Food Product Design: Concepts - February 2005 - The Low Down on Low-Carb

February 2005

The Low Down on Low-Carb

By Ronald C. DeisContributing Editor

Times change -- sometimes more quickly than we expect. Last year at this time, "low carb" was king, with new low-carb product introductions accelerating from 339 in 2002 to 633 in 2003, and then to 1,863 in the first six months of 2004, according to Mintel International Group, Chicago. According to a survey by ACNielsen, New York, $1.3 billion in low-carb products were sold in the 52 weeks ending July 10, 2004, up 283% over the prior year. This growth was primarily in the United States as the concept didn't catch fire across the globe -- a Mintel report released at the 2004 Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) Annual Meeting stated a very low percentage of such product introductions elsewhere in the world.

Although this growth was meteoric, and the downslope was nearly as extreme, interest in low-carb diets had actually been brewing for some time. After all, "Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution" had been on The New York Times bestseller list for about 5 years, and had sold over 10 million copies worldwide.

So what caused this low-carb revolution, what have we learned from it, what types of product changes were developed from it and where do we go from here? These questions are not easily answered, and it will take some time to sort it all out. The nutritional studies just aren't there to emphatically support any one diet over another, or to explain the best diet plan to follow over the long term -- or if the answer is even the same for everyone. It is clear-cut that calories-in versus calories-out is important, and that the need for exercise must be stressed. Where low-carb symposia last year covered product-development issues, similar meetings this year will attempt to sort out nutritional and potential labeling issues around carbohydrates.

Why we like diets According to reports from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Center on Vital Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD, 64.5% of American adults are overweight or obese, and 31% of adults have a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30, double the rate reported in 1960. An average man weighed 25 pounds more in 2002 than in 1960, and an average woman weighed about 24 pounds more. The average 10-year-old has gained 11 pounds in that same time period.

A report by Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., states that eating habits, not getting enough physical activity, neighborhood design that limits physical activity, culture, limited availability or higher cost of healthy foods in many areas, and genetics are all factors contributing to this obesity epidemic. In "F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies Are Failing in America," the group reports (as should come as no surprise to anyone): "Overweight and obesity result from an energy imbalance over time. Energy imbalance involves eating too many calories and engaging in too little physical activity. When calories consumed are greater than calories used (physical activity), weight gain results." By now, most of us have seen the CDC-generated state-by-state maps showing a 20-year obesity and diabetes epidemic, and have noted the direct and indirect costs of this epidemic -- over $117 billion in medical costs and lost productivity.

Historically (at least within my time in the food industry), the American consumer has always been "hungry" for that new diet that will take pounds off painlessly without exercise -- and keep them off. Some diets do not translate well to successful consumer products -- for example, the cabbage-soup diet -- but others have caught on and hung around for a couple of years, such as the oat-fiber and fat-free fads. When the consumer catches on that oat fiber might have some positive qualities, or it might be a good thing to lower the fat levels in the diet, it then seems to generate a campaign to put as much fiber as possible in everything we eat, or take all of the fat out of everything we eat. It should come as no surprise that the consumer, after trying these products for a while and discovering that their weight is still the same, stops buying them because the foods do not taste very good, are expensive and provide no discernable benefit.

As an industry, we have learned something from each of these trends. Oat fiber is beneficial, and research has been generated to support several approved health claims. Not all fat-free foods suffer from removal of fat -- fat-free salad dressings are still on the market and many consumers found that they actually like skim milk, etc. On the other hand, fat-free mayonnaise and fat-free cookies were never crowd pleasers. Product developers did, however, discover that they could just lower the fat levels in many foods without sacrificing taste and texture, and consumers continued to buy those products.

So it is not surprising at all that when the low-carb diet call came, American consumers eagerly answered. Dieting and giving up desired foods is never easy -- you always have to give up something you really love. When a weight-loss diet claims that you can eat three regular-sized meals or four or five smaller meals, and you can eat all you want of poultry, fish, shellfish, eggs, red meat and butter, it sounds like an ideal diet. Unfortunately, many people did not read much further than that page.

