The "Bitter-Sweet" Truth of Artificial Sweeteners - ACS Symposium

Chapter 21 The "Bitter-Sweet" Truth of Artificial Sweeteners 1

1

1

1

1

C. T. Simons, C. Adam , G. LeCourt , C. Crawford , C. Ward , W. Meyerhof, and J. P. Slack 2

Downloaded by PURDUE UNIV on May 27, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: March 4, 2008 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2008-0979.ch021

1

1

Global Research and Development Center, Givaudan Flavors Corporation, Cincinnati, O H 45216 German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam-Rehbruecke, 14558, Nuthetal, Germany 2

For some consumers, an unpleasant aftertaste is thought to underlie the rejection of artificially sweetened foods and beverages. As consumers become more informed regarding health and wellness issues, the consumption of artificially sweetened foods is expected to grow. Thus, understanding the negative characteristics associated with artificial sweeteners is crucial. However, this is not an easy task due to consumer differences in artificial sweetener sensitivity and difficulties in characterizing the artificial aftertaste. Recent evidence suggests that consumer sensitivity may be linked to differences in the expression of T2R genes. We will present the results of our studies on genetic variability and saccharin and A C E K bitterness sensitivity in humans. Furthermore, we characterized and differentiated the sensations elicited by natural and artificial sweeteners. Using trained panelists with proven sensitivity to artificial sweetener aftertastes, we generated sensory and temporal profiles that described and differentiated the aftertaste associated with each of the natural and artificial sweeteners. Finally, by linking aftertaste sensitivity to the liking of naturally and artificially-sweetened soft drinks, we were able to reveal the sensory attributes that contribute to the decreased liking of the artificial sweeteners studied. A discussion of possible approaches aimed at attenuating or masking the off-tastes of artificial sweeteners will be presented.

© 2008 American Chemical Society Weerasinghe and DuBois; Sweetness and Sweeteners ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008.

335

336


Introduction Emerging health and wellness trends have led to a more sophisticated consumer in which increased knowledge and awareness of dietary health implications influences the foods and beverages they choose to consume. Consequently, there has been increased effort by the food and beverage industry to deliver products that meet the consumer's health expectations while simultaneously maintaining sensory quality. Among the recent products released by the food and beverage industry are those fortified with functional ingredients as well as those containing reduced levels of fat, salt, and/or sugar. Unfortunately, despite their healthy benefits, many of these products have achieved only limited market success due to a perceived lack of sensory quality. One particular area, the diet beverage sector, has enjoyed significant sales success. Indeed, global diet beverage sales have increased 44% over the last 9 years (/). Despite this success, a significant proportion of the population refuses to consume diet beverages due to the perception of a negative aftertaste that is associated with the use of artificial sweeteners. In an effort to better understand this negative aftertaste, we used a multidisciplinary approach to first delineate the mechanism subserving its detection and then to characterize the sensory properties associated with its perception. Finally, using a variety of technologies including high-throughput screening and the generation of reaction flavors, we sought to identify unique ingredients that would mitigate or reduce the perceived negative attributes associated with artificial sweeteners.

Sensitivity to Artificial Sweetener Aftertaste Estimates suggest that between 15-35% of the population would consume more artificially sweetened products i f the negative aftertaste attributed to artificial sweeteners could be reduced (2). These figures imply that a significant proportion of the population is sensitive to the aftertaste evoked by one or more of the various artificial sweeteners commonly used in the food and beverage industry. We therefore developed a sensitive sensory methodology to screen and identify individuals who are sensitive to aspartame, acesulfame Κ and/or sucralose offtastes.

Sensitivity—Human Sensory Testing Over 100 panelists participated in the initial screenings for each of the artificial sweeteners. Aqueous solutions of sucrose and artificial sweetener were prepared according to Table 1. Concentrations of artificial sweetener were chosen to approximate the sweetness intensity of the corresponding sucrose solution. A l l solutions were prepared in deionized water and presented to the panelists at room temperature. Weerasinghe and DuBois; Sweetness and Sweeteners ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008.

