v

Sugar Reduction in Food Products:

Flavor still Rules!

MaryAnne Drake

Scheduled for the March 2020 Sweetener SystemsConference, a Global Food Forums event

Sugar Reduction

• Sugar plays multiple roles in foods• Sugar reduction IS attractive to consumers

• Low carbohydrates• All natural or naturally sweetened• Across multiple products: ice cream to

chocolate milk to protein products• Sweetener amount and type are important

• Conceptually (extrinsic)• Reality (intrinsic)

flavor

texturestructure

McCain et al., 2018 J. Dairy Sci. 101:8619-8640

Sugar reduction in foods

understand the consumer

1 2

understand the application

understand the sweetener(s)

3

Practical case studies

• Sugar reduction in chocolate milk

• Sugar reduction in yogurt

• Sugar reduction in protein beverages and bars

Case study 1: chocolate milk for kids1. Sugar reduction in chocolate milk for kids

• Evaluate parent perception of chocolate milk• Determine acceptable sweet taste for kids -- and for parents• Evaluate no sugar added options

What Do Parents Think?

1. Online survey with parents (n=312) about purchase of chocolate milk for their kids

1. Parents prefer all natural, reduced sugar, reduced fat, chocolate milk with natural sweeteners

2. Parents feel happy, loving and satisfied3. Consumer clusters

• Traditionalists (n=92)• All natural, organic, open to natural non nutritive sweeteners (n=102)• All natural and fat free (n=118)

Li et al., 2014. J. Food Sci. 79: S1407-S1415.

Survey with parents: Conjoint analysis results

Sweetener is important Followed by fat content

BUT IT’S STILL ABOUT FLAVOR:30% reduction is stillliked by young adults

17 g added sugar

Overall liking

Chocolate milks with different amounts of sucrose

N=120

CHOCOLATE MILK LIKING:Kids Ages 5-12 Y

Current commercial target

30% reduction is also acceptable to kids. Younger kids are more accepting of greater sucrose reduction (p<0.05)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

86 mM 126 mM 142 mM 162 mM 205 mM

Li et al., 2015. J. Food Sci. S1083-1092.

N=110

Application of non nutritive sweeteners: Iso-sweet taste• The iso-sweetness of sweeteners to target sucrose, (lowest acceptable sweetness

for young adults and children)• Stevia: 200 mg/L• Monkfruit: 350 mg/L

• Due to the known off-tastes/after tastes of natural non-nutritive sweeteners, blends of sucrose and each sweeteners were investigated:• Reduced sugar Control (100% sucrose, 26% sucrose reduction, 12.3 g added sugar)• 25:75 (43% sucrose reduction, 9 g added sugar)• 50:50 (60% sucrose reduction, 6.6 g added sugar)• 75:25 (79% sucrose reduction, 3.3 g added sugar)• 100 (no added sugar)

Descriptive analysis of chocolate milks with different sweeteners

SucroseSTV 25STV 50STV 75

STV 100

MK 25MK 50

MK 75

MK 100

cocoa aromasalty

cocoa flavor

floral/honey

sweet

bitter

aftertaste viscosity

astringent

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

F2 (1

7.8

%)

F1 (68.7 %)

F1 and F2: 86.5 %

Increasing non nutritive sweetener increases off flavors and decreases viscosity

Li et al., 2015. J. Food Sci S1083-1092.

Young Adults Acceptance

a a ab b b b

c c

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Control MK 25 STV 25 MK 50 STV 50 MK 75 STV 75 MK 100 STV 100

Liki

ng

Chocolate milks

Overall liking

12.3 g sucrose

9 g sucrose

N=130

ba a

1234567

SUC STV 25 MK 257-

poin

t lik

ing

scal

eTreatments

5-7 years old

Overall liking

a a a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SUC STV 25 MK 25

7-po

int l

ikin

g sc

ale

Treatments

8-10 years old

Overall liking

a a a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

SUC STV 25 MK 25

7-po

int l

ikin

g sc

ale

Treatments

11-13 years old

Overall liking

CHOCOLATE MILK LIKINGN=150 children

Now What Do Parents Think About The Actual Products?

• Parents of children 5-13 y (n=100)

• They and their children drink chocolate milk

• Purchase chocolate milk at least 2-3 times per month

• Demographic questions and behavioral questions• Evaluated chocolate milks with and without labels

Blind ballot• You will be tasting 3 different fat-free naturally sweetened chocolate milks today.

Primed ballot• SUC control

• The chocolate milk you are about to taste is fat free, has more than 25% less sugar than regular chocolate milk and is sweetened using a natural sweetener (sucrose).

• MK 25• The chocolate milk you are about to taste is fat free and is sweetened with natural

monkfruit extract with more than 40% less sugar than regular chocolate milk.• STV 25

• The chocolate milk you are about to taste is fat free and is sweetened with natural stevia leaf extract with more than 40% less sugar than regular chocolate milk.

