What was described as a trend only a few years ago has now become a major focus area for many consumer packaged goods (CPG) R&D groups. In consumer research conducted by MMR Research Worldwide and Ingredion Incorporated, it was found that nearly 80 percent of consumers across 11 countries surveyed (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, U.K., U.S.A., China, Japan, Australia, Mexico, the Netherlands) think a short, simple ingredients listing is important or very important, and they also want to be able to recognize the ingredients listed.

This movement—no longer a simple trend—has been described as “Clean Label.” It is linked loosely to “natural” and “organic,” but generally refers to minimal processing, no synthetic or “artificial” additives, including sweeteners, colors, flavors and preservatives—or anything which could be regarded as “non-natural.” The movement is governed primarily by consumer perception, as there is no regulatory definition for “clean label” or “natural.” The FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) does not have a definition for “natural,” but states: “the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors or synthetic substances.” Consumer research has shown a dramatic rise in the number of consumers who read claims and front of pack descriptions, as well as an up-tick in the number who would switch brands for a “minimal processing” claim.

Clean Label and Non-GM

Initial developments of this “clean label” migration emerged in Europe as a movement to eliminate anything “modified,” or ingredients assigned an E-number. This has included modified starches, bleached flours, artificial sweeteners and artificial colors, flavors, emulsifiers and preservatives—replacing them with simpler, more consumer-recognizable ingredients. One over-riding theme to this, which has now gone global, is the issue of genetic modification (GM). This issue, again, is driven totally by consumer perception. In a 2015 Penn State Ag Science article, “The Science of GMOs (genetically modified organisms),” the dilemma of science vs. consumer perception is laid out perfectly. GM crops were first introduced in 1996 and were rapidly adopted worldwide—18 million farmers in 28 countries planted biotech crops last year (2014). Most of these crops are fed to livestock, so most of the GM concentration on crops has been to increase yield. Corn, canola, soybeans, sugar beets, papaya, alfalfa and cotton are heavily planted, so this trickles down to a wide array of food ingredients, which must be considered if a non-GM product is the focus. These ingredients include corn starches and syrups, high fructose corn syrup, amino acids, aspartame, sucrose, xanthan gum, ascorbic acid, citric acid, lactic acid, ethanol, flavors, molasses and maltodextrin to name a few. Should consumers be concerned? According to the Penn State article, the E.U. has invested about $300 million for more than 130 research studies (25 years of research), with the conclusion that there is no notable difference in food safety or environmental impact between GM and non-GM products, and a separate review reported the same result in terms of animal health. Regardless of the science behind these statements, it is obvious that consumers have not bought into this. This is the basis for the need to develop non-GM-based products. This is part of the “must have” requirements of all “clean label” products. While some non-GM corn is available in the U.S. for production of non-GM starches, R&D groups have looked to sourcing starches, glucose syrups, dextrose, maltodextrins and other ingredients from other sources such as tapioca, potato, rice, wheat and sago—sources that are ensured to be non-GM. Due to the predominance of corn and soybean as crops in the U.S., most of these non-GM ingredients are being sourced initially from other regions. This increases shipping costs for ingredients as demand for these products increases.

Keeping It Simple

Since the “wholesome” or “better-for-you” initiative began in Europe several years ago, it has now fully evolved into a global “clean label” initiative. Actually, the Trends Research Institute used the word “clean foods” in 1996 in a New York Times article to describe “a new standard for health and reliability,” and included within it “foods free of artificial preservatives, coloring, irradiation, synthetic pesticides, fungicides, ripening agents, fumigants, drug residues and growth hormones” and those that are “processed, packaged, transported and stored to retain maximum nutritional value.” Retailers in Europe called for the removal of artificial colors, flavors and preservatives—movement away from ingredients with E-numbers a number of years ago, and this has been followed in the U.S. by a number of grocery chains, restaurant chains, and CPG companies, many of which have published lists of “unacceptable” ingredients. Research conducted in the U.S., U.K. and Germany by Ingredion Incorporated (focus groups, expert interviews and accompanied shopping visits) demonstrated a clear consumer dislike for “chemical-sounding” and “unpronounceable” ingredients. The results clearly showed that consumers preferred labels that were 1) free from chemical additives, 2) contain simple ingredient listings that consumers understand, and 3) indicate foods that are minimally processed or processed using traditional techniques. According to Mintel GNPD, the percentage of new clean label food products among all launches in North America (U.S./Canada) grew from 22 percent to 29 percent between 2012 and 2014 and only 38 percent of U.S. consumers say they trust what companies say on their labels.

