What is Acacia Fibre?

Acacia fibre (gum arabic/gum acacia) is a form of soluble dietary fibre produced using the natural exudate from the Acacia tree in the Sahel Region in Africa.  It is harvested in a very similar way to another exudate you may be more familiar with: maple syrup from the Maple tree.  Acacia’s use in food dates as far back as the 9^th century, where it expanded its global footprint through trading on ancient spice routes.

The natural exudate of the Acacia tree is harvested in a very similar way to maple syrup, another tree exudate

Fibre is drastically under-consumed in the US and Europe

Fibre is linked to a wide range of health benefits, but many parts of the world consume fibre-deficient diets.  Reformulating with fibre presents an exciting opportunity for food and beverage manufacturers to innovate through fibre fortification while simultaneously reducing the calorie content of food by enabling sugar or fat reduction.

Fibre is mainly found in foods like fruits, vegetables, and legumes, which many people do not consume enough of.  There is an opportunity for the food and beverage industry to improve public health by adding fibre to foods and beverages people are already consuming.

Fibre Statistics

Although people are under consuming fibre, consumers are catching on to the health benefits of fibre and are looking to get it more easily in the foods they are already consuming.

• • More than 60% believe that eating more fibre is the best way to manage digestive health (Kerry Global Consumer Survey – Digestive and Immune Health, 2019).
  • Fibre is the most widely used positioning related to digestive health (Innova 2021).
  • 68% of global consumers are influenced by sustainability when purchasing F&B products in store (Kerry Consumer Research, Sustainability in Motion, 2021), 42% of consumers agree that ‘a product is not healthy if it is not also sustainable’ (Innova, 2021).

Fibre fortification can help meet public health needs, but choosing a fibre can be challenging

These figures show that there is great opportunity to fill a public health need and consumer demand at the same time.  This important public health challenge is being taken up by food and drink manufacturers through such programs as the UK Food and Drink Federation’s recently launched initiative dubbed “Action on Fibre”, with organisations proactively pledging to bridge the fibre gap across bakery, beverage, cereal and snacks categories.

However, fibre addition is not always straightforward. It can be hard to find a source of fibre that is easy to add to foods and beverages.  For example, some fibres cause beverages to thicken or become more viscous, which can be undesirable.  Different fibres also interact in different ways with the human body, which means fibre sources vary in their health benefits and side effects when consumed.  It can be challenging to choose a fibre source, but acacia fibre is one source that can deliver health benefits while making formulation easier in certain applications.

Why is Acacia Fibre Gaining Ground?

Studies on Acacia show prebiotic effects and a role in digestive health

Clinical studies have shown Acacia fibre promotes the growth of healthy bacteria in the human digestive system.  In a clinical trial, doses of 10 grams of acacia fibre per day led to a significant increase in Bifidobacterial and Lactobacilli, and the prebiotic effect was more effective than the same dose of inulin.  A similar prebiotic effect was shown in another study by Cherbut et al., which was also linked to a greater stool weight, indicating a potential links to positive digestive health benefits.

Acacia fibre has been linked to improvements in satiety and cardiometabolic health in studies

Acacia fibre may also play a role in weight management.  In clinical studies, Acacia fibre has bene shown to significantly improve satiety at 5g/serving and subsequently significantly reduced the energy intake at first meal three hours after ingestion and the feeling of hunger for at least three hours after consumption with no compensation effect.  When incorporated into foods and beverages, acacia fibre was linked to decreased hunger and improved fullness.  Acacia fibre intake has also been linked to cardiometabolic health such as significantly improving fasting glucose levels, expanding potential uses for Acacia fibre beyond digestive health.

Acacia fibre does not cause as much GI discomfort as other prebiotic fibres

A major complaint with many consumers is that, despite a role in health, some fibres can cause negative side effects like excess gas production and bloating even when consumed at amounts as small as 5-10 grams per day.  This has led many to seek alternative fibres that are linked to health benefits but do not cause GI discomfort.  In studies using acacia fibre, doses up to 40 grams per day were well-tolerated with no significant increase in discomfort and led to fewer reported side effects than FOS, demonstrating excellent digestive tolerance for acacia fibre.

