould,
Mather,
Behas,. 47, Sot-505
American
Society
Day, E.A. (1966) American
Chemical
Society
as a Source ofF/av@r(Supran, Chemical
as a Source oiflwor
Trendsand
iI: F/a~r7rChemistry:
R., Buttery, R.G. and Siiahidi,
5.5.. P&non,
hlclc (ir! presal
in lipids
ed.i, pp. 1-l 7, American
F. (1989)
[Tcranishi, Chaog,
~zhav.
h! !. (1990)
47,7i9-732 21
D.I. (19861
.5tud. 2. X3-281
l-h
Phwiol.
G.P. and Crcentxrg.
20
A., Shrager, E-E., Lipsky, C., Stellar, E. and Greenwood,
sr’7
10, 37-44
Senses Fiavour3,
18
S., Smith,
8, 599.
Agric. SO, 237-252
Drewnawski.
Litman,
10
FoodSci.
Nurr. 41 F, 173-18:
Mela, D.1. and Sachetti.
9
A. 119841 Int ,I, Oh&@
R.J. (199O)J.
17
Nuts. &pi.
i r,il.:1979)
R.L. and Moskowitz,
33,89-92
12
523-539
8
Cusrler, E.L., Kokini, J.L., W:inheimer,
IV&heriord,
S.C.. Smith, G. 2nd hielcill~,
L.D. (1988)
Ph~ssioi. B&c
44,569-572
by A.A. Teixeira
and C.E Shoemaker,Mn Nostrand Reinhold, 1989. f32.X,‘$12.95 (xi + 202 pages) ISBN 0 442 28501 9
chapters focus on process modeling simulation and opiimization. The book contains numerous figures, tables and case studies selected from a wide spectrum of food processes. ‘The case studies, based on previously published material, are well organized and useful to the novice reader. References are generally up to date, and complement the material presented in the respective chapters. The use of the sterilization of mainly conduction-type canned foods as a common example throughout the book provides continuity in the discussion of successive computer applications, and enhances overall readability. The text is designed to emphasize and highlight concepts, basic principles and specific food applications rather than a computer-based approach. Thus, the ever-growing speed of hardware changes, innovation and ihe unabated evolution of computer science and
s&ware will not negatively influence the relevance of the material. Conceivably, focd scientists and, especially, food engineers and computer specialists will find this book a practical, collated source of computer applications and references. All other food practitioners, especially students, will perceive it to be an excellent introductory textbook. Overall, I believe Comporerizej Food Processing Operarions.to b a useful addition to libraries and a suitable supplementary text for undergraduate courses. Students will discover a wealth of useful technical information and an important basis of their introduction to computer-related technology.
., Trerer;di iri Food Science& TechnologySeptem,ber. 1990
:~
!
,.
73’.
‘_‘,
tacr;bmn. MS..
Price. M.C.. Shamw, A.E. and HeaId, F.P.(19851 57, 209-217 lacobson, M.S. (19871 lancef /i, 656-658 hl,acCregor, I.T.. Wilson, R.E., Ne?, W.E. and Frankel, E.N (i985) Fowl Chem. Toxicol. 23, 1041-1047 Ansari. C.A.S.. Walker, R.D., Smari, V.B. ar,d Smith, L.L. i1982i F&
31
Atherosclerosis
27 28 29
Chem.
30
&icol.
20.35-41
K., Neff, W.E. and Fmnkr!, E.N. !I9841 Bx.rhim.
Acra X5,
t0?%~0?
Wophyi.
and market conditicz
of their energy
at this leve! and, correspondingly,
America
and
to select their
fat preferences
as fat. It is unclear
choose to consume fat
why compliance
with rec-
D.J, Mela
to reduce fat intakes has been so poor. A bet-
ter understanding
of the
mechanisms tmderlvjng implications
North
of food items, yet they consist-
hundreds
35-40s
in
allow the inhabitants
why humans in a free-choice situation
ommendations
Cao, F.P., Bint. W.I., Zheog. W., Ershw A-C., Hw, S.W., Lew. L.I., Zhang, R. and Fraui;Kai, J.F.ii%% hf. /. CancerJO,
The basisof dietary
Westerr; Europe generally
ently consume
Toxicoi. iY. 75..80
603-609
ViewDoint
diets from among
Chcm.
