Article

Trends of Using Sensory Evaluation in New Product

Development in the Food Industry in Countries that Belong to
the EIT Regional Innovation Scheme
Katarzyna Świąder 1,* and Magdalena Marczewska 2

1 Department of Functional and Organic Food, Institute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of
Life Sciences (SGGW–WULS), 159C Nowoursynowska Street, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
2 Department of Organization and Management Theory, Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw, 1/3

Szturmowa Street, 02-678 Warsaw, Poland; mmarczewska@wz.uw.edu.pl

* Correspondence: katarzyna_swiader@sggw.edu.pl; Tel.: +48-225-937-047

Abstract: Sensory evaluation plays an important role in New Product Development (NPD) in food
industry. In the present study, the current trends of using sensory evaluation in NPD in the food
industry in countries that belong to EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS) were identified. The re-
search was conducted in the first quarter of 2020. Computer assisted self-interviewing (CASI) tech-
nique for survey data collection was used. The sample included 122 respondents representing RIS
countries that are the EU Member States and European Horizon 2020 Associated Countries that are
classified as modest and moderate innovators according to European Innovation Scoreboard. The
analysis presented in the paper allowed to describe the methods of sensory evaluation that can be
Citation: Świąder, K.; Marczewska,
used to support NPD in the food industry, identify the trends of using sensory evaluation in NPD
M. Trends of Using Sensory
in the food industry companies in RIS countries. The research results showed that almost 70% of
Evaluation in New Product
companies apply sensory evaluation methods in NPD. The larger the company, the more often the
Development in the Food Industry
methods of sensory evaluation are used in NPDs. Almost 60% of companies employing 51-100, 101-
in Countries that Belong to the EIT
Regional Innovation Scheme. Foods
1000 and more than 5000 people, respectively declare the use of expert (analytical) test. However,
2021, 10, 446. https://doi.org/10.3390/ regardless of size, most companies prefer consumer (affective) test to expert tests. Based on the re-
foods10020446 sults, it seems that the potential of usage sensory evaluation methods is not yet fully exploited in
the food industry.
Academic Editor: Claudia Ruiz-
Capillas Keywords: sensory evaluation; sensory analytical test; affective test; food industry; Regional Inno-
Received: 23 December 2020 vation Scheme (RIS); new product development (NPD)
Accepted: 16 February 2021
Published: 18 February 2021

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-

1. Introduction and Background
tral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and insti-
One of the basic conditions for the development of the company and its long-term
tutional affiliations. success is its innovation [1–3]. Innovative companies are able to respond to the challenges
of the world around much faster and more effectively than non-innovative ones [1,4].
Companies, both small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and large corporations, have be-
gun to consider innovation as an integral part of their strategy in order to create a lasting
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. competitive advantage and to adapt the products or services offered to the needs of con-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. sumers, which has led to a greater need for teams mainly involved in the development of
This article is an open access article new products [1].
distributed under the terms and con- New product development (NPD) is “the process of designing a new product, pro-
ditions of the Creative Commons At- ducing it and bringing it to market” [5]. The definitions of the new product proposed by
tribution (CC BY) license (http://cre- Fuller [6] are as follows “A product not previously manufactured by a company and in-
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
troduced by that company into its marketplace or into a new marketplace” or “The presen-

Foods 2021, 10, 446. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020446 www.mdpi.com/journal/foods

Foods 2021, 10, 446 2 of 19

tation or rebranding by a company of an established product in a new form, a new pack-

age or under a new label into a market not previously explored by that company”. NPD
is based on customized procedures, models and is supported by appropriate tools; thus,
it brings significant benefits in terms of production costs, product quality and supply
chain availability, which is crucial for success and business development [5]. Moreover, it
is one of the ways to increase the company's profitability [6]. However, we must bear in
mind that the success of a new product depends on many factors and in some cases the
development of a new product may involve a high risk [5,7,8].
There are many different types of new food products on the market, such as line ex-
tensions [6,8] (e.g., new flavors for an ice-cream), repositioned existing product [6] (e.g.,
oil as one of the main constituents of mayonnaise or vegetable paste), new form or size of
existing product [6] (e.g., instant oatmeal in ready to eat cup), reformulation of existing
product [6] (e.g., sugar-reduced or sugar-free cakes), repackaging of existing product [6]
(e.g., infant food containers changed from glass to squeezed), innovative products [6] (e.g.,
the plant-based analogue of tuna meat), creative products [6] (e.g., 3D printing food).
However, one must remember that consumers purchase products regardless of their cat-
egory, but rather because they meet their needs [9]. The growing awareness of consumers
and their needs for natural, safe and healthy food [10] as well as consumers preferences
for personalized, customized food products have led to diversity in the food market [5].
These changes led to new food trends such as functional food [10,11] with their healthful
properties and nutritional value [10,12], novel food or use of nanotechnology in food sec-
tor [11].
It is not difficult to develop a recipe for a new product, but it is difficult to develop a
new product that meets the expectations of the assumed number of consumers and is
profitable to sell [8]. Every manufacturer's dream is to have their new product on the shelf
as soon as possible and to sell it with great success, but the pathway from idea to shelf can
be long and winding and leads through different stages of the process of designing new
products. New product process proposed by Cooper [13] assumes the following stages:
(1) new product idea; (2) costumer defined, internally defined, idea refined; (3) project
formally opened; (4) development; (5) prototyping; (6) field trials; (7) launch. O’Sullivan
[8] presents NPD process from the inception to the shelf divided into the following steps:
(1) ideation; (2) project pre-planning; (3) validation of proof of concept; (4) process opti-
mization and up-scaling; (5) commercialization; (6) pre and post-approval and shelf-life
testing. The commonly used framework listing the main stages in the NPD process is
based on four stages: (1) opportunity identification; (2) product design and development;
(3) testing; (4) introduction and launch [14]. Azanedo [5] points out, however, that cur-
rently in the development of new food products (NFPD), the NPD models used need to
be modified in order to better and more effectively support the food industry. Moreover,
the study suggests that the most attention should be paid to areas such as meeting con-
sumer demands, consumer preferences and sensory characteristics of products, taking
into account the seasonality of ingredients and the traceability and safety of final products,
and the large-scale production of food with respect for the environment and the supply
and distribution of local ingredients.
In the process of designing food products, it is important to recognize the needs of
the customer, direct the designed product towards them, and then communicate and ex-
plain the value of this designed product to the consumer [9]. Consumers buy image, com-
fort, nutrition, using their senses, sensory sensitivity, they buy sensory properties. That is
why sensory methods are an important, integral tool that should be used in NPD process.
When designing products, the most important quality feature of a product is its direct
relationship to satisfaction, perception and ultimate acceptance by the consumer of the
sensory qualities of the product [8,15].
Sensory evaluation and new product development are strongly linked. Sensory anal-
ysis methods can be used at many stages of the design process to assess the quality of the
product and the expectations of consumers and their reactions to the product. Following
Foods 2021, 10, 446 3 of 19

the framework indicating the importance of sensory evaluation in NPD [5,8,15–21] this
empirical research aims to identify the trends of using sensory evaluation in New Product
Development in the food industry companies in countries that belong to EIT Regional
Innovation Scheme (RIS) by addressing research questions listed below. There are only a
few studies tackling application of sensory evaluation methods in food industry compa-
nies that focus on general trends and compare the use of sensory evaluation methods be-
tween companies of different size and those that value the most diverse stages of the NPD
process. Thus, this paper seeks to fill this research gap by addressing the following re-
search questions:
RQ1 What methods of sensory evaluation can be used to support NPD in the food
industry?
RQ2 What are the trends of using sensory evaluation in NPD in the food industry
companies in countries that belong to EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS)?
RQ3 What sensory evaluation methods are used by companies that tend to value the
most a specific stage of the NPD process?
RQ4 What are the differences in applying sensory evaluation methods among com-
panies of different sizes from RIS countries?
The first research question will be answered based on desk research results and lit-
erature review, whereas the answers to the questions 2-4 will be based on the results of
empirical research.
The article proceeds as follows. First the research background along with the research
aims are presented in the introductory part. The next section of the paper is devoted to
sensory evaluation methods, their use and importance in NPD process with the focus on
food industry. The third part of the paper describes methods used for the analysis, along
with data selection and extraction process. It is followed by the presentation of results of
a pilot study aimed to identify the trends of using sensory evaluation in New Product
Development in the food industry in countries that belong to EIT Regional Innovation
Scheme (RIS) and its discussion. The paper ends with concluding remarks and future re-
search directions.

2. Sensory Evaluation in New Product Development

Sensory tests have been used since people began to assess everything that can be used
by them and to distinguish between good and bad, from water and food, starting with
and ending with weapons and other objects. The increase in trade, on the other hand, has
inspired the formal application of sensory testing significantly [17].
The history of “sensory” analysis also dates back to the wars, when efforts were made
to provide the American forces with acceptable food [17]. The early 1900s gave rise to a
professional taster and consultant in emerging industries food, beverages, and cosmetics.
The term “organoleptic examination” was then used to describe allegedly objective sen-
sory characteristics. However, these tests were still often subjective rather than objective
[17].
International interest in food and agriculture in the mid-1960s and on into the 1970s,
the energy crisis, food production and raw material costs, competition and market inter-
nationalization have created opportunities for sensory evaluation [22]. The course of
events has made sensory evaluation a recognized scientific specialty [17,22]. Sensory eval-
uation is defined as “a scientific discipline used to evoke, measure, analyze and interpret
reactions to those characteristics of foods and materials as they are perceived by the senses
of sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing” [18,22,23]. Sensory evaluation, like other scientific
methods in which we take measurements, is based on taking measurements in a precise
and accurate way, considering the sensitivity and aiming at avoiding false-positive results
[24]. In order to be considered a reliable method, sensory analysis must be based on the
skills of a sensory analyst to optimize definition of the problem (what should be meas-
ured) and test design (produce the desired accuracy of results), instrumentation (selected
and trained panelists) and interpretation of results [17,18].
Foods 2021, 10, 446 4 of 19

When assessing the characteristics of a food product, we first assess its appearance,
then its odor, texture/consistency and flavor/taste [17]. The reaction to a sensory stimulus,
on the other hand, can be divided into three different dimensions: qualitative perception,
quantitative perception, and hedonic reaction [25]. In order to obtain that information, we
must use analytical or affective methods during the sensory evaluation [16,17,22,25].
The purpose of analytical tests is to assess in detail the sensory quality of a product,
while affective tests are used to measure the acceptability or preference of a product by
consumers [8,25]. The basic goal while choosing sensory evaluation methods is to match
the right test with the right question that we want to answer. Among the analytical tests
(Table 1) that are mainly evaluated by the panel experts, we can use the discrimination
test to determine if there are sensory differences or similarities between products, without
describing their nature. We can use the Triangle test, Duo-trio test, Two out of five test.
As far as the nature of the differences between products is known, we can use a grading
test such as paired comparison test, to position different products according to their sen-
sory characteristics. A ranking test can be used to assess noticeable differences between
several products depending on the intensity of the difference, and a scoring test may be
used to assess the specific intensity of the sensory characteristics of products. In the ana-
lytical test, a descriptive test (called sensory profiling) is very often used to describe and
evaluate both the intensity and quality of perceived product characteristics, i.e., Quanti-
tative Descriptive Analysis®, Texture Profile® [8,18,22,25,26].

Table 1. Types of most popular analytical and affective tests used in sensory evaluation.

Type of Test Question

Discrimination test:
Which sample is different?
Triangle
Which sample is different from the reference
Duo-trio
sample? Which 3 samples are the same type?
Two out of five
ANALYTICAL TEST

Grading test: Which sample is most (sweet, bitter, etc.)?

Paired-comparison test List the samples in increasing order of inten-
Ranking test sity for a selected attribute (sweet, bitter, etc.)?
Scoring test How (sweet, bitter, etc.) the sample is?
Descriptive test:
Quantitative Descriptive Analysis®
Flavor Profile® Are the products different and how do they
Texture Profile® differ?
SpectrumTM Descriptive Analysis
Free-Choice Profiling
Which do you prefer? Which do you like
AFFECTIVE

Paired comparison test

most?
TEST

Ranking test Rank this product by preference?

Hedonic scoring test Asses the degree of pleasure/liking given by
products on the scale?
Source: Own elaboration based on [8,18,22,25–27].

Apart of above-mentioned methods, there are new one called rapid sensory evalua-
tion methods, that are more flexible, simple and easy to perform and can be used with
semi trained assessors or naive assessors such as: flash profiling, ultraflash profiling, rank-
ing test, napping, free sorting, optimized descriptive profiling, ideal profile method,
check-all-that-apply, temporal dominance of sensation [8].
Sensory acceptance of the product by the consumer, its hedonic reaction, can be as-
sessed using an affective test (Table 1). This may be a paired comparison test, in which the
Foods 2021, 10, 446 5 of 19

consumer chooses the sample he or she prefers or likes most from two or more, or a rank-
ing test, in which the consumer rank the product according to his or her preferences,
whereas in order to determine the scale of preference among the products or the degree
of pleasure/liking the product gives, a hedonic scoring test with scales can be used
[22,25,27]. An example of a qualitative affective sensory test is the focus group, a rapid
method to test the product and packaging concepts and ideas [8].
Sensory evaluation of a product, including both the analytical sensory evaluation
carried out by a panel of experts and the affective test carried out on consumers, allows to
obtain more information about the product being analyzed, its quality and to verify fac-
tors influencing its acceptability by consumers, which facilitates work on improving the
quality of the product or its reformulation [10].
It is quite common practice in food companies to use inappropriate sensory analysis
methods for specific research purposes [8].
Both affective tests and analytical (expert) sensory tests can be use on each step of
new product development (Table 2). During ideation, the initial project planning and val-
idation of proof-of-concept affective test, such as focus groups, can be used, but also meth-
ods such as free elicitation, information acceleration (IA), Kelly repertory grid, laddering,
lead user technique and Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique (ZMET) are recom-
mended. The stage where both the affective test and the sensory test can be applied is
process optimization and up-scaling, where the sensory acceptance test (affective test) can
be applied, as well as the analytical test: a descriptive test such as the Quantitative De-
scriptive Analysis® and a rapid test such as the Ranking Descriptive Analysis. A very
important aspect during the commercialization of a product is to carry out sensory Ac-
ceptance Tests. Carrying out Consumer Tests is also very important during pre- and post-
approval tests and product durability tests [8].

