The Power and Potential of Descriptive Panels

A number of companies have made sensory science a mainstream business strategy. In some cases, this translates to bigger in-house sensory staff, including trained panels. In others, according to Cindy Ward, senior sensory manager at Givaudan Flavors, Cincinnati, companies pass along the expense of sensory testing to suppliers to defer its costs without giving up its benefits. Let’s look at how selected companies recruit, train and maintain sensory panels, and the advantages and limitations of trained in-house panels.

Any decision related to sensory evaluation begins with identifying what the researcher wants to accomplish. The most common objectives pertain to product development and quality. Specific functions could include product matching, enhancement of ingredient specifications, shelf-life determinations and cost optimization. When detection, not identification, of differences is the goal, it involves less time and training. However, situations that require attribute-specific quantifiable data, such as target matching, demand a trained panel of product specialists. Every panelist must be competent in using the sensory method, terminology, rating scales, and evaluation ballots or programs.

Is the panel to identify, describe and solve a problem, or pass along its findings for another group to solve? For example, individuals trained to measure only two or three key attributes handle many QA issues. If attribute deviation occurs, they reject the sample. At Food Marketing Support Services, Inc. (FMSS), Oak Park, IL, our trained panel was called in to support an internal corporate QA team, which performed a “reject” judgment but lacked the sensory experience to validate why the product deviated from target. The causal data were critical in pending litigation and claims settlement. A statement of “no match” required a higher level of trained-panel expertise for resolution.

Although employees shouldn’t participate in consumer tests with targeted populations, in many companies, they do provide sensory feedback. For example, Givaudan screens employees for in-house discrimination testing, consensus profiling and product screening, according to Ward. “In-house panels can be conducted with high speed and flexibility,” she notes. “Also, many of the internal panelists have a great deal of flavor knowledge.”

For Gail Vance Civille, president of Sensory Spectrum, Inc., Chatham, NJ, technical people are the top choice for sensory-panel training. “It means that I send 15 trained mouths back to the bench,” she explains. “Very few companies can afford it, but it’s the best use of money. Cheap labor does not give you trained tasters developing products.”

Civille’s second choice is screened candidates from the community. They can become extremely expert and dedicated, she maintains, and unlike employees, they don’t whine about panel responsibilities that take them away from their “real” jobs.

Prior to 2000, employees at McCormick & Company, Inc., Hunt Valley, MD, were trained to participate on descriptive panels in addition to their primary function. This program was so successful that the internal panel pool had difficulty meeting the growing demand. Since then, the company has successfully recruited and trained three descriptive panels, which are dedicated solely to descriptive analysis and provide more than 35 hours per week of product analysis. Still, the company strongly encourages employee participation in panels at all sites with a sensory program.

Kraft Foods Inc., Northfield, IL, recruits panelists via newspaper ads. The company interviews and screens respondents for acuity before training. It also uses in-house panelists. According to Alicia Thomas, program manager, technology guidance research, “The advantage of in-house sensory groups is that there is typically quick turnaround and, more importantly, extremely comprehensive and knowledgeable support to various program/projects.” Depending on the sensitivity of the project, external resources may not be able to provide this depth of support, she contends. The company occasionally employs external (contract) descriptive panels, typically as an “overflow” resource, or for projects that would ultimately constrain internal resources.

Other organizations, also mindful of confidentiality, engage outside resource groups trained in particular product categories, and who have transitional skill sets to expedite R&D and QA applications.

Confidentiality is always a priority. J.R. Simplot, Boise, ID, recruits personnel from its research and technical center for directional research. The company’s commitment to quality and innovation drove it to sensory, recalls Cheryl Franklin-Miller, sensory specialist, whose department was under R&D for most of its 17-year history. “We were trying to get a patent on a process and decided we needed sensory work,” she explains.

The first trained descriptive panel, set up with the help of sensory professional Marjorie Einstein, focused only on french fries, identifying and rating 35 attributes. Several years later, the company formed a multipurpose panel, training carefully screened people from the community to handle other products.

Simplot does not screen panel applicants by sex or age, Franklin-Miller says. In fact, one of its best descriptive panel members is in her 70s. Most are women; male panelists have not stayed longer than two years, she says. Civille conjectures that sensory work appeals to “foodies,” who are more likely to be women than men. She recalls Pillsbury’s success with advertising for sensory panelists in the local food pages instead of in the classified ads.

Yale University researcher Linda Bartoshuk comments on the historical predominance of women in the field in an Aug. 20, 2003 Chicago Tribune article, “Mistresses of Taste.” “Sensory evaluation has a kitchen feel. It’s a field women could get into, and the good ones did,” she says. Fred Caporaso, a professor at Chapman University in California, told the Tribune, “They take their time...they’re more detail-oriented. They put it all down.”

Bartoshuk’s research shows that women, more than men, tend to be “supertasters” — people with a “neon taste world.” No one has tied super taste buds to super sensory panelists, but it may well be, as the researcher says, that “the sharper the tongue, the more information a person might be able to provide.”

Tragon Corp., Redwood City, CA, trained FMSS descriptive team member Linda Radtke at the Keebler Company in the late 1970s. “I was taught that normal taste acuity is the baseline for panelists,” she recalls. “Taste and odor recognition, the ability to rank intensities, and compatibility in a group context are the most critical factors for a descriptive panel.”

Civille got her sensory start in the 1960s at General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis. The company used the Arthur D. Little (ADL) descriptive panel profile method, upon which Civille founded the Spectrum® system, incorporating more quantitative and qualitative methods, a 15-point scaling system, and standard references that can be used across categories. “Sweet is sweet, period — not sweet for ice cream as compared to sweet for mashed potatoes,” she explains.

