Trends in Food Science & Technology 20 (2009) 54e62
Review
Sensory food science
in the changing
society:
Opportunities, needs,
and challenges*
Hely Tuorilaa,* and
Erminio Monteleoneb
a
Department of Food Technology, University of
Helsinki, P.O. Box 66, FI-00014, Finland
(Tel.: D358 9 19158216; fax: D358 9 19158460;
e-mail: hely.tuorila@helsinki.fi)
b Box 1. Sensory food science: definition
Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Agrarie, Universita`
degli Studi di Firenze Via Donizetti, 6, I e 50144
Firenze, Italy
Sensory food science has evolved from the need for scientifi-
cally sound and systematic sensory evaluation of foods. Capi-
talising on its multidisciplinary nature, it has to accommodate
to many research traditions and interests. In the past 15e20
years the field has made substantial progress in developing
new methods and approaches and in advancing our under-
standing of consumer responses to foods. Sensory food science
can contribute to understanding responses of different con-
sumer segments to emerging trends in food production, pro-
cessing and consumption. Favourable progress of the field
requires proper university training programmes, funding for
basic research, and multidisciplinary collaboration.
*
The 8th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, hosted by Erminio
Monteleone and Mario Bertuccioli, is held in Florence, Italy, on July
26e30, 2009. The 1st Pangborn Symposium, held in Finland in
1992, was hosted by Hely Tuorila and her colleagues. This paper
was prepared while Hely Tuorila worked as visiting professor at the
University of Florence in January e June 2008.
* Corresponding author.
0924-2244/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2008.10.007
Brief history
Human senses, in particular the chemical senses, are
tuned to act as composite gatekeepers for food intake.
This biological function protects us from eating spoiled
or otherwise unfit items and encourages eating nutritious
or otherwise beneficial items (Breslin & Spector, 2008).
The consequences of this function to food production and
marketing are extensive. No food or beverage is worth pro-
ducing, distributing or marketing without at least an ap-
proximate idea that its sensory quality is accepted by
consumers. Thus, sensory evaluation or appraisal of prod-
ucts has long been incorporated into the quality control of
commercially noteworthy foods and beverages, such as
dairy and wine (Pangborn, 1989). For the same reason,
modern product development and hard competition within
food industry require clear understanding of sensory
aspects of foods, and adequate sensory techniques.
Sensory food science is a discipline dealing with
human sensory perceptions of and affective re-
sponses to foods, beverages and their components.
It is multidisciplinary by its nature, deriving re-
search questions from food science and applying
behavioural research methods to solve these ques-
tions. It belongs to the family of food sciences.
Sensory food science uses sensory evaluation as its
central method of analysis. Sensory evaluation is de-
fined as a scientific method used to evoke, measure,
analyze, and interpret those responses to products as
perceived through the senses of sight, smell, touch,
taste, and hearing (see Lawless & Heymann, 1999).
Depending upon the research question, sensory
food science also utilises physicochemical, physio-
logical, and consumer-based research methods.
The importance of sensory food science is based on
the relevance of consumer perceptions to the ac-
ceptance and commercial success of foods and
beverages and on the significance of food for hu-
man well-being and health. In food companies,
sensory food science can be of great value to
both tactical and strategic research goals.
 H. Tuorila, E. Monteleone / Trends in Food Science & Technology 20 (2009) 54e62
The discipline, now often called sensory food science
(Box 1), evolved from the need for scientifically sound
and systematic sensory evaluation of foods (Pangborn,
1989). The early development of psychophysics, including
inventions by both German (Weber, sensory thresholds;
Fechner, psychophysical law) in the 19th century, and US
scientists (Thurstone, law of comparative judgement; Ste-
vens, power law) in the 20th century, laid the foundation
for sensory food science (Lawless & Heymann, 1999).
The obvious need for sensory evaluation led to the develop-
ment of testing procedures for wine, tea, meat, dairy and
other important commodities. Most of these procedures be-
long to the category of descriptive analyses that, from the
Flavour profile in the late 1940s and the Texture Profile
in the 1960s, evolved into methods more broadly applicable
to all sensory properties of a food, like Quantitative
Descriptive Analysis, that are based on independent judge-
ments of panellists and statistical testing, rather than group
discussions and consensus procedures (see Lawless & Hey-
mann, 1999). Descriptive methods are used to pinpoint
differences among product variants, storage conditions,
and the like; to identify drivers of hedonic responses; and
to examine relationships between chemical and sensory
characteristics.
Major evolutionary steps of sensory food science took
place during the latter half of the last century. Crucial to
the development was the recognition of the nature of the
measurement apparatus, the human being, and contributions
from psychology played a significant role in the evolution
of valid measurement techniques (Meiselman & Schutz,
2003). However, psychology is only one aspect of this sci-
entific enterprise. Other behavioural sciences, biological
and food sciences, as well as nutrition and health sciences
all bring their viewpoints and research questions to the field
and, increasingly, so do the physiological and neurosci-
ences. Thus, sensory food science stands at the intersection
of many disciplines and research traditions, and the stake-
holders are many (Moskowitz & Hartmann, 2008).
As part of the family of food sciences, analytical sensory
evaluation serves to identify perceived product attributes
and differences. In this capacity, its function is similar to
chemical, physical, and microbiological characterisation
of products. Yet, being closer to consumer perceptions
than physicochemical and biological assays, sensory analy-
sis helps to interpret consequences of recipe and process
modifications, storage, and the like. Also, using methodol-
ogy applicable to consumers, sensory research can directly
acquire information about consumer responses to products.
Here it approaches, and sometimes merges with consumer
science. However, consumer research on foods has pecu-
liarities not common with most consumer goods, mainly
the deep cultural roots, frequently repeated consumption
and the involvement of physiological feedback.
