NEW GENERATION NON-NUTRITIVE SWEETENERS-WHAT IS THE FATE OF SUGAR?

The non-nutritive sweetener market can never be the same after the run away success of Stevia sugars which are to day marketed as a natural low calorie/ no calorie sweetener globally. The dominance of synthetic sweeteners like Aspartame till the arrival of Stevia offered no choice to consumers with diabetes or those wanting to cut down on calories in their diet but Stevia changed all that and to day it is overwhelmingly being accepted by the consumer with least reservation. Probably attraction to every thing that is natural by the present day consumer society is pulling in more and players intent to develop sweeteners like Stevia. Recent arrival of Monk fruit sugar being made popular among low calories adherents is another attempt to tap this rich market. Like Stevia which has complex steviosides that contribute to sweetness, Monk fruit contains migrosides which have 300 times the sweetening power compared to sucrose. Hot on the heels are others like sweeteners made from the fruits of Oubli grown in West Africa. Here is a take on this emerging development which may have far reaching future implications in the low calorie sweetener market. 

Hot on the heels of the stevia and monk fruit revolution is asweetener derived from the West African fruit of the climbing plant Oubli, Pentadiplandra brazzeana Baillon. Oubli has been long recognized by natives of the Gabon Republic, a sovereign state on the west coast of Central Africa, and Cameroon for its sweetness. The sweet compound is called brazzein, and is an extracellular protein found in the pulp surrounding the seeds of the berry. First isolated as an enzyme by researchers at the University of Wisconsin in 1994, the super-sweet protein is now expressed in bacteria in order to lower the cost of production and eliminate the need for farming. After sequencing the DNA that codes for brazzein, researchers could use bacteria as little cellular factories that churn out the highly sweet protein. The newly formulated final product will be marketed under the name Cweet by Natur Research Ingredients, Los Angeles. Boasting a sweetening power 1,000 times that of sucrose, Cweet is promoted as a natural, easily dissolved and heat-stable sweetener that leaves no aftertaste. Stability at high temperatures makes the sweetener appropriate for baked applications as well as beverages. Since it's a protein, it weighs in at 4 calories per gram, but with a 1,000:1 replacement value for sucrose, it is essentially zero calories. 

How far this sweetener will compete with established non-sugar sweeteners is is matter of speculation right now though it does have the potential to become a significant player provided the plant is taken up for cultivation in an organized way. The economics also can pose challenge and the ultimate commercial viability will very much depend on the consumer cost. Though the process of extracting the sweet fraction is rather simple as it is concentrated in the pulp portion that surrounds the berry, still as it becomes popular questions regarding the safety of the product for long term use in humans are bound to be raised. The biggest advantage is that it is the most intense sweetener known so far with a 1 to 1000 sweetness ratio compared to sucrose though it cannot be categorized as a zero calorie sweetener in the strict sense as it does yield about calories per gm but as the quantity required to impart required sweetness in food products is so minuscule that it will not contribute any significant calories to the products. It is necessary that the quest for unveiling many such low calorie sweeteners from natural sources with as high sweetness intensity as possible be continued since sugar cane cultivation is increasingly becoming unsustainable and the population requiring sugarless products for managing obesity and diabetes is expanding rapidly.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

MEAT PRODUCTS AND ANTIBIOTICS-THE LABELING GAME!

Increased emergence of bugs resistant to some of the commonly used antibiotics for treatment of serious diseases in human beings is a cause for alarm globally. While part of the problem can be attributed to the indiscriminate prescription by physicians of all hues and colors to treat any and every fever with strongest antibiotics available in the market, meat industry has to bear the major burden for such a situation because of large scale use (or mis-use?) of antibiotics in raising meat animals. It is scandalous that more than 80% of the antibiotics produced in the US goes for feeding meat animals, under the pretext that meat so produced will be safer from pathogens like Salmonella, virulent E.coli and others. However a reality check shows that antibiotics are used to improve the production economics as the animals grow faster using less and less feed inputs. The hapless consumer, in spite of his yearnings to consume antibiotic free meat products does not have ready access to such products because most of the meat produced comes from farms which liberally use antibiotics in their day to day operations. Here is a take on this vexatious issue that seems to be caught between the powerful meat lobby and aggressive consumer activists organizations.  

