FLAVOR ENHANCING SEASONINGS AND FOODS CONTAINING THEM

Abstract: 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 glutathione, a salt of glutathione, oxidized glutathione, salt of oxidized glutathione sulfonic acid, cycloallin, a salt of cycloallin, lentinic 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 wherein R is a saturated or unsaturated aliphatic hydrocar­ bon group of from 1 to 3 carbon atoms or a carboxyalkyl group wherein said alkyl is from 1 to 6 carbon atoms, R′ is H, a γ-glutamyl group or a salt of a γ-glutamyl group, a salt of compound (1) and a salt of compound (2).

Description: FLAVOR ENHANCING SEASOINC,.S AND FOODS CONTAINING THEM This invention relates to seasoning and food having enhanced flavor by the addition of sulfurcontaining compounds. The taste intensity imparting function of representative "Umami" substances, namely, sodium L-glutamate (MSG), sodium 5'-inosinate (IMP) and sodium 5'-guanylate (GMP) is widely known. A wide variety of seasonings obtained from MSG, IMP and GMP can be appropriately combined with protein hydrolysates (HVP, HAP), yeast extract (YE), amino acids etc. In their various application, these substances have been increasingly used for the purpose of enhancing organoleptic characteristics of foods such as the "Umami" (MSG like taste) flavor etc. Although "Umami" substances enjoy popularity and wide application, there has still been a demand for extending their function; to further develop their flavor characteristics. More specifically, there has still been a demand to further develop the thickness, amplitude, continuity etc. of "Umami" substances. This is a property which is different from their taste which is the effect achieved by a combination of saltiness, sweetness, acid taste etc. as is done to further enhance a taste. Hence, throughout this text the term taste is used to describe the basic saltiness, sweetness and acidity properties of the "Umami" substances described above. The term flavor is used to describe the thickness, amplitude and continuity properties of "Umami" substances. The terms taste and flavor do not describe the same 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 and foods containing it. The present inventors have discovered that (1) glutathione (GSH) and oxidized glutathione (GSSG) -hereinafter called generically as "GSH" -, (2) glutathione sulfonic acid (GSo3H), (3) cycloallin -hereinafter called "CA" -, (4) lentinic acid, des-glutamyl lentinic acid and the salts thereof -hereinafter called generically as "LA" -, (5) methionine methyl sulfonium (MMS), and (6) compound of the following general formula (1) or (2): EMI3.1 wherein R is a saturated or unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon group of 1-3 carbon atoms or a carboxyalkyl group wherein the alkyl group is from C1 to C6, R' is H or a carboxymethylamino group, and R" 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 these compounds manifest strong flavor enhancement in the presence of MSG, a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance or a mixture thereof. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS Glutathione (GSH), oxidized glutathione (GSSG) glutathione sulfonic acid (GS03H), cycloallin (CA), lentinic acid and des-glutamyl lentinic acid (both hereinafter generically referred to as LA) and methionine methyl sulfonium (MMS) have been confirmed to be widely present in foods, natural products etc. Part of compounds (1) and (2) shown above were known as precursor substances 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 GSH, GSSG, GSO3H, CA, LA, MMS and compounds of the general formulae (1) and (2) shown below EMI4.1 wherein R is a saturated or unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon group of 1 to 3 carbon atoms or a carboxyalkyl group wherein the alkyl group is from C to C6, R' is H or a carboxymethylamino group, and R" is H or a y-glutamyl group manifest strong flavor enhancement in the presence of MSG, a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance or a mixture thereof. As the result of a detailed study on various combinations and formulations of glutamic acid, glutamic acid salts or nucleic acid type taste intensifying substances with "CA", "GSH", "GSO3H", "LA" or "MMS", it has been discovered that these sulfur-containing compounds are widely effective in the enhancement of flavor. Their discovery thus provides the possibility for novel flavor enhancing seasonings and foods by incorporating together "Umami" components and the sulfur-containing compounds. The present invention relates to such combinations. GSH has been studied for its physiological activity, pharmacological efficacy etc. It has been used as e.g. a liver disease treating agent1 an antipyretic etc. Various applications of GSH to foods are also known. Some of these applications are given below. (1) GSH has been added to dough products of e.g., flour etc. as the so-called amino acid type, reducing agent like cysteine etc. (See Japanese Patent Publication Nos. 19863/1974, 16418/1975, 1773/1976, 9019/1976, 33981/1976, 9893/1981, Japanese Patent Application Laid-open Nos. 11967/1972, 30855/1972, 98052/1973, 122762/1979, 23853/1981 etc.) (2) Similarly, GSH has been added to sour milk and baby foods as a storage stabilizer for vitamin C. (See Japanese Patent Publication Nos. 7143/1975 and 21606/1970.) (3) GSH has been added to fish paste products such as boiled fish taste as a decomposition inhibitor for nucleic acid type taste intensifying substances. (See Japanese Patent Publication No. 8694/1968.) (4) GSH has been added as an agent to relieve the yeast odor of yeast extract. (See Japanese Patent Publication No. 6232/1969.) (5) GSH has been used for the purpose of preventing the discoloration of canned fruit. (See Japanese Patent Publication No. 20655/1965.) (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, 35149/1974, 28977/1978 etc.) (7) It has been used to intensify cheese flavor. (See Japanese Patent Publication No. 25024/1978 and the like.) In these examples of applications of CSH to foods, GSH is used as a physical property modifier as in above (1). In (4), (6) and (7) etc. above, there are no comments regarding the taste intensity of GSH. Furthermore, the amounts of GSH added are only extremely small amounts. For example, only 0.01 to 0.05% GSH is added in the case of dough products, 0.001 to 0.02% in the case of baby foods. Even in the case of taste intensification in meats or cheeses (as in (6) or (7) above), a similarly extremely small amount is added. Therefore, it is clear from the above examples that there has been no finding in the prior art of GSH actually having a flavor intensifying function. Moreover, it is entirely impossible to know or predict what flavor intensifying function, if any, GSH would manifest in the presence of other taste components. GSO3H is known as a component in enokidake. Its presence has also been confirmed in a part of other mushrooms. The significance of its presence or its role in food have not yet been described. There is no reference in the prior art concerning the taste intensity of GSO3H. Further it is entirely impossible to know or predict what flavor intensifying functions, if any, GS03H manifests in the presence of the "Umami" components. Lentinic acid is contained in shiitake and is known as a precursor to the odor of shiitake. When shiitake tissue is damaged or dried shiitake is reconstituted with water, it undergoes various chemical and/or biochemical reactions; e.g., enzymatic action by y-glutamyl transferase, C-S lyase etc. Resultingly lenthionine which is an odorous principle of shiitake is formed. In none of the above-described research was there any mention suggesting the flavor intensity of lentinic acid. Further, it is entirely impossible to know or predict what flavor intensifying functions, if any, lentinic acid manifests in the presence of the "Umami" components. MMS is also known as vitamin U. It has been intensively investigated for its pharmacological efficacy and has been used as e.g. an antiulcer agent. Various applications of MMS in foods are also known. Some of these applications are given below. (1) MMS 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.) (2) MMS 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 B1. 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 MMS in any of these application. Further, it is entirely impossible to guess or predict what flavor intensifying function, if any, MMS manifests in the presence of the "Umami" components. Cycloallin is also known as imino acid. It is a sulfur-containing component in onion and garlic. There are only few studies of its characteristics. It is known that cycloallin is formed by reaction of spropenylcysteinsulfoxide 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 functions, if any, cycloallin manifests in the presence of the wUmamiZ components. In accordance with the present invention, a characteristic flavor intensity enhancing effect can be obtained by using "GSH", GSO3H, "CA" "LA" and/or MMS in combination with conventionally known "Umami" compounds such as MSG, IMP, GMP etc. The present invention further provides that these combinations are made in accordance with specified ratios. This invention relates to the intensification of the impression of taste (flavor enhancement) and to further impart flavor. Flavor here is the continuity, amplitude, thickness, etc. of the original taste "Umami"1 bitterness, sweetness, acid taste, saltiness etc. while the original taste remains unchanged. The mixing ratio of the "Umami" component to the sulfur-containing component selected from the group consisting of "GSH", GS03H, "CA", "LA" an.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 "Umami" component. The "Umami" component is calculated as the weight of MSG required to manifest the same "Umami" strength. All comparisons are made to the "Umami" strength of MSG. When a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance such as IMP, GMP etc. is used alone, the mixing ratio of sulfur-containing compound or compounds is 1 : 99 to 99 : .1. For example, in the case where the "Umami" component comprises only MSG, the sulfur-containing compound or compounds are present at a concentration of 0.001 to 10 times that of MSG. In the other case, i.e. where MSG and IMP or GMP are also present as the "Umami" components, the "Umami" strength (y value) may be determined according to the following equations: IMP: y = u + 1218 uv GMP: y = u + 2800 uv wherein u ^ MSG concentration (%), and v = IMP or GMP concentration (t). 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 established by organoleptically comparison with a simple aqueous solution of MSG may be appropriately used. For instance, the y value where IMP and GMP are used in combination at a ratio of 50:50 is as follows: y = u + 2010 uv wherein u = MSG concentration (%), and v = IMP/GMP mixture concentration (%). 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. EMI11.1 wherein R is a saturated or unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon group of 1 to 3 carbon atoms, or a carboxyalkyl group wherein the alkyl group is from C1 to C6, R' is H or a carboxymethylamino group, and R" is H 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 as MSG, IMP, GMP etc. The effect in this case is 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 -- "Umami" bitterness, sweetness, acid taste, saltiness etc. -- remains 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 based on the weight of the also present "Umami" component. The weight of the also present *Umami" component is calculated as the weight of, e.g. MSG, required to manifest the same "Umami" strength. When a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance such as IMP, GMP etc. are used alone, the mixing ratio of these to compounds (1) or (2) or combination thereof is in the range of 1:99 to 99:1. In other words, in the case where the "Umami" component comprises only MSG, compound (1) or (2) or combination thereof are present in an amount of 0.001 to 10 times the concentration of MSG. In the other case, i.e., where MSG and IMP or GMP are present as the "Umami" components, the "Umami" strength (y value) may be determined according to the following equations: IMP: y ' u + 1218 uv GMP: y = u + 2800 uv wherein u = MSG concentration (%), and v = IMP or GMP concentration (%). While the conversion equation to obtain each y value can vary depending on the kinds and number of the "Umami" components etc., y values established by organoleptic comparison against a simple aqueous solution of MSG may be appropriately used. For instance, the y value where IMP and GMP are used in combination at a ratio of 50:50 is as follows: y = u + 2010 uv wherein u = MSG concentration (%), and v = IMP/GMP mixture concentration (8). The compounds of formulae (1) and (2) can also be used in combination with any of the other sulfurcontaining compounds: "CSH", GS03HI nCA" "LA" and MMS. Other features of the invention will become apparent in the course of the following descriptions of exemplary embodiments which are given for illustration of the invention and are not intended to be limiting thereof. Experimental Example 1 (Evaluation in Simple Aqueous Solution Systems) Using as a control a mixed aqueous solution of 0.05 g/dl of MSG and 0.05 g/dl of IMP (y value = 3.09), sample solutions were prepared by adding 0.001 to 0.5 g/dl of GSH to the mixed aqueous solution. 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 1. Table 1 N = 20 Formulation Taste Intensifying Effect Strength of MSG IMP GSH Strength of Flavor g/dl g/dl g/dl "Umami" Enhancement Control 0.05 0.05 -- + + Sample A n " 0.001 + + B " " 0.01 i ++ C " " 0.05 # D n " 0.1 + E N " 0.3 + F " " 0.5 + The following notation is 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 GSH added, based on the y value (MSG calculated amount), the strength of flavor is comparable to that of the control. But by the addition of 0.1% or more of GSH, the flavor alone is remarkably increased without changing the strength of "Umami" and other basic tastes. If the absolute concentration of GSH exceeds 1.0%, specific thickness in taste is manifested and the total taste balance is lost. Therefore, the amount of GSH 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 MSG having the same "Umami" strength. (See equations above.) Further, GSH 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 the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance such as IMP, GMP etc. is used alone, if GSH 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. Further when GSH is present in an amount of 250%/wt. or more based on the amount of nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance, GSH manifests the most preferred effect. Whereas if GSH exceeds a ratio of 99/1, a specific thickness in taste is brought about and the total taste balance is lost. Experimental Example 2 (Evaluation in Beef Extract Systems) According to the analytical values of beef extract, the effect of the addition of GSH 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 as well, GSH imparts a higher natural taste by manifesting a strong flavor enhancement. Table 2 Formulation of Major Components of Beet Extract Formulation MSG 3 % IMP 3 NaCl 11 K2HP04 10 KH2PO4 25 Sodium lactate 20 Histidine hydrochloride 20 Alanine 4 Lysine hydrochloride 4 100 Table 3 Major Strength of Components GSH Flavor g/dl g/dl Enhancement Control 2 0 + Sample A n 0.01 ++ B n 0.1 C n 0.2 GSH in this invention may be obtained by any production process, such as an extraction process, a synthesis process etc. Further, it is also possible to replace the whole or part of the required GSH by a substance containing GSH. Experimental Example 3 (Evaluation in Shrimp Extract Systems) According to the analytical values of the extract components of shrimp which is a natural delicious food, the major components were formulated and organoleptically evaluated similarly as in Experiment Example 2. These tests confirm, as shown in Table 5, that GSH imparted a higher natural taste by manifesting a strong flavor enhancement as it did in beef extract tests. Table 4 (Formulation of Major Components) MSG 3.9 8 IMP 3.9 NaC1 12.6 K2HP04 13.0 KH2P04 5.3 Sodium lactate 15.3 Alanine 15.4 Glycine 15.3 Arginine 15.3 100.0 Table 5 Major Strength of Component GSH Flavor Strength of (g/dl) (g/dl) Enhancement Natural Feel Control 1.3 0 + + Sample A " 0.006 III1 B " 0.06 C n 0.12 +++++ Experimental Example 4 (Evaluation in Simple Aqueous Solution Systems) A mixed aqueous solution of 0.05 g/dl of MSG and 0.05 g/dl of IMP (y value = 3.09) was used as a control. Sample solutions were prepared by adding 0.002 to 1.0 g/dl of GS03H to the mixed aqueous solution, and these 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 6. Table 6 N = 20 Formulation Taste Intensifying Effect Strength of MSG IMP GSO3H Strength of Flavor g/dl g/dl g/d "Umami" Enhancement Control 0.05 0.05 -- + + Sample A " " 0.02 # # B n n 0.02 + + C " " 0.05 # + D " n 0.1 i ++ E " " 0.15 # F " 0.5 i F' " " 1.0 + +++ G -- 0.1 0.1 - ++ As shown in Table 6, with less than 0.1% of GS03H added, based on the y value (MSG calculated amount), the strength of flavor enhancement is comparable to that of the control. By the addition of 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 is lost. Therefore, the amount of GS03H added should suitably be in the range of p.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 is calculated as the weight of MSG having the same "Umami" strength. (See equations.) Further, GS03H 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, if the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance is used alone and GS03H is added at a ratio of less than 1/99 relative to the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance, the flavor enhancing effect is not adequate. Whereas if this ratio exceeds 99/1, a specific thickness in taste is brought about and the total taste balance is lost. Experimental Example 5 (Evaluation in Simple Aqueous Solution Systems) A mixed aqueous solution of 0.05 g/dl of MSG and 0.05 g/dl of IMP (y value = 3.09) was used as a control. Sample solutions were prepared by adding 0.002 to 1.0 g/dl 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 members (N = 20). The results are given in Table 7. Table 7 Formulation Taste Intenstifying Effect Strength of MSG IMP "LA" Strength Flavor g/dl g/dl g/dl of "Umami" Enhancement Control 0.05 0.05 -- + + Sample A I' n 0.002 + + B I' " 0.02 + + C " " 0.05 + + D " " 0.1 + ++ E " " 0.5 + F " " 1.0 + G -- 0.1 0.1 As shown in Table 7, with amounts of added lentinic acid or des-glutamyl lentinic acid less than 0.18 based on the y value (MSG calculated amount), the strength of flavor enhancement is comparable to that of the control. But by the addition of 0.1% or more of lentinic acid or des-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-present tastiness component calculated as the weight of MSG having the same "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 as IMP, GMP 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 is not adequate. Whereas if this ratio exceeds 99/1, a specific thickness in taste is brought about and the total taste balance is lost. Experimental Example 6 (Evaluation in Simple Aqueous Solution Systems) A mixed aqueous solution of 0.05 g/dl of MSG and 0.05 g/dl of IMP (y value = 3.09) was used as a control. Sample solutions were prepared (1) by adding 0.001 to 1.0 g/dl of MMS to the mixed aqueous solution, and (2) by mixing aqueous solutions of 0.1 g/dl of IMP and 0.1 g/dl of MMS. 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 Intenstifying Effect Strength of MSG IMP MMS Strength Flavor g/dl g/dl g/dl of "Unami" Enhancement Control 0.05 0.05 -- + + Sample A N " 0.002 + + B n " 0.01 +- + C " 9e 0.05 i ++ D " " 0.1 # E " 0.5 i F " 1.0 i H @ 0.1 0.1 As shown in Table 8, when the amount of added MMS is less than 0.1% based on the y value (MSG 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 MMS exceeds 1.0%, a characteristic aroma or specific thickness in taste is manifested and the total taste balance is lost. Therefore, the amount of MMS 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 present wUmamiw component. The amount of "Umami" component used is calculated as the weight of MSG having the same "Umami1 strength. (See equations.) Further, MMS 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, when a nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance such as IMP, GMP etc. is used alone, if MMS is added at a ratio of less than 1/99 to the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance, the flavor enhancement as well as the characteristic sweetness enhancing effect is not adequate. Whereas if the ratio exceeds 99/1, a characteristic sweetness or specific thickness in taste is brought about and the total taste balance is lost. Experimental Example 7 (Evaluation in Onion Extract Systems) According to the analytical values of the onion extract, the effect of the addition of MMS 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 MMS imparts clear vegetable characteristic sweetness 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 Na Citrate 15 Na Malate 10 100 * Amino acids: a mixture of MSG, arginine, lysine, isoleucine, leucine, aspartic acid, glycine, phenylalanine and proline. Table 10 Charac- Flavor Major teristic Enhance- Natural Component MMS Sweetness ment Feel Control 2 g/dl -- + + Sample A n 0.01 g/dl + ++ + Sample B N 0.1 ++ +++ + Sample C n 0.2 ++ ++++ ++ (ca. 0.04 g/dl as an MSG concentration) Experimental Example 8 (Evaluation in Simple Aqueous Solution Systems) A mixed aqueous solution of 0.05 g/dl of MSG and 0.05 g/dl of IMP (y value = 3.09) was used as a control. Sample solutions were prepared by (1) adding 0.002 to 1.0 g/dl of cycloallin to the mixed aqueous solution and (2) by adding 0.1 g/dl of cycloallin to an aqueous solution of 0.1 g/dl 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 Intenstifying Effect Cyclo- Strength of MSG IMP Alliin Strength Flavor g/dl g/dl g/dl of "Umami" Enhancement Control 0.05 0.05 -- i + Sample A II 0.002 + + B " " 0.02 + + C " " 0.05 t + D " " 0.1 + ++ E " " 0.5 + F " " 1.0 + +++ G -- 0.1 0.1 + + As shown in Table 11, when the amount of added cycloallin is less than 0.1% based on the y value (MSG 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 is lost. Therefore, the amount of allin 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 calculated as the weight of MSG having the same "Umami" strength. Further, cycloallin 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, 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. Whereas if the ratio exceeds 99/1, specific thickness in taste is brought about and the total taste balance is lost. GSH or GS03H in this invention may be that produced by any process1 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 GSH by a substance containing GSH at a relatively high concentration such as yeast extract, garlic extract, beef extract, chicken extract etc. The same may be done with GSO3H where a substance containing GS03H at a relatively high concentration, such as enokidake extract, is used. Lentinic acid in this invention may be obtained from shiitake as is well known in the art, e.g. by extraction with alcohol, extraction with hot water, etc. Further, it is also 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, e.g. by extraction with alcohol, extraction with hot water, etc. Further, it is also possible to replace the whole or part of cycloallin by an intermediate, end product1 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" components, the whole or part of said "Umami" components may be replaced by such "Umami" components as contained in foods and seasonings per se to which the sulfur-containing compound or compounds are to be added. The "Umami" components used in combination with the sulfur-containing compounds in this invention include, in addition to MSG, IMP and GMP, any component having a "Umami" imparting effect. For example, potassium glutamate, calcium glutamate, potassium 5'inosinate, calcium 5'-inosinate, potassium 5'guanylate, calcium 5'-guanylate etc. and any food or seasoning which contains at least one tastiness component as one of its constituents. For example, HAP, HVP, yeast extract, meat extract, fish extract, vegetable extract etc. may be used. The flavor enhancement seasonings of this invention may be prepared by any process. For example, the seasonings may be prepared by merely dry blending MSG, IMP, GMP etc. with these compounds by pelletizing them together with an appropriate excipients, etc. Similarly, with regards to the production of food having enhanced flavor in accordance with this invention, the actual manner for the production is not limited as long as the *Umasi" compounds and the sulfur-containing compound or compounds are co-present in the final product at the above-described mixing ratio. In addition, it is needless to say 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 unless it departs from the object of this invention. The seasoning or food of this invention manifests a strong tastiness enhancement as is the case when seasoned with e.g. MSG, IMP, GMP etc. 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 of 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 is more particularly described by the following examples. Example 1 Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning A MSG 80 parts by weight GSH 20 Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning B MSG 75 parts by weight IMP 5 H GSH 20 Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning C MSG 50 parts by weight GMP 10 GSH 40 Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning D MSG 80 parts by weight IMP 3 GMP 3 GSH 14 Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning D1 IMP 30 parts by weight GMP 30 GSH 40 Flavor Enhancement Seasonings A to D1 were prepared by mixing the respective compounds according to the above formulations. Using as each control a product to which GSH had not been added, aqueous solutions of 0.4 g/dl of the respective samples were prepared, and organoleptically evaluated by a paired comparison test using a 20 member panel of judges. The results are given in Table 12. Table 12 N = 20 A B C D D, Strength of "Umami" + ++ ++++ +++ Strength of Flavor Enhancement +++ +++++ ++++++ ++++++ +++++ Example 2 Table 13 Formulations of Flavor Enhancement Seasonings E - H (parts by weight) E F G H HVP 60 60 60 60 MSG 26 26 26 26 IMP 1 1 1 1 GMP 1 1 1 1 2Na Succinate 2 2 2 2 NaCl 10 10 10 10 GSH 1.7 8.3 16.7 33.3 Flavor enhancement Seasonings E to H were prepared by mixing the respective components according to the above formulations. Using as each control a product to which GSH had not been added, organoleptic evaluation was conducted by a paired comparison test similarly as in Example 1. The results are given in Table 14. Table 14 N = 10 Control E F G H Concentration 0.6 0.61 0.65 0.7 0.8 (Simple Soln) Cg/dl) Strength of i + ¯ + t "Umami" Strength of ++ +++ +++++ +++++ Flavor Enhancement Example 3 Formulation of Flavor Enhancement Seasoning I MSG 1.5 parts by weight Potassium L-glutamate 1.5 n NaCl 8 KC1 3 K2HPO4 10 KH2PO4 25 Sodium lactate 20 L-Histidine hydrochloride 20 " DL-Alanine 4 n L-Lysine hydrochloride 4 GSH 5 Flavor Enhancement Seasoning I was prepared by mixing the respective components according to the above formulation. A sample was then prepared by adding the seasoning I to beef consome soup prepared in a conventional manner at a concentration of 1 g/dl. Using as a control beef consomme soup to which GSH had not been added, the beef consomme soup was organoleptically evaluated by a paired comparison test using a 20 member panel of judges. The results given in Table 15, show that the product of this invention enhanced the flavor such as thickness, amplitude, continuity etc. of the beef consomme soup. The beef consomme soup containing seasoning I was significantly more flavored as compared with the control. Table 15 N = 20 Present Control Invention Strength of Odor & Flavor 9 11 Strength of "Umami" 6 14** Strength of Flavor Enhancement 2 Total Preference 2 *** Significantly different at a risk factor of 0.1% ** Significantly different at a risk factor of 1% Example 4 Table 16 Formulations of Flavor Enhancement Seasonings J - M (parts by weight) J K Control 1 L M Control 2 Yeast 100 100 100 100 100 100 Extract MSG - - - 1.5 1.5 1.5 IMP - - - 1.5 1.5 1.5 GSH 1 20 - 1 20 Flavor Enhancement Seasonings J to M were prepared according to the formulations of Table 16. They were then organoleptically evaluated using 0.1% aqueous solutions 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 against Control 1 against Control 2 J K L M Strength of Flavor Enhancement + ++++ As shown in Table 17, it has been confirmed that in yeast extract, GSH had an especially strong effect to impart flavor enhancement in the presence of appropriate amounts of MSG and IMP. Example 5 30 Parts by weight of Flavor Enhancement Seasonings F and H and the control of Example 2 were added respectively to a seasoning liquor (pH 4.2 1 g/dl) comprising 0.5 part by weight of citric acid, 0.6 part by weight of malic 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. part by weight of potassium sorba te. 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 test. 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. Table 18 N = 20 Control F Added H Added Section Section Section Strength of Odor & Flavor i + i Strength of "Umami" i i i Strength of Flavor Enhancement $ +++ ++++ Preference f ++++ ++++ Example 6 Curry was prepared in a conventional manner using the recipe shown below and organoleptically evaluated for strength of 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. Recipe for Curry Lard 8 Parts by weight Low gluten flour 6 Curry powder 1.5 Table salt 1.7 Lecithin 0.04 H Onion powder 0,3 n Sugar 1.5 Flavor Enhancing Seasoning in Example 4 0.5 H (or Control 2 in Example 4) (0.5 H 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% Example 7 Pork sausages were prepared by using 650 parts by weight of pork, 50 parts by weight of lard, 50 parts by weight of corn starch, 5 parts by weight of spices, 25 parts by weight of a salting agent, 220 parts by weight of cold water and 5 parts of each of flavor enhancement Seasonings N, P, o. Pork sausages without seasoning were used as controls. The seasoning containing pork sausages and the control pork sausages 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 sausages to which flavor enhancement Seasonings N, P and 0 had been added were significantly flavored as compared with that to which the control had been added. Table 20 Formulations of Mouthfulness Seasonings N, P & 0 Parts By Weight Control N P O Pork extract 20 20 20 20 Pork fat 20 20 20 20 MSG 10 10 10 10 IMP 3 3 3 3 "Ajieki" (produced by Ajinomoto Co.) 30 30 30 30 Sugar ester 2 2 2 2 Reducing dextrin 15 15 15 15 GSH - 2 10 20 Table 21 N = 10 Control Added N Added O Added P Added Section Section Section Section Meaty taste + + ++ Strength of Flavor Enhancement i + +++ Preference + ++ ++++ Example 8 Tests confirmed that tomato juice, Japanese sake, commercial consomme soup, soy sauce, soybean taste soup, Worcester sauce and seaweed boiled down in soy sauce, either in which natural MSG and/or nucleic acid type taste intensifying substances 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 amounts of GSH to each. It was found that flavor enhancement was manifested in a variety of foods by adding an amount of GSH falling within the ranges shown in Table 22, to each. Table 22 Effective GSH Addition Range Tomato juice 0.02 - 0.4 % Japanese sake 0.001 - 0.1 Consomme soup 0.05 - 0.4 Soy sauce 0.05 - 0.4 Soybean paste soup 0.02 - 0.2 Worcester sauce 0.05 - 0.4 Seaweed boiled down in soy sauce 0.1 - 0.6 Example 9 Table 23 Flavor Enhancement Seasoning A' B' C' D1 MSG 80 75 50 80 IMP 5 3 30 GMP - - 10 3 30 GSO3H 20 20 40 14 40 Flavor Enhancement Seasonings A' to E' were prepared by mixing the respective components according to the formulations outlined in Table 23. Using as a control in each instance a composition to which GSO3H had not been added, aqueous solutions of 0.4 g/dl 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' D' Strength of "Umami" + ++ Strength of Flavor Enhancement ++ +++ ++++ +++ +++ Example 10 Table 25 Formulations of Flavor Enhancement Seasonings F'- K' (parts by weight) F' G' H' I' J' K' HVP 60 60 60 60 - HAP - - - - 60 60 MSG 26 26 26 26 26 26 IMP 1 1 1 1 1 1 GMP 1 1 1 1 1 1 2Na Succinate 2 2 2 2 2 2 NaCl 10 10 10 10 10 10 GS03H 1.7 8.3 16.7 33.3 1.7 33.3 Flavor Enhancement Seasonings F'to K' were prepared by the mixing respective components according to the above formulations. Using as each control a composition to which GSOBH 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' Concentration (g/dl) 0.6 0.61 0.65 0.7 0.8 0.61 0.8 Strength of "Umami" i t + + + + + Strength of Flavor Ehancement + + ++ +++ +++ + +++ Example 11 Consomme soups were prepared according to the following formulations and organoleptically evaluated for the strength of flavor enhancement and total preference. The evaluation shows that the consomme soup to which Flavor Enhancement Seasoning H' had been added had a stronger flavor and was significantly favored as compared with the control. Recipe for Consomme Soup Consomme soup stock (10 g of shavings of dried bonito) 1000 ml Soy Sauce 3 ml Table salt 6.5 g Flavor Enhancement Seasoning of Example 10 (or Control Section in Example 10) 0.6 g Table 27 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% Example 12 Noodle soup was prepared using soy sauce, sweet sake, sugar, MSGI nucleic acid type seasoning, hydrolyzed vegetable protein and dried bonito extract according to the flavor recipe shown below. Organoleptic evaluations of the strength of the flavor and the taste of the noodle soup were conducted using a portions of the soup to which GS03H had not been added as a control. The evaluation was done by a paired comparison test, 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 IN 0.2 Hydrolyzed vegetable protein 5 Dried bonito extract (40g of flake of dried bonito was extracted with 700g of hot water) 700 GS03H 2 Table 28 Control Added GS03H Added Section Section Strength of Flavor Enhancement 4 16** Preference 4 16** Example 13 Table 29 Flavor Enhancing Seasoning A" B" C" D" E" MSG 80 75 50 80 IMP - 5 - 3 30 GMP - - 10 3 30 Lentinic acid 20 20 40 14 40 Flavor Enhancing Seasonings A" to E" were prepared by mixing the respective components according to the above formulations. Using as a control in each instance a portion to which lentinic acid had not been added, aqueous solutions of 0.4 g/dl of the respective samples were prepared and organoleptically evaluated by a paired comparison test. The results are given in Table 30. Table 30 A" B" C" D" Strength of "Umami" + ++ ++++ +++ i Strength of Flavor Enhancement ++ +++ ++++ +++ Example 14 Table 31 Formulations of Flavor Enhancing Seasonings F"-K" (parts by weight) F" G" H Iw I" J" ¯ HVP 60 60 60 60 - HAP - - - - 60 60 MSG 26 26 26 26 26 26 IMP 1 1 1 1 1 1 GMP 1 1 1 1 1 1 2Na Succinate 2 2 2 2 2 2 NaCl 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 K were prepared by mixing the respective components according to the above formulations. Using as a control in each case a formulation to which lentinic 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. Table 32 Control F" G" H" I" J" K" Concentration (g/dl) 0.6 0.61 0.65 0.7 0.8 0.61 0.8 Strength of "Umami" i i i + :i: + i Strength of Flavor Enhancement + + ++ +++ +++ g +++ + Example 15 Consomme soups were prepared according to the formulations given in Table 33 and organoleptically evaluated for strength of flavor and total preference. The evaluations given in Table 34 show that the consomme soup to which Flavor Enhancing Seasoning H" had been added had stronger flavor and was significantly 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 Table 34 N N = 20 Flavor Enhancing Control Added Seasoning H" Section Added Section Strength of Flavor Enhancement 4 16 ** Preference 5 15 * ** Significantly different at a risk factor of 1%. * Significantly different at a risk factor of 5%. Example 16 Kombu Tsukudani (tangle boiled down in soy sauce) was prepared using tangle, soy sauce, sugar, MSG, nucleic acid type seasoning, HVP 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 Kombu Tsukudani to which lentinic acid had not been added as a control. The evaluations 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. Table 35 Recipe for Kombu Tsukudani Tangle (after reconstitution in water) 1500 g Soy sauce 1100 ml Sugar 450 g "Ajinomoto" 60 g "WP" 2g Aj ima te" 30 g Starch syrup 400 g Lentinic acid 6g Table 36 Lentinic Acid Control Section Added Section Strength of Flavor Enhancement 4 16 ** Preference 4 16 ** Example 17 Flavor Flavor Flavor Flavor Flavor Enhancing Enhancing Enhancing Enhancing Enhancing Seasoning Seasoning Seasoning Seasoning Seasoning A"' B"' C"' D (pts. by wt) (pts. by wt) (pts. by wt) (pts. by wt) (pts. by wt) MSG 80 75 50 80 IMP - 5 - 3 30 GMP - -- 10 2 30 MMS 20 20 40 14 40 Total 100 100 100 100 100 Flavor Enhancing Seasonings A"' to DI"' were prepared by mixing the respective components outlined in the above formulations. Using as a control a product to which MMS had not been added, aqueous solutions of 0.4 g/dl of the respective samples and solutions incorporating 0.1% by weight of the same respective samples in commercial tomato juice were prepared. Their organoleptic evaluation was 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 n. B n. C "' D "' D Strength of "Umami" + ++ ++++ +++ Strength of Characteristic Sweetness + + +++ ++ ++ Strength of Flavor Enhancement +++ ++++++ +++++++ ++++++ Table 38 Evaluation of Addition to Comercial Tomato Juica (each numeral indicates the number of persons out of 20 who found the tomato juice containing the Flavor Enhancing Seasoning preferable or better) A''' B''' C''' D''' DI''' Strength of "Umami" 13 15* 18*** 16** 15* Streagth of Characteristic Sweetness 14 15* 17** 14 17** Streagth of Flavor Enhancement 15* 17** 18*** 18*** 18*** Preference 15* 18*** 18*** 18*** 18*** Remarks Acid taste Acid taste Same as the left weakend weakend Strong Strong tomato-like tomato-like taste taste Example 18 Table 39 Flavor Enchancing Seasonings E''' F''' G''' H''' I''' J''' K''' L''' M''' N''' O''' HVP 60 60 60 60 -- -- -- -- 30 15 15 HAP -- -- -- -- -- -- 60 60 15 15 30 YE -- -- -- -- 60 60 -- -- 15 30 15 MSG 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 IMP 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 GMP 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 2Na Tartrate 2 2 2 2 -- -- 2 2 2 2 2 NaCl 10 10 10 10 -- -- 10 10 10 10 10 MMS 1.7 8.3 16.7 33.3 1.5 30 1.7 33.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 All by parts by weight. Table 40 N = 10 E''' F''' G''' H''' I''' J''' K''' L''' M''' N''' O''' "Umami" Strength # # # # # # # # # # # Characteristic Sweetness + + ++ +++ + +++ ++ ++++ +++ +++ +++ Flavor Enhancement ++ +++ ++++ +++++ +++ ++++ +++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ Flavor Enhancement Seasonings E"' to 0"' were prepared according to the formulations given in Table 39. (The tastiness strength, y value was adjusted to 3.8). Using each aqueous solution, organoleptic evaluations were conducted similarly to Example 17 by a paired comparison test using a control to which MMS had not been added. The results are given in Table 40. Example 19 Formulations consisting of 10 parts by weight of "Ajieki" (produced by Ajinomoto Co. Inc.), 0.1 part by weight of sodium succinate, 0.5 part by weight of 50% lactic acid, 0.5 part by weight of table salt and 1 part by weight of sugar were dissolved in 100 ml of water respectively, and 0.5 part by weight of Flavor Enhancing Seasonings 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 respectively. 