Table 2. Use of sensory evaluation methods on each step of new product development.

Stages of New Product Applied Sensory Evaluation Methods

Development Affective Test Analytical Test
Ideation Focus Groups, Free Elicita-
Project Pre-Planning tion, IA *, Kelly Repertory
-
Grid, Laddering, Lead User
Validation of Proof of Concept
Technique, ZMET*
Process optimization and Descriptive test: QDA®*
Sensory Acceptance Testing
up-scaling Rapid test: RDA*
Commercialization Sensory Acceptance Testing -
Pre- and Post-Approval and
Consumer Testing (n > 100) -
shelf-life testing
IA *, information acceleration; ZMET, Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique; QDA®, Quantita-
tive Descriptive Analysis; RDA, Ranking Descriptive Analysis. Source: Own elaboration based on
[8].

Besides new product development, sensory evaluation can also be used in other
product development activities, such as product prototype evaluation [8,28]; product con-
cept fit [8,28]; pilot plant scale-up; cost reduction study by substituting or modifying in-
gredients [28]; process change [29,30]; ingredients changes for example caused by reduc-
tion of salt [20,21,31], sugar [21,32,33], or fat [21,31] or purchase specifications change [19]
as well as product improvement and optimization of product formula [34,35].
Moreover, sensory evaluation methods are used to supports marketing and market-
ing research activities [19,28], beginning with new product development and assessment
of market potential, continuing through tracking product performance, and contributing
to special assignments such as developing tests. They can be used in sensory marketing
as data to support or challenge advertising claims [36]. Sensory marketing defined as
Foods 2021, 10, 446 6 of 19

"marketing that engages the senses of consumers and influences their perception, judge-
ment and behavior" examines how acoustic, tactile and olfactory sensory stimuli influence
decision making processes and the formation of consumer attitudes and can thus be used
for advertising design and effectiveness [36].
Sensory evaluation is also used to compare the quality of competing products [37].
Consumer test can be used to define the most important characteristics of food affecting
purchasing decisions, identify preferences and to know consumers when purchasing food
products [12,37].
Sensory evaluation methods can be used in several food industry departments; how-
ever, they are mainly used for quality control and product research and development
(R&D) in big companies [17,19] so their potential is not yet fully exploited in the food
industry.
Sensory evaluation methods can be used for shelf-life assessment of food products
[38–40] and new technologic that can extend product durability and quality such as pulsed
electric fields [29,30]. Changes in the sensory characteristics of food products affect the
determination of their shelf-life, and the freshness of a product's safety and quality are
characteristics to which consumers are now paying increasing attention [40].
Expert tests such as sensory descriptive analysis and consumer test can be well used
to investigate exotic, authentic, ethnic, or artisanal foods [23] such as green tea [41,42], soy
sauce [43,44], kimchi [45,46], tofu [47,48], dates [49,50] as well as innovative one such as
tea-infused yoghurts [10] or plant-based yogurts made from almond, cashew, coconut,
hemp or soy [51].
There are many possible ways to apply sensory evaluation in NPD in the food indus-
try. Companies can use analytical and affective (hedonic) sensory tests and choose from a
variety of sensory methods that can be used at different stages of the NPD process and
allow the different characteristics of food products to be studied and consumer reactions
to these products and their expectations.

3. Materials and Methods

The study was conducted as a part of the project “Summer school on the New Prod-
uct Development for the food industry” (2020 edition) financed by the EIT Food under
Horizon2020, which aimed to address contemporary challenges related to NPD in the
food industry. The research was carried out as a pilot study (part of the project) to identify
the trends of using sensory evaluation in New Product Development in the food industry
in countries that belong to EIT Regional Innovation Scheme (RIS); thus, the research sam-
ple was composed of respondents representing these countries. The EIT’s Innovation
Communities are strengthening the innovation ecosystem in parts of Central, Eastern and
Southern Europe and have been set up to increase the number and business maturity of
start-ups coming from these regions [52].
The EIT RIS countries are the EU Member States and European Horizon 2020 Asso-
ciated Countries who are classified as modest and moderate innovators according to Eu-
ropean Innovation Scoreboard [53]. These are Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slo-
vakia, Slovenia and Spain, as well as Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Faroe
Islands, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, Republic of North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey
and Ukraine. Modest and moderate innovators show an innovation performance below
the EU average. Since NPD is one of the dimensions of countries’ innovation performance,
it seems important to analyze it, especially in the context of countries which are not best
performers, in order to identify the ways to boost its development, as well as explore and
design new potential pathways to support it.
The data used in this research were collected through computer assisted self-inter-
viewing (CASI). This technique allows to collect data from respondents who complete the
survey questionnaire via computer without any external assistance. The use of such re-
search method is based on the assumption that respondents can read and understand the
Foods 2021, 10, 446 7 of 19

questions well enough to give precise answers [54]. The questionnaires were conducted
in the first quarter of 2020, before the CODIV-19 pandemic.
The sample included 122 respondents representing RIS countries. All participants
have agreed to participate in the study and received a link to the questionnaire for them
only. If respondents provided their questionnaires with missing/unreliable data, they
were excluded from the sample analyzed (n = 8).
The respondents were employed in companies from the food industry and per-
formed various jobs related to NPD. Most of them were food technologists, project/pro-
gram managers or C-level executives. The characteristics of the respondents are presented
in (Table 3). Respondents differ in gender, age and length of professional experience in
the food sector.

Table 3. The characteristics of the respondents (n = 122).

Characteristic n* %
Gender Male 73 59.8%
Female 49 40.2%
Age group 18–24 20 16.4%
25–34 77 63.1%
35–44 22 18.0%
45–54 2 1.6%
55 or more 1 0.8%
Professional experience
less than 1 year 36 29.5%
in food sector
between 1 and 2 years 27 22.1%
between 2 and 5 years 31 25.4%
between 5 and 10 years 16 13.1%
more than 10 years 12 9.8%
Area of expertise Food science/chemistry/technology 23 18.9%
Food safety/quality 16 13.1%
Product development in the food sector 15 12.3%
Food production/manufacturing/processing 13 10.7%
Entrepreneurship/business startup/development/
acceleration in agri-food or life sciences 11 9.0%
Marketing/consumer behavior/market research,
preferably in the food sector 10 8.2%
Nutrition/food related health 8 6.6%
Other 7 5.7%
Agriculture/agricultural technologies 6 4.9%
Consumer testing/sensory science 4 3.3%
Food-health nexus 3 2.5%
Food waste/side stream valuation 2 1.6%
New business models 2 1.6%
Bioeconomy/resource stewardship/sustainability 1 0.8%
** STEM/STEAM/science education 1 0.8%
* number of respondents. ** STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering and Math; STEAM, Science,
Technology, Engineering, Arts and Math.

