There is a tendency by some to state that a treatment applied to plants in the field affects the taste of the harvested product. Post-harvest research can be undertaken to determine what changes occur in the products and whether there is an association with the treatments applied in the field. The undertaking of this type of research is legitimate but I wonder what types of pitfalls are encountered when you ask a group of people if they can tell differences between samples.
There are many factors that go into the taste quality of a crop. Genetics is one of the most important. Much of the produce that ends up on a market display is there because it is pretty, because it can undergo the rigors of travel, and because it has an extended shelf-life. These are characteristics that have been bred into the crops, unfortunately frequently at the cost of taste. People will not buy overly soft, possibly diseased, vegetables regardless of how good they may taste. Other factors of importance are soil type, fertilizer amount and type, irrigation frequency and amount, the general environmental conditions at the location, and when the test took place. If comparison is made to previous work it is likely that unless the same cultivars are used, and production is under similar conditions, there are going to be differences that can not be accounted for by the experimental design or the statistical test.
There should also be a concern of how the test was conducted. It should probably be necessary that the taste panel be made up of the different ethnic groups that would normally use the product. If a group of people is chosen “at random” from a population it needs to be understood that the group is likely going to be taken from within the ethnic and cultural parameters of the location, which may not reflect the world of potential consumers of the crop. In addition people have predetermined predilections for what they like. Some of that is rooted in the culture in which they were raised. If a person is recruited to participate in a taste panel they are going to be told what they are tasting. If the person likes the general category of the product then there is a degree of bias. If the person does not like the product, a prominent example being President George H.W. Bush who did not like broccoli, and declines the panel the bias is going to enforce the liking of the product by those that are impaneled. If the person does not like the product and sits on the panel the bias is going to show in a dislike of all the samples. There are also differences within the human population on a person’s ability to perceive a taste. I have a personal conviction that those who like hot foods do so because they can deal with the Scoville units only because their taste buds have been deadened by years of exposure. There are non-pungent, or relatively mild Jalapeno peppers, which have a taste that can be appreciated because it is not masked by pungency. The end point of this for me is that when I come across this type of test I generally review it with a view toward correctness of procedure and let the reader draw conclusions about whether anything was actually determined. I, and I assume the vast majority of humanity, like what we like and will eat what pleases us and ignore the rest.
Reviewers of submitted manuscripts
In addition to the Editorial Consulting Board, I want to extend my gratitude to the voluntary reviewers who provide their time and efforts to assure that the quality of the manuscripts meet the standards expected by the journal and its readers. They are: Bringel, F., Caruso, G., Ilic, Z., Kamou, M., Kheirabadi, H., Lee, J., Nichols, M., Singh, R.K., Soylak, M., Tiwari, J.K., van der Hoeven, M., and Yang, Y.