Consumers’ Focus on Health and Wellness Drives Clean-Labeled Product Demand

Posted on:October 29, 2018
Consumers Shift to More Healthful Ingredients

Consumers shift to natural, organic, value-added ingredients.

Consumers are very passionate about clean label issues, and clean label category segments are growing much faster than their traditional counterparts. Untapped clean-label opportunities exist in various fresh and packaged-foods categories, such as frozen pizza, luncheon meats, salad dressing, sweet goods and more.

“According to the latest Nielsen data, at least half of consumers (53%) feel that keeping the bad stuff out of food is more important than adding the good stuff,” explained A. Elizabeth Sloan, Ph.D., President, Sloan Trends, Inc. in her presentation, “You are What You Eat: New and Emerging Consumer Views of What Should be in Food.” After bacteria, the top food safety consumer issues are carcinogens and chemicals in their food. These fears outpaced concerns over antibiotics, biotech/GMOs and allergens. In 2017, 52% of consumers said they preferred foods and beverages with no artificial additives – an all-time high, and 43% of consumers stopped buying a food because of a negative story on food chemicals.

At end of 2017, one-third of all foods and beverages were clean label, and half of all shopping trips included a clean label item. In the “Diet and Nutrition” category, only 40% of products are clean label, indicating significant opportunity for category growth.
New Age beverages posted the highest absolute dollar growth for the year ending 12/09/2017, followed by healthy snacks, deli dip, health care nutritionals, crackers and frozen novelties.

Frozen products have the highest incidence of “free from” claims. Millennials are driving the growth in the frozen category, with 43% of this age demographic purchasing more frozen foods in 2017. Pizza is a $24 billion business, but only 5% of this category is clean label. Clean label is now the second most desired attribute in the beverage category for 2018. Small companies are capitalizing on the clean label category faster than medium or large companies.

Last year almost one-third of all dinners were prepared outside the home. The fastest growing segment of the foodservice market is prepared fresh foods in supermarkets.
After hormone/antibiotic-free, consumers would like to see MSG-, sulfite- and phosphate-free claims more often on their label, per Mintel.

According to the latest Euromonitor data, the global packaged food clean label market is estimated at $193 billion versus $76 billion in the U.S. “Growth of health and wellness foods is actually stronger in developing countries than in developed countries,” said Sloan.

Shifts in health and wellness behaviors are driving new opportunities given the mega trends outlined below, according to IRI.
• Consumers are purchasing for benefit as opposed to form or brand. For example, one-third of households are living a high-protein lifestyle (Note, the percentage outlook for more protein is actually 60%) and seeking more dietary protein, which can come from a variety of products including bars, cereal or snacks.
• Instant Nutritionals were the seventh fastest growing category in the U.S. In 2016, bars, beverages, meal replacements and adult nutritional products offer clean-label opportunity.
• Customers are now worried that they are not getting enough “specialty food ingredients” such as probiotics, botanicals or superfoods vs. one in five who are concerned about not getting enough basic nutrients.
• There has been a reorientation of top health concerns in the U.S. by age. The top concern used to be “heart disease,” but now “retaining mental sharpness as I age” tops the list.
• There is a new demographic of “Fit” consumers who exercise at least 3 days a week. These consumers are seeking products that deliver stronger muscles as well as brain health and are forcing the $42 billion sports nutrition market to move mainstream.
• In addition to foods, there’s also demand for more natural ingredients in over-the-counter drugs, which are also mimicking many food properties (e.g., flavors and foods forms as liquids or candy).
• There is an opportunity to provide a healthier halo for many food products by embracing processing techniques that improve the nutritional quality of their foods or position them as less processed (e.g., cold milled, fermented or use of high pressure pasteurization). Fairlife Ultra filtered Milk is one example, which is now the fastest growing among the top 10 milk brands in the U.S.
• Kid specific products are a $41 billion business. Parents are starting to prefer clean-label, kid-specific foods including toaster pastries, snack cakes and frozen pizza.
• There is growth in alternative plant-based snacks and beverages. Eight in 10 would purchase more plant-based snacks if they were fortified.

