1996 CRC Press LLC

Library of Congress Catalogin

Handbook of fat replacers / editp. cm.

Includes bibliographical ISBN 0849325129 (a1. Fat substitutes. I. R

TP447.F37H36 1996664

.3--dc20

This book contains informamaterial is quoted with permissReasonable efforts have been mpublisher cannot assume respons

Neither this book nor any pelectronic or mechanical, includstorage or retrieval system, with

All rights reserved. Authorizinternal use of specific clients, mcopied is paid directly to Copyrifee code for users of the Transafee is subject to change without the CCC, a separate system of p

CRC Press, Inc.s consent dcreating new works, or for resalsuch copying.

Direct all inquiries to CRC P

1996 by CRC Press, Inc.

No claim to original U.S. GoverInternational Standard Book NuLibrary of Congress Card NumbPrinted in the United States of APrinted on acid-free paperg-in-Publication Data

ed by Sibel Roller, Sylvia A. Jones.

references (p. ) and index.lk. paper)oller, Sibel. II. Jones, Sylvia A.

95-48346CIP

tion obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprintedion, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed.ade to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the

ibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use.art may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,ing photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any informationout prior permission in writing from the publisher.ation to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the personal oray be granted by CRC Press, Inc., provided that $.50 per page photo-ght Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970 USA. Thectional Reporting Service is ISBN 0-8493-2512-9/96/$0.00+$.50. Thenotice. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license byayment has been arranged.oes not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, fore. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press for

ress, Inc., 2000 Corporate Blvd., N.W., Boca Raton, Florida 33431.

nment worksmber 0-8493-2512-9er 95-48346merica 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

1996 CRC Press LLC

The nutritional need for fata decade. However, a thorofat reduction in foods has lament and, in many cases, Meanwhile, in response toingredients has been develoof approaches and base mmodifying food ingredientsover 200 ingredients are noopment, that can be used tbe seen as a measure of tcharacteristics exhibited bya rather onerous task. Meanthe perspective of both the

The purpose of this handas is practicable on the scienthe multiplicity of technolofat replacement. Due care hmultidisciplinary approach.technologists who wish to fing of the ingredients availingredient manufacturers/deindustry. Academic researcof interest. In short, we hopand technology area.

Part I of the book, conimportant in the developmesection includes a historicaassessment of available techcations, marketing consideraspects of fat replacement

In Part II, commercially In a book of this size, it is itoday. We have, therefore, representative of a group ofPreface

reduction in the Western diet has been recognized for overugh understanding of the technical complexities involved ingged behind. This has constrained work in product develop-has led to the development of less than optimal products. the needs of the food industry, an extensive number ofped solely for the purpose of fat replacement, using a varietyaterials. In addition, some of the well-established texture- have been found to be effective in fat replacement. Thus,w commercially available, or are at different stages of devel-o replace fat in foods. The sheer number of ingredients canhe difficulties experienced in matching the multifunctional fat in foods, and presents product development teams withwhile, the issue of fat reduction remains a priority area fromconsumer and the food industry.book is to provide, in a single volume, as much informationce and application of fat replacers in food products, includinggical, legislative, sensory, and marketing issues involved inas been given to provide an international perspective and a The book is intended not only for food scientists and foodormulate new, low-fat food products based on an understand-able, but also for all food industry professionals, includingvelopers who seek information on latest developments in thehers and students of food science should also find the booke the book will help fill an important gap in the food science

taining five chapters, is an overview of fundamental issuesnt of low-fat foods and ingredients used to replace fat. Thisl perspective on developments in fat replacers and a criticalnological strategies, as well as chapters on nutritional impli-

ations, the inter-relationships between physical and chemicaland sensory quality, and legislative implications.available fat replacers are reviewed individually and in detail.mpossible to cover all the commercial fat replacers availableselected a limited number of fat replacers each of which is compounds. The chapters are arranged principally according

1996 CRC Press LLC

to chemical structure, namely, carbohydrate-based, protein-based, and lipid-based. Sincea large proportion of the comaterials, there are severcategories i.e., starcheschapter on combination systhe functionality of which d

or non-interactive nature. considered here since systfunctionalities of the differgistic effects). Furthermoreso far permitted for use in foare: history and use of thfunctional properties; interaand legal status; and select

The Appendix contains their basic compositional pmanufacturers, applicationsby trade name, determine handbook which describes For example, a reader wishwhen referring to the Appreplacers, and described asChapters 6A and 6B for momimetics. It should be notindicate endorsement of thimplications.

Finally, a word of explbook, we have used the termsubstitutes. In this context,which modify the aqueousproperties exhibited by fasynthetic ingredients whichbasis (mostly with a cheminherent low digestibility, wsame time stable at high prso far are not permitted fosourcebook, fat mimetics a

Last but not least, we wtheir contributions, withouTheir time and effort spenaccommodate our editorial

* Since completing this manuscruse of olestra in selected savory** Views and opinions expresnecessarily reflect those of the emmercial fat replacers have been derived from carbohydrateal chapters within this group to represent the different, various fibers, gums and bulking agents. There is also atems. Combination systems comprise blends of ingredients,evelops in situ upon processing, and may be of an interactiveOnly combination systems based on interactive blends areems of a non-interactive nature are merely a sum of theent ingredients used in the blend (possibly with some syner-, synthetic fat substitutes, which have been developed but notods, are discussed. Among the issues covered in each chapter

e fat replacer; production process; chemical structure andctions with other food ingredients; nutritional, toxicological,

ed examples of food product formulations.a comprehensive list of fat replacers classified according toarameters, with details on chemical composition, names of, etc. This list should allow the reader to look up a fat replacerits principal composition, and then turn to a chapter in thein detail the fat replacer or one belonging to the same class.ing to find out more about a fat replacer called Paselli SA2,endix, will find it among the starch-derived group of fat being a potato maltodextrin. The reader could then turn tore detailed information on maltodextrins and their role as fated that the inclusion of a fat replacer in this list does note product nor does absence from the list have any negative

anation is required regarding terminology. Throughout this fat replacer collectively to cover all fat mimetics and fat

the term fat mimetic is used to denote those ingredients phase of a food, and hence simulate some of the physicalt. By contrast, the term fat substitute is used to denote are purposely designed to replace fat on a weight-by-weightical structure resembling that of a triglyceride) but with anhich makes these ingredients non- or low-caloric, and at theocessing temperatures (e.g., in frying). Since fat substitutesr use in foods*, and this book is intended to be a practicalre given most prominence.ould like to thank the authors of the individual chapters fort whom a book of this nature could not have been written.t on the preparation of the chapters, and their endeavors to requests, are much appreciated.**

Sibel RollerSylvia A. Jones

ipt, the U.S. FDA announced on January 24, 1996 their approval for the snacks.sed by the authors of the various chapters are their own and do not ditors.

1996 CRC Press LLC

Sibel Roller, M.Sc., Ph.D.,

in London, U.K. ProfessorHunter College in New Yor1978 from the School of HBaltimore. She then moveMicrobiology from Queen London. While remaining aa Postdoctoral Research AssIn 1985, she joined the Leashe initiated, developed, anof the Unit, she was respoprojects sponsored by the Ument of Trade and Industrmultinational food companBiotechnology at South Ba

Professor Roller is a Feand is an active member ofa member of Sigma Xi, theMember of the Institute of Fof Applied Bacteriology acurrently serves on the Ed

Public Awareness WorkingProfessor Roller has pub

invited speaker at internatapplication of biotechnolognew and upgrading old foomic modification of food pand thickeners is an import

Sylvia A. Jones, M.Sc., Ph

Department at the LeatherhB.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees inin Human Nutrition, at thePh.D. degree at Cranfield technology.The Editors

is Professor of Food Biotechnology at South Bank University Roller obtained her B.A. degree in Biology in 1976 fromk and her M.Sc. degree in Environmental Health Sciences inygiene and Public Health of the Johns Hopkins University ind to England to obtain her Ph.D. degree in 1981 in FoodElizabeth College (now Kings College) of the University oft the same university, Professor Roller worked for 3 years asociate on microbial fuel cells as alternative sources of energy.therhead Food Research Association in Surrey, U.K., whered led the research group in the Biotechnology Unit. As Headnsible for directing numerous short- and long-term research.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Depart-y, the European Commission, and a range of national andies. In 1994, she was appointed to a Professorship in Foodnk University.llow of the Institute of Food Science and Technology (U.K.) the Institutes Technical and Legislative Committee. She is Honorary Scientific Research Society, and is a Professionalood Technologists (U.S.). She is also a member of the Societynd the Society of General Microbiology. Professor Rolleritorial Board of Food Biotechnology and has served on the Party of the Bioindustry Association in the U.K.lished over 40 refereed papers and patents and is a frequentional conferences. Her main research interests are in they to food processing with special emphasis on developing

d ingredients using enzymes and microorganisms. The enzy-olysaccharides to prepare novel fat replacers, gelling agents,ant focus of her research work..D., is Head of the Food Product Research and Developmentead Food Research Association, U.K. Dr. Jones obtained her Food Chemistry/Food Technology, including specialization Agricultural University of Warsaw. She was awarded herUniversity, U.K., following research on extrusion cooking

1996 CRC Press LLC

From 1975 to 1981, Dr. Jones was Lecturer in Food Science and Industrial FoodTechnology at the Agricultas a consultant for several Fellow in the Department o(now Kings College), Univemulsion systems. In additifor a number of internatioFood Research Association Manager to Head of Depar

Currently, she leads a mdevelopment studies in a wiHer department comprisesand Development, SensoryFurthermore, during the laConfectionery Products Pansible for undertaking reseaand has directed a number oof Agriculture, Food and Fyears, Dr. Jones has develoconsultancy activities at thepart of her work is in the findividual member compan

Dr. Jones is a Fellow ofProfessional Member of theof technical committees of sCake, Chocolate and ConfMicrowave Working GroupHer achievements in the fieshe received twice, in 1976 University of Warsaw, andHigher Education and Tech

The main research interemulsions, fat reduction, frelationships in foods. She has been an invited speakethe Middle East and in thepublished in 1977. Since theto fat reduction, and, for confidential work at the Lwith fat replacement and faural University of Warsaw, during which time she also actedfood companies in Poland. In 19811982, she was Researchf Food and Nutritional Sciences at Queen Elizabeth Collegeersity of London, where she did research on the rheology ofon, between 1979 and 1983, she acted as technical consultantnal food ingredient companies. She joined the Leatherheadas Principal Scientist in 1983, and progressed through Sectiontment.ultidisciplinary team of 26 scientists involved in research andde range of food product areas and novel processing methods. five sections, namely, Food Technology, Product Research Analysis and Texture Studies, Nutrition, and Microscopy.st 12 years, she has been Research Manager for both theel and the Fruit and Vegetable Products Panel, thus respon-

rch on behalf of some 400 member companies worldwide,f innovative research projects sponsored by the U.K. Ministryisheries, and by the European Union. In addition, over theped and considerably expanded research and development

Leatherhead Food Research Association; at present, a majororm of confidential and proprietary research undertaken fories. the Institute of Food Science and Technology (U.K.), and a Institute of Food Technology (U.S.). She has been a membereveral food industry associations, including the U.K. Biscuit,

ectionery Alliance, the Food and Drink Federation, and the led by the U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Fisheries.ld of food research were recognized early in her career whenand 1979, respectively, the Rectors Award at the Agricultural, in 1978, she was presented with the Minister of Science,nology Award.ests of Dr. Jones have continued to be in the fields of foodood texture, food rheology, and overall structure/functionhas published and presented over 70 papers and patents, andr to numerous international meetings throughout Europe, in United States. Her first paper on fat reduction in foods wasn, she has maintained her interest in technological approachesthe last 7 years, her major preoccupation in research andeatherhead Food Research Association has been concernedt replacers.

1996 CRC Press LLC

David A. Bell

Dow Food StabilizersThe Dow Chemical CompaMidland, Michigan

Stuart M. Clegg

Food Product Research andDevelopment Department

Leatherhead Food ResearchLeatherhead, Surrey, Unite

Eric Flack

Grindsted DivisionDanisco Ingredients (U.K.)Suffolk, United Kingdom

Jaap Harkema

Business Unit Ingredients fPharmacy

AVEBETer Apelkanaal, The Nethe

William M. Humphreys

Food Ingredients DivisionFMC Europe NVBrussels, Belgium

Sylvia A. Jones

Food Product Research andDevelopment Department

Leatherhead Food ResearchLeatherhead, Surrey, Unite

Pablo de Mariscal

Research and DevelopmentDow Europe, S.A.Horgen, Switzerland

Contributors

ny

Associationd Kingdom

Ltd.

or Food and

rlands

Debra L. MillerBiobehavioral Health and NutritionThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, Pennsylvania

Helen L. MitchellConsultant Food TechnologistKent, United Kingdom

Guy MuyldermansR & D LaboratoryTessenderlo Chemie n.v.Tessenderlo, Belgium

Beinta Unni NielsenCopenhagen Pectin A/SHercules Inc.Lille Skensved, Denmark

Sibel RollerFood Research CentreSouth Bank UniversityLondon, United Kingdom

Barbara J. RollsLaboratory for the Study of

Human Ingestive BehaviorThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, Pennsylvania Associationd Kingdom

Norman S. SingerIdeas Workshop, Inc.Highland Park, Illinois

Jane SmithLegislation DepartmentLeatherhead Food Research AssociationLeatherhead, Surrey, United Kingdom

1996 CRC Press LLC

Barry G. Swanson

Department of Food SciencHuman Nutrition

Washington State UniversitPullman, Washington

John N. Young

e and

y

Market Intelligence SectionLeatherhead Food Research

AssociationLeatherhead, Surrey, United Kingdom

1996 CRC Press LLC

PA

Chapter 1Issues in Fat Replacement

Sylvia A. Jones

Chapter 2Implications of Fat Reduct

Debra L. Miller and Barb

Chapter 3Market Considerations in F

John N. Young

Chapter 4Physical, Chemical, and Se

Sylvia A. Jones

Chapter 5Legislative Implications of

Jane Smith

PART II: FAT

Chapter 6AStarch-Derived Fat Mimeti

Sibel Roller

Chapter 6BStarch-Derived Fat Mimeti

Jaap Harkema

Chapter 7AFiber-Based Fat Mimetics:

William M. HumphreysContents

RT I: FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES

ion in the Diet ara J. Rolls

at Replacement

nsory Aspects of Fat Replacement

Fat Replacement

REPLACERS AND THEIR PROPERTIES

cs: Maltodextrinscs from Potato

Microcrystalline Cellulose

1996 CRC Press LLC

Chapter 7BFiber-Based Fat Mimetics:

Pablo de Mariscal and Da

Chapter 7CFiber-Based Fat Mimetics:

Beinta Unni Nielsen

Chapter 8Microparticulated Proteins

Norman S. Singer

Chapter 9The Use of Hydrocolloid G

Stuart M. Clegg

Chapter 10The Role of Emulsifiers in

Eric Flack

Chapter 11The Role of the Bulking A

Helen L. Mitchell

Chapter 12The Use of Blends as Fat M

Guy Muyldermans

Chapter 13Low-Calorie Fats and Synt

Barry G. Swanson

AppendixClassified List of Fat Repla

Sylvia A. Jones

Methylcellulose Gumsvid A. Bell

Pectin

as Fat Mimetics

ums as Fat Mimetics

Low-Fat Food Products

gent Polydextrose in Fat Replacement

imetics: Gelatin/Hydrocolloid Combinations

hetic Fat Substitutes

cers and Their Applications

1996 CRC Press LLC

Part

I

FundamentalIssues

1996 CRC Press LLC

1.1 Introduction1.2 Nutritional Backgroun1.3 The Functions of Fat

1.3.1 Nutritional Fu1.3.2 Physical and C1.3.3 Sensory Funct1.3.4 Overall Implic

1.4 Terminology and Cla1.4.1 Terminology1.4.2 Classification

1.5 Fat Replacement Stra1.5.1 Direct Fat Rem1.5.2 Formulation O1.5.3 Technological1.5.4 Holistic Appro

1.6 Developments in Fat 1.6.1 Olestra and Its1.6.2 Maltodextrins 1.6.3 Microparticula1.6.4 Fat Replacers 1.6.5 Recognition o1.6.6 Development 1.6.7 Replacing Sta1.6.8 Improving the

1.7 Important Considerati1.7.1 Product Quali1ChapterIssues in

Fat ReplacementSylvia A. Jones

CONTENTS

d in Foodnctions of Fathemical Functions of Fat

ions of Fat ations for Fat Replacement

ssification of Fat Replacers

tegies oval No Compensation

ptimization ApproachachReplacers Impact and other Starch-Derived Fat Mimeticstes

in the Context of Functional Foods f the Role of Established Food Ingredientsof Combination Systemsndard Fats with Low-Calorie Fats Quality of Fat Replacers ons in the Development of Low-Fat Foodsty/Consumer Preference/Marketing Drive

1996 CRC Press LLC

1.7.2 Knowledge of1.7.3 Microbiologic1.7.4 Legislative Co1.7.5 Pricing and M

References

With over a decade of fat ris appropriate to take a comthe mechanisms and the dunderstanding of the develoexperience.

As a point of departurereduction a passing fad? Tbackground to this issue, anscience. After all, it is the cdisease that triggered the sfat), both within the food into produce low-fat variantsclosely as possible the full-food industry during the leffort into the task.

One problem has been ta full awareness of the difffrom a particular product. Ifat variants, it is essential toin this context, to examine

Because of the crucial rodevelopment of low-fat vdepended on replacing the fbeen developed for the spethat have been used for othto play in fat replacementcommercially available or replacement. The sheer numthe difficulties encounteredas a gold standard similreplacement can now be seWith the increase in the numcausing some confusion. Thto both terminology and clfat replacement.

