An overview of the characteristics of the 13 studies on meat analogs included in this review is provided in Table 2. The studies were published from 2008 to 2022 and focused on different plant-based meat analogs, such as burgers patties or chicken pieces (Piester et al., 2020; Godschalk-Broers et al., 2022; Kerslake et al., 2022; Pater et al., 2022), cold cuts (Pointke et al., 2022), and samples or recipes with legume-based or fungi-based analogs (Katayama and Wilson, 2008; Elzerman et al., 2013; Hoek et al., 2013; Gómez et al., 2019; Cordelle et al., 2022).

The majority (n = 10) were conducted in Europe (Hoek et al., 2011, 2013; Elzerman et al., 2013; Gómez et al., 2019; Grasso et al., 2021; Michel et al., 2021; Cordelle et al., 2022; Godschalk-Broers et al., 2022; Pater et al., 2022; Pointke et al., 2022). Two research articles were conducted in the United States (US) (Katayama and Wilson, 2008; Piester et al., 2020) and one in New Zealand (Kerslake et al., 2022). Notably, two studies were cross-national and involved consumers from The Netherlands and the UK (Hoek et al., 2011) and from Finland, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, and the UK (Grasso et al., 2021). To note, none of the studies involved participants from Africa, Asia, or Latin America.

As regard the target population, the majority (n = 11) focused on the adult population (over 18 y.o.), one study specifically focused on older people (Grasso et al., 2021), and one on children (Pater et al., 2022).

Three studies applied a qualitative approach using either focus groups (Elzerman et al., 2013; Kerslake et al., 2022) or semi-structured interviews (Pater et al., 2022). All other studies (n = 10) employed quantitative research methods, with three exclusively using surveys (Hoek et al., 2011; Grasso et al., 2021; Michel et al., 2021), and seven studies utilizing an experimental design (hedonic method: Hoek et al., 2013; Gómez et al., 2019; Piester et al., 2020; descriptive and hedonic methods: Katayama and Wilson, 2008; Cordelle et al., 2022; Godschalk-Broers et al., 2022; Pointke et al., 2022).

Since most of the studies focused on a very wide range of products that did not allow a simple categorization by type of product (e.g., chicken, burgers etc), meat analogs are reported in a single paragraph.

Over the past years, several efforts have been made to develop alternative products to real meat (e.g., plant-based meat analogs, edible insects, and cultured meat) (Lee et al., 2020). Among them, plant-based meat analogs are food products that mimic the aesthetic qualities, sensory and chemical characteristics of certain types of meat, replacing meat proteins with vegetable proteins such as textured soy protein, mycoproteins, wheat gluten, and pulses (Joshi and Kumar, 2015; Bohrer, 2019) using extrusion, spinning, and simple shear flow production techniques (Bohrer, 2019).

It is well-known that sensory characteristics strongly influence which products individuals choose to consume, and this is particularly important when considering plant- or fungi-based products as alternatives to meat (Hartmann and Siegrist, 2017; Siegrist and Hartmann, 2019). In a recent brief review, Giacalone et al. (2022) highlighted that the sensory quality of plant-based meat alternatives remains disappointing, and they performed worse in sensory evaluations when compared to the meat-control product. Accordingly, some studies examined in the present review reported that meat substitutes are poorly rated, lack sufficient quality in terms of flavor and texture (firmness, juiciness, greasiness), and present unpleasant aftertastes (Hoek et al., 2011; Elzerman et al., 2013; Michel et al., 2021; Kerslake et al., 2022). However, the debate on which characteristics should be present in meat analogs is still ongoing since some consumers prefer properties that mimic real meat properties (Hoek et al., 2011; Michel et al., 2021; Cordelle et al., 2022; Pater et al., 2022), and others would like flavors and textures that do not resemble meat. This latter group of consumers would like to refer to meat analogs as products with unique characteristics and not anymore as “analogs/substitutes” (Elzerman et al., 2013; Kerslake et al., 2022).