The respondents were employees of food industry companies of various sizes, where
SMEs constituted almost three quarters of the sample. Further, almost 40% of the sample
Foods 2021, 10, 446 8 of 19

were micro enterprises with fewer than 10 employees and around 20% represented small
enterprises. Table 4 presents details on sample characteristics.

Table 4. Sample characteristics (n = 122).

Characteristic n* %
Number of employees in organization 1–10 48 39.3%
11–50 23 18.9%
51–100 12 9.8%
101–1000 21 17.2%
1001–5000 6 4.9%
Above 5000 12 9.8%
Country ** ES 19 15.6%
IT 17 13.9%
GR 14 11.5%
PL 14 11.5%
HU 8 6.6%
TR 7 5.7%
PT 6 4.9%
BG 4 3.3%
HR 4 3.3%
CZ 3 2.5%
EE 3 2.5%
LT 3 2.5%
ME 3 2.5%
RO 3 2.5%
RS 3 2.5%
AL 2 1.6%
SI 2 1.6%
LV 2 1.6%
SK 2 1.6%
UA 2 1.6%
GE 1 0.8%
** AL, Albania; BG, Bulgaria; CZ, Czech Republic; EE, Estonia; ES, Spain; GE, Georgia; GR, Greece;
HR, Croatia; HU, Hungary; IT, Italy; LT, Lithuania; LV, Latvia; ME, Montenegro; PL, Poland; PT,
Portugal; RO, Romania; RS, Serbia; SI, Slovenia; SK, Slovakia; TR, Turkey; UA, Ukraine. * Number
of respondents.

The questionnaire was composed of questions of different types, i.e., single-choice

questions and open-ended questions. Most of the questions had already defined answers
to choose from; however, in many cases, there was space left for participants to write ad-
ditional comments. The questionnaire used in the study was related to various aspects of
NPD and sensory analysis, including average length of NPD project, most important
stages of NPD, application of sensory evaluation in NPD, sensory methods used in NPD,
use of consumer tests to verify consumer preferences or acceptance for the developed
product and use of expert tests performed by a panel of trained experts to determine the
quality of products. The obtained data were analyzed considering the sample of compa-
nies from RIS countries in general, and also taking into account the specificity of compa-
nies of different sizes and comparing the importance of a specific stage of NPD and its
impact on the use of sensory evaluation. Sample survey questions and answers are pre-
sented in (Table 5).
Foods 2021, 10, 446 9 of 19

Table 5. Sample survey questions and answers.

General Questions
Question Answer
Country (open ended question)
Male
Gender
Female
18–24
25–34
Age group 35–44
45–54
55 or more
Agriculture/agricultural technologies; Bioe-
conomy/resource stewardship/sustainabil-
ity; Consumer testing/sensory science; En-
trepreneurship/business start-up/develop-
ment/acceleration in agri-food or life sci-
ences; Education/andragogy, in particular in
entrepreneurship or food systems; Food-
health nexus; Food production/manufactur-
ing/processing; Food science/chemis-
Please indicate your area of expertise try/technology; Food safety/quality; Food
systems/food value chains; Food waste/side
stream valuation; Marketing/consumer be-
havior/market research, preferably in the
food sector; New business models; Nutri-
tion/food related health; Product develop-
ment in the food sector; Science communi-
cation/public engagement of science/citizen
science; * STEM/STEAM/science education;
Trust/transparency; Other
How long is your professional experience in less than 1 year; between 1 and 2 years; be-
the food tween 2 and 5 years; between 5 and 10
sector? years; more than 10 years
1–10
11–50
How many employees are there in your en- 51–100
tire organization? 101–1000
1001-5000
Above 5000
C-Level Executive (*CEO, CTO, etc.)
Development Leadership: VP/Director
Development Direct Manager: Team
leader/Group Leader
Development Team Member: Architect/De-
Which role best describes your current posi- veloper/*QA
tion in the company? Project/Program Manager
System Engineer
Product Manager/Product Owner
DevOps Engineer
External Consultant/Trainer
Food technologist
Foods 2021, 10, 446 10 of 19

Sensory and Consumer Manager

Other (please specify below)
Industry specific questions
Question Answer
According to the best of your knowledge,
Less than 1 year
what is the average length of NPD project in
1–2 years
your organization? Please take into account
2–4 years
the time from ideation to commercializa-
More than 4 years
tion.
a. Creating a new product, idea
b. Developing a product recipe, selection
and safety of raw materials, its health-pro-
moting properties
c. Packaging, its appearance, functionality,
impact on product durability and the envi-
ronment
Which stages of food design are the most
d. Labeling in accordance with legal re-
important in the company you work for?
quirements
Please select all that apply.
e. Ensuring the safety of produced food
f. Sensory quality of the product and its ac-
ceptability by consumers
g. Product distribution
h. Product marketing and advertising
i. Obtaining funds/grants
j. Other (please specify)
Does the company you work for apply a
sensory evaluation test in the product de- Yes / No
velopment?
a. Discrimination test
What kind of sensory methods are used by b. Descriptive analysis
the company you work for in the process of c. Consumer test
food product design? Please select all that d. Other (please specify)
apply. e. I don’t know what specific methods were
used
Does the company you work for perform
consumer tests to verify consumer prefer-
Yes/No
ences/acceptances for the developed prod-
uct?
a. ≤30 consumers
What is the average number of consumer
b. 31–50 consumers
test participants that the company you work
c. 51–99 consumers
for performs?
d. ≥100 consumers
Does the company you work for use expert
tests performed by a panel of trained ex- Yes / No
perts to determine the quality of products?
If company you work for does not use ex- a. The company does not employ such ex-
pert tests performed by a panel of trained perts
experts to determine the quality of prod- b. Such research is too expensive
ucts, please indicate why not. Please select c. Such research is not necessary when de-
all that apply. signing products
Foods 2021, 10, 446 11 of 19

d. The sensory quality of products is as-

sessed by company owners, management
board or employees and friends
e. The company has no knowledge or expe-
rience in this field
f. Other (please specify)
* STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering and Math; STEAM, Science, Technology, Engineering,
Arts and Math; CEO, chief executive officer, CTO, chief technical officer, QA, Quality Assurance.

