The Science Behind Sugar Reduction: Ingredient Functionality Beyond TastePosted on:August 15, 2017
August 15, 2017–The following presentation is from the “2016 Sweetener Systems Conference Summary,” sponsored by Orochem. All presentations and/or adapted versions made available by the speakers are posted on Global Food Forums Inc’s store page. Please consider attending our 2017 Sweetener Systems Conference, November 7th, at the Westin Hotel, Lombard, Ill., USA.What if the development or reformulation of a product was entirely predictable? What if it was a process informed by science, rather than “gut feel”—allowing consistency and quality to be controlled on a global scale, regardless of differences in processing, packaging or the ingredient supply chain?
This was the objective sought by Leatherhead Food Research (UK) Professor Kathy Groves, Head of Science and Microscopy. “If you want to reduce sugar in foods and—this is important—make high-quality products anywhere in the world, then you need to have a proper blueprint of your products,” said Groves.
“Blueprint” refers to a technical map that tells a product developer or food scientist how a product is affected when specific parameters are changed: the effect of formula or process changes on product state, process, structure, texture and sensory properties, for example. While acknowledging that developing such a blueprint is not an easy proposition without access to the relevant technical skillsets, “not doing so for a product (with mass market appeal) can create significant inefficiencies in your product development process. The cost of not doing a blueprint far outweighs the cost of doing one,” said Groves.
How does one begin to develop such a blueprint? Begin by laying out the various parameters that define product performance and quality attributes, such as texture, chemistry, nutritional ingredient functionality and nutritional value, to cite a few examples. Each parameter is, in turn, defined by a list of specific attributes or other variables, such as “foam or emulsion interface” under ingredient functionality, or “viscosity and rheology” under texture. Such a blueprint provides a checklist for product and process developers whereby to address product-related issues in a systematic manner.
To demonstrate the concept, Groves provided the example of a biscuit’s (i.e., cookie) microstructure and its relationship to texture and other quality parameters. She began by showing a crumb structure as seen under a conventional stereomicroscope, emphasizing that the observable crumb structure has “everything to do with your experience when you eat it.”
If one cuts a thin slice through the crumb, one observes “a matrix of starch, protein, sugar and fat throughout the crumb structure.” Transmitted cross-polarized light through the slice causes anything with ordered crystallinity (e.g., sugar, fat) to appear white and, when stained, the matrix becomes much clearer, further distinguishing the positions of starches and proteins in the matrix.
The next step is to zoom into the structure with a scanning electron microscope. Air gaps become evident, which affect the fracture mechanics “when one bites into the product,” said Groves. Changing the type of detector in the electron microscope
brings out the (white) fat in the image. Fat distribution can affect taste perception–i.e., a creamy mouthfeel associated with fat particles that are broadly distributed over the crumb surface. Such microstructure data can then be linked with other techniques, such as texture or audio analyses, to determine chewing properties or brittleness, in order to further enhance the blueprint.
What happens to the product blueprint if we replace sugar in the biscuit with a typically used alternative bulk sweetener? Whereas the sugar formula exhibits evenly distributed sugar, fat, starch and protein, these fat, protein and starch interactions are very different
in the biscuit crumb with the alternative bulk sweetener. Also, the structure (viewed under a scanning electron microscope) appears very uneven; large gaps and major differences in fat distribution were evident.
“All these observed differences contribute to very different eating sensations,” said Groves. Texture analysis reveals that the sugar formula results in a harder biscuit than with the alternative bulk sweetener product.
It is clear that removing sugar has enormous implications for a biscuit’s microstructure, which in turn has implications for texture, flavor and shelflife. Developing a blueprint for a product’s ingredient function, chemistry, nutritional value, texture and other values provides a map for product formula and process adjustment, or new product development.
“Once you start doing this, it gets better, it gets easier, you become more informed—and you can extend that accumulated knowledge to other product applications,” concluded Groves.
“The Science Behind Sugar Reduction: Ingredient Functionality Beyond Taste,” Prof. Kathy Groves, Head of Science & Microscopy and Consultant, Leatherhead Food Research, Kathy.Groves@ LeatherheadFood.com
Simply Sweet: Make Foods and Beverages Sweeter with Sight, Smell, Sound and TouchPosted on:August 1, 2017
August 1, 2017–The following presentation is from the “2016 Sweetener Systems Conference Summary,” sponsored by Orochem. All presentations and/or adapted versions made available by the speakers are posted on Global Food Forums Inc’s store page. Please consider attending our 2017 Sweetener Systems Conference, November 7th, at the Westin Hotel, Lombard, Ill., USA.“How do you make food and beverages sweet without using sugar?” asked Alex Woo, Ph.D., CEO and Founder of W2O Food Innovation. Answering his own question, he continued, “You can do this by combining a basic understanding of neuroscience and ingredient technology.”
Woo began his presentation by expanding upon conventional concepts of “flavor,” setting the stage whereby to show how to systematically achieve a 12% sucrose-level of sweetness typically associated with carbonated, sugared beverages. He proposed a pyramidal approach to using low- or no-calorie sweetener alternatives.
First, said Woo, flavor is not just about the five primary tastes. “Flavor is also 80-90% influenced by smell in the nose.” Touch receptors in the mouth let us distinguish between grainy, creamy or crunchy foods. Sound has been labeled “the forgotten flavor sense” by one academic researcher. “So, when we are talking about flavor in foods, we are really talking about the full integration of all five senses…smell, taste, sight, touch and hearing.” Each of these senses is called a “modality.”
Woo briefly summarized the different taste receptors in the mouth. “We are hard-wired to make no mistakes in detecting primary tastes, in large part, for survival reasons.” Signals from different taste and other receptors are integrated into perceived flavors by the brain.
In order to remove sugar from a product while protecting its sweet taste perception, Woo proposed “a methodology similar to stacking layers onto a pyramid in order to achieved the desired sweet taste intensity.”
First, there is a foundational layer comprising a high-potency, plant-based sweetener (HPS), such as stevia. If the stevia is stacked with monk fruit (not yet approved in the EU) in a 2:1 ratio (200-100ppm), this achieves about 6% sucrose equivalence (SE) in sweetness. This is equivalent to about a 50% sucrose reduction for most beverages in the market, said Woo.
The next step is to add a bulk non- or low-caloric sweetener, such as erythritol or allulose, to boost the sweetness by an additional 2% to approximately 8% SE. “Less is more,” counseled Woo. You want to add just enough of each sweetener to maximize its sweetness effect without contributing off-flavors. In addition, there are the time-intensity curves to be considered, as addressed by John Fry, Connect Consulting, in his presentation.
The next step on the pyramid relies upon “cross-modal correspondence.” This refers to the integration of multiple signals from all five senses in the brain. Of these, the most important is smell. “We have about 400 smell receptors in the nose that can detect up to trillion different odors” which interact with taste to create flavors. Phantom flavors are those that operate below their own taste detection level but serve to enhance the sweetness of sweeteners. Congruent flavors are aroma molecules above the detection level that are typically associated with sweetness. These include sugar, honey or molasses distillates, tomato aroma, tea distillates or vanilla aroma.
Combined, this achieves about 10% SE. But for carbonated diet beverages, one will need a 12% SE. This requires “cross-modal modulation,” involving the interplay between the other sensory modalities.
Touch, including temperature sensations and carbonation (a pain agent), can mute differences between different artificial, high-potency sweeteners, making them more like sucrose. Lower temperatures make stevia more potent, while higher temperature increases sweetness perception in chocolate.
Sight: Shape (roundness) is associated with sweetness. Symmetrical and minimal features serve to enhance sweetness perceptions by 10-30% (in chocolates, for example). Such associations also exist in nature, where round fruits are associated with
sweetness. The color red is also associated with sweetness. Woo noted that both Coke and Pepsi’s carbonated beverages emphasize round shapes and red colors in their packaging.
Sound has been easy to overlook, but there is considerable documentation linking it to sweetness perception. High-pitched music has been associated with increased sweetness, whereas lowpitched music suggests increased bitterness.