Another issue needing cadopted in product developmto fat replacement needs tophysical, chemical, and sethe development of fat repappropriate now to put thelogical framework by identif Ingredients al Implicationsnsiderationsarketing

1.1 INTRODUCTIONeplacement activities in the commercial world behind us, itprehensive view of the principal issues involved, and examineirections of the progress made, in order to gain a betterpments and draw conclusions for the future from the learned

, it is useful to address first the principal question: is fato address this question, we need to look at the nutritionald, in particular, to assess the recent developments in nutritiononsumption of fat in relation to the etiology of cardiovascularudden interest in food products with less fat (or even zerodustry and among the public at large. The challenge has been with physical and sensory characteristics that resemble asfat standard products to which people were accustomed. Theast 10 to 15 years has invested considerable resources and

hat, often, product development has been carried out withouterent consequences of removing substantial quantities of fatn order to combat that, and hence develop successfully low- understand the multiplicity of functions of fat in foods, and,the particular food matrix in which the fat is to be replaced.le played by fat in foods, it quickly became obvious that the

ariants with matching quality of the full-fat counterpartsat with alternative ingredients. Hence, many ingredients havecific purpose of fat replacement. Others are food ingredientser purposes before researchers realized that they had a role. The result is that over 200 ingredients now exist (eitherat different stages of development) which can be used in fat

ber of ingredients is quite outstanding, but it well illustrates in matching the functionality of fat. Indeed, fat can be seenar to sucrose in the case of sweeteners. However, sucroseen as a relatively easy task compared with fat replacement.ber of ingredients available, new terms have been introduced,us, steps need to be taken toward a more systematic approachassification of the ingredients developed for the purpose of

onsideration is what are the different strategies that can beent and how these have evolved and why. A holistic approach

be considered, and will be exemplified in Chapter 4 wherensory aspects of fat replacement are discussed. Meanwhile,lacers has gone through a number of different stages. It isse developments into a historical perspective and provide aying the constraints and particular problems of fat replacement,

1996 CRC Press LLC

and the driving forces behindetailed discussion on the Chapters 6 to 13.

Last, but not least, whenations need to be taken intoological, and legislative imwatchful eye on changing c

1.2

Up to the 1970s, the issue oexcept in cases of obesityReduced-calorie foods, theminority of consumers whothus were interested in reduweight loss at that time tenfact that fat is the most denand proteins). By the 1980This can be traced directlyunderstanding of the relaticountries, led to significant

In the U.K., this reevalutwo major reports which win 1983 by the National Adand

Diet and Cardiovascula

by the Committee on Mediand Social Security, 1984).toward a diet that would benReport were intended moremajor recommendation of bthe time to 34% (NACNE) othey recommended that theor 15% (COMA) of foodincreased consumption of cowere widely debated and ghad a significant impact ondiet and health.

Similar developments toGeneral published a major diet derived from fat shoucarried out on behalf of thSciences (NAS, 1989) provreport:

Nutrition and Your H

1990). The recommendatiohealth-related organizationsCancer Society, on the baswould be reduced by decre1990). By the end of the 1western hemisphere had drreduce fat intake from the d the developments. This will therefore set the scene for thedifferent fat replacers or categories of fat replacers given in

developing low-fat foods, a number of important consider- account. These need to encompass technological, microbi-

plications, together with marketing aspects, while keeping aonsumer preferences.

NUTRITIONAL BACKGROUNDf fat in the diet and its effect on health was hardly considered, where an overall reduction in energy was recommended.refore, were mainly a small niche market directed toward a were obese or otherwise wished to lose body weight, andcing their calorie intake. Moreover, the nutritional advice forded to focus more on carbohydrates than on fat, despite these source of calories (9 kcal/g vs. 4 kcal/g for carbohydratess, a radical change had taken place in consumers attitudes. to developments in the science of nutrition, and to a betteronships between diet and health, which, in the developed changes in official nutritional recommendations.ation was brought to public attention by the publication ofere, respectively, the so-called NACNE Report, producedvisory Committee on Nutrition Education (NACNE, 1983),r Disease, known as the COMA Report, produced in 1984cal Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) (Department of Health The recommendations of the NACNE Report were orientedefit the nations health generally, whereas those of the COMA specifically to prevent coronary heart disease (CHD). Theoth reports was to reduce the intake of fat from the 42% atr 35% (COMA) of total food energy in the diet. Furthermore, intake of saturated fat should be reduced to 10% (NACNE) energy. They also advised a reduction in salt intake andmplex carbohydrates and dietary fiber. The recommendations

iven extensive publicity in the media. The reports, therefore, increasing consumer awareness of the relationship between

ok place in the United States. In 1988, the U.S. Surgeonreview on nutrition and health. It proposed that energy in theld be reduced to 30% (USDHHS, 1988). A further reviewe Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy ofided a broad scientific consensus for the U.S. governmentealth: Dietary Guidelines for Americans (USDA/USDHHS,

ns of the Surgeon General were supported by a number of such as the American Heart Association and the Americanis that the incidence of coronary heart disease and cancer

asing the amount of fat and cholesterol in the diet (Przybyla,980s, the governments of most developed countries in the

awn up nutritional recommendations advising consumers toprevailing level of 40 to 49% (depending on the country) to

1996 CRC Press LLC

approximately 30% of totalfat consumption to the reco

In 1992, the U.K. govecoronary heart disease (CH

for Health in England

(Depaof premature deaths (in peofigures as a baseline). Dietain a second report by the reference values (Departmshould not exceed 35% of toof 1984), with the consumpenergy (4% lower than in tof the British population wderived from saturated fats

It would appear, therefothe targets suggested by NAincrease in sales of low-faconsidered to account for 3progress in adopting dietarythe U.K. However, the anaof Agriculture, Fisheries anless than 35% of their foomentation in consumers resumers might be compensremains to be established (be to find out the extent tpsychological, response.

Meanwhile, scientific rebetween diet and health waout by Watts et al. (1992), diet can actually prevent na

More recently, the comreviewed by Ashwell (199disorder, it is considered thaThe report concludes that three-stage process startingrosis and the formation of a heart attack. Each stage high blood pressure, high lthese can be affected by coderived to elucidate the reconditions, and dietary comshown to be of importance areduction of fat intake throuof fish oils.

There is a general conseto the aetiology of chronicsaturated fats in the diet, e.a protective role against CHfat diet based on fish are le energy in the diet. In most cases, the goal was set to reducemmended level by the year 2000.rnment issued a set of targets to reduce the incidence ofD) in the White Paper The Health of the Nation: A Strategyrtment of Health, 1992). One target was to reduce the number

ple under 65 years old) by 40% by the year 2000 (using 1990ry targets were set on the basis of the recommendations givenCommittee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy on dietaryent of Health, 1991), which, in the case of fat, was that ittal food energy in the diet (the same as in the COMA Reporttion of saturated fatty acids no more than 11% of total foodhe COMA 1984 Report). At the time, the average fat intakeas at 40% of total food energy and 17% of food energy was.re, that relatively little progress has been made in achievingCNE and COMA in the mid-1980s, despite the concurrent

t foods (see Chapter 3). Dietary fat in the American diet is6% of energy content (Buss, 1993), indicating that greater recommendations has been made on average compared withlysis of a nutritional survey among British adults (Ministryd Food, 1994a) found that 10% of the adult population had

d energy derived from fat, thus indicating a significant seg-sponse to nutritional guidelines. The extent to which con-

ating for low-fat intakes when consuming low-fat productssee Chapter 2). If that is so, a further point of interest wouldo which the process was a physiological, as opposed to a

search oriented toward understanding better the relationships a major growth area. One noteworthy study was that carriedwhich was the first to support the hypothesis that a low-fatrrowing of the coronary arteries.plex relationship between diet and heart disease has been3). While it is acknowledged that CHD is a multifactorialt diet is one component which can be modified by everybody.the development of CHD can be viewed simplistically as a from an initial arterial injury that is followed by atheroscle-a blood clot which eventually blocks the artery thus causingcan be influenced by several physiological conditions (e.g.,evels of plasma lipids, and low levels of antioxidants), andntrollable factors, including diet. A round table model waslationships between the stages of the disease, physiologicalponents. The level and composition of the fats consumed ist all three stages, and overall the dietary advice given includesgh the consumption of low-fat products and increased intake

nsus that the type of fat consumed is of importance in relation diseases. In particular, increasing the proportion of polyun-g., through the consumption of oil-rich fish, appears to playD, as evident from the fact that Eskimos subsisting on a high

ss prone to heart disease and thrombosis than people on high

1996 CRC Press LLC

fat diets based more on satuThe crucial factor, it seems,of serum cholesterol associaassociated with low-densityfavoring a higher proporticholesterol, such as diets inurated (e.g., from fish or ceoil), tend to reduce risk frodants such as Vitamin E, wa higher proportion of satcholesterol to HDL cholestit is now evident that differtheir influence on the leveland other dairy products, increase levels of LDL chstearic (18:0) acids does soof stearic acid, increases L

In addition, there has beof

trans

fatty acids in relaEpidemiological data (Willhigher intakes of

trans

isomthe risk of CHD. Wahle anthis topic, and concluded th

deleterious effects on bloodLDL and HDL cholesterol is a genetic marker for CHDhave given conflicting resumajority of studies implica

this issue. Meanwhile, the plasma cholesterol concent

saturated fatty acids and helipid profile, the intake of

tr

fats is reduced (Sanders, 19In short, while our know

to progress, the adoption consistently lags behind. It primarily by more extensiveof existing or new low-fat fowith increasing availabilitymight more readily adhere

1.3 TH

The level of fat determines tof foods. Before the replacis essential to understand w

