at Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:51:35 GMT in
.com>,
(Chembake) wrote :
>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:13:40 GMT in
However, earlier you say:
>"Chocolate taste from the consumer panel is a subjective matter in many
>cases... erroneous and does not reflect the true quality of the
>chocolate . The marketing people are shrewdly exploiting the naivety of
>the normal consumer"
>Which to me would imply that you believe consumer panels are conducted with
>preconceived conclusions already in mind. Otherwise, there would be no
>naivete of the normal consumer to exploit. If you're approaching the panel
>tasting truly objectively, indeed, to assume that a consumer were naive
>would be in itself already a bias.
....Why I consider consumer panel as unreliable as they are not trained
in an objective manner like the in house panel which are mostly
professionals in food processing. Consumers can come from a wide range
of background and have already a bias how a food should taste according
to their experience and prejudice....A trained sensory panel is trained
to be analytical and wholly dispassionate on the results of the sensory
evalution...after all the results are to be statistically analyzed.
>>It's very similar to the process of drug research. A pharmaceutical
>>company may have done very thorough theoretical and lab work that
>>suggests their new drug will be effective, but you still have to go
>>through the clinical trial...
>That is part of the risk that any researcher will have to accept , but
>a drug is not directly tested on humans but on animals; unlike most
>confectionery research result which is tested directly by humans.
>No, a clinical trial is by definition performed on human patients.
Nope... clinical means analytical and coolly dispassionate in doing
the task but is expected to get results in an objective manner.
Consumer panels cannot do that..
It means looking at things in objective manner with no pretense or
influence from emotions

>I'd analogise this to the case between the trained test panel
>and the consumer panel. The test panel represents the animal subject - a
>carefully selected group with calibrated response which you can measure.
>The consumer panel is the clinical subjects - a group representing the end
>target of the product who must themselves be sampled to get results that
>give you data on real reactions as opposed to reactions in a test case.

You got it wrong....an in house trained panel are professionally
trained in sensory analysis...but consumer panels are mostly
not...therefore from your own analogy the latter are considered the
monkeys while the fomer are the humans as they think carefully before
giving a sound sensory assessment .
Besides the type of sensory analysis done by the consumer sensory panel
is based on like and dislike which are not considered objective as that
can be influenced by emotion and prejudice.
The grading system for a consumer sensory analysis is not as elaborate
as the from the trained sensory panel.
Therefore its not considered to be of primary importance but only
secondary( or supporting) in nature.
Besides you cannot compare a pharmaceutical evaluation of a new drug to
testing a new confectionery product.
The drug testing takes years as the implications and side effects are
to be noted down and its difficult to establish how such drug will
affect the patient in the long run.
Meanwhile the confectionery product does not take that long and have
health risks( except in certain items that hare sugar free etc).

>>... To a certain
>>extent, I'd argue that you lose objectivity the second you start
>>bringing expectations into an experiment.
>Expectation usually comes from the top management person who decides on
>such research project that it will be worth investing on studying a
>particular area on interests
>Top management can have a tendency to impose their expectations upon the
>rank and file, yes. But scientific researchers, I've seen, can have a
>tendency to impose their expectations upon the experiment. They know that
>it's not what they're supposed to do, but even with excellent training it
>proves almost impossible to avoid entirely. For that reason the results of
>one particular individual must always be tested against reality rather than
>taken as experimentally valid. This is one reason why in most of the hard
>physical sciences research results get reported to refereed publications
>and go through a fairly extended period of scrutiny and test against actual
>results observed elsewhere before being accepted.

That is true for the so called theoretical science but not usually in
applied science like food application research./food product
development.

>Say for example in confectionery line. In the production of chocolates
>designed for the Gulf War, the prerequisites is it should not melt at
>40 degree C. The customers are the soldiers and they have only one
>thing in mind give us a choc that won't melt under the normal dessert
>heat.
>There is an example of an expectation - "they have only one thing in mind".
>It's probably fair to say that this is a primary consideration but probably
>inaccurate to characterise it as the only criterion of value. You could, I
>suspect, make a chocolate that was entirely impervious to heat but which
>tasted so foul that no one would eat it.

Any food item prepared should perform as expected...if not developer
of such product is wasting his time and resources...
But its not as simple....both Hershey and Mars spent a lot of time
perfecting it but before it was released to the field, the
specification that are desired for that particular confection was
already established in coordination with the leaders of the military
establishment who wanted such product to be created .for the benefit of
the troops.
A contented soldier will have better morale than a discontented one
(which can even start a mutiny in extreme cases.)