337 Table 1. Concentrations of sucrose, aspartame, ecesulfame Κ or sucralose used to screen subjects for sensitivity to artificial sweetener aftertaste. Natural sweetener

Artificial sweetener

Concentration

0.15 % Aspartame

0.20 % 0.25 % 0.0158 %


(3%!4%?î%)

I

AcesulfameK

0.0186 % 0.0275 % 0.005 %

Sucralose

0.006 % 0.008 %

To ascertain aspartame sensitivity, panelists were given three sucrose solutions and three aspartame solutions in a randomized order. In six replications conducted over two days, panelists were asked to rank the six solutions in order of increasing aftertaste. If panelists were insensitive to the aftertaste of the aspartame, then the rank order of solutions would be expected to be random (figure 1 top). If, however, a panelist was sensitive to the aftertaste of aspartame, the sucrose solutions would be expected to be ranked as having the least amount of aftertaste whereas the aspartame solutions would be expected to be ranked as having the most perceived aftertaste. Moreover, the least concentrated aspartame solution (0.15%) would be expected to have less aftertaste than the more concentrated aspartame solution (0.25%; figure 1 bottom). From these replicated evaluations, R-indices could be calculated and used to identify panelists capable of discriminating aspartame from sucrose. A similar protocol was used for evaluating acesulfame Κ and sucralose sensitivity. As expected, sensitivity to the offtaste of the artificial sweeteners was highly variable (figure 2). Nearly 60% of the screened population were unable to reliably discriminate aqueous sucrose solutions from aspartame and were therefore deemed insensitive. The remaining 40% displayed a bimodal distribution of sensitivity; 8% were able to discriminate all three levels of aspartame from sucrose and were deemed highly sensitive whereas 22% of the panelists discriminated at least one of the three aspartame levels (figure 2). Similar findings were observed for acesulfame Κ and sucralose; 65% and 75% of panelists were insensitive to acesulfame Κ and sucralose, respectively. The remaining panelists displayed some degree of sensitivity to artificial sweetener aftertaste. For acesulfame K, 27% of panelists were classified as highly sensitive

Weerasinghe and DuBois; Sweetness and Sweeteners ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2008.

338

Rank in order of increasing aftertaste


Insensitive

Sensitive

Figure 1. Expected distribution ofsucrose and aspartame solutions for panelists that are insensitive (top) and sensitive (bottom) to the aftertaste of aspartame.

Figure 2. Distribution of panelist sensitivity to the aftertaste evoked by aspartame, acesulfame Κ and sucralose. Bars show the percentage of screened panelists who were identified as highly sensitive (able to discriminate all levels of artificial sweetenerfromsucrose), moderately sensitive (able to discriminate at least one level of artificial sweetener from the corresponding level of sucrose) and insensitive (unable to discriminate any level of artificial sweetenerfromsucrose).



339 and 8% as moderately sensitive whereas for sucralose, 15% and 10% of panelists were classified as highly or moderately sensitive, respectively (figure 2). It is of interest to note that 6 panelists were screened for sensitivity to all three artificial sweeteners. None of these panelists were highly sensitive to more than one artificial sweetener. In fact, three subjects were insensitive to all artificial sweeteners and three others were highly sensitive to one artificial sweetener and moderately sensitive to a second. These results are in agreement with what is to be expected i f the sensitivity to artificial sweeteners has a genetic underpinning. Indeed, we found substantial variability across the population with no one displaying sensitivity to all three sweeteners. These findings suggest that different genes are responsible for controlling aftertaste sensitivity to aspartame, acesulfame Κ and sucralose.

