Hostname: page-component-758b78586c-ddb2s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-11-28T16:39:40.363Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Taste and food preferences as predictors of dietary practices in young women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Adam Drewnowski*
Nutritional Sciences Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
Susan Ahlstrom Henderson
Human Nutrition Program, University of Michigan, USA
Alisa Levine
Human Nutrition Program, University of Michigan, USA
Clayton Hann
Human Nutrition Program, University of Michigan, USA
*Corresponding author: Email
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]


Core share and HTML view are not possible as this article does not have html content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

To investigate links between taste responses, self-reported food preferences and selected dietary outcomes in young women.


Subjects were 159 women, with a mean age of 27.0 years. Taste responses were measured using aqueous solutions of 6−n-propylthiouracil (PROP) and sucrose. All subjects completed a 171-item food preference checklist, using nine-point category scales. Food preference data were reduced using principal components factor analyses, with the internal consistency of factor-based subscales established using Cronbach's alpha. Dietary intakes, available for a subset of 87 women, were based on 3 days of food records. Estimated intakes of carbohydrate, fibre and β-carotene were the key dietary outcome variables.


Genetically-mediated sensitivity to the bitter taste of PROP was associated with reduced preferences for Brussels sprouts, cabbage, spinach and coffee beverages. Higher preferences for sucrose in water were associated with increased preferences for sweet desserts. Food preferences, in turn, were associated with measures of current diet. Reduced acceptability of vegetables and fruits was associated with lower estimated intakes of carbohydrate, fibre and β-carotene.


Taste responses to sucrose and PROP were predictive of some food preferences. Food preferences, in turn, were associated with food consumption patterns. Given that taste responsiveness to PROP is an inherited trait, there may be further links between genetic taste markers, eating habits and the selection of healthful diets.

Research Article
Copyright © CABI Publishing 1999


1US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 91–50213. Washington, DC: US DHHS, Public Health Service, 1991.Google Scholar
2Kennedy, E, Meyers, L, Layden, W. The 1995 dietary guidelines for Americans: an overview. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1996; 96: 234–7.Google Scholar
3US Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services. ‘USDA's Food Guide Pyramid’. Human Nutrition Information Service, Home and Garden Bulletin No. 249. Washington, DC: USDA and US DHHS, 1992.Google Scholar
4Contento, I. The effectiveness of nutrition education and implications for nutrition education policy, programs, and research: a review of research. J. Nutr. Educ. 1995; 27(6): 284365.Google Scholar
5Glanz, K, Lewis, F, Rimer, B. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.Google Scholar
6Havas, S, Heimendinger, J, Reynolds, K, et al. Five a day for better health: a new research initiative. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1994; 94: 32–6.Google Scholar
7Drewnowski, A, Rock, CL. The influence of genetic taste markers on food acceptance. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1995; 52: 506–11.Google Scholar
8Kristal, AR, White, E, Shattuck, AL, et al. Long-term maintenance of a low-fat diet: durability of fat-related dietary habits in the Women's Health Trial. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1992; 92: 553–9.Google Scholar
9Drewnowski, A. Taste preferences and food intake. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 1997; 17: 237–53.Google Scholar
10Drewnowski, A, Henderson, SA, Shore, AB. Genetic sensitivity to 6−n-propylthiouracil (PROP) and hedonic responses to bitter and sweet tastes. Chem. Senses 1997; 22: 2737.Google Scholar
11Rozin, P, Vollmecke, TA. Food likes and dislikes. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 1986; 6: 433–56.Google Scholar
12Anliker, JA, Bartoshuk, L, Ferris, AM, Hooks, LD. Children's food preferences and genetic sensitivity to the bitter taste of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP). Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1991; 54: 316–20.Google Scholar
13Glanville, EV, Kaplan, AR. Food preferences and sensitivity of taste for bitter compounds. Nature 1965; 205: 851–3.Google Scholar
14Krondl, M, Coleman, P, Wade, J, Milner, J. A twin study examining the genetic influence on food selection. Hum. Nutr. Appl. Nutr. 1983; 37A: 189–98.Google Scholar
15Pelchat, ML, Danowski, S. A possible genetic association between PROP-tasting and alcoholism. Physiol. Behav. 1992; 51: 1261–6.Google Scholar
16Fox, AF. The relationship between chemical constitution and taste. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1932; 18: 115–20.Google Scholar
17Kalmus, H. Genetics of taste. In: Beidler, LM, ed. Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1971; 165–79.Google Scholar
18Bartoshuk, LM. The biological basis of food perception and acceptance. Food Qual. Prefer. 1993; 4: 2132.Google Scholar
19Gent, JF, Bartoshuk, LM. Sweetness of sucrose, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone, and saccharin is related to the genetic ability to taste the bitter substance 6−n-propylthiouracil. Chem. Senses 1983; 7: 265–72.Google Scholar
20Fischer, R, Griffin, F, Kaplan, AR. Taste thresholds, cigarette smoking and food dislikes. Med. Experiment. 1963; 9: 5167.Google Scholar
21Drewnowski, A, Henderson, SA, Shore, AB, Barratt-Fornell, A. Nontasters, tasters, and supertasters of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) and hedonic response to sweet. Physiol. Behav. 1997; 62: 649–55.Google Scholar
22Drewnowski, A, Henderson, SA, Shore, AB. Taste responses to naringin, a flavoid, and the acceptance of grapefruit juice are related to genetic sensitivity to 6−n-propylthiouracil (PROP). Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1997; 66: 391–7.Google Scholar
23Bartoshuk, LM, Duffy, VB, Miller, IJ. PTC/PROP tasting: anatomy, psychophysics, and sex effects. Physiol. Behav. 1994; 56: 1165–71Google Scholar
24Boyd, WC. Taste reactions to antithyroid substances. Science 1950; 112: 153.Google Scholar
25Fischer, R, Griffin, F. Pharmacogenetic aspects of gustation. Drug Res. 1964; 14: 673–86.Google Scholar
26Forrai, G, Bankovi, G. Taste perception for phenylthiocarbamide and food choice—a Hungarian twin study. Acta Physiol. Hung. 1984; 64: 3340.Google Scholar
27Akella, GD, Henderson, SA, Drewnowski, A. Sensory acceptance of Japanese green tea and soy products is linked to genetic sensitivity to 6−n-propylthiouracil. Nutr. Cancer 1997; 29: 146–51.Google Scholar
28Craig, WJ. Phytochemicals: guardians of our health. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1997; 97: S199204.Google Scholar
29Potter, JP, ed. Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. Washington: World Cancer Research Fund, 1997.Google Scholar
30Frank, RA, van der Klaauw, NJ. The contribution of chemosensory factors to individual differences in reported food preferences. Appetite 1994; 22: 101–23.Google Scholar
31Mattes, R, Labov, J. Bitter taste responses to phenylthiocarbamide are not related to dietary goitrogen intake in human beings. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1989; 89: 692–4.Google Scholar
32Niewind, A, Krondl, M, Shrott, M. Genetic influences on the selection of Brassica vegetables by elderly individuals. Nutr. Res. 1988; 8: 1320.Google Scholar
33Meiselman, HL, Waterman, D, Symington, LE. Armed Forces Food Preferences. Natick, MA: United States Army Natick Development Center, 1974.Google Scholar
34Herman, CP. Restrained eating. Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. 1978; 1: 595607.Google Scholar
35Garner, DM, Garfinkel, PE. The Eating Attitudes Test: an index of the symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Psychol. Med. 1979; 9: 273–9.Google Scholar
36Peryam, DR, Pilgrim, PJ. Hedonic scale method for measuring food preferences. Food Technol. 1957; 11: 914.Google Scholar
37Logue, AW, Smith, ME. Predictors of food preferences in adult humans. Appetite 1986; 7: 109–25.Google Scholar
38Steinmetz, KA, Potter, JD. Vegetables, fruit, and cancer prevention: a review. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 1966; 96: 1027–39.Google Scholar
39Ziegler, RG. Vegetables, fruits, and carotenoids and the risk of cancer. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1991; 53: S251–9.Google Scholar
40Mattes, RD. Gustation as a determinant of ingestion: methodological issues. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1985; 41: 672–83.Google Scholar
41Lucas, F, Bellisle, F. The measurement of food preferences in humans; do taste and spit tests predict consumption? Physiol. Behav. 1987; 39: 739–43.Google Scholar
42Drewnowski, A. Taste and food preferences in human obesity. In: Capaldi, ED, Powley, TL, eds. Taste, Experience and Feeding. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1990; 227–40.Google Scholar
43Rodin, J, Moskowitz, HR, Bray, GA. Relationship between obesity, weight loss and taste responsiveness. Physiol. Behav. 1976; 17: 391–7.Google Scholar
44Drewnowski, A. Obesity and sweet taste. In: Dobbing, J, ed. Sweetness. Berlin: ILSI, Nutrition Foundation Symposium/Springer-Verlag, 1986; 177–92.Google Scholar
45Fenwick, GR, Heaney, RK, Mulling, WJ. Glucosinolates and their breakdown products in food and food plants. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 1983; 18: 123201.Google Scholar
46Jerzsa-Latta, M, Krondl, M, Coleman, P. Use and perceived attributes of cruciferous vegetables in terms of genetically-mediated taste sensitivity. Appetite 1990; 15: 127–34.Google Scholar
47Drewnowski, A. From asparagus to zucchini: mapping cognitive space for vegetable names. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 1996; 15: 1147–53.Google Scholar