4. Results and Discussion

On the basis of the studies carried out, it is worth pointing out that the NPD projects
in the analyzed food sector companies are relatively short (Table 6), i.e., 34.4% of the com-
panies claim that they manage to develop and introduce an entire project within a year,
and 41.8% need less than 2 years to complete it. The companies argue that due to market
dynamics and growth they have to act fast in order to be competitive.

Table 6. Average length of New Product Development (NPD) project.

Average Length of NPD Project n* %

Less than 1 year 42 34.4%
1–2 years 51 41.8%
2–4 years 22 18.0%
More than 4 years 7 5.7%
* Number of respondents.

One of the main factors influencing product development is the speed with which
the product is placed on the market. If this process took too long, the research previously
carried out may no longer correspond to reality, e.g., demographic consumer segments
initially identified as potential buyers and optimistic users may have changed their minds
about wanting to buy the product [8]. Moreover, because the development of a new prod-
uct may involve a high risk [5,7,8] it is worth running the NPD process relatively fast.
According to Dijksterhuis [55], 50 to 75% of newly developed products placed on the
market are disposed of, which is far from the assumed financial targets. More than 90%
(some say it is even 98%) of all NPDs in the food and drink industry fail, while the re-
maining 10% (or rather 2%) have been extremely successful, and the final prize is huge
[8]. The main research problem behind the high failure rate of new products is the lack of
understanding of consumers' motivation and choice. Therefore, the research on consumer
behavior should be used more effectively to address this problem [55].
Sensory evaluation seems to be an important element of NPD in RIS countries. 67.2%
of analyzed companies claim to apply sensory evaluation methods while working on new
products.
Sensory food science is a discipline that is increasingly used and needed in order to
better understand the factors influencing consumer preferences. Sensory evaluation is an
essential tool for use by the food industry now and in the future, when, due to social and
industrial needs that are consumer-oriented, their use will increase in the future [18].
There are differences in applying sensory evaluation among companies from RIS
countries, which value the most different stages of NPD. It is not surprising that the use
of consumer assessment tests, expert tests and other sensory evaluation methods is most
common among companies, which see “sensory quality of the product and its acceptabil-
ity by consumers” as the most important stage of NPD process (Table 7). However, “de-
veloping a product recipe, selection and safety of raw materials, its health-promoting
properties” is seen as crucial in the NPD process by more than one fourth of the researched
companies and within this group sensory evaluation, along with consumer assessment
Foods 2021, 10, 446 12 of 19

and expert tests are also seen as valuable. Table 7 presents the use of various sensory eval-
uation methods by companies that tend to value the most a specific stage of the NPD
process. E.g., 74.4% of companies that see as the most important stage of NPD “developing
a product recipe, selection and safety of raw materials, its health-promoting properties”
apply sensory evaluation in NPD, 66.7% use consumer tests, and 46.2% use expert tests.
This means that there are some companies that use both types of tests, and other focus
only on one specific test.

Table 7. Most important stages of NPD and use of sensory evaluation.

% of Companies
Application
Indicating Selected Use of
of Sensory Use of Expert
Stage as the Most Consumer
Evaluation Tests
Important NPD Tests
in NPD
Stage
Developing a product
recipe, selection and
safety of raw materials, 32.0% 74.4% 66.7% 46.2%
its health-promoting
properties
Creating a new product,
24.6% 66.7% 70.0% 40.0%
idea
Ensuring the safety of
13.9% 70.6% 52.9% 41.2%
produced food
Sensory quality of the
product and its accepta- 9.0% 81.8% 72.7% 63.6%
bility by consumers
Packaging, its appear-
ance, functionality, im-
5.7% 71.4% 57.1% 42.9%
pact on product durabil-
ity and the environment
Product marketing and
5.7% 57.1% 57.1% 42.9%
advertising
Obtaining funds/grants 2.5% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0%
Product distribution 2.5% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0%
Labeling in accordance
0.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
with legal requirements
Other 3.3% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0%

In theory, sensory analysis is applied at many stages of new product development.

Affective tests, e.g., focus group, can be used at the product concept stage, while from the
assessment of a prototype, affective methods such as examining product preference or
acceptability can be used. Analytical research, e.g., discrimination tests, can be used to
optimize the product, e.g., nutritional optimization of the product related to the reduction
or exchange of sucrose in the product. However, to determine the quality of the product
prototype and the differences between the variants, it is worth using Quantitative De-
scriptive Analysis (QDA®). In order to obtain more complete information about the prod-
uct, descriptive analysis can be carried out in parallel with sensory affective analysis and
consumer testing and instrumental measurements. Before a product is placed on the mar-
ket, Multivariate Data Analysis (MVA) can be used to correlate sensory descriptive anal-
ysis with factors affecting the consumer [8].
There are three most popular sensory methods used in NPD in the food sector in RIS
countries (Figure 1), and discrimination test is the most popular one (37.8%). However,
Foods 2021, 10, 446 13 of 19

companies usually use more than one method in order to verify, compare and combine
the results of sensory methods used.

Figure 1. Sensory methods used in NPD.

The discriminatory test is a powerful sensory evaluation method in terms of its sen-
sitivity, which provides reliable and important results that, because of its effectiveness,
have saved companies a considerable amount of time, money and effort [22].
Sensory methods can be used at many stages of the NPD, so it is important to use
them at many stages, but you can see that discriminatory methods are most often used,
and the use of methods depends on the purpose of the research.
Companies from the sample tend to value consumers opinions. Of the companies,
63.1% use consumer tests (affective tests) to verify consumer acceptance or preferences for
the developed product. Interestingly, the average number of consumer test participants
differs significantly between the companies form the sample. On the one hand, almost
33% of companies collect information from a small number of consumers, i.e., ≤30. On the
other hand, over 33% conduct consumer assessment on relatively big samples of more
than 100 consumers (Figure 2). As confirmed by other researchers, consumer acceptance
testing can be used during the product development and optimization based on 25–75
individuals, while a large number of consumers (more than 100) is used in consumer tests
before product lunch [8].
Foods 2021, 10, 446 14 of 19

Avarage number of consumer test participants

32.5% ≤30 consumers

33.8%
31–50 consumers

51–99 consumers

≥ 100 consumers

10.4%
23.4%

Figure 2. Average number of consumer test participants.