Sensitivity—Genetic Basis Much of the variation in sensitivity to chemical stimuli is thought to have a genetic basis. For instance, recent studies have shown that phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) sensitivity can be explained by the presence of five haplotypes of the human TAS2R38 (hTAS2R38) gene that encodes a member of the T2R bitter taste receptor family (3, 4). Recently, we identified two additional genes in the bitter T2R family, hTAS2R43 and hTAS2R44, that respond to saccharin and acesulfame Κ in addition to its cognate bitter ligand, aristolochic acid (5). Similar to what was observed with PTC, we reasoned that polymorphisms within hTAS2R43 and/or hTAS2R44 could affect sensitivity to saccharin and acesulfame Κ (5). Initial sensory studies were implemented to ascertain the relative sensitivity of a cross-section of panelists to the bitter aftertaste of saccharin. Simultaneously, we established a functional cellular assay by inducing the expression of hTAS2R43 and hTAS2R44 in human embryonic kidney (HEK) cells to correlate receptor and perceptual saccharin sensitivity. H E K cells expressing either hTAS2R43 or hTAS2R44 were loaded with a fluorescent calcium-sensitive dye and fluorescence changes in response to saccharin administration were used to measure receptor activity. Dose response curves were generated for hTAS2R43 and hTAS2R44 using saccharin concentrations ranging from 0.05-50 m M (figure 3a). Human TAS2R43 and hTAS2R44 displayed similar sensitivity to saccharin; EC50's were 1.7 and 1.1 m M , respectively. Correspondingly, we asked 64 human subjects to rate the perceived bitterness intensity of various saccharin solutions. In three separate sessions, subjects were given each of 10 solutions, ranging from 0-100 m M saccharin, in random order and asked to first rank the solutions from least bitter to most bitter and then assign intensity ratings using a 100-point line scale. The ratings obtained from each replication were averaged for each panelist at each of the 10 saccharin concentrations. As anticipated, there was an enormous degree of variability observed in the bitterness intensity



Figure 3. Saccharin-evoked bitterness dose response curves. A. Dose response curve of saccharin obtained in WTAS2R43 (dotted line) and KTAS2R44 (solid line), respectively. Graph shows the normalized fluorescence ratio of stimulated to unstimulated HEK cells. B. Human sensory dose response curves generatedfrom 64 panelists. Note the variability in human bitterness scores obtainedfrom the various saccharin solutions. The grey curve represents the average ± S.D. bitterness rating obtained from each saccharin solution. The concentration of saccharin that elicited a bitterness intensity rating of 50 (halfmaximal) was 10 mM.



341 ratings (figure 3b). Some panelists had very steep dose response curves suggesting a high degree of saccharin bitterness sensitivity whereas others were extremely flat, implying an almost complete lack of sensitivity to saccharin bitterness. Across all panelists, the concentration of saccharin that elicited a half-maximal bitterness intensity rating was 10 m M (figure 3b), nearly 10-fold higher than the EC50 obtained in vitro. Several factors may contribute to this. Firstly, rating taste intensity is inherently variable and an inability to accurately assign ratings can alter the slope of the dose response curve. Secondly, in vitro, saccharin has unfettered access to the T2R receptors that are expressed on the cell surface. In human sensory testing, saccharin molecules can only interact with the taste receptor by first entering the pore of a taste bud and may also require traversing a mucous plug which often sits within the pore (6, 7). Thus, as compared to in vitro testing, higher concentrations of stimuli are often needed to elicit a taste sensation in humans. Results from this study suggest that the bitter aftertaste of saccharin is mediated by the T2R receptors hTAS2R43 and hTAS2R44 and that significant variation most likely exists within these genes leading to the dramatic differences in sensitivity observed presently. Further studies have been initiated to link saccharin bitterness sensitivity to specific polymorphisms found within the hTAS2R43 and hTAS2R44 genome. It is enticing to speculate that genetic variation within hTAS2R43 and hTAS2R44 leading to increased bitterness sensitivity might explain the unwillingness of some consumers to consume foods and beverages sweetened with saccharin or acesulfame K . If this hypothesis bears out, then the need to specially tailor flavor formulations for different groups of consumers becomes a crucial avenue by which the food and beverage industry can increase the palatability of artificially sweetened foods.