The primary reasons that people more actively embrace health and nutrition are because they have kids at home, they’re getting older, have a new condition or are feeling tired/rundown. And, while trends in more healthful, clean label products is on the rise, many untapped opportunities for new product development exists in a wide range of food and beverage categories.

“You are What You Eat: New and Emerging Consumer Views of What Should be in Food,” A. Elizabeth Sloan, Ph.D., President, Sloan Trends, Inc.

This presentation was given at the 2018 Clean Label Conference. To download free presentations and the Post-conference summary of this event, go to

Sugar Reduction Approaches

Posted on:September 7, 2018

Susan Mayer, MS, CFS, Innovation Advisor with RTI International, Research Triangle, NC, in her 2017 Sweetener Systems Conference Presentation
Click to Enlarge

Many questions are raised before innovation begins in a process such as sugar reduction, including: How do you grow in emerging markets? How do you get smart from the beginning? What features should you include? What products will let you compete? How can we lean on local partners but assure quality? Susan Mayer, MSc, CFS, Innovation Advisor with RTI International, discussed these questions as she began her presentation titled “An Innovative Approach to Sugar Reduction.”

Anchoring her presentation on an approach by RTI International, she explained that the non-profit research institute uses a Desirability Feasibility Viability (DFV) Framework to identify intersections at which innovation is found, as it provides solutions across the supply chain and frames the challenge throughout the innovation process.

During the Desirability phase, the needs of the end-user and customer are understood. The product may be sold to a customer, who may not be the ultimate consumer, thus leading to the following: What are the perceived real benefits for the customer and the user? What drives purchase decisions for products?

In looking at Feasibility, what are physical, biological, contextual and environmental requirements? In early development stages, you’re looking a little more broadly than simply whether you can make the product in your plant. How can you learn from others who have made something similar? Also, how might products, partners and expertise be leveraged? Viability involves identification of the market opportunity and business model to grow and scale an innovation. That is, ask yourself who the consumer is and what do they want? What is the consumer willing to pay? Can you make it? Should you make it? Will the new product give you a unique advantage over the competitor, or is the new product going to cannibalize an existing product?

In looking specifically at sugar reduction, understanding the Desirability challenges requires understanding what aspects or definitions of “sugar reduction” are important to consumers. Consumers may associate certain brands with higher sugar, which may open the pathway for a new brand, perhaps with emerging ingredients. Those wanting lower grams of sugar might be satisfied with small-er serving or package sizes.

Consumers wanting “no added sugar” may give rise to products made with fruit flavors, which are often provide by sweet flavor and sweet-related taste. Products made with ingredients providing perceived-to-be- healthy benefits a long with sweetness may include the addition of fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) that can be labeled as probiotics, or those containing fiber, such as inulin. Consumers may simply want reduced sugar—requiring bulk replacement, plus other formula adjustments to maintain taste and texture.

In considering Feasibility, the product developer must deter-mine whether the product is manufacturable and where it can be made. If the equipment isn’t available, can more equipment be leased, or can the product be co-packed elsewhere? Food safety and stability are also critical and must be addressed.

At the Viability stage, the question becomes: Should we make this? Can ingredients, packaging and the process be adjusted so the product’s viable cost meets the price point? In addition, can the product get from production to distribution to the consumer at the desired shelflife?

For example, in assessing the DFV Framework of a product such as Wella Chilled Organic Protein Bars (see sidebar “Eight Sweeteners, One Anti-Sweetener”), there are challenges in all aspects, including the target market, product texture and market competition. Is the product meeting consumer needs? Can the product be placed where they want or expect to find it? The refrigerated protein bars claim of “wild flower honey” listed on the front of the package may appeal to consumers who prefer high- end honey products.

Applying Framework balance is key. Take smart, early steps; “fail fast,” then adjust, suggests Mayer. Leverage partners to fill skill or resource gaps. The DFV Framework allows the product developer to look at things more objectively. Are the pieces balanced or is more emphasis placed in one direction more than another?

Ultimately, consumers will decide what is desirable, but the product has to be feasible and the business must be viable to achieve success.