*Check with local regulatory bodies for country specific claims

Global regulatory bodies recognise the health benefits of Acacia as a fibre source.  The application of Acacia fibre can deliver a high concentration of soluble dietary fibre (minimum 85%) that enables a “High in Fibre” claim (6g of fibre per 100g of product in Europe).  Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it intends to propose that “Acacia (Gum Arabic)” also known as gum acacia, be included as part of the FDA’s definition of dietary fibre further propelling Acacia fibre as a key solution to increase the uptake of dietary fibre.  The FDA has determined that the scientific evidence supports that gum acacia can help reduce blood glucose and insulin levels after it is eaten with a meal containing a carbohydrate that raises blood glucose levels.

Acacia Fibre is Sustainable

• • It has a role in sustainable agriculture.  The Acacia tree helps helps combat desertification and increase other crops yields in the Sahel region in Africa.
  • Farming of Acacia supports local communities. the harvesting of Acacia fibre is carried out by local farmers in a way that does not damage tree growth and forms an important source of secondary revenue, making it a critical income generator among vulnerable communities – up to 38% of total annual income.

Acacia has a functional role in food and beverage beyond contributing fibre

Acacia fibre is non-cariogenic with minimum impact on the taste, aroma, texture and visual properties of food and beverage products.  This makes it highly versatile across numerous applications such as bread, beverages, nutritional bars and cereals for manufacturers wishing to achieve a fibre claim and/or improve the nutri-score of their final product.

White bread:  Although white bread is the most popular type of bread globally, its low fibre content gives it a poor mark on the nutrition scale.  Acacia fibre–fortified white bread can provide up to a 300% increase in fibre per serving versus non-fortified white bread, a level that approximates the fibre content of whole wheat—all whilst maintaining the taste and consistency that leads so many consumers to purchase white bread products.

Through application testing, sensory and texture analysis results confirm taste and aroma are unaffected negatively when Acacia fibre is incorporated.  The same is true of measurements of loaf volume, softness, crumb and crust colour and there is little impact on dough rheology, making it easy for bakers to handle.  Further application trials carried out demonstrated that other fibres on the market such as citrus fibre, soluble corn fibre, and inulin can negatively impact the sensory and dough handling properties of bread.  For example, inulin resulted in the bread being much more dense, lower volume, firmer and with an undesirable texture. Favourably, Acacia fibre fortified bread remains comparable to reference “control” bread, making it a great candidate when choosing a suitable fibre for fortified baked goods.

Beverages: In beverages there are important practical considerations to take into account when fortifying with fibre.  The fibre ingredient needs to be easily dispersible, highly stable in low pH and void of negative influences such as gelling, swelling or thickening.  Acacia fibre meets these criteria with added benefits of improving mouthfeel and flavour enhancements.  It has a role in reduced-sugar beverages due to the ability of the polysaccharide structure to improve the mouth coating effect, which holds sweeteners or flavour modulators in the mouth for a longer period of time and extending the sweetness perception.  It has the ability to reduce the GI of food products and is Low-FODMAP and KETO diet suitable.  The high fibre, increased satiety attributes of acacia fibre are particularly suitable for beverages in categories such as sports nutrition and those positioned as meal replacements.

Nutritional Bars and Cereals: Nutritional bars and cereals frequently fall into the high fat/sugar/salt category.  Manufacturers looking to optimise their nutri-score and fortify with fibre should consider acacia fibre to improve the nutritional positioning of their product.  Along with delivering a high concentration of soluble dietary fibre, acacia fibre supports the overall reduction of sugar in final application by working as a binder to partially replace sugar syrups.  It also maintains moisture balance preventing dry mouthfeel over shelf-life, which is a common challenge of nutritional bars and cereals/ granola.  This binding function is different than that provided by soluble fibres like inulin or FOS, which can act as bulking agents and provide sweetness but do not aid in binding.  As a result, including Acacia fibre as part of a blend of fibres may enhance functionality of the entire system.

As a result, in 2006,the nutrition and health claims (NHC) regulation was published (Regulation 1924/2006/EC as amended) to protect consumers from misleading claims in the EU. This legislation establishes permitted nutrition and health claims for use on foods sold in the EU as well as associated conditions of use and restrictions (if any).  As part of this legislation, nutrient profiles were to be established which would guide the use of NHC on foods.  They would ensure that claims were not made on so called ‘unhealthy’ foods, setting limits for nutrients such as fats, sugars and salt in order for the product to bear a claim. However, it has been more than 15 years since this regulation was published and there is still not agreement on the exact nutrient profiles to be used. What barriers have caused this process to take so much time, when can we expect unified guidelines on nutrient criteria for claims and front-of-labelling, and how will it impact the food and beverage market?

