Consumer understanding of fluid milk and cheese processing and composition

Consumer acceptance of protein beverage ingredients: Less is more

An array of ingredients is added to protein beverage formulations. These ingredients may not be desirable to consumers. Our objective was to determine consumer perception of ingredients in protein beverages. An online survey was conducted with protein beverage consumers (n = 405). Maximum difference scaling and projective mapping were applied to determine the relative acceptance of ingredients based on their functional role (protein source, sweetener, stabilizer, thickener). Subsequently, 4 120-min focus groups were conducted (n = 25 consumers). Survey data were evaluated by univariate and multivariate statistics. Consumer sentiment from focus groups was compiled and grouped based on themes that emerged across multiple focus groups. Consumers placed the highest importance on the amount of protein followed by protein type in protein beverages. Plant protein, whey protein, and milk protein were most appealing, whereas soy protein, collagen, and casein or caseinates were less appealing. Natural sweeteners (agave, monk fruit, cane sugar) were the most appealing sweeteners. Fibers and starches were more appealing than gums (carrageenan, gellan gum). Stabilizers were the least desirable class of beverage ingredients, with sodium and potassium phosphates the least desirable. In regard to the package of a protein beverage, consumers placed the greatest importance on recognizable ingredients and plain language. Consistent with survey results, consumers in focus groups expressed skepticism and feeling overwhelmed by all of the ingredients on the label of protein beverages. Protein was their primary desire and the presence of sweeteners was acceptable, but they did not desire additional ingredients. There is an opportunity to increase the acceptance and competitiveness of dairy protein beverages by reformulating beverages to include fewer and more familiar ingredients. Functional proteins, such as those derived from dairy, may have opportunities to exclude undesirable ingredients (stabilizers, thickeners) from the label.

Factors Affecting Milk Productivity, Milk Quality and Dairy Cow Health

Milk and dairy products are considered important sources of nutrients in human nutrition due to their content of high-quality protein, minerals, vitamins, and energy [...].

Parental perception of children's school lunch milk

School lunch programs are mandated by the US Code of Federal Regulations to serve pasteurized milk that is skim or 1% fat and fortified with vitamins A and D. In recent years, proposals have been made to alter nutritional requirements for school lunches and school lunch milk, including changes to the milk fat and flavor options available. The objective of this study was to evaluate parental understanding and perception of school lunch milk to better understand how changes to school lunch milk are perceived by parents. Four focus groups (n = 34) were conducted with parents of school-aged children (5-13 yr) who purchased milk as part of a lunch at school. Participants were asked about school lunch milk, including nutritional content, packaging, and flavoring. Focus groups included a build-your-own milk activity and discussion of children's milk products currently available on the market. Two subsequent online surveys were conducted with parents of school-aged children (survey 1, n = 216; survey 2, n = 133). Maximum difference scaling was used to evaluate what beverages parents would prefer their child to drink at school (survey 1) and which attributes of chocolate milk for children were most important to parents (survey 2). An adaptive choice-based conjoint activity (survey 1) included flavor, milk fat, heat treatment, label claims, and packaging type. Both surveys included questions to evaluate knowledge of milk nutrition and attitudes regarding milk and flavored milk. Agree/disagree questions were used in both surveys to assess parental opinions of school lunch milk. Survey 2 also included semantic differential (sliding scale) questions to assess parental opinions of chocolate milk and their acceptance of sugar alternatives in chocolate milk served in schools. Parents were familiar with the flavor options and packaging of school lunch milk, but expressed limited familiarity with school lunch milk fat content. Parents perceived milk to be healthy and a good source of vitamin D and calcium. From survey results, parents placed the highest importance on school lunch milk packaging, followed by milk fat percentage and flavoring over label claims and heat treatment. The ideal school lunch milk for parents was unflavored (white milk) or chocolate, 2% fat, and packaged in a cardboard gabletop carton. For school lunch chocolate milk, 3 distinct clusters of parents with differing opinions for children's chocolate milk were identified. Parents are largely unfamiliar with the specific attributes and nutritional profile of milk served in schools but believe that schools should offer milk to their children as part of breakfast and lunch. Parents in both surveys also displayed a preference for 2% fat milk over low-fat options, which provides actionable insight for both governmental bodies determining educational and nutritional policies for school meals and fluid milk producers seeking to optimize their products intended for schools.

Sensory Analysis and Consumer Preference: Best Practices

Sensory science is a multidisciplinary field that encompasses a wide variety of established and newly developed tests to document human responses to stimuli. Sensory tests are not limited to the area of food science but they find wide application within the diverse areas of the food science arena. Sensory tests can be divided into two basic groups: analytical tests and affective tests. Analytical tests are generally product-focused, and affective tests are generally consumer-focused. Selection of the appropriate test is critical for actionable results. This review addresses an overview of sensory tests and best practices.

Non-thermal Processing Technologies for Dairy Products: Their Effect on Safety and Quality Characteristics

Thermal treatment has always been the processing method of choice for food treatment in order to make it safe for consumption and to extend its shelf life. Over the past years non-thermal processing technologies are gaining momentum and they have been utilized especially as technological advancements have made upscaling and continuous treatment possible. Additionally, non-thermal treatments are usually environmentally friendly and energy-efficient, hence sustainable. On the other hand, challenges exist; initial cost of some non-thermal processes is high, the microbial inactivation needs to be continuously assessed and verified, application to both to solid and liquid foods is not always available, some organoleptic characteristics might be affected. The combination of thermal and non-thermal processing methods that will produce safe foods with minimal effect on nutrients and quality characteristics, while improving the environmental/energy fingerprint might be more plausible.

Invited review: Sustainability: Different perspectives, inherent conflict

Consumer definitions of sustainability are largely uninformed by scientific research and may not align with industry definitions. Furthermore, consumers themselves have varied perceptions, definitions, and opinions of sustainability that vary between categories and products within the dairy category. Understanding these differences and developing marketing messaging aligned with consumer sustainability definitions offer an advantage to dairy product producers when strategically positioning their products in a changing marketplace. This review outlines the factors that may affect consumer sustainability perceptions to provide a basis for future marketing and scientific work. Consumer trends and desires for sustainability are explored, including how they are reflected in the rapid growth of plant-based alternatives. Factors that may influence consumer perception of dairy as sustainable are covered in detail, including packaging, labeling, animal welfare, organic status, grass-fed or pasture-raised feeding systems, and local and clean label perceptions. Finally, a discussion of the challenges of marketing dairy foods with sustainability messages is addressed.