Handbook of fat replacers

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Handbook of fat replacers / edited by Sibel Roller, Sylvia A. Jones.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. – ) and index.
ISBN 0–8493–2512–9 (alk. paper)
1. Fat substitutes. I. Roller, Sibel. II. Jones, Sylvia A.
TP447.F37H36 1996
664

′

.3 dc20 95-48346
CIP
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted
material is quoted with permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed.
Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and the
publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or for the consequences of their use.
Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information
storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.
All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the personal or
internal use of specific clients, may be granted by CRC Press, Inc., provided that $.50 per page photo-
copied is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, Salem, MA 01970 USA. The
fee code for users of the Transactional Reporting Service is ISBN 0-8493-2512-9/96/$0.00+$.50. The
fee is subject to change without notice. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by
the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

CRC Press, Inc.’s consent does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for
creating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press for
such copying.
Direct all inquiries to CRC Press, Inc., 2000 Corporate Blvd., N.W., Boca Raton, Florida 33431.
© 1996 by CRC Press, Inc.
No claim to original U.S. Government works
International Standard Book Number 0-8493-2512-9
Library of Congress Card Number 95-48346
Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
Printed on acid-free paper

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Preface

The nutritional need for fat reduction in the Western diet has been recognized for over
a decade. However, a thorough understanding of the technical complexities involved in
fat reduction in foods has lagged behind. This has constrained work in product develop-
ment and, in many cases, has led to the development of less than optimal products.
Meanwhile, in response to the needs of the food industry, an extensive number of
ingredients has been developed solely for the purpose of fat replacement, using a variety
of approaches and base materials. In addition, some of the well-established texture-
modifying food ingredients have been found to be effective in fat replacement. Thus,
over 200 ingredients are now commercially available, or are at different stages of devel-
opment, that can be used to replace fat in foods. The sheer number of ingredients can
be seen as a measure of the difficulties experienced in matching the multifunctional
characteristics exhibited by fat in foods, and presents product development teams with
a rather onerous task. Meanwhile, the issue of fat reduction remains a priority area from
the perspective of both the consumer and the food industry.
The purpose of this handbook is to provide, in a single volume, as much information

as is practicable on the science and application of fat replacers in food products, including
the multiplicity of technological, legislative, sensory, and marketing issues involved in
fat replacement. Due care has been given to provide an international perspective and a
multidisciplinary approach. The book is intended not only for food scientists and food
technologists who wish to formulate new, low-fat food products based on an understand-
ing of the ingredients available, but also for all food industry professionals, including
ingredient manufacturers/developers who seek information on latest developments in the
industry. Academic researchers and students of food science should also find the book
of interest. In short, we hope the book will help fill an important gap in the food science
and technology area.
Part I of the book, containing five chapters, is an overview of fundamental issues
important in the development of low-fat foods and ingredients used to replace fat. This
section includes a historical perspective on developments in fat replacers and a critical
assessment of available technological strategies, as well as chapters on nutritional impli-
cations, marketing considerations, the inter-relationships between physical and chemical
aspects of fat replacement and sensory quality, and legislative implications.
In Part II, commercially available fat replacers are reviewed individually and in detail.
In a book of this size, it is impossible to cover all the commercial fat replacers available
today. We have, therefore, selected a limited number of fat replacers each of which is
representative of a group of compounds. The chapters are arranged principally according

©1996 CRC Press LLC

to chemical structure, namely, carbohydrate-based, protein-based, and lipid-based. Since
a large proportion of the commercial fat replacers have been derived from carbohydrate
materials, there are several chapters within this group to represent the different
categories — i.e., starches, various fibers, gums and bulking agents. There is also a
chapter on combination systems. Combination systems comprise blends of ingredients,
the functionality of which develops

in situ

upon processing, and may be of an interactive
or non-interactive nature. Only combination systems based on interactive blends are
considered here since systems of a non-interactive nature are merely a sum of the
functionalities of the different ingredients used in the blend (possibly with some syner-
gistic effects). Furthermore, synthetic fat substitutes, which have been developed but not
so far permitted for use in foods, are discussed. Among the issues covered in each chapter
are: history and use of the fat replacer; production process; chemical structure and
functional properties; interactions with other food ingredients; nutritional, toxicological,
and legal status; and selected examples of food product formulations.
The Appendix contains a comprehensive list of fat replacers classified according to
their basic compositional parameters, with details on chemical composition, names of
manufacturers, applications, etc. This list should allow the reader to look up a fat replacer
by trade name, determine its principal composition, and then turn to a chapter in the
handbook which describes in detail the fat replacer or one belonging to the same class.
For example, a reader wishing to find out more about a fat replacer called Paselli SA2,
when referring to the Appendix, will find it among the starch-derived group of fat
replacers, and described as being a potato maltodextrin. The reader could then turn to
Chapters 6A and 6B for more detailed information on maltodextrins and their role as fat
mimetics. It should be noted that the inclusion of a fat replacer in this list does not
indicate endorsement of the product nor does absence from the list have any negative
implications.
Finally, a word of explanation is required regarding terminology. Throughout this
book, we have used the term “fat replacer” collectively to cover all fat mimetics and fat
substitutes. In this context, the term “fat mimetic” is used to denote those ingredients
which modify the aqueous phase of a food, and hence simulate some of the physical
properties exhibited by fat. By contrast, the term “fat substitute” is used to denote
synthetic ingredients which are purposely designed to replace fat on a weight-by-weight
basis (mostly with a chemical structure resembling that of a triglyceride) but with an

inherent low digestibility, which makes these ingredients non- or low-caloric, and at the
same time stable at high processing temperatures (e.g., in frying). Since fat substitutes
so far are not permitted for use in foods*, and this book is intended to be a practical
sourcebook, fat mimetics are given most prominence.
Last but not least, we would like to thank the authors of the individual chapters for
their contributions, without whom a book of this nature could not have been written.
Their time and effort spent on the preparation of the chapters, and their endeavors to
accommodate our editorial requests, are much appreciated.**

Sibel Roller
Sylvia A. Jones

* Since completing this manuscript, the U.S. FDA announced on January 24, 1996 their approval for the
use of olestra in selected savory snacks.
** Views and opinions expressed by the authors of the various chapters are their own and do not
necessarily reflect those of the editors.

