Sugar reduction is a major technical challenge for the food industry to address in response to public health concerns regarding the amount of added sugars in foods. This paper reviews sweet taste perception, sensory methods to evaluate sugar reduction and the merits of different techniques available to reduce sugar content. The use of sugar substitutes (non-nutritive sweeteners, sugar alcohols, and fibres) can achieve the greatest magnitude of sugar and energy reduction, however bitter side tastes and varying temporal sweet profiles are common issues. The use of multisensory integration principles (particularly aroma) can be an effective approach to reduce sugar content, however the magnitude of sugar reduction is small. Innovation in food structure (modifying the sucrose distribution, serum release and fracture mechanics) offers a new way to reduce sugar without significant changes in food composition, however may be difficult to implement in food produced on a large scale. Gradual sugar reduction presents difficulties for food companies from a sales perspective if acceptability is compromised. Ultimately, a holistic approach where food manufacturers integrate a range of these techniques is likely to provide the best progress. However, substantial reduction of sugar in processed foods without compromising sensory properties may be an impossible dream.

Sweetness is one of the 5 prototypical tastes and is activated by sugars and non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS). The aim of this study was to investigate measures of sweet taste function [detection threshold (DT), recognition threshold (RT), and suprathreshold intensity ratings] across multiple sweeteners. Sixty participants, 18–52 years of age (mean age in years = 26, SD = ±7.8), were recruited to participate in the study. DT and RT were collected for caloric sweeteners (glucose, fructose, sucrose, erythritol) and NNS (sucralose, rebaudioside A). Sweetness intensity for all sweeteners was measured using a general Labeled Magnitude Scale. There were strong correlations between DT and RT of all 4 caloric sweeteners across people (r = 0.62–0.90, P < 0.001), and moderate correlations between DT and RT for both of the NNS (r = 0.39–0.48, P < 0.05); however, weaker correlations were observed between the DT or RT of the caloric sweeteners and NNS (r = 0.26–0.48, P < 0.05). The DT and RT of glucose and fructose were not correlated with DT or RT of sucralose (P > 0.05). In contrast, there were strong correlations between the sweetness intensity ratings of all sweeteners (r = 0.70–0.96, P < 0.001). This suggests those caloric sweeteners and NNS access at least partially independent mechanisms with respect to DT and RT measures. At suprathreshold level, however, the strong correlation between caloric sweeteners and NNS through weak, moderate, and strong intensity indicates a commonality in sweet taste mechanism for the perceived intensity range.

Variation in ability to detect, recognize, and perceive sweetness may influence food consumption, and eventually chronic nutrition-related conditions such as overweight and obesity. The aim of this study was to investigate the associations between sweet taste function, anthropometry, and dietary intake in adults. Participants’ (n = 60; mean age in years = 26, SD = ±7.8) sweet taste function for a range of sweeteners (glucose, fructose, sucrose, sucralose, erythritol, and Rebaudioside A) was assessed by measuring detection and recognition thresholds and sweetness intensity. Height, weight, and waist circumference were also measured, and participants also completed a Food Frequency Questionnaire. There was large inter-individual variation in detection, recognition and sweetness intensity measures. Pearson’s correlation coefficient revealed no robust correlations between measures of sweet taste function, anthropometry, and dietary intake, with the exception of suprathreshold intensity, which was moderately correlated with total energy intake (r = 0.23–0.40). One-way analysis of variance revealed no significant differences between the most and least sensitive participants in terms of BMI, waist circumference, and dietary intake for all measures of sweet taste function and sweeteners (all p > 0.01). When stratified into BMI categories, there were no significant differences in any measure of sweet taste function between the normal weight and overweight/obese participants (all p > 0.01). Results show that that sweet taste function is not associated with anthropometry and sweetness intensity measures are the most appropriate measure when assessing links between sweet taste and food consumption.

Background: Recent studies have proposed that humans may perceive complex carbohydrates and that sensitivity to simple carbohydrates is independent o

Compared to simple sugars, complex carbohydrates have been assumed invisible to taste. However, two recent studies proposed that there may be a perceivable taste quality elicited by complex carbohydrates independent of sweet taste. There is precedent with behavioural studies demonstrating that rats are very attracted to complex carbohydrates, and that complex carbohydrates are preferred to simple sugars at low concentrations. This suggests that rats may have independent taste sensors for simple sugars and complex carbohydrates. The aim of this paper is to investigate oral sensitivities of two different classes of complex carbohydrates (a soluble digestible and a soluble non-digestible complex carbohydrate), and to compare these to other caloric and non-nutritive sweeteners in addition to the prototypical tastes using two commonly used psychophysical measures. There were strong correlations between the detection thresholds and mean intensity ratings for complex carbohydrates (maltodextrin, oligofructose) (r = 0.94, P < 0.001). There were no significant correlations between the detection thresholds of the complex carbohydrates (maltodextrin, oligofructose) and the sweeteners (glucose, fructose, sucralose, Rebaudioside A, erythritol) (all P > 0.05). However, moderate correlations were observed between perceived intensities of complex carbohydrates and sweeteners (r = 0.48–0.61, P < 0.05). These data provide evidence that complex carbohydrates can be sensed in the oral cavity over a range of concentrations independent of sweet taste sensitivity at low concentrations, but with partial overlap with sweet taste intensity at higher concentrations.