Low sugar does not mean low calorie
Dr. Paul Berryman, Chief Executive, Leatherhead Food Research, Surrey,
UK.
Leatherhead Food Research provides independent scientific
research and expert advice to the food industry. Dr Paul Berryman,
CEO, discusses the pros and cons of reformulation and highlights
independent research showing that consumers are confused about
sugar reduction.
Introduction
At Leatherhead, we carry out a multitude of reformulation projects for industry
designed to reduce fat, salt, sugar and additives. Each project poses its own
technical challenges – producing something that tastes great but has a health or
consumer benefit. In this article I will describe several types of reformulation – salt,
fat and sugar reduction. The case for salt reduction is robust because the general
scientific consensus is that it raises blood pressure. We also know that saturated fat
consumption increases blood cholesterol and risk of cardiovascular disease.
Replacing fat with carbohydrate cuts calories by over 50%.
However the case for sugar reduction is less clear. For soft drinks it is fairly
straightforward. You replace sugar with an artificial sweetener and add in more
water. Calories decrease, but some argue that the mouth-feel and flavour of the drink
suffer. However if you take sugar out of a cake or breakfast cereal what do you
replace it with? Water does not work!
Often sugar is replaced with another type of carbohydrate – typically starch – so the
calorie count stays the same. One example is a sugar-frosted breakfast cereal
containing 371 kcals per 100g. The reduced-sugar version, labelled “1/3 less sugar”,
contains 369 kcals per 100g. This example could shock those who believe in the
calorie-busting benefits of sugar reduction!
In this article, I will describe the overall purpose of reformulation, the technical
difficulties and the permitted EU Health claims. I also describe some independent
consumer research carried out at Leatherhead Food Research to assess consumer
attitudes to sugar -reduction claims. The findings show that consumers are surprised
(and in some cases angry) that sugar reduction does not necessarily lead to calorie
reduction!
Why do we reformulate foods?
The food industry reformulates foods to make them more appealing to consumers.
The reformulation must make the food healthier, tastier, cheaper or better by adding
attractive ingredients or removing unattractive ingredients. We reformulate foods:




To remove ingredients of health concern e.g. salt, trans fat, saturated fat
To reduce calories – by decreasing calorie-containing ingredients fat (9 cals)
sugar (4 cals), protein (4 cals), alcohol (7 cals) or by increasing the proportion
of calorie-free ingredients e.g. air or water
To deliver a clean label – less additives, replace synthetic ingredients with
natural, replace with organic ingredients
To improve flavour or indulgence
However the reformulated food must:



Comply with food laws – e.g. additives, contaminants, health claims
Be at least as tasty as the previous version of the food or it will not sell
Be safe to eat
This is not always easy, as described in the next section.
The technical difficulties of reformulation
Removing salt, sugar or fat from a food will radically change the nature of the food.
The key question is “what do you replace them with?”
Salt reduction
The case for salt reduction is strong. Excess consumption increases blood pressure
which can lead to strokes and other cardiovascular issues. However salt has a wide
variety of important functions in foods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sodium chloride has a “pure” salty taste
Enhances flavours
Suppresses bitterness
Visual in some applications
Important for processing of some foods
Important for texture in some foods
Natural preservative
There are various techniques used by food manufacturers to reduce salt:



Gradual reduction. Consumers accept a gradual decrease but reject a large
single shift because of poor taste. Heinz used this for soup reformulation.
Use a salt substitute: e.g. potassium chloride. Unfortunately this can give
sweet and bitter aftertastes. Glutamate, lysine, ammonium chloride, organic
salts and mycoprotein extracts are also used.
Use a salt enhancer: Makes the salt taste saltier. However can give
problems (e.g. MSG intolerance).
Research at Leatherhead showed that by reducing salt particle size from 450um to
7um delivered the same salt intensity but with a 30% salt reduction. This is because
the smaller particles dissolve much quicker on the tongue, giving the perception of
higher salt content. This technique is used in Pringles and Walkers crisps.
Fat reduction
The health case for fat reduction is also strong – particularly trans-fats and saturated
fats which are associated with high cholesterol levels, cardiovascular disease and
stroke. Fats have many important functions in foods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appearance (gloss, colour)
Mouthfeel (texture, lubrication)
Carrier of other flavours
Structure
Flavour release modulator
Heat transfer
Satiety
Source of essential fatty acids, fat soluble vitamins
Replacing fat is more complicated than salt replacement because fat contributes
much to taste and to structure. Fat-based substitutes like salatrin and olestra can
cause unpleasant digestion problems. Two scientific techniques used at Leatherhead
Food Research to reduce fat are:


WOW emulsions – we replaced the oil-in-water emulsion in mayonnaise with
a novel water-in-oil-in-water emulsion to reduce fat from 80% to 40%.
Cryocrystallisation – Cryocrystallised fat is produced by mixing liquid
nitrogen and oil in a special machine to produce a hard powdery unsaturated
fat. We reduced the sat fat content of shortcrust pastry from 10% to 4.5%
without loss of quality or organoleptic properties.
Sugar reduction
The case for sugar reduction is less clear. For soft drinks it is fairly straightforward.
You replace sugar with an artificial sweetener and add in more water. Calories
decrease, but some argue that the mouth-feel and flavour of the drink suffer.
However if sugar is removed from a cake or breakfast cereal what do you replace it
with? Water does not work! Often sugar is replaced with another type of
carbohydrate – typically starch – so the calorie count stays the same.
Sugar has many functions as a food ingredient:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sweetness
Suppress bitterness and acidity
Flavour enhancement
Texture and bulking
Enhance mouthfeel
Change freezing or boiling point
Fermentation!
Natural preservative
The three main options for sugar reduction are:

Reduce sugar gradually – this has limited value.

Replace with intense sweetener – there are many low- or no-calorie
artificial sweeteners available (see Table 1). They are generally effective but
can give unpleasant aftertastes, may need warning labels, are sometimes
unstable during processing and need to comply with legal limits.