Challenges and steps forward in setting unified nutrient profiles

Multiple, different nutrient profiling schemes are in use in different jurisdictions

Some jurisdictions have their own nutrient profiling schemes already, and they can differ by region. In Australia and New Zealand, certain nutrient requirements must be met in order for certain products to bear a claim. In Europe, there are different profiling systems in use which affect advertising. Although these do not guide nutrition and health claims on labels, they do create debate around which set of criteria would be best for that purpose. The WHO in Europe has designed a nutrient profile model for use by European governments for the purposes of restricting food marketing to children. A number of European countries (Denmark, Norway and the UK) have nutrient profile models for restricting marketing of foods to children which have been either developed by governments or (in the case of the Danish model) endorsed by government.

Agreeing on unified nutrient profiles in the context of the European legislation proved challenging, which significantly delayed their implementation. They were to be established by 2009 but it proved impossible for the European Commission and Member States to agree on a system. There were a number of reasons for this, including the fact that some food products which are included in national healthy eating guidelines would be excluded from bearing claims on the basis of the nutrients to be considered for profiling (e.g. cheese due to its high saturated fat content while being recognized as an excellent source of calcium).  Furthermore, traditional foods in some countries could be excluded from bearing claims.  For example, olive oil, a traditional food in many Mediterranean countries, would not be allowed to bear claims because of its high fat content even though it’s very high in unsaturated fatty acids compared to a lot of other vegetable oils.

The ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy will attempt to harmonise front-of-pack nutrition labelling

In the time between 2006 and 2020, numerous attempts were made by the European Commission to progress or at least evaluate the need for unified criteria through surveys with Member States, targeted consultations, and workshops and in 2020 the issue of nutrient profiles was elevated in priority as part of the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy. The strategy announced that ‘to promote sustainable food consumption and facilitate the shift to healthy and sustainable diets, the Commission will adopt measures to empower consumers to make informed, healthy and sustainable food choices.…. The strategy further announced that to stimulate sustainable food processing and reformulation but also to facilitate the shift to healthier diets, the Commission will set nutrient profiles to restrict the promotion (via nutrition and health claims) of foods high in fat, sugars and salt’.

As part of the ‘Farm to Fork’ initiative, the Commission made a request to EFSA for scientific advice on the development of harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling (FOPL) and the setting of nutrient profiles for restricting nutrition and health claims on foods.   The European Commission also published an inception impact assessment to cover the topics of front of pack labelling and nutrient profiles (among others).

When can we expect agreement on nutrient profiles, and what impact will it have on the food and beverage industry?

In November 2021, EFSA published a draft opinion advising on the development of nutrient profiles, aiming to inform nutrient profiling modelling.  They have not yet evaluated or proposed a model. The draft opinion defines the criteria that could guide the choice of nutrients (including non-nutrient components of food, e.g. energy, dietary fibre) for the nutrient profiling of foods. The opinion takes into account the nutrients called out in the legislation (i.e. fats, salt, sugars) but also nutrients which are inadequate in specific population groups e.g. iron, calcium, vitamin D, folate, iodine and potassium.  It also advises on scientific considerations regarding nutrients of public health importance for European populations, food groups which have an important role in the diets of European populations and considers national food based dietary guidelines.  This should ensure a much more robust system for the creation of nutrient profiles.

The final EFSA opinion should be published by the end of March 2022, and the establishment of nutrient profiles could result in the need for reformulation for certain food and beverage manufacturers and is likely to result in changes in labelling for many. While it is not currently foreseen to propose a nutrient profile model, it will inform the European Commission’s dialogue on creating new legislation on nutrient profiles.  This EFSA opinion and the consideration of more rounded nutrition science should ensure a more robust discussion on the setting of nutrient profiles between the European Commission, Member States and stakeholders (including the food industry).  Following this dialogue, it has been suggested that the legislation establishing nutrient profiles in the EU should be adopted by the end of 2022.

Why has this been the case? The challenge of balancing taste and nutrition in beverages is one cause. If you remove calories in beverages, you are most likely replacing a calorie-rich ingredient, such as sugar, juice, or a fat source, with calorie-free water, sometimes giving a product a watered-down taste. The challenge with removing these types of ingredients, however, is that not only do they provide calories, but they also provide flavour, colour, aroma, body, and mouthfeel.

The challenge to overcome in formulating low-calorie beverages

One of the most challenging aspects of addressing taste concerns in low-calorie beverages is that consumers have difficulty describing exactly why the beverages are less preferred, making the solution hard to pinpoint.

Taste is a broad term and too often the mouthfeel cannot be separated from the aromatics and flavour components.  It can be difficult for consumers to articulate what they can’t easily see, such as mouthfeel.  Without the proper sensory vocabulary, consumers aren’t able to express what’s missing in low-calorie beverages and it explains why consumers tend to struggle with this type of product.  A lack of mouthfeel in sugar-reduced products can disrupt the entire profile and can result in lower consumer preference due to less flavor, complexity, fullness and balance.

When people are participating in a sensory test and describing what they taste or notice in products, it can often come with what sensory scientists call a “halo effect”.  A halo effect is when the liking scores subconsciously impact the attribute scores. For example, sample 1 is liked more overall by the tester and receives a higher mouthfeel rating just by virtue of being liked more, even if the mouthfeel isn’t actually more favorable. This can result in cases where unknown characteristics are evaluated together without being able to be easily differentiated.

Differentiating taste vs mouthfeel

Training technical personnel to use a lexicon for food and beverage can help fill the gaps to better understand what consumers mean when they say things like ”it’s fake, it’s not authentic, it’s missing depth, I FEEL like something is lost.” They know what sweetness is but adding only sweeteners to reduced-sugar products is not the same experience as a full-sugar product. For example, when comparing a full-sugar soda versus it’s no sugar counterpart, consumers notice the sugar film is gone and the mouthfullness is missing, but have a difficult time articulating this difference.

Mouthfeel sensations experienced inside the mouth while eating or drinking include various tactile attributes such as acidity, dryness, graininess, hardness, mouth coating, wetness, succulence, etc. These complex sensory attributes can be difficult to describe and understand and get further lost in translation when communicated between consumers, product developers, food scientists and sensory scientists.

The role of analytical science

Linking these sensory attributes to analytical characterization such as rheology (the study of the flow of matter) and tribology (the study of friction, lubrication, and wear) allow us to fully understand the factors influencing the mouthfeel of food and beverages, such as viscosity in the mouth, and to develop adapted solutions. These processes can be iterative, time consuming and are dependent on the application type.

There are some challenges linking analytical parameters with sensory attributes. For example, large particle size is perceived as gritty by some panelist whereas other panelist term that “chalky” and/or powdery. Therefore, one finds variability in the description of panelist. Furthermore, some sensory parameters such as grittiness, chewiness, thick, powdery and viscous can be mapped to large particle size, high viscosity, solid particles, and higher solid like behavior, respectively.

A fair amount of information exists quantifying mouthfeel using techniques such as rheology and tribology, but further development in the instrumental prediction of mouthfeel should be required because the dynamic aspect of food breakdown in mouth such as mixing, biting, saliva interaction, and structural demolition is needed to capture texture features. For example, low viscosity liquid can provide great taste perception, but it is very difficult to define a friction factor using tribology even though it affects viscosity and lubrication. Therefore, one needs to develop different sets of methods/experiment depending on the application or problems that needs to be solved.

Solving mouthfeel challenges in low-calorie beverages

Currently, the increased focus on reducing sugar or using vegan fat systems in plant-based dairy alternatives are driving a lot of mouthfeel innovation. In the case of sugar reduction, mouthfeel solutions focused on bringing back or improving mouthfeel specific to the lost sensory attributes is critical. For example, there is a need to build back the syrupy body perception in beverages. Similarly, the need to develop solutions that bring back the creamy, mouth coat, less chalky and increased smoothness attributes are emphasized in fat-reduced products. Research and development has now focused on bringing back sweetness in low sugar products by adding modulators and other tools to build back some of the mouthfeel characteristics, such as syrupy and mouthcoating, which consumers just call ‘body’ or ‘fullness’.