In general, in the critical moment when a consumer approaches a food, perhaps for the first time, a disconfirmation of expectations occurs if the score of perceived liking after consumption is lower than the score of expected liking, meaning that the product's appearance misrepresents other characteristics like odor, taste, and flavor (Delwiche, 2004). Firstly, the overall appearance of meat analogs should inspire positive expectations that are also confirmed during consumption (Fiorentini et al., 2020). However, using plant proteins is associated with processing limitations, such as color fading when the analog is exposed to light or oxygen, resulting in an unattractive product (Fiorentini et al., 2020). Thus, several approaches, like seasoning and curing the meat analogs before cooking, as well as cooking parameters such as temperature and time, could be applied to impact the visual appearance of meat analogs positively. Gómez et al. (2019) examined the effect of two marinades (i.e., teriyaki sauce and beer) and different cooking times and temperatures on the color attributes of a soy meat analog and a beef equivalent. Both ready-to-eat products were subjected to sous vide cooking (i.e., a vacuum-sealed product is cooked at low temperatures in a water bath) at different combinations of temperature (70°C and 80°C) and time (60, 90 and 120 min for beef; 90, 120 and 150 min for meat analog) (Gómez et al., 2019). The use of teriyaki sauce (70% of pineapple juice) and pale lager beer (80%) as marinades, resulted in a light-yellow or golden color, respectively. Seventy-three consumers performed, in a blind condition, a hedonic test on color (intensity, homogeneity, and overall color), and odor (intensity, persistence, cooked meat, and overall odor) parameters using a 7-point scale (1 = “dislike very much,” 7 = “like very much”). Regarding appearance, hedonic scores were found comparable between the samples (around the mid-point of the scale “neither liked nor disliked”), suggesting that both samples were equally liked in terms of visual appearance. In addition, lightness and redness parameters evaluated with the instrumental analysis had the same values in both samples cooked with similar parameters (i.e., temperature and time), suggesting that the sous vide cooking technique could be used to develop meat analogs visually comparable to their meat equivalent, regardless of marinating type (Gómez et al., 2019).

As regards the taste, flavor, and aroma of meat analogs, a common disadvantage usually reported when plant proteins are used to produce meat analogs is the generation of volatile compounds from the lipid oxidation of unsaturated fatty acids that contribute to the formation of unappealing odors and flavors (Fiorentini et al., 2020).

To overcome this problem, meat analogs formulations with flavoring mixtures with spices, seasonings, and enhancers can be produced to replicate the typical flavor of meat and/or mask the aromas associated with pulses, such as beany, grassy, or green aroma (Fiorentini et al., 2020). In this context, Gómez et al. did not find significant differences in hedonic scores for odor parameters of intensity, persistence, and overall aroma between beef and meat analog samples, independently of the marinade type used (i.e., teriyaki sauce or beer).

Katayama and Wilson (2008) determined the most liked concentration of vegetable-based chicken flavor added to soy formulations prepared in four different shapes (narrow and wide strips, shred, and bit) and with two cooking methods (deep fat-fried and baked). The authors performed both descriptive and hedonic evaluations. The sensory attributes evaluated for the chicken-flavored textured soy protein products (TSP) were mainly related to aroma/flavor and taste characteristics, such as beany flavor/aroma, oily flavor/aroma, chicken flavor/aroma, and saltiness. Moreover, color, crispiness, and chewiness attributes were also investigated. Results showed that 4% flavoring enhanced the samples' overall saltiness, chicken flavor, and crispiness. As expected, attributes like color, texture, and oily flavor were clearly influenced by the different shapes and cooking methods. In particular, the different shape of the samples was related to different moisture content and to the encapsulation of flavor molecules thanks to air pockets resulting in the frying process. Moreover, to collect more specific information regarding the consumer acceptance of meat analogs, the authors combined the descriptive analysis with a preference test with 125 consumers, who evaluated the TSP with 22.3% of chicken flavor in 1-cm crouton-like-shaped bits-type (BIT) presented as fried or baked. Overall, 66% of consumers selected as preferred the fried BIT compared to the baked BIT (Katayama and Wilson, 2008).

