Patric Food & Beverage Development

Food Scientist with a Chef's Palate

Articles / food science

food science

Functional Beverage Formulation: When Protein, Fiber, Electrolytes, and Actives All Have to Work Together

by

A functional beverage can look deceptively simple from the outside. There is water. There is flavor. There are a few ingredients with impressive résumés. Protein does one thing. Fiber does another. Electrolytes handle hydration. Magnesium, amino acids, botanicals, or other actives arrive carrying their own list of promised benefits. Put them all together and, in theory, you have a better beverage. Except chemistry does not care about your marketing plan.

The moment those ingredients enter the same bottle, they stop behaving like independent items on a formulation sheet and start behaving like members of the same physical and chemical system. They influence one another. They change the environment around one another. And occasionally they make it very clear that nobody asked whether they wanted to coexist in the first place. That is where functional beverage formulation becomes interesting.

A beverage is a system

Consumers increasingly want beverages to do more than provide refreshment. Hydration may now be combined with protein, fiber, digestive-health ingredients, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, botanicals, or ingredients associated with energy, relaxation, and mood. That makes perfect sense from a product-positioning standpoint. If someone is going to buy a beverage anyway, why not give them several useful functions at once?

The formulation problem begins when we assume those benefits can simply be stacked on top of one another. A beverage is not an empty container into which ingredients can be dropped without consequence. It is a chemical environment defined by pH, temperature, water activity, dissolved solids, ionic strength, processing conditions, and the interactions among everything inside it. Change one of those variables and you may change several others.

Add protein, and now pH matters differently. Add minerals, and the protein may behave differently. Add fiber, and viscosity may change. Change viscosity, and flavor perception can change. Add an active ingredient with a strong bitter note, and suddenly the flavor system has a new job. This is not four separate problems. It is one interconnected problem.

Protein is not just protein

Protein is a useful place to begin because it demonstrates how quickly formulation becomes contextual. It is easy to say that a beverage will contain ten, twenty, or thirty grams of protein. It is harder to answer what happens to that protein after everything else is added. Proteins respond to their surroundings. pH, heat, mineral concentration, hydration, and processing conditions can all influence whether a protein remains dispersed, thickens, aggregates, or eventually settles.

Minerals make this particularly interesting. Calcium, for example, can interact with protein systems in ways that alter viscosity and stability. Add magnesium, potassium, sodium, or other electrolyte salts and the ionic environment changes again.

So, the useful question is not, “Does this protein work in beverages?” The useful question is, “Does this protein work in this beverage, with these minerals, at this pH, under this process, for the entire intended shelf life?” That one extra sentence contains most of the real formulation problem.

Fiber changes the physics

Fiber introduces a different kind of complication. Depending on the source and concentration, fiber can affect water binding, viscosity, suspension, mouthfeel, and flavor perception. Some fibers integrate relatively quietly. Others make their presence known. They can produce thickness, dryness, chalkiness, particulate texture, lingering mouthcoating, or simply make a beverage feel heavier than the concept was supposed to be. If you are formulating a shake, that may be perfectly acceptable. If you are formulating something that is supposed to drink like flavored water, it is a very different story.

This is one of the recurring tensions in functional beverage development. The amount of an ingredient required to support the desired benefit may not be the amount that produces the desired sensory experience. Chemistry and marketing are often negotiating with each other at this point.

Electrolytes come with flavor

Electrolytes may be familiar to consumers, but from a formulation standpoint they are not merely invisible sources of nutrition. Mineral salts taste like things. Some potassium salts can produce bitterness, metallic notes, or chemical character. Magnesium salts can be extremely bitter. Calcium sources can bring their own sensory effects. Even two different salts supplying the same mineral may behave differently in terms of solubility, taste, stability, and cost.

That means an electrolyte system cannot be developed in isolation from the flavor system. You can formulate a beverage that hits every mineral target beautifully and still produce something nobody wants to finish. Technically correct is not the same thing as commercially successful.

Actives complicate things further

Now add botanical extracts, amino acids, vitamins, peptides, or other functional ingredients. Many of these were not selected because they are delicious. They may be bitter, grassy, earthy, astringent, metallic, medicinal, or some combination of the above.

The first instinct is often to mask those characteristics. Sometimes that works. Sometimes it simply moves the problem. More sweetness may suppress bitterness but make the beverage too sweet. More acid may brighten the flavor while creating stability issues elsewhere. A stronger flavor system may hide the active but completely change the identity of the product.

At some point the smarter solution may be to stop fighting the ingredient. A flavor system that works with the inherent sensory character of an active can sometimes perform better than one designed to bury it. This is a general principle worth remembering in formulation: when an ingredient refuses to disappear, it may be more useful to design around it than against it.

Dissolved today does not mean stable tomorrow

One of the great traps in beverage development is the successful first prototype. Everything dissolves. The beverage looks good. The texture is right. The flavor works. Nothing has settled. It is tempting to declare victory.

But the beverage has only existed for an afternoon. Real products need to survive processing, packaging, transportation, storage, temperature fluctuations, and time. A formula that looks perfectly stable when freshly prepared may later develop sediment, haze, phase separation, viscosity changes, color changes, flavor degradation, or instability in one of the functional ingredients.

Solubility tells you what happened today. Stability tells you what happens next. The two are not the same thing.

Manufacturing has its own physics

Then the beverage has to be manufactured. This is where benchtop optimism occasionally meets commercial reality. A formula designed for hot fill lives in a different processing environment than one intended for retort, UHT, aseptic processing, or refrigerated distribution. Heat can alter proteins and degrade sensitive compounds. Homogenization changes the physical system. Hydration time matters. Order of addition matters. Even the point at which two ingredients meet during batching can matter.

A beverage can be perfectly reasonable in a laboratory and completely impractical at manufacturing scale. That is why the process is not something that happens to the formula after it is finished. The process is part of the formula.

Eventually, all of this has to fit into one serving

Function stacking also has a more basic limitation. Ingredients take up space. If a beverage needs substantial protein, meaningful fiber, multiple electrolytes, amino acids, botanicals, vitamins, and several other functional ingredients, total solids begin to climb quickly. So do viscosity, flavor challenges, cost, and the number of possible interactions.

At some point it becomes worth asking a very simple question: How many functions does this product actually need? A beverage delivering three meaningful benefits exceptionally well may be a stronger product than one containing six ingredients at awkward levels simply because six looks more impressive on a package. More functionality is not automatically more value. Sometimes it is simply more formulation.

Supplement ingredients do not automatically become beverage ingredients

This is especially important for companies moving from supplements into conventional foods and beverages. An ingredient may work beautifully in a capsule, powder, gummy, or dietary supplement and still be a poor fit for a beverage. The sensory environment is different. The processing environment is different. The regulatory framework may also be different.

An ingredient used in a dietary supplement does not automatically have the same regulatory basis when intentionally added to a conventional food or beverage, and claims that are acceptable in one category may not transfer directly into another. This is exactly the kind of issue worth identifying early. There is little value in solving the stability and flavor problems of an ingredient if the basic assumptions surrounding its use or positioning later have to change.

Start with the product, not the ingredient wish list

The most productive functional beverage projects usually begin with constraints. What is the beverage supposed to do? Which benefits are essential? How much of each functional ingredient actually needs to be delivered? What should the product taste like? Should it be light, creamy, carbonated, clear, opaque, thin, or substantial? What manufacturing process will be used? What shelf life is required? What will happen to the product during distribution?

Once those questions are answered, ingredients can be evaluated in context. Perhaps the protein needs to change. Perhaps the original fiber source creates too much viscosity. Perhaps a different magnesium salt performs better sensorially. Perhaps a botanical ingredient needs a flavor system built around it. Perhaps the desired dosage simply makes no sense in the intended serving size.

These are not failures. These are useful discoveries.

They are also much cheaper discoveries to make during formulation than after packaging has been designed, claims have been built into the marketing strategy, ingredients have been purchased, and a co-manufacturer is waiting for a commercial formula.

The consumer experiences one beverage

Functional beverage development can involve dozens of individual decisions, but consumers do not experience those decisions individually. They do not taste the protein strategy separately from the mineral system. They do not experience the fiber independently from the flavor. They do not care that the active ingredient was difficult to stabilize or that the manufacturing process required three reformulations. They open one bottle and take one sip.

That is ultimately what function stacking has to accomplish. The ingredients must coexist chemically. The product must survive manufacturing. The claims and ingredient use need to make sense. The beverage needs to remain stable. And after all of that, it still needs to taste good enough that somebody wants to drink it again.

If you are developing a beverage with several functional targets, involving Patric Food & Beverage Development before the ingredient system is locked can help identify conflicts early, evaluate how the components will behave as a complete system, and determine whether the benefits you want to deliver can actually coexist in a stable, manufacturable, and enjoyable beverage.

Is Fiber the New Protein?

by

For years, protein has been the functional ingredient brands have tried to add to almost everything. Bars, cookies, cereals, chips, drinks, ice creams, and snacks across the grocery store have all been reformulated, repositioned, or relaunched around protein.

Now fiber is beginning to look like the next major opportunity. Consumer attention is shifting. Gut health, digestive wellness, satiety, blood sugar response, nutrient density, and “better-for-you” indulgence are becoming more important across food and beverage categories. Brands are beginning to realize that fiber can be more than a quiet line on the Nutrition Facts panel.

For food and beverage companies, this creates a real opportunity. It also creates a real formulation challenge. Fiber is not one ingredient, and it does not behave one way. Different fiber types can affect texture, flavor, viscosity, processing, labeling, claims, cost, and consumer perception in very different ways.

That means successful high-fiber product development needs to start before the marketing claim is written.

Fiber is becoming a product-positioning tool

The interest in fiber is coming from several directions at once. Some products are using fiber to support gut-health or prebiotic positioning. Others are using it in keto-friendly, low-glycemic, or reduced-sugar products. Some are using fiber to create a more nutritious version of an indulgent product. Others are using it to support satiety or to give a snack, beverage, or bakery item a more functional reason to exist.

