You are on page 1of 295

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Handbook of fat replacers / edited by Sibel Roller, Sylvia A. Jones. p.

cm.

Includes bibliographical references (p.

) and index.

ISBN 0–8493–2512–9 (alk. paper)

1. Fat substitutes.

I. Roller, Sibel.

II. Jones, Sylvia A.

TP447.F37H36

1996

664

.3--dc20

95-48346

CIP

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use. Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the personal or internal use of specific clients, may be granted by CRC Press, Inc., provided that $.50 per page photo- copied is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970 USA. The fee code for users of the Transactional Reporting Service is ISBN 0-8493-2512-9/96/$0.00+$.50. The fee is subject to change without notice. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. CRC Press, Inc.’s consent does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press for such copying. Direct all inquiries to CRC Press, Inc., 2000 Corporate Blvd., N.W., Boca Raton, Florida 33431.

© 1996 by CRC Press, Inc.

No claim to original U.S. Government works International Standard Book Number 0-8493-2512-9 Library of Congress Card Number 95-48346 Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Printed on acid-free paper

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Preface

Preface The nutritional need for fat reduction in the Western diet has been recognized for over

The nutritional need for fat reduction in the Western diet has been recognized for over a decade. However, a thorough understanding of the technical complexities involved in fat reduction in foods has lagged behind. This has constrained work in product develop- ment and, in many cases, has led to the development of less than optimal products. Meanwhile, in response to the needs of the food industry, an extensive number of ingredients has been developed solely for the purpose of fat replacement, using a variety of approaches and base materials. In addition, some of the well-established texture- modifying food ingredients have been found to be effective in fat replacement. Thus, over 200 ingredients are now commercially available, or are at different stages of devel- opment, that can be used to replace fat in foods. The sheer number of ingredients can be seen as a measure of the difficulties experienced in matching the multifunctional characteristics exhibited by fat in foods, and presents product development teams with a rather onerous task. Meanwhile, the issue of fat reduction remains a priority area from the perspective of both the consumer and the food industry. The purpose of this handbook is to provide, in a single volume, as much information as is practicable on the science and application of fat replacers in food products, including the multiplicity of technological, legislative, sensory, and marketing issues involved in fat replacement. Due care has been given to provide an international perspective and a multidisciplinary approach. The book is intended not only for food scientists and food technologists who wish to formulate new, low-fat food products based on an understand- ing of the ingredients available, but also for all food industry professionals, including ingredient manufacturers/developers who seek information on latest developments in the industry. Academic researchers and students of food science should also find the book of interest. In short, we hope the book will help fill an important gap in the food science and technology area. Part I of the book, containing five chapters, is an overview of fundamental issues important in the development of low-fat foods and ingredients used to replace fat. This section includes a historical perspective on developments in fat replacers and a critical assessment of available technological strategies, as well as chapters on nutritional impli- cations, marketing considerations, the inter-relationships between physical and chemical aspects of fat replacement and sensory quality, and legislative implications. In Part II, commercially available fat replacers are reviewed individually and in detail. In a book of this size, it is impossible to cover all the commercial fat replacers available today. We have, therefore, selected a limited number of fat replacers each of which is representative of a group of compounds. The chapters are arranged principally according

©1996 CRC Press LLC

to chemical structure, namely, carbohydrate-based, protein-based, and lipid-based. Since a large proportion of the commercial fat replacers have been derived from carbohydrate materials, there are several chapters within this group to represent the different categories — i.e., starches, various fibers, gums and bulking agents. There is also a chapter on combination systems. Combination systems comprise blends of ingredients, the functionality of which develops in situ upon processing, and may be of an interactive or non-interactive nature. Only combination systems based on interactive blends are considered here since systems of a non-interactive nature are merely a sum of the functionalities of the different ingredients used in the blend (possibly with some syner- gistic effects). Furthermore, synthetic fat substitutes, which have been developed but not so far permitted for use in foods, are discussed. Among the issues covered in each chapter are: history and use of the fat replacer; production process; chemical structure and functional properties; interactions with other food ingredients; nutritional, toxicological, and legal status; and selected examples of food product formulations. The Appendix contains a comprehensive list of fat replacers classified according to their basic compositional parameters, with details on chemical composition, names of manufacturers, applications, etc. This list should allow the reader to look up a fat replacer by trade name, determine its principal composition, and then turn to a chapter in the handbook which describes in detail the fat replacer or one belonging to the same class. For example, a reader wishing to find out more about a fat replacer called Paselli SA2, when referring to the Appendix, will find it among the starch-derived group of fat replacers, and described as being a potato maltodextrin. The reader could then turn to Chapters 6A and 6B for more detailed information on maltodextrins and their role as fat mimetics. It should be noted that the inclusion of a fat replacer in this list does not indicate endorsement of the product nor does absence from the list have any negative implications. Finally, a word of explanation is required regarding terminology. Throughout this book, we have used the term “fat replacer” collectively to cover all fat mimetics and fat substitutes. In this context, the term “fat mimetic” is used to denote those ingredients which modify the aqueous phase of a food, and hence simulate some of the physical properties exhibited by fat. By contrast, the term “fat substitute” is used to denote synthetic ingredients which are purposely designed to replace fat on a weight-by-weight basis (mostly with a chemical structure resembling that of a triglyceride) but with an inherent low digestibility, which makes these ingredients non- or low-caloric, and at the same time stable at high processing temperatures (e.g., in frying). Since fat substitutes so far are not permitted for use in foods*, and this book is intended to be a practical sourcebook, fat mimetics are given most prominence. Last but not least, we would like to thank the authors of the individual chapters for their contributions, without whom a book of this nature could not have been written. Their time and effort spent on the preparation of the chapters, and their endeavors to accommodate our editorial requests, are much appreciated.**

Sibel Roller Sylvia A. Jones

* Since completing this manuscript, the U.S. FDA announced on January 24, 1996 their approval for the use of olestra in selected savory snacks. ** Views and opinions expressed by the authors of the various chapters are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.

©1996 CRC Press LLC

The Editors

The Editors Sibel Roller, M.Sc., Ph.D., is Professor of Food Biotechnology at South Bank University in

Sibel Roller, M.Sc., Ph.D., is Professor of Food Biotechnology at South Bank University in London, U.K. Professor Roller obtained her B.A. degree in Biology in 1976 from Hunter College in New York and her M.Sc. degree in Environmental Health Sciences in 1978 from the School of Hygiene and Public Health of the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. She then moved to England to obtain her Ph.D. degree in 1981 in Food Microbiology from Queen Elizabeth College (now King’s College) of the University of London. While remaining at the same university, Professor Roller worked for 3 years as a Postdoctoral Research Associate on microbial fuel cells as alternative sources of energy. In 1985, she joined the Leatherhead Food Research Association in Surrey, U.K., where she initiated, developed, and led the research group in the Biotechnology Unit. As Head of the Unit, she was responsible for directing numerous short- and long-term research projects sponsored by the U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Depart- ment of Trade and Industry, the European Commission, and a range of national and multinational food companies. In 1994, she was appointed to a Professorship in Food Biotechnology at South Bank University. Professor Roller is a Fellow of the Institute of Food Science and Technology (U.K.) and is an active member of the Institute’s Technical and Legislative Committee. She is a member of Sigma Xi, the Honorary Scientific Research Society, and is a Professional Member of the Institute of Food Technologists (U.S.). She is also a member of the Society of Applied Bacteriology and the Society of General Microbiology. Professor Roller currently serves on the Editorial Board of Food Biotechnology and has served on the Public Awareness Working Party of the Bioindustry Association in the U.K. Professor Roller has published over 40 refereed papers and patents and is a frequent invited speaker at international conferences. Her main research interests are in the application of biotechnology to food processing with special emphasis on developing new and upgrading old food ingredients using enzymes and microorganisms. The enzy- mic modification of food polysaccharides to prepare novel fat replacers, gelling agents, and thickeners is an important focus of her research work.

Sylvia A. Jones, M.Sc., Ph.D., is Head of the Food Product Research and Development Department at the Leatherhead Food Research Association, U.K. Dr. Jones obtained her B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Food Chemistry/Food Technology, including specialization in Human Nutrition, at the Agricultural University of Warsaw. She was awarded her Ph.D. degree at Cranfield University, U.K., following research on extrusion cooking technology.

©1996 CRC Press LLC

From 1975 to 1981, Dr. Jones was Lecturer in Food Science and Industrial Food Technology at the Agricultural University of Warsaw, during which time she also acted as a consultant for several food companies in Poland. In 1981–1982, she was Research Fellow in the Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences at Queen Elizabeth College (now King’s College), University of London, where she did research on the rheology of emulsion systems. In addition, between 1979 and 1983, she acted as technical consultant for a number of international food ingredient companies. She joined the Leatherhead Food Research Association as Principal Scientist in 1983, and progressed through Section Manager to Head of Department. Currently, she leads a multidisciplinary team of 26 scientists involved in research and development studies in a wide range of food product areas and novel processing methods. Her department comprises five sections, namely, Food Technology, Product Research and Development, Sensory Analysis and Texture Studies, Nutrition, and Microscopy. Furthermore, during the last 12 years, she has been Research Manager for both the Confectionery Products Panel and the Fruit and Vegetable Products Panel, thus respon- sible for undertaking research on behalf of some 400 member companies worldwide, and has directed a number of innovative research projects sponsored by the U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and by the European Union. In addition, over the years, Dr. Jones has developed and considerably expanded research and development consultancy activities at the Leatherhead Food Research Association; at present, a major part of her work is in the form of confidential and proprietary research undertaken for individual member companies. Dr. Jones is a Fellow of the Institute of Food Science and Technology (U.K.), and a Professional Member of the Institute of Food Technology (U.S.). She has been a member of technical committees of several food industry associations, including the U.K. Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance, the Food and Drink Federation, and the Microwave Working Group led by the U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Fisheries. Her achievements in the field of food research were recognized early in her career when she received twice, in 1976 and 1979, respectively, the Rector’s Award at the Agricultural University of Warsaw, and, in 1978, she was presented with the Minister of Science, Higher Education and Technology Award. The main research interests of Dr. Jones have continued to be in the fields of food emulsions, fat reduction, food texture, food rheology, and overall structure/function relationships in foods. She has published and presented over 70 papers and patents, and has been an invited speaker to numerous international meetings throughout Europe, in the Middle East and in the United States. Her first paper on fat reduction in foods was published in 1977. Since then, she has maintained her interest in technological approaches to fat reduction, and, for the last 7 years, her major preoccupation in research and confidential work at the Leatherhead Food Research Association has been concerned with fat replacement and fat replacers.

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Contributors

Contributors David A. Bell Dow Food Stabilizers The Dow Chemical Company Midland, Michigan Stuart M. Clegg

David A. Bell

Dow Food Stabilizers The Dow Chemical Company Midland, Michigan

Stuart M. Clegg

Food Product Research and

Development Department Leatherhead Food Research Association Leatherhead, Surrey, United Kingdom

Eric Flack

Grindsted Division Danisco Ingredients (U.K.) Ltd. Suffolk, United Kingdom

Jaap Harkema

Business Unit Ingredients for Food and

Pharmacy AVEBE Ter Apelkanaal, The Netherlands

William M. Humphreys

Food Ingredients Division

FMC Europe NV Brussels, Belgium

Sylvia A. Jones

Food Product Research and

Development Department Leatherhead Food Research Association Leatherhead, Surrey, United Kingdom

Pablo de Mariscal

Research and Development

Dow Europe, S.A. Horgen, Switzerland

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Debra L. Miller

Biobehavioral Health and Nutrition The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania

Helen L. Mitchell

Consultant Food Technologist Kent, United Kingdom

Guy Muyldermans

R & D Laboratory

Tessenderlo Chemie n.v. Tessenderlo, Belgium

Beinta Unni Nielsen

Copenhagen Pectin A/S Hercules Inc. Lille Skensved, Denmark

Sibel Roller

Food Research Centre South Bank University

London, United Kingdom

Barbara J. Rolls

Laboratory for the Study of

Human Ingestive Behavior The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania

Norman S. Singer

Ideas Workshop, Inc. Highland Park, Illinois

Jane Smith

Legislation Department Leatherhead Food Research Association

Leatherhead, Surrey, United Kingdom

Barry G. Swanson

Department of Food Science and

Human Nutrition Washington State University Pullman, Washington

John N. Young

Market Intelligence Section Leatherhead Food Research Association Leatherhead, Surrey, United Kingdom

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Contents

Contents PART I: FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES Chapter 1 Issues in Fat Replacement Sylvia A. Jones Chapter 2

PART I: FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES

Chapter 1

Issues in Fat Replacement

Sylvia A. Jones

Chapter 2

Implications of Fat Reduction in the Diet

Debra L. Miller and Barbara J. Rolls

Chapter 3

Market Considerations in Fat Replacement

John N. Young

Chapter 4

Physical, Chemical, and Sensory Aspects of Fat Replacement

Sylvia A. Jones

Chapter 5

Legislative Implications of Fat Replacement

Jane Smith

PART II: FAT REPLACERS AND THEIR PROPERTIES

Chapter 6A

Starch-Derived Fat Mimetics: Maltodextrins

Sibel Roller

Chapter 6B

Starch-Derived Fat Mimetics from Potato

Jaap Harkema

Chapter 7A

Fiber-Based Fat Mimetics: Microcrystalline Cellulose

William M. Humphreys

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Chapter 7B Fiber-Based Fat Mimetics: Methylcellulose Gums

Pablo de Mariscal and David A. Bell

Chapter 7C

Fiber-Based Fat Mimetics: Pectin

Beinta Unni Nielsen

Chapter 8

Microparticulated Proteins as Fat Mimetics

Norman S. Singer

Chapter 9

The Use of Hydrocolloid Gums as Fat Mimetics

Stuart M. Clegg

Chapter 10

The Role of Emulsifiers in Low-Fat Food Products

Eric Flack

Chapter 11

The Role of the Bulking Agent Polydextrose in Fat Replacement

Helen L. Mitchell

Chapter 12

The Use of Blends as Fat Mimetics: Gelatin/Hydrocolloid Combinations

Guy Muyldermans

Chapter 13 Low-Calorie Fats and Synthetic Fat Substitutes

Barry G. Swanson

Appendix Classified List of Fat Replacers and Their Applications

Sylvia A. Jones

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Part I

Fundamental

Issues

Part I Fundamental Issues ©1996 CRC Press LLC

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Chapter

Issues in Fat Replacement

Sylvia A. Jones

1
1
  • 1.1 Introduction

CONTENTS

  • 1.2 Nutritional Background

  • 1.3 The Functions of Fat in Food

    • 1.3.1 Nutritional Functions of Fat

    • 1.3.2 Physical and Chemical Functions of Fat

    • 1.3.3 Sensory Functions of Fat

    • 1.3.4 Overall Implications for Fat Replacement

  • 1.4 Terminology and Classification of Fat Replacers

    • 1.4.1 Terminology

    • 1.4.2 Classification

  • 1.5 Fat Replacement Strategies

    • 1.5.1 Direct Fat Removal — No Compensation

    • 1.5.2 Formulation Optimization

    • 1.5.3 Technological Approach

    • 1.5.4 Holistic Approach

  • 1.6 Developments in Fat Replacers

    • 1.6.1 Olestra and Its Impact

    • 1.6.2 Maltodextrins and other Starch-Derived Fat Mimetics

    • 1.6.3 Microparticulates

    • 1.6.4 Fat Replacers in the Context of Functional Foods

    • 1.6.5 Recognition of the Role of Established Food Ingredients

    • 1.6.6 Development of Combination Systems

    • 1.6.7 Replacing Standard Fats with Low-Calorie Fats

    • 1.6.8 Improving the Quality of Fat Replacers

  • 1.7 Important Considerations in the Development of Low-Fat Foods

    • 1.7.1 Product Quality/Consumer Preference/Marketing Drive

  • ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    1.7.2

    Knowledge of Ingredients

    • 1.7.3 Microbiological Implications

    • 1.7.4 Legislative Considerations

    • 1.7.5 Pricing and Marketing

    References

    1.1 INTRODUCTION

    With over a decade of fat replacement activities in the commercial world behind us, it is appropriate to take a comprehensive view of the principal issues involved, and examine the mechanisms and the directions of the progress made, in order to gain a better understanding of the developments and draw conclusions for the future from the learned experience. As a point of departure, it is useful to address first the principal question: is fat reduction a passing fad? To address this question, we need to look at the nutritional background to this issue, and, in particular, to assess the recent developments in nutrition science. After all, it is the consumption of fat in relation to the etiology of cardiovascular disease that triggered the sudden interest in food products with less fat (or even zero fat), both within the food industry and among the public at large. The challenge has been to produce low-fat variants with physical and sensory characteristics that resemble as closely as possible the full-fat standard products to which people were accustomed. The food industry during the last 10 to 15 years has invested considerable resources and effort into the task. One problem has been that, often, product development has been carried out without a full awareness of the different consequences of removing substantial quantities of fat from a particular product. In order to combat that, and hence develop successfully low- fat variants, it is essential to understand the multiplicity of functions of fat in foods, and, in this context, to examine the particular food matrix in which the fat is to be replaced. Because of the crucial role played by fat in foods, it quickly became obvious that the development of low-fat variants with matching quality of the full-fat counterparts depended on replacing the fat with alternative ingredients. Hence, many ingredients have been developed for the specific purpose of fat replacement. Others are food ingredients that have been used for other purposes before researchers realized that they had a role to play in fat replacement. The result is that over 200 ingredients now exist (either commercially available or at different stages of development) which can be used in fat replacement. The sheer number of ingredients is quite outstanding, but it well illustrates the difficulties encountered in matching the functionality of fat. Indeed, fat can be seen as a “gold standard” similar to sucrose in the case of sweeteners. However, sucrose replacement can now be seen as a relatively easy task compared with fat replacement. With the increase in the number of ingredients available, new terms have been introduced, causing some confusion. Thus, steps need to be taken toward a more systematic approach to both terminology and classification of the ingredients developed for the purpose of fat replacement. Another issue needing consideration is what are the different strategies that can be adopted in product development and how these have evolved and why. A holistic approach to fat replacement needs to be considered, and will be exemplified in Chapter 4 where physical, chemical, and sensory aspects of fat replacement are discussed. Meanwhile, the development of fat replacers has gone through a number of different stages. It is appropriate now to put these developments into a historical perspective and provide a logical framework by identifying the constraints and particular problems of fat replacement,

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    and the driving forces behind the developments. This will therefore set the scene for the detailed discussion on the different fat replacers or categories of fat replacers given in Chapters 6 to 13. Last, but not least, when developing low-fat foods, a number of important consider- ations need to be taken into account. These need to encompass technological, microbi- ological, and legislative implications, together with marketing aspects, while keeping a watchful eye on changing consumer preferences.

    1.2 NUTRITIONAL BACKGROUND

    Up to the 1970s, the issue of fat in the diet and its effect on health was hardly considered, except in cases of obesity where an overall reduction in energy was recommended. Reduced-calorie foods, therefore, were mainly a small niche market directed toward a minority of consumers who were obese or otherwise wished to lose body weight, and thus were interested in reducing their calorie intake. Moreover, the nutritional advice for weight loss at that time tended to focus more on carbohydrates than on fat, despite the fact that fat is the most dense source of calories (9 kcal/g vs. 4 kcal/g for carbohydrates and proteins). By the 1980s, a radical change had taken place in consumers’ attitudes. This can be traced directly to developments in the science of nutrition, and to a better understanding of the relationships between diet and health, which, in the developed countries, led to significant changes in official nutritional recommendations. In the U.K., this reevaluation was brought to public attention by the publication of two major reports which were, respectively, the so-called “NACNE Report,” produced in 1983 by the National Advisory Committee on Nutrition Education (NACNE, 1983), and Diet and Cardiovascular Disease , known as the “COMA Report,” produced in 1984 by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) (Department of Health and Social Security, 1984). The recommendations of the NACNE Report were oriented toward a diet that would benefit the nation’s health generally, whereas those of the COMA Report were intended more specifically to prevent coronary heart disease (CHD). The major recommendation of both reports was to reduce the intake of fat from the 42% at the time to 34% (NACNE) or 35% (COMA) of total food energy in the diet. Furthermore, they recommended that the intake of saturated fat should be reduced to 10% (NACNE) or 15% (COMA) of food energy. They also advised a reduction in salt intake and increased consumption of complex carbohydrates and dietary fiber. The recommendations were widely debated and given extensive publicity in the media. The reports, therefore, had a significant impact on increasing consumer awareness of the relationship between diet and health. Similar developments took place in the United States. In 1988, the U.S. Surgeon General published a major review on nutrition and health. It proposed that energy in the diet derived from fat should be reduced to 30% (USDHHS, 1988). A further review carried out on behalf of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, 1989) provided a broad scientific consensus for the U.S. government report: Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans (USDA/USDHHS, 1990). The recommendations of the Surgeon General were supported by a number of health-related organizations such as the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society, on the basis that the incidence of coronary heart disease and cancer would be reduced by decreasing the amount of fat and cholesterol in the diet (Przybyla, 1990). By the end of the 1980s, the governments of most developed countries in the western hemisphere had drawn up nutritional recommendations advising consumers to reduce fat intake from the prevailing level of 40 to 49% (depending on the country) to

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    approximately 30% of total energy in the diet. In most cases, the goal was set to reduce fat consumption to the recommended level by the year 2000. In 1992, the U.K. government issued a set of targets to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) in the White Paper The Health of the Nation: A Strategy for Health in England (Department of Health, 1992). One target was to reduce the number of premature deaths (in people under 65 years old) by 40% by the year 2000 (using 1990 figures as a baseline). Dietary targets were set on the basis of the recommendations given in a second report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy on dietary reference values (Department of Health, 1991), which, in the case of fat, was that it should not exceed 35% of total food energy in the diet (the same as in the COMA Report of 1984), with the consumption of saturated fatty acids no more than 11% of total food energy (4% lower than in the COMA 1984 Report). At the time, the average fat intake of the British population was at 40% of total food energy and 17% of food energy was derived from saturated fats. It would appear, therefore, that relatively little progress has been made in achieving the targets suggested by NACNE and COMA in the mid-1980s, despite the concurrent increase in sales of low-fat foods (see Chapter 3). Dietary fat in the American diet is considered to account for 36% of energy content (Buss, 1993), indicating that greater progress in adopting dietary recommendations has been made on average compared with the U.K. However, the analysis of a nutritional survey among British adults (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1994a) found that 10% of the adult population had less than 35% of their food energy derived from fat, thus indicating a significant seg- mentation in consumers’ response to nutritional guidelines. The extent to which con- sumers might be compensating for low-fat intakes when consuming low-fat products remains to be established (see Chapter 2). If that is so, a further point of interest would be to find out the extent to which the process was a physiological, as opposed to a psychological, response. Meanwhile, scientific research oriented toward understanding better the relationship between diet and health was a major growth area. One noteworthy study was that carried out by Watts et al. (1992), which was the first to support the hypothesis that a low-fat diet can actually prevent narrowing of the coronary arteries. More recently, the complex relationship between diet and heart disease has been reviewed by Ashwell (1993). While it is acknowledged that CHD is a multifactorial disorder, it is considered that diet is one component which can be modified by everybody. The report concludes that the development of CHD can be viewed simplistically as a three-stage process starting from an initial arterial injury that is followed by atheroscle- rosis and the formation of a blood clot which eventually blocks the artery thus causing a heart attack. Each stage can be influenced by several physiological conditions (e.g., high blood pressure, high levels of plasma lipids, and low levels of antioxidants), and these can be affected by controllable factors, including diet. A “round table model” was derived to elucidate the relationships between the stages of the disease, physiological conditions, and dietary components. The level and composition of the fats consumed is shown to be of importance at all three stages, and overall the dietary advice given includes reduction of fat intake through the consumption of low-fat products and increased intake of fish oils. There is a general consensus that the type of fat consumed is of importance in relation to the aetiology of chronic diseases. In particular, increasing the proportion of polyun- saturated fats in the diet, e.g., through the consumption of oil-rich fish, appears to play a protective role against CHD, as evident from the fact that Eskimos subsisting on a high fat diet based on fish are less prone to heart disease and thrombosis than people on high

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    fat diets based more on saturated fats (Dyerberg et al., 1978; Dyerberg and Bang, 1979). The crucial factor, it seems, is the effect of consumption of different fats on the proportion of serum cholesterol associated with high-density lipoproteins (HDL cholesterol) vs. that associated with low-density lipoproteins (LDL cholesterol). Thus, consumption of fats favoring a higher proportion of HDL cholesterol and/or a lower proportion of LDL cholesterol, such as diets in which a higher proportion of fats consumed are polyunsat- urated (e.g., from fish or certain vegetable sources) or monounsaturated (e.g., from olive oil), tend to reduce risk from CHD (helped also by the consumption of dietary antioxi- dants such as Vitamin E, which blocks the oxidative modification of LDL). Conversely, a higher proportion of saturated fats in the diet tends to increase the ratio of LDL cholesterol to HDL cholesterol, thus increasing risk of CHD (Grundy, 1994). However, it is now evident that different saturated fats and dietary sources of saturated fat vary in their influence on the level of LDL cholesterol (Richardson, 1995). For instance, butter and other dairy products, which are high in myristic acid (14:0), appear to strongly increase levels of LDL cholesterol, whereas beef fat, containing palmitic (16:0) and stearic (18:0) acids does so to a lesser extent, and cocoa butter, with a high proportion of stearic acid, increases LDL cholesterol only slightly. In addition, there has been increasing concern and controversy on the consumption of trans fatty acids in relation to health (Mensink and Katan, 1990; Grundy, 1994). Epidemiological data (Willett et al., 1993) have shown a positive association between higher intakes of trans isomers (derived from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils) and the risk of CHD. Wahle and James (1993) have published a comprehensive review on this topic, and concluded that some evidence exists to suggest that trans fatty acids have deleterious effects on blood plasma lipids (i.e., they tend to increase the levels both of LDL and HDL cholesterol present, as well as the concentration of lipoprotein a (which is a genetic marker for CHD acting as an independent risk factor). However, other studies have given conflicting results, so that the issue at present remains unresolved, with a majority of studies implicating trans fatty acids. Clearly, more research is required on this issue. Meanwhile, the FAO/WHO Expert Committee concluded that the effects on plasma cholesterol concentrations exerted by trans unsaturated fatty acids are similar to saturated fatty acids and hence they have recommended that in order to improve plasma lipid profile, the intake of trans fatty acids should be cut back when the intake of saturated fats is reduced (Sanders, 1995). In short, while our knowledge of the relationship between diet and health continues to progress, the adoption of dietary recommendations derived from that knowledge consistently lags behind. It is possible that a better consumer response could be achieved primarily by more extensive nutritional education and secondly, by improving the quality of existing or new low-fat foods. On the other hand, it is likely that as the market matures, with increasing availability of low-fat foods to a wider range of social strata, consumers might more readily adhere to the guidelines regarding fat consumption.

    1.3 THE FUNCTIONS OF FAT IN FOOD

    The level of fat determines the nutritional, physical, chemical, and sensory characteristics of foods. Before the replacement of fat in food products can be considered, however, it is essential to understand what its various functions are.

    1.3.1 NUTRITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF FAT

    Physiologically, fats in foods have three basic functions: they act as a source of essential

    fatty acids (linolenic and linoleic acids); they act as carriers for fat-soluble vitamins

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    (A, D, E and K); and they are an important source of energy. From a nutritional point of view, only the first two may be considered as essential because other nutrients (namely carbohydrates and proteins) can act as sources of energy. Normally, even diets very low in fat can satisfy those requirements. The overriding issue today is that changes in people’s lifestyles over the years have meant that the requirements for energy from food have decreased significantly. At the same time, the proportion of energy derived from fat (the consumption of which, as noted already, apart from being the most concentrated source of energy, has other adverse effects on health) has remained high. Figure 1.1 illustrates the relative contribution of fat from different foods in an intake of 88 g/day which is the average for the U.K., and represents 38% of total energy or approximately 40% of energy from food, i.e., excluding alcohol (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1994a).

    (A, D, E and K); and they are an important source of energy. From a nutritional

    Figure 1.1

    Sources of fat in diet of U.K. consumers. (Compiled from Ministry of Agriculture,

    Fisheries and Food, 1994a).

    The nutritional function of fat in food would not be complete without mentioning its physiological/psychological aspect, mainly the extent to which fat plays a role in achiev- ing satiety. Research has shown that the consumption of fat is associated with a subse- quent state of “fulfillment,” such that, by implication, fat reduction might lead to energy compensation and the increased consumption of food. This issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 2. However, it should be pointed out that most studies on satiety have been carried out using noncaloric, nonabsorbable fat substitutes (such as sucrose polyesters). As will be discussed, so far such fat substitutes have not been approved for use in foods, and therefore the studies do not address the current market reality where fat mimetics are used to reduce the fat content of food products. A study on satiety involving three different types of fat mimetics is currently being undertaken at the Leatherhead Food Research Association, supported by the U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    1.3.2

    PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL FUNCTIONS OF FAT

    Physical and chemical functions of fat in food products can be grouped together since the chemical nature of fats determines more or less their physical properties. Thus, the length of the carbon chain of fatty acids esterified with the glycerol, their degree of unsaturation, and the distribution of fatty acids and their molecular configuration (i.e., whether in the form of cis or trans isomers), as well as the polymorphic state of the fat, will all affect the physical properties of foods (for example, viscosity, melting charac- teristics, crystallinity, and spreadability). Furthermore, fat affects the physical and chemical properties of the product, and hence has several practical implications, the most important of which are (1) the behavior of the food product during processing (e.g., heat stability, viscosity, crystallization, and aerating properties), (2) post-processing characteristics (e.g., shear-sensitivity, tackiness, migration, and dispersion), and (3) storage stability, which can include physical stability (e.g., de-emulsification, fat migration, or fat separation), chemical stability (e.g., rancidity or oxidation), and microbiological stability (e.g., water activity and safety).

    • 1.3.3 SENSORY FUNCTIONS OF FAT

    Last, but not least, fats have an important function in determining the four main sensory

    characteristics of food products, which are (1) appearance (e.g., gloss, translucency, color, surface uniformity, and crystallinity) (2) texture (e.g., viscosity, elasticity, and hardness), (3) flavor (namely, intensity of flavor, flavor release, flavor profile, and flavor develop- ment), and (4) mouthfeel (e.g., meltability, creaminess, lubricity, thickness, and degree of mouth-coating). Sensory and related aspects of fat reduction are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.

    • 1.3.4 OVERALL IMPLICATIONS FOR FAT REPLACEMENT

    Reducing fat in a food product must take into account its multifunctional role, in particular how its location in the food matrix determines the chemical, physical, and sensory properties of the food, as well as its processing characteristics. The relative importance of the different functions of the fat in a food vary according to the particular food product and according to the type of fat used. The greater number of product quality characteristics determined by the fat, the more pronounced will be its effect, and the more complex will be the approach required when a substantial part of the fat is to be replaced. In the development of low-fat products, it has been found useful to visualize the overall functionality profile of a product making use of a “fishbone” diagram. This approach was used, for instance, by Loders Crocklaan for designing speciality fats for particular product applications (Anon., 1994). Figure 1.2 illustrates the basic technique whereby a full functionality profile for a given product can be translated into a detailed set of physical/chemical and sensory attributes. By the same token, a detailed function- ality profile resulting from the presence of fat in a product can be defined and used as a tool in product development for finding ingredient systems that will deliver the required profile. “Fishbone” diagrams have also been used to illustrate the multifunctional aspects of fat reduction (Anon., 1992).

    1.4 TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION OF FAT REPLACERS

    • 1.4.1 TERMINOLOGY

    Over the years, different terms have been used for ingredients that have been specifically

    developed to replace fat in food products. This has created some confusion over the

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Figure 1.2 Basic fishbone diagram for product development and reformulation purposes. (From Source , Issue No.

    Figure 1.2 Basic fishbone diagram for product development and reformulation purposes. (From Source , Issue No. 13, January, 6, 1994. Reprinted with the permission of Loders Croklaan.)

    terminology used for fat-replacing ingredients in the literature. Thus, there is a need to introduce a more systematic approach to this issue. Initially, the term “fat substitute” was used for all such ingredients regardless of the extent to which they were able to replace fat and principles determining their functionality. However, the main interest then had been directed toward discovering an optimal ingredient able to replace fat fully in all food systems. Such an ideal ingredient would need to have a similar chemical structure and similar physical properties to fat, but would need to be resistant to hydrolysis by digestive enzymes in order to have preferably a zero or very low caloric value. In the second half of the 1980s, the only ingredients able to fulfill all those requirements were synthetic compounds such as olestra. The main practical difference between these syn- thetic compounds and other ingredients launched for the purposes of fat replacement was that only the former were able, by definition, to replace fat on a weight-by-weight basis. All other ingredients, on the other hand, required water to achieve their function- ality, and their ability to replace fat was based on the principle of reproducing (mimicking) some of the physical and sensory characteristics associated with the presence of fat in the food. Hence, the term “fat mimetic” evolved to distinguish this group of ingredients. With separate terms now being used to define these different types of ingredients, there was the need for an overall term that referred to all ingredients used for fat–replacement purposes, and the general term “fat replacer” began to be used in that context. However, many authors continue to use the term “fat substitute” for all fat replacing ingredients, and an even greater number use the terms “fat substitute,” “fat mimetic,” and “fat replacer” more or less interchangeably, thus causing confusion on the meanings of these terms. In addition, as a result of further developments, other terms have been introduced by ingredient manufacturers. For instance, the term “fat extender” has been used by Pfizer to describe a system comprising a mixture of ingredients, containing standard fats or oils, such as Veri-Lo ® 100 and Veri-Lo ® 200, which are emulsions containing 33 and 25% fat, respectively. On the other hand, ingredients such as Caprenin and Salatrim,

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    which are true fats (i.e., they are triglycerides) but with a fatty acid composition different from standard fats designed to provide fewer calories (see below), may also be described as “fat extenders.” However, when Salatrim was launched, the term “low-calorie fat” was promoted, and has since evolved as a term in its own right, distinct from “fat extenders.” Thus, Caprenin and Salatrim are now more usually placed in an independent group under the heading “low-calorie fats.” Hence, the term “fat extender” now tends to be reserved for systems combining standard fats or oils with other ingredients, as in the case of Veri-Lo ® . In summary, the five terms used to describe ingredients which can replace fat may be defined briefly as follows:

    Fat replacer: a blanket term to describe any ingredient used to replace fat Fat substitute: a synthetic compound designed to replace fat on a weight-by-weight basis, usually having a similar chemical structure to fat but resistant to hydrolysis by digestive enzymes Fat mimetic: a fat replacer that requires a high water content to achieve its function- ality Low-calorie fat: synthetic triglyceride combining unconventional fatty acids to the glycerol backbone which results in reduced caloric value Fat extender: a fat replacement system containing a proportion of standard fats or oils combined with other ingredients

    It should be added that the current lack of development activity for the last category of fat replacers might lead to the disappearance of the term in due course; however, it is included in the above list for completeness.

    1.4.2 CLASSIFICATION

    One of the main characteristics of the ingredients used to replace fat is that they lack similarity both in terms of chemical structure and in a specific physical structure. All they have in common is that under certain conditions, they are able to replace fat and fulfill at least some of the functional properties associated with fat in a given product. By definition, therefore, they represent a disparate group of ingredients for which it is not easy to provide a simple classification. An additional problem is that the group as a whole is quite unbalanced in which some subgroups of ingredients of similar chemical structure and functional properties comprise a large number while others may contain only one or two ingredients developed so far. In short, a systematic approach (i.e., based on a single feature or characteristic) cannot be used because too many ingredients would be excluded. Furthermore, there is the issue as to whether to include in any classification all ingredients currently used, or have potential use as fat replacers, or whether it should consist only of those ingredients that have been purposely designed to act as fat replacers. The classification of fat replacers given below aims to give the reader a comprehensive view of ingredient categories that can be considered for product development of low-fat foods (including the synthetic fat substitutes, none of which, as yet, are permitted for use in foods)*. The list is based partially on chemical composition and partially on functionality of the ingredients, and includes combination systems (i.e., blends).

    • 1. Starch-derived

    • 2. Fiber-based

    * Since completing this manuscript, the U.S. FDA announced on January 24, 1996 their approval for the use of olestra in selected savory snacks.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    3.

    Protein-based

    • 4. Gums, gels and thickeners

    • 5. Emulsifiers

    • 6. Bulking agents

    • 7. Low-calorie fats

    • 8. Fat extenders

    • 9. Synthetic fat substitutes

    10. Combination systems

    As may be seen, a certain degree of overlap cannot be avoided. For instance, it can be debated whether low-calorie fats should be considered as a separate entity, or be included in the synthetic fat substitute category. However, since the low-calorie fats structurally are lipids, and were assigned a separate term from other fat replacers when launched on the market, it is considered more appropriate to differentiate them from the category of the, as yet, unpermitted fat substitutes in the above classification.

    1.5 FAT REPLACEMENT STRATEGIES

    A number of approaches have evolved in the development of reduced-fat foods. In this section, the main options will be discussed briefly in the order that they were introduced.

    1.5.1 DIRECT FAT REMOVAL — NO COMPENSATION

    During the rush of publicity of the new nutritional recommendations in the early 1980s, the first strategy to evolve was simply to remove fat from the standard product, without any attempt to address the organoleptic changes resulting from the reduced presence of the fat. The dairy industry was the first to adopt such a strategy, with the introduction of semi-skimmed, and subsequently, skimmed milk. Fat content was reduced from the 3.5% in the standard product, to, respectively, 1.7% (i.e., a 50% fat reduction) and 0.1% (i.e., a more or less 100% reduction), in effect, replacing the fat with a proportional increase of all the other constituents of milk. This somewhat drastic strategy, which changed considerably the organoleptic quality of the final product, had many skeptics who doubted whether consumers would accept such a change. It was thought that after the initial “hype” period, consumers would gradually go back to the standard “full-fat” milk, and demand for the reduced-fat varieties would dwindle to a small niche market. However, history proved otherwise. In the U.K., for example, as indicated in Figure 1.3, the consumption of reduced-fat liquid milk grew at a remarkable rate. According to the most recent National Food Survey in Britain, the consumption of reduced-fat milk has now overtaken that of whole milk (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1994b). In other words, the strategy of direct fat removal adopted by the dairy industry proved a major success, gaining widespread consumer acceptance in spite of the obvious changes in product characteristics. Similar developments subsequently took place in the meat industry. Thus, lean and extra lean raw beef, pork and lamb (mostly in a minced or diced form, chilled or frozen) are now readily available in the supermarkets of many of the developed countries, with a fat content ranging from 15 to 10%, and even as low as 5%. Such a strategy is less possible for most other food products because, for the majority, physical stability, functional properties, and, in many cases, microbiological stability, are adversely affected. The same applies when fat is replaced by water alone. Direct fat removal without compensation, therefore, has limited applicability, depending on the type of product, and the level of fat reduction intended. Since this strategy expects the consumer to accept considerable change in the organoleptic characteristics of a product,

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Figure 1.3 Consumption of liquid milk (g/d) in the U.K. (Compiled from Ministry of Agriculture, Food

    Figure 1.3 Consumption of liquid milk (g/d) in the U.K. (Compiled from Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, National Food Surveys for 1984–1993.)

    it can only work well when the consumer is highly motivated, and where, therefore, fat content and nutritional concerns in general will influence purchasing behavior. In short, the limited number of products to which this strategy can be applied has meant that other ways of achieving fat reduction have had to be sought.

    1.5.2 FORMULATION OPTIMIZATION

    The major challenge in the development of reduced-fat foods is to achieve fat reduction while matching as closely as possible the eating qualities of the traditional full-fat product. This involves the creative use of established functional ingredients, including the range of fat replacers now available. For most food products, reduction of fat is associated with an increase in water content. The first need, therefore, in order to mimic the quality of the full-fat product, is to attempt to structure the water phase, through the use of such functional ingredients as proteins, starches and other thickeners, gums, stabilizers, gelling agents, bulking agents, emulsi- fiers and fibers. The choice of ingredients will depend on product type and the level of fat reduction intended, and needs to be carefully balanced against their effects on the multiplicity of product characteristics. The strategy requires a thorough knowledge of the ingredients available, and an understanding of the structure/function relationships in a given product matrix. During the second half of the 1980s, when the emphasis was narrowly focused on the search for an optimal new fat replacer, developments in other directions were somewhat limited. However, once the inherent limitations of the various fat replacers introduced to the market were realized, interest in the creative use of the standard functional ingredients increased considerably. The introduction of new ingredients designed specifically to replace fat (i.e., fat replacers) significantly increased the scope for matching the quality of reduced-fat variants. Currently, as noted already, there are over 200 ingredients with some claim for

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    aiding fat replacement, either available commercially, or at an advanced stage of devel- opment (see Section 1.6). Most of the fat replacers on the market are based on the ability to structure the water phase toward achieving fat-like structures that mimic the physical and/or perceived sensory characteristics of fat.

    • 1.5.3 TECHNOLOGICAL APPROACH

    The use of specially designed fat replacers in products often requires changes in pro- cessing conditions or additional processing stages in order to achieve optimal function- ality. However, the technological approach can be extended much further in fat replace- ment strategies. One example would be to explore interactive processing. This is based on the principle of employing a processing method purposely designed to cause inter- actions between ingredients, and changes in ingredient functionalities within the food matrix, in such a way that they compensate for the removal of fat in the final product. On the other hand, the application of a new technology, or an existing technology that is not normally used in the production of the standard product, can be sought. To date, neither of these approaches has been explored to any great extent.

    • 1.5.4 HOLISTIC APPROACH

    The holistic approach to fat reduction is based on the fact that, on the one hand, the vast

    majority of food products are relatively complex systems, and, on the other hand, any one fat mimetic has limitations in its ability to cover the many different functions of fat. The strategy has evolved because in most cases it has been found that no single approach to fat replacement gives a satisfactory final product with significant fat reduction, without compromising some of the quality characteristics (e.g., sensory, physical stability, micro- biological stability) of the standard product. It has normally taken the form of using a chosen fat replacer in conjunction with other ingredients (e.g., stabilizers, emulsifiers), or the use of a blend of ingredients designed for a particular product application. More recently, this has shifted toward using more than one fat replacer in conjunction with a range of standard ingredients. However, the ultimate holistic strategy, with the goal of producing optimal quality products with low-fat levels or in fat-free versions, needs to go beyond the issue of ingredients used, toward encompassing all technological means for achieving the required fat reduction. Indeed, this does not only apply to the devel- opment of low-fat products, but to all food product development. In a holistic strategy even greater attention must be directed toward achieving an understanding of the func- tionality of the various ingredients, and how they interact with one another. Many of the advances in product development activities have been predominantly empirically based. In general, low-fat products, because they are deprived of the functionality of fat, are much more sensitive to molecular interactions, especially those between flavor and other ingredients, and those which affect texture. Thus, when developing low-fat products, much more attention needs to be given to all aspects of the often complex and finely balanced physical and chemical system as a whole. This emphasizes the need for a holistic strategy.

    1.6 DEVELOPMENTS IN FAT REPLACERS

    Although the fat replacement issue has been on the agenda for more than a decade, it was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that the development of ingredients specif- ically for fat replacement really took off. The fact that there are so many ingredients now available for use in fat replacement means that this has been one of the strongest growth areas in the field of ingredient development for some time. In this section, the various developments in fat replacers are put in a historical context, highlighting the

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    main events, in order to show how each development had an impact on further research activities. It sets the scene for the more detailed discussion on the different fat replacers or categories of fat replacers in Chapters 6 through 13.

    1.6.1 OLESTRA AND ITS IMPACT

    Initially, as previously mentioned, the desire was to find an ingredient that would behave, both physically and chemically, like fat, while contributing fewer calories, and which could be used in all product types by directly substituting for the fat, with little or no need to reformulate the product. Olestra, a sucrose polyester, first synthesized in 1968 and patented by the Procter & Gamble Company in 1971, precisely fitted those criteria (Mattson and Volpenheim, 1971). With sucrose substituting for the glycerol moiety in triglycerides, and six to eight of the hydroxyl groups of the sucrose esterified by fatty acids, the chemical structure of olestra is rather similar to fat. The main difference is that the molecule cannot be hydrolyzed by pancreatic lipases, and hence passes straight through the gastrointestinal tract unchanged without being absorbed. It thus contributes no calories. Furthermore, its physical properties could be manipulated by varying the chain length, the degree of unsaturation and the proportions of different fatty acids used to esterify the hydroxyl groups of the sucrose molecule. Finally, because it is inherently heat stable, it can substitute for fat over a wide range of applications in the food industry (including in frying oils), and in virtually every type of food product. It was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the nutritional arguments for reducing fat consumption were being publicized, that a viable market for olestra started to become apparent. Its current status is that it is still awaiting official approval for use in food. Procter & Gamble submitted its first petition for approval to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in April 1987. A further petition was submitted in July 1990, restricting its use to savory snacks (Anon., 1991a). The company has also filed for the approval of olestra in Canada and in the U.K. (Anon., 1990). It was hoped that approval would be obtained in 1995, especially since a second 1-year interim extension to the Procter & Gamble’s patent awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is due to expire in January 1996 (Anon., 1995). Under the current U.S. legislation concerning products which require lengthy regulatory review, if olestra were to be approved before this date, then it would be possible for Procter & Gamble’s patent to be extended for an additional 2 years from the time of its approval by the FDA. There is also the issue that even if approved, it is not certain whether olestra will gain consumer acceptance. How- ever, it is noteworthy that, despite, on the one hand, its synthetic nature, and, on the other hand, a concurrent consumer trend in the 1980s toward “natural” and “additive-

    free” products, olestra has continued to receive remarkably positive publicity. For completeness, it should be added that a number of other synthetic fat substitutes have been developed. These include esterified propoxylated glycerols, carboxy-carbox- ylate esters, malonate esters, alkyl glyceryl-ethers, alkyl glycoside fatty acid polyesters, esterified polysaccharides, polyvinyl oleate, ethyl esters, polysiloxanes, and many more (Bowes, 1993). These are discussed in Chapter 13. It is interesting to note, though, that none of the companies developing these synthetic fat substitutes have so far attempted to go through the hurdles of gaining approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Adminis- tration, but rather have resigned themselves to waiting for the outcome of the application for olestra. However, it should be pointed out that a joint agreement was signed in 1990 between the companies Arco and CPC International to develop esterified propoxylated glycerol, and subsequently to prepare the necessary scientific data required if the ingre- dient is to gain approval (Anon., 1991a). Meanwhile, the nonavailability of olestra in the 1980s had the effect of stimulating developments in fat replacers in other directions.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    1.6.2

    MALTODEXTRINS AND OTHER STARCH-DERIVED FAT MIMETICS

    In the early days of fat replacement, relatively small reductions in fat were considered an acceptable goal, perhaps by a quarter or a third compared with the fat content of the standard product. In many cases, this could be achieved with the use of different types of starch-derived fat mimetics, which, in contrast to olestra, do not have any regulatory hurdles to pass over. One of the first starch-derived mimetics to enter the market was N-Oil, a tapioca dextrin, which had been produced by National Starch & Chemical Corporation since 1984 (Dziezak, 1989). The most significant amount of research activity on starch-derived mimetics has centered around the development of maltodextrins — i.e., starch hydrolysis products obtained by acid or enzymic hydrolysis of starch materials and characterized by a low dextrose equivalent (DE) value. The concept of starch hydrolysis products with DE<10 was pioneered at the Academy of Science in the former German Democratic Republic, where potato starch was partially degraded using a -amylase, a process that was subsequently patented (Richter et al., 1973). Since such maltodextrins when used in solution at a concentration greater than 20% form thermoreversible gels, with some of the sensory characteristics of fats, and caloric value amounts to approximately 1 kcal/g, there was scope for exploring these ingredients for the purposes of fat replacement. On the other hand, both enzymic and acid hydrolysis methods can be applied to any type of starch or material high in starch content, and hence, not surprisingly, a large number of maltodextrins from different sources have been developed and are available commer- cially. A detailed discussion of these fat mimetics is given in Chapter 6A, and Chapter 6B covers the maltodextrins derived from potato starch. A list of commercially available maltodextrins is given in the Appendix. Although the main focus was concentrated on maltodextrins, a few modified starches were also introduced to the market for fat replace- ment purposes toward the end of the 1980s and in the beginning of the 1990s (e.g., the Sta-Slim range from the company A. E. Staley and the Amalean range from the Amer- ican Maize Products Company). Some further developments in starch-derived fat mimet- ics will be highlighted later. In the late 1980s, when the trend had shifted toward developing food products containing even lower amounts of fat, and in the midst of the “hype” associated with synthetic fat substitutes at that time, fat mimetics, such as those derived from starch, were at a serious disadvantage because they could not fulfill all the criteria for an optimal (ideal) fat replacer. Furthermore, under the influence of olestra, which had been submitted to the FDA for approval, the whole climate of opinion then was dominated by the perceived need to find a single ingredient that had the potential of replacing fat across the whole spectrum of product applications. Thus, fat replacement reached something of an impasse: a market existed for low-fat foods, but while synthetic fat substitutes were not approved for use in food, other ingredients, such as starch-derived fat replacers, could only replace some of the functions of fat in foods, and, as fat mimetics, had restricted applications.

    • 1.6.3 MICROPARTICULATES

    The first technological breakthrough (or, more precisely, what was perceived as a break- through at the time) came with the development of Simplesse ® , a microparticulated protein fat mimetic introduced by the NutraSweet Company, the main version of which is based on whey protein concentrate (Singer et al., 1988) — see Chapter 8 for a detailed discussion on Simplesse ® . It was launched in January 1988, receiving much publicity in the media. It should be added that while John Labatt Ltd., Canada, the originator of the Sim- plesse ® concept sold the rights to Simplesse ® to the NutraSweet Company, further

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    developments were on-going at Ault Foods Ltd., a division of John Labbatt Ltd., which culminated in 1989 with the launch of a whey protein concentrate-based fat mimetic under the name Dairylight (Anon. 1991b). The difference between Simplesse ® and Dairylight lies in the processing method employed, whereby the latter involves only a mild treatment which leads only to partial denaturation of protein (60 to 80%), and hence it is not a microparticulated protein (Asher et al., 1992). Four years later, in 1993, the company Pfizer relaunched Dairylight under the Dairy-Lo™ name as a result of an agreement reached between Pfizer Company and Ault Foods Ltd., whereby Ault Foods would produce Dairy-Lo™ and Pfizer would market it in all countries with the exception of Canada (Anon., 1993). The concept of a microparticulated protein as a fat mimetic was seen by many as the ultimate development in ingredient technology with the potential of resolving all the problems associated with fat replacement, including that of total fat replacement. These beliefs were compounded by the strong marketing strategy of the NutraSweet Company. However, strong marketing was needed at the time in order to combat the general opinion that fat mimetics were by definition underperformers as compared with the “true” fat replacers such as olestra which, in spite of their failure to gain approval for use in foods, were still seen as the ideal fat replacers. The concept of a special processing method leading to a microparticulated form of an ingredient was seen as one that can actually mimic the fat droplets in an oil-in-water emulsion, and hence the developments in protein- based fat replacers were oriented toward some form of microparticulates (see Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion of this issue). While LITA ® (from the company Opta Food Ingredients, Inc.) and Trailblazer (from Kraft General Foods) followed this concept using multicomponent systems based on proteins, a large number of insoluble fat mimetics also started to be marketed as having what had become the fashionable microparticulated form (e.g., the Avicel ® range from FMC, and Stellar™ a crystalline starch from A. E. Staley). Back in the late 1980s, Simplesse ® was also promoted on the basis of its natural (as opposed to synthetic) character, since it was produced from a well-recognized natural ingredient (i.e., whey protein concentrate or egg white/skimmed milk/sugar/pectin for Simplesse ® 100 and Simplesse ® 300, respectively). The fact that these ingredients were originally produced only in a liquid form, and hence had a short shelf-life and required refrigeration was probably (at least initially) a contributing factor to the positive image of these ingredients. (Further d evelopments of Simplesse ® 100 are outlined in Section 1.6.8.) However, in due course, the publicity surrounding Simplesse ® turned into a two-edged sword, since it was loaded with high levels of expectancy and hence was thought able to deliver much more than other fat mimetics. In many applications, however, it was not technically possible for it to come up to those expectations, and moreover, it was becoming increasingly apparent that in order to achieve a significant fat reduction, in most cases, other ingredients were also necessary for obtaining optimal quality.

    1.6.4 FAT REPLACERS IN THE CONTEXT OF FUNCTIONAL FOODS

    The link between fat replacers and functional foods has not previously been made. However, that an association does exist, as will be demonstrated here, is worth pointing out amidst the current high level of interest in functional foods. One definition for a functional food states that it is a food which positively affects physiological functions of the body in a targeted way as a result of it containing ingre- dients which may, in due course, justify health claims (Roberfroid, 1995). Taking this issue broadly, it can be argued that all foods with reduced fat content can be considered as functional foods given the nutritional benefits of fat reduction as discussed in

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Section 1.1. Most of the ingredients used to replace fat, of course, do not provide any special positive physiological benefits themselves. However, fiber-based fat replacers can claim such benefits since there is a growing recognition for the role of dietary fiber in disease prevention, particularly in relation to colonic cancer and heart disease (e.g., Asp et al., 1993; Stark and Madar, 1994; Kritchesky, 1994). Thus, a number of fat replacers have been launched based on fiber from a number of different sources, such as oats, sugar beet, soy beans, almonds, and peas. For instance, Advanced Oat Fibers manufactured by the company Williamson Fiber Products in Ireland were first introduced in 1988. Oat fiber is also a good source of b -glucan which is claimed to have cholesterol-lowering properties (Duxbury, 1990). Oatrim fat replacer, developed and patented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture is obtained through the enzymic modification of oat starch in the oat flour or bran, and contains from 1 to 10% of b - glucan (Inglett and Grisamore, 1991). Both ConAgra and Rhône-Poulenc/Quaker Oats Company are currently producing Oatrim under separate license agreements. Another fiber ingredient, Fibercel, developed by Alpha-Beta Technologies, is composed of 85 to 90% β -glucan obtained from a food-grade yeast product (Jamas et al., 1990). A range of cellulose-based fat replacers should also be mentioned as a source of fiber (see Appendix). Moreover, in the particular case of inulin fat replacers (for instance Raftiline ® from Orafti, Belgium, and Fibruline ® from Cosucra SA, Belgium), positive physiological benefits arise from their bifidus stimulating properties (Roberfroid, 1995).

    • 1.6.5 RECOGNITION OF THE ROLE OF ESTABLISHED

    FOOD INGREDIENTS Gradually, the realities of the market place began to shift away from the mythical “one ingredient can solve it all” and toward a more holistic strategy. Moreover, meanwhile, commercial pressures were moving the goal-posts of fat reduction to well beyond the 50% mark, thus making it even more difficult to achieve fat replacement without a holistic strategy in which ingredients such as, gums, emulsifiers, thickeners, stabilizers, and bulking agents, along with gelatin and other proteins and untreated starches could play crucial roles. Previously, this group of ingredients had been overshadowed by the orien- tation toward discovering the “optimal” fat replacer. However, the important role of these well-established ingredients is clearly evident when examining low-fat or zero-fat products currently on the market (Bavington et al., 1992). While in many cases, these ingredients are used in conjunction with those devel- oped purposely for replacing fat, in some products, fat reduction has been achieved by structuring the water phase using only gums and stabilizers (e.g., Kraft’s “Free Choice” Vinaigrette Style Fat-Free Dressing). Thus, the role of ingredients such as gums, stabi- lizers, thickeners and emulsifiers needs to be firmly emphasized in the context of fat replacement. That is why this group of ingredients has been placed in a separate category in the classification of ingredients given earlier. Details on the uses of gums, bulking agents and emulsifiers are given in Chapters 9, 10, and 11, respectively, and cellulose- based stabilizers, and their use for fat mimicking purposes, is discussed in Chapters 7A and 7B. The scope for utilizing functional food ingredients in fat replacement was further highlighted in 1991 by the commercialization of Slendid ® , a proprietary pectin developed by Hercules, Inc., and marketed by Copenhagen Pectin A/S (see Chapter 7C).

    • 1.6.6 DEVELOPMENT OF COMBINATION SYSTEMS

    The launch of the N-Lite range of fat mimetics by National Starch & Chemical Corpo- ration in January 1992, as well as widening the scope for the use of starch-derived ingredients for fat replacement purposes, was of considerable significance because it established a new trend. This was the development of combination systems (i.e., blends

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    of ingredients) for use in fat replacement in specific product applications. For example, N-Lite F, specifically designed for use in icings, fillings, frozen desserts and dry mixes, was a blend of modified starch, non-fat milk solids, polyglycerol ester and guar gum. In effect, therefore, the necessity for the holistic approach to fat replacement has been acknowledged. Most notably, it was in this context that modified starch was shown to have a useful role in fat replacement. In fact, some blends were on the market before 1992. Indeed, a number were launched in the second half of the 1980s, but received few headlines, because, at the time, the search for the single “magic” ingredient was the dominant theme. Developments in the use of blends as fat replacers have taken a number of forms, but, in the main, the approach has been to prepare a formulation containing three or more ingredients which, either could be more universally applied, or, were designed for a specific product category. The latter approach has tended to dominate (for obvious reasons), and the blends typically included as ingredients are gums, stabilizers, thickeners, and emulsifiers, together with standard protein sources (see Appendix for a list of blended ingredient systems that are on the market). Most combination systems are composed using a passive approach, whereby each ingredient has its particular functionality, and it is the sum of those functionalities that is devised to result in optimal product characteristics. However, one group, interactive combination systems, is based on the principle that a particular combination of ingredi- ents interact during processing, resulting in different characteristics to those that would have been expected from each of the ingredients separately or together. A good example of an interactive combination system is the Slimgel ® range launched by P.B. Gelatins, Belgium, at the end of 1993. It is composed of gelatin and galactomannans, and its performance is based on thermodynamic incompatibility between these two hydrocol- loids, which, in turn, leads to phase separation (Muyldermans, 1993, see also Chapter 12). The advantage of blends, ideally, is that they shorten the time and effort required to develop new low-fat or fat-free products. However, the disadvantage is that when sig- nificant development work is required to best match a given full-fat variant, the use of a blend might prove too inflexible, and inhibit the ingredient optimization process, since the precise composition of the main functional system used is not known. The concept of using a range of ingredients in an attempt to reproduce the different functions of fat in the full-fat product goes some way toward a holistic strategy. This was particularly necessary by early 1990s, by which time, partly due to commercial pressures and partly due to new legislative restrictions regarding claims (see Chapter 5), the goal-posts for fat reduction had moved yet again, this time toward the ultimate limit — i.e., zero fat.

    1.6.7 REPLACING STANDARD FATS WITH LOW-CALORIE FATS

    The concept of replacing fat with a low-calorie fat entered the scene in the early 1990s. By that time, the likelihood of obtaining FDA approval for the use of olestra within a short time-scale was dwindling rapidly, and, on the other hand, it was recognized that

    the commercially available fat mimetics did not provide an easy answer to fat replace- ment, and, moreover, their use was restricted, in general, to water-based food systems. In this context, the idea of using the basic structure of a triglyceride molecule, but changing the composition of the fatty acids esterified with the glycerol backbone in order to achieve caloric reduction appeared to be very plausible. Moreover, the fact that medium-chain triglycerides, which usually comprise caprylic (C8) and capric (C10) fatty acids, are GRAS ingredients with a 35-year track record in clinical medicine (e.g., for treating patients suffering from lipid malabsorption symptoms or for use in infant for- mulae) was a distinct advantage (Latta, 1990; Megremis, 1991). These compounds provide energy (8.3 kcal/g) but are metabolized through the liver, and are characterized

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    by a low tendency for becoming incorporated into tissue as depot fat. Currently, medium- chain triglycerides are marketed by the U.S. company Karlshamns Food Ingredients (Captex 300, 350 and 355, now known as AKomed range) and by Stepan Company (Neobee ® M-5). However, as pointed out by Thayer (1992), there are certain limitations to the use of medium-chain triglycerides in foods since, upon hydrolysis, the free fatty acids released give strong off-flavors. The concept of using medium-chain triglycerides together with long-chain fatty acids (e.g., behenic acid — C22) was developed jointly by Procter & Gamble and Grinsted Products, Inc. and commercialized under the name Caprenin. The incorporation of behenic acid (which is only partially absorbed in the gut), together with caprylic and capric acids, gives further caloric reduction, and the net result is that Caprenin provides only 5 kcal/g (Peters et al., 1991; Webb and Sanders, 1991). More information on Caprenin is given in Chapter 13. Caprenin has been used commercially as a substitute for cocoa butter in the product Milky Way II produced by M & M Mars (introduced into a test market area in the U.S. in March 1992), and (in September 1992) in Hershey’s Reduced Calorie and Fat Candy Bar. In both cases, the Caprenin was used in conjunction with polydextrose to achieve a 25% reduction in caloric value compared with the standard product. However, since then, there seems to have been no apparent progress in the use of Caprenin as a fat replacer. The most recent addition to the low-calorie fat category is Salatrim, developed by Nabisco Foods Group in conjunction with Pfizer Food Science, and launched in July 1994. Salatrim is a family of triglycerides comprising mixtures of long-chain fatty acids (predominantly stearic acid) and short-chain fatty acids (mainly acetic acid, propionic acid, and/or butyric acid) esterified with glycerol. As a result of this chemical structure, the caloric value of Salatrim is 5 kcal/g (Smith et al., 1994). It is not expected that the commercial availability of Salatrim will be hindered by the FDA approval process since it is made from natural substances commonly used in foods and produced by an estab- lished interesterification process (petition filed with the FDA in mid-1994). No toxic effects were observed in animal studies of up to 13 weeks duration and in clinical studies, Salatrim was found to be well tolerated in doses of up to 30 g/d (Smith et al., 1994). At the time of writing, Nabisco was hoping to launch chocolate bars containing Salatrim by mid-1995, and Pfizer Food Science was planning subsequently to launch ice cream, cheeses, baked goods and table spreads made from Salatrim. However, the incorporation of Salatrim into frying oils has not been suggested (see Chapter 13). The future will show whether low-calorie fats will be seen as a commercially viable option for the food industry.

    1.6.8 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF FAT REPLACERS

    Developments of fat replacers have not only been confined to the development of new ingredients. In addition, much effort has been made by ingredient manufacturers to improve further the quality of the existing fat replacers in terms of their functionality, ease of use and heat stability, with the aim of expanding their industrial applications. Three trends can be identified: instantization; alterations in functionality profile; and ease of use during product manufacture. Instantization is an obvious and well-established route for ingredient extension. Thus, a number of ingredient manufacturers have launched instant versions of their fat mimetic. This is evident from the list of fat replacers given in the Appendix. The second trend can be seen as a reflection of the realization that no fat mimetic, however good, can mimic all the functional characteristics provided by a fat in a given product. Thus, one or more other ingredients were being added to alter and improve the

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    functionality profile provided by the original ingredient in order to obtain some additional “fat-like” property (e.g., development of the Novagel™ range of fat replacers by F.M.C., based on Avicel ® ). The extreme form of this trend was its extension into the development of blends, as discussed above. The need for ingredients which were easy to use during the manufacture of food products was especially in evidence during the first half of the 1990s. This is associated with the fact that the use of many of the fat replacers that have been developed neces- sitated either the preparation of a solution and/or special processing when placed in solution, prior to addition to other ingredients, e.g., the Rafticreming stage required for Raftiline ® , and the high shearing (8000 psi) required for Stellar™ (Pszczola, 1991). Hence, the subsequent developments aimed to remove these additional stages in product manufacture while providing the expected functionality, and new variants entered the market (e.g., Raftiline ® HP and Instant Stellar™). In the overall context of improvements in the quality and flexibility of fat replacers, Simplesse ® deserves special mention, since the original ingredient (Simplesse ® 100) which was commercialized in a liquid form (42.5% solids) with a short shelf-life and low heat resistance, was developed into a dry form (Simplesse ® 100D) able to withstand UHT pasteurization or retorting, without loss of functionality.

    1.7 IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-FAT FOODS

    A reduced-fat food product, when compared with the standard product it is replacing, more often than not has different requirements from the points of view of manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. For instance, a change in the technology used in manufacture and manufacturing practice may be required, which, furthermore, might have cost impli- cations. A change in pack design, e.g., with improved barrier properties, greater physical protection or a reduced pack size, may be called for where shelf-life is reduced. In some cases, changes in temperature or timescale of distribution may be necessary. While achieving optimal product quality is obviously the primary consideration in the pursuit of fat reduction, it is crucial to base this on an understanding of how the ingredients function, and, taking into account microbiological and legislative implica- tions, appropriately designing a marketing strategy. These issues are highlighted in the following discussion.

    1.7.1 PRODUCT QUALITY/CONSUMER PREFERENCE/MARKETING DRIVE

    Clearly, the organoleptic properties of the low-fat product ultimately determine the success or failure of the product, since consumers are unlikely (at least in the first instance) to sacrifice taste and quality in order to reduce calories in their diet (see Chapter 4 for a detailed discussion on sensory aspects of fat reduction and flavor release). However, the success of the dairy industry in applying the strategy of direct fat removal, which, as noted already, resulted in dramatic organoleptic changes, suggests that con- sumer perceptions and liking of high-fat products can be modified over time. Indeed, there is already some evidence that consumer preference is shifting toward products with a medium, as opposed to those containing a higher level of fat (Wyeth and Kilcast, 1991; Mela and Marshall, 1992). In other words, consumers’ attitudes to health and diet are apparently beginning to have a significant influence on food choice, and a greater desire for foods with healthier nutritional characteristics is starting to influence organoleptic preferences. Thus, increased consumption of some low-fat product variants can cause changes in preferences, which, in turn, changes acceptability patterns. It can be argued,

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    therefore, that for these patterns to emerge, the quality of the products with medium fat reduction may be the key to future developments. In this context, the market drive for fat-free variants may be seen as being premature for some product categories. The positioning of a particular product in the diet should, in principle, determine the level of fat reduction required and the product quality that can be achieved at different fat levels should be balanced against that before making a marketing decision. This helps to explain why some of the fat-free variants, despite apparently different characteristics from the equivalent standard product, appear to be of greater appeal to consumers than others.

    • 1.7.2 KNOWLEDGE OF INGREDIENTS

    When developing a product where fat reduction is achieved through the incorporation of a fat replacer, it is of considerable importance to know or establish: first, the physical and chemical characteristics of the functional ingredients used; second, what the possible interactions with other food components might be; and third, what the implications might be for the processing operations, i.e., what changes in processing might need to be employed in order to achieve maximum functionality. Thus, a full knowledge of a range of fat replacers, which can be used effectively to narrow down the number of fat replacers suitable for a particular product type, is essential if product development is to be carried out in an efficient manner. Moreover, any adjustments in other ingredients present in the standard full-fat formulation need to be guided by a knowledge of their functionality. It is important to be especially flexible as far as the processing method is concerned, since, in some cases, small adjustments in the standard method might be required, whereas in others, the optimal solution might be to consider other technological options (e.g., through technology transfer, or by devising a new technology altogether).

    • 1.7.3 MICROBIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

    A reduction in fat content in a given product formulation is usually associated with a simultaneous increase in moisture content, which thus affects microbiological stability, and hence the safety of the product must be given due consideration. For example, low- fat spreads require the addition of a preservative such as potassium sorbate which is not normally necessary for full-fat margarine, and, moreover, they have a considerably shorter shelf-life. Similarly, many low-fat dressings, unlike the full-fat equivalent, require refrig- eration after opening. In other words, for many reduced-fat products, consumers have to change the way in which they use the product compared with the full-fat equivalent, and it has to be ensured that consumers are aware of that. It is well recognized that water activity, acidity, preservatives, and the extent of heat treatment are the main factors affecting product shelf-life and microbiological safety. However, it should be mentioned that although water activity measurements have been used in the food industry for nearly 40 years as a food safety parameter, this is now considered inadequate by some, who argue that greater emphasis should be placed on glass transition temperature (Slade and Levine, 1991; Franks, 1991). Franks (1991) suggests that change in water availability, especially in the case of intermediate or low moisture products, is related to the rate of water diffusion in the product, which, in turn, is related to the glass-rubber transition of the material and the sensitivity of the transition temperature to changes in the moisture content. As yet, there is no consensus on this topic. Meanwhile, therefore, water activity remains the basic method for ascertaining microbiological stability.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    In many low-fat products, increasing the acidity of the aqueous phase can be an effective means to achieve an acceptable shelf-life. For example, Gram-negative patho- gens such as the salmonellae may be controlled by ensuring a pH below 4.0. For coliforms, an even lower pH is required, or a combination of low pH and low temperature (The International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods, 1980a). The type of acid used for lowering the pH is critical, since it is the undissociated molecule of the organic acid or ester that confers antimicrobial activity. Organic acids used as food preservatives have pK a values of between 3 and 5 (pK a is the pH at which 50% of the total acid is undissociated). Lowering the pH of a food increases the proportion of undissociated molecules of an organic acid, thus increasing its effectiveness as an anti- microbial agent (The International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods, 1980b). Acetic, citric, lactic, propionic, benzoic, and sorbic acids are the most commonly used food acidulants and preservatives. At pH 4.0, for instance, the proportion of acetic acid molecules in an undissociated state is over four times that of citric acid, which reflects the former’s greater effectiveness as a preservative. This is well illustrated by the occurrence of outbreaks of Salmonella in Spain associated with the practice of using lemon juice instead of acetic acid in mayonnaise in which the importance of selecting the right acid to maintain a preservative function was simply overlooked (Perez et al., 1986). In a later study (Perales and Garcia, 1990), it was found that 45% of mayonnaise made in different restaurants in Spain had a pH greater than 4.5, with 17.5% using vinegar and lemon, and 2.5% did not use any source of acid, and 60% of the restaurants surveyed had recipes that allowed Salmonella enteriditis to survive, thus presenting health risks to consumers. The importance of selecting the right acid is even more important in the case of reduced-fat products, where microbiological risks are that much greater. Finally, it is important to bear in mind that if strongly acidic notes perceived in a product adversely affect overall sensory quality, it is possible to design blends that produce an acceptable flavor profile, while maintaining the preservative function.

    1.7.4 LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATIONS

    When developing reduced-fat variants, the legislative issues in the country of sale need to be taken into account. This topic is discussed in detail in Chapter 5, but here the issue of nutritional claims will be outlined briefly due to its importance in product marketing. In the European Union, harmonized provisions for nutrition claims across the member states has been under consideration for some time now, but final agreement has yet to be reached. The current draft proposes that the term “reduced-fat” can be used if the fat content is reduced by at least 25% of that present in the standard product, and that the “low-fat” claim can only be used if not more than 3 g of fat is present per 100 g of product. The term “without fat” would be considered acceptable if the amount of fat did not exceed 0.15 g per 100 g in a product. However, in the absence of harmonized European Union regulations, national regulations or guidelines need to be adhered to. The U.S. regulations for nutrition claims produced by the FDA differ from the current draft for the European Union in the way the latter two claims are defined. The FDA “low-fat” claim can be used if a reference amount customarily consumed is greater than 30 g, or greater than two tablespoons, and the food contains 3 g or less of fat per reference amount. In cases where the serving size is 30 g or less, or up to two tablespoons, a “low- fat” claim can be used under the conditions stated above, but providing that 3 g or less of fat is present in 50 g of the food. The “fat-free” claim can be used when the food contains less than 0.5 g of fat per reference and per labeled serving.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    A further important difference between current regulations in member states of the European Union and the U.S. is that in the former nutritional labeling remains voluntary unless a nutritional claim is made for the particular food, whereas the U.S. Nutrition Labeling and Education Act as from May 1994 amended the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to make nutrition labeling mandatory for most foods, and it also became compulsory to state on the label the amount of calories from fat in addition to the total amount of calories present. Furthermore, where regulations exist regarding compositional requirements, as with butter, chocolate, or ice cream, the reduced-fat product necessitates careful naming and labeling from a legal standpoint.

    1.7.5 PRICING AND MARKETING

    The cost of ingredients used to replace fat is another important factor in the development of low-fat foods. More often than not, product development activities are carried out within financial constraints which require costs of those ingredients not to exceed the cost of the fat they are supposed to replace. Although the initial prices of most fat mimetics have often been relatively high, competition and economies of scale have usually brought prices down over time. However, in order to survive in the market, an ingredient will need to have a clear performance advantage over existing alternatives. In this context, it is important to bear in mind that cost analysis is an additional element that needs to be incorporated into the holistic approach to the development of low-fat foods already advocated from a technical point of view. A complication here is that direct price comparison between different fat mimetics does not necessarily reflect real cost differentials since, more often than not, each fat mimetic will require different adjust- ments in the type and concentration of other ingredients in the formulation in order to produce an end product of comparable quality. This issue is of particular importance when there are significant differences in the chemical composition of the fat mimetics being compared, since they would be more likely to have an impact not only on textural characteristics, but also on flavor and the overall flavor release mechanism, as discussed in Chapter 4. Finally, the retail price of a low-fat product compared with the standard product will have an effect on relative sales volumes. In this context, it is worth noting that there are many low-fat variants currently on the market priced at the same level or even lower than the equivalent full-fat products (Dibb, 1994). This trend can be seen as a positive initiative of food manufacturers and retailers to achieve a wider public appeal and increased sales of low-fat products, and further emphasizes the need for a macro- marketing approach to popularize products that are nutritionally more beneficial.

    REFERENCES

    Anon., Taking the non-fat option, Food Man. , August 17, 1990. Anon., Quest for fat substututes taking many routes, Inform , 2 (2), 115, 1991a. Anon., Ault Foods develops fat replacement, Food Drink Daily , August 30, 1, 1991b. Anon., Fat substitutes: Finding method in the madness, Prepared Foods , 161 (13), 21, 1992. Anon., Pfizer introduces Dairy-Lo, Confect. Prod. , 59 (7), 538, 1993. Anon., Profiling fat functionality, Source , No. 13, 6 , 1994.

    Anon., Olestra gets a second patent extension, Inform , 6 (4), 412, 1995. Asher, Y. J., Mollard, M. A., Thomson, S., Maurice, T. J. and Caldwell, K. B., Whey protein product:

    method for its production and use thereof in foods, International patent appl. WO 92/20239, 1992. Ashwell, M., Diet and Heart Disease — A Round Table of Factors, British Nutrition Foundation, London,

    1993.

    Asp, N.-G., Björck, I. and Nyman, M., Physiological effects of cereal dietary fibre, Carbohydr. Polym. ,

    21, 183, 1993.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Bavington, A. K., Clegg, S. M. and Jones, S. A., Physical and sensory characteristics of low-fat spreads, Leatherhead Food R. A. Res. Rep. No. 695, 1992. Bowes, S. A., Fat substitutes, Third ed., Food Focus , No. 16, Leatherhead Food Research Association, November, 1993. Buss, D., Trimming the fat from fat replacer expectation, Food Process. , 54, (10), 44, 1993. Department of Health and Social Security, Diet and Cardiovascular Disease . Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, HMSO, London, 1984. Department of Health, Dietary Reference Values for Food Energy and Nutrients for the United Kingdom , Report of the Panel on Dietary Reference Values, Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, HMSO, London, 1991.

    Department of Health, The Health of the Nation : A Strategy for Health in England, HMSO, London, 1992 . Dibb, S., Low-fat foods, Living Earth and the Food Magazine , No. 184/Issue 27, 3, 11, 1994. Duxbury, D. D., Oatrim: Fat reducer, cholesterol fighter, Food Proc ., 51 (8), 48, 1990. Dyerberg, J. and Bang, H. O., Haemostatic function and platelet polyunsaturated fatty acids in Eskimos, Lancet, 2, 433, 1979. Dyerberg, J., Bang, H. O., Stoffersent, E., Moncada, S., and Vane, J. R., Eicopentoenoic acid and pre- vention of thrombosis and atherosclerosis? Lancet, 2, 117, 1978. Dziezak, J. D., Fats, oils and fat substitutes, Food Technol., 43 (7), 65, 1989. Franks, F., Water activity: a credible measure of food safety and quality? Trends Food Sci. Technol., March, 68, 1991. Glicksman, M., Hydrocolloids and the search for the “oily grail,” Food Technol., 5 (10), 94, 1991. Grundy, S. M., Lipids and cardiovascular disease, in Nutrition and Disease Update. Heart Disease, Kritchersky, D. and Carroll, K. K., Eds., AOCS Press, Champaign, Illinois, 1994, 211. Inglett, G. E. and Grisamore, S. B., Maltodextrin fat substitute lowers cholesterol, Food Technol., 45 (6), 104, 1991. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods, pH and acidity, in Microbial Ecology of Foods, Vol 1: Factors Affecting Life and Death of Microorganisms, Academic Press, New York, 1980a, 92. International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods, Organic acids, in Microbial Ecology of Foods, Vol 1: Factors Affecting Life and Death of Microorganisms, Academic Press, New York, 1980b, 126. Jamas, S., Easson, D. D., Jr., and Bistrian, B. R., Glucan dietary additives, U.S. Patent 388,572, 1990. Kritchersky, D., Dietary fiber and cardiovascular disease, in Nutrition and Disease Update. Heart Disease, Kritchesky, D. and Carroll, K. K., Eds., AOCS Press, Champaign, Illinois, 1994, 189. Latta, S., Alternative fats, fat substitutes, Inform, 1 (4), 258, 1990. Mattson, F. H. and Volpenheim, R. A., Low calorie fat-containing food composition, U.S. Patent 3,600,186, 1971. Megremis, C. J., Medium-chain triglycerides: a nonconventional fat, Food Technol., 45 (2), 108, 1991. Mela, D. J. and Marshall, R. J., Sensory properties and perceptions of fat, in Dietary Fats — Determinants of Preference, Selection and Consumption, Mela, D.J., Ed., Elsevier Applied Science, London, 1992,

    43.

    Mensink, R. P. and Katan, M. B., Effect of dietary trans fatty acids on high-density and low-density

    lipoprotein cholesterol levels in healthy subjects, N. Engl. J. Med., 323, 439, 1990. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, The Dietary and Nutritional Survey of British Adults Further Analysis, HMSO, London, 1994a. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, National Food Survey 1993, HMSO, London, 1994b. Muyldermans, G., New gelatin-based fat replacers: Slimgel, Food Ingredients Europe: Conf. Proc., Dusseldorf, Nov. 1992, 1993, 178. NACNE, A discussion paper on proposals for nutritional guidelines for health education in Britain, prepared for the National Advisory Committee on Nutrition Education by an ad hoc working party under the Chairmanship of Professor W. P. T. James, Health Education Council, London, 1983. NAS, Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Food and Nutrition Board, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,

    1989.

    Perales, I. and Garcia, M. I., The influence of pH and temperature on the behaviour of Salmonella

    enteritidis phage type 4 in home-made mayonnaise, Lett. Appl. Microbiol., 10, 19, 1990.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Perez, J., Tello, O., Mata, M. and Fuente, J., Foodborne infections and intoxications — outbreaks evolution in Spain, 1976–1984, Proc. 2nd. World Congress on Foodborne Infections and Intoxications, Berlin, FRG, 1986, 104. Peters, J. C., Holcombe, B. N., Hiller, L. K. and Webb, D. R., Caprenin 3. Absorption and caloric value in adult humans, J. Am. College Toxicol., 10 (3), 357, 1991. Przybyla, A. E., Fats and oils, Food Eng., 62 (11), 99, 1990. Pszczola, D. E., Carbohydrate-based ingredients performs like a fat for use in a variety of food applica- tions, Food Technol., 45 (8), 262, 1991. Richardson, D. P., The food industry response to the Health of the Nation White Paper, Br. Food J., 97, No. 2, 3, 1995. Richter, M., Schierbaum, F., Augustat, S. and Knock, K.-D., Process for the production of starch hydrolysis products, British Patent 1,423,780, 1973. Roberfroid, M., A functional food — chicory fructo-oligosaccharides: A colonic food with prebiotic activity, The World of Ingredients, March/April, 42, 1995. Sanders, T. A. B., Dietary Fat — weighing up the pros and cons, Nutr. Food Sci., No. 5, Sept./Oct., 9, 1994. Singer, N. S., Yamamato, S. and Latella, J., Protein product base, U.S. Patent 4,734,287, 1988. Slade, L. and Levine, H., Beyond water activity: Recent advances based on an alternative approach to the assessment of food quality and safety, CRC Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 30, 115, 1991. Smith, R. E., Finley, J. W. and Leveille, G. A., Overview of Salatrim, a family of low-calorie fats, J. Agric. Food Chem., 42, 432, 1994. Stark A. and Madar Z., Dietary fiber, in Functional Foods, Goldberg, I., Ed., Chapman and Hall, New York, 1994, 183. Thayer, A. M., Food additives, Chem. Eng. News, 70 (24), 26, 1992. USDA/USDHHS, Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232) (3rd ed.), U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1990. USDHHS, The Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health: DHSS (PHS) Publication No. 88-50215, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1988. Wahle, K. W. J. and James, W. P. T., Review: Isomeric fatty acids and human health, Eur. J. Clin. Nutr., 47, 828, 1993. Watts, G. F., Lewis, B., Brunt, J. N. H., Lewis, E. S., Cottart, D. J., Smith, L. D. R., Mann, J. I. and Swan, A. V., Effects on coronary artery disease of lipid-lowering diet, or diet plus cholestyramine in the St. Thomas’ Atherosclerosis Regression Study (STARS), Lancet, 339, 563, 1992. Webb, D. R. and Sanders, R. A., Caprenin 1. Digestion, absorption, and rearrangement in thoracic duct- cannulated rats, J. Am. College Toxicol., 10 (3), 325, 1991. Willett, W. C., Stampfer, M. J., Manson, J. E., Colditz, G. A., Speizer, F. E., Rosner, B. A., Simpson, L. A. and Hennekens, C. H., Lancet, 341, 581, 1993. Wyeth, L. J. and Kilcast, D., The importance of sensory and nutritional factors in consumer acceptance of reduced-fat foods, Leatherhead Food R. A. Res. Rep. No. 686, 1991.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Chapter

    Implications of Fat Reduction in the Diet

    2
    2

    Debra L. Miller and Barbara J. Rolls

    • 2.1 Introduction

    CONTENTS

    • 2.2 Background and Significance

    • 2.3 Why Is Fat Overeaten?

      • 2.3.1 Palatability

      • 2.3.2 Development of a Fat Preference

      • 2.3.3 Differences in Fat Preference

        • 2.3.3.1 Gender Differences

        • 2.3.3.2 Obese/Lean Differences

    • 2.3.4 Energy Density

    • 2.3.5 Satiety Value of Fat

  • 2.4 Low-Fat Diet Research

    • 2.4.1 Short-Term Fat Manipulations

    • 2.4.2 Longer-Term Fat Manipulations

  • 2.5 Noncaloric, Synthetic Fat Substitute Research

  • 2.6 Fat Replacers and Fat Preference 39

  • 2.7 Population-Based Studies

  • 2.8 Conclusions

  • References

    2.1 INTRODUCTION

    “Fat-Free,” “Low-Fat,” “Reduced-Fat” — these labels pervade the supermarkets, the media, and even restaurants and are found on a wide range of products. While some individuals may purchase such products because they prefer the taste, it is likely that

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    most will do so to bring about improved health and/or body weight changes. The question is then “Will these products be effective in producing the desired results?” The safety of using fat replacers has received much attention, but comparatively few data are available to address the issue of how these products influence human food intake and energy regulation. Until recently there were few studies examining the effects of variations in the level of fat in foods on energy intake and body composition. This was because until the mid-1980s there was relatively little emphasis on the role of dietary fat in obesity and related disease states, and the technology for formulating palatable reduced-fat foods was limited. Hence, we are only beginning to assess the effectiveness of such substances in reducing both dietary fat and energy intake. Because of the paucity of relevant literature, nutrition professionals and the general public alike may make assumptions that the use of fat-replaced products will bring about automatic reductions in the high intake of dietary fat in Western society. However, we know very little about how consumers use fat-replaced foods. Will fat-replaced foods be substituted for higher fat versions of foods? (“I use low-fat mayonnaise instead of regular mayonnaise.”) Will they be used as substitutes for “forbidden foods?” (“I’ll eat fat-free potato chips, but not regular potato chips.”) Will they be used as a license to increase intake of other types of foods? (“If I use the fat-free salad dressing, I can have a piece of cheesecake for dessert.”) There is also considerable debate in the scientific community regarding whether the overconsumption of dietary fat alone leads to negative health outcomes, or if it is the resultant increase in overall energy intake due to the overcon- sumption of dietary fat that contributes to these outcomes. In many cases, the trickle down message the general public has received is “I can eat as much food as I want as long as it is low in fat or fat-free.” This chapter examines these questions and the existing scientific literature regarding low-fat/fat-replaced foods and diets to determine the efficacy of using fat replacers as a strategy to reduce intake of dietary fat and total energy.

    2.2 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

    In Western societies, high consumption of dietary fat has been linked to obesity, coronary artery disease, and certain types of cancer, and it is regarded as the top dietary problem in America (Drewnowski, 1990). Currently, dietary fat comprises nearly 36% of the energy content of the American diet. The guidelines of a number of health organizations recommend that no more than 30% of daily energy be derived from dietary fat in order to reduce the incidence of related morbidity and mortality (National Resource Council, 1989; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989). An obvious method to decrease the percentage of energy from fat is to substitute low- fat foods for high-fat foods. However, it is difficult for many people to limit their food choices to the low-fat varieties. Controlled laboratory-based experiments indicate that high-fat foods are overeaten because they are highly palatable. When a considerable amount of fat is removed from the diet, the diet is often bland and monotonous, and even those whose health status is dependent upon reducing their fat intake, such as cardiac patients, find it difficult to maintain long-term compliance (Drewnowski, 1990). Recent advancements in food technology, particularly the development of fat replacers, may offer one way of reducing fat and energy consumption while satisfying the preference for a high-fat diet. The advent of highly palatable reduced-fat or fat-free foods offers consumers choices that were not previously available, but because there have been few controlled studies of how these products are used by consumers, questions remain about their efficacy in reducing dietary fat intake.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Several key points to consider when regarding products made with fat replacers include:

    • 1. Why do many people eat more dietary fat than is recommended (30% of total energy) and will fat replacers satisfy people’s desire to consume fatty foods?

    • 2. Will eating foods that use fat replacers aid in lowering the amount of fat consumed? That is, will the fat and/or energy reduction be compensated for in subsequent intakes?

    • 3. How will these products be used by the consumer (in place of regularly eaten foods, as a license to eat previously “forbidden foods,” or to allow for increased consumption of other foods)?

    • 4. Will individuals learn with repeated experiences that reduced-fat and reduced-energy foods do not satisfy hunger as well as their high-fat counterparts? If such learning takes place, will this reduce palatability so that such products are no longer included in the diet?

    2.3 WHY IS FAT OVEREATEN?

    • 2.3.1 PALATABILITY

    Fats are responsible for the texture, flavor, and odor of many foods. However, dietary fat is rarely consumed in pure form, instead, it is consumed as part of a complex food containing other nutrients (protein and carbohydrate) in varying degrees. This makes it difficult to assess a fat-specific preference in foods. Fats contribute to many different sensory properties of food. The first sensory response to fats is olfactory, through per- ception of volatile fat-soluble molecules that impart the characteristic flavor or aroma to many foods (Drewnowski, 1990). Secondly, fats contribute to the oral sensation by endowing foods with certain textures (such as being hard or soft, oily or juicy, elastic or flaky, heavy, viscous, or smooth) and “mouthfeel,” which is described by Drewnowski (1990) as its “distribution in the oral cavity during chewing and swallowing.” These textural and mouthfeel characteristics enhance the richness of food flavor, and strongly influence the palatability of the diet (Drewnowski, 1987; Mela, 1990). The desirable characteristics that fats endow to food have been identified by various studies (Drewnowski et al., 1985; Drewnowski and Greenwood, 1983; Drewnowski et al., 1989). Sensory panels have determined preferences for sweet/fat mixtures such as milk shakes, cake frostings, and ice cream (Drewnowski, 1987; Drewnowski et al., 1985; Drewnowski and Greenwood, 1983). In one study, sweetened skim milk and unsweetened cream were rated relatively low, but the combination of sugar and fat in sweetened heavy cream was highly appealing (Drewnowski et al., 1985). Of course, it is fat, not sugar, that provides the majority of the energy in such a mixture and in other sweet, fat-rich desserts. In a survey of U.S. military personnel (Meiselman and Waterman, 1985), it was found that the most preferred foods were steak, French fries, and milk — which are high in dietary fat. In contrast, some of the least preferred foods in this survey were vegetables, skim milk, diet soda, and cottage cheese, which are very low in fat (Meiselman and Waterman, 1985). Surveys of attitudes toward dietary fat (Shepherd and Stockley, 1985; Shepherd and Stockley, 1987) indicate that highly preferred foods often have a high-fat content. In these studies, taste is the primary reason given for the selection of a particular food. Since fat imparts characteristics associated with high palatability, high-fat foods are often chosen.

    • 2.3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF A FAT PREFERENCE

    Is our preference for high-fat foods innate or learned? Just as the preference for sweet taste, which is thought to be innate, is useful in identifying foods that are safe to eat, an

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    innate fat preference could have been adaptive for survival by encouraging consumption of a dense, easily stored energy source for periods of scarcity. However, if humans did acquire adaptations that encouraged fat consumption, these adaptations have become maladaptive in today’s society, which is characterized by an overabundance of foods (Birch, 1992). There is some evidence that children display preferences for high-fat foods (Birch, 1992; Johnson et al., 1991; Kern et al., 1993). In experiments with high- and low-fat yogurt shakes, Johnson and colleagues (1991) found that preferences for initially novel foods high in fat content can be learned, and that conditioning of these preferences is the result of the postingestive consequences of consumption. Rozin and Zellner (1985) argue that this type of Pavlovian or associative conditioning is central to the acquisition of food preferences. Because high-fat foods are palatable and satisfying, which are positive consequences of consumption, children learn to like these foods (Birch, 1992). Such foods are also often used as treats or rewards for children, which may enhance this preference (Birch, 1992). The animal literature suggests that fat may be preferred at an early age in rats (Ackroff et al., 1990; Sclafani, 1990). Ackroff and colleagues (1990) measured fat appetite in infant rats. In this study, which used intake as an index of preference, 12 to 15 day old pups consumed nearly as much oil emulsion solution as a dilute sucrose solution (0.03 M ) and only slightly less than a milk formulation similar to rat’s milk; they concluded that the taste for fat was as pleasant to the pups as sweet solutions and mother’s milk. However, in humans, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that there is an innate, unlearned preference for fat, and the possibility of such seems unlikely because the form and function of fat is not unitary across food systems (Drewnowski, 1987). Furthermore, Drewnowski and colleagues (1991) have shown that there is no relationship between taste preferences for high-fat foods and early age (<10 years) of onset of obesity (thought to be a measure of familial risk); they concluded that environmental as opposed to familial factors may be more immediate determinants of taste preferences and food choice.

    2.3.3 DIFFERENCES IN FAT PREFERENCE

    • 2.3.3.1 Gender Differences

    Just as “Jack Sprat would eat no fat and his wife would eat no lean,” differences in fat

    preferences between men and women have been noted anecdotally. Recent epidemiolog- ical surveys have provided evidence that there are indeed gender differences in regard to fat preferences. Although both men and women seem to find high-fat foods highly palatable, men seem to derive the bulk of their dietary fat from red meat, whereas women derive dietary fats mainly from margarine, whole milk, shortening, and mayonnaise (Block et al., 1985). Women are also more likely than men to express preferences for sweet/fat desserts like cake and ice cream (Block et al., 1985). These gender differences persist among obese individuals as well. Drewnowski and colleagues (1992) surveyed the favorite foods of obese men and women and found that obese men listed predomi- nantly fat-protein sources (meat dishes) among their favorite foods while obese women listed more carbohydrate/fat sources and more sweet foods (doughnuts, cookies, cake, and chocolate).

    • 2.3.3.2 Obese/Lean Differences

    It has been proposed that obese persons may have an enhanced preference for high-fat foods leading to overconsumption of energy dense foods. In sensory tests, obese indi- viduals have shown a preference for higher levels of fat in foods than lean individuals

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    (Drewnowski, 1987). Several investigators have found that body weight was related to preferences for fat. In 1985, Drewnowski and colleagues found that obese and formerly obese individuals preferred higher levels of fat in mixtures of dairy products and sugar than did lean individuals. However, in a 1991 study, Drewnowski found that only a subset of obese, those with a history of large weight fluctuations, showed an enhanced fat preference. Mela and Sacchetti (1991) found a positive relationship between sensory preferences for fat in a variety of foods and percent body fat in normal weight subjects. It has been shown that as body fat increased, the percent of energy derived from fat increased (Miller et al., 1990; Strain et al., 1992), and, in a 3-year longitudinal study (Klesges et al., 1992), high weight gain was associated with high fat intake in both men and women. This work taken together indicates that enhanced preferences for fat could be important in the development and maintenance of obesity; however, no controlled, laboratory-based experiment has looked at this issue directly. Additional research is needed to understand how the sensory qualities of fat and individual differences in preferences for dietary fat influence human food intake and body composition.

    • 2.3.4 ENERGY DENSITY

    Dietary fat provides approximately 9 kcal/g compared with 4 kcal/g for carbohydrate or protein (Burton and Foster, 1991). The relatively high energy density of fat could be a factor in its overconsumption if there is a tendency to eat a certain volume or weight of food. For example, 100 g of potato chips (which are typically 60% energy from fat) has 538 kcal, while an equal amount of pretzels (which are typically about 8% energy from fat or less) has only 375 kcal. Several studies which have varied the fat content of foods (Duncan et al., 1983; Lissner et al., 1987; Kendall et al., 1991; Tremblay et al., 1991) have found that subjects consumed a nearly equal volume of food despite differences in energy density. Thus, the more energy-dense, high-fat diets were associated with increased daily energy intakes when compared to the low-fat diets. In some of the studies which have manipulated dietary fat (Duncan et al., 1983; Lissner et al., 1987; Kendall et al., 1991), subjects were given access only to foods within a specified (high or low) fat content, i.e., energy density. The results from these studies showed reduced energy intake on low-energy-density diets. However, in such situations, there appeared to be a tendency to eat a relatively constant amount of food, and it is possible that if the experiments lasted longer, the amounts of the low-fat foods eaten would gradually increase so that daily energy intake would be maintained. These studies will be discussed in more detail in following sections regarding low-fat diet research.

    • 2.3.5 SATIETY VALUE OF FAT

    Dietary fat may be overconsumed because it does not satisfy hunger as well as other nutrients. This hypothesis is related to the physiological consequences of ingested fat such as stomach distention, stomach emptying, nutrient absorption, hormonal release, oxidation of nutrients, and so on. Several sources suggest that fat and carbohydrate have very different postingestive consequences. Data from experiments measuring postabsorb- tive metabolism suggest that dietary fat is not metabolized as rapidly as carbohydrate and protein (Schutz et al., 1989). Ingested carbohydrates produce rapid rises in blood glucose (Van Amelsvoort et al., 1989), while fats often depress blood glucose (McHugh et al., 1975). Thus, depending on the accuracy of the “glucostatic theory,” which suggests that the sensation of hunger is maintained until blood glucose levels reach adequate levels, it is possible that carbohydrates produce more rapid satiety than fats. Conversely, there are factors associated with fat intake that may influence satiety as well. One of these factors is the release of “satiety hormones.”

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Cholecystokinin is one such putative satiety hormone (Smith and Gibbs, 1988) that is released when some types of fat enter the intestine (Canton, 1992). Thus, the ingestion of fat, in theory, could lead to early satiety as well. On the basis of these differing physiological effects, it is difficult to make any definitive statements regarding the satiety value of fat vs. carbohydrate. A recent paper by Rolls and Hammer (1995) reviewed various studies that utilized a preloading paradigm (giving fixed amounts of the macronutrients and determining the effects on subsequent hunger, satiety and food intake) to detect a difference in the satiety value of fat vs. carbohydrate. In this review, they concluded that carbohydrate may have a greater satiety value than fat in individuals with certain subject characteristics (e.g., obese and those concerned with their body weight). However, overall there is little evidence that carbohydrate has a greater satiety value than fat, and it remains to be determined whether the overconsumption of fat and energy is due to a physiological insensitivity to the amount of fat in foods.

    2.4 LOW-FAT DIET RESEARCH

    Much of the research regarding dietary fat intake has predated the development of many fat replacers. This section reviews research that has manipulated dietary fat intake. Some studies have used foods naturally low in fat (fruits, vegetables, and grains) to reduce the fat content of the diet. Others have used certain fat-replaced products that were available at the time of study or a combination of naturally low-fat foods and fat-replaced foods. The following studies will be used to illustrate the effects of reducing the fat content of the diet on both energy and fat intake.

    2.4.1 SHORT-TERM FAT MANIPULATIONS

    Several studies have investigated the effects of manipulating the fat content in certain meals on energy intake on a short-term basis ( 5 days). Caputo and Mattes (1992) manipulated the energy and fat content of a midday meal for 5 days by using traditional low-fat foods and some commercially available reduced-fat foods. They found that both males and females compensated for energy dilutions in their diet; however, compensation for a surfeit of energy was weaker, especially when the additional energy was derived from dietary fat. Firm conclusions cannot be drawn from this study because the data for fat intake were obtained via diet records, and such data should be interpreted cautiously due to the potential errors and biases in using self-reported measures. However, similar results were found in a well-controlled residential laboratory study (Foltin et al., 1988) that manipulated the carbohydrate and fat content in certain meals. In this study, subjects (lean males) compensated well and quickly for the caloric dilution, but when the energy level was again raised to baseline levels subjects did not compensate and overate. In a subsequent residential study (Foltin et al., 1990) that manipulated the fat and carbohy- drate content of a lunch meal using four conditions (high-fat, high-carbohydrate, low- fat, low-carbohydrate; with 3 days per condition), energy compensation was observed regardless of macronutrient composition (mean daily energy intakes: 2824, 2988, 2700, and 2890 kcal, respectively). However, energy intake from dietary fat was fairly constant in all conditions except the high-fat condition which was significantly greater than the other three conditions. The results of these studies indicate that when there is a decrease in the fat content (and thus the energy content) of the diet, the energy reduction may be compensated for in subsequent meals or snacks, but the fat reduction per se may not. Furthermore, there is some evidence that when additional fat is included in the diet, it is unlikely that a spontaneous reduction in energy and fat intake will occur to compensate

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    for this surfeit (Caputo and Mattes, 1992; Foltin et al., 1988). These findings are, however, dependent on the magnitude of the manipulation and the characteristics of the subjects being tested (e.g., lean/obese, restrained [concerned about body weight]/unrestrained [not concerned about body weight]).

    2.4.2 LONGER-TERM FAT MANIPULATIONS

    The studies mentioned above (Caputo and Mattes, 1992; Foltin et al., 1988; Foltin et al., 1990) manipulated fat intake within specific meals or over the course of a day. These types of interventions provide useful information about short-term regulation of fat and energy intake when dilutions and surfeits are introduced into the diet; however, they provide no information about long-term regulation or the ability to maintain compliance to a low-fat diet. A few naturalistic studies (Schlundt et al., 1993; Mattes, 1993; Gatenby et al., 1993; Sheppard et al., 1991) have been designed to reduce the overall intake of dietary fat in certain groups over longer periods of time. These studies used various strategies (nutritional counseling, behavioral therapy, or financial incentives) to aid sub- jects in reducing their dietary fat consumption. Results of these studies generally showed that the intervention groups consumed less dietary fat than control groups. Intervention periods in these studies ranged in duration from 12 to 20 weeks, which indicates that compliance to a low-fat diet can be maintained over a moderate amount of time; however, there are few data regarding the long-term compliance to a low-fat diet. Sheppard and colleagues (1991) followed 303 women participating in the Women’s Health Trial for one and two years. These women either received intensive instruction in maintaining a low-fat diet (reducing cooking fats, substituting low- or no-fat variants of high-fat foods and increasing traditional low-fat foods in the diet) or they were part of the control group. After 1 year, the intervention group had reduced their dietary fat intake by 45% of their baseline intake and energy intake by 59%. Most of the reductions occurred within the first 6 months of the intervention and were maintained at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups. Results of naturalistic studies such as these (Schlundt et al., 1993; Mattes, 1993; Gatenby et al., 1993; Sheppard et al., 1991) are often used as the basis for advocating low-fat diets and that compliance to low-fat diets can be maintained over time. However, although these studies may have some external validity, they relied heavily on self-report and diet records as a source of data for fat intake, and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. In this review, we will next focus on laboratory-based experiments that provide more accurate intake measurements and stringent controls over the experimental setting. Three controlled, laboratory studies (Duncan et al., 1983; Lissner et al., 1987; Kendall et al., 1991) have investigated the effects of high- and low-fat diets on energy intake and body weight over varying periods of time. In 1983, Duncan and colleagues fed lean and obese subjects a low-energy density diet comprised of traditionally low-fat foods (fruits, vegetables, and grains) and a high energy density diet for 5 d (0.7 kcal/g vs. 1.5 kcal/g). Subjects could eat the foods ad libitum . The results showed that both obese and non- obese groups significantly reduced their energy consumption on the low-energy diet. Nearly twice as many calories were consumed during the high-energy density diet compared to the low-energy density diet (3000 vs. 1570 kcal/d). No data were supplied regarding weight change during the test periods. Two other studies which were conducted at Cornell (Lissner et al., 1987; Kendall et al., 1991) are often cited in both scientific and popular literature as proof that ad libitum consumption of low-fat foods can reduce fat intake and produce weight loss. The low-fat diets in these studies included currently available fat-replaced foods, primarily margarines, salad dressings, and mayonnaise as well as traditionally low-fat foods. The first of these studies, conducted by Lissner and colleagues in 1987, provided all food

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    (meals and snacks) to 24 women who were divided into groups of <101% ideal body weight (IBW) and >101% IBW. Subjects were each fed 3 diets: low-fat 15 to 20%, medium-fat 30 to 35%, and high-fat 45 to 50% of energy. Subjects could eat the foods ad libitum. Each diet was fed for 14 d with a 7-d washout between the test periods. The results showed that energy consumption was positively correlated with the level of dietary fat, with the total daily energy consumed on the low-fat diet being 2087, the medium- fat diet 2352, and the high-fat diet 2614 kcal. Over the two-week periods, the diets did not produce any statistically significant weight changes. The second Cornell study, conducted by Kendall and colleagues (1991), was similar but extended the intervention period to 11 weeks. It is unclear whether lean or obese women were studied; although a mean subject height was reported, there was no mean weight reported. It is noted that individuals <101% of ideal body weight (according to Metropolitan Life standards) were excluded from the study. This study examined two diets that differed in fat content: one diet was comprised of 20 to 25% fat (low-fat) and the other diet was 35 to 40% fat (control). Again, the women were given free access to foods. Results showed that the subjects consumed an average of 286 kcal/d less on the low-fat diet. The subjects in this experiment, in contrast to the Lissner and colleagues study (1987), did lose weight. Weight loss was significantly greater on the low-fat diet; however, subjects lost weight on both diets (low-fat: –2.54 kg and control: –1.26 kg). There were no reasons given by the authors for the weight loss on the control diet. A recent animal study by Harris (1994), examined the effect of three groups of 20 female Sprague-Dawley rats (60 rats in total) chronically fed either a high-fat diet (45% energy from fat) or a low-fat diet (25% energy from fat) containing either no added fat replacer (control diet) or the maltodextrin Paselli, a starch-derived fat mimetic produced by Avebe and described in more detail in Chapter 6B. All three diets in this study had different textures. Rats were fed the control diet for 10 d, and were then divided into three groups, receiving one of the three diets for 42 d. Preference tests for the three diets were assessed before and after the 42-d period. Results showed that all but two of the rats preferred the fat mimetic diet over the high-fat and control diets and food intake was the greatest in the group fed the fat mimetic diet (741 g/58d = control, 736 g/58d = high-fat, 900 g/58d = fat mimetic). However, energy intake was greatest in the group fed the high-fat diet (3250 kcal/58d = control, 3871 kcal/58d = high-fat, 3585 kcal/58d = fat mimetic). The higher energy intakes of the high-fat and mimetic-fed animals resulted in greater weight gain during the experimental period and a heavier carcass weight at the end of the experiment, compared with control rats, largely due to an increase in carcass fat. Harris (1994) concluded from these data that the inclusion of highly preferred, fat- modified foods in the diet may result in a reduction in fat intake, but including such foods may not aid in limiting energy intake. The evidence from human studies presented here indicates that low-fat diets are potentially useful for reducing both the total energy intake and the amount of fat con- sumed. However, although these early results have some validity, their interpretation is often oversimplified. When reviewing research on the effects of low-fat diets, it is important to recognize that the methods available have limitations which may influence outcome. The three laboratory-based studies reviewed above (Duncan et al., 1983; Liss- ner et al., 1987; Kendall et al., 1991) have allowed subjects to consume food ad libitum in their dietary interventions; however, this access was limited to the particular fat level that was under study. In other words, during a low-fat condition, the subjects could only choose from low-fat foods, and in the high-fat condition, only high-fat choices were available. And, although the subjects rated the diets equally palatable, this does not mean that, given a choice, they would voluntarily eat the low-fat foods. Thus, it is difficult to

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    determine if these findings in the human studies would be applicable to free-living individuals. And, as shown in the recent animal study (Harris, 1994), even when restricted to a highly palatable low-fat diet, overall energy intake may not be reduced and may even be increased. Also, these initial studies did not provide subjects with any information (nutritional or otherwise) about the foods that they were eating. Food products are labeled with claims such as “lite,” “reduced-fat,” “fat-free” that send powerful messages to the con- sumer. The results of the low-fat diet studies cited above (Duncan et al., 1983; Lissner et al., 1987; Kendall et al., 1991) might be different for individuals who knowingly choose to substitute a low-fat food for a high-fat food. Shide and Rolls (1995) have examined the impact of such information on subsequent food intake. This study, using yogurt preloads, found that intake at a self-selection meal was higher following preloads labeled “low-fat” than following equicaloric preloads labeled “high-fat” indicating that information about fat content can influence food intake regardless of the actual energy content of the food. It seems that cognitive processes can override or interact with physiological processes in regard to food intake and, therefore, play an important role in energy balance. Cognitive processes may also be involved in the regulation of food intake by control- ling the amount of food consumed by its weight or volume rather than by its energy content. In other words, individuals may control how much they eat by setting a “standard portion size” of food consumed rather than a “standard energy amount.” As discussed previously, it is likely that it is the energy density of the diets provided in these low-fat diet studies (Duncan et al., 1983; Lissner et al., 1987; Kendall et al., 1991) and not some physiological satiety mechanism that at least partially accounts for the differences in the amount of energy consumed. In each of these studies, subjects ate similar gram weights of food on both low-fat and high-fat diets. It is likely that subjects are eating a “standard” weight or volume and not responding to the covert energy manipulation. Thus, a diet of low-energy-density consumed in equal amounts as a higher-density diet would provide less energy. It may be that fat-replaced foods may have their greatest impact on fat and energy intake by reducing the energy density of the foods we consume. By replacing a wide-range of high-fat foods with low- or no-fat variations of those foods, the net result could be to reduce the energy density of the diet and, in turn, the amount of overall energy consumed. If fat-replaced foods are consumed in much greater quantities than their high-fat counterparts, this net energy reduction will be nullified. The hypothesis that one can consume an unrestricted amount of low- or no-fat food and still expect to bring about desirable dietary change and/or weight loss or maintenance is not supported by animal or human literature. Sclafani and colleagues (1993) fed Sprague-Dawley rats high-fat (41%) or no-fat (0%) cakes in addition to chow for 30 d. The test foods were a no-fat pound cake and a high-fat pound cake both marketed by Entenmann’s. The no-fat pound cake was prepared with non-fat milk and egg whites, and used modified cornstarch, xanthan gum, and guar gum to simulate the orosensory properties of fat. The rats fed high-fat cake and chow consumed more energy (p<0.05) and gained more weight (p<0.05) than did rats fed no-fat cake and chow. The rats fed no-fat cake, however, overate and gained more weight than did the chow-only controls (Figure 2.1). The authors concluded that removing the fat from the cake reduced, but did not eliminate, its obesity- promoting effects, and that low-fat diets have to be consumed in moderation if used for weight loss purposes. To examine the question of whether fat reduction with no other dietary restriction leads to weight loss in humans, Schlundt and colleagues (1993) tested the effects of both

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Figure 2.1 Mean (± SEM) daily caloric intake of rats fed chow only (Control group), chow

    Figure 2.1 Mean (± SEM) daily caloric intake of rats fed chow only (Control group), chow and high-fat cake (High-fat group), or chow and no-fat cake (No-fat group). Intakes were averaged over 5-day blocks; BL represents 5-day chow baseline period. Top panel: total calories; center panel: calories derived from cake; bottom panel: calories derived from chow. (From Sclafani, A., Weiss, K., Cardieri, C., and Ackroff, K., Obesity Res. , 1, 173, 1993. With permission.)

    a low-fat ad libitum consumption diet and a low-fat caloric restriction diet on adult men and women who were at least 20% above ideal body weight. They found that subjects on the caloric restriction diet lost significantly more weight and reduced fat intake to a greater extent than those on the ad libitum low-fat consumption diet. Hence, advocating that an individual can eat as much as he/she desires and lose weight as long as the food

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    is low in fat content (Kendall et al., 1991) is unwarranted based on these data. For weight loss purposes, energy intake must also be limited. The next question is whether varying the fat content, while keeping energy equal, on an energy-restricted diet is beneficial in regard to weight loss. This question has been addressed in an animal study by Boozer and colleagues (1993). They found that when rats previously fed a high-fat diet (40% of energy) were switched to equicaloric diets (75% of their previous ad libitum intake) that varied in fat content (12, 28, or 45% fat), rats fed the 12% fat diet lost significantly more body fat than the rats fed the 45% fat diet. These results indicate that an energy-restricted diet produces greater weight loss when it is also low in fat in these experimental animals. Although similar data are not available for humans, if weight loss is a goal, it seems prudent to advise restriction of both dietary fat and overall energy intakes to achieve maximum results. It follows that reduced-fat foods may provide one strategy for weight loss if an individual who is consuming greater than 30% of energy from fat can restrict food choices to those low in fat but not high in energy, while keeping the volume of food consumed constant.

    2.5 NONCALORIC, SYNTHETIC FAT SUBSTITUTE RESEARCH

    Because noncaloric, synthetic fat substitutes have the greatest potential range of appli- cations as fat replacers, it is important to review the current research on the effects of consuming these materials on food intake and body composition. Sucrose polyester or olestra (its generic name) by the Procter and Gamble Co. has recently been approved for use in the U.S. in savory snacks, using the tradename Olean. SPE is a fat-like material consisting of hexa-, hepta-, and octa-esters of sucrose and long-chain fatty acids with physical properties entirely similar to those of conventional dietary fats (Mattson and Volpenhein, 1972a and b). The resulting molecule is too bulky to be hydrolyzed by pancreatic lipases, and consequently it is not taken up by the intestinal mucosa and absorbed (Mattson and Volpenhein, 1972a and b). Because SPE is not absorbed, it passes through the digestive system intact and adds no energy to the diet and is excreted in the feces. Animal studies comparing varied levels of fat and SPE have shown that the higher the percentage of fat in the diet, the greater the fat intake and in some cases, the body weight. Grossman and colleagues (1994), for example, examined the effect of SPE replacement on the body weights of lean and obese Zucker rats. In this study, 8-week old lean and obese animals received either a control diet (15% corn oil) or an SPE diet (5% corn oil and 10% SPE). The obese control-fed animals gained more weight than the animals fed the SPE diet. Lean rats given the fat substitute did not have significantly different body weights as compared to the lean controls. The authors concluded that the obese rats could not maintain their higher weights when the fat content of their diet was diluted using SPE. The first controlled study using sucrose polyester in humans was conducted in 1982 by Glueck and colleagues. These authors were investigating the effect of using SPE in hypocaloric diets in obese persons for weight loss purposes. In this study, the effects of SPE and a hypocaloric diet were studied in a counterbalanced, crossover design over two 20-d periods. Subjects also had access to non-SPE modified snacks in the evening, which provided a limited opportunity for subjects to compensate for the calorie/fat dilution. Subjects showed weak compensation for the missing calories resulting in a significant overall reduction in energy intake (p< 0.05) and fat intake (p< 0.05). However, a potential confound exists because subjects were actively trying to lose weight in this study, which may have reduced their likelihood of consuming snacks. Thus, this study does not provide an adequate design to assess energy/fat compensation.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    In 1983, Porikos and colleagues diluted the fat content of the diet of five obese men confined to a metabolic ward for 36 d by replacing fat in margarine and mayonnaise with SPE. Energy intake was measured in three conditions: pre-intervention baseline (days 1 to 9), intervention (days 10 to 28) and post-intervention baseline (days 29 to 36). In the intervention period the manipulation created a 10% reduction of overall energy of the diet. The results showed that subjects increased the amount of food consumed during the SPE period relative to the pre- and post-intervention baselines so that there was no significant effect of diet on energy intake (baseline = 3924 kcal/d and SPE = 3812 kcal/d). Subjects did not selectively ingest more fat but rather increased their intake of all three macronutrients to compensate for the energy dilution due to the addition of the SPE. Rolls and colleagues, in the U.S. (1992), and Burley and Blundell, in the U.K. (1991), ran parallel studies that were the first to focus on the use of olestra in lean individuals. In each trial that investigated a SPE manipulation in a breakfast meal (biscuits/scones and margarine), 24, healthy, lean males participated. Subjects were fed the three breakfasts (control = 765 kcal, 20 g SPE = 582 kcal, and 36 g SPE = 445 kcal) in a counterbalanced, crossover design followed by self-selection lunch and dinner meals. Subjects also recorded any evening snacks to account for 24 h energy intake. Despite differences in the country of the testing, similar results were obtained in both studies. The lean men compensated well for the energy dilution due to SPE replacement (Figure 2.2), but there was very little fat-specific compensation resulting in a significant reduction (p<.0034 and p<0.0066) in fat consumption with 20 and 36 g SPE substitution, respectively, compared to placebo (Rolls et al., 1992).

    In 1983, Porikos and colleagues diluted the fat content of the diet of five obese men

    Figure 2.2 Mean cumulative (bottom to top of bars) energy (kJ) consumed for all subjects

    under each condition for all meals during which data was collected.

    In 1983, Porikos and colleagues diluted the fat content of the diet of five obese men

    , next-day breakfast;

    ,
    ,

    snack;

    In 1983, Porikos and colleagues diluted the fat content of the diet of five obese men

    , dinner;

    In 1983, Porikos and colleagues diluted the fat content of the diet of five obese men

    , lunch; and

    In 1983, Porikos and colleagues diluted the fat content of the diet of five obese men

    , test breakfast. (From Rolls, B.J., Pirraglia, P.A., Jones,

    M.B., and Peters, J.C., Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 56, 84, 1992. With permission.)

    Similar energy compensation was observed with children (Birch et al., 1993). Researchers measured 29 normally developing 2 to 5 year olds during five, 2-d periods over 5 weeks. Approximately 14 g of SPE was substituted for fat (-125 kcal) in the children’s diet over the course of the morning and afternoon. The children compensated for some of the energy dilution by the end of the first day, and by the end of the second day they had compensated for all but 23.9 kcal. Similar to adult men, children did not show macronutrient compensation, but instead the manipulation produced a reduction in the percent of fat consumed without reducing the total energy of the diet through an increase in carbohydrate intake. In other recent studies reported in abstracts, neither complete fat nor energy compen- sation was found when SPE was incorporated into foods. In one study, the incorporation

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    of 55 g of SPE in either meals or snacks across a day was associated with a decrease in fat and energy intake on that day (Cotton et al., 1993). This energy reduction was not fully compensated for the following day either (Cotton et al., 1993). In preliminary work by Hulshof and colleagues (unpublished a and b), incorporation of SPE into croissants and warm meals was followed by incomplete caloric compensation so that daily energy intake was reduced. However, the social setting, which has been shown to have a substantial impact on food intake (Shide and Rolls, 1991), was not controlled in these studies. These findings may be further confounded by methodological issues such as overt weighing of subject’s food and the lack of compliance checks (Hulshof, 1994). Thus, the results are equivocal regarding the efficacy of using foods prepared with SPE to reduce fat and/or energy intake. The existing evidence (derived from relatively few studies that have been conducted and published), suggests that SPE incorporation into foods may aid in reducing the amount of fat consumed. The evidence is, however, less clear regarding its use in reducing total energy intake. Again, it is necessary to note that these studies used covert manipulations; that is, subjects were unaware of the fat manipulation. It is difficult to assess whether or not this will be representative of how individuals will consume such products when provided with information about the product. Clearly, more studies are needed to clarify the effects of fat replacers on energy intake. The variable effects of SPE on energy intake notwithstanding, the availability of palatable low-fat foods is likely to aid in the reduction of fat intake if such items are chosen instead of the full-fat versions of the same foods and if they are eaten in the same quantity. These issues were examined in a study in which 96 habitual potato-chip eaters (lean and obese men and women) ate regular fat potato chips (5.3 kcal/g, 60% energy from fat) and SPE (olestra) chips (2.8 kcal/g, 0% energy from fat) equal in palatability in a counterbalanced study for 10-d periods (Miller et al., 1995). Fifty subjects were given information about the energy and fat content of the chips and 46 were not. The con- sumption patterns of both types of chips were similar, both showing decreased consump- tion over time (most likely due to monotony). Furthermore, in unrestrained subjects (lean and obese), there was no significant difference in gram intake between the regular-fat or SPE chips regardless of whether they were aware of the fat and energy content of the chips or not. When restrained individuals (lean and obese) were given information about the chips, they ate significantly more of the SPE chips (+10g/d) than the regular chips, but, because of the considerable fat and energy dilution of the SPE chips, they still consumed less energy and fat in the SPE condition than when consuming the full-fat version of the product. Body weight (lean vs. obese) was a nonsignificant factor. The results of this study suggest that, for some groups, when palatability is maintained, fat- replaced foods may be eaten in a similar manner as their full-fat counterpart even when provided with complete nutritional information. These data also indicate that restrained individuals may increase their consumption of fat-free products when they are aware of the fat content. Because of the complete fat-replacement allowed by the use of SPE in this study, the increased gram consumption of the chips by the restrained subjects did not result in increased fat or energy intakes. However, it is important for such individuals to be aware of the magnitude of the fat and energy dilutions in reduced-fat foods and to be careful not to overconsume such products to such an extent that they minimize or negate the net benefit of using fat-replaced foods.

    2.6 FAT REPLACERS AND FAT PREFERENCE

    There is a concern about the use of fat replacers, especially products like SPE that mimic the properties of fat so closely, that they may reinforce and maintain the preference for

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    fatty foods. It may be that the most effective strategy for fat reduction would be to decrease the preference for dietary fat. Mattes (1993) has examined the effects of two different reduced-fat diets, one which allowed the use of fat mimetics (commercially available reduced-fat products such as salad dressings, table spreads, mayonnaise) and one which did not, on the preference for a limited number of high-fat foods. The results indicated that the group which did not experience fatty flavors showed a decrease in the preferred level of fat in test foods, whereas the group using fat replacers showed no such shift. Mattes (1993) concluded that the preference for fat in foods is governed more by exposure to fatty flavors than by the level of fat in foods. Mattes (1993) further suggested that the preference for fat can be lowered and that the best strategy for lowering fat preference is to avoid fat mimetics and fat replacers. However, due to methodological limitations firm conclusions should not be based on this research. First, hedonic measures were obtained on only four foods, and since fat imparts so many sensory properties to foods, it seems unlikely that changes in preferences for fat in one type of food will generalize to other types of foods. Second, because subjects consumed products at home there was little control over the experimental setting. Third, the observed shift in preference did not lead to a reduction in fat intake during a 3-month follow-up period. Finally, data were obtained from diet records with few checks for compliance. Thus, although this hypothesis may have merit, this research needs to be replicated under stricter controls with expanded preference assessments to provide more salient information (Rolls, 1994). However, other long-term studies, such as the Women’s Health Trial (Sheppard et al., 1991), have shown, albeit through self-report and diet records, that reduced-fat foods may be helpful in maintaining compliance on low- fat diets.

    2.7 POPULATION-BASED STUDIES

    As population-based data are not yet available on the impact of low-fat diets, several reports have examined theoretical ways of reducing dietary fat intake to the recommended level of 30%. Computer modeling has been used to examine the impact of several general strategies for fat reduction currently available to consumers. These computer modeling studies are based on existing nutrient intake databases and use the documented food and energy intakes of Americans as a reference to examine the effects of manipu- lating dietary composition. Using this technique, Lyle and colleagues (1992), found that diets can be modified to approach dietary recommendations when fat-free products are substituted for current comparable food choices. Smith-Schneider and colleagues (1992) found that for males, the use of lean meat exchanges alone or in combination with other strategies appeared to be the most effective way to reduce fat intake to recommended levels. Because females have a lower caloric intake, no single strategy was effective in reducing fat intake to 30%; however, combinations of strategies, including lean meat exchanges plus use of fat-modified products, proved effective. Finally, using a unique USDA database chronicling energy and macronutrient intakes over an entire year, Beaton and colleagues (1992) examined the effects of using fat replacers on dietary fat intake. Their model predicted that use of low-fat foods or fat replacers could effectively reduce fat consumption, resulting in a net increase in carbohydrate intake. Results from the modeling studies discussed above suggest that a reduction of fat intake can be realistically achieved through use of several different dietary strategies; however, it must be empha- sized that these studies are based on hypothetical calculations which as yet have not been tested experimentally.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    2.8 CONCLUSIONS

    The question that we have examined in this chapter is whether or not reduced-fat foods, especially those utilizing fat replacer technology, are useful in reducing the current trend to overconsume dietary fat in Western societies. This question is difficult to answer considering: (1) only since the 1980s has dietary fat consumption been the focus of nutritional research and (2) many of the advancements in fat replacer technology are even more recent. What we do know is that we consume foods that taste good more readily than those that do not taste good. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the availability of low- or no-fat foods that are also highly palatable may aid in compliance to low-fat diets that were previously bland and unsatisfying. However, although fat- replaced foods may offer new food choices to consumers, it still should not be assumed that the use of fat-replaced foods will bring about significant reduction in fat and energy intakes. The research cited in this chapter regarding currently available fat replacers supports the notion that such products may aid in reducing dietary fat intake but perhaps not overall energy intake. Most studies using traditional low-fat foods and currently available fat-replaced foods have resulted in compensation for energy reductions, but not macro- nutrient compensation. Results from sucrose polyester studies are equivocal in respect to energy and fat compensation, with some reporting energy compensation while others do not. More tightly controlled, laboratory-based human studies are needed to determine how useful fat replacement will be in reducing overall fat and energy intakes. It is also not known how consumers will use new and existing fat-replaced products. Will they be used as a one-to-one substitution for foods previously high in dietary fat or as license to overeat other rich foods? It may be that the key to the successful use of fat-replaced products lies in the motivation of the consumer to bring about a reduction in his/her intake of dietary fat. Again, more naturalistic studies exploring the potential usage patterns of fat-replaced products are needed to determine their usefulness in bringing about desired dietary changes. Because overall energy intake has been shown to be a factor in weight loss and weight maintenance, the use of fat-replaced foods alone should not be expected to produce spontaneous improvements in body weight management or obesity. Such improvements will still be dependent upon long-term behavioral changes that include not only modifi- cations in fat intake, but also modifications in overall energy intake and increases in energy expenditure. Because fat is the most energy dense macronutrient, substituting low-fat foods can substantially reduce the energy density of the diet provided these foods are also low in energy. If the energy density of the diet is reduced and volume of intake remains constant, reductions in energy intake are likely. These caveats stated, fat-replaced foods could aid motivated individuals to reduce their intake of dietary fat and energy. In this regard, fat replacers may prove to be a useful tool in reducing fat intake, but as with most novel approaches more detailed investigations should be conducted to determine the efficacy of such products in reducing fat intake. Future studies are needed to resolve issues of fat and energy balance using fat-replaced foods, and whether it is the energy density, the fat content, or the total energy of the diet that is critical for the prevention of such disease states as obesity, cardiovas- cular disease and diabetes. Additionally, longitudinal studies (both in the natural envi- ronment and the laboratory) need to be conducted to determine the best strategies for long-term compliance to a low-fat diet.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    REFERENCES

    Ackroff, K., Vigorito, M., and Sclafani, A., Fat appetite in rats: the response of infant and adult rats to nutritive and non-nutritive oil emulsions, Appetite , 15, 171, 1990. Beaton, G.H., Tarasuk, V., and Anderson, G.H., Estimation of possible impact of non-caloric fat and carbohydrate substitutes on macronutrient intake in the human, Appetite , 19, 87, 1992. Birch, L.L., Children’s preferences for high-fat foods, Nutr. Rev. , 50, 249, 1992. Birch, L.L., Johnson, S.J., Jones, M.B., and Peter, J.C., Effects of a nonenergy fat substitute on children’s energy and macronutrient intake, Am. J. Clin. Nutr. , 58, 326, 1993. Block, G., Dresser, C.M., Hartman, A.M., and Carroll, M.D., Nutrient sources in the American diet:

    quantitative data from the NHANES II survey, Am. J. Epidemiol. , 122, 27, 1985. Boozer, C., Brasseur, A., and Atkinson, R.L., Dietary fat affects weight loss and adiposity during energy restriction in rats, Am. J. Clin. Nutr. , 58, 846, 1993. Burley, V.J. and Blundell, J.E., Evaluation of the action of a non-absorbable fat on appetite and energy intake in lean, healthy males, Int. J. Obesity , 15, suppl. 1, 8, 1991. (Abstract) Burton, B.T. and Foster, W.R., Human Nutrition, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991, 567. Canton, P., Cholecystokinin in plasma, Digestion , 42, 181, 1992. Caputo, F.A. and Mattes, R.D., Human dietary responses to covert manipulations of energy, fat, and carbohydrate in a midday meal, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 56, 36, 1992. Cotton, J.R., Burley, V.J., and Blundell, J.E., Effect on appetite of replacing natural fat with sucrose polyester in meals or snacks across one whole day, Int. J. Obesity, 17 suppl. 2, 63, 1993. Drewnowski, A. and Greenwood, M.R.C., Cream and sugar: human preferences for high-fat foods, Physiol. Behav., 30, 629, 1983. Drewnowski, A., Brunzell, J.D., Sande, K., Iverius, P.H., and Greenwood, M.R.C., Sweet tooth recon- sidered: taste responsiveness in human obesity, Physiol. Behav., 35, 617, 1985. Drewnowski, A., Fats and food acceptance: sensory, hedonic and attitudinal aspects, in Food Acceptance and Nutrition , J. Solms, D.A. Booth, R.M. Pangborn, et al., Eds. Academic Press, New York, 1987,

    189.

    Drewnowski, A., Kurth, C., Holden-Wiltse, J., and Saari, J., Food preferences in human obesity: carbo- hydrates vs. fats, Appetite , 18, 207, 1992. Drewnowski, A., Kurth, C.L., and Rahaim, J.E., Taste preferences in human obesity: environmental and familial factors, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 54, 635, 1991. Drewnowski, A., Shrager, E.E., Lipsky, C., Stellar, E., and Greenwood, M.R.C., Sugar and fat: sensory and hedonic evaluation of liquid and solid foods, Physiol. Behav., 45, 177, 1989. Drewnowski, A., The new fat replacers: a strategy for reducing fat consumption, Postgrad. Med., 87, 111, 1990. Duncan, K.H., Bacon, J.A., and Weinsier, R.L., The effects of high and low energy density diets on

    satiety, energy intake, and eating time of obese and nonobese subjects, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 37, 763,

    1983.

    Foltin, R.W., Fischman, M.W., Emurian, C.S., and Rachlinski, J.J., Compensation for caloric dilution in humans given unrestricted access to food in a residential laboratory, Appetite , 10, 13, 1988. Foltin, R.W., Fischman, M.W., Moran, T.H., Rolls, B.J., and Kelly, T.H., Caloric compensation for lunches varying in fat and carbohydrate content by humans in a residential laboratory, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 52, 969, 1990. Gatenby, S.J., Aaron, J.I., Morton, G., and Mela, D.J., Nutritional implications of reduced-fat foods in free-living consumers, Appetite , 21, 178, 1993. Glueck, C.J., Hastings, M.M., and Allen, C., Sucrose polyester and covert caloric dilution, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 35, 1352, 1982. Grossman, B.M., Akah, C.C., Hobbs, J.K., and Martin, R.J., Effects of a fat substitute, sucrose polyester, on food intake, body composition, and serum factors in lean and obese Zucker rats, Obesity Res. , 2, 271, 1994. Harris, R.B.S., Factors influencing energy intake of rats fed either a high-fat or a fat mimetic diet, Int. J. Obesity, 18, 632, 1994. Hulshof, T., personal communication, February, 1994.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Hulshof, T., de Graaf, C., and Weststrate, J.A., Short term satiating effect of water, fat and sucrose polyester (SPE) added to warm meals, Unpub. Hulshof, T., de Graaf, C., and Weststrate, J.A., Short-term effects of high-fat and lowfat/high-SPE croissants on appetite and energy intake at three deprivation periods, Physiol. Behav., 57, 377, 1995. Johnson, S.L., McPhee, L., and Birch, L.L., Conditioned preferences: young children prefer flavors associated with high dietary fat, Physiol. Behav., 50, 1245, 1991. Kendall, A., Levitsky, D.A., Strupp, B.J., and Lissner, L., Weight loss on a low-fat diet: consequence of the imprecision of the control of food intake in humans, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 53, 1124, 1991. Kern, D.L., McPhee, L., Fisher, J., and Birch, L.L., The post-ingestive consequences of fat condition preferences for flavors associated with high dietary fat, Physiol. Behav., 54, 71, 1993. Klesges, R.C., Klesges, L.M., Haddock, C.K., and Eck, L.H., A longitudinal analysis of the impact of dietary intake and physical activity on weight change in adults, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 55, 818, 1992. Lissner, L., Levitsky, D.A., Strupp, B.J., Kalkwarf, H.J., and Roe, D.A., Dietary fat and the regulation of energy intake in human subjects, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 46, 886, 1987. Lyle, B.J., McMahon, K.E., and Kreutler, P.A., Assessing the potential dietary impact of replacing dietary

    fat with other macronutrients, J. Nutr., 122, 211, 1992. Mattes, R.D., Fat preference and adherence to a reduced-fat diet, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 57, 373, 1993. Mattson, F.H. and Volpenhein, R.A., Hydrolysis of fully esterified alcohols containing from one to eight hydroxy groups by the lipolytic enzymes of rat pancreatic juice, J. Lipid Res., 13, 325, 1972. (a) Mattson, F.H. and Volpenhein, R.A., Rate and extent of absorption of the fatty acids of fully esterified glycerol, erythitol, and sucrose as measured in thoractic duct cannulated rats, J. Nutr., 102, 1177,

    1972.

    (b)

    McHugh, P.R., Moran, T.H. and Barton, G.N., Satiety: a graded behavioral phenomenon regulating caloric intake, Science , 190, 167, 1975. Meiselman, H.L. and Waterman, D., Food preferences of enlisted personnel in the armed forces, J. Am. Diet. Assoc., 87, 615, 1985. Mela, D.J., The basis of dietary fat preferences, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 1, 71, 1990. Mela, D.J. and Sacchetti, D.A., Sensory preferences for fats: relationships with diet and body composition, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 53, 908, 1991. Miller, D.L., Hammer, V.A., Shide, D.J, Peters, J.C., and Rolls, B.J. Consumption of fat-free potato chips by obese and restrained males and females, The FASEB J., in press. (Abstract), 1995. Miller, W.C., Lindeman, A.K., Wallace, J. and Niederpruem, M., Diet composition, energy intake, and exercise in relation to body fat in men and women, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 52, 426, 1990. National Research Council, Diet and Health, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989. Porikos, K.P., Heshka, S., Xavier Pi-Sunyer, F., and Van Itallie, T.B., Effects of caloric dilution with sucrose polyester on the spontaneous food intake of obese men, Fourth International Congress on Obesity, New York, 79A, 1983. (Abstract) Rolls, B.J., Changing the preference for fat in foods, Nutr. Rev., 52, 21, 1994. Rolls, B.J. and Hammer, V.A., Fat, carbohydrate and the regulation of energy intake, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 62, 10865, 1995. Rolls, B.J., Pirraglia, P.A., Jones, M.B. and Peters, J.C., Effects of Olestra, a non-caloric fat substitute, on daily energy and fat intake in lean men, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 56, 84, 1992. Rozin, P. and Zellner, D., The role of Pavlovian conditioning in the acquisition of food likes and dislikes, in Experimental Assessments and Clinical Applications of Conditioned Food Aversions , N. Brave- man and P. Bronstein, Eds., The New York Academy Press, New York, 1985, 189.

    Schlundt, D.G., Hill, J.O., Pope-Cardle, J., Arnold, D., Virts, K.L., and Katahn, M., Randomized evalu- ation of a low-fat ad libitum carbohydrate diet for weight-reduction, Int. J. Obesity, 17, 632, 1993.

    Schutz, Y., Flatt, J.P., and Jequier, E., Failure of dietary fat intake to promote fat oxidation: a factor favoring the development of obesity, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 50, 307, 1989. Sclafani, A., Nutritionally based learned flavor preferences in rats, in Taste Experience and Feeding , Capaldi, E.D. and Powley, T.L., Eds., American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 139,

    1990.

    Sclafani, A., Weiss, K., Cardieri, C., and Ackroff, K., Feeding response of rats to no-fat and high-fat

    cakes, Obesity Res. , 1, 173, 1993.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Shepherd, R. and Stockley, L., Fat consumption and attitudes toward food with a high fat content, Hum. Nutr.: Appl. Nutr. , 39A, 431, 1985. Shepherd, R. and Stockley, L., Nutrition knowledge, attitudes and fat consumption, J. Am. Diet. Assoc., 87, 615, 1987. Sheppard, L., Kristal, A.R. and Kushi, L.H., Weight loss in women participating in a randomized trial of low-fat diets, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 54, 821, 1991. Shide, D.J. and Rolls, B.J., Information about the fat content of preloads influences energy intake in healthy females, J. Am. Diet. Assoc., 95, 993, 1995. Shide, D.J. and Rolls, B.J., Social facilitation of caloric intake in humans by friends but not by strangers. Int. J. Obesity, 15, suppl. 3, 8, 1991. (Abstract) Smith, G.P. and Gibbs, J., The satiating effect of cholecystokinin, in: Control of Appetite , M. Winick, Ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, 35, 1988. Smith-Schneider, L.M., Sigman-Grant, M.J., and Kris-Etherton, P.M., Dietary Fat Reduction Strategies, J. Am. Diet. Assoc., 87, 615, 1992. Strain, G.W., Hershcopf, R.J., and Zumoff, B., Food intake of very obese persons: Quantitative and qualitative aspects, J. Am. Diet. Assoc., 92, 199, 1992. Tremblay, A., Lavallee, N., Almeras, N., Allard, L., Despres, J., and Bouchard, C., Nutritional determi- nants of the increase in energy intake associated with a high-fat diet, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 53, 1134,

    1991.

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Promoting health/preventing disease: year 2000 objec- tives for the nation, Washington, D.C., Health Services, 1989. Van Amelsvoort, J.M.M., Van Stratum, P., Kraal, H.H., Lussenburg, R.N., and Houtsmiller, U.M.T., Effects of varying the carbohydrate:fat ratio in a hot lunch on post-prandial variables in male volunteers, Brit. J. Nutr., 61, 267, 1989.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Chapter

    Market Considerations in Fat Replacement

    • 3.1 Introduction

    John N. Young

    CONTENTS

    • 3.2 Consumer Attitudes to Diet and Health

    3
    3
    • 3.3 Market Developments in Reduced-Fat Foods

      • 3.3.1 United Kingdom

      • 3.3.2 Europe

      • 3.3.3 United States

  • 3.4 Market Developments for Fat Replacers

  • 3.5 Conclusions

  • References

    3.1 INTRODUCTION

    There is no doubt that for most developed economies, the consumer’s awareness of the relationship between diet and health has grown considerably in recent years. With fat consumption having been identified by the media, government bodies, and consumers alike as one of the most important factors (if not the most important) contributing to ill health, e.g., heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc., it comes as no surprise that this has resulted in the growing popularity of reduced-fat foods. This has itself fueled intense research and development activity in the area of fat replacers. While there clearly exists a growing market for fat replacers, initial sales projections for the U.S. and Western Europe appear to have been over-optimistic. After a more detailed examination of the consumer issues that have led to the development of the low- fat food market in the U.S. and Western Europe, and a review of the current status of these markets, various reasons for the comparatively poor market performance of fat replacers to date will be proposed.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    3.2 CONSUMER ATTITUDES TO DIET AND HEALTH

    In 1993, the Leatherhead Food Research Association (Leatherhead Food RA) in the U.K. undertook a program of qualitative and quantitative consumer research based on group discussions and in-home interviews, respectively, in order to gain a better insight into consumer issues affecting market developments in reduced-fat foods and, as a conse- quence, the potential market need for fat replacers (Cathro, 1993). In group discussions, respondents agreed that the high fat content of many foods was one of the most important health issues facing them today. Quantitatively, 58% of 509 respondents interviewed in the home rated dietary fat intake as the most important health issue. This was followed by additives (49%) and sugar contained in foods (41%), while salt and fiber were rated as the least important issues, cited by 24 and 16% of respondents, respectively. One of the most worrying aspects about fat intake and cholesterol from a consumer’s point of view was that there were no outward signs of high cholesterol levels and consequently no way of knowing whether an individual was at risk. From a variety of “low and light” sectors, low-fat foods generated highest consumer interest (mean score 3.49 out of a possible 5), followed by low-sugar (Table 3.1). In group discussions, respondents found it difficult to distinguish between cholesterol and fat. On the whole, it seemed that respondents viewed cholesterol more seriously, thinking of it as the substance produced from eating too much fat; cholesterol was most closely associated with blocking arteries and being a contributory factor to heart disease.

    Table 3.1 Degree of Interest in Low and Light Foods Among 509 Respondents in the U.K.

    Type of product

    Interest score (mean of 5)

    Low-fat

    3.49

    Low-sugar

    3.30

    Low-cholesterol

    3.03

    Low-salt

    2.94

    Low-calorie

    2.78

    Low-alcohol

    2.11

    From Cathro, J., Industry and Market Reviews , No. 19, 1993. With permission.

    Over half the sample (56%) of the 509 respondents in the U.K. study claimed to be very/quite interested in low-fat foods, and 30% claimed to be very interested. Female respondents showed a higher degree of interest in low-fat foods than their male coun- terparts; i.e., 62% of female respondents were very/quite interested in low-fat foods compared with only 50% of male respondents. Not surprisingly, interest in low-fat foods varied considerably across the different age groups, and while all respondents were concerned about eating too much fat, actual purchase of low-fat foods was more limited. Interest was lowest for respondents aged 16 to 24 and highest for respondents aged 45 to 64, where 68% of respondents claimed to be very/quite interested in low-fat food. In terms of socioeconomic group, respondents with the highest levels of income (known as AB groups in the U.K.) were most interested in low-fat foods, with 69% stating that they were very/quite interested, compared with only 49% of the respondents in the lowest income brackets (known as DE groups in the U.K.). Regional variations were also apparent, possibly due to regional variations in living standards, with 62% of respondents from the South and Midlands claiming to be very/quite interested in low-fat foods compared with 46% for the North.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    When asked which foods they felt were the main sources of fat in their own personal diets, butter came top, being cited by 40% of respondents (Table 3.2). Interestingly, only one fifth of respondents believed margarine to be a major source of fat in their diet, despite the fact that many margarines have the same fat content as butter. When asked what they felt about the level of fat in their own diet, the consensus of opinions was that fat levels were probably on the high side simply because of the way in which consumers have become used to eating in the U.K. However, over half of the sample (53%) of the 509 interviewed respondents claimed that the levels of fat were probably about right in their own diets while one third claimed that they were a little too high, suggesting a certain degree of complacency among consumers. A small number of respondents who felt that their fat levels were acceptable were those who had had their cholesterol levels measured and had since taken action to reduce fat intake, although even here respondents admitted that they often had difficulty in keeping to such a strict regime.

    Table 3.2 Main Sources of Fat in Own Diet Cited by 509 Respondents in the U.K.

    Food product

    %

    Butter

    40

    Chocolate

    30

    Cakes

    26

    Milk

    24

    Meat

    22

    Biscuits

    21

    Snack foods

    20

    Margarine

    19

    From Cathro, J., Industry and Market Reviews , No. 19, 1993. With permission.

    Respondents in the group discussions cited cutting down on foods such as snacks and chocolate while increasing intake of fresh fruit and vegetables as principal ways of reducing their fat intake. In the quantitative survey, however, cutting down on foods such as cakes and biscuits (cookies) and changing cooking methods were cited by 47 and 31% of the 509 respondents interviewed, respectively (Table 3.3). Of most significance was that nearly one third of the respondents advocated consumption of low-fat foods and low-fat spreads as a means of reducing fat intake while cutting down on dairy products, snacks, and butter/margarine did not feature highly. This finding supports the view that U.K. consumers still have a far from perfect understanding of the relative contributions of different components of the diet to overall fat intake. By contrast, consumers in the U.S. may be more knowledgeable about the main sources of fat in the diet; in one California survey, the overwhelming majority (70%) of respondents identified potato crisps (chips), mayonnaise, ice cream, cheese, and whole milk as important sources of fat in the diet (Bruhn et al., 1992). Furthermore, nationwide surveys in the U.S. have shown that American consumers are eating fewer dairy products and less red meat (Gallup, 1990). Consumers’ views on fat replacers were also explored in the Leatherhead Food RA survey. Some respondents were aware that manufacturers used fat replacers in foods to reduce the fat content; however, few were able to name any such products. Simplesse ® produced the highest level of awareness at 5%. The vast majority of respondents (90%) were not aware of any fat replacers and this rose to 98% for respondents aged 65+. A

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Table 3.3 Main Ways to Reduce Fat Consumption Cited by 509 Respondents in the U.K.

    Activity

    %

    Cut out cakes and biscuits

    47

    Change cooking methods

    31

    Use low-fat foods

    30

    Use low-fat spreads

    26

    Cut out chocolate

    4

    Cut down on red meat

    4

    Follow healthy diet

    3

    Cut out chips

    3

    Eat leaner meat

    3

    Eat more salads/veg

    3

    Cut out butter/margarine

    2

    Cut out snacks/snacking

    2

    Eat more fruit

    2

    Use low-fat milk

    2

    Drink less beer

    2

    Cut out fried food

    2

    Cut down on dairy produce

    2

    From Cathro, J., Industry and Market Reviews , No. 19, 1993. With permission.

    number of respondents perce ived fat replacers as “unnatural” and consequently “unhealthy.” These findings were in stark contrast with reports on the American con- sumer’s awareness of fat replacers. For example, according to Bruhn and colleagues, 36 and 14% of Californian participants in a survey had heard of Simplesse ® and olestra, respectively, although no products containing either of the two ingredients were available on the market at the time of the survey (Bruhn et al., 1992). Regarding usage of low-fat foods, within the quantitative U.K. survey, respondents were given a list of nine food sectors and asked whether they had tried any of the listed products in low-fat form. Table 3.4 shows that low-fat milk and low-fat spreads were the most popular items that had been tried, cited by 83 and 73% of the respondents, respec- tively. The least popular products were low-fat sausages and low-fat burgers. Low-fat milk was the most popular low-fat product eaten regularly and this was cited by nearly two-thirds (65%) of the sample, while again low-fat sausages and burgers proved to be less popular (Table 3.4). Through the discussion groups, it was possible to identify factors influencing the acceptance and purchase of these products, which is particularly important when con- sidering the future requirement for low-fat foods and fat replacers. On the whole, respon- dents felt that skimmed and semi-skimmed milk were very healthy products because they were perceived as low-fat and natural. Most respondents now consumed semi- skimmed milk on a regular basis and a number had actually grown up with it, many preferring the taste. However, respondents were less enthusiastic about skimmed milk, which they claimed had a particularly watery taste and consistency, although respondents who had been advised to try this by their doctors persevered with it. It was apparent that a wide variety of low-fat spreads had been tried, the prime reason for doing so being health grounds. However, while a number stated that health reasons had prompted initial purchase, such products had now attained the status of a staple purchase, rather than being anything special. Of particular interest was the comment that

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Table 3.4

    Low-Fat Products Tried and Eaten Regularly

    by 509 Respondents in the U.K.

    Food product

    Ever tried (% of respondents)

    Eaten regularly (% of respondents)

    Low-fat milk

    83

    65

    Low-fat spread

    73

    55

    Very-low-fat yogurt

    56

    40

    Low-fat salad dressing

    51

    40

    Low-fat cheese

    47

    19

    Low-fat crisps (chips)

    42

    16

    Low-fat cream

    30

    11

    Low-fat sausage

    28

    9

    Low-fat burger

    18

    5

    From Cathro, J., Industry and Market Reviews , No. 19, 1993. With permission.

    taste was not such a critical factor in acceptance as the product was eaten in combination with other foods, e.g., toast and marmalade. In the discussion groups, consumers were clearly confused about the necessity for very low-fat yogurts, especially as yogurt was perceived as a healthy food anyway. The wide variety of products on the market also added to the confusion. However, despite this confusion, 40% of the 509 interviewed respondents claimed to purchase very low- fat yogurts on a regular basis (Table 3.4). However, it is important to note that with yogurt there is also a question of calorie and sugar content as well as fat levels. While respondents were aware of the high fat content of many snack products, regular purchase of low-fat crisps (chips) was comparatively low at 16%. From the discussion group it could be inferred that the reason for this was their generally unacceptable flavor and texture compared with standard products. Low-fat meat products also came in for a fair amount of criticism on flavor grounds, this being reflected in low purchase frequency, i.e., 9 and 5%, respectively. On exploring the reasons for trying low-fat foods, previous studies by Boyle and colleagues (1991) had indicated that, while health was the prime reason, this tended to be concentrated on those products that were consumed on a regular basis, e.g., milk, spreads, etc. It was not perceived to be important to buy low-fat versions of luxury items, because they were not considered to make much difference to fat intake overall. The 1993 Leatherhead Food RA study, however, suggests that a change in consumer attitudes may have occurred in that consumers considered that if a product existed in low-fat form, it made sense to try it, and, providing the taste was acceptable, it could well replace the standard product. This point is further supported by the dynamic performance of the so- called healthy ice cream category in the U.K. (Table 3.5) and the U.S. in recent years. “Healthy” ice cream is one of the most dynamic sectors of the U.K. low-fat dairy products market, with sales increasing more than threefold between 1990 and 1992. Furthermore, in the Leatherhead study, respondents who had not tried any products in low-fat form (only 42 from a total of 509) were asked why they were not interested in trying them (Table 3.6). Here it is interesting to note that one third of respondents claimed to prefer the taste of the standard product, suggesting that as technological advances give rise to improvements in flavor, more consumers will be tempted to try low-fat versions of foods. When respondents were asked which foods they would like to see made available in low-fat form, chocolate was the most common response, followed by a variety of bakery items. Some respondents did, however, have reservations about the artificial nature of such products. Overall, respondents seemed to be divided into two distinct camps over

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Table 3.5 U.K. “Healthy” Ice Cream Market by Value, 1989-92

    Value

    Year

    (£m rsp)

    % Growth

    • 1989 2

    • 1990 5

    +150

    • 1991 10

    +100

    • 1992 23

    +130

    From Comber, L.R., Cutler, A.J., and Griffin, P.F., Industry and Market Reviews No. 19, 1993. With permission.

    Table 3.6

    Reasons for Lack of

    Interest in Low-Fat Foods Cited by 42 Respondents in the U.K.

    Reason given

    %

    Prefer taste of standard product

    33

    Not trying to lose weight

    29

    Never thought about it

    7

    Healthy as I am

    7

    Too expensive

    5

    Follow proper diet

    5

    Low-fat foods are a “con”

    5

    Am underweight

    2

    Diabetic

    2

    From Cathro, J., Industry and Market Reviews , No. 19, 1993. With permission.

    the usefulness of such products. One group claimed that if a low-fat option was provided (and taste was on a par with that of the standard product) then it made sense to try it, since it was likely to be healthier than the standard product and since the consumer was unlikely to be at risk of eating too little fat. Conversely, the second group of respondents claimed that this was actually moving away from a healthy balanced diet and that if traditional treat items started to appear in low-fat form, consumers would simply eat more of them. Respondents agreed that if the move toward low-fat foods incorporated foods traditionally perceived as unhealthy, then consumers as a whole would tend to eat more of the unhealthy items. In this case, the benefits of low-fat foods were not likely to be apparent. Finally, the cost of low-fat foods was also criticized for being unneces- sarily high. Clearly, there still exists the view that if a product is promoted as containing less of an ingredient, in this case fat, it should cost less than the standard product. That a food manufacturer may have incurred higher formulation costs to develop an acceptable reduced-fat product is an issue that many consumers seem unaware of and indeed probably have little interest in. A survey of European consumers funded jointly by the Pfizer Speciality Chemicals Group and the Calorie Control Council in 1991 showed similar trends in Europe to those identified in the U.K. study described above (Wagner, 1992). The research showed that the driving motivation among Europeans for consuming low-fat products was, generally, to stay in better overall health, although this reason stood out less prominently from others than it did in a comparable U.S. study by the same parties. For example, in France,

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    reducing fat ranked higher than staying in better health, and reducing calories, maintain- ing weight, and maintaining an attractive physical appearance were ranked nearly as high as better overall health. In general, the findings suggested that the message of “reducing fat” had a stronger appeal to European consumers than Americans. Fat is also the number one dietary worry of U.S. consumers according to several state- specific and national surveys (Bruhn et al., 1992; Buss, 1993; CPQ, 1991; Gallup, 1990). For example, in a 1991 poll by the Food Marketing Institute, 42% of respondents ranked fat as the most important nutritional concern (Buss, 1993) while a California survey showed that as many as 62, 61, and 58% of respondents considered total fat content, saturated fat content, and cholesterol as “very important” in food selection (Bruhn et al., 1992). It appears that the U.S. consumer is responding not to an old-fashioned urge to “diet,” but to broader health recommendations by major groups such as the National Cancer Institute and the American Association of Diabetes that Americans reduce their fat intake to an average of 30% of total calories from the current average of 36% (Buss, 1993). However, the findings of a 1991 National Eating Trends study by the NPD Group, a marketing research firm, also suggest that Americans’ concerns about fat and cholesterol intake may be declining. Other studies show similar attitudes toward sugar, salt, and calorie intake. It should be stressed that this does not necessarily mean that healthful diets no longer interest people, but rather that the hysteria has subsided. The fact that the food supply now offers choices that make people feel more comfortable about cholesterol and fat is cited as one of the reasons for the drop in consumer concern regarding fat intake. Clearly, consumers’ concern and knowledge of the link between fat intake and health have heightened their receptiveness to the concept of reduced-fat foods, which in turn has led to increasing demand from food manufacturers for fat replacers.

