Beverages Clean Label March 2014 ww Crystal Clean: Designing Clean-Label Beverages

By Kimberly J. Decker, Contributing Editor

All it took to turn “brominated vegetable oil” into a household name was a bottle of , a 15- year-old and an online petition. Those were the three simple, increasingly familiar ingredients that, when combined and agitated at Internet speed in late 2012, aproduced the most recent brouhaha to emerge over a “chemical-sounding” additive to our foods and beverages.

To recap, Sarah Kavanagh, a Hattiesburg, MS, teenager, noticed brominated vegetable oil (BVO) among the ingredients on her sports drink’s label and, not knowing what it was, turned to Google for clarity. Alarmed to find results linking BVO to everything from neurological damage to hormone disruption and skin lesions, she did what any other digitally empowered “netizen” would do and launched an online petition asking Gatorade’s parent company, PepsiCo, Purchase, NY, to stop using BVO in the sports drink and its other brands that contain it, like . The petition racked up more than 200,000 signatures within months, and though PepsiCo denies any direct influence on their decision, the company announced the phasing out of BVO from Gatorade— though not Mountain Dew—in January 2013.

The lesson: these days, perception is reality, and in a wired world even a misperception can shape millions of mindsets in the time it takes to tap a finger. As Kelly Newsome, corporate communications, GNT USA, Inc., Tarrytown, NY, says: “Consumers do care about what’s in the foods and beverages they consume. They want to recognize what the ingredients are and where they come from, and feel good about consuming them.” They also want sports drinks and sodas—to say nothing of juices, teas and other drinks—that meet expectations for taste, texture, color and stability. So beverage manufacturers have to find clean-label ingredients that not only look good on labels but work well in the bottle, too.

Feeling and fact Sarah Kavanagh isn’t the only one reading the beverage-label fine print. As Amy Lauer, marketing manager, North America, Tate & Lyle, Hoffman Estates, IL, notes, “According to the Natural Marketing Institute, 47% of consumers said they looked for foods and beverages with a short list of recognizable ingredients in 2013.” Moreover, Mintel’s Global New Products Database (GNPD) lists fully 409 U.S. beverages launched in 2012 with “pure,” “real” or “simple” in the product name, compared to only 178 in 1999.

But one person’s “pure” can be another’s puffery, and abstractions offer scant guidance to beverage developers looking for a definition of “clean label” that they can formulate on. Alas, it remains a “know-it-when-you-see-it” concept. The USDA National Organic Program (NOP) may spell out what qualifies as “organic,” and “natural” may have a strict regulatory meaning with respect to meat, poultry and flavors, but a term like “clean label” traffics more in feeling than in fact.

www.foodproductdesign.com Page 1

Beverages Clean Label March 2014

Elusive balance That puts beverage manufacturers in a bind. As Mathieu Dondain, director of marketing and communication, Nexira, Rouen, France, says, “The clean-label trend can be defined asconsumer demand for products free of complicated and chemical-sounding additives, made with short and understandable ingredients lists and minimal processing.”

It’s within these constraints that the beverage industry “needs to find a good balance of quality, price, guaranteed shelf life, food safety, pleasant taste and healthy ingredients,” Dondain says. And that’s a tricky balance for beverage makers to find because, with the exception of, say, freshly pressed juice or milk straight from the cow—and who drinks that?—rare is the drink whose contents we don’t tinker with. Even “pure” tap water undergoes chemical treatment. So whether we’re tinting a smoothie pink or flavoring an orange soda, we continually pursue that elusive balance between ingredient function and familiarity.

Weighty matters Which brings us back to BVO and why little Sarah found it in her sports drink. Brominated vegetable oil is what’s known as a weighting agent. It, along with weighting agents like sucrose acetate isobutyrate (SAIB) and glycerol ester of wood rosin (ester gum), are frequent fliers in beverages like citrus-flavored soft drinks because, as Himanshu Shah, senior manager, technical services, US Canada ingredients solutions, Ingredion Inc., Westchester, IL, explains, “In many cases, flavor oils that are used in beverages (e.g., orange oil, lemon oil, etc.) are lower in density than water and tend to float to the top of the beverage.” At about 0.845 to 0.890 grams per cm3 compared to 1.038 to 1.046 grams per cm3 for a typical aqueous sugar solution, such oils have a specific gravity lower than that of the liquid phase with which they’re emulsified in the finished beverage.

This is a problem because the greater the difference in specific gravity between these two immiscible phases, the harder the emulsion is to stabilize. Left unchecked, the dispersed oil droplets eventually coalesce and separate from the aqueous portion, producing the infamous “ringing” that plagues inadequately stabilized and emulsified citrus beverages.

But as their name implies, weighting agents effectively weigh down the flavor oils, bringing their density nearer that of the aqueous phase and stabilizing the beverage emulsion. “This lowers the oils’ tendency to rise to the top and increases the stability of the emulsion,” Shah says. “In addition to increasing density, weighting agents are often added to the oil phase to enhance the opacity or cloudiness, which is a desirable feature for many beverages.” And what’s not to like about that? Well, BVO may not be the insidious killer that some web accounts would have you believe, but FDA did take it off the GRAS list in the 1970s, limiting its use to 15 ppm as an additive “permitted on an interim basis pending further study” in fruit-flavored beverages. (Limits on ester gum and SAIB are 100 ppm and 300 ppm, respectively.) And, though FDA sees no need to revisit BVO safety at this time, concern about accumulation in the body sufficed to trigger bans on BVO as a food ingredient in the European Union, Japan and India.

But there may be other reasons to reconsider using BVO. For despite their functionality, weighting agents are expensive—contributing up to half a beverage emulsion’s cost, according to Ingredion— dissolve slowly and with much effort, preclude beverage clarity and can even settle out in alcoholic www.foodproductdesign.com Page 2

Beverages Clean Label March 2014 applications. Clean-label alternatives that eliminate those drawbacks present the proverbial win-win- win, easing production, lowering cost in use and pleasing consumers.

Go-to gums According to Per Pihlsgard, senior beverage specialist, GNT, “Most flavor emulsions these days are typically made with gum acacia (also known as gum arabic) and weighted with ester gum—which, in my opinion, is the most label-friendly system.” And, though he notes that modified starch can serve as an emulsifier with SAIB as the weighting agent, “those aren’t as label-friendly as gum arabic and ester gum.”

Shah notes that his company developed a natural emulsion stabilizer that eliminates the need for weighting agents. “Without weighting agents,” he says, “there is no limitation on the level of flavor that can be added to achieve the desired flavor intensity and desired opacity provided by the oil. Formulators are free to innovate, and tailor the flavor and opacity of the beverage, without concern for restrictions imposed by regulations governing weighting agent levels.”

Key to these systems’ success is an ability to pack more oil into the emulsion efficiently. On that front, Dondain says his company’s acacia gum is “three times more efficient” than traditional grades of acacia, giving it “the highest emulsifying properties.” And because the natural product is instantized, it’s “easy to use and saves energy in the production process,” he adds. It’s also pH- and alcohol- stable, which should come in handy in flavored wine coolers and hard lemonades. The gum, he notes, is “obtained through a unique proprietary process, protecting and enhancing the stabilization and emulsion properties of the Senegal acacia gum specie.” “Consumer and retailer pressure for more natural ingredients has gained manufacturers’ attention,” Dondain notes, and companies like his are responding by expanding not only the pool of clean-label ingredients, but the scope of their approved use, as well. “As an example,” he says, “in response to a petition filed by Nexira, FDA recently amended the regulations to provide for the expanded safe use of acacia gum in foods and beverages.”

The change, effective Dec. 6, 2013, allows for higher maximum levels of acacia gum “and includes distinctions allowing for even greater use of acacia gum as a source of fiber,” Dondain says. This may appeal to beverage manufacturers interested in both stripping chemical-sounding weighting agents from their beverages and adding good-for-you nutrients, too. Dondain notes that Nexira’s acacia gum is the only one of its kind that provides a minimum 90% soluble dietary fiber and improves mouthfeel in processed dairy beverages like yogurt drinks, as well as breakfast beverages and dairy-based meal-replacements. “Moreover, its great stability under severe temperature and acidic conditions guarantees a consistent fiber content in high-acid beverages,” he says. As a BVO replacer, however, usage levels are too low to allow a fiber benefit.

