Exploring Sweetness Profiles: FOSSENCE® as a Sugar Replacement

1. White Paper | April 2022 Sweetness Perception of A Study in Search of the Perfect Sugar Replacer

2. Contents Introduction 1 Sweetness Profile 1 Sweetness Intensity & Temporal Sweetness Profiles of FOSSENCE® Variants 2 3 The Study 3 Absolute Sweetness Intensity 3 Sweetness Profile 4 Conclusion References 5

3. Introduction There is widespread awareness that sugar consumption contributes to a variety of lifestyle disorders, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. As much as consumers try to replace it with healthier alternatives, sugar still remains the sweetener of choice. Moreover, both human & animal studies have shown that consuming sugar primes the release of euphoric endorphins and dopamine within the nucleus accumbens. The need for replacement of sugar, makes two features imperative for a well accepted alternate sweetener – it should have low or zero calories, and should impart the same pleasure, that consuming sugar does. Many alternative sweeteners have been introduced, from synthetic high intensity sweeteners like aspar- tame or sucralose, to natural origin sweeteners like stevia or monk fruit extract. They all have varied levels of sweetness intensity, but are not able to match the sweetness perception. As a result, the search for a true alternative to sugar is still far from over. Sweetness perception is directly related to sweetness profile of the particular sweetener. An alternate sweetener which mimics the sweetness profile of sugar, will trigger the same physiological reaction, and will be able to in reality replace sugar. Till such time that we have this miracle ingredient, the endeavor is to match the sweetness profile of sugar, as closely as possible, to be able to achieve better consumer acceptance. This white paper dwells upon the importance of sweetness profile and the study done on FOSSENCE® illustrating its ability to closely match regular sugar profile and be used as a superior sugar replacer. Sweetness Profile The sweetness profile of sugar family is very different from alternate sweeteners in terms of their properties. The sweetness onset of sugar family (like sucrose, fructose, glucose, corn syrup) is rapid, short duration & clean in taste whereas that of high intensity sweeten- ers (like Acesulfame K,Sucralose, Aspar- tame, Stevia, Neotam) is variable, intense, long duration and its taste is slightly bitter or with a chemical note.The same is shown in Figure 1. Different sweetenershave different sweetness profiles.Acesulfame K can be sensed fastest,even faster than sugar. Sucralose and aspartame takes more time to be sensed. Stevia takes further more time but its taste lasts longer on the tongue. The sweetener whose onset and taste comes closer to sugar are polyols. Its intensity also varies depending on the ingredients (maltitoal, sorbitol, crythritol, etc.). Scientists are exploring a sweetener whose func- tional properties are similar to table sugar. FOSSENCE® is one such alternative. Just like sugar, it has intermediate sweetness onset, short duration, clean in taste, no after taste, is a natural ingredient and its molecular structures are also very similar to sugar. Figure 2 compares molecular structures of FOSSENCE® with natural occurring sugars. G F F F F F F F F F F F INULIN (>10F) Time/Intensity Profile of Selected Bulk and High-intensity Sweeteners Technical data: Time/intensity profile Equivalent to 3% sugar Acesulfame K Sucralose Aspartame Stevia Neotame Sugar Intensity 2 Time (seconds) Note: Sugar ( sucrose) at a 3% solution, others equivalent sweetness to 3% sucrose solution Source: Motita Kagaku Kogyo, adapted Figure 1 :Comparison of time intensity profile of different high intensity sweetener (Acesulfame K, Sucralose, Aspartame, Stevia, Neotame) with Sugar. (Source – Morita Kagaku Kogya) SUGAR G F G F F ScFOS (<5F) F G F F F G F F F F FOS (<10F) G F F F F F F F F Figure 2 - Structure of short chain Fructo-oligoshaarides (SC-FOS). Page 1

4. Sweetness intensity and temporal sweetness profiles of FOSSENCE® variants Comparative sensorial study of FOSSENCE® variants - powder and syrup and table sugar with15 trained panelists were done in two parts - Absolute sweetness intensity and sweetness profiles measured over time with associated taste parameters. Page 2