Description of Artificial Sweetener Aftertaste Results from the in vitro and human sensory screenings suggest that bitterness is a primary attribute that differentiates artificial from natural sweeteners. Despite these findings, anecdotal evidence suggests that other descriptors are used to describe the aftertaste associated with artificial sweeteners. For instance, aspartame and acesulfame Κ are also described as metallic and plastic whereas sucralose is described as lingering or having a swimming pool taste. It is possible that all of these descriptors are used to describe different types of bitter sensation. Human (8) and rodent (P) psychophysical studies have demonstrated perceptual distinctions between compounds described as bitter. Alternatively, other perceptual elements may exist in addition to bitterness that contribute to the sensory profile elicited by artificial sweeteners. To address this, we used a trained descriptive panel to evaluate and describe the aftertaste evoked by several natural and artificial sweeteners.


342


Descriptive Analysis Eleven panelists were screened for sensitivity to aspartame, acesulfame Κ and sucralose offtaste. Six of the panelists were sensitive to aspartame, nine were sensitive to acesulfame K , and 6 were sensitive to sucralose; these panelists were used subsequently to evaluate the aftertaste of cola-flavored carbonated soft drinks containing natural or artificial sweeteners. Each panelist has undergone extensive training in descriptive analysis techniques and has served on the Givaudan trained descriptive panel for 10 or more years. Over a 1 week training period, panelists identified ten attributes that described the aftertaste of naturally and artificially sweetened colas. Following the training session, panelists were given samples of the colas containing a natural (sucrose or high fructose corn syrup) or artificial (aspartame, aspartame/acesulfame Κ blend, sucralose) sweetener in randomized order and asked to rate the perceived intensity of each attribute. Averaged data were subjected to Principal Components Analysis such that the products and attributes could be co-visualized (figure 4). The first two principal components explained nearly 67% of the cola variance.

1.5

Overall

FRUCTOSE •

?

swekt ™!*cit\us sugary 05

UL

• SUCRALOSE

• SUGAR:

CO CO CM

% CO

intensity

liquorice

astringent

long lasting medicinal • BLEND tongue drying

-0.5

bitter

•ASPARTAME -1.5 -1.5

-0.5

Figure 4. Principal Component Analysis offive colas from descriptive analysis using 11 attribute terms describing cola aftertaste. Attribute loadings are shown in italicized font whereas cola scores are shown as solid circles.


343


Whereas the aftertaste of colas containing sucrose or high fructose corn syrup were described primarily by the attributes sweet, sugary, malty and citrus, the aftertaste of colas containing artificial sweeteners were described quite differently. The aftertaste of sucralose was described as being long-lasting and having licorice, medicinal, and tongue drying attributes. On the first two principal components, aspartame was described as lacking a lingering aftertaste and lacking the sugary, malty character of the natural sweeteners; on the third principal component, aspartame was described as being bitter, astringent and licorice. The aftertaste of the cola containing the blend of aspartame (250 ppm) and acesulfame Κ (100 ppm) was described primarily as tongue drying, medicinal, astringent and bitter and to a lesser degree, licorice.

Temporal Dominance of Sensation Results from the descriptive analysis suggest that multiple attributes contribute to the aftertaste differences perceived between and among natural and artificial sweeteners. However, descriptive analysis gives only a static representation of perceptual differences. The attributes are likely to have a dynamic temporal profile, with some attributes being perceived rather early and others being perceived at later time points. To study the dynamic nature of attribute intensity, the method of time intensity has often been employed (for review see 10). Time intensity is a methodology in which the intensity of a particular attribute is scored over a period of time and allows the investigator to study such variables as attribute onset, decay and duration. However, time intensity is limited to the evaluation of a single attribute over time; assessing the temporal evolution of multiple attributes is not possible. As such, i f an investigator has more than one attribute that needs to be characterized, time intensity methods become time consuming and labor intensive. Recently, a new methodology has been developed that addresses some of these limitations associated with time intensity. Temporal Dominance of Sensation (TDS; / / ) is a method that borrows elements from both descriptive analysis and time intensity. Compared to time intensity, TDS is better suited for studying multivariate temporal changes. The method identifies and tracks the sensations that contribute most to the perception of a product at any given time and results in a map that illustrates the dynamic sequence of attribute dominance. Initially, attributes describing the aftertaste of artificially and naturally sweetened cola-flavored carbonated soft drinks were identified using descriptive analysis (see above). This list of descriptors served as the basis for subsequent TDS evaluations. Immediately after swallowing the cola, panelists were asked to identify the single attribute that dominated the perceived aftertaste. If, at any time during the ensuing 150 second evaluation period, a different attribute was perceived to dominate the aftertaste, panelists were asked to select that descriptor as the dominant sensation. Twelve panelists



