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.

Parents' implicit perceptions of dairy milk and plant-based milk alternatives.

Dairy product consumption is motivated by both familiarity and habit. Milk consumption decreases with age, but milk consumption during childhood and adolescence increases the chances of lifetime milk consumption. Understanding how parents perceive dairy milk and other dairy foods further enables development of dairy-positive messaging that aligns with their perceptions. The objective of this research was to understand parent belief systems around fluid dairy milk and plant-based alternatives (PBA). This goal was accomplished by assessing parents' implicit attitudes toward dairy milk and PBA with an implicit bias exercise (n = 331), followed by qualitative interviews to understand explicitly stated purchase motivations and guided recall of information heard about dairy milk and PBA to better understand external influences on milk perception (n = 88). The majority of parents (73.4%) implicitly associated dairy milk with positive attributes compared with those with a positive association with PBA (13.8%) or with a neutral bias (12.7%). The stronger a parent's implicit bias toward PBA, the more likely they were to purchase these products either alongside or as a replacement for dairy milk. Eighty-five percent of parents in our study could recall drinking milk at home as a child, and 58% remembered encouragement from their parents to drink milk. However, only 38% encouraged their own children to drink milk (the majority, 55%, were neutral toward their children's milk consumption). Generally negative media messaging toward dairy milk and positive messaging toward PBA may contribute to this trend, even if consumers are not explicitly aware of their perception changes. Seventy-seven percent of parents felt generally confident in choosing dairy milk or PBA for their children. However, only 26% of parents felt that nothing about dairy milk or PBA information or messaging was confusing. Sources of uncertainty about dairy milk included hormones and antibiotics, animal welfare, ecological sustainability, potential contamination, and intolerances or allergies. By addressing the most commonly encountered and recalled concerns about milk from parents, dairy producers may be able to increase trust and implicit bias toward dairy milk compared with PBA.

Role of sweeteners on temporality and bar hardening of protein bars.

Protein bars are one product that meet consumer demands for a low-carbohydrate, high-protein food. With such a large market for protein bars, producers need to find the correct texture and sweetness levels to satisfy consumers while still delivering a high-protein, low-carbohydrate bar. In the bar industry, bar hardening is a major concern, and currently the effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on bar hardening is unknown. Due to the negative implications of bar hardening, it is important to investigate the sweetener-protein relationship with bar hardening. The objective of this study was to characterize the effects of sweetener and protein source on flavor, texture, and shelf life of high-protein, low-carbohydrate bars. The iso-sweet concentration of sweeteners (sucralose, sucrose, monk fruit, stevia, and fructose) in pea protein (PP), milk protein (MP) and whey protein isolate (WPI) bars were established using magnitude estimation scaling and 2-alternative forced-choice testing. Descriptive analysis and temporal check-all-that-apply methods were then applied to determine flavor and temporal differences between the protein bars. Finally, an accelerated shelf life study was completed to understand how sweetener and protein types affect the shelf life of protein bars. The 15 protein bars formulated at iso-sweet concentration were all stored at 35°C and 55% humidity for 35 d, and measurements were taken every 7 d, beginning at d 1 (d 1, 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35). Bars made with MP required significantly less sweetener, compared with PP and WPI, to reach equal sweetness. Bars sweetened with stevia or monk fruit had distinct bitter and metallic tastes, and sucralose had a low metallic taste. Bars made with WPI were the most cohesive, and PP and WPI bars were more bitter and metallic compared with MP bars. Bars made with WPI and fructose were initially the hardest, but after d 14 they scored at parity with PP sucrose. There were no significant differences among bars in terms of hardness by d 21. Bars made with WPI were consistently denser at all time points than bars made with PP or MP. Bars made with PP were the driest and least cohesive and had the fastest rate of breakdown in the study. Non-nutritive sweeteners did not have a negative effect on bar hardness in low-carbohydrate, high-protein bars. Findings from this study can be applied to commercially produced protein bars for naturally sweetened bars with different protein types without negative effects on protein bar texture.