33 34
FujimoW
Economic
32
Tayior, S.L., Beg, CM., Shoptaugh, N.H. and Traisman, E. (19831 1. Fim. Oil Chem. Sot. 60,5X-5&0 Hagemat?, C., Hermans. R., Ten tioor, F. and Kteinja?s, 1. {1990! F&
phys’ological
this behaviour
and psychological could have important
for nutritional counsellirlg and the production
and acceptance of reduced-fat
products.
Fat consumption among western populations has been linked to several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, obesity and certain forms of cancer. These associations have led to numerous recommendations from private and public health authorities for reductions in dietary fat intakes over the past 30 years (e.g. Ref. I). While these recommendations remain conEoversial in some quarters, the basic message has remained much the same during ithis time. Certainly, there can bc little doubt that the message has Fegistered in the minds of consumers and fooCI producers and.marketers. The study of food selection and acceptability with respect to fats is difficult because fat sources are diverse and may contain many metabolically and organoleptitally significant constituents. Sensory work on fats is complicated by the fact that. in common use, fats are rarely, if ever, consumed in pure or even simple form, and are usually acceptable only when presented as one component of a complex food. The overall composition of the food matrix and the process by which the fat is incorporated into the matrix may also affect fat acceptability. Such problems are often overlooked, and research results overgeneralized. In studies with hpmans, individual relative preferences fi>r salt or sugar are 0.1. Mela is ;II the Department of Food Acceptability. institute ai Food Research, Reading L&oratory, Shinfield, Reading RC2 YAT UK.
generally correlated across a variety of f&xi stimuli’-+; this is apparently not the case with fat content”.‘. From a physiological perspective, fats in foods serve three basic func:ions: as sources of essential fatty acids, carriers for fat-soluble vitamins, and energy sources, The only nutritional requirements that must be fulfilled by lipids are those established for essential fatty acids and fat-solub!e vitamins. and it is clear that the needs for these can be satisfied by diets extremely low in total fat content. Why do we eat fat? The capacity to recognize, select and ingest dietary fats must. like all other abilities and behavioun. have learned and/or innate components. The contributions of fats to the sensory attributes of foods are commonly ascribed a significant role in acceptance. This may imply the existence of an innate recognition and preference (perhaps similar to the apparendy innate human preference for sweet tastes) for a fat-ass&a&d volatile aroma or textural feature. Are there innate flavour prekences? Minimally processed fats may retain lipid-associated compounds that confer characteristic aroma profiles, while freshly processed (i.e. refined) oils lypically have no intrinsic flavour. In either case. by-products with perceptib1.a. chemossnsory attributes may develop through interac,ions with enzymes. heavy metals or other food components, as well as: with atmospheric gases, light and heat. Some fat-derived compounds, such as those formed during frying, are generally considkred to be such as those associated with desirable; others. rancidity, are usually considered 10 be unpleasant by Western societies. Such hedonic judgments may.
however, vary wi.th rhe specific food and with cultural preference9. In addition, f; ts mfdify the time-intensity profile of flavours, presum&y by affecting the partitioning of flavour compounds between the food matrix, saliva, the ore-nasal headspace and surface receptors within the oral cavity. Such effects, though of great practical iinportance in the sensory perception of foods, await comprehensive scientific examination. While there is increasing evidence of distinct recoghition and transduction mechanisms for selected odours or odour classes, the existence of innate aroma preferences in humans has tiot been established. A major weakness in the supposition that fat-associated aromas might be innately preferred is that rhe profiles of these aromas are, typically, both highly complex and unique to specific foods. Hence, it is difficult to identify a meaningful organoleptic or chemicsl commonality among the aromas of, for example, cream, deep-fried foods and cooked meat’-‘. As discussed above, fats may also be added to foods in which they contribute no flavours of their own, but may modify the perception of flavours already present (e.g. refined oil and vinegar dressings). Finally, as detai!?d below, there is abundant evidence for the predominance of learning processes in the formation of flavour preferences. Are there innate texture preferences? The textuial contribitions of fats to foods are complex, and vary with fat composition and with the levels of other food components”c’3. Nevertheless, it appears that humans may largely rely upon textural propenies to gauge the perception of ‘fat content’ under test conditionsl”,‘5. However, innate texture preferences would seem unIlke!y tecaiihe, while the capacity to discriminate textures may be quite sensitive, it is ultimately a response to nonspecific mechanical and frictiona; forces in the oral cavity. It is possible that there is some form of recognition of selected textural qualities, perhaps of those associated with the presence of hydrophobic materials. Indeed, there is evidence that the different textural properties of selected fat& ran be salient conditioning cues”, and that rats may exhibit innate preferences for fat-associated textures”.‘“. Hswever, as with flavours, there are indications that such preferences may be dominated by post-ingestive effects of fa@.‘V_
