Strained fermented milks – A review of existing legislative provisions, survey of nutritional labelling of commercial products in selected markets and terminology of products in some selected countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey of the information contained in the labels of 109 commercial concentrated fermented milks from the Eastern Mediterranean, Australasia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States of America and Canada plus Skyr (from Iceland), Ymer (from Denmark) and Chakka (from India) was carried out in late 2012 and early 2013. There were substantial differences in composition. The carbohydrate, fat and protein contents ranged between 1–12, 0–20 and 3.3–11 g/100 g, respectively. Considering the compositional data of the product and existing legislative provisions, a typical strained product should have a protein content of ≥8 g/100 and ~5 g/100 g of carbohydrates, and it would be appropriate to name such products as ‘strained yoghurt’, ‘Greek strained yoghurt’ and/or ‘Labneh’. A higher content of carbohydrate would suggest that the product was made using the product formulation method (i.e. without straining the fermentate), or the milk base had been fortified with skimmed milk before straining the fermentate to enhance the yield of the product, and such products should be known, for example, as ‘Greek‐style yoghurt’. It was also observed in some of the samples that the nomenclature of the starter cultures did not conform to recommendations of the International Union of Microbiological Societies (IUMS). Manufacturers could address such issues to minimise consumer confusion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".