1. Please check and comment entries here.
Table of Contents

    Topic review

    Sugar Reduction in Dairy Food

    Subjects: Others
    View times: 76
    Submitted by: Dipendra Mahato

    Definition

    1. The World Health Organization (WHO) and Public Health England (PHE) recommend cutting down added sugar in processed foods

    2. Flavoured milk is one the sources of sugar and calorie intake in all age groups

    3. Sugar reduction by partial substitution with natural non-nutritive sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit is one of the most suitable options for food industries

    4. Sugar reduction will help manage the chronic diseases like obesity, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes

    1. Introduction

    The consumption of excessive free or added sugar contributes to total energy intake, and, possibly, to increased body weight [1], the occurrence of obesity [2][3], and associated chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes [4][5]. Flavoured milk is used to promote milk intake to meet the recommended dietary allowances (RDA) for vitamin D and calcium [4]. Milk appears to be the principal dairy product consumed by children worldwide. It is estimated that between 60–80% of American children’s dairy product consumption is comprised of fluid milk [6]. Furthermore, 68% of all milk available to children in schools in the USA is flavoured, of which the majority is chocolate milk [7]. However, the regular consumption of sweetened flavoured milk has been reported to increase energy intake more than 10% as compared with non-consumers [8][9][10]. The increased energy intake is further linked to the occurrence of overweight, obesity [1][2][3], and type 2 diabetes [4][5].

    The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends less than 10% of total energy intake from free sugars per day in both adults and children (strong recommendation). A further reduction to below 5% is a conditional recommendation [11]. These guidelines have been considered by Public Health England (PHE), which recommends a 20% sugar reduction in processed foods and beverages by 2020 [12]. A well-tested model of an epidemiological triad (hosts, vectors, and environments) provides a framework to address such public health concerns [13][14]. The vectors rule of this model suggests ”small changes × large volumes = significant population benefits”. Therefore, even a small reduction can significantly benefit a larger population in the long term.

    2. Nutritive Sweetener (NS)

    The NSs include sugars such as sucrose, fructose, and lactose, as well high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), trehalose, and polyols (erythritol, isomaltitol, lactitol, maltitol, sorbitol, mannitol, and xylitol) [15][16]. NSs have various advantages when added to foods and beverages (Table 1), however, they provide calorie contribution. For these reasons, they are not preferred for sugar reduction strategies where calorie reduction is important.

    3. Non-Nutritive Sweeteners (NNSs)

    Non-nutritive (intensive) sweeteners (NNSs) are food additives with high sweetness potency. They are usually added in low amounts, and therefore their calorie contribution is almost negligible and are preferred for use where calorie reduction is desired (Table 2) [15]. NS and NNS can both be either natural or artificial [17][18][19]. Natural sweeteners are intrinsic to a food substance or commonly occur in nature, e.g., stevia and monk fruit [20], while artificial sweeteners are not found in nature but are synthesized from an existing natural source. The first artificial sweetener approved by the FDA was Saccharin in 1958, while Advantame was the most recent one approved by the FDA in 2014. Similarly, the first natural NNS approved for use by the FDA in 2009 was steviol glycosides with rebaudioside A as the main component. Furthermore, the physiological effects relating to NNSs and NSs vary greatly. NSs play more of a role in the regulation of hormonal secretion and brain activation to control appetite as compared with NNSs [21]. Considering this evidence, NNSs may serve as a good substitute for sugar reduction strategies.

    Table 1. Natural and artificial nutritive sweeteners (NSs), their advantages, disadvantages, sweetness potency, and calorie contribution.

    Nutritive Sweeteners (NS)

     

    Type

    Advantages

    Disadvantages

    *Sweetness Potency

    Calorie/g

    References

    Sucrose

     

    Natural

    Provides colour, flavour, bulkness and preservative actions against microbes

    Contributes calories to diets

    1.0

    4.0

    [22]

    Glucose

     

    Natural

    Essential energy source for the brain

    Contributes calories to diets and affects satiety

    0.75×

    4.0

    [23]

    Fructose

     

    Natural

    Sweetest carbohydrate in nature

    Contributes calories to diets but does not affect satiety like glucose

    1.5–1.8×

    4.0

    [24]

    Lactose

     

    Natural

    Raw material and prebiotics for probiotics

    Less contribution to sweetness

    0.11–0.13×

    3.9

    [25][26]