©1996 CRC Press LLC

The Editors

Sibel Roller, M.Sc., Ph.D.,

is Professor of Food Biotechnology at South Bank University
in London, U.K. Professor Roller obtained her B.A. degree in Biology in 1976 from
Hunter College in New York and her M.Sc. degree in Environmental Health Sciences in
1978 from the School of Hygiene and Public Health of the Johns Hopkins University in
Baltimore. She then moved to England to obtain her Ph.D. degree in 1981 in Food
Microbiology from Queen Elizabeth College (now King’s College) of the University of
London. While remaining at the same university, Professor Roller worked for 3 years as

a Postdoctoral Research Associate on microbial fuel cells as alternative sources of energy.
In 1985, she joined the Leatherhead Food Research Association in Surrey, U.K., where
she initiated, developed, and led the research group in the Biotechnology Unit. As Head
of the Unit, she was responsible for directing numerous short- and long-term research
projects sponsored by the U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Depart-
ment of Trade and Industry, the European Commission, and a range of national and
multinational food companies. In 1994, she was appointed to a Professorship in Food
Biotechnology at South Bank University.
Professor Roller is a Fellow of the Institute of Food Science and Technology (U.K.)
and is an active member of the Institute’s Technical and Legislative Committee. She is
a member of Sigma Xi, the Honorary Scientific Research Society, and is a Professional
Member of the Institute of Food Technologists (U.S.). She is also a member of the Society
of Applied Bacteriology and the Society of General Microbiology. Professor Roller
currently serves on the Editorial Board of

Food Biotechnology

and has served on the
Public Awareness Working Party of the Bioindustry Association in the U.K.
Professor Roller has published over 40 refereed papers and patents and is a frequent
invited speaker at international conferences. Her main research interests are in the
application of biotechnology to food processing with special emphasis on developing
new and upgrading old food ingredients using enzymes and microorganisms. The enzy-
mic modification of food polysaccharides to prepare novel fat replacers, gelling agents,
and thickeners is an important focus of her research work.

Sylvia A. Jones, M.Sc., Ph.D.,

is Head of the Food Product Research and Development
Department at the Leatherhead Food Research Association, U.K. Dr. Jones obtained her

B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in Food Chemistry/Food Technology, including specialization
in Human Nutrition, at the Agricultural University of Warsaw. She was awarded her
Ph.D. degree at Cranfield University, U.K., following research on extrusion cooking
technology.

©1996 CRC Press LLC

From 1975 to 1981, Dr. Jones was Lecturer in Food Science and Industrial Food
Technology at the Agricultural University of Warsaw, during which time she also acted
as a consultant for several food companies in Poland. In 1981–1982, she was Research
Fellow in the Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences at Queen Elizabeth College
(now King’s College), University of London, where she did research on the rheology of
emulsion systems. In addition, between 1979 and 1983, she acted as technical consultant
for a number of international food ingredient companies. She joined the Leatherhead
Food Research Association as Principal Scientist in 1983, and progressed through Section
Manager to Head of Department.
Currently, she leads a multidisciplinary team of 26 scientists involved in research and
development studies in a wide range of food product areas and novel processing methods.
Her department comprises five sections, namely, Food Technology, Product Research
and Development, Sensory Analysis and Texture Studies, Nutrition, and Microscopy.
Furthermore, during the last 12 years, she has been Research Manager for both the
Confectionery Products Panel and the Fruit and Vegetable Products Panel, thus respon-
sible for undertaking research on behalf of some 400 member companies worldwide,
and has directed a number of innovative research projects sponsored by the U.K. Ministry
of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and by the European Union. In addition, over the
years, Dr. Jones has developed and considerably expanded research and development
consultancy activities at the Leatherhead Food Research Association; at present, a major
part of her work is in the form of confidential and proprietary research undertaken for
individual member companies.
Dr. Jones is a Fellow of the Institute of Food Science and Technology (U.K.), and a

Professional Member of the Institute of Food Technology (U.S.). She has been a member
of technical committees of several food industry associations, including the U.K. Biscuit,
Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance, the Food and Drink Federation, and the
Microwave Working Group led by the U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Fisheries.
Her achievements in the field of food research were recognized early in her career when
she received twice, in 1976 and 1979, respectively, the Rector’s Award at the Agricultural
University of Warsaw, and, in 1978, she was presented with the Minister of Science,
Higher Education and Technology Award.
The main research interests of Dr. Jones have continued to be in the fields of food
emulsions, fat reduction, food texture, food rheology, and overall structure/function
relationships in foods. She has published and presented over 70 papers and patents, and
has been an invited speaker to numerous international meetings throughout Europe, in
the Middle East and in the United States. Her first paper on fat reduction in foods was
published in 1977. Since then, she has maintained her interest in technological approaches
to fat reduction, and, for the last 7 years, her major preoccupation in research and
confidential work at the Leatherhead Food Research Association has been concerned
with fat replacement and fat replacers.

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Contributors

David A. Bell

Dow Food Stabilizers
The Dow Chemical Company
Midland, Michigan

Stuart M. Clegg

Food Product Research and
Development Department
Leatherhead Food Research Association
Leatherhead, Surrey, United Kingdom

Eric Flack

Grindsted Division
Danisco Ingredients (U.K.) Ltd.
Suffolk, United Kingdom

Jaap Harkema

Business Unit Ingredients for Food and
Pharmacy
AVEBE
Ter Apelkanaal, The Netherlands

William M. Humphreys

Food Ingredients Division
FMC Europe NV
Brussels, Belgium

Sylvia A. Jones

Food Product Research and
Development Department
Leatherhead Food Research Association
Leatherhead, Surrey, United Kingdom

Pablo de Mariscal

Research and Development
Dow Europe, S.A.
Horgen, Switzerland

Debra L. Miller

Biobehavioral Health and Nutrition
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania

Helen L. Mitchell

Consultant Food Technologist
Kent, United Kingdom

Guy Muyldermans

R & D Laboratory
Tessenderlo Chemie n.v.
Tessenderlo, Belgium

Beinta Unni Nielsen

Copenhagen Pectin A/S
Hercules Inc.
Lille Skensved, Denmark

Sibel Roller

Food Research Centre
South Bank University
London, United Kingdom

Barbara J. Rolls

Laboratory for the Study of
Human Ingestive Behavior
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania

Norman S. Singer

Ideas Workshop, Inc.
Highland Park, Illinois

Jane Smith

Legislation Department
Leatherhead Food Research Association
Leatherhead, Surrey, United Kingdom

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Barry G. Swanson

Department of Food Science and
Human Nutrition

Washington State University
Pullman, Washington

John N. Young

Market Intelligence Section
Leatherhead Food Research
Association
Leatherhead, Surrey, United Kingdom