344 completed 5 replications of this evaluation for each of the naturally- or artificially-sweetened colas. From these 60 evaluations, an index of dominance is calculated. The index is considered significant when a significant proportion of the evaluations identified a particular attribute as being dominant at a given time. The TDS profile of cola containing high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is shown in figure 5. The aftertaste of H F C S cola is characterized as being primarily sweet with citrus contributing significantly to the perception early (2060 sees) and dryness later (50-90 sec). By 130 sec, the aftertaste of HFCSsweetened cola had completely dissipated. This profile is consistent with anecdotal reports from consumers suggesting that the aftertaste of naturally sweetened beverages tends to be "clean" and devoid of the "surprise" tastes that define the aftertaste of artificial sweeteners. In contrast, the aftertaste of cola containing sucralose (figure 6) was initially (0-15 sec) characterized as sweet followed by a prolonged sensation that was dominated by a licorice note (15-130 sec) and finally a drying note (45-140 sec). Similarly, the aftertaste of cola sweetened with aspartame (figure 7) was initially characterized as sweet (0-25 sec) followed by a sensation dominated by licorice (20-110 sec) and drying notes (45-95 sec). Finally, the aftertaste of cola containing a blend of aspartame and acesulfame Κ (figure 8) was shown to be dominated initially by sweetness (0-40 sec) and bitterness (10-15 sec) followed later by licorice (15-120 sec) and drying notes (45-150 sec). In comparison to the information obtained from time intensity studies (see figure 9), the TDS experiments provide unique insight into the temporal dynamics of natural and artificial sweetener aftertaste. The single attribute that tends to most dominate the aftertaste of all three artificial sweeteners is licorice. Follow-up studies suggest that this attribute is derived from non-volatile components of the artificial sweetened colas as its intensity was not suppressed when retronasal olfaction was blocked using nose clips. Moreover, although the degree (dominance index) to which the aftertaste was dominated by the licorice and drying notes differed across the artificial sweeteners, it is interesting to note that the onset and duration of these attributes was remarkably consistent. The relevance of this finding is still unclear.

Aftertaste Masking Solutions Results from our various studies suggest that a simple "magic-bullet" capable of making artificially sweetened products taste like naturally sweetened products is unlikely. Indeed, the descriptors that define different artificial sweeteners only partially overlap and the perceived intensities of these descriptors differ across artificial sweeteners. Moreover, the perceptual onset and duration of the various attributes is not the same for each artificial sweetener. Therefore, to alter sensory profiles of artificial sweeteners such that



345

Figure 5. Temporal dominance profile of the aftertaste of cola containing HFCS. Graph shows the attributes at particular time points that were selected in a significant proportion of evaluations as dominating the perceived aftertaste. Light gray line shows the proportion of evaluations (from 60) needed at each time point to achieve statistical significance. Hatched line shows proportion of evaluations in which sweet was selected as being the dominant attribute. Dotted line shows proportion of evaluations in which lemon was perceived as the dominant attribute. Solid black line shows proportion of evaluations in which drying was perceived as the dominant attribute.



346

Figure 6. Temporal dominance profile of the aftertaste of cola containing sucralose. Graph as in figure 5. Light gray line shows the proportion of evaluations needed at each time point to achieve statistical significance. Hatched line shows proportion of evaluations in which sweet was selected as being the dominant attribute. Dotted line shows proportion of evaluations in which licorice was perceived as the dominant attribute. Note difference in the dotted lines depicting lemon in figure 5 and licorice in the current figure. Solid black line shows proportion of evaluations in which drying was perceived as the dominant attribute.