Priming Parents

Parental Acceptance of chocolate milks

Segment 1 parents showed higher purchase intent for SUC control when unprimedSegment 2 parents showed higher purchase intent for SUC control when primed (P < 0.05)

A

B AB

A AB

A A A

B A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

S1-SUC control S1-STV 25 S1-MK 25 S2-SUC control S2-STV 25 S2-MK 25

Overall liking - blind Overall liking - prime

Like natural non nutritive sweeteners Like traditional sucrose

Summary

1. Natural non-nutritive sweeteners can be successfully applied in skim chocolate milks • blends replacing up to 25% of sucrose, 40% sucrose reduction is possible

that is at sensory parity with sucrose control2. Both appeal to parents: focus on reduction rather than removal and all

natural label3. There is NOT a one-solution-for-every-consumer

1. Further reduction possible with formula changes*

Case study 2: sugar reduction in yogurt

1. How familiar are consumers with yogurt sweeteners? 2. Can consumers read yogurt nutrition panels?3. What are the desirable label claims and preferred sweeteners?4. What is the ideal yogurt build?

Methods

• Online survey conducted with n=1290 consumers• Two Maximum Difference (MaxDiff) scaling exercises• Kano exercises• Agreement and familiarity questions• All questions focused around purchase and consumption of yogurt

Do consumers read nutrition labels?

Which characteristics do you find helpful when selecting a new yogurt to purchase?

Nutrition Facts 63.9%Ingredient List 49.8%

Label Claims (All-Natural, Organic, etc.) 31.2%Package Size (individual cup, large container, etc.) 64.6%Flavor of Yogurt (vanilla, strawberry, mango, etc.) 81.9%

Type of Yogurt (regular, Greek, Icelandic, etc.) 76.3%Other 6.0%

None of the above 0.2%

Do consumers read nutrition labels?Correct Incorrect

Saturated Fat 96.0% 4.0%Protein 97.9% 2.1%

Added Sugar 83.8% 16.2%

Correct IncorrectSaturated Fat 96.0% 4.0%

Protein 97.9% 2.1%Added Sugar 83.8% 16.2%

Answer Choice Percentage0g 83.8%1g 0.3%3g 0.7%4g 0.5%2g 14.6%

15g 0.1%

Sweetener Familiarity in Yogurt

SweetenerFamiliarity

ScoreHoney 4.6

Sucrose (Table Sugar) 4.3Corn Syrup 4.1Cane Sugar 4.0

Fructose 3.7Stevia Leaf Extract 3.3

Agave Nectar 3.2Sucralose 2.5

Monk Fruit 2.2Erythritol 1.8

Acesulfame Potassium (AceK) 1.5Allulose 1.3

1=not at all familiar, 5=extremely familiar

Sugar Claims in Yogurt MaxDiff Results

ItemAverage Rescaled Score

(0 to 100)Naturally Sweetened 21.5a

No Artificial Sweeteners 18.9bNo High Fructose Corn Syrup 17.8bc

No Added Sugar 17.0cLow Sugar 9.4d

Reduced Sugar 7.9eUnsweetened 7.4e

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Reduced Sugar Low Sugar No Added Sugar No HighFructose Corn

Syrup

No ArtificialSweeteners

NaturallySweetened

Unsweetened

Zero

-Cen

tere

d In

terv

al S

core

Sugar Claims MXD by Sugar Claim Cluster

Cluster Number Cluster Description n

Cluster 1 reduced sugar consumers 247Cluster 2 no artificial sweeteners consumers 551Cluster 3 naturally sweetened consumers 279Cluster 4 unsweetened consumers 213

Sweetener in Yogurt MaxDiff Results

Cluster Number Cluster Description n

Cluster 1 Reduced sugar/stevia consumers 247Cluster 2 no artificial sweeteners consumers 551Cluster 3 naturally sweetened consumers 279

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

Sucralose+ AceK

CaneSugar

Erythritol+ Stevia

LeafExtract

SteviaLeaf

Extract

AgaveNectar

Allulose Fructose Sucrose(TableSugar)

Honey MonkFruit +SteviaLeaf

Extract

CornSyrup

Zero

-Cen

tere

d In

terv

al S

core

Sweetener MXD by Sweetener Cluster

LabelAverage

Rescaled Scores (0 to 100)

Honey 21.8aAgave Nectar 16.3b

Cane Sugar 15.7bStevia Leaf Extract 11.8c

Monk Fruit + Stevia Leaf Extract 10.5dSucrose (Table Sugar) 10.1d

Fructose 4.8eErythritol + Stevia Leaf Extract 4.8e

Corn Syrup 1.7fSucralose + AceK 1.5f

Allulose 1.1g

Kano Results

Must Haves

Attractive Performance/One Dimensional

Indifferent

High protein Tastes good

Reduced sugarLow fatHigh calciumFortified

ProbioticsIndulgentNatural ingredientsShort ingredients

none

Kano Results

Attractive

Indifferent

Performance/One-Dimensional

Must Have

Tastes good

High protein

Reduced sugar

Kano Results

Attractive

Indifferent

Performance/One-Dimensional

Must Have

Tastes good

High protein

The better the yogurt tastes, the most

consumers want to purchase it.

High protein yogurt delights consumers.

Reduced sugar is not a dealbreaker or a delighter for the average consumer.

Reduced sugar

Kano Results: What delights yogurt consumers?

Stevia Consumers(n=284)

Naturally SweetenedConsumers

(n=516)

Traditionally SweetenedConsumers

(n=390)

Flavor is king - the better yogurt tastes, the more satisfied ALL consumer segments will be.

High Protein

Reduced Sugar

Probiotics

High Protein

Delight attributes = classified as “Attractive” in Kano analysis

n/a

Ideal Yogurt Builds

Overall(n=1290)

Stevia Consumers(n=384)

Naturally Sweetened Consumers

(n=516)

Traditional SweetenerConsumers

(n=390)

Sweetener MXD Clusters

Added Sugar Content 2g 0g 2g 4g

Sweetener honey stevia honey cane sugar

Protein Content 10g 10g 10g 10g

Total Fat Content 2g 2g 2g 2g

Saturated Fat Content 0g 0g 0g 0g

Label Claim all natural all natural all natural all natural

Note: Ideal build for Sugar Claim clusters were identical to the overall ideal build.

Ideal Yogurt Builds

Overall(n=1290)

Stevia Consumers(n=384)

Naturally Sweetened Consumers

(n=516)

Traditional SweetenerConsumers

(n=390)

Sweetener MXD Clusters

Added Sugar Content 2g 0g 2g 4g

Sweetener honey stevia honey cane sugar

Protein Content 10g 10g 10g 10g

Total Fat Content 2g 2g 2g 2g

Saturated Fat Content 0g 0g 0g 0g

Label Claim all natural all natural all natural all natural

Note: Ideal build for Sugar Claim clusters were identical to the overall ideal build.

Summary

1. Sugar is not a deal breaker in yogurt – consumers know that it delivers a desirable flavor

2. There is a segment of consumers that want natural non nutritives and an equal number that do not or don’t care as long as the product delivers on flavor and other label claims (eg protein)

3. Knowledge and familiarity of sweeteners remain a barrier

Key Consumer Attributes For Protein Beverages

05

10152025303540

overall cluster 1 cluster 2 cluster 3

label claim

protein

amt prot

sweetener

benefits

N =440

Protein typeand label claim

Protein amt All natural sweetener

n=90 n=160 n=189

Great taste expectation for all consumersIm

porta

nce

scor

es

Oltman et al., 2015. J. Food Sci. S1383-S1390

Ideal Attributes for Different Protein Applications

Flavor Chocolate Chocolate Chocolate

Protein Type Whey Whey Whey or Milk

ProteinAmount 20-29g/serving 20-29g/serving 20-29g/serving

Label Claims All-natural All-natural All-natural

Carbohydrate Content Low Carb Low Carb Low Carb

Sweetener Claims

NaturallySweetened

NaturallySweetened

NaturallySweetened

Sweetener Type Stevia Stevia Stevia

N=1012 consumers

Powders Beverages Bars

Harwood and Drake, 2019J. Sens. Stud.

Maximum Difference (MaxDiff) Scaling of Protein Product Attributes

Rank Attribute Average Score1 A protein product that is all natural 6.752 A protein product that has 20-29g of protein/serving 6.653 A protein product that is naturally sweetened 6.464 A protein product that has 30-39g of protein/serving 6.035 A protein product that is a bar 5.546 A protein product that has 40-49g of protein/serving 4.857 A protein product that has 10-19g of protein/serving 4.748 A protein product that has reduced sugar 4.529 A protein product that is low carb 4.37

10 A protein product that is a ready-to-drink beverage 4.3513 A protein product that has whey protein 3.6623 A protein product that has non-soy plant protein 1.4925 A protein product that has soy protein 1.4729 A protein product that is vegan 1.09

*32 total attributes evaluatedN=1012

Reducing sugar in protein products• Does protein load (15g vs 25g per 360 mL serving) impact

sweetness perception?• What are the differences among natural non-nutritive sweeteners

in protein beverages? • Time Intensity• Temporal Check-All-That-Apply

• What about matrix effects within a protein type?• If I change viscosity, is that a game changer?

• What about protein type changes within the same matrix?• Whey protein, milk protein, pea protein

Protein Beverage Formulation Ready to Mix (RTM)

VanillaFlavoring

Sweetener• Sucrose• Fructose• Monk fruit• Stevia• Sucralose

WaterWPI• 15g or 25 g PROT/360 mL

serving

Temporal Differences of Sweeteners Used in Protein Beverages

Parker et al., 2018, J. Dairy Sci. 101: 8619-8640

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 102

Swee

t Tas

te In

tens

ity

Time (seconds)

Sweet Taste

(Fructose)

(MF)

(Stevia)

(Sucralose)

(Sucrose)

The Problem with Natural Non-nutritive Sweeteners

Parker et al., 2018, J. Dairy Sci. 101: 8619-8640

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Cita

tion

Prop

ortio

n

Time

Monkfruit

Bitter Cardboard Metallic Sweet Sweet Aromatic

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Cita

tion

Prop

ortio

n

Time

Stevia

Bitter Cardboard Metallic Sweet Sweet Aromatic

Lingering bitter and metallic off-flavors!

Reducing Off-Flavor Issues with Blends

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Cita

tion

Prop

ortio

n

Time

Monkfruit

Bitter Metallic Sweet

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Cita

tion

Prop

ortio

n

Time

Stevia

Bitter Metallic Sweet

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Cita

tion

Prop

ortio

n

Time

50% Stevia, 50% Fructose

Bitter Metallic Sweet

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Cita

tion

Prop

ortio

nTime

50% Monkfruit, 50% Fructose

Bitter Metallic Sweet

Sugar reduction instead of complete replacement

Effect of Protein Level on Equivalent Sweetness Values

Protein amount had no impact on sweet taste values for any sweetener (p>0.05).

All samples were evaluated without vanilla flavoring.

77.5a

238a

814a895a

73.2a

234a

860a916a

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Fructose (g) Sucralose (mg) Monk Fruit (mg) Stevia (mg)

Equi

vale

nt S

wee

tnes

s Val

ue

Low Protein Level (15g/360 mL) High Protein Level 25g/360 mL)

Parker et al., 2018, J. Dairy Sci. 101: 8619-8640

What about format? Liquid vs solid

Whey protein models• 11% w/w whey protein isolate

• Three texture types• Thin fluid• Thick fluid• Semi-solid

• 2 sweeteners• Sucrose• Stevia

Sample Vanilla (%) pH Heat time

(min)

Thin fluid (F1) 1.5 6.9 0

Thick fluid (F2) 1.5 6.9 5

Semi-solid (SS) 1.5 6.9 9–12

Wagoner et al., 2018. J. Sensory Stud. 33:1-9.

Role of Matrix• Order of magnitude

difference between sweeteners

• 40-60 times sweeter

• Increased sweetener required with thicker texture

Protein Bar Formulation (15 g protein per 62 g serving)

Protein• Whey Protein

Isolate• Pea Protein• Milk Protein

Shortening Sweetener• Sucrose• Fructose• Monk fruit• Stevia• Sucralose

Fiber

Impact of protein type on iso-sweet concentrations in protein bars

a a a

a

a

b b a

a

a

c c b

b

b

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Monk Fruit Stevia Sucralose Fructose Sucrose

Pea Protein Whey Protein Milk Protein

Sweeteners are shown as mg per 500 gram protein bars. Bars were formulated at 15 g protein/62 g serving.Rows without a common letter are different (P <0.05).Bars were formulated to sweet taste equivalency to a 10% w/v sucrose solution.

Impact of protein type on iso-sweet concentrations

a a a

a

a

b b a

a

a

c c b

b

b

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Monk Fruit Stevia Sucralose Fructose Sucrose

Sweeteners are shown as mg per 500 gram protein bars. Bars were formulated at 15 g protein/62 g serving.Rows without a common letter are different (P <0.05).Bars were formulated to sweet taste equivalency to a 10% w/v sucrose solution.

mg sweetener

Impact of protein type on iso-sweet concentrations

Sweeteners are shown as mg per 500 gram protein bars. Bars were formulated at 15 g protein/62 g serving.Rows without a common letter are different (P <0.05).Bars were formulated to sweet taste equivalency to a 10% w/v sucrose solution.

a a

ab

b

a

c c

b

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Monk Fruit Stevia Sucralose

Pea Protein Whey Protein Milk Protein

mg sweetener

Summary

• Sugar reduction is more complicated than it looks• Formulation effects (flavoring, etc.)• Format (liquid, semi-solid, bar) impacts sweetener amount

• Generally more sweetener required as you increase viscosity or go to a solid

• Protein type at same concentration and in same formulation impacts sweetener amount

• Consumers have different desires for sugar reduction • Concept and reality are sometimes distinct

Acknowledgements