“An Innovative Approach to Sugar Reduction,” Susan Mayer, MS, CFS, Innovation Advisor with RTI International, Research Triangle, NC

Polyols: Properties, Trends & Labeling

Posted on:September 5, 2018

Peter Jamieson, MSc, Principal and Food Scientist, Atlas Point Technical Services in his 2017 Sweetener Systems Conference Presentation
Click to Enlarge

“Sugars can be classified as monosaccharides, disaccharides or mixtures, such as corn syrup. The key to using polyols for sugar reduction is to select a polyol with similar structure and functional properties as the sugar that you are replacing,” said Peter Jamieson, MSc, Principal and Food Scientist, Atlas Point Technical Services, in his presentation “On Trend Ingredients: Polyols Properties, Labeling & Emerging Areas of Interest.”
Sucrose is the gold standard, because it is the sweetener to which other sugars are most often compared. Sucrose has unique properties, including its sweetness profile, solubility, melting point characteristics and crystallization characteristics. “Trying to replace sucrose is challenging, but polyols or sugar alcohols work well,” said Jamieson.

Polyols are metabolized differently than traditional sugars and carbohydrates. They have a lower glycemic response, lower calories and are also non-cariogenic. Polyols also provide excellent bulk, whereas high-potency sweeteners do not, so polyols can typically be used as a one-for-one replacement for other sweeteners in traditional foods.

Glucose has a reactive aldehyde group. The polyol sorbitol is similar in structure, but the aldehyde has been replaced by a hydroxyl group. This change makes sorbitol no longer recognized as a sugar for nutrition labeling. Replacing traditional sweeteners with polyols can enable products to make nutritional claims, including “no sugar added,” “reduced sugar” or “sugar free.”

Monomers with a single carbohydrate unit (e.g., glucose and fructose) include sorbitol, mannitol, xylitol and erythritol. Dimers with two carbohydrate units (e.g., sucrose and maltose) include maltitol, lactitol s and isomalt. Mixtures include maltitol syrup and polyglycitol syrups. Polyols with more than 50% maltitol are called “polyglycitol syrups” and function more like high-DE corn syrups.

Polyols are caloric sweeteners. For example, maltitol has 2.1 calories per gram. They are “carbohydrates,” but they are not recognized as “sugars” or “added sugars” on the nutrition panel. You must call them out in the nutritional panel as “sugar alcohols” when making a sugar claim.

Jamieson explained some of the physical characteristics of polyols. Polyols are non-reactive and very stable at high temperatures. Polyols do not react with colors, flavors or actives. They do not participate in Maillard browning, which can be either a positive or negative attribute, depending on the application.

Generally, polyols have a negative heat of solution, so energy is being absorbed, resulting in a cooling sensation. Erythritol has a heat of solution of -42, compared to sucrose with a -4. When replacing sugar in chocolates, too much erythritol can make milk chocolate taste like mint chocolate.

Solubility in water is a key attribute that affects performance in baked goods, confectionery, beverages and variegates. Polyols have a wide range of solubility. Sorbitol is very soluble and is often used as a humectant. In contrast, mannitol is not very soluble.

Molecular weight of polyols affects viscosity in confection; freeze point depression in ice creams; and starch gelatinization point in baked goods. When replacing sucrose with a molecular weight of 342, good choices would be maltitol or isomalt, which both have a similar molecular weight.

Relative sweetness is important, especially as companies are tending to minimize use of high-potency sweeteners. Note that xylitol has the same sweetness as sucrose, while lactitol is only 40% as sweet.

Polyols are part of the family of low-digestible carbohydrates (LDC) that also includes polysaccharides, resistant starches and rare sugars. Rare or low digestible sugars include allulose, tagatose and isomaltulose. All LDCs have some degree of impact on the digestive tract. Some have an effect on osmotic laxation, while others impact fermentation by microflora in the GI. Individuals have different responses to LDCs and can adapt to increased levels of LDC in the diet.

A current trend is to focus on sugar reduction, rather than total sugar replacement. The goal should be to deliver a good eating experience.

