The irradiation method has been widely used in treating food for its many advantages, perhaps giving inadequate attention toits dark side. Based on many scientific studies, irradiation has a direct impact on food components, affecting the food’s attributes. But could consuming irradiated food for a long period of time have adverse health effects? The aim of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the scientific background of the use of radiation in the food industry and its effects on human health.
Traditionally, food products are mainly preserved by heating and cooling. With advancements, newer technologies of preservation have been discovered and used, which include pasteurisation, blanching, and sterilisation as modes of heating. Freezing and chilling are modes of cooling; apart from that, chemicals are extensively used. As these processing techniques may reduce the nutritional value of food, minimal food processing techniques have been developed. Irradiating food is one of the tools for minimal processing. It holds higher captivity and is controversial as it uses ionising radiation to sterilise the commodities. It is often perceived as bilateral, meaning that a greater and higher degree of sterilisation can be obtained than with any other method. Later, nutritional destruction, adding junk calories, and the formation of radiotoxins raise major concerns. “Good Food Doesn’t Need Irradiation”.
The main objective of this study is to compare and investigate the proximate, sensory parameters of the biscuits fortified with (1) whey protein concentrate (WPC), (2) isolated soy protein (ISP) at various proportions as a source of protein enrichment. The fortified biscuits were analysed for sensory and proximate analysis. The study evaluated and compared the effect of fortifying whey protein concentrate and isolated soy protein at various proportions T0 control (0%), T1 (5%), T2 (10%), T3 (15%), T4 (20%). The protein content in both WPC and ISP samples tends to increase, but much higher in WPC formulated biscuits. At 20% WPC the protein content peaked to 29.11%, other nutritional components such as fat, ash, fibre and moisture content of WPC samples increased significantly, whereas no such significant changes were observed and only linear increase of protein content were in ISP fortified samples. The sensory analysis of ISP fortified samples were acceptable up to 10% proportion, exceeding 10% showed unacceptable results, on comparison WPC biscuits were acceptable at all proportions, more desirable at 20% WPC. Conclusively, fortifying biscuits with either WPC or ISP might be a source of protein without any significant effect on the quality of biscuits.
Sulphites are the most widely used food additives for their versatile applications in processing; perhaps we are negligence of its shortcomings. On account of various research studies, sulphites induce serious allergic reactions and other health alignments, but still regulatory agents permit its usage. Is it a wiser choice? The purpose of this paper is to clear up ambiguity and provide a clear view on why sulphites are employed in the food industry, why its usage is restricted, and why sulphite is a toxicant
The production, processing of agricultural products results in massive generation of waste, which has an environmental impact. In current study on the node of valorisation of the processed waste, orange and banana peel waste are utilized for the production of biscuits. The fortified biscuits were analysed for proximate and sensory analysis. The fibre content of the fortified biscuits increases several folds. From the sensory score the proportion of biscuits with 7.5% and 10% has undesirable quality parameters, whereas up to 5% concentration all the parameters are more desirable. Fortifying biscuits with orange and banana peel powder may be an excellent source of dietary fibre and an enhanced valorisation technique.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.