Multicomponent food categorization

[ddooley]

We've created a new FoodOn term "multi-component food" which is a superclass for other more specialized multi-component food categories. All of these are ideally stocked with subclasses by inference. Ideally should this ignore foods that only have spices and herbs added?

We're thinking that any food with more than one food-source related ingredient would be a multi-component food, but we probably need to exclude chemical and herb/spice ingredients.

[ddooley]

For discussion, Magalie Weber has provided a paper which defines the INFOODS distinction (Truswell et al, 1991 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-1575(91)90045-8)

Single foods should fit into one of the following categories:

• Foods in natural state with only refuse or unedible portions removed (e.g., deboned meat, cored apples)
• Foods which have part of the edible portion removed (e.g., skim milk, white wheat flour)
• Foods which have had water removed or added (e.g. dried apricots, boiled rice, brewed tea)
• Foods to which small amounts of other ingredients have been added ; the added ingredients should contribute a minor part of the weight and the calories (energy) of the mixture, e.g., wheat flour bread (contains yeast, etc.)
• Foods which have been processed (e.g. minced, dried, fermented) with or without removal of parts of edible portion, with or without addition of small amounts of other ingredients, e.g. corn flakes enriched with vitamins, but not muesli, cheeses, but not cheese spreads or dips.

Mixed or multi-ingredient (composite) foods:

• Contain at least 2 substantial ingredients (each single or mixed foods) which are incorporated into the mixed food in a factory or kitchen
• A list of ingredients and a recipe should be available
• May be a mixture of similar ingredients, e.g., margarine from several vegetable oils, fish sticks/fingers from several species and parts or fish…
• Fried foods are best treated as mixed foods (from a nutritional viewpoint, information about the fat or oil used is important)

[maweber-bia]

Just a few details more: the basic principles in FoodEx2 rely on the following starting point :
What is the nature of the food ? and the answer depends on the increasing level of processing:

Raw primary commodities (RPCs)
• Parts of plants physically separated after harvesting or animals after slaughtering
• Processes not to change the nature of food (e.g. freezing) can be applied

RPC derivatives
• Obtained from raw commodities applying processes changing the « nature » of food

Composite foods
• Obtained by multiple commodities and/or derivatives/ingredients
• Always involved recipes and processes

So, we get rid of the issue of “how much other small ingredients” is there..

[maweber-bia]

As specified in the FoodEx2 revision2 document, if the logic of the system is rigidly adhered to, the presence of ingredients indicates the presence of composite food. However, in many cases, the characteristics of the raw commodity or derivatives being monitored are not significantly influenced by ingredients added in very small proportions, mostly for flavoring and/or decoration purposes. Consequently, it may not be advantageous to separate these food items from the original commodity or derivative, and information on the minor ingredients should be added using the ingredient facet.

https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2015.EN-804

[ddooley]

Thanks for bringing forth the FoodEx2 perspective. It sounds like we could have terms in FoodOn to capture the above exactly, and work on axiomatization that eventually yields correct categorization of a food item. It is interesting that for a food product that has had things added to it, that only some of those things might be considered "ingredients". I'd like to know in the food industry if there is a clean distinction in formulations about the components that are "ingredients", vs say "additives", ripening gasses etc. . I presume that the additions in a recipe are always called ingredients.

[maweber-bia]

yes, to me, the list of the components which have to be added during the making process AND which are intended to be part of the final composition of the food can always be considered as "ingredients" in a recipe or an industrial process.

but perhaps this should be more precisely documented:

Just to mention that the distinction is made in the regulatory/legislative documentation between additives or processing aids
(see here: https://www.anses.fr/en/content/focus-food-additives and https://www.anses.fr/en/content/processing-aids)

"A food additive is a substance that is not usually consumed as food or used as an ingredient in food products."

"Processing aids are substances which are not consumed as food ingredients on their own, but which are deliberately used during the processing or transformation of raw materials, foodstuffs, or their ingredients in order to fulfill a given technological objective. "

In Europe, the use of additives is strictly regulated according to the so-called "positive list" principle. In other words, what is not expressly authorized is prohibited.

Even if they are used in small quantities, these substances are evaluated and monitored to prevent adverse health effects. Their use is therefore regulated and their presence must be mentioned on the labels of the products concerned.