    3.3 MARKET DEVELOPMENTS IN REDUCED-FAT FOODS

    In response to consumer concerns over fat intake, an increasingly wide range of food sectors now offer reduced-fat and reduced-calorie versions of standard products. Accord- ing to Wagner (1992), 76% of U.S. adults consume low-fat or low-calorie foods and drinks, while U.K. consumers are not far behind, with 74% claiming to consume low- fat and light products, ahead of German adults with 69% and French adults with 48%. Two in every three Australians have also been reported to consume reduced-fat and low- calorie food products (Anon., 1993). While the message of “reducing fat” appears to have a stronger appeal to Europeans, they are nevertheless less inclined than Americans to incorporate low-fat, low-calorie, and sugar-free products into their diets. This phe- nomenon is put down more to market development and product availability than to a significant difference in attitudes between U.S. and European consumers. The most dominant segment of the “lite” consumer market in France, Germany, and the U.K. has been reported to comprise consumers of reduced-fat foods and reduced-fat beverages (Wagner, 1992). Penetration of low-fat foods in the U.K., at 67% of the population, was reported as virtually identical to that in the U.S. This compares with 54% in Germany, while France is still comparatively under-developed at 39%. In all four countries the incidence of use among women is 10 to 15% higher than for men. An examination of the specific types of low-fat products being consumed indicates that dairy- based lines, such as low-fat cheese, yogurt, and cream are most popular overall, ranking number one in France (33% of adults) and Germany (47%). Low-fat beverages, e.g., low-fat instant chocolate drinks, are also very popular in the U.K. (35%) and Germany (33%). A more detailed account of developments specific to European and American markets for reduced-fat foods is given below.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    3.3.1 UNITED KINGDOM According to a study undertaken at the Leatherhead Food RA, the U.K. market for low- fat foods, including dairy products, meat products, snacks, ready meals, salad dressings, and pre-packed salads, grew by over 19% in 1992, to a retail value of nearly £2.1 billion (approximately $3.3 billion) (Comber et al., 1993). Dairy products dominated the market, accounting for around 90% of sales in 1992. Within the dairy products market, milk formed the largest sector, accounting for a 79% share. Meat products accounted for nearly 2.5%, while reduced-fat snack foods accounted for 2% and the “other” low-fat food products sector accounted for nearly 6% (Table 3.7).

    Table 3.7

    U.K. Low-Fat Foods Market by

    Value (RSP in Millions of £) and Type, 1991–92

    Year

    Product

    1991

    1992

    % Change

    Dairy products

    1,548

    1,869

    +20.7

    Milk

    1,207

    1,486

    +23.1

    Cream

    9

    10

    +11.1

    Cheese

    92

    107

    +16.3

    Yogurt

    84

    91

    +8.3

    Fromage frais

    23

    29

    +26.1

    Ice cream

    10

    23

    +130.1

    Spreads

    123

    123

    0

    Meat products

    49

    51

    +4.1

    Burgers/grillsteaks

    10

    10

    0

    Sausages

    28

    29

    +3.6

    Pâté

    11

    12

    +9.1

    Snack foods

    40

    40

    0

    Other

    104

    116

    +11.5

    Ready meals

    65

    72

    +10.8

    Dressings

    29

    31

    +6.9

    Pre-packed salads

    10

    13

    +30.0

    Total

    1,741

    2,076

    +19.2

    From Comber, L.R., Cutler, A.J., and Griffin, P.F. Industry and Market Reviews, No. 19, 1993. With permission.

    While most sectors of the low-fat food market in the U.K. are showing steady growth, some are showing dynamic growth, albeit from a small base, namely ice cream, pre- packed salads, and fromage frais. While not evident from Table 3.7, reduced-fat bakery products are beginning to make an appearance on the U.K. market. The first reduced-fat biscuit (cookie) of note, namely Light Digestive from McVitie’s, appeared on the U.K. market in late 1992, and since then reports indicate that it has grown to a £7.5 million brand (approximately $12.5 million). The product now accounts for an estimated 10% of the U.K. digestive biscuit (cookie) market. As yet, there has been little activity outside biscuits (cookies). In this respect, the U.K. market is well behind that in the U.S., where retail sales of low-fat and low-cholesterol bakery products grew at an annual compound rate of 23.6% from 1989 to 1993. It is interesting to note that the largest sector, milk, is still one of those showing strongest growth, at over 23% in 1992, ahead of several smaller and newer low-fat product sectors such as meat products and snack foods. While consumer trends toward healthy eating and the reduction of fat in the diet continue to gain momentum, several low-fat food sectors have struggled to gain acceptance

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    in the U.K., failing to meet consumer expectations in terms of taste and quality. Products that have performed best are those where, through the use of fat replacer technology, the food manufacturer has been able to offer products tasting nearly, and ideally equally as good as, the full-fat products they replace. This has been comparatively easy for a number of product sectors, in particular dairy products and dressings, which explains their high level of acceptance by consumers. The same is not the case for baked goods, where the technical challenges to be faced are more stringent and exacting.

    3.3.2 EUROPE

    While data on the European market are somewhat patchy compared with those on the U.S., there is sufficient information to indicate a considerable and growing interest in reduced-fat foods, although it should be stressed that a number of market sectors are beginning to plateau and in some cases decline. According to several consumer surveys discussed in more detail earlier in this chapter, growing numbers (ranging from 64 to 76%) of adults (aged 18 and over) in Europe are selecting light foods and beverages to help them control their intake of fat and calories to stay in better overall health (Wagner, 1992). Based on these figures, it can be estimated that 81 million consumers in France, Germany, and the U.K. purchase light products, which is roughly 60% of the U.S. market (calculated at about 141 million consumers). Using similar extrapolations of survey data, it is estimated that there are 30.5 million light food and beverage consumers in the U.K. (75% of the adult population), 31.5 million light consumers in Germany (69% of adults) and 19 million light consumers in France (48% of adults). As in the U.S., the popularity of foods and beverages reduced in fat is the primary force behind the light food trend in Europe. Some 67% of British adults consume low-fat products, as do 53% of Germans, and 39% of the French. While very popular among men (as high as 61% penetration in the U.K.), these products are even more widely consumed by women in the three countries. The most popular low-fat products among Europeans are margarines, cheese, yogurt, cream and other dairy prod- ucts, sauces, mayonnaise, and beverages (Wagner, 1992). Taking a closer look at the German market, it is apparent that, while light products are firmly established, market growth is modest. As in the U.S., reduced-fat dressings are the most popular reduced-fat foods. Reduced-fat salad dressings and mayonnaise accounted for 39% of total salad dressing and mayonnaise sales in the former West Germany for the period January to November 1992. This compares with penetration levels of 37 and 32% for the years 1991 and 1990, respectively. However, reduced-fat margarines appear to be growing in popularity, accounting for 12% of total margarine sales in 1992. This is 2% up on 1991 and 3% up on 1990. Penetration levels for reduced- fat condensed milk and reduced-fat drinking milk have stabilized at 11% and 3%, respectively. Not surprisingly, penetration levels for light products in the former East Germany are considerably lower. For example, light salad dressings and mayonnaise

    accounted for only 16% of total salad dressing and mayonnaise sales in 1992, the same level as in 1991 (Staehler, 1992). A lower level of interest in reduced-fat foods in France compared with Germany and the U.K. has been reported (Anon., 1992). While sales of reduced-fat foods in France have in general grown in recent years, there are signs, as in Germany, that consumer interest is waning. Indicative of this was a 7.8% volume sales decline for reduced-fat spreads in 1992. While as a general rule the European consumer has shown a growing preference for healthier alternatives to traditional products, it is important to be aware of the strong regional variations relating to consumption of reduced-fat foods. As an example, it is possible to cite the considerable variation for penetration of reduced-fat

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    milks across Europe. Since the data previously presented indicate that the French con- sumer has a lower level of interest in reduced-fat foods than the British and the Germans, it is somewhat surprising that France has one of the highest penetration levels for reduced- fat milks in Europe, i.e., around 80%. This compares with penetration levels of around 50% in the U.K. and only around 20% in Germany. Higher preference for semi-skimmed products for most countries suggests that consumer desires to reduce fat intake are limited by taste. Other regional variations are also apparent, such as the comparatively more developed markets for reduced-fat meat products in Germany and reduced-fat bakery products in France. While the previous data appear at odds with earlier information on the French consumer’s attitude to reduced-fat foods, it further illustrates the danger in viewing the European market as homogeneous.

    3.3.3 UNITED STATES

    While the numerous articles and reports on the U.S. market for reduced-fat foods may vary on its current value, all agree that it is a dynamic area. According to Mancini (1993), U.S. sales of low-fat processed foods are continuing to climb, from $29 billion in 1990, to $32 billion in 1991, to an expected $55 billion in 1996. Also indicative of the dynamism of the market was the launch of 519 new low-fat/low-cholesterol products in 1992, representing an increase of 39% over 1991, according to FIND/SVP (1993). Dairy products appear to be the most active category, accounting for one third of all low-fat foods introductions in 1992, followed by bakery products with 88 launches. This is also reflected in their sales value, which, at $10 billion, accounted for nearly 48% of total low-fat food sales in 1990 (Lakin, 1993). Sales are forecast to climb to $16 billion by 1995, or 32% of total low-fat food sales (Table 3.8). A recent study by FIND/SVP (1993) is even more bullish about the size and prospects for the U.S. market for low- fat/low-cholesterol dairy products. They forecast retail dollar sales to increase yearly, from $25.7 billion in 1992 to $39.3 billion in 1996, an average gain of more than 15% compounded annually.

    Table 3.8 Actual and Projected Sales of Low-Fat Food Products in the U.S. ($bn)

    Year

    Food product

    1990

    1995

    Baked goods

    1

    6

    Dairy products

    10

    16

    Frozen desserts

    3

    7

    Margarine

    2

    2

    Frozen ready meals

    2

    6

    Processed meats

    2

    8

    Salty snacks

    1

    5

    Total

    21

    50

    From Lakin, J., Super Marketing , 46, 1068, 1993. With permission.

    One of the major questions posed by a survey carried out by the Calorie Control Council has been: “Do U.S. consumers really like current reduced-fat products?” (Man- cini, 1993). In the survey, some 69% of respondents claimed to be satisfied with the industry’s attempts at developing good-tasting products; however, nearly one third of respondents indicated that there was still scope for improvement. Mancini (1993) has

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    suggested that one of the prime reasons for salad dressings being given as the category of low-fat foods most frequently purchased by adult Americans (55% of respondents) is that good-tasting reduced-fat versions can be achieved by the use of well-tried and tested ingredients, e.g., starch and hydrocolloids. The second most popular category of products have been low-fat dairy products (e.g., cheese and imitation sour cream) and reduced- fat margarines, both reportedly purchased by 50% of the respondents. Reduced-fat milk, meat products, and ice cream/frozen desserts were consumed by 48, 39, and 38% of the consumers in the survey, respectively. It is suggested that since some of these foods are usually consumed with other foods (e.g., salad dressings and spreads), consumers tend to be more forgiving about any problems with texture and flavor. The fact that low-fat dairy desserts were only the sixth most frequently purchased line is felt to indicate that foods eaten primarily for pleasure rather than health have to satisfy more stringent criteria by consumers. As a consequence, it is therefore not surprising that low-fat baked goods and snacks are consumed less often. Dairy Field reports that despite some setbacks in early attempts at reduced-fat dairy products, new product development in the low-fat arena continues at a frenzied pace (Anon., 1993). Significant sales growth for reduced-fat variants is evident for most of the key dairy product categories, with many manufacturers seeing further opportunities for growth. There has been a proliferation of reduced-fat products in the sour creams and dips category, with no-fat and low-fat varieties now accounting for between 20 and 30% of total sales. Significant progress has also been made in reduced-fat cheeses, which, worth $750 million, account for 10% of total retail cheese sales. A 9% sales increase for reduced-fat frozen yogurt for the 52-week period ending August 15, 1993, is also indicative of the buoyancy of the low-fat frozen desserts category (Anon., 1993). While bakery products represent a relatively small part of the total market for low- fat foods, it is nevertheless one of the fastest growing categories, having grown at an annual compound rate of 23.6% over the period 1989 to 1993, according to FIND/SVP (Anon., 1993). However, while some products succeed — for example, Pepperidge Farm’s reduced-fat cookies, breads, muffins, and pita under the Wholesome Choice banner — others have not fared as well, e.g., Pepperidge Farm’s Wholesome Choice crackers, Sara Lee’s Free and Light, and Nabisco’s My Goodness. However, the growing importance of such products can be gauged from the fact that the market pioneer, Entenmann’s, now derives 20% of its sales revenue from its fat free range of baked goods. As for most other categories of the reduced-fat food market, good taste and quality are cited as crucial to success (Anon., 1993). While pundits may disagree on the level of growth, there is no doubt that the demand for reduced-fat variants of traditional products in the U.S. will increase. However, crucial to continued growth will be improvements in product quality, particularly for products eaten for pleasure rather than purely for health reasons. One can conclude from the information presented above that the market for reduced- fat foods is buoyant internationally, although there are signs that interest may be waning in certain countries, e.g., France. The dairy sector has been at the forefront of this development, making a wide range of reduced-fat alternatives available to consumers. This has been possible due to the comparatively simple technology required to produce good-tasting reduced-fat alternatives to some dairy products. However, the technical challenges to be overcome in producing good-tasting reduced-fat baked goods and meat products are much greater, which explains their comparatively modest success to date. Based on what has been reported so far, one would expect that sales of fat replacers mirror those of reduced-fat foods. An examination of market developments specific to fat replacers now follows.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    3.4 MARKET DEVELOPMENTS FOR FAT REPLACERS

    In 1992, Morrison optimistically calculated that the maximum fat replacement potential in the U.S. was around 21 billion pounds, which equated to sales of around $46 billion, assuming a fat replacer price of $1.5 per pound. However, more recent reports suggest that fat replacers have not lived up to expectations. According to Consumer Reports, just a few years ago some analysts predicted that annual U.S. sales of fat replacers would quickly exceed $1 billion; however, by 1992 they still had not topped the $100 million mark (Anon., 1993). Another report states that even with the U.S. market for low-fat, low-cholesterol foods being worth $12 billion in 1990, fat replacers were only worth $100 million (Shuckla, 1992). It should be noted that the size quoted for the low-fat, low-cholesterol foods market, i.e., $12 billion, is considerably lower than that given earlier in this paper and serves to highlight that there are many contradictory figures surrounding the issue of low-fat foods and fat replacers. What this demonstrates is that there is a variety of formulation and processing techniques to reduce fat levels in many foods without resorting to the use of fat replacers. The consequences of this are reflected in the lower than expected sales figures for such materials. Data from Market Research International presented in the proceedings of the third annual IBC Conference, New Orleans, put U.S. sales of fat replacers even lower, at $60 million in 1991. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the combined U.S., European, and Japanese market for fat replacers will be worth $6.75 billion by the year 2000, as estimated by Shukla (1992). Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the potential exists for fat replacement across a wide range of food products. It is clearly unrealistic to expect the fat replacement potential to be fully realized, particularly as suitable materials are as yet not available, owing to either technological or legislative barriers. This is very much the case in the major areas of baking and frying fats. Clearly, heat-resistant fat substitutes have hardly begun to tap the potential that exists in the U.S. and elsewhere. Based on the data presented and the assumption that the U.S. fat replacer market is currently worth $80 million and growing at 10 to 15% per year, it is unlikely that sales will be worth much more than $200 million by the year 2000. With the U.S. accounting for around 50% of the world market, this would suggest worldwide sales of around $400 million by the year 2000. It should be stressed that this is a fairly cautious estimate that does not take into account a major influx of second- generation fat replacers offering improved levels of heat stability and end-product quality. However, owing to the considerable cost of developing such materials, both from a research and development and a safety stance, it is the opinion of this chapter’s author that this is unlikely to happen. The considerable problems encountered by Procter & Gamble in attempting to get olestra to market may also act as a deterrent to companies investing in this area.

    3.5 CONCLUSIONS

    Data have been presented to indicate that fat is likely to remain the prime dietary worry for both U.S. and European consumers for the foreseeable future. This in itself will spur continued growth in the reduced-fat food markets of Europe and America, which in turn will increase demand for fat replacers. Many of the reduced-fat foods developed to date have been achieved through the use of existing carbohydrate-based thickeners and sta- bilizers combined in some cases with new processing technologies. While it is likely that carbohydrate-based fat replacers, i.e., maltodextrins, polydextrose, gums, etc., will continue to dominate the market for the foreseeable future, these will eventually lose some share to more sophisticated protein-based and synthetic products. However, the

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    impact of synthetic fat substitutes on the market could well be blunted by regulatory delays and high price. Critical to the continued development of the reduced-fat foods market is the introduction of a wider range of good-tasting and textured products, particularly in the bakery and snack food sectors. This in turn will require that a broader range of fat replacers be developed; as has already been indicated, this can be an extremely expensive and risky business venture. However, for the company bold enough to tackle these problems, the rewards could be considerable. These views have been endorsed by a recent study by the Leatherhead Food RA on the current status and future opportunities for fat substitutes in Europe (Hilliam et al., 1995).

    REFERENCES

    Anonymous, Lite food is popular, Food Technol. , 29(10), 17, 1993. Anonymous, Reduced-fat bakery foods: meeting the taste challenge, Prep. Foods , 162(8), 79, 1993. Anonymous, Britain takes a healthy lead in Europe, Grocer , 214(7078), 34, 1992. Anonymous, Are marketers living a fat-free fantasy? Bakery Prod. Mark. , 28(6), 132, 1993. Anonymous, Schwere Zeiten für Lights?, Lebensmitt. Prax. , 15, 4, 1993. Boyle, C.S., Cathro, J.S., Comber, L.R., Emmett, S.E., and Hilliam, M.A. The U.K. low-fat food report, Ind. Mark. Rev. No. 6, 1991. Bruhn, C.M., Cotter, A., Diaz-Knauf, K., Sutherlin, J., West, E., Wightman, N., Williamson, E., and Yaffee, M., Consumer attitudes and market potential for foods using fat substitutes, Food Technol. , April, 81, 1992. Buss, D., Trimming the fat from fat replacer expectation, Food Process. , 54 (10), 44, 1993. Cathro, J., The U.K. Low-Fat Foods Report, 2nd Edition, Volume II — The Consumer, Ind. Mark. Rev., No. 19, 1993. Comber, L.R., Cutler, A.J., and Griffin, P.F. The U.K. Low-fat Food Report, 2nd Edition, Volume I — The Market. Ind. Mark. Rev. No. 19, 1993. Center for Produce Quality (CPQ), Two years after Alar: A Survey of Consumer Attitudes Toward Food Safety, CPQ, Newark, Delaware, 1991. FIND/SVP, Low-fat/low-cholesterol products hit new highs, Food Process. , 54(3), 11, 1993. Gallup, Gallup Survey of Public Opinion Regarding Diet and Health, conducted for the International Food Information Council and American Dietetic Association, The Gallup Organization, Princeton, N.J., 1990. Hilliam, M., Angus, F., Bower, S., and Marriss, L., Fat substitutes — An in-depth European review of current status and future opportunities. Leatherhead Food Research Association Report, March 1995. Lakin, J., Fact file, Super Market. , 46, 1068, 1993. Mancini, L., Low fat comes of age, Food Eng. , 65(6), 149, 1993. Morrison, M. Fat replacers: potential markets. Inform 3(12), 1270-1277, 1992. Shukla, T. P., Low-fat foods and fat replacers, Cereal Foods World, 37(6), 452, 1992. Staehler, C., Out of the niche into the spotlight, Lebensmitt. Prax. , 5, 4, 1992. Wagner, J., Global consumers want the lite stuff, Food Process. , 53(10), 68, 1992.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Chapter

    Physical, Chemical, and Sensory Aspects of Fat Replacement

    Sylvia A. Jones

    4
    4
    • 4.1 Introduction

    CONTENTS

    • 4.2 Mimicking the Fat Droplet

    • 4.3 Rheological Matching

    • 4.4 Physical Stability and Fat Reduction

    • 4.5 Sensory Implications of Fat Reduction

      • 4.5.1 Intensity of Sensory Attributes

      • 4.5.2 Temporal Effects of Fat Replacement

  • 4.6 Flavor Release and Fat Reduction

    • 4.6.1 Principles of Flavor Release and Methodological Considerations

    • 4.6.2 Flavor Compounds vs. Flavor Perception

    • 4.6.3 Flavor/Food Component Interactions

    • 4.6.4 Flavor/Fat Replacer Interactions

    • 4.6.5 Mass Transfer Inhibition and Flavor Release

  • References

    4.1 INTRODUCTION

    The principal objective of all the current product development activities in the area of fat reduction is to match the overall product characteristics of a full-fat variant. The degree of complexity of this task is dependent on the type of product and the level of fat reduction required, but the underlying cause of the difficulties experienced when reducing fat lies in its multifunctional nature as a food ingredient, and its often profound effects during the different stages of a product’s manufacture, as well as on the final

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    product characteristics. Moreover, the problems are compounded by the fact that to date there is no permitted, commercially available single ingredient which can directly replace fat in all its food applications. Hence, the only viable route is to apply a holistic approach in fat reduction, whereby a fat-replacing system needs to be devised together with appropriate processing changes for each of the product matrices. Although there is a considerable range of commercialized fat replacers on the market, since the vast majority of these ingredients have hydrophilic characteristics, it is inevitable that in the majority of applications, fat reduction will be associated with an increase in water content, and this will lead to changes in physical, chemical, and sensory characteristics. A reasonable starting assumption, for instance in products which are in the form of an oil-in-water emulsion (e.g., milk, yogurt, cream, cheese, ice cream, soups, sauces, mayonnaise, dressings, etc.) could be to physically mimic a fat droplet. On the other hand, it may be more appropriate to attempt to match the rheological characteristics of the full-fat product through the use of different fat mimicking ingredients. However, while doing so, it would be necessary to achieve an acceptable product quality in terms of physical characteristics, physical stability, and sensory characteristics. Of equal impor- tance in this context is the issue of microbiological stability as discussed in Chapter 1. Furthermore, since fat reduction is associated with changes in perceived product char- acteristics, it is essential to understand the physical and chemical implications of flavor release in the context of fat content manipulations. This chapter evaluates the scope for a scientific, systematic approach to fat reduction in the light of data reported in the literature, highlighting some of the more controversial aspects, with the aim of identifying the existing gaps in our scientific knowledge in the area of fat reduction.

    4.2 MIMICKING THE FAT DROPLET

    In water-continuous food systems, the replacement of all or part of the fat can be viewed simply as the need to replace it with the same physical structure. It follows, therefore, that the concept of replacing oil droplets is equivalent to finding an ingredient or a system that can provide spherical particles which hopefully would behave similarly to oil drop- lets. This “ball-bearing” principle could, of course, be achieved easily by any of the synthetic fat substitutes (such as olestra) whereby both chemically and physically the structures are designed to be similar to fat. However, in the absence of commercial availability of such substances, a different approach has had to be taken toward identifying how such structures could be obtained using existing ingredients. This approach was explored in the development of Simplesse ® , whereby through heat coagulation under continuous shear conditions, protein (with its natural tendency to form a continuous or semi-continuous network) was encouraged to form spherical, insoluble microparticulates of 0.1 to 3.0 µm in diameter (Singer and Dunn, 1990). Coagulated protein microparticulates can be obtained using different processes or processing condi- tions and/or through the use of proteins other than the whey protein concentrate used in Simplesse ® 100. An overview of current literature on this topic has been published by Miller (1994). A puzzling and unresolved issue is whether or not, or to what extent, the microparticulation process is of particular significance. This was especially highlighted when Dairylight appeared on the market in 1989, since this ingredient, by design, does not attempt to mimic a fat globule structure, but is based on the fat mimicking properties of partial protein denaturation (see Chapter 1). However, if the goal is to mimic fat droplets more closely, it follows that the use of hydrophobic rather than hydrophilic gelled or semi-gelled structures should be pursued. In this context, zein protein obtained from corn gluten meal appears to provide interesting

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    opportunities due to its hydrophobic nature and inherent insolubility in water. This concept was first explored by Enzytech, Inc. and then developed further by its branch Opta Food Ingredients, Inc., in the production of LITA ® whereby the microparticulated zein protein is obtained through a special processing technique which includes the coating of the surface of the insoluble particle with a polysaccharide such as carboxymethylcel- lulose or gum arabic, in order to prevent aggregation of the particles (Cook et al., 1991; Iyenger and Gross, 1991; Stark and Gross, 1992). By definition, therefore, the nature of these microparticles, being very dense, nondeformable spheres, ranging from 0.1 to 8.0 µm in diameter, is quite different from those obtained through a heat or acid coagulation route. Although conceptually, LITA ® is undisputedly a unique ingredient in terms of the source of protein used and its strong hydrophobic character, it should be noted that the same features are responsible for its major commercial drawback — i.e., its inherent flavor problems. On the other hand, LITA ® is a product based on protein-polysaccharide interactions and considerable scope exists for exploring this concept in the pursuit of mimicking fat droplets. Another example of an ingredient based on protein-polysaccharide complex formation is Trailblazer range developed by Kraft General Foods (KGF). The principle behind Trailblazer is the fact that anionic polysaccharides interact strongly with proteins at pH values below their isoelectric points (Chen and Soucre, 1985; Chen et al., 1992). A typical Trailblazer product is made from xanthan gum, egg white, and whey protein. On heating, crosslinking through the formation of disulfide bond takes place resulting in a fibrous network. These are then subjected to a microfragmentation process which reduces particle size to approximately 10 µm. In physical terms, however, the structure of Trailblazer is that of fiber and therefore does not achieve the spherical ideal expected to give the maximum “ball-bearing effect.” Unfortunately, KGF decided not to commercialize the Trailblazer range and the interesting issue of the relative importance of structural differ- ences in fat mimetics derived from the same protein (i.e., whey protein concentrate) remains open to speculation. Starch could be seen as an obvious ingredient to explore in the context of mimicking the fat droplet, but there seems to have been little activity in this area so far. Zhao and Whistler (1994) described an interesting process for forming spherical starch aggregates using starch granules (preferably from amaranth or wheat) by coating with sodium alginate or low methoxy pectin and then spraying with calcium chloride to form insoluble coatings. Although these spheres were developed for flavor-carrying purposes, it can be seen that the basic principle is similar to that employed in microparticulated proteins coated with hydrocolloids (as in LITA ® and Trailblazer). On the other hand, if it is assumed that the actual physical shape is not important, then a fat mimetic such as Stellar™, which is based on a crystalline fraction of starch, could also be viewed as a microparticulated material since it is composed of aggregated starch crystallites which, when subjected to high shear in an aqueous system (minimum 8000 psi), form particles of 3 to 5 µm (Pszczola, 1991). A different concept of mimicking fat globules has been developed by the French company A and S Biovecteures (O’Donnell, 1994). The synthesis of a low-fat globule was based on a milk fat concept, whereby an internal lipid core was replaced by a reduced-calorie starch core but with the external properties of the globule modeled on a milk-fat globule. The process involves: obtaining a cross-linked modified starch; extrud- ing the starch to obtain particle size with a diameter of approximately 2 µm; grafting a fatty acid layer to the starch particles using a nonpolar solvent or by supercritical fluid extraction technology; and attaching a phospholipid layer using a homogenization pro- cess. This concept for fat replacement was first introduced at the 1993 Food Ingredients Exhibition (FIE ‘93).

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    It might be expected that the issue of mimicking the fat globule would be especially important in the absence of the dispersed phase, as in the case of a fat-free version of an oil-in-water emulsion. In such a case, a two-phase system of an emulsion can be devised by partitioning of the aqueous phase using the principle of biopolymers com- peting for water. Thus, depending on the choice of biopolymers and conditions such as water activity, pH, ionic strength, charge density, and biopolymer concentration, a mixture of two biopolymers can undergo complex coacervation (e.g., gelatin/gum arabic), or phase separation driven by thermodynamic incompatibility between biopolymers (e.g., gelatin/maltodextrin) (Tolstoguzov, 1986). In each case, it is possible to obtain a two- phase system, and, in the latter case, mixed or filled gels with two or more 3D networks can be formed. Phase separation driven by thermodynamic incompatibility between biopolymers has been investigated for a wide range of mixtures, and proposed as an approach to fat reduction in the yellow fat spreads product area (Cain et al., 1989; Kasapis et al., 1992; Muyldermans and Vanhoegaerden, 1992). The above examples highlight some of the possible approaches to mimic physically the fat globule structure through the use of accessible ingredients, and, in most cases, special processing methods. It can be concluded that, although some means of “inter- rupting” the continuous aqueous phase is necessary, the extent to which it is necessary to mimic perfectly the size and shape of oil droplets remains questionable, as different approaches utilize a range of particle size beyond the 0.1 to 3.0 µm range originally considered as optimal, and the shapes range from distinct spheres to irregular particles. Moreover, despite attempts to limit hydrophilic activity, the “designer” particles could be expected to have different physical properties to those of fat on account of the differences in chemical structure. In other words, there are certain limitations in attempt- ing to form the physical structure of a fat globule. However, the above discussion has focused on the mimicking of the fat globule structure in isolation. In reality, the complexity of real food systems necessitates opti- mization of the overall product formulation when replacing either all or a substantial amount of the fat by a fat mimetic. On the other hand, it may be considered as the need to obtain a fat mimetic system that would compensate for the broad spectrum of fat functionalities exhibited in a given product type. Glicksman (1991) suggested that a three-ingredient system is necessary for a good fat mimetic: (1) a thickening agent for lubricity and flow control; (2) a soluble bulking agent for control of adsorption/absorption of the food onto taste perceptors of the tongue; and (3) a microparticulate, generally insoluble, agent that acts like a ball-bearing to create smoothness. It can be postulated, however, that in order to mimic the different functions of fat in a substantially reduced-fat product, we must consider viscosity matching, solids adjust- ment, and particle size impact and mouthfeel, and we must also carefully balance the perceived flavor characteristics of the system. In other words, as has been emphasized previously, there is a need for a holistic approach.

