Search

Background Since 2006, Asian countries can benefit from protection of their food products under the European scheme for Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGIs). Four Asian grain-based products have been so far registered. Scope and approach The aim of this paper is analysing scientific literature on the four protected Asian grain-based products, in order to inquire about availability of science-based proofs of provenance and quality attributes which make them distinguishable from other similar products of the same category. To this aim, the role of PDO and PGI logos in guaranteeing the authenticity of protected food products is discussed, and analytical methods enabling the authentication of grain-based products are presented. Key findings and conclusions An integrated portrait of protected Asian grain-based products was obtained by merging information from Product Specifications and up-to-date scientific literature. Gaps and needs for proof of provenance were highlighted. The study is a baseline for scientists intending to support control bodies in verifying the authenticity of the protected Asian grain-based food products and the compliance thereof to Product Specification. It is also a hint for regulatory authorities on how to improve current legal framework by applying the best available science, so that producers, consumers and the system itself can be protected from frauds or counterfeits.

Effects of grain milling and bread making process on some bioactive components naturally present in three durum wheat bread samples and the study of the potential antioxidant properties of phenolic compounds by the human intestinal epithelial cell line Caco-2 were considered in this study. Lutein, the main carotenoid in these matrices, decreased from grain to bread from 50% to 70% depending on the variety while zeaxanthin and β-carotene content was quite negligible both in grain and in bread samples. Semolina generally showed the lowest extractable phenolic compounds (1280.5–1914.6 mg/kg d.m.) either respect to grain (1445.3–1923.0 mg/kg d.m.) or to bread samples (1537.4–1759.0 mg/kg d.m.). Non-extractable phenolic compounds which resulted strongly reduced in semolina, increased in bread respect to semolina (about 50%) due to the modification induced on the food matrix and, probably, to the Maillard reaction, which takes place during baking. No cellular damage was observed up to a dose of 10.0 μg/mL of polyphenolic extract. The same amount resulted able to protect the cell from the damage produced by the oxidant agent AAPH. These results underline that the potential health benefits of these compounds are dose-dependent and this aspect must be always taken into consideration.

Sourdough bread was prepared from flour of the common buckwheat ( Fagopyrum esculentum ) and of Tartary buckwheat ( Fagopyrum tataricum ) to follow the transformation of rutin and quercetin in these sourdoughs. During Tartary buckwheat sourdough fermentation, there was conversion of rutin to quercetin. The Tartary buckwheat flour contained 14.6 mg/g rutin and 1.9 mg/g quercetin as dry matter. The sourdough starter contained 1.5 mg/g rutin and an unexpectedly high 12.5 mg/g quercetin. The sourdough contained 3.2 mg/g rutin and 8.1 mg/g quercetin. In the Tartary buckwheat sourdough bread there was no rutin, whereas there was 5.0 mg/g quercetin. Thus, during the sourdough fermentation, the rutin was completely degraded. However, despite the long fermentation time (sourdough, 10 h; bread dough, 5 h), most of the quercetin remained in the dough and appeared in the baked bread. In contrast to Tartary buckwheat bread, neither rutin nor quercetin was present in common buckwheat bread. Information on the persistence of quercetin in sourdough bread is important for designing breads with high concentrations of flavonoids and good functional value.