A Survey on the Evaluation of Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) Taste in Austria.

Emilia Iannilli, Emilise Lucerne Pötz, Thomas Hummel
Author Information
  1. Emilia Iannilli: Department of Psychology, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria. ORCID
  2. Emilise Lucerne Pötz: Department of Psychology, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria.
  3. Thomas Hummel: Smell & Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Technische Universität Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany.

Abstract

The umami taste is well validated in Asian culture but remains less recognized and accepted in European cultures despite its presence in natural local products. This study explored the sensory and emotional perceptions of umami in 233 Austrian participants who had lived in Austria for most of their lives. Using blind tasting, participants evaluated monosodium glutamate (MSG) dissolved in water, providing open-ended verbal descriptions, pleasantness ratings, and comparisons to a sodium chloride (NaCl) solution. Discrimination tests excluded MSG ageusia, and basic demographic data were collected. A text semantic-based analysis (TSA) was employed to analyze the emotional valence and descriptive content of participants' responses. The results showed that MSG was predominantly associated with neutral sentiments across the group, including both female and male subgroups. "Sour" was the most frequent taste descriptor, while "unfamiliar" characterized the perceptual experience. Pleasantness ratings for MSG and NaCl were positively correlated, suggesting that overcoming the unfamiliarity of umami could enhance its acceptance and align it with the pleasantness of salt. These findings advance the understanding of umami sensory perception and its emotional and cultural acceptance in European contexts, offering valuable insights for integrating umami into Western dietary and sensory frameworks.

Keywords

References

  1. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010 Oct;64(10):1248-50 [PMID: 20717135]
  2. Physiol Behav. 1991 May;49(5):833-41 [PMID: 1679557]
  3. Data Brief. 2020 Jan 07;28:105102 [PMID: 31956683]
  4. Physiol Behav. 2015 Feb;139:375-7 [PMID: 25462592]
  5. Nutrients. 2018 Oct 18;10(10): [PMID: 30340375]
  6. Nutrients. 2013 Nov 26;5(12):4800-21 [PMID: 24288022]
  7. Pediatr Obes. 2015 Jun;10(3):180-7 [PMID: 24990443]
  8. Soc Sci Res. 2022 Nov;108:102784 [PMID: 36334929]
  9. Brain Res. 2015 Jul 21;1614:67-74 [PMID: 25911584]
  10. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Sep;90(3):789S-799S [PMID: 19571223]
  11. Nihon Yakurigaku Zasshi. 2015 Jun;145(6):288-92 [PMID: 26063150]
  12. Hypertens Res. 2020 Jun;43(6):525-533 [PMID: 31996813]
  13. J Nutr. 2000 Apr;130(4S Suppl):921S-6S [PMID: 10736353]
  14. J Endocrinol Invest. 2024 Feb;47(2):299-306 [PMID: 37740888]
  15. J Food Sci. 2020 Sep;85(9):2902-2914 [PMID: 32776553]
  16. Foods. 2023 May 20;12(10): [PMID: 37238881]
  17. Food Res Int. 2024 Jun;185:114248 [PMID: 38658067]
  18. Br J Nutr. 2018 May;119(10):1195-1206 [PMID: 29759103]
  19. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Apr;95(4):875-81 [PMID: 22357724]
  20. J Dairy Res. 2013 Aug;80(3):319-25 [PMID: 23719341]
  21. Appetite. 2018 Jan 1;120:92-99 [PMID: 28843973]
  22. PLoS One. 2009 Aug 21;4(8):e6717 [PMID: 19696921]
  23. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015 Jan 9;456(2):586-90 [PMID: 25490385]
  24. J Neurosci Res. 2017 Oct;95(10):1927-1936 [PMID: 28493338]
  25. Pediatrics. 2011 Jan;127(1):110-8 [PMID: 21187303]
  26. Physiol Behav. 2007 Jun 8;91(2-3):264-73 [PMID: 17477942]
  27. J Nutr. 2000 Apr;130(4S Suppl):910S-4S [PMID: 10736351]
  28. Flavour Fragr J. 2011 Jul;26(4):286-294 [PMID: 21743773]
  29. J Gen Psychol. 1991 Jul;118(3):201-214 [PMID: 28142506]
  30. Multisens Res. 2023 Aug 14;:1-40 [PMID: 37582512]
  31. J Nutr Sci. 2014 Aug 13;3:e15 [PMID: 25191607]
  32. Neuroscience. 2018 Jul 15;383:74-83 [PMID: 29753861]
  33. Chem Senses. 2002 Feb;27(2):105-15 [PMID: 11839608]
  34. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013 Jan;34(1):62-76 [PMID: 22020878]
  35. J Food Sci. 2020 May;85(5):1565-1575 [PMID: 32282071]
  36. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2022;62(25):7015-7024 [PMID: 33998842]
  37. Chem Pharm Bull (Tokyo). 2020;68(3):234-243 [PMID: 32115530]
  38. Physiol Behav. 1994 Dec;56(6):1165-71 [PMID: 7878086]
  39. Food Sci Nutr. 2017 Jul 13;5(6):1039-1048 [PMID: 29188030]
  40. Nature. 2002 Mar 14;416(6877):199-202 [PMID: 11894099]
  41. Front Artif Intell. 2020 Aug 07;3:55 [PMID: 33733172]
  42. Neurosci Lett. 2007 Jan 3;411(1):6-10 [PMID: 17110032]
  43. Physiol Behav. 2006 Dec 30;89(5):711-7 [PMID: 17028046]
  44. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Aug;100(2):532-8 [PMID: 24944058]
  45. Physiol Behav. 2013 May 27;116-117:23-9 [PMID: 23531472]
  46. J Food Sci. 2007 Aug;72(6):S360-6 [PMID: 17995691]
  47. Pain. 2000 Apr;85(3):457-463 [PMID: 10781919]
  48. Nutrients. 2021 Feb 09;13(2): [PMID: 33572364]
  49. Chem Senses. 2004 Oct;29(8):671-81 [PMID: 15466812]
  50. Food Nutr Res. 2016 Jun 27;60:30463 [PMID: 27356909]
  51. Food Res Int. 2024 Aug;189:114516 [PMID: 38876587]

Grants

  1. NA/This work was supported by the International Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC), located in Washington DC 20045, USA.

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0umamiMSGsensoryemotionalanalysisacceptancetasteEuropeanparticipantsAustriapleasantnessratingsNaCltextperceptionculturalwellvalidatedAsiancultureremainslessrecognizedacceptedculturesdespitepresencenaturallocalproductsstudyexploredperceptions233AustrianlivedlivesUsingblindtastingevaluatedmonosodiumglutamatedissolvedwaterprovidingopen-endedverbaldescriptionscomparisonssodiumchloridesolutionDiscriminationtestsexcludedageusiabasicdemographicdatacollectedsemantic-basedTSAemployedanalyzevalencedescriptivecontentparticipants'responsesresultsshowedpredominantlyassociatedneutralsentimentsacrossgroupincludingfemalemalesubgroups"Sour"frequentdescriptor"unfamiliar"characterizedperceptualexperiencePleasantnesspositivelycorrelatedsuggestingovercomingunfamiliarityenhancealignsaltfindingsadvanceunderstandingcontextsofferingvaluableinsightsintegratingWesterndietaryframeworksSurveyEvaluationMonosodiumGlutamateTastesentiment

Similar Articles

Cited By