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 .1 of each of the seasoned 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 test. The results are as given in Table 41, in which the Flavor Enhanced products (those products to which Flavor Enhancing Seasonings G and 0 were added) were superior to the respective controls in the impartation of flavor, characteristic sweetness and in preference. Table 41 N = 20 Green Asparagus Sweet Corn Control G Added Control 0 Added Section Section Section Section Strength of Tastiness 12 18 11 9 Strength of Characteristic Sweetness 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%. ** Significantly different at a risk factor of 1%. Example 20 Corn cream soup was 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 MMS. These evaluations reveal that, as shown in Table 42, the formulation with added MMS had a stronger flavor and was significantly favored for vegetable-like tastiness and total taste. Formulation for Corn Cream Soup Edible oil 27 Parts by weight Flour 18 Dried onion flakes 12 Skimmed milk 12 Corn powder 15 Table salt 10 Onion powder 4 MSG 1 IMP 0.5 White pepper 0.5 MMS 1.0 Table 42 N = 20 Control MMS Added Section Section Strength of Flavor Enhancement 4 16 * Vegetàble-like Tastiness 4 16 * Preference 4 16 * * Significantly different at a risk factor of 58. Example 21 A sea-urchin egg "Nerium" paste was 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 MMS flavor and was significantly favored as compared with the control (MMS not added). Formulation for Sea Urchin Egg Paste Raw material sea urchin egg 5 Parts by weight Powdered egg 1 Alcohol 0.8 MSG 0.4 N Glycine 0.4 Methionine 0.1 ss-Carotin q.s. Water 22.3 MMS 0.3 Table 43 N = 20 Control MMS Added Section Section Strength of Sweetness 6 14 Strength of Flavor Enhancement 3 17 ** Preference 5 15 ** * Significantly different at a risk factor of 5%. ** Significantly different at a risk factor of 18. 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 was placed on top of boiled rice and hot green tea was poured to prepare rice and seaweed doused in hot green tea. The composition was then organoleptically evaluated for strength of flavor and total preference by a pair comparison test method using a control to which no MMS had been added. These evaluations as shown in Table 44, the MMS added section had stronger flavor and was significantly favored. Formulation for Seaweed Composition For Rice with Hot Green Tea Tangle powder 0.5 Parts by weight Powdered tea 2.0 N Sugar 3.0 Table salt 53.0 "Ajinomoto" 10.0 N Glycine 3.0 N Shredded seaweed 5.0 Rice cake pellets 5.0 MMS 0.5 n Table 44 N = 20 Control MMS Added Section Section Strength of Flavor Enhancement 4 16 ** Preference 5 15 * Example 23 Table 45 Flavor Enhancing Seasoning AN n BN N CN n D ' EN MSG 80 75 50 80 - IMP -- 5 -- 3 30 GMP -- -- 10 3 30 Cycloalliin 20 20 40 14 40 The respective components outlined above were mixed to prepare Flavor Enhancing Seasonings A"" to E"". A product to which cycloalliin had not been added was used as a control in each case. Aqueous solutions containing 0.4 g/dl of the respective samples were prepared, and organoleptical evaluation was conducted by a pair comparison test method. The results are given in Table 46. Table 46 A"" B"" C"" D"" Strength of a "Umami" + ++ ++++ +++ i Strength of Flavor Enhancement ++ +++ ++++ +++ Example 24 Table 47 Formulations of Flavor Enhancing Seasonings F"" - K (parts by weight) F"" G"" H"" I"" J"" K HVP 60 60 60 60 -- - HAP -- -- -- -- 60 60 MSG 26 26 26 26 26 26 IMP 1 1 1 1 1 1 GMP 1 1 1 1 1 1 2Na Succinate 2 2 2 2 2 2 NaCl 10 10 10 10 10 10 Cycloalliin 1.7 8.7 16.7 33.3 1.7 33.3 The respective components outlined above were mixed to prepare Flavor Enhancing Seasonings F"" to K"". 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 results are given in Table 48. Table 48 Control F"" G"" H"" I"" J K"" Concentration (g/dl) 0.6 0.61 0.65 0.7 0.8 0.61 0.8 Strength of "Umami11 + + + + + + + Strength of Flavor Enhancement + + ++ +++ .+++ +++ Example 25 Consomme soups were prepared according to formulations outlined below. These were organoleptically evaluated for the strength of flavor and total preference, to find that the consomme soup to which Flavor Enhancing Seasoning H"" had been added had stronger flavor and was significantly favored as compared with the control. Recipe for Consomme Soup Consomme soup stock (10 g of shavings of dried bonito) 1000 ml Soy Sauce 3 ml Table salt 6.5 g Flavor Enhancing Seasoning of Example 24 (or Control Section in Example 24) 0.6 g 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 soup was prepared using the formulation outlined below. The soup was then organoleptically evaluated for the strength of flavor and total preference by a pair comparison test method. This evaluation shows that the Chinese noodle soup to which Flavor Enhancing Seasoning H"" had been added had stronger flavor and was significantly favored as compared with the control. Formulation of Chinese Noodle Soup Soy sauce 40 Parts by weight Table salt 16 n Lard 24 Sesame Oil 2 "Ajimate" 2 YE 1 Vegetable extract 8 Flavor Enhancing Seasoning in Example 24 (or Control Section 7 in Example 24) 7 Table 50 N = 20 Flavor Enhancing Control Seasoning H" Section 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%. Experimental Example 9 (Evaluation in Simple Aqueous Solution Systems) Using as a control a mixed aqueous solution of 0.05 g/dl of MSG and 0.05 g/dl of IMP (y value r 3.09), sample solutions were prepared by adding 0.002 to 0.5 g/dl of alliin to portions of the mixed aqueous solution. These sample solutions were then organoleptically evaluated by paired comparison test against the control using an organoleptic panel of 20 members (N = 20). The results are given in Table 5.1. Table 51 Formulation Taste Intensifying Effect Strength of MSG IMP Alliin Strength of Flavor g/dl g/dl g/dl "Umami" Enhancement Control 0.05 0.05 -- + i Sample AA n " 0.002 t i BB n " 0.02 i + CC " " 0.05 # ++ DD " 81 0.1 + EE N " 0.3 + FF . " 0.5 i GG -- 0.1 0.1 - As shown in Table 50, with the amount of added alliin less than 0.1% based on the y value (MSG 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 of"Umami". If the absolute concentration of alliin exceeds 1.0%, a specific thickness in taste is manifested and the total taste balance is lost. Therefore, the amount of alliin 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 as the weight of MSG having the same Umami" strength. Further, alliin manifests the most preferred effect in the presence of an appropriate amount of the above 'IUmami"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 is used alone, if alliin 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. Whereas if this ratio exceeds 99/1, specific thickness in taste is brought about and the total taste balance is lost. Experimental Example 10 (Evaluation in Garlic Extract Systems) The effect of the addition of alliin to a formulation of major components of garlic extract was evaluated by paired comparison test against a control which contained no alliin. The results are given in Table 53, from which it has been confirmed that alliin imparts a higher natural taste by the manifestation of strong flavor with synthetic garlic extract. Table 52 Formulation of Major Components of Garlic Extract Formulation Asp 3.6 % Glu 3.3 Lys 6.1 Arg 42.3 Other amino acids * 18.7 NaCl 19.7 KC1 6.7 Citric acid 0.1 Succinic acid 0.1 100 * Ser, Val and Pro Table 53 Major Components Alliin Strength of Strength of g/dl g/dl Flavor Natural Taste Control 1.0 0 + Sample AA " 0.03 + + BB n 0.1 ++ + CC n 0.3 +++ ++ Alliin in this invention may be that obtained by any production process, such as an extraction process, a synthesis process etc. Further, it is also possible to replace the whole or part of the required alliin by a substance containing alliin at a relatively high concentration, for example, garlic extract, onion extract or other alliin extract. Experimental Example 11 (Comparison of Taste Intensifying Powers of Representative Compounds) Using as a control a mixed aqueous solution of 0.05 g/dl of MSG and 0.05 g/dl of IMP (y value = 3.09), sample solutions were prepared by adding 