Elsevier

Appetite

Volume 68, 1 September 2013, Pages 124-131
Appetite

Research report
Relationship between food preferences and PROP taster status of college students

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.04.025Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We examined the relationship of PROP sensitivity and food preferences.

  • PROP scores did not predict enjoyment of bitter, creamy, spicy, or sweet foods.

  • PROP scores did not predict enjoyment of red wine or beer.

  • Culture is proposed to be a stronger influence on food preferences than PROP sensitivity.

Abstract

How food tastes plays a key role in our food choices and eating behavior, with important implications for health and nutrition. The negative relationship of genetically predisposed sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) and food preferences for bitter, creamy, and spicy foods, and alcohol is often reported in both scholarly and popular literature. Our review of research indicates the empirical results are far from conclusive. We conducted a questionnaire-based study to examine enjoyment ratings for 12 foods and beverages often reported to be disliked by PROP supertasters. We measured PROP ratings on the modified gLMS scale and administered a questionnaire to assess food preferences of a sample of 139 college undergraduates. Analysis of variance showed no significant group differences between supertasters, medium tasters, and nontasters in ratings of how much they liked brussels sprouts, raw broccoli, cabbage, spinach, black coffee, dark chocolate, crushed red pepper, jalapenos, chili peppers, red wine, beer, creamy salad dressing, or mayonnaise. Preferences for only two foods out of twelve, dark chocolate and chili peppers, had a significant correlation with PROP sensitivity in the predicted negative direction. While statistically significant, these correlations were low and of little practical significance. The role of culture in shaping attitudes toward food is proposed as a more powerful influence than the genetic factors that relate to PROP sensitivity.

Introduction

There is no denying that our individual pattern of preferences and aversions for various foods make us unique. Each of us loves foods that someone else loathes, and vice versa. These differences in food preferences have important implications for our health and well being. We are encouraged to eat fewer refined sugars and saturated fats and more fresh vegetables, especially green and cruciferous vegetables. Heart disease, stroke, cancer, hypertension, and obesity are but a few of the diseases linked to unhealthy eating habits. What is involved shaping in our individual tendency to enjoy certain foods and our strong aversion to others?

The taste of food is certainly a key component of preference. Consumers report that their food preferences are guided primarily by how the food tastes (Glanz, Basi, Maibach, Goldberg, & Snyder, 1998). Universally, foods that are high in sugar and fat are preferred over foods that are bitter (Drewnowski, 1997). This tendency is particularly strong during childhood (Mennella, Pepino, & Reed, 2005). However, there is ample evidence that when two individuals sample the same food they may have very different taste experiences. How do genetics and culture shape our perceptions of flavor? Research and theory examining these influences will be reviewed, and an empirical study aimed at understanding the relative contributions of genetics and culture will be presented.

Section snippets

Genetic aspects of taste perception

Bradbury (2004) defines taste as the sense by which the chemical qualities of food in the mouth are distinguished by the brain, based on information provided by the taste buds. The five taste qualities that humans perceive are salty, sweet, sour, bitter, and umami (savory flavors found in foods such as meaty broths, soy sauce, seaweed, Vegemite, bacon, aged parmesan cheese, monosodium glutamate). The ability to detect each flavor has an evolutionary purpose key to our species’ survival. We need

Assessing “Taster Status”

Linda Bartoshuk (1991) coined the terms “nontaster,” “taster,” and “supertaster” to categorize individuals according to their sensitivity to bitterness, or “taster status.” The approximately 25% of the human population that does not detect bitterness in response to PROP are nontasters. Of the 75% that do detect bitterness, the 25% who detect the most intense, aversive sensation are categorized as supertasters. The remaining 50% are considered medium tasters who perceive PROP as bitter, but not

Bitter foods

Glanville and Kaplan (1965) found early evidence that PROP tasters disliked black coffee, grapefruit juice, lemon juice, and preferred mild over sharp foods. Those who reacted strongly to the PROP tended to dislike more foods, while those who could not taste the PROP reported preferences for strongly flavored foods. Other studies have found greater sensitivity to PROP and/or PTC is associated with a low preference or low consumption of vegetables such as brussels sprouts, asparagus, and kale (

Participants

Participants were 139 students in six Biology laboratory classes at a public university in the southeastern United States. Students who volunteered filled out an informed consent form and received extra credit. The sample included 48 males and 76 females; the mean age was 19.79. Ages ranged from 18 to 37 however most participants were between the ages of 18 and 22. Fifteen participants did not answer demographic items.

Procedure and measurement

Data collection was done during the beginning of each class. Participants

Reliability

The food preferences reported by participants were categorized into flavor dimensions using a principle component factor analysis with varimax rotation (see Table 1). The dimensions found were spicy, vegetables, alcohol, dark bitter, and creamy. Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal consistency reliability of each dimension. Reliability for spicy food (jalapeno peppers, chili peppers, hot crushed red pepper) ∝ = .910, bitter vegetables (brussels sprouts, broccoli, cabbage, spinach) ∝ = 

Discussion

The hypothesis that PROP sensitivity correlates with food preferences was not supported; PROP scores did not predict food preferences. While strong individual differences were elicited from the PROP measure, these individual differences did not correlate with reported food preferences and there were no significant differences between nontasters, medium tasters, and supertasters on reported liking for these foods. A comparison of those at the high and low end of the PROP sensitivity continuum

References (61)

  • M.J. Ludy et al.

