03025nam a2200217 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001910000310006024501720009126002480026350000280051152021200053965000140265965000250267365300140269870000200271270000250273270000150275770000200277270000150279221593772023-12-11       2023    bl uuuu     u00u1 u    #d1 aESPERANÇA, I. P. L. DE C.  aUsing apple juice to replace sugar in grape nectar formulation associated with nutritional warningbthe effects on the expected consumer liking.h[electronic resource]  aIn: SIMPÓSIO LATINO AMERICANO DE CIÊNCIA DE ALIMENTOS E NUTRIÇÃO, 15., 2023, Campinas. A revolução da ciência de alimentos e nutrição: alimentando o mundo de forma sustentável: caderno [eletrônico] de resumos. Campinas: Galoác2023  aPôster 168522; SLACAN.  aNutritional warning helps promote healthy choices. In Brazil, the black magnifying glass is utilized when added sugars are ≥7.5% in beverages. To avoid this warning, the food industry uses apple juice to replace added sugar, informing consumers through package claims. However, the impact of this information on consumer product perception remains unclear. This study evaluated the effect of product formulation, warning ("High in added sugar"), and claim (“With apple juice”) on consumers' expected liking and intention to purchase fruit nectars. Six packages were developed following an incomplete factorial design with three factors (levels): (i)Product (Mixed grape and apple nectar no sugar; Grape nectar with sugar; Mixed grape and apple nectar with sugar), (ii)Claim and (iii)Warning (Present/Absent). Consumers (n=100) looked at the packages and evaluated the expected liking (9-point hedonic scales) and purchase intention (5-point scales). Additionally, participants expressed their agreement (7-point Likert scale) on the ways for sweetening nectars: using sugar, apple juice, or sugar and apple juice. Product affected the expected liking. Lower averages were observed for “Mixed grape and apple nectar no sugar”, without warning, with claim (6.7±1.5) or without (6.6±1.6); and “Mixed grape and apple nectar with sugar”, with warning, and with claim (6.8±1.5) or without (6.7±1.4) compared to “Grape nectar with sugar”, with warning, with or without claim (7.6±1.3; 7.8±1.4). Purchase intention demonstrated similar results. The factor "Product" contributed to a greater expected acceptance, even in the presence of "Claim" and "Warning" (both didn’t affect acceptance). Participants gave a higher score to apple juice as a suitable way to sweeten nectars (average=5.1), as opposite to sugar or apple juice and sugar suggesting a dichotomy between the expected liking by looking at the nectar package and a question that was answered requiring rational thinking. Further studies are necessary to comprehend the consumer's perception/preference, sugar replacement, and warnings.  aGoat milk  aLactic acid bacteria  aFermented1 aCARVALHO, I. C.1 aLAUDANO, A. P. C. P.1 aSANTOS, G.1 aAYRES, E. M. M.1 aDELIZA, R.