Nutrient clustering, NOVA classification, and nutrient profiling: How do they overlap, and what do they predict about food palatability?

We compared the performance of three food categorisation metrics in predicting palatability (taste pleasantness) using a dataset of 52 foods, each rated virtually (online) by 72 to 224 participants familiar with the foods in question, as described in Appetite 193 (2024) 107124. The metrics were nutrient clustering, NOVA, and nutrient profiling. The first two of these metrics were developed to identify, respectively: 'hyper-palatable' foods (HPFs); and ultra-processed foods (UPFs), which are claimed to be 'made to be hyper-palatable'. The third metric categorises foods as high fat, sugar, salt (HFSS) foods versus non-HFSS foods. There were overlaps, but also significant differences, in categorisation of the foods by the three metrics: of the 52 foods, 35 (67%) were categorised as HPF, and/or UPF, and/or HFSS, and 17 (33%) were categorised as none of these. There was no significant difference in measured palatability between HPFs and non-HPFs, nor between UPFs and non-UPFs (p ≥ 0.412). HFSS foods were significantly more palatable than non-HFSS foods (p < 0.049). None of the metrics significantly predicted food reward (desire to eat). These results do not support the use of hypothetical combinations of food ingredients as proxies for palatability, as done explicitly by the nutrient clustering and NOVA metrics. To discover what aspects of food composition predict palatability requires measuring the palatability of a wide range of foods that differ in composition, as we do here.

Evidence that carbohydrate-to-fat ratio and taste, but not energy density or NOVA level of processing, are determinants of food liking and food reward.

This virtual (online) study tested the common but largely untested assumptions that food energy density, level of processing (NOVA categories), and carbohydrate-to-fat (CF) ratio are key determinants of food reward. Individual participants (224 women and men, mean age 35 y, 53% with healthy weight, 43% with overweight or obesity) were randomised to one of three, within-subjects, study arms: energy density (32 foods), or level of processing (24 foods), or CF ratio (24 foods). They rated the foods for taste pleasantness (liking), desire to eat (food reward), and sweetness, saltiness, and flavour intensity (for analysis averaged as taste intensity). Against our hypotheses, there was not a positive relationship between liking or food reward and either energy density or level of processing. As hypothesised, foods combining more equal energy amounts of carbohydrate and fat (combo foods), and foods tasting more intense, scored higher on both liking and food reward. Further results were that CF ratio, taste intensity, and food fibre content (negatively), independent of energy density, accounted for 56% and 43% of the variance in liking and food reward, respectively. We interpret the results for CF ratio and fibre in terms of food energy-to-satiety ratio (ESR), where ESR for combo foods is high, and ESR for high-fibre foods is low. We suggest that the metric of ESR should be considered when designing future studies of effects of food composition on food reward, preference, and intake.

Consumers' attitudes towards alternatives to conventional meat products: Expectations about taste and satisfaction, and the role of disgust.

The livestock sector has environmental, health, and animal welfare impacts. This UK-based, quantitative study aimed to elucidate consumers' valuation of alternatives to conventional meat products. In an online study, 151 meat eaters and 44 non-meat eaters were shown pictures of meat, dairy, and bakery products, including beef burger, cheese sandwich and blueberry muffin. Each product was evaluated with three different labels (e.g., 'conventional', 'plant-based' and 'cultured' for beef burger). Participants rated expected taste pleasantness, fullness, satisfaction, healthiness, disgust and willingness-to-pay for each product/label combination. The results obtained demonstrate that alternatives to conventional meat products overall are acceptable to both meat and non-meat eaters. Although meat eaters' expected plant-based meat alternatives to be less satisfying, due to lower expected taste pleasantness and fillingness (Cohen's d = 0.14 to 0.63), they perceived the plant-based alternatives to be more healthy (d ≥ 1.18). Cultured meat products were perceived by meat eaters to be equally or more healthy, but more disgusting (d ≥ 0.41), than conventional meat products. These results suggest there is an opportunity to promote (motivate) acceptance of alternatives to conventional meat products based on their perceived healthiness, to at least partly balance reduced expected taste pleasantness and other negative attributes (i.e., barriers).