conditioning mediaXG.Ji. but similar work with fats has not been conducted. The available evidence suggests that the apparent human preference for the sensory propenies of fats may be secondary t? rhe metabolic properties of fats. This possibility raises questions about the ultimate consumer acceptability and effectiveness of fat-mimicking textural and flavour modifications and low-calorie fat substitutes, which dissociate the sensory and metabolic properties of fats. Future research issues The existing information suggests several ;r:orthwhile lines of additional research tin the basis of dietary fat preferences. Fundamental work on preference conditioning and on the factors affecting the development of ‘long-term’ food preferences in humans may be particularly relevant in light of the foreseen advances in the use of reducedfat and reduced-ecergy food ingredients and processes. .4nimal st.udies strongly indicare that conditioning may be a dominating factor in the development of food sensory preferences. be significant interactions between There may exposure to fats and overall sensory or dietary acceptance. Reizt:m evt,ience from animal studies illdicafes that consumprior, of high- and low-fat diets are associated with enhanced or diminished accepfance of fat, respectively, in a variety of preference testing paradigms?“. Preliminary war-k on humans, in accordance with the animal studies, indicates possibie reductions in sensory preferences for fats during the course of a l2-week period of reduced fat intakez7. This may be analogolls io the reported increase in acceptance of low-fat milk following some period of adaptation after switching from the full-fat product; this phenomenon has received extensive anecdotal support, but has been the focus of limited scientific evaluationzH. Further investigations of the effect of prolonged consumption of reduced-fat foods or diets on acceptance of these zx other
traditional
such
as
hyperlipidaemins. Are time learned preferences for fats? There *are numerous reports (e.g. Refs 20 and 2 I) that preferences of experimental animals for specific sensory qualities (primarily flavours) or foods can be conditioned by pairing the stimuli with energy sources, including fats”.z3. There is additional evidence (e.g. Refs 21 and 23) that this type of conditioned preference is related to the caloric vahue of the energy source and, possibly, is independknt of its physical form or initial hedonic value. Flavour ,preferences of humans are influenced by. tht energy conten! (as carbohydrate) ot
Conclusions Given increasing consumer demand for palatable lowfat foods, and a substantial commitment of industrial resources to developing and promoting such products. studies of the forces rhai promote and maintain the acceptance
economic
of
dietary
fats
may
have
considerable
and public health implications.
!n my view, the challenge to reduce dietary fa: in:akes has generated specific industrial responses (new products and technologies) and recommendations to
consumers (regarding food sc-lection and preparation) that have, iargely, been deveioped to attain ‘short-term’ More consideration must now be sensory acceptance. given to how such approaches might affect ‘long-term’ food preferences.
References American
Heart Association
Shepherd,
R, Farleigh,
(1961)
Circulation
C.A. and Wharf,
23, l-4
S.G. (19871 Hum.
11
F,.wci TKhncl. Drewnowski,
13
Marshall.
14
Mela.
D.1. (19C9! Appetite
15
Mefa,
D.J. and Christensen,
16
Law,
C. !1978)
Chem.
Hamilton, M:ndell.
19
Reed, D.R., Tordoff. M.C.
C.M.
11988) 1.5~~.
CL. (19641 J. Camp.
Ps~chof. 58, 459-460 D. Physiol.
and Friedman,
Melter,
T. and Aiberts, J.P. i!989!
Mehiel,
R. and Belles, R.C. i1988)
j. Camp.
(I 985) Physic2 Behav. 15,
Ii7-183
22
Lucas, F. and Zafani,
A. !1989)
Mattes,
R.D. and Me!a,
Chem. Sense 1 I,
23
Tordoif,
8.1. and Friedman,
M.G., Teppr,
Ps,vchoi
P,iysiol.
Behav
103, 24.3~~251
Aoim. Learn. B&v.
M.R.C.
16, 383-387
Physsiol. behav. .46,403-4:2 X1.1. [I4871
Phgrjof.
B&v.
41,487-48: D.S. Am. J. C&t.
I. and Numlych,
(Supran, M.K., Shahidi, American
5. (1976)
Chemical
Szcresniak,
De~&p;ner;ts
i. ed::, pp. 188-201,
R.J. and Ho. C-T. !i9781 M.K.,
24
Booth, D.A.,
25
Birch, L.L., hlcPhee,
Sxiety
in Lipids
ed.1, pp. 18-41,
Chemical
Reed, D.R. and Fdedaan,
27
Mela,
28
Tuorila,
29
Marks-Kaufman.