Clean Label Texture

So what do consumers feel comfortable with on ingredient listings? Ingredion research asked the question “when you are buying a food or drink product, which of the following ingredients are acceptable to you?” This resulted in a list of ingredients that appeared to be “acceptable,” some that were “borderline,” and some ingredients that definitely need to be replaced in a “clean label” product. The “unacceptable” list contains a number of ingredients that provide viscosity and shelf life stability to foods, including bleached flours, modified starches, gelatin, and a number of food gums—xanthan gum, CMC, HPMC and MCC included. In terms of modified flours and starches, this initially presented a problem. For example, native starches have narrow peak viscosity ranges and very limited process tolerance, as well as undesirable textures and shelf-life stability. Physically modified starches were first developed by Ingredion more than 20 years ago, with subsequent improvements to replace the viscosity and shelf life stability of modified starches, especially in Europe, as the market evolved. For clean label products, this has now become part of the requirement—“starch” is definitely a clean-label option.

Starch does not have an E-number, and can be used in products labeled “additive-free” or “simple.” In addition, a number of functional native flours are also now available, initially developed to improve gluten-free products, but adaptable to a much wider range of food products, and these are available in cook-up or instant versions. Pectin, maltodextrin and guar gum also have some level of acceptability depending on region, product claims and other factors. Another texturizing category of products which has emerged following the rise of gluten-free and clean-label products has been proteins and functional flours derived from pulses, primarily green peas, yellow peas, red lentil, yellow lentil, fava beans and chickpeas. These pulse proteins provide 55-60 percent protein, and the flours generally 10-25 percent protein, another important factor in today’s marketplace. These functional proteins and flours are “natural,” non-GM, gluten- and grain free, hypoallergenic, and come from sustainable crops. They also provide dietary fiber and are low glycemic. From a functional view, they can provide texture, gelation, emulsification, adhesion, film-forming and water-holding characteristics and advantages to a wide range of products.

Clean Label Sweetness

In terms of sweeteners, many formulators have turned to the non-GM sources previously discussed, as well as honey, agave nectar, maple syrup, brown rice syrup, and other sources of sweeteners familiar to the consumer. Naturally derived fruit and vegetable concentrates, purees and essences, extracted from fruits, including strawberry, blueberry, cranberry, raspberry and peach and vegetable concentrates, purees and essences include pumpkin, red beet, carrot and celery, should see much greater use in “natural” and “clean-label” applications. These products are a great starting point to provide natural colors, flavors, sweetness and texture to clean label products. On top of clean label considerations, consumers are also asking for sugar and calorie reduction. Since many clean label options are still based on fully caloric sugars, and well-known high potency sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose do not fit the criteria of clean label, formulators have moved to natural sweeteners known for many years, but available commercially only recently. Included in this are stevia leaf extracts—steviol glycosides extracted from the leaves of the plant Stevia rebaudiana. The primary stevia leaf extract marketed now is based on rebaudioside A, 250-300 time sweeter than sucrose, and stable under most temperature and pH conditions. This market is rapidly developing to include mixtures with other steviol glycosides. Another clean label option is monk fruit extract, a sweetener 150 to 200 times sweeter than sugar based on the high mogroside content in a sub-tropical melon harvested in China. Natural high potency sweeteners are usually formulated with sugar or other bulk sweeteners for the best sweetness profile and mouthfeel.

It is clear that demand is increasing for food labels containing “simple” ingredients that are recognizable by the consumer, and the ingredient list should be relatively short. Ingredients should be “natural,” or recognized as such, with the absence of “artificial” ingredients, including sweeteners, preservatives, colors and flavors. Replacing functional ingredients in gluten-free and clean-label food products has not been an easy task, and the demand for sugar and calorie reduction has added to this challenge. It is evident, however, that the food industry is rising to the challenge—the portfolio of functional clean label ingredients is increasing, with many more changes on the horizon. NIE