Many aspects of sensory food science have evolved dur-
ing the past 15e20 years. Among these is the increased
awareness and concern of the well-being, safety and rights
55
of voluntary members of sensory and consumer panels
(e.g., the policy statement of the Institute of Food Science
and Technology, 2005). The use of human subjects in
sensory science is not as intrusive as it is in the medical sci-
ences, but ethical aspects need proper attention. Exposures
to foods produced with novel techniques, such as genetic
modification and irradiation, may create concerns, and for
their informed consent to participate, panellists need infor-
mation of the nature of test samples. The organizer of a test
is responsible for the safety and well-being of the panel-
lists, and care needs to be taken to avoid any chemical or
microbiological risk or mental inconvenience.
Research into sensory and hedonic aspects of food has
grown immensely. A range of measures and institutions
have encouraged this growth. The following list highlights
the evolution.
 The appearance of journals focusing on sensory and con-
sumer research: Journal of Sensory Studies (Blackwell,
since 1986), Food Quality and Preference (Elsevier,
1988) and Chemosensory Perception (Springer, 2008).
Also journals such as Appetite (Elsevier, 1980), Chemi-
cal Senses (Oxford Press, 1974), Perception and Psycho-
physics, and Physiology & Behavior (Elsevier, 1966)
publish sensory papers, and some food science journals
have a strong sensory component. Journal of Food Sci-
ence has a specific sensory evaluation section. Food sci-
ence journals tend to focus on sensory aspects of specific
products or ingredients, while the basic science journals
focus on perceptual mechanisms, whether of biological
or psychological origin. Sensory methodologies are
a major interest in sensory journals, although they cover
basic and applied aspects as well.
 Since 1992, there is a world conference series, the Pang-
born Sensory Science Symposium, named after a pioneer
researcher and instructor in the field, Professor Rose
Marie Pangborn (1932e1990) from the University of
California. The meetings were started at 3-year intervals,
but are now scheduled every second year. In the 1st
meeting in Finland, some 220 participants were present,
while more than 1000 delegates are expected at the 8th
meeting in Italy in 2009.
 Geographically focused meeting series have also been
started, such as the European Sensory meetings, first
in Italy (2004), second in the Netherlands (2006), and
third in Germany (2008).
 Scientific associations have been established, nationally
e.g., in the USA (IFT Sensory Evaluation Division, since
1973), Finland (Finnish Society of Food Science, Sen-
sory Division, 1984), and Italy (SISS, Italian Society
for Sensory Science, 2002); and an international society
devoted to statistical aspects of sensory and consumer
science, the Sensometrics Society (meetings since 1992).
 Many universities have established sensory professor-
ships in their food science departments, with European
examples from the University of Helsinki, Finland
56 H. Tuorila, E. Monteleone / Trends in Food Science & Technology 20 (2009) 54e62
(1993), University of Copenhagen (earlier KVL), Den-
mark (1997), University of Florence, Italy (2007), and
University of Nottingham, UK (2007).
 During 1990e2003, European Commission recognised
the need for sensory food studies and financially sup-
ported the field in research programmes.
 Food industry has recognised the importance of sensory
activities for competitiveness. Research collaboration
between industry and academia is common and, for ex-
ample, most delegates in Pangborn symposia are repre-
sentatives of industry.
Sensory food science has greatly capitalised on its cru-
cial position at the junction of psychological, biological
and more applied sciences. Scientifically sound sensory
work requires many skills, but this is not always appreci-
ated. The importance of the field is so obvious that many
parties, whether trained in sensory food science or not,
are seeking its support for their decision-making. Sensory
data are easy to collect, because human subjects respond
to questions and perform tasks, even when a task is obscure
or inappropriate. This creates an insidious potential for
collecting data of poor validity.
Todays published research in journals specializing in
sensory research does not, in general, contain major viola-
tions of good laboratory practices, but research lacking in
good quality can appear in more general food journals.
An obvious reason for this is that papers focusing on chem-
ical and technological parameters, with sensory work as
a minor part of data, are not peer-reviewed by sensory spe-
cialists. The flaws include, for example, hedonic ratings
that have been collected from experts; panel composition
that varies from session to session; no evidence of panel
training; and factorial designs that are not utilised in data
analysis. Thus, the quality of published research is
heterogeneous.
Another concern is that research interests in food science
are diverse, and much of sensory research focuses on solving
commodity-specific practical problems. Such research tends
to act in a traditional way that prevents adopting new prac-
tices. While a specific, practical problem may be resolved,
contribution to increased understanding of fundamental sen-
sory phenomena is meagre. Fundamental and innovative re-
search, seeking for general rules, explanations, and
understanding are at risk, if applied testing is considered
the major duty of the discipline. With adequate research
questions and resources, sensory research can have signifi-
cant implications across product categories (see Box 2).
Current state of affairs
Progress in research methods
In 1989, Rose Marie Pangborn predicted increasing re-
search activities in several aspects of sensory science: mul-
tivariate analysis of data, rating scales; temporal aspects of
perception; exchange of expertise and methods between
sensory scientists who work in product evaluation and those
Box 2. Chemosensory losses and product develop-
ment for the elderly
In the 1980s, evidence accumulated of the impair-
ment of human chemical senses, especially sense
of smell, in the course of aging (Murphy, Cain, &
Hegsted, 1989). This was assumed to contribute
to loss of appetite, poor nutritional status and im-
paired quality of life in the growing segment of
the elderly population in Western countries. A
question was raised whether the missing flavour
should be compensated by enhancing the flavour
strength in products marketed to senior citizens.
The clarification of the issue was defined as one of
the goals in a large EU shared cost research project
HealthSense (2000e2003) (ftp://ftp.cordis.euro-
pa.eu/pub/food/docs/consumer-healthsense.pdf).
