KHNI’s webinar titled “Solving Sodium – Insights, Science & Strategies to help you navigate the salt space,” provided unique perspectives and current global initiatives surrounding sodium reduction in food/beverages.

Excessive sodium intake is linked to an estimated 1.89 million cardiovascular disease related deaths each year. The global average sodium intake is more than double the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation of <2000 mg of sodium (equivalent to <5 g of salt) per day in adults. Reducing sodium in foods is therefore a priority for many governments with more than a quarter of the worlds population living in countries with mandatory measures towards sodium reduction. However, there are challenges around reducing sodium in foods such as taste, texture and preservation.

In this webinar, experts focused on the urgent global health crisis posed by excessive salt consumption. The webinar delved into the multifaceted dimensions of salt reduction efforts, exploring effective policies, industry challenges, innovative solutions, and the commitment of companies to sustainable nutrition. Our experts highlighted the challenges and opportunities for future innovation in the ever-evolving sodium reduction market by answering questions such as;

1. What is the current global regulatory landscape for sodium and what public health initiatives are working / not working?
2. Innovation in sodium reduction leverages contemporary taste and smell neuroscience and state of art fermentation technologies. What are the latest scientific developments in the area of taste modulation for sodium perception?
3. Case studies to demonstrate what are the challenges and solutions for reducing sodium in different applications (such as preservation)?

This webinar offers valuable insights into the evolving global landscape of sodium reduction. Viewers will gain a deeper understanding of the regulatory challenges and opportunities for sodium reduction, explore the latest advancements in sodium reduction technology, and learn from successful product innovation case studies. Join the conversation that will shape the future of sodium reduction and help address this global health crisis.

Meat preservation is a serious business—and rightly so, as contaminated meat carries the possibility of such health threats as Listeria, Salmonella and E. coli. These well-known pathogenic bacteria, which can proliferate in unprotected meats, can lead to a range of deadly medical conditions. For global consumers, the ongoing fear of meat contamination as a threat to human health keeps meat products at the top of the list whenever the subject of food safety arises. Fortunately, the risk can be controlled with proper care and attention paid to preservation techniques and products.

Effective preservation in meat can reduce food waste

In addition to ensuring safe consumption for individual consumers, meat preservation and protection is an important and valuable component of a global food supply chain charged with feeding a global population set to rise from seven billion currently to nine billion by the late 2030s. For perspective, over one-third of all food produced today ends up in either the “loss” or “waste” category, costing the global economy an estimated $940 billion annually and contributing 8–10% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. Since meat represents the highest category of economic and environmental impact of wasted food globally, the preservation and protection of meat is more than just a personal issue—it’s a society-wide concern.

Lactates are the most common preservative in meat

Formulating solutions for meat food safety requires trained microbiologists and in-application challenge and shelf-life studies. Challenge studies mimic a potential contamination to demonstrate a preservative can keep food safe during a worst-case scenario. The food safety process takes time and is not an area in which it is worth the risk to try something new on a whim to “see if it works.” Solutions based on the salts of organic acids, e.g., lactic or acetic acid, are time-tested meat safety and shelf-life extension solutions.

Of these, sodium-lactate—based on lactic acid—is the most commonly used conventional meat preservative in the marketplace today. Lactates have a robust market share following their rise decades ago as a preferred solution for inhibiting microbial growth in meat. Lactic acid has a strong history in carcass decontamination used in hot water solutions. In its sodium neutralized form, besides protecting meat, sodium lactate adds a light salty flavor.

Increasing regulatory push to reduce sodium content of meat creates pressure to find new food safety solutions

The downside—hiding in plain sight in the name—is that these applications are sodium-based and thus serve to raise the volume of sodium in any product that uses them. A single serving (56 g) of a market sample turkey deli meat contains 440 mg sodium, with 170 mg of that being contributed by its preservative, a market solution of sodium lactate/diacetate (dosed at 2.5%) – this 170 mg is 7% of a consumer’s recommend daily intake of sodium. This has made sodium lactate-based preservatives a key target of the salt-reduction movement.

In response, some products now use potassium-based lactate preservatives rather than sodium-based. Meat products often use a number of formulation components that contain sodium. Fortunately, producers can target these components individually to reduce the cumulative sodium level in the end product. Substituting sodium lactate—dosed up to 4% content—with a no-sodium alternative is an excellent start to substantially reducing the overall sodium load. For example, a 4% sodium lactate solution could contribute up to 272 mg of sodium to one serving size (56 g) of deli meat. With a potassium-based preservative solution, this could all be removed.