Interest in consumer (hedonic) research in both basic psychophysics and applied and
consumer food research has increased significantly in recent years. Research on the iden-
tification of differences in the hedonic response to chemical stimuli has become the basis
for a better understanding of the role of sensory, perceptual, cognitive and genetic factors
influencing consumer food preferences and choice. Now that the consumer market has
become more crowded and competitive, applied product research is not only investigat-
ing which products are more popular with consumers than others, but it has become more
important than ever to discover the basic segmentation of consumers [56].
Compared to other types of sensory evaluation methods, expert tests performed by
a panel of trained experts to determine the quality of products seem to be rather unpopu-
lar among companies representing food industry companies from RIS countries. Only
42.6% of these companies perform expert tests. There are several primary reasons men-
tioned by the food industry companies from RIS countries why such tests are not popular.
First, these companies do not employ such experts and are not willing to outsource such
service. Second, these companies have no knowledge or experience in this field, thus pre-
fering to use other, better known methods of sensory evaluation. Third, the sensory qual-
ity of products is assessed by company owners, management board or employees and
friends. Among secondary reasons for not using such tests, companies list high expenses
and lack of need. However, looking at the answers given by the companies from the sam-
ple, along with additional justifications, it seems that companies representing the food
industry in RIS countries do not have sufficient knowledge in the field to use expert tests.
The use of sensory evaluation methods differs among companies of various sizes
from RIS countries. In general, the bigger the company, the more popular and used sen-
sory evaluation methods in NPD (Table 8). Most of the companies, regardless of size, pre-
fer consumer assessment tests over expert tests. However, almost 60% of companies em-
ploying 51–100, 101–1000 and above 5000, respectively, declare to use expert tests. These
results seem to confirm the research results presented by other authors stating that the
bigger the company, the wider knowledge and application of sensory evaluation meth-
ods.
Foods 2021, 10, 446 15 of 19

Table 8. Use of sensory evaluation in companies from RIS countries by company size.

Use of Consumer As- Use of Expert Tests Per-

Application of sessment Tests to Verify formed by a Panel of
Sensory Evaluation in Consumer Trained Experts to De-
NPD Preferences for the De- termine the Quality of
veloped Product Products
Company
size (num-
ber of
% % %
employees
in organiza-
tion)
Yes 52.08% Yes 54.17% Yes 33.3%
1–10
No 47.92% No 45.83% No 66.7%
Yes 47.83% Yes 39.13% Yes 30.4%
11–50
No 52.17% No 60.87% No 69.6%
Yes 83.33% Yes 66.67% Yes 58.3%
51–100 No 16.67% No 33.33% No 33.3%
- - - - N/A 8.3%
Yes 95.24% Yes 80.95% Yes 57.1%
101–1000
No 4.76% No 19.05% No 42.9%
Yes 100.00% Yes 100.00% Yes 50.0%
1001–5000
No 0.00% No 0.00% No 50.0%
Yes 83.33% Yes 91.67% Yes 58.3%
Above 5000
No 16.67% No 8.33% No 41.7%

Consumer assessment tests run by companies of different sizes vary in average num-
ber of consumer test participants. Almost 60% of companies employing 1–10 employees
run these tests on the sample of ≤30 consumers. Companies employing 11–50 and 51–100
employees prefer samples of 31–50 or more than 100 consumers; more than 40% of com-
panies employing 101–1000 people conduct these tests with more than 100 consumers,
whereas 33.3% of those employing 1001–5000 run tests on the samples of ≤30 and more
than 100 consumers, respectively. Not surprisingly, almost 82% of the biggest companies
tend to research more than 100 consumers at a time.
When it comes to specific sensory methods used in NPD by companies of different
sizes, consumer acceptance tests are the most popular among those employing 1–10 and
1001–5000 employees, whereas discrimination tests are more widely used by those em-
ploying 11–50, 101–1000 and above 5000 people.
Sensory evaluation is beginning to be applied in many food companies, and research
results of other authors also confirm that its adoption depends, among others, on the size
of the company [19]. For example, in the case of large companies such as Puleva Biotech
S.A., Spain, sensory testing is carried out daily in several departments, i.e., quality control,
research and development and marketing. In the case of small companies, the situation is
completely different. Small companies do not have the structure, personnel and/or quali-
fications to carry out sensory research, although they are aware of its existence and effec-
tiveness. Medium-sized companies try to include sensory evaluation as one of the modern
tools to improve their efficiency and thus their income [19].
All in all, sensory food research can contribute to understanding consumer response
to emerging trends in food production, processing and consumption. In order to make
better use of sensory research, it is necessary to allow access to appropriate university
training programmes, funding for fundamental research and multidisciplinary coopera-
tion [18].
Foods 2021, 10, 446 16 of 19

5. Conclusions
The analysis presented above, based on desk research and CASI, allowed to answer
the research questions (RQ) outlined in the introductory part of the paper.
Thereby RQ1 allowed to describe the methods of sensory evaluation that can be used
to support NPD in the food industry. Companies can benefit from the many achievements
of the scientific discipline of sensory evaluation, and they can use analytical and affective
sensory tests. They have many different sensory methods at their disposal, which can be
used at different stages of the NPD process, from the idea and conception of the product
to its launch and subsequent approval, which allows them to assess both the quality of
the product and the factors influencing consumers and their purchasing decisions.
RQ2 addressed the trends of using sensory evaluation in NPD in the food industry
companies in RIS countries. The research results showed that almost 70% of companies
apply sensory evaluation methods in NPD; however, among them there are the following
three most popular ones: discrimination test, descriptive analysis and consumer test.
Moreover, the companies generally value consumers opinions and more than 63% of them
uses consumer assessment tests to verify the match between the products they offer and
expectations of consumers. Nevertheless, looking at the answers given by the companies
from the sample, along with their additional justifications, it seems that companies repre-
senting food industry in RIS countries do not have sufficient knowledge in the field to use
expert tests, which may lead to the use of unsuitable methods of sensory analysis to
achieve the research objectives set companies.
RQ3 was aimed at identifying sensory evaluation methods that are used by compa-
nies, which mostly tend to value a specific stage of the NPD process. First, it allowed to
identify that more than one fourth of the companies from the sample see “developing a
product recipe, selection and safety of raw materials, its health-promoting properties” as
the most important stage of the NPD process, almost one fifth values the most “creating a
new product, idea”, whereas around 10%, respectively, treat “ensuring the safety of pro-
duced food” and “sensory quality of the product and its acceptability by consumers” as
highly important. Second, the analysis allowed to link specific sensory methods used with
companies valuing different staged of NPD. Almost 82% of companies that value the most
“sensory quality of the product and its acceptability by consumers” apply sensory evalu-
ation methods in NPD; 73% use consumer assessment tests, and 64% use expert tests. The
knowledge of sensory evaluation methods and their application is really high in this
group of companies, compared to the whole sample. Among other groups of companies
identified based on the stage of NPD process they value, 70% of companies focused on
“creating a new product, idea” use consumer assessment tests and 67% of those focused
on “developing a product recipe, selection and safety of raw materials, its health-promot-
ing properties”. The knowledge and application of different sensory evaluation methods
is diverse among companies representing different groups; however, interestingly, com-
panies focused on “obtaining funds/grants” and “product distribution” seem to disregard
expert tests.
RQ4 allowed to characterize the differences in applying sensory evaluation methods
among companies of different sizes from RIS countries. Sensory evaluation is increasingly
being used in many food companies, and the use of these methods depends to a large
extent on the size of the company. Among the companies analyzed in the RIS countries, it
can be seen that the larger the company, the more often the methods of sensory evaluation
are used in NPDs. Almost 60% of companies employing 51–100, 101–1000 and more than
5000 people, respectively, declare the use of expert (analytical) test. However, regardless
of size, most companies prefer consumer (affective) test to expert tests. Consumer tests
are most popular among companies with 1–10 and 1001–5000 employees, while discrimi-
nation tests included in analytical test are more frequently used by companies with 11–
50, 101–1000 and over 5000 employees.
All in all, it seems that the potential of usage sensory evaluation methods is not yet
fully exploited in the food industry. Since this pilot study has been carried out on a sample
Foods 2021, 10, 446 17 of 19