Experiments conducted within the project consis-
tently proved that, in spite of losses in chemosensory
function in the elderly, the compensation of losses
by flavour enhancement does not increase the ac-
ceptance of foods among the elderly (Koskinen, Ne-
nonen, & Tuorila, 2005; Kremer et al., 2007; see also
Mustonen & Tuorila, 2007) nor does it improve nu-
tritional status or prevent weight loss (Essed, van Sta-
veren, Kok, & De Graaf, 2007). Moreover, individual
differences in the functioning of sense of smell were
found to be huge in the elderly population, thus it
would be difficult to target those special products
to a specific age segment. Other research conducted
in the project suggested that food preferences of the
elderly of each country resembled more closely the
preferences of the younger fellow-citizens than
those of the elderly in other countries. It seems rea-
sonable to assume that the impairment of the sense
of smell, taking place slowly, allows the afflicted
people adapt to the change.
Integrated sensory research effort corrected a mis-
conception, thus allowing space for other possible
improvements in food services to elderly con-
sumers. For example, the role of texture and im-
provements in overall aspects of meal occasions
need further consideration.
who study human behaviour. Several predictions have
become true.
New methods and instruments to measure product char-
acteristics and consumer responses have been developed
(Table 1). Multivariate statistical approaches have promp-
ted the development of methods for the analyses of hedonic
and analytical sensory data, and their interactions. Prefer-
ence and projective mapping are two clear and robust
 H. Tuorila, E. Monteleone / Trends in Food Science & Technology 20 (2009) 54e62 57

Table 1. Methods and instruments developed, or adopted from other disciplines, in sensory food science from the 1990s

Method/instrument Description of method Aim/application Reference

Temporal dominance of Records several sensory attributes Illustrates product perception pattern Le Reverend, Hidrioa, Fernandesa, and
sensations (TDS) simultaneously over time, and allows over time. Aubrya (2008); Pineau et al. (2004)
getting the sequences of sensations.
Flash analysis Quick sensory profiling technique Used for getting the relative sensory Delarue and Sieffermann (2004)
based on the combination of free positions of a set of products in a very
choice profiling and a comparative short time
evaluation of the whole product set by
trained subjects.
Sorting Measure of the similarity of products Used to obtain perceptual maps of King, Cliff, and Hall (1998); Lawless,
obtained by sorting a product set. product sets of interest with trained or Sheng, and Knoops (1995); Tang and
Usually a group-derived estimate of untrained subjects. Heymann (2002); Cartier et al. (2006)
similarity.
Projective mapping For gathering similarity data by Examination of consumer (or expert or Nestrud and Lawless (2008); Page`s
requesting panelists to place products panelist) responses to product sets of (2005); Risvik, McEwan, and
on a two dimensional surface. interest, e.g., in product category Rodbotten (1997)
reviews for consumer or marketing
research.
Preference mapping Internal Preference Mapping: Provides Both internal and external preference MacFie (2007)
a multidimensional product space mapping can be used to understand
based on hedonic scores. The the key sensory attributes that
preference dimensions can be respondents are using to make
interpreted in terms of different groups assessments about liking; and how to
of subjects making different contrasts manipulate sensory properties of
between the products. products to move to desired position in
External Preference Mapping: Hedonic the marketplace.
responses are fitted to a stimulus space
(external) derived from sensory
profiles. The analysis fits the response
of each subject to the external space.
Labeled affective This quasi-logarithmic scale allows the A powerful instrument when extreme Cardello and Schutz (2004); Schutz
magnitude scale expression of extreme responses (end responses are to be expected and and Cardello (2001)
anchors referring to highest therefore, a risk of a ceiling effect on
imaginable like or dislike). ratings exists.
Repertory grid method Interview technique to reveal To reveal consumer perceptions of Gonza`les-Tomas and Costell (2006);
constructs that consumers use to defined food categories. Appropriate Monteleone, Raats, and Mela (1997);
differentiate between products within for incremental new products, or to Noronha, Damasio, Pivatto, and
a category. Subjects are repeatedly optimize existing products. The Negrillo (1995); Piggott and Watson
confronted with three products and technique can also be used for (1992); Raats and Shepherd
asked to indicate which two are eliciting sensory descriptors. (1991e1992)
similar and different from the third.
Mean-ends chain and Mean-ends chains are links that Measuring consumer perceptions of Bruns and Grunert (2007); Costa,
laddering (MEC) subjects establish between perceptions specific products at various levels of Schoolmeester, Dekker, and Jongen
of products and abstract motives or abstraction. (2007); Roininen, Fillion, Kilcast, and
values. MECs show how product Can be used in product optimization Lahteenmaki (2004); Van Kleef, van
characteristics are linked to and in new product development. Trijp, and Luning (2005)
consequences of consumption and
eventually lead to the attainment of
important values held by subjects.
Conjoint analysis Consumer preferences are derived Understanding how consumer needs Enneking, Neumann, and Henneberg
from experimentally varied product are interrelated and translated to (2007); Kremer, Bult, Mojet, and
profiles. Statistical analysis shows the products characteristics. Kroeze (2007); Poelman, Mojet, Lyon,
relative importance of product Used in both product optimization and and Sefa-Dedeh (2008); Solheim, and
attributes in the overall consumer in new product development. Lawless (1996)
preference for a product.

examples. The labelled magnitude scale (LMS), quantify-
ing oral sensory magnitude (Green et al., 1996) has served
as a point of departure for the development of the hedonic,
labelled affective magnitude scale (LAM) (Table 1).
As predicted by Pangborn (1989), alternatives to time-
intensity have been developed to analyse temporal aspects
of perception, temporal dominance of sensations (TDS)
being the most innovative (Table 1).
The need to combine the information on product charac-
teristics and consumer behaviour in product development
has led sensory scientists to adopt methods from other
scientific disciplines. The repertory grid method coupled
58 H. Tuorila, E. Monteleone / Trends in Food Science & Technology 20 (2009) 54e62

(or not) with Generalized Procrustes Analysis, mean-ends
chain and laddering interviews, and conjoint analysis has
become increasingly popular in the sensory science com-
munity (Table 1).
