Intense efforts to deal with obesity, diabetes and other diet-related health issues across the globe have put the need for a healthier lifestyle at the top of the public health agenda.
The World Health Organisation describes obesity as "one of today's most blatantly visible – yet most neglected – public health problems". The organization also forecasts that some 300 million people worldwide will suffer from diabetes by the year 2025.
These twin problems also bring enormous financial costs and the focus of medical research and education is concentrated on ways to combat them. Part of that research is into the way and speed with which carbohydrates reach the bloodstream and raise blood glucose levels. Known as the Glycemic Index (GI), this is a topic of increasing interest amongst nutritionists, physicians and food manufacturers.
Professor Jennie Brand-Miller of the University of Sydney, says: "The way we manage our blood glucose levels is important for everyone and a lower overall GI for diet appears to have benefits for weight management and cardiovascular health."
GI is already being used in Australia and New Zealand as a quality mark on foods and is forecast to be taken up by European countries in the near future.
An key factor in the promotion of healthier lifestyles is the fast-growing market for products that contain alternatives to sugar. The focus is on sweeteners which often have a very low GI, with half the calories of sugar, and do not cause tooth decay.
There are two kinds of sweeteners: sugar replacers and intense sweeteners and they each have different uses.
Sugar replacers
Defined according to their molecular structure, sugar replacers now in use are often sugar alcohols (polyols) – such as isomalt, lactitol and maltitol, which are derived from disaccharides; or sorbitol, xylitol and mannitol, which are derived from monosaccharides.
Technically speaking, all sugar alcohols can be obtained from natural sources, although the only sugar replacer to be made from beet sugar is Isomalt from Palatinit, which, among its health benefits, has a specially low glycemic index.
Bulk sweeteners, as they are also known, are able to replace sugar in almost every application in a ratio of 1:1 in food applications. The refinement of the technology necessary to produce novel bulk sweeteners over the past decade, has run alongside the fast expansion of products in Europe, the US, Asia and Australasia that are successfully promoted as alternatives to traditional, sugar-based products.
Healthy confectionery
It has been proved beyond doubt that there is a positive relationship between total sugar intake and the incidence of dental caries – resulting in erosion of tooth enamel - especially where dental hygiene is poor and exposure to flouride is low. And national dental surveys in the UK confirm that dental erosion is a serious problem. Indeed, UK government reports suggest that 37% of four to six year olds have cavities.
Caries is a very complex process caused by unbalanced de- and re-mineralization of the tooth enamel. Carbohydrates, which enter the oral cavity by way of food and candys, are converted into decay-causing acids by micro-organisms in the dental plaque. Sugar replacers, like Isomalt, help to prevent the formation of caries because the micro-organisms in the mouth cannot break them down – or do so only very slowly.
Recent research confirmed that dental care and the prevention of caries were
consumers' top priorities in choosing sugar-free candys. Next came less calories, fresh breath and then added vitamins.
Functionality
Continuing developments in the functionality or health benefits of sugar-free confectionery are boosting an already successful international market. Leading producers are finding that new sugar free versions of existing top brands serve to complement, rather than detract from, sales of their traditional sugar-based products.
A report published by the influential Leatherhead Food International, states that the trend towards tasty nutrition "has fuelled a drastic rise in the popularity of products containing health benefit ingredients".
In a section devoted to functional confectionery, the Leatherhead report acknowledges the growing number of lines marketed on a sugar-free, kinder-to-teeth basis, of which some are also antibacterial or antiplaque. Most sugar free confectionery products feature non-cariogenic sweeteners and the report highlights Isomalt and sorbitol. Fruit gums and hard candies enriched with Vitamin C, are among ranges of vitamin-enriched confectionery on the market. Breath mints, too, are now fortified with Vitamin C.
The public like the taste
Results of research carried out in four countries, confirmed that consumers really do prefer sugar-free candys, which retain a mild sweetness yet release the natural flavours of fruit.
Just under 5,000 people were interviewed from the ages of 14 to over 70 in a study sponsored by Palatinit GmbH, part of the international Sudzucker group. The majority said that dental care and the prevention of caries were their top priority; next came fresh breath and then added vitamins. Only 38% in all four countries said they would choose traditional candys containing sugar.
The central questions were related to what kind of functional products would respondents like to see: would they prefer these products with or without sugar and did they prefer candys which contained sugar or the sugar-free alternative.
Of all four countries – Germany, Spain, Italy and Argentina – 62% of consumers opted for candies with a health-promoting effect. This mainly stemmed from the desire for toothfriendliness and calorie reduction. The sugar free preference was particularly conspicuous among German consumers aged over 50. However, the very term ‘sugar-free' has raised doubts among some manufacturers and consumers as to the actual taste of a piece of confectionery.
Research
The sugar-free industry responds with research that shows that taste is one of the most powerful incentives in choosing sugar-free confectionery.
In order to discover the taste preference of consumers, a series of blind taste tests were conducted in three countries. They showed that people preferred the sugar-free over the more traditional sugar candy, not only as an overall preference, but also in respect of specific product criteria. This conclusion did not apply to a specific country or region.
A sample of 100 people in the UK and 129 in Australia were put to the test with different fruit and mint-flavoured candies. A similar test was conducted in Spain with 154 respondents. The method in all the tests was a paired comparison between the sugar-free candy and the sugar version, both being produced with the same manufacturing recipe and flavour. The sugarfree candy was preferred because of its lower sweetness, higher flavour intensity and more appropriate flavour, lower stickiness and better mouthfeel.
In other words, the cherry candy tasted more like a true cherry and was perceived as smoother in the mouth. Being asked after the test which one was the sugar-free candy, almost 70% of respondents chose wrongly. When it came to preference and likelihood to buy, there was a clear majority in favour of the sugar-free version.
Academic opinion
Dr Gottfried Ziegleder, a leading academic, says that on account of very specific technological and sensory properties, a sugar replacer that is ideal for one product need not be best for another product. He added that the nutritional, physiological and technological properties of sugar replacers make them a good alternative to sugar. This is why companies such as Palatinit of Germany offer manufacturers a choice, or family, of differing versions, but with the same health benefits, to suit varying products in confectionery and food. Italy, the home of ice-cream, has now given sugar replacers the ultimate accolade by producing a top range, called Doppiozero, which scores double zero: no sugar, no fat.
The term 'sugar-free' reflects a fast-growing trend worldwide. However, the UK lags behind in the number and range of sugarless products available, despite the fact that the top international confectionery manufacturers, with bases in the UK , produce them in the country. The manufacturers sell them in other European countries giving rise to the comment 'made in Britain but sold abroad'. Perhaps the overriding pressures of a healthier lifestyle will yet see the UK develop as a big market for these products.
