Low sugar does not mean low calorie

Transcription

1 Low sugar does not mean low calorie Dr. Paul Berryman, Chief Executive, Leatherhead Food Research, Surrey, UK. Leatherhead Food Research provides independent scientific research and expert advice to the food industry. Dr Paul Berryman, CEO, discusses the pros and cons of reformulation and highlights independent research showing that consumers are confused about sugar reduction. Introduction At Leatherhead, we carry out a multitude of reformulation projects for industry designed to reduce fat, salt, sugar and additives. Each project poses its own technical challenges producing something that tastes great but has a health or consumer benefit. In this article I will describe several types of reformulation salt, fat and sugar reduction. The case for salt reduction is robust because the general scientific consensus is that it raises blood pressure. We also know that saturated fat consumption increases blood cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular disease. Replacing fat with carbohydrate cuts calories by over 50%. However the case for sugar reduction is less clear. For soft drinks it is fairly straightforward. You replace sugar with an artificial sweetener and add in more water. Calories decrease, but some argue that the mouth-feel and flavour of the drink suffer. However if you take sugar out of a cake or breakfast cereal what do you replace it with? Water does not work! Often sugar is replaced with another type of carbohydrate typically starch so the calorie count stays the same. One example is a sugar-frosted breakfast cereal containing 371 kcals per 100g. The reduced-sugar version, labelled 1/3 less sugar, contains 369 kcals per 100g. This example could shock those who believe in the calorie-busting benefits of sugar reduction! In this article, I will describe the overall purpose of reformulation, the technical difficulties and the permitted EU Health claims. I also describe some independent consumer research carried out at Leatherhead Food Research to assess consumer attitudes to sugar -reduction claims. The findings show that consumers are surprised (and in some cases angry) that sugar reduction does not necessarily lead to calorie reduction!

2 Why do we reformulate foods? The food industry reformulates foods to make them more appealing to consumers. The reformulation must make the food healthier, tastier, cheaper or better by adding attractive ingredients or removing unattractive ingredients. We reformulate foods: To remove ingredients of health concern e.g. salt, trans fat, saturated fat To reduce calories by decreasing calorie-containing ingredients fat (9 cals) sugar (4 cals), protein (4 cals), alcohol (7 cals) or by increasing the proportion of calorie-free ingredients e.g. air or water To deliver a clean label less additives, replace synthetic ingredients with natural, replace with organic ingredients To improve flavour or indulgence However the reformulated food must: Comply with food laws e.g. additives, contaminants, health claims Be at least as tasty as the previous version of the food or it will not sell Be safe to eat This is not always easy, as described in the next section. The technical difficulties of reformulation Removing salt, sugar or fat from a food will radically change the nature of the food. The key question is what do you replace them with? Salt reduction The case for salt reduction is strong. Excess consumption increases blood pressure which can lead to strokes and other cardiovascular issues. However salt has a wide variety of important functions in foods: Sodium chloride has a pure salty taste Enhances flavours Suppresses bitterness Visual in some applications Important for processing of some foods Important for texture in some foods Natural preservative There are various techniques used by food manufacturers to reduce salt: Gradual reduction. Consumers accept a gradual decrease but reject a large single shift because of poor taste. Heinz used this for soup reformulation. Use a salt substitute: e.g. potassium chloride. Unfortunately this can give sweet and bitter aftertastes. Glutamate, lysine, ammonium chloride, organic salts and mycoprotein extracts are also used. Use a salt enhancer: Makes the salt taste saltier. However can give problems (e.g. MSG intolerance). Research at Leatherhead showed that by reducing salt particle size from 450um to 7um delivered the same salt intensity but with a 30% salt reduction. This is because