The development of extreme confections for the soldiers may not be
comprehensible to an ordinary chocolate enthusiast nor considered such
project to be difficult.
Indeed this particular project was complex as the technology for
alternative fats that simulate cocoa butter was not yet perfected
during the 1980's when this desert chocolate was conceived.
It took a lot of time as chemical processing were first perfected to
attain the desired cocoa butte extender that will promote a more stable
chocolate.
Therefore...The basic ingredients are reassessed and analyzed using
tools in analytical,physical chemistry ,and organic chemistry relating
to the triglyceride mixtures that can still mimic the behavior of cocoa
butter but has better stability to high temperature but without
affecting seriously the sensory qualities that has something to do with
the melting behavior which is influenced by the polymorphism of fats.
They had to establish the perfect fat blend first for such purpose.
A chef may say for example that is easy, put some tallow or suet fat
into the chocolate and it will have the desired melting point ...which
is totally wrong...It will not taste like normal chocolate.
Researchers have to think and see the problem from a bigger picture and
look it from the scientific viewpoint so that the resulting product
formulated from such will not deviate much from the sensory qualities
of the standard chocolate.
>I suspect it's also inaccurate to call the soldiers the customers - at
>least, not in the sense of the front-line privates. The customer is the
>military of the country in question. Usually, some branch or office of that
>organisation will have drafted the specifications which are then handed
>over to the confectioner and as to whether the soldiers doing the fighting
>had any input into the process the confectioner isn't going to know or much
>care -
The military organization who requested such product is the customer
and the soldiers are the consumers.
....
>As I point out, the scenario you have brought up is one in which the end
>users from the POV of the confectioner aren't the individual soldier. The
>consumers in this case is the military, or that branch, command, or office
>responsible for the purchase decisions, and it would be a panel of *those*
>individuals who might need to be consulted during product development.
>Given that their interests are different, I think also that taste wouldn't
>be as overwhelming a factor - there would be many other factors at stake.

There is a compromise to be considered so that the product will succeed
and it will part of the soldiers meal
>Meanwhile when the product is going out into a commercial market, the
>customers are the actual eating public, because at some point they're
>buying the product. This is completely different from the soldier in the
>military who isn't buying the chocolate as such but is simply accepting as
>part of a rations distribution a product being bought by someone else.
I don't see it that way,,,, any food product develop for buying
customer had its own ;blueprint' or plan how its to developed and
handled at the most economically reasonable way that will help bring
the cost down. That is why there a widespread application of
statistical methods such as Robust Product design, Design of
experiments, Evolutionary operations, Taguchi methods which are
incomprehensible to a non statistically minded individual.
Trying to have every food product created by the food designer be
tasted by the consumer is a grossly expensive and time consuming
process and if that is applied ,implies the ignorance amd lack of good
training of the food developer for better methods that cuts down
development time by a small fraction of time needed; if that is to be
compared to the ancient trial and error process ( or in the old
fashioned way) that many chefs still apply when creating a new dish.
By exerting so much time by examining every customers reaction to the
product will drain the firm resources and delay the launch of the new
product.That is where the importance of database and statistics comes
extremely useful.
Therefore this can be summed up to:
Food developers with sound scientific background had an ingenious plan
in mind how to initiate the food product development project in the
most economically feasible way in the shortest time possible'He can
apply predictive methods that are statistics/mathematically based but
have solid scientific basis that it will work. He relies on huge
database for the feasibility status of his new product .Personal ego is
usually set aside in this work as the food product development is a
team effort and he does not claim the work as his own but by team where
he is just a member.
In comparison A chef who has only an apprenticeship /vocational
training and work experience looks at recipe development from an
empirical view, (based on past experience coupled with tedious trial
and error process depending much on personal evaluation and input from
colleagues and even from the consumers. That is reasonable as the chef
has usually a frail ego and needs to be appreciated for his work. And
whatever the output , good or bad had an impact on his ego which he is
serious about it.
> First before a product developer
>work on a new ides there was much study about the acceptability of the
>item to the end user. They have in their database voluminous
>information about the specific demands of the intended market and that
>it should not deviate from the sensory values from that product.
>All you have is information as to what's been successful in the *past*. So
>as a result you'd be limited to producing derivatives of what has already
>been done, and furthermore if the ideal product had already been achieved,
>you couldn't do any better. Past market data, however, gives no information
>as to how successful an entirely new product will be. It may suggest areas
>worth exploring, but until real data is gathered through the production and
>sampling of that product, you don't actually know how well something is
>going to do - at best you're estimating.