In the early '90s, the American Medical Association and nutritionists were encouraging a low-fat, higher-carbohydrate diet. The original "Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution" was published in 1972 and was on The New York Times bestseller list that year. "Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution" was published in 1992. Since its philosophies were contrary to the low-fat diet, the low-carb approach was regarded as "potentially dangerous" and "biochemically incorrect." But for many, the diet seemed to work. All of a sudden, it seemed that everyone knew somebody who had tried the diet and lost pounds.

Other concepts followed: "The Zone," by Barry Sears and William Lawren in 1995; "The New Glucose Revolution," by Jennie Brand-Miller, Thomas Wolever, Kaye Foster-Powell and Stephen Colagiuri in 1996; and "Sugar Busters!" by H. Leighton Steward, Morrison Bethea, Sam Andrews and Luis Balart in 1998. All of these books introduced theories regarding reduced carbohydrates and all were bestsellers -- and these were not the only diet concepts out there. Updated versions of the Atkins book were published in 1992 and 2002, and he put out a number of other diet books as well. Another book, Arthur Agatston's "The South Beach Diet," hit the stands in 2003 and immediately climbed to No. 1 on The New York Times bestseller list.

The American appetite for diet news was fully focused on low carb. In early 2004, Mintel estimated that 40% of the U.S. adult population -- about 85 million people -- had reduced their carbohydrate intake. A poll by financial giant Morgan Stanley, New York, estimated that 11% of U.S. adults were on low-carb diets in the first 3 months of last year -- this was up from about 10% in late 2003, and the company estimated that figure could have been as high as 13% in Jan. 2004. The NPD Group, Port Washington, NY, stated that 3 of 4 people were aware of the Atkins diet, 17% had tried it and 4% of adults were on the diet. Sales of bacon and eggs skyrocketed, and sales of bread and potatoes lagged. A new company -- Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., Ronkonkoma, NY -- was born and thrived. Fast-food chains and restaurants changed their menus to include and highlight low-carb items, and larger food companies launched low-carb lines.

But by July 2004, things in the United States had started to change. Carlos Gutierrez, former CEO of The Kellogg Company, Battle Creek, MI, and the new secretary of commerce for the second Bush Administration, told investors that the low-carb trend had peaked, noting that the rapid introduction of so many new low-carb products had created a glut in the market. Morgan Stanley predicted that the number of adults on low-carb diets -- 13% in Jan. 2004 -- would be about 5% by December.

As noted by several reports, times have changed in the past six months for ingredient suppliers that have made big bets on low carb, as well. Demand has fallen drastically as the market became swollen with new low-carb products. Growth in that market fell from triple-digit growth to more-typical levels, and suppliers that invested heavily in higher capacities were hurt by the drop.

Do low-carb diets work? Why the dramatic drop? Do these diets work? Early critics expressed a fear of long-term physiological damage resulting from extended low-carb dieting. Fears included the possibility of a greater burden on the kidneys due to excess protein, potential elevated blood-lipid levels and dilution of important nutrients due to an imbalanced diet (see "Low-Carb Diets -- Does Science Support Them?" by Beth Hubrich, Food Product Design, Feb. 2004, for comments on studies performed to that date).

Although several studies have been conducted, more, longer studies are still needed. A yearlong study reported by Dr. Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, looked at 63 non-diabetics with an average BMI of 34. Foster's study showed that weight loss was significantly greater at 5 months for those on a low-carb diet, but weight gain in the 6-to-12-month area resulted in no significant difference at one year. At 12 months, there was no significant difference in total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol between low-fat and low-carb diets. Surprisingly, low-carb dieters had significantly more reduction of serum triglycerides (down 28% versus up 1%) and significantly greater increase in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels (up 18% versus up 3%) when compared to low-fat dieters. Foster is continuing these studies through a second year, looking at effects on blood pressure, bone loss, kidney function and arterial elasticity.

