CA1237938A - Flavor enhancing seasonings and foods having enhanced flavor - Google Patents

Abstract

ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE

The invention relates to seasoning and foods comprising i) a taste intensifying substance, and ii) a flavor enhancing substance which is at least one member selected from the group consisting of glutathione, a salt of glutathione, oxidized glutathione, a salt of oxidized glutathione sulfonic acid, cycloallin, a salt of cycloallin, lenitinic acid, a salt of lentinic acid, des-glutamyl lentinic acid, a salt of des-glutamyl lentinic acid, methionine methyl sulfonium, a salt of methionine methyl sulfonium, a compound of the formulae (I)

Description

~L~3~1 TITLE OF THE INVENTION
-FLAVOR ENHANCING SEASONINGS AND
FOODS AGO ENHANCED FLAVOR

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
Field of the Invention:
.
This invention relates to seasoning and food having enhanced flavor by the addition of sulfur-containing compound.

n of the Prior Art:
The taste intensity imparting function of representative "Umami" substances, namely, sodium L-glutamate (MUG), sodium insinuate (IMP) and sodium 5'~guanylate (GYP) is widely known. A wide variety of seasonings obtained from MUG, IMP and GYP can be appropriately combined with protein hydrolysate~ (HOP, ZAP), yeast extract (YE), amino acids etc. In their various application, these substances have been increasingly used for the purpose ox enhancing organoleptic characteristics of foods such as the "Umami" (MUG like ticket flavor etc.
Although ~Umami" substance enjoy popularity and wide application, there has still been a demand for --2-- `

extending their function; to further develop their flavor characteristics More specifically, there ha till been a demand to further develop the thickness, amplitude, continuity etc. of Umami~ substance This it a property which is different from their taste which tithe effect achieved by a combination of saltlnes~, sweetness, acid taste etc. a it done to further enhance a taste.
Hence, throughout this text the term tasty is used to de crime the basic saltiness, sweetness and acidity properties of the "Umami" substance described above.
The term flavor it lied to describe the thickness, amplitude and continuity properties of "Umami"
subcutaneous. The terms asset and flavor do not describe the aye properties. Rather they describe different properties which can be complementary.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Accordingly, one object of this invention is to provide a novel enhanced flavor seasoning so food having enhanced flavor.
The prevent inventor have discovered that (1) glutathione (GUSH) and oxidized glutathione SAG --hereinafter called generically as 'IGSHn -, I glutathione sulfonic acid (GSO3~, (3) cycloallin --hereinafter called KIWI -, (4) lentinic acid, I

des-glutamyl lentinic acid and the salts thereof --hereinafter called generically as "LA" -, (5) methionine methyl sulfonium (MUMS), and (6) compound of the following general formula (1) or (2):

o R-S- CH2-CHCOR' R-S-CH2CHCOR' NOR" (I) NH2 (2) wherein R is hydrogen, a saturated or unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon group of 1-3 carbon atoms or a carboxyalkyl group wherein the alkyd group is from Of to I
R' it OH or a carboxymethylamino group, and I" is H or a y-glutamyl group, have flavor intensifying properties.
As the result of further detailed investigations on taste and flavor intensity, it has been discovered that they compounds manifest strong flavor enhancement in the presence of MUG, a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance or a mixture thereof.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF TOE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
Glutathione tGSH)I oxidized glutathione ~GSSG), glutathione sulfonic acid (GSO3H), cycloallin (CA), lentinic acid and des-glutamyl lentinic acid (both hereinafter generically referred to a LA) and methionine methyl sulfonium MUMS have been confirmed to be widely present in foods, natural products etc.

. . .

Part of compounds (1) and (2) shown above were known as precursor substance for specific taste components in food in which these are present. Other parts of compounds (1) and (2) are presumed to be present in the metabolism route in foods, but no reference has been made to their relation to flavor intensity. Further, it is impossible to guess what flavor intensifying function these compounds manifest in the presence of the Umami components.
It has now been discovered that GUSH, GSSG, GSO3~, CA, LA, MUMS and compounds of the general formulae (1) and (2) shown below O
R-S- SHEA -SHAKER ' R-S-CH2 SHAKER ' NOR" (I) NHCOCH2 -Chihuahuas SCHICK
NH2 ( 2 ) wherein R is hydrogen, a saturated or unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon group of 1 to 3 carbon atoms or a carboxyalkyl group wherein the alkyd group is from C
to C6, R' is OH or a carboxymethylamino group, and R" is or a y-glutamyl group manifest strong flavor enhancement in the presence of MUG, a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance or a mixture thereof. As the result of a detailed I.

study on various combination and formulations of glutamic acid, glutamic acid alto or nucleic acid type taste intensifying substances with scan, "GSHn, "GS03~", Nolan or MUMS it ha been discovered that these 3ulfur-containing compound are widely effective in the enhancement ox flavor. Their discovery thus provides the possibility for novel flavor enhancing seasoning and foods by incorporating together "Umami"
components and the ~ulfur-containing compounds. The prevent invention relates to such combinations.
GUSH ha been studied forts physiological activity, pharmacological efficacy etc. It has been used as eye a liver disease treatirlg agent, an antipyretic etc. Various application of GUSH to foods are Allah known Some of these applications are given below. (1) GUSH ha been added to dough product of go flour etc. as thy occlude amino acid type, reducing agent like Sistine etc. ( Sex Japanese Patent Publication Nos. 19863/1974. 16418/1975, 1773/1976, 9019/1976, 33981/1976, 9893/1981, Japanese Patent Application Laid-open No. 11967/1972, 30855~1972, 98052/1973, 122762/1979, 23853/1981 etc.) ,

(2) Similarly, GO has been added to sour milk and baby foods a a storage stabilizer for vitamin C. (See Japanese Patent. Publication Nos. 7143/1975 and 21606/1370.) (3) GO has been added to wish pate products such a boiled fish taste as a decomposition inhibitor for nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance. (See Japanese Patent Publication No.
8694/1968.) (4) GUSH has been added as an agent to relieve the yeast odor of yeast extract. see Japanese Patent Publication No. 6232/1969. ) (5) GO has been used for the purpose of preventing the discoloration of canned fruit (See Japanese Patent Publication No.
206~5~1965.) (6) It has been used to intensify the flavor of foods, especially canned meat by being combined with sugar, amino acids etc. by reaction.
see Japanese Patent Publication Nos. 22194/1967, 35149tl974, aye etc.) (7) It has been used to intensify cheese flavor. (See Japanese Patent Publication No. aye and the like.) In these examples of applications of GUSH to foods, GUSH is used as a physical property modifier as in above (1). In I (6) and (7) etc. above, there are no comments regarding the taste intensity of GUSH. Furthermore, the amounts of GUSH
added are only extremely small amounts. For example, only 0.01 I 0~05~ GUSH is added in the cave of dough products, 0.001 to 0.02~ in the case of baby foods.
Even in the case of taste intensification in meats or cheese (a in (6) or (7) above), a similarly extremely small amount is added Therefore, it it clear from the above examples that there ha been no finding in the prior art of GUSH actually having a flavor intensifying function. Moreover, it is entirely impossible Jo Know or predict what flavor intensifying function, if any, GUSH would manifest in the presence of other taste component.
GSO38 is known a a component in enokidake. It presence has also been confirmed in a part of other mushrooms. The significance of it presence or its lo role in food have not yet been described There it no reference in the prior art concerning the taste intensity of GSO3H. Further it it entirely impossible to know or predict what flavor intensifying functions, it any, GSO3H manifests in the presence of the "Umami"
component.
Lentinic acid is contained in ~hiitake and it known as a precursor to the odor of Shattuck. When Shattuck tissue is damaged or dried Shattuck it reconstituted with water, it undergoes various chemical and/or biochemical reactions; e.g., enzymatic action by y-glutamyl transfers, C-S lease etc. Resultingly lenthionine which is an odorous principle of Shattuck it f orbed.
In non of the aboYe-de~cribed research was there any mention suggesting the flavor intensity of lentinic -a-acid. Further, it it entirely impossible to know or predict what flavor intensifying function, if any, lentinic acid manifests in the presence of the "Umami"
components.
MUMS is Allah known as vitamin I. It has been intensively investigated for its pharmacological efficacy and has been used as e.g. an anti ulcer agent. Various applications of MUMS in foods are also known. Some of these applications are given below.

(1) MUMS has been used also for the purpose of intensifying and modifying the taste of food by adding it as a so-called taste precursor substance to the food and subsequently converting it into a taste substance by heating. (See Japanese Patent Application Laid-open No. 92663/1979 etc.) I MUMS has been used for the purpose of enhancing the nutritional value of soybean paste, bean milk etc. (See Japanese Patent Publication Nos. 19827/1968 and 13979/1974.) (3) It is used as an antioxidant for oils and fats. (See Japanese Patent Publication No. 1125/1975.) (4) And it is used for the purpose of preventing the decomposition of vitamin By. In this use it is incorporated in compositions to which sulfurous acid has been added to serve as a deterioration inhibitor, e.g., medicines, foods etc.
(See Japanese Patent Publication No. 6153/1963.) There has been no disclosure relating to the flavor intensity of MUMS in any of these application.
Further, it it entirely impossible to guess or predict what flavor intensifying function, if any, MUMS
manifests in the presence of the nUmami" components.
Cycloallin is also crown as amino acid. It it a sulfur-containing component in onion and garlic. There are only few studio of it characteristics. It is known that cycloallin is formed by reaction of 5 -propenylcysteinsulfoxide which is contained in 3% by wt. as a dry matter in onion. In none of the research relating to cycloallin, described above, are there any remarks of the flavor intensity of cycloallin.
Further, it is entirely impossible to know or predict what flavor intensifying junctions, if any, cycloallin manifest in the presence of the "Umami" components.
In accordance with the punt invention, a characteristic flavor intensity enhancing effect can be obtained by using 'IGSH", GSO3H, "Can, "LA" and/or MUMS
in combination with conventionally known "Umami"
compounds such as MUG, IMP, GYP etc. The prevent invention further provide that these combinations are made in accordance with specified ratios. This invention relates to the intensification of the impression ox taste (flavor enhancement and to further impart flavor. flavor here is the continuity, ' amplitude, thickness, etc. of the original taste "Umami~, bitterness, sweetness, acid taste, saltiness etc. while the original taste remain unchanged The mixing ratio of the "Umami" component to thes,ulfur-containing component selected from the group consisting ox lush GS03~, "con, ALA" and.MMS may be determined as follows. The amount of the sulfur-containing compound or compounds added is within the range of 0.1 to 1000% by weight based on the weight of the present "Mom" component. The "Umami" component it calculated as the weight of IS required to manifest the same "Umami" strength. All comparisons are made .. .
to the "Umami'l strength ox MUG- When a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance such as IMP, GYP etch ;
is.used..a:lone, the mixing ratio of ~ulfur-containing compound or compounds is 1 : 99 to I :.1.
For example, in the cave where the "Umami" component comprises only MUG, the ~ulfur-containing compound or compounds are present at a concentration of 0.001 to 10 time that of MSG. In the other cave, i.e. where MUG
and IMP or GYM are also present a the nUmami"
component, the "Umami" strength (y value) may be determined according to the following equation:
IMP: y = u + 1218 us GYP: y = u 28,00 us ~7~3~

