Where is Fat Reduction Going?

We must discover exactly what functions the fat performs in a particular product. Oversimplifying the fat's role ignores many important attributes.

Most functional fat replacement is not a matter of merely taking out the fat and adding a "magic bullet." Covering all the critical functions provided by the standard level of fat requires a "systems approach." Although this concept often refers to using a combination of various ingredients to mimic fat's characteristics, it is only part of the solution. A systems approach means that the entire formula influences the finished product characteristics.

To increase consumer acceptability of a product, it is frequently necessary to set more realistic goals. Companies must realize that duplicating an existing full-fat product -- only without all the fat -- is not always possible, nor is it the fastest route to success. At the same time, most recognize that going from full fat to zero-fat is often a major undertaking. Reducing the fat is usually simpler, and it still yields highly acceptable products.

If a product doesn't taste good, consumers will not buy it. This has become the mantra for all new product development, especially for reduced- and no-fat foods.

Characteristics count

  The first step when designing reduced-fat products is to examine thoroughly what the fat is doing in the product. In general, fat provides flavor, mouthfeel, texture, structure, process performance, shelf life and appearance. These major functions change with the type and amount of fat, so they require consideration when formulating with non-caloric or reduced calorie fats.

  "The initial approach used by the industry was to take stabilizers and use them as fat replacers," notes Hausner. "We've determined that you have to customize or fine tune fat replacement systems to some degree according to the particular application."  Flavor. Most fats have a characteristic flavor. Back in the cholesterol-purging era, the industry was awash in flavors like butter, lard and tallow for products switched to vegetable sources. That thinking spilled over into fat reduction philosophies: Replace the missing flavor notes of fat and you've solved the problem. However, fat also affects the overall flavor perception.

  Fat functions as a flavor carrier, especially for fat-soluble flavors. Fat alters the vapor pressure and controls the release of volatiles.

  The flavor threshold for the same compound can vary depending on the media. Many lipophilic compounds have higher thresholds in an oil medium than in an aqueous system. For example, butyric acid, a component of butter flavor, can be perceived at 0.6 ppm in oil, while it takes 7 ppm in water to detect it. Decanonic acid, a long-chain fatty acid, has a threshold of 200 ppm in oil as opposed to 4 ppm in water.

  "One thing that most everyone initially missed was that fat actually masks a lot of flavors," says Alan Hippleheuser, senior food technologist, American Maize-Products Co., Hammond, IN. "The coefficient of evaporation of oil is totally different from that of water. When you take the fat out, the same flavor can become extremely unbalanced."

  Fat acts as a flavor precursor. Fried flavors result from chemical reactions that occur between heated fat and food components such as protein, starch and sugar. The oxidation of the fat during high-heat processes generates other flavor compounds.

  Some fat replacers interact with flavor chemicals which influences their perception. For example, proteins can chemically bind or react with certain flavor compounds, particularly aldehydes and ketones. Starches can reduce flavor impact by physically binding flavors. Ionic gums, such as xanthan, also may alter the perception of taste.

  "Some of the processes used for deflavoring starches may also make them more active for absorbing flavor compounds," points out Guy Hartman, Ph.D., director of technical services, Givaudan-Roure, Clifton, NJ "Different hydrocolloids can cause differences in flavor release, as well as mouth coating degree and duration."

  Fat coats the mouth, delaying and prolonging flavor release. Many fat replacement ingredients also coat the mouth, but the net effect is not necessarily the same. To get the same effect in a no fat system, some method of controlled flavor release may be required, in addition to rebalancing the flavor.

  Mouthfeel is closely related to the perception of flavor. A number of companies have developed "mouthfeel flavors." One method is to create an emulsion of oil-based flavors in water with particulates sized at I micron or less to produce a creamier mouthfeel.

  "Mouthfeel systems help the food marry with the flavor," explains Hartman. "There are some things that work that we just don't know the scientific basis of. There may be things related to flavor that have not yet been defined in terms of the human sensory system and the mechanisms of receiving flavor."

  Fat also furnishes a perception of moisture due to its lubricity. Depending on the melt point of the oil, this may come across as a waxiness in the mouth. It may be important when looking at calorie-modified fats; a different melt profile greatly impacts mouthfeel and also affects flavor release. Although many fat replacers share the same concept -- binding water -- their mouthfeel effect can differ. Some hydrocolloids come across as starchy, stringy, slimy or gummy rather than "creamy."

  Texture can be thought of as a combination of mouthfeel and structure. It includes characteristics like viscosity, tenderness or crispness. Fat also contributes to "bite" in processed meat products; those without fat can be mushy or chewy, depending on the ingredients used as fat substitutes.

  "Look at fat replacement as putting water where there once was fat," says Lewis Paine, chairman and CEO, Opta Foods, Bedford, MA. "You can customize the structure and the amount of water being held with texturing agents."

  One textural problem often encountered is staling. The amylose in the wheat starch retrogrades, hardening the crumb of baked products. The higher the water content of the product, the more quickly this occurs. In full-fat products, staling is delayed because the fat globules appear to interfere with the amylose and slow its crystallization. Both of these factors contribute to an increased rate of staling in baked products with less fat. Adding emulsifiers, particularly long chain saturated monoglycerides, helps delay this reaction by complexing with the amylose.

  Increased moisture migration coupled with decreased oil migration also can alter the finished product when the fat content is reduced. Free oil and free water tend to equilibrate throughout the product, and this may alter texture.

  Structure. Fat has a significant impact on the structure of most food products. However, the specific mode depends on the system. Because many fat replacers use water, how that water is structured becomes important.

  "If you want a fat-replacement system that really behaves like emulsified fat, it will have to work differently from simple starch systems," says Deane Clark, Ph.D., manager, ingredient development, The NutraSweet Kelco Company, San Diego. "How we choose to organize that water and how we choose to organize the pockets of water will either foster interactions or prevent interactions with other components of the system."

  Process performance. Oil typically acts as a lubricant, reducing stickiness, especially in plastic or liquid systems. Fat also can affect how products flow, especially when heat is applied. Many fat-replacement ingredients can change during processing. For example, shear and temperature can cause both temporary and irreversible changes in viscosity or texture.

  Shelf life. Many fat substitutes work by physically binding moisture, resulting in increased water activity. Not only can this excess water promote staling and other undesirable ingredient interactions, it may create undesirable moisture migration, microbiological concerns, or even increased rancidity when some fat is present.

  Appearance. Depending on the application, fats and oils can provide opacity and sheen to a finished product. The surface of a no-fat or baked potato chip is much drier looking than a standard chip. The surface sheen also may change with the melt point of a calorie modified fat.

Can you say "systems?"

  "There are so many things that fat does, that it's totally unrealistic to expect anything that proposes to replace it, short of another fat, is going to provide all of its attributes," states Clark. "Everyone has come to understand that it is necessary to put the things together that will do the job for you."

  A systems approach can mean a number of things, but the key is making certain all the significant fat attributes are addressed. "Many companies have gone to a systems approach and have developed blended products for specific applications," says Robert Verdi, Ph.D., marketing manager at Cultor Food Science, New York. "Food companies are testing the limits of technology to satisfy the tremendous consumer demand for products that are lower fat and fat-free."

  Many designers like the flexibility of putting their own systems together. When this happens, often the most efficient and least technically treacherous path involves supplier partnering.

  "In developing any low- or no-fat product, you have two primary issues: texture and flavor," says Paine. "We make no presences. There are many companies qualified to address flavor development, and we aren't one. When we come to a customer with a formulation, we ask permission to collaborate with their flavor supplier, or suggest one for the project.

  In many cases, considering the system means standard formulas must be scrapped and entirely different formulations developed to create an acceptable product.

  Even though many consider olestra the long awaited "magic bullet," it's likely that products that contain it will still require formulation work. It depends on the physical and chemical characteristics of the products -- issues such the melt points, background flavors and shelf life. Instead of a 100% one-to-one substitution, other ratios or combinations with either standard fats or fat replacers may be more effective from either a cost or performance standpoint.

Right on target

  "Some of the most successful products were those where manufacturers could mimic the full-fat version -- sour creams and low-fat yogurt, for example," observes Lyn Nabor, vice president, Calorie Control Council, Alexandria, VA. "When sales of the low-fat version make up close to 50% of the total, you know you've done something right."

  The food industry also has discovered that instead of matching certain products, it may just be better to create something different. While a familiar brand name may initially attract consumers, it also gives them a point of reference. It makes sense to start with products that are easier to create in a low-fat mode -- fruit rather than chocolate cream pie.

  "A product that the American consumer knows and loves is associated with a certain taste, " says Frances Turnak, director, marketing, American Maize Products. "If you make the same product in a low-fat version, you can run up against a mindset that doesn't accept any differences. But if you design an alternative product, they won't make that comparison. It may be more easily accepted."

  One category where it's been hard to gain consumer acceptance is natural cheese. Full-fat cheese is about one-third fat, but consumers expect reduced-fat versions to duplicate the original.

  "In processed cheeses, the texture, flavor and performance is much closer to the full-fat counterpart than anyone is currently able to achieve with natural cheese," notes Sanah Atassi-Boisvert, marketing manger, dairy segment, FMC Corp. "Cheese has performance issues. A high moisture, fat-free cheese doesn't shred well."

  While no-fat foods may hook a consumer faster than products containing some fat, low fat may make a more acceptable product.

  "I think that ultimately the lowfat market will overtake the nofat market in overall consumer preference," predicts Turnak. "Most companies have made very acceptable low-fat products, but often when you take the step to nofat, the product quality goes right out the door."

  Most applications have a certain quality break-off point in terms of fat levels. If the level goes below this point, drastic changes in flavor, texture or other characteristics occur.

  "You can break products down into three categories: full-fat products, which are the gold standards; reduced-fat products; and no-fat products," says Hartman. "The transition from full-fat to a lower level is much easier than down to zero. A lot of that is due to the way the flavors are released."

  This also depends on the type of product because fat's role often is textural. "For example, in salad dressings, you usually see a break point at about 10% fat," says Hartman. "Fundamentally, the zero-percent product is the challenge."

  According to John Wyatt, director of innovation, Danisco Ingredients, New Century, KS, "Most standard ice cream will have 10% to 12% fat, but you can get down to 5% and still have a very acceptable product. When you get down to 2%, though, you get a significantly different product."

  Another change that has improved the result is the realization that sometimes the process must be altered to accommodate a new formulation. Still, some of today's research focuses on making fat replacers more user friendly since new processes and new equipment often create significant costs.

Ingredients: New and used

  While the philosophies behind fat-replacement technology matured, the ingredients also came of age. Many, especially those initially designed for other functions, were modified and optimized for fat mimetic qualities. A great deal of application work has been performed to optimize formulation and processing. Today, a broad range of fat-replacement ingredients can be found. Each has its own strengths, weaknesses and restrictions. Many depend on water, but even this is changing as researchers look at alternatives.

  Carbohydrates. The carbohydrate-based fat substitutes include starches, maltodextrins, polydextrose, sugars, pectins, gums and other fibers. These all work in conjunction with water to mimic some of the textural and functional characteristics of fat. Their dependence on water makes them difficult, if not impossible, to use in low-moisture foods. The increased moisture may necessitate the use of antimicrobials, heat treatments and protective packaging to achieve the required shelf life.

  Maltodextrin and starch-based ingredients form a smooth, viscous solution or soft gel upon hydration. Although they all work in concert with water, they show some functional differences. The exact characteristics vary widely -- for example, factors such as temperature and pH tolerance. Microparticulated intact starch granules also can mimic the mouthfeel and structural contributions of fat crystals.

  "Carbohydrate fat replacers, particularly starch, work well in high moisture systems," says Turnak. "Starch is very good at holding water so it can really make a difference in high moisture baked products, processed meat and highly processed dips."

  Turnak adds that carbohydrate-based replacers can be successfully used for reducing the fat in a low moisture system, but not for completely replacing it.

  Polydextrose is often used in conjunction with fat replacers to provide additional bulk and viscosity with reduced calories. Newer versions have improved in terms of reduced acidity and better flavor, according to Cultor's Verdi.

  Low concentrations of gums form gels which can increase viscosity, provide texture, add gloss and often add a fat-like mouthfeel. Agar, alginates, carrageenan, cellulose gums, konjac, guar gum, gum arabic, pectin and xanthan gum all can function as fat-replacement ingredients. Again, these have a wide variance in functional characteristics, including heat, shear and pH stability; type of texture; and thermoreversibility .

  Most of the recent developments in carbohydrate fat replacers revolve around new combinations of ingredients and methods of processing to make the ingredients behave more like fat in specific applications. However, some new ingredients -- inulin and oligosaccharides -- appear to have some potential as fat replacers on their own.

  "Traditionally, it was thought that fat mimetics were only suitable in high-moisture systems," says Kathy Niness, marketing manager at FMC. "In high-moisture systems, the easiest and most cost effective replacement for fat is water. In low moisture systems, there are other ways to accomplish fat reduction including the use of bulking agents and different kinds of humectants. Then you can use the stabilizers to structure or extend what little fat is left in the system."

  Fruit may be Mother Nature's confirmation of the systems approach. Several fruit purees -- most notably prune, raisin and apple -- have been successfully incorporated into intermediate- or high-moisture baked products. These act as fat replacers due to their composition: pectins and other fibers, sorbitol, reducing sugars and oligosaccharides. These help hold onto water and improve texture. Like most natural products, they contain some "non-functional" components that influence the finished product -- colors, flavors, acids and sweetness, in particular. In some cases these may be beneficial. For example, sorbic acid in plum puree acts as a preservative.

  Protein. Most protein-based fat replacers consist of uniform, microparticulated protein particles, usually from dairy or egg sources. The spherical particles average approximately 0.5 to 2.0 micrometers to simulate the size of fat particles and mimic their mouthfeel. Larger particles also may work if they are very soft and compressible. These particles are hydrated in an aqueous solution to create a fat-like matrix which exhibits shear thinning properties and creaminess similar to fat.

  "In a creamy food, emulsified fat globules don't lock up and build structure," says Clark. "That's exactly what the microparticulated protein does."

  The particles typically are formed with a combination of heat and shear, sometimes combined with gums or other stabilizers. Other methods of producing the same type of particles have been investigated. These include protein precipitation under controlled conditions, membrane filtration of casein micelles, and extrusion.

  "Originally we worked with a combination of milk proteins, but we needed to clean up the label," says Irwin Immel, director of development, Dairyland Division, Kerry Ingredients, Beloit, WI. "We've found that we can use the same process to form the microparticulates, but tailor functionality by manipulating the culturing process for the skim milk protein up front."

  The microparticulated proteins are not suitable for frying. However, in addition to their use in dairy products such as ice cream and sour cream, some microparticulated proteins can be used in high-heat applications such as baking and aseptic processes as long as the protein is heat stable.

  Emulsifiers, especially monoglycerides, may entirely replace the fat, or may be used in conjunction with lowered levels of fat to increase its functionality. Because fat content is determined by total lipid material present, mono- and diglycerides assay out as fat.  "Emulsifiers take what fat you have in a system and utilize it better," says Wyatt. "If you use the correct emulsification system, then you can reduce fat and still have a very similar product. The problem is you have to fill the replaced fat with something."

  Reduced-calorie fats. For several years restructured fats with less than 9 calories per gram have been on the market. The FDA considers or has accepted petitions to consider these ingredients GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe). These engineered fat molecules contain fatty acids that are less digestible to create a reduced calorie count. The products have all the functional properties of full calorie fats, including their ability to act as carriers for fat soluble ingredients.

  Caprenin, from Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, is formed by the esterification of caprylic, capric and behenic acids on a glycerol backbone. It only produces 5 calories per gram. The behenic acid passes through the digestive system without being absorbed. The functional properties are similar to cocoa butter, and it has been mainly used as a confectionery fat.

  Another 5-calorie-per-gram fat, salatrim, developed by Nabisco Foods Group and marketed by Cultor Food Science, is made of a mixture of long-chain stearic acid and short chain fatty acids, including acetic and/or propionic/ and/or butyric acids. Salatrim is made by the interesterification of completely hydrogenated vegetable oils such as soybean or canola. The calorie reduction is achieved by the combination of low-calorie, short chain fatty acids and the long chain stearic acid which is only partially absorbed by the body.

  Varying the types of short chain fatty acids and changing the ratios of long- to short-chain fatty acids alters the salatrim fat's functional properties. This creates a range of products with differing melt profiles, including versions that are liquid at room temperature. Commercial confectionery fats are now available; other forms that have applications in nut spreads, cultured dairy products, and processed cheese are under development. Because of the short-chain fatty acids, these fats may be prone to hydrolysis during the high heat encountered during frying conditions, which could cause the development of off-flavors.

  "Fried foods, especially savory snacks, present a particular challenge," says Mike Klacik, Cultor's director of business development, sorbestrin. "Food manufacturers attempted to simulate the attributes of these products by using alternative processes such as baking. What was needed was a high temperature or all-temperature substitute that would withstand frying."

  Synthetic fats offer the functionality of fat without the calories. This includes the elusive ability to be used for frying. Typically, these ingredients use food-grade materials to create a molecule that resists lipase breakdown of the ester bond during the digestive process. The methods include substituting glucose for glycerol, replacing the fatty acid and glycerol with a fatty alcohol and organic acid, or adding to the structure of the glycerol so the fatty acid is no longer adjoining that portion of the molecule.

  Until January of this year, no such fat analogs were approved by the FDA for use in foods. This changed with the approval of olestra in savory fried snacks and crackers. Procter & Gamble has decided to use the brand name Olean for the ingredient, and the company will require users to display its logo.

  While P&G will be selling the fat substitute as a branded ingredient, the exact details had not been made public as of this writing. The company can offer test-market quantities from its pilot facility, but it did not offer an estimate as to when full scale facilities will be up and running. When asked about estimated pricing, P&G spokesperson Sidney McHugh would not commit to a dollar figure, only that "Olean costs more to make than ordinary vegetable oil, but its cost will depend on the vegetable oil from which Olean is made and the cost of that oil."

  Olestra is derived from sucrose and vegetable oils, typically soy and canola. It consists of hexa-, hepta- and octa-fatty acid esters of sucrose with long-chain (predominantly C18) fatty acids. Each molecule contains six fatty acids -- at least 70% octa-fatty acid esters with 1% or less hexa-esters. Functionally, olestra demonstrates the same characteristics as regular fat, including thermal stability, which makes it appropriate for frying. According to P&G, the ingredient marketed will have a 140°F melt point, a 480°F smoke point, and a 550°F flash point. It has an AOM peroxide value at two hours of 100 ppm.

  While P&G claims olestra "tastes exactly like fat," some anecdotal reports mention that chips fried in the fat substitute taste slightly different from those fried in oil. Whether this is characteristic of the olestra or some artifact of the process used for manufacturing the sample product is unknown. The high melting point may confer a slight waxiness as opposed to standard frying fats and may affect the adhesion or application of seasonings. However, these differences pale in the light of other available technologies that exist for no-fat savory snacks.

  The compound was discovered in the 1960s, and P&G petitioned the FDA for approval in 1987. The original petition sought approval for in home use (at levels of 35% or less) and use in commercial deep-fat frying operations (at levels up to 75%). In 1990, the petition was amended to seek only the approval for fat replacement of up to 100% in savory snacks, including fried snacks and snack crackers. After a thumbs up by an FDA advisory board in November of last year, the FDA approved olestra at the end of January 1996.

  As a condition of the approval, P&G must conduct studies to monitor consumption and any long term effects. The FDA will review the results in a public meeting of the Food Advisory Committee within 30 months. The approval gives P&G a two-year extension on its patent that covers the reformulation for oil loss control (anal leakage) and vitamin fortification, but P&G holds other patents that affect its use.

  Prior to and during the approval process, P&G conducted over 150 long- and short-term studies on safety. While the studies confirmed that olestra posed no toxicity risk, several potential problems did arise: passive oil loss (the infamous anal leakage); digestive side effects, such as sporadic diarrhea or abdominal cramping; and the depletion of fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K), and carotenoids. The anal leakage problem was solved before filing the petition by changing olestra's viscosity. P&G scientists determined that the nutrient depletion was a result of these vitamins remaining with the unabsorbed fat substitute. Only those present in the digestive tract at the same time as the olestra would be affected. Clinical studies showed that the vitamin loss could be offset by adding greater amounts fat-soluble vitamins to snacks made with olestra.

  The FDA will require manufacturers to fortify olestra-containing products with vitamin A, D, E and K. To warn consumers of potential gastrointestinal and nutrient side effects, products made with olestra must contain the following label statement, per the FDA: "This product contains olestra. Olestra may cause abdominal cramping and loose stools. Olestra inhibits the absorption of some vitamins and other nutrients. Vitamins A, D, E, and K have been added."

  A number of other fat-based synthetic fats are under development in the United States and throughout the world. While several suppliers hold patents for these other ingredients, they have not yet petitioned the FDA for approval. These include other carbohydrate esters such as sorbestrin (Cultor Food Science); esterified polysaccharides, or PEP, (ARCO Chemical Co.); carboxylate esters (Nabisco Brands Inc., Procter & Gamble); dialkyl dibexadecylmalonate, or DDM (Frito-Lay Inc.); esterified propoxylated glycerols, or EPGs, (ARCO Chemical Co.); and organosilicates, such as phenyldimethylpolysiloxane, or PDMS, and phenylmethylpolysiloxane, or PS, (Dow Corning Corp.). This list is by no means comprehensive.

Other options

  Other ingredients and technologies play an important role in designing reduced-fat products. We have discussed the impact of fat on flavors, and now we'll explore flavors as part of the solution.

  "Sometimes I have the perception that fat replacers are developed in a vacuum -- that flavor is not considered until after the product is developed," says Hartman. "The biggest danger from that is you can get pretty far down the pike and then find out that your product is not very flavor friendly."

  This is one area that appears to present some serious technological challenges. There is a lack of scientific knowledge and understanding of the relationships that can be used in practical formulation.

  "It's still not clear to the industry what exactly you have to do to mimic fat," observes Hippleheuser. "The real strong sensory research that correlates flavor and rheology just isn't out there right now. We need that experimental and theoretical background."

  Sometimes the goal is to lower the fat content without actually replacing it. Some ingredients can reduce the amount of fat absorbed by foods during frying. Two factors come into play: increasing water retention, and decreasing fat pickup. Keeping the water in the product can improve the texture by keeping a product moist, and water acts as a bulking agent so the oil actually comprises a lower percentage of the fried product.

  Several ingredients have been found to work in this regard. Refined cellulose fiber and cellulose gums exhibit hydrophilic properties and retain the water. Systems also can be developed using film-formers.

  "A reaction occurs with calcium and a solubilized sodium pectate," says Kay Kresl Vandenbark, project manager, flavors and coatings division, Kerry Ingredients. "This results in a calcium pectate gel film forming. This acts as a barrier to water removal and oil absorption. You are locking in the moisture and decreasing the amount of oil that goes in. We obtained fat reductions in the product of between 20% to 40%, depending on the type of product."

  According to Vandenbark, several factors influence the level of fat reduction in a fried, breaded product: the type of crumb, the initial fat level and moisture content, the size of the pieces, and the process itself. Film formers also tend to make the crumb adhere better.

