Ensuring sustainability in sensory sciences

Abstract

Food Science and TechnologyVolume 37, Issue 1 p. 18-22 FeaturesFree Access Ensuring sustainability in sensory sciences First published: 08 March 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/fsat.3701_5.xAboutSectionsPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Kate Bailey, Hannah Ford and Victoria Norton explain how we can all play a role to make sure sustainability aspects are considered within the field of Sensory Sciences, from supporting sustainable consumption to packaging aspects. Read some suggestions on how to adopt and improve sustainable practices. Interest in sustainability has seen an all-time high in recent years; in fact, in 2021, the keyword ‘sustainability’ and related terms experienced a higher search rate than in any previous years. Many companies, including food manufacturers and sensory and consumer research agencies, have created sustainability goals (for example, Kerry's Beyond the Horizon) as well as new or expanded roles in the areas, including sustainability leads, departments, and advisors. But let's go back to basics and let's explore what does sustainability actually mean? Sustainability is a multidimensional concept (economic, social, and environmental)[1] that companies are under increasing pressure to support. It's a broad term that could have as many definitions as there are companies and organizations, but generally the focus is on the environment and having a positive impact/reducing the negative impact on the planet, people, and society. In this article, the focus will be on the positive effect sensory and consumer science can have on the environment, individuals, and society. It is important to address the environmental impact of our actions to reduce the effects of climate change (i.e., rising sea levels, warmer oceans, heatwaves, natural disasters, etc.) which ultimately causes biodiversity loss, food security, and public health issues as well as social and economic displacement. Considering the world is not on track to meet the United Nations’ sustainable development goals, which aim to keep global warming well below 2°C by 2050, more effort is needed. So how can a discipline like sensory and consumer science, which is about understanding the interaction of people with the food they eat, impact such a vast field? The most obvious area is understanding consumer acceptance towards sustainable foods and products, including novel protein alternatives to meat and dairy. Specifically, how these products contribute to more sustainable diets needs to be considered. In other words – are these alternatives a fad or here to stay? Meat and dairy alternatives are everywhere now, but most have been through an interactive development process and validation with consumers. Old favourites such as soy and mycoprotein have been joined by new protein sources such as chickpeas and fava beans. Other protein sources under investigation include insects, cultured meat, and the concept of ‘less but better’, including hybrid meat. More on these later, but why is sensory involvement in this area beneficial to the environment and people? By using evaluation to understand what is good and bad, what is motivating or a turn-off, and what is interesting or a non-starter, we can work out where to focus our limited resources to encourage people to eat less resource-intensive meat and animal-derived products while still having the experience they expect and enjoy. Understanding progression of sensory properties as well as consumer acceptance is also useful in reduction of food waste. This is already being put into practice by global and local companies and will likely become even more important in the future. Reducing food waste can start right from the production stage, for example, by using by-products that would otherwise be disposed of (this is sometimes referred to as ‘circular eating’), and at the consumer stage, by extending shelf life. Globally, half of all food produced each day goes to waste, meaning every extra day of shelf life reduces waste's financial and environmental impact. Sustainable packaging is the other area receiving increasing interest; this needs to deliver a positive sensory experience as well as an increased understanding of the impact of the information provided on-pack, the one offered at the point of sale or elsewhere (online, social media, advertising). Studies have shown the right messaging can increase willingness to try more sustainable products. Beyond food choice and experience, there is also the wider impact of how sustainable everyday sensory and consumer science testing is – can we be more sustainable, for example, by reducing the use of single-use plastic or reducing travel and getting the most out of the research we run? Supporting Sustainable consumption The past decade has seen a massive shift in consumers’ food consumption behaviour, mainly toward reducing meat. For many meat lovers, the emergence of plant-based products has provided opportunities to go meat-free without depriving the senses. Yet, how sustainable they are remains a ‘bone’ of contention, especially compared to conventional meat. In some cases, compared to animal proteins, plant-based proteins have lower carbon footprints and land and water use while providing health benefits. Indeed, consumer research has indentified the environmental and health benefits and animal welfare as key motivators in dirving the popularity of these products. Still, our food environment has also created changes. The availability of plant-based alternatives is at its highest in the UK, but will their popularity decline as observed in America? High costs and ultra-processed ingredients are some of the barriers to acceptance, but negative taste and texture are often the most talked about. Sensory appeal is a critical motivator in consumer perception, purchase decisions, satisfaction, and overall liking. Yet, a known barrier for plant-based products is an inability to mimic meat's textural properties, flavor release, and colour stability during cooking. This is understandable as meat has a complex structure and unique flavor chemistry, which plant proteins lack. However, as technological capabilities develop, the ability to mask off-notes and create ‘bleeding’ appearances (if that's what you like) is achievable. For consumers who want their meat substitutes to deliver an even meatier experience, developing cultured meat (also known as in vitro, laboratory-grown, or synthetic meat) based on stem cell technology may be the answer. Cultured meat is thought to have the potential to transform the meat industry, answering many environmental and animal welfare issues. In addition, it could address food security and enhance meat safety. Its biochemical composition could be altered to make it a healthier meat alternative. As UK-based companies such as Ivy Farm Technologies and Higerh Steaks continue to develop cultured meat products, understanding consumer perceptions is paramount in determining their success. Similar technologies are also being applied to develop cultured fish/seafood, with companies such as BlueNalu scaling up production ready for consumer launch. Therefore, sensory and consumer science is needed to review consumer perceptions of these novel technologies. Predicted challenges relate to affordability, food neophobia and concern over food safety, while information and positive framing may enhance acceptance. In summary, products hoping to support sustainable consumption continuously emerge onto the market. Hybrid meat products (half meat, half plant-based) are a good example of how consumers can reduce meat consumption. There's also increasing interest in circular eating, where by-products from the food industry are incorporated into foods to help minimize waste – potato sorbet, anyone? With all this in mind, future foods will likely be very different; perhaps they will contain novel ingredients such as algae or edible insects. They may be made using novel technologies such as 3D printing or precision fermentation processes (e.g., using yeast cells to make ‘animal-free’ dairy). One thing is for certain: it is an exciting time to be in sensory and consumer science, which is at the forefront of understanding how consumers perceive these novel technologies and ingredients. The influence of packaging Companies are under increasing pressure to develop sustainable packaging, as packaging-related waste is a widespread problem; at least five million tones are generated annually from households in the UK[4]. Accordingly, there is growing emphasis on alternative or improved packaging solutions (such as more recyclable, bio-based, or compostable materials). However, sustainable packaging must deliver the same sensory experience as non-sustainable packaging, which provides a key challenge to sensory and consumer scientists and companies. Sensory evaluation is typically carried out on prepared products (i.e. with no packaging) and focuses on specific characteristics during consumption rather than the whole product experience (from unwrapping the product to consumption). The packaging context is often ignored yet can be hugely influential. Should you evaluate the product and the package or just the package on its own, and what is the importance of the testing location (such as sensory laboratory, home setting or a supermarket?). Currently, it could be suggested that sensory evaluation, in particular objective evaluation such as descriptive analysis, is often underutilised within the sustainable food packaging context. Packaging can be used to highlight key product characteristics. It has been recently demonstrated that distinct sensory properties (e.g., visual, sound, tactile) can positively influence sustainable behaviour and provide consumer pointers[2]. The colour and shape of food packaging may also impact the perceived look and perception of the enclosed product; therefore, this may have health or marketing implications. Product developers also need to find the balance between explicit (logos, labels, statements) and implicit (visual, sound, tactile) cues to maximize the impact on sustainable behaviour and, importantly, avoid overwhelming the consumer[2, 3]. Accordingly, companies need to understand sustainable need to understand sustainable packaging sensory experience to successfully incorporate such characteristics into the product development stages and promote product success. For plant-based burgers, Kerry's research has shown consumers expect packaging to be recognizably (i.e., look and feel) recyclable or compostable. Consumer awareness regarding packaging waste is increasing, yet information is not always available. This often results in consumers needing clarification and more knowledge in terms of sustainably disposing of food packaging. Communication is a key challenge associated with sustainable messaging and its subsequent translation into actual consumer behaviour. Packaging can be considered a viable tool to promote the sustainability aspects of products; however, sustainable packaging needs to stand out on the shelf to gain consumers’ attention and, importantly, ensure repeat purchases. It has been suggested that combining sensory properties of eco-materials with associative statements (such as ‘can you hear/feel its sustainability’) could be a viable approach to modulating sustainable behaviour[2]. In summary, there is an opportunity for scientists, product developers, and designers to work together to evaluate the sensory characteristics of sustainable food packaging, particularly within consumer-related contexts. The packaging labeling and logos can be key to highlighting to consumers the sustainability elements of the product and may also serve as a reminder to act sustainably! In addition, sensory and consumer science can help to educate and engage today's consumers on sustainable packaging and subsequently help modulate behaviour. Day to Day impact Many companies who run product evaluation have been looking at the hierarchy of waste management as below, with the most preferred, i.e., beneficial to the environment, at the top. For example, sensory evaluation has historically used many single-use plastics (sometimes known as “SUP”s) in the form of serving pots, cutlery, and plastic cups for water used as a palate cleanser in most sensory testing. This is true from small-scale evaluations at the benchtop to larger-scale consumer studies. Companies are using obvious and innovative ways to reduce the use of SUPs. When looking at the use of these SUPs, the place to start