Replacement of sodium lactate with potassium lactate can cause taste challenges

Substitution of sodium lactate with potassium lactate has been a great step in tackling sodium contribution but often needs additional sensory support in application. This is because, in dosages over 1%, potassium-based solutions may deliver an “off” (sometimes described as “metallic”) taste. Lactates are often dosed at more than three times this.

Recently, this issue has become more prominent because global regulatory bodies are placing increased pressure on sodium reduction, which means there is even more pressure to reduce the sodium content contributed by preservatives in meat.

The overconsumption of salt is being targeted by food regulators worldwide, beginning with the World Health Organization (WHO) and most recently the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In October 2021, the FDA released its updated 2.5-year guidance, goals and recommendations for sodium reduction in foods and beverages. The chief goal is to persuade the food industry to voluntarily reduce sodium content from a daily average of 3,400 mg/person to 3,000. The FDA’s reduction targets for meat are particularly aggressive, encouraging a reduction of up to 20% in products like breaded chicken while many other product categories have reduction targets of 10-12%.

This has a rising number of food companies attempting to comply with the current WHO guidance, and many are looking ahead to potential future regional regulatory actions. Since these efforts can struggle due to increased costs, technical difficulties and/or impact on flavor, however, the larger challenge is to naturally protect (or enhance) taste using less sodium while preserving food safety.

With all this in mind, acetate-based meat preservatives—derived from acetic acid—are an option now receiving more consideration.

Acetates are a potential solution due to their efficacy at lower doses than lactates

It was about a decade ago that one of the more exciting features of acetate-based preservatives was revealed: they are effective at five to seven times lower dosages than lactates at the same pH level. The efficacy at low doses is due to a higher undissociated acid content. This means less preservation product is needed while still meeting vital food safety standards. In more technical terms, the positive effects of acetates are higher in the neutral-pH zone—a key reason lactates can be replaced by applying acetates at a much lower dose. Put simply, acetates are very efficient. Achieving equal protection using lactates requires a much larger dose, and that’s where taste and cost issues can come into play in some products. Due to the effectiveness of acetate-based preservatives, even many lactate-based products today are lactate-diacetate blends.

0.25% Potassium Acetate, Potassium Diacetate solution inhibits any Listeria growth for 12 weeks. Dosage used is 10 times lower than lactate-based solution dosed at 2.5%.

0.5% Potassium Acetate, Potassium Diacetate demonstrates similar efficacy against Listeria compared to a 2.5% Potassium Lactate, Sodium Diacetate solution. No growth observed with a 0.75% Potassium Acetate, Potassium Diacetate solution for 10 weeks. Comparable and superior efficacy observed at 3-5 times lower dosage than lactate-based solution.

Potassium-based acetates have several important differences from lactates, while maintaining excellent antimicrobial properties against pathogens:

• Zero sodium content compared to sodium lactates
• Minimal unwanted taste impacts from potassium due to the low dosage required
• Reliability of supply in the current market

The latter item is especially noteworthy because it’s in stark contrast to the supply-chain disruptions and rising price volatility lactic acid seems destined to face for the foreseeable future.

Reformulation for sodium reduction is already starting

With many of the preservative solutions currently on the market (both conventional and those offering a clean label) having a sodium base that contributes more sodium to the final product, the need for solutions has led to a slow but steady shift in preservation protocols. Meat applications are notoriously challenging in terms of meeting sodium targets, so sodium-based preservatives are ground zero for reformulators.

It’s also worth noting here that reducing sodium can create challenges when formulating for shelf life, and these must not be ignored. For the meat industry, the race has begun to uncover solutions that will replace sodium’s role in the protection, preservation and flavor of meat products without negatively impacting the lifespan of products. However, managing application developments and challenge tests for improving preservatives takes time, making it vital for meat processors to initiate the process without delay.

Acetates provide flexibility in terms of a product’s sodium “budget,” delivering a key advantage in any reformulation effort. Applying a sodium-free version of acetates means greater “leeway,” i.e., extra room, to retain some salt content in order to maintain taste. The possibility thus emerges for a significantly reduced amount of sodium in the final product with little to no negative effect on flavor.

FSSP modeling can speed reformulation

It’s essential to make sure that preservatives are effectively doing their job when reformulating products, and the most common way this is done is to research and develop application and challenge tests. A key tool to make use of in this area is the well-established and independent Food Spoilage and Safety Predictor (FSSP) software. Developed by the University of Denmark and accepted by regulatory authorities, the FSSP provides a significant advantage in modeling and predicting the effect of product characteristics, pH, temperature and storage conditions on meat shelf life and food safety. The result for meat processors is a means of determining—accurately—how much preservative will be needed to achieve their shelf-life and safety objectives.