3 the smaller particles dissolve much quicker on the tongue, giving the perception of higher salt content. This technique is used in Pringles and Walkers crisps. Fat reduction The health case for fat reduction is also strong particularly trans-fats and saturated fats which are associated with high cholesterol levels, cardiovascular disease and stroke. Fats have many important functions in foods: Appearance (gloss, colour) Mouthfeel (texture, lubrication) Carrier of other flavours Structure Flavour release modulator Heat transfer Satiety Source of essential fatty acids, fat soluble vitamins Replacing fat is more complicated than salt replacement because fat contributes much to taste and to structure. Fat-based substitutes like salatrin and olestra can cause unpleasant digestion problems. Two scientific techniques used at Leatherhead Food Research to reduce fat are: WOW emulsions we replaced the oil-in-water emulsion in mayonnaise with a novel water-in-oil-in-water emulsion to reduce fat from 80% to 40%. Cryocrystallisation Cryocrystallised fat is produced by mixing liquid nitrogen and oil in a special machine to produce a hard powdery unsaturated fat. We reduced the sat fat content of shortcrust pastry from 10% to 4.5% without loss of quality or organoleptic properties. Sugar reduction The case for sugar reduction is less clear. For soft drinks it is fairly straightforward. You replace sugar with an artificial sweetener and add in more water. Calories decrease, but some argue that the mouth-feel and flavour of the drink suffer. However if sugar is removed from a cake or breakfast cereal what do you replace it with? Water does not work! Often sugar is replaced with another type of carbohydrate typically starch so the calorie count stays the same. Sugar has many functions as a food ingredient: Sweetness Suppress bitterness and acidity Flavour enhancement Texture and bulking Enhance mouthfeel Change freezing or boiling point Fermentation! Natural preservative The three main options for sugar reduction are: Reduce sugar gradually this has limited value.

4 Replace with intense sweetener there are many low- or no-calorie artificial sweeteners available (see Table 1). They are generally effective but can give unpleasant aftertastes, may need warning labels, are sometimes unstable during processing and need to comply with legal limits. Replace with bulk sweetener. These include sugars (dextrose, fructose, tagatose), alcohols (xylitol, erythritol, sorbitol) and bulking agents (polydextrose, inulin). Table 1: Artificial sweeteners Sweetener Nominal potency Taste, labelling and stability problems Acesulfame-K 200 Bitter taste Alitame 2,000 Heat/sugar Maillard Aspartame 200 Bitter taste, ph and heat sensitive; needs warning label Cyclamate 30 (Chemical) Neohesperidin dihydrochalcone 400 Liquorice, menthol, slow onset, lingering taste Neotame 10,000 Saccharin 300 Bitter, metallic aftertaste Stevioside 200 Liquorice, slow onset, lingering taste Sucralose 600 Lingering taste Thaumatin 2,000 Liquorice, slow onset, extreme lingering However the alternative sugars are fully caloric (except tagatose), most have reduced sweetness and they are still cariogenic. The sugar alcohols reduce calories, do not give Maillard reactions and are non-cariogenic but some can cause laxative effects and cooling in the mouth. The bulking agents suffer from low sweetness. During reformulation it is difficult to match the sweet taste of sugar with substitutes, because they have different flavour profiles and give different texture and mouth-feel. Since sugar is a natural preservative, sugar reduction can reduce the shelf-life of foods. Low-sugar jam is a good example. It must be refrigerated to avoid mould growth. Sugar replacement can also increase production costs. In my opinion the biggest issue is that sugar reduction does not necessarily reduce calorie intake, because sugar is typically replaced with another carbohydrate which contains the same amount of calories. Sugar reduction can even lead to higher calorie intake, if replaced with fat! So it is crucial that consumers understand what they are buying.