347

Figure 7. Temporal dominance profile of the aftertaste of cola containing aspartame Light gray line shows the proportion of evaluations needed at each time point to achieve statistical significance. Hatched line shows proportion of evaluations in which sweet was selected as being the dominant attribute. Dotted line shows proportion of evaluations in which licorice was perceived as the dominant attribute Solid black line shows proportion of evaluations in which drying was perceived as the dominant attribute.



348

Figure 8. Temporal dominance profile of cola containing the blend of aspartame (250ppm) and acesulfame Κ (100 ppm). Light gray line shows the proportion of evaluations needed at each time point to achieve statistical significance. Hatched line shows proportion of evaluations in which sweet was selected as being the dominant attribute. Dotted line shows proportion of evaluations in which licorice was perceived as the dominant attribute. Solid black line shows proportion of evaluations in which drying was perceived as the dominant attribute. Gray hatched line depicts the proportion of evaluations in which bitter was selected as he dominant attribute.



Figure 9. Aftertaste time intensity profiles of cola containing HFCS, sucralose, aspartame and the blend of aspartame and acesulfame K. Graph shows the perceived intensity of cola aftertaste over a 125 second period. Note that the aftertaste perceived in colas containing artificial sweeteners is more intense than that evoked by colas containing HFCS. However, the attributes contributing to this difference are unknown.



350 they are more similar to the profiles evoked by natural sweeteners, a multidimensional approach must be employed. To that end, we evaluated over 100 complex ingredients in an effort to identify those that are capable of making aspartame- or sucralose-sweetened colas indiscriminable from a cola containing HFCS. We employed a novel methodology using ten previously identified aspartame- or sucralose-sensitive panelists each of whom performed three replications of the test. Panelists were given four cola samples: a reference containing HFCS and three unknown samples containing HFCS (positive control), artificial sweetener (negative control) and artificial sweetener + ingredient. Panelists were asked to rank the three unknown samples from most similar to reference to least similar to reference (figure 10). If the complex ingredient works, the sample containing only the artificial sweetener will be ranked last, and the sample containing the artificial sweetener + ingredient will be confused with the HFCS control. Under such circumstances, an R-index analysis will show that the samples containing artificial sweetener and artificial sweetener + ingredient are significantly different whereas samples containing HFCS and artificial sweetener + ingredient are not (figure 10a). If, on the other hand, the complex ingredient does not work, HFCS will always be ranked first, and the ingredient will be confused with the artificial sweetener control. Under these circumstances, the R-index analysis will show that the samples containing artificial sweetener and artificial sweetener + ingredient are not significantly different whereas samples containing HFCS and artificial sweetener + ingredient are (figure 10b).

Aspartame and Sucralose In the aspartame-sweetened cola base, we found it was possible to add complex flavor ingredients such that the perceptual profile evoked by the artificially sweetened beverage was not different from that evoked by HFCS containing cola. Indeed, the colas containing HFCS and aspartame + ingredient 1 were not significantly different whereas those containing aspartame alone and aspartame + ingredient 1 were (Table 2). Interestingly, multiple other ingredients, despite their ability to mask the bitter off-taste of aspartame, were not fully capable of making aspartame-sweetened cola indiscriminable from HFCS-sweetened cola. This finding underscores the need for identifying multiple key compounds that can be used to modify various aspects of the perceptual experience. Simply blocking the bitterness of artificial sweeteners, although crucial, is unlikely to deliver the same perceptual profile as that elicited by sucrose or HFCS. In the sucralose-sweetened cola base, a different complex ingredient (ingredient 2) was found to modify the profile such that it was not perceived as significantly different from cola containing HFCS (table 2). Interestingly, ingredient 2 had no effect on the perceptual profile evoked by an aspartame-containing beverage. Moreover, the ingredient that modified the



351

R-index NS

R-index Sig

R-index Sig

R-index NS

Figure 10. Testing paradigm to ascertain the possibility of making a carbonated soft drink containing aspartame or sucralose indistinguishable from one containing HFCS. A. Figure depicts the expected results of a similarity test when a complex ingredient is successful at making cola containing aspartame (apm) taste like cola containing HFCS. B. Figure depicts the expected results of a similarity test when a complex ingredient is unsuccessful at making cola containing aspartame taste like cola containing HFCS.



