The term “edible flower” lacks precise meaning without proper context. It has been used to describe: (1) a food source, e.g. cauliflower, artichoke, capers; (2) a putative source of bioactive compounds, implying a functional food; and (3) horticultural flowers used for decorations in gastronomy. Since 2005, the terms “edible flower”, “functional food”, and/or “nutraceutical” have been jointly referenced in 146 articles, with 26 occurrences in 2021 alone. We argue that “edible flowers” is often misused in the context of the phytochemistry of functional foods and such studies should be recognized as the “phytochemistry of flowers,” not “edible flowers.” When considering nutritional and medicinal value, the investigation of chemical compounds in flowers used as decorative elements in gastronomy (compared to flowers used for sustenance) is illogical and of minimal relevance due to the negligible quantities consumed relative to a typical diet. Flowers have other attributes — colour, flavour and scent — that make them valuable in plating design. The term “edible flower” originally distinguished horticultural flowers safe for culinary use from those containing harmful or toxic compounds. We propose reserving the term “edible flower” for informal contexts where a simple distinction between edible and poisonous is needed, and for ethnobotanical inquiry into the cultural use of different plant foods. In gastronomy, the prefix “edible” has practical significance, but its use in scientific inquiries on functional foods appears to be misplaced—an unproductive rhetorical device rather than a meaningful scientific term.
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号