5 The next section reports some recent independent research carried out by Leatherhead Food Research showing that consumers are confused about reducedsugar claims. Health claims and consumer understanding of sugarreduction claims In the EU, Regulation 1924/2006 harmonises the use of nutrition (and health) claims to ensure effective functioning of the internal market and to provide a high level of consumer protection. Claims must not be false, ambiguous or misleading, or encourage excess consumption of a food. The presence, absence or reduced content of a nutrient or other substance for which a claim is made must have a beneficial nutritional or physiological effect, as established by generally accepted scientific evidence. The Regulation provides a list of permitted nutrition claims with conditions of use. Table 2 shows the claims relating to sugars content. Table 2: Permitted nutrition claims relating to sugars content Permitted nutrition claims Low sugars* Sugars-free* With no added sugars Reduced [sugars]* Conditions of use 5g sugars/100g or 2.5g sugars/100ml 0.5g sugars per 100g or 100ml No added mono- or disaccharides or any other food used for its sweetening properties. If sugars are naturally present in the food it should be labelled Contains naturally occurring sugars 30% reduction compared with a similar product; the amount of energy in the product bearing the claim is equal to or less than the amount of energy in a similar product *And any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer Consumer understanding is a key aspect of the claims regulation, which states that use of nutrition and health claims shall only be permitted if the average consumer can be expected to understand the beneficial effects as expressed in the claim. A review of this area concluded that there is little clear-cut definitive research, that the evidence is often scant or conflicting, and that less research has been conducted about nutrition claims compared with health claims. Therefore Leatherhead Food research carried out some independent consumer research to assess consumer understanding of sugar reduction claims (see Case Study). The findings show that consumers are surprised (and in some cases angry) that sugar reduction does not necessarily lead to calorie reduction!

6 Case Study: Consumer understanding of sugar reduction claims Leatherhead Food Research conducted qualitative and quantitative research to investigate consumer awareness and understanding of product claims in the UK, focusing on nutrition claims relating to sugars. Both research methods identified a good awareness of product claims. No-added-sugars claims were generally preferred to reduced-sugar claims, and there was a general assumption that sweeteners and other ingredients would be added in place of sugars. However there was little awareness of the level of sugar reduction and the associated calorie reduction in products when reduced-sugars claims were made on pack. In focus groups, participants felt deceived if sugar-reduction claims were being made without a significant reduction in calories. This was reinforced in the quantitative research which showed that respondents expected a similar and meaningful level of calorie reduction to the level of sugar reduction. The majority correctly identified that fat had the highest calorific content but a significant number believed incorrectly that sugar contained more calories per gram than alcohol and other carbohydrates. This is crucial to consumers expectations, as they clearly link sugar to calories and therefore expect a reduction in sugar content to deliver a reduction in calorie content. (Acknowledgement to British Sugar) The market for no, low- and reduced-sugar foods Despite the challenges of sugar reduction, the market for reduced-sugar foods is huge. The charts below show that the food industry has launched approximately 7000 new food and drink products bearing no-, low- or reduced-sugar claims per annum since The most popular categories are sugar and gum confectionery and juice drinks. Diet soft drinks are well-established in the market so we see fewer new products. Diet carbonated drinks usually contain no sugar and a mixture of artificial sweeteners, but even non-diet drinks contain a mixture of sugar and artificial preservatives, rather than just sugar. Figure 1: Global new product launches no-, low- and reduced-sugar claims 8,000 7, ,000 5,000 4,000 3, , , Source: Mintel GNPD

7 Figure 2: Global new no-, low-, reduced-sugar product launches by category 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Sweet Spreads Carbonated Soft Drinks Desserts & Ice Cream Other Beverages Baby Food Snacks Dairy Bakery Juice Drinks Sugar & Gum Confectionery Source: Mintel GNPD Conclusions In conclusion reformulation for sugar reduction is complex and poses product-specific challenges and solutions. Sugar has many advantages: it has a clean sweet taste, suppresses bitterness and acidity, improves texture, provides energy and acts as a natural preservative. Replacers like sorbitol can cause digestive problems and some artificial sweeteners can give an aftertaste. Further in some cases it can be demonstrated that sugar reduction does not automatically lead to calorie reduction a fact that consumers find very hard to believe. Dr Paul Berryman is Chief Executive at Leatherhead Food Research, Randalls Road, Leatherhead, Surrey, KT22 7RY, UK. Tel: +44 (0) pberryman@leatherheadfood.com Web: