Reply to three commentaries on the definition of sensory and consumer science by Jaeger et al. (2024)

We respond to the three commentaries (Varela, 2025; Lee, 2025; Beckley et al., 2025) submitted in relation to our paper defining the field of Sensory and Consumer Science (Jaeger et al., 2024). Rather than attempting to address every aspect of these detailed and thoughtful commentaries, we concentrate on four discussion points: 1) Do we require a definition of our field?; 2) What should our field be called?; 3) Is non-food part of our field?; and 4) What is the nature and scope of our field? The prevailing view supports the importance of defining the field. To remain relevant, we must revise and update the definition regularly. Over time, the field has broadened in content, and this trend may persist. There is room for ongoing discussion on how to name the field and the central role of sensory (perception) science. Two of the commentaries were food-centric. While we agree that the food domain will continue to dominate the field due to its historical ties with food science, we also believe that non-food is part of our field and hope for growth in this domain. The field is broad and multidisciplinary and is evolving towards being interdisciplinary. We all agree this is a positive development. • Considers definitions for the complex and broad field of Sensory and Consumer Science. • Discusses authors' definition and that of three commentators. • The definition of our field is changing over time and especially changes in content. • The field is becoming more diverse and inclusive of both sensory and consumer research.