wherein u = MUG concentration 1%), and v = IMP or GYP
concentration While the conversion equation to obtain each y value can vary depending on the kinds and number of the tastiness components etc., the conversion equation e~kabli~hed by organoleptic comparison with a - simple aqueous solution of MUG may be appropriately used. For instance, the y value where IMP and GYP are used in combination at a ratio ox 50:50 is as follow:

y = u + 2010 us wherein u = MUG concentration I and v = IMP/GMP
mixture concentration t%).
In this invention a characteristic flavor enhancing effect can also be obtained by using the compounds of the general formulae (1) and (2) (shown below) either singly or as a mixture.

R-S-CH2-CHCOOR' (1) R-S-CHCOOR' (2) wherein R it a saturated or unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon group of 1 to 3 carbon atom, or a carboxyalkyl group wherein the alkyd group is from C
to C6, I' is H or a carboxymethylamino group, and R" is or a y-glutamyl group.
The compounds of general formulae (1) and (2) are used in an amount falling in a specified ratio to the "Umami" components such a MUG, IMP, GYP etc. The effect in this case it to intensify the impression of the taste and further impart flavor, to further develop the continuity, amplitude, thickness etc. The flavor thus obtained is characterized by that the original taste -- nUmami" bitterness, Whitney g, acid taste, ~altine3~ etc. -- remain unchanged.
The mixing ratio of the "Umami" component to these compounds may be determined as follows. The amount of compound (1) or (2) or combination thereof added is 0~1 to 1000% by weight bayed on the weight of the also prevent "Umami" component. The weight of the Allah present "Umami" component it calculated as the weight of, e.g. MUG, required to manifest the tame "Umami"
strength. When a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance ugh as IMP, GYP etc. are used alone, the mixing ratio of these to compounds if) or I or combination thereof is in the range of l:99 to 99:1.
In other words, in the case where the "Umami n component comprises only MUG, compound if) or (2) or combination thereof are prevent in an amount of 0.001 to 10 times the concentration ox MUG In the other cave, i.e., ..

i , where MUG and IMP or GYP are present as the "Umami"
components, the "Umami n strength (y value) may be determined according to the fang equations:
IMP: y = u + 1218 us GMP y = u + 2800 us wherein u = MUG concentration (%), and v = IMP or GYP
concentration (%).
While the conversion equation to obtain each y - value can very depending on the kinds and number of the "Umami" components etc., y values established by organoleptic comparison against a simple aqueous solution of MUG may be appropriately used. For instance, the y value where IMP and GYP are used in combination at a ratio of 50:50 is as follows:
y - u 2010 us wherein u - MUG concentration I and v - IMP/GMP
mixture concentration The compounds of formulae (1) and (2) can also be used in combination with any of the other sulfur-containing compound: "GUSH", GS03H, "CA", "LA" and MUMS
Other features ox the invention will become apparent in the course of the following descriptions of exemplary embodiment which are given for illustration I

of the invention and are not intended to be limiting thereof.

Experimental Example l (Evaluation in Swim to A use Solution S stems) P_. q _ _ Y

. Using as a control a mixed aqueous solution of 0.05 gel of MUG and 0.05 gel of IMP value = 3.09), sample solutions were prepared by adding 0.001 to 0.5 gel of GO to the mixed aqueous solution. These sample solutions were organoleptically evaluated by paired comparison texts against the control using an organoleptic panel of 20 member (N = 20). The results are given in Tub l.

Table l M = 20 Formulation Taste Intensifying Effect Strength of MUG IMP GUSH Strength of Flavor gel gel do "Umami" _ Enhancement Control 0.05 0.05 -- +
simply A n Al 0 . 001 i .
n 0 . 01 + I+
C O . 05 + ~+~
D ++++
E n Al o ., 3 it ++++++

F n o . 5 I

., - l s -The following notation it used throughout the examples: (~) = enhancement of property being investigated, (+~) = pronounced enhancement, etc., (~) = no noticeable enhancement, (-) = mitigation of property being investigated.) ... . .
As shown in Table 1, with less than 0.1% of GUSH
added, bayed on the y value (MUG calculated amount), the strength of flavor is comparable to that of the control. But by the addition of 0.1% or more of GO
the flavor alone it remarkably increased without changing the strength of ~Umami" and other basic tastes. If the absolute concentration of GUSH exceeds 1.0%, specific thickness in taste is manifested and the total taste balance is lost. Therefore, the amount of GUSH added should suitably be in the range of 0.1 to 1000% by weight, preferably 0.1 to 50% by weight, based on the weight of the also present tastiness component. Where the amount of tastiness component used is calculated as the weight of MUG having the same "Umami" strength. (See equations above Further, GO
manifest the most preferred effect in the presence of an appropriate amount of the above "Umaci n component, that is, when the above y value it 0.1 to 30 as the concentration at the time of eating.

no On the other hand, in the cave where the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance such as IMP, GYP
etc. it used alone, if GUSH is added at a ratio of less than 1/99 to the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance, the flavor enhancing effect it not adequate. Further when GUSH is present in an amount of 250%/wt. or more based on the amount of nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance, GUSH manifests the most preferred effect. Whereas if GUSH exceeds a ratio ox 99/1, a specific thicken in taste is brought about and the total taste balance is lost.

AL
tEvaluatlon in reef Extract Stems According to the analytical value of bee extract, the effect of the addition of GUSH to a formulation of major components was evaluated by paired comparison test against a control. The results are given in Table 3, from which it has been confirmed that in the synthetic beef extract a well, GUSH imparts a higher natural taste by manifesting a strong flavor enhancement.

Jo table 2 Formulation of Major Components of Beef Extract Formulation MUG 3 %

Nail 11 dummy lactate 20 Histidine hydrochloride 20 Ala nine 4 Lawson hydrochloride 4 Table 3 .
Major . Strength of Component GUSH Flavor . gel ~/dl_Enhancement .
Control 2 0 Sample A n . 0. 01 I+
B n 0.1 to C n 0~2 .
GUSH in this invention Jay be obtained by any production process, such as an extraction process, a synthesis process etc. Further, it it also possible to replace the whole or part of the required GUSH by a substance containing GO

~7~13~

Exeerime to 3 .

(Evaluation in Shrimp Extract Systems) According to the analytical values of the extract components I shrimp which it a natural delicious food, the major components were formulated and organolepti-gaily evaluated similarly a in Experiment Example 2.
These texts confirm, as shown in Table 5, that GUSH
imparted-a higher natural taste by manifesting a strong flavor enhancement as it did in beef extract toots.

Table 4 formulation of Major Components) MUG 3~9 %
IMP 3~9 Nikko 12~6 ~2HP4 13.0 ~H2P04 5~3 Sodium lactate 15.3 Ala nine 15.4 Gleason 15.3 Arginine 15.3 100 . O

Table 5 major Strength of Component GUSH Flavor Strength of gel ancient Natural Fuel Control 1.3 0 + +
Sample A " 0.006~+ ++++
B 0.06 Ho I+
C n 0 .12 Hut Experimental Example 4 (Evaluation on simple Awoke Sly stem ?
) A mixed aqueous solution Go I 05 gel of MUG and 0.05 gel of IMP (y value = 3.09) was used as a control. Sample solutions were prepared by adding 0.002 to 1.0 gel of GSO3~ to the mixed aqueous solution, and these were organoleptically-evaluated by paired comparison text against the control using an organoleptic panel of 20 members (N = 20). The results are given in Table 6.
Table 6 N = 20 m~latlo~ Taste Intensifying Effect Strength of MUG IMP GO Strength of Flavor do Ed "Umam.i n Enhancement Control 0.05 0.05 Sample A N 11 0 . 002 i +
B " " 0.02 + +
C n n 0,05 i t D n n 0.1 + ++
E n I O, 15 i Jo E' n Al 0.5 t- t++

F Al n I 0 i to Go 0.1 Cot it A shown in Table 6, with lies than 0.1% of GS0 added, based on the y value (MUG calculated amount the strength of flavor enhancement it comparable to I I
I

that of the control. By the addition ox 0.1% or more, the flavor enhancement alone is remarkably increased without changing the strength of "Umami" component. If the absolute concentration of GS03H exceeds 1.0%, specific thickness in taste is manifested and the total taste balance it lout. Therefore, the amount of GS0 added should suitably be in the range of ,0,1 to 1000%
by weight, preferably 0.1 to 50% by weight, based on the weight of co-present "Umami" component. The amount of "Umami~ component used it calculated as the weight ox MUG having the same "Umamin strength. (Sex equations.) Further, GS03H manifests the Yost preferred effect in the presence of an appropriate amount of the above "Umami~ component, that it, when the above y value is 0.1 to 30 as the concentration at the time of eating.
On the other hand, if the nucleic acid type taste inter flying substance is used alone and GS03~ is added Nat a ratio of less than 1/99 relative to the nucleic 0 . acid type taste intensifying substance, the flavor enhancing effect is not adequate, Whereat if this ratio exceeds 99/1, a specific thickness intuit is brought about and the total taste balance it 105t.