5. The Study Absolute Sweetness Intensity Absolute sweetness intensity is a method where sweetness of the sample is evaluated on the absolute numerical scale. Sucrose solution with sweetness intensity of 100 is made the reference product. Evalua- tion of FOSSENCE® variants-Powder P95 and syrup L95 (95% purity) and syrup L55 (55% purity) were done. Training session of panelists’ taste sensitivity was conducted as per international standard protocol. 15 panelists were shortlisted based on their food preferences specially their liking towards sweet prod- ucts. Out of them, 10 were further screened based on their sensitivity to basic taste, health condition and personal habits. Detailed instructions were given to panelists. They were given 10 ml of each sample to hold it in their mouth, swirl for 5 seconds, swallow and then record the absolute intensity based on range of scale pro- vided. The results of the sensitivity study with respect to sugar intensity taken as 100 and test sample intensity normalized with respect to sugar are shown in Figure 3. The sweetness intensity of L95 and P95 is almost similar with powder variant being slightly lower than syrup variant as it has lower level of simple sugar. L55’s intensity is highest as it has only 55% FOS and 45% simple sugar. L55+ with added sucralose has intensity even slightly higher than sugar, very close to that of Fructose. Absolute Sweetness Intensity 120 100 80 60 40 20 100 32 42 64 108 0 References (Sugar) FOSSENCE®P95 FOSSENCE®L95 FOSSENCE®L55 FOSSENCE®L55+ Figure 3 - Absolute sweetness intensity of FOSSENCE variants compared to sugar. Sweetness Profile Part 2 of the study was to measure sweetness profile of FOSSENCE® and sugar samples using time intensity (T I) method where panelists document intensity changes of each over a fixed time period. Orien- tation sessions for the panelists explaining the nature of temporal nature of sensory properties were con- ducted. Same 10 trained panelists were further trained for time intensity method. Similar steps of present- ing 10 ml samples, swirling, holding for 5 seconds and swallowing were followed. However, in this method multiple observations were recorded, first immediately after swallowing and then after every 10 seconds till the end of 2 minutes. The recorded data averaged. Figure 4 explains that both sugar and FOSSENCE® have rapid onset of sweetness followed by decreasing intensity until the end of the 90 sec- onds. The peak sweetness of all were reached at the same time of 10 sec- onds. The study indicated that FOSSENCE® and sugar had similar intensity profiles, do not stay on tongue for a long time and linger on. Sweetness Profile Reference (Sugar) 1.2 Sweetness Intensity 1 FOSSENCE®P95 0.8 FOSSENCE®L95 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 30 90 60 0 120 Times (seconds) Figure 4 - Temporal profile of FOSSENCE variants compared to sugar Hence, it can be concluded that FOSSENCE® is an excellent alternate to sugar and can be used alone or along with another sweeteners for sugar free or sugar related products. Page 3

6. Conclusion There are multiple criteria in selecting the right alternative to sugar such as energy density, calorie content, glycemic index of the food product, and cost. Single alternate sweeteners cannot effectively replace sugar in a food product. Other than sweetness, regular sugar also provides texture and other functional charac- teristics to the product. Sugar also acts as bulking agent for the product. Only a blend of alternate sweeteners can bring sweetness profile and other characteristics of the sweeten- er closer to that of sugar. Various combinations of sweeteners are being researched to make the blend as close as possible in terms of solubility, color, stability to that of sugar. The food product for which the sweetener is being made also needs to be taken care of. (a) (b) High Intensity Sweetener High Intensity Sweetener Arbitray Intensity Arbitray Intensity Sugar Sugar Right Blend Polyol Polyol FOSSENCE FOSSENCE Figure 5 (a) Sweetness profile of FOSSENCE, polyols and high intensity sweetener compare to sugar. (b) Making right blend: Sugar sweetness profile matching with FOSSENCE/Polyol and FOSSENCE/high intensity sweetener. Figure 5 explains that for making a right sweetener blend, both sweetness profile and sweetness intensity needs to be managed. FOSSENCE® has similar sweetness profile but lower intensity as compared to sugar. Hence, in some food/beverage for increasing the intensity FOSSENCE® needs to be combined with sweeteners like stevia or sucralose in appropriate quantities. Similarly, in products where bulking properties of sugar are important,FOSSENCE® can be blended with polyols. The application area for developing right blend is very important to understand. FOSSENCE® which has similar functional properties like sugar, can find application in almost all food and beverage categories like bakery, dairy, cereals, confectionaries, etc. Other aspects of sugar functional attributes like caramelization, Maillard reaction, texture or binding property can be addressed by blending FOSSENCE® with high inten- sity sweeteners like polyols. Hence, by blending FOSSENCE® with high intensity sweeteners, sugar can be replaced partially or fully without compromising the taste or product attributes but lowering the energy density of the product due to the sugar content. Page 4

7. References 1. Ayya, N., & Lawless, H. T. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of high-intensity sweeteners and sweetener mixtures. Chemical Senses, 1992, 17(3), 245–259. 2. Vicki T, May W, Oliver T, Ciaran F, Temporal sweetness and side tastes profiles of 16 sweeteners using temporal check-all-that-apply (TCATA) Food Research International 2019, 121, 39–47. 3. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Use of Nutritive and Nonnutritive Sweeteners, Jour- nal of the American Dietetic Association, 2004, 255-275 4. Pineau, N., Schlich, P., Cordelle, S., Mathonnière, C., Issanchou, S., Imbert, A., Rogeaux, M., Etienvant, P., Köster, E. Temporal dominance of sensations: Construction of the TDS curves and comparison with time–intensity. Food Quality and Preference, 2009, 20, 450–455. 5. May W, Vicki T, Ciarán F, Comparison of Psychophysical Dose-Response Behaviour across 16 Sweeteners, Nutrients 2018, 10, 1632 Ares, G., Castura, J. C., Antúnez, L., Vidal, L., Giménez, A., Coste, B., Picalloc A., Beresfordd M. K., Chheangd S.L., Jaeger, S. R. Comparison of two TCATA variants for dynamic sensory, Food Quality and Preference 2016, 54, 160-172. 6. 7. McCain, H. R., Kaliappan, S., Drake, M.A., Sugar reduction in dairy products, Journal of Dairy Science, 2018, 110, 8619-8640. Page 5

8. Lab scale prototype development Support on ingredient through primary & clinical research Analytical support Application development Technical troubleshooting A leading global chemical player, with operations spread across Asia, Europe, North America and Africa; with its customer base across the globe, having a legacy of more than 80 years. A more than 160 billion $ group, employing more than 700,000 people across the globe, with a legacy of more than 150 years, present in 100+ countries across 6 continents The global nutritional solution provider from Tata Chemicals Page 8