Two preference tests were performed in a recent study by Cordelle et al. (2022). In the first experiment, three recipes (white sauce, chop suey, and lasagna), each prepared with two or three different plant protein meat substitutes (soy or a mix of wheat and chickpea) or with meat (veal, chicken, or ham), were evaluated by 91 consumers applying the Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) method associated with the measurement of the overall liking score. The meat version was always preferred, well separated from the other products, and described by attributes such as meat and ham flavor, and dry, firm and tender texture. Recipes with plant-based protein products were less appreciated and were characterized as having vegetable and spicy aromas (Soy2) or being described as tasteless, gelatinous, and spongy (wheat-chickpea and Soy1). The authors demonstrated that it was possible to improve the acceptability of wheat-chickpea products by adding meat flavor, which positively affected the variants no longer perceived as tasteless. On the contrary, changing its color did not affect liking scores. Then, a single recipe (i.e., white sauce with quinoa as a side dish), was selected and cooked either with chicken chunks or with three different plant-based protein chunks: an optimized variant of one of the meat substitutes (i.e., wheat-chickpea with meat flavor) and two commercially available meat-substitutes based on wheat-soy and mycoprotein. Sixty-nine consumers took part four sessions, evaluating a full portion of each product during four different meals. (i) Visual liking before the tasting; (ii) Multiple-intake Temporal Dominance of Sensations (TDS) of taste, flavor, and texture descriptors, alternating with liking scales; (iii) Taste, texture, and overall liking after tasting were collected during each session. Concerning visual liking, the optimized variant obtained the highest mean score. However, the overall liking assessed after tasting, as the strongly correlated taste, and texture liking, showed that the products formulated with mycoprotein and chicken obtained higher scores than the wheat-chickpea with meat flavor. Indeed, this sample was more appreciated for its taste but less for its texture. Herein consumers were dissatisfied with their expectations since visual liking did not reflect the after-tasting overall liking. Concerning the dynamic liking measurements, the authors reported that data obtained from dynamic and non-dynamic measurements were comparable, suggesting that product's hedonic scores were not affected by the temporality (Cordelle et al., 2022). Nevertheless, the dynamic approach primarily highlighted that meat substitutes could be attractive in their appearance and tasty with the addition of “meat aroma” but should be improved for the texture descriptors: tenderness seemed to be a positive characteristic, whereas a spongy texture was less accepted. Thus, even more challenging, is to successfully mimic the texture of animal proteins and their unique functional properties.

In this context, a recent study specifically focused on texture, investigating in commercially available meat analogs the connections among structure, textural characteristics, sensory evaluation, and consumer acceptance (Godschalk-Broers et al., 2022). The authors screened more than 8,000 meat analogs marketed from 2014 to 2019. Availability and variety in composition concerning protein type, total fat content, and fiber were the factors that guided the product selection. Thirteen plant-based chicken pieces and 14 plant-based burgers were chosen as representative samples and compared with real chicken pieces and a beef burger as reference samples. Seventy-one non-vegetarian adult consumers performed hedonic and descriptive evaluations on the samples stored and prepared by the participants at home, according to the provided guidelines. Although the differences were product-dependent, the analog chicken pieces generally obtained higher scores in color (darker) and fattiness and lower in texture parameters like hardness, cohesiveness and fibrousness, and in meaty flavor compared to real chicken. On the contrary, a clear sensory pattern was not observed for the texture characteristics of juiciness, chewiness, and overall flavor intensity, which scored higher in some chicken analogs and lower in others than real chicken. Regarding burger samples, juiciness and fattiness were the attributes that distinguished natural beef from analogs, which were scored lower in chewiness, cohesiveness, fibrousness, juiciness, fattiness, and with a lower flavor intensity and meaty flavor. For both chicken pieces and beef burger analogs, overall liking was related to meaty flavor and juiciness. However, the authors noted that liking for flavor is guided especially by the type of flavor, rather than its intensity. As well, juiciness is reported to be the most crucial mouthfeel attribute to focus on when plant-based burger development is planned. For chicken analog pieces, fibrousness and cohesiveness also played a role. The instrumental analysis highlighted that the source of juiciness in meat analogs is not only related to measurable characteristics, such as moisture content and expressible moisture but arises from a combination of aspects linked to both samples' composition and structure (Godschalk-Broers et al., 2022).

Improving simple texture attributes may not be an efficient strategy to increase the consumers' appreciation of meat analogs, while taking into account the complex interplay of sensory properties with cross-modal interactions sounds more promising. Moreover, repeated exposure could be another valid approach to establishing a durable meat replacement with new substitutes. Hoek et al. (2013) tested a long-term in-home use test of 10 weeks in realistic conditions, with twice-a-week consumption of selected meat substitutes (i.e., tofu and Quorn) or a reference meat product (chicken). They considered the role of the product, the person, and the meal context in studying consumer acceptance over time. Results showed that repeated exposure to food products that are relatively unfamiliar and distinct (like meat substitutes) might increase acceptance by a segment of consumers (i.e., participants who liked the product better over time vs. participants who showed a reversed reaction and got bored) (Hoek et al., 2013) and repeated exposure can decrease the desired similarity to meat (Hoek et al., 2011). However, to improve the long-term acceptance of these products, it is essential to focus mainly on establishing positive initial product experiences: indeed, whether initial liking is low compared to familiar products such as meat, most consumers will hardly ever consume these products again (Hoek et al., 2013). Moreover, stressing taste information on food labels (i.e., information that a veggie burger is especially tasty) may affect food choices and willingness to purchase more sustainable foods.