I

Experimental Example 5 (Evaluation in Simple Aqueous Solution Systems) A mixed aqueous solution of 0.05 g/dl.of MUG and 0.05 gel of IMP (y value = 3.09) was used a a control. Sample solutions were prepared by adding 0.002 to 1.0 gel of lentinic acid or des-glutamyl lentinic acid (LA) to the mixed aqueous solution. These sample solutions were organoleptically evaluated by paired comparison against the control using an organoleptic panel of 20 member ON = 20). the results are given in Table 7.

Table 7 Formulation Taste Intenstifyin~ Effect Strength of MUG IMP "LA" Strength Flavor . gel gel ox "Umami" Enhancement Control 0.05 0.05 -- + +
Sample A n Al 0 . 002 -I +
B " " 0.02 -I +
2 0 C 0 r 0 5 +

D " " 0.1 + -I+
E " " 0.5 + +++

F " " 1.0 -~+~
G Jo 0.1 0.1 - .

~2~3~

As shown in Table 7, with amounts of added lentinic acid or des-glutamyl lentinic acid lest than 0.1% bayed on the y value (MUG calculated amount), the strength of flavor enhancement it comparable to that of the control. But by the addition of 0~1% or more of lentinic acid an deq-glutamyl lentinic acid, the flavor enhancement alone is remarkably increased without changing the strength of "Umami". If the absolute concentration of lentinic acid or des-glutamyl lentinic acid exceeds 1.0%, specific thickness in taste is manifested and the total taste balance is lost.
Therefore, the amount of "LA" added should suitably be in the range of 0.1 to 1000% by weight, preferably 0.1 to 50% by weight, based on the weight of co-pre~ent tastiness component calculated as the weight of MUG
having the tame "Umami" strength. Further, "LA"
manifests the most preferred effect in the presence of an appropriate amount of the above "Umami" component.
That is, when the above y value is 0.1 to 30 as the concentration at the time of eating.
On the other hand, in the case where a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance such a IMP, GYP
etc. is used alone, if "LA" is added at a ratio of less than 1~99 to the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance the flavor enhancing effect it not adequate. Whereat if this ratio exceeds 99/1, a specific thickness in taste it brought about and the total taste balance it 105t~

Experilnental Example 6 (Evaluation in Simple Aqueous Solution Systems) A mixed aqueous solution of 0~05 gel of MUG and 0.05 gJdl of IMP (y value = 3.09) way used a a control. Sample solutions were prepared (1) by adding Oily to 1.0 gel of MUMS to the mixed aqueous solution, and (2) by mixing aqueous solutions of 0.1 gel ox IMP
and 0.1 gel of MUMS. These sample solutions were organoleptically evaluated by paired comparison test against the control using an organoleptic panel of 20 members (N = 20). The results are given in Table 8.

Table 8 .
N = 20 Formulation Taste _Intenstlfying Effect Strength of MUG IMP MUMS Strength Flavor gel do of '1Umam.i" Enhancement Control . 050 . 05 -- +
Sample A " " O . 00 2 + +

O . 01 + +
C n n 0.05 i ++
Do It 0.1 + ++++
E n lo o . 5 -I +++++
F n n 1.0 i lo Ho 0.1 0.1 +++~

I

As shown in Table 8, when the amount of added MUMS
it lest than 0.1% based on the y value (MUG calculated amount), the strength of flavor enhancement and the characteristic sweetness are comparable to that of the control. But by the addition of 0.1% or more the flavor enhancement and the characteristic sweetness are remarkably increased without changing the strength of "Umami" and the characteristic sweetness. If the concentration of MUMS exceeds 1.0~, a character tic lo aroma or specific thickness in taste is manifested and the total taste balance is lost. Therefore, the amount of MUMS added should suitably be in the range of 0.1 to 1000~ by weight, preferably 0.1 to 50% by weight, based on the weight of also prevent "Umami" component. The amount ox "Umami" component used it calculated a the weight of MUG having the same "Umami" strength (See equations.) Further, MUMS manifests the most preferred effect in the presence of an appropriate amount of the above "Umami" component. That it, when the above y value it 0~1 to 30 a the concentration at the time of eating.
On the other hand, when a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance such as IMP, GYP etc. is used alone, if MUMS is added at a ratio of less than 1/99 Jo the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance, thy flavor enhancement as well a the character~tlc ~L~23~793~3 sweetness enhancing effect is not adequate. Whereas if the ratio exceed 99/1, a characteristic sweetness or specific thickness in taste is brought about and the total taste balance it lout.

Experimental Example ?
( Evaluation in Onion Extract Systems ) According to the analytical values of the onion extract, the effect of the addition of MUMS to the formulation of major components was evaluated by a paired comparison test against a control case. The results are given in Table 10, from which it has been found that MUMS imparts clear vegetable characteristic Sutton and strong flavor enhancement and gives a natural feel.

Table 9 (Formulation of Major Components in Onion Extract) Formulation (%) Glucose 25 Sucrose 15 Maltose 25 Amino Acids * 10 No Citrate 15 pa Palate 10 * Amino acids: a mixture of MUG, arginine, Lawson, isoleucine, ~eucine, a~partic acid, Gleason, phenylalanine and praline.

~37~

Table 10 Kirk- Flavor major touristic Enhance- ayatollah Component MUMS _ Sweetness mint Feel Control 2 gel -- * +
Sample A " 0.01 gel I I+ +
Sample B " 0.1 Jo Jo Sample C 0.2 ++ +~++
(cay. 0.04 gel as an MUG concentration) Experimental Example 8 revaluation in Simple Aqueous Solution Systems) A mixed aqueous solution of 0.05 gel of MUG and 0.05 gel of IMP (y value = 3.09) was used as a control. Sample solutions were prepared by (1) adding 0.002 to 1.0 gel of cycloallin to the mixed aqueous solution and (2) by adding 0.1 gel of cycloallin to an aqueous solution of 0.1 gel of IMP. These sample solutions were organoleptically evaluated by paired comparison tests against the control using an organoleptic panel of 20 members (N - 20). The results are given in Table 11.

Table 11 N = 20 Formulation Taste Intent if in Effect _ Y 9 Cycle- Strength of MUG IMP Allen Strength Flavor do - of ~Umami" Enhancement Control 0.05 0.05 -- +
Simple A n n 0 002 + +
B " " O o 0 2 + +
C " " 0.05 + -1 D " " 0.1 + I+
E 'I " 0 . 5 + ~+~
F " " 1. 0 + *+ I-G -- 0.1 0.1 + +

As shown in Table 11, when the amount ox added cycloallin it less than 0~1% based on the y value (MUG
calculated amount), the strength of flavor enhancement is comparable to that of the control. But by the addition of 0~1% or more, the flavor enhancement alone is remarkably increased without changing the strength of "Umami". If the absolute concentration of - cycloallin exceeds 2.0~, specific thickness in taste is manifested and the total taste balance it 109t.
Therefore, the amount of chin added should suitably be in the range of 0.1 to 1000% by weight, preferably 0.1 to 50~ by weight, based on the weight of co-presant "Umami" component calculated as the weight of MUG

.. . .

I

having the same "Uma~i" strength. Further cycloallin - manifests the most preferred effect in the presence of an appropriate amount of the above ~Umamin component.
That is, when the above y value it 0.1 to 30 as the concentration at the time of eating.
On the other hand, when a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance is used alone, if cycloallin is added at a ratio of less than 1/99 to the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance, the flavor enhancing effect is not adequate. Whereat if the ratio exceeds 99/1, specific thickness in taste is brought about and the total taste balance is lost.
Gel or GS03H in this invention may be that produced by any process, e.g., a fermentation process, an enzymatic process, a chemical synthetic process or mixtures thereof, etc. Further, it is also possible to replace the whole or part of the amount of the required GUSH by a substance containing GUSH at a relatively high concentration such as yeast extract, garlic extract, beef extract, chicken extract etc. The same may be done with GS03H where a substance containing GS03~ at a relatively high concentration, such as enokidake extract, is used.
Lentinic acid in this invention may be obtained from Shattuck as it well known in the art, e.g. by ~L~23~

extraction with alcohol, extraction with hot water, etc. Further, it is Allah possible to replace the whole or part of lentinic acid by an intermediate obtained by such extraction .
Cycloallin in this invention may be obtained from onion or garlic as is well known in the art, erg. by extraction with alcohol, extraction with hot water, etc. Further, it is alto possible to replace ha whole or par of cycloallin by an intermediate, end product, or a chemical or enzymatic-reaction product of the extract containing the precursor.
Similarly, as regards the glutamic acid, nucleic acid type taste intensifying substances and other "Umami" component, the whole or part of said "Umami"
components may be replaced by such "Umami" components as contained in foods and seasoning per so to which the sul~ur-containing compound or compounds are to be added.
The "Umami" components used in combination with the ~ulfur-containing compounds in this invention include, in addition to MUG, IMP and GYP, any component having a "Umami" imparting effect. For example, potassium glutamate, calcium glutamate, potassium 5'-insinuate, calcium insinuate, potassium 5' guanylate, calcium 5'-guanylate etch and any food or ~7~3~

seasoning which contain at least one tastiness component a one of its constituent. For example, ZAP, UP yeast extract, meat extract, fish extract, vegetable extract etc. may be used.
The flavor enhancement seasoning of this invention may be prepared by any process. For example, the seasoning may be prepared by merely dry blending MUG IMP, GYP etc. with these compounds by poulticing them together with an appropriate excipient~, etc.
Similarly, with regards to the production of food having enhanced flavor in accordance with this invention, the actual manner for the production it not limited a long as the "Umami" compounds and the sulfur-containing compound or compounds are co-present in the final product at the above-described mixing ratio.
In addition, it it needless to Jay that the use in combination of various seasonings, for example, salty taste agents such as table salt, potassium chloride etc., sweetening agents such as sugar etc., acid taste agents such as organic acids etc., flavors, spices, physical property modifiers etc. is possible unwell it departs from the object of thus invention.
The seasoning or food of this invention manifest a strong Titans enhancement as is the case when I

seasoned with e.g. MUG, IMP, GYP eta, The quality of these seasonings is refreshing but, differing from the seasoning effect characterized by such strong single taste as simple taste. This quality exerts a specific effect permitting the enhancement of only the flavor without changing the ~Umami" strength and the original taste such as saltiness, sweetness and the like. The seasoning or food of the present invention are characterized by the impartation ox a complex natural taste. Therefore the seasonings of the present invention provide a novel flavor enhancement seasoning having a high natural taste in the compound seasoning field.
This invention it more particularly described by the following example.

