Back Sweetening With an Eye on Clean Label Sugar Reduction TM Back Sweetening With an Eye on Clean Label Sugar ReductionTM 1
Back Sweetening With an Eye on Clean Label Sugar Reduction TM To say that cider and craft beer industries are enjoying an unprecedented growth spurt would be an understatement. In as much as orange is the new black, hard cider is poised to be the new beer with hard cider sales skyrocketing from $78 million in 2011 to $470 million in 2014.
Back Sweetening In brewing cider and flavored beer, as well as alternative malt beverages (sometimes called malternatives ) and even some wines a common goal is to imbue the final product with a slightly sweet finish. However, the fermentation process converts all or most of the sugars to alcohol, typically leaving the beverage rather tart. For some fermented beverages the process can even leave the final product with bitter flavor notes. Cider makers can mitigate bitter or off-flavor notes through the back-sweetening process. However, using a nutritive sweetener in the back sweetening process can trigger secondary fermentation leading to a higher alcohol content than intended, at best, or to sour, skunky flavors. Worst-case, the secondary fermentation in pressurized bottles or cans creates a potential for the containers to explode. Such secondary fermentation concerns prompted a 2013 voluntary product recall for one US cider maker, both because of potential taste distortions and the possibility containers could burst. To safely and effectively backsweeten a beverage to avoid secondary fermentation, a cider maker must use non-nutritive, non-fermentable sweetening agents. Moreover, ciders are produced across a significant range of alcohol levels, from as little as just over 1% to above 12%, with an average range from about 3.5% to 8% in the U.S. But lower-alcohol ciders can leave more sugars in the beverage to support undesirable secondary fermentation. And, when considering the tax ramifications unique to cider makers, based upon alcohol content and carbonation, maintaining control over alcohol by volume has important financial ramifications. Hard cider is packaged, distributed and marketed like beer, but is regulated more like wine. While competing in the beer market, it is taxed at a rate between 4 and 14 times higher than beer. As it pertains to taxation, cider ABV levels are based upon the typical levels of the naturally occuring sugar found in apples. A maker can maintain their desired ABV levels, and also increase their sweetness profile, by utilizing the back sweetening process. Failing to maintain control of ABVs within a target range (keeping to less than 7%), means falling into the more expensive taxation categories of wine, or sparkling wine, and facing additional tax penalties. Furthermore, there is a new labeling trend on the horizon for hard cider. Whereas beer makers utilize the IBU (International Bitterness Units) scale, Brix is used to measure the sugar content of an aqueous solution. As makers move toward inclusion of degrees Brix on their product labels, an ability to boast lower sugar content (but not at the expense of sweetness) will help producers define themselves in the marketplace, enhancing their appeal to consumers looking to indulge their cider sweet tooth without additional calories. To safely and effectively back-sweeten a beverage to avoid secondary fermentation, a cider maker must use non-nutritive, non-fermentable sweetening agents. Traditionally, most back-sweetening has been achieved by using the following: sucrose, dextrose (glucose), lactose or the polyol (sugar alcohol) xylitol. All of these pose their own unique set of challenges. Back Sweetening With an Eye on Clean Label Sugar Reduction TM 3
Sucrose can be an effective back-sweetening tool except it is nutritive in nature, thereby creating a potential for secondary fermentation. Its accompanying added caloric content is unappealing in today s market both for the weight or health conscious, and for populations interested in imbibing while limiting glycemic impact. Dextrose can impart a perception of an overly sweet flavor, incompatible with dry ciders. And, excessively sweet flavor is undesirable even in sweet ciders, as it misses the mark in achieving the critical balance between accentuating the fruit s unique flavor and a just-right sweet finish. More critically, it can trigger and support the secondary fermentation process. And, as a nutritive sweetener, it is also caloric. Lactose can have gastrointestinal impact for lactose intolerant consumers. Its specific sweetness and flavor profile is also closely associated with the dairy products from which it is derived, sometimes triggering a negative taste memory for those who are lactose intolerant or just don t like milk. Lactose is also a nutritive, caloric sweetener and can lead to secondary fermentation. Xylitol has been one of the more popular of the non-nutritive, low/zero-calorie sweeteners in recent years. It provides about 2.4 kcals/g compared to 4 kcals/g for dextrose and lactose. But xylitol can have a significant drawback for use as a back sweetener: It has been known to increase water migration into the lower gastrointestinal tract, leading to bloating, gas, flatulence and diarrhea. These unpleasant digestive side effects can become especially pronounced if a consumer drinks three or more of these beverages. Using dextrose or lactose as back sweetening options adds calories, unwanted sweetness intensity, triggers for congenital lactase deficiency and/or lower GI distress. Secondary fermentation and unwanted caloric increases are important considerations in back-sweetening with nutritive dextrose or lactose. Bypassing these issues by using xylitol simply replaces these concerns with the negative digestive issues created by xylitol. Using a more effectual sweetening system can alleviate many of the drawbacks of dextrose, lactose or xylitol, paving the way for manufacturers to create more nuanced, and even premium beverages. 4 Back Sweetening With an Eye on Clean Label Sugar Reduction TM