Kraft panelists train for six months in an internally customized program based upon the Spectrum method. At the culmination of training, potential panelists must pass a series of proficiency exams. “I believe that ‘training’ is a bit of a misnomer, in that it, by default, is and must be, continuous, including monitoring of panel or panelist performances,” says Thomas. “It is very time-consuming and resource-intensive. I do believe that the rewards are, however, great, and very much realized when training is conducted well and comprehensively.”

At the Kellogg Company, Battle Creek, MI, applicants who make it through sensory-acuity screening become contract employees. Sensory scientists on staff train the four in-house panels. “We have the entire process broken down into training modules,” explains Dana Craig-Petsinger, vice president, product, consumer and technical understanding. “Each scientist is responsible for training a certain category, using a hybrid Spectrum version of descriptive analysis for product innovation, prototype optimization, competitive category understanding, and shelf-life and stability evaluation.”

The company integrates the panelists very early into the panel process, assigning an existing panelist as a mentor. “We are able to have them up and running in two to three months,” Craig-Petsinger says. While it takes time, energy and space to keep panels trained and maintained, she insists that it’s cost-efficient and a competitive advantage to have the panels available to provide detailed information on products when and where needed.

After university, Jeanette Ziegler, now an FMSS panel member, took a Sensory Spectrum short course on general sensory evaluation. The NutraSweet Company, Chicago, hired her and Sensory Spectrum provided her panel training. Civille estimates that each modality (e.g., flavor, texture, etc.) takes about 50 hours of training and 50 hours of tasting, making it a difficult time commitment for employee panelists who have other job responsibilities.

Sensory must partner with product development, marketing and other business units to justify panels, Ziegler explains. Expenses include recruitment and screening, training and development, experimental design, taste-sample and reference preparation, panel supervision, panelist and outcomes monitoring, evaluation analysis, and reports.

Fortunately for Ziegler, NutraSweet had enough projects, both internal and client-sponsored, to make an in-house descriptive panel cost-effective. But with various projects came the need for more training. “At the start of any new category, we had to develop a sensory lexicon,” she says. “A panel is a group effort. Each member contributes from his or her experience and expertise.” A panel leader must continue training until the group demonstrates consistent use of language and can replicate scaling judgments.

Jim Matthews is the newest member of the FMSS panel. Although his 30 years’ experience as a wine taster and teacher of wine appreciation gives him a sensory aptitude and memory for appearance, aroma, taste and texture, “Processing, cooking-related attributes and texture make food evaluation much more complex,” he says. “I was amazed at the precision. At the start, panelists would identify maybe 15 aromas, and I would get two or three. I’d listen, smell and taste again — and get better.” He is learning reference anchors, which are either common, accessible foods, or “constructed” standards, and the often-scientific language in the FMSS lexicon (terms like butyric acid, vanillin). His descriptive language is growing with his sensory training.

The panel can pinpoint specific attributes with the company’s meticulous lexicons. Ward, who holds a Ph.D. in systematic product design and sensory and food science from the University of Georgia, Athens, supports this practice. “It is common in industry to use ‘flavor complexes’ — for example, milky complex, orange complex, grain complex — as attributes in describing product profiles. ... it is more descriptive to define the ‘complex’ into individual contributing notes,” she says. “For example, ‘orange complex’ may consist of fresh orange essence, cooked orange and fruity-citrus notes. The individual notes are much more specific, thus giving targeted guidance to the project team.”

Matthews observes: “A lot of people in wine use the same analytical framework as in food sensory, but rarely do they sit down together and spend time analyzing wine, or try to arrive at a consensus. There’s always an element of subjectivity in wine tasting, but there’s no subjectivity in a professional descriptive food panel.”

Simplot trains internally, under the supervision of Franklin-Miller. After screening for acuity, the students are given an intensive 3-week training, using a barrage of samples and studying sensory techniques such as profiling, scaling and references. They also learn the difference between flavor facts (quantitative attribute measurement that is based on training) and opinions (qualitative judgment). After training, they are on 3 months’ probation.

One of the main concerns is group dynamics. “We expect them to speak their piece, then move on with the job,” Franklin-Miller says. “We want everyone to get along, but not be afraid to speak out if they disagree.” If the trainees satisfactorily complete probation, they may join the company’s trained descriptive panel.

“Bad statistics are worse than no statistics,” cautions Radtke, who writes interpretive statistical reports for FMSS. To establish and maintain a descriptive sensory panel, you have to produce good statistics, the essential components of which are validity — measure what you are supposed to measure — and reliability — being able to reproduce the results.

Good experimental design is essential to good statistics, Radtke contends. “Examine the objective, determine appropriate methods, get the right tools, calibrate the references, figure out what kind of samples you need, create a lexicon, determine the schedule and order. Every project is unique. There is no template,” she notes. A good trainer has to be well organized and layered, or know the order of skill training, Civille advises. The trainer also needs skills in descriptive and group dynamics.

In addition to these companies’ protocol, here are some observations from 30 years in the field:

Training is critical to the quality of the output. Panelists train and practice, then join a group and train and practice with others. The success of the outcome depends on the quality of the panel.

The pursuit of excellence in descriptive language development and scaling precision will result in precise R&D or QA direction and ultimately in market success. Quality data, whether generated descriptively or otherwise, must result in what FMSS calls Actionable Sensory™ — data that savvy technical interpreters have transitioned into an action plan that can be implemented based on factual, precise information. A highly trained panel does not generate fuzzy directions. Clarity and precision are the goals when training and maintaining a panel.

Nancy C. Rodriguez is president of Food Marketing Support Services, Inc. (FMSS), Oak Park, IL (www.fmssinc.com), a provider of highly trained descriptive sensory evaluation and interpretation, sensory-based product design and marketing support. Anne Hunt, FMSS writer-in-residence, contributed to this article.

Back to top