Computers are an inseparable part of a sensory labora-
tory, and they have meant progress for sensory food sci-
ence. They are important for logistics (data entry) and
handling of large data sets. Measurement of temporal
aspects of perception is a specific example; and, without
computers, collecting and analyzing large multivariate
data sets would be almost impossible. Currently also Inter-
net is used to collect quantitative (home use tests, question-
naires) and qualitative (e.g., chat rooms) data.
With wine as an example, Table 2 shows different lines
of recent sensory research on one commodity. Sensory
analysis is widely applied in wine research to describe
the effect of factors such as grape variety or processing
on properties of wine, and to study the relationship between
chemical and sensory characteristics, but there are many
further approaches and targets of research.
Increased attention to consumer responses
Research on consumer responses to foods has increased,
and research combining sensory and consumer responses
also shows a stable increase (Fig. 1).
In traditional sensory evaluation, the samples (foods or
their components) are evaluated blind, and all effort is
made to minimize the impact of external cues. This is as-
sumed to yield unbiased information of perceived charac-
teristics of the samples, without interference of the brand,
package, or labelling. Marketing research has been left
with the task of finding out what contributions the brand,
package or other information may have to the purchase or
acceptance of a commercial product.
In the 1990s, consumer-oriented sensory research
focused on understanding food acceptance as a whole. Po-
tential interactions of sensory properties and other factors
affecting the responses became interesting, and the interest
was extended from hedonic to more overt behavioural out-
come measures, such as purchase intentions. For example,
information of the origin, ingredients, and production

Table 2. Recent advances in sensory research on wine

Research area Topic Reference

New method and tools in sensory
description of wine
Sensory evaluation of wine by experts
Relationship between chemical and
sensory characteristics
Prediction of astringency induced by
grape and wine phenols
Flavour perception in wine
Consumer preference for wine
Assessment of sensory quality of wine
Wine and food combination
- Vocabulary of terms for sensory evaluation of Colonna, Adams, and Noble (2004); Cristovam,
dessert port wine Paterson, and Piggott (2000); Gawel, Iland, and
- Descriptive wheel of mouthfeel characteristics of Francis (2001); ONeill, Nicklaus, and Sauvageot
red wine (2003); Page`s (2005)
- Technique for descriptive profile validation
- Procedures for reducing carry over effects in
evaluation of red wines
- Projective mapping for describing differences
among wines
- Estimation of the consistency of experts in Ballester, Dacremont, Le Fur, and Etievant (2005);
describing sensory properties of wine Hughson and Boakes (2002); Parr, White, and
- Study of differences between experts and Heatherbell (2004); Sauvageot, Urdapilleta, and
consumers in discriminating wines Peyron (2006)
- Role of polyphenols in determining bitterness and Brossaud, Cheynier, and Noble (2001); Lee and
astringency of red wine Noble (2003); Vidal et al. (2004)
- Evaluation of key wine components on mouthfeel
perception
- Multivariate approach for defining wine aroma
model
- In vitro assay for astringency prediction from Monteleone, Condelli, Dinnella, and Bertuccioli
grape and wine phenol extract (2004)
- Wine discrimination with orthonasal and Aubry, Schlich, Issanchou, and Et`evant (1999);
retronasal profiles Pickering, Karthik, Inglis, Sears, and Ker (2007);
- Detection thresholds for 2-isopropyl-3-methoxy- Prescott, Norris, Kunst, and Kim (2005)
pyrazine in wine
- Consumer rejection threshold for cork taint in
white wine
- Effect of contextual factors on liking for wine Hersleth, Mevik, Naes, and Guinard (2003);
- Consumer reactions to different attributes of red Hughson, Ashman, De La Huerga, and
and white wine Moskowitz (2004); Lesschaeve (2007)
- Perspectives for consumer-driven winemaking
and wine business strategies
- Hedonic scaling method to wine quality Gawel and Godden (2008); Lawless, Liu, and
assessment Goldwyn (1997); Parr, Green, and White (2006)
- Estimation of the consistency of wine quality
assessment
- Effect of cheese on sensory description of wine Madrigal-Galan and Heymann (2006); Nygren,
Gustafsson, and Johansson (2002)
 H. Tuorila, E. Monteleone / Trends in Food Science & Technology 20 (2009) 54e62
120
Con Sen Con+Sen
100
80
No. of papers
60
40
20
0 found their way to sensory food research. Kahneman and
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Year
Fig. 1. Number of published papers listed with the keyword sensory
(Sen), consumer (Con) or both (Sen Con), in two journals devoted
to sensory research, Food Quality and Preference and Journal of
Sensory Studies, in years 1993e2007.
conditions was assumed to impact the acceptance and pur-
chase behaviour. Furthermore, the impact was expected to
depend on the consumer segment based on demographics,
experiences and attitudes. Responses of specific age groups,
such as children and elderly, became increasingly interest-
ing to researchers and relevant industries. It was also real-
ised that rated liking for a product heavily depends on
expectations deriving from previous experience or other
available information. Approaches and instruments to char-
acterise consumers and their responses to food are exten-
sively described in a recent collection of articles in
a book edited by MacFie (2007).
Interest in consumer responses to ethnic or unfamiliar
foods has gained attention in the past 15e20 years. At its
early steps, such research was driven by the urge to under-
stand differences in chemosensory perceptions in different
geographic locations (Pangborn, Guinard, & Davis,
1988). The availability of an instrument to characterise
individual variations in responses to unfamiliar foods, the
food neophobia scale (Pliner & Hobden, 1992), has accel-
erated research.