Example 1 Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning A
MUG 80 parts by weight GUSH 20 "

Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning B
MUG 75 parts by weight IMP 5 "
GUSH 20 n ~L~3~3~

Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning C
MUG 50 parts by weight GYP 10 n GO O n Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning D
...
MSG80 part by weigh

3 n GUSH 14 n Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning Do IMP 30 parts by weight GYP 30 n GUSH 40 "

Flavor Enhancement Seasoning A to Do were prepared by mixing the respective compounds according to the above formulation Using a each control a product to which GO had not been added, aqueous solutions of 0.4 gel of the respective samples were prepared, and organoleptically evaluated by. a paired comparison text using a 20 member panel of judge. The results are given in table 12.

~23~3~ii5 Tubule N = 29 A B C D DO

Strength of n Um~.mi n Jo to +~+

Strength of Flavor Enhancement ~+-~ ++++-~ ~++++~ +~+~+ ++~++

Example 2 Table 13 Formulations of Flavor Enhancement Seasonings E - H
(part by weight) E F G H

HOP . 60 60 60 60 IN
GYP
Noah Succinate 2 2 2 2 Nail 10 10 10 10 GUSH It 8.3 16D733.3 Flavor enhancement Seasonings E to H were prepared by mixing the respective components according to the above formulations. Using a each control a product to which GUSH had not been added, organoleptic evaluation way conducted by a paired comparison test similarly as in example 1. The results are given in Table 14.

EYE

Table 14 N = 10 Control . E F G H
Concentration 0.6 0.61 0.650.7 0.8 (Simple Sown) gel Strength of i i +
"Umami"
Strength of _ ++ +++ -~+~+~ I++++
Flavor Enhancement Example Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning I

MUG 1.5 part by weight Potassium L-glutamate1.5 "
Nail 8 n Clue 3 "

KH2P04 I "
Sodium lactate 20 n L-Histidine hydrochloride 20 "
DL-Alanine 4 n Lawson hydrochloride 4 "
GO 5 n I

Flavor Enhancement Swooning I was prepared by -~~ mixing the respective components according to the above formulation. A sample was then prepared by adding the earning I to beef con~ome soup prepared in a conventional manner at a concentration of 1 gel Using as a control beef consomme 50Up to which GUSH had not been added, the beef consomme 30Up was organoleptically evaluated by a paired comparison test -using a 20 member panel of judges. The results riven in Table 15, show that the product of thy invention enhanced the flavor such as thickness, amplitude, . .
continuity etc. of the beef consomme soup. The beef consomme 30Up containing seasoning I way significantly more flavored as compared with the control.

Table 15 N = 20 Present Control Invention Strength of Odor & Flavor 9 . 11 Strength of "UmamiN 6 14**
Strength of Flavor Enhancement 2 18***
Total Preference 2 18***

*** Significantly different at a risk factor of 0.1 I* Significantly different at a risk factor of I

~23~3~

Example Table 16 Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning J - M
I to J R Control 1 L M Control 2 Yea~t100 100 100 100 100 100 Extract MUG 5 1.5 1~5 IMP - - 1,5 1.5 1.5 Flavor Enhancement Seasonings J to M were prepared according to the formulations of Table 16. They were when organoleptically evaluated using 0.1~ aqueous ~olutlons of the respective samples by a paired comparison test method. The results are given in Table 17~

Table 17 N = 10 Paired Comparison Paired Comparison J K L. M
Strength of Flavor Enhancement -I Jo +!~+ ~++~

.
. .

~3~3~

A shown in Table 17, it ha been confirmed that in yeast extract, GUSH had an especially strong effect to impart flavor enhancement in the presence of appropriate amounts of MUG and IMP.

... .
30 Parts by weight of Flavor Enhancement Seasonings F and H and the control of Example 2 were added respectively to a seasoning liquor (pi 4.2, 1 gel comprising 0.5 part by weight of citric acid, 0.6 part by weight of manic acid, 0.6 part by weight of fumaric acid, 0.15 part by weight of succinic acid, 0.5 party by weight sodium polyphosphate, 2.0 parts by weight of sorbitol and 0.4 part by weight of potassium sorb ate.
500 g portions of preliminarily pickled radish were pickled in 300 ml portions of the respective seasoning liquors obtained above to prepare 3 kinds of radishes pickled in a jar. These were then organoleptically evaluated by a paired comparison text. The results are shown in Table 18. The radishes to which Flavor Enhancement Seasonings F and H had been added were superior to the control radishes in both flavor and preference.

37~3~

Table 18 N = 20 Control F Added H Added Section Section Section Strength of Odor Flavor i Strength of "Umami" +

Strength of Flavor Enhancement +~+ I++
Preference +~+~ +

Example 6 Curry was prepared yin a conventional manner using the recipe shown below and organoleptically evaluated for strength ox flavor enhancement and total preference. The results shown in Table 19 demonstrate that the curry to which flavor enhancing Seasoning M
had been added had stronger flavor and was significantly favored as compared with the control.

Recite for Queerly .

Lard 8 Parts by weight Low gluten flour 6 Curry powder 1.5 Table ail 1 7 "

Lecithin 0,04 n Onion powder 0.3 "
Sugar 1.5 "
Flavor Enhancing Seasoning in example 4 0.5 "

or Control 2 in Example 4) (0.5 ) ~3~3~

Table 19 N = 20 Control 2 M Added Added Section Section Strength of Flavor Enhancement 4 16**
Total Preference 5 15*

** Significantly different at a risk factor of 1%
* Significantly different at a risk factor of 5 lo Example 7 Pork sausages were prepared by using 650 parts by weight of pork, 50 parts by weight of lard, 50 parts by weight a corn starch, 5 parts by weight aft spices, 25 parts by weight of a salting agent, 220 part by weight of cold water and 5 parts of each ox flavor enhancement Seasonings N, P, 0. Pork sausages without seasoning were used as controls. The seasoning containing pork sausages and the control pork sausage were prepared by emulsification according to the formulation shown in Table 20. The pork sausages were prepared in a conventional manner, and organoleptically tested to find as shown in Table 21 that the pork sausage to which flavor enhancement Seasoning N, P and 0 had been added were significantly flavored as compared with that to which the control had been added.

Table 20 Formulation of youthfulness Seasoning N, P & 0 Part By Weight Control N P 0 Pork extract 20 20 2020 .
,. . .
Pork fat 20 20 20 20 MUG 10 10 10 .10 ~Ajieki'~ produced by Ajinomoto Kiwi 30 30 30 Sugar ester 2 2 2 2 Reducing dextrin 15 15 15 15 Tale 21 N = 10 Control Added N Added 0 Added P Added Section Section Section Section _ _ .
mutt taste + + ++ ~-~+
Strength of Flavor Enhancement i + I++ +++~

Preference ++ ++++ +++

* trade Mark Jo E ample 8 Tut confirmed that tomato juice, Japanese sake, commercial con30mme soup, soy sauce, soybean taste soup, Worcester sauce and seaweed boiled down in soy sauce, either in which natural MUG and/or nucleic acid . .
type taste intensifying substance had been already present or to which they were added at the time of production can be enhanced through imparting flavor enhancement by adding varied amount of GUSH to each.
lo It was found that flavor enhancement was manifested in a variety of foods by adding an amount of GO falling . within the ranges shown in Table 22, tush.

Table 22 Effective GUSH Addition Range Tomato juice 0.02 - 0.4 %
Japan sake 0 . 001 - 0 .1 Consomme soup 0.05 - 0,4 Soy sauce 0.05 - 0.4 Soybean pate soup 0.02 - 0.2 - Worcester sauce 0.05 - 0.4 Seaweed boiled down in yo-yo sauce 0.1 0.6 I

Example 9 table I
Flavor Enhancement Seasoning A' B' C' D' E' IMP _ 5 GS03H 20 20 .40 14 40 Flavor Enhancement Seasonings Al to En were prepared by mixing the respective components according to the formulations outlined in Table 23. Using a a control in each instance a composition to which G~03~
had not been added, aqueous solutions ox 0~4 gel of the respective samples were prepared, and organoleptically evaluated by a paired comparison test. The results are given in Table 24.

Table 24 A' B' C' Do En Strength of n Umami" + Jo ++~ +++

Strength ox Flavor Enhancement Jo +~+ I+ ++~

table 25 Formulations of Flavor Sparta by weight) FOG' Hi I' J' K' ...

IMP
GYP
Noah Succinate 2 2 2 2 2 2 Nail 10 10 10 10 10 10 G503H 1.78.316.7 33.3 1.733.3 Flavor Enhancement Seasoning Alto K' were . prepared by the mixing respective components according to the above formulations. Using as each control a composition to which GS03H had not been added, organoleptic evaluation was conducted by a paired comparison test. The results are given in Table 26.

Table 26 Control F' G' H' I' J' K
Concentra-lion gel 0060~610.55 0.7 0.80.61 0.8 Strength ox "Umami" i + + i + + +
Strength ox Flavor Enhancement I: + +++ ++~ I++

~37~

.

Consomme out were prepared according to thy following formulations and organoleptically evaluated for the strength of flavor enhancement and total preference. The evaluation shows that the con30mme soup to which Flavor Enhancement Seasoning I' had been added had a stronger flavor and way significantly favored a compared with the control.