Combined, this pyramidal combination of ingredients based on neuroscience serves to attain the 12% SE target for sweetness.
“Simply Sweet: Updates on How to Make Foods and Beverages Sweeter with Sight, Smell, Sound and Touch,” Alex Woo, Ph.D., CEO and Founder of W2O Food Innovation, Alex.Woo123@gmail.com
How High-potency Sweeteners Work and What to Do about ItPosted on:July 17, 2017
July 17, 2017–The following presentation is from the “2016 Sweetener Systems Conference Summary,” sponsored by Orochem. All presentations and/or adapted versions made available by the speakers are posted on Global Food Forums Inc’s store page. Please consider attending our 2017 Sweetener Systems Conference, November 7th, at the Westin Hotel, Lombard, Ill., USA.Food scientists have available to them a range of high-potency sweeteners, but are they being used effectively? Maximizing the potential of these ingredients in foods and beverages is of paramount importance to product development. John Fry, Ph.D., of UK-based Connect Consulting, explained, however, that “rather than emphasize how these sweeteners work, I spend a great deal of time talking about how they don’t work and offering remedies.”
To know how to do this, one needs first to understand the physiology of sweetness receptors. Sweet taste receptors in the mouth are complex protein structures crossing the cell walls of sweet-sensing taste cells. The taste cells are contained within taste buds, distributed in the papillae of the tongue. The buds communicate with the exterior saliva via a taste “pore,” within which are tiny projections of the taste cells, called microvilli. The receptor proteins are on the microvilli and comprise four zones:
1) A “Venus fly trap” structure outside the taste cell and in contact with saliva;
2) an external, cysteine-rich protein chain connecting the Venus fly trap to:
3) a transmembrane zone of seven helical strands of protein, terminating in:
4) an intracellular protein thread that interacts with the taste cell contents and triggers a complex series of biochemical reactions, culminating in a nerve signal to the brain that signifies “sweet.”
The primary route for humans to sense sweetness requires two such receptors, T1R2 and T1R3, intertwined. This arrangement affords multiple points where the proteins can interact with the wide variety of substances we experience as sweet. A given high-potency sweetener generally interacts with only one or two such sites on the receptor complex.
There is, in addition, a secondary mechanism by which humans can also detect the sweetness of certain sugars, but this route does not respond to high-potency sweeteners.
Another aspect of so-called “high-intensity” sweeteners, continued Fry, is that they are actually “low-intensity.” Few can achieve even 10% sucrose equivalent (the approximate sweetness intensity of many fruit juices and soft drinks) on their own.
In contrast, sucrose itself can deliver much higher sweetness intensities. “This is why I prefer to refer to them as ‘high-potency,’ rather than high-intensity sweeteners,” Fry averred. Providing an example of a typical response curve, Fry indicated the maximum sweetening effect of Rebaudioside A (Reb A) occurs at about 5-800ppm concentration and exhibits a sweetness level roughly equivalent to an 8% sucrose solution.
All high-potency sweeteners have similarly shaped concentration-response curves that plateau at some relatively low sweetness intensity. Continued Fry, “So, if you double the concentration of a high-potency sweetener, you do not get double the sweetness. In contrast, sucrose has a linear response of sweetness to concentration.”
In addition, different high-potency sweeteners have different time-intensity relationships that can affect their taste profile. Fry noted that combining acesulfame-K (AceK), which exhibits a quick onset and rapid drop-off of sweetness, with slow-onset, more-lingering aspartame, more closely mimics the sweetness profile of sucrose.
This relationship is also “quantitatively synergistic.” That is, the combined sweetness from these two sweeteners exceeds that which would have been predicted based on the properties of each sweetener alone. (See chart “Synergies of Low-intensity/High-potency Sweeteners.”)
“This suggests that we can get synergistic enhancements of sweetness by combining high-potency sweeteners that react at different parts of the receptor structures,” concluded Fry. Nevertheless, while none of the available high-potency sweeteners
alone generates sweetness intensities greater than that of about 15% sucrose solution, synergistic effects between different molecules also disappear around this level. Despite the fact that synergism will not furnish true high intensities, the effect is much used to maximize the effectiveness and taste quality of zero-calorie sweeteners in foods and beverages.
