Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
table 13.1
relative Sweetness of Some alternative Sweeteners (Compiled from Different Sources)
Sweetness relative
to Sucrose
Sweetness relative
to Sucrose
Sweetener
Sweetener
lactitol
0.4
Fructose
1.5
Hydrogenated starch hydrolysates
0.4-0.9
cyclamate (banned)
30
Trehalose
0.45
aspartame
180
isomalt
0.45-0.65
Saccharin
300
isomaltulose
0.48
Stevioside
300
Sorbitol
0.6
Sucralose
600
Mannitol
0.7
Monellin
2000
Maltitol
0.9
alitame
2000
Tagatose
0.9
Thaumatin
2500
Xylitol
1.0
Neotame
8000
High-fructose corn syrup
1.0
of the carbonated beverage industry. By the time it was banned in the United States in 1970, the
products and trademarks had been well established. Such a large market for diet beverages pro-
vided a tremendous incentive for the development of new sweeteners. After cyclamate was banned
and removed from the market, saccharin was the only available low-energy alternative to sucrose.
However, with more recent developments and the availability of a variety of sweeteners, includ-
ing acesulfame potassium, aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin, the multiple-sweetener approach
is an unavoidable reality in the food and beverage industry. Today, blends are frequently used. For
example, in the United States, diet fountain soft drinks are generally sweetened with a combination
of aspartame and saccharin, whereas in other parts of the world, soft drinks may contain as many
as four sweeteners. Sugar-free gums and candies contain combinations such as saccharin/sorbitol
and acesulfame potassium/isomalt.
Similarly, polyols are important adjuncts to sugar-free product development. These sweeteners,
generally less sweet than sucrose (Table 13.1), provide the bulk of sugar. The main advantage of
polyols is their compatibility with other low-energy sweeteners. This synergistic effect almost, in
general, results in highly acceptable, good-tasting, low-energy products similar to their high-energy
dense counterparts. In combination with a number of available carbohydrate-based fat replacers
and low-energy bulking agents, such as polydextrose (PD) and some other soluble ibers, a novel,
multiple ingredient approach in the development of novel foods can be applied to reduce the overall
energy intake. In addition to the fact that consumers have an innate desire for sweet goods (Inglett
1970, 1974), the research has also indicated that the obese individuals and those who were once
obese may have a greater preference for fatty liquids mixed with sugar than the others (nonobese
persons; Beck 1974). Therefore, the fat and sugar replacements are important in the development of
products that may aid in weight management and reduced energy intake.
Fat and oil consumption has been associated with a number of detrimental health effects, caus-
ing a shift in consumer preference toward low-fat products. However, although these concerns
should be addressed, the approach needs to be more balanced, because the nutritional requirements
with regard to fat intake should be met (Giese 1996). In fact, fats are important energy sources and,
in some instances, conjoint building blocks in the human tissue, especially during early develop-
ment. They provide approximately 37 kJ/g, whereas proteins and carbohydrates provide less than
half of this amount. Some fatty acids such as linoleic and linolenic acids are regarded essential
and play an important role in many metabolic pathways, aiding in the absorption of vital nutrients,
regulation of smooth muscle contraction, regulation of blood pressure, and growth of healthy cells.
On the other hand, most regulatory recommendations have stated that the consumption of high lev-
els of fat is associated with obesity, certain cancers, and, possibly, gallbladder disease (Wilborn et
al. 2005). Furthermore, strong evidence exists for a relationship between saturated fat intake, high
Search WWH ::
Custom Search