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Contents

PART I: FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES

Chapter 1
Issues in Fat Replacement

Sylvia A. Jones

Chapter 2
Implications of Fat Reduction in the Diet

Debra L. Miller and Barbara J. Rolls

Chapter 3
Market Considerations in Fat Replacement

John N. Young

Chapter 4
Physical, Chemical, and Sensory Aspects of Fat Replacement

Sylvia A. Jones

Chapter 5
Legislative Implications of Fat Replacement

Jane Smith
PART II: FAT REPLACERS AND THEIR PROPERTIES

Chapter 6A
Starch-Derived Fat Mimetics: Maltodextrins

Sibel Roller

Chapter 6B
Starch-Derived Fat Mimetics from Potato

Jaap Harkema

Chapter 7A
Fiber-Based Fat Mimetics: Microcrystalline Cellulose

William M. Humphreys

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Chapter 7B

Fiber-Based Fat Mimetics: Methylcellulose Gums

Pablo de Mariscal and David A. Bell

Chapter 7C
Fiber-Based Fat Mimetics: Pectin

Beinta Unni Nielsen

Chapter 8
Microparticulated Proteins as Fat Mimetics

Norman S. Singer

Chapter 9
The Use of Hydrocolloid Gums as Fat Mimetics

Stuart M. Clegg

Chapter 10
The Role of Emulsifiers in Low-Fat Food Products

Eric Flack

Chapter 11
The Role of the Bulking Agent Polydextrose in Fat Replacement

Helen L. Mitchell

Chapter 12

The Use of Blends as Fat Mimetics: Gelatin/Hydrocolloid Combinations

Guy Muyldermans

Chapter 13
Low-Calorie Fats and Synthetic Fat Substitutes

Barry G. Swanson

Appendix
Classified List of Fat Replacers and Their Applications

Sylvia A. Jones

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Part

I

Fundamental
Issues

1

©1996 CRC Press LLC

Chapter

Issues in

Fat Replacement

Sylvia A. Jones

CONTENTS

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Nutritional Background
1.3 The Functions of Fat in Food
1.3.1 Nutritional Functions of Fat
1.3.2 Physical and Chemical Functions of Fat
1.3.3 Sensory Functions of Fat
1.3.4 Overall Implications for Fat Replacement
1.4 Terminology and Classification of Fat Replacers
1.4.1 Terminology
1.4.2 Classification
1.5 Fat Replacement Strategies
1.5.1 Direct Fat Removal — No Compensation
1.5.2 Formulation Optimization
1.5.3 Technological Approach
1.5.4 Holistic Approach
1.6 Developments in Fat Replacers
1.6.1 Olestra and Its Impact
1.6.2 Maltodextrins and other Starch-Derived Fat Mimetics
1.6.3 Microparticulates
1.6.4 Fat Replacers in the Context of Functional Foods
1.6.5 Recognition of the Role of Established Food Ingredients
1.6.6 Development of Combination Systems
1.6.7 Replacing Standard Fats with Low-Calorie Fats
1.6.8 Improving the Quality of Fat Replacers

1.7 Important Considerations in the Development of Low-Fat Foods
1.7.1 Product Quality/Consumer Preference/Marketing Drive

©1996 CRC Press LLC

1.7.2 Knowledge of Ingredients
1.7.3 Microbiological Implications
1.7.4 Legislative Considerations
1.7.5 Pricing and Marketing
References

1.1 INTRODUCTION

With over a decade of fat replacement activities in the commercial world behind us, it
is appropriate to take a comprehensive view of the principal issues involved, and examine
the mechanisms and the directions of the progress made, in order to gain a better
understanding of the developments and draw conclusions for the future from the learned
experience.
As a point of departure, it is useful to address first the principal question: is fat
reduction a passing fad? To address this question, we need to look at the nutritional
background to this issue, and, in particular, to assess the recent developments in nutrition
science. After all, it is the consumption of fat in relation to the etiology of cardiovascular
disease that triggered the sudden interest in food products with less fat (or even zero
fat), both within the food industry and among the public at large. The challenge has been
to produce low-fat variants with physical and sensory characteristics that resemble as
closely as possible the full-fat standard products to which people were accustomed. The
food industry during the last 10 to 15 years has invested considerable resources and
effort into the task.
One problem has been that, often, product development has been carried out without
a full awareness of the different consequences of removing substantial quantities of fat

from a particular product. In order to combat that, and hence develop successfully low-
fat variants, it is essential to understand the multiplicity of functions of fat in foods, and,
in this context, to examine the particular food matrix in which the fat is to be replaced.
Because of the crucial role played by fat in foods, it quickly became obvious that the
development of low-fat variants with matching quality of the full-fat counterparts
depended on replacing the fat with alternative ingredients. Hence, many ingredients have
been developed for the specific purpose of fat replacement. Others are food ingredients
that have been used for other purposes before researchers realized that they had a role
to play in fat replacement. The result is that over 200 ingredients now exist (either
commercially available or at different stages of development) which can be used in fat
replacement. The sheer number of ingredients is quite outstanding, but it well illustrates
the difficulties encountered in matching the functionality of fat. Indeed, fat can be seen
as a “gold standard” similar to sucrose in the case of sweeteners. However, sucrose
replacement can now be seen as a relatively easy task compared with fat replacement.
With the increase in the number of ingredients available, new terms have been introduced,
causing some confusion. Thus, steps need to be taken toward a more systematic approach
to both terminology and classification of the ingredients developed for the purpose of
fat replacement.
Another issue needing consideration is what are the different strategies that can be
adopted in product development and how these have evolved and why. A holistic approach
to fat replacement needs to be considered, and will be exemplified in Chapter 4 where
physical, chemical, and sensory aspects of fat replacement are discussed. Meanwhile,
the development of fat replacers has gone through a number of different stages. It is
appropriate now to put these developments into a historical perspective and provide a
logical framework by identifying the constraints and particular problems of fat replacement,

©1996 CRC Press LLC

and the driving forces behind the developments. This will therefore set the scene for the
detailed discussion on the different fat replacers or categories of fat replacers given in

Chapters 6 to 13.
Last, but not least, when developing low-fat foods, a number of important consider-
ations need to be taken into account. These need to encompass technological, microbi-
ological, and legislative implications, together with marketing aspects, while keeping a
watchful eye on changing consumer preferences.

