Development of taste preferences in early life

(1)

HAL Id: hal-02785921

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02785921

Submitted on 4 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Development of taste preferences in early life

Sophie Nicklaus

To cite this version:

Sophie Nicklaus. Development of taste preferences in early life. 39. ESPEN Congress, Sep 2017, Den Haag, Netherlands. 32 p. �hal-02785921�

(2)

S. Nicklaus ESPEN 2017

Development of taste preferences in early life

Sophie Nicklaus

Centre des Sciences du Goût et de l’Alimentation, Dijon

1

(3)

Disclosure for Sophie Nicklaus

In compliance with COI policy, ESPEN requires the following disclosures to the session audience:

Shareholder No relevant conflicts of interest to declare Grant / Research Support Danone Early Nutrition

Consultant Nestlé Research Center

Employee No relevant conflicts of interest to declare Paid Instructor No relevant conflicts of interest to declare Speaker bureau No relevant conflicts of interest to declare Other No relevant conflicts of interest to declare Presentation includes discussion of the following off-label use of a

drug or medical device: <N/A>

(4)

Summary

• Introduction

• Evolution of taste preferences in early life

• Effect of early taste experience on taste and food preferences

• Influence of taste on infant’s eating behaviour

• In weaning‐aged infants

• In toddlers

₃

(5)

Infancy & early childhood: Why does it matter?

• Sensitive period

•

Physiological development

• Brain, gut, motor function, oral abilities…

•

Psychological development

• Sensory awakening, intelligence, langage

•

Imprinting (metabolic, sensory, behavioural)

• Development of eating habits

•

Transitions in the mode of feeding :

• Cord ‐> Milk‐> Solid foods ‐> Table foods

• Learning to eat is mandatory! ₄

Nicklaus, Appetite, 2016 Nicklaus, Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2017

(6)

The functions of eating

Pleasure Nutrition

Socialisation Identity

EATING

OLFACTION TASTE

TOUCH

5

(7)

Our senses: a gateway to the world

6

From Chaudhari N & Roper SD. The Journal of Cell Biology, 2014

Taste: the only sense devoted to nutrition

(8)

Evolution of taste preferences in early life

7

How do infants react to primary tastes and to fat ?

Is there any link with infants’ characteristics?

(9)

Taste preferences at birth

UMAMI

SALTY

BITTER

SOUR SWEET

FAT

8 Sweet

Steiner, 1977, 1979 ; Chiva, 1985 ; Rosenstein & Oster, 1988 ; Ganchrow et al., 1983; Maone et al., 1990 ; Tatzer et al., 1985; Maller & Desor, 1974;

Crook, 1978; Desor et al., 1973, 1975, 1977; Kajiura et al., 1992; Graillon et al., 1997; Nysenbaum & Smart, 1982; Woolridge et al., 1980

Expressions of pleasure The sweeter, the more

consumed

Bitter

Expressions of disgust Not consumed

Salty

Expressions of indifference/aversion

Little consumed

Umami Expressions of pleasure Consumed

Sour

Expressions of disgust Little consumed

Fat:

Few/inconsistent observations

(10)

Measuring taste preferences in infants

• Part of a larger programme with a birth cohort N_max= 318 infants

• Longitudinal evaluation

• All basic tastes were evaluated with all infants (bitter, salty, sour, sweet, umami)

• Fat with some infants 9

Schwartz, Issanchou & Nicklaus, British Journal of Nutrition, 2009 Schwartz, Chabanet, Szleper, Feyen, Issanchou & Nicklaus, Chemical Senses, 2017

Milk feeding

6 mo 12 mo 18 mo 24 mo 36 mo

0 4 mo 10 mo

Complementary feeding Food neophobia

3mo 6mo 12mo 20mo

(11)

Tastants

1.7 1.2 10.8 5.0 71.9

Umami Sour Bitter

Salty Sweet

Taste

Na glutamate Citric acid

Urea NaCl Lactose

Molecule Concentration g.L^‐1

10 0.35

Fat Sunflower & Rapeseed Oil

(12)

Preference evaluation for each taste

 Strong Rejection

(1)

 Slight rejection

(2)

 Neutral reaction

(3)

 Slight acceptance

(4)

 Strong acceptance

(5)

Water

45s 15s



Salty

45s 15s



Water

45s



^15s

15s



Salty 45s

Evaluation of the infant’s reactions by the experimenter

11

©CNRS photothèque -François Vrignaud

Balanced order for primary tastes; fat emulsion last Double‐blind evaluation

Identical evaluation at all ages with slight adaptations

(13)