Going au Naturel Of the multiple sweeteners available for effective back-sweetening, among the most promising are the natural, high-intensity sweeteners derived from botanical sources. Stevia (extracted from the leaves of the Stevia rebaudiana plant) and monk fruit (derived from the melon-like Southeast Asian luo han guo fruit) have emerged as the best options for natural, high-intensity sweeteners that have proven historically safe over centuries of use as traditional sweeteners in their respective countries of origin. And, both can be labeled as contributing zero calories because of the high intensity of their sweetness compared with sucrose. Stevia-derived sweeteners are one of the most thoroughly tested natural sweetening ingredients of the past two decades, with crushed stevia leaves having been used for centuries in South America as a sweetener. Not only safe to use, it has been shown in repeated research to have healthful, positive effects on blood glucose management and in the promotion of digestive health. The active flavor component of stevia, steviol glycosides, consist of a glucose molecule bound with a steviol aglycone commonly either stevioside or rebaudioside. (Rebaudiosides are sweeter than steviosides.) The glucose half of the molecule stimulates the taste receptors on the tongue but do not get broken down and absorbed during primary digestion. Rather, they are released in the lower GI tract, minimizing glycemic impact. And, because stevia molecules are metabolized in the lower intestine, they are believed to provide sustenance for beneficial bacteria, thus aiding digestive health. Stevia is a natural fit as a core ingredient for sweetening beverages, including cider, as it has a slower time to peak sweetness in the mouth, compared with sucrose, and a longer finish on the palate. Its unique qualities of chemistry and taste provide all the necessary parameters for effective back-sweetening. The primary advantages of stevia are multifold, says Stuart Cantor, Ph.D., a food and beverage scientist with a background in the fermentation process of ciders. The active compounds of stevia, the steviol glycosides, have a sweetness capacity 150 times that of sucrose. Those steviol glycosides used mostly in beverage processing today include several forms and purity levels of stevioside and rebaudioside. These are heat-stable to just above 390 F, phstable and importantly non-fermentable. This means that the yeast in a beverage formulation cannot use stevia as its food source. A relative new comer to the natural sweetening world monk fruit is a nonfermentable, high-intensity sweetener also presenting excellent advantages for the delicate moderation of sweetness desired for back-sweetening. While it has a neutral flavor in most applications, it imparts a slight melon-rind note, providing a decided advantage when sweetening fruit-based fermented beverages like cider or Belgian-style lambic beers. Back Sweetening With an Eye on Clean Label Sugar Reduction TM 5
Monk fruit s sweetness comes from a group of compounds called mogrosides within the fruit from the Siraitia grosvenorii plant. The dried whole fruit contains up to 1.5% extractable mogrosides. Maturity of the fruit impacts the mogroside content. Chemically, mogrosides are in the class of triterpenoid saponins. There are five numbered mogrosides in addition to other glycosides each of which has distinct sweetness characteristics. Mogroside-5 is the predominant of these. The sweetness of these individual mogrosides vary from 150-200 times, or up to 400 times, the sweetness of table sugar. Typical commercial sweeteners derived from luo han guo average about 200 times sweeter than sugar. As with stevia, the FDA has recognized these monk fruit extracts as GRAS. The Better Combinations Using pure extracts of stevia or monk fruit by themselves can present a challenge to cider makers. When it comes to the subtlety necessary in utilizing a backsweetener, some stevia sweeteners (usually those below purity levels of 95%-97%) are said to have a licorice-like aftertaste. For monk fruit extracts, the issue can be slight fruity back notes reminiscent of melon rind. Unlike most beverages, hard ciders will experience epic failure if sweetening (back or otherwise) is even slightly off when using stevia. Stevia s slow curve, high intensity and long finish make it easy to inadvertently apply too much of the ingredient in an application. For these reasons, as well as advantages of cost, storage, purity, and clean label, the ideal ingredient system for back-sweetening ciders is a combination of the polyol erythritol and stevia or monk fruit and even a combination of all three. The disadvantages of xylitol do not apply to erythritol since erythritol has the lowest GI impact of any of the alcohol sugars. Unlike most beverages, hard ciders will experience epic failure if sweetening (back or otherwise) is even slightly off when using stevia. Erythritol is a naturally occurring sugar alcohol found in fruit and some fermented foods. With a more subtle sweetness that is effectively