| Abstract | Dvopek se preporuĉa u dijetetskoj i bolniĉkoj prehrani zbog lakše probavljivosti u odnosu na svjeţi kruh, ali moţe biti znaĉajan izvor zasićenih masti, šećera i soli. U cilju utvrĊivanja varijabilnosti nutritivnog sastava, prikupljeno je i pregledano ukupno 53 nutritivne deklaracije i popisa sastojaka dvopeka u 11 trgovaĉkih centara na podruĉju Rijeke i Bjelovara tijekom sijeĉnja i veljaĉe 2018. godine. Masti u obliku ulja bile su navedene kod svih proizvoda obuhvaćenih istraţivanjem. U najvećem broju proizvoda od ukupno analiziranih deklaracija bilo je prisutno suncokretovo (49%) odnosno palmino ulje (47%), a ni jedan od proizvoda nije sadrţavao hidrogenirane biljne masti. Putem dvopeka kao zamjene za kruh (75 g/dnevno) unijelo bi se 4,5-12,9% preporuĉenog unosa (PU) ukupnih masti odnosno 1,9-18,6% PU zasićenih masti za odrasle. Šećer je u popisu sastojaka bio naveden kod 81% proizvoda a sol kod 98% proizvoda. Putem 75 g/dnevno dvopeka unijelo bi se 1,8-9,2% PU šećera te 0,6-28,8% PU soli za odrasle. Rangiranjem po tri uzorka dvopeka prema intenzitetu slatkog odnosno slanog okusa (215 netreniranih ispitanika) te na temelju statistiĉke znaĉajnosti razlika izmeĊu suma nizova (Friedmanov test, p < 0,05) zakljuĉilo se da većina potrošaĉa moţe zamijetiti razlike u slatkoći odnosno slanosti dvopeka unutar odabranih raspona masenih udjela šećera (3,9 - 6,6 - 10 g/100 g) odnosno soli (0,05 - 1,3 - 2,3 g/100 g). Najveći broj ispitanika preferirao je dvopek sa srednjim i visokim udjelom šećera (po 36% ispitanika) odnosno dvopek s visokim udjelom soli (45% ispitanika). Aditivi su u popisu sastojaka bili navedeni kod 53% proizvoda, a tri proizvoda sadrţavala su aditive koji nisu odobreni za tretiranje brašna ili za pekarske proizvode. |
| Abstract (english) | Rusk is recommended in dietary and clinical nutrition because of the easier digestibility compared to fresh bread, but it can also be a significant source of saturated fats, sugars and salt. In order to determine the variability of the nutritional composition, a total of 53 nutrition information labels and ingredients lists of rusk were collected in 11 shopping centres in Rijeka and Bjelovar and were reviewed during January and February 2018. Fats in form of oils were mentioned in the ingredients list in all products covered by the research. Sunflower oil and palm oil were present in the largest number of products from the total number of analysed labels (49% and 47%, respectively), while none of the products contained hydrogenated vegetable fats. As bread substitute, rusk (75 g/day) would contribute to 4.5-12.9% of the recommended total fat intake or to 1.9-18.6% of the recommended intake of saturated fats for adults. In the lists of ingredients, sugar was listed in 81% of the products and the salt in 98%. A 75g /day rusk would contribute to 1.8- 9.2% of the recommended sugar intake and to 0.6 -28.8% of the recommended salt intake for adults. By ranking three samples of rusk according to the intensity of sweet or salty taste (215 untrained examinees) and based on the statistical significance of the difference between the sums of the sequences (Friedman's test, p < 0.05) it was concluded that most consumers can notice the differences in sweetness or saltiness between the selected ranges of sugar mass content (3.9 – 6.6 – 10 g/100 g) or salt mass content (0.05 – 1.3 – 2.3 g/100 g). The highest number of examinees preferred the medium and high sugar content rusk (36% of the examinees) as well as the high salt content rusk (45% of examinees). Additives were listed in the 53% of ingredients lists, and three products contained non-approved additives for the flour or bakery products treatment |