Preference measure for each taste

Water

45s 15s



Salty

45s 15s



Water

45s



^15s

15s



Salty 45s

12

Vol 1 Vol 2 Vol 3 Vol 4

Ingestion ratio = (Vol2+ Vol3) / (Vol1 +Vol2+ Vol3+ Vol4)

Inclusion criteria: consumption of at least 1g from 2 bottles

Score1 Score2 Score3 Score4

Liking ratio = (Score2 + Score3) / (Score1 + Score2+Score3 + Score4)

(14)

Ingestion Ratio

Taste preferences in infants

13

• At 3 mo, sweetness is preferred over water

• At 6 mo, sweetness, saltiness and umami are preferred over water

• At 12 mo, saltiness and sweetness are preferred over water, the fat emulsion is rejected over water

• At 20 mo, all tastes except sweetness are rejected over water

• For saltiness, acceptance evolved sharply

• The acceptance trajectories for sweet, sour and umami tastes were parallel

• The acceptance for bitterness was stable

• During the first year, the fat emulsion triggered indifference, and was rejected after 12 mo N max = 248







Mixed models fitted with R

Primary tastes: Quadratic Age effect; Taste effect ; Age Taste Fat: Linear Age effect

Schwartz, Chabanet, Szleper, Feyen, Issanchou & Nicklaus, Chemical Senses, 2017

(15)

Ingestion Ratio

14 Liking Ratio (experimenter)

 Same patterns of acceptance trajectories

 More rejections were reported

 Ingestion data better discriminates trajectories across primary tastes

Taste preferences in infants

Schwartz, Chabanet, Szleper, Feyen, Issanchou & Nicklaus, Chemical Senses, 2017







N max = 248

(16)

15

Taste preferences in infants

Analysis of facial expressions

Adapted from Ekman, Friesen, Hager, 2002;

Oster, 2010

Nicklaus, Szleper & Schwartz, Unpublished

 Few positive expressions

 Sour taste: more negative, less positive expressions

 Bitter taste: more negative expressions

 Sweet taste: less negative expressions

Frequencyof occurence

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Negative*** Positive**

Sour Water Sweet Bitter

Facial expressions at 6 mo (n=44)

A B C A

B A A A

(17)

Ingestion Ratio

Taste preferences in infants: individual variations?

16







• Acceptance of saltiness and umami taste were lower in girls than boys at 20 mo

• Higher fat acceptance in infants born heavier or taller

Schwartz, Chabanet, Szleper, Feyen, Issanchou & Nicklaus, Chemical Senses, 2017 N max = 248

Effect of individual characteristics

(18)

Ingestion Ratio

17

Morzel, Chabanet, Schwartz, Lucchi, Ducoroy, Nicklaus, European Journal of Pediatrics, 2014







3 & 6‐mo: Saliva collection

Protein concentrate (n=73) 1‐D electrophoresis

Peptide extract (n=98) MALDI‐MS profiling

 Specific patterns of saliva protein composition explain part of the variability in bitterness acceptance at 3 mo

 This might be through differential sensitivity

Taste preferences in infants: individual variations?

Effect of saliva composition

(19)

Effect of early taste experience on taste and food preferences

18

(20)

19

~6 mo ~2 years Birth

‐9 mo ~8 years 20 years

Exposure to tastes in the milk context

1: Agostoni et al., J Am Coll Nutr, 2000 2: Schwartz et al., Arch Pediatr, 2010 3: Schwartz, Chabanet, Issanchou, Nicklaus, British Journal of Nutrition, 2013

• Breast milk contains more glutamate (x14) than formula ¹

• Breast milk is sweet ; glutamate may impart a slight umami taste (but it is hard to detect) ²

• A longer breastfeeding duration is associated to a higher preference at 6 months for the umami taste ³

Positive association with breast‐feeding duration (p=0.01)

Ingestion ratio (6mo)

(21)

20

~6 mo ~2 years Birth

‐9 mo ~8 years 20 years

Dietary exposure of French infants to the 5 basic tastes

1: Schwartz, et al., Arch Pediatr, 2010 2: Martin, et al., Food Qual Pref, 2014 3: Schwartz, PhD Thesis, 2009 4: Yuan, Lange, Schwartz, Martin, Chabanet, de Lauzon‐Guillain, Nicklaus, Journal of Nutrition, 2016

• Use of sensory profile to describe the taste intensities of infant foods^1, 2

• « Taste exposure » of French infants: sweetness is dominant over the 1st year! ¹

• No association between exposure to each taste over the first 6 months and taste preference (ingestion ratio) ³