Color commentary Gum-based systems can do more than replace weighting agents used to stabilize flavor emulsions: they can help deliver fat-soluble vitamins and functional ingredients, as well. “Some natural colors, especially in the yellow and orange area, may need a stabilizer to stay in solution, too,” Pihlsgard adds. “It’s obviously critical that those ingredients are themselves natural and label-friendly, so as not to defeat the purpose of using natural colors in the first place.” www.foodproductdesign.com Page 3

Beverages Clean Label March 2014

In 2014, using “natural” colors is the name of the game—not just in clean-label beverages, but across categories. Dondain cites Innova research showing that adoption of natural colors grew 15.4% from 2011 to 2012. It’s a sign of things to come, but one that color suppliers—aware of “artificial” colors’ rumored complicity in causing everything from cancer to Junior’s misbehavior—have anticipated for some time.

Just what officially qualifies as a “natural” color, however, is complicated. While FD&C numbers clearly identify the synthetic petroleum-based azo dyes subject to certification for use in food, drugs and cosmetics, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) doesn’t provide for a “natural” colorant category, distinguishing only between synthetics and colors exempt from certification as enumerated in Title 21 CFR Part 73.

Most colorants on this list—annatto, turmeric, saffron, paprika, et al—enjoy a “natural” reputation for the simple reason that consumers can wrap their brains around the ingredients’ fruit, vegetable and spice origins. But it’s rare to see one of these labeled as “natural” because FDA permits the term only when applied to colors that occur naturally in the product they’re coloring. So beet juice in a borscht mix can call itself “natural,” whereas in a berry-flavored it can’t. But industry-wide and outside the actual label terminology, these types of colorants are known as “natural colors.” Regardless, says Newsome, “There are many fruit- and vegetable-based ingredients that can deliver valuable functionality to beverage products, from added phytonutrient content to clean-label colors.” Using a red sports drink as an example, she says, “Color from fruits and vegetables would be extremely effective, as the consumer would immediately recognize the color ingredient as being natural, and there would be no need for further explanation. Further, colors from fruits and vegetables provide stability throughout the shelf life of the product and are readily available to manufacturers.” This hasn’t always been the case, as earlier generations of exempt colorants were notorious for poor stability, fading, off flavors and fluctuating supplies. But consistent and strong demand has bred expanded sourcing and improvements in processing and extraction that make contemporary natural colors more reliable.

To get the most out of them, Pihlsgard says, “Our advice would be to understand the ingredient interactions in the early stages of product development, do stability testing and work with a supplier who grows their own raw materials, has the right processing technology and has application know- how.”

The caramel conundrum One “natural” color noteworthy for its stability also happens to be, ounce per ounce, the most widely used natural or synthetic food color in the world: caramel. Produced via the controlled heating of sugar, caramel color is as old as cooking itself, and roughly three-quarters of it goes into beverages like colas and beers, where it provides hues ranging from golden to brown.

Yet despite caramel’s natural origins, it’s stirred controversy with some consumer groups, not to mention the state of California. The reason is 4-methylimidazole (4-MeI), a compound produced when foods—coffee, chocolate, bread—are heated. Caramel colors fall into four classes based on the reactants used in their production, and those in classes III and IV, made with ammonium, also contain 4-MeI. www.foodproductdesign.com Page 4

Beverages Clean Label March 2014

FDA, Canada’s Health Products and Food Branch and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are aware of 4-MeI’s presence in class III and IV caramels, and yet all have deemed the colors safe for use in foods and beverages. California, however, took the exceptional step, under its Proposition 65 authority, of adding 4-MeI to its list of chemicals “known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” In so doing, it placed class III and IV caramel colors under scrutiny.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Washington, DC, goosed the kerfuffle by conducting its own 2012 investigation into class III and IV caramels and levels of 4-MeI in Coca-Cola, while also calling on FDA both to prohibit ammoniated caramel colors and to change their name to something that doesn’t sound as safe. But the agency hasn’t taken the bait, and decades of studies on caramel continue to refute claims of carcinogenicity and support the colorants’ GRAS status.

Concerns about caramel have nevertheless spread and influenced consumers’ choices, which is why caramel color suppliers have cooked up clean-label options appropriate for use in colas, which traditionally depend on class IV caramels for their color. For example, D.D. Williamson, Louisville, KY, developed an ingredient free of the additives that implicate class III and IV caramels. It appears on products as “natural flavoring” rather than caramel color, although it’s targeted at coloring applications. How does it pull this off? According to company literature, when sugar is heated to create caramel color, some caramel flavor travels along with the color. “Due to the flavor and color properties of this new clean-label caramel color solution,” the company continues, “manufacturers of cola, soft drinks and other carbonated beverages can now enjoy a new ‘clean-label’ alternative to the typical caramel color labeling.” And because it displays good acid stability—important in colas—it should appeal to processors as well as label-reading consumers.