This is why fiber is becoming attractive to brands. It can support a nutrition message, but it can also help solve formulation problems. In the right system, fiber may contribute body, water binding, structure, suspension, chew, or texture. It may help replace some solids when sugar is reduced. It may support a better mouthfeel in a beverage or a more satisfying bite in a bar. It may help a product feel more substantial without changing the basic category promise.

But those benefits depend heavily on the fiber source, the dosage, the processing conditions, the serving size, and the rest of the formula. A high-fiber product is not automatically a better product. A poorly formulated high-fiber product can be gritty, gummy, dry, heavy, bland, unstable, or difficult to manufacture.

Fiber types are not interchangeable

One of the most important things to understand is that “fiber” is a category, not a single ingredient.

Fiber is a category, not a single ingredient. Some fibers, such as fructooligosaccharides/FOS and galactooligosaccharides/GOS, are often used for prebiotic or gut-health positioning. Others, such as resistant starch and resistant dextrin, may be useful when a product needs fiber with a different impact on texture, carbohydrate positioning, or processing behavior. Psyllium husk and beta-glucan can contribute viscosity and water binding, which may be helpful in some applications and problematic in others. Acacia gum and pectin can support body, stabilization, or texture while often fitting more comfortably into a clean label story. Cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose/MCC, methylcellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose/HPMC, and carboxymethylcellulose/CMC can be powerful functional tools, but they may raise different formulation and ingredient-positioning questions. The point is not that one fiber is universally better than another. The point is that each one brings its own mix of nutrition, function, sensory impact, labeling considerations, and consumer perception.

Put more simply: some fibers are soluble. Some are insoluble. Some create viscosity. Some are relatively neutral in texture. Some are good at binding water. Some are useful for body and suspension. Some can contribute graininess. Some affect flavor release. Some fit easily into clean label positioning, while others may be technically effective but harder to explain on an ingredient statement.

This is where formulation strategy matters. A beverage may need a fiber that hydrates cleanly, stays stable, and does not create excessive thickness. A cookie may need a fiber that helps manage moisture without making the product dry or sandy. A keto-friendly bar may need a fiber that supports carbohydrate positioning, but the same ingredient may also affect chew, stickiness, flavor-binding, or digestive tolerance. There is rarely a universal “best” fiber. There is only the fiber that best fits the product, the process, the label, the sensory target, and the business goal.

The right fiber depends on the job

Before choosing a fiber, it helps to define what the ingredient needs to accomplish.

  • Is the main goal to support a Nutrition Facts declaration?
  • Is the brand trying to make a “good source of fiber” or “high fiber” claim?
  • Is the product being positioned around gut health, prebiotics, keto, low-glycemic response, or satiety?
  • Does the formula need help with viscosity, water binding, body, structure, or texture?
  • Does the product need a clean label ingredient story?
  • Does the target consumer need a low-FODMAP fiber approach?
  • Is flavor release a concern?
  • Will the fiber survive the process and remain acceptable through shelf life?

Those questions can lead to very different ingredient choices.

Acacia gum may be appealing in some beverages because of its relatively friendly ingredient-positioning and functionality. Pectin may be useful where gelling, texture, or fruit-based positioning are relevant. Resistant starch may make sense in some bakery or snack systems. Resistant dextrin may be useful where solubility and lower viscosity are important. Psyllium husk can provide strong water-binding and structure, but it can also create significant texture and viscosity effects. Beta-glucan brings both nutritional and functional relevance, but it must be managed carefully depending on the application.

Cellulose, MCC, methylcellulose, HPMC, and CMC can be powerful formulation tools, but they may raise different clean label questions depending on the brand and category. That does not make them wrong. It means the technical benefit has to be weighed against the ingredient-positioning strategy. The right answer depends on the product.

Sensory quality determines whether consumers come back

Fiber can help create a strong front-of-pack message, but sensory quality determines repeat purchase. This is where many high-fiber products struggle. Some fibers create graininess. Some create chalkiness. Some make products feel dry or dense. Some increase viscosity in a way that makes a beverage feel heavy, slimy, or difficult to drink. Some bind flavor compounds and reduce aroma impact. Some mute sweetness or make flavors feel less clean. Some bring their own cereal-like, woody, earthy, bitter, or fermented notes.

These effects may be manageable, but they need to be addressed deliberately. Flavor systems may need adjustment. Sweetness, acidity, salt, and fat perception may shift. Hydration steps may need to change. Processing order may matter. Particle size may matter. Water activity and shelf-life texture may need to be evaluated. A product that tastes good on day one may become harder, drier, thicker, or grainier over time.

That is why high-fiber development should not be treated as a simple fortification exercise. It is a full product development problem.

Clean label goals can complicate fiber selection

Fiber can also create tension between technical performance and brand positioning. Some fiber sources sound familiar to consumers. Psyllium husk, pectin, acacia gum, resistant starch, and beta-glucan may fit naturally into certain clean label or plant-forward products, depending on the brand and category.

Other fiber-related ingredients may sound more technical. Cellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, methylcellulose, HPMC, and CMC can provide useful functional properties, but they may not align with every brand’s clean label expectations.

This is not just a marketing issue. It affects formulation choices early. A brand that prioritizes clean label ingredient-positioning may accept more formulation difficulty to keep the ingredient statement familiar. A keto-friendly product may prioritize carbohydrate strategy and texture. A low-glycemic product may prioritize a fiber system that supports its intended positioning. A low-FODMAP product may avoid certain fibers that would otherwise be attractive for gut-health or prebiotic messaging. The ingredient choice should support the whole product concept, not just one claim.

Nutrition labeling and claims need to be built in early

Fiber also requires careful labeling review. For U.S. conventional foods, not every ingredient marketed as fiber can automatically be counted as dietary fiber on the Nutrition Facts label. FDA’s dietary fiber definition includes non-digestible soluble and insoluble carbohydrates with three or more monomeric units, and lignin, that are intrinsic and intact in plants. It also includes isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates that FDA has determined have beneficial physiological effects. FDA identifies beta-glucan soluble fiber, psyllium husk, cellulose, pectin, and HPMC among the isolated or synthetic non-digestible carbohydrates that meet the dietary fiber definition. FDA has also stated enforcement discretion for additional fibers, including inulin and inulin-type fructans, GOS, resistant maltodextrin/dextrin, and acacia gum, pending rulemaking.

That distinction matters during development. If a brand wants to declare dietary fiber or make a fiber-related claim, the formula needs to be built with ingredients that support the intended declaration. When foods contain both fibers that meet the dietary fiber definition and added non-digestible carbohydrates that do not, FDA explains that records are needed to support the amount declared as dietary fiber because analytical methods do not distinguish between the two.

Nutrient content claims also have specific rules. Under 21 CFR 101.54, “high,” “rich in,” or “excellent source of” generally require 20% or more of the Daily Value per reference amount customarily consumed. “Good source,” “contains,” or “provides” generally require 10 to 19% of the Daily Value. Fiber claims can also trigger additional disclosure requirements if the food is not low in total fat.

In practical terms, this means serving size, fiber source, dosage, claim language, and finished product performance all need to be considered together. The worst time to discover a labeling problem is after the formula has already been scaled, costed, packaged, and prepared for launch.

More fiber is not always better

As fiber becomes more marketable, some brands will be tempted to push the number as high as possible. That may not always be the best strategy. A product with a moderate fiber claim and a strong sensory experience may be more successful than a product with a more aggressive claim that tastes gritty, drinks too thick, causes digestive discomfort, or feels obviously compromised.

The right fiber level depends on the product format, the claim target, the serving size, the consumer expectation, and the rest of the formulation. A high-fiber brownie, soda, cracker, yogurt alternative, protein bar, or frozen dessert will each have different constraints.

There is also a category expectation to respect. Consumers may accept some functional cues in a nutrition bar that they would reject in a cookie. They may accept body in a smoothie that would feel wrong in a sparkling beverage. They may tolerate some earthy notes in a seeded cracker that would not work in a vanilla beverage or a fruit confection. Fiber has to fit the product experience.

The opportunity is real, but the execution matters

Fiber is likely to become more important across food and beverage development because it sits at the intersection of several consumer interests: digestive wellness, gut health, satiety, blood sugar awareness, nutrient density, and more functional everyday foods.

For brands, the opportunity is not simply to add fiber. The opportunity is to develop products where fiber makes sense. Products that taste good. Products that process reliably. Products that support the right nutrition labeling and claims. Products that use the right fiber types for the application. Products that balance clean label expectations with technical performance. Products that do not sacrifice flavor, texture, or repeat purchase for a front-of-pack message.

This is where formulation experience becomes important. A successful high-fiber product has to work as a food first.

So, is fiber the new protein?

Not nutritionally. But commercially, it may be moving into a similar role. Like protein, fiber can give brands a functional message that consumers recognize. It can help make familiar products feel more relevant to current wellness priorities. It can support product renovation, new product development, and sharper ingredient-positioning.

But fiber also brings its own set of formulation challenges. It can affect viscosity, graininess, flavor-binding, sweetness perception, texture, processing, digestive tolerance, labeling, claims, and clean label strategy. That is why fiber should not be treated as an afterthought or a marketing add-on. It should be part of the product development strategy from the beginning.

Developing a high-fiber food or beverage?

Whether you are building a new high-fiber snack, improving a gut-health beverage, exploring keto-friendly or low-glycemic fiber options, troubleshooting graininess or viscosity, or trying to understand which fiber types make sense for your label and positioning goals, Patric Food & Beverage Development can help.

We work across formulation, sensory quality, ingredient functionality, labeling considerations, and commercialization so your product does not just look good on the Nutrition Facts panel. It works in the real world, too.

Cow’s Milk Is Making a Comeback (and Ultrafiltered Milk Is Part of the Story)

by

For years, the story around milk felt settled. Traditional cow’s milk was in decline, plant-based alternatives were on the rise, and consumer preferences seemed to be shifting permanently.

