Short communication: Influence of labeling on Australian and Chinese consumers' liking of milk with short (pasteurized) and long (UHT) shelf life.

Sixty percent of milk consumed in China has a long shelf life (UHT), presumably because milk with a short shelf life (pasteurized) is comparatively expensive. This in contrast to Australia, where 10% of consumed milk is UHT and the price between UHT and pasteurized milk is equivalent. Whether UHT is actually more liked than pasteurized milk by Chinese consumers is unknown. However, the potential positive halo around the expensive pasteurized milk might result in Chinese consumers liking milk more when it is labeled as "short shelf-life milk." To test these hypotheses, Chinese (n=48, 20 males, 28 females, 23 ± 7.2 yr) and Australian (n=93, 11 males, 82 females, 24 ± 5.6 yr) consumers tasted and rated (9-point hedonic scale), in a randomized order, 3 × 30-mL samples of UHT milk (labeled as "long shelf-life milk," "short shelf-life milk," or "milk") and 3 × 30-mL samples of pasteurized milk (also labeled as "long shelf-life milk," "short shelf-life milk," or "milk"). Australian participants' liking of milk was not influenced by labeling. Regardless of what the label stated, they always preferred the taste of pasteurized milk over the taste of UHT milk. This was different for Chinese participants, who preferred the taste of UHT milk over the taste of pasteurized milk, but in general had a higher liking for any milk that was labeled "short shelf-life milk." Both Australian and Chinese were more positive about pasteurized than UHT milk. In conclusion, Chinese, but not Australian, consumers' liking of milk was guided by the positive expectations of pasteurized milk and the negative expectations of UHT milk. Further research is needed to investigate if the present findings can be extrapolated to a larger and more varied group of Chinese and Australian consumers.

Sensory specific satiety and intake: the difference between nibble- and bar-size snacks.

The present study investigated (1) whether consumption of a nibble-size snack, as compared to a bar-size snack, leads to more sensory specific satiety (SSS) and a lower intake; and (2) whether attention to consumption, as compared to usual consumption, leads to more SSS and a lower intake. Subjects (N=59) tested two snack foods which differed in size, nibbles and bars, in two consumption conditions. In the attention condition, the instruction to chew the food well was given. In the control condition no such instruction was given. For each of the four SSS sessions ad libitum intake was measured and SSS scores were calculated. Mean intake of the nibbles was 12% lower than of the bars in the control condition, but not in the attention condition. Although non-significantly, attention to consumption tended to reduce intake of the bars but not of the nibbles. SSS scores were slightly higher for the bars than for the nibbles. Our results suggest that a smaller food size results in a lower intake. The data do not clearly support the idea that attention to consumption decreases intake. Hypothetically consumption of small foods and attentive consumption prolong the oral sensory stimulation, which results in a lower intake.