is at the top of the hierarchy – can its use be prevented or at least reduced? An example, from personal experience, is the purchase of reusable plastic bottles for Kerry Europe's expert panel, which has replaced around 200 plastic cups a month. This has led to attendees of the company's larger-scale internal tests being asked to bring their water bottles instead of being supplied with water in a plastic cup, reducing plastic cup use by up to 150 cups a week! When the request is made, it mentions that this helps the sustainability journey. This works well as there is a company-wide commitment to reducing plastic use, and as part of this, employees were all given reusable water bottles. One further aspect is the use of plastic cutlery – traditionally each different sample would have a different one-use item of cutlery. The most viable alternative might depent on the individual lab set-up, but some options investigated by companies include metal, which has the advantage of mimicking a typical at home or restaurant eating experience, or compostable items including bamboo. It's important to fully consider the material that is used to replace plastic – for example, bamboo cutlery can have different frictional properties compared with plastic, which may therefore impact the eating experience. And It's a similar story with the serving of products – the plates, bowls, pots and cups the products are served in when being evaluated. Typically, these would have been made of plastic and, eventually, thrown away. Increasingly, companies are finding compostable options are more available and more viable. Of course, the same holds true for the cups, where reusable options such as ceramic and glass can be used for specific testing and setups. As mentioned above, the influence may be greater for cutlery and cups where there is interaction with the mouth. However, the mitigating factor is that there is an equal impact on all products within a similar category. An area that still remains a challenge is labeling samples when presenting them in tests. While the pots may be compostable, the labels often are not. Compostable labels are beginning to become available, however, they are not widespread. Other ideas include writing directly on the pots, but this is generally not recommended as it can lead to contamination of the products. Using paper sheets with codes printed on them means they can be recycled, but then we are using paper we otherwise wouldn't have, as well as increasing the potential for confusion with the samples. Sensory and Consumer Scientists also have potential to reduce the impact of testing on the planet by running tests more efficiently. We have all become more used to working differently over the past few years, with more reliance on technology. A benefit of these actions is a reduction in the negative environmental impact. Examples include reducing the number of car journeys that are made by consumers or panelists taking part in the tests, and throwing away less food after tests. Simple things like turning off lights in the labs and booths when not in use, or changing to biodegradable gloves can be implemented beyond the Sensory and Consumer world. Some aspects to think about include: Can we reduce food waste by optimizing the serving size to reduce waste, while of course always ensuring we give a sufficient amount for evaluation, and having a food wastage plan for excess or leftover samples? Can lab supplies such as gloves, cleaning equipment and so on be more sustainable? Can we reduce other resources such as water or energy in the lab or kitchen? Could we reduce the number of tests we run, or the number of sample we give, for example by screening through running pretesting or smaller scale evaluation such as qualitative focus groups? Could tests be online, thereby reducing travel? Is a CLT (central location test) more, or less impactful than a HUT (home use test)? Companies can be accredited by bodies such as EcoVadis and Sedex which can help to understand the current status and identify areas where changes can be made. In conclusion, there are many areas where the use of sensory and consumer science can encourage the use of more sustainable options. These can fall under the following broad Understanding consumers attitudes to current propositions; Understanding consumers attitudes to novel alternatives; Assessing acceptance of alternatives (blinded): Evaluating products objectively (via expert panels) to compare products. The examples we mentioned above can be evaluated using a variety of qualitative and quantitative sensory and consumer science methods. It's also important to realize the synergy possible when different functions such as product developers, packaging designers and sensory and consumer scientists work together. And, as for every area of the food industry, we should be actively examining alternatives to less sustainable practices in our day to day working lives, such as considering the waste hierarchy when purchasing consumables, and reducing energy use where possible. In short, we all have our parts to play, and we can all make a difference in working towards a more sustainable future! Kate Bailey RSensSci CSci, Principal Sensory & Consumer Scientist, Kerry, Hannah Ford, University of Nottingham and Victoria Norton, University of Reading On behalf of the IFST Sensory Science Group References 1 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2023. Sustainable Food and Agriculture. Available from: https://www.fao.org/sustainability/en/ 2Granato, G., Fischer, A. R. H., van Trijp, H. C. M. 2022. A meaningful reminder on sustainability: when explicit and implicit packaging cues meet. Journal of Environmental Psychology 79: 101724. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494421001778 3Ischen, C., Meijers, M. H. C., Vandeberg, L., Smit, E. G. 2022. Seen as Green? Assessing the salience and greenness of environmentally friendly packaging cues. Journal of Food Products Marketing 28:, 31- 48. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10454446.2022.2038757 4 Less waste. 2022. Reduce > Think Packaging. Available from: https://www.lesswaste.org.uk/reduce/think-packaging 5 Kerry. 2021. Proprietary research. Unpublished results. Volume37, Issue1March 2023Pages 18-22 ReferencesRelatedInformation