To increase mouthfeel, a multidisciplinary approach is required. A major challenge with commercially available mouthfeel enhancing agents/ingredients is finding solutions that allow a clean label including natural, halal, kosher, non-GMO, and organic. To develop these types of ingredients, understanding of rheology and tribology is required as well as understanding the time-dependent aspect of food digestion (mixing, saliva interactions and structure breakdown) to capture texture of lubrication and viscosity changing that happens during the course of consumption. Different mouthfeel enhancers might be used depending on the type of food and based on different textures present. Thickening agents, bulking agents and micro-particulate ingredients have been investigated for fat replacers.

Sensory science is an essential tool to balance nutrition with taste to ensure that healthier beverages are well-liked and make their way into the day-to-day life of consumers.

The main legislative changes include:

1. Restrictions on volume-price promotions and locations for product selling (pre-packed products only)¹
2. TV and online advertising bans²
3. Mandatory calorie labelling for all products on menus for out of home businesses (OOH)³

These regulations target products that are deemed “less healthy” or “HFSS” (High in Fat, Sugar, and/or Salt) as defined by the 2004/2005 UK nutrient profile model (NPM)⁴. 

This article serves as a guide to help you understand the regulations and specific ways to improve nutrition of food to avoid the restrictions imposed by legislation:

1. What regulations are coming and when?
2. What is HFSS?
3. How do I move my product from HFSS to Non-HFSS?
4. What do I need to do and when?

What regulations are coming and when?

In 2021 the UK Government introduced restrictions on the marketing of foods and beverages classified as high in fat, sugar, and/or salt (HFSS). This includes two key pieces of legislation: Price promotion and location restrictions, and TV and online advertising restrictions.

Price promotion and location restrictions

From October 2022 HFSS products are no longer permitted to be sold at store entrances, aisle ends, or checkout areas. For online shopping this equates to the entry page of websites, pages where customers view their shopping basket or proceed to payment, and the side banners of pages. In October 2023, promotions that encourage an increase in the volume of product purchased will no longer be permitted for HFSS foods and beverages. This includes multi-buy promotions e.g. ‘buy one get one free’, ‘3 for 2’ etc., extra free promotions such as ‘30% extra free’, and free refills of sugar sweetened drinks in the OOH sector.  In addition,

Not all products that are classified as HFSS are included. The legislation is aimed at products that significantly contribute to children’s calorie intakes. Proposed categories include soft drinks with added sugar, breakfast cereals, yogurts, biscuits including cereal bars, morning goods, savoury snacks including crisps, crackers and pulse-based crisps, ready meals, breaded or battered fish, meat, poultry and meat alternatives, confectionary, cakes, and more.

TV and online advertising restrictions

For TV, a 9pm watershed on HFSS products and an outright ban of paid-for online HFSS advertising will be implemented by October 2025.

This new proposed regulation will mean that no HFSS adverts will be shown on TV between 5.30am – 9pm, and a total ban of online advertisements. For online, this is a bit more complicated, as it is suggested to be defined as any communication that has the effect of promoting identifiable HFSS products. The details of how the online ban will be enforced is not yet clear, which is resulting in frustration particularly within the TV industry. For television, it is easier to enforce these restrictions due to the system already in place by the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom, therefore the TV industry feel they may be at an unfair disadvantage.

How is HFSS determined?

In the UK, when a product is categorised as HFSS it refers to being high in fat, sugar and/or salt or ‘less healthy’ as defined by the 2004/2005 nutrient profile model (NPM).

The NPM scores products based on their nutritional content. The less energy, sodium, saturated fat, and sugar and the more protein, fibre, and % fruits, vegetables, and nuts in your product – the better the score.

The model assigns points for each of the nutrients and you subtract the ‘favourable’ points from the ‘unfavourable’. The lower the numeric score, the healthier the product is.

HFSS score = unfavourable points – favourable points

Unfavourable points, classified as “A”:

• • • Energy
    • Saturated fat
    • Total sugar
    • Sodium

Favourable points, classified as “C”:

• • • Protein
    • Fibre
    • % content of fruits or vegetables
    • Nut content

The criteria used for upcoming advertising and price promotion restrictions assign unfavourable points (A) for nutrients we should consume less of and favourable points (C) for nutrients we should consume more of to determine a product’s score. A food is categorised as ‘less healthy’ or ‘HFSS’ if it scores 4 or more points, or 1 or more points for a beverage

More resources on nutrient reformulation:

Salt and Health – What is Being Done Globally to Reduce Salt Intake?