• Determinants of exposure to sweet taste have been explored⁴; consequences are under investigation

Exposure to tastes in complementary foods

(22)

21

~6 mo ~2y Birth

‐9 mo ~8y 20y

Sugar water

~4y

Beauchamp & Moran, 1982, 1985

sweetness

Low Cl milk salt Stein & al, 1996

Na exposure salt salt lick Stein & al, 2012

HCMP* bitter/umami/sour sour Mennella & al, 2002, 2009

Early exposure to tastes: other findings

*HCMP: Hydrolysed Cow Milk Protein Formula

(23)

The influence of taste preferences on infant’s eating behaviour

In infants and toddlers

22

(24)

23

Effect of taste on food acceptance

At the start of complementary feeding (5‐7 months):

• Infants easily accept the foods they are fed

• The acceptance of new foods vary according to their tastes

Schwartz, Chabanet, Lange, Issanchou, Nicklaus,Physiology & Behaviour, 2011

(25)

24

Effect of taste preference on food acceptance

Schwartz, Chabanet, Lange, Issanchou, Nicklaus,Physiology & Behaviour, 2011

Ingestion Ratio







N max = 248

Predicts the acceptance of somesweetfoods Predicts the acceptance ofsomeumamifoods Predicts the acceptance of somesourfoods

(26)

25

Effect of taste preference on food acceptance

Ingestion Ratio







N max = 248

Predicts the acceptance of vegetables at 2y (among other predictors)

Nicklaus & al., in preparation

(27)

26

Effect of taste on satiation

• In toddlers and school‐aged children, addition of salt is associated to a higher intake of a food

• In toddlers, no effect

• of addition of fat (+2.5%; +5%)

• of addition of sugar (+5%; +10%)

Bouhlal, Issanchou, Nicklaus, British Journal of Nutrition, 2010 Bouhlal, Chabanet, Issanchou, Nicklaus, PloS One, 2013

(28)

27

Remy, Issanchou, Chabanet, Nicklaus, Journal of Nutrition, 2013

• Merely repeating the presentation of a new food promotes its acceptance

• Same effect if the food is sweetened: no impact of the association with sugar on the learnt acceptance of a food’s taste

Taste effect on learnt acceptance

(29)

28

• Same effect if the food is sweetened: no impact of the association with sugar on the learnt acceptance of a food’s taste

• No increase in acceptance after association with lipids

Remy, Issanchou, Chabanet, Nicklaus, Journal of Nutrition, 2013

Calories effect on learnt acceptance

(30)

29

Bouhlal, Issanchou, Chabanet, Nicklaus, Appetite, 2014

• No additional impact of the association with salt on the learnt acceptance of a food’s taste

Flavor‐flavor conditioning study with toddlers

Taste effect on learnt acceptance

(31)

30

Effect of « sensitivity » to taste on food neophobia

Food neophobia at 24 mo

?

P=0.29 P=0.04

Monnery‐Patris, Wagner, Rigal, Schwartz, Chabanet, Issanchou, Nicklaus, Appetite, 2015

Taste reactivity at 20 mo Olfactory reactivity at 22 mo

x

(32)

Conclusions

31

• Evolution of taste preferences in early life

• Taste preferences are marked at birth (sweet /bitter )

• They evolve differentially across infancy. Notable increase in salt taste preference

• Underlying factors of evolution may be taste sensitivity, influenced by biological factors (i.e. saliva composition)

• Important to understand what parents are « reading » when feeding their child

• Effect of early taste experience on taste and food preferences

• Dietary experience, even in the context of milk feeding, can durably influence taste preferences

• Generalization is difficult (effect may be food/taste‐specific)

• Influence of taste on infant’s eating behavior

• Taste preferences guide eating behavior even in weaning‐aged infants, but can be overridden by experience

• Other controls on food intake that taste

 

(33)

32

Acknowledgements

32

Collaborators @ CSGA:

• Camille Schwartz

• Claire Chabanet

• Valérie Feyen

• Emilie Szleper

• Sylvie Issanchou

• Christine Lange

• Sandrine Monnery‐Patris

• Vincent Boggio

• Caroline Laval

• Pascal Schlich Doctoral students:

• Sofia Bouhlal

• Eloïse Remy

• Camille Divert

• Wen‐Lun Yuan

• Sandra Wagner

The children and

their parents http://www2.dijon.inra.fr/csga/index.php

Research funded by the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ 2007‐2013) under the grant agreement 245012HabEat

OPALINE, SOFI, PUNCH

sophie.nicklaus@inra.fr

@SophieNicklaus