Participants' age, gender, ethnicity and/or the type of diet followed may influence plant-based meat analogues' sensory quality. However, few studies are available on the perception and acceptance of specific population targets toward these products.

In this context, Pater et al. (2022) involved 8- to 10-year-old non-vegetarian Dutch children recruited in primary schools and investigated their perception/attitudes toward plant-based meat analogs (i.e., commercial vegan burgers and vegetarian balls based on soy and/or wheat) through semi-structured interviews. The study highlighted that the consumption of meat analogs was quite high among children (1 to 2 times per week), and most of them were generally willing to try these products. During the interviews, most children discussed meat analogues' palatability, reporting perceiving them as tasty. Approximately half of the children mentioned that the overall appearance of a meat analog should resemble meat, while someone mentioned that the analogs should have a color much more associable with vegetables (i.e., a greenish color). When it came to taste, the meat analog was preferred if had a resemblance to real meat and had taste/flavors like sweet, salty, spicy, or seasoned. The texture of the meat analogs should resemble meat and would be preferred as juicy inside and crispy or crunchy outside.

Moving to the elderly population, Grasso et al. (2021) explored through surveys the attitudes of this consumer target in five European countries. Through a segmentation analysis constructed on meat liking scores and cooked meat consumption, three segments of older consumers were identified: heavy vs. medium vs. light meat consumers among 2,500 community-dwelling older adults aged 65 years or above in Finland, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The segments showed different reasons for liking and disliking meat and plant-based “meat” substitutes, and the authors highlighted that the importance of sensory appeal, resemblance to meat and familiarity with plant-based products is associated with being heavy meat consumers. Elderly-oriented product developers should address familiarity with alternative protein sources and sensory appeal in communication strategies to incentivise elderly heavy meat consumers in the transition toward sustainable food systems (Grasso et al., 2021). The study also reported the presence of cross-national differences in terms of pro-environmental protein consumption and attitudes (i.e., heavy meat consumers living in the Netherlands vs. medium meat consumers living in Poland), but no differences regarding acceptability or sensory perception have been highlighted between countries, as previously reported also by Hoek et al. (2013).

Concerning gender, women are reported to be light meat consumers (Grasso et al., 2021), to have a better predisposition for meat alternatives than men, mainly due to their concerns about animal welfare and the environment (Michel et al., 2021), and to be more prone to change their eating habits compared to men (Piester et al., 2020). However, any further gender-related comparison cannot be done in terms of sensory acceptance or rejection of plant-based meat, because no data are available on this topic.

As regards diet styles, it has been reported that omnivores and meat likers tend to judge sensory characteristics as unsatisfactory in meat analogs because unpleasant or unexpected tastes do not respond to their expectations, representing a barrier to acceptance (Hoek et al., 2011; Elzerman et al., 2013; Hellwig et al., 2022; Kerslake et al., 2022). In this context, Pointke et al. (2022) recruited 159 German consumers with different dietary styles (omnivore, flexitarian, vegetarian, vegan), who performed a sensory evaluation on three different plant-based commercial products (milk, cheese, and salami) applying the rate-all-that-apply (RATA) approach and assessing the overall liking of each product on a 9-point hedonic scale. As expected, vegans rated overall liking significantly higher than omnivores. However, differences in product descriptions also emerged, as sensory terms frequency of selection and sensory profiles of the three plant-based alternative products varied according to the dietary styles. These differences were more pronounced in the oat drink and plant-based cheese. Regarding plant-based salami, omnivores rated significantly lower the intensity of “meat smell” and “meat taste” compared to others.

