EVALUATION OF FOUR SORGHUM HYBRIDS THROUGH THE ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FOOD ALLERGENS Introduction Chapter 1: Literature Review An estimated 1-2 percent of adults and 4-8 percent of children suffer from food allergies (Lehrer and others 2002). In the United States, approximately 30,000 people require emergent care and 150 people die each year due to an allergic reaction to food (U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2004). There is currently no cure for food allergies. The individual must avoid the food they are allergic to, placing responsibility on food manufacturers. In 1999, the FDA randomly selected foods from Minnesota and Wisconsin to review for allergens (U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2004). They found that 25% of these foods did not successfully label peanuts or eggs as ingredients. Furthermore, in 2000, the amount of recalls from unlabeled allergens rose from 35 to 121 over a decade (U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2004). As a result, the need for governmental control on these ingredients became obvious. FDA Regulations In August of 2004, the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 was created. The act required the labeling of eight major food allergens to be effective by January 1, 2006. The eight major food allergens are: milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans. These were chosen as they are responsible for about 90% of food allergies (U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2004; McEvoy 2007). 3
Before this act, ingredients in food were required to be listed by their “common or usual name” (U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2007). Studies showed many individuals were unaware that certain ingredients were derived from or contained a major food allergen. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 now requires the eight major food allergens be listed in either of the following two ways. First, the product’s label can have the word ‘contains’ followed by the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived. This is listed directly after or adjacent to the ingredient list in the same or larger type size. Second, the common or usual name of the major food allergen in the ingredient list is followed in parentheses by the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived. Unless the common or usual name uses the name of the food source or the name of the food source appears elsewhere in the ingredient list. The name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived means one of the names described in the eight major food allergens, including the specific type or species be listed for tree nuts, fish, and Crustacean shellfish. Any food ingredient that contains the protein derived from the eight major food allergens must be listed. This excludes any highly refined oil derived from the food allergens (U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2004). For products that may unintentionally contain the food allergens, labeling is still in effect. Cross-contact is a major concern for food allergens. If the product contains an ingredient that may have a certain allergen, then it can be listed as so. Products that are produced in the same facility as an allergen-containing product should be noted. There are five statements manufacturers currently used to note possible cross-contact of food allergens. They are: "Produced in a plant that processes...[allergen(s)];" "May contain 4
Page 1 and 2: EVALUATION OF FOUR SORGHUM HYBRIDS
Page 3 and 4: compared to a gluten-free wrap alre
Page 5 and 6: Flour Characterization Starch Isola
Page 7 and 8: Chapter 1 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Mechan
Page 9 and 10: 4. Comparison of color, pH, water a
Page 11 and 12: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I cannot begin to t
Page 13: most important. As a continent, Afr
Page 17 and 18: Mechanism of Actions According to B
Page 19 and 20: symptoms similar to allergic reacti
Page 21 and 22: Table 1. Symptoms of Celiac Disease
Page 23 and 24: Treatment If an individual is diagn
Page 25 and 26: MARKET FOR GLUTEN-FREE PRODUCTS In
Page 27 and 28: This exported sorghum may be used f
Page 29 and 30: sorghum, White sorghum, and Mixed s
Page 31 and 32: The actual proportion of the three
Page 33 and 34: fiber (Bach-Knudsen and Munck 1985)
Page 35 and 36: preference towards white sorghums w
Page 37 and 38: cassava starch, and raw cassava sta
Page 39 and 40: (about 5 min.). Waniska and others
Page 41 and 42: easily. These tortillas are best fo
Page 43 and 44: starch, and leavening acids, is a c
Page 45 and 46: Gliadin, which is a prolamin charac
Page 47 and 48: gluten matrix can hold some of the
Page 49 and 50: LITERATURE CITED Aboubacar A, Hamak
Page 51 and 52: Federal Register. 2007. Food Labeli
Page 53 and 54: Murty DS, Singh U, Suryaprakash S,
Page 55 and 56: Subramanian V, Jambunathan R, Suury
Page 57 and 58: Chapter 2: Grain and Flour Characte
Page 59 and 60: Introduction: An estimated 1-2 perc
Page 61 and 62: The cleaned grain was then analyzed
Page 63 and 64: Starch Particle Size Distribution:
Page 65 and 66:
Moisture Content: The moisture cont
Page 67 and 68:
products. Grain hardness can also b
Page 69 and 70:
Flour Characterization Flour Partic
Page 71 and 72:
Starch Particle Size Distribution:
Page 73 and 74:
Total Starch: The total starch cont
Page 75 and 76:
Table 4. Comparison of total starch
Page 77 and 78:
66 Table 5. Comparison of starch pa
Page 79 and 80:
create a flour of a specific ash co
Page 81 and 82:
Conclusions: This study has shown t
Page 83 and 84:
Evers AD, Stevens DJ. 1985. Starch
Page 85 and 86:
Schober TJ, Bean SR, Boyle DL. 2007
Page 87 and 88:
Abstract Gluten-free flour tortilla
Page 89 and 90:
following five states in ranking or
Page 91 and 92:
increased. This is probably due to
Page 93 and 94:
than a typical tortilla process. Ov
Page 95 and 96:
Table 1. Formulation for sorghum fl
Page 97 and 98:
of 1.00 mm/s, test speed of 1.00 mm
Page 99 and 100:
values. Calibration was performed b
Page 101 and 102:
flour to use was determined by memb
Page 103 and 104:
Table 2. Comparison of weight, diam
Page 105 and 106:
Also, starch damage was found to be
Page 107 and 108:
Color: Significant differences were
Page 109 and 110:
98 Table 4. Comparison of color, pH
Page 111 and 112:
3.83 (TVM) to 8.00 (F-625). Grittin
Page 113 and 114:
102 Table 6. Comparison of texture
Page 115 and 116:
104 Table 8. Comparison of texture
Page 117 and 118:
Table 9. Comparison of scores from
Page 119 and 120:
REFERENCES Bejosano FP, Joseph S, L
Page 121 and 122:
Appendices 110
Page 123 and 124:
Appendix 2. Average starch particle
Page 125 and 126:
Appendix 4. RVA curve for F-1000. 1
Page 127 and 128:
Appendix 6. RVA curve for 5040C. 11
Page 129 and 130:
118 Appendix 8. RVA curve for TVM.
Page 131 and 132:
TEXTURE (in the hand) Roughness: Th
Page 133 and 134:
Hardness: The relative resistance t
Page 135 and 136:
Appendix 11: CONSUMER PRE-SCREENING
Page 137 and 138:
SAMPLE: 571 Please check only one b
show all

EVALUATION OF FOUR SORGHUM HYBRIDS THROUGH THE ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?