Recipe for Consomme Soup Consomme soup stock (10 y of shaving of dried bonito) 1000 ml Soy Sauce 3 ml Table salt 6.5 g Flavor Enhancement 5ea~oning of Example 10 (or Control Section in Example 10) 0.6 g Table 2?

Flavor Enhancement Control Added Seasoning H' Section Added Section Strength of Flavor Enhancement 4 16 **

Preference of Flavor Enhancement 5 5 *

** Significantly different at a risk factor of 1 * Significantly different at a risk factor of 5 I

Example 12 Noodle soup wag prepared using soy sauce, sweet sake, sugar, MUG, nucleic acid type earning hydrolyzed vegetable protein and dried bonito extract according to the flavor recipe shown below. Organ-septic evaluations of the strength of the flavor and the taste of the noodle soup were conducted using a portion of the soup to which GS03H had not been added as a control. The evaluation was done by a paired comparison text, to find as shown in Table 28 that the portion of soup to which GS03H had been added had a strong flavor and also was significantly favored for total taste Recipe for Noodle Soup (for use when eating) Soy sauce 250 g "Sake" (Japanese rice wine) 50 Sugar 50 "Ajinomoto" 5 Hydrolyzed vegetable protein 5 Dried bonito extract t40g of flake of dried bonito we extracted with 700g of hot water) 700 * trade mark it ...~,..,.,~

I
I

Table 28 Control Adagios Added _ Section Section S length of Flavor Enhancement 4 16**
Preference 4 16*~

_ zoom 13 Table 29 Flavor Enhancing Seasoning Awn C" D" E

Lentinic acid 20 I 40 14 40 Flavor Enhancing Seasoning A" to E" were prepared by mixing the respective component according to the above formulations. Using as a control in each instance a portion to which lentinic acid had not been added, aqueous solution of 0.4 gel of the respective samples were prepared and organoleptically evil Ed by a paired comparison test. The results are given in Table 30.

I

Table 30 A By Sun D'' E

Strength of n Umami n + Jo + t++ I++

Strength of Flavor Enhancement +++ -I+++ I++ I++
. . .

Example 14 Table 31 formulations of Flavor Enhancing Seasonings OK
(parts by weight) _ G" H" It J R"_ UP 60 60 . 60 60 - -IMP
GYP
Noah Succinate 2 2 2 2 2 2 I Nail 10 10 10 10 10 10 Lentinic Acid 1.7 8.3 16.7 33.3 1.7 33.3 Flavor Enhancing Seasonings F" to R" were prepared by mixing the respective components according to the above formulations. Using as a control in each case a formulation to which ~entinic acid had not been added organoleptic evaluation was conducted by a paired comparison test similarly as in Example 13. The results are given in Table 32.

~37~
-48~

Table 32 Control_ F" Gun Ho In Jo Kin Concentra-lion gel 0.6 0.61 0.65 0.7 0.8 0.610.8 Strength of " Umami n i + + i i i: i Strength of Flavor Enhancement + + I+ +~+ . I++ + +++

Example Consomme soups were prepared according to the formulations given in Table 33 and organoleptically . evaluated for strength of flavor and total prefer-once. The evaluations given in Table 34 show that the . cOn90mme 90Up to which Flavor Enhancing Seasoning H"
had been added had stronger flavor and was signify-gently favored as compared with the control Table 33 Recipe for Consomme Soup Consomme soup stock (10 g of flake of dried bonito) 1000 ml Soy Sauce 3 ml Table salt 6.5 g Flavor Enhancing Seasoning of Example 14 (or Control Section in Example 14 0.6 g I

Table 34 = 20 Flavor Enhancing Control Added Seasoning on Section Added Section Strength of Flavor Enhancement 4 16 **

Preference 5 15 *

** Significantly different at a risk fac~br of 1%.
* Significantly different at a risk factor of 5 Example 16 .

Rumba Tsukudani (tangle boiled down in soy sauce) was prepared using tangle, soy sauce, sugar, MUG, nucleic acid type seasoning, UP and starch syrup according to the following recipe given in Table 35.
Organoleptic evaluations on the strength of flavor enhancement and the preference were conducted using a Rumba Tsukudani to which lentinic acid had not been -added a a control. The evaluation were done by a paired comparison test, to find as shown in Table 35, that the lentinic acid added section had strong flavor enhancement and also was significantly favored for the preference.

-50- ~237~

Table _ Recipe for Rumba TsuXudani Tangle (after reconstitution in water) 1500 g Soy sauce 1100 ml Sugar 450 q n Ajinomoto~ 60 g n WE I 2 g "Animate"* 30 g Starch syrup 400 g Lentinic acid g Table 36 Lentinic Acid Control Section Added Section _ Strength of Flavor Enhancement 4 16 **
Preference 4 16 **

Example .17.

Flavor Flavor Flavor Flavor Flavor EnhancingF.nhancingEnhancing Enhancing Enhancing SeasoningSea~oning Seasoning Seasoning Seasoning A"' B"' C"' D"' DO"' put by wit) opts by wit) opts by wit) (puts. by wit) (puts. by wit) at 100 100 100 100 100 * trade mark 7~3~

Flavor Enhancing Seasoning A n- to DO"' were prepared by mixing the respective component outlined in the above formulation Using as a control a product to which MUMS had not been added, aqueous solution of 0.4 gel of the respective ampule and solutions incorporating 0.1% by weight of the same respective samples in commercial tomato juice were prepared. Their organoleptic evaluation way conducted using a paired comparison test.
The results are given in Table 37 and Table 38.

table 37 Evaluation of Simple Aqueous Solutions N = 20 A"' B"' C"' D"' Strength of ~Umami n + ++ ++++

Strength of Characteristic Sweetness + + +++ I ++

Strength of Flavor Enhancement +++ ++++++ +~+++++ ++++++ ++~++

, .

.
to Jo a E
. I
,1 I Jo to I
O
O
1- Go Jo o O U Jo e an o EGO Jo _ * Jo O J-I Jo up CO a u a O

Tony HO O I, I to 'JO C , , a O ED
. pa * o Lo c u * * a h E on O U us I coy I- O
pa ¢ 3 v U U
C
O
O E
Jo if O
I _ Jo h 1i3 O - or. m *
Jo Ed v o ,: c a oh us I En Al s E c U h MY
JO C O
so s a En S 3 Jo .

~7~3~

I, 0 1~1 ID N O N O t`
= it N
O I) J

_ us o o o o I
_ Z: JO
.
Us _ O us O O Lo _ I I W --I JO --I
_ It I N Al I
It Us _ I O I
O _ a a) I I o o -I I o C _ ¦ I I N

O O
I _ , , I

I O I I I I
I Do o I I ED
_ I I Jo .
I Us O I I JO I Jo O
= I I
En I

o I I I o I
_ I_ aye I . a I ' V
Q
En Clod. V I h I U) ZOO:

+
o +

o I ++
I) Z +, + +

Z
+

+ +
... .

Al - I +, + .
oily --1 . +

++ +
":1 +' +

-I ++

e ¦ ++
ill I to t' +

- I +

.
L:
s a In. E
or U
C V o D I C
Us V U31~

I

Flavor Enhancement Seasoning E no to o n- were prepared according to the formulation given in Table 390 (The tastiness strength, y value way adjusted to 3.8). Using each aqueous solution, organ-septic evaluations were conducted similarly to Example 17 by a paired comparison test using a control to which MUMS had not been added.
The results are given in Table 40.

Example lo .
Formulations consisting of lo parts by weight of "Ajie~i" (produced by Ajinomoto Co. Inc.), Owl part by weight of sodium ~uccinate, OHS part by weight of 50%
lactic acid, 0.5 part by weight a table salt and l part by weight of sugar were dissolved in 100 ml of water respectively, and 0.5 part by wright of Flavor enhancing Seasoning G and 0 obtained in Example 2 were prepared. Controls were similarly prepared omitting the Flavor Enhancing Seasonings.
500 g of green asparagus was added to 500 ml of each of the seasoned solutions obtained by adding Flavor Enhancing Seasoning G and its control respect lively. After boiling in a conventional manner, the green asparagus were subjected to organoleptic evaluation by a paired comparison test. Further, an equal amount of corn was added to 500 ml of each of the end solutions obtained by similarly adding Flavor Enhancing Seasoning 0 and its control respectively.
After boiling in the conventional manner, these sample solutions were subjected to organoleptic evaluation by a paired comparison text. The result are a given in Table 41, in which the Flavor Enhanced product those product to which Flavor Enhancing Seasoning G and o were added) were superior to the respective entirely in the impartation of flavor, characteristic sweetness an in preference.

Table 41 N = 20 Rosen Asparagus Sweet Corn Control G Added Control 0 Added Section Section Section Section Strength of Tattiness 12 18 11 9 Strength of Characteristic Sutton 5 15 * 4 16 **

Strength of flavor Enhancement 4 16 ** 3 17 **
Preference 4 16 ** 4 16 **

* Significantly different at a risk factor of 5~0 *I Significantly different at a risk factor ox ~2~7~3~

Example 20 -Corn cream 30up way prepared according to the formulation outlined below. Then 80 g of this formulation was fixed with 500 ml of cold water and, after boiling, organoleptically evaluated for the strength of flavor, vegetable-like taste and preference by a paired comparison test against a control formulation which had no added MUMS. These evaluations reveal that, as shown in Table 42, the formulation with added MUMS had a stronger flavor and way significantly favored for vegetable-like tastiness and total taste.

Formulation for Corn Cream Soup .
Edible oil 27 Parts by weight Flour 18 Dried onion flake 1.2 Skimmed milk 12 n Corn powder 15 Table Walt 10 Onion powder 4 20 MUG 1 n IMP 0~5 White pepper 0.5 n MUMS 1~0 n Table 42 N = 20 Control MUMS Added Section Section Strength of Flavor En Han event 4 16 *

~egetable-like Tastiness 4 16 *
Preference 4 16 *

* Significantly different at a risk factor of 5%.