    Trehalose

     

    Artificial

    Antioxidant activity, food flavour enhancer; prevents starch aging; odor reduction and extension of the shelf life

    Contributes calories

    0.5–0.7×

    3.6

    [27][28][29][30]

    Erythritol

     

    Artificial

    Highly stable, low calorie contribution, tooth-friendly sweetener providing volume, texture, and microbiological stability

    Can cause gastrointestinal symptoms

    0.7×

    0.2

    [31]

    Isomalt (Isomaltitol)

     

    Artificial

    Heat resistant and tooth-friendly

    Laxative effect along with gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal discomfort, bloating and flatulence if consumed in excess i.e., >50 g)

    0.45–0.6×

    2.0

    [31][32]

    Lactitol

     

    Artificial

    Low calories suitable for sugar-free foods

    Similar to Isomalt

    0.35–0.4×

    1.9

    [31]

    Maltitol

     

    Artificial

    Heat resistance, strong flavour consistency, and tooth-friendly as it is not fermented by tooth plaque forming microorganisms

    Similar to Isomalt

    0.5–0.9×

    3.0

    [31][33]

    Sorbitol

     

    Artificial

    Bulking agent, humectant, sequestrant and acts as stabilizer

    Similar to Isomalt

    0.6×

    2.6

    [31][34]

    Mannitol

     

    Artificial

    Crystallization in the form of a colourless/white needle/rhombus with extremely low hygroscopicity

    Only 18% (w/v) soluble in water at 25 °C

    0.5–0.72×

    1.6

    [35][36][37]

    Xylitol

     

    Artificial

    Sweetness intensity similar to sucrose

    Similar to Isomalt

    1.0×

    3.0

    [32]

    * Sweetness potency-the indicated estimate values are times (×) that of sucrose.

    Table 2. Natural and artificial non-nutritive sweeteners (NNSs) used for sugar reduction in dairy products.

    Non-nutritive Sweetener (NNS)

    Structure

    ADI (mg/kg Body Weight/day)

    Onset

    Lingering

    Off-taste

    Food and Beverages

    Amount of Sugar Reduction

    Reference

    Natural

    Thaumatin

     

    50

    Delay

    Long

    Nil

    Probiotic chocolate-flavoured milk

    20%

    [15][38][39]

    Neohesperidine dihydrochalcone

     

    35

    Delay

    Long

    Like licorice

    Chocolate, skimmed plain yoghurt

    -

    [15][40][41]

    Steviol glucosides

     

    4

    Delay

    Moderate

    Bitter

    Chocolate milk, chocolate dairy desserts

    50%

    [15][42][43][44][45]

    Monk fruit (Mogrosides V)

     

    25

    Delay

    Long

    Nil

    Chocolate milk

    50%

    [42][43][46]

    Artificial

    Advantame

     

    5

    Delay

    Moderate

    Nil

    Strawberry-flavoured yoghurt

    100%

    [15][47][48]

    Neotame

     

    2

    Delay

    Strong

    Nil

    Prebiotic chocolate dairy dessert

    100%

    [15][45]

    Sucralose

     

    5

    Slight delay

    Moderate

    Slight bitter

    Strawberry flavoured yoghurt, dairy desserts, lassi

    100%

    [15][44][48]

    Saccharin

     

     

    5

    Rapid

    Non-significant

    Bitter and metallic

    Strawberry flavoured yoghurt, lemon whey beverages

    39%-100%

    [15][48][49]

    Aspartame

     

    40

    Slight delay

    Moderate

    Non-significant

    Strawberry flavoured yoghurt, lemon whey beverages, lassi

    39–100%

    [15][49][50]

    Acesulfame K

     

     

    9

    Quick

    Low

    Bitter and metallic

    Strawberry flavoured yoghurt, lassi

    100%

    [15][50]

    Cyclamates

     

     

    11

    Rapid

    Non-significant

    Bitter and salty

    Strawberry flavoured yoghurt

    100%

    [15]