I
A really novel food item that has no database to rely on feasibility
study indeed needs some acceptance studies from a randomly selected
consumers panel aside from the trained sensory analysis to establish
if its practical to develop and manufacture.
..
>I would say that the primary reason for higher cost is the use of more
>expensive flavor beans say the Criollo which is much scarcer than the
>common Forastero or even the Trinitario cacao beans.
>That does contribute some amount but you also have to take into account
>that the most skilled roasters, confectioners, etc. can command higher pay
>than less-experienced people in the field and that they can get better
>results out of the same beans on similar equipment. Also, capital equipment
>isn't all the same - better machines cost more, on average, for the same
>processing capacity.


>I cannot understand the logic of such what I call 'leciphobic '(
>phobia for lecithin )
There are 2 common reasons for this.
>One is that some people are so allergic to soy that even traces could be
>life-threatening, and for them soy lecithin in any amount is a high risk.
I doubt about if there is such an established study that soy lecithin
is a health risk. Its pure speculations...brought about by ignorance.
There was already and in depth study and research publication how soy
lecithin is metabolized in our body and how it benefits out health.
>The second is the group who object to GMO's (genetically modified
>organisms). Some of them have concerns about uninvestigated long-term
>health benefits and environmental impact. Others are more upset about the
>information which appears to indicate that most GMO's are being made not so
>much to improve product to the consumer, but to increase profitability to
>the manufacturer - so that they are at the mercy of products being created
>for their consumption without any direct benefit to them. Soy lecithin
>frequently comes from GMO soy, the most common being Roundup-Ready
>soybeans.
Well the GMO issue is a broad topic and its not of much interest to the
confectioner and in my practice its not considered as.I have limited
information in the latter but crop scientists and plant geneticist s
may have already included the cacao plant in their genetic engineering
study.
>> That opens a market niche for a company willing to cater to that
>>demand. If the demand is sufficiently solid, the company can make an
>>acceptable profit. The textbook example of this is in hi-fi stereo
>>equipment where the presence of audiophiles makes it possible to sell
>>components that cannot possibly be considered economical in the usual
>>sense - and which retail for upwards of $50,000.
>It might be for electronics....Just recently I bought the state of the
>art Sony Notebook with a 17 inch screen....Some people say it was an
>extravagant procurement... but what they don't know are the unique
>features it had and the bundled products that accompanies the main
>item... that led me to decide to obtain it ..., to me the unique
>qualities and good craftsmanship had justifies its cost
>But never (even in my imagination) will I do the same purchase such
>as in foodstuff. Or ingredients used for such purpose.
>Well, here's a classic illustration of how different people have different
>priorities. One person may think a notebook's a notebook, and only buy the
>cheapest model that achieves some level of basic functionality, but
>meanwhile be obsessive about food - and thus go to any lengths to get the
>best. You, meanwhile, make different choices.

IMO A good notebook computer is a necessary equipment that can
improve ones productivity immensely ...Gone are the days that you will
have to carry your paper based notebook as the source of your necessary
work related information such as recipes, contacts, suppliers etc. and
be expected to perform efficiently....
Just like mine. even when I am in the field or traveling I am still
connected to the office by wireless broadband internet and large
amount of work is continuously churned out from that portable
electronic partner.
Therefore the investment of such a very important tool is of paramount
importance for the kitchen and food science professional in this new
century.

>However, there is one thing I offer as a suggestion. I claim there is an
>argument to be made that the people willing to get the most obsessive about
>a given product are the ones most naturally suited to being professionals
>in that field. After all, it's reasonable to suppose that the person who is
>obsessive will pursue research in that field more thoroughly and with more
>motivation than someone who's not obsessive, which might indeed be a
>criteria of "enjoyment", so that one can argue that willingness to be
>obsessive in a field indicates how much you enjoy that field. In an ideal
>world, all people would be working at something they truly enjoy, and if
>this yardstick of obsession is any indication, then should most people seek
>work in fields about which they obsess, they'd all be doing something they
>love
Obsession ( or having strong determination to reach a certain goal )if
looked from a positive point of view is a good character trait that
leads to better productivity ; but. It must not be allowed to
degenerate to a negative point, the obsessive compulsive behavior
that will likely lead to fanaticism.