  French fries can benefit from this kind of technology, too. However, according to Opta's Paine, the quality of the potato can greatly impact the results, and the quality varies greatly in the commercial potato crop. "We know how to reduce the fat by about 25%, but getting something to work on a consistent basis in a production process has been a challenge," he says.

  USDA restrictions keep many fat replacers out of meat. Starch and some gum-based ingredients, such as carrageenan, are approved for use in a number of meat products. Others that function well still need approval for use in this country. For example, an experimental product using a konjac gel to simulate visible fat in a ground product looks promising. The USDA does allow processors to create reduced-fat cooked and fermented sausage and still use their traditional names in combination with the appropriate label qualifiers.

  Because of these ingredient restrictions, the approach used in some meat products is simply to remove the fat. Leaner animals, leaner cuts of meat, and more thorough trimming of the existing fat often can move meat products into low- or even no-fat territory. Several processes are also in use that involve removing fat during a heat process. One patented method makes finely reduced meat particles into a slurry, then centrifuges it to remove the fat.

  Peanut processors have used the same idea. Reduced-fat nuts and peanut butter can be manufactured by subjecting the raw nuts to pressure. This liquefies the fat so it can be removed.

Crystal ball persuasions

  As work with fat replacers continues, a number of issues are likely to surface. The NLEA cleared up several matters regarding labels, including when descriptors like "fat free," "lowfat" and "healthy" could be used. The FDA also defined what was to appear on the label as fat. This mainly affected the use of emulsifiers.

  "The FDA made it very clear that if it was a lipid-based product, then it's labeled as fat," says Wyatt. "That limited the options somewhat, but those options were not necessarily the best answers anyway."

  With the advent of low- and no calorie fats, there is bound to be some confusion, especially when fat grams don't convert into fat calories.

  "At the present, a low-calorie claim is approved for salatrim and Hershey uses a reduced-fat claim for its salatrim-containing product," says Klacik. "This is not inconsistent with the NLEA, but the FDA will have to, hopefully in the near term, promulgate a rule regarding this for future products."

  Some fat replacers may have an identity problem. Many companies pursue obtaining a common name for an ingredient legally recognized -- olestra instead of sucrose polyester, for example. Whether it's for ingredient recognition or to convince consumers that the product is not raw material for a leisure suit is a matter of debate. Whatever the reason, other companies are following this example. Cranbury, NJ-based Rhône-Poulenc is looking to use "oatrim" as the common, usual name for hydrolyzed oat flour. One reason for this is that many health food shoppers object to the term "hydrolyzed" on the label, according to Ron Jenkins, Rhône-Poulenc's product manager for lowfat ingredients.

  Cost issues have to be resolved. Fat is relatively inexpensive. Replacing it with a more expensive product will drive up the cost of the finished food unless it can be balanced out with added water. So, making cost-effective replacements also has become a priority.

  "Originally, there was a perception of greater price flexibility in the marketplace," says Clark. "There were a lot of studies that indicated that consumers were willing to pay a considerable premium for top quality fat-free products. I think as we look back on that we conclude that it wasn't exactly correct."

  On the other hand, using cost as the major selection criterion may cause some to miss out on quality. Often the right ingredient can save money on the rest of the formulation. A formulator may be able to eliminate some of the added emulsifiers or change the flavor system, for example.

  Cost can be one of the biggest barriers for developing new fat replacement technology. The number that's been cited for olestra is $200 million. But it's not just the approval process that costs money. Even development costs for new and improved versions are rising. As applications become more specific, the market for the new ingredient shrinks.

  As food manufacturers scrutinize their bottom lines, more and more development work falls on ingredient suppliers. That probably has helped the technical and quality sides of the problem by fostering closer relationships between suppliers and customers. However, someone must still bear the cost of all this innovation.

  "Cost reduction is still an issue. It costs more to develop a high quality low- or no-fat product. Fat is still very cheap," says Dennis Reid, marketing manager Dari-Lo, Cultor Food Science. "The marketplace is not always willing to pay the price for premium alternatives."

Back to top