September 1, 1996

27 Min Read
Freeze/Thaw-Stability

Freeze/Thaw-Stability
September 1996 -- Cover Story

By: Ronald C. Deis
Contributing Editor

  Within the last several years, product developers have met the reduced-fat/low-fat/fat-free challenge and have greatly improved on the initial offerings. Many processors are now turning out consumer-acceptable products. Ingredient technology improvements have helped, and so has a much better understanding on the part of product developers on how to manipulate ingredient systems to mimic fat.

  What next? Is the consumer ready for reduced-calorie foods? Based on the increasing awareness of consumers that their fat-free diets may not be working, many in the industry have predicted that product developers will begin hacking away at calories.

  A 1996 Calorie Control Council survey showed that while 92% of those surveyed use either reduced-fat or low-calorie products regularly, 45% of users -- down from 55% in 1993 -- would like additional low calorie products available to them. Over one-third (35%) of these could not name a specific product in which they might be interested. Furthermore, among descriptions mentioned, "reduced in calories" was preferred by only 4% of those interviewed. Forty-nine percent said they would prefer products reduced in both fat and calories (61% of dieter users).

  This consumer attitude seems to be reflected throughout the food industry. "The product development focus within the dairy industry is still centered on fat reduction. Reduction in calories, at this point, is incidental," says Bruce Tharp, Ph.D., group technical coordinator at Germantown USA, Broomall, PA.

  Rebecca Kosmark, senior food technologist at Cultor Food Science Group, Groton, CT, says, "Reduction of calories in chocolate confectionery has been relatively untouched, but technology is now available to open the door in this area."

  Two earlier attempts at calorie and fat reduction using caprenin and polydextrose were later removed from the market, but Hershey Chocolate USA, Hershey, PA, has recently introduced Reduced Fat Baking Chips using salatrim. This product is also lower in calories.

  "Many product caloric reductions may not be targeted at the front panel," says Jit Ang, director, applied technology at Protein Technologies, St. Louis. "The company marketing the product may want to lower the calories per serving on the nutritional panel to give the product a competitive edge."

What is the target?

  One of management expert Stephen Covey's seven traits is "Begin with the End in Mind." So, the first step is to decide what claims are within reach or relative to the product. One option might be a planned calorie target to "clean up" the nutritional panel. More consumers are reading the nutritional panel, but will they notice that reduced fat product A has fewer calories than reduced-fat product B?

  If a front panel claim is the target, FDA Nutrient Content Descriptions such as those listed in Table 1 may be used. Is the target "light," "fewer calories than ...", "reduced-calorie," "low-calorie," or even "calorie-free"? Given the survey mentioned earlier, this should also be tied in with "fat free," "reduced-fat" or "low-fat."

  The wise product designer will work with marketing to set several targets so that as development winds into the later stages, several options will still be open. This step is important because many other considerations will affect the final decision, including cost, taste, color, shelf life, texture, processing considerations, and ingredient acceptability (factors such as consumer understanding, availability, cost, taxation). It is critical to work with the marketing group through this first phase for several reasons:

  1. it becomes a team effort and opens the communication channels;

  2. no project plan is complete without fully defining the objectives.

    First steps

      Let's say the project plan is laid out and you have decided to start from a fat-free formulation you worked on several months ago. The reference product is a full-fat, calorie-laden classic product. STOP! Although it is a good idea to retain the knowledge gained from past products, it is not necessarily a good idea to start from a fat-free formulation unless the current target is fat-free.

      Why not? The target is different, so fat reduction will, naturally, be the first step. But unless the target is fat free, retaining some fat can benefit the flavor and texture, and the resulting product can still fall within the calorie fat-free target. Unless fat free is directly applicable, place that fat-free formulation on the side and start with the reference. You may also want to update the ingredient suppliers' formulations in case they have been improved.

    Paper chase

      Once you have a starting formulation and your objectives are set, you must lay out a plan. One of the best places to begin when embarking on a calorie-reduction project is a computer. Load up your favorite nutritional software (this may be company software or you may need to purchase a program) and ease into the analysis -- or analyses in case of a multi component product.