1.3.1 NUTRITIONAL FU

Physiologically, fats in foodfatty acids (linolenic and lrated fats (Dyerberg et al., 1978; Dyerberg and Bang, 1979). is the effect of consumption of different fats on the proportionted with high-density lipoproteins (HDL cholesterol) vs. that lipoproteins (LDL cholesterol). Thus, consumption of fats

on of HDL cholesterol and/or a lower proportion of LDL which a higher proportion of fats consumed are polyunsat-

rtain vegetable sources) or monounsaturated (e.g., from olivem CHD (helped also by the consumption of dietary antioxi-hich blocks the oxidative modification of LDL). Conversely,urated fats in the diet tends to increase the ratio of LDLerol, thus increasing risk of CHD (Grundy, 1994). However,ent saturated fats and dietary sources of saturated fat vary in of LDL cholesterol (Richardson, 1995). For instance, butterwhich are high in myristic acid (14:0), appear to stronglyolesterol, whereas beef fat, containing palmitic (16:0) and to a lesser extent, and cocoa butter, with a high proportionDL cholesterol only slightly.en increasing concern and controversy on the consumptiontion to health (Mensink and Katan, 1990; Grundy, 1994).ett et al., 1993) have shown a positive association betweeners (derived from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils) andd James (1993) have published a comprehensive review onat some evidence exists to suggest that trans fatty acids have plasma lipids (i.e., they tend to increase the levels both ofpresent, as well as the concentration of lipoprotein a (which acting as an independent risk factor). However, other studieslts, so that the issue at present remains unresolved, with ating trans fatty acids. Clearly, more research is required onFAO/WHO Expert Committee concluded that the effects onrations exerted by trans unsaturated fatty acids are similar tonce they have recommended that in order to improve plasmaans fatty acids should be cut back when the intake of saturated95).ledge of the relationship between diet and health continues

of dietary recommendations derived from that knowledgeis possible that a better consumer response could be achieved nutritional education and secondly, by improving the qualityods. On the other hand, it is likely that as the market matures,

of low-fat foods to a wider range of social strata, consumersto the guidelines regarding fat consumption.

E FUNCTIONS OF FAT IN FOODhe nutritional, physical, chemical, and sensory characteristicsement of fat in food products can be considered, however, ithat its various functions are.

NCTIONS OF FATs have three basic functions: they act as a source of essentialinoleic acids); they act as carriers for fat-soluble vitamins

1996 CRC Press LLC

(A, D, E and K); and they of view, only the first two mcarbohydrates and proteins)in fat can satisfy those repeoples lifestyles over the have decreased significantlfat (the consumption of whsource of energy, has otheillustrates the relative contrwhich is the average for the40% of energy from food, iFood, 1994a).

The nutritional functionphysiological/psychologicaing satiety. Research has shquent state of fulfillment,compensation and the increin Chapter 2. However, it scarried out using noncaloriAs will be discussed, so farand therefore the studies dare used to reduce the fat cdifferent types of fat mimeResearch Association, supp

Figure 1.1

Sources of fat inFisheries and Food, 1994a).are an important source of energy. From a nutritional pointay be considered as essential because other nutrients (namely can act as sources of energy. Normally, even diets very lowquirements. The overriding issue today is that changes inyears have meant that the requirements for energy from foody. At the same time, the proportion of energy derived fromich, as noted already, apart from being the most concentratedr adverse effects on health) has remained high. Figure 1.1ibution of fat from different foods in an intake of 88 g/day U.K., and represents 38% of total energy or approximately

.e., excluding alcohol (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and

of fat in food would not be complete without mentioning itsl aspect, mainly the extent to which fat plays a role in achiev-own that the consumption of fat is associated with a subse- such that, by implication, fat reduction might lead to energyased consumption of food. This issue is discussed in detailhould be pointed out that most studies on satiety have beenc, nonabsorbable fat substitutes (such as sucrose polyesters). such fat substitutes have not been approved for use in foods,o not address the current market reality where fat mimeticsontent of food products. A study on satiety involving threetics is currently being undertaken at the Leatherhead Food

orted by the U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

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

1996 CRC Press LLC

1.3.2 PHYSICAL AND C

Physical and chemical functhe chemical nature of fatslength of the carbon chainunsaturation, and the distriwhether in the form of

cis

o

will all affect the physical teristics, crystallinity, and s

Furthermore, fat affects thas several practical implicthe food product during paerating properties), (2) posmigration, and dispersion), (e.g., de-emulsification, fat or oxidation), and microbio

1.3.3 SENSORY FUNCT

Last, but not least, fats havecharacteristics of food produsurface uniformity, and crys(3) flavor (namely, intensitment), and (4) mouthfeel (of mouth-coating). Sensoryin Chapter 4.

1.3.4 OVERALL IMPLIC

Reducing fat in a food pparticular how its locationsensory properties of the fimportance of the different food product and accordingcharacteristics determined more complex will be the replaced.

In the development of overall functionality profilapproach was used, for insparticular product applicatiwhereby a full functionalityset of physical/chemical anality profile resulting from a tool in product developmeprofile. Fishbone diagramof fat reduction (Anon., 19

1.4 TERMINOLOGY1.4.1 TERMINOLOGY

Over the years, different terdeveloped to replace fat inHEMICAL FUNCTIONS OF FATtions of fat in food products can be grouped together since

determines more or less their physical properties. Thus, the of fatty acids esterified with the glycerol, their degree ofbution of fatty acids and their molecular configuration (i.e.,r trans isomers), as well as the polymorphic state of the fat,properties of foods (for example, viscosity, melting charac-preadability).he physical and chemical properties of the product, and henceations, the most important of which are (1) the behavior ofrocessing (e.g., heat stability, viscosity, crystallization, andt-processing characteristics (e.g., shear-sensitivity, tackiness,and (3) storage stability, which can include physical stabilitymigration, or fat separation), chemical stability (e.g., ranciditylogical stability (e.g., water activity and safety).

IONS OF FAT an important function in determining the four main sensorycts, which are (1) appearance (e.g., gloss, translucency, color,tallinity) (2) texture (e.g., viscosity, elasticity, and hardness),

y of flavor, flavor release, flavor profile, and flavor develop-e.g., meltability, creaminess, lubricity, thickness, and degree and related aspects of fat reduction are discussed in detail

ATIONS FOR FAT REPLACEMENTroduct must take into account its multifunctional role, in in the food matrix determines the chemical, physical, andood, as well as its processing characteristics. The relativefunctions of the fat in a food vary according to the particular to the type of fat used. The greater number of product qualityby the fat, the more pronounced will be its effect, and theapproach required when a substantial part of the fat is to be

low-fat products, it has been found useful to visualize thee of a product making use of a fishbone diagram. Thistance, by Loders Crocklaan for designing speciality fats forons (Anon., 1994). Figure 1.2 illustrates the basic technique profile for a given product can be translated into a detailed

d sensory attributes. By the same token, a detailed function-the presence of fat in a product can be defined and used asnt for finding ingredient systems that will deliver the requireds have also been used to illustrate the multifunctional aspects92).

AND CLASSIFICATION OF FAT REPLACERS

ms have been used for ingredients that have been specifically food products. This has created some confusion over the

1996 CRC Press LLC

terminology used for fat-reintroduce a more systematwas used for all such ingrreplace fat and principles dehad been directed toward dall food systems. Such an idand similar physical propedigestive enzymes in ordersecond half of the 1980s, thsynthetic compounds such thetic compounds and othewas that only the former wbasis. All other ingredientsality, and their ability to replsome of the physical and sthe food. Hence, the term

With separate terms nowthere was the need for afatreplacement purposes, context. However, many areplacing ingredients, and mimetic, and fat replacermeanings of these terms.

In addition, as a result oingredient manufacturers. Fto describe a system compoils, such as Veri-Lo

100

25% fat, respectively. On

Figure 1.2

Basic fishbone (From

Source

, Issue No. 13, Japlacing ingredients in the literature. Thus, there is a need toic approach to this issue. Initially, the term fat substituteedients regardless of the extent to which they were able totermining their functionality. However, the main interest theniscovering an optimal ingredient able to replace fat fully ineal ingredient would need to have a similar chemical structurerties to fat, but would need to be resistant to hydrolysis by to have preferably a zero or very low caloric value. In thee only ingredients able to fulfill all those requirements wereas olestra. The main practical difference between these syn-r ingredients launched for the purposes of fat replacementere able, by definition, to replace fat on a weight-by-weight, on the other hand, required water to achieve their function-ace fat was based on the principle of reproducing (mimicking)ensory characteristics associated with the presence of fat infat mimetic evolved to distinguish this group of ingredients.

being used to define these different types of ingredients,n overall term that referred to all ingredients used forand the general term fat replacer began to be used in thatuthors continue to use the term fat substitute for all fatan even greater number use the terms fat substitute, fat more or less interchangeably, thus causing confusion on the

f further developments, other terms have been introduced byor instance, the term fat extender has been used by Pfizerrising a mixture of ingredients, containing standard fats or and Veri-Lo 200, which are emulsions containing 33 andthe other hand, ingredients such as Caprenin and Salatrim,

diagram for product development and reformulation purposes.nuary, 6, 1994. Reprinted with the permission of Loders Croklaan.)

1996 CRC Press LLC

which are true fats (i.e., thefrom standard fats designedas fat extenders. Howevewas promoted, and has siextenders. Thus, Capreningroup under the heading lobe reserved for systems comcase of Veri-Lo

.