Example 21 A sea-urchin egg "Norm paste way prepared according to the formulation outlined below this paste was organoleptically evaluated for strength of flavor, characteristic sweetness and total preference by a pair comparison test method. This evaluation, shown in Table 43 demonstrates that the formulations .
having added MUMS flavor and was significantly favored as Compared with the control (MUMS not added.

I

Formulation for Sea Urchin Egg Paste Raw material sea urchin egg 5 Part by weight Powdered egg 1 n Alcohol 0~8 MUG 0.4 "
Gleason 0,4 Methionine 0.1 Courtney U.S.
Water 22.3 "
MUMS 0.3 "

Table 43 N = 20 Control MUMS Added Section Section Strength of Sweetness 6 14 Strength of Flavor Enhancement 3 17 **
Preference . 5 15 **

* Significantly different at a risk factor ox 5%.
** Significantly different at a risk factor of I

~237~3~

Example 22 A seaweed composition for rice to be eaten with hot green tea ~Uchazuke~ was prepared according to the formulation shown below. 8 g of the prepared composition way placed on top of boiled rice and hot green tea was poured to prepare rice and seaweed doused in hot green tsar The composition wag then organoleptically evaluated or strength of flavor and total preference by a pair comparison test method using a control to which no MUMS had been added. These evaluations as shown in Table 44, the MUMS added section had stronger flavor and was significantly savored.

Formulation for Seaweed Composition For Rice with jot Green Tea Tangle powder 0.5 Parts by weight Powdered tea 2.0 n Sugar 3.0 Table salt 53,0 n "Ajinomoto" 10.0 n Gleason 3 0 "
Shredded seaweed 5.0 n - Rice cake pellets 5.0 MUMS 0.5 n Table 44 N = 20 Control MUMS Added Section Section _ Strength of Flavor Enhancement 4 16 **
Preference 5 15 *
. . .

Table 45 lo Flavor Enhancing Seasoning A I to C n D n n E
.
SO 80 75 50 ~80 --Cycloalliin 20 20 40 14 40 The respective components outlined above were mixed Jo prepare Flavor Enhancing Seasonings An" to E"". A product to which cycloalliin had not been added was used as a control in each cave. Aqueous solutions containing 0.4 gel of the respective sample were prepared, and organoleptical evaluation was conducted by a pair comparison test method. The results are given in Table 46.

~237~
I

Table 46 An no con Dun Elan Strength of n Umami n t+ ++~
Strength of Flavor Enhancement++ Jo I+ +++ +++
. . .

Table 47 Formulations of Flavor Enhancing Seasonings F"" - K ""
(parts by weight) F"" Go no lo n I no K""

IMP
GYP
Noah Succinate 2 2 2 2 2 2 Nail 10 10 10 10 10 10 Cycloalliin1.7 3.7 16.7 33.3 1.733.3 The respective components outlined above were mixed to prepare Flavor Enhancing Seasoning F"" to I n . Using, as each control a product from which the cycloalliin had been omitted, organoleptic evaluations , . .

, were conducted similarly as outlined in Example 23 by a pair comparison test method. The result are given in Table 48. -, treble 48 Control Fun Gun Len n In Al Jell n K" I' __ .
Concentra-lion gel 0.6 0~61 0.65 0.7 0.8 0.61 0 8 Strength of "Umami n -t + + t + +

Strength of Flavor Enhancement + Jo ~+~ +++ + I++

Example 25 Consomme soups were prepared according to formulation outlined below. These were organ-leptically evaluated or the strength of flavor and total pruriency, to find that the consomme 80Up to which Flavor Enhancing Seasoning H"" had been added had stronger flavor and way significantly favored a compared with the control . . .
_ Consomme soup stock (10 g of avowing .
of dried bonito) 1000 ml Soy Sauce 3 ml table salt 6.5 g Flavor Enhancing Swooning of Example Z4 (or Control Section in Example 24) 0~6 g ~37~3~
I

Table 49 Flavor Enhancing Control Added Seasoning H"
Section Added Section Strength of Flavor 4 16 **

Preference of Flavor 5 15 ** Significantly different at a risk factor of 1%.
* Significantly different at a risk factor of 5%.

Example 26 Chinese noodle 90Up way prepared using the formulation outlined below The 90Up was then organoleptically evaluated for thy strength of flavor and total preference by a pair comparison test method. This evaluation shows that the Chinese noodle 90Up to which Flavor Enhancing seasoning H"" had been added had stronger flavor and was significantly favored as compared with the control.

I
~65-Formulation of Chinese Noodle Soup Soy assay Parts by weight Table salt 16 n Lard 24 n Sesame Oil 2 n Animate . . .
YE
Vegetable extract 8 n Flavor Enhancing Sea owning in Example 24 (or Control Section 7 in Example 24) 7 n Table 50 .. . .
Flavor Enhancing Control Seasoning H"
Section Added Section Strength ox Flavor 4 16 **
Total Preference 5 15 *

*I Significantly different at a risk factor of 1%.
* Significantly different at a risk factor of 5%.

I

Experimental Example 9 (Evaluation in Simple Aqueous Solution System) Using as a control a mixed aqueous solution of 0.05 gel of MUG and 0.05 gel of IMP (y value - 3.09), sample solution were prepared by adding 0.002 to 0.5 gel of Allen to portions of the mixed ago - solution. These sample solutions were then organ-leptically evaluated by paired comparison test against the control using an organoleptic panel of 20 member (N - 20). The results are given in Table 5.1.

Table 51 Formulation Tut Intensifying Effect . Strength of MUG IMP Allen Strength of Flavor gel gel ~l_dl "Umami" Enhancement Control 0.05 0.05 Sample AA n n 0 . 00 2 BY n n 0 . 02 +

CC n 0.05 i ++
2 0 DUD " .1 HE O. 3 i ~+~+
OF n I owe + to ++

GO --JO o l Ox Jo ~3~3~

As shown in Table 50, with the amount of added Allen less than 0.1% based on the y value (MUG
calculated amount), the strength of flavor is comparable to that of the control. But by the addition of 0.1% or more, the flavor alone is remarkably increased without changing the strength ofnUmamin. If the absolute concentration of Allen exceeds 1.0%, a specific thickness in taste is manifested and the total taste balance is lout. wherefore, the amount of Allen added should suitably be in the range of 0.1 to 1000%
by weight, preferably 0.1 to 500% by weight, based on the weight of co-present component calculated a the weight of MUG having the same "Umami" strength.
Further, Allen manifests the Yost preferred effect in the presence of an appropriate amount of the above "Umami"component, that is, when the above y value is 0~1 to 30 as the concentration at the time of eating.
When a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance it used alone, it Allen it added at a ratio of less than 1/99 to the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance, the flavor enhancing effect it not adequate. Whereas if this ratio exceeds 99/1, specific thickness in taste is brought about and the total taste balance is lost.

~3~3~

Excremental Example 10 ( Evaluation in Garlic Extract Stems ) The of fact of the addition of Allen to a formulation of major component of garlic extract was evaluated by paired comparison text against a control which contained no Allen. The result are given in Table 53, from which it has been confirmed that Allen impurity a higher natural taste by the manifestation of wrong flavor with synthetic garlic extract.

Table 52 Formulation of major Components of Garlic Extract Formulation Asp 3~6 %
Gnu 3 3 Lye 6.1.
Art 42.3 Other amino acid * 18.7 Nail 19.7 Clue 6.7 Citric acid 0.1 Succinic acid 0.1 * Son, Vet and Pro Table 53 Major Component Allen Strength ox strength of _ gel gel F1~YOrNatural Taste Control 1.0 0 i -Sample AA 0.03 +
EBB n 0.1 ++ t CC n O . 3 Jo Jo Allen in this invention may be that obtained by any production process, such a an extraction process, a synthesis process etc. Further, it is alto possible to replace the whole or part of the required Allen by a substance containing Allen at a relatively high concentration, or example,. garlic extract, onion extract or other Allen extract.

Experimental Example 11 (Compari30n of asset Intensifying Power of Representative Compound ?
Using as a control a mixed aqueous solution of 0.05 gel of MUG and 0.05 gel of IMP (y value = 3.09), sample solutions were prepared by adding 0.1 gel of the respective sample compounds shown in Table 52 to the mixed solution These sample solution were evaluated by a paired comparison text by an organoleptic panel consisting of 20 member (N = 20).
The results are shown in Table 54.

~237~3~

Table 54 (N = 20) n~mami~ Flavor (1) Control + +
I S-Methylcysteinesulfoxide +++
(3) S-Ethylcysteinesulfoxide + ++
I S-Propylcysteinesulfoxide i ++
(5) S-Propenylcysteinesulfoxide . Jo (6) y-Glutamylcysteine + +
(7) ~-Gluta~yl-S-methylcysteine i +
(8) y-Gluta~yl-S-ethylcysteine i +
(9) y-Glutamyl-S-propylcysteine + +
(10) y-Glutamyl-S-propenylcysteine +
(11) y-Glutamyl-S-allylcysteine i ++
(12) y-Glutamyl-S-methylcysteinesulfoxide i ++
(13) y-Glutamyl-S-ethylcy~teinesul~oxide ++
(14) y-Glutamyl-S-propylcysteinesulfoxide ++~
(15) y-Glutamyl-S-propenylcysteinesulfoxide Jo (16) y-Glutamyl-S-allylcysteinesulfoxide + Jo (17) S-(2-Carhoxypropyl)glutathiorle ++
(18) S- Car boxy -methylethyl)glutathione ++

Experimental Example 12 Using the same mixed aqueous solution ox MUG and IMP as that used in Experimental Example 11 a a control, samples were prepared by adding thereto 0.001 I"' ' ' ; .