“On Trend Ingredients: Polyols Properties, Labeling & Emerging Areas of Interest,” Peter Jamieson, MSc, Principal and Food Scientist, Atlas Point Technical Services

Natural Sweetener Characteristics and Uses

Posted on:

Mary Mulry, Ph.D., CFS, Managing Director, Foodwise One LLC, from her 2018 Sweetener Systems Conference presentation.

Click to Enlarge

Sweeteners have a variety of functional properties, including taste, texture and crystal control, among others. Yet, with diabetes on the rise and an increased focus on nutrition and well-being, consumers are demanding more healthful products, including those with reduced sugar, low-glycemic indices, and low-carb and all-natural ingredients. Thus, product developers must not only understand taste, texture and functionality, but the nutritive value of the products they create.

The increased focus on nutrition puts the emphasis squarely on glycemic index, which has a lot to do with not raising blood sugar, said Mary Mulry, Ph.D., Managing Director, FoodWise One, LLC in her presentation “Functional Properties and Applications of Natural Sweeteners.”

Fructose doesn’t raise blood sugar like glucose (dextrose), but there are concerns about its use. HFCS is a very functional and inexpensive sweetener, but over-consumption can lead to obesity and other health issues, as well. And, in today’s market, there’s more focus on organic and non-GMO. Corn is a highly modified crop and has a poor reputation in the natural foods market. These demands are slowly moving into the conventional market.

Blending sweeteners is important, whether nutritive or non-nutritive are used. Satiety and satiation are important in choosing ingredients. Sweeteners neither bring satiety nor satiation, unless they are blended with other macro-nutrients, such as fiber or protein. Alternative natural sweeteners have become increasingly important. Consumers desire natural-sounding ingredients and those that are non-GMO and organic. Additionally, their diet, such as Paleo, may dictate the sweeteners used. Another consideration is that food formulators might want to make a health declaration on the ingredient statement.

These natural alternative sweeteners include honey, which is versatile and has a distinctive flavor and high humectancy but can be costly and is non-vegan. Another natural alternative is maple syrup, which is vegan; has a range of flavor profiles; meets the Paleo diet restrictions (as does honey)—but is more costly than other alternatives. Agave has a clean taste and a low glycemic index, because it is high in fructose. It is available raw (i.e., not heated above 118°F). However, agave’s high fructose level can also be a negative with some consumers. Brown rice syrups are available in multiple Dextrose Equivalents (DE) that have different sweetener profiles with different functionalities. And, lastly, molasses is used frequently in pet foods.

Other syrups include: tapioca syrup, which has a clean flavor and can be used by
itself or blended with other sweeteners; and yacon syrup, a relatively new sweetener, which is less sweet because it contains 50% fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) and 35% fructose. A prebiotic claim can be made when used, but presently reliability of supply is questionable.

Inulin syrups are less sweet and have a lower DE, but contain more FOS and galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS) that can reduce sweetness and have a binding property that makes them suitable for bars, for example. Other syrups include date, sweet potato, balsamic, sorghum and pomegranate.

Sweeteners are designed to make foods more palatable and have other functional characteristics, but they shouldn’t be a large part of the daily nutritional profile. Sweeteners are an additive, not a food, and should be used in moderation. As a product developer, it’s important to know what the consumer wants. Consumers rely on the internet for infor- mation and believe what they read. These factors should be considered when choosing a sweetener system, but overall, moderation is key.

“Functional Properties and Applications of Natural Sweeteners,” Mary C. Mulry, Ph.D., CFS, Managing Director, Foodwise One LLC, Longmont, CO,

Reducing Sugar in Baked Products

Posted on:September 4, 2018

David Busken, Principal, Bakery Development Ltd., chart from his 2017 Sweetener Systems Conference presentation
Click for Larger Image
“I am just a simple baker,” began David Busken, Principal and Consultant with Bakery Development Ltd. Well, that’s understating it a bit: He’s a master commercial baker and the descendant of a long line of professional bakers.