Contributions from other disciplines
At the intersection of disciplines, sensory food scientists
need to be alerted by developments in relevant fields, both
those representing fundamental sciences and those closer to
consumer research.
Research on perceptual mechanisms, both at the periph-
eral and central level, has made great progress. Research on
genetics of perception (Buck & Axel, 1991), and brain re-
sponses including multimodal perception (Small, 2008)
contribute to understanding how the apparatuses central
for the perception of food function. Dalton, Doolittle,
59
Nagata, and Breslin (2000) demonstrated the perception
of benzaldehyde odour to be facilitated by simultaneously
perceived sweetness. Multimodal perception is assumingly
the underlying reason for visual illusion, the dominating
role of product appearance in chemosensory perception
(Morrot, Brochet, & Dubourdieu, 2001). Such new infor-
mation on flavour perception also has implications for ap-
plied research. Multidisciplinary collaboration helps to
sort out genetic and inherited influences on chemosensory
preferences (e.g., Keskitalo et al., 2007; Knaapila et al.,
2008).
Research methods and approaches in consumer science
and marketing stimulate research in applied research. For
example conjoint analysis and laddering (Table 1) have
2005 2007 Snell (1992) has inspired studies on food memories (e.g.,
Rode, Rozin, & Durlach, 2007) and future food choices
(e.g., Mustonen, Hissa, Huotilainen, Miettinen, & Tuorila,
2007). Given the increase in sensory-consumer research,
such exploitation is likely to increase, and will hopefully
lead to collaboration with relevant parties. Along with
food neophobia and expectations discussed above, psycho-
logical concepts, such as craving and disgust, give insight
into food behaviour and thus help us to better understand
tricky consumer responses.
Future opportunities and challenges
Current food production and consumption are a subject
of controversies (see MacFie, 2007). Western consumers
are increasingly concerned about the impact of food on
their health. They are attracted by naturalness and freshness
of food, while new technologies arouse concerns about
environment, intensive production, genetically modified in-
gredients, and animal welfare. They look for solutions from
functional products or from local or organic production,
and they show a wide range of hedonic and other orienta-
tions, some shared and others that differ based on geo-
graphical or cultural differences. On the other hand, many
consumers in developing countries are struggling to earn
their daily staple food. Whether foods are produced and
consumed in affluent or poor conditions, sensory food sci-
ence can contribute to better understanding of the reasons
for acceptance or rejection of foods, and help to anticipate
long-term preferences. This requires recognition of the po-
tential of the discipline beyond sensory evaluation prac-
tices, and flexible collaboration with other experts. Below
are listed a few mega trends of food production for which
sensory food science can make contributions.
Healthful foods for normal- and overweight population
Foods with reduced energy content due to reduced quan-
tities of fat or sucrose are well established in the market,
and sensory-hedonic consequences of changes in ingredi-
ents, and their remedies, have been pinpointed. Yet the obe-
sity epidemic continues to grow. Although changed
lifestyles, situational factors, and economical status are
60 H. Tuorila, E. Monteleone / Trends in Food Science & Technology 20 (2009) 54e62
major contributing factors (e.g., Drewnowski & Specter,
2004), there is no way to ignore the need for tasty foods
in the growing segment of dieters and overweight people.
New foods for the weight control market, such as those
maximizing satiety, naturally require sensory testing and
consumer acceptance research.
A more fundamental question is the relative importance
of sensory appreciation in reward from eating (Berridge
& Robinson, 2003). It has been suggested that liking for
a product is a weak predictor of consumption, while urge
to eat, wanting, may play a crucial role in the obesity epi-
demic (Mela, 2006). Sensory food scientists may need to
push the boundaries of the discipline one more time to un-
derstand the dimensions of reward besides liking, and seek
reliable ways to measure those dimensions to predict prod-
uct success in the current market for diet foods. Sensory
scientists are also appropriate partners for the pursuit of
a balance of enjoyment from food and proper nutritional
qualities.
Even without an emphasis on calories, the sensory per-
spective to healthful eating is important. For example,
high correlations of fruit and vegetable intake and ratings
of liking among children (Baxter & Thompson, 2002) raise
the question about how to best enhance liking for healthful
foods.
Acceptance of alternative production techniques
Consumer responses to products vary based on informa-
tion of production techniques (Cardello, 2003), and prod-
ucts based on genetically modified raw materials create
controversial responses (Lahteenmaki et al., 2002). Organic
produce may sometimes have favourable and other times
unfavourable sensory properties, as many factors affect pro-
duction (Bourn & Prescott, 2002). Consumer perceptions of
different production techniques are likely to show in per-
ceived quality and overall acceptance. Even when a sensory
difference is not real (not perceived in blind condition),
it may affect purchase decision. When the aim is to im-
prove the quality of organic produce, sensory research is
essential.
Cross-cultural food preferences and globalization
Companies expanding their markets worldwide adjust
sensory quality of products to meet the expectations of
the populations in target countries. Sensory research is
essential for defining optimal sensory properties of these
products. Immigration to Western countries creates situa-
tions in which flavour preferences from different food cul-
tures need to be taken into consideration in planning the
catering services for schools, hospitals, and other commu-
nity-based feeding occasions. The acquisition of food pref-
erences of another food culture can be a challenge, because
adhering to traditional foods is a cornerstone of cultural
heritage (Lambden, Receveur, & Kuhnlein, 2007). System-
atic sensory information of cross-cultural preferences and
their underlying mechanisms would help catering services
in the definition of acceptable options, i.e., in minimising
waste. Understanding the character of cuisines of different
populations is essential both for business and for social
reasons.
Catering services and the acceptance of meals
Changing lifestyles have increased the share of meals
eaten outside of the home. Furthermore, the growing seg-
ment of the elderly need catering services at home and in
institutions. Fine meals are an important business in all in-
dustrial countries, but their essentials, such as combining
food and wine, have not been researched well.