71_ to lo gel of the sample compounds outlined in Table 54. Aqueous solutions of 0.1 gel of IMP and 0.1 gel of the respective sample compounds outlined in Table 54 were alto prepared a someplace All of these were evaluated by a pair comparison test method against a control by an organoleptic panel consisting of 20 member (N = 20~. Some of the royalty are given in Table 55 (the cave ofy-glutamyl-S-allylcysteinesulfoxide).

lo Table 55 Formulation _ _ Taste Intensifying Effect Compound No. 16 in Experimental MUG . Example if Strength of Strength of gel do gamin Flavor .
Control 0.05 0.05 - i i Sample M n 0~002 *

lob n n 0. 01 +

2 0 CC n n 0 . 05 i I+

DUD n n 0.10 +

HE " " 0~50 +

OF n n 1.00 0~1 0.10 - , ~37~3~

As shown in Table 55, with an added amount of lets Han 0.1% based on the y value (MUG calculated amount), the strength of flavor it unchanged. However, with the addition of 0.1% or more, the flavor is remarkably increased. In this case, if the absolute concentration of this compound (compound No. 16 of Experimental Example 11) exceeds 1.0%, specific thickness in taste it manifested and the total taste balance it lout.
Therefore, the amount of this compound added should suitably be in the range of 0.1 to 1000~ by weight, preferably 0.1 to 50~ by weight, bayed on the co-present "Umami" component calculated a the weight of MUG having the same "Mom" strength. Further, the compound manifests the most preferred effect in the presence of an appropriate amount of the above "Umami n component, that it, when the above y value it 0.1 to 30 a the concentration at the time ox eating.
The above fact likewise applies to the other compounds of the general formulae (1) and (2).
Jon the other hand, in the cave where the nucleic acid type taste inter ifyiny substance it used alone, if compound (1) or (2) is added in an amount of Lowe Han 1/99 at the ratio to the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance, the flavor enhancing effect it snot adequate. Whereat if this ratio exceeds 99/1, a specific thickness in taste is brought about and the total taste balance is lost. This also applies to the other compound of the general formulae (1) and (2).

I, ' .
revaluation in Garlic Extract Systems) Each compound set forth in Table 54 was added to a formulation comprising major component of garlic extract (set forth in Table 55). The composition were evaluated by a paired comparison test using a control which contained no addition of compounds of Table 540 The results are given in Table 57 from which it has been confirmed that also in the formulated garlic extract, these compounds impart a higher natural flavor.

~L23~8 able 56 Formulation of Ma joy Component in Garlic Extract Formulation Asp - 3 . 6 %
Gnu 3 . 3 .. .
Lye 6.1 Art 42 . 3 Other amino acid* 18 7 Nail 19.4 Clue . 6.7 Citric acid - - Owl Succinic acid Owe * Son, Vet, Pro I

Table 5?
Concentra- Concentra-lion of lion of Formulated Compound Strength of Sterno Extract Added Flavor of Natural Compound Added (g/dl1 _ Enhancement flavor (1) Control 1.0 0 (2) S~Methylcysteine-~ulfoxi~e n 0.1 ++
I S-E~hylcy~teine-sulfoxide n 0 1 I S-Propylcysteine-sulfoxide n 0.1 I+ +
(5) y ~utamyl-Sistine " 0.1 (6) y-Glutamyl-S~a~lylcy~teine " 0.1 I+
(7) y-Glutamyl-S-methylcysteine " 0.1 (8) y-Glu~a~yl-S-Me~hylcy~teine " 0.1 + t (g) ~-Glutamyl-5-propylcysteine 0.1 i I y-Glutamyl-S-proFenyl-cysteinesulfoxide n 0.1 Jo (11) y-Glutamyl-S-allylcysteine- .
sulfoxid~ " 0.03 +
~12) y~Glutamyl-S-allylcysteine guIfoxide n 0,.1 to (13) y-&lutamyl-S-allylcysteine-sulfoxide 'I 0.3 lot I+

3~1 The compound of the general formulae (1) and (2) may be used singly or as a mixture of two or more.
They can Allah be wholly or partially replaced by 3ub~tance~ which contain considerably high concentration of these compounds, such as garlic extract (preferably, extract from which the odor component have been removed by deodorizing process e.g. the processed described in Japanese Patent Application No. 82169/1983), onion extract etch Similar, the "Umami" component such a glutamic acid, nucleic acid type Titans substances etc. can also be wholly or partially replaced by nUmami n component contained in the Good or seasoning per ye to which these compounds are to be added Examples of the "Umami" component which may be used in this invention include, in addition to MUG, IMP, GYP etch, any component having a "Umami" imparting effect. Some of these are: potassium glutamate, calcium glutamate, potassium insinuate, calcium 5'-insinuate, potassium 5'-guanylate, calcium 5'-guanylate etc. and any food or ~ea!qonin~ which contains said "Umami" component a one of it constituting components; for example, protein hydrolysate~ (HAP, UP), yeast extract, meat extract, vegetable extract etc.

I

The Flavor Enhancing seasonings of this invention may be prepared by any process, for example, by merely dry blending MUG, IMP, GYP etc. with these compounds by poulticing them using an appropriate excipient, etc.
Similarly, for the production of food having enhanced flavor according to thy invention, the actual manner for the production of the food it not limited as along as the "Umami~ component and these compounds are co-present in the final product at the above-de cried mixing ratio In addition, it is needless to say that the use in combination of seasonings, for example, salty taste agents such as table salt, potassium chloride etc., - -sweetening agents such as sugar etch, acid taste agents such as organic acids etc., flavors, spices, quality modifiers etc. may be possible unless it departs from the object of this invention.
This invention is more particularly described by the following examples.

I

Example 27 Table 58 Flavor Enhancing Sea~oninq AA BY CC DUD HE

IMP . 5 3 30 S-Methylcysteine~
~ulfoxide 20 20 40 14 40 Of the compound ox the general formulae (1) and (2), the exemplary case of S-methylcysteinesulfoxide is jet forth in table 58. According to this formulation, the respective components were mixed to prepare Flavor Enhancing Seasonings AA to HE. A each control, a product to which S-methylcysteine~ulfoxide had not been added was used. aqueous solutions containing 0~4 gel of the respective sample compounds (outlined in Table 57) and solutions obtained by adding 0.1~ by weight ox the sample compounds to commercial consomme soup were prepared. An organoleptic evaluation was conducted by a paired comparison test. The results are given in Table 59 and Table 60.

~37~

Table 59 _ BY CC DUD HE_ Strength of n Umami n + I+ ~++~ Jo Strength of Flavor I+ +++ ++~ +++ I

...
Table 60 Evaluation when Added to -Commercial _ consomme S up = 20 AA BY CC DUD HE
Strength of "Umami n 12 16 ** 18 *** 17 ** 15 * -Strength of Flavor 13 15 * 17 ** 13 16 **
Taste 14 18 *** 18 *** 18 *** 18 ***

Each numeral in the table indicates the number of persons who have found it preferable or strong.
* Significantly different at a risk factor of 5%.
** Significantly different at a risk factor of 1%.
*** Significantly different at a risk factor of 0.5%.

~3~3~
~80 eye Table 61 Flavor Enhancing Seasoning (part by weight) _ GO HUH II JO OR_ _ _ IMP
GYP
Noah Succinate 2 2 2 2 2 Nail 10 10 10 10 10 10 Sample Compound * 1.7 8.3 16.733.3 1.7 33.3 * Mixture of equal amounts ox S-methylcysteine~ulfoxide, S-propenylcysteine~ulfoxide, S-propylcysteine3ulfoxide and y-glutamyl~9-allylcyc~teine~ulfoxide.

According to the above formulation, the respective components were mixed lo prepare Flavor Enhancing Seasoning OF to OK. Using as each control a product I to which the sample compound had not been added, organoleptic evaluation was conducted as outlined in Example 27 by a paired comparison text. The results are given in Table 62.

~23~3~3 ~81-Table 62 Control OF GO HUH II JO OR

Concentration gel oily 0~65 0~7 0~80~61 0~8 Strength of numami" t t Strength of Flavor + .,~ +

Example 29 Chinese noodle soup was prepared using the formulation shown below, and organoleptically evaluated for strength of flavor and total preference by a paired comparison test. These evaluations show that the Chinese noodle soup to which Flavor Enhancing Seasoning HUH had been added had stronger flavor and was signify-gently favored as compared with the control.

Formulation of Chinese Noodle Sour Soy Swiss Part by weight Table salt 16 I Lard 24 Sesame oil 2 nay irate n YE
Vegetable extract Flavor Enhancing Seasoning in Example 28 (or Control Section in Example 28 ) 7 I

Table 63 N = 20 Flavor Enhancing Control Seasoning ;
Section Added Section Strength of Flavor 4 16 *I
Total Preference 5 15 *

** Significantly different at a risk factor ox 1%.
* Significantly different at a risk factor of 5%.

Example 30 . Table 64 GYP -- -- lo 3 30 Allen 20 20 40 14 40 The respective component outlined in the above formulations were mixed to prepare Flavor Enhancing Seasoning LO to PP. A each control, a product to which Allen had not been added way used. Aqueous sultan containing 0.4 gJdl of the respective formulations and 901ution9 obtained budding 0.1~ by .

weight of the above formulations to commercial consomme soup were prepared. Organoleptical evaluations were conducted by a paired comparison test. Thy royalty are given in Table 65 and Table 66.

Table 65 ,..... . LO MM NUN OX PUP

- Strength of Titans ++~+ +~+ +

Strength of Flavor I+ *++~ ~+~++ ~++~ +~+~

Table. 66 Evaluation When Added to commercial Consomme Soup - N = 20 eschew numeral indicate the number of porn out ox 20 who have wound it preferable or triune).

Strength ox numami~ 12 16 ** 18 *** 17 *I 15 **

Strength of Flavor 13 15 * 17 ** 13 16 **
Taste 14 18 *** 18 *** 18 *** 18 ***

Comment Aftertaste aftertaste Strong, Strong, Flavor Flavor Strong Strong &
Preferred Preferred * Significantly different at a risk factor of 5%.
. ** Significantly different at a risk factor of 1%.
**I Significantly different at a risk factor of 0.5~.