An overview of the characteristics of the 26 studies on dairy analogs included in this review is provided in Table 3. The studies were published from 2000 to 2023, and the majority (n = 17) investigated plant-based milks (Chambers et al., 2006; N'Kouka et al., 2006; Palacios et al., 2010; Lawrence et al., 2015; Pramudya et al., 2019; Gorman et al., 2021; Jaeger and Giacalone, 2021; Oduro et al., 2021; Vaikma et al., 2021; Cardello et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022; Moss et al., 2022; Pointke et al., 2022), or fermented beverages obtained from pulses (Cosson et al., 2020; Laaksonen et al., 2021; Mefleh et al., 2022; Aydar et al., 2023), five plant-based yogurt (Brückner-Gühmann et al., 2019; Grasso et al., 2020; Greis et al., 2020; Jaeger et al., 2023; Part et al., 2023), and five cheese-analogs (Chumchuere et al., 2000; Li et al., 2013, 2020; Falkeisen et al., 2022; Pointke et al., 2022). Nine studies were conducted in Europe (Brückner-Gühmann et al., 2019; Cosson et al., 2020; Grasso et al., 2020; Greis et al., 2020; Laaksonen et al., 2021; Vaikma et al., 2021; Mefleh et al., 2022; Pointke et al., 2022; Part et al., 2023) and Turkey (Aydar et al., 2023). Six research articles were conducted in the US (Chambers et al., 2006; N'Kouka et al., 2006; Palacios et al., 2010; Lawrence et al., 2015; Pramudya et al., 2019; Jaeger and Giacalone, 2021), three in Canada (Gorman et al., 2021; Falkeisen et al., 2022; Moss et al., 2022), and two in New Zealand (Cardello et al., 2022; Jaeger et al., 2023). To note, four studies were conducted in Asia (Taiwan, Chung et al., 2022; China, Li et al., 2013, 2020; Thailand, Chumchuere et al., 2000) and only one in Africa (Republic of Ghana, Oduro et al., 2021).

As regards the target population and methodological approach, all the studies focused on the adult population, except one with children (Palacios et al., 2010), and applied a quantitative approach. Four studies applied hedonic methods (Palacios et al., 2010; Grasso et al., 2020; Jaeger and Giacalone, 2021; Oduro et al., 2021), while the majority used a descriptive method (i.e., Quantitative Descriptive Approach, Sensory Profile, Rapid descriptive methods like CATA or RATA, TDS) (Chumchuere et al., 2000; Chambers et al., 2006; N'Kouka et al., 2006; Li et al., 2013, 2020; Cosson et al., 2020; Vaikma et al., 2021; Mefleh et al., 2022; Part et al., 2023), generally in combination with hedonic evaluations and/or surveys (Lawrence et al., 2015; Brückner-Gühmann et al., 2019; Pramudya et al., 2019; Greis et al., 2020; Gorman et al., 2021; Laaksonen et al., 2021; Cardello et al., 2022; Chung et al., 2022; Falkeisen et al., 2022; Pointke et al., 2022; Aydar et al., 2023; Jaeger et al., 2023). Only Moss et al. (2022) applied a mixed experimental design (i.e., qualitative and quantitative). Four studies also evaluated liking associated with the emotion elicited during product consumption (Jaeger and Giacalone, 2021; Cardello et al., 2022; Falkeisen et al., 2022; Jaeger et al., 2023).

Given the larger number of articles available in the literature for this product category compared to meat analogs, this paragraph is organized in different sections focused on plant-based milk, yogurt and cheese analogs, respectively.

As highlighted previously for meat analogs, many person-related factors impact the acceptance of plant-based beverages. In this context, several studies have investigated different segments of consumers with distinct attitudes toward dairy analogs. As expected, the dietary style influences the sensory perception of dairy analogs. The study by Pointke et al. (2022), detailed above, showed that the frequency of selection of sensory terms and the sensory profiles of dairy alternative products (i.e., oat milk and plant-based cheese) differed according to the dietary styles. It is noticeable for the oat drink that vegans never used “bitter taste” and “sour taste” attributes to describe the sample. For the plant-based cheese, the “cheese smell” was perceived as significantly more intense by the flexitarians. On the other hand, the “broth odor” and “umami taste” intensities were rated significantly lower by the omnivores.

Pramudya et al. (2019) investigated the acceptability of commercially available rice-based milk alternatives in about 100 US consumers. The authors did not report any differences in consumer liking of rice milk samples as a function of demographic variables, such as gender, age group (19–74 y.o.), ethnicity (i.e., Caucasians, Asians, Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans), annual household income, or frequency of consumption have been highlighted. Accordingly, in a large-scale study performed by Palacios et al. (2010), on a total of 893 lactose-tolerant and lactose-intolerant Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic adult consumers (ages 18–64 years) who evaluated the liking of lactose-free cow's milk and soy-based beverages, no effect on overall liking was found for ethnicity, age, gender, or lactose tolerance/intolerance. On the contrary, in the study performed by Lawrence et al. (2015), 12 commercial unflavoured soymilks were selected and evaluated by 225 U.S. consumers divided into three age/ethnicity categories: Caucasian/African American females aged 18–30 years, Asian females aged 18–30 years, and Caucasian/African American females aged 40–64 years. The authors reported that age did not impact soymilk liking, but ethnicity did, with Asians judging soymilks differently and with lower liking scores than Caucasians/African Americans. However, the authors hypothesized that the differences in hedonic scores could be due to the tendency for Asians to be less likely to use extreme ends of the hedonic scale than Westerners, as previously documented (Prescott et al., 2002).