1.2 NUTRITIONAL BACKGROUND

Up to the 1970s, the issue of fat in the diet and its effect on health was hardly considered,
except in cases of obesity where an overall reduction in energy was recommended.
Reduced-calorie foods, therefore, were mainly a small niche market directed toward a
minority of consumers who were obese or otherwise wished to lose body weight, and
thus were interested in reducing their calorie intake. Moreover, the nutritional advice for
weight loss at that time tended to focus more on carbohydrates than on fat, despite the
fact that fat is the most dense source of calories (9 kcal/g vs. 4 kcal/g for carbohydrates
and proteins). By the 1980s, a radical change had taken place in consumers’ attitudes.
This can be traced directly to developments in the science of nutrition, and to a better
understanding of the relationships between diet and health, which, in the developed
countries, led to significant changes in official nutritional recommendations.
In the U.K., this reevaluation was brought to public attention by the publication of
two major reports which were, respectively, the so-called “NACNE Report,” produced
in 1983 by the National Advisory Committee on Nutrition Education (NACNE, 1983),
and

Diet and Cardiovascular Disease

, known as the “COMA Report,” produced in 1984
by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA) (Department of Health
and Social Security, 1984). The recommendations of the NACNE Report were oriented
toward a diet that would benefit the nation’s health generally, whereas those of the COMA

Report were intended more specifically to prevent coronary heart disease (CHD). The
major recommendation of both reports was to reduce the intake of fat from the 42% at
the time to 34% (NACNE) or 35% (COMA) of total food energy in the diet. Furthermore,
they recommended that the intake of saturated fat should be reduced to 10% (NACNE)
or 15% (COMA) of food energy. They also advised a reduction in salt intake and
increased consumption of complex carbohydrates and dietary fiber. The recommendations
were widely debated and given extensive publicity in the media. The reports, therefore,
had a significant impact on increasing consumer awareness of the relationship between
diet and health.
Similar developments took place in the United States. In 1988, the U.S. Surgeon
General published a major review on nutrition and health. It proposed that energy in the
diet derived from fat should be reduced to 30% (USDHHS, 1988). A further review
carried out on behalf of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS, 1989) provided a broad scientific consensus for the U.S. government
report:

Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans

(USDA/USDHHS,
1990). The recommendations of the Surgeon General were supported by a number of
health-related organizations such as the American Heart Association and the American
Cancer Society, on the basis that the incidence of coronary heart disease and cancer
would be reduced by decreasing the amount of fat and cholesterol in the diet (Przybyla,
1990). By the end of the 1980s, the governments of most developed countries in the
western hemisphere had drawn up nutritional recommendations advising consumers to
reduce fat intake from the prevailing level of 40 to 49% (depending on the country) to

©1996 CRC Press LLC

approximately 30% of total energy in the diet. In most cases, the goal was set to reduce

fat consumption to the recommended level by the year 2000.
In 1992, the U.K. government issued a set of targets to reduce the incidence of
coronary heart disease (CHD) in the White Paper

The Health of the Nation:



A Strategy
for Health in England

(Department of Health, 1992). One target was to reduce the number
of premature deaths (in people under 65 years old) by 40% by the year 2000 (using 1990
figures as a baseline). Dietary targets were set on the basis of the recommendations given
in a second report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy on dietary
reference values (Department of Health, 1991), which, in the case of fat, was that it
should not exceed 35% of total food energy in the diet (the same as in the COMA Report
of 1984), with the consumption of saturated fatty acids no more than 11% of total food
energy (4% lower than in the COMA 1984 Report). At the time, the average fat intake
of the British population was at 40% of total food energy and 17% of food energy was
derived from saturated fats.
It would appear, therefore, that relatively little progress has been made in achieving
the targets suggested by NACNE and COMA in the mid-1980s, despite the concurrent
increase in sales of low-fat foods (see Chapter 3). Dietary fat in the American diet is
considered to account for 36% of energy content (Buss, 1993), indicating that greater
progress in adopting dietary recommendations has been made on average compared with
the U.K. However, the analysis of a nutritional survey among British adults (Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1994a) found that 10% of the adult population had
less than 35% of their food energy derived from fat, thus indicating a significant seg-
mentation in consumers’ response to nutritional guidelines. The extent to which con-

sumers might be compensating for low-fat intakes when consuming low-fat products
remains to be established (see Chapter 2). If that is so, a further point of interest would
be to find out the extent to which the process was a physiological, as opposed to a
psychological, response.
Meanwhile, scientific research oriented toward understanding better the relationship
between diet and health was a major growth area. One noteworthy study was that carried
out by Watts et al. (1992), which was the first to support the hypothesis that a low-fat
diet can actually prevent narrowing of the coronary arteries.
More recently, the complex relationship between diet and heart disease has been
reviewed by Ashwell (1993). While it is acknowledged that CHD is a multifactorial
disorder, it is considered that diet is one component which can be modified by everybody.
The report concludes that the development of CHD can be viewed simplistically as a
three-stage process starting from an initial arterial injury that is followed by atheroscle-
rosis and the formation of a blood clot which eventually blocks the artery thus causing
a heart attack. Each stage can be influenced by several physiological conditions (e.g.,
high blood pressure, high levels of plasma lipids, and low levels of antioxidants), and
these can be affected by controllable factors, including diet. A “round table model” was
derived to elucidate the relationships between the stages of the disease, physiological
conditions, and dietary components. The level and composition of the fats consumed is
shown to be of importance at all three stages, and overall the dietary advice given includes
reduction of fat intake through the consumption of low-fat products and increased intake
of fish oils.
There is a general consensus that the type of fat consumed is of importance in relation
to the aetiology of chronic diseases. In particular, increasing the proportion of polyun-
saturated fats in the diet, e.g., through the consumption of oil-rich fish, appears to play
a protective role against CHD, as evident from the fact that Eskimos subsisting on a high
fat diet based on fish are less prone to heart disease and thrombosis than people on high

©1996 CRC Press LLC

fat diets based more on saturated fats (Dyerberg et al., 1978; Dyerberg and Bang, 1979).
The crucial factor, it seems, is the effect of consumption of different fats on the proportion
of serum cholesterol associated with high-density lipoproteins (HDL cholesterol) vs. that
associated with low-density lipoproteins (LDL cholesterol). Thus, consumption of fats
favoring a higher proportion of HDL cholesterol and/or a lower proportion of LDL
cholesterol, such as diets in which a higher proportion of fats consumed are polyunsat-
urated (e.g., from fish or certain vegetable sources) or monounsaturated (e.g., from olive
oil), tend to reduce risk from CHD (helped also by the consumption of dietary antioxi-
dants such as Vitamin E, which blocks the oxidative modification of LDL). Conversely,
a higher proportion of saturated fats in the diet tends to increase the ratio of LDL
cholesterol to HDL cholesterol, thus increasing risk of CHD (Grundy, 1994). However,
it is now evident that different saturated fats and dietary sources of saturated fat vary in
their influence on the level of LDL cholesterol (Richardson, 1995). For instance, butter
and other dairy products, which are high in myristic acid (14:0), appear to strongly
increase levels of LDL cholesterol, whereas beef fat, containing palmitic (16:0) and
stearic (18:0) acids does so to a lesser extent, and cocoa butter, with a high proportion
of stearic acid, increases LDL cholesterol only slightly.
In addition, there has been increasing concern and controversy on the consumption
of