But lately, the numbers are telling a different story. Across the U.S., cow-based milk is showing signs of a measurable comeback, and it is happening at the same time ultrafiltered milk is becoming a more visible, more discussed, and more deliberately purchased category. Taken together, these trends suggest something bigger than a passing moment. Consumers are re-evaluating what they want from “milk,” and dairy is responding with products that fit modern priorities.

Dairy Milk Sales Are Rising Again

After decades of decline, dairy milk has started gaining ground again in recent reporting. According to NielsenIQ data referenced by multiple industry outlets, U.S. dairy milk sales rose about 2% in 2024, while whole milk sales rose roughly 3.2%. That matters because it is not a tiny fluctuation. It is part of a broader pattern of stabilization and growth that runs directly against what the industry expected for years.

At the same time, several market reports have pointed out that plant-based milk sales have softened. In some cases, the category has posted multiple years of unit declines even as it remains a major segment overall. This is not the end of plant-based milk, but it is a shift in momentum.

Why Consumers Are Coming Back to Cow’s Milk

So what is driving the return?

Protein has become one of the biggest consumer priorities

Protein is one of the most dominant nutrition trends in the U.S. right now, and milk has a built-in advantage. It is familiar, widely trusted, and naturally contains a meaningful amount of complete protein without requiring special formulation.

Plant-based milks can compete here, but many mainstream products still contain little protein unless they are designed specifically for that purpose. When they are, they often come with higher price points and more complex ingredient decks. For many consumers, cow’s milk feels like the simplest answer.

Price is playing a larger role in everyday purchasing

Food inflation has changed shopping behavior across nearly every category. And when consumers start comparing value, dairy often wins.

Multiple retail and grocery industry analyses have noted that conventional cow’s milk is typically more affordable than many plant-based alternatives, especially in the premium plant-based segment. For consumers trying to manage grocery spend without giving up nutrition, dairy milk is an easy staple to return to.

Whole milk’s growth reflects changing nutrition attitudes

One of the most interesting details in the “dairy comeback” story is that whole milk is leading the growth.

According to NielsenIQ data cited in 2024 dairy trend coverage, whole milk sales rose around 3.2%. That aligns with a broader shift away from the low-fat era. Many consumers now associate whole milk with satiety, taste, and being less “diet culture” than skim or heavily modified products. In other words, milk is not just being re-adopted. It is being re-adopted in its most traditional form.

Taste and performance still matter

Plant-based milks have improved dramatically, but cow’s milk still has unmatched everyday versatility.

Consumers continue to choose dairy milk because it foams reliably, performs well in coffee, behaves predictably in cooking and baking, and has a neutral flavor profile that works in a wider range of applications. Sometimes the simplest explanation is still the right one. People like how milk works.

Ultrafiltered Milk: Not a Niche Anymore

While conventional milk is regaining ground, ultrafiltered milk is rising for a different reason.

Ultrafiltered milk is produced using membrane filtration, which concentrates protein while removing some water and lactose. The result is a milk that is typically higher in protein and lower in sugar than conventional milk, and often lactose-free or lactose-reduced depending on the brand and process.

This category has moved from specialty shelves into the mainstream. Brands like Fairlife helped establish consumer awareness, but the bigger story is what is happening behind the scenes.

According to Dairy Foods reporting, processors and cooperatives have been expanding ultrafiltered milk production capacity, including facility expansions specifically designed to increase UF output. That kind of investment usually reflects sustained demand, not a short-lived trend.

Why Consumers Are Paying Attention to Ultrafiltered Milk

Ultrafiltered milk is appealing because it fits several modern consumer priorities at once.

Higher protein without changing habits

Consumers do not need to learn a new product category. They can keep buying “milk,” but get a higher-protein version of it. That matters in a market where consumers want functional nutrition but still crave familiarity.

Lower sugar and lactose-friendly options

Ultrafiltered milk is often positioned as lower sugar and easier to digest. For consumers who are lactose sensitive, UF milk can feel like a more natural and satisfying alternative than lactose-free conventional milk, even though both can serve similar needs.

Premium positioning that consumers are willing to pay for

Ultrafiltered milk usually costs more than conventional milk. But it is priced like a functional product, not a commodity. With so many consumers buy protein bars, electrolyte drinks, and functional snacks without hesitation, ultrafiltered milk fits neatly into the same mindset.

The Bigger Shift: Milk Is Becoming a Functional Beverage

If you zoom out, it’s not just “dairy versus plant-based.” It is a shift in how consumers think about milk in general. Milk is no longer treated like a default grocery item. It is being evaluated like a performance product. Consumers are increasingly asking:

  • How much protein does it have?
  • How much sugar is in it?
  • Is it lactose-free?
  • Does it foam well?
  • Does it taste clean?
  • Is it worth the price?

Cow’s milk is regaining ground because it checks more of these boxes than people expected, especially when nutrition, cost, and versatility are weighed together. Ultrafiltered milk is growing because it offers an upgraded version of dairy that feels aligned with modern health and wellness priorities.

What This Means for Brands and Product Developers

From a product development and commercialization standpoint, this is an important moment. Dairy is no longer competing on tradition alone. It is competing through:

  • functional nutrition (protein-forward, lactose-friendly, lower sugar)
  • processing innovation (ultrafiltration and improved performance)
  • premiumization (higher price points justified by clear benefits)
  • sensory performance (taste, texture, and usability)

At the same time, plant-based milk is not standing still. Plant-based brands are responding with better taste, better texture, and more protein-forward formulas. This is not a winner-take-all market. It is a market where consumers are assigning different milks to different roles, and cow’s milk is reclaiming roles it was expected to lose.

The Bottom Line

Cow-based milk is not just surviving. It is gaining measurable momentum again. And ultrafiltered milk is not a passing fad. It is part of a broader consumer shift toward milk products that deliver more protein, less sugar, and better functionality, without requiring people to abandon familiar habits.

Milk is no longer a default purchase. It is a decision. And the brands that win will be the ones that make that decision feel obvious.

How to Reduce Sugar Without Compromising Taste or Texture

by

The Challenge of Cutting Sugar in Food Products

Reducing added sugar is a top priority in food development today, but it’s easier said than done. Sugar doesn’t just make foods sweet – it plays many roles in a formula. It contributes to flavor complexity, affects mouthfeel and moisture, participates in browning reactions, acts as a bulking and preserving agent, and even adds volume and lightness in baked goods​. Take all that away, and you risk ending up with a cookie that’s pale and rock-hard, or a beverage that tastes flat and thin. No wonder food makers find sugar reduction so challenging – you have to preserve taste and texture while removing an ingredient that was doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Yet the pressure to cut sugar is growing. Health guidelines urge limiting added sugars to <10% of calories​, and governments and retailers have set sugar reduction targets across product categories​. Consumers, too, are scrutinizing labels for lower sugar options. The good news is that with smart formulation strategies, it is possible to reduce sugars significantly without compromising sensory quality – even in notoriously tricky products like baked goods, beverages, cheesecakes, and gummies. Let’s explore how, drawing on the latest food science and some real-world success stories.

Natural vs. Synthetic Sweeteners: Finding the Right Balance

One of the most common approaches to reduce sugar is replacing it with alternative sweeteners. These range from natural extracts to high-intensity artificial compounds. Choosing the right sweetener (or blend) is critical, as each comes with its own taste profile, functionality, and consumer perception.

Natural high-intensity sweeteners (from plant sources) are very popular in today’s market. Stevia extract, for example, is derived from the Stevia plant and can be 200–300 times sweeter than sugar. It provides sweetness with zero calories, but often has a bitter or licorice aftertaste and a slower onset of sweetness. Monk fruit (luo han guo) extract is another natural option, around 150–200 times sweeter than sugar, with a fruity aftertaste. Sweet proteins like thaumatin and brazzein (from tropical fruits) are emerging as well – they can intensely sweeten without adding calories, though they may alter flavor slightly due to their protein nature. Rare sugars like allulose and tagatose are gaining attention too. These are actual sugars (carbohydrates) found in nature in small amounts. Allulose is only ~70% as sweet as sucrose but mimics sugar’s mouthfeel and browning properties while contributing almost no calories. Tagatose is about as sweet as sugar and can caramelize, but has fewer calories and a low glycemic impact. Because these come from natural sources (or are identical to substances found in nature), they often appeal to consumers seeking cleaner labels.

On the other hand, synthetic sweeteners (artificially produced) have been used for decades and are very potent. Sucralose, for instance, is an artificial sweetener ~600 times sweeter than sugar. It has a fairly clean sugar-like taste and is heat-stable (good for baking), but some consumers report a slight aftertaste and others avoid it for being “artificial.” Aspartame (200× sweeter) and saccharin (300×) are older synthetic sweeteners; aspartame’s sweetness is clean but it breaks down at high heat and in long storage, while saccharin has a known metallic aftertaste at higher levels. Acesulfame-K (ace-K) is often combined with other sweeteners to improve taste synergy. These artificial sweeteners can replace sweetness intensity very effectively – often only tiny amounts are needed – but they do nothing for bulk or texture, and consumer perception can be a hurdle. Many shoppers today prefer to see “no artificial sweeteners” on labels​. In fact, in one industry poll, 70% of food brands said they plan to reduce sugar by using natural sweeteners, versus only 20% using artificials​. This reflects the current market sentiment: “natural” carries less stigma​, even though natural sweeteners have their own challenges (aftertastes, supply, cost).

Ultimately, no single sweetener is perfect. Successful sugar reduction often means blending sweeteners to get the best of each and mask the negatives. For example, a beverage might use a mix of stevia and erythritol: the stevia provides high sweetness while erythritol (a natural sugar alcohol) adds mild sweetness plus bulk and a cooling effect that can improve mouthfeel. In a diet soda, a small amount of sugar or allulose might be kept to round out the taste, alongside sucralose and ace-K to lift sweetness. The goal is to replicate sugar’s temporal profile (onset, peak, lingering) and flavor as closely as possible. By combining sweeteners, formulators can create a more sugar-like sweetness and often use each at lower levels (reducing any single sweetener’s off-taste). For instance, stevia and monk fruit together can cancel out some of each other’s aftertastes, and adding a pinch of salt or a dash of vanilla can further smooth the sweetness profile.

