If only it were that simple.
For a start, not all additives are deemed to be equally undesirable. There are a number of 'frontrunners' in the clean-labelling trend, which are definitely not acceptable. These include monosodium glutamate (MSG), artificial colours and flavours and modified starch.
"With MSG, the negative image comes from 'Asian restaurant syndrome',"says Dr Walter Lopez, nutritionist with Limagrain Céréales Ingrédients."After a good meal in an Asian restaurant where MSG is used in every speciality, consumers often have hypertension or 'red face'. Glutamate also seems to be linked to cardiovascular disease."
In the case of modified starch, Lopez believes consumer suspicion stems from the term 'modified'. "In consumers' minds, this modification is not chemical but genetic many consumers believe that modified starches are produced from GMO [genetically modified organism] grains!"
Artificial colours have also been on manufacturers' hit lists ever since 2008, when the University of Southampton study found increased evidence of hyperactivity in children consuming certain artificial colours. As Adrian Short, director of Ulrick & Short, puts it: "Parents believe artificial colours make children climb the walls."
But there are other reasons why the clean-label spotlight has shone more brightly on these additives. "The ingredients hit first by the clean-label drive were those that were perceived as the ingredients consumers were most concerned about," says Short. "Consumers have strong opinions about colours and flavours because they feel they understand them."
Matthew Incles, market intelligence manager with Leatherhead Food Research (LFR), makes the point that it may not necessarily be that there has been more reformulation activity around removing colours and flavours than other additives; it could just be that the activity has been more visible.
Marketing effects
"Companies have overtly marketed the removal of artificial colours, flavours and preservatives, because they are easier concepts to grasp and represent a value-added consumer proposition. With ingredients that are less tangible to consumers, there is less of a consumer proposition and therefore less of a benefit to manufacturers in marketing their removal," he says.
Picking up on Incles' point, it is virtually impossible to track exactly which ingredients are being dropped because of the stealth formulation that is going on. However, it is probably no coincidence that there are viable clean-label alternatives to modified starch and artificial flavours and colours.
"Clean-label flavours and colours might be more expensive, but they can get pretty close to their artificial counterparts," says Short.
The results that can be achieved today with natural colours come down to the work that has been done by the ingredients community. Wild, for example, says it is constantly looking for new raw materials and alternative natural sources for colours and colouring foodstuffs, as well as improving its stability testing methods and application in the final product.
Dr Wayne Morley, head of food innovation at LFR, acknowledges that the performance of natural colours is improving all the time, and believes that the main challenge that remains is the ability to offer the full palette of colours. "Blues in particular have proved quite tricky," he says. "There are fewer natural blues than reds and yellows."
Wild says it has addressed this challenge by using the microalgae spirulina as a natural source for blue colouring foodstuffs.
"These can be used on their own or combined with other colouring foodstuffs like safflower to achieve green shades," says Hélène Möller, Wild product manager. "The water-soluble colouring foodstuff displays good stability and can be used for a range of applications, such as hard and soft caramels, jelly gums and sugar coated products."
Similarly, in the flavours arena, ingredients suppliers and flavour houses have been busy developing natural flavours and flavour enhancers. Synergy, for example, offers its Saporesse range of natural lactic yeast extracts to improve mouthfeel and flavour in savoury applications where MSG has been removed.
Modified starch alternatives
A raft of clean-label alternatives to chemically modified starch has also emerged, from the likes of National Starch Food Innovation, Avebe, Ulrick & Short, Limagrain Céréales Ingrédients and Kampffmeyer Food Innovation.
There are some applications, however, that are still a challenge for functional native starches specifically dairy applications involving a lot of shear, freezing and thawing, where a long shelf-life is required.
"These applications can be problematic due to the need for high process tolerance and stability during dairy formulation," explains National Starch's European marketing manager Cathrin Kurz. "Ingredients must perform well while undergoing a range of processes, from high temperatures and high shear to freezing.
Manufacturers using functional native starches under these conditions have often found delivering the same results as modified starches quite challenging. This meant that while food manufacturers could reformulate their products to meet the clean-label trend, the taste, texture, appearance and overall eating quality may not have met with consumers' high expectations."
National Starch claims its Novation 3300 tapioca-based starch, which is said to withstand high temperatures and shear food processing while delivering excellent mouthfeel and textural properties, could offer a solution in dairy applications as a viscosifier or stabiliser. Alternatively, Novation Prima 300 is a waxy-maize based functional starch that delivers shelf-life stability and textural properties under medium-harsh processing conditions.
Limagrain Céréales Ingrédients, meanwhile, has just launched a clean-label wheat flour for dairy desserts.
"In general, custard or dairy cream desserts contain artificial thickeners such as modified starches or carrageenans," says Lopez. "Now these additives can be substituted with westhove wheat L3D, a simple wheat flour able to keep the same organoleptic properties but totally clean-label."
Beyond these ingredient areas, though, clean-label options seem not to be as widely promoted probably because they are patchy.
Monoglycerides and polysorbates are two chemical-sounding emulsifiers consumers would like to see removed from labels. The problem, says LFR's Morley, is that there aren't any effective clean-label alternatives.
"The only alternatives really are lecithins and phospholipids, and they don't work very well in water-continuous emulsions," he says. "It's a difficult area."
It's a similar story with xanthan gum. This thickener is regarded with suspicion by consumers, because, according to Short, "it begins with an 'x', which has all sorts of negative connotations like skull and crossbones".
However, xanthan gum has some unique properties, such as the ability to hold herbs in suspension in a dressing, which make it extremely difficult to replace.
Besides the shortage of clean-label alternatives, there may also be less reformulation activity in emulsifiers, thickeners and stabilisers because of the risks involved.
"Emulsifiers, stabilisers and thickeners all perform important functions. When you change them you are altering key characteristics and might end up with something that looks and feels slightly different than the original,"says Short. "Changes to colours and flavours are somehow more accepted by consumers."
He adds that with emulsifiers, stabilisers and thickeners, it's not a case of replacing like with like: artificial colours with natural colours; modified starch with native functional starch.
"You have to redesign the product from scratch," he says. "We've used starch to successfully replace xanthan gum in a range of dips but we had to redesign the product completely."
Preservatives are another area where some undesirable ingredients have to be kept in because of their functionality. In cured meats, for example, sodium nitrite has an essential function, making it very difficult to remove, says LFR's Incles. While saltpeter is a natural curing salt that can be used in its place, it gives inconsistent results in preventing bacterial growth.
Perhaps in these problem areas, manufacturers should be looking to educate consumers about why the alien-sounding ingredients are present, rather than trying to eliminate them from recipes.
"There are ways to make ingredients more acceptable; some manufacturers are using the technique of demystifying ingredients and explaining why each one is necessary to gain a clean-label positive advantage," says Kerrie Medlicott, global director, health and wellness, at bakery ingredients manufacturer CSM.
She cites the examples of Nestlé's Milkybar, which contains lecithin and explains on the back of pack that it is 'made from soya beans and holds the ingredients together'.
LFR's Morley, however, questions whether consumers have the appetite for yet more education. "Consumers are confronted with a lot of information about food, whether it's on the products they buy, in the supermarket or in the general media. It's important to provide the correct information at the right time in a way to empower them to make informed decisions," he says.
The underlying problem is that consumers are contrary creatures whose perceptions aren't always based on sound reasoning. Thinking like a consumer rather than a scientist is probably the surest way to determine how far to go with clean-labelling, and which of the 600 plus additives to tackle.