0.1 g/dl of the respective sample compounds shown in Table 52 to the mixed solutions. These sample solutions were evaluated by a paired comparison test by an organoleptic panel consisting of 20 members (N = 20). The results are shown in Table 54. Table 54 (N = 20) "Umami" Flavor (1) Control t (2) S-Methylcysteinesulfoxide i +++ (3) S-Ethylcysteinesulfoxide # (4) S-Propylcysteinesulfoxide t (5) S-Propenylcysteinesulfoxide i +++ (6) y-Glutamylcysteine + ++ (7) y-Glutamyl-S-methylcysteine i + (8) y-Glutamyl-S-ethylcysteine t + (9) y-Glutamyl-S-propylcysteine i + (10) yGlutamyl-S-propenylcysteine + + (11) y-Glutamyl-S-allylcysteine t (12) #-Glutamyl-S-methylcysteinesulfoxyde # ++ (13) <RTI ID=70.17> #-Glutamyl-S-ethylcysteinesulfoxyde # ++ (14) #-Glutamyl-S-propylcysteinesulfoxyde # +++ (15) #-Glutamyl-S-propenylcysteinesulfoxyde # +++ (16) y-Glutamyl-S-allylcysteinesulfoxide + +++ (17) S-(2-Carboxypropyl)glutathione # (18) S-(3-Carboxy-3-methylethyl)glutathione # Experimental Example 12 Using the same mixed aqueous solution of MSG and IMP as that used in Experimental Example 11 as a control, samples were prepared by adding thereto 0.001 to 1.0 g/dl of the sample compounds outlined in Table 54. Aqueous solutions of 0.1 g/dl of IMP and 0.1 g/dl of the respective sample compounds outlined in Table 54 were also prepared as samples. All of these were evaluated by a pair comparison test method against a control by an organoleptic panel consisting of 20 members (N = 20). Some of the results are given in Table 55 (the case ofy-glutamyl-S allylcysteinesulfoxide). Table 55 Formulation Taste Intensifying Effect Compound No. 16 in Experimental MSG IMP Example 11 Strength of Strength of g/dl g/dl g/dl "Umami" Flavor Control 0.05 0.05 - i i Sample AA " " 0.002 # # BB " n 0.01 i + CC " N 0.05 i DD N ' 0.10 + EE n N 0.50 + FF n n 1.00 i 11 GG - 0.1 0.10 As shown in Table 55, with an added amount of less than 0.1% based on the y value (MSG calculated amount), the strength of flavor is 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 is manifested and the total taste balance is lost. Therefore, the amount of this compound added should suitably be in the range of 0.1 to 1000% by weight, preferably 0.1 to 508 by weight, based on the copresent "Umami" component calculated as the weight of MSG having the same "Umami" strength. Further, the compound manifests the most preferred effect in the presence of an appropriate amount of the above "Umami1 component, that is, when the above y value is 0.1 to 30 as the concentration at the time of eating. The above fact likewise applies to the other compounds of the general formulae (1) and (2). On the other hand, in the case where the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance is used alone, if compound (1) or (2) is added in an amount of less than 1/99 at the ratio to the nucleic acid type taste intensifying substance, the flavor enhancing effect is not adequate. Whereas 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 compounds of the general formulae (1) and (2). Experimental Example 13 (Evaluation in Garlic Extract Systems) Each compound set forth in Table 54 was added to a formulation comprising major components of garlic extract (set forth in Table 55). The compositions were evaluated by a paired comparison test using a control which contained no addition of compounds of Table 54. 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. Table 56 Formulation of Major Components in Garlic Extract Formulation Asp 3.6 % Glu 3.3 Lys 6.1 Arg 42.3 Other amino acids* 18.7 NaCl 19.4 KC1 6.7 Citric acid 0.1 Succinic acid 0.1 * Ser, Val, Pro Table 57 Concentra- Concentra tion of tion of Formulated Compound Strength of Strength Extract Added Flavor of Natural Compound Added (g/dl) (g/dl) Enhancement Flavor (1) Control 1.0 0 i (2) S-Methylcysteine sulfoxide n 0.1 ++ + (3) S-Ethylcysteine sulfoxide n 0.1 + + (4) S-Propylcysteine- sulfoxide N 0.1 ++ + (5) y-Glutamyl cysteine " 0.1 + + (6) &gamma;-Glutamyl- S-allylcysteine n 0.1 ++ + (7) &gamma; ;-Glutamyl- S-methylcysteine " 0.1 ++ + (8) y-Glutamyl S-methylcysteine N 0.1 + + (9) y-Glutamyl Spropylcysteine N 0.1 + + (10) y-Glutamyl S-propenyl cysteinesulfoxide " 0.1 ++ + (11) &gamma;-Glutamyl- S-allylcysteine sulfoxide N 0.03 + + (12) y-Glutamyl S-allylcysteine sulfoxide " 0.1 ++ ++ (13) y-Glutamyl S-allylcysteine sulfoxide " 0.3 +++ ++ The compounds of the general formulae (1) and (2) may be used singly or as a mixture of two or more. They can also be wholly or partially replaced by substances which contain considerably high concentrations of these compounds, such as garlic extract (preferably, extract from which the odor components have been removed by deodorizing process e.g. the processed described in Japanese Patent Application No. 82169/1983), onion extract etc. Similarly, the "Umami" components such as glutamic acid, nucleic acid type tastiness substances etc. can also be wholly or partially replaced by "Umami" components contained in the food or seasoning per se to which these compounds are to be added. Examples of the "Umami" component which may be used in this invention include, in addition to MSG, IMP, GMP etc., any component having a "Umami" imparting effect. Some of these are: potassium glutamate, calcium glutamate, potassium 5'-inosinate, calcium 5'inosinate, potassium 5'-guanylate, calcium 5'-guanylate etc. and any food or seasoning which contains said "Vmami" components as one of its constituting components; for example, protein hydrolysates (HAP1 HVP), yeast extract, meat extract, vegetable extract etc. The Flavor Enhancing seasonings of this invention may be prepared by any process, for example, by merely dry blending MSG, IMP, GMP etc. with these compounds by pelletizing them using an appropriate excipient, etc. Similarly, for the production of food having enhanced flavor according to this invention, the actual manner for the production of the food is not limited as along as the "Umami" components and these compounds are copresent in the final product at the above-described 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 etc., 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. Example 27 Table 58 Flavor Enhancing Seasoning AA BB CC DD EE MSG .80 75 50 80 IMP 5 3 30 GMP 10 3 30 S-Methylcysteinesulfoxide 20 20 40 14 40 Of the compounds of the general formulae (1) and (2), the exemplary case of S-methylcysteinesulfoxide is set forth in Table 58. According to this formulation, the respective components were mixed to prepare Flavor Enhancing Seasonings AA to EE. As each control, a product to which S-methylcysteinesulfoxide had not been added was used. Aqueous solutions containing 0.4 g/dl of the respective sample compounds (outlined in Table 57) and solutions obtained by adding 0.1% by weight of 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. Table 59 AA BB CC DD EE Strength of "Umami" + ++ ++++ +++ + Strength of Flavor ++ +++ Table 60 Evaluation When Added to Commercial Consomme Soup N = 20 AA BB CC DD EE Strength of "Umami" 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%. Example 28 Table 61 Flavor Enhancing Seasonings (parts by weight) FF GG HH II JJ KK HVP 60 60 60 60 -- - HAP -- -- -- -- 60 60 MSG 26 26 26 26 26 26 IMP. 1 1 1 1 1 1 GMP 1 1 1 1 1 1 2Na Succinate 2 2 2 2 2 2 NaCl 10 10 10 10 10 10 Sample Compound * 1.7 8.3 16.7 33.3 1.7 33.3 * Mixture of equal amounts of S-methylcysteinesulfoxide, S-propenylcysteinesulfoxide, S-propylcysteinesulfoxide and y-glutamyl-S-allylcycsteine-sulfoxide. According to the above formulation, the respective components were mixed to prepare Flavor Enhancing Seasonings FF to KK. Using as each control a product to which the sample compound had not been added, organoleptic evaluation was conducted as outlined in Example 27 by a paired comparison test. The results are given in Table 62. Table 62 Control FF GG HH II JJ KK Concentration (g/dl) 0.6 0.61 0.65 0.7 0.8 0.61 0.8 Strength of "Umami* + + t + + * Strength of Flavor + + ++ +++ t+t + 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 