Evaluates sugar thresholds in rice-based desserts for children, suggesting strategies for healthier school meals.
Purpose This study aims to determine children’s consumer rejection threshold (CRT), hedonic rejection threshold (HRT) and compromised acceptance threshold (CAT) for sucrose reduction in a dessert and explore children’s perception of low-sugar foods. Design/methodology/approach Rice milk-based desserts were prepared with 100 g/kg of sugar and reduced versions (90 g/kg, 80 g/kg, 60 g/kg and 40 g/kg), and 90 children indicated preference and acceptance of overall impression, sweetness and consistency when samples were presented in pairs with a control sample. Based on children’s preferences, CRT was calculated; based on means of acceptance, HRT values were calculated; from pairwise comparison, CAT values were calculated. Children’s perception was evaluated by free word association of low and/or reduced-sugar foods. Findings Results show that CRT was 78.5 g/kg; meanwhile, CAT for overall impression, sweetness and consistency were 89.3 g/kg, 86.5 g/kg and 90.0 g/kg, respectively, indicating that it is possible to reduce about 9.9% of sugar in the dessert without changing preference or acceptance compared to the recipe children are used to consuming. When sucrose concentration is reduced to 74.4 g/kg, 76.4 g/kg and 73.6 g/kg, global rejection, rejection due to sweetness and rejection due to product consistency, respectively, begin to occur. Results indicate the possibility to reduce 23.5% of sugar and maintain the acceptance. Also, children present negative attitudes towards them, but health and positive aspects of low-sugar foods may be interesting strategies to enable greater sucrose reductions without affecting children’s acceptance and preference for dessert. Originality/value Hedonic threshold methodology has not been applied to children nor in a school context, and thus, this is the first time CRT, HRT and CAT were calculated for children.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martins et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: