Traditional Crops and Foods: Documentation, Analytical Characterization, Retention Factors of Bioactive Compounds
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Allma Mater Studiiorum – Uniiversiità dii Bollogna DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN SCIENZE E TECNOLOGIE AGRARIE, AMBIENTALI E ALIMENTARI Ciclo XXVIII Settore Concorsuale di afferenza: 07/B1 Settore Scientifico disciplinare: AGR/02 Traditional crops and foods: documentation, analytical characterization, retention factors of bioactive compounds Presentata da: Elisa Giambanelli Coordinatore Dottorato Relatore Prof. Giovanni Dinelli Prof. L. Filippo D’Antuono Esame finale anno 2016 Supervisor Prof. Luigi Filippo D’Antuono Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Food Science University Campus Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna p.zza Goidanich 60, 47521 Cesena (FC), Italy Reviewers Dr. Vito Verardo Department of Chemistry and Physics Research Centre for Agricultural and Food Biotechnology (BITAL), University of Almería Agrifood Campus of International Excellence, ceiA3 Carretera de Sacramento s/n, E-04120 Almería, Spain Prof. Nadiya Boyko Coordinator of Ukranian National Technology Platform “Agro-Food” Department of Microbiology, Virology, Immunology and Aetiology of Infectious Diseases Medical Faculty, Uzhhorod National University 1, Narodna Sq., Uzhhorod UA-88000, Ukraine To my parents, Patrizia and Bruno… and to my grandmother, Quinta … my favourite “local informant”!!! Table of Contents I II Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Preface 3 1.2. Different approaches to define traditional foods 4 1.2.1. European legislation 4 1.2.2. Italian legislation 5 1.2.3. The scientific approach 5 1.2.4. Alternative concepts of “traditional foods” 8 1.2.5. The case of BaSeFood project: traditional foods and food systems 9 1.2.5.1. BaSeFood’s synthesis and scopes 9 1.2.5.2. BaSeFood’s final remarks 10 1.3. Traditional crops and agricultural biodiversity 11 1.4. Traditional foods: local crops, processing/cooking and recipe information 12 1.5. Food quality 13 1.5.1. Changes in food habits and food processing 14 1.5.2. Health effects of crops: bioactive compounds 15 1.5.3. The fate of bioactive compounds during processing/cooking 16 1.6. References 16 Chapter 2 Scopes and Outline of the Thesis 23 Chapter 3 Documentation 29 3.1. Materials and methods 31 III 3.2. Results 34 3.2.1. Brassicaceae family 36 3.2.1.1. Kale (Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala) 36 3.2.1.2. Turnip (Brassica rapa L.) 39 3.2.2. Wild vegetables 41 3.2.2.1. Wild leafy vegetables of the Asteraceae family 41 3.2.2.2. Other wild leafy vegetables 43 3.2.2.3. Wild fennel 44 3.2.3. Other crops 46 3.2.3.1. Pulses 47 3.2.3.2. Corn 49 3.2.3.3. Onions 51 3.2.3.4. Tomatoes 52 3.2.4. Forest fruits 52 3.2.4.1. Chestnuts 52 3.3. Discussion 53 3.4. References 54 EXPERIMENTAL PART 57 Chapter 4 Primitive wheats 59 4.1. A comparative study of bioactive compounds in primitive wheat populations from Italy, Turkey, Georgia, Bulgaria and Armenia 61 4.2. An on-site comparative study of yield factors during glume removal, a primary step in the traditional processing of hulled wheats 93 4.3. Assessing the effect of traditional hulled wheat processing on bioactive compound retention 115 IV Chapter 5 Brassicaceae 143 5.1. Comparison of leafy kale populations from Italy, Portugal, and Turkey for their bioactive compound content: phenolics, glucosinolates, carotenoids, and chlorophylls 145 5.2. The kinetic of key phytochemical compounds of kale landraces (Brassica oleracea ssp. acephala) as affected by traditional cooking methods 177 5.3. Broccoli glucosinolate degradation is reduced performing thermal treatment in binary systems with other food ingredients 209 Chapter 6 Asteraceae 235 6.1. Identification and quantification of phenolic compounds in edible wild leafy vegetables by UHPLC-Orbitrap-MS 237 Chapter 7 Conclusions 267 7.1. Local documentation 269 7.2. Plant raw material characterization 270 7.3. Process’ yield factors and phytochemical retention following cooking 271 Acknowledgements 275 V Chapter 1 Introduction 1 2 Introduction 1.1. Preface This work was carried out within the research and documentation on traditional foods of plant origin, that is going on as a mainstream research line at the Food Plant Production and Quality Group of my department, since several years. This work was started by me as participant in BaSeFood project (www.basefood-fp7.eu) and went on independently after the end of the project itself. The experimental part of this thesis mainly deals with two topics, both carried out on different crops: a) the characterization of raw materials in term of the content of phytochemical compounds with potential health-promoting properties; b) the experimental determination of yield factors during traditional processing and phytochemical compounds retention factors during cooking. The documentation part was carried out, following the BaSeFood scheme of qualitative surveys, in a specific area of north Tuscany. Following this part, a still on-going research line on wild leafy food plants of the Asteraceae family was set up. The motivation of this organization and the milestones of its background are shortly explained later, in the introductory part. Basically, the following points were considered: Traditional foods are since thirty years attracting the interest of industry and regulatory bodies as potential opportunities to manufacture value added foods, at different levels. For this, conspicuous efforts were devoted to formally define these foods. Evidence suggests however that traditional foods have some characteristics making such a formal definition rather far from representing their intrinsic nature. Traditional foods have been often associated with health promoting foods, without however any real evidence in support of this generalization. BaSeFood investigated traditional foods in their local context, giving further contribution to their allocation in term of local resources, variability, evolution and perceptions. The project also pointed out how the “traditional” and “health promoting” claims may belong to different spheres of perception. At the same time, the project allowed to allocate local raw materials, that were selected from in-depth investigation, of their analytical properties and the evolution of some of their phytochemical compounds following traditional processing schemes and cooking. 3 Chapter 1 1.2. Different approaches to define traditional foods 1.2.1. European legislation The previous European Community foodstuff legislation was characterized by common market objectives and harmonization approaches, with the main issue to overcome national “technical barriers” and promote trades. At the end of ‘80 years a general dissatisfaction of European State Member conveyed in a stronger demand of legal protection for their own typical products. So foodstuff legislation objectives were reformulated and mainly addressed to highlight topics such as food quality, consumer protection and support to small agricultural producers (Tosato, 2013). In particular, as a result, the European Union (EU) issued two regulations with respect to traditional foods: 1) Council Regulation No 510/06 of 20 March 2006 “On the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs” (Commission of the European Communities, 2006a) (replacing the previous Council Regulation No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 “On the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs” (Commission of the European Communities, 1992a)); 2) Council Regulation No 509/06 of 20 March 2006 “On agricultural products and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed” (Commission of the European Communities, 2006b) (replacing the previous Council Regulation No 2082/92 of 14 July 1992 “On Certificates of Specific Character for agricultural products and foodstuffs” (Commission of the European Communities, 1992b)). The introduction of the two regulations determined the fact that many European foods have been registered as “Protected Designation of Origin (PDO)” or “Protected Geographical Indication (PGI)”. Whereas very few foods have been certified as “Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG)”, probably due to the lack of a definition of the term “traditional” in the previous regulation 2082/92, and a consequent inadequacy in the protection of producer and food, as also discussed by Trichopoulou et al. (2007). Only recently the EU introduced a definition for the term “traditional”, with special regard to foods, as reported following: 4 Introduction “Traditional means proven usage in the Community market for a time period showing transmission between generations; this time period should be the one generally ascribed as one human generation, at least 25 years.” (European Commission, 2006) 1.2.2. Italian legislation Considering national legislation, a definition for traditional food products in Europe is given by the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, as following: “Agrifood products whose methods of processing, storage and ripening are consolidated with time (at least 25 years) according to uniform and constant local use.” (Ministero Agricoltura, 1999) Recently the 15th revision of the national list of Traditional Agrifood products (Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 168, 22 July 2015) has been published. The list, not including products registered as PDO or GPI, consists of 4881 traditional products, of which 68 are newly added. Tuscany shows the highest number, with 461 Traditional Agrifood products, followed by Campania (457), Lazio (393), Emilia- Romagna (378), and Veneto (370). Based on the data reported on the ISTAT website (www.noi-italia.istat.it),