only 60%-70% that of sucrose, it has very low caloric value only 0.2 kcals/g, thereby not affecting blood sugar. In food production, erythritol is used mainly as a sucrose substitute. It lacks any off-taste, is noncariogenic and, most importantly, has been shown to be absent the negative gastric side effects typically associated with polyols. Neither intestinal microflora nor yeast can ferment erythritol. In fact, Arrigoni, et alia, found in a 2005 comparison study between erythritol, maltitol (another sugar alcohol) and lactulose that, Erythritol turned out to be completely resistant to bacterial attack within 24 hours, thus excluding an adaptation within that period. Since under in vivo conditions more easily fermentable substrates enter the colon continuously, it seems very unlikely that erythritol will be fermented in vivo. This non-fermentability was confirmed by Moon, et alia in 2010. A number of comprehensive metabolic studies have found erythritol to be highly tolerable even in daily dosage, and possessing of no side effects. 6 Back Sweetening With an Eye on Clean Label Sugar Reduction TM
Toxicological studies (i.e. Munro, et alia, 1998) revealed no carcinogenic potential or teratogenicity. Even repeated ingestion of high amounts (i.e. in Tetzloff, et alia 1996) of several ounces per day led to no ill effects either in physiological symptoms or in body chemistry. Stevia and Erythritol: Back Sweetening Dynamic Duo Brewers and processors of fermented beverages such as cider, craft beers, ales and wine have leaned toward employing a blend of stevia and erythritol for their back-sweetening needs. Formulators have now applied this combination, called Erysweet+ in back sweetening fermented beverages with superior results. The sustainably produced, non-gmo Erysweet+ does not ferment and is twice as sweet as sugar and most other sweetening systems, so half as much is used which leads to savings of application and reduced storage necessities. It does not add sugar to the nutritional levels and is all-natural so it lends itself well to a clean label statement. Added as a back-sweetener to fermented beverages, Erysweet+ does not re-stimulate fermentation. Erysweet+ has effectively no GI impact, making it far more tolerable than other sweeteners. It can be provided in a 100-mesh fine powder that dissolves rapidly and thoroughly in preparations with virtually no sedimentation. It also remains stable in solution a capacity of high value for shelf-life considerations. Application can be done without need for heating or vigorous agitation. Most importantly, the flavor profile is brilliantly sweet with no off notes. Monk Fruit, Stevia and Erythritol: The Holy Trinity of Back Sweetening A newly created three-part formula using monk fruit extract (MonkSweet ), SteviaSweet 95-60 stevia extract and Erysweet erythritol results in The Holy Trinity of back sweetening systems. MonkSweet+ is a natural sweetening solution that brings together optimal levels of proprietary stevia, monk fruit and erythritol. Such a combination offers multiple advantages in back-sweetening fermented beverages. The combined sweetness of the stevia-monk fruit is rated at about 200 times the sweetness of sucrose, while the addition of erythritol tempers the sweet intensity. The result is a 1:2 plugin replacement for either sucrose or HFCS. This proprietary blend of Steviva s proven SteviaSweet 95-60, MonkSweet+ monk fruit extract and Erysweet erythritol ingredient systems delivers a naturally sweet, minimal-calorie solution. Importantly, the combination delivers a complex sweetness profile that is rounded and full and has a mouthfeel similar to table sugar. The final sweetness level still comes in at twice that of sucrose. Flavor is the biggest payback for cider makers. Where on its own, stevia sometimes may leave a bitter or licorice note, the monk fruit becomes a natural flavor enhancer that helps mask these off flavors in stevia as well as other ingredients. Meanwhile, erythritol contributes body with the trio finishing in an overall sweetness delivery that is clean and neutral. Back Sweetening With an Eye on Clean Label Sugar Reduction TM 7
Advantages of MonkSweet+ and Erysweet+ In Back Sweetening Non-fermenting High solubility Shelf-stable Heat-stable ph-stable Twice as sweet as table sugar Gluten-free 0.2 kcals/gram Improved temporal profile Superior, smooth flavor Low glycemic load, safe for diabetics GMO-free JECFA-compliant Kosher Steviva Ingredients works with brewers and beverage manufacturers to create plugin and custom sweetening systems of all particle sizes that function as a replacement for sucrose, 10x sugar, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. When you collaborate with Steviva Ingredients you can be assured of chemical-free processing, 100% natural products, clean label ingredients, GMO-free, gluten-free, diabetic safe and kosher. Steviva Ingredients has an extensive system in place for ensuring the highest possible standards for quality control and food safety such as stringent ingredient oversight, adherence to good manufacturing practices with strict microbiological standards and ongoing heavy metal and pesticide testing. Steviva Ingredients contracts with suppliers provide consistent, dependable ingredient sourcing, making Steviva Ingredients a reliable supply chain partner. For spec sheets, documentation and samples of MonkSweet+ or Erysweet+, call your Steviva Ingredients sales representative at 310-455-9876 or email info@steviva.com. 8 Back Sweetening With an Eye on Clean Label Sugar Reduction TM