Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38410266›Full record

ReviewJournal of food science and technology2024

Natural food flavours: a healthier alternative for bakery industry-a review.

Nidhi Singh, M L Sudha

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of food science and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nidhi SinghDepartment of Flour Milling, Baking and Confectionery Technology, CSIR-Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysore, 570020 India.
M L SudhaDepartment of Flour Milling, Baking and Confectionery Technology, CSIR-Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysore, 570020 India.ORCID 0000-0002-6600-5854

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human beings always remained attracted towards vivid food flavours and aroma. Ever since the food industry came into existence, several brands and industries worldwide have been busy creating storms in the food markets through flavours, aromas, textures and substances to intrigue the consumers' minds. The ingredients that go into the preparation of these food items include a list of various preservatives, taste enhancers, stabilizers, colours and to make it look attractive and delicious but may not be healthy. Most of the flavours that are used by food brands are often chemical based and are synthesized completely in the laboratory. The use of artificial/synthetic flavourings in the form of chemical food additives and taste enhancers lead to long term health issues which include potential risks of neurological problems, cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, different types of hypersensitivities and even cancers. Food and Drug Administration (FDA, USA) conduct frequent studies to limit the use of artificial flavouring and additives which are totally chemical based and mimic natural food flavours and extract. Benzaldehyde-an organic chemical closely resembles the flavour of roasted almonds and ethyl vanillin which is 3 times potent than natural vanilla extract used is various confectionery items. Also several ester derivatives are used for mimicking natural fruit flavours like strawberry, guava and cherry. These chemicals pose a considerable threat to human health, knowingly or unknowingly. Antagonistically, natural food flavours, though not as popular as artificial ones prove to be healthier and carry the same aroma and taste as artificial flavouring agents. This review paper sheds light on the pervasiveness of natural and artificial food flavouring agents in the market, their benefits and drawbacks and how they have been in a constant race for dominating the bakery industry.

Indexed as

AromaArtificial flavoursConfectioneryNatural flavoursToxic

Identifiers

PMID38410266
PMCPMC10894155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.