FSSP is highly specific about the Listeria controls that exist in cold, stored meat products. This information can be used to document whether Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella and E. coli are able (or unable) to grow on a particular ready-to-eat product. The FSSP model can also predict the effect of acetates and lactates and organic acids in general terms, and can be used to facilitate the development or reformulation of lightly preserved foods during the process of developing products with reduced sodium content.

Lactic acid supply-chain challenges

With its positive attributes of versatility, eco-friendliness and general safeness, lactic acid is one of those ingredients for which global demand has outstripped supply. For meat processors, the supply challenges around lactic acid should be of strong concern when it and its derivatives—such as lactates—are the products being used to control pathogenic bacteria in meat. In short, for those charged with ensuring meat’s safety for consumption, reliability of supply is paramount.

Why all the supply issues? In addition to its food protection role, lactic acid is used in a wide range of other industries and applications, including bioplastics and other uses that emerged during the pandemic. Many industries favor lactic acid over other ingredients given that it’s a natural product and acts as a flavor enhancer in some cases. Due to lactic acid’s wide (and growing) range of uses, its environmental benefits and the production challenges it faces, supply disruptions and shortages are inevitable and not expected to end anytime soon. The possibility also exists for rising prices in the future, that will make lactic acid increasingly less economical. All of these factors are fostering changes in meat processing processes, which in turn are pushing food and meat processors to work ahead to examine all viable, sustainable solutions.

Finding a way to provide effective food safety while decreasing reliance on lactic acid will help ensure a safe food supply as meat processors work to address the booming call to reduce sodium content. Since acetates can be effective at low doses while contributing minimal sodium, there is a growing likelihood we will see them more commonly used in meat.

Sugar reduction for health – how much should we reduce sugar intake, and why?

High sugar intake is known to increase a person’s risk for heart disease, type two diabetes, and obesity. Sugar-sweetened beverages have been a primary target of tax legislation in many countries due to their high calorie and sugar content. Additionally, there is a strong link between sugar intake and dental caries, or more commonly known as tooth decay or cavities.  Dental caries develop when bacteria in the mouth metabolizes sugar left on teeth which produces acid that then breaks down the enamel and dentine on the tooth.   It has been estimated that, globally in 2010, US$ 298 billion was spent on direct costs associated with dental caries (WHO).

Therefore, the World Health Organization recommends reducing free sugar intake for both children and adults to under 10 percent of total daily calories, equivalent to around 50 grams of free/added sugar maximum for the average person per day.

Sugar reduction and sustainability

Environmental impact of sugar production

Sugar is a major industry with significant effects on the global environment resulting from growing, harvesting, refining, and distribution. On average, sugarcane accounts for nearly 80% of global sugar production, with some 110 countries currently producing sugar from either cane or beets. For the period October/ September 2019, the top 10 producing countries (India, Brazil, Thailand, China, the US, Mexico, Russia, Pakistan, France, and Australia) accounted for nearly 70% of global output, with more than 170 million tonnes consumed annually (International Sugar Organisation). The production of sugar is a highly water intensive operation, especially from sugar cane which has deep roots.

According to a recent sugar life cycle analysis and report conducted by Kerry, manufacturing 1kg of cane sugar uses 1,110 liters of water and leads to 0.42kg of CO2 emissions.  For the case of beet sugar, it would require 640 liters of water and emit 0.85kg of CO2e (LCA).

The increase in global demand for sugar is resulting in  high water consumption, air and water pollution, soil degradation, and change in natural habitat.  It is estimated that 10% of soil is lost during harvest of beet sugar and 3-5% of soil in sugar cane harvest.  This has resulted in the clearing of natural habitats such as rain forests, coastal wetlands, and savannah (WWF Action for Sustainable Sugar).

What does the global supply chain need to consider to support sugar reduction? In this report, the World Health Organization proposes answers to questions like:

• What are the incentives and disincentives for industry to reduce the amount of sugar in manufactured food and drink products?
• At what point along the supply chain do these incentives and disincentives operate?
• Are there opportunities to effectively enhance the incentives and/or lessen the disincentives for reducing sugar?