Research has been conducted on the nature of meals in
general (see Meiselman, 2000), on consumer perceptions
of institutional meals (Cardello, Bell, & Kramer, 1996),
on the contributions of individual meal items to overall ac-
ceptance, and on the mutual interactions between meal
items (see Meiselman, 2000). There is plenty of space for
further research, e.g., into modelling mutual sensory inter-
actions of food and beverage, on principles of meal accep-
tance and, in a more applied line, meal quality and changes
during the production and serving chain. Meal is a complex
sensory experience, and with the current tools of sensory
food science, its essential features do not easily lend them-
selves to scientific analysis. However, with accumulating
attempts and innovative approaches, this area could achieve
scientific status and recognition. Tools for predicting con-
sumer satisfaction grow in importance when the catering
sector grows.
Scarcity of food and the reservoirs for alternative
materials
Is sensory food science only for affluent societies where
consumers can afford themselves the luxury of optimised
sensory properties and the maximal enjoyment from
food? It may seem so, but there are great opportunities
for sensory research in the design of foods for less affluent
societies. Whatever economical status, people want to eat
tasty food typical of their own culture and tradition (e.g.,
Lambden et al., 2007). Any food aid should respect local
food traditions. If the long and difficult course from bio-
technological or other nutritional innovations (Anupama
& Ravindra, 2000; Verkerk, Tarmper, van Trijp, & Martens,
2007) to the table of consumers is to be engaged, it requires
skilful consideration of the sensory aspects of a product.
Conclusion
Sensory food science is a discipline increasingly needed
for better understanding of the drivers of consumer prefer-
ence. Sensory evaluation is an essential technique for food
industry, now and in the future. Because of acute and long-
terms industrial and societal needs, consumer-oriented
sensory research is likely to strengthen. In the changing so-
ciety, new issues relevant for science and industry are likely
to emerge. For the progress of the field and for the avoid-
ance of its regression to simple sensory evaluation services
 H. Tuorila, E. Monteleone / Trends in Food Science & Technology 20 (2009) 54e62
in applied environments, it is necessary 1) to provide high-
level basic training and opportunities for university students
to specialise in the field, 2) to direct proper funding for ba-
sic research in the field and 3) to foster further collabora-
tion of sensory food science and other scientific disciplines.
References
Anupama, & Ravindra, P. (2000). Value-added food: single cell
protein. Biotechnology Advances, 18, 459e479.
Aubry, V., Schlich, P., Issanchou, S., & Et`evant, P. (1999). Comparison
of wine discrimination with orthonasal and retronasal profilings.
Food Quality and Preference, 10, 253e259.
Ballester, J., Dacremont, C., Le Fur, Y., & Etievant, P. (2005). The role of
olfaction in the elaboration and use of the Chardonnay wine
concept. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 351e359.
Baxter, S. D., & Thompson, W. O. (2002). Fourth-grade childrens
consumption of fruit and vegetable items available as part of school
lunches is closely related to preferences. Journal of Nutrition
Education, 34, 166e171.
Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2003). Parsing reward. Trends in
Neurosciences, 26, 507e513.
Bourn, D., & Prescott, J. (2002). A comparison of the nutritional value,
sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally
produced foods. Critical Reviews of Food Science and Nutrition,
42, 1e34.
Breslin, P., & Spector, A. C. (2008). Mammalian taste perception.
Current Biology, 18, R148eR155.
Brossaud, F., Cheynier, V., & Noble, A. C. (2001). Bitterness and
astringency of grape and wine polyphenols. Australian Journal of
Grape and Wine Research, 7, 33e39.
Bruns, K., & Grunert, K. G. (2007). Consumer attitude measures and
food product development. In Hal Macfie (Ed.), Consumer-led food
product development (pp. 197e222), Woodhead, Cambridge, UK.
Buck, L., & Axel, R. (1991). A novel multigene family may encode odorant
receptors: a molecular basis for odor recognition. Cell, 65, 175e187.
Cardello, A. V. (2003). Consumer concerns and expectations about
novel food processing technologies: effects on product liking.
Appetite, 40, 217e233.
Cardello, A. V., Bell, R., & Kramer, M. F. (1996). Attitudes of consumers
toward military and other institutional foods. Food Quality and
Preference, 7, 7e20.
Cardello, A. V., & Schutz, H. G. (2004). Numerical scale point loca-
tions for constructing the LAM (labeled affective magnitude) scale.
Journal of Sensory Studies, 19, 341e346.
Cartier, R., Rytz, A., Lecomte, A., Poblete, F., Krystlik, J., Belin, E., et al.
(2006). Sorting procedure as an alternative to a product sensory
map. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 562e571.
Colonna, A. E., Adams, D. O., & Noble, A. C. (2004). Comparison of pro-
cedures for reducing astringency carry-over effects in evaluation of red
wines. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 10, 26e31.
Costa, A. I.de A., Schoolmeester, D., Dekker, M., & Jongen, W. M. F.
(2007). To cook or not to cook: a means-end study of motives for
choice of meal solutions. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 77e88.
Cristovam, E., Paterson, A., & Piggott, J. R. (2000). Development of
a vocabulary of terms for sensory evaluation of dessert port wines.
Italian Journal of Food Science, 12, 129e142.
Dalton, P., Doolittle, N., Nagata, H., & Breslin, P. A. S. (2000). The
merging of the senses: integration of subthreshold taste and smell.
Nature Neuroscience, 3, 431e432.
Delarue, J., & Sieffermann, J.-M. (2004). Sensory mapping using flash
profile. Comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the
evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy products. Food Quality and
Preference, 15, 383e392.
61
Drewnowski, A., & Specter, S. E. (2004). Poverty and obesity: the role
of energy density and energy costs. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 79, 6e16.
Enneking, U., Neumann, C., & Henneberg, S. (2007). How important
intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes affect purchase decision.