Sucralose

Aspartame

68%

37%

Sucralose + Ing 2 vs. HFCS Sucralose + Ing 2 vs. Sucralose

79%

36%

R-index

A p m + Ing 1 vs. Apm

Apm + Ing 1 vs. HFCS

Stimuli

Yes

No

Yes

No

Signifcantly different?

Table 2. Results from similarity ranking test. Cola containing aspartame (Apm) and ingredient 1 was not perceived as significantly different from cola containing HFCS. Similarly, cola containing sucralose and ingredient 2 was not perceived as significantly different from cola containing HFCS.


(SI

353 aspartame profile (ingredient 1) had no effect on the sucralose profile. These findings suggest that the combination of ingredients needed to mimic the H F C S profile is dependent on the artificial sweetener used in the base application.


Conclusions A number of studies were undertaken in an effort to more fully understand the perceived negative aftertaste that is associated with many artificial sweeteners. From large scale screening studies, we determined that variability in sensitivity to the aftertaste of artificial sweeteners exists within the population. This variability most likely has genetic underpinnings that further impact consumer's behavioral choices as they relate to food and beverage consumption. By using panelists with documented sensitivity to the aftertaste of aspartame, acesulfame Κ or sucralose, we were able to identify the attributes that differentiated colas containing natural sweeteners from those with artificial sweeteners. Utilizing this information, we tracked the temporal profiles evoked from artificial sweeteners and showed how they differ from the temporal profiles elicited by HFCS. Whereas the aftertaste of cola containing H F C S is dominated by sweet perception alone, the aftertaste of cola containing sucralose, aspartame or a blend of aspartame and acesulfame Κ is dominated by a licorice note, bitterness and a drying effect. Finally, by attending to the specific attributes that differentiate natural sweeteners from a specific artificial sweetener, we showed that it is possible to minimize the aftertaste and make artificially sweetened beverages taste like naturally sweetened beverages. However, this is not a trivial task. The various attributes associated with the aftertaste of artificial sweeteners are likely to be mediated by separate mechanisms. Indeed, even for a single attribute like bitterness, it is likely that different receptors signal the presence of different artificial sweeteners. Thus, it is likely that complex solutions, involving multiple ingredients, will be needed to mitigate the negative aftertaste of artificially sweetened foods and make these products taste like their naturally sweetened counterparts.

References 1. 2. 3. 4.

Integrated Market Information System. Euromonitor, 2006. Internal marketing research data. Givaudan Global Consumer Insights, 2006. Kim, U . K . ; Jorgenson, E.; Coon, H . ; Leppert, M.; Risch, N.; Drayna, D . Science 2003, 299, 1221. Bufe, B.; Breslin, P. Α.; Kuhn, C.; Reed, D . R.; Tharp, C. D.; Slack, J. P.; Kim, U. K.; Drayna, D.; Meyerhof, W. Current Biology 2005, 15, 322.


354


5.

Kuhn, C.; Bufe, Β.; Winnig, M.; Hofmann, T.; Frank, O.; Behrens, M.; Lewtschenko, T.; Slack, J. P. ; Ward, C. D . ; Meyerhof, W. Journal of Neuroscience 2004, 24, 10260. 6. Kanazawa, H. Archives of Histology and Cytology 1993, 56, 533. 7. Witt, M.; Reutter, K . Anatomical Records 1996, 246, 507. 8. McBurney, D. H . ; Smith, D . V . ; Shick, T. R. Perception and Psychophysics 1972, 11, 228. 9. Frank, M . E.; Bouverat, B . P.; MacKinnon, Β. I.; Hettinger, T. P. Physiology and Behavior 2004, 80, 421. 10. Piggott, J. R. Food Research International 2000, 33, 191. 11. Pineau, N.; Pessina, R.; Cordelle, S.; Imbert, A . ; Rogeaux, M . ; Schlich, P. Presented at 7th Sensometrics Meeting, Davis, California, 2004.


The "Bitter-Sweet" Truth of Artificial Sweeteners - ACS Symposium

Recommend Documents