How can sugar use be reduced? The landscape of sugar alternatives

It’s not always easy to reduce sugar because of its taste and functional purposes.  Sugar plays many functional roles in food and beverage products apart from sweetness.  The baking industry relies on sugar to make bread rise when it goes through a fermentation process with yeast.  It is also used as a bulking agent in other baking applications where yeast isn’t present.  From a molecular standpoint, sugar will bind with water which is used for both shelf life preservation as well as melting or freezing point requirements.

As a result, there is no substitute for sugar in the market that is a one-for-one replacement. However, two common alternatives that can improve nutrition and also improve sustainability metrics are flavourings with modifying properties (FMPs) and stevia.

Flavouring with modifying properties (FMPs)

Another example in the market used to replace sugar is flavouring with modifying proprieties (FMP).   As called out in the name, this option can often be labeled as Natural Flavouring in applications.  FMPs can be used at low quantities as well to replace large amounts of sucrose.  This option is seen as a more nutritious and sustainable alternative to sugar, while also being clean label.  To put the nutrition piece into perspective, let’s look at an example of removing 30% of the sugar used in all European full sugar Cola beverages and replacing with FMPs.  This would be the equivalent of removing 68 billion sugar cubes, the equivalent of 1,200 billion hours of cycling worth of calories.  From a sustainability standpoint, the amount of sugar removed is the equivalent of 29,800 cars driven for one year and the amount of water used for 11 billion people’s annual showers (EPA).

Stevia

Stevia can be up to 300 times more sweet than sucrose, meaning you can replace 100g of sucrose with 1/3g of stevia (Pure Circle Stevia Institute).  The overall caloric impact of stevia into an application is negligible due to the small quantity used.  The main compound found in stevia leaves imparting sweetness is called steviol glycosides and can come in many different varieties.  Stevia’s effectiveness at adding sweetness plateaus after 200 ppm because at this level you will start to perceive bitterness and off-notes. Since you require less stevia leaves versus sugar to provide the same level of sweetness, stevia is the more sustainable option as it would require less land and water to grow and result in lower manufacturing emissions.

One strategy to improve public health is to reformulate foods to be healthier, which can have an effect at a population-level and does not necessarily rely on individual behaviour change to improve health.  This can be initiated voluntarily by the food and beverage industry.  For example, some companies have set public goals for reducing a nutrient like sodium in their foods by a certain percentage over a time period.  In some parts of the world, reformulation is mandated.  Greater improvements in sodium intakes have been shown in countries where is it mandatory rather than voluntary.

A recent scientific review titled “What is the impact of food reformulation on individuals’ behaviour, nutrient intakes and health status? A systematic review of empirical evidence” summarises our existing knowledge of how effective food reformulation can be as a public health strategy by analysing results of 35 published studies.

Results from the review

The review analysed results from 35 published studies on food reformulation.

Consumers were accepting of reformulation of foods in the marketplace

A promising finding was that consumers still purchased reformulated products, meaning they didn’t specifically avoid foods formulated to be healthier. 22 different studies showed improvements in the nutrient content of the average consumer basket (total food purchased from a store).

81% of studies showed positive results for consumer acceptability of reformulated foods, based on comparing sales/purchases of the reformulated product before and after reformulation

 

Reformulation improved nutrient intake

73% of studies showed that reformulation improved nutrient intakes of consumers

Sodium reformulation led to a decrease in sodium intake between 4%-15% per year, depending on study population.  Analysing studies from Europe and the US, the review found that daily population-wide salt intake after reformulation was 0.57g lower than before (equivalent to 221mg sodium), or equivalent to around 10% of the daily limit of 5 grams per day recommended by the World Health Organisation.

Trans fat reformulation led to decreased intakes of 38-85%.  This value is much higher than sodium because mandated trans fat reformulation laws require drastic reductions due to its clear link to heart disease.  Partially hydrogenated oils, which are the main source of artificial trans fat in the diet, are not considered safe for the food supply in the United States, for example.  In Europe, there is a maximum limit of 2 grams of trans fat per 100 grams of total fat in a food.

Trans fat reformulation and decreased mortality

Of the 6 studies which measured the impact of nutrient intake on morbidity or mortality rates, 5 showed a positive effect on reducing mortality

Five of the studies measuring effects on health status looked at trans fat reformulation and found that reducing trans fat in the food supply led to a reduction in mortality of 4.3-6.2%.

Sodium reformulation led to an improvement in blood pressure measurements in the UK.  These findings show promise for nutrient reformulations to affect public health in a positive way.