"Currently, there is no labeling standards for drug free meat products, but until there is, the researchers say, foods labeled "organic" are, by definition, required to be antibiotic-free. In addition, they say consumers can generally rely on labels that explicitly say "no antibiotics," but should be wary of terms like "natural," "antibiotic-free," "no antibiotic residues" and "no antibiotic growth promotants," as these terms can be misleading. But a coalition of agricultural advocacy organizations – including the American Meat Institute, the National Cattleman's Beef Association, the National Chicken Council, the National Pork Producers Council and the National Turkey Federation -  do not agree that there is a problem. "The research is clear that the contribution of using antibiotics in food-animal production to the human burden of antibiotic resistance is quite small, if it exists at all," the coalition said in a letter to Congress in June".

It is a shame that the government in the world's most powerful country, viz the US is unable to come to the rescue of its citizens through restraining policies that will discourage the meat industry from using antibiotics recklessly. Adding insult to injury, the powerful meat lobby does not concede the point that its large scale use of antibiotics is responsible for the drug resistance encountered in may pathogen infections, in spite of massive scientific evidence to the contrary! What prevents the US authorities in insisting on compulsory labeling of antibiotic treated meat is indeed baffling, the only charitable interpretation being its vulnerability to the lobbying power of the meat industry. Though consumers have an alternative in organic meats, the fact that they cost heavily compared to normal meat excludes many of them with limited income from patronizing such expensive products. Access to safe food is a fundamental human right and no government can shirk its responsibility in ensuring the same, no matter how powerful the food industry may be!    

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

TURBULENCE IN NON-CALORIE SWEETENER MARKET-WHO WILL BE THE WINNER?

Non-calorie sweetener market is considered to be a promising one with many major food players jumping into the band wagon to get a part of the pie. But there is little clarity regarding the likely winner in a fiercely competitive market though Stevia seems to be emerging as a favorite candidate to win the race. It is not that others are giving up so easily if serious questions regarding the advantages of Stevia, being hurled at this rapidly growing sweetener market are any indications. Most serious handicap for Stevia is that it has to undergo major extraction process with alcohol to obtain purer fractions with least after taste, thereby marring its claim to be natural. Here is an interesting compilation on the current situation vis -a- vis non-calories sweeteners market.

FoodNavigator-USA.com did a special edition "Where next for natural sweeteners?" Special editions are collections of previously published articles on topics of interest to this newsletter's food industry readers. Why do this? The holy grail of food technology is to find a no-calorie sweetener that tastes as good as sugar, has no bitter aftertaste, and can be marketed as "natural" because it's extracted from plants. Examples:Stevia extracted from leaves, Monk fruit sweetener. As with high fructose corn syrup, not everyone considers these sweeteners to be natural since they have to go through chemical processing steps. Stevia is extracted from leaves with ethanol. Whether this process can be considered natural is currentlyunder debate in Europe. Some European regulators prefer "extracted from a plant source." Here are some of the articles. For the complete collection, click here.

Monk fruit sweetener firm: 'We hear daily that people are looking for alternatives to stevia'

It might not have garnered as much publicity as stevia, but monk fruit (luo han guo) "has found a niche within the all-natural market but will hit mass market sooner than stevia in this space", according to one leading supplier... Read

Tate & Lyle: Monk fruit sweetener attracting most interest in dairy and beverages

Dairy and beverages are proving the most popular application areas for monk fruit sweetener Purefruit, says Tate & Lyle... Read

Different processes, lower cost, better taste: Is stevia still on track for mainstream success? Taste issues and high cost repeatedly have been raised as possible obstacles to widespread acceptance of stevia-derived sweeteners, but one of the many new suppliers entering the market claims that these are no longer the hurdles they once were... Read

Steviol glycosides are not 'all-natural', says new class action lawsuitA class action lawsuit filed in California this week argues that steviol glycosides should not be considered natural, owing to the "chemical processing" sometimes used to extract them from the stevia leaf... Read

Stevia buyers beware: There are some 'awful' extracts out there...