including many countries from a specific group (RIS countries), a further study is planned
to analyze a specific group of companies from selected RIS countries in order to take a
closer look at specific sensory analysis methods used in the development of selected food
products.
Drawing on research results presented above, future research directions in investi-
gating the importance of sensory evaluation in NPD in the food industry may also include
the following topics: focus on analytical test or affective test, one sensory method, one
method and one country only; focus on SMEs from specific branch of food industry in RIS
countries and/or comparison with other countries; focus on size and experience of food
industry in RIS countries; focus on specific stage of NPD and the use of sensory evalua-
tion.

Author Contributions: Study conception and design, K.Ś., M.M.; methodology, K.Ś, M.M.; per-
formed research, K.Ś, M.M.; analyzed the data, K.Ś., M.M.; interpreted the data, K.Ś., M.M.; writing,
K.Ś., M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Funding from the Rector of WULS-SGGW as part of the system of financial support for
scientists and teams.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data is contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: The research presented in the paper has been conducted as a part of the project
ID 20228 that has received funding from EIT Food, the European Knowledge and Innovation Com-
munity (KIC) on Food, as part of Horizon 2020.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the
design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manu-
script or in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Vignali, G.; Bigliardi, B.; Bottani, E.; Montanari, R. Successful new product development in the food packaging industry: evi-
dence from a case study. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2011, 2, doi:10.4314/ijest.v2i9.63848.
2. Balkin, D.B.; Markman, G.D.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R. IS CEO PAY IN HIGH-TECHNOLOGY FIRMS RELATED TO INNOVATION?
Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 1118–1129, doi:10.2307/1556340.
3. Lyon, D.; Ferrier, W. Enhancing performance with product-market innovation: the influence of the top management team. J.
Manag. Issues 2002, 14, 452–469; Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40604404 (accessed on 19 December 2020).
4. Jimenez, J.; Valle, R.S.; Espallardo, M.H. Fostering innovation. The role of market orientation and organizational learning, Eu-
rop. J. Innov. Manag. 2008, 11, 389–412, 10.1108/14601060810889026.
5. Azanedo, L.; Garcia-Garcia, G.; Stone, J.; Rahimifard, S. An Overview of Current Challenges in New Food Product Develop-
ment. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3364, doi:10.3390/su12083364.
6. Fuller, G.W. New Food Product Development: From Concept to Marketplace, 3rd ed.; CRC Press, Broken Sound Parkway NW: Boca
Raton, FL, USA, 2011.
7. Gao, J.; Bernard, A. An overview of knowledge sharing in new product development. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 94, 1545–
1550, doi:10.1007/s00170-017-0140-5.
8. O’Sullivan, M.G. Innovative tech-nologies for the food and beverage industry. In A handbook for Sensory and Consumer-Driven
New Product Development; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017.
9. Okoye, I.N.H. How Do You Explain A New Product Category? Product Knowledge Explains It! Europ. J. Business Manag. 2015,
7, 18; Available online: https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM/article/view/23195 (accessed on 19 December 2020).
10. Świąder, K.; Florowska, A.; Konisiewicz, Z.; Chen, Y.-P. Functional Tea-Infused Set Yoghurt Development by Evaluation of
Sensory Quality and Textural Properties. Foods 2020, 9, 1848, doi:10.3390/foods9121848.
11. Santeramo, F.; Carlucci, D.; De Devitiis, B.; Seccia, A.; Stasi, A.; Viscecchia, R.; Nardone, G. Emerging trends in European food,
diets and food industry. Food Res. Int. 2018, 104, 39–47, doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2017.10.039.
12. Kraus, A. Development of functional food with the participation of the consumer. Motivators for consumption of functional
products. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2015, 39, 2–11, doi:10.1111/ijcs.12144.
Foods 2021, 10, 446 18 of 19