Challenges for nutrient reformulation

Taste

Reducing nutrients that contribute strongly to the taste of a food or beverage, like sodium or sugar, without reducing consumer liking is the main challenge when it comes to nutrient reformulation.

For sugar, low-calorie sweeteners can drastically reduce total sugar content of a food or beverage.  However, these sweeteners have their own challenges.  They have poor perception among many consumers, and also bring their own flavour off-notes with them.  They are also not recommended as a long-term strategy for reducing sugar content in foods by authority publications like the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Sodium reduction faces similar challenges because alternatives to sodium, like potassium chloride, also have off-notes.  Many companies will slowly decrease sodium content in foods over a period of years because sodium sensing is adaptive.  In other words, the less sodium someone is used to tasting, the less they need in a food to stimulate the same salty sensations.  Gradually reducing sodium over time will be unnoticed by many consumers, as a result.

Flavour modulation, which can enhance the inherent sweetness in sugar, mask off-notes, or enhance mouthfeel or saltiness, is a great tool for nutrient reformulation.  This technology is one way to reduce sugar without requiring low-calorie sweeteners or to mask notes of sodium or sugar alternatives.

Functionality

Sugar, sodium, and certain fats have roles in food beyond taste.  Both sugar and sodium can have roles in food safety, as well as important roles in chemical reactions for many baked foods.  These nutrients also have roles in moisture migration, shelf life, etc.  Finding ways to minimise the impact of nutrient reformulation requires a system-level approach and in-depth expertise in food science and applications.

Fibres are seeing some popularity in low-sugar foods and beverages because of their ability to contribute bulk and mouthfeel, as well as sweetness in the case of some fibres.  Fibre is under-consumed in many populations, so this could have additional benefits to public health.

Consumer perception

Due to the taste and functionality challenges listed above, many consumers will associate nutrient reformulations with less taste.

“Consumer acceptance is a key driver of the effectiveness of reformulation in changing dietary intakes, in the absence of which unwarranted substitutions may take place.”

The review summarised in this article found that, despite having high consumer acceptance, compensation for the nutrient content of reformulated foods did occur.  Some studies did not find a link between reformulation and decreased intakes, or smaller decreases than predicted.

This happened more often when reformulation was noticed by consumers, possibly due to it being advertised on a package.  Silent reformulation is one strategy that could be used to reduce the effect of compensation.

The study’s findings encourage future reformulation efforts

“Given the challenges involved in changing behaviours and food choices, reformulation can provide the means to improve dietary intakes and health by changing the environment in which people make their food choices. Nonetheless, the success of reformulation as a public health strategy crucially depends on the breadth of products reformulated and the extent to which they are reformulated.”

The study did not address energy density or calorie reduction, which is another reformulation initiative that is important to address the global obesity issue.  Developing knowledge in sensory science and food science is critical to the future of not only calorie reduction, but nutrient reformulation as a whole.

For those in the food and nutrition world, added sugar might be something we hear about every day. Global dietary recommendations continue to recommend reducing added sugar intake, legislation taxing added sugar content of foods or beverages is increasingly common, and the update to the nutrition facts label in the United States requires listing added sugars as a separate line item.

This can leave many of us, especially product developers trying to reduce added sugar content of foods or beverages, left wondering “how do I tell if sugar is added or naturally occurring?” Here we take a look at regulatory guidelines from some major agencies around the world.

Global Guidance on Sugar Labelling (World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)

The WHO and FAO most often refer to the term ‘free sugar’ rather than ‘added sugar’. The WHO definition of term free sugars refers to ‘monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates’. By this definition, for example, fruit juice would contain free sugars but might not be considered an ‘added sugar’ unless it was added to another food or beverage for the purpose of sweetening. The EFSA and FDA go into further detail about definitions of what is and isn’t an added sugar.

Added Sugars in Europe (European Food Safety Authority)

Added sugars are considered empty calories (i.e. supplying energy but little else nutritionally) and therefore have been the focus of increasing attention in dietary guidelines in recent years. This focus culminated recently in the UK with the introduction of a levy on soft drinks that contain added sugar in the hope of tackling rising obesity rates there.

So what exactly is “sugar” and in particular “added sugar”? As per Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers “sugars” are defined as “all monosaccharides and disaccharides present in food, but excludes polyols”. To date, there is no similar clear-cut definition of the term ‘added sugars’ in the same piece of Regulation.

However, Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods does reference a “No Added Sugar” claim as “where the product does not contain any added mono- or disaccharides or any other food used for its sweetening properties.” Within the food industry, this then prompts discussion on how to define “any other food used for its sweetening properties”. For example, can fruit juice used in a recipe be considered as added sugar?

