sugar reduction in food products: flavor still rules!...case study 1: chocolate milk for kids 1....
TRANSCRIPT
v
Sugar Reduction in Food Products:
Flavor still Rules!
MaryAnne Drake
Scheduled for the March 2020 Sweetener SystemsConference, a Global Food Forums event
Sugar Reduction
• Sugar plays multiple roles in foods• Sugar reduction IS attractive to consumers
• Low carbohydrates• All natural or naturally sweetened• Across multiple products: ice cream to
chocolate milk to protein products• Sweetener amount and type are important
• Conceptually (extrinsic)• Reality (intrinsic)
flavor
texturestructure
McCain et al., 2018 J. Dairy Sci. 101:8619-8640
Sugar reduction in foods
understand the consumer
1 2
understand the application
understand the sweetener(s)
3
Practical case studies
• Sugar reduction in chocolate milk
• Sugar reduction in yogurt
• Sugar reduction in protein beverages and bars
Case study 1: chocolate milk for kids1. Sugar reduction in chocolate milk for kids
• Evaluate parent perception of chocolate milk• Determine acceptable sweet taste for kids -- and for parents• Evaluate no sugar added options
What Do Parents Think?
1. Online survey with parents (n=312) about purchase of chocolate milk for their kids
1. Parents prefer all natural, reduced sugar, reduced fat, chocolate milk with natural sweeteners
2. Parents feel happy, loving and satisfied3. Consumer clusters
• Traditionalists (n=92)• All natural, organic, open to natural non nutritive sweeteners (n=102)• All natural and fat free (n=118)
Li et al., 2014. J. Food Sci. 79: S1407-S1415.
Survey with parents: Conjoint analysis results
Sweetener is important Followed by fat content
BUT IT’S STILL ABOUT FLAVOR:30% reduction is stillliked by young adults
17 g added sugar
Overall liking
Chocolate milks with different amounts of sucrose
N=120
CHOCOLATE MILK LIKING:Kids Ages 5-12 Y
Current commercial target
30% reduction is also acceptable to kids. Younger kids are more accepting of greater sucrose reduction (p<0.05)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
86 mM 126 mM 142 mM 162 mM 205 mM
Li et al., 2015. J. Food Sci. S1083-1092.
N=110
Application of non nutritive sweeteners: Iso-sweet taste• The iso-sweetness of sweeteners to target sucrose, (lowest acceptable sweetness
for young adults and children)• Stevia: 200 mg/L• Monkfruit: 350 mg/L
• Due to the known off-tastes/after tastes of natural non-nutritive sweeteners, blends of sucrose and each sweeteners were investigated:• Reduced sugar Control (100% sucrose, 26% sucrose reduction, 12.3 g added sugar)• 25:75 (43% sucrose reduction, 9 g added sugar)• 50:50 (60% sucrose reduction, 6.6 g added sugar)• 75:25 (79% sucrose reduction, 3.3 g added sugar)• 100 (no added sugar)
Descriptive analysis of chocolate milks with different sweeteners
SucroseSTV 25STV 50STV 75
STV 100
MK 25MK 50
MK 75
MK 100
cocoa aromasalty
cocoa flavor
floral/honey
sweet
bitter
aftertaste viscosity
astringent
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
F2 (1
7.8
%)
F1 (68.7 %)
F1 and F2: 86.5 %
Increasing non nutritive sweetener increases off flavors and decreases viscosity
Li et al., 2015. J. Food Sci S1083-1092.
Young Adults Acceptance
a a ab b b b
c c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Control MK 25 STV 25 MK 50 STV 50 MK 75 STV 75 MK 100 STV 100
Liki
ng
Chocolate milks
Overall liking
12.3 g sucrose
9 g sucrose
N=130
ba a
1234567
SUC STV 25 MK 257-
poin
t lik
ing
scal
eTreatments
5-7 years old
Overall liking
a a a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SUC STV 25 MK 25
7-po
int l
ikin
g sc
ale
Treatments
8-10 years old
Overall liking
a a a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SUC STV 25 MK 25
7-po
int l
ikin
g sc
ale
Treatments
11-13 years old
Overall liking
CHOCOLATE MILK LIKINGN=150 children
Now What Do Parents Think About The Actual Products?
• Parents of children 5-13 y (n=100)
• They and their children drink chocolate milk
• Purchase chocolate milk at least 2-3 times per month
• Demographic questions and behavioral questions• Evaluated chocolate milks with and without labels
Blind ballot• You will be tasting 3 different fat-free naturally sweetened chocolate milks today.
Primed ballot• SUC control
• The chocolate milk you are about to taste is fat free, has more than 25% less sugar than regular chocolate milk and is sweetened using a natural sweetener (sucrose).