      "Many product developers have discovered that development can be much faster with software and a good nutritional database," says Elizabeth Hand, president of ESHA, Salem, OR. "This allows the product developer to be more creative without getting bogged down in the numbers."

      Some software can analyze a formulation one nutrient at a time. If you select "calories," "total fat," "carbohydrates" or "protein," the program will sort the ingredients in the order of their contribution. The program will give the percentage of total contribution for each ingredient and present this data as a graph or bar chart. Using the charts for calories, fat, carbohydrates, sugars, proteins, etc., is often quite helpful. Many programs also allow the user to enter ingredient costs in order to track total formulation cost.

      It is important to double-check individual ingredient caloric contributions (see "Counting Calories" in the June 1996 issue of Food Product Design) and to be aware of final moisture adjustments. Make sure the nutritional software allows you to compensate for processing changes that affect final moisture.

      The next step is to develop a better understanding of which ingredients might help reduce calories.

    Fat reduction first

      Due to their high caloric content fats are the number one consideration in caloric reduction. Fat functionality tends to be category specific, product specific and, finally, formulation specific. So, even though a certain ingredient worked well before, there are no guarantees that this relates directly to the current effort. The challenge is similar to that encountered when evaluating alternate suppliers of "the same ingredient" in a formulation.

      Also, mass screenings of a large number of ingredients through one prototype formulation are misleading and not altogether helpful. Each ingredient has different characteristics (e.g., water-binding) that require it to be handled differently in the prototype. For example, you cannot realistically use one water level throughout the entire screening process.

      Suppliers' formulations may be helpful in understanding how an ingredient works, but unless you plan to use the formulation "as is," the same types of difficulties described for screening can occur. One thing to keep in mind is that the supplier formulation has been optimized around the featured ingredient. Fortunately, product developers have gained some experience within their within their product specialties, so most developers know what types of fat replacers work best in their category.

      Generally, fat replacement involves working with a number of ingredients to manage water, structure, color, processing characteristics, flavor and appearance. Many product developers have found "favorite" fat replacers that fit easily into their ingredient legends.

      "Fat replacer" is a fairly broad term that covers several types of ingredients. "Fat mimetics" imitate fat, usually by binding water (many of the carbohydrate and protein fat replacers fit into this group). "Fat barriers" -- starches and cellulose, for example -- reduce the amount of oil migration of processing into a product. "Fat extenders" (emulsifiers) extend the usefulness of fat in a food. Finally, "fat substitutes" have many of the characteristics of fat, but with less bioavailability. (Olestra, caprenin and salatrim fall within this group).

    Carbohydrates

      At many ingredient trade shows, about 50% or more of the products promoted as fat replacers are carbohydrates. Carbohydrates generally mimic fat by binding water, thus providing lubrication, slipperiness, body and mouthfeel. Carbohydrate adjustments can positively (or negatively) influence shelf life, freezing characteristics, and mouthfeel by affecting the physical state of the final product. Finalizing a product requires reexamining the balance of these ingredients and how they affect processing, texture, flavor, shelf life, and nutritional aspects.

      The choice of a carbohydrate fat replacer may be affected by the physical characteristics and processing of the product. Processing parameters such as pH, temperature, shear and compatibility with other ingredients, as well as the rheological character of the carbohydrate, must be considered. Guar, locust bean and xanthan gums are effective thickeners across a number of food categories. Pectins can form soft to hard gels and are widely used in jams, jellies and tomato-based products. Alginates and carrageenans are commonly used in ice creams, puddings, fruit gels, and salad dressings. Most gums, depending on form and/or processing conditions, can be used as gelling agents or thickeners.

      As Ang puts it, "There are only three natural ingredients available to the product developer which are calorie-free. These are water, air and dietary fiber." With most fat replacement the product designer tries to use water effectively, and air can be entrapped as a texture aid in many products. Fiber has always been a valuable tool in fat replacement and as a replacement for flour and other caloric ingredients.
      According to Lyn Nabors, executive vice president of the Calorie Control Council, the council is drafting a petition to the FDA to address the caloric energy of soluble fibers. These levels are currently set at 4.0 kcal/ gram. The petition will not be completed until late this year, and timing for an FDA approval cannot be predicted until the agency has been presented with the data. Still, a caloric contribution of 2.0 kcal/gram for soluble fiber as suggested would generate a significant addition to the product developer's palette.

      Insoluble fiber is an important tool for fat reduction and for caloric reduction. Powdered cellulose, cellulose gums, microcrystalline cellulose and cellulose gels, as well as other. plant fibers (oat fiber, soy fiber, wheat fiber, rice flour, hydrolyzed oat flour, etc.), present a wide variety of possibilities in terms of water-binding, viscosity, film-forming, gelling and pulpiness. Most of these are regarded as "natural," if that is a consideration. Factors to be evaluated include cost, physical appearance, water-binding characteristics, and effect on the final product -- for example, drying, flavor, mouthfeel and color.

      Starches are another important category to consider. A range of viscosities are available, depending on the amylose: amylopectin ratios and the degree of cross-linking or chemical substitution. Cook-up versus pregelatinized is an option. Granule size may be important to an application; for instance, rice starch has found application in lower water activity applications due to its relatively small granule size. High-amylose starch may be a consideration since, due to its high gelatinization temperature, it remains fairly inert in some applications.

      Resistant starch, labeled as "maltodextrin" from U.S. suppliers, actually contains about 35% insoluble fiber, so the caloric contribution is only 2.8 kcal/gram. One Australian source of a 90% high-amylose corn starch claims 30% resistant starch. This ingredient would be labeled as "cornstarch." Hydrolyzed starches -- such as maltodextrins, corn syrups and high-fructose corn syrups -- can also, through their water-binding characteristics and contribution of plasticity, provide fluidity and lubrication to mimic fat in some applications.

      Similar in function to the syrups, a hydrated polydextrose can contribute syrup-like qualities at 1 kcal/gram gram. Polydextrose has been used in ice creams, confectionery, and jams and jellies for caloric reduction. In high-moisture applications, it can provide a "slippery" mouthfeel that can somewhat mimic fat. In lower moisture applications, polydextrose can provide some hygroscopicity to the final product, which contributes to softening. However, polydextrose is a food additive, so you should contact your supplier for usage details.

      The original polydextrose product was acidic and slightly bitter due to citrate residual in the product. However, newer versions have been developed by Cultor for applications that use higher levels where the flavor of standard polydextrose could pose a problem. The company also developed hydrogenated polydextrose, Litesse III®, that is available in Europe. This process changes residual glucose to sorbitol, allowing this form to be used for sugar free products.

      Similarly, fructooligosaccharides (FOS) can be used as lower-calorie syrups to replace fat. According to Ron Jenkins, product manager, textural technologies at Rhone-Poulenc, Cranbury, NJ, FOS is available in powder or syrup (75% solids) forms. The caloric content is low -- 1.2 kcal/gram and up, depending on the ratios of FOS to the small amounts of glucose, fructose and sucrose that also can be present. FOS and the longer chain inulin are derivatives of chicory. They promote the growth of bifidobacteria in the gut, as well as other physiological benefits.

      Another carbohydrate that has proven to be an invaluable fat replacement tool in lower moisture systems is glycerin. It contributes mouthfeel, slipperiness and body. Its use level is limited by its bitter aftertaste, but it provides very good plasticity in baked products, particularly in lower-moisture products.

    Protein considerations

      As mentioned, fat-replacement selections can be made to minimize deviations from the standard ingredient legend. A protein's contribution to fat replacement is determined by the extent of denaturation, which affects flavor, as well as the protein's solubility, gelling properties, and temperature stability. Proteins are important whipping agents, foam and emulsion stabilizers, and dough strengtheners.

    Gelatin and egg albumen have been used extensively in fat reduced baked goods, frostings and marshmallows. Soy proteins, egg albumen, wheat gluten, nonfat dry milk, caseinates and whey protein concentrates are often used to strengthen fat reduced pasta, bread and sweet goods.

      Whey proteins and whey protein concentrates have been used extensively in dairy-based applications. Some of these products are based on the "microparticulated" concept and consist of extremely small particles within certain size ranges. These particles mimic a fat-like sensation on the tongue. Other products are based on controlled denaturation to provide a workable viscosity in processing.

    Fat-based fat replacers

      The ideal fat replacer, or fat substitute, should have a physical appearance, thermal stability, and melting point close to that of the fat being replaced. The "synthetic oil" approach has been to devise a molecular backbone to which fatty acids can be attached such that digestion is altered. Olestra, which was approved as a food additive this year for use in savory snacks and crackers, is a mixture of hexa-, hepta- and octa-fatty acid esters of sucrose. Sucrose is the backbone to which six to eight fatty acids are attached (as opposed to a triglyceride, which has a glycerol backbone to which three fatty acids are attached). Olestra is a thermally-stable, fryable fat substitute that can substitute for all of the oil in a product, contributing essentially no fat and no calories. This is now in test market in several lines of commercial potato and tortilla chip products.

      Salatrim, which stands for short and long-chain acid triglyceride molecules, is composed of just that -- short- and long-chain fatty acids attached to a glycerol backbone. Isn't that fat? Yes, but only a portion of this fat is absorbed, so the caloric content is 5 kcal/gram.

      Current new products using salatrim (such as Nabisco's Snackwell's Fudge-Dipped Granola Bars and Hershey's Reduced-Fat Baking Chips ) claim a fat reduction on the front panel and the Nutrition Facts panel. On the Nutrition Facts panel, the total fat including salatrim is given as "total fat." An asterisk directs the consumer to a notation in which the digestibility factor is explained, along with a corrected total fat value to explain the claim on the front panel.

      The NLEA provides for the application of food factors to calorie declarations, but does not provide for food factors for fat declarations. The FDA is considering a 1994 petition from Nabisco, as well as the statements on the current labels. The FDA has not taken action and has not given a time frame for ruling on the issue of food factors, but the agency's representatives have acknowledged that rules for bioavailability must be established.

      In the meantime, salatrim is self-affirmed GRAS. Nabisco (the inventor) has retained 5-year rights to cookies, brownies, crackers, salty snacks and vegetable oil spreads for North America. Cultor Food Science Group (the producer) retains rights to sell the ingredient in all other categories in North America and in all categories worldwide. Salatrim was initially developed as a cocoa butter replacement, but other forms are under development.

    Future fat substitutes

      The food additive approval process is lengthy and costly, and the story of the olestra approval process has not made the development of fat based fat substitutes an attractive route for other ingredient suppliers. Olestra is part of an elite class of only five new food additives approved in the last 25 years.

      Projects reported at ARCO Chemical Company (EPG, or propoxylated glycerol esterified with fatty acids), Frito-Lay Inc. (DDM, or dialkyl dihexadecylmalonate), and CPC (TATCA, trialkoxycitrate and trioleyltricarballylates) have not received much press in recent years. Just remember the initials in case they resurface.

      Nabisco, Dow, Curtice Burns, Swift, and Cultor also hold a number of patents in this area. Cultor Food Science Group is working with a mixture of fatty acid esters of sorbitol in the form of Sorbestrin, which is reported to be a thermally stable, fryable fat substitute with a caloric content of 1.5 kcal/gram.

    Next step -- sugar

      When caloric reduction has been the target in past years, polydextrose has been the ingredient frequently chosen to replace sucrose calories. This ingredient has seen extensive use in ice creams and confections. The FDA has affirmed that the caloric density of polydextrose is 1.0 kcal/gram.

      Polyols, or sugar alcohols, have been used in sugar-free applications for years, but until recently they had no clear advantage in caloric reduction. In 1994, though, a FASEB (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology) report concluded that the hydrogenated starch hydrolysates, maltitol syrups, and maltitol provide caloric densities of 3.0 kcal/gram; sorbitol, 2.6 kcal/gram; xylitol, 2.4 kcal/gram; lactitol and isomalt, 2.0 kcal/gram; and mannitol, 1.6 kcal/gram. The FDA has, in letters to concerned companies, issued an interim approval of these caloric densities. This gives the product developer opportunities not available before -- provided the properties of each of these ingredients are considered.

    Which to use?

      The polyols as a group have a number of similarities, but each ingredient has unique features that favor it in some applications and limit its use in others. Factors that must be considered include caloric content, regulatory status, labeling restrictions, laxation potential, cost, solubility, cooling effect, relative sweetness, and stability.

      Sorbitol and mannitol are natural polyols that have been used for years in sugar-free applications. Both have the same molecular weight, both have 0.6 times the sweetness of sucrose, and both contribute a cooling effect. Mannitol is a food additive with limited food use due to its limited solubility and high laxative potential. It is found primarily in pharmaceutical and confectionery applications. Sorbitol is relatively inexpensive, although still two to three times more expensive than sucrose. Sorbitol is GRAS, but with percentage use limitations in all categories. A laxation label is required if consumption is anticipated at 50 gram/day for sorbitol and greater than 20 gram/day for mannitol.

      Xylitol is a polyol often used for its extreme cooling effect and cariostatic (prevents cavities) benefits. It is also natural and has a sweetness level equivalent to sucrose, but its cost -- roughly 10 times the cost of sucrose -- has limited its use to primarily chewing gums, mints, lozenges and toothpaste.

      Lactitol is a disaccharide sugar alcohol with 0.3 to 0.4 times the sweetness of sucrose and a slight cooling effect. Like sorbitol and xylitol, lactitol has good solubility in water, and like sorbitol, mannitol and xylitol, it is crystalline in form. Lactitol has been used as a sugar bulking agent in baked goods. It is relatively nonhygroscopic, which can be beneficial if other polyols are also used. It is also useful in chewing gum, confectionery and ice cream. It costs four to five times more than sucrose.

      Isomalt, another disaccharide, is roughly the same cost as lactitol. Isomalt has a much lower water solubility, but it has seen use in the same categories as lactitol. Its sweetness equivalence is 0.45 to 0.6 times the sweetness of sugar, and it has a crystalline form. Both products have become much more available in the United States in the last couple of years. Much of the information on their use has been developed in Europe.

      Maltitol, another disaccharide, is a crystalline polyol with many characteristics similar to sucrose. It has 0.8 to 0.9 times the sweetness of sucrose, good water solubility, and a similar cooling effect. Like lactitol and isomalt, it is assumed-GRAS in the United States. In the past, cost has been a limiting factor for maltitol, and it is closer in caloric density to sucrose.

      Hydrogenated starch hydrolysates (HSH) and hydrogenated glucose syrups (maltitol syrups) are noncrystalline syrups defined by their maltitol, sorbitol and maltotriol contents. These are assumed GRAS, but have been used in sugar-free confections for a number of years.

      The caloric reduction from full calorie syrups, such as corn syrup, is slight. However, these syrups do contribute water, and a high fructose syrup can contribute equivalent sweetness at a lower use percentage than a glucose syrup. Still, more caloric reduction can be expected from HSH and maltitol syrups.

      Polydextrose should also be considered as a sugar replacement, especially in higher moisture applications. Polydextrose is a randomly bonded polymer of glucose. It is non-sweet, non-crystalline, and very water-soluble. Again, cost is about four to five times that of sucrose, but caloric density is only 1 kcal/gram. Polydextrose is a food additive and is often used in reduced-calorie and/or sugar free ice creams and confectioneries. It is effective in high-sugar systems where crystallinity is not required -- for example, jams, jellies, syrups and toppings. These kinds of products also can be components of baked goods or ice cream, where they would contribute to the final calorie reduction in a finished product.

    Flour and other calories

      Depending on the formulation, replacement of fat and sugar might -- at least on paper -- get you to your target, but this is usually not the best route. Some fat and sugar will probably be required for texture and/or flavor purposes. Other ingredients may need to be replaced with lower calorie ingredients. Dietary fiber is considered to contribute zero caloric density, so it is advantageous to replace some flour and/or other ingredients with fiber ingredients.

      Fiber ingredients contain varying amounts of dietary fiber, so you must find out how much of the ingredient is dietary fiber. Sources are often chosen for ingredient legend fit, such as grain fibers for bread. Purified forms of cellulose (containing over 99% dietary fiber) are available, such as powdered cellulose. This ingredient is obtained by mechanically disintegrating cellulose to various fiber lengths, which results in a range of water-binding capacities for various applications. Low water-binding capacity is desirable for baked goods, while a very high capacity works best in beverages.

      Cellulose also can be hydrolyzed and disintegrated to form microcrystalline cellulose particles, which can be provided in various particle sizes to fit certain applications. These can be co-dried with gums to create co-dispersions for creamy mouthfeel and additional body. Cellulose can be chemically modified to form methoxyl or hydroxypropyl cellulose gums with a range of moisture retention, viscosity, and film-forming properties.

      Whether or not a fiber claim is desired, it is often a good idea to incorporate a fiber or purified cellulose product for the caloric benefit alone. Very often if a polyol or polydextrose replaces sucrose, powdered cellulose is helpful in maintaining a good final texture, especially in baked goods.

    Paper Chase II

      After you have reviewed all of the options available in terms of replacing fat, sugar, flour or other ingredients, the suppliers should be contacted for application material, nutritional information, costs and samples. Then this information should be entered into the nutritional software database. The next steps will be determined by the targets established with marketing.

      Considering the characteristics of the fat replacers, work with the formulation on-screen to bring the fat to the target level. Remember to compensate for moisture loss; this will probably need readjustment later due to differences in the processing characteristics. Work with the product at the bench to establish that the conceptual formulation actually works, and make the necessary adjustments or changes. This process assumes that there has been a fat level established, based on the consumer desire for fat reduction in addition to caloric reduction.

      After reaching the lowest level of fat that is required in the product, attention can be centered on replacement of sucrose. The choice of sucrose replacers often depends on the final texture required for the product. As with the fat replacers, sucrose replacers exhibit a wide range of characteristics -- crystalline to noncrystalline, highly soluble to slightly soluble, hygroscopic to non-hygroscopic, etc. The range of caloric densities and costs also affects the decision.

      Plug these values into the nutritional program, adjust for final moistures, and evaluate the calorie and contents versus the target. Then, go back to the bench to judge texture and other quality attributes versus the target. At this point, remember that fiber can counterbalance some of the textural effects of the sugar replacers, so it may be necessary to replace some flour or other full-calorie ingredient with a high-dietary fiber bulking agent.

      In certain products, proteins and/or leavening agents often can open up the texture or provide some structure to establish a lighter texture. These include egg whites, whey or soy proteins designed to act as whipping agents, or fast acting leaveners such as monocalcium phosphate and ammonium bicarbonate. Varying mixing procedures -- either order of addition or mixing speeds, depending on the product -- might also be helpful.

      Sometimes the right ingredient mix might just be out of balance, so a statistical program such as Response Surface Methodology (RSM) might be in order. When using these techniques, include caloric density or percent fat as critical factors.

      As all product developers know, this process is not an easy one and it will involve cycling between the computer and the bench a number of times to find the right balance. That's why it's called research! Calling on the resources and palates of as many co-workers as possible can provide important input. It can be a mistake to rely on one opinion (especially on one very close to the project) and expect to keep the project on track when it is still at the bench level. Open communication is critical.

    Beyond calories

      Meeting all of the percent fat and caloric density criteria for a product can look great on paper, but if the taste and texture are not reasonably close to target, the product will fail. This is one of the reasons for starting with multiple targets, such as "fat free, reduced calorie," even though this attractive option may be unapproachable for a particular product. Falling back to "low-fat, reduced calorie" or "reduced-fat, reduced calorie," may still generate a good claim, as well as a product with good flavor and texture.

      Toward the middle to the end of the development cycle (as you near the percent fat and caloric targets), it's time to start working with a flavor supplier. Naturally, since the product differs from a standard product, the supplier needs to know what targets you have in mind. Ingredients and processing affect the flavor of the finished product. It is always helpful to provide suppliers with the most current base, even if you have to disguise the ingredients used. Factors such as heat, process time, and even packaging can alter the flavor.

      Some of the most difficult things a developer must do are screen flavors, provide verbal feedback, receive new samples, screen flavors, and so on. With some basic information, the supplier can help shorten the cycle.

    Sweetness and lite

      Fat replacement has sometimes resulted in overly sweet products, particularly in baked goods. As calories are replaced by sucrose replacers like the polyols, the level of sweetness can sometimes be too low. Past articles in Food Product Design have covered the high-potency sweeteners available worldwide. These include saccharin, cyclamates, aspartame, acesulfame-K, sucralose and alitame.

      On June 27 of this year, the FDA amended 21CFR 172.804 to clear aspartame as a general purpose sweetener. The agency replaced the 23 listed uses with permission to use the sweetener in accordance with good manufacturing practices at a level no higher than "that required to accomplish the intended functional effect."

      Aspartame has a clean, sweet taste, but the pH, temperature and time effects of the process and product influence the end result. Encapsulated aspartame is an option for high-temperature processes, but it can still undergo changes during shelf life when the aspartame is no longer protected.

      Acesulfame K offers some options in stability, and it has been used successfully in a number of products. It is considered a food additive and has been cleared for use in several categories.

    Acesulfame K and aspartame also have been used in blends. Their sweetness is synergistic, providing more sweetness for equal cost. Additionally, the blend can offer improvements in flavor profile and stability.

    Meeting the target

      This article has covered the vast array of ingredients now open to the product developer working toward a caloric reduction target. Many of the ingredients have not changed in name over the last several years, but many other factors have changed. Consumer awareness has changed, the regulatory scenery has changed, and the product designer and suppliers have learned to use the available technology effectively. At the same time, some new ingredients have appeared that, over time, may prove useful in applications where there seemed to be no hope before (e.g., fat-based fat replacers).

      A number of research cycles between nutritional development and the bench must take place before a product is deemed acceptable for the final test: consumer acceptance. In many companies, the sensory group is an essential part of the bench screening process and its members can help determine when to expand the screening -- first through available employees, then finally to the consumer.

      Just as some options have opened doors for further fat reduction, other options will expand the "palette" for further caloric reduction as the needs arise. Regulatory changes such as those regarding soluble fibers may occur, and new ingredient options are on the horizon. The rest is left to the creativity of ingredient suppliers and product developers. We have met the test before, and we can do it again.

    NLEA Relative and Explicit Nutrient Content Claims

    Claim (Descriptor)

    Definitions

    Free

    A serving contains no or a physiologically inconsequential amount. (<5 calories; <0.5 mg sugar; <5 mg sodium; <0.5 gram fat; <2 mg cholesterol, with <0.5 gram saturated fat.)

    Low

    Serving size per reference amount (or per 50 gram for small serving sizes) contains no more than (NMT) 40 calories; NMT 140 mg sodium; NMT 3 gram fat; NMT 20 mg cholesterol, with NMT 2 gram saturated fat; NMT 1 gram saturated fat, with NMT 15% of total calories.

    Reduced/Less

    At least 25% less of a nutrient or 25% less calories; cannot be used if reference already meets low claim.

    Healthy

    Food is low in fat and saturated fat as defined above, and a serving contains NMT 480 mg sodium and NMT 60 mg cholesterol.

    % Fat-Free

    Product must be low-fat for fat-free, % must accurately reflect the amount in 100 grams of food (5 grams fat in 100 grams food = 95% fat free).

    Light/Lite

    In foods with greater than 50% of the calories from fat, at least a 50% reduction in fat. In foods with NMT 50% calories from fat, at least 1/3 fewer calories.

      Ronald C. Deis, Ph D. is a food scientist with 171/ears in the food industry both in product development of consumer goods and technical service for ingredients for the food industry. Among other products, he has worked extensively with fat and sucrose replacers and reduced-calorie ingredients.

    Back to top

    © 1995 by Weeks Publishing Company

    3400 Dundee Rd. Suite #100
    Northbrook, IL 60062
    Phone: 847-559-0385
    Fax: 847-559-0389
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Website: www.foodproductdesign.com



Subscribe and receive the latest insights on the health and nutrition industry.
Join 37,000+ members. Yes, it's completely free.

You May Also Like