The scope and usefulness of the replies were varied, and included descriptions of sensory evaluation used for product development and quality control related to monitoring of current production, raw materials, storage, and new processing methods.
One of the most in-depth replies was from Rainier Brewing company. The correspondent described three types of testing: 1) technical panel, which is highly trained and uses the descriptive analysis method, 2) general employee panel which is untrained but experienced and uses the triangle technique, and 3) consumer testing using both plant visitors and a consumer testing organization. The corespondent mentioned the Problem of bias in using visitor evaluation. The Rainier really was the only one in which mention was made of one very important part of effective sensor- ,v evaluation operations, the Psychology of dealing with the panelists and panelist morale.
Participation rather than the "right answer" is stressed and small prizes are given to employee panelists. I was interested to see this reference in view of my own dealings with panel members in my research and observations on morale of panel members in the Food Technology Department.
The correspondent from Beatrice Foods Company described the use of preference and trained panels., The trained panels use preference, descriptive, and intensity testing. The trained panel is chosen on the ability of individuals to discern subtle flavor and odor differences and further training-- is carried out to facilitate detection of product differences.
in contrast to the rather formal, structured sensory evaluation methods described above, many replies, particularly from smaller food companies, contained descriptions of a less formal or less consistent sensory evaluation format. For two of the companies contacted, Grandma Cookie Company and Del Monte Veat Company, a number of different people evaluate the products at different times, that is, evaluation from one time to the next is not done by the same individuals. If judgement of uniformity of Droducts is desired, this Dractice is questionable because of the natural variation among individuals in their scoring tendencies. I think this Dractice would not result in a consistent overview of quality over a period of production time.
I was pleased to receive replies from Hurnko Sheffield and Paniplus because these companies make substances that are used as ingredients in food products, but are not foods themselves. This provided an interesting contrast/comparison of evaluation of food ingredients versus food products. Humko Sheffield produces primarily ingredients used in liquid products and evaluation of color, flavor and mouthfeel are of rain importance. This company was the only one contacted in which the redly mentioned subjective evaluation of color and mouthfeel. Visual color comparison usini- color standards is used. For mouthfeel, products may be evaluated for their watery ., slippery, smoothness or grainy characteristics. The Humko Sheffield correspondent also mentioned that the ingredients are tested for their performance in a laboratory scale batch of the finished product as well as tested by themselves. Paniplus Company uses sensory evaluation for new product development, but not for qualit7l control. An experienced taste panel is used to match a desired "target" flavor that is in developmental stages.
I am sure that sensory evaluation of each type of food product has associated with it certain unique problems or considerations depending upon the characteristics of the food. The Diamond Fruit Growers correspondent mentioned that there are difficulties encountered in the evaluation of a product like apple juice, which has a very subtle flavor, Tnakin-a differentiation between samples difficult at times.
Paniplus ComDany uses both objective and subjective methods in their research and development. For example, when developin,a a new flavor, the flavor is analyzed instrumentally (eg. gas or liquid chromatography) and then the taste panel aids in evaluating the new flavor to see if it meets specifications for the desired use. Once the flavor of the desired product has been judged acceptable, and is in production, analytical tests only are run on the product for quality control. This approach and use of subjective evaluation used by Paniplus would appear to work well for a chemically simple substance such as a food ingredient, but would not be feasible for a more complex food system in which the chemical nature of the system could not be characterized as easily.
Physical arrangement of the testing area was an area of interest. For their trained panel, Beatrice Foods uses a six-foot diameter round table with partitions. A 25-Watt red light bulb is used to illuminate the testing area, masking color differences in the products. The Ranier Company correspondent described the testing area as a small kitchen which is centrally located. The convenience of location is important to the panelists who must reach the testing area from their respective places of work. Odor-less red Dlastic glasses are used to mask beverage color differences, Yany of the replies indicated that no sdecial area is used for senson7 evaluation.
Paniplus ComDany uses both objective and subjective methods in their research and development. For example, when developin,a a new flavor, the flavor is analyzed instrumentally (e,-. @as or liquid chromatography) and then the taste panel aids in evaluating the new flavor to see if it meets specifications for the desired use. Once the flavor of the desired product has been judged acceptable, and is in production, analytical tests only are run on the product for quality control. This approach and use of subjective evaluation used by Paniplus would appear to work well for a chemically simple substance such as a food ingredient, but would not be feasible for a more complex food system in which the chemical nature of the system could not be characterized as easily.
Physical arrangement of the testing area was an area of interest. For their trained panel, Beatrice Foods uses a six-foot diameter round table with partitions. A 25-Watt red li6rht bulb is used to illuminate the testing area, masking color differences in the products. The Ranier Company correspondent described the testing area as a small kitchen which is centrally located. The convenience of location is important to the panelists who must reach the testing area from their respective places of work. Odor-less red Dlastic glasses are used to mask beverage color differences. Many of the replies indicated that no sdecial area is used for senson7 evaluation.
Yany of the replies were useful and gave some new insight into sensory evaluation. I would like to have had more information on physical condition of different foods at the time of evaluation (eg. temperature, serving size, carrier used for products such as seasonings), however, I did discuss this subject with Mrs. YicGill and did find some information concerning this.
Joan Pratt
NFM405 Readings and Conference, 1970's