    The entry is from 10.3390/foods9101400

    References

    1. Dello Russo, M.; Ahrens, W.; De Henauw, S.; Eiben, G.; Hebestreit, A.; Kourides, Y.; Lissner, L.; Molnar, D.; Moreno, L.A.; Pala, V. The impact of adding sugars to milk and fruit on adiposity and diet quality in children: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of the Identification and Prevention of Dietary-and Lifestyle-Induced Health Effects in Children and Infants (IDEFICS) Study. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1350, doi:10.3390/nu10101350.
    2. Te Morenga, L.; Mallard, S.; Mann, J. Dietary sugars and body weight: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies. BMJ 2013, 346, e7492, doi:10.1136/bmj.e7492.
    3. Malik, V.S.; Schulze, M.B.; Hu, F.B. Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: A systematic review. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006, 84, 274–288, doi:10.1093/ajcn/84.1.274.
    4. Patel, A.I.; Moghadam, S.D.; Freedman, M.; Hazari, A.; Fang, M.L.; Allen, I.E. The association of flavored milk consumption with milk and energy intake, and obesity: A systematic review. Med. 2018, 111, 151–162, doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.02.031.
    5. Singh, J.; Rasane, P.; Kaur, S.; Kumar, V.; Dhawan, K.; Mahato, D.K.; Malhotra, S.; Sarma, C.; Kaur, D.; Bhattacharya, J. Nutritional Interventions and Considerations for the development of low calorie or sugar free foods. Diabetes Rev. 2020, 16, 301–312, doi:10.2174/1573399815666190807144422.
    6. What We Eat in America. NHANES 2011–2012, individuals 2 years and over (excluding breast-fed children), day 1 dietary intake data, weighted. Food Patterns Equivalents Database (FPED) 2011–2012. Available online: www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/fsrg (accessed on 8 October 2018).
    7. Nicklas, T.A.; O’neil, C.; Fulgoni, V. Flavored milk consumers drank more milk and had a higher prevalence of meeting calcium recommendation than nonconsumers. Sch. Health 2017, 87, 650–657, doi:10.1111/josh.12537.
    8. Ludwig, D.S.; Peterson, K.E.; Gortmaker, S.L. Relation between consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks and childhood obesity: A prospective, observational analysis. Lancet 2001, 357, 505–508, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04041-1.
    9. Krachler, B.; Eliasson, M.; Stenlund, H.; Johansson, I.; Hallmans, G.; Lindahl, B. Reported food intake and distribution of body fat: A repeated cross-sectional study. J. 2006, 5, 34, doi:10.1186/1475-2891-5-34.
    10. Striegel-Moore, R.H.; Thompson, D.; Affenito, S.G.; Franko, D.L.; Obarzanek, E.; Barton, B.A.; Schreiber, G.B.; Daniels, S.R.; Schmidt, M.; Crawford, P.B. Correlates of beverage intake in adolescent girls: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Growth and Health Study. Pediatr. 2006, 148, 183–187, doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.11.025.
    11. Guideline: Sugars Intake for Adults and Children; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 1–49.
    12. Sugar Reduction: Achieving the 20%. A Technical Report Outlining Progress to date, Guidelines for Industry, 2015 Baseline Levels in Key Foods and Next Steps; Public Health England: London, UK, 2017.
    13. Egger, G.; Swinburn, B.; Rossner, S. Dusting off the epidemiological triad: Could it work with obesity? Rev. 2003, 4, 115–119, doi:10.1046/j.1467-789X.2003.00100.x.
    14. Keast, R.; Sayompark, D.; Sacks, G.; Swinburn, B.; Riddell, L. The influence of caffeine on energy content of sugar-sweetened beverages: ‘The caffeine–calorie effect’. J. Clin. Nutr. 2011, 65, 1338, doi:10.1038/ejcn.2011.123.
    15. Carocho, M.; Morales, P.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Sweeteners as food additives in the XXI century: A review of what is known, and what is to come. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2017, 107, 302–317, doi:10.1016/j.fct.2017.06.046.