trans

fatty acids in relation to health (Mensink and Katan, 1990; Grundy, 1994).
Epidemiological data (Willett et al., 1993) have shown a positive association between
higher intakes of

trans

isomers (derived from partially hydrogenated vegetable oils) and
the risk of CHD. Wahle and James (1993) have published a comprehensive review on

this topic, and concluded that some evidence exists to suggest that

trans

fatty acids have
deleterious effects on blood plasma lipids (i.e., they tend to increase the levels both of
LDL and HDL cholesterol present, as well as the concentration of lipoprotein a (which
is a genetic marker for CHD acting as an independent risk factor). However, other studies
have given conflicting results, so that the issue at present remains unresolved, with a
majority of studies implicating

trans

fatty acids. Clearly, more research is required on
this issue. Meanwhile, the FAO/WHO Expert Committee concluded that the effects on
plasma cholesterol concentrations exerted by

trans

unsaturated fatty acids are similar to
saturated fatty acids and hence they have recommended that in order to improve plasma
lipid profile, the intake of

trans

fatty acids should be cut back when the intake of saturated
fats is reduced (Sanders, 1995).
In short, while our knowledge of the relationship between diet and health continues
to progress, the adoption of dietary recommendations derived from that knowledge
consistently lags behind. It is possible that a better consumer response could be achieved

primarily by more extensive nutritional education and secondly, by improving the quality
of existing or new low-fat foods. On the other hand, it is likely that as the market matures,
with increasing availability of low-fat foods to a wider range of social strata, consumers
might more readily adhere to the guidelines regarding fat consumption.

1.3 THE FUNCTIONS OF FAT IN FOOD

The level of fat determines the nutritional, physical, chemical, and sensory characteristics
of foods. Before the replacement of fat in food products can be considered, however, it
is essential to understand what its various functions are.

1.3.1 NUTRITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF FAT

Physiologically, fats in foods have three basic functions: they act as a source of essential
fatty acids (linolenic and linoleic acids); they act as carriers for fat-soluble vitamins

©1996 CRC Press LLC

(A, D, E and K); and they are an important source of energy. From a nutritional point
of view, only the first two may be considered as essential because other nutrients (namely
carbohydrates and proteins) can act as sources of energy. Normally, even diets very low
in fat can satisfy those requirements. The overriding issue today is that changes in
people’s lifestyles over the years have meant that the requirements for energy from food
have decreased significantly. At the same time, the proportion of energy derived from
fat (the consumption of which, as noted already, apart from being the most concentrated
source of energy, has other adverse effects on health) has remained high. Figure 1.1
illustrates the relative contribution of fat from different foods in an intake of 88 g/day
which is the average for the U.K., and represents 38% of total energy or approximately
40% of energy from food, i.e., excluding alcohol (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food, 1994a).

The nutritional function of fat in food would not be complete without mentioning its
physiological/psychological aspect, mainly the extent to which fat plays a role in achiev-
ing satiety. Research has shown that the consumption of fat is associated with a subse-
quent state of “fulfillment,” such that, by implication, fat reduction might lead to energy
compensation and the increased consumption of food. This issue is discussed in detail
in Chapter 2. However, it should be pointed out that most studies on satiety have been
carried out using noncaloric, nonabsorbable fat substitutes (such as sucrose polyesters).
As will be discussed, so far such fat substitutes have not been approved for use in foods,
and therefore the studies do not address the current market reality where fat mimetics
are used to reduce the fat content of food products. A study on satiety involving three
different types of fat mimetics is currently being undertaken at the Leatherhead Food
Research Association, supported by the U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Figure 1.1

Sources of fat in diet of U.K. consumers. (Compiled from Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food, 1994a).

©1996 CRC Press LLC

1.3.2 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL FUNCTIONS OF FAT

Physical and chemical functions of fat in food products can be grouped together since
the chemical nature of fats determines more or less their physical properties. Thus, the
length of the carbon chain of fatty acids esterified with the glycerol, their degree of
unsaturation, and the distribution of fatty acids and their molecular configuration (i.e.,
whether in the form of

cis

or

trans

isomers), as well as the polymorphic state of the fat,
will all affect the physical properties of foods (for example, viscosity, melting charac-
teristics, crystallinity, and spreadability).
Furthermore, fat affects the physical and chemical properties of the product, and hence
has several practical implications, the most important of which are (1) the behavior of
the food product during processing (e.g., heat stability, viscosity, crystallization, and
aerating properties), (2) post-processing characteristics (e.g., shear-sensitivity, tackiness,
migration, and dispersion), and (3) storage stability, which can include physical stability
(e.g., de-emulsification, fat migration, or fat separation), chemical stability (e.g., rancidity
or oxidation), and microbiological stability (e.g., water activity and safety).

1.3.3 SENSORY FUNCTIONS OF FAT

Last, but not least, fats have an important function in determining the four main sensory
characteristics of food products, which are (1) appearance (e.g., gloss, translucency, color,
surface uniformity, and crystallinity) (2) texture (e.g., viscosity, elasticity, and hardness),
(3) flavor (namely, intensity of flavor, flavor release, flavor profile, and flavor develop-
ment), and (4) mouthfeel (e.g., meltability, creaminess, lubricity, thickness, and degree
of mouth-coating). Sensory and related aspects of fat reduction are discussed in detail
in Chapter 4.

1.3.4 OVERALL IMPLICATIONS FOR FAT REPLACEMENT

Reducing fat in a food product must take into account its multifunctional role, in
particular how its location in the food matrix determines the chemical, physical, and
sensory properties of the food, as well as its processing characteristics. The relative

importance of the different functions of the fat in a food vary according to the particular
food product and according to the type of fat used. The greater number of product quality
characteristics determined by the fat, the more pronounced will be its effect, and the
more complex will be the approach required when a substantial part of the fat is to be
replaced.
In the development of low-fat products, it has been found useful to visualize the
overall functionality profile of a product making use of a “fishbone” diagram. This
approach was used, for instance, by Loders Crocklaan for designing speciality fats for
particular product applications (Anon., 1994). Figure 1.2 illustrates the basic technique
whereby a full functionality profile for a given product can be translated into a detailed
set of physical/chemical and sensory attributes. By the same token, a detailed function-
ality profile resulting from the presence of fat in a product can be defined and used as
a tool in product development for finding ingredient systems that will deliver the required
profile. “Fishbone” diagrams have also been used to illustrate the multifunctional aspects
of fat reduction (Anon., 1992).