As emphasized for the meat analogs, few data are available on the perception and attitudes of other population targets (i.e., children and elderly) toward dairy analogs. To the best of our knowledge, the study by Palacios et al. (2010) was the unique addressing preference mapping of soymilks with U.S. children aged 8–16 y.o. of three ethnicity categories: Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic. The authors conducted a consumer hedonic test on unflavoured and chocolate-flavored lactose-free dairy milk vs. unflavoured and chocolate-flavored soymilk. Results showed that flavored lactose-free cow's milk was more appreciated than flavored milk substitute beverages. No differences in hedonic scores occurred in different ethnic groups (Caucasian, African American, Hispanic), but a large difference emerged by age group, with reduced criticism by younger respondents regarding less acceptable products.

An overview of the characteristics of the two studies on fish and eggs analogs included in this review is provided in Table 4. The studies were published in 2008 and 2010, one focused on plant-based fish (Katayama and Wilson, 2008) and the other one on plant-based eggs (Kohrs et al., 2010). Both studies were conducted in the US and employed a quantitative approach involving adults: Katayama and Wilson (2008) performed a descriptive analysis, while Kohrs et al. (2010) applied a combination of descriptive and hedonic methods.

In comparison to meat or dairy analogs, the number of products developed to mimic real fish and eggs is much lower (The Good Food Institute, 2022) and, consequently, there are very few dated articles dealing with these analogs. Katayama and Wilson (2008) investigated, as a fish analog, texturised soy protein added with two powdered flavors made from non-meat derivatives to mimic shrimp flavors (crab-like and oyster-like characteristic flavors). The oyster-like flavor was used in single or in combination with crab-like flavor. For each formulation, either a low (16.7%) or high (22.2%) concentration was chosen. A descriptive method was applied to evaluate beany flavor/aroma, fishy flavor/aroma, shrimp flavor/aroma, saltiness, crispiness, and color. Results showed that the two different flavor concentrations (low or high) led to differences in fish and shrimp flavor and saltiness. However, researchers pointed out that whatever flavor was used, during shelf-life, fishy flavor and aroma increased, while shrimp flavor and aroma decreased thus reducing their storage time. Instead, using single or combination flavor formulations produced differences in crispness. Variations in product texture was also confirmed by instrumental texture analysis.

Egg substitutes are developed to replicate the functional properties of eggs (i.e., emulsification, coagulation, foaming, and gelling) in the food recipe. Substances used as egg replacers are whey protein and several gums and can be employed not only to prepare recipes for vegan consumers but also to produce foods with low cholesterol, an increased shelf-life and that do not require refrigeration for storage (Kohrs et al., 2010). Kohrs et al. (2010) used these substances in blend, combining whey protein isolate and wheat starch with guar or xanthan gum in a yellow cake system. The two formulations with egg replacers were then compared to the control cake with whole-egg through quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) and consumer acceptability test. A trained panel of 10 judges evaluated the cake samples based on six descriptive terms (crust stickiness, color, springiness, moistness, firmness, and egg flavor). Results showed that the formulation with xanthan gum or guar gum differed from the control cake in terms of surface stickiness, crumb yellowness and egg flavor. Authors hypothesized that the surface stickiness was due to an instability of the foam that led to a small portion of moisture, which usually accumulates at the bottom of the pie, migrating to the crust. Regarding springiness, moisture and firmness no significant differences were found between the formulation with xanthan mix and the control cake. However, although there were no significant differences for the xanthan-containing formulation, the use of egg replacers decreased the foaming properties of whey protein and increased cake moisture. Following descriptive analysis, researchers conducted a consumer acceptance test with 104 consumers to assess differences in appearance, texture, flavor, and overall acceptability between the control cake and the one formulated with xanthan gum. Interestingly, in all attributes assessed, the xanthan gum formulation scored higher than that of the control cake, suggesting the technological potentiality of this formulation.

No studies are available on specific population targets for fish and eggs analogs.