Based on the current EU definition, if it is not added into the recipe for its sweetening property, it is not considered added sugar. In 2010, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for carbohydrates and dietary fiber, which also included sugar and defined the term “added sugars” as “sucrose, fructose, glucose, starch hydrolysates (glucose syrup, high-fructose syrup) and other isolated sugar preparations used as such or added during food preparation and manufacturing. Sugar alcohols (polyols) such as sorbitol, xylitol, mannitol, and lactitol, are usually not included in the term “sugars”.

While a certain level of ambiguity remains around the term “added sugars”, what we do know is:

• Added sugars are those sugars that are removed from their original source and added to foods, usually as a sweetener or as a preservative for longer shelf life. It is important to note that sugar presents itself in many guises on food labels(e.g. dextrose, lactose, molasses, invert sugar, fructose, glucose, maltose, saccharose, glucose-fructose syrup)
• Naturally occurring sugars are natural sugars present in fruits & vegetables (Fructose) and dairy products (Lactose).
• EFSA is planning to provide scientific advice on the daily intake of added sugar in food by early 2020. This, in turn, may further aid the definition of “added sugars” and how we should interpret it within the food industry.

Source: European Food Safety Authority: Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for carbohydrates and dietary fibre. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(3):1462 [77 pp.]. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(3):1462

Do you want to stay up-to-date with the latest in science-based nutrition?

SUBSCRIBE NOW

(You will receive 1 monthly email updating you on our new content)

Sugar Labelling – United States of America (Food and Drug Administration)

In the United States, the FDA definition of added sugars includes sugars that are either added during the processing of foods, or are packaged as such, and include sugars (free, mono- and disaccharides), sugars from syrups and honey, and sugars from concentrated fruit or vegetable juices that are in excess of what would be expected from the same volume of 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice of the same type. The definition excludes fruit or vegetable juice concentrated from 100 percent fruit juice that is sold to consumers (e.g. frozen 100 percent fruit juice concentrate) as well as some sugars found in fruit and vegetable juices, jellies, jams, preserves, and fruit spreads.

Dates, date paste, and date syrup are often used in foods for sweetness and flavor, but how they are used will determine whether they are considered added sugars or not.

The sugars in fruits and vegetables (and their juice concentrates) have provided quite a bit of confusion with regard to labeling added sugars on the nutrition facts label. Here is a breakdown of situations where the sugar from these sources may or may not be considered added sugar, according to the FDA (page 33835):

May appear as ‘added sugar’ on a nutrition label:

• Juice concentrates that are used to sweeten other foods are considered added sugars and thus need to be included in the new nutrition facts category
• If a fruit or vegetable has been processed so that it no longer contains all of the components of the whole fruit that is typically eaten—the pulp, for example—and the sugars have been concentrated, then those sugars need to be included in the added-sugar portion of the nutrition panel (such as adding raspberry puree to a snack bar)
• If sugars are in excess of what would be expected from an ingredient made from 100 percent fruits or vegetables, those sugars must be declared as added sugars

May not appear as ‘added sugar’ on a nutrition label:

• Fruit or vegetable juice concentrates used towards the total juice percentage in a juice (for products claiming to contain fruit or vegetable juice). For example, a blend of fruit and vegetable juice concentrates to create a 100% juice beverage.
• The fruit component of fruit spreads

Some of these regulations can seem open for interpretation, such as when you add a fruit spread to a yogurt, so the FDA has published a helpful Question & Answer tool to help figure out what should or should not be considered added sugar for many different situations.

Given the slight differences in regulations between regions, as well as different ways the regulations can be interpreted, strategies for reducing added sugar in foods and beverages should always be developed on a case-by-case basis. One key strategy moving forward is reduction in total sugar for foods and beverages.

Please bear in mind that the information above is only a present interpretation of regulatory documents and not intended to be used for formal guidance. 

Summary (scroll down for an infographic summary)

Speakers

Sugar Reduction Around the World – Consumer, Health & Legislation Demands: Aisling Aherne, PhD, RNutr, Nutrition Science Manager, Kerry

Overcoming the Complexities of Reduced Sugar: Ashley Baker, VP RD&A, Kerry 

In a world that loves sugar’s familiar qualities…where do you start for its successful reduction?

Sugar ranks at the top of the list when it comes to consumer nutrition concerns, but sugar reduction poses a challenge across all product categories. The responsibility and cost of helping consumers reduce their sugar intake is being pushed onto the food and beverage industry by legislation like sugar taxes.