I

Example 31 Table 67 .
(parts by weigh) QQ RR SO TO US TV

HAP Ç0 60 GYP
Noah Succinate 2 2 2 2 2 2 Nail . 10 10 10 10 10 10 Allen . .1.7 8.7 16.7 33.3 1.7 33.3 The respective components outlined in the above formulations were mixed to prepare Flavor Enhancing Seasoning QQ to TV. Using, as each control, a product from which the Allen had been omitted, organoleptic evaluation was conducted as outlined in Example 30 by a paired comparison Tut The royalty are given in Table 68.

I

Table 68 Control QQ RR SO TO W W

Concentra-lion (g/dl)0.6 0.61 0.65 0.7 0.8 0.61 0.8 Strength of Umami i i + i + +

Strength of Flavor * Jo -Ho oh Ho +

Example 32 using the following recipe, spaghetti teat sauce was prepared and strength of flavor and total preference were organoleptically evaluated by paired comparison text. These evaluations, as shown in Table 68, demonstrate that meat sauce to which Flavor enhancing Seasoning SO had been added had stronger flavor and way significantly favored as compared with the control.

.

I

Recipe for Meat Sauce zinced beef and pork 15.7 Onion 39.2 Carrot 4.7 Corn salad oil 7~8 Flour 7.8 . . .
Tomato ketchup 15.7 Tomato puree 4.7 Worcester shire sauce 3.8 Flavor Enhancing seasoning of Example 31 or Control Section in Example 31) . 0.6 Table 59 N = 20 Flavor Enhancing Control Added Seasoning SO
action Added Section Strength of Flavor 4 16 **
Total Preference 5 15 **

** Significantly different at a risk factor of 1%.
* Significantly different at a risk factor of 5%.

7~3~

Example 33 Barbecue sauce was prepared from refined spook, soybean oil, Joy sauce, soybean pate (Moe), granulated sugar, MY starch, synthesized rice wine (sake) and guard gum according to the recipe outlined below., The strength of flavor and taste were organoleptically evaluated by a paired comparison test using a sample to which Allen had not been added as a control As shown in Table 70 the Allen added section had strong flavor and was significantly favored for the total taste.

Recipe for Barbecue Sauce Spices 12.5 Part by weight Refined soybean oil I n Soy sauce 34 Soybean paste (Moe) 9 Granulated sugar 8 n MUG
Starch 1 "

Synthesized rice wine ( sake ) 9 Guard gum 0.1 n Allen 0.5 Tubule ControlAlliin Added Sect~onSection _ Strength of Flavor 4 16 **

Total Taste 4 16 **

...
Example 34 hamburgers were prepared a outlined in Table 70 using 30 parts of pork, 15 parts of chicken, 5 parts of beef, 4 parts of bread crumb, parts of APRON
(produced by ~jinomoto Co.), 4 parts of "SHlN-ESUSAN"
starch (produced by Ajinomoto Co.), 17 parts of onion and S parts of each of Flavor Enhancing Seasonings WOW, XX and YE. Controls were prepared according to the same formulations but without the Flavor Enhancing Seasonings. These hamburgers were organoleptically evaluated to find as shown in Table 72 that the hamburgers to which Flavor Enhancing Seasonings WOW, XX
and YE had been added respectively had stronger flavor and were significantly favored as compared with that to which the control had been added.

* trade mark .

Table 71 Formulations of Flavor Enhancing Sweeney W, X and Y
WOW XX Ye Table salt 8 8 8 Soy sauce 40 40 40 Sugar . 8 8 (Ajinomoto Coy) 8 8 8 wine 10 10 10 White pepper 6 6 6 Nutmeg 4 4 4 Ginger 6 6 6 Allen 2 10 20 Table 72 Control Added WOW Added XX Added YE Added Section Section Section Section Strength ox Flavor + +~++
Preference +~+

Example 35 Mix Vegetable Extracts WOW', XX' and YE' prepared in a conventional manner using the formulations of Table 73. These were evaluated in Chinese noodle soup D

~2~7~33~
--so--to find as shown in Table 74 that the Chinese noodle 90Up to which the mix vegetable extracts had been added respectively had stronger flavor and each way significantly favored a compared with control which contained no mix vegetable extract.

Table 73 Formulation of Mix vegetable Extract WOW', XX' and YE' Control We' XX' YE' __ Onion 60 60 60 60 Garlic 30 30 30 ' 30 Leek 5 S 5 Carrot 5 5 5 5 Allen -- 5 10 15 Recipe for Chinese Noodle S us Soy sauce 40 Parts by weight Table Walt 16 "

Lard 24 "

Sesame oil 2 n WE 1 n nAjinomoto" 6 n n Animate" 2 n YE

Aforesaid Mix Vegetable Extract 8 . "

~37~3~

Table 74 Control WOW' XX' YE' _ strength of Flavor ++ ++++
Preference + ++ ++++ ++++

It will be understood that when the taste enhancing substance and the flavor enhancing substance are salts, such salts should be appropriate for their intended function. For example, they should be non-toxic, at least in the amounts employed and they should be organoleptically acceptable.

Claims (20)

The embodiments of the invention in which an exclusive property or privilege is claimed are defined as follows:

1. A composition comprising:
i) a taste intensifying substance, and ii) a flavor enhancing substance comprising at least one member selected from the group consisting of glutathione, salts of glutathione, oxidized glutathione, salts of oxidized glutathione, glutathione sulfonic acid, salts of glutathione sulfonic acid, cycloallin, salts of cycloallin, lenitinic acid, salts of lentinic acid, des-glutamyl lentinic acid, salts of des-glutamyl lentinic acid, methionine methyl sulfonium, salts of methionine methyl sulfonium, compounds of the formula:

(I) (2) or salts thereof wherein R is hydrogen, a saturated or unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon group of from 1 to 3 carbon atoms or a carboxyalkyl group wherein the alkyl moiety has from 1 to 6 carbon atoms, R' is OH, a carboxymethyl amino group or a salt of a carboxymethyl amino group, and R" is H, a .gamma.-glutamyl group or a salt of a .gamma.-glutamyl group.

2. A composition according to claim 1, wherein salt flavor enhancing substance comprises at least one non-toxic, organoleptically acceptable salt of said compound of formula (1) or (2).

3. A composition according to claim 1, wherein said taste intensifying substance comprises glutamic acid, a salt of glutamic acid or a mixture thereof.

4. A composition according to claim 3, wherein said taste intensifying substance comprises a non-toxic, organo-leptically acceptable salt of glutamic acid.

5. A composition according to claim 1, 2 or 3, wherein said flavor enhancing substance is present in an amount in the range of 0.1 to 1000% by weight based on the weight of said taste intensifying substance.

6. A composition according to claim 4, wherein said flavor enhancing substance is present in an amount in the range of 0.1 to 1000% by weight based on the weight of said taste intensifying substance.

7. A composition of claim 1, 2 or 3, wherein said taste intensifying substance is present in an amount sufficient to obtain an adequate taste intensifying strength.

8. A composition of claim 4, wherein said taste intensifying substance is present in an amount sufficient to obtain an adequate taste intensifying strength.

9. A composition according to claim 1, 2 or 3, wherein said flavor enhancing substance is present in an amount in the range of 0.1 to 1000% by weight based on the weight of said taste intensifying substance, and said taste intensifying substance is present in an amount sufficient to obtain an adequate taste intensifying strength.

10. A composition according to claim 4, wherein said flavor enhancing substance is present in an amount in the range of 0.1 to 1000% by weight based on the weight of said taste intensifying substance, and said taste intensifying sub-stance is present in an amount sufficient to obtain an adequate taste intensifying strength.

11. A composition according to claim 1, wherein said taste intensifying substance comprises a nucleic acid or a salt of a nucleic acid.

12. A composition according to claim 11, wherein said taste intensifying substance comprises a non-toxic, organo-leptically acceptable salt of a nucleic acid.

13. A composition according to claim 11, wherein said taste intensifying substance comprises 5'-inosinate, a salt of 5'-inosinate, 5'-guanylate, a salt of 5'-guanylate or a mixture thereof.

14. A composition according to claim 11, wherein said taste intensifying substance comprises a non-toxic, organo-leptically acceptable salt of 5'-inosinate or 5'-guanylate or a mixture thereof.

15. A composition according to claim 11, 12 or 13, wherein said flavor enhancing substance is used in an amount in weight ratio of 1 : 99 to 99 ; 1 relative to said taste intensifying substance.

16. A composition according to claim 14, wherein said flavor enhancing substance is used in an amount in weight ratio of 1 : 99 to 99 : 1 relative to said taste intensifying substance.

17. A composition according to claim 1, wherein said taste intensifying substance comprises glutamic acid or a salt of glutamic acid, said taste intensifying substance further comprising at least one member selected from the group consisting of 5'-inosinate, a salt of 5'-inosinate, 5'-guanylate and a salt of 5'-guanylate;

wherein the taste intensifying strength of said substance is determined as follows;
i) for 5'-inosinate or a salt thereof:
y = u 1218 uv ii) for 5'-guanylate or a salt thereof:
y = u 2800 uv;
wherein y is the taste intensifying strength, u is the glutamic acid or glutamic acid salt con-centration expressed as a weight %, v is the 5'-inosinate or 5'-inosinate salt con-centration expressed as a weight %, or v is the 5'-guanylate or 5'-guanylate salt con-centration expressed as a weight %; and y is in the range of 0.1 to 30 weight %.

18. A composition according to claim 17, wherein said taste intensifying substance comprises a non-toxic, organo-leptically acceptable salt of glutamic acid and said further taste intensifying substance comprises a non-toxic, organo-leptically acceptable salt of said group.

19. A food composition comprising a food component and a flavor enhancing amount of a composition as defined in claim 1.

20. A food composition according to claim 19, wherein said food component comprises a pork sausage, tomato juice, Japanese sake, consomme soup, noodle soup, corn cream soup, soy sauce, soybean taste soup, Worcester sauce, seaweed boiled down in soy sauce, sea urchin egg paste, beef extract, shrimp extract, onion extract, curry, garlic extract or rice.