In summary, the five terbe defined briefly as follow

Fat replacer:

a blanket

Fat substitute:

a synthebasis, usually havingby digestive enzyme

Fat mimetic:

a fat replaality

Low-calorie fat:

syntheglycerol backbone w

Fat extender:

a fat repoils combined with o

It should be added that thefat replacers might lead to included in the above list f

1.4.2 CLASSIFICATION

One of the main characterisimilarity both in terms ofthey have in common is thfulfill at least some of the By definition, therefore, thnot easy to provide a simplwhole is quite unbalanced structure and functional pronly one or two ingredientson a single feature or charabe excluded. Furthermore, tall ingredients currently useconsist only of those ingred

The classification of fat rview of ingredient categorifoods (including the syntheuse in foods)*. The list isfunctionality of the ingredi

1. Starch-derived2. Fiber-based

* Since completing this manuscruse of olestra in selected savoryy are triglycerides) but with a fatty acid composition different to provide fewer calories (see below), may also be describedr, when Salatrim was launched, the term low-calorie fat

nce evolved as a term in its own right, distinct from fat and Salatrim are now more usually placed in an independentw-calorie fats. Hence, the term fat extender now tends tobining standard fats or oils with other ingredients, as in the

ms used to describe ingredients which can replace fat mays:

term to describe any ingredient used to replace fattic compound designed to replace fat on a weight-by-weight a similar chemical structure to fat but resistant to hydrolysisscer that requires a high water content to achieve its function-

tic triglyceride combining unconventional fatty acids to thehich results in reduced caloric valuelacement system containing a proportion of standard fats orther ingredients

current lack of development activity for the last category ofthe disappearance of the term in due course; however, it is

or completeness.

stics of the ingredients used to replace fat is that they lack chemical structure and in a specific physical structure. Allat under certain conditions, they are able to replace fat andfunctional properties associated with fat in a given product.ey represent a disparate group of ingredients for which it ise classification. An additional problem is that the group as ain which some subgroups of ingredients of similar chemicaloperties comprise a large number while others may contain developed so far. In short, a systematic approach (i.e., basedcteristic) cannot be used because too many ingredients wouldhere is the issue as to whether to include in any classificationd, or have potential use as fat replacers, or whether it should

ients that have been purposely designed to act as fat replacers.eplacers given below aims to give the reader a comprehensivees that can be considered for product development of low-fattic fat substitutes, none of which, as yet, are permitted for

based partially on chemical composition and partially onents, and includes combination systems (i.e., blends).

ipt, the U.S. FDA announced on January 24, 1996 their approval for the snacks.

1996 CRC Press LLC

3. Protein-based4. Gums, gels and thicke5. Emulsifiers6. Bulking agents7. Low-calorie fats8. Fat extenders9. Synthetic fat substitut

10. Combination systems

As may be seen, a certabe debated whether low-caincluded in the synthetic fstructurally are lipids, and launched on the market, it icategory of the, as yet, unp

1.5 FA

A number of approaches hsection, the main options w

1.5.1 DIRECT FAT REM

During the rush of publicitythe first strategy to evolve wany attempt to address the the fat. The dairy industry of semi-skimmed, and subs3.5% in the standard produ(i.e., a more or less 100%increase of all the other cchanged considerably the owho doubted whether consthe initial hype period, cmilk, and demand for the rHowever, history proved otthe consumption of reducedmost recent National Foodnow overtaken that of wholIn other words, the strategya major success, gaining widin product characteristics.

Similar developments suextra lean raw beef, pork anare now readily available ina fat content ranging from

Such a strategy is less pophysical stability, functionaadversely affected. The samremoval without compensatype of product, and the leconsumer to accept consideners

es

in degree of overlap cannot be avoided. For instance, it canlorie fats should be considered as a separate entity, or beat substitute category. However, since the low-calorie fatswere assigned a separate term from other fat replacers whens considered more appropriate to differentiate them from theermitted fat substitutes in the above classification.

T REPLACEMENT STRATEGIESave evolved in the development of reduced-fat foods. In thisill be discussed briefly in the order that they were introduced.

OVAL NO COMPENSATION of the new nutritional recommendations in the early 1980s,as simply to remove fat from the standard product, without

organoleptic changes resulting from the reduced presence ofwas the first to adopt such a strategy, with the introductionequently, skimmed milk. Fat content was reduced from the

ct, to, respectively, 1.7% (i.e., a 50% fat reduction) and 0.1% reduction), in effect, replacing the fat with a proportionalonstituents of milk. This somewhat drastic strategy, whichrganoleptic quality of the final product, had many skeptics

umers would accept such a change. It was thought that afteronsumers would gradually go back to the standard full-fateduced-fat varieties would dwindle to a small niche market.herwise. In the U.K., for example, as indicated in Figure 1.3,-fat liquid milk grew at a remarkable rate. According to the

Survey in Britain, the consumption of reduced-fat milk hase milk (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1994b). of direct fat removal adopted by the dairy industry provedespread consumer acceptance in spite of the obvious changes

bsequently took place in the meat industry. Thus, lean andd lamb (mostly in a minced or diced form, chilled or frozen) the supermarkets of many of the developed countries, with

15 to 10%, and even as low as 5%.ssible for most other food products because, for the majority,l properties, and, in many cases, microbiological stability, are

e applies when fat is replaced by water alone. Direct fattion, therefore, has limited applicability, depending on the

vel of fat reduction intended. Since this strategy expects therable change in the organoleptic characteristics of a product,

1996 CRC Press LLC

it can only work well whencontent and nutritional conthe limited number of produways of achieving fat reduc

1.5.2 FORMULATION O

The major challenge in thewhile matching as closelyproduct. This involves the the range of fat replacers n

For most food products, The first need, therefore, in to structure the water phasestarches and other thickenefiers and fibers. The choicefat reduction intended, andmultiplicity of product chathe ingredients available, ana given product matrix. Dunarrowly focused on the sedirections were somewhat lfat replacers introduced to standard functional ingredi

The introduction of nereplacers) significantly incvariants. Currently, as noted

Figure 1.3

Consumption of Food and Fisheries, National the consumer is highly motivated, and where, therefore, fatcerns in general will influence purchasing behavior. In short,cts to which this strategy can be applied has meant that othertion have had to be sought.

PTIMIZATION development of reduced-fat foods is to achieve fat reduction as possible the eating qualities of the traditional full-fatcreative use of established functional ingredients, includingow available.reduction of fat is associated with an increase in water content.order to mimic the quality of the full-fat product, is to attempt, through the use of such functional ingredients as proteins,rs, gums, stabilizers, gelling agents, bulking agents, emulsi- of ingredients will depend on product type and the level of needs to be carefully balanced against their effects on theracteristics. The strategy requires a thorough knowledge ofd an understanding of the structure/function relationships inring the second half of the 1980s, when the emphasis wasarch for an optimal new fat replacer, developments in otherimited. However, once the inherent limitations of the variousthe market were realized, interest in the creative use of theents increased considerably.w ingredients designed specifically to replace fat (i.e., fatreased the scope for matching the quality of reduced-fat already, there are over 200 ingredients with some claim for

liquid milk (g/d) in the U.K. (Compiled from Ministry of Agriculture, Food Surveys for 19841993.)

1996 CRC Press LLC

aiding fat replacement, eithopment (see Section 1.6). Mto structure the water phaseand/or perceived sensory ch

1.5.3 TECHNOLOGICA

The use of specially desigcessing conditions or additality. However, the technoloment strategies. One exampon the principle of employactions between ingredientmatrix, in such a way that On the other hand, the appis not normally used in theneither of these approaches

1.5.4 HOLISTIC APPRO

The holistic approach to fatmajority of food products one fat mimetic has limitatiThe strategy has evolved beto fat replacement gives a sacompromising some of the biological stability) of the chosen fat replacer in conjor the use of a blend of ingrecently, this has shifted torange of standard ingredienproducing optimal quality go beyond the issue of ingfor achieving the required opment of low-fat productseven greater attention musttionality of the various ingradvances in product develoIn general, low-fat productmuch more sensitive to molingredients, and those whimuch more attention needsbalanced physical and cheholistic strategy.

1.6 DEV

Although the fat replacemewas not until the late 1980sically for fat replacement now available for use in fagrowth areas in the field ovarious developments in faer available commercially, or at an advanced stage of devel-ost of the fat replacers on the market are based on the ability toward achieving fat-like structures that mimic the physicalaracteristics of fat.

L APPROACHned fat replacers in products often requires changes in pro-ional processing stages in order to achieve optimal function-gical approach can be extended much further in fat replace-le would be to explore interactive processing. This is based

ing a processing method purposely designed to cause inter-s, and changes in ingredient functionalities within the foodthey compensate for the removal of fat in the final product.lication of a new technology, or an existing technology that production of the standard product, can be sought. To date, has been explored to any great extent.