13. Cooper, R.G. Perspective: The Stage-Gate®Idea-to-Launch Process—Update, What’s New, and NexGen Systems. J. Prod. Innov.
Manag. 2008, 25, 213–232, doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00296.x.
14. Bagchi, D.; Nair, S. Developing New Functional Food and Nutraceutical Products, 1st ed.; Elsevier: London, UK, 2017.
15. O’Sullivan, M.G.; Kerry, J.P.; Byrne, D.V. Use of sensory science as a practical commercial tool in the develop-ment of consumer-
led processed meat products. In Processed Meats; Kerry, J.P., Kerry, J.F., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Ltd: Southston, UK, 2011.
16. Cruz, A.G.; Cadena, R.S.; Walter, E.H.; Mortazavian, A.M.; Granato, D.; Faria, J.A.; Bolini, H.M. Sensory Analysis: Relevance
for Prebiotic, Probiotic, and Synbiotic Product Development. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2010, 9, 358–373, doi:10.1111/j.1541-
4337.2010.00115.x.
17. Meilgaard, M.; Civille, G.V.; Carr, B.T. Sensory Evaluation, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007.
18. Tuorila, H.; Monteleone, E. Sensory food science in the changing society: Opportunities, needs, and challenges. Trends Food Sci.
Technol. 2009, 20, 54–62, doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2008.10.007.
19. Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A. Application of sensory evaluation of food to quality control in the Spanish food industry. Pol. J. Food
Nutr. Sci. 2007, 57, 71–76.
20. Raithatha, C. The role of sensory perception and sensory evaluation in the development of reduced sodium foods. Agro Food
Ind. Hi. Tech. 2014, 25, 48–52.
21. Romagny, S.; Ginon, E.; Salles, C. Impact of reducing fat, salt and sugar in commercial foods on consumer acceptability and
willingness to pay in real tasting conditions: A home experiment. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 56, 164–172, doi:10.1016/j.food-
qual.2016.10.009.
22. Stone, H.; Sidel, J. Sensory Evaluation Practices, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2004.
23. Yang, J.; Lee, J. Application of Sensory Descriptive Analysis and Consumer Studies to Investigate Traditional and Authentic
Foods: A Review. Foods 2019, 8, 54, doi:10.3390/foods8020054.
24. Choi, S.E. Chapter 3: Sensory Evaluation. In Food Science: An Ecological Approach, 2nd ed.; Jones and Bartlett Publisher: Sudbury,
MA, USA, 2013.
25. Caugant, M. Sensory Evaluation, Guide of Good Practice; Actia: Paris, France, 2001.
26. Lawless, H.T.; Heymann; H. Sensory Evaluation of Food, Food Science Text Series; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
27. Resurrection, A.V.A. Consumer Sensory Testing for Product Development; An Aspen Publication: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 1998.
28. Moskowitz, H.R.; Chandler, J. Notes on consumer oriented sensory evaluation. J. Food Qual. 1979, 2, 269–276, doi:10.1111/j.1745-
4557.1979.tb00678.x.
29. Mosqueda-Melgar, J.; Raybaudi-Massilia, R.M.; Martín-Belloso, O. Microbiological shelf life and sensory evaluation of fruit
juices treated by high-intensity pulsed electric fields and antimicrobials. Food Bioprod. Process. 2012, 90, 205–214,
doi:10.1016/j.fbp.2011.03.004.
30. Walkling-Ribeiro, M.; Noci, F.; Cronin, D.A.; Lyng, J.G.; Morgan, D.J. Shelf life and sensory attributes of a fruit smoothie-type
beverage processed with moderate heat and pulsed electric fields. LWT 2010, 43, 1067–1073, doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2010.02.010.
31. Arnarson, A.; Olafsdottir, A.; Ramel, A.; Martinsdottir, E.; Reykdal, O.; Thorsdottir, I.; Thorkelsson, G. Sensory analysis and
consumer surveys of fat- and salt-reduced meat products and their use in an energy-reduced diet in overweight individuals.
Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2011, 62, 872–880, doi:10.3109/09637486.2011.589376.
32. Oliveira, D.; Antúnez, L.; Giménez, A.; Castura, J.C.; Deliza, R.; Ares, G. Sugar reduction in probiotic chocolate-flavored milk:
Impact on dynamic sensory profile and liking. Food Res. Int. 2015, 75, 148–156, doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2015.05.050.
33. Mahato, D.K.; Keast, R.; Liem, D.G.; Russell, C.G.; Cicerale, S.; Gamlath, S. Sugar Reduction in Dairy Food: An Overview with
Flavoured Milk as an Example. Foods 2020, 9, 1400, doi:10.3390/foods9101400.
34. Hough, G.; Sánchez, R.; Barbieri, T.; Martínez, E. Sensory optimization of a powdered chocolate milk formula. Food Qual. Prefer.
1997, 8, 213–221, doi:10.1016/s0950-3293(96)00051-1.
35. Badwaik, L.S.; Prasad, K.; Seth, D. Optimization of ingredient levels for the development of peanut based fiber rich pasta. J.
Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 2713–2719, doi:10.1007/s13197-012-0779-8.
36. Krishna, A.; Cian, L.; Sokolova, T. The power of sensory marketing in advertising. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2016, 10, 142–147,
doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.01.007.
37. Beriain, M.J.; Sanchez, M.; Carr, T.R. A comparison of consumer sensory acceptance, purchase intention, and willingness to pay
for high quality United States and Spanish beef under different information scenarios. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 87, 3392–3402,
doi:10.2527/jas.2008–1611.
38. Kilcast, D. 4 - Sensory evaluation methods for shelf-life assessment. In The Stability and Shelf-Life of Food; Woodhead Publishing
Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition: Sawston, UK; Cambridge, UK, 2000.
39. Hough, G.; Garitta, L. Methodology for sensory shelf-life estimation: a review. J. Sens. Stud. 2012, 27, 137–147, doi:10.1111/j.1745-
459x.2012.00383.x.
Foods 2021, 10, 446 19 of 19

40. Giménez, A.; Ares, F.; Ares, G. Sensory shelf-life estimation: A review of current methodological approaches. Food Res. Int. 2012,
49, 311–325, doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2012.07.008.
41. Lee, O.H.; Lee, H.S.; Sung, Y.E.; Lee, S.M.; Kim, K.O. Sensory characteristics and consumer acceptability of various green teas.
Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2008, 17, 349–356, doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01100.x.
42. Lee, J.; Chambers, D.H. Descriptive Analysis and U.S. Consumer Acceptability of 6 Green Tea Samples from China, Japan, and
Korea. J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, S141–S147, doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01503.x.
43. Imamura, M. Descriptive terminology for the sensory evaluation of soy sauce. J. Sens. Stud. 2016, 31, 393–407,
doi:10.1111/joss.12223.
44. Heo, J.; Lee, J. US consumers’ acceptability of soy sauce and bulgogi. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 26, 1271–1279, doi:10.1007/s10068-
017-0174-3.
45. Cho, J.-H.; Lee, S.-J.; Choi, J.-J.; Chung, C.-H. Chemical and sensory profiles of dongchimi (Korean watery radish kimchi) liquids
based on descriptive and chemical analyses. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 24, 497–506, doi:10.1007/s10068-015-0065-4.
46. Jang, S.; Kim, M.; Lim, J.; Hong, J. Cross-Cultural Comparison of Consumer Acceptability of Kimchi with Different Degree of
Fermentation. J. Sens. Stud. 2016, 31, 124–134, doi:10.1111/joss.12198.
47. Kamizake, N.K.K.; Silva, L.C.P.; Prudencio, S.H. Impact of soybean aging conditions on tofu sensory characteristics and ac-
ceptance. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 1132–1139, doi:10.1002/jsfa.8564.
48. Kim, Y.-N.; Muttakin, S.; Jung, Y.-M.; Heo, T.-Y.; Lee, D.-U. Tailoring Physical and Sensory Properties of Tofu by the Addition
of Jet-Milled, Superfine, Defatted Soybean Flour. Foods 2019, 8, 617, doi:10.3390/foods8120617.
49. Al-Farsi, M.; Alasalvar, C.; Morris, A.; Baron, A.M.; Shahidi, F. Compositional and Sensory Characteristics of Three Native Sun-
Dried Date (Phoenix dactyliferaL.) Varieties Grown in Oman. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 7586–7591, doi:10.1021/jf050578y.
50. Ismail, B.; Haffar, I.; Baalbaki, R.; Henry, J. Development of a total quality scoring system based on consumer preference weight-
ings and sensory profiles: application to fruit dates (Tamr). Food Qual. Prefer. 2001, 12, 499–506, doi:10.1016/s0950-3293(01)00043-
x.
51. Grasso, N.; Alonso-Miravalles, L.; O’Mahony, J.A. Composition, Physicochemical and Sensorial Properties of Commercial
Plant-Based Yogurts. Foods 2020, 9, 252, doi:10.3390/foods9030252.
52. EIT RIS Report, 2019; Available online: https://eit.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eit_ris_report_2019.pdf (accessed on 19 Decem-
ber 2020).
53. EIT Scorebord, 2020; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/innovation/scoreboards_en (accessed on 19
December 2020).
54. Lavrakas, P. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods; SAGE Publications Pvt Ltd: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; Vols. 1–0.
55. Dijksterhuis, G. New product failure: Five potential sources discussed. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 243–248,
doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.016.
56. Lim, J. Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 733–747, doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.05.008.