HH had been added had stronger flavor and was significantly favored as compared with the control. Formulation of Chinese Noodle Soup Soy sauce 40 Parts by weight Table salt 16 Lard 24 Sesame oil 2 "Ajimate" 2 YE 1 Vegetable extract 8 Flavor Enhancing Seasoning in Example 28 (or Control Section in Example 28) 7 Table 63 N = 20 Flavor Enhancing Control Seasoning HH Section 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%. Example 30 Table 64 LL MM NN 00 PP 80 80 75 50 80 - IMP -- 5 -- 3 30 s1p -- -- 10 3 30 alliin 20 20 40 14 40 The respective components outlined in the above formulations were mixed to prepare Flavor Enhancing Seasonings LL to PP. As each control, a product to which alliin had not been added was used. Aqueous solutions containing 0.4 g/dl of the respective formulations and solutions obtained by adding 0.1% by weight of the above formulations to commercial consomme soup were prepared. Organoleptical evaluations were conducted by a paired comparison test. The results are given in Table 65 and Table 66. Table 65 LL MM NN 00 PP Strength of Tastiness + ++ ++++ +++ i Strength of Flavor +++ ++++ +++++ ++++ ++++ Table 66 Evaluation When Added to Commercial Consomme Soup N = 20 (Each numeral indicates the number of persons out of 20 who have found it preferable or strong). LE, MM NN CO PP Strength of Umami" 12 16 ** 18 *** 17 ** 15 ** Strength of Flavor 13 15 * 17 ** 13 16 ** Taste 14 18 *** 18 *** 18 *** 18 *** Comment Aftertaste Aftertaste Strong, Strong, Flavor Flavor Strong & Strong & BR< Preferred Preferred * 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%. Example 31 Table 67 Formulations of Flavor Enhancing Seasonings QQ to VV (parts by weight) QQ RR SS TT UU VV HVP 60 60 60 60 - HAP -- -- -- -- 60 60 MSG 26 26 26 26 26 26 IMP 1 1 1 1 1 1 GMP 1 1 1 1 1 1 2Na Succinate 2 2 2 2 2 2 NaCl 10 10 10 10 10 10 Alliin 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 Seasonings QQ to VV. Using, as each control, a product from which the alliin had been omitted, organoleptic evaluation was conducted as outlined in Example 30 by a paired comparison test. The results are given in Table 68. Table 68 Control QQ RR SS TT UU VV Concentration (g/dl) 0.6 0.61 0.65 0.7 0.8 0.61 0.8 Strength of Umami i i + i i + Strength of Flavor # ++ +++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ Example 32 Using the following recipe, spaghetti meat sauce was prepared and strength of Flavor and total preference were organoleptically evaluated by paired comparison test. These evaluations, as shown in Table 68, demonstrate that meat sauce to which Flavor Enhancing Seasoning SS had been added had stronger flavor and was significantly favored as compared with the control. Recipe for Meat Sauce Minced 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 Worcestershire sauce 3.8 Flavor Enhancing seasoning of Example 31 (or Control Section in Example 31) 0.6 Table 69 N = 20 Flavor Enhancing Control Added Seasoning SS Section 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%. Example 33 Barbecue sauce was prepared from refined spices, soybean oil, soy sauce, soybean paste (miso), granulated sugar, MSG, starch, synthesized rice wine (sake) and guar 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 alliin had not been added as a control. As shown in Table 70 the alliin added section had strong flavor and was significantly favored for the total taste. Recipe for Barbecue Sauce Spices 12.5 Parts by weight Refined soybean oil 25 Soy sauce 34 Soybean paste (miso) 9 Granulated sugar 8 n MSG 1 Starch 1 Synthesized rice wine (sake) 9 Guar gum 0.1 Alliin 0.5 N Table 70 Control Alliin Added Section Section Strength of Flavor 4 16 ** Total Taste 4 16 ** Example 34 Hamburgers were prepared as outlined in Table 70 using 30 parts of pork, 15 parts of chicken, 5 parts of beef, 4 parts of bread crumb, 2 parts of "AJIPRON" (produced by Ajinomoto Co.), 4 parts of "SHlN-ESUSAN" starch (produced by Ajinomoto Co.), 17 parts of onion and 5 parts of each of Flavor Enhancing Seasonings WW, XX and YY. 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 WW, XX and YY had been added respectively had stronger flavor and were significantly favored as compared with that to which the control had been added. Table 71 Formulations of Flavor Enhancing Seasonings W, X and Y WW XX YY Table salt 8 8 8 Soy sauce 40 40 40 Sugar 8 8 8 (Ajinomoto Cho.) 8 8 8 Wine 10 10 10 MSG 10 10 10 White pepper 6 6 6 Nutmeg 4 4 4 Ginger 6 6 6 Alliin 2 10 20 Table 72 Control Added WW Added XX Added YY Added Section Section Section Section Strength of Flavor + + Preference + ++ Example 35 Mix Vegetable Extracts WW', XX' and YY' prepared in a conventional manner using the formulations of Table 73. These were evaluated in Chinese noodle soup to find as shown in Table 74 that the Chinese noodle soup to which the mix vegetable extracts had been added respectively had stronger flavor and each was significantly favored as compared with control which contained no mix vegetable extract. Table 73 Formulations of Mix Vegetable Extracts WW', XX' anYY' Control WW' XX' YY' Onion 60 60 60 60 Garlic 30 30 30 30 30 Leek 5 5 5 5 Carrot 5 5 5 5 Alliin -- 5 10 15 Recipe for Chinese Noodle Soup Soy sauce 40 Parts by weight Table salt 16 n Lard 24 Sesame oil 2 WP 1 "Ajinomoto" 6 "Ajimate" 2 N YE 1 N Aforesaid Mix Vegetable Extract 8 N Table 74 Control WW' XX' YY' Strength of Flavor t + ++ Preference + ++ Obviously, numerous modifications and variations of the present invention are possible in slight of the above teachings. It is therefore to be understood that within the scope of the appended claims, the invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described herein.

Claims: CLAIMS 1. A composition comprising i) a taste intensifying substance, and ii) a flavor enhancing substance which is at least one member selected from 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 formulae EMI92.1 wherein R is a saturated or unsaturated aliphatic hydrocarbon group of from 1 to 3 carbon atoms or a carboxyalkyl group wherein said alkyl is from 1 to 6 carbon atoms, R' is H, a carboxymethyl amino group or a salt of a carboxymethyl amino group, and R" is H, a z-glutamyl group or a salt of a y-glutamyl group, salts of compound (1) and salts compound (2). 2. The composition of Claim 1 wherein said taste intensifying substance comprises glutamic acid, a salt of glutamic acid or a mixture thereof. 3. The composition of Claim 2 wherein said flavor enhancing substance is used in an amount in the range of 0.1 to 1000% by weight based on the weight of said taste intensifying substance. 4. The composition of Claim 3 wherein said taste intensifying substance is used in an amount sufficient to obtain an adequate taste intensifying strength. 5. The composition of Claim 1 wherein said taste intensifying substance comprises a nucleic acid or a salt of a nucleic acid. 6. The composition of Claim 5 wherein said taste intensifying substance comprises 5'-inosinate, a salt of 5'-inosinate, 5'-guanylate, a salt of 5'-guanylate or a mixture thereof. 7. The composition of Claim 5 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. 8. The composition of Claim I 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 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 concentration expressed as a weight %, v is the S'-inosinate or 5'-inosinate salt concentration expressed as a weight %, or v is the 5'-guanylate or 5'-guanylate salt concentration expressed as a weight %: and y is in the range of 0.1 to 30 weight %. 9. A food which comprises the composition of any one of the preceding claims. 10. A food comprising the composition of any one of the claims 1 to 8 wherein said food comprises a pork sausage, tomato juice, Japanese sake, consomme soup, noodle soup, corn cream soupy 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.

Inventors: KIMIZUKA, AKIMITSU, MIYAJIMA, RYUICHI, MORI, NORIKAZU, SAKAGUCHI, MAKOTO, UEDA, YOUICHI
Applicants: AJINOMOTO CO., INC.
Application year: 1984
Main classification: A23L1
IPC codes: A23L1