FocdSc~.
Computerized Food Processing Oprations is organized into six chapters: microcomputers; data acquisition in the laboratory; computer control in the food processing plant; on-line control of unit operations; process modeling and simulation; and process optimization. The first chapter provides some basic compliter :erminology. It also outlines the, fundamentals of computer interfaces with common food sensors, processing equipment and conventional laboratory instruments. The second chapter is devoted to data acquisition. Discussions of gas chromatography and heat penetration during retort processing of canned foods are used to demonstrate the principles. Chapter ? deals with computer control, and -ontains a short review of process control systems, followed by five studies from typical food industries, intended to illustrate the intermlationships between computerbased control, specific process requirements and resources. Chapter 4 describes on-line control in several typical food processes, namely sterilization, aseptic processing, evaporaiidn and dehydration. The last two
163-184
5. (1990;
Ph@.
&!.I. (199Oi
iippm&14,219~230
0.j. Int.J. Oberif,v(Abstract, in press) Appetite 8, l-i4
tt. (7987)
R. (19821 Pharmacol.
Biochem.
BehaL,. 16,
Kanarak,
R-6. and Dushkin.
H. 119881 Pharmaco~.
Bicchem.
Behav. 31,
113-I:2 31
28, 385-389
L. ard 5ulliran.
949-955
R.F.. ed.), pp. 94-120,
Society
A.S. 1196311.
P. and Fuller, 1.119821 Appetife3, L.. Steinberg,
26
30 in FlaMrCtrcmisrrviGould,
Mather,
Behas,. 47, Sot-505
American
Society
Day, E.A. (1966) American
Chemical
Society
as a Source ofF/av@r(Supran, Chemical
as a Source oiflwor
Trendsand
iI: F/a~r7rChemistry:
R., Buttery, R.G. and Siiahidi,
5.5.. P&non,
hlclc (ir! presal
in lipids
ed.i, pp. 1-l 7, American
F. (1989)
[Tcranishi, Chaog,
~zhav.
h! !. (1990)
47,7i9-732 21
D.I. (19861
.5tud. 2. X3-281
l-h
Phwiol.
G.P. and Crcentxrg.
20
A., Shrager, E-E., Lipsky, C., Stellar, E. and Greenwood,
sr’7
10, 37-44
Senses Fiavour3,
18
S., Smith,
8, 599.
Agric. SO, 237-252
Drewnawski.
Litman,
10
FoodSci.
Nurr. 41 F, 173-18:
Mela, D.1. and Sachetti.
9
A. 119841 Int ,I, Oh&@
R.J. (199O)J.
17
Nuts. &pi.
i r,il.:1979)
R.L. and Moskowitz,
33,89-92
12
523-539
8
Cusrler, E.L., Kokini, J.L., W:inheimer,
IV&heriord,
S.C.. Smith, G. 2nd hielcill~,
L.D. (1988)
Ph~ssioi. B&c
44,569-572
by A.A. Teixeira
and C.E Shoemaker,Mn Nostrand Reinhold, 1989. f32.X,‘$12.95 (xi + 202 pages) ISBN 0 442 28501 9
chapters focus on process modeling simulation and opiimization. The book contains numerous figures, tables and case studies selected from a wide spectrum of food processes. ‘The case studies, based on previously published material, are well organized and useful to the novice reader. References are generally up to date, and complement the material presented in the respective chapters. The use of the sterilization of mainly conduction-type canned foods as a common example throughout the book provides continuity in the discussion of successive computer applications, and enhances overall readability. The text is designed to emphasize and highlight concepts, basic principles and specific food applications rather than a computer-based approach. Thus, the ever-growing speed of hardware changes, innovation and ihe unabated evolution of computer science and
s&ware will not negatively influence the relevance of the material. Conceivably, focd scientists and, especially, food engineers and computer specialists will find this book a practical, collated source of computer applications and references. All other food practitioners, especially students, will perceive it to be an excellent introductory textbook. Overall, I believe Comporerizej Food Processing Operarions.to b a useful addition to libraries and a suitable supplementary text for undergraduate courses. Students will discover a wealth of useful technical information and an important basis of their introduction to computer-related technology.
., Trerer;di iri Food Science& TechnologySeptem,ber. 1990
:~
!
,.
73’.
‘_‘,