A sweetener by any other name All this talk of caramel turns the mind toward sugar, which is about as simple and recognizable as ingredients get. But even simple sugars are complex in today’s fraught labeling environment, and several sweetener issues have beverage manufacturers wondering how best to clean up their acts. Consider the campaign against high fructose corn syrup that’s made HFCS something of a fourletter word. Despite widespread scientific agreement that the sweetener affects health no differently than sugars, media reports on its danger prompted a wave of reformulations that replaced the handy corn- based liquid with sucrose.

To stanch the exodus, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), Washington, DC, petitioned FDA in 2010 to permit the labeling of HFCS as “corn sugar”—but to no avail. FDA claimed the change would confuse consumers and fails to differentiate between “solid, dried and crystallized” sugar and the “aqueous solution or liquid food” otherwise known as syrup. Besides, “corn sugar” is already taken— it’s what we call dextrose.

In the end, though, the debate may be moot because shoppers appear to have other concerns. Sweetener360, a CRA-commissioned study, conducted by Nielsen and Mintel Consulting and released in January 2014, shows that while 75% of those surveyed claim to regularly or occasionally read nutrition information and ingredient statements, four times as many watch out for total sugars as do those avoiding HFCS specifically.

www.foodproductdesign.com Page 5

Beverages Clean Label March 2014

Sugar surfeit While this may lift corn refiners’ spirits, it hardly lets sugars—or sweetened soft drinks—off the hook. Again, CSPI, leading the charge, asked FDA in 2013 to limit the amount of caloric sweetener allowable in sodas and other beverages. And this probably won’t be the last industry hears of the matter, as sugar reduction, rather than a shift toward “cleaner” sweeteners, may become the beverage-formulation imperative of our era.

Happily, it’s one the beverage industry is already addressing. Citing 2007-2008 data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the American Beverage Association, Washington, DC, points out that Americans now consume 37% fewer calories from sugar-sweetened beverages than they did in 2000, in no small part thanks to manufacturers’ substituting high-intensity non-nutritive sweeteners for traditional sugars.

But returning to the clean-label mission, “artificial” non-nutritive options, like aspartame, sucralose and acesulfame potassium, run the risk of scaring away the very label-reading consumers beverages makers court. Fortunately, today’s sugar alternatives include nature-derived ones, as well. “Two clean-label ingredients that belong on the ‘short list’ are stevia and monk fruit extract,” Lauer says. “Both are gaining recognition among consumers and increasing traction as ingredients in beverages.” Mintel’s GNPD shows U.S. launches of beverages made with stevia, monk fruit extract or both more than doubling from 2012 to 2013, she says, and the growth can be attributed partly to improvements in the ingredients’ taste and performance.

“Stevia is an attractive sweetening ingredient because the steviol glycoside extracts used in the formulation offer a sweetness intensity exponentially greater than sugar’s,” Lauer explains. “But manufacturers have been limited by the taste of typical stevia extracts, creating the need to formulate with masking ingredients to offset the bitterness.” By contrast, she says, the steviol glycoside composition in her company’s stevia yields a cleaner profile than reb A 97, with none of the “intense bitter or licorice aftertatses” associated with other first-generation stevias.

The zero-calorie sweetener can replace 50% or more of the sugar in beverage applications, Lauer notes, although formulators will need to find something to make up for sugar’s bulk. Polydextrose is a standard bulking agent in reduced-sugar beverages, as are some soluble fibers that fill volume without adding calories. And though they’re not calorie-free, polyols like erythritol, as well as trehalose—a naturally occurring disaccharide whose metabolism produces only about 1.3 kcal/gram—build body back into reduced-sugar beverages.

Being “natural,” it might please label readers, too. And while their changing demands and perceptions can make clean-label formulation a challenge, it’s what Dondain calls “a positive challenge.” Clean- label beverage design may not be easy, he says, but “it will benefit both customers and the manufacturer in the end.”

Kimberly J. Decker, a California-based technical writer, has a B.S. in consumer food science with a minor in English from the University of California, Davis. She lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where she enjoys eating and writing about food. You can reach her at [email protected].

www.foodproductdesign.com Page 6