Replace with bulk sweetener. These include sugars (dextrose, fructose,
tagatose), alcohols (xylitol, erythritol, sorbitol) and bulking agents
(polydextrose, inulin).
Table 1: Artificial sweeteners
Sweetener
Nominal
potency
Taste, labelling and stability problems
Acesulfame-K
200
Bitter taste
Alitame
2,000
Heat/sugar – Maillard
Aspartame
200
Bitter taste, pH and heat sensitive; needs warning label
Cyclamate
30
(Chemical)
Neohesperidin
dihydrochalcone
400
Liquorice, menthol, slow onset, lingering taste
Neotame
10,000
Saccharin
300
Bitter, metallic aftertaste
Stevioside
200
Liquorice, slow onset, lingering taste
Sucralose
600
Lingering taste
Thaumatin
2,000
Liquorice, slow onset, extreme lingering
However the alternative sugars are fully caloric (except tagatose), most have
reduced sweetness and they are still cariogenic. The sugar alcohols reduce calories,
do not give Maillard reactions and are non-cariogenic but some can cause laxative
effects and cooling in the mouth. The bulking agents suffer from low sweetness.
During reformulation it is difficult to match the sweet taste of sugar with substitutes,
because they have different flavour profiles and give different texture and mouth-feel.
Since sugar is a natural preservative, sugar reduction can reduce the shelf-life of
foods. Low-sugar jam is a good example. It must be refrigerated to avoid mould
growth. Sugar replacement can also increase production costs.
In my opinion the biggest issue is that sugar reduction does not necessarily reduce
calorie intake, because sugar is typically replaced with another carbohydrate which
contains the same amount of calories. Sugar reduction can even lead to higher
calorie intake, if replaced with fat! So it is crucial that consumers understand what
they are buying.
The next section reports some recent independent research carried out by
Leatherhead Food Research showing that consumers are confused about reducedsugar claims.
Health claims and consumer
reduction claims
understanding of sugar-
In the EU, Regulation 1924/2006 harmonises the use of nutrition (and health) claims
to ensure effective functioning of the internal market and to provide a high level of
consumer protection. Claims must not be false, ambiguous or misleading, or
encourage excess consumption of a food. The presence, absence or reduced
content of a nutrient or other substance for which a claim is made must have a
beneficial nutritional or physiological effect, as established by generally accepted
scientific evidence. The Regulation provides a list of permitted nutrition claims with
conditions of use. Table 2 shows the claims relating to sugars content.
Table 2: Permitted nutrition claims relating to sugars content
Permitted nutrition claims
Conditions of use
Low sugars*
Sugars-free*
With no added sugars†
≤5g sugars/100g or ≤2.5g sugars/100ml
≤0.5g sugars per 100g or 100ml
No added mono- or disaccharides or any other food used
for its sweetening properties. If sugars are naturally
present in the food it should be labelled “Contains
naturally occurring sugars”
≥30% reduction compared with a similar product; the
amount of energy in the product bearing the claim is equal
to or less than the amount of energy in a similar product
Reduced [sugars]*
*And any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer
Consumer understanding is a key aspect of the claims regulation, which states that
“use of nutrition and health claims shall only be permitted if the average consumer
can be expected to understand the beneficial effects as expressed in the claim”. A
review of this area concluded that there is little clear-cut definitive research, that the
evidence is often scant or conflicting, and that less research has been conducted
about nutrition claims compared with health claims. Therefore Leatherhead Food
research carried out some independent consumer research to assess consumer
understanding of sugar reduction claims (see Case Study).
The findings show that consumers are surprised (and in some cases angry) that
sugar reduction does not necessarily lead to calorie reduction!
Case Study: Consumer understanding of sugar reduction claims
Leatherhead Food Research conducted qualitative and quantitative research to
investigate consumer awareness and understanding of product claims in the UK,
focusing on nutrition claims relating to sugars. Both research methods identified a
good awareness of product claims. No-added-sugars claims were generally preferred
to reduced-sugar claims, and there was a general assumption that sweeteners and
other ingredients would be added in place of sugars. However there was little
awareness of the level of sugar reduction and the associated calorie reduction in
products when reduced-sugars claims were made on pack. In focus groups,
participants felt deceived if sugar-reduction claims were being made without a
significant reduction in calories. This was reinforced in the quantitative research
which showed that respondents expected a similar and meaningful level of calorie
reduction to the level of sugar reduction. The majority correctly identified that fat had
the highest calorific content but a significant number believed incorrectly that sugar
contained more calories per gram than alcohol and other carbohydrates. This is
crucial to consumers’ expectations, as they clearly link sugar to calories and
therefore expect a reduction in sugar content to deliver a reduction in calorie content.
(Acknowledgement to British Sugar)
The market for no, low- and reduced-sugar foods
Despite the challenges of sugar reduction, the market for reduced-sugar foods is
huge. The charts below show that the food industry has launched approximately
7000 new food and drink products bearing no-, low- or reduced-sugar claims per
annum since 2007. The most popular categories are sugar and gum confectionery
and juice drinks. Diet soft drinks are well-established in the market so we see fewer
new products. Diet carbonated drinks usually contain no sugar and a mixture of
artificial sweeteners, but even “non-diet” drinks contain a mixture of sugar and
artificial preservatives, rather than just sugar.
Figure 1: Global new product launches – no-, low- and reduced-sugar claims
8,000
7586
7247
7253
7158
7,000
6,000
5,000
6927
5349
4752
4,000
3,000
2,000
1502
1,000
0
2005
2006
Source: Mintel GNPD
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Figure 2: Global new no-, low-, reduced-sugar product launches – by category
7,000
6,000
Sweet Spreads
5,000
Carbonated Soft Drinks
Desserts & Ice Cream
Other Beverages
4,000
Baby Food
Snacks
3,000
Dairy
Bakery
2,000
Juice Drinks
Sugar & Gum Confectionery
1,000
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: Mintel GNPD
Conclusions
In conclusion reformulation for sugar reduction is complex and poses product-specific
challenges and solutions. Sugar has many advantages: it has a clean sweet taste,
suppresses bitterness and acidity, improves texture, provides energy and acts as a
natural preservative. Replacers like sorbitol can cause digestive problems and some
artificial sweeteners can give an aftertaste. Further in some cases it can be
demonstrated that sugar reduction does not automatically lead to calorie reduction –
a fact that consumers find very hard to believe.
Dr Paul Berryman is Chief Executive at Leatherhead Food Research,
Randalls Road, Leatherhead, Surrey, KT22 7RY, UK.
Tel: +44 (0)1372 376761
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.leatherheadfood.com