Protein bars are one product that meet consumer demands for a low-carbohydrate, high-protein food. With such a large market for protein bars, producers need to find the correct texture and sweetness levels to satisfy consumers while still delivering a high-protein, low-carbohydrate bar. In the bar industry, bar hardening is a major concern, and currently the effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on bar hardening is unknown. Due to the negative implications of bar hardening, it is important to investigate the sweetener-protein relationship with bar hardening. The objective of this study was to characterize the effects of sweetener and protein source on flavor, texture, and shelf life of high-protein, low-carbohydrate bars. The iso-sweet concentration of sweeteners (sucralose, sucrose, monk fruit, stevia, and fructose) in pea protein (PP), milk protein (MP) and whey protein isolate (WPI) bars were established using magnitude estimation scaling and 2-alternative forcedchoice testing. Descriptive analysis and temporal checkall-that-apply methods were then applied to determine flavor and temporal differences between the protein bars. Finally, an accelerated shelf life study was completed to understand how sweetener and protein types affect the shelf life of protein bars. The 15 protein bars formulated at iso-sweet concentration were all stored at 35°C and 55% humidity for 35 d, and measurements were taken every 7 d, beginning at d 1 (d 1, 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35). Bars made with MP required significantly less sweetener, compared with PP and WPI, to reach equal sweetness. Bars sweetened with stevia or monk fruit had distinct bitter and metallic tastes, and sucralose had a low metallic taste. Bars made with WPI were the most cohesive, and PP and WPI bars were more bitter and metallic compared with MP bars. Bars made with WPI and fructose were initially the hardest, but after d 14 they scored at parity with PP sucrose.There were no significant differences among bars in terms of hardness by d 21. Bars made with WPI were consistently denser at all time points than bars made with PP or MP. Bars made with PP were the driest and least cohesive and had the fastest rate of breakdown in the study. Non-nutritive sweeteners did not have a negative effect on bar hardness in low-carbohydrate, high-protein bars. Findings from this study can be applied to commercially produced protein bars for naturally sweetened bars with different protein types without negative effects on protein bar texture.

Dairy product consumption is motivated by both familiarity and habit. Milk consumption decreases with age, but milk consumption during childhood and adolescence increases the chances of lifetime milk consumption. Understanding how parents perceive dairy milk and other dairy foods further enables development of dairy-positive messaging that aligns with their perceptions. The objective of this research was to understand parent belief systems around fluid dairy milk and plantbased alternatives (PBA). This goal was accomplished by assessing parents' implicit attitudes toward dairy milk and PBA with an implicit bias exercise (n = 331), followed by qualitative interviews to understand explicitly stated purchase motivations and guided recall of information heard about dairy milk and PBA to better understand external influences on milk perception (n = 88). The majority of parents (73.4%) implicitly associated dairy milk with positive attributes compared with those with a positive association with PBA (13.8%) or with a neutral bias (12.7%). The stronger a parent's implicit bias toward PBA, the more likely they were to purchase these products either alongside or as a replacement for dairy milk. Eighty-five percent of parents in our study could recall drinking milk at home as a child, and 58% remembered encouragement from their parents to drink milk. However, only 38% encouraged their own children to drink milk (the majority, 55%, were neutral toward their children's milk consumption). Generally negative media messaging toward dairy milk and positive messaging toward PBA may contribute to this trend, even if consumers are not explicitly aware of their perception changes. Seventy-seven percent of parents felt generally confident in choosing dairy milk or PBA for their children. However, only 26% of parents felt that nothing about dairy milk or PBA information or messaging was confusing. Sources of uncertainty about dairy milk included hormones and antibiotics, animal welfare, ecological sustainability, potential con-tamination, and intolerances or allergies. By addressing the most commonly encountered and recalled concerns about milk from parents, dairy producers may be able to increase trust and implicit bias toward dairy milk compared with PBA.

No abstract