[ddooley]

Coming out of this I'd like a term that covers every material thing that is transformed into the material present in a food product - including solids, liquids and potentially even gas (e.g. in carbonic maceration).

I just looked at my unpleasantly long frozen burrito wrapper "ingredients" list just now: FILLING:water, pinto beans, cheddar cheese (pasteurized milk, cheese culture, salt, enzymes, annatto color), soybean oil, seasoning (salt, dextrose, natural spices, onion powder, hydrolyzed soy protein, ... TORTILLA: Enriched wheat flour ... niacin .... dough conditioner ( ... silicon dioxide (flow aid) ... etc.

So can we accept that "ingredient" is super-general and covers all of the above kinds of ingredient, as well as any kind of mixture - from paint to gunpowder?! I think this is backed up by some general defs for "ingredient": NCIT: "That which enters into a compound, or is a component part of any combination or mixture; an element; a constituent.". SIO: "A chemical substance that forms part of a mixture." AFX: "A material that enters into a compound or is part of any combination or mixture." What these definitions miss a bit is the intentionality of the addition or "entering" - there are intentionally added ingredients, but also contaminants that may unintentionally exist beyond some desired threshold.

So this suggests any ingredient term we introduce in the food space has to be specialized. Tentatively - and I define antipodal terms in order to create context -

• poison: A substance that is capable of causing the illness or death of a living organism when introduced or absorbed.[Oxford Languages]
• added substance: A material entity which is an input to a process that creates a compound or mixture or material combination.
  • contaminant: An added substance which is unintentionally present (beyond some threshold) in a given material entity.
  • ingredient: An added substance which is intentionally (deliberately) added to a process.
    • paint ingredient: An ingredient added to a paint mixture.
    • food ingredient: A food material which is an input to a process that creates or transforms a food product.

A question is whether we intend "food material" there to include processing aids. If one looks closely at above "processing aid" definition, I think it still allows for a processing aid to be a kind of food ingredient: "Processing aids are substances which are not consumed as food ingredients on their own, but which are deliberately used during the processing or transformation of raw materials, foodstuffs, or their ingredients in order to fulfill a given technological objective."

So I'd try "processing aid" as a child of "food ingredient":

• processing aid: "An ingredient [edit] which is not consumed as a food material on its own, but which is deliberately used during the processing or transformation of raw materials, foodstuffs, or their ingredients in order to fulfill a given technological objective."

Now maybe this becomes more palatable if we also define other children of food ingredient:

• regulated processing aid: a processing aid which has (regional) regulatory restrictions pertaining to its application or allowable limits.
• regulated food product: a food product which has regulatory restrictions about its origin, food processing or other characteristics.

This would allow for classification of food components from both regulatory and technical functional classification perspectives. It would help to provide a framework sitting above the matrix of food additive terminology: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14sEWzXqs9OK5J771rq17gQ5hrko_RY_y1jppFHa1V7E . As well, the "Recipe Defs" tab of https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18Ml5pLHfd0IVGD3roxF0NkjXRry0rRrsa8Y06y2fgr0 will require a revisit once we get better definitions into FoodOn.

[maweber-bia]

great! I totally agree that "ingredient" is super-general and covers all of the above kinds of ingredient, as well as any kind of mixture and with the proposal that food ingredient is a food material which is an input to a process that creates or transforms a food product

I am also ok with the hierarchy you have stated but could you specify what is the parent term for "ingredient" ? could that be a "chemical substance" ? but what about "enzymes": are they chemical substances too (I think so, as they are a kind of proteins).

ok for the definition of processing aids and regulated processing aids but I don't think that "regulated food product" should be a child of food ingredient --> could be a child of food material instead ?

I think we are near the goal!

[ddooley]

Ah right, regulated food product would be either under food material directly, or under "food product".
And yes, "chemical substance" would be parent of food ingredient, but I would check in with other OBO ontology gurus about whether they want inferrence of class structure here to some extent.
And yes it looks like enzymes fit as chemicals esp. as I see in a definition that they "act as a catalyst"!

[maweber-bia]

Fine!

[ddooley]

ingredient / food ingredient / processing aid / regulated processing aid , and regulated food product have now all been added to FoodOn draft.