perfumers in targeting scents to emotional and hedonic targets.
While emotional, sensory and cross-modality impressions may
vary by geography, the database allows formulations to focus
on certain emotional targets cross-referenced with materials.
Tasting panel: Sitting down with a trained descriptor taste
panel, IFF provided a demo session in which a solution containing a sweet taste modifier was presented. The tasting included
“with” and “without” comparison samples. The sweet taste
modifier presented allows for a 50% reduction of sugar in a
formulation without any loss of sweetness impression.
The purpose of panels such as this one is to determine both
whether a material works and how well it works. Sweet taste, it
turns out, is not highly variable by geography, and so U.S.-based
tasting can be extrapolated globally.
Evaluating scents: Strict measurement and application
procedures are undertaken to ensure reliable results, which is
particularly crucial when testers evaluate leave-on personal care
and fine fragrance. For instance, scents will be evaluated on a
subject by having the subject walk in a specific manner through
a gauntlet of panelists 10 times. Meanwhile, untrained panelists
will be subjected to a fragrance or fragranced product such as
a shampoo and self-evaluate at home, providing feedback with
a greater level of realism.
This type of testing is effective for the sensory evaluation of encapsulated fragrances for fabric and personal care.
Encapsulation provides scents with duration, touch activation
and the ability to deliver a much greater fragrance impact
compared to conventional formulations. In hair care, bench-top
testing of encapsulated fragrances is insufficient. Evaluations are
carried out with consumers through lathering, rinsing and then
periodically smelling for 24 hours.
Real progress, IFF believes, often comes from well-designed
sensory testing, particularly in evaluating how formulations
affect perception and performance. A second benefit of this
approach is that it requires fewer people compared to broad
consumer testing, and can be accomplished much more rapidly.
Limiting the pool of responses is necessary in order to avoid
Expanding its palette of natural extracts and aroma chemicals for
the food and beverage market, in addition to boosting its health
and wellness solutions, Wild Flavors Inc. (Erlanger, Kentucky/
Eppelheim, Germany) has acquired Alfrebro LLC (Monroe,
Ohio). Alfrebro, which will continue as a separate entity, was
founded in 1981 and has alternately operated as a segment of
parent companies (Alex Fries & Brothers, Land O’Lakes, SKW
Trostberg, Degussa, Cargill and Kerry) and as an independent
company. The acquisition of Alfrebro follows Wild’s 2013 purchase of Amazon Flavors, its 2012 purchase of Cargill’s global
juice cold blends operations, and its 2011 acquisition of mint
and natural ingredient expert A.M. Todd.
Vince Macciocchi, COO of Wild Flavors Inc., tells
P&F, “Alfrebro provides improved raw material access
for our supply chain and procurement teams. With the
location within close proximity to the North American
headquarters in Erlanger, Kentucky, the acquisition also
allows for vertical integration through the increasing
manufacturing capabilities and capacities, allowing for
single-source sourcing and additional cost savings.”
He adds,” Alfrebro has unique natural extracts and aroma
chemicals, as well as advance proprietary technologies that are
all elements involved in increasing our flavor creation capabili-
ties, expanding our portfolio of great-tasting ingredients, and
concepts shown and sold to customers.
Macciocchi concludes, “Many of the aroma chemicals and
ingredients will continue to be sold to the industry. There are
ingredients, extracts, and distillates that will become proprietary
to the Wild chemists and developers to broaden the portfolio
and allow for high-quality, value-added and unique flavors for
Wild Boosts Novel Ingredient Capabilities with Alfrebro Acquisition
Read a profile of Alfrebro, “Alfrebro’s Next Chapter,”
on pages 14–15 of the December 2012 issue of P&F ;
Is English inherently incapable of accurately expressing the experience of smell? Possibly, according
to a recent study published in the journal Cognition. 1
Authors Asifa Majid (Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands) and Niclas Burenhult
(Lund University, Sweden) note that studies on the limitation of language to describe smell have
focused on Western urbanized populations. And so they tested whether the Jahai speakers of the
Malay Peninsula “could name smells as easily as colors in comparison to a matched English group.”
It turned out that, indeed, the Jahai speakers could name odors just as easily as they could name
colors. Meanwhile, English speakers found this far more difficult. As a result, the authors concluded,
“Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language.”
1. A Majid and N Burenhult, Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130( 2),
Some Languages Articulate Odor Better than Others