    4.3 RHEOLOGICAL MATCHING

    If matching the physical structure of a fat globule is elusive, then it is reasonable to take on board the effect (rather than the cause) of the physical and chemical characteristics of fat which manifests itself in the performance of the fat in foods. Here, rheological manipulation is the key. Thus, in the case of many product categories, reduction of fat in a given matrix can be seen as a challenge to mimic the rheological impact of fat through the use of a fat replacing system. However, although this is a viable and relatively easy route for the

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    first stage of product/process development, due to the multifunctional nature of fat as an ingredient, a much broader perspective needs to be adopted to ensure that rheological matching is adequately corrected to encompass the impact of the reduced-fat level on the various functions of the fat in a given product (as discussed in Chapter 1). Hence, in general terms, rheological matching needs to be viewed in the context of its implica- tions for: processability and handling; physical, chemical, and microbiological stability; and sensory characteristics (some of these issues will be discussed in more detail below). One aspect of the performance of fat that cannot be matched physically is that related to crystallinity and polymorphism. That does not mean, however, that it is not possible to use the rheological manipulation approach in foods dependent on fat crystallization for their characteristics. It is only in the case of products where fat forms the continuous phase, and its structure is solely based on the crystallization of fat, that the problems of rheological matching are compounded. But even here it does not mean that fat reduction cannot be achieved, merely that a different strategic approach needs to be adopted, taking into account the physical limit beyond which further fat reduction cannot be achieved. The issue of rheological matching can best be illustrated with reference to two products, namely table spread (margarine or butter) and chocolate, since each requires a different approach. Margarine (or butter) is a water-in-oil emulsion system containing 80% fat in which its particular end characteristics are highly dependent on fat crystallization. Despite that, it is possible to reduce the fat content by some 80% of the original level present in the margarine while still retaining the fat continuous nature of the product that is so important from the point of view of the product’s stability. What makes it a relatively easy task is the fact that it is an emulsion system, the overall rheology of which can therefore be manipulated by structuring the aqueous phase (i.e., the water droplets), manipulating the fat-water interface, manipulating the fat phase composition, and changing processing parameters. The fact that there are four variables means that considerable flexibility exists for matching rheological characteristics with the required sensory characteristics of the end product. It is not surprising, therefore, that the low-fat spreads market has developed to such a remarkable extent. Chocolate, on the other hand, is a much more difficult product because it is not an emulsion, but a fat-continuous suspension, the structure of which depends on the poly- morphic behavior of the cocoa butter. This means that a fat replacement strategy involving hydrophilic fat replacers is not feasible, since the addition of even a small amount of water results in a significant increase in viscosity such that it would be impossible to process. But, even in this case, there are some avenues left to be explored. For instance, as illustrated by Daget and Vallis (1994), by modifying the fat composition and replacing some fat with a bulk filler (demineralized whey powder), fat content can be reduced from 35 to 25%. However, in the particular case of chocolate, if a more meaningful fat reduction is to be achieved, it is even more necessary to use the holistic approach than for any other product category, and there is the problem regarding compositional stan- dards, and hence the labeling, claims, and marketing of such products (Jones, 1993). The use of low-calorie fats (e.g., Caprenin or Salatrim), or fat substitutes (e.g., olestra or esterified propoxylated glycerol) would, of course, make the task easier. However, the matter of rheological matching cannot be viewed in isolation but needs to be related to perceived sensory characteristics. While doing so, two issues come to the fore: first, how viscosity is measured (this issue was first explored by Shama and Sherman, 1973); and second, whether there are other rheological parameters or method- ological matters that are of importance. On the other hand, the descriptors used to assess the contribution made by fat (or an ingredient or ingredient system that aims to replace

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    it) have to be taken into account, as well as the implications of these descriptors to rheological measurements. The following brief examples from the literature should help the reader to understand the significance of these issues. The majority of published reports investigate the issue of fat replacement in oil-in- water emulsion systems since, on the one hand, it represents a large range of existing product categories, and, on the other hand, it is the easiest system to characterize and define from a scientific point of view. An oil-in-water emulsion exhibits non-Newtonian, shear thinning behavior. In a recent study, Mela et al. (1994) showed that an increase in oil content (in an oil-in-water emulsion containing 1.0% w/w of sucrose stearate as an emulsifier and fat content ranging from zero to 48%) gives rise to a logarithmic increase in viscosity (as measured at a shear rate of 48 sec 1 ), and that this viscosity increase was a predominant factor affecting perceived fat content as assessed by panelists. However, statistical analyses of the data showed that fat content made independent contributions beyond viscosity alone. Indeed, earlier work on perceived fat content and creaminess in thickened milks (Mela, 1988) led to the same conclusion. Other authors recognized the importance of two rheological parameters in relation to fat perception — i.e., viscosity and flow behavior index (power law index). Studying model soups with a range of thickeners, Wood (1974) established that, for this product, maximum perception of creaminess was at a viscosity of between 50 and 80 mPa.s, and a flow behavior index (n) of about 0.50. For desserts (creams with xanthan), Daget et al. (1987) found that maximum creaminess was at a viscosity of between 880 and 7500 mPa.s and a corresponding flow behavior index of 0.15 and 0.04 for 3.5 and 30% fat content, respectively. More recently, Daget and Joerg (1991) reported on a substantial study of model cream soups which examined the effects of several hydrocolloid thick- eners on creaminess, thickness, and liking consistency in relation to rheological charac- teristics. The relationship between the flow behavior index and apparent viscosity was found to be different for each thickener. The maxima of “creaminess” corresponded to a viscosity of between 90 and 325 mPa.s and a flow behavior index of 0.12 to 0.42. Interestingly, rheological optima for liking consistency were found always to be lower than those for creaminess, while perceived thickness was found to be linearly related to the logarithm of viscosity for all thickeners. Thus, the results demonstrated the impor- tance of the two rheological parameters in perceived creaminess and acceptability. How- ever, the authors also established that other unknown aspects affected acceptability ratings in this study. Such aspects could be validated through a broader rheological approach. The importance of the size of oil droplets in relation to fat content and perceived fat content has also received some attention. The results reported by Mela et al. (1994) showed no apparent pattern in oil droplet size as affected by fat content in emulsions containing 0 to 48% fat. The decrease in oil droplet size resulting from different homog- enization pressures used (100 and 300 bar) caused the viscosity of the emulsions to increase, but no difference was found in perceived fat content as a result of this viscosity increase. Richardson et al. (1993) studied the effects of homogenization and fat content on oral perception in 3.5 and 4.8% fat milks with and without the addition of carboxymethyl- cellulose. The results showed no effect of fat content or homogenization on viscosity (as measured at 50 s 1 ) for neither the unthickened milks nor for the milks thickened to the viscosity of a double cream. The ratings of “fat content” and “creaminess” were very similar; although higher scores were obtained for both of those attributes for nonhomog- enized milks, these differences were not statistically significant as indicated by error bars. In the case of thickened milks, the responses obtained for perceived fat content and creaminess were again similar for all four milk samples and only the homogenized milk

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    containing 4.8% fat received higher scores, but again, these were not statistically signif- icant. Interestingly, despite the fact that the authors do not give any data on oil droplet size and distribution, they conclude that a high density of evenly sized particles (produced as a result of homogenization), together with adequately high viscosity, results in a realistic sense of creaminess. Although it is difficult to see the validity of this statement in the context of the results presented, and further work is obviously required, it would be expected that droplet size and distribution would have an effect on perceived fat content and creaminess, but it should be possible to, at least to some extent, depict such an effect in rheological performance. In this context, the results reported by Partel et al. (1994) should be mentioned, since they were able to relate mathematically rheological and particle size parameters. How- ever, it should be pointed out that in this experimental work, extreme conditions were prevailing (in terms of both composition and methodology), and further work would be required to ascertain the validity of these findings in a low-fat context, as well as in relation to perceived flavor characteristics, since neither of these issues were included in the study. Baines and Morris (1988), confirming the results of earlier work on perceived thick- ness of solutions of polysaccharide thickeners in relation to viscosity measurement, postulated that the use of small-deformation oscillary measurement of viscosity at 50 rad 1 is necessary in order to account for the particular rheological behavior of xanthan, which is the result of its conformationally ordered structure (as opposed to “random coiled” disordered polysaccharide structures). A good correlation was found between viscosity and perceived thickness, while no differences were found in perceived thickness, stickiness, or sliminess. Interestingly, despite the extreme shear thinning of xanthan, no correlation was found between perceived sliminess and shear thinning. Moreover, no detectable suppression of perceived flavor or taste was found to exist when xanthan solutions of up to 1.0% (w/v) were studied. However, the issue of sensory attributes used to describe the contributions of fat (or fat mimetic) in textural terms are far from being resolved, despite the fact that there has been a substantial amount of research activity in this area (Szczesniak et al., 1963; Jowitt, 1974; Szczesniak, 1979). The elusive term of “creaminess,” for instance, was reported to be unrelated to terms such as “thickness,” “smoothness,” and “slipperiness” (Cussler et al., 1979). While Kokini et al. (1977) defined each of the latter three desriptors in terms of friction and/or viscosity, Cussler et al. (1979) suggest that “creaminess” cannot solely be related to the three above mentioned attributes, and hence it cannot be defined in rheological terms. On the other hand, Drewnowski (1987), in a study on liquid dairy foods (from milk to heavy cream) suggests that the fat content may be better monitored and perceived through the use of more abstract terms related to caloric density (e.g., oily, greasy). It is noteworthy that the response received for the term “creamy” was very similar to that received for the terms “fattening” and “high calorie.” While there appears to be some confusion in the reported data with regard to the sensorily measured responses to fat content, on the basis of a closer examination of the data it can be postulated that the current state of flux has its origins in two factors: first, the sensory methodology used (e.g., consumer vs. trained panelist, brief given on the products, the level of understanding of the terms assessed, presence or absence of reference points, etc.); and second, the type of attribute used. In the latter case, two categories of attributes can be distinguished. The first comprises terms that are unaffected by hedonic response (e.g., thickness, smoothness, slipperiness, fattening, high calorie), and hence an approximately linear relationship would be expected between the intensity

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    of these attributes and fat content, and these terms could be defined in rheological terms. On the other hand, the attribute “creaminess,” which is considered by most authors as the best descriptor for the assessment of the contribution made by fat to perceived sensory characteristics of a product, is much more complex, since it involves a certain level of hedonic response. For that reason, the response for this attribute would be expected to be nonlinear. This can vary from a curve response with a plateau, as first obtained by Wood (1974), to an inverted U-shape response against increasing fat content, since a point will be reached where a further increase in fat content is deemed inappropriate for the particular product type. Obviously, it is not feasible to attempt to define such an attribute in rheological terms alone. Moreover, it can be postulated that in any given product, apart from thickness and smoothness characteristics, perceived creaminess will also be affected by the intensity of flavor attributes present in the system. Overall, it can be concluded that while considerable scope remains in rheological matching of the contribution made by fat with that of a fat replacing system, the issue needs to be viewed in the context of the complexity of a particular product matrix and its quality parameters. While rheological characteristics undoubtedly play an important role in sensory perception of foods, the extent to which this route is sufficiently explored is debatable. It could be postulated that more attention should be given to physically mimicking the conditions in the mouth prior to proceeding with rheological character- ization, which should, perhaps, be designed in relation to the product’s matrix. On the other hand, the limitations of rheological characterization alone should be recognized, especially where flavor intensity and flavor release affect the perceived rheological characteristics.

    4.4 PHYSICAL STABILITY AND FAT REDUCTION

    Fat reduction can have a profound effect on the physical stability of a product. One of the important roles of fat replacing ingredients, therefore, is their ability to maintain physical stability while at the same time providing acceptable quality in sensory terms. The importance of this issue was demonstrated when some products launched in the early 1990s suffered from apparent physical instability and had to be withdrawn from the market (e.g., some low-fat spreads and hard cheeses). Little published data exist on physical characteristics and stability in relation to fat reduction in foods, and virtually none at all that attempts to relate fat content and physical characteristics and stability to sensory characteristics. In practice, the issue of physical stability is compounded when moving from water-continuous liquid products to oil-continuous semi-solid products. For present purposes, the subject of changes in physical characteristics in relation to fat replacement will be illustrated with water-in-oil emulsions — i.e., spreads. Various test and characterization procedures for assessing low-fat spreads were inves- tigated by Bavington et al. (1992) using ten commercially available spreads ranging in fat content from 20 to 40%, and containing different aqueous and fat phases. All the techniques employed were able to distinguish between the spreads, with the results from conductivity measurements and stability tests correlating well with their observed micro- structure. Other techniques such as differential scanning calorimetry, and solid fat con- tent, spreadability, and texture measurements measured by penetrometry, were primarily related to the hardness of the spreads, although the spread microstructure also influenced the results obtained from these tests. Most of the physical tests performed were found to be related to the results obtained from sensory analysis of the spreads, since the textural characteristics tended to dominate sensory discrimination (see Section 4.5.1). Spreads

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    with no aqueous phase stabilizers were found to have the smallest aqueous phase droplet size, while hardness and spreadability of the spreads were primarily, though not exclu- sively, related to the solid fat content. Other spread characteristics, such as stickiness, cloying character, the rate of breakdown in the mouth, etc., were dependent upon the type of aqueous phases stabilizers and the openness of the spread microstructure (Bav- ington et al., 1992). Figure 4.1 gives an example of some of the differences in selected physical characteristics for three of the ten commercial low-fat spreads investigated in relation to the composition of the aqueous phase as indicated on the labels. It is apparent, therefore, that low-fat spreads produced commercially differ considerably in terms of their physical characteristics. Overall, the differences in physical characteristics can be attributed in general terms to four main factors: fat content; composition of the aqueous phase; composition of the fat phase; and processing methods/conditions used.

    with no aqueous phase stabilizers were found to have the smallest aqueous phase droplet size, while

    Figure 4.1 Differences in selected physical characteristics of some of the commercial 40% fat spreads: Sample 2, containing sodium caseinate and sodium alginate; Sample 5, containing modified starch and milk proteins; Sample 6, containing gelatin and milk proteins. (Compiled from Bavington et al., 1992.)

    In low-fat spreads containing 30% fat or less, the primary concern is to maintain a water- in-oil emulsion structure. In standard processing methods, this can easily be achieved using an appropriate emulsification system, which will allow the formation of the emulsion

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    and the maintenance of the water-in-oil emulsion structure during processing (Clegg et al., 1993). However, while in physical terms an excellent emulsion can be achieved, with small water droplets (0.5 to 2.0 µm) homogeneously distrib uted throughout the continuous fat phase, the emulsifiers necessary for obtaining such a stable system give rise to undesirable organoleptic characteristics which manifest themselves predominantly in textural attributes (e.g., the slow rate of emulsion breakdown in the mouth), and these, in turn, affect flavor release characteristics of the spreads. Thus, certain changes in product formulation are necessary if an acceptable quality is to be achieved. It is now an established commercial practice to use hydrocolloid stabilizers, either polysaccharide-based (e.g., starch, maltodextrin, sodium alginate) or protein-based (e.g., gelatin or sodium caseinate), in order to structure the aqueous phase of the low-fat spreads (Bavington et al., 1991). Such ingredients thicken and gel the aqueous phase droplets, giving rise to rheological changes that affect the different stages of manufacture, as well as the physical stability of the final product, which will be dependent on the type and concentration of the hydrocolloid(s) used. Clegg et al. (1993), in a study of the role of aqueous phase stabilizers in low-fat spreads containing 30% fat, demonstrated an apparent destabilizing effect of hydrocol- loids on the physical characteristics of the final product. This was manifested in an increase in droplet size, changes in droplet size distribution, and a decrease in thermal and shear stability compared with spreads containing no aqueous phase stabilizers. A confocal laser scanning microscopy technique was used to study changes in microstruc- ture in order to ensure minimum disruption of the spread systems, and also to be able to view the structure in three dimensions. While slight destabilization was observed for spreads containing gelatin and those containing gelatin and maltodextrin, a marked increase in droplet size was found in spreads containing gelatin and sodium alginate. In the case of spreads containing gelatin and modified starch, a significant destabilization was found, with evidence that some of the starch was disrupting the crystalline fat phase structure. Extensive destabilization was found in spreads containing gelatin and sodium caseinate as a result of the surface active properties of the sodium caseinate, and its tendency to promote a water-continuous emulsion, which was therefore counteracting the action of the emulsifiers present. However, while at a lower concentration of sodium caseinate the microstructure of the spread was more or less bi-continuous in nature, at higher concentrations of sodium caseinate the increased viscosity of the aqueous phase tended to counteract to a certain degree the surface active properties of the protein, thus limiting the extent to which the aqueous droplets coalesced during and after processing. As a result, some restabilization was apparent, and the presence of aqueous lakes and large droplets was evident. Figure 4.2 shows confocal images of selected low-fat spreads from these studies (Clegg et al., 1993). On the other hand, destabilization of the water-in-oil low-fat emulsion systems, as affected by the presence of hydrocolloids, has an important positive effect on sensory characteristics in terms of the rate of emulsion breakdown in the mouth, melt-down properties and flavor release. In other words, a certain degree of instability needs to be introduced into a necessarily tight and stable low-fat oil-continuous emulsion system (which is needed to enable processing) in order to mimic the sensorily perceived char- acteristics of the full-fat spread. In addition, the source of the fat blend, the melting profile of the fat, and the ratio of liquid to crystalline fat affect the structure of the emulsion and organoleptic characteristics. A more extensive discussion of the sensory implications of fat reduction is given in Section 4.5.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    a b c Figure 4.2 Effect of aqueous phase stabilizers on microstructure of 30% fat spreads

    a

    a b c Figure 4.2 Effect of aqueous phase stabilizers on microstructure of 30% fat spreads

    b

    a b c Figure 4.2 Effect of aqueous phase stabilizers on microstructure of 30% fat spreads

    c

    Figure 4.2 Effect of aqueous phase stabilizers on microstructure of 30% fat spreads obtained using confocal laser scanning microscopy technique: (a) no aqueous phase stabilizers; (b) 2% gelatin/15% maltodextrin; and (c) 2% gelating/8% sodium caseinate. (From Clegg, S. M., Moore, A. K., and Jones, S. A., Leatherhead Food Res. Assoc. Res. Rep. No. 715, 1993. With permission.)

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    4.5 SENSORY IMPLICATIONS OF FAT REDUCTION

    Changing the fat content of a product can have a significant impact on sensory charac- teristics, and, as indicated earlier, all the main attributes (i.e., appearance, flavor, mouth- feel, and texture) may be affected. How much of an impact this will have depends on the product type and structure, the extent of fat reduction, and the extent (broadly speaking) of measures taken to compensate for the effects of fat reduction in product reformulation or process modification. In the early days of fat replacement, the major emphasis was placed on counteracting the loss of rich and creamy textures as a result of fat removal. The issue of flavor was seen as secondary. However, if the quality of a full-fat product is to be matched after reducing fat content, it should be obvious that both aspects need to be considered on a more or less equal basis, especially as they are interrelated. Indeed, it can be argued that since flavor is normally regarded as the most important factor in consumer choice, it is that which should be given the higher priority. The problem is that the functionality of texture determining ingredients and their interactions are much better understood than flavor changes in food systems as affected by changes in composition. Nevertheless, significant progress has been made in recent years.

    4.5.1 INTENSITY OF SENSORY ATTRIBUTES

    Any changes in formulation are likely to affect the intensity of sensory characteristics, and in the case of fat removal, this issue is especially important. The impact of fat removal in a given product can be demonstrated by evaluating sensory changes as a result of uncompensated fat reduction. Figure 4.3 depicts the changes in sensory response as a function of fat reduction in model spreads (water-in-oil emulsions) where distilled mon- glyceride and polyglycerol polyricinoleate were used in each case at 0.4% of the aqueous phase using no water structuring ingredients. While retaining constant compositional and processing parameters, with only the fat content as a variable, a clear change in the dimensions of the star diagrams can be observed when moving from 80 to 20% fat, with a statistically significant decrease in flavor intensity for attributes such as lactic butter, sweet, sour, and rancid. Thus, when using a minimal or no compensation approach, it is possible to identify the limiting attributes associated with fat reduction. Hence, the attempts to compensate for fat reduction through the use of other ingredients can be seen as efforts to match the sensory profile of the full-fat product. In reality, however, this is an oversimplification, since, if the goal is to achieve a significant fat reduction, in most cases, other issues have to be addressed alongside (e.g., physical stability, as discussed earlier). Therefore, the formulation and/or processing changes required would normally result in a more complex flavor profile. When developing a low-fat version of a product category that has a number of products already commercialized, it is useful to evaluate the existing products in order to establish how they differ from the full-fat variant. In addition, an insight can be gained into the viability of the approaches used in fat replacement if that is put into the context of the relative performance of these products on the market. The use of consensus profiling based on the Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) method, combined with analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by principal components analysis (PCA) is a useful technique that enables the acquisition of such information. Figure 4.4 shows the position of 13 commercial spreads with respect to the first two principal components (Kilcast at al., 1991). The fat content of the products shown ranged from 80% (standard margarine) to 25%. The plot can be regarded as a perceptual space showing the perceived interrelationship between the test samples. Samples that are

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Figure 4.3 Effect of fat content on intensity of flavor attributes in oil-continuous spreads (fat reduction

    Figure 4.3

    Effect of fat content on intensity of flavor attributes in oil-continuous spreads (fat

    reduction not compensated by compositional changes). (From Jones, S. A. et al., unpublished.

    With permission from the Leatherhead Food Research Association.)

    positioned close to one another in the plot were perceived as having similar sensory characteristics, whereas those distant were perceptually different from one another. The original sensory attributes are shown as vectors radiating from the origin of the plot and lengths of the vectors represent their relative importance in the principal component space. For clarity, only the more important vectors are shown in Figure 4.4, but these are derived from panelists’ evaluation of 16 attributes reflecting appearance, flavor, texture, and mouthfeel characteristics. The data show that the two full-fat margarines, and one of the 40% fat spreads are clearly separated from the other samples on the basis of paler yellow color, smoother texture, and more glossy appearance. However, this 40% spread is differentiated from the others on the basis of high levels of lard flavor and lack of saltiness. The rest of the low-fat spreads are positioned more to the right of PC1, and were generally darker yellow in color, with a more grainy appearance. The product containing the lowest amount of fat of those tested (i.e., 25% fat) is clearly separated from the others on account of its gelatinous and firm characteristics, whereas the 40% fat located closest to it is characterized by a firm texture as it is based on butter.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Figure 4.4 Positioning of a range of commercial fat continuous spreads with respect to each other

    Figure 4.4 Positioning of a range of commercial fat continuous spreads with respect to each other and discriminating attributes (PC1 vs. PC2). (From Kilcast, D., Crawford, B. A., and Foster, Leatherhead Food Res. Assoc. Res. Rep. No. 683, 1991. With permission.)

    Although there are some published reports on the effects of different fat replacers in food systems, virtually none consider a full sensory characterization of the products studied with the aim of relating that to physical characteristics in order to gain an understanding of the precise role each ingredient fulfills in fat replacement. As a result, the development of low-fat foods is to a large extent left to the empirical approach of trial and error. However, in the previously mentioned study, Clegg et al. (1993) investigated the effects of a range of fat mimicking ingredients in relation to both physical and sensory characteristics. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 illustrate the effect of maltodextrin concentration on flavor and texture attributes, respectively, in low-fat spreads containing 30% fat. The results show that the addition of maltodextrin gave rise to a significant perception of soury, nutty, and margarine notes which coincided with a decrease in vegetable oil flavor. With respect to texture, the incorporation of the maltodextrin at a higher level (15%) resulted in the product showing a significantly increased rate of breakdown in the mouth which corresponded with a decrease in perceived waxiness. This product was also found to have the least gelatinous characteristics of all low-fat spreads tested in this study (Clegg et al., 1993). In Figure 4.7, a principal component plot for flavor is given showing the relative positioning of all low-fat spreads tested. It can be seen that PC2 clearly separates the maltodextrin containing spreads on account of their higher level of margarine flavor, which is a positive attribute. On the other hand, PC1 differentiates between all the samples on the basis of relative intensity of vegetable oil which is a negative attribute related to the ability to break down the water-in-oil emulsion structure in the mouth. Hence, flavor intensity of attributes such as sweet, butter, and salt are inversely related to the vegetable oil intensity and the spread containing 8% sodium caseinate is clearly separated from other spreads in the PC1 dimension in a positive direction. The effects of other hydro- colloids on flavor characteristics of low-fat spreads investigated in this study are to a

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Figure 4.5 Effect of maltodextrin on flavor attributes of low-fat spreads. (From Clegg, S. M., Moore,

    Figure 4.5

    Effect of maltodextrin on flavor attributes of low-fat spreads. (From Clegg, S. M.,

    Moore, A. K., and Jones, S. A., Leatherhead Food Res. Assoc. Res. Rep. No. 715, 1993. With permission.)

    large extent depicted by their positioning in a negative direction of the PC1 dimension, and they are related to the size and distribution of the aqueous droplets, as indicated in Section 4.4. It is apparent from the foregoing that structural changes in the emulsion found as a result of the addition of hydrocolloids were well reflected in sensory charac- teristics, and that the textural characteristics were determining flavor changes as a result of the impact of structural changes on flavor release.

    4.5.2 TEMPORAL EFFECTS OF FAT REPLACEMENT

    Using fat mimetics to compensate for fat removal leads not only to changes in intensity

    of the different flavors but also can have significant effects on temporal characteristics of flavor perception. The time-intensity technique allows the determination of a graphical relationship between the perceived strength of a sensory attribute and the duration of its perception (Wyeth and Kilcast, 1991). The various parameters that can be obtained from a time-intensity curve include onset time of response; maximum perceived intensity; time to reach maximum intensity and its duration; and rate of decay of response.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Figure 4.6 Effect of maltodextrin on texture attributes of low-fat spreads. (From Clegg, S. M., Moore,

    Figure 4.6

    Effect of maltodextrin on texture attributes of low-fat spreads. (From Clegg, S. M.,

    Moore, A. K., and Jones, S. A., Leatherhead Food Res. Assoc. Res. Rep. No. 715, 1993. With permission.)

    Figure 4.8 shows mean time-intensity curves for sharpness, bitterness, and astringency as perceived by panelists when evaluating reduced-fat and full-fat versions of commercial Cheddar cheese (Shamil et al., 1991). The rate of flavor release was greater, and the total intensity of all attributes tested was higher in the reduced-fat Cheddar cheese as a result of a longer persistence time of response. This indicates a changed flavor balance which may have an important effect on consumer acceptability. In another experiment, the effects of two starch-derived fat mimetics, Paselli SA2 and N-Oil, were studied in a 30% salad cream formulation in which the maltodextrin/water system replaced 50% of the fat (Shamil et al., 1991). This was evaluated against a full- fat product (30% fat) acting as a control. Figure 4.9 shows the results obtained for perceived saltiness and vinegariness. The reduced-fat salad dressings containing 15% fat were perceived to have a higher intensity of vinegariness, and a longer persistence time in the mouth compared with the full-fat control, while saltiness showed the opposite

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Figure 4.7 Effects of aqueous phase composition on positioning of low-fat spread samples with respect to

    Figure 4.7 Effects of aqueous phase composition on positioning of low-fat spread samples with respect to each other and discriminating attributes (PC1 vs. PC2). Sample 1, no aqueous phase stabilizers; sample 3, 2%-gelatin; sample 5, 2%-gelatin/10%-maltodextrin; sample 6, 2%- gelatin/15%-maltodextrin; sample 7, 2%-gelatin/2.5%-modified starch; sample 8, 2%-gela- tin/5%-modified starch; sample 9, 2%-gelatin/1%-sodium alginate; sample 10, 2%-gelatin/2%- sodium alginate; sample 12, 2%-gelatin/8%-sodium caseinate. (From Clegg, S. M., Moore, A. K., and Jones, S. A., Leatherhead Food Res. Assoc. Res. Rep. No. 715, 1993. With permission.)

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Figure 4.8 Mean time-intensity curves for perceived sharpness, bitterness, and astringency in reduced- and full-fat cheddar

    Figure 4.8 Mean time-intensity curves for perceived sharpness, bitterness, and astringency in reduced- and full-fat cheddar cheeses. (From Shamil, S., Wyeth, L. J., and Kilcast, D., Leatherhead Food Res. Assoc. Res. Rep. No. 687, 1991. With permission.)

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Figure 4.9 Mean time-intensity curves for perceived saltiness and vinegariness in full- and reduced-fat salad dressings.

    Figure 4.9 Mean time-intensity curves for perceived saltiness and vinegariness in full- and reduced-fat salad dressings. (From Shamil, S., Wyeth, L. J., and Kilcast, D., Leatherhead Food Res. Assoc. Res. Rep. No. 687, 1991. With permission.)

    trend. While clearly significant differences between the control and the two reduced-fat samples were apparent, the Student-Newman Keuls multiple comparison test showed no statistically significant differences between the use of Paselli SA2 and N-Oil. The results obtained in the experiments described above can be explained in terms of the hydrophobic/hydrophilic characteristics of the compounds responsible for the measured sensory characteristics; the relative concentrations of these compounds in water/fat phases; and overall, the impact of fat replacement on the flavor release mech- anism (the latter point will be discussed in Section 4.6).

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Daget and Vallis (1994), in their study on fat replacement in milk chocolate through the manipulation of solid fat index and the addition of a bulk filler, also investigated the temporal effects of such formulation changes. The authors established that although the fat reduction from 35 to 25% itself had hardly any effect, the solid fat index had a significant influence on several time-intensity parameters in milk chocolate, with a lower solid fat index (50%) being associated with a more rapid perception of sweetness, as well as a higher sweetness intensity compared with a higher solid fat index (70%). The above examples merely illustrate the importance of monitoring temporal charac- teristics of flavor perception in the context of fat replacement, but there is an obvious scope for the time-intensity technique to provide a greater understanding of the relative changes in flavor balance in relation to flavor release mechanisms.

    4.6 FLAVOR RELEASE AND FAT REDUCTION

    4.6.1 PRINCIPLES OF FLAVOR RELEASE AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

    When a food is placed in the mouth, it is subjected to: a thermal effect as a result of

    body temperature impact; a dilution effect as a result of the presence of saliva; and textural changes in the food matrix as a result of mastication and the presence of protein and a -amylase in saliva. The perception of flavor is the result of the chemical stimulation of receptors in both the oral and nasal cavities, and while tastes are perceived on the tongue (saltiness, sweetness, sourness, bitterness), the trigeminal factors of astringency, pungency, and cooling are perceived in the soft membranes of the mouth, the nasal cavity, and the throat, and the volatile components released during mastication diffuse through to the nasal cavity, toward the olfactory epithelium. It follows, therefore, that though the nature and amounts of the volatile aroma and nonvolatile taste components present will directly affect flavor perception, the availability of these compounds to the receptors is probably even more important. In physical terms, two major factors determine the rate and extent of flavor release:

    first, the partitioning of flavor compounds as affected by the composition of the food; and second, the resistance to mass transfer (i.e., diffusion and mastication) as affected by texture (Overbosch et al., 1991; de Roos and Wolswinkel, 1994). The effect of partitioning in relation to flavor release has been given significant attention over the years using the headspace analysis technique. However, no attempt has been made to relate such data to flavor release as measured by sensory techniques. Conversely, few data exist on the effects of mass transfer on flavor release, and no attempt has been made to relate such data to headspace analysis. Another criticism that can be made with regard to most scientific research on flavor release is that usually very simple model systems have been used, and in some cases, the levels and/or types of components used were unrealistic or bore little relevance to foods. In addition, the strong focus on volatiles left the important area of the perception of taste compounds hardly touched. On the other hand, research activity directed toward developing instrumental methods that attempt to mimic flavor release in the mouth or allow particular aspects to be studied has been quite significant. Table 4.1 lists a number of useful analytical methods in relation to different stages in the flavor release process (Plug and Haring, 1993). The original approach of headspace analysis under static conditions gave results that were of limited value in relation to in-mouth conditions prevailing during consumption. In order to address this problem, attempts are made to mimic in-mouth conditions (including tem- perature, shear, air flow, and the presence of saliva) with a view to developing a mouth analogue. A comprehensive overview of developments in instrumental methods has been

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    given by Overbosch et al. (1991). Recent advances in using a direct approach of mea- suring the release of volatile compounds in exhaled breath using a mass spectrometer as a detector have been discussed by Reid and Wragg (1995). The authors constructed a membrane interface to allow direct introduction of volatile compounds into a mass spectrometer and optimized conditions for in-breath flavor analysis using different mass spectrometric ionization techniques. Thus, significant progress has been made in the direct application of mass spectrometry to study flavor release and there is obvious scope for expanding further the use of this technique to monitor the effects of flavor release as affected by fat content in food systems.