• MK 25• The chocolate milk you are about to taste is fat free and is sweetened with natural
monkfruit extract with more than 40% less sugar than regular chocolate milk.• STV 25
• The chocolate milk you are about to taste is fat free and is sweetened with natural stevia leaf extract with more than 40% less sugar than regular chocolate milk.
Priming Parents
Parental Acceptance of chocolate milks
Segment 1 parents showed higher purchase intent for SUC control when unprimedSegment 2 parents showed higher purchase intent for SUC control when primed (P < 0.05)
A
B AB
A AB
A A A
B A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
S1-SUC control S1-STV 25 S1-MK 25 S2-SUC control S2-STV 25 S2-MK 25
Overall liking - blind Overall liking - prime
Like natural non nutritive sweeteners Like traditional sucrose
Summary
1. Natural non-nutritive sweeteners can be successfully applied in skim chocolate milks • blends replacing up to 25% of sucrose, 40% sucrose reduction is possible
that is at sensory parity with sucrose control2. Both appeal to parents: focus on reduction rather than removal and all
natural label3. There is NOT a one-solution-for-every-consumer
1. Further reduction possible with formula changes*
Case study 2: sugar reduction in yogurt
1. How familiar are consumers with yogurt sweeteners? 2. Can consumers read yogurt nutrition panels?3. What are the desirable label claims and preferred sweeteners?4. What is the ideal yogurt build?
Methods
• Online survey conducted with n=1290 consumers• Two Maximum Difference (MaxDiff) scaling exercises• Kano exercises• Agreement and familiarity questions• All questions focused around purchase and consumption of yogurt
Do consumers read nutrition labels?
Which characteristics do you find helpful when selecting a new yogurt to purchase?
Nutrition Facts 63.9%Ingredient List 49.8%
Label Claims (All-Natural, Organic, etc.) 31.2%Package Size (individual cup, large container, etc.) 64.6%Flavor of Yogurt (vanilla, strawberry, mango, etc.) 81.9%
Type of Yogurt (regular, Greek, Icelandic, etc.) 76.3%Other 6.0%
None of the above 0.2%
Do consumers read nutrition labels?Correct Incorrect
Saturated Fat 96.0% 4.0%Protein 97.9% 2.1%
Added Sugar 83.8% 16.2%
Correct IncorrectSaturated Fat 96.0% 4.0%
Protein 97.9% 2.1%Added Sugar 83.8% 16.2%
Answer Choice Percentage0g 83.8%1g 0.3%3g 0.7%4g 0.5%2g 14.6%
15g 0.1%
Sweetener Familiarity in Yogurt
SweetenerFamiliarity
ScoreHoney 4.6
Sucrose (Table Sugar) 4.3Corn Syrup 4.1Cane Sugar 4.0
Fructose 3.7Stevia Leaf Extract 3.3
Agave Nectar 3.2Sucralose 2.5
Monk Fruit 2.2Erythritol 1.8
Acesulfame Potassium (AceK) 1.5Allulose 1.3
1=not at all familiar, 5=extremely familiar
Sugar Claims in Yogurt MaxDiff Results
ItemAverage Rescaled Score
(0 to 100)Naturally Sweetened 21.5a
No Artificial Sweeteners 18.9bNo High Fructose Corn Syrup 17.8bc
No Added Sugar 17.0cLow Sugar 9.4d
Reduced Sugar 7.9eUnsweetened 7.4e
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
Reduced Sugar Low Sugar No Added Sugar No HighFructose Corn
Syrup
No ArtificialSweeteners
NaturallySweetened
Unsweetened
Zero
-Cen
tere
d In
terv
al S
core
Sugar Claims MXD by Sugar Claim Cluster
Cluster Number Cluster Description n
Cluster 1 reduced sugar consumers 247Cluster 2 no artificial sweeteners consumers 551Cluster 3 naturally sweetened consumers 279Cluster 4 unsweetened consumers 213
Sweetener in Yogurt MaxDiff Results
Cluster Number Cluster Description n
Cluster 1 Reduced sugar/stevia consumers 247Cluster 2 no artificial sweeteners consumers 551Cluster 3 naturally sweetened consumers 279
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Sucralose+ AceK
CaneSugar
Erythritol+ Stevia
LeafExtract
SteviaLeaf
Extract
AgaveNectar
Allulose Fructose Sucrose(TableSugar)
Honey MonkFruit +SteviaLeaf
Extract
CornSyrup
Zero
-Cen
tere
d In
terv
al S
core
Sweetener MXD by Sweetener Cluster
LabelAverage
Rescaled Scores (0 to 100)
Honey 21.8aAgave Nectar 16.3b
Cane Sugar 15.7bStevia Leaf Extract 11.8c
Monk Fruit + Stevia Leaf Extract 10.5dSucrose (Table Sugar) 10.1d
Fructose 4.8eErythritol + Stevia Leaf Extract 4.8e
Corn Syrup 1.7fSucralose + AceK 1.5f
Allulose 1.1g
Kano Results
Must Haves
Attractive Performance/One Dimensional
Indifferent
High protein Tastes good
Reduced sugarLow fatHigh calciumFortified
ProbioticsIndulgentNatural ingredientsShort ingredients
none
Kano Results
Attractive
Indifferent
Performance/One-Dimensional
Must Have
Tastes good
High protein
Reduced sugar
Kano Results
Attractive
Indifferent
Performance/One-Dimensional
Must Have
Tastes good
High protein
The better the yogurt tastes, the most
consumers want to purchase it.
High protein yogurt delights consumers.
Reduced sugar is not a dealbreaker or a delighter for the average consumer.
Reduced sugar
Kano Results: What delights yogurt consumers?
Stevia Consumers(n=284)
Naturally SweetenedConsumers
(n=516)
Traditionally SweetenedConsumers
(n=390)
Flavor is king - the better yogurt tastes, the more satisfied ALL consumer segments will be.
High Protein
Reduced Sugar
Probiotics
High Protein
Delight attributes = classified as “Attractive” in Kano analysis
n/a
Ideal Yogurt Builds
Overall(n=1290)
Stevia Consumers(n=384)
Naturally Sweetened Consumers
(n=516)
Traditional SweetenerConsumers
(n=390)
Sweetener MXD Clusters
Added Sugar Content 2g 0g 2g 4g
Sweetener honey stevia honey cane sugar
Protein Content 10g 10g 10g 10g
Total Fat Content 2g 2g 2g 2g
Saturated Fat Content 0g 0g 0g 0g
Label Claim all natural all natural all natural all natural
Note: Ideal build for Sugar Claim clusters were identical to the overall ideal build.
Ideal Yogurt Builds
Overall(n=1290)
Stevia Consumers(n=384)
Naturally Sweetened Consumers
(n=516)
Traditional SweetenerConsumers
(n=390)
Sweetener MXD Clusters
Added Sugar Content 2g 0g 2g 4g
Sweetener honey stevia honey cane sugar
Protein Content 10g 10g 10g 10g
Total Fat Content 2g 2g 2g 2g
Saturated Fat Content 0g 0g 0g 0g
Label Claim all natural all natural all natural all natural
Note: Ideal build for Sugar Claim clusters were identical to the overall ideal build.
Summary
1. Sugar is not a deal breaker in yogurt – consumers know that it delivers a desirable flavor
2. There is a segment of consumers that want natural non nutritives and an equal number that do not or don’t care as long as the product delivers on flavor and other label claims (eg protein)
3. Knowledge and familiarity of sweeteners remain a barrier
Key Consumer Attributes For Protein Beverages
05
10152025303540
overall cluster 1 cluster 2 cluster 3
label claim
protein
amt prot
sweetener
benefits
N =440
Protein typeand label claim
Protein amt All natural sweetener
n=90 n=160 n=189
Great taste expectation for all consumersIm
porta
nce
scor
es
Oltman et al., 2015. J. Food Sci. S1383-S1390
Ideal Attributes for Different Protein Applications
Flavor Chocolate Chocolate Chocolate
Protein Type Whey Whey Whey or Milk
ProteinAmount 20-29g/serving 20-29g/serving 20-29g/serving
Label Claims All-natural All-natural All-natural
Carbohydrate Content Low Carb Low Carb Low Carb
Sweetener Claims
NaturallySweetened
NaturallySweetened
NaturallySweetened
Sweetener Type Stevia Stevia Stevia
N=1012 consumers
Powders Beverages Bars
Harwood and Drake, 2019J. Sens. Stud.
Maximum Difference (MaxDiff) Scaling of Protein Product Attributes
Rank Attribute Average Score1 A protein product that is all natural 6.752 A protein product that has 20-29g of protein/serving 6.653 A protein product that is naturally sweetened 6.464 A protein product that has 30-39g of protein/serving 6.035 A protein product that is a bar 5.546 A protein product that has 40-49g of protein/serving 4.857 A protein product that has 10-19g of protein/serving 4.748 A protein product that has reduced sugar 4.529 A protein product that is low carb 4.37
10 A protein product that is a ready-to-drink beverage 4.3513 A protein product that has whey protein 3.6623 A protein product that has non-soy plant protein 1.4925 A protein product that has soy protein 1.4729 A protein product that is vegan 1.09
*32 total attributes evaluatedN=1012
Reducing sugar in protein products• Does protein load (15g vs 25g per 360 mL serving) impact
sweetness perception?• What are the differences among natural non-nutritive sweeteners
in protein beverages? • Time Intensity• Temporal Check-All-That-Apply
• What about matrix effects within a protein type?• If I change viscosity, is that a game changer?