ACH reduction is based on the fact that, on the one hand, the vastare relatively complex systems, and, on the other hand, anyons in its ability to cover the many different functions of fat.cause in most cases it has been found that no single approachtisfactory final product with significant fat reduction, without

quality characteristics (e.g., sensory, physical stability, micro-standard product. It has normally taken the form of using aunction with other ingredients (e.g., stabilizers, emulsifiers),redients designed for a particular product application. More

ward using more than one fat replacer in conjunction with ats. However, the ultimate holistic strategy, with the goal of

products with low-fat levels or in fat-free versions, needs toredients used, toward encompassing all technological meansfat reduction. Indeed, this does not only apply to the devel-, but to all food product development. In a holistic strategy be directed toward achieving an understanding of the func-edients, and how they interact with one another. Many of thepment activities have been predominantly empirically based.s, because they are deprived of the functionality of fat, areecular interactions, especially those between flavor and otherch affect texture. Thus, when developing low-fat products, to be given to all aspects of the often complex and finelymical system as a whole. This emphasizes the need for a

ELOPMENTS IN FAT REPLACERSnt issue has been on the agenda for more than a decade, it and early 1990s that the development of ingredients specif-

really took off. The fact that there are so many ingredientst replacement means that this has been one of the strongestf ingredient development for some time. In this section, thet replacers are put in a historical context, highlighting the

1996 CRC Press LLC

main events, in order to shoactivities. It sets the scene for categories of fat replace

1.6.1 OLESTRA AND IT

Initially, as previously mentboth physically and chemicould be used in all produneed to reformulate the proand patented by the Procte(Mattson and Volpenheim, triglycerides, and six to eigacids, the chemical structuthat the molecule cannot bethrough the gastrointestinalno calories. Furthermore, ichain length, the degree of to esterify the hydroxyl groheat stable, it can substitute(including in frying oils), a

It was not until the latereducing fat consumption wto become apparent. Its curin food. Procter & GambleDrug Administration (FDA)restricting its use to savoryapproval of olestra in Canawould be obtained in 1995Procter & Gambles patentexpire in January 1996 (Aproducts which require lengthis date, then it would be padditional 2 years from theeven if approved, it is not cever, it is noteworthy that,other hand, a concurrent cfree products, olestra has

For completeness, it shohave been developed. Thesylate esters, malonate esteresterified polysaccharides, (Bowes, 1993). These are dnone of the companies devto go through the hurdles otration, but rather have resigfor olestra. However, it shobetween the companies Arcglycerol, and subsequently dient is to gain approval (A

Meanwhile, the nonavaidevelopments in fat replacew how each development had an impact on further researchor the more detailed discussion on the different fat replacers

rs in Chapters 6 through 13.

S IMPACTioned, the desire was to find an ingredient that would behave,cally, like fat, while contributing fewer calories, and whichct types by directly substituting for the fat, with little or noduct. Olestra, a sucrose polyester, first synthesized in 1968

r & Gamble Company in 1971, precisely fitted those criteria1971). With sucrose substituting for the glycerol moiety inht of the hydroxyl groups of the sucrose esterified by fatty

re of olestra is rather similar to fat. The main difference is hydrolyzed by pancreatic lipases, and hence passes straight tract unchanged without being absorbed. It thus contributests physical properties could be manipulated by varying theunsaturation and the proportions of different fatty acids usedups of the sucrose molecule. Finally, because it is inherently for fat over a wide range of applications in the food industrynd in virtually every type of food product. 1970s and early 1980s, when the nutritional arguments forere being publicized, that a viable market for olestra startedrent status is that it is still awaiting official approval for use submitted its first petition for approval to the U.S. Food and in April 1987. A further petition was submitted in July 1990, snacks (Anon., 1991a). The company has also filed for theda and in the U.K. (Anon., 1990). It was hoped that approval, especially since a second 1-year interim extension to the

awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is due tonon., 1995). Under the current U.S. legislation concerningthy regulatory review, if olestra were to be approved beforeossible for Procter & Gambles patent to be extended for an

time of its approval by the FDA. There is also the issue thatertain whether olestra will gain consumer acceptance. How- despite, on the one hand, its synthetic nature, and, on theonsumer trend in the 1980s toward natural and additive-continued to receive remarkably positive publicity.uld be added that a number of other synthetic fat substitutese include esterified propoxylated glycerols, carboxy-carbox-s, alkyl glyceryl-ethers, alkyl glycoside fatty acid polyesters,polyvinyl oleate, ethyl esters, polysiloxanes, and many moreiscussed in Chapter 13. It is interesting to note, though, thateloping these synthetic fat substitutes have so far attemptedf gaining approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Adminis-ned themselves to waiting for the outcome of the application

uld be pointed out that a joint agreement was signed in 1990o and CPC International to develop esterified propoxylatedto prepare the necessary scientific data required if the ingre-non., 1991a).lability of olestra in the 1980s had the effect of stimulatingrs in other directions.

1996 CRC Press LLC

1.6.2 MALTODEXTRINS

In the early days of fat repan acceptable goal, perhapsstandard product. In many of starch-derived fat mimethurdles to pass over.

One of the first starch-dextrin, which had been p1984 (Dziezak, 1989). The mimetics has centered arouproducts obtained by acid by a low dextrose equivalenDE

1996 CRC Press LLC

developments were on-goinculminated in 1989 with tunder the name Dairyligh

Dairylight lies in the procemild treatment which leads it is not a microparticulatecompany Pfizer relaunchedagreement reached betweenwould produce Dairy-Loof Canada (Anon., 1993).

The concept of a micropultimate development in inproblems associated with fabeliefs were compounded bHowever, strong marketing that fat mimetics were by replacers such as olestra whwere still seen as the idealleading to a microparticulamimic the fat droplets in an based fat replacers were orfor a more detailed discussi

Ingredients, Inc.) and Trailbmulticomponent systems balso started to be marketed form (e.g., the Avicel

ranStaley).

Back in the late 1980s,

opposed to synthetic) charingredient (i.e., whey proteSimplesse 100 and Simple

originally produced only inrefrigeration was probably of these ingredients. (FuSection 1.6.8.)

However, in due course,

sword, since it was loadedto deliver much more than technically possible for itbecoming increasingly appmost cases, other ingredien

1.6.4 FAT REPLACERS

The link between fat replHowever, that an associatioout amidst the current high

One definition for a funphysiological functions of dients which may, in due cissue broadly, it can be arguas functional foods giveng at Ault Foods Ltd., a division of John Labbatt Ltd., whichhe launch of a whey protein concentrate-based fat mimetict (Anon. 1991b). The difference between Simplesse andssing method employed, whereby the latter involves only aonly to partial denaturation of protein (60 to 80%), and henced protein (Asher et al., 1992). Four years later, in 1993, the Dairylight under the Dairy-Lo name as a result of an Pfizer Company and Ault Foods Ltd., whereby Ault Foods

and Pfizer would market it in all countries with the exception

articulated protein as a fat mimetic was seen by many as thegredient technology with the potential of resolving all thet replacement, including that of total fat replacement. Thesey the strong marketing strategy of the NutraSweet Company.was needed at the time in order to combat the general opiniondefinition underperformers as compared with the true fatich, in spite of their failure to gain approval for use in foods, fat replacers. The concept of a special processing methodted form of an ingredient was seen as one that can actuallyoil-in-water emulsion, and hence the developments in protein-iented toward some form of microparticulates (see Chapter 4on of this issue). While LITA (from the company Opta Foodlazer (from Kraft General Foods) followed this concept usingased on proteins, a large number of insoluble fat mimeticsas having what had become the fashionable microparticulatedge from FMC, and Stellar a crystalline starch from A. E.

Simplesse was also promoted on the basis of its natural (asacter, since it was produced from a well-recognized naturalin concentrate or egg white/skimmed milk/sugar/pectin forsse 300, respectively). The fact that these ingredients were a liquid form, and hence had a short shelf-life and required(at least initially) a contributing factor to the positive imagerther developments of Simplesse 100 are outlined in

the publicity surrounding Simplesse turned into a two-edged with high levels of expectancy and hence was thought ableother fat mimetics. In many applications, however, it was not to come up to those expectations, and moreover, it wasarent that in order to achieve a significant fat reduction, ints were also necessary for obtaining optimal quality.