As Fry explained, use of high-potency sweeteners at levels approaching their sweetness plateau is a costly waste. In addition, at these elevated concentrations, many sweeteners exhibit intrinsic off-tastes (e.g., a bitter-metallic taste for saccharin). Blends allow product developers to keep individual sweeteners below the thresholds for off-taste development, while achieving quantitative synergies and, thus, minimizing cost.
Fry addressed other factors that can enhance the effectiveness of high-potency sweeteners, particularly in relation to typical issues of slow onset and lingering sweetness. Citing the “non-specific binding” hypothesis, he noted that increasing the osmotic pressure of food and beverage systems “compresses the time-intensity profiles of sweeteners,” thus speeding onset and reducing linger to produce more sucrose-like taste dynamics with almost any high-potency sweetener.
Hydrocolloids, sometimes used to remedy mouthfeel losses when sugars are removed, can also benefit the dynamics of sweetness perception by reducing the impact of non-specific binding. However, “perhaps the ultimate solution to the different taste qualities of high-potency sweeteners is not to use them at all,” suggested Fry. He pointed to a relatively new category of compounds, known as positive allosteric modulators (PAMs), that have no sweetness or flavor of their own but can greatly enhance the sweetness intensity of conventional sweeteners, such as sucrose.
Reduced-sugar formulations could thus be made that still deliver full sweetness and with all the taste qualities of the original sugar.
“How High-potency Sweeteners Work and What to Do about It,” John Fry, Ph.D., Director, Connect Consulting, email@example.com
Caloric Sweeteners and Health: What is the Truth?Posted on:June 15, 2017
June 16, 2017–The following presentation is from the “2016 Sweetener Systems Conference Summary,” sponsored by Orochem. All presentations and/or adapted versions made available by the speakers are posted on Global Food Forums Inc’s store page. Please consider attending our 2017 Sweetener Systems Conference, November 7th, at the Westin Hotel, Lombard, Ill., USA.
Panel: Sweeteners and Nutrition: New Developments & Reality Checks
Panel #1: Caloric Sweeteners and Health: What is the Truth?
Caloric sweeteners are under siege. Very recently, the U.S. National Science Foundation’s Institute of Medicine (IOM) declared there was insufficient evidence upon which to set upper limits to caloric sweetener consumption, but it nonetheless recommended that they constitute no more than 25% of total calories. This recommendation was based not upon health issue mitigation, but on preventing the displacement of foods that contribute essential nutrients to the diet.
In contrast, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee declared that caloric sugar consumption should be limited to no more than 10% of dietary calories, due to “negative impacts” on type II diabetes, cardiovascular health and dental caries. The WHO also supported a policy of limiting caloric sweetener consumption to no more than 10% of the diet and, perhaps, to less than 5% of the diet. “And…there is now talk of imposing world-wide sugar consumption taxes,” said Anderson.
“Obesity is the public health concern that started this campaign,” explained Anderson. “We know that obesity comes from excess food intake, meaning an energy imbalance, but it remains unclear whether obesity develops from physiological systems that
make us susceptible to environmental causes, such as sedentary lifestyles, or from environmental causes alone.”
Therefore, caution is warranted.
With respect to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, for example, “We know that many of the guidelines have proven themselves wrong, over time. We keep shifting around claims, such as fat causes obesity or cardiovascular disease, only to have them later proven wrong.” This has hurt the credibility of nutritional policy-making.
Sweeteners are a normal part of life, and humans are exposed to sweet tastes from in utero to death. There are also many benefits to sweet foods. They tend to be safe; easy to store; easy to transport; require no preparation; and are relatively inexpensive. In addition, caloric sweeteners can play important roles in rendering highly nutritional products palatable, such as bitter fruit (e.g., cranberry) or high-fiber cereal products (e.g., cereal or granola bars).