Maintaining Mouthfeel and Texture with Bulking Agents

Replacing sugar’s sweetness is only half the battle – what about its bulk and textural contributions? In baked goods and candies, sugar often makes up a large portion of the solids. Remove it and you remove volume and weight. The product may turn out smaller, harder, or drier because there was literally “less stuff” in the mix. That’s why bulking agents are usually added when using high-intensity sweeteners. As one review notes, sugar replacement “requires using both alternative sweeteners and bulking agents” in most cases​. The bulkers restore the lost volume and influence texture, moisture, and even browning.

Common bulking ingredients include polyols (sugar alcohols like maltitol, sorbitol, xylitol, erythritol) and dietary fibers. Polyols provide sweetness (typically 30–70% as sweet as sugar) and a similar mouthfeel to sugar. They are frequently used in sugar-free candies, chocolates, and baked goods. For example, sugar-free cookies might use maltitol or isomalt along with a bit of sucralose. These polyols contribute bulk and help retain moisture so the cookie stays soft, while sucralose bumps up the sweetness. One caveat: many polyols can cause gastrointestinal upset if consumed in large amounts, so levels must be managed and often a mix is used to stay below tolerance thresholds.

Dietary fibers and resistant starches are another important class of bulkers. Ingredients like inulin, fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS), polydextrose, and oat fiber can replace sugar’s bulk without adding digestible carbs. They tend to be far less sweet (inulin has a slight sweetness ~10% of sugar’s), but they excel at improving body and moistness. In a reduced-sugar cake or muffin, adding soluble fibers can help mimic the sticky tender crumb that sugar usually provides. In fact, studies have shown that bakery products can withstand a decent sugar reduction if bulk and moisture are compensated. For example, muffins with a 25% reduction in sugar (and fat) plus added fiber were liked just as much as the full-sugar version​. Fibers can also have bonus benefits: they may improve the nutritional profile (higher fiber content) and appeal to health-conscious consumers.

The combination of high-intensity sweeteners + bulking agents remains the workhorse strategy for sugar reduction across many foods​. As an illustration, a no-sugar-added cheesecake might use polydextrose (a soluble fiber) and a sugar alcohol syrup to replace the volume and creamy mouthfeel normally provided by sugar, while using a tiny amount of sucralose or stevia for sweetness. The result can be a cheesecake that is just as indulgent and creamy in texture, with sweetness nearly identical to the original, but significantly less sugar. (In fact, The Cheesecake Factory’s popular “Low-Licious” cheesecake achieves this by using a fiber and sweetener blend instead of sucrose.) Likewise, in gummy candies, formulators often replace corn syrup and sugar with a mix of polyols and gelatin adjustments – the gelatin or gelling agent might be increased slightly to account for any changes in set, and glycerin or polyols add back some of sugar’s humectancy so the gummies stay chewy and don’t crystalize.

Flavor Modulation: Enhancing Sweetness and Masking Off-Notes

Another set of tools to conquer sugar reduction involves flavor technology. When you reduce or replace sugar, the flavor balance of the product inevitably changes. You may notice more of other tastes (like bitterness or sourness) that sugar used to mask. The overall sweetness intensity might drop, or the timing might feel “off” (perhaps the sweetness comes on too late, or doesn’t linger as long). To tackle this, product developers use flavor modulators and enhancers.

Sweetness modulators are specialized flavor compounds (often secret blends from flavor houses) that amplify the perception of sweetness. They are not necessarily sweet by themselves, but they interact with our taste receptors or brain perception to make a given level of sweetener taste sweeter. For example, certain aroma compounds can enhance sweetness via a cross-modal sensory effect: adding a pleasant vanilla or fruity aroma can trick the brain into perceiving more sweetness than is actually there​. One scientific review noted that adding congruent aromas significantly increased perceived sweet intensity, thanks to our brain combining smell and taste signals​. This “multi-sensory integration” approach has been widely used to enhance saltiness (e.g. cheese aroma to boost savory perception in low-salt foods) and is now being explored for sugar reduction as well​.

Flavor masking is equally important. High-intensity sweeteners can bring along off-flavors: stevia has that herbal bitterness, monk fruit can have an overripe fruity note, acesulfame-K has a slight bitter aftertaste, and sucralose can taste slightly metallic to some people. Masking agents – often bitter blockers or enhancers that round out the flavor – can be added. For instance, a bit of glycyrrhizin (from licorice root) is sometimes used at low levels to mask bitterness and add a subtle background sweetness. Similarly, malic acid or citric acid might be used in a reduced-sugar candy to sharpen the flavor profile, distracting from any lingering aftertaste of sweeteners and providing a more “vibrant” flavor that compensates for lower sweetness. In chocolate products, where sugar also affects perceived bitterness of cocoa, reducing sugar might make the chocolate taste more bitter; one solution is to increase the vanilla or add a dairy note to soften bitterness when sugar is taken out.

We can also adjust the taste balance with other basic tastes. A tiny pinch of salt in a sweet product can actually enhance certain sweet flavor notes and suppress bitterness. In beverages, adjusting the acid level is key – many full-sugar drinks (sodas, juices) have high acidity to balance the heavy sweetness; if you cut the sugar, that same acid level might overpower the drink. So, developers often reduce the acid or use smoother acids when they lower sugar, to keep the sweet-sour balance pleasing. Sometimes a touch of umami can be used in a sweet matrix to boost body and sweetness perception (for example, mushroom or tomato extracts at imperceptible levels can round out the flavor of a low-sugar savory sauce or ketchup, making it taste fuller despite less sugar).

Bottom line: By thoughtfully using flavor modifiers – whether it’s adding aroma, using sweetness enhancers, or tweaking salt/acid – you can maintain a satisfying flavor in reduced-sugar products. These techniques help ensure that even if the numeric sugar content drops, the perceived sweetness and overall flavor enjoyment remain high.

Technique Spotlight: Gradual Sugar Reduction

Not all sugar reduction has to happen overnight or in one jump to a new formula. An effective strategy, especially for established products, is gradual sugar reduction over time. Instead of swapping sugar out all at once, the sugar level is lowered in small steps across multiple iterations so that consumers slowly adapt to a less sweet taste. This approach leverages the idea that our taste preferences can recalibrate. If you reduce sweetness by say 5-10% and do it in a stealthy way, many people won’t even notice a difference, and their palate adjusts. Later, you can cut another few percent, and so on.

This stepwise reduction strategy has been widely used in salt reduction efforts (e.g. gradually lowering salt in bread by a fraction each year). For sugar, it’s starting to gain traction. Public health bodies have suggested manufacturers trim sugar gradually – one report noted the UK’s health authorities recommended up to a 20% sugar reduction achieved incrementally to avoid detection​. In one case, a chocolate milk was reformulated in two small stages and managed to cut about 13% of its added sugar in a year without consumers noticing the change (by splitting the reduction into two steps)​. The same principle could be extended to beverages and even some foods, especially those that are homogeneously sweet (like drinks or yogurt). It’s trickier for products that have discrete sweet bits (imagine a granola with sweet clusters – if you reduce sugar in the clusters, people might notice the difference more). But for many processed foods, gradual reduction is a clever way to achieve lower sugar goals with minimal backlash.

One thing to keep in mind with the gradual approach: you’re not replacing sugar with anything new, just slowly removing it, so you must ensure that functionality isn’t lost. Often this works best when only sweetness (and maybe a bit of mouthfeel) is the issue, and you can tolerate a slight change. For instance, in a sweetened yogurt or a beverage, a 5% drop in sugar likely won’t make it too thin or change the preservation, so it can be done without adding other bulking agents – you just make the product a tad less sweet overall. Over time, consumers’ preference shifts and they become accustomed to the new baseline. Some experts even argue that we need to reduce overall sweetness in our diets, not just swap sugars for high-intensity sweeteners​. By gradually lowering sweetness, we help retrain the sweet tooth of the consumer population. This is a more holistic, health-driven view: rather than delivering the same level of sweetness with alternative sweeteners, we slowly guide people to enjoy less-sweet products. Of course, this requires a long-term commitment and consistency. But it can pay off in products that boast “now x% less sugar than 2 years ago – and just as delicious!” without ever shocking the consumer’s taste buds at any single reformulation.

Case Studies: Sugar Reduction in Action

Let’s look at how some specific product categories tackle sugar reduction while keeping quality high:

  • Baked Goods (Cakes, Cookies, Muffins): Baked items rely on sugar for sweetness, browning, moisture retention, and tenderness. A successful reformulation often uses a combination approach. For example, a reduced-sugar muffin might replace 30% of the sugar with a blend of stevia (for sweetness) and soluble corn fiber (for bulk and moisture). The remaining real sugar provides browning and some humectancy. In one study, researchers found that muffins with 25% less sugar (and added fiber) were just as liked as full-sugar versions​– a testament to smart formulation. Cookies can be trickier because sugar contributes to spread and crispness. Some cookie reformulations use polyols like erythritol or maltitol to replace sugar gram-for-gram. These polyols brown less, so a dash of molasses or a touch of extra baking time might be used to get the color right. Cakes and brownies often can handle high-intensity sweeteners if you add back bulk with applesauce, yogurt, or fibers. For instance, a chocolate cake might use allulose for half the sugar (maintaining moistness and browning) and sucralose for the rest of the sweetness, yielding a cake that’s just as rich and sweet for a fraction of the sugar. The key in baked goods is balancing the structure – too much removal and you get collapse or dryness, so often only a partial replacement (50–75%) is targeted unless you radically rework the recipe.
  • Beverages: Drinks are one of the easiest places to swap sugars because they don’t have structural requirements. That’s why we have so many diet sodas and sugar-free drinks. However, taste and mouthfeel are paramount. Simply dropping sugar and adding a high-intensity sweetener can leave a beverage tasting “hollow” or overly thin. Beverage reformulators often use a bit of viscosity agent or mouthfeel enhancer to mimic sugar’s body. For example, some reduced-sugar juices add a small amount of natural gum or pectin to give a thicker mouthfeel that sugar usually contributed. In carbonated drinks, allulose or glycerol can provide a slight syrupy texture to replace the lost sugar solids. Blends of sweeteners work particularly well in beverages: many zero-sugar sodas use sucralose + acesulfame-K (the two together taste better than either alone). Newer natural options use stevia + monk fruit + erythritol: stevia for sweet punch, erythritol for a sugar-like upfront sweetness and a cooling effect that counteracts any stevia linger, and monk fruit to round it out. The challenge with beverages is often aftertaste – there’s no matrix to hide it. So a lot of beverage sugar reduction focuses on flavor pairing (e.g. using stevia in a lemon tea, where any slight aftertaste blends with the lemon notes). Some brands choose to keep a small fraction of real sugar in the formula to carry the initial taste and use sweeteners to top it up; this often gives a more authentic profile. For instance, a “50% less sugar” iced tea might have half the usual sugar plus stevia to reach full sweetness – consumers get the natural sugar taste upfront and likely won’t detect the stevia’s contribution as separate.
  • Cheesecakes and Creamy Desserts: Rich desserts like cheesecake present a special case. They are high in fat and have a dense, creamy texture. Sugar in a cheesecake sweetens the cheese mixture and slightly affects its firmness and freezing point (for frozen cheesecakes). Formulators have found success using polyols and fibers here. A no-added-sugar cheesecake can be made with maltitol or lactitol replacing sucrose; these sugar alcohols behave similarly in the batter, keeping the texture soft and creamy. In one commercial example, polydextrose (a low-calorie fiber) was used to replace sugar bulk in a cheesecake, combined with sucralose for sweetness – the result had the same luscious texture and taste, with over 40% sugar reduction. Because cheesecakes are not meant to be overly sweet to begin with (they rely on cream cheese flavor), they tolerate high-intensity sweeteners well as long as the aftertaste is managed. A bit of vanilla extract and a touch of real sugar (or allulose) can mask any off-notes. Also, since sugar normally helps soften the tang of cream cheese, recipes might add a pinch more salt or use a slightly less acidic cheese base when sugar is removed, to keep the flavor balanced. The crust is another consideration: a traditional graham cracker crust has sugar, but you can replace that with finely ground nuts or use a reduced-sugar cookie crumb to cut sugar further while still providing a satisfying base. Overall, cheesecakes can be made with minimal sugar and still wow the consumer – as evidenced by several keto-friendly cheesecake products on the market that people swear taste as good as regular!
  • Gummies and Confections: Sugar reduction in candy is an art of its own. Gummies, jellies, and chewy candies usually combine sucrose with glucose syrup to create the right gel structure and chew. When you pull out the sugar, you must replace both sweetness and the set of the gel. Many sugar-free gummies use maltitol or isomalt combined with gelatin or agar to get a similar texture – these polyols enable the candy to still have a chew, and they contribute to the osmotic pressure (helping preserve the candy from microbial growth, much like sugar would). An interesting case study comes from a 2021 scientific study on gelatin gummies: researchers reduced the sugar in a gummy formulation by injecting tiny air bubbles into the candy (aeration) to reduce density by 23–38%. The aerated gummies had significantly less sugar per bite, yet tasters noted no difference in flavor or chewiness compared to the full-sugar version​. The micro-bubbles increased the release of aroma and taste compounds, so the gummies still tasted just as sweet and flavorful even with fewer actual sugar calories​. This is a great example of thinking outside the box: using a structural technique (creating an airy foam-like gummy) to cut sugar without needing any new sweetener at all. For more traditional approaches, consider hard candies: they rely on sugar syrup crystallization, but newer formulations use isomalt (which naturally resists crystallization) to make sugar-free lollipops and lozenges that look and feel identical to the sugary kind. Chocolate confections often replace sugar with erythritol or fiber. A sugar-free chocolate bar needs a bulking sweetener that can crystallize to give that snap – erythritol is commonly used, though it can impart a cooling sensation. To counter that, manufacturers might add a bit of milk powder or an alternative sweetener that doesn’t cool as much. The result is a chocolate that is perhaps slightly less sweet, but very close to the original profile. Even chewing gum is a form of confection: modern sugar-free gums use xylitol or sorbitol to replace sugar, not just for sweetness but because these polyols have a gentle cooling effect and a pleasant mouthfeel that works well in gum. In fact, consumers often prefer the mouthfeel of xylitol-sweetened gum over sugar-sweetened gum nowadays (plus it has oral health benefits). All these examples show that whether it’s a gummy bear or a chocolate truffle, sugar can be reduced or eliminated if you intelligently mix alternative sweeteners, bulking agents, and sometimes novel processing methods.

Patric Food & Beverage Development: Expertise in Sweet Success

Navigating the complexities of sugar reduction requires a deep understanding of food science and a creative touch. This is where Patric Food & Beverage Development excels. We’ve helped numerous food makers and entrepreneurs reformulate products to cut sugars while elevating taste and texture – turning what could be a formulation nightmare into a market-winning innovation. Our team knows the functional roles of sugar inside and out, and we draw on a toolbox of solutions: from natural sweetener systems and soluble fibers to proprietary flavor modulators and texture enhancers. We understand that each product is unique. The strategy that works for a beverage (perhaps a stevia-allulose sweetening system with a hint of citrus oil to boost sweetness) will differ from what a cheesecake needs (maybe a polyol-fiber blend and a touch of vanilla to round it out).

At Patric Food & Beverage Development, we approach sugar reduction holistically. That means not just swapping ingredients, but also adjusting processes (for instance, tweaking baking time or using aeration techniques when appropriate) and considering the consumer experience end-to-end. We conduct sensory evaluations to ensure that the reformulated product meets high expectations – no strange aftertastes, no textural letdowns. Our expertise spans baked goods, confectionery, dairy desserts, beverages, and beyond, so we can cross-pollinate ideas from one area to another. (Who says a trick used in candy can’t inspire a solution in a pastry, or vice versa?) We also stay up-to-date with emerging sweeteners and regulatory changes, making sure your product not only tastes great but also meets labeling requirements and consumer demand for clean labels.

In short, you don’t have to sacrifice taste or texture to create a healthier, reduced-sugar product. With the right formulation strategies – and the right development partner – you can deliver sweets and treats that are better for consumers and still utterly enjoyable. Sugar reduction is a challenge, but as we’ve seen, it’s far from an “impossible dream.” It just takes science, skill, and a bit of sweet ingenuity. Patric Food & Beverage Development is here to guide food innovators through those challenges, helping turn bold sugar-reduction goals into high-quality, market-ready realities. Here’s to crafting products that delight the taste buds with less sugar and zero compromise on eating experience!

 

Sources:

  1. Di Monaco, R. et al. (2018). Strategies to reduce sugars in food. Current Opinion in Food Science, 19, 92–97.daneshyari.comdaneshyari.comdaneshyari.comdaneshyari.com

  2. Su, K. et al. (2021). Reducing sugar and aroma in a confectionery gel without compromising flavour through addition of air inclusions. Food Chemistry, 354, 129579.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

  3. Deliza, R. et al. (2021). Rethinking sugar reduction in processed foods. Current Opinion in Food Science, 40, 58–66.sciencedirect.com

  4. FoodNavigator (2024). Do consumers prefer sugar or non-nutritive sweeteners?foodnavigator.comfoodnavigator.com

Phenolic Compounds in Food: How They Affect Flavor, Texture, and Preservation

by

Phenolic compounds are chemical substances characterized by one or more hydroxyl groups (an oxygen and hydrogen atom bonded together, similar to water) attached to an aromatic ring (a ring-shaped arrangement of carbon atoms with specific bonding patterns). Simply put, they are plant chemicals with specific structural features that contribute to their properties.

Plants produce these compounds as part of their defense mechanisms to protect themselves from environmental stress, pests, and diseases. In foods, these compounds are responsible for various sensory attributes, including bitterness, astringency (a dry, puckering sensation), color, and aroma.

The most well-known subgroups of phenolic compounds include:

  • Flavonoids: Found in fruits, vegetables, tea, and wine, flavonoids are known for their antioxidant activity—they help protect cells from damage caused by free radicals (unstable molecules that can harm cells). They contribute to the bitterness and color of foods.
  • Tannins: Present in red wine, tea, and chocolate, tannins are responsible for the astringent, mouth-drying sensation you experience when consuming these products. They bind to proteins in your saliva, reducing lubrication and creating that drying effect.
  • Phenolic Acids: Found in coffee, fruits, and grains, these compounds contribute to the antioxidant properties of foods and influence flavor.

Phenolic Compounds and Flavor

Phenolic compounds significantly impact the flavor of many foods. They contribute bitterness and astringency, adding complexity and depth that many consumers enjoy.

  • Dark Chocolate: The bitterness is due to high flavonoid content, particularly catechins and epicatechins found in cocoa beans. These compounds not only provide a distinct taste but also enhance antioxidant properties associated with health benefits like reducing inflammation.
  • Red Wine: Tannins cause the astringent sensations that add structure and balance to wine, affecting how it feels in your mouth and how flavors develop as you sip. They also help the wine age gracefully, developing more complex flavors over time.

Phenolic compounds also influence aroma and color. Flavonoids are responsible for the vibrant reds, blues, and purples in berries and grapes, enhancing visual appeal. Other phenolics contribute to the rich aromas in coffee and certain teas.

Phenolic Compounds and Texture

Beyond flavor, phenolic compounds affect the texture of food through astringency. This dry, puckering sensation occurs when tannins bind to proteins in your saliva, reducing lubrication.

Understanding how these compounds influence mouthfeel (the way food feels in your mouth) is essential in food development, especially when aiming for desirable textures using natural ingredients.

Phenolic Compounds and Food Preservation

One of the most important roles of phenolic compounds is their ability to act as natural preservatives due to their antioxidant properties. They help slow down oxidation, a chemical process that leads to spoilage, rancidity, and loss of flavor.

  • Oxidation: Occurs when food is exposed to oxygen, causing fats and oils to degrade, resulting in unpleasant flavors and odors.

Phenolic compounds combat oxidation by neutralizing free radicals, unstable molecules that accelerate spoilage. By stabilizing these molecules, phenolic compounds preserve natural flavors and extend shelf life.

  • Red Wine: Phenolic compounds help the wine age gracefully, developing complexity without spoiling.
  • Chocolate: Flavonoids prevent fats in cocoa butter from oxidizing, keeping chocolate smooth and flavorful longer.
  • Baked Goods: Phenolic acids from whole grains or fruits protect fats in baked goods from oxidation, extending shelf life without artificial preservatives.

Phenolic Compounds in Clean-Label Development

With increasing demand for clean-label products made from simple, recognizable ingredients, manufacturers are turning to natural sources of phenolic compounds to enhance flavor and preservation.

  • Fruits and Berries: Blueberries, strawberries, and grapes are rich in flavonoids and phenolic acids. They enhance flavor and color while providing antioxidant protection.
  • Cocoa and Chocolate: Rich in flavonoids, cocoa offers health benefits and enhances flavor and preservation in chocolate products without synthetic additives.
  • Herbs and Spices: Rosemary, thyme, and oregano contain polyphenols (another term for phenolic compounds), especially rosmarinic acid with strong antioxidant properties. They can be used in savory products to enhance flavor and naturally preserve food.

Balancing Flavor and Preservation in Food Development

Working with phenolic compounds involves balancing their sensory properties with preservation benefits. While they effectively slow oxidation, their bitter or astringent characteristics can dominate if not carefully managed.

  • Dark Chocolate: Bitterness from flavonoids can be moderated by adjusting sugar content or adding nuts and dried fruits.
  • Savory Products: Herbs and spices rich in phenolic compounds can be paired with fats and oils to create a harmonious flavor that enhances the food while providing preservation benefits.

Conclusion

Phenolic compounds are vital in food for their contributions to flavor, texture, and preservation. Their antioxidant properties make them powerful tools for extending shelf life in clean-label products, and their sensory attributes add complexity to food and beverages. As the demand for natural, minimally processed foods grows, phenolic compounds offer essential ingredients for creating products that are both flavorful and durable. By understanding how to balance these compounds’ effects, manufacturers can innovate clean-label products that meet health-conscious consumers’ expectations.

The Intriguing Journey of Calculating Calories in Foods

by

Understanding how many calories are in our food has become a crucial aspect of modern nutrition, helping us make informed dietary choices. But have you ever wondered how this process started and evolved over time? Let’s embark on a journey through history to uncover the science and innovation behind calorie calculations in foods.

The Birth of Calorie Measurement

The concept of calories as a measure of energy was first introduced in the early 19th century by French physicist and chemist Nicolas Clément. He used the term to describe the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius. However, it wasn’t until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the idea of measuring calories in food began to take shape.

The Pioneers of Food Calorimetry

In the late 19th century, American chemist Wilbur Olin Atwater, often referred to as the father of nutritional science, made significant strides in understanding how the human body converts food into energy. Atwater and his colleagues developed the Atwater system, which is still the foundation of how we calculate calories in foods today.

The Atwater System

Atwater’s system involved burning food in a device called a bomb calorimeter to measure its heat output. This device consists of a sealed container where a food sample is combusted in the presence of oxygen, and the heat produced is measured to determine the food’s caloric content. Atwater then correlated these measurements with the macronutrient content (proteins, fats, and carbohydrates) of the foods.

From Lab to Table: Modern Calorie Calculation

  1. Food Composition Analysis: Modern food labs analyze the nutritional content of foods using advanced tools like gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. These analyses determine the precise amounts of proteins, fats, carbohydrates, and other nutrients in a food sample.
  2. Bomb Calorimetry: While still used for certain applications, bomb calorimetry has largely been replaced by indirect methods due to its complexity and cost.
  3. Database and Software Tools: Nutritionists and food scientists like our team at Patric Food & Beverage Development now rely on extensive databases like the USDA National Nutrient Database, which contains caloric values and nutrient composition for thousands of foods. Sophisticated software tools integrate this data to provide accurate calorie counts for a wide range of food products.
  4. Innovative Techniques: Emerging technologies like near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) are being explored for even more precise and non-destructive analysis of food composition.

The journey of calculating calories in food is a fascinating tale of scientific discovery and innovation. From the early experiments of Nicolas Clément and Wilbur Atwater to the advanced analytical techniques used today, each step has brought us closer to understanding the energy content of our foods. At the forefront of this field, experts like Dr. Alan McClure and the team at Patric Food & Beverage Development continue to enhance our knowledge and improve the quality of the foods we consume.

So next time you check the calorie content on a food label, you’ll appreciate the rich history and scientific rigor behind that simple number.

Unraveling the World of Hydrocolloids: A Deep Dive into Food Formulation Magic

by

Have you ever wondered what gives your favorite jams their perfect consistency or how salad dressings maintain their smooth flow? The secret lies within the fascinating world of hydrocolloids. These versatile compounds are the unsung heroes behind the improved quality attributes and extended shelf life of many food formulations, playing pivotal roles as thickening and gelling agents. But what exactly are hydrocolloids, and how do they transform the texture and stability of food products?

What Are Hydrocolloids?
Hydrocolloids are a diverse group of long-chain polymers, including polysaccharides and proteins, known for their ability to form viscous dispersions and gels in water. Their high affinity for water molecules, thanks to the abundance of hydroxyl groups, makes them inherently hydrophilic. By dispersing in water, they create a state that’s neither a true solution nor a suspension but rather exhibits the unique properties of a colloid. This dual ability to act as hydrophilic colloids makes them invaluable in the food industry for modifying the rheology, or flow behavior, of food systems.

The Dual Roles of Hydrocolloids
Primarily, hydrocolloids serve two main purposes in food formulations: as thickening agents in liquids like soups, gravies, and sauces, and as gelling agents in solid or semi-solid products such as jams, jellies, and restructured foods. The choice of hydrocolloid and its application largely depend on the specific textural and sensory properties desired in the final product.

Thickening Agents
The process of thickening involves the entanglement of hydrocolloid polymer chains, resulting in a modified viscosity that enhances the mouthfeel and stability of food products. This can be crucial for products where the desired consistency is key to consumer acceptance, such as in sauces and dressings. The ability of hydrocolloids to maintain viscosity under various conditions, including changes in pH and temperature, makes them particularly valuable in complex food formulations.

Gelling Agents
Gelling, on the other hand, involves the formation of a three-dimensional network that immobilizes water, transforming the texture of food from liquid to gel. This property is exploited in the creation of gelled desserts, confectioneries, and jam-like products. The textural properties of gels, which can range from elastic to brittle or creamy, are determined by the type of hydrocolloid used, making the selection process critical for achieving the desired product characteristics.

Hydrocolloids in Action
The application of hydrocolloids extends beyond mere thickening and gelling. They also play roles in emulsification, stabilization, and even controlling the crystal growth of ice and sugar in frozen and confectionery products. This broad range of functionalities highlights the importance of hydrocolloids in product development and innovation within the food and beverage industry.

The Science Behind Hydrocolloids
Understanding the complex interactions and behaviors of hydrocolloids in food systems requires a deep dive into food science. The rheological properties of hydrocolloid-based formulations, such as viscosity and gel strength, are critical parameters that food scientists manipulate to achieve specific textural and sensory outcomes. Characterization methods, including rheological testing and sensory evaluation, are employed to fine-tune formulations and ensure that products meet the desired quality standards.

Embracing Innovation with Patric Food and Beverage Development
At Patric Food and Beverage Development, we harness the power of hydrocolloids to innovate and develop cutting-edge food and beverage solutions. Our state-of-the-art R&D lab, equipped with advanced tools for comprehensive product development, is at the forefront of exploring the limitless possibilities of hydrocolloids in food science. Whether it’s creating the perfect gel structure for a new dessert or enhancing the viscosity of a gourmet sauce, our team of experts is dedicated to pushing the boundaries of quality and innovation.

Join Us on the Journey to Culinary Excellence
Are you ready to explore the full potential of hydrocolloids in your food products? Patric Food and Beverage Development invites you to partner with us as we embark on a journey to revolutionize the food and beverage industry. Together, we can unlock the secrets of hydrocolloids and create products that delight the senses and stand the test of time. Reach out to discuss how we can collaborate to bring your culinary visions to life.

10 Reasons You Need a Food Science Lab for R&D

by

As a shrewd and effective entrepreneur in the food industry, you probably face important choices every day. Concerns about budget, quality, safety, production, market demands…

And of course most importantly—enchanting your customers with deliciousness. 

You may be wondering whether you really need a fullbore food science lab for your product development and R&D needs. Whether it’s worth the cost (or we prefer “investment” but we’ll get to that). 

So what makes food science consultants stand out? 

Well in addition to the incalculable experience, training, and molecular creativity earned through years of practice with the best equipment and the top culinary masters of our age…there are also some easily tangible tools & techniques for culinary R&D that only food scientists like us can offer. 

Seriously, come visit the lab! We have lots of cool stuff to show you (and let you taste)…

In the meantime, here are just 10 of the many things you definitely won’t get with your run-of-the-mill food development consultant.

1. Spinzall – The magic merry-go-round of food science

Spinzall food science R&D lab

This compact centrifuge is a maestro of the trade, breaking down mixtures into component parts; spinning a liquid at high speed to segregate its materials by density.

For example, a liquid such as lemon juice can separate into fruit solids, clarified juice, and citrus oils (also known as pellet, supernate, and oil layers, respectively).