    16. Chattopadhyay, S.; Raychaudhuri, U.; Chakraborty, R. Artificial sweeteners—A review. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 611–621, doi:10.1007/s13197-011-0571-1.
    17. Servant, G.; Tachdjian, C.; Tang, X.-Q.; Werner, S.; Zhang, F.; Li, X.; Kamdar, P.; Petrovic, G.; Ditschun, T.; Java, A. Positive allosteric modulators of the human sweet taste receptor enhance sweet taste. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 4746–4751, doi:10.1073/pnas.0911670107.
    18. Lustig, R.H.; Schmidt, L.A.; Brindis, C.D. Public health: The toxic truth about sugar. Nature 2012, 482, 27, doi:10.1038/482027a.
    19. Shankar, P.; Ahuja, S.; Sriram, K. Non-nutritive sweeteners: Review and update. Nutrition 2013, 29, 1293–1299, doi:10.1016/j.nut.2013.03.024.
    20. Anton, S.D.; Martin, C.K.; Han, H.; Coulon, S.; Cefalu, W.T.; Geiselman, P.; Williamson, D.A. Effects of stevia, aspartame, and sucrose on food intake, satiety, and postprandial glucose and insulin levels. Appetite 2010, 55, 37–43, doi:10.1016/j.appet.2010.03.009.
    21. Han, P.; Bagenna, B.; Fu, M. The sweet taste signalling pathways in the oral cavity and the gastrointestinal tract affect human appetite and food intake: A review. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 70, 125–135, doi:10.1080/09637486.2018.1492522.
    22. Godshall, M.A. The expanding world of nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners. Sugar J. 2007, 69, 12–20, doi:013/046/013046225.php.
    23. Pellerin, L. Food for thought: The importance of glucose and other energy substrates for sustaining brain function under varying levels of activity. Diabetes Metab. 2010, 36, CS59–CS63, doi:10.1016/S1262-3636(10)70469-9.
    24. Page, K.A.; Chan, O.; Arora, J.; Belfort-DeAguiar, R.; Dzuira, J.; Roehmholdt, B.; Cline, G.W.; Naik, S.; Sinha, R.; Constable, R.T. Effects of fructose vs glucose on regional cerebral blood flow in brain regions involved with appetite and reward pathways. JAMA 2013, 309, 63–70, doi:10.1001/jama.2012.116975.
    25. Szilagyi, A. Lactose—A potential prebiotic. Pharmacol. Ther. 2002, 16, 1591–1602, doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.2002.01321.x.
    26. Venema, K. Intestinal fermentation of lactose and prebiotic lactose derivatives, including human milk oligosaccharides. Dairy J. 2012, 22, 123–140, doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2011.10.011.
    27. Ohtake, S.; Wang, Y.J. Trehalose: Current use and future applications. Pharm. Sci. 2011, 100, 2020–2053, doi:10.1002/jps.22458.
    28. Liang, J.; Wang, S.; Ludescher, R.D. Effect of additives on physicochemical properties in amorphous starch matrices. Food Chem. 2015, 171, 298–305, doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.09.010.
    29. Yu, H.; Yang, S.; Yuan, C.; Hu, Q.; Li, Y.; Chen, S.; Hu, Y. Application of biopolymers for improving the glass transition temperature of hairtail fish meat. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 1437–1443, doi:10.1002/jsfa.8611.
    30. Cai, X.; Seitl, I.; Mu, W.; Zhang, T.; Stressler, T.; Fischer, L.; Jiang, B. Biotechnical production of trehalose through the trehalose synthase pathway: Current status and future prospects. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 102, 2965–2976, doi:10.1007/s00253-018-8814-y.
    31. Grembecka, M. Sugar alcohols—Their role in the modern world of sweeteners: A review. Food Res. Technol. 2015, 241, 1–14, doi:10.1007/s00217-015-2458-2.
    32. McCain, H.R.; Kaliappan, S.; Drake, M.A. Invited review: Sugar reduction in dairy products. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 8619–8640, doi:10.3168/jds.2017-14347.
    33. Son, Y.-J.; Choi, S.-Y.; Yoo, K.-M.; Lee, K.-W.; Lee, S.-M.; Hwang, I.-K.; Kim, S. Anti-blooming effect of maltitol and tagatose as sugar substitutes for chocolate making. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 88, 87–94, doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2017.09.018.
    34. Patra, F.; Tomar, S.K.; Arora, S. Technological and functional applications of low‐calorie sweeteners from lactic acid bacteria. Food Sci. 2009, 74, CR16–CR23, doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.01005.x.
