Sensory acceptability of biofortified foods and food products: a systematic review.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrition reviews Pub Date : 2024-06-10 DOI:10.1093/nutrit/nuad100
Samantha L Huey, Arini Bhargava, Valerie M Friesen, Elsa M Konieczynski, Jesse T Krisher, Mduduzi N N Mbuya, Neel H Mehta, Eva Monterrosa, Annette M Nyangaresi, Saurabh Mehta
{"title":"Sensory acceptability of biofortified foods and food products: a systematic review.","authors":"Samantha L Huey, Arini Bhargava, Valerie M Friesen, Elsa M Konieczynski, Jesse T Krisher, Mduduzi N N Mbuya, Neel H Mehta, Eva Monterrosa, Annette M Nyangaresi, Saurabh Mehta","doi":"10.1093/nutrit/nuad100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>It is important to understand the sensory acceptability of biofortified food products among target population groups if biofortification is to be realized as a sustainable strategy for mitigation of micronutrient deficiencies, able to be scaled up and applied through programs.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systemic review aims to summarize and synthesize the sensory acceptability of conventionally bred iron-, zinc-, and provitamin A-biofortified food products.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE (PubMed), AGRICOLA, AgEcon, CABI Abstracts (Web of Science), and organizational websites (eg, those of HarvestPlus and CGIAR and their partners) were searched for relevant articles. No access to any market research that may have been internally conducted for the commercial biofortified food products was available.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>This review identified articles measuring the sensory acceptability of conventionally bred biofortified food products. Extraction of the hedonic ratings of food products was performed.</p><p><strong>Data analysis: </strong>An \"Acceptability Index %\" was defined based on hedonic scoring to determine an overall rating, and used to categorize biofortified food products as \"acceptable\" (≥70%) or \"not acceptable\" (<70%). Additionally, this review narratively synthesized studies using methods other than hedonic scoring for assessing sensory acceptability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Forty-nine studies assessed the acceptability of 10 biofortified crops among children and adults, in mostly rural, low-income settings across Africa, Latin America, and India; food products made from mineral and provitamin A-biofortified food products were generally acceptable. Compared with studies on provitamin-A biofortified food products, few studies (1 to 2 each) on mineral-enhanced crops such as rice, cowpeas, lentils, and wheat were found, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Similarly, few studies examined stored biofortified food products. Few commercial food products have so far been developed, although new varieties of crops are being continuously tested and released globally. Certain crop varieties were found to be acceptable while others were not, suggesting that particular varieties should be prioritized for scale-up. Determining sensory acceptability of biofortified food products is important for informing programmatic scale-up and implementation across diverse populations and settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":19469,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11163453/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuad100","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: It is important to understand the sensory acceptability of biofortified food products among target population groups if biofortification is to be realized as a sustainable strategy for mitigation of micronutrient deficiencies, able to be scaled up and applied through programs.

Objective: This systemic review aims to summarize and synthesize the sensory acceptability of conventionally bred iron-, zinc-, and provitamin A-biofortified food products.

Data sources: MEDLINE (PubMed), AGRICOLA, AgEcon, CABI Abstracts (Web of Science), and organizational websites (eg, those of HarvestPlus and CGIAR and their partners) were searched for relevant articles. No access to any market research that may have been internally conducted for the commercial biofortified food products was available.

Data extraction: This review identified articles measuring the sensory acceptability of conventionally bred biofortified food products. Extraction of the hedonic ratings of food products was performed.

Data analysis: An "Acceptability Index %" was defined based on hedonic scoring to determine an overall rating, and used to categorize biofortified food products as "acceptable" (≥70%) or "not acceptable" (<70%). Additionally, this review narratively synthesized studies using methods other than hedonic scoring for assessing sensory acceptability.

Conclusions: Forty-nine studies assessed the acceptability of 10 biofortified crops among children and adults, in mostly rural, low-income settings across Africa, Latin America, and India; food products made from mineral and provitamin A-biofortified food products were generally acceptable. Compared with studies on provitamin-A biofortified food products, few studies (1 to 2 each) on mineral-enhanced crops such as rice, cowpeas, lentils, and wheat were found, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Similarly, few studies examined stored biofortified food products. Few commercial food products have so far been developed, although new varieties of crops are being continuously tested and released globally. Certain crop varieties were found to be acceptable while others were not, suggesting that particular varieties should be prioritized for scale-up. Determining sensory acceptability of biofortified food products is important for informing programmatic scale-up and implementation across diverse populations and settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生物强化食品和食品的感官可接受性:系统综述。
背景:如果要将生物强化作为减轻微量营养素缺乏症的可持续战略来实现,并能够通过计划扩大和应用,那么了解目标人群对生物强化食品的感官可接受性是很重要的。目的:本综述旨在总结和综合传统生物强化铁、锌和维生素a原食品的感官可接受性。数据来源:MEDLINE (PubMed), AGRICOLA, AgEcon, CABI Abstracts (Web of Science),组织网站(如HarvestPlus和CGIAR及其合作伙伴的网站)检索相关文章。没有任何可能在内部对商业生物强化食品进行的市场研究。资料提取:本综述确定了测量传统养殖生物强化食品感官可接受性的文章。提取食品的享乐等级。数据分析:“可接受指数%”是根据享乐评分来确定总体评级的,并用于将生物强化食品分类为“可接受”(≥70%)或“不可接受”(结论:49项研究评估了10种生物强化作物在儿童和成人中的可接受性,主要是在非洲、拉丁美洲和印度的农村低收入环境中;由矿物质和维生素a原生物强化食品制成的食品普遍可以接受。与对维生素a原生物强化食品的研究相比,对大米、豇豆、扁豆和小麦等矿物质增强作物的研究(各1至2项)很少,限制了研究结果的普遍性。同样,很少有研究检查储存的生物强化食品。到目前为止,很少有商业食品被开发出来,尽管新的作物品种正在不断地在全球测试和发布。发现某些作物品种是可以接受的,而另一些则不可以,这表明应优先扩大某些品种的规模。确定生物强化食品的感官可接受性对于告知在不同人群和环境中有计划地扩大和实施具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nutrition reviews
Nutrition reviews 医学-营养学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
1.60%
发文量
121
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nutrition Reviews is a highly cited, monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that specializes in the publication of authoritative and critical literature reviews on current and emerging topics in nutrition science, food science, clinical nutrition, and nutrition policy. Readers of Nutrition Reviews include nutrition scientists, biomedical researchers, clinical and dietetic practitioners, and advanced students of nutrition.
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of the Beneficial Effects of Berry Extracts on Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease in Animal Models. Health Benefits From Diets High in Salicylates May Arise From Improved Utilization of Dietary Copper. The Longitudinal Evidence on Social Ties and Fruit and Vegetable Intake among Aging Adults: A Systematic Review. The psychological basis of hunger and its dysfunctions. Correction to: Menatetrenone (Vitamin K2) and Bone Quality in the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1