1.4 TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION OF FAT REPLACERS
1.4.1 TERMINOLOGY

Over the years, different terms have been used for ingredients that have been specifically
developed to replace fat in food products. This has created some confusion over the

©1996 CRC Press LLC

terminology used for fat-replacing ingredients in the literature. Thus, there is a need to
introduce a more systematic approach to this issue. Initially, the term “fat substitute”
was used for all such ingredients regardless of the extent to which they were able to
replace fat and principles determining their functionality. However, the main interest then
had been directed toward discovering an optimal ingredient able to replace fat fully in
all food systems. Such an ideal ingredient would need to have a similar chemical structure

and similar physical properties to fat, but would need to be resistant to hydrolysis by
digestive enzymes in order to have preferably a zero or very low caloric value. In the
second half of the 1980s, the only ingredients able to fulfill all those requirements were
synthetic compounds such as olestra. The main practical difference between these syn-
thetic compounds and other ingredients launched for the purposes of fat replacement
was that only the former were able, by definition, to replace fat on a weight-by-weight
basis. All other ingredients, on the other hand, required water to achieve their function-
ality, and their ability to replace fat was based on the principle of reproducing (mimicking)
some of the physical and sensory characteristics associated with the presence of fat in
the food. Hence, the term “fat mimetic” evolved to distinguish this group of ingredients.
With separate terms now being used to define these different types of ingredients,
there was the need for an overall term that referred to all ingredients used for
fat–replacement purposes, and the general term “fat replacer” began to be used in that
context. However, many authors continue to use the term “fat substitute” for all fat
replacing ingredients, and an even greater number use the terms “fat substitute,” “fat
mimetic,” and “fat replacer” more or less interchangeably, thus causing confusion on the
meanings of these terms.
In addition, as a result of further developments, other terms have been introduced by
ingredient manufacturers. For instance, the term “fat extender” has been used by Pfizer
to describe a system comprising a mixture of ingredients, containing standard fats or
oils, such as Veri-Lo

®

100 and Veri-Lo

®

200, which are emulsions containing 33 and
25% fat, respectively. On the other hand, ingredients such as Caprenin and Salatrim,

Figure 1.2

Basic fishbone diagram for product development and reformulation purposes.
(From

Source

, Issue No. 13, January, 6, 1994. Reprinted with the permission of Loders Croklaan.)

©1996 CRC Press LLC

which are true fats (i.e., they are triglycerides) but with a fatty acid composition different
from standard fats designed to provide fewer calories (see below), may also be described
as “fat extenders.” However, when Salatrim was launched, the term “low-calorie fat”
was promoted, and has since evolved as a term in its own right, distinct from “fat
extenders.” Thus, Caprenin and Salatrim are now more usually placed in an independent
group under the heading “low-calorie fats.” Hence, the term “fat extender” now tends to
be reserved for systems combining standard fats or oils with other ingredients, as in the
case of Veri-Lo

®

.
In summary, the five terms used to describe ingredients which can replace fat may
be defined briefly as follows:

Fat replacer:

a blanket term to describe any ingredient used to replace fat

Fat substitute:

a synthetic compound designed to replace fat on a weight-by-weight
basis, usually having a similar chemical structure to fat but resistant to hydrolysis
by digestive enzymes

Fat mimetic:

a fat replacer that requires a high water content to achieve its function-
ality

Low-calorie fat:

synthetic triglyceride combining unconventional fatty acids to the
glycerol backbone which results in reduced caloric value

Fat extender:

a fat replacement system containing a proportion of standard fats or
oils combined with other ingredients

It should be added that the current lack of development activity for the last category of
fat replacers might lead to the disappearance of the term in due course; however, it is
included in the above list for completeness.

1.4.2 CLASSIFICATION

One of the main characteristics of the ingredients used to replace fat is that they lack
similarity both in terms of chemical structure and in a specific physical structure. All

they have in common is that under certain conditions, they are able to replace fat and
fulfill at least some of the functional properties associated with fat in a given product.
By definition, therefore, they represent a disparate group of ingredients for which it is
not easy to provide a simple classification. An additional problem is that the group as a
whole is quite unbalanced in which some subgroups of ingredients of similar chemical
structure and functional properties comprise a large number while others may contain
only one or two ingredients developed so far. In short, a systematic approach (i.e., based
on a single feature or characteristic) cannot be used because too many ingredients would
be excluded. Furthermore, there is the issue as to whether to include in any classification
all ingredients currently used, or have potential use as fat replacers, or whether it should
consist only of those ingredients that have been purposely designed to act as fat replacers.
The classification of fat replacers given below aims to give the reader a comprehensive
view of ingredient categories that can be considered for product development of low-fat
foods (including the synthetic fat substitutes, none of which, as yet, are permitted for
use in foods)*. The list is based partially on chemical composition and partially on
functionality of the ingredients, and includes combination systems (i.e., blends).

1. Starch-derived
2. Fiber-based

* Since completing this manuscript, the U.S. FDA announced on January 24, 1996 their approval for the
use of olestra in selected savory snacks.

©1996 CRC Press LLC
3. Protein-based
4. Gums, gels and thickeners
5. Emulsifiers
6. Bulking agents
7. Low-calorie fats
8. Fat extenders

9. Synthetic fat substitutes
10. Combination systems

As may be seen, a certain degree of overlap cannot be avoided. For instance, it can
be debated whether low-calorie fats should be considered as a separate entity, or be
included in the synthetic fat substitute category. However, since the low-calorie fats
structurally are lipids, and were assigned a separate term from other fat replacers when
launched on the market, it is considered more appropriate to differentiate them from the
category of the, as yet, unpermitted fat substitutes in the above classification.

1.5 FAT REPLACEMENT STRATEGIES

A number of approaches have evolved in the development of reduced-fat foods. In this
section, the main options will be discussed briefly in the order that they were introduced.