By separating ingredients into their core components, the Spinzall centrifuge opens doors to understanding and manipulating food on a molecular level. It’s a stepping stone for crafting novel textures and flavors that tickle the taste buds in new, exhilarating ways:

  • Clarify juices for full flavor but a crystal-clear appearance
  • Extract essential oils from herbs
  • Remove suspended solids that can separate and/or spoil over time

The Spinzall is crucial for innovating textures, flavors, and new culinary creations—but it can also play a role in quality control and ensuring consistency across batches. 

By separating undesired particles and elements that affect flavor or shelf-life, it makes sure there’s nothing in your final product except pure goodness.

So the next time you marvel at the crystal clarity of a beverage or the unique texture of a modernist cuisine dish—remember, there may be a Spinzall and a team of curious food scientists behind the scenes, spinning their magic to elevate your culinary experience beyond the expected.

2. Analytical Balance – The art of precision

This ain’t your science teacher’s balance scale. It’s not even your college pot-dealer’s fancy digital scale.

The analytical balance we use in our food-science R&D lab measures mass down to the 10,000th of a gram. Put it this way: your typical high-quality digital scale can measure differences down to 0.01 grams. Our analytical balance measures down to 0.0001 grams

It’s so precise, it has to sit on a marble table, lest the room’s vibrations and air currents disrupt the measurement.

  • Dose small quantities of powerful ingredients with extreme accuracy.
  • Hit that accuracy with extreme precision, which means that measurement after measurement gives you the same result.
  • Protect the measurement from error introduced by building vibration and/or airflow

This level of precision may not seem important when it comes to playing around with individual recipes—but when you scale up for production, you multiply every factor by some order of magnitude. Which can make any small deviations in measurement quite impactful.

3. Psychrometer – Take the pulse of humidity

Turning from the material to the atmospheric side of food—the humble yet important psychrometer measures moisture in the air, which plays a pivotal role in the food we enjoy.

A Psychrometer comprises two thermometers; one dry and one wet. By comparing the temperature differential, it calculates the ambient humidity, which factors into food science on many levels.

Moisture influences how ingredients meld, the texture of food, and even its shelf life—so understanding how products behave at various humidity levels is crucial for developing tasty treats people can enjoy anywhere.

In a food science R&D lab, a psychrometer helps maintain carefully controlled environments to study and adjust for these important factors, ensuring that each bite delivers the experience your customers are hoping for.

  • Perfect the crunch of a chip
  • Ensure the right softness in bread
  • Extend the shelf life of packaged products

Managing humidity is key also for quality control. Think about what might happen if the humidity in your production facility was different from where you developed your recipe—that means the moisture content of your finished product doesn’t match your R&D, and you have no real control over what shows up in front of your customer.

We shudder to imagine…

4. Food Dehydrator – Leather it up

Ever marveled at the lasting texture of dried fruits or the savory intensity of jerky? A food dehydrator uses air circulation and sometimes low heat to evaporate moisture from foods, leaving behind morsels with condensed flavors, unique textures, and much longer shelf life.

  • Create healthy snacks that won’t go bad
  • Preserve seasonal produce for year-round enjoyment
  • Make high-quality dried herbs

By reducing moisture, a food dehydrator creates an unfriendly environment for bacteria and molds, which helps make perishable items last much longer.

The next time you enjoy a delicious dried apple slice or a toothsome piece of jerky—remember there’s a food dehydrator and maybe a food scientist or two monitoring the drying process carefully, measuring things like moisture content, water activity, and microbial activity, to bring forth the best product possible.

5. Chemical Dryer – A magic wand of waterlessness

Chemical dryer for food industry R&D

A chemical dryer like ours uses gentle vacuum conditions to remove moisture from a substance with minimal heat, which reduces any unwanted chemical changes.

Its primary use is to convert various chemical hydrates (having water) to anhydrous compounds (without water), which can then be used for their functional properties. For example, epsom salt is a hydrate in its standard form. But in its anhydrous form it can be used to pull moisture out of other solvents to help purify them, when even small amounts of moisture can be a problem. 

  • Dehydrate delicate substances that can’t tolerate heat or convection air currents
  • Remove all moisture when even minute amounts can be a problem
  • Complete the process of any ethanol-based solvent.

It’s much more gentle than a drying oven or even a dehydrator. Though our chemical dryer has the option to use low heat as well, for certain circumstances.

6. Water Purification – Tapping into elemental magic

When formulating beverages, we like to start from scratch with pure H20—to make sure every potential flavor factor is under our control from the start.

In our R&D lab, municipal water flows through several steps to remove any existing minerals, chemicals, or other impurities:

  • Water softener
  • Activated charcoal filter
  • Reverse osmosis system
  • Deionizer

Then we can add carbonation if that’s the kind of beverage we’re formulating, followed by any minerals or other flavor additives we want in the finished product, in very specific and controlled amounts.

But the important thing is that throughout the beverage development process, we control every aspect of the ingredient that represents the vast majority of the recipe: Water!

Read more about our food lab’s water purification setup at our sister site.

7. Sonicator – The sound bath & the fury

Sonicator food science R&D tool

A Sonicator uses ultrasonic waves to stir up a storm on a microscopic level, breaking down cells, mixing ingredients more thoroughly than a blender, or dispersing flavor particles evenly through liquids. 

The Sonicator transforms electrical energy into useful mechanical energy by pushing soundwaves through an aqueous medium at various frequencies depending on what you need. The effect is powerful enough that it can form cavitation bubbles in pure water!

  • Create stable emulsions
  • Extract compounds from plants or other tissue
  • Dissolve chemical compounds incredibly efficiently

This machine uniquely lets us blend and mix at high frequency without the spinning effect caused by other methods. And unlike blenders, doesn’t incorporate any oxygen into the mix—in fact, it forces dissolved gasses out! This means that when oxidation is a potential issue, sonication is the go-to option.

8. The Vortex Mixer – Whirling wonder of agitation

Vortex Mixer in the food science lab

The Vortex Mixer is a simple padded arm that holds a container of liquid. The pad oscillates at specific frequencies to swirl the liquid at precise high speeds (in the thousands of RPM).

Think of a wine aficionado swirling a glass by the stem to “breathe” or incorporate air into the wine for deeper enjoyment of its phenols and flavors.

Our Vortex Mixer does that, but at a speed that would make any sommelier weep. All in the name of uniform mixing, without the blade of a blender. 

  • Dissolve compounds more quickly
  • Break up centrifuge pellets
  • Mix highly viscous substances in a controlled space such as a centrifuge tube or test tube.

Compared to the Sonicator and other methods, it mixes incredibly quickly—just seconds sometimes. The Vortex Mixer also has an option to add vibration along with the swirling oscillation, which further helps randomize the mixing motion.

9. Induction Burner – Harnessing invisible power

Induction burner in our food science lab

Ahh the induction burner—a modern marvel that brings the power of magnetic fields to the stage of culinary science.

Induction burners electromagnetically excite the electrons in steel pots and pans to warm their contents without flames or direct heat.

The whole container heats evenly, reducing hot spots and burn points, and cooking what’s inside more quickly and consistently than other burners.

  • Cook sauces without breaking.
  • Boil much faster than than other methods.
  • Reduce delicate fruit purees without burning or sticking.

Induction burners offer precise control over temperature, as well as much better energy efficiency than traditional cooktops. They also help make the lab safer—because once you remove the metal implement, the induction surface is no longer active, and cools quickly to the touch.

10. Thermomix: The culinary composer

Using a Thermomix for food science R&D

The Thermomix is a marvel that can blend, chop, mince, stir, cook, steam, weigh, and more—all while maintaining total control over temperature and time. It conducts a symphony of precision and versatility, choreographing the ingredients to fulfill their exact and utmost potential in a recipe.

  • Knead dough & mix batter
  • Perfect confectionery recipes
  • Create beverages with unique properties

Simply program it with the process you want, weigh in the right ingredients, and the machine handles the rest with precision and accuracy…so the attending scientist/chef/creator can focus on other more important work than watching the pot.

The Food Science Wizard – Pulling the strings of theory

Okay yes, there’s an eleventh reason that unifies them all together. Welcome to the most intangible dimension of why food science R&D delivers results that other consumable consultants simply can’t measure up to. The least quantifiable, most important factor of the entire food science R&D process.

The scientist him/herself.

You can’t really measure the impact of creativity or lived experience. You can’t quantify inspiration, nor the random connections that spring up in the active mind of a deeply trained and educated expert.

We didn’t get into this field because we love equipment. We got into it because we love food, and want to know every little detail of how it works and how to make it better—down to a molecular level.

We develop our science and collect these and other incredibly valuable food-lab tools…but the real power driving what we do for people who want to sell consistent deliciousness to their customers, is our creativity. Both in problem-solving and product development.

Let us know what you’re working on, and we’ll be glad to teach you more about what we do!

Gelling Agents for Nutraceutical Gummies

by

We’ve come a long way from the Flintstones chewables we grew up on. Fortunately for all of us, we’re entering a golden age of gourmet vitamins, dietary supplements, and other nutraceuticals.

That’s why you’re here, right? To make people’s lives a little easier, and a tad tastier?

Well here’s some free food-science knowledge from true kitchen nerds about one of the key elements you’ll have to decide upon for your nutraceutical gummy formulation.

Do yourself a favor and save yourself some time in your nutraceutical product development by spending a moment here with experts who’ve already done the research for you…

 As a pioneer in the nutraceutical industry, it’s understandable that you won’t settle for creating anything less than a delicious, effective, consistent product. 

Before we dive into the science of gelling agents for nutraceutical gummies—to discover why your gummy keeps coming out overly chewy, bland, or unpredictable—let’s do a quick introduction just to make sure we’re all in the right room.

What are nutraceutical products?

Nutraceutical products are edible dietary supplements that provide a physiological benefit aside from regular nutrition.

As a nutraceutical innovator, you likely already know that the possible benefits of nutraceuticals are almost infinite. Businesses like yours are creating and perfecting nutraceutical products even as you read this, to provide myriad benefits like managing disease, sleep, mental health, and allergies!