While traders "jumping in and out of the stevia marketplace" are disrupting prices and standards by peddling some "awful" extracts, high-quality stevia suppliers in it for the long-haul will ultimately prosper, according to one leading player... Read

Stevia in snacks and baked goods - stealth, competition, and potential

While stevia is beginning to take off in a number of baked goods and snack categories in the US, Asian and South American markets, some other emerging 'natural' sweeteners look ready to take it on in the segment, claims Datamonitor... Read

Naturally-positioned sweeteners to lead market growth: Report

The US alternative sweeteners market will grow by 3.3% a year to reach about $1.4bn in 2015 - and naturally positioned sweeteners like stevia and agave nectar will lead the way, claims a new report from market research organization Freedonia... Read

No matter which of the above candidates win the competition, one thing is certain- the fact that there is no going back on "natural" non-calorie sweeteners as far as the industry is concerned because of the huge market volume waiting to be tapped in the coming years. The pace at which new low calorie food products are being launched bears testimony to the demand that is emerging for such type of products among the consumers. For Diabetics and weight watchers including obese people, low calorie or sugar free food offer a life line which food industry is justified in exploiting.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

HOW NATURAL IS NATURAL? A NEW DILEMMA!

With the consumers disenchanted with the processed foods that dominate the market, food industry seems to be changing its strategy to retain the customer base through new labeling tricks. Every one likes everything that is natural. Right? Here is where the industry finds solace and a new approach in marketing is emerging. It is the fear of the unknown that drives people to natural foods and this is also the basis on which organic food industry is flourishing to day. If the FDA of the US is to be relied upon a food can be called natural if no added color, flavor or synthetic substances but whether such a simplistic view can satisfy the aspirations of the consumer vis-a-vis the term natural. A critical question that begs an answer is what if a natural food undergoes modern day processing when some additives like thickeners, sugar, salt, etc are added? If a natural juice is to be produced what one has to do is just squeezing the edible portion of the fruit to get the juice but to get uniformity of the product, derived from fruits of different sweetness, color and flavor, industry is forced to add certain ingredients, mostly natural substances which does not affect the original quality in any way. While this may be perfectly in order what is being objected to is to use the word "natural" on the label. Why not blend juices of different lots to make the final product really natural with minimum quality variation. In the US where there is a powerful legal lobby, such a situation provides an opportunity to haul the industry to the courts for mislabeling. Here is a take on this subject which provides an interesting insight into the working of food industry in that country.    

"In approximately 20 lawsuits, the first one filed in New Jersey, lawyers claim the company adds chemically engineered "flavor packs" to its juice, making it taste the same year-round. On Thursday, lawyers will come together in Washington to argue before a panel of judges about where the lawsuits should be heard as a group. Tropicana declined to comment but said in a statement that it is committed to full compliance with labeling laws and to producing "great-tasting 100 percent orange juice." The orange juice lawsuits are just the latest disputes over "all natural" claims. Over the past several years, a number of major national brands have been attacked for what consumers have called deceptive labeling. Tostidos, SunChips, Snapple and Ben & Jerry's ice cream have all faced similar attacks. The lawsuits have become common enough that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 300 food and beverage makers, had a panel that discussed the topic as part of a conference in February. Lawyers representing food and beverage companies have told their clients to be wary. Part of the problem, lawyers agree, is that consumers are looking for healthier products, and companies have responded by creating and branding their products as "all natural." The Food and Drug Administration, the agency that oversees packaged food labeling in the United States, has no definition of what counts as "natural." As long as a food labeled "natural" doesn't contain added color, artificial flavor or synthetic substances, the agency doesn't object. That's not enough guidance, some lawyers said. "The whole natural issue is a mess," said Michael Jacobson, the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based food safety and advocacy group that helped get the makers of 7UP and Capri Sun to stop making natural claims about their products. Jacobson and others say the FDA's lack of guidance has left lingering questions. One question has been whether a product with high fructose corn syrup, which is made by processing corn but does not occur naturally, can be labeled natural. That was the issue in a 2007 lawsuit over Snapple drinks. Snapple has said it no longer uses high fructose corn syrup in products marked "all natural," and a New York judge ultimately ruled in Snapple's favor and closed the case last year, but other lawsuits are still questioning the use of the term".

Labeling on front of the package is an important means of informing the consumer about the nature of the contents inside the sealed pack which is a constitutional right of every citizen under freedom of information provision. Consumer reposes so much confidence on the government of the land to protect their rights and violation of this trust ought to be frowned upon. If the industry is allowed to get away with breaking this trust, hauling them before the judiciary is a perfectly valid action. On the other hand allowing the legal attorneys to entice the consumer to go to court to extract fat compensation on silly score also cannot be justified. In the present case one is not sure whether using the term natural on juices without adding water or other unnecessary additives is such a crime deserving judicial intervention. Industry must also introspect as to the need to use the term indiscriminately as long as the product conforms to the standards laid down in the statute books. what the regulators can do is to tighten the standards without giving any scope for misinterpretation by the industry.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com