1.5.1 DIRECT FAT REMOVAL — NO COMPENSATION

During the rush of publicity of the new nutritional recommendations in the early 1980s,
the first strategy to evolve was simply to remove fat from the standard product, without
any attempt to address the organoleptic changes resulting from the reduced presence of
the fat. The dairy industry was the first to adopt such a strategy, with the introduction
of semi-skimmed, and subsequently, skimmed milk. Fat content was reduced from the
3.5% in the standard product, to, respectively, 1.7% (i.e., a 50% fat reduction) and 0.1%
(i.e., a more or less 100% reduction), in effect, replacing the fat with a proportional
increase of all the other constituents of milk. This somewhat drastic strategy, which
changed considerably the organoleptic quality of the final product, had many skeptics
who doubted whether consumers would accept such a change. It was thought that after
the initial “hype” period, consumers would gradually go back to the standard “full-fat”
milk, and demand for the reduced-fat varieties would dwindle to a small niche market.
However, history proved otherwise. In the U.K., for example, as indicated in Figure 1.3,

the consumption of reduced-fat liquid milk grew at a remarkable rate. According to the
most recent National Food Survey in Britain, the consumption of reduced-fat milk has
now overtaken that of whole milk (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 1994b).
In other words, the strategy of direct fat removal adopted by the dairy industry proved
a major success, gaining widespread consumer acceptance in spite of the obvious changes
in product characteristics.
Similar developments subsequently took place in the meat industry. Thus, lean and
extra lean raw beef, pork and lamb (mostly in a minced or diced form, chilled or frozen)
are now readily available in the supermarkets of many of the developed countries, with
a fat content ranging from 15 to 10%, and even as low as 5%.
Such a strategy is less possible for most other food products because, for the majority,
physical stability, functional properties, and, in many cases, microbiological stability, are
adversely affected. The same applies when fat is replaced by water alone. Direct fat
removal without compensation, therefore, has limited applicability, depending on the
type of product, and the level of fat reduction intended. Since this strategy expects the
consumer to accept considerable change in the organoleptic characteristics of a product,

©1996 CRC Press LLC

it can only work well when the consumer is highly motivated, and where, therefore, fat
content and nutritional concerns in general will influence purchasing behavior. In short,
the limited number of products to which this strategy can be applied has meant that other
ways of achieving fat reduction have had to be sought.

1.5.2 FORMULATION OPTIMIZATION

The major challenge in the development of reduced-fat foods is to achieve fat reduction
while matching as closely as possible the eating qualities of the traditional full-fat
product. This involves the creative use of established functional ingredients, including
the range of fat replacers now available.

For most food products, reduction of fat is associated with an increase in water content.
The first need, therefore, in order to mimic the quality of the full-fat product, is to attempt
to structure the water phase, through the use of such functional ingredients as proteins,
starches and other thickeners, gums, stabilizers, gelling agents, bulking agents, emulsi-
fiers and fibers. The choice of ingredients will depend on product type and the level of
fat reduction intended, and needs to be carefully balanced against their effects on the
multiplicity of product characteristics. The strategy requires a thorough knowledge of
the ingredients available, and an understanding of the structure/function relationships in
a given product matrix. During the second half of the 1980s, when the emphasis was
narrowly focused on the search for an optimal new fat replacer, developments in other
directions were somewhat limited. However, once the inherent limitations of the various
fat replacers introduced to the market were realized, interest in the creative use of the
standard functional ingredients increased considerably.
The introduction of new ingredients designed specifically to replace fat (i.e., fat
replacers) significantly increased the scope for matching the quality of reduced-fat
variants. Currently, as noted already, there are over 200 ingredients with some claim for

Figure 1.3

Consumption of liquid milk (g/d) in the U.K. (Compiled from Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Fisheries, National Food Surveys for 1984–1993.)

©1996 CRC Press LLC

aiding fat replacement, either available commercially, or at an advanced stage of devel-
opment (see Section 1.6). Most of the fat replacers on the market are based on the ability
to structure the water phase toward achieving fat-like structures that mimic the physical
and/or perceived sensory characteristics of fat.

1.5.3 TECHNOLOGICAL APPROACH

The use of specially designed fat replacers in products often requires changes in pro-
cessing conditions or additional processing stages in order to achieve optimal function-
ality. However, the technological approach can be extended much further in fat replace-
ment strategies. One example would be to explore interactive processing. This is based
on the principle of employing a processing method purposely designed to cause inter-
actions between ingredients, and changes in ingredient functionalities within the food
matrix, in such a way that they compensate for the removal of fat in the final product.
On the other hand, the application of a new technology, or an existing technology that
is not normally used in the production of the standard product, can be sought. To date,
neither of these approaches has been explored to any great extent.

1.5.4 HOLISTIC APPROACH

The holistic approach to fat reduction is based on the fact that, on the one hand, the vast
majority of food products are relatively complex systems, and, on the other hand, any
one fat mimetic has limitations in its ability to cover the many different functions of fat.
The strategy has evolved because in most cases it has been found that no single approach
to fat replacement gives a satisfactory final product with significant fat reduction, without
compromising some of the quality characteristics (e.g., sensory, physical stability, micro-
biological stability) of the standard product. It has normally taken the form of using a
chosen fat replacer in conjunction with other ingredients (e.g., stabilizers, emulsifiers),
or the use of a blend of ingredients designed for a particular product application. More
recently, this has shifted toward using more than one fat replacer in conjunction with a
range of standard ingredients. However, the ultimate holistic strategy, with the goal of
producing optimal quality products with low-fat levels or in fat-free versions, needs to
go beyond the issue of ingredients used, toward encompassing all technological means
for achieving the required fat reduction. Indeed, this does not only apply to the devel-
opment of low-fat products, but to all food product development. In a holistic strategy
even greater attention must be directed toward achieving an understanding of the func-

tionality of the various ingredients, and how they interact with one another. Many of the
advances in product development activities have been predominantly empirically based.
In general, low-fat products, because they are deprived of the functionality of fat, are
much more sensitive to molecular interactions, especially those between flavor and other
ingredients, and those which affect texture. Thus, when developing low-fat products,
much more attention needs to be given to all aspects of the often complex and finely
balanced physical and chemical system as a whole. This emphasizes the need for a
holistic strategy.

1.6 DEVELOPMENTS IN FAT REPLACERS

Although the fat replacement issue has been on the agenda for more than a decade, it
was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that the development of ingredients specif-
ically for fat replacement really took off. The fact that there are so many ingredients
now available for use in fat replacement means that this has been one of the strongest
growth areas in the field of ingredient development for some time. In this section, the
various developments in fat replacers are put in a historical context, highlighting the

©1996 CRC Press LLC

main events, in order to show how each development had an impact on further research
activities. It sets the scene for the more detailed discussion on the different fat replacers
or categories of fat replacers in Chapters 6 through 13.