We look at why so many sugar-reduced products fail. Though consumers cite taste as the biggest driver of their intention to repurchase, we explore other key factors that may stop great-tasting products from getting off the shelf.

Hear from nutrition and applications experts on how to succeed with sugar reduction. Find out what makes healthier products likeable while fitting into labelling and tax legislation across the world. Bringing together consumer perception research, true nutrition science and practical formulation expertise, you’ll come away with actionable insights, practical examples and industry-relevant solutions for sugar reduction.

The World Health Organization recently undertook a novel food supply chain analysis to identify possible incentives and disincentives throughout the supply chain for sugar reduction. For sugar, the supply chain can include production of crop (sugar cane or beet), trade of raw or refined sugar, processing, adding the processed sugar to food or drink in manufacturing, and finally the sale of those foods or drinks.

The questions they attempted to find answers for are:

• What are the incentives and disincentives for industry to reduce the amount of sugar in manufactured food and drink products?
• At what point along the supply chain do these incentives and disincentives operate?
• Are there opportunities to effectively enhance the incentives and/or lessen the disincentives for reducing sugar?

The findings showed that there are areas where the supply chain supports sugar reduction, but also many barriers. There are many incentives to use sugar in foods and beverages, making it challenging to find alternatives or reduce total levels of sugar in products.

Source: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Incentives and disincentives for reducing sugar in manufactured foods: an exploratory supply chain analysis. 2018.

These findings were used to create some preliminary insights from WHO on steps forward for reducing sugar, both at policy and manufacturer levels. These insights include:

• Disincentives for including added sugar in foods and beverages via policy (e.g. listing ‘added sugar’ to nutrition labels)
• Avoiding unintended consequences of sugar reduction – what is it replaced with? For example, if fat is added back, is the product higher in calories than the original higher-sugar version?
• Maintaining freshness and safety due to the functional role of sugar in foods and beverages

These considerations, as well as the rest outlined in the report, are critical when formulating sugar-reduced foods and designing policy to improve nutrition of the food supply.

The consumer demand for products low in sugar can also be technically challenging for food scientists due to the functional role sugar has in many food and beverage applications. Other than sweetness, sugar can provide color, inhibit pathogen growth, or stabilize baking environments, among many other functions.

The review paper ‘Functionality of Sugars in Foods and Health‘, whose authors include Dr. Roger Clemens and Dr. Joanne Slavin of our Scientific Advisory Council, expands the conversation of sugar beyond its health implications to help provide the whole story on sugar for both food scientists and nutritionists. Areas explored by the review include:

• Historical Use of Sugars
• Naturally Occurring and Commercially Produced Caloric Sugars
• Technical and Functional Roles of Sugars in Foods and Beverages
• Digestion, Metabolism, and Physiological Functions of Sugars
• Dietary Recommendations and Consumption of Sugars in the United States
• Sugar Intake and Health Effects
• Policy and Research Gaps

Other blogs in the series:

Love for Legumes in Dietary Guidance and Product Innovation

Three Things You Need to Know About Protein for Exercise Performance

Red Meat Can Still Be ‘What’s for Dinner’

Why Don’t Athletes in the Olympic Village Shake Hands?

Empty calories, such as added sugars, have been the focus of increasing attention in dietary guidelines in recent years due to their association with poor dietary quality and negative health outcomes.  Often accompanying dietary guidance are changes in policy that can impact the way food companies formulate their products or label food packages.  In May 2016, the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) finalised requirements for the new Nutrition Facts Panel for packaged foods and specified that added sugars must be included in the nutrition panel on food packages, expressed in grams and as percent Daily Value (USFDA, 2016).  Furthermore, several countries either have already introduced or are in the process of introducing some form of sugar tax, although there is no conclusive evidence showing that such a policy can improve dietary behaviour.

The update to the Nutrition Facts Panel brings several changes to what must be labelled on a food package. For more details, check out our article FDA Modernizes Nutrition Facts Label for Packaged Foods.

These regulations have generated a lot of debate among the scientific community as to whether a reduction in added sugar intake would improve the health status of the population.  However, with added sugar firmly in the crosshairs of public health policy, the food industry is left to define the added sugar content of their products, leading to the question – what are added sugars?

What are Added Sugars?