A Study on Nutrient Reformulation’s Role in Public Health

Overcoming Sugar Reduction Challenges

Calorie Reduction: Formulating for Success

The model measures products as sold (unless a product requires reconstitution) on a per 100g basis. The NPM differs from the UK voluntary multiple traffic light (MTL) front of pack labelling scheme because it includes positive aspects of a product such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, fibre and protein, whereas the MTL only focuses on ‘unfavourable’ nutrients.

How do I move a food from ‘HFSS’ to ‘non-HFSS’?

Improving scores will focus on targeted reformulation of nutrients in the ‘A’ and ‘C’ categories above. In the example below, you can see how each change impacts individual scores as well as the product’s final score.

Flapjack example

Current                                                                                Reformulated

* If a food or drink scores 11 or more ‘A’ points then it cannot score points for protein unless it also scores 5 points for fruit, vegetables and nuts.

Tips to ensure foods are Non-HFSS

• • Before you begin product reformulation, ensure your baseline nutrition information is accurate. Products that contain many ingredients will have many different nutritional profiles feeding into the final product. Many of these ingredients may be using theoretical data, so it’s important to sense check the nutrition of all your ingredients.
  • Target any nutrients that are borderline on the scoring threshold – these could make for an easy win.
  • Include fibre when you can, you score 2 ‘favourable’ points with AOAC fibre over 1.9g/100g.
  • Add protein. However, a product can only score ‘favourable’ points for protein if total ‘A or unfavourable’ points are below 11, or the product scores 5 for fruit, vegetables, or nuts.
  • For savoury products, keep sugar below 4.5g/100g and it will score zero ‘unfavourable’ points for total sugar.
  • Fruits, vegetables, and nuts – what counts? Intact fruit and vegetables (including those that are cooked and dried) and those that are minimally processed (peeled, sliced, tinned, frozen, juices* and purees). *Fruit juice, whether freshly squeezed or made from concentrate, is regarded as fruit, but fruit juice sugars are not.
  • One portion of dried fruits or vegetables are equivalent to 2 fresh portions.
  • Think about how a food is prepared for foods intended for areas like food service. For example, nutritional optimisation of a breaded coating could result in additional fat uptake in the frying process.
  • Find out what taste technologies are available for your product. The products targeted by the legislation are also in scope of the UK reformulation targets. These targets have been in place since 2016 for sugar and 2006 for salt. Therefore, industry has made a lot of progress in technology and taste solutions in this area already.

What is happening in the rest of Europe?

The EU published their Farm to Fork strategy in May 2020 as part of the European Green Deal.⁵ This strategy proposes several initiatives that aim to improve the nutritional content of foods. These include an initiative to set maximum levels for certain nutrients to stimulate reformulation, setting nutrient profiles to restrict the promotion of HFSS products, and the proposal of a mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling system that will be consistent across the EU countries. The EU commission plan to submit a legislative proposal to the European parliament and member states before the end of 2022. On July 5^th, 2021 the EU Code of Conduct was launched. This outlines several voluntary aspirations for the food industry to put the Farm to Fork Strategy into practice and start to make changes.⁶  On the day of launch, 65 companies and associations signed up.⁷

What do I need to do and when?

These restrictions will have a major effect on how the food and beverage industry can market products and the impact to sales is estimated to be considerable. Product reformulation is a clear way to avoid this legislation while also ensuring a greater variety of healthier products are available to consumers. However, reformulation takes time and expertise to ensure you don’t lose taste, texture, or functionality in the product, so it’s advised to get started as soon as possible.

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.

The high obesity rates globally suggest that on average, we consume too many calories relative to our requirements. For many people, though, intakes of certain vitamins, minerals and fibre are below recommendations. For example, recent findings from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) show that the current UK diet is not in line with the government recommendations on eating healthily and achieving a balanced diet (Eatwell guide), with several micronutrient intakes below the lower reference nutrient intake (LRNI).