• What about protein type changes within the same matrix?• Whey protein, milk protein, pea protein
Protein Beverage Formulation Ready to Mix (RTM)
VanillaFlavoring
Sweetener• Sucrose• Fructose• Monk fruit• Stevia• Sucralose
WaterWPI• 15g or 25 g PROT/360 mL
serving
Temporal Differences of Sweeteners Used in Protein Beverages
Parker et al., 2018, J. Dairy Sci. 101: 8619-8640
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 102
Swee
t Tas
te In
tens
ity
Time (seconds)
Sweet Taste
(Fructose)
(MF)
(Stevia)
(Sucralose)
(Sucrose)
The Problem with Natural Non-nutritive Sweeteners
Parker et al., 2018, J. Dairy Sci. 101: 8619-8640
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Cita
tion
Prop
ortio
n
Time
Monkfruit
Bitter Cardboard Metallic Sweet Sweet Aromatic
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Cita
tion
Prop
ortio
n
Time
Stevia
Bitter Cardboard Metallic Sweet Sweet Aromatic
Lingering bitter and metallic off-flavors!
Reducing Off-Flavor Issues with Blends
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Cita
tion
Prop
ortio
n
Time
Monkfruit
Bitter Metallic Sweet
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Cita
tion
Prop
ortio
n
Time
Stevia
Bitter Metallic Sweet
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Cita
tion
Prop
ortio
n
Time
50% Stevia, 50% Fructose
Bitter Metallic Sweet
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Cita
tion
Prop
ortio
nTime
50% Monkfruit, 50% Fructose
Bitter Metallic Sweet
Sugar reduction instead of complete replacement
Effect of Protein Level on Equivalent Sweetness Values
Protein amount had no impact on sweet taste values for any sweetener (p>0.05).
All samples were evaluated without vanilla flavoring.
77.5a
238a
814a895a
73.2a
234a
860a916a
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Fructose (g) Sucralose (mg) Monk Fruit (mg) Stevia (mg)
Equi
vale
nt S
wee
tnes
s Val
ue
Low Protein Level (15g/360 mL) High Protein Level 25g/360 mL)
Parker et al., 2018, J. Dairy Sci. 101: 8619-8640
What about format? Liquid vs solid
Whey protein models• 11% w/w whey protein isolate
• Three texture types• Thin fluid• Thick fluid• Semi-solid
• 2 sweeteners• Sucrose• Stevia
Sample Vanilla (%) pH Heat time
(min)
Thin fluid (F1) 1.5 6.9 0
Thick fluid (F2) 1.5 6.9 5
Semi-solid (SS) 1.5 6.9 9–12
Wagoner et al., 2018. J. Sensory Stud. 33:1-9.
Role of Matrix• Order of magnitude
difference between sweeteners
• 40-60 times sweeter
• Increased sweetener required with thicker texture
Protein Bar Formulation (15 g protein per 62 g serving)
Protein• Whey Protein
Isolate• Pea Protein• Milk Protein
Shortening Sweetener• Sucrose• Fructose• Monk fruit• Stevia• Sucralose
Fiber
Impact of protein type on iso-sweet concentrations in protein bars
a a a
a
a
b b a
a
a
c c b
b
b
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
Monk Fruit Stevia Sucralose Fructose Sucrose
Pea Protein Whey Protein Milk Protein
Sweeteners are shown as mg per 500 gram protein bars. Bars were formulated at 15 g protein/62 g serving.Rows without a common letter are different (P <0.05).Bars were formulated to sweet taste equivalency to a 10% w/v sucrose solution.
Impact of protein type on iso-sweet concentrations
a a a
a
a
b b a
a
a
c c b
b
b
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
Monk Fruit Stevia Sucralose Fructose Sucrose
Sweeteners are shown as mg per 500 gram protein bars. Bars were formulated at 15 g protein/62 g serving.Rows without a common letter are different (P <0.05).Bars were formulated to sweet taste equivalency to a 10% w/v sucrose solution.
mg sweetener
Impact of protein type on iso-sweet concentrations
Sweeteners are shown as mg per 500 gram protein bars. Bars were formulated at 15 g protein/62 g serving.Rows without a common letter are different (P <0.05).Bars were formulated to sweet taste equivalency to a 10% w/v sucrose solution.
a a
ab
b
a
c c
b
0200400600800
100012001400160018002000
Monk Fruit Stevia Sucralose
Pea Protein Whey Protein Milk Protein
mg sweetener
Summary
• Sugar reduction is more complicated than it looks• Formulation effects (flavoring, etc.)• Format (liquid, semi-solid, bar) impacts sweetener amount
• Generally more sweetener required as you increase viscosity or go to a solid
• Protein type at same concentration and in same formulation impacts sweetener amount
• Consumers have different desires for sugar reduction • Concept and reality are sometimes distinct
Acknowledgements