Although there is no clear-cut definition for the term ‘added sugars’ or a standardized analytical method to quantify added sugar content of a food, the US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) described added sugars as “sugars that are either added during the processing of foods, or are packaged as such, and include sugars (free, mono- and disaccharides), syrups, naturally occurring sugars that are isolated from a whole food and concentrated so that sugar s the primary component (e.g., fruit juice concentrates), and other caloric sweeteners” (USDA, 2015 & 2016).  Examples of added sugars can be seen in Table 1.  Added sugars can be found in many types of food and beverages such as soft drinks, breads, cakes, jams, chocolates, and ice cream, as well as sugars eaten separately or added to foods at the table.

Table 1. Examples of added sugars that can appear on ingredient labels (USDA, 2016)

It’s important to note that added sugars do not include sugars naturally present in foods such as lactose in milk or fructose in fruit.  However, naturally occurring sugars such as lactose are classified as added sugars if they are used as an added ingredient during food production.  For example, the sugar in 100% fruit juice would not be considered added sugar when consumed as a juice.  However, if the juice were added to another product to provide sweetness, the sugar from the juice would then be considered added sugar.  The confusion around what ingredients are considered added sugar is compounded by the fact that the “added” component is a value that must be calculated rather than something that can be directly measured in a product.  Complying with added sugar labelling will prove a challenging task for the food industry in the coming months and years.

Added Sugars in the Diet

For the first time ever, the US DGAC has provided a quantitative number for the reduction of added sugars in the diet.  They recommend that individuals should limit their calorie intake from added sugars to less than 10% of total calorie intake on a daily basis (USDA, 2015), which is in agreement with guidelines from the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2015).  In terms of grams, an individual who has a total daily energy intake of 2000 kcal should get no more than 200 kcal (50 grams) from added sugars.  To put this in perspective, one can of cola contains around 40 grams of added sugar.  This means that complying with these added sugar policies could also be a great challenge for the consumer!

Current daily consumption of added sugars is on average 13% of total energy intake among adults and 16% among children (Ervin & Ogden 2013; Erickson & Slavin 2015).  The major dietary sources of added sugars are beverages (47%) as well as snacks and sweets (31%) (Figure 1, USDA 2015).  Within beverages, soft drinks were the highest contributor (25%). Within snacks and sweets, the main food sources of added sugar were dairy desserts, grain-based desserts, candies, sugars, jams, syrups, and sweet toppings.

Figure 1. Food Sources of Added Sugars in the US Diet (USDA, 2012).

The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans states that consuming limited amounts of added sugars in products such as wholegrain breakfast cereals or fat-free yogurt is acceptable as long as the threshold of 10% total daily energy intake is not exceeded (USDHHS & USDA, 2015).

Moving Forward

Consumers

Since 78% of added sugars in the diet come from beverages, snacks and sweets, recommendations focus on changing how often these products are consumed as well as on how they are produced.  Dietary Guidelines for Americans suggest consumers should choose beverages with no/low added sugars, reduce portion sizes of sugar-sweetened beverages, and limit how often such beverages are consumed.  Additional advice includes limiting or decreasing portion sizes of grain-based and dairy desserts and sweet snacks, choosing unsweetened/no-added-sugar versions of canned fruit and yogurt (USDA, 2015).

See our Sources for National and Regional Dietary Guidelines for added sugar recommendations by region.

Food Industry

Added sugars not only contribute to flavour but also to food preservation and functional attributes including texture enhancement, viscosity, and improved appearance (Erickson & Slavin, 2015).  Therefore, removing or reducing added sugars will have a significant impact on food production and presents a major challenge to food manufacturers.  Taste is the key factor for the purchase and re-purchasing of food products by consumers, so even if manufacturers are able to successfully reduce sugar content, the final product must still taste good.  Successful alternatives to added sugars in food products would not only be highly desirable to consumers but would also encourage reduced added sugar intake.

A major limitation is that low calorie sweeteners are not considered an appropriate alternative to added sugars in foods and beverages by the DGAC due to uncertainty surrounding their long-term effects (Erickson & Slavin, 2015).  One successful method for reducing sugars without affecting taste is the application of flavour modulation tools.  These technologies can enhance our sensory perception of flavours like sweetness without requiring more sugar to be added to a product.  By using this technique, overall taste perception and flavour profiles are improved, thereby producing healthier products, while maintaining consumer preferred taste.

The USFDA ruling on the new Nutrition Facts Panel has two deadlines of compliance for manufacturers: July 26, 2018 for food manufacturers with annual sales greater than $10 million and July 26, 2019 for manufacturers who have less than $10 million in annual sales (USFDA, 2016).