    35. Saha, B.C.; Racine, F.M. Biotechnological production of mannitol and its applications. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 89, 879–891, doi:10.1007/s00253-010-2979-3.
    36. Soetaert, W.; Vanhooren, P.T.; Vandamme, E.J. The production of mannitol by fermentation. In Carbohydrate biotechnology protocols; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, USA, 1999; pp. 261–275. doi:10.1007/978-1-59259-261-6_21.
    37. Dai, Y.; Meng, Q.; Mu, W.; Zhang, T. Recent advances in the applications and biotechnological production of mannitol. Funct. Foods. 2017, 36, 404–409, doi:10.1016/j.jff.2017.07.022.
    38. Calvino, A.; Garrido, D.; García, M. Potency of sweetness of aspartame, d‐tryptophan and thaumatin evaluated by single value and time‐intensity measurements. Sens. Stud. 2000, 15, 47–64, doi:10.1111/j.1745-459X.2000.tb00409.x.
    39. Oliveira, D.; Antúnez, L.; Giménez, A.; Castura, J.C.; Deliza, R.; Ares, G. Sugar reduction in probiotic chocolate-flavored milk: Impact on dynamic sensory profile and liking. Food Res. Int. 2015, 75, 148–156, doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2015.05.050.
    40. Ly, A.; Drewnowski, A. PROP (6-n-propylthiouracil) tasting and sensory responses to caffeine, sucrose, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone and chocolate. Senses. 2001, 26, 41–47, doi:10.1093/chemse/26.1.41.
    41. Montijano, H.; Borrego, F.; Canales, I.; Tomas-Barberan, F.A. Validated high-performance liquid chromatographic method for quantitation of neohesperidine dihydrochalcone in foodstuffs. Chromatogr. A. 1997, 758, 163–166, doi:10.1016/s0021-9673(96)00697-8.
    42. Li, X.E.; Lopetcharat, K.; Drake, M.A. Parents’ and children’s acceptance of skim chocolate milks sweetened by monk fruit and stevia leaf extracts. Food Sci. 2015, 80, CS1083–CS1092, doi:10.1111/1750-3841.12835.
    43. Pawar, R.S.; Krynitsky, A.J.; Rader, J.I. Sweeteners from plants—With emphasis on Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni) and Siraitia grosvenorii (Swingle). Bioanal. Chem. 2013, 405, 4397–4407, doi:10.1007/s00216-012-6693-0.
    44. Furlán, L.T.R.; Campderrós, M.E. The combined effects of Stevia and sucralose as sugar substitute and inulin as fat mimetic on the physicochemical properties of sugar-free reduced-fat dairy dessert. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2017, 10, 16–23, doi:10.1016/j.ijgfs.2017.09.002.
    45. Morais, E.C.; Morais, A.R.; Cruz, A.G.; Bolini, H.M.A. Development of chocolate dairy dessert with addition of prebiotics and replacement of sucrose with different high-intensity sweeteners. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 2600–2609, doi:10.3168/jds.2013-7603.
    46. Kim, M.-J.; Yoo, S.-H.; Jung, S.; Park, M.-K.; Hong, J.-H. Relative sweetness, sweetness quality, and temporal profile of xylooligosaccharides and luo han guo (Siraitia grosvenorii) extract. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 24, 965–973, doi:10.1007/s10068-015-0124-x.
    47. Kobayashi, M.; Terada, H.; Nakajima, M. Determination method of ultra-high-intensity sweetener, advantame, in processed foods by HPLC and LC-MS/MS. Food Hyg. Soc. Jpn. 2015, 56, 14–18, doi:10.3358/shokueishi.56.14.
    48. Reis, R.C.; Minim, V.P.R.; Bolini, H.M.A.; Dias, B.R.P.; Minim, L.A.; Ceresino, E.B. Sweetness equivalence of different sweeteners in strawberry‐flavored yogurt. Food Qual. 2011, 34, 163–170, doi:10.1111/j.1745-4557.2011.00378.x.
    49. Meena, M.K.; Arora, S.; Shendurse, A.M.; Sharma, V.; Wadhwa, B.K.; Singh, A.K. Formulation optimisation of a whey lemon beverage using a blend of the sweeteners aspartame and saccharin. J. Dairy Technol. 2012, 65, 146–151, doi:10.1111/j.1471-0307.2011.00712.x.
    50. George, V.; Arora, S.; Wadhwa, B.K.; Singh, A.K.; Sharma, G.S. Optimization of sweetener blends for the preparation of lassi. J. Dairy Technol. 2010, 63, 256–261, doi:10.1111/j.1471-0307.2010.00574.x.
    More