According to the NDNS, one in four girls in the UK aged 11-18 years has an intake below recommendation for vitamin A, riboflavin, zinc and iodine, and over half have a low intake of iron.

Diet quality is about more than calories

Addressing these issues may require looking at the overall quality of our food rather than focusing on restricting individual nutrients. Healthy eating is not simply about eating less and cutting things out, it can also be the result of eating more nutritious food or eating more ‘nutrient-dense’ food.

Some foods that are relatively high in calories can also have a high nutritional value, like nuts, seeds, oily fish and olive or rapeseed oil. If we only think about calories as numbers, then we might choose to avoid these foods, which should be included as part of healthy dietary patterns.

Interestingly, foods with similar calorie content can also be different in terms of nutritional quality. For example, whole grain versions of bread, pasta and rice are higher in fibre than refined (white) versions. Similarly, processed meats contain more salt than lean unprocessed meats, even if they have a similar number of calories.

The Quality Calorie Concept

In this context, the British Nutrition Foundation’s (BNF) Quality Calorie Concept (QC) encourages looking not just at the number of calories in a food, but also the nutrient content of a food to ensure we get enough of the nutrients we need  including vitamins, minerals and fibre) and limit the amount of those that are of concern (free sugars, salt and saturated fat).

The QC Concept also looks at incorporating other components of a healthy diet, such as protein (beans and pulses, lean meat and skinless chicken and turkey, seafood, eggs), plenty of fruit and vegetables and some dairy foods e.g. plain yogurts, milk and cheese.

Portion size is also key, so remember to QC in moderation – it is about getting the right types of foods and drinks in the right amounts.  To help manage portion size, there are some practical measures you can use; for example, keeping the amount of nuts you eat to a handful, and using a spoon to measure out oils and spreads. The Find Your Balance guide to portion size aims to help you find the right balance for you.

Although the Quality Control concept is aimed toward improving diets, these concepts can also be applied by the food and beverage industry to improve the nutrition of foods and beverages. A focus by the food and beverage industry to improve nutrient density by increasing vitamins, minerals, fibre in food, as well as incorporating servings of vegetables, fruits, and lean protein, all while limiting sugar, sodium, and saturated fat has the potential to have a significant impact on public health.

BNF also provides a few budget friendly ideas on how to choose inexpensive, healthy items for QC on a budget.

Improving nutrient density

The QC concept suggests small, simple swaps that can be made every day to improve the nutritional quality of our diets, for the same or fewer calories.

Food reformulation can also positively impact on dietary intake at population level. Therefore, the food industry plays an important role in encouraging consumer demand for nutrient dense foods. These tips can be adapted for food and beverage formulation to improve the quality of the carbohydrates present in baked goods, including healthier lipids in their snack offering or fortifying beverages with protein or micronutrients.

Here are some tips to improve nutritional density of foods and drinks:

QC for breakfast

• Include whole grain options, lower fat dairy and fruit in dishes. For example, try exchanging a fried egg, bacon and tomato sauce in a white roll for a poached egg, canned sardines and sliced tomato in a wholemeal roll. With this swap, you will be increasing your intake of calcium, fibre, healthy fats and vitamin D. Both options have similar calories, but the latter offers higher nutritional quality.
• Add frozen blueberries to a morning smoothie, or add sliced banana to a bowl of cereal instead of refined sugar.

QC for snacks

• Think lower sugar, salt and saturated fat. For example, you can choose a handful of lightly salted peanuts instead of potato crisps to increase the amount of fiber and minerals you are getting from your snack.
• Focus on portion size for indulgent snacks.

QC for meals

• Incorporate whole grains, such as whole wheat bread for a sandwich or whole grain pasta in a pasta dish.
• Focus on healthier cooking options – fried foods have extra calories from the breading and the fat absorbed during frying, but air-frying or baking add fewer calories to a meal.
• Add vegetables to your dishes by using tomato or vegetable based sauces rather than creamy ones or focusing on vegetables as the topping of a pizza.
• Swap processed meats like sausage or salami for lean meat, chicken, fish or shellfish.

QC for drinks

• Water is great for hydration and contains zero calories.
• Choose drinks with no or low amounts of added sugar.
• Pick juices made from 100% juice.
• Pay attention to serving size – a standard serving is 240 millilitres or 1 cup, but many mugs and glasses are much larger than that.

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.