IN THE CONTEXT OF FUNCTIONAL FOODSacers and functional foods has not previously been made.n does exist, as will be demonstrated here, is worth pointing level of interest in functional foods.ctional food states that it is a food which positively affectsthe body in a targeted way as a result of it containing ingre-ourse, justify health claims (Roberfroid, 1995). Taking thised that all foods with reduced fat content can be considered

the nutritional benefits of fat reduction as discussed in

1996 CRC Press LLC

Section 1.1. Most of the inspecial positive physiologicclaim such benefits since thdisease prevention, particulet al., 1993; Stark and Mad

Thus, a number of fat redifferent sources, such as oAdvanced Oat Fibers manufwere first introduced in 198

to have cholesterol-lowerinand patented by the U.S. Dmodification of oat starch

glucan (Inglett and GrisamCompany are currently profiber ingredient, Fibercel, d90%

-glucan obtained froof cellulose-based fat replAppendix). Moreover, in th

from Orafti, Belgium, and F

benefits arise from their bifi

1.6.5 RECOGNITION OFOOD INGREDIE

Gradually, the realities of tingredient can solve it allcommercial pressures were50% mark, thus making it evstrategy in which ingrediebulking agents, along with crucial roles. Previously, thtation toward discovering t

However, the importantwhen examining low-fat or1992). While in many casesoped purposely for replacinstructuring the water phaseVinaigrette Style Fat-Free Dlizers, thickeners and emureplacement. That is why thin the classification of ingragents and emulsifiers are based stabilizers, and their and 7B. The scope for utilizhighlighted in 1991 by the c

by Hercules, Inc., and mark

1.6.6 DEVELOPMENT O

The launch of the N-Lite raration in January 1992, asingredients for fat replacemestablished a new trend. Thgredients used to replace fat, of course, do not provide anyal benefits themselves. However, fiber-based fat replacers canere is a growing recognition for the role of dietary fiber in

arly in relation to colonic cancer and heart disease (e.g., Aspar, 1994; Kritchesky, 1994).placers have been launched based on fiber from a number ofats, sugar beet, soy beans, almonds, and peas. For instance,actured by the company Williamson Fiber Products in Ireland8. Oat fiber is also a good source of b-glucan which is claimedg properties (Duxbury, 1990). Oatrim fat replacer, developed

epartment of Agriculture is obtained through the enzymicin the oat flour or bran, and contains from 1 to 10% of b-ore, 1991). Both ConAgra and Rhne-Poulenc/Quaker Oatsducing Oatrim under separate license agreements. Anothereveloped by Alpha-Beta Technologies, is composed of 85 tom a food-grade yeast product (Jamas et al., 1990). A rangeacers should also be mentioned as a source of fiber (seee particular case of inulin fat replacers (for instance Raftilineibruline from Cosucra SA, Belgium), positive physiologicaldus stimulating properties (Roberfroid, 1995).

F THE ROLE OF ESTABLISHED NTShe market place began to shift away from the mythical one and toward a more holistic strategy. Moreover, meanwhile, moving the goal-posts of fat reduction to well beyond theen more difficult to achieve fat replacement without a holistic

nts such as, gums, emulsifiers, thickeners, stabilizers, andgelatin and other proteins and untreated starches could playis group of ingredients had been overshadowed by the orien-he optimal fat replacer. role of these well-established ingredients is clearly evident zero-fat products currently on the market (Bavington et al.,, these ingredients are used in conjunction with those devel-g fat, in some products, fat reduction has been achieved by

using only gums and stabilizers (e.g., Krafts Free Choiceressing). Thus, the role of ingredients such as gums, stabi-

lsifiers needs to be firmly emphasized in the context of fatis group of ingredients has been placed in a separate categoryedients given earlier. Details on the uses of gums, bulkinggiven in Chapters 9, 10, and 11, respectively, and cellulose-use for fat mimicking purposes, is discussed in Chapters 7Aing functional food ingredients in fat replacement was furtherommercialization of Slendid, a proprietary pectin developedeted by Copenhagen Pectin A/S (see Chapter 7C).

F COMBINATION SYSTEMSnge of fat mimetics by National Starch & Chemical Corpo- well as widening the scope for the use of starch-derived

ent purposes, was of considerable significance because itis was the development of combination systems (i.e., blends

1996 CRC Press LLC

of ingredients) for use in faN-Lite F, specifically desigwas a blend of modified staeffect, therefore, the necesacknowledged. Most notabhave a useful role in fat rep

In fact, some blends werin the second half of the 1search for the single magiuse of blends as fat replacerhas been to prepare a formcould be more universally alatter approach has tended included as ingredients arestandard protein sources (son the market).

Most combination systeingredient has its particularis devised to result in optimcombination systems, is baents interact during processhave been expected from eaof an interactive combinati

Belgium, at the end of 19performance is based on thloids, which, in turn, leads t

The advantage of blendsdevelop new low-fat or fatnificant development work a blend might prove too inflthe precise composition of of using a range of ingrediin the full-fat product goesnecessary by early 1990s, bdue to new legislative restrfat reduction had moved ye

1.6.7 REPLACING STA

The concept of replacing faBy that time, the likelihoodshort time-scale was dwindthe commercially availablement, and, moreover, their In this context, the idea ochanging the composition oto achieve caloric reductiomedium-chain triglyceridesacids, are GRAS ingredientreating patients suffering fmulae) was a distinct advprovide energy (8.3 kcal/g)t replacement in specific product applications. For example,ned for use in icings, fillings, frozen desserts and dry mixes,rch, non-fat milk solids, polyglycerol ester and guar gum. Insity for the holistic approach to fat replacement has beenly, it was in this context that modified starch was shown tolacement.

e on the market before 1992. Indeed, a number were launched980s, but received few headlines, because, at the time, thec ingredient was the dominant theme. Developments in thes have taken a number of forms, but, in the main, the approachulation containing three or more ingredients which, either

pplied, or, were designed for a specific product category. Theto dominate (for obvious reasons), and the blends typically gums, stabilizers, thickeners, and emulsifiers, together withee Appendix for a list of blended ingredient systems that are

ms are composed using a passive approach, whereby each functionality, and it is the sum of those functionalities thatal product characteristics. However, one group, interactive

sed on the principle that a particular combination of ingredi-ing, resulting in different characteristics to those that wouldch of the ingredients separately or together. A good exampleon system is the Slimgel range launched by P.B. Gelatins,93. It is composed of gelatin and galactomannans, and itsermodynamic incompatibility between these two hydrocol-

o phase separation (Muyldermans, 1993, see also Chapter 12)., ideally, is that they shorten the time and effort required to

-free products. However, the disadvantage is that when sig-is required to best match a given full-fat variant, the use ofexible, and inhibit the ingredient optimization process, sincethe main functional system used is not known. The conceptents in an attempt to reproduce the different functions of fat some way toward a holistic strategy. This was particularlyy which time, partly due to commercial pressures and partlyictions regarding claims (see Chapter 5), the goal-posts fort again, this time toward the ultimate limit i.e., zero fat.

NDARD FATS WITH LOW-CALORIE FATSt with a low-calorie fat entered the scene in the early 1990s. of obtaining FDA approval for the use of olestra within aling rapidly, and, on the other hand, it was recognized that

fat mimetics did not provide an easy answer to fat replace-use was restricted, in general, to water-based food systems.f using the basic structure of a triglyceride molecule, butf the fatty acids esterified with the glycerol backbone in ordern appeared to be very plausible. Moreover, the fact that, which usually comprise caprylic (C8) and capric (C10) fattyts with a 35-year track record in clinical medicine (e.g., forrom lipid malabsorption symptoms or for use in infant for-antage (Latta, 1990; Megremis, 1991). These compounds but are metabolized through the liver, and are characterized

1996 CRC Press LLC

by a low tendency for becomchain triglycerides are ma(Captex 300, 350 and 355(Neobee

M-5). However, ato the use of medium-chainacids released give strong o

The concept of using me(e.g., behenic acid C22)Products, Inc. and commebehenic acid (which is onlcapric acids, gives further conly 5 kcal/g (Peters et aCaprenin is given in Chaptfor cocoa butter in the proda test market area in the UReduced Calorie and Fat Cawith polydextrose to achievproduct. However, since theof Caprenin as a fat replace

The most recent additioNabisco Foods Group in c1994. Salatrim is a family o(predominantly stearic acidacid, and/or butyric acid) ethe caloric value of Salatrimcommercial availability of Sit is made from natural sublished interesterification preffects were observed in aniSalatrim was found to be wthe time of writing, Nabiscby mid-1995, and Pfizer Focheeses, baked goods and taof Salatrim into frying oilshow whether low-calorie findustry.

1.6.8 IMPROVING THE

Developments of fat replacingredients. In addition, mimprove further the qualityease of use and heat stabilThree trends can be identifieof use during product manu

Instantization is an obvioa number of ingredient manThis is evident from the lis

The second trend can bhowever good, can mimic aproduct. Thus, one or moreing incorporated into tissue as depot fat. Currently, medium-rketed by the U.S. company Karlshamns Food Ingredients, now known as AKomed range) and by Stepan Companys pointed out by Thayer (1992), there are certain limitations triglycerides in foods since, upon hydrolysis, the free fattyff-flavors.dium-chain triglycerides together with long-chain fatty acids was developed jointly by Procter & Gamble and Grinstedrcialized under the name Caprenin. The incorporation ofy partially absorbed in the gut), together with caprylic andaloric reduction, and the net result is that Caprenin provides

l., 1991; Webb and Sanders, 1991). More information oner 13. Caprenin has been used commercially as a substituteuct Milky Way II produced by M & M Mars (introduced into.S. in March 1992), and (in September 1992) in Hersheysndy Bar. In both cases, the Caprenin was used in conjunction

e a 25% reduction in caloric value compared with the standardn, there seems to have been no apparent progress in the user.

n to the low-calorie fat category is Salatrim, developed byonjunction with Pfizer Food Science, and launched in Julyf triglycerides comprising mixtures of long-chain fatty acids) and short-chain fatty acids (mainly acetic acid, propionic

sterified with glycerol. As a result of this chemical structure, is 5 kcal/g (Smith et al., 1994). It is not expected that thealatrim will be hindered by the FDA approval process since

stances commonly used in foods and produced by an estab-ocess (petition filed with the FDA in mid-1994). No toxicmal studies of up to 13 weeks duration and in clinical studies,ell tolerated in doses of up to 30 g/d (Smith et al., 1994). Ato was hoping to launch chocolate bars containing Salatrimod Science was planning subsequently to launch ice cream,ble spreads made from Salatrim. However, the incorporation

s has not been suggested (see Chapter 13). The future willats will be seen as a commercially viable option for the food

QUALITY OF FAT REPLACERSers have not only been confined to the development of newuch effort has been made by ingredient manufacturers to of the existing fat replacers in terms of their functionality,ity, with the aim of expanding their industrial applications.d: instantization; alterations in functionality profile; and easefacture.us and well-established route for ingredient extension. Thus,

ufacturers have launched instant versions of their fat mimetic.t of fat replacers given in the Appendix.e seen as a reflection of the realization that no fat mimetic,ll the functional characteristics provided by a fat in a given

other ingredients were being added to alter and improve the

1996 CRC Press LLC

functionality profile providefat-like property (e.g., devbased on Avicel

). The extrof blends, as discussed abo

The need for ingredienproducts was especially in with the fact that the use ositated either the preparatisolution, prior to addition tRaftiline

, and the high shHence, the subsequent devemanufacture while providimarket (e.g., Raftiline

HPIn the overall context of

Simplesse

deserves speci

which was commercializedlow heat resistance, was de

UHT pasteurization or reto

1.7 IMPORTANT

A reduced-fat food producmore often than not has diffretailers, and consumers. Fand manufacturing practicecations. A change in pack dprotection or a reduced paccases, changes in temperatu

While achieving optimathe pursuit of fat reductioningredients function, and, ttions, appropriately designifollowing discussion.

1.7.1 PRODUCT QUAL

Clearly, the organoleptic psuccess or failure of the pinstance) to sacrifice tasteChapter 4 for a detailed discHowever, the success of thewhich, as noted already, resumer perceptions and likithere is already some evidena medium, as opposed to thMela and Marshall, 1992).apparently beginning to havfor foods with healthier nupreferences. Thus, increasechanges in preferences, whd by the original ingredient in order to obtain some additionalelopment of the Novagel range of fat replacers by F.M.C.,

eme form of this trend was its extension into the developmentve.ts which were easy to use during the manufacture of foodevidence during the first half of the 1990s. This is associatedf many of the fat replacers that have been developed neces-on of a solution and/or special processing when placed ino other ingredients, e.g., the Rafticreming stage required forearing (8000 psi) required for Stellar (Pszczola, 1991).lopments aimed to remove these additional stages in productng the expected functionality, and new variants entered the and Instant Stellar). improvements in the quality and flexibility of fat replacers,al mention, since the original ingredient (Simplesse 100) in a liquid form (42.5% solids) with a short shelf-life andveloped into a dry form (Simplesse 100D) able to withstandrting, without loss of functionality.

CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOW-FAT FOODS

t, when compared with the standard product it is replacing,erent requirements from the points of view of manufacturers,or instance, a change in the technology used in manufacture may be required, which, furthermore, might have cost impli-esign, e.g., with improved barrier properties, greater physicalk size, may be called for where shelf-life is reduced. In somere or timescale of distribution may be necessary.l product quality is obviously the primary consideration in, it is crucial to base this on an understanding of how theaking into account microbiological and legislative implica-ng a marketing strategy. These issues are highlighted in the

ITY/CONSUMER PREFERENCE/MARKETING DRIVEroperties of the low-fat product ultimately determine theroduct, since consumers are unlikely (at least in the first

and quality in order to reduce calories in their diet (seeussion on sensory aspects of fat reduction and flavor release). dairy industry in applying the strategy of direct fat removal,sulted in dramatic organoleptic changes, suggests that con-ng of high-fat products can be modified over time. Indeed,ce that consumer preference is shifting toward products with

ose containing a higher level of fat (Wyeth and Kilcast, 1991; In other words, consumers attitudes to health and diet aree a significant influence on food choice, and a greater desiretritional characteristics is starting to influence organolepticd consumption of some low-fat product variants can causeich, in turn, changes acceptability patterns. It can be argued,

1996 CRC Press LLC

therefore, that for these patreduction may be the key tfat-free variants may be see

The positioning of a parlevel of fat reduction requifat levels should be balanceto explain why some of thefrom the equivalent standarothers.

1.7.2 KNOWLEDGE OF

When developing a producof a fat replacer, it is of conand chemical characteristicsinteractions with other foodbe for the processing operemployed in order to achie

Thus, a full knowledge narrow down the number ofif product development isadjustments in other ingredguided by a knowledge of far as the processing meththe standard method mightbe to consider other techndevising a new technology

1.7.3 MICROBIOLOGIC

A reduction in fat content simultaneous increase in mand hence the safety of thefat spreads require the addinormally necessary for full-shelf-life. Similarly, many leration after opening. In othchange the way in which thit has to be ensured that co

It is well recognized thatreatment are the main facHowever, it should be menused in the food industry considered inadequate by sglass transition temperatursuggests that change in wamoisture products, is relateis related to the glass-rubbetemperature to changes in topic. Meanwhile, thereformicrobiological stability.terns to emerge, the quality of the products with medium fato future developments. In this context, the market drive forn as being premature for some product categories.ticular product in the diet should, in principle, determine thered and the product quality that can be achieved at differentd against that before making a marketing decision. This helps fat-free variants, despite apparently different characteristicsd product, appear to be of greater appeal to consumers than

INGREDIENTSt where fat reduction is achieved through the incorporationsiderable importance to know or establish: first, the physical of the functional ingredients used; second, what the possible components might be; and third, what the implications mightations, i.e., what changes in processing might need to beve maximum functionality.of a range of fat replacers, which can be used effectively to fat replacers suitable for a particular product type, is essential to be carried out in an efficient manner. Moreover, anyients present in the standard full-fat formulation need to be

their functionality. It is important to be especially flexible asod is concerned, since, in some cases, small adjustments in be required, whereas in others, the optimal solution mightological options (e.g., through technology transfer, or byaltogether).

AL IMPLICATIONSin a given product formulation is usually associated with aoisture content, which thus affects microbiological stability, product must be given due consideration. For example, low-tion of a preservative such as potassium sorbate which is notfat margarine, and, moreover, they have a considerably shorterow-fat dressings, unlike the full-fat equivalent, require refrig-er words, for many reduced-fat products, consumers have to

ey use the product compared with the full-fat equivalent, andnsumers are aware of that.t water activity, acidity, preservatives, and the extent of heattors affecting product shelf-life and microbiological safety.tioned that although water activity measurements have beenfor nearly 40 years as a food safety parameter, this is nowome, who argue that greater emphasis should be placed one (Slade and Levine, 1991; Franks, 1991). Franks (1991)ter availability, especially in the case of intermediate or lowd to the rate of water diffusion in the product, which, in turn,r transition of the material and the sensitivity of the transitionthe moisture content. As yet, there is no consensus on thise, water activity remains the basic method for ascertaining

1996 CRC Press LLC

In many low-fat produceffective means to achieve gens such as the salmonecoliforms, an even lower pH(The International CommiThe type of acid used for lowof the organic acid or estefood preservatives have pK

the total acid is undissociaundissociated molecules ofmicrobial agent (The InterFoods, 1980b). Acetic, citrcommonly used food acidulof acetic acid molecules inwhich reflects the formers by the occurrence of outbr

using lemon juice instead selecting the right acid to met al., 1986). In a later stumayonnaise made in differeusing vinegar and lemon, restaurants surveyed had r

presenting health risks to cmore important in the case much greater.

Finally, it is important product adversely affect oproduce an acceptable flavo

1.7.4 LEGISLATIVE CO

When developing reduced-to be taken into account. Thof nutritional claims will be

In the European Union, hstates has been under consbe reached. The current dracontent is reduced by at lealow-fat claim can only bproduct. The term withoutnot exceed 0.15 g per 100European Union regulation

The U.S. regulations fordraft for the European Unlow-fat claim can be used30 g, or greater than two tabamount. In cases where thefat claim can be used undof fat is present in 50 g ofcontains less than 0.5 g of ts, increasing the acidity of the aqueous phase can be anan acceptable shelf-life. For example, Gram-negative patho-llae may be controlled by ensuring a pH below 4.0. For is required, or a combination of low pH and low temperature

ssion on Microbiological Specifications for Foods, 1980a).ering the pH is critical, since it is the undissociated molecule

r that confers antimicrobial activity. Organic acids used asa values of between 3 and 5 (pKa is the pH at which 50% ofted). Lowering the pH of a food increases the proportion of an organic acid, thus increasing its effectiveness as an anti-national Commission on Microbiological Specifications foric, lactic, propionic, benzoic, and sorbic acids are the mostants and preservatives. At pH 4.0, for instance, the proportion an undissociated state is over four times that of citric acid,greater effectiveness as a preservative. This is well illustratedeaks of Salmonella in Spain associated with the practice ofof acetic acid in mayonnaise in which the importance ofaintain a preservative function was simply overlooked (Perezdy (Perales and Garcia, 1990), it was found that 45% ofnt restaurants in Spain had a pH greater than 4.5, with 17.5%and 2.5% did not use any source of acid, and 60% of theecipes that allowed Salmonella enteriditis to survive, thusonsumers. The importance of selecting the right acid is evenof reduced-fat products, where microbiological risks are that

to bear in mind that if strongly acidic notes perceived in averall sensory quality, it is possible to design blends thatr profile, while maintaining the preservative function.

NSIDERATIONSfat variants, the legislative issues in the