News
Survey Says: Use of Sensory Analysis Increasing in Food/Beverage Business
November 3, 1998
The survey results indicate that one thing technology will probably never replace is human taste buds, as only 3.5% of respondents thought that analytical devices would decrease the use of sensory analysis panels.
The survey, conducted on behalf of 21st Sensory, Inc., yielded a 55% response rate from food/beverage manufacturers, ingredient suppliers, analytical labs, government/universities, consulting firms and representatives from pharmaceutical, consumer product, pet food and packaging companies. 21st Sensory was not identified as the survey sponsor.
"We sponsored the survey to learn industry opinions on the direction and scope of sensory analysis now and into the 21st century," said Kathleen Pillsbury Rutledge, 21st Sensory president.
Respondents Rank Applications
Respondents evaluated the role of sensory analysis in six categories: product shelf-life, competitor product performance, packaging performance, quality control, process control analysis and correlation with consumer data. Other survey questions covered factors determining whether to use sensory analysis, sensory analysis panel design and training, types of products evaluated and the type of sensory analysis performed (descriptive or affective/discriminative).
These two pie charts reflect the amount of affective/discriminative sensory testing conducted on various products by untrained consumer (in-house and contract) sensory panels. Only 7% of in-house panels and 9% of contract panels conduct affective/discriminative testing on packaging materials, while beverages are the most sensory tested product.


Sensory analysis was ranked "very important" in product shelf-life studies (68.6%), quality control measures (58.9%) and evaluating competitor product performance (57%). Interestingly, sensory analysis was viewed as "not important" in evaluating process control analysis (21.2%) and packaging performance (16.7%).
To Use Or Not to Use Panels
Factors determining whether to use sensory analysis panels included the value of the panel (49%), panel availability (26.5%) and the cost-effectiveness of the panel (21.9%). Reasons to avoid sensory analysis included the cost (41.3%), too time-consuming (36%) and no value in testing (16.4%).
Most respondents' companies have in-house sensory panels 37.3% have trained descriptive panels, and 22.5% have untrained or consumer-type panels. Nearly 67% of these panels conducted 50 or fewer projects annually. Half (50.4%) of the respondents complete panel data analysis in less than one week. Almost one-quarter (22.5%) of the respondents said their employer did not have in-house sensory panels.
Surprising Findings
Three respondents said panels (both in-house and external or contract panels) had evaluated the flavor and aroma of pet food. The respondents cited no affective or discriminatory testing of pet food.
Some descriptive panels analyze the texture and aroma of textiles.
Baked goods were the most tested food product for affective/discriminative testing by untrained consumer panels.
Meat and poultry products were the most tested food item by trained descriptive panels. Respondents said flavor and texture were the most frequently analyzed attributes of these foods.
Only 7% of internal panels conduct affective/discriminative testing on packaging materials. Packaging materials' appearance was the most studied attribute by descriptive panels.
Survey respondents included food technologists (63%), sensory analysts (17.5%), management/consultant (6%), marketing personnel (1.6%) and other (9%). Most respondents (45.9%) work for companies with more than 500 employees, and the majority (37.9%) resided in the Midwest.
21st Sensory Inc. is an independent contract research sensory testing laboratory. For more information: Kathleen Rutledge, 21st Sensory, Inc., P.O. Box 3913, Bartlesville, OK 74006. Tel: 913-333-1011; email: KPRutledge@aol.com; Website: www.21stsensory.com.