    Table 4.1

    Stages in the Flavor-Release Process and

    Corresponding Methods of Analysis

    Location of process

    Process

    Analytical method

    Product (prior to digestion) Mouth Mouth/respiratory tract Respiratory tract/nasal cavity Nasal cavity Mind

    Binding of flavor to food ingredients Liberation of flavors Flavour absorption by mouth tissue Transport of flavors to nasal cavity Interaction with olfactory epithelium Flavor perception

    Headspace analysis Mouth analogue None available In-nose MS-breath analysis None available Sensory analysis

    From Plug, H. and Haring, P., Trends Food Sci. Technol., 4, 150, 1993. With permission.

    The issue of flavor release in the mouth is very complex, and a number of research groups have tried to address the problem through the development of mathematical models that could describe the physical and chemical aspects of the release of flavor volatiles during food consumption (see Overbosch et al., 1991). Undoubtedly, this approach could have great potential for use in the development of low-fat or fat-free products, provided that its scope was sufficiently broad to encompass the multiplicity of issues of importance in fat replacement. Currently, research in this area is being carried out jointly by the Leatherhead Food Research Association and the Institute of Food Research, Reading (U.K.) under the U.K. government’s LINK scheme, which aims to address the issue of improving the flavor quality of low-fat foods (both oil-in-water and water-in-oil food systems).

    4.6.2 FLAVOR COMPOUNDS VS. FLAVOR PERCEPTION

    Fat not only delivers its own flavor volatiles but also functions as a carrier for other lipophilic compounds present. These are bound to the fat molecules by weak, reversible Van der Waals and hydrophobic interactions (Plug and Haring, 1993). It follows, there- fore, that in the case of total fat removal, with the flavor cocktail used remaining unchanged, the changed kinetics of the flavor release mechanisms will cause the per- ceived flavor of the product to be changed perhaps quite dramatically. In this context, the effects of pH on flavor compounds need to be borne in mind. Thus, because of concerns regarding microbiological stability, it is common practice to make the pH of a food product lower when reducing fat content in order to ensure a sufficient shelf life. This can have a significant impact on acid-base flavor compounds, since mostly they exhibit a particular flavor only if in the associated state. Since this would depend on the pK value of the compound, changes in pH can result in more molecules in the dissociated state, thus leading to the loss of flavor perceived. According to Bennett (1992), lowering the pH of a product from 6.5 to 4.2 results in a ten-fold increase in the associated form of butyric acid which has obvious implications for fat replacement in dairy products.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Furthermore, the amount of fat that is removed and the amount of water added to a food system will affect not only the perceived intensity of both the lipophilic and hydrophilic flavor compounds present but also the flavor balance. This point is illustrated in Table 4.2 which compares flavor threshold values of flavor compounds when placed in a water medium and when placed in an oil medium (Bennett, 1992). Thus, the threshold value for decanoic acid, for example, will change by 5000% when moving from oil to water. In short, the need for changes in the composition of the flavor cocktail used when developing low-fat or fat-free foods is rather apparent.

    Table 4.2

    Comparison of Flavor Threshold

    Values for Fatty Acids in Water and Oil

    Threshhold

    (ppm)

     

    Fatty acid

    Water

    Oil

    2:0

    (Acetic acid)

    54

    4:0

    (Butyric acid)

    7

    0.6

    6:0

    (Hexanoic acid)

    5

    3

    8:0

    (Octoanoic acid)

    6

    350

    10:0

    (Decanoic acid)

    4

    200

    12:0

    (Dodecanoic acid)

    700

    From Bennett, C. J., Cereal Foods World , 37, 429, 1992. With permission.

    4.6.3 FLAVOR/FOOD COMPONENT INTERACTIONS

    Lipids have a major effect on equilibrium headspace concentrations of flavor volatiles (Land, 1979), and therefore, if the amount of fat in a product is reduced or removed from a formulation, it is of interest to know what the interactions between the flavor compounds and other food components are in order to ascertain the potential implications of using these components in fat replacement. It should be emphasized that the brief overview of current knowledge in this field given below is based on studies on simplified model systems, with the static headspace analysis method being used to evaluate flavor release, and hence the available data deals only with the partition phenomena. (The issue of mass transfer is discussed in Section 4.6.5.) Solms (1986), when reviewing research carried out in this area in the 1970s and 1980s, concluded that proteins had relatively weak lipophilic interactions with flavor compounds with discreet binding zones, but the binding properties changed with the degree of protein denaturation, pH, ionic strength, and temperature. Dumont (1987) investigated flavor-protein interactions under nonequilibrated conditions (as opposed to equilibrated static systems) for volatile as well as nonvolatile flavor compounds. He concluded that perceived flavor is lowered through ligand binding to protein, but that the binding is reversible. Moreover, he postulated that rate of ligand release from protein was a major contribution to flavor persistence, which indicated the need to study flavor- protein interactions in the time dimension. Overbosch et al. (1991) confirmed those conclusions and stated that a low level of unspecific hydrophobic reversible binding of avor compounds to proteins has a small effect on flavor components in food. However, the authors indicated that aldehydes and diacetyl show specific irreversible pH-dependent binding to proteins high in arginine and lysine, which implies that a significant effect on flavor release would be seen in products containing gelatin. While Bennett (1992) is in general agreement with Overbosch et al. (1991), he indicated that as a result of chemical binding between aldehyde- or ketone-based flavor compounds and proteins, a

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    product with no flavor impact could result. Plug and Haring (1993) have suggested that the results of studies on the relationships between the molecular structure of flavor compounds and their binding to proteins have not always been consistent, probably because of the conformational differences in the proteins tested. In the case of starch, Solms (1986) postulated that specific interactions occurred as a result of compounds entrapped in the helical structures of the gelatanized amylose fraction of starch, but, in the case of degraded starches, a loss of binding properties occurs. Overbosch et al. (1991) concluded that no overall insight exists into the mecha- nism of flavor binding to carbohydrates, and that the effects encountered are mostly reversible. In contrast, while Bennett (1992) supports the view that flavor compounds form complexes with amylose, he also indicated that in a system low in fat, it would be expected that a lipophilic flavor compound would not be able to react with the olfactory receptors until a breakdown of the helix structure had occurred as a result of the enzymic activity of the α -amylase in the mouth, which would be unlikely to happen before swallowing. In the case of polysaccharides, due to their highly polar nature, while interactions with lipophilic flavor compounds will not occur, there will be interactions with hydro- philic flavor compounds through dipole-dipole and hydrogen bonds (Plug and Haring, 1993). Baines and Morris (1987), in a study of perceptions of flavor and taste in guar gum solutions, concluded that since, on the one hand, they obtained the same ratings for flavor and sweetness perception, respectively, and on the other hand, the physiological mechanisms and receptors involved in the two cases are quite different, direct binding of flavor or taste molecules to guar gum does not seem likely, especially since the concentration of guar gum showed no effect (up to approximately 1.7% w/v). Overall, it can be concluded that our understanding of the interactions between flavor compounds and food components is still quite limited, and progress in this area will depend on developments in methodologies used to monitor flavor release.

    4.6.4 FLAVOR/FAT REPLACER INTERACTIONS

    The interactions between flavor compounds and fat replacers were studied by Schirle- Keller et al. (1992) in model systems, each containing a different fat mimetic. The following fat mimetics were used: Simplesse ® S-100, Simplesse ® S-300, N-Oil II, Avicel ® RC 591 (microcrystalline cellulose/sodium carboxymethyl cellulose) and Avicel ® FD 100 (microcrystalline cellulose). All were used at concentrations of 10%, except for Avicel ® RC 591, which, due to its high viscosity, was used at 2%. A 10% oil system was used as a control, and all model systems contained 0.5% of Tween 80, acting as an emulsifier, and 1% of a flavor cocktail comprising thirteen compounds; all samples were tempered at 37°C for 40 minutes prior to analysis. The relative vapor pressures of each compound in the aqueous solutions of the fat mimetics and of the controls were calculated from the headspace concentrations for each compound in relation to a water system where no interactions were taking place. The results obtained for Simplesse ® S-300, Avicel ® FD 100 and N-Oil II were very similar, showing minimal interactions with flavor compounds. On the other hand, Simplesse ® S-100 and Avicel ® RC 591 showed some interaction, with the Simplesse ® S-100 showing especially strong interactions with alde- hydes. No effects of increasing sample equilibration temperature were observed up to 70°C for Simplesse ® S-100, thus indicating the very strong nature of the interactions taking place. The authors noted that the S-100 contained 1.72% of fat, and this may explain some of the interactions observed for the nonpolar flavor compounds. Contrary to the supposition of Dumont (1987), no changes in the relative vapor pressure of the flavor compounds over the nine-day period were observed. Schirle-Keller et al. (1992) concluded that although considerable change in the level of flavors used are needed when

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    moving from a 10% oil-in-water emulsion to a fat-free (or almost fat-free) system containing fat mimetics, this would be less so when Simplesse ® S-100 is the fat mimetic used. Another study investigated flavor interactions with fat replacers (Simplesse ® S-100, Simplesse ® S-300, Slendid ® and Stellar™), and the effects of flavor/fat interactions in a system containing 0.5% Tween 80 and fat ranging from 0 to 20% (Schirle-Keller et al., 1994). This showed that the behavior of flavors was directly related to their oil solubility, and water soluble compounds (such as acetaldehyde) were largely unaffected by the presence or absence of oil. For the flavor cocktails used, the protein-based fat replacers showed more interactions with longer chain aldehydes (which would have higher fat solubility) than did carbohydrate-based fat replacers. It should be noted that, in this study, higher levels of Simplesse ® ingredients were used than in the earlier work, and that the tempering of the samples was carried out at the higher temperature of 60°C. No indication was given in the paper that the required shearing was employed in the preparation of the Stellar™ and Slendid ® model systems to achieve functionality (as recommended by the respective ingredient manufacturers). As in the previous paper (Schirle-Keller et al., 1992), the authors concluded that foods formulated with protein-based fat replacers should be more characteristic of fat-containing products in terms of flavor profile than would be the case of those containing other fat replacers; nonetheless, the need for reformulation would remain.

    4.6.5 MASS TRANSFER INHIBITION AND FLAVOR RELEASE

    As indicated earlier, while a considerable amount of research has been devoted to partition phenomena, the issue of resistance to mass transfer as a factor in flavor release has not received the same level of attention. This is somewhat surprising, bearing in mind that availability (or accessibility), as a function of time, would be expected to play an important role in the overall flavor release equation. Considering the latter factor, the reason that the structure of the food would be expected to have an effect is that it would influence the breakdown of the matrix during mastication in the mouth. In turn, that could affect the convective transport of the volatiles to the olfactory epithelium. Although the importance of this issue is generally acknowledged (Overbosch et al., 1991), a certain amount of confusion exists which is related, at least partially, to methodological differences. A detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this chapter, but a few examples can be given. Numerous earlier studies examined the effects of mass transfer on flavor/taste per- ception by relating viscosity data to sensory perceptions. Cussler et al. (1979) established that perceived flavor ratings are proportional to the concentration of the flavor/taste compound and to the square root of the diffusion coefficient, whereby the latter is related to viscosity. Further studies by Kokini et al. (1982), using the same penetration model of mass transfer, showed that increasing tomato solids decreases the rate of transport of a sweetener (sucrose or fructose) to the surface of the tongue, resulting in a decrease of sweetness intensity. The results obtained by de Roos and Wolswinkel (1994) again showed that the higher viscosity of the liquid phase (1% carboxymethylcellulose solution) not only reduces the mass transport in the liquid phase, but also that in the gaseous phase. Furthermore, the authors demonstrated the effect of fat on flavor release in which an oil-in-water emulsion was formed containing 1% olive oil with carboxymethylcellulose acting as emulsion stabilizer. As a result, the viscosity of the system increased markedly, and a significantly higher flavor retention was observed for all flavor compounds investigated in comparison to that obtained from carboxymethylcellulose solutions without oil. These findings, therefore, highlight the extensive impact that a small level of oil addition makes on flavor release characteristics.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    While the studies mentioned above indicate the importance of diffusive mechanisms on sensory perceptions, Darling et al. (1986) proposed a different concept. On the basis of their study on flavor release from guar gum and sucrose solutions, as well as the modeling of those systems, they suggested that, on the one hand, partitioning behavior (which reflects an equilibrium condition) is unlikely to be obtained during the normal consumption conditions, and, on the other hand, diffusion processes are too slow to have any significant effect on in-mouth flavor perception. The authors postulate that it is the surface regeneration behavior that constitutes a significant physical factor which controls the availability of flavor for perception. The surface regeneration behavior will be a function of the rheological properties of the system and for solutions with noninteracting thickener molecules, the rate of flavor release will decrease with increased concentration (sucrose 0 to 60%; guar gum 0 to 0.2%). However, for solutions with interacting thickener molecules (e.g., guar gum at concentrations greater than 0.2%), the surface regeneration and flavor release increases with increases in the strength of the polymer network. Within the overall topic of flavor release mechanisms, the issue of comparative release from oil-in-water and water-in-oil emulsions is worth mentioning. Overbosch et al. (1991) concluded from their model that the release is independent of emulsion type. In other words, for the same flavor compound, the same oil and water phase, and the same volume fraction of oil, flavor release was found to be the same from oil-in-water as from water-in-oil emulsion. However, the above authors were not able to validate this point in the experimental work, where significantly greater release was obtained from an oil- in-water emulsion. The different emulsifiers used for the two emulsions were considered to be responsible for the differences encountered, and for slowing down the diffusion of the flavor compound from water droplets into the gaseous phase. By comparison, Sal- vador et al. (1994) showed that the release of diacetyl was higher from an oil-in-water emulsion than from a water-in-oil emulsion (each containing the same oil volume fraction φ = 0.5), despite the fact that there were no differences in droplet size distribution, and that the same emulsifier was used in both emulsion systems in this study (sucrose stearate at 0.5% w/w). The results obtained led the authors to conclude that this is due to structural differences affecting mass transfer at the interfaces. It should be added that flavor release in this study was measured from a static system using headspace gas chromatography, and no sensory evaluations were carried out. Contrary to expectations, the results obtained by Barylko-Piekielna et al. (1994) in a study on perception of intensity of taste stimuli in oil-in-water and water-in-oil emulsions (again at φ = 0.5, but with sucrose stearate concentration at 1% w/v) showed no effects of emulsion type on taste intensity. Moreover, the differences in measured and perceived viscosity were found not to affect taste intensities studied, i.e., sweetness (sucrose at concentrations in the range 0.5 to 4.0%), saltiness (sodium chloride at concentrations in the range 0.25 to 1.0%), and sourness (citric acid at concentrations in the range 0.15 to 1.0%). The authors concluded that, on the one hand, the relatively small differences in measured viscosity between emulsion types could explain the lack of effect of viscosity on taste, and, on the other hand, inversion of the water-in-oil emulsion in the mouth (due to the effects of saliva and sample dilution during the process of mastication) could be the reason for the lack of differences in taste intensity observed for the two emulsion systems. Further research is required to confirm this hypothesis, but meanwhile the issue of the effect of type of emulsion on flavor release remains largely unresolved. However, while a certain level of phase separation or inversion of the water-in-oil system is a likely explanation, the extent to which this phenomenon may take place will depend on the physical properties and concentration of the emulsifier used, so that the answer should be sought through an examination of the behavior of the emulsifier at the water-oil interface in the respective types of emulsion.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    A few more general comments on flavor release mechanisms can be made. First, a comparison of static headspace data to that obtained from sensory studies is likely to lead to different conclusions since the process of flavor perception in the mouth is very dynamic. If the flavor is to be extracted into saliva, it would be expected that this would be more effective from a water-continuous system. The surface regeneration behavior of a system, pinpointed by Darling et al. (1986), would be expected to have an important role in flavor perception as volatiles need to be extracted into the air from thin layers formed in the mouth during the mastication process, and the concentration of the volatile compounds in these thin layers would determine the rate of release. It is also here that the emulsifier may have a retarding effect on flavor release. The same applies to taste perception where availability of the tastants to the receptors is of importance. From a methodological point of view, it could be argued that the chemical route for studying flavor release is more precise than sensory methods. However, while the latter may lack accuracy, and by definition it is a subjective method, it should be borne in mind that it is difficult to envisage that even future “mouth analogues” could fully imitate the dynamic in-mouth reality. In this context, however, training of the panel, understand- ing of the descriptors used, reproducibility of the results, points of reference, etc., are of particular significance. Overall, it seems reasonable to postulate that for any given system the three issues — i.e., partitioning behavior, diffusion behavior, and surface regeneration behavior — need to be carefully reviewed to determine the driving force for in-mouth flavor perception that is applicable to a particular product type. Moreover, the methodologies used to assess flavor release need to be carefully analyzed before any extrapolation of the results is undertaken. A better understanding of product structure, physical and chemical interac- tions at interfaces, and overall in-mouth changes will help to further our knowledge on flavor release phenomena in the context of fat reduction in foods.

    REFERENCES

    Baines, Z. V. and Morris, E. R., Flavour/taste perception in thickened systems: The effect of guar gum above and below c*, Food Hydrocoll. , 1 (3), 197, 1987. Baines, Z. V. and Morris, E. R., Effect of polysaccharide thickeners on organoleptic attributes, in Gums and Stabilisers for the Food Industry 4 , Phillips, G. O., Wedlock, D. J., and Williams, P. A., Eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988, 193. Barylko-Piekielna, N., Martin, A., and Mela, D. J., Perception of taste and viscosity of oil-in-water and water-in-oil emulsions, J. Food Sci. , 59 (6), 1318, 1994. Bavington, A. K., Clegg, S. M., and Jones, S. A., Physical and sensory characteristics of low-fat spreads, Leatherhead Food Res. Assoc. Res. Rep. No. 695, 1992. Bennett, C. J., Formulating low-fat foods with good taste, Cereal Foods World , (37), 429, 1992. Cain, F. W., Clark, A. H., Dunphy, P. J., Jones, M. G., Norton, I. T., and Ross-Murphy, S. B., European Patent Application EP 0298 561, 1989. Chen, W.-S. and Soucre, W. G., Edible fibrous serum milk protein/xanthan gum complexes, U.S. Patent 4,559,233, Dec. 17, 1985. Chen, W.-S., Wherry, G. A., Gaud, S. M., Miller, M. S., Kaiser, G.I., Balanced, E. A., Norman, R. G., Pair, C. C., Borwankar, R. P., Hellgeth, L. C., Strandholm, J. J., Hasenhuettl, G. L., Kerwin, P. J., Chen, C.-C., Kratchvil, J. F., Lloyd, W. Z., Eckhardt, G., De Vito, A. P., and Heth, A. A., Microf- ragmental ionic polysaccharide/protein complex dispersions, U.S. Patent 5,104,674, Apr. 14 1992. Clegg, S. M., Moore, A. K., and Jones, S. A., Role of aqueous phase stabilization in low-fat spreads, Leatherhead Food Res. Assoc. Res. Rep. No. 715 (1993). Cook, R., Finocchiaro, E. T., Shulam, M., and Mallee, F., A microparticulated zein/polysaccharide composite with fat-like properties, paper presented at the IBC Conference on Fat and Cholesterol Reduced Foods, Atlanta, March 14-16, 1991.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Cussler, E. L., Kokini, J. L., Weinheimer, R. L., and Moskowitz, H. R., Food texture in the mouth, Food Technol. , 33 (10), 89, 1979. Daget, N. and Joerg, M., Creamy perception II: In model soups, J. Texture Stud. , 22, 169, 1991. Daget, N. M. T. and Vallis, L., Release of flavor from chocolates differing in fat composition and concentration, in Trends in Flavour Research , Maarse, H. and van der Heij, D. G., Eds., Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 1994, 39. Daget, N., Joerg, M., and Bourne, M., Creamy perception I: In model dessert creams, J. Texture Stud. , 18, 367, 1987. Darling, D. F., Williams, D., and Yendle, P., Physico-chemical interactions involved in aroma transport processes from solution, in Interactions of Food Components , Birch, G. G. and Lindley, M. G., Eds., Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London and New York, 1986, 165. de Roos, K. B. and Wolswinkel, K., Non-equilibrium partition model for predicting flavor release in the mouth, in Trends in Flavour Research , Maarse, H. and van der Heij, D. G., Eds., Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 1994, 15. Drewnowski, A., Fats and food acceptance in sensory, hedonic and attitudinal aspects, in Food Acceptance and Nutrition , Solms, J., Booth, D. A., Pangborn, R. M., and Raunhardt, O., Eds., Academic Press, New York and London, 1987, 217. Dumont, J. P., Flavour-protein interactions: a key to aroma persistence, in Flavour Science and Technology , Martens, M., Dalen, G. A., and Russwurm, H., Jr., Eds., John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1987, 143. Glicksman, M., Hydrocolloids and the search for the “oily grail,” Food Technol. , 5 (10), 94, 1991. Iyenger, R. and Gross, A., Fat substitutes, in Biotechnology and Food Ingredients , Goldberg, I. and Williams, R., Eds., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991, 287. Jones, S. A., Fat replacement, Proc. of 47th PMCA Conference , Hershey, Pennsylvania, April 19–21, 1993. Jowitt, R., The terminology of food texture, J. Texture Stud. , 5, 351, 1974. Kasapis, S., Morris, E. R., and Norton, I. T., Physical properties of maltodextrin/gelatin systems, in Gums and Stabilizers for the Food Industry 6 , Phillips, G. O., Williams, P. A., and Wedlock, D. J., Eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992, 419. Kokini, J. L., Kadane, J. B. and Cussler, E. L., Liquid texture perceived in the mouth, J. Texture Stud., 8, 195, 1977. Kokini, J. L., Bistany, K., Poole, M., and Stier, E., Use of mass transfer theory to predict viscosity- sweetness interactions of fructose and sucrose solutions containing tomato solids, J. Texture Stud., 13, 187, 1982. Kilcast, D., Crawford, B. A. and Foster, T. E., Sensory analysis of yellow fat spreads, Leatherhead Food Res. Assoc. Res. Rep. No. 683, 1991. Land, D. G., Some factors influencing the perception of flavor-contributing substances in food, in Progress in Flavour Research , Land, D. G. and Nursten, H. E., Eds., Applied Science Publishers, London, 1979, 53. Mela, D. J., Sensory assessment of fat content in fluid dairy products, Appetite , 10, 37, 1988. Mela, D. J., Langley, K. R. and Martin, A., Sensory assessment of fat content: Effect of emulsion and subject characteristics, Appetite , 22, 67, 1994. Miller, M. S., Proteins as fat substitutes, in Protein Functionality in Food Systems , Hetliarachchy, N. S. and Zeigler, G. R., Eds., Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1994, 435. Muyldermans, G. and Vanhoegaerden, R., Gelatin-maltodextrin interactions and synergies, applications in 25% low-fat spreads, in Gums and Stabilizers for the Food Industry 6 , Phillips, G. O., Williams, P. A. and Wedlock, D. J., Eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992, 429. O’Donnell, C. D., Global ingredient trends and advances, Prep. Foods , January, 46, 1994. Overbosch, P., Afterof, W. G. M., and Haring, P. G. M., Flavour release in the mouth, Food Reviews Int., 7(2), 137, 1991. Partel, P., Guerrero, A., Berjano, M., Muñoz, J., and Gallegos, C., Flow behaviour and stability of oil- in-water emulsions stabilized by a sucrose palmitate, J. Texture Stud. , 25(3) 311, 1994. Plug, H. and Haring, P., The role of ingredient-flavor interactions in the development of fat-free foods, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 4, 150, 1993. Pszczola, D. E., Carbohydrate-based ingredient performs like fat for use in a variety of food applications, Food Technol. , 45, (8), 262, 1991. Reid, W. J. and Wragg, S., Investigation of a membrane interface for the analysis of organic compounds in breath by mass spectrometry, Leatherhead Food Res. Assoc. Res. Rep. (in press), 1995.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Richardson, N. J., Booth, D. A., and Stanley, N. L., Effect of homogenization and fat content on oral perception of low and high viscosity model creams, J. Sensory Stud. , 8, 133, 1993. Salvador, D., Bakker, J., Lanley, K. R., Potjewijd, R., Martin, A., and Elmore S., Flavour release of diacetyl from water, sunflower oil and emulsions in model systems, Food Qual. Pref. , 5, 103, 1994. Schirle-Keller, J.-P., Chang, H. H., and Reineccius, G. A., Interaction of flavor compounds with Micro- particluated proteins, J. Food Sci. , 57 (6), 1448, 1992. Schirle-Keller, J.-P., Reineccius, G. A., and Hatchwell, L. C., Flavour interactions with fat replacers:

    Effect of oil level, J. Food Sci. , 59 (4), 813, 1994. Shama, F. and Sherman, P., Identification of stimuli controlling the sensory evaluation of viscosity. II. Oral methods, J. Texture Stud. , 4, 111, 1973. Singer, N. S. and Dunn, J. M., Protein microparticulation: The principle and the process, J. Am. Coll. Nutr., 9, 388, 1990. Shamil, S., Wyeth, L. J. and Kilcast, D., Flavour release and perception in reduced-fat foods, Leatherhead Food Res. Assoc. Res. Rep. No. 687, 1991. Solms, J., Interaction of non-volatile and volatile substances in food, in Interactions of Food Components , Birch, G. G. and Lindley, M. G., Eds., Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London and New York, 1986, 189. Stark, L. E. and Gross, A. T., Hydrophobic protein microparticulates and preparation thereof, U.S. Patent 5,145,702, Sept. 8, 1992. Szczesniak, A. S., Classification of mouthfeel characteristics of beverages, in Food Texture and Rheology , Sherman, P., Ed., Academic Press, New York and London, 1979. Szczesniak, A. S., Brandf, M. A., and Friedman, H. H., Development of standard rating scales for mechan- ical parameters of texture and correlations between the objective and the sensory methods of texture evaluation, J. Food Sci. , 28, 397, 1963. Tolstoguzov, V. B., Interactions of gelatin with polysaccharides, in Gums and Stabilisers for the Food Industry 2 , Phillips, G. O., Williams, P. A., and Wedlock, D. J., Eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986, 157. Wood, F. W., An approach to understanding creaminess, Die Stärke , 26(4), 127, 1974. Wyeth, L. J. and Kilcast, D., Time intensity sensory analysis: An insight into flavor release, Food Technol. Int. Eur. , 239, 1991. Zhao, J. and Whistler, R. L., Spherical aggregates of starch granules as flavor carriers, Food Technol., 48 (7), 104, 1994.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Chapter

    Legislative Implications of Fat Replacement

    Jane Smith

    5
    5
    • 5.1 Introduction

    CONTENTS

    • 5.2 Acceptability of Fat Replacers

    • 5.3 Additives as Fat Replacers

    • 5.4 Other Fat Replacers

    • 5.5 Nutrition Labeling

    • 5.6 Nutrition Claims

    References

    5.1 INTRODUCTION

    With increasing interest in foods that can be used to reduce the total level of fat in the diet, as recommended by many experts including those who prepared the U.K. govern- ment’s “Health of the Nation” White Paper, the use of various ways and means to wholly or partially replace fat in a range of food products provides one of the major develop- mental areas for the food industry. The addition of compounds which act directly as fat replacers, be they acting either as fat mimetics or fat substitutes, have to take into account existing legislative requirements for the use of such products. In addition, changes are needed to product labeling in order to provide the necessary information concerning the composition and properties of the food to consumers so that they may obtain an infor- mative description as to the nature of the product and not be misled in any way as to its nature, substance, or quality. Manufacturers wishing to use such fat replacers must therefore be aware not only of legislative developments concerning direct addition of the compound in which they are interested but also how the food in which the compound is to be used must be labeled.

    ©1996 CRC Press LLC

    Manufacturers find that the use of nutrition claims often provides a marketing advan- tage in consumers eyes; developments in nutrition labeling and claims requirements must therefore be considered. Within Europe, much of the legislation on nutrition labeling results from developments at European Community (EC) level, with the aim of harmo- nization in this respect throughout the European Union. The situation on claims is more variable at present. Provisions in the U.S. are quite different from those in Europe, and may be different again in other major export markets. In this chapter, the legal aspects of fat replacement in two principal regions, Europe and the U.S., are described and compared.

    5.2 ACCEPTABILITY OF FAT REPLACERS

    The most fundamental issue that a manufacturer wishing to use a fat replacer must take into account is whether or not the particular fat replacer is permitted for food use. The wide range of potential fat replacers on the market means that legislative controls may differ, depending on the nature of the component concerned and the food product in which they are to be used. Account also has to be taken of any existing minimum compositional requirements for the food in question. Although the current trend in food legislation is away from so-called vertical or compositional requirements and toward more informative labeling, there may still be compositional aspects that need to be taken into account; for example, the recent legislation on the composition and labeling of low- fat spreads at European Community level. Further criteria that need to be taken into account include the general classification of fat replacers. Differentiation between those compounds permitted generally as food ingredients and those classied as food additives is significant here. If the potential fat replacer is already widely used as a food ingredient, then its use is likely to be generally acceptable, unless there are any compositional regulations that preclude such use and provided the compound meets the necessary quality and safety requirements for food use, such as those laid down under the 1990 Food Safety Act in the U.K. Starches, including those that have been modified by physical or enzymatic means, are generally considered as food ingredients and so permitted widely for food use. In contrast, chem- ically modified starches tend to be classified as additives along with other compounds of interest, including celluloses, gums, pectin, bulking aids, emulsifiers, and stabilizers. The future direction of acceptability of these compounds, certainly within the European Union, is covered by horizontal legislation on use of food additives now in place. When these compounds are to be used at additive levels in a food the situation is clear-cut; any maximum limits specified will have to be adhered to for additive purposes. However, if use is at higher levels than those generally accepted as additive levels, approval may be required from the regulatory authorities. Where Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is the accepted level, this eliminates the problem of exceeding specified limits. The situation with polydextrose illustrates the different way in which compounds can be regulated, as illustrated in Table 5.1.

    Table 5.1

    Current Legislative Status of Polydextrose

    Country

    Status

    Permitted level of use

    European Union Directive

    Additive

    Quantum satis (QS)

    United Kingdom

    Additive

    GMP unless restricted by standard of composition

    Sweden

    Additive

    Maximum limit set by positive list depending on food

    U.S.

    Additive

    GMP in specific foods only including bakery products, fillings, puddings, candy

    Australia