In another study conducted by Dr. Frederick F. Samaha et al, at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, 132 men and women were randomly put on either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet for six months. The low-carbohydrate group was limited to an intake of 30 grams of carbohydrates and had no limit on total fat intake. The low-fat group was put on a calorie-restricted diet, with no more than 30% of total caloric intake from fat. Volunteers assigned to a low-carbohydrate diet lost an average of about 13 lbs., compared to 4 lbs. for the low-fat group. The low-carbohydrate dieters reduced their levels of triglycerides by an average of 20%, versus 4% for the low-fat group. Neither group showed significant changes in cholesterol or blood- pressure levels.

Among diabetic participants, the low-carbohydrate dieters reduced their fasting blood-sugar levels by about 9%, versus only 2% for the low-fat dieters. Over the six-month study, seven diabetic patients in the low-carbohydrate group were able to reduce their dose of insulin or other medication to control blood sugar. In the low-fat group, one diabetic patient achieved a lower insulin dose and one had to begin therapy.

One not-too-surprising factor was found in both studies: a 40% dropout rate in both low-fat and low-carb populations. According to Foster, it appears that low-carb diets appear to be healthy, short-term ways to lose weight, but nobody has studied those diets long enough to determine whether they are healthy ways to maintain loss. Foster has stated that counting carbohydrates might actually be easier than counting calories, noting that guidelines for sorting calories from fat, protein, fiber, etc. might just "require a lot of cognitive gymnastics," making this type of diet initially easier to follow than other diets.

In Feb. 2004, the low-carb frenzy was at its peak. For Feb. 2005, the market is vastly different. However, count carbs down, but not out. The market continues to grow, but at a much more humble rate. As in the fat-free era, the market experienced a glut of new products. Some will survive, but other ideas did not work well. Ten years ago, consumers started to understand that they needed to control not only the amount of fat in the diet, but the types of fat, as well. Nutritional studies and legislation still have not completely caught up with that trend, but the fat-free era stimulated a great deal of research, as well as consumer education. The same course of events needs to happen for low-carb. It will take years for nutritional studies to catch up with the idea and, although consumers have gotten the concept that control of carbohydrates is a good idea, currently consumers have little understanding that all carbohydrates are not alike.

Looking at labeling In fact, the downtrend in low-carb interest in the fall of 2004 stirred up previous interest in glycemic index (GI) as a potential marketing and labeling concept for foods. Unfortunately, much of the fervor over GI has been directed at pushing the GI as low as it can go. We do not seem to learn from past experience -- fat-free, carb-free and now "GI-free."

David Jenkins, a nutritionist at the University of Toronto, first introduced GI in 1981 as a measure to determine which foods were best for diabetics. It was designed as a more-objective, more-accurate approach for diabetics to monitor their carbohydrate intake. Carbohydrate exchanges had been used for years, but were difficult for many diabetics to understand. GI has been a subject of controversy for the past 20 years, and now that the spotlight is falling on the GI concept, controversy has become more mainstream.

GI is a ratio of the incremental area under the blood-glucose response curve of a test food versus the area under the curve for a standard test food, usually glucose. The GI is usually based on 50 grams of digestible carbohydrate versus 50 grams of glucose, and it is common to use 10 subjects per study. Based on glucose having a GI of 100, low GI is considered to be 55 or less, moderate GI is 56 to 69 and high GI is 70 or higher. The use of this concept for food packaging can best be summarized by the reaction of the Chicago-based American Dietetic Association: "Most foods are consumed with other foods, not by themselves, and eating combinations of foods can alter the GI for each meal component. In addition, there is insufficient research to show that the GI of a food of a meal has any effect on weight loss or gain."

As usual, the phrase "insufficient research" comes into play. In reviewing these concepts, it is important to keep an open mind and remember that many of them do have some degree of validity, but lack the in vivo research to understand their importance relative to other factors in the diet.

To expand further on GI, one of its negatives is that while GI states a measure of how quickly a carbohydrate affects blood glucose, it does not reflect the amount of carbohydrate in a serving or the digestibility of that carbohydrate. Researchers at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, developed the concept of glycemic load (GL) in 1997 to express the amount of available carbohydrate per serving of a food. The GL, however, is still dependent on the GI (GL=(GI x carbohydrate per serving)/100). GI and GL values have been determined for a number of foods, but further research is required to understand their value in mixed meals over an extended time period.

In Oct. 2004, Atkins Nutritionals introduced its own version of GL to separate themselves from the large number of manufacturers using the "net carb" method that Atkins had originally championed. "Net carbs" are usually calculated by subtracting dietary fiber, sugar alcohols and other carbohydrates with minimal impact on blood sugar from total carbohydrates. This is not permitted within the nutrient content label. The Net Atkins Count(TM) is a number determined by a patented clinical method developed in association with Wolever, a professor in the Department of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Toronto and one of the authors of "The New Glucose Revolution." As stated by Atkins Nutritionals: "In most instances, the old subtraction method provides an accurate result, but in a few cases, Atkins believes that due to a combination of ingredients and manufacturing processes, the calculation reached by subtraction is not as accurate as the result determined by this new scientific method." The company has inserted a table on its website to show the new number determined versus the "net carbs" stated on its product packaging.

Whether low-carb, net-carb, GI, GL or Net Atkins Count, the science of diets through extended nutritional studies will require some time to sort out. It seems, however, to be a concept dependent on a large number of factors, and further exploration is needed. As noted by Walter Willett, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, in a statement to the Associated Press: "I do think this is an important concept for people to understand, but I don't think they need to worry about numbers. In practice, it means consuming refined starches -- white bread, white rice, white pasta -- sugary foods and beverages and potatoes sparingly."

Finding a regulatory path I recently discussed FDA's activities in this area (see "Carbohydrates -- Better Nutritional Labeling and Education," Food Product Design, Sept. 2004). At that point, I noted that "low carb," "reduced carb" and "net carb" had never been defined as a part of the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990. A number of industry petitions had been submitted to urge definitions, and FDA was in the process of review.

On Dec. 1, 2004, FDA published the fiscal-year 2005 program priorities for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), College Park, MD. On the "A" list of priorities, a number of issues relate to obesity and potential labeling issues:

· Establish Obesity Working Group 2, chaired by the director of CFSAN, to maintain the momentum of the Obesity Working Group and to make sure the objectives in the "Calories Count" report are implemented and revised.

· Publish a proposed rule for carbohydrate nutrient-content claims. This has been pushed back throughout 2004 as FDA looks to industry and universities for additional guidance.

· Publish an advance notice of proposed rule making (ANPRM) for the terms used in relation to carbohydrate content of foods, e.g. "net" and "effective." This would seem to indicate that FDA needs additional guidance and is further away from actually establishing claims.

· Publish an ANPRM to solicit public comment on how to give more prominence to calories on the food label. FDA is promoting "Calories Count" and plans to make caloric content and serving size more obvious and meaningful.

· Provide consumer-studies research and economic data to help develop principles for use of the word "net" in relation to carbohydrate content.

Meanwhile, several organizations, including the St. Paul, MN-based American Association of Cereal Chemists (AACC), the Atlanta-based Calorie Control Council, the Washington, D.C.- based International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), Chicago-based IFT and others, are working on ways to better communicate a science-based definition of glycemic carbohydrates. In October 2004, the AACC formed an ad hoc "Glycemic (Net) Carbohydrate Definition Committee" chaired by Julie Miller Jones, professor in the Department of Family Consumer and Nutritional Science, The College of St. Catherine, St. Paul, MN. The purpose of the committee is to agree on science-based definitions for glycemic carbohydrates. It is hoped that such committees and symposia planned for the first several months of 2005 will help government agencies craft labeling guidelines based on science as we now know it, and develop a research plan for the future to better substantiate claims.

Impending claims What types of claims are food companies targeting for the future? Remember that FDA is focusing a campaign based on "the Calories Count" report and is promoting the Institute of Medicine (IOM) dietary reference intakes for macronutrients. These stress, among other things:

· Adults should get 45% to 65% of their calories from carbohydrates.

· One hour of moderately intense physical activity each day;

· Added sugar intake of no more than 25% of total calories consumed (according to IOM, added sugars are defined as "those incorporated into foods and beverages during production which usually provide insignificant amounts of vitamins, minerals or other essential nutrients");

· Total recommended fiber of 38 grams per day for men 50 years old and younger, 25 grams per day for women 50 and younger, 30 grams per day for men over 50, and 21 grams per day for women over 50.

The 2005 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Report, commissioned by USDA and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, mirrored many of these recommendations. Further, they reviewed studies to support GI and GL and concluded that "there is not sufficient evidence of long-term benefit to recommend general use of diets that have a low glycemic index." Again -- this does not mean that consumption of low-glycemic foods is not a positive message -- just that more studies are required.

Products for healthy lifestyles In his comedy routines, Tim Allen plays a handyman who always gets into trouble when, if a little power will do the job, more power is better. Some of our food-marketing trends involving nutritional changes seem to suffer from the same philosophy. Reduction of fat translates to "fat-free everything," reduction of carbohydrates to "zero carb," reduction of GI to "zero GI," reduction of sugar to "sugar-free." For tomorrow's low-carb products to succeed we need to change that mindset.

Some products can meet these "zero/ no" expectations without problems and are met with consumer acceptance. This is an important part of the learning process, because these new "nutritionally improved" products had not existed before, and it often takes an extreme shift in ideas for these products to rise to the top. But many others suffer in the taste and texture department, so consumers reject them and any of their potential nutritional improvements. It is this type of product that will benefit from a more-moderate, reduced approach to improve nutritional benefits to consumers.

It seems that we have now gone through enough dieting cycles that we have come to a point where industry, government and universities -- globally -- are committed to creating clearer definitions. In the meantime, according to ACNielsen, sales of low-carb products fell from triple-digit growth in spring 2004 to only up 6.1% for the 13 weeks ending Sept. 25, 2004.

In line with ongoing programs at FDA and USDA, product development is assuming a more-reasonable direction -- taking low-carb to mean reduction of sugar, reduction of calories and increased fiber -- making a claim without negatively impacting the taste and texture of the product.

Not only is the United States responding to obesity, but the same is happening in the United Kingdom. In Dec. 2004, Parliament received the "Government Response to the Health Select Committee's Report on Obesity" from the minister of health. In response to recommendations, the U.K. government is proposing to:

· Restrict food advertising and promotion to children for food and drinks high in fat, salt and sugar.

· Improve nutrition in school meals.

· Signpost food with "traffic light" labeling directed at fat, salt and sugar levels.

Milking trends Other potential pathways for healthier, low-carb products can be examined. In the United States, the Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP), Washington, D.C., which promotes the "got milk?®" campaign, is actively working with vending-machine operators and local dairies to promote the benefits of milk in schools. In an Oct. 13, 2004 statement, MilkPEP reported that "more than a dozen research studies now support the finding that drinking 24 oz. of milk every 24 hours will help people lose more weight than just reducing their calorie intakes. An additional study, recently published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, shows that kids who drink flavored milk get more calcium and consume less added sugar and saturated fat than those who opt for other sugar-sweetened beverages, such as soft drinks and fruit drinks... In recent years, the advent of new plastic, resealable single-serve packaging and new bottling and pasteurization techniques that expand its shelf life make vending milk more appealing than ever before. Additionally, a huge growth in milk flavors, like root beer, strawberry and cappuccino, are offering consumers more options."

Last May, McDonald's Corporation, Oak Brook, IL, was the first fast-food restaurant company to offer low-fat white and chocolate milk in single-serve, plastic, resealable bottles. The McDonald's Milk Jugs, part of the New Happy Meal® Choices menu, feature Ronald McDonald surfing on a wave of milk. On a regional level, this identifies a marketing opportunity for flavored milks, many of which currently use sugar as sweeteners. On a more national and global level, this is also an opportunity to market more drinkable yogurts, or smoothies -- which are very popular around the globe and just growing in the United States.

Both flavored milks and smoothies can be reduced in sugar by the judicious use of high-intensity sweeteners and/or polyols, such as maltitol and maltitol syrup. Both of these polyols are currently used in no-sugar-added (NSA) ice creams, along with sorbitol and polydextrose. NSA ice cream and novelties have also seen a resurgence as part of the low-carb movement. Attention to product improvements and the introduction of maltitol and maltitol syrups, as well as improved stabilizers, have improved the quality of these NSA ice creams.

A look at the bakery In the bakery category, formulators frequently looked at protein substitutes for refined white flour, but one of the biggest winners coming out of the low-carb surge is the resurgence of the whole-grains message. A 2002 article in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, "The Importance of Promoting a Whole Grain Foods Message," stated that "market research and consumer research have identified several barriers to increasing whole-grain food consumption." One of the largest barriers was that children rejected the taste, color and texture of whole-grain breads. This went beyond children, because only 5% to 10% of retail grain products at the time were made with whole grains. These products just were not a factor on the supermarket shelf.

In a 2003 study conducted by the Shapiro Research Group, Atlanta, and commissioned by the National Bread Leadership Council (and note this was conducted in 2003), 40% of those polled said that they were eating less bread than a year earlier. White bread sales decreased, but several bakeries were able to turn this around by developing better-tasting whole-grain breads and other bakery products for low-carb dieters.

Tortillas also did well throughout the last several years, as low-carb wraps replaced many sandwich options on the menu. These definitely made more nutritional sense than bunless hamburgers and should continue to do well in the fast-food industry.

Most baked products were reformulated by replacing sucrose with polyols, such as maltitol, sorbitol, isomalt, lactitol or erythritol, and corn syrups with maltitol syrups and polyglycitols; replacing starches with resistant starches, fiber and bran; and replacing wheat flour with soy flour, soy protein, whey protein or wheat protein. Products formulated to enhance taste and texture while delivering lower carbs, more fiber, higher protein, lower calories or lower sugar -- or whatever the intended benefit -- will continue to sell. Many manufacturers, especially if they entered the market late in 2003, highlighted the other benefits first in case the bottom dropped out of the low-carb market.

According to reports from Mintel, the 2004 U.S. cookie market was estimated at $4.7 billion, a drop of 3.5% from 2003. According to their report, when asked to list a number of healthy foods, very few consumers included cookies. Also, during that period low-carb diets have taken off, and the sugar and refined grains in most cookies are prime sources of carbs. Similar to the bread reports, in Mintel's consumer research, close to 40% of adults reported eating fewer cookies than they did a year ago.

The biggest gain has been in the premium segment, which appeals to the growing adult consumer base. The health-oriented cookie segment has also seen a gain -- up 6% since 2001. This growth might increase as more such cookies are added to the market, especially newer, tastier low-carb, sugar-free, reduced-sugar, reduced-calorie and no-trans-fat cookies. Sugar-free cookies have been on the market for some time, but market interest has spurred product development of more upscale cookies for this market. Availability of crystalline maltitol has improved, along with new maltitol syrups and improved fiber sources, opening new formulation opportunities for this market.

Sales in the nutritional- and energy-bar category grew to $689 million in the 52 weeks ending July 11, 2004, according to Information Resources, Inc. (IRI), Chicago. At that time, low-carb bars directly accounted for half of the top-10 bars, with low-carb bars also taking the top three spots. At the end of 2004, it is expected that growth in the low-carb area will have dropped significantly, causing some brands to disappear and others to look for new marketing messages.

As always, good-tasting products should be expected to remain, while the less-acceptable products drop out, causing a reshaping of the market. Mintel notes that "overall growth rates are high, with products from Atkins Nutritionals accounting for a large portion of it in 2002 to 2004. In recent years, the major multinational food companies have acquired leading cereal bar brands. Currently, the market leaders include Kellogg's, Quaker Oats, General Mills, Atkins, and Unilever/ Slim-Fast." Based on Mintel research, overall growth in the market should slow, but remain strong -- sales are expected to rise 7.6% at an inflation-adjusted annual rate between 2004 and 2009. Nutritional bars that follow a "good-for-you," reduced-carbohydrate strategy can contain high-protein cereal grains (proprietary mixtures of whey, soy and wheat proteins and concentrates), gums, fibers (polydextrose, inulin, fructooligosaccharides, and fruit, vegetable and cereal fibers), polyols (added for sweetness, binding, humectancy and replacement of sugar bulk), chocolate compound coatings, caramels, nougat, etc.

Carbs in candyland According to information published by the National Confectioners Association, Vienna, VA, the diet-candy market, composed of low-carb and sugar-free products, has increased sales more than 90% within the past year (based on IRI data). The diet segment accounts for about 3% of sales overall in the candy industry. This growth is expected to continue, since interest in sugar-free confectionery products has been on the rise for a number of years.

Sales of sugar-free gum were up 11% for the 52-week period ending April 18, 2004, while sales of gum containing sugar were down for the same period, based on IRI data. Sales of sugar-free gum have risen steadily, thanks in part to new products that offer convenience, breath freshening, whitening and vastly improved flavors. Many of these new products also offer a drastic cooling effect.

Low-carb chocolate was introduced for the low-carb market, as well as sugar-free and reduced-sugar chocolates. Hershey Foods Corporation, Hershey, PA, for example, introduced a line of sugar-free chocolates, followed by their 1 Gram Sugar Carb bars, and recently introduced SmartZone(TM) "controlled release nutrition" bars, based on Sears' popular concept, the Zone.

Drinking to health Beverage manufacturers added 429 new products in the energy- and sports-drink category during the first nine months of 2004, according to the Global New Products Database (GNPD) published by Mintel. According to GNPD, the market saw an increase in energy drinks fortified with vitamins and minerals: "Consumers seek these nutrients out of a growing interest in general health and well-being," as well as to restore energy and boost performance during the day. GNPD noted an increase in low-calorie and lower-carbohydrate beverage products, as well as in low-carb products. For standard carbonated and still beverages, the technology for sugar replacement is long-standing, especially the use of high-intensity sweeteners, and improvements in taste and stability are ongoing. But the beverage category provides other low-carb opportunities.

The GNPD report saw the value of including ingredients like whey protein and ultrafiltered (UF) milk, which are naturally lower in carbohydrates, in sports drinks, energy drinks, nutrient-enhanced drinks and fluid meal replacements. Interest in reduced-calorie beverages and energy drinks with reduced carbohydrates should also continue to grow in 2005, according to the report.

The next message Consumers are constantly surrounded by mixed messages, some based on fact, some based on what someone wants them to hear. This drug is good, this drug is bad. This ingredient is good, this one is bad. The same is true for food product developers and food marketers.

One message is clear -- carbohydrates are an important part of our food supply and are, in fact, the predominant part of our food supply. All carbohydrates are not the same, however, and that is part of the educational message for consumers.

Time, patience and cooperation are needed for nutritional research to support how to use messages like GI, GL, satiety, fiber, etc. within the context of mixed diets, as well as during the study of any long-term effects on the human body. Food product developers and food marketers -- as we move forward to support FDA's "Calories Count" concept, sugar reduction and improvement of whole grains and fiber intake -- need to accept that sometimes "zero" does not work, "reduced" is a move in the right direction and "low" does not necessarily mean "as low as technically possible." Polyols, high-intensity sweeteners, fibers and proteins can work well together in low-carb foods, but overuse can lead to taste and texture problems, as well as potential laxation or constipation for the consumer.

We have tried the extremes and tested the boundaries of acceptability. Moderation should be a slam-dunk.

Ronald C. Deis, Ph.D., is the vice president of technology at SPI Polyols, Inc., New Castle, DE. He has 25 years of   experience in the food industry, both in food-ingredient and consumer-product companies, and is an active member in a number of trade associations. He has been a short-course speaker, worked as a freelance writer covering a number of food-science-related subjects in food journals, and contributed chapters on sweeteners and fat replacers for several books.

Back to top