1.6.1 OLESTRA AND ITS IMPACT

Initially, as previously mentioned, the desire was to find an ingredient that would behave,
both physically and chemically, like fat, while contributing fewer calories, and which
could be used in all product types by directly substituting for the fat, with little or no
need to reformulate the product. Olestra, a sucrose polyester, first synthesized in 1968

and patented by the Procter & Gamble Company in 1971, precisely fitted those criteria
(Mattson and Volpenheim, 1971). With sucrose substituting for the glycerol moiety in
triglycerides, and six to eight of the hydroxyl groups of the sucrose esterified by fatty
acids, the chemical structure of olestra is rather similar to fat. The main difference is
that the molecule cannot be hydrolyzed by pancreatic lipases, and hence passes straight
through the gastrointestinal tract unchanged without being absorbed. It thus contributes
no calories. Furthermore, its physical properties could be manipulated by varying the
chain length, the degree of unsaturation and the proportions of different fatty acids used
to esterify the hydroxyl groups of the sucrose molecule. Finally, because it is inherently
heat stable, it can substitute for fat over a wide range of applications in the food industry
(including in frying oils), and in virtually every type of food product.
It was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s, when the nutritional arguments for
reducing fat consumption were being publicized, that a viable market for olestra started
to become apparent. Its current status is that it is still awaiting official approval for use
in food. Procter & Gamble submitted its first petition for approval to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in April 1987. A further petition was submitted in July 1990,
restricting its use to savory snacks (Anon., 1991a). The company has also filed for the
approval of olestra in Canada and in the U.K. (Anon., 1990). It was hoped that approval
would be obtained in 1995, especially since a second 1-year interim extension to the
Procter & Gamble’s patent awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is due to
expire in January 1996 (Anon., 1995). Under the current U.S. legislation concerning
products which require lengthy regulatory review, if olestra were to be approved before
this date, then it would be possible for Procter & Gamble’s patent to be extended for an
additional 2 years from the time of its approval by the FDA. There is also the issue that
even if approved, it is not certain whether olestra will gain consumer acceptance. How-
ever, it is noteworthy that, despite, on the one hand, its synthetic nature, and, on the
other hand, a concurrent consumer trend in the 1980s toward “natural” and “additive-
free” products, olestra has continued to receive remarkably positive publicity.
For completeness, it should be added that a number of other synthetic fat substitutes
have been developed. These include esterified propoxylated glycerols, carboxy-carbox-

ylate esters, malonate esters, alkyl glyceryl-ethers, alkyl glycoside fatty acid polyesters,
esterified polysaccharides, polyvinyl oleate, ethyl esters, polysiloxanes, and many more
(Bowes, 1993). These are discussed in Chapter 13. It is interesting to note, though, that
none of the companies developing these synthetic fat substitutes have so far attempted
to go through the hurdles of gaining approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Adminis-
tration, but rather have resigned themselves to waiting for the outcome of the application
for olestra. However, it should be pointed out that a joint agreement was signed in 1990
between the companies Arco and CPC International to develop esterified propoxylated
glycerol, and subsequently to prepare the necessary scientific data required if the ingre-
dient is to gain approval (Anon., 1991a).
Meanwhile, the nonavailability of olestra in the 1980s had the effect of stimulating
developments in fat replacers in other directions.

©1996 CRC Press LLC

1.6.2 MALTODEXTRINS AND OTHER STARCH-DERIVED FAT MIMETICS

In the early days of fat replacement, relatively small reductions in fat were considered
an acceptable goal, perhaps by a quarter or a third compared with the fat content of the
standard product. In many cases, this could be achieved with the use of different types
of starch-derived fat mimetics, which, in contrast to olestra, do not have any regulatory
hurdles to pass over.
One of the first starch-derived mimetics to enter the market was N-Oil, a tapioca
dextrin, which had been produced by National Starch & Chemical Corporation since
1984 (Dziezak, 1989). The most significant amount of research activity on starch-derived
mimetics has centered around the development of maltodextrins — i.e., starch hydrolysis
products obtained by acid or enzymic hydrolysis of starch materials and characterized
by a low dextrose equivalent (DE) value. The concept of starch hydrolysis products with
DE<10 was pioneered at the Academy of Science in the former German Democratic
Republic, where potato starch was partially degraded using

a

-amylase, a process that
was subsequently patented (Richter et al., 1973). Since such maltodextrins when used
in solution at a concentration greater than 20% form thermoreversible gels, with some
of the sensory characteristics of fats, and caloric value amounts to approximately 1 kcal/g,
there was scope for exploring these ingredients for the purposes of fat replacement. On
the other hand, both enzymic and acid hydrolysis methods can be applied to any type
of starch or material high in starch content, and hence, not surprisingly, a large number
of maltodextrins from different sources have been developed and are available commer-
cially. A detailed discussion of these fat mimetics is given in Chapter 6A, and Chapter 6B
covers the maltodextrins derived from potato starch. A list of commercially available
maltodextrins is given in the Appendix. Although the main focus was concentrated on
maltodextrins, a few modified starches were also introduced to the market for fat replace-
ment purposes toward the end of the 1980s and in the beginning of the 1990s (e.g., the
Sta-Slim

™

range from the company A. E. Staley and the Amalean range from the Amer-
ican Maize Products Company). Some further developments in starch-derived fat mimet-
ics will be highlighted later.
In the late 1980s, when the trend had shifted toward developing food products
containing even lower amounts of fat, and in the midst of the “hype” associated with
synthetic fat substitutes at that time, fat mimetics, such as those derived from starch,
were at a serious disadvantage because they could not fulfill all the criteria for an optimal
(ideal) fat replacer. Furthermore, under the influence of olestra, which had been submitted
to the FDA for approval, the whole climate of opinion then was dominated by the
perceived need to find a single ingredient that had the potential of replacing fat across

the whole spectrum of product applications. Thus, fat replacement reached something
of an impasse: a market existed for low-fat foods, but while synthetic fat substitutes were
not approved for use in food, other ingredients, such as starch-derived fat replacers, could
only replace some of the functions of fat in foods, and, as fat mimetics, had restricted
applications.

1.6.3 MICROPARTICULATES

The first technological breakthrough (or, more precisely, what was perceived as a break-
through at the time) came with the development of Simplesse

®

, a microparticulated
protein fat mimetic introduced by the NutraSweet Company, the main version of which
is based on whey protein concentrate (Singer et al., 1988) — see Chapter 8 for a detailed
discussion on Simplesse

®

. It was launched in January 1988, receiving much publicity in
the media.
It should be added that while John Labatt Ltd., Canada, the originator of the Sim-
plesse

®

concept sold the rights to Simplesse

®

to the NutraSweet Company, further