Food Quality and Preference, 18, 133e138.
Essed, N. H., van Staveren, W. A., Kok, F. J., & De Graaf, C. (2007). No
effect of 16 weeks flavor enhancement on dietary intake and
nutritional status of nursing home elderly. Appetite, 48, 29e36.
Gawel, R., & Godden, P. W. (2008). Evaluation of the consistency of
wine quality assessments from expert wine tasters. Australian
Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 14, 1e8.
Gawel, R., Iland, P. G., & Francis, I. L. (2001). Characterizing the astringency
of red wine: a case study. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 83e94.
Gonza`les-Tomas, L., & Costell, E. (2006). Sensory evaluation of
vanilla-dairy desserts by repertory grid method and free choice
profile. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 20e33.
Green, B., Dalton, P., Cowart, B., Shaffer, G., Rankin, K., & Higgins, J.
(1996). Evaluating the Labeled Magnitude Scale for measuring
sensations of taste and smell. Chemical Senses, 21, 323e334.
Hersleth, M., Mevik, B. H., Naes, T., & Guinard, J. X. (2003). Effect of
contextual factors on liking for wine e use of robust design
methodology. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 345e349.
Hughson, A. L., Ashman, H., De La Huerga, V., & Moskowitz, H.
(2004). Mind-sets of the wine consumer. Journal of Sensory Studies,
19, 85e105.
Hughson, A. L., & Boakes, R. A. (2002). The knowing nose: the role of
knowledge in wine expertise. Food Quality and Preference, 13,
463e472.
Institute of Food Science and Technology (2005). Ethical and profes-
sional practices for the sensory analysis of foods. Policy statement.
Available from www.ifst.org/csmift.htm. 4 p.
Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. (1992). Predicting changing taste: do people
know what they will like? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,
5, 187e200.
Keskitalo, K., Knaapila, A., Kallela, M., Palotie, A., Wessman, M.,
Sammalisto, S., et al. (2007). Sweet taste preferences are partly
genetically determined; identification of a trait locus on chromo-
some 16. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 86, 55e63.
King, M. J., Cliff, M. A., & Hall, J. W. (1998). Comparison of projective
mapping and sorting data collection and multi variate methodo-
logies for identification of similarity-of-use of snack bars. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 13, 347e358.
Knaapila, A., Tuorila, H., Silventoinen, K., Wright, M. J.,
Kyvik, K. O., Keskitalo, K., et al. (2008). Environmental effects
exceed genetic effects on perceived intensity and pleasantness of
several odors: a three-population twin study. Behavioral Genet-
ics, 38, 484e492.
Koskinen, S., Nenonen, A., & Tuorila, H. (2005). Intakes of cold
cuts in the elderly are predicted by olfaction and mood, but not
by flavor type or intensity of the products. Physiology & Be-
havior, 85, 314e323.
Kremer, S., Bult, J. H., Mojet, J., & Kroeze, J. H. A. (2007). Compensation
of age-associated chemosensory losses and its effect on the pleas-
antness of a custard dessert and a tomato drink. Appetite, 48, 96e103.
Lahteenmaki, L., Grunert, K., Ueland, O., A strom, A., Arvola, A., &
Bech-Larsen, T. (2002). Acceptability of genetically modified
cheese presented as real product alternative. Food Quality and
Preference, 13, 523e533.
Lambden, J., Receveur, O., & Kuhnlein, H. V. (2007). Traditional food
attributes must be included in studies of food security in the Canadian
Arctic. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 66, 308e319.
Lawless, H., Liu, Y. F., & Goldwyn, C. (1997). Evaluation of wine
quality using a small-panel hedonic scaling method. Journal of
Sensory Studies, 12, 317e332.
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (1999). Sensory evaluation of food:
Principles and practices. Gaithersburg: Aspen.
62 H. Tuorila, E. Monteleone / Trends in Food Science & Technology 20 (2009) 54e62
Lawless, H. T., Sheng, N., & Knoops, S. (1995). Multidimensional
scaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception. Food Quality
and Preference, 6, 91e98.
Le Reverend, F. M., Hidrioa, C., Fernandesa, A., & Aubrya, V. (2008).
Comparison between temporal dominance of sensations and time
intensity results. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 174e178.
Lee, S. J., & Noble, A. C. (2003). Characterization of odor-active
compounds in Californian Chardonnay wines using GCeolfac-
tometry and GCemass spectrometry. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry, 51, 8036e8044.
Lesschaeve, I. (2007). Sensory evaluation of wine and commercial
realities: review of current practices and perspectives. American
Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 58, 252e258.
MacFie, H. J. H. (2007). Consumer-led food product development.
Cambridge, UK: Woodhead.
Madrigal-Galan, B., & Heymann, H. (2006). Sensory effects of con-
suming cheese prior to evaluating red wine flavour. American
Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 57, 12e22.
Meiselman, H. L. (2000). The dimensions of meals. Gaithersburg:
Aspen.
Meiselman, H. L., & Schutz, H. G. (2003). History of food acceptance
research in the US Army. Appetite, 40, 199e216.
Mela, D. J. (2006). Eating for pleasure or just wanting to eat? Recon-
sidering sensory hedonic responses as a driver of obesity. Appetite,
47, 10e17.
Monteleone, E., Condelli, N., Dinnella, C., & Bertuccioli, M. (2004).
Prediction of perceived astringency induced by phenolic com-
pounds. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 179e186.
Monteleone, E., Raats, M. M., & Mela, D. J. (1997). Perceptions of
starchy food dishes: application of the repertory grid method.
Appetite, 28, 255e265.
Morrot, G., Brochet, F., & Dubourdieu, D. (2001). The color of odors.
Brain and Language, 79, 309e320.
Moskowitz, H., & Hartmann, J. (2008). Consumer research: creating
a solid base for innovative strategies. Trends in Food Science and
Technology, 19, 581e589.
Murphy, C., Cain, W. S., & Hegsted, D. M. (1989). Nutrition and the
chemical senses in aging: Recent advances and current research
needs. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.
Mustonen, S., Hissa, I., Huotilainen, A., Miettinen, S.-M., & Tuorila, H.
(2007). Hedonic responses as predictors of food choice: flexibility
and self-prediction. Appetite, 49, 159e168.
Mustonen, S., & Tuorila, H. (2007). Rejoinder: the unfulfilled promise
of flavor enhancement. ChemoSense, 9(3), 7e9.
Nestrud, M. A., & Lawless, H. T. (2008). Perceptual mapping of citrus juices
using projective mapping and profiling data from culinary profes-
sionals and consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 431e438.
Noronha, R. L., Damasio, M. H., Pivatto, M. M., & Negrillo, B. G.
(1995). Development of the attributes and panel screening for
texture descriptive analysis of milk gels aided by multivariate sta-
tistical procedures. Food Quality and Preference, 6, 49e54.
Nygren, I. T., Gustafsson, I. B., & Johansson, L. (2002). Perceived fla-
vour changes in white wine after tasting blue mould cheese. Food
Service Technology, 2, 163e171.
ONeill, L., Nicklaus, S., & Sauvageot, F. O. (2003). A matching task as
a potential technique for descriptive profile validation. Food
Quality and Preference, 14, 539e547.
Page`s, J. (2005). Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-
distances using multiple factor analysis: application to the study of
10 white wines from the Loire Valley. Food Quality and Preference,
16, 642e649.
Pangborn, R. M. (1989). The evolution of sensory science and its
interaction with IFT. Food Technology, 43(9), 248e256, 307.
Pangborn, R. M., Guinard, J.-X., & Davis, R. G. (1988). Regional aroma
preferences. Food Quality and Preference, 1, 11e19.
Parr, W. V., Green, J. A., & White, K. G. (2006). Wine judging, context
and New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc. European Review of Applied
Psychology, 56, 231e238.
Parr, W. V., White, K. G., & Heatherbell, D. A. (2004). Exploring the nature
of wine expertise: what underlies wine experts olfactory recognition
memory advantage? Food Quality and Preference, 15, 411e420.
Pickering, G. J., Karthik, A., Inglis, D., Sears, M., & Ker, K. (2007).
Determination of ortho- and retronasal detection thresholds for
2-isopropyl-3-methoxypyrazine in wine. Journal of Food Science,
72, S468eS472.
Piggott, J. R., & Watson, M. P. (1992). A Comparison of free-choice
profile and the repertory grid method in the flavor profile of cider.
Journal of Sensory Studies, 7, 133e145.
Pineau, N., Pessina, R., Cordelle, S., Imbert, A., Rogeaux, M., &
Schlich, P. (2004). Temporal dominance of sensations: Comparison
with conventional profiling and time intensity. In 7th Sensometrics
conference, oral presentation.
Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the
trait of food neophobia for edible substances. Appetite, 19, 105e120.
Poelman, A., Mojet, J., Lyon, D., & Sefa-Dedeh, S. (2008). The influ-
ence of information about organic production and fair trade on
preferences for and perception of pineapple. Food Quality and
Preference, 19, 114e121.
Prescott, J., Norris, L., Kunst, M., & Kim, S. (2005). Estimating
a consumer rejection threshold for cork taint in white wine.
Food Quality and Preference, 16, 345e349.
Raats, M. M., & Shepherd, R. (1991e1992). An evaluation of the use
and perceived appropriateness of milk using the repertory grid
method and the item by use appropriateness method. Food
Quality and Preference, 3, 89e100.
Risvik, E., McEwan, J. A., & Rodbotten, M. (1997). Evaluation of sen-
sory profiling and projective mapping data. Food Quality and
Preference, 8, 63e71.
Rode, E., Rozin, P., & Durlach, P. (2007). Experienced and remem-
bered pleasure for meals: duration neglect but minimal peak, end
(recency) or primacy effects. Appetite, 49, 18e29.
Roininen, K., Fillion, L., Kilcast, D., & Lahteenmaki, L. (2004). Ex-
ploring difficult textural properties of fruit and vegetables for the
elderly in Finland and the United Kingdom. Food Quality and
Preference, 15, 517e530.
Sauvageot, F. O., Urdapilleta, I., & Peyron, D. (2006). Within and
between variations of texts elicited from nine wine experts. Food
Quality and Preference, 17, 429e444.
Schutz, H. G., & Cardello, A. V. (2001). A labeled affective magnitude
(LAM) scale for assessing food liking/disliking. Journal of Sensory
Studies, 16, 117e159.
Small, D. M. (2008). Flavor and the formation of category e specific
processing in olfaction. Chemosensory Perception, 1, 136e146.
Solheim, R., & Lawless, H. T. (1996). Consumer purchase probability
affected by attitude towards low-fat foods, liking, private body
consciousness and information on fat and price. Food Quality and
Preference, 7, 137e143.
Tang, C., & Heymann, H. (2002). Multidimensional sorting, similarity
scaling and free choice profiling of grape jellies. Journal of Sensory
Studies, 17, 493e509.
Van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H. C. M., & Luning, P. (2005). Consumer re-
search in the early stages of new product development: a critical
review of methods and technique. Food Quality and Preference,
16, 181e201.
Verkerk, M. C., Tarmper, J., van Trijp, J. C., & Martens, D. F. (2007). Insect
cells for human food. Biotechnology Advances, 25, 198e202.
Vidal, S., Courcoux, P., Francis, L., Kwiatkowski, M., Gawel, R.,
Williams, P., et al. (2004). Use of an experimental design approach
for evaluation of key wine components on mouth-feel perception.
Food Quality and Preference, 15, 209e217.