    Comparison of sensory, physiological, personality, and cultural attributes in regular spicy food users and non-users

    Appetite

    (2012)
  • R.D. Mattes et al.

    Bitter taste responses to phenylthiocarbamide are not related to dietary goitrogen intake in human beings

    Journal of the American Dietetic Association

    (1989)
  • J.A. Mennella et al.

    The timing and duration of a sensitive period in human flavor learning. A randomized trial

    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

    (2011)
  • I.J. Miller et al.

    Variation in human taste bud density and taste intensity perception

    Physiology & Behavior

    (1990)
  • A. Niewind et al.

    Genetic influences on the selection of Brassica vegetables by elderly individuals

    Nutrition Research

    (1988)
  • P. Pasquet et al.

    Relationships between threshold-based PROP sensitivity and food preferences of Tunisians

    Appetite

    (2002)
  • M.A. Sandell et al.

    Variability in taste receptor gene determines whether we taste toxins in food

    Current Biology

    (2006)
  • B.J. Tepper et al.

    Fat perception is related to PROP taster status

    Physiological Behavior

    (1997)
  • N.V. Ullrich et al.

    PROP taster status and self-perceived food adventurousness influence food preferences

    Journal of the American Dietetic Association

    (2004)
  • C.A. Yackinous et al.

    Relation between PROP (6-n-propylthiouracil) taster status, taste anatomy and dietary intake measures for young men and women

    Appetite

    (2002)
  • J.E. Anliker et al.

    Children’s food preferences and genetic sensitivity to the bitter taste of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP)

    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

    (1991)
  • A. Bandura

    Social learning theory

    (1977)
  • L. Bartoshuk

    Bitter taste of saccharin. Related to the genetic ability to taste 6-n-propylthiouracil

    Science

    (1979)
  • L.M. Bartoshuk

    Sweetness. History, preference, and genetic variability

    Food Technology

    (1991)
  • L.M. Bartoshuk

    Comparing sensory experiences across individuals. Recent psychophysical advances illuminate genetic variation in taste perception

    Chemical Senses

    (2000)
  • L.M. Bartoshuk et al.

    Genetic differences in human taste perception

  • L.M. Bartoshuk et al.

    Bitterness of KCl and benzoate; related to genetic status for sensitivity to PTC/PROP

    Chemical Senses

    (1988)
  • G.K. Beauchamp et al.

    Flavor perception in human infants. Developmental and functional significance

    Digestion

    (2011)
  • L.L. Birch

    Development of food preferences

    Annual Review of Nutrition

    (1999)
  • L. Birch et al.

    The influence of social-affective context on the formation of children s food preferences

    Child Development

    (1980)
  • Cited by (39)

    • Testing the relationship between inhibitory control and soda consumption: An event-related potential (ERP) study

      2022, Appetite
      Citation Excerpt :

      The soda and water preference questionnaires can be found on the study specific OSF website: https://osf.io/ays6d/. The soda and water questionnaires were adapted from previous food preference questionnaires (Catanzaro, Chesbro, & Velkey, 2013). On the questionnaires, participants were presented with a variety of different sodas, such as caffeinated low-calorie cola (e.g., Diet Coke, Coke Zero, Diet Pepsi, etc.), low-calorie sodas (e.g., Diet 7-Up, Fresca, Diet Mountain Dew, diet ginger ale), cola (e.g., Coke, Pepsi), and other sodas (e.g., 7-Up, Mountain Dew, Dr Pepper), and a variety of different bottled water (e.g., Arrowhead, Aquafina, Dasani).

    • Taste perception and expression in stomach of bitter taste receptor tas2r38 in obese and lean subjects

      2021, Appetite
      Citation Excerpt :

      Extensive studies have also been conducted on the bitter taste of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP), a compound that some individuals (called tasters) perceive as bitter, while others (called non tasters) can detect only at high concentrations or not at all (Fox, 1932; Guo & Reed, 2001). Although research findings are controversial (Catanzaro, Chesbro, & Velkey, 2013; Drewnowski et al., 2007a; Wijtzes et al., 2017), differences in food preferences and intake among tasters and non-tasters have been reported in some works (Bajec & Pickering, 2010; Dinehart, Hayes, Bartoshuk, Lanier, & Duffy, 2006; Feeney, O’Brien, Scannell, Markey, & Gibney, 2011; Robino et al., 2014; Tepper, 2008; Tepper, Neilland, Ullrich, Koelliker, & Belzer, 2011). Studies have also reported higher BMI in PROP non tasters, specifically in women (Goldstein et al., 2005, 2007; Tepper & Ullrich, 2002).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text