Busken presented a list of sweeteners typically utilized in bakery goods development. Whereas American bakers traditionally worked with sucrose, honey, glucose (dextrose) or a range of hydrolyzed corn syrups, the field of sweetener ingredients has expanded considerably as consumer preferences have changed and enzyme technology has advanced.

Highest in sugar content on Busken’s list were the simple sugars and disaccharides, dried fructose and sucrose, each with 100% sugar content. Lower on the list were: molasses (67%); 42 Dextrose Equivalent (DE) corn syrup solids (27.5%), which consist primarily of dextrins and maltodextrins; and inulin (9.5%), a fructo-oligosaccharide. DE, a measure of reducing-sugar content, designates the degree of enzymatic hydrolysis to which a starch material has been subjected.

Fructo-oligosaccharides, which are relatively new as food ingredients, may contain moderate or high levels of fructose sugar, depending upon their degree of hydrolysis. Suppliers of inulin (a fructo-oligosaccharide) typically offer a range of hydrolysates, varying in sweetness and sugar content. Polyols, or sugar alcohols, contribute sweetness, low-caloric contents and texture control, without having to be labeled as sugars.

Newer entrants to the baker’s portfolio include low-calorie sugars, such as allulose. Allulose poses a conundrum, however: Though negligible in calories, it must still be labeled as a sugar.

Clean label considerations can also be a factor. For example, while a corn hydrolysate, such as 42 DE corn syrup, might be frowned upon by the clean label community, a 42 DE tapioca hydrolysate might be quite acceptable, despite virtually identical sugar contents.

“So, how does one reduce sugar in a cookie (or biscuit from 28 to 22%, for example?” asked Busken. To make a soft cookie, one can use non-crystallizing reducing sugars, polyols and inulins. “To make a crisp cookie, I suggest a 42 DE corn syrup…once we bake out the moisture, it then becomes very hard.” He noted that this ingredient is used to make cookie inclusions for frozen ice creams or yogurt: Increasing 42 DE corn syrup levels to 8% allows them to remain crisp in frozen storage.

To take sugar out of a cookie requires that it be replaced with other ingredients. “For a high-quality cookie, you want to add more fat than flour, because it keeps it richer… ‘rich’ implying higher levels of fat, sugar or egg.” The richer the product formulation, the longer its shelflife! A heat-stable, high-intensity potency sweetener can be used to compensate for the reduction in sweetness, said Busken.

If “richness” is not a goal, Busken recommends replacing the sugar with flour and adding slightly more water to compensate for the added flour. This also increases protein content which, in turn, hardens a cookie’s texture. “To improve a cookie’s texture, or ‘bite,’ you will want to create a more open grain structure to compensate for hardness contributed by the added flour,” said Busken. Add more egg and more leavening. Or, find a pastry flour with lower protein content, but higher quality protein.

Cookie hardness is also managed by controlling water ab- sorption and length of bake. This is especially important for soft cookies. Choice of sweeteners helps to control texture. Replacing sugar with a blend of HFCS and regular (42 DE) corn syrup works and contributes to a chewy texture. “An 80:20 blend of corn syrup and HFCS will also reduce or slow down fructose crystallization.” Low-calorie polyols and some inulins can also impair sugar crystallization and soften cookie textures.

For softer, rather than crisp cookies, whole grains work well as sugar replacers—while enhancing the Nutrition Facts panel appeal. They absorb water and break up the dough structure, while also contributing valuable nutrients. Busken recommended using whole oat flakes, rye flakes, buckwheat groats (“they add nice flavor and a whole-grain texture that people expect”), pulse flours (e.g., lentil flour) and flax meal, which contributes a nice flavor along with healthy omega-3 oils. However, “if using pulse flours, make sure that they have been heat-treated, in order to avoid beany aromas and flavors.”

“Reducing Sugar in Baked Goods: Practical Considerations & Possible Solutions,” David F. Busken, Principal, Bakery Development Ltd.,

Page 3 of 3312345...102030...Last »
gff_ads_pos1 gff_ads_pos2

Recent Posts

Recent Comments


Recent Tags

Copyright© Global Food Forums®, Inc 2018 / all rights reserved