So, given all these considerations, what does the evidence say? Anderson referenced the work of his University of Toronto colleague, John Sievenpiper, MD, Ph.D., FRCPC. Sievenpiper undertook a systematic review of all published studies linking sweetener consumption to health concerns, in order to critically assess whether caloric sweeteners cause diabetes and obesity (as per the U.S. 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee). He determined that no studies had been able to statistically link caloric sweetener consumption levels to either obesity or diabetes.
Such absences of associations were found for both sucrose and fructose. Certainly, no documented associations were found that could justify public policy-making on caloric sweetener consumption, summarized Anderson.
Sievenpiper also referenced studies that linked the consumption of specific foods to weight gain. Here, a weak but statistically significant association was found between weight gain and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. But, similar gains were also found for French fries, potato chips, nuts, potatoes and, even, yogurt. In sum, the studies appeared only to prove that increased energy consumption leads to weight gain. “If you eat more, you get fatter,” summarized Anderson.
Effects of sugar-sweetened beverage intake on obesity were also more difficult to categorize. Many food intake studies rely upon consumer recall. In general, people can recall their frequency of consumption much better than their quantity of consumption, said Anderson. It also can’t be ascertained whether sugar-sweetened beverage consumption levels translate directly into weight gain or serve as markers for other lifestyle factors that relate to obesity (e.g., sedentary lifestyles).
Put together, these results are inconclusive, maintained Anderson, and there remains far more work to be done before public policy-makers can credibly recommend optimal levels of caloric sweetener consumption.
“Caloric Sweeteners and Health: What is the Truth?” G. Harvey Anderson, Ph.D., University of Toronto Professor of Nutritional Science and Physiology, Harvey.firstname.lastname@example.org
Insights into Challenges of Labeling “Added Sugar”Posted on:June 6, 2017
June 6, 2017 — Why hold a conference on sweetener systems?
Sweetness-enhancing components have long been added to recipes, as well as packaged foods and beverages. However, the perception of sweetness and the impact of any one sweetener ingredient is highly influenced by other ingredients in a food matrix. The need for up-to-date information on sweeteners by product developers has increased. This is because there have been ingredient technological advances; and because there is increased complexity in the sweetener systems used. Other factors include evolving consumer attitudes, progress in nutritional science and, lastly, changes in regulations.
Global Food Forums, Inc. launched its first Sweetener Systems Trends & Technologies Conference (since renamed Sweetener Systems Conference) on November 2, 2016, in
Lombard, Ill., USA. The event proved successful beyond expectations— with over 160 registrants and an abundance of very positive comments. A brief summary of the excellent presentations from this year’s program is provided here.
All presentations and/or adapted versions made available by the speakers are posted on Global Food Forums Inc’s store page.
Please consider attending our 2017 Sweetener Systems Conference, November 7th, at the Westin Hotel, Lombard, Ill., USA.
The following is the first of the presentations from the “2016 Sweetener Systems Conference Summary,” sponsored by Orochem.
Insights into Challenges of Labeling “Added Sugar”Dietary sugar reduction is a global health objective, as per the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO). Thus, the compliance challenges posed by the U.S. Food & Drug Agency’s (FDA) recently published requirement to include “added sugar” as a subhead to the line-item “sugars” on the nutritional label have global implications for all food regulatory agencies.
David Ellingson, MSc, Senior Research Chemist and Project Manager with Covance, an international research laboratory, addressed two issues that should be of primary concern:
1) Industry’s inability to discern between naturally present and added sugars; and
2) the need to establish requirements for dynamic sugar concentrations that vary as a function of processing and storage.
“The FDA regulation defines ‘added sugars’ as either free sugar (mono- and disaccharides), syrups or ‘sugars from concentrated fruit or vegetable juices that are in excess of what would be expected from the same volume of 100% fruit or vegetable juice of the same type,’” explained Ellingson.
There are four exceptions:
1) Fruit or vegetable juice concentrated from 100% juices sold to consumers;
2) fruit or vegetable juice concentrates used towards the total juice percentage label;
3) fruit juice concentrates used to formulate the fruit component of jellies, jams or preserves, or the fruit component of fruit spreads; and
4) lactose from milk.
“There are three high-level scenarios with respect to a product analysis: one being where all sugar is added; one being both natural and added; and a third where all sugars present are natural,” continued Ellingson.
“Typically, when we do an analysis for sugar in our labs, we are looking for these six: glucose, galactose, fructose, sucrose, maltose and lactose. We utilize HPLC and GC applications,” Ellingson noted. Whereas ion chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection is becoming the norm for HPLC-type applications, “more robust” gas chromatography techniques are still popular—even though they require derivatization of sugars prior to analysis. For quick, in-line production screening, a technology such as Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy may be quite adequate. However, he stressed, none of these techniques is capable of distinguishing between “natural” and “added” sugars!
“If a more forensic analysis is needed, laboratories have available a range of analytical techniques to identify the source of a sugar on a qualitative level,” explained Ellingson. Although more sophisticated isotope analyses can distinguish between C12 (found in cane and corn sugars) and C13 (found in maple and beet sugars), they cannot pinpoint the source origin of all sugars. Nonetheless, isotope analyses do offer limited use in identifying adulterants in products and ingredients.”
Continued Ellingson, “By far, the most difficult analytical challenge is when fruits or vegetables that have innate amounts of sugars are mixed with ‘added’ sugars, such as sweetener syrups, to improve taste or sweetness.” This includes products such as juice drinks, breakfast cereals and yogurt beverages.
Providing analytical chemists with a product’s formula in advance allows them to analyze the areas under chromatographic peaks and roughly estimate total sugar contents. If the chromatographic profiles conform to the formula provided, all may be well. However, it is much more difficult to determine whether a food, beverage or ingredient has been adulterated—and by how much—using only such techniques. Analysis of carbon isotope profiles and other impurity markers can flag possible adulteration—but not always.
An additional complication is when non-enzymatic browning, fermentation or other processes affect total sugar content during processing or storage. This is an important consideration for heat-treated products rich in amino acids, sweeteners, and fruit and vegetable ingredients, such as soups or sauces.
When asked a question about how one could establish a label declaration for sugar content for products exhibiting starch breakdown during storage due to acid hydrolysis, Ellingson allowed that this could be a complicating factor: At what point in the process or retail distribution of such products can an accurate determination of sugar content and profile be made? Perhaps a petition to the FDA for a labeling exception would be merited in such cases; the FDA regulations do allow companies to petition for exceptions.
[Note: The final, published FDA “added sugar” labeling regulation can be found in: FDA Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 103/Friday, May 27, 2016/Rules and Regulations].
“Insights into Challenges of Labeling ‘Added’ Sugar,” David Ellingson, MSc, Senior Research Chemist and Project Manager, Covance, David.Ellingson@covance.com
- Antimicrobials in Food 4th Edition [Book]
- Covid-19 and Consumer Attitudes toward Dining [Survey]
- Munzing MAGRABAR Clean Label Defoamers
- On the Cutting Edge of Fruit Juice Sugar Reduction
- Milk and Meat Production Without the Environmental Impact?
- Business Insights from Entrepreneurial Companies—Part 2
- Business Insights from Entrepreneurial Companies—Part 1
- Changes in Food Development, Marketing and Distribution to Consumers
- Consumer Sales Data on Plant and Animal Proteins
- RDA Determination and Over or Under Consumption of Proteins
- July 2020
- May 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- May 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- December 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- April 2013
- January 2013
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- October 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- Animal Proteins Clean Label Consumer Food Trends Dairy Alternatives Dairy Proteins Dietary Fiber Emerging Food Markets Emerging Ingredients and Technologies Fats and Oils Fermentation Flavor Food Additives Food Formulation Food Innovation Food Labeling Food Marketing Food Processing Technologies Food Regulations Food Safety Formulating Baked Products Formulating Beverages Free From Grains and Seeds Ingredient Functionality Label Claims Label Transparency Lifestyle Diets Market Segments Meat Alternatives New Product Trends Non-GMO Nutrition Organic Plant Based Plant Proteins Protein Quality Sensory Perception Sports Nutrition Sugar Reduction Sustainability Sweeteners Sweet Taste Perception Viscosity and Texture Vitamins and Minerals Weight Management