Some of the most popular nutraceutical gummies on the market include:

  • CBD edibles
  • Vitamins 
  • Melatonin supplements
  • Compound pharmacy meds
  • Dietary supplements

While the popularity of nutraceuticals is on the rise in general, nutraceutical gummies, specifically, are by far outpacing other products in the nutraceutical industry. In fact, the gummy supplement industry has grown by more than 80% in the last two years! 

Even in the cannabis world, 71.1% of edible sales in the US are gummies. 

The people have spoken –they want a gummy and they expect it to be good. Whoever it is you’re hoping to help with your nutraceutical gummy, investing in perfecting the formula to ensure your product stacks up against the steep competition can make all the difference to your success. 

So how do you make a good nutraceutical product – specifically, a great gummy?

Since you’re here, you probably already know the therapeutic benefits you want from your nutraceutical gummies, and maybe you’ve even decided what flavor you want them to be—nice work.

But what about your gelling agent? As benign as the choice may seem, your gelling agent is the single gummy ingredient voted most likely to separate the great gummy from the “meh” gummy.

Why are there so many types of gelling agents for nutraceutical gummies?

If in your product development journey so far you’ve peeked behind the curtain of what goes into crafting the perfect gummy, you’ve seen that the list of possible gelling agents for nutraceutical gummies is long; pectin, gelatin, agar and many more—what’s the difference? 

The reason there are so many types of gelling agents in the nutraceutical industry is that each one has its own unique benefits and drawbacks—depending on what you’re trying to accomplish.

The right gelling agent for nutraceutical gummies depends on the functional purpose of the gummy (what benefit does your nutraceutical provide its consumer), the desired texture and flavor (how important is the “yum” factor), your own familiarity with the critical handling techniques of the agent, and whether the nutraceutical is a vegan or clean-label product.

What’s the best gelling agent for your nutraceutical gummies?

To answer that, put on your food scientist hat for a moment and ask yourself these other questions first: 

  • What are you making and what other ingredients are you using that may interact with the gelling agent? 
  • What are your priorities (flavor release, mouthfeel, simplicity, being vegan, temperature stability)? 
  • What temperature are you heating your mixture to? 
  • How comfortable are you handling finicky ingredients?
  • Do you have flexibility to mold at different temperature conditions?
  • Do you have a stoving room to remove excess gummy moisture?

You know your nutraceutical gummy needs better than anyone, so take a look at this chart of 7 common gelling agents, and get ready to conquer the nutraceutical industry. 

Below you’ll find the most popular gelling agents for nutraceutical gummies, including pectin, gelatin, agar, carrageenan, gellan gum, and acacia gum. Take a look at the benefits and drawbacks of each agent to help you balance your unique priorities and develop the perfect product.

7 Different gelling agents for nutraceutical gummies:

Pectin

Source: Plant tissues, (especially apples and citrus)

Varieties: High-methoxyl and low methoxyl (and many subcategories)

Benefits: 

  • Heat stability
  • Excellent flavor release
  • Many varieties including fast- and slow-set

Drawbacks: 

  • Tricky product handling
  • Sensitive to calcium and other cations

Vegan: Yes

Gelatin

Source: Beef, pig, fish

Varieties: Alkaline- or acid- extracted; Different strengths

Benefits: Very bouncy and classic like gummy bears

Drawbacks: 

  • Terrible flavor release
  • Not heat-stable
  • Sensitive to acid

Vegan: No

Agar

Source: Seaweed

Varieties: Seasonality leads to different strengths

Benefits: 

  • Easy to work with
  • Good heat stability

Drawbacks: 

  • Sensitive to acid
  • Poor flavor release
  • Brittle gel

Vegan: Yes

Carrageenan

Source: Seaweed

Varieties: Harvested from several types of seaweed (Kappa, Iota, Lambda)

Benefits: 

  • Varies by type (some gel and some don’t; some have good heat stability, some don’t)
  • A decent mimic for gelatin

Drawbacks: 

  • Mediocre flavor-release
  • Harder to work with than gelatin
  • Sensitive to acid
  • Sensitive to cations
  • Bad press lately re: health effects

Vegan: Yes

Gellan gum

Source: Bacteria

Varieties: High-Acyl and Low-Acyl (very different characteristics)

Benefits: Varies by type (some gel and some don’t; some have good heat stability and some don’t)

Drawbacks: 

  • Not great mouthfeel
  • Gel is brittle

Vegan: Generally considered vegetarian, but produced by bacteria (technically an animal)

Acacia gum

Source: Tree sap

Varieties: Incorrect species can be harvested

Benefits: Distinct chewy texture that is not truly a gel

Drawbacks: Off flavors are common due to impurities or incorrect species being harvested

Vegan: Yes

Starch

Source: Grain products

Varieties: Infinite varieties depending on ratios of amylose:amylopectin and whether the starch is modified and how

Benefits: Varies by type (some gel and some don’t; can have very distinct chewy characteristic unmatched by any other agent)

Drawbacks: 

  • Characteristics are all over the map due to infinite varieties
  • Modified versions aren’t seen as “clean label
  • Often requires special high-pressure jet cookers

Vegan: Yes

What happens if you use the wrong gelling ingredient?

The good news is that even if you’re not a food scientist and you mistakenly choose the wrong gelling agent for your product during R&D, you’ll most likely just end up with a melted, sticky mess. Or maybe a bitter, brittle mishap. No one is gonna get hurt because of your chemistry project gone awry.

However, we know that the long process of trial and error in product development can get old fast if you’re ready to start sharing your awesome product with people who need your help as soon as possible. That’s why some business owners like you decide to skip the kitchen experimentation and focus more time on the real mission: helping people feel better with your gummy. 

Our food scientists are always ready to help when it comes to choosing the right gelling agent for a nutraceutical gummy, or even a blend of multiple gelling agents! That’s right, some of them can be used together to particularly good effect for certain challenging issues.

If you’re excited to share the benefits of nutraceuticals and elevate your customer’s experience, selecting the right gelling agent for your gummy is an absolute must! 

Want to avoid some of the typical trial and error associated with this process? Go ahead and ask the questions only a food scientist would be able to answer: Contact us here!

Hand-Tempering Chocolate Without a Thermometer: Penn State Short Course

by

Once upon a time, I was known as the “forefather of the craft chocolate revolution” by food writers apparently in the know.

I’m not sure exactly what that means, but I certainly was born with an affinity for good chocolate, and a molecular fascination for what makes things taste delicious. For almost two decades, I applied that confluence of ability into making award-winning (and unique) chocolates at the helm of Patric Chocolate.

Nowadays I’m a food science consultant…and at the request of Dr. Gregory Ziegler at Penn State University, I’m also a visiting professor at PSU’s week-long chocolate short course, which is what this story is all about.

Haven’t heard of it?

Well first let’s step back in time a bit…

Why is Pennsylvania the chocolate capital of the United States?

Since before the colonies became America, Pennsylvania has been home to a large population of German immigrants, who brought their chocolate-making traditions with them.

Pennsylvania was also home to one of America’s first deepwater ports—which meant heavy freighters could bring in raw materials (like cacao) cheaper than elsewhere.

As a result, some of the world’s biggest chocolate manufacturers are in Pennsylvania:

  • Callebaut
  • Blommer
  • Hershey’s
  • Wilbur
  • Innumerable smaller manufacturers

So why is all this relevant?

Well, because of its proximity to the center of so much chocolate, the Penn State Food Science Department has been doing commissioned research on the bittersweet stuff for decades. The university is far and away the locus of chocolate research in this country (and dare we say the world?)

Through the years Penn State has boasted some extraordinary and esteemed faculty, including Dr. Greg Ziegler; who’s probably the closest thing that we have in this world to a rockstar in chocolate academia.

The university’s food-science building is his stage; and he’s built it up to be nothing short of mindblowing—including a top-of-the-line pilot plant with an incredible array of chocolate equipment for students to work with.

Which is why it was so exciting for me during my PhD, to work with PSU food-science faculty and talk to Greg Ziegler about his thoughts about the sensory portion of my project. 

It was a little weird when I first met him and his fellow faculty (including Dr. Helene Hopfer) about my PhD project: Apparently they already knew who I was because of Patric Chocolate. It made me feel a little shy. But they were excited to have me, so I was excited to go. 

In fact, my chocolate-handling experience helped inform the sample preparation that we did there for my PhD project. Some of the decisions I made back in 2019 are still informing how grad students working in chocolate at Penn State are doing things today. But that’s another story…

2nd Annual Penn State Chocolate Short Course

Fast forward a few years, and Patric no longer manufactures chocolate…but the legacy continues through the Penn State chocolate short course 

A distinguished faculty member of PSU’s Department of Food Science, Dr. Greg Ziegler is the mastermind of this educational event. Featuring yours truly, along with several other very talented chocolate experts. Here’s the whole list:

2023 PSU Chocolate Short Course presenters: 

  • Dr. Alan McClure, Patric Food & Beverage Development / Patric Chocolate
  • Dr. Helene Hopper (PSU faculty who advised on my PhD project)
  • Sarah Barath, a cacao fermentation scientist based in Trinidad
  • Greg D’Alesandre, a chocolate business expert & co-owner of Dandelion in San Francisco
  • Lorenzo Datei, a chocolate machinery specialist with PackInt in Italy
  • Dr. Jasna Kovac, a microbiologist from Penn State
  • Dr. Abby Snyder, a microbiologist from Cornell
  • Dr. Joshua Lambert, an expert in the health benefits of chocolate at Penn State

Penn State invited me to launch the first chocolate short course with them in 2022, with a 4-day series…but this year we extended it to 5 days.

Participants come from all over the world, to learn the bittersweet secrets of making the best chocolate possible.

And boy do we put on a show for them. Full 8-hour days, immersed in the science and craft of chocolate. Mmm, just thinking about it makes my mouth water and my mind wander…

Oven roasting vs drum roasting cacao for chocolate

Like many science-based university classes, this short course I taught included a lecture and a lab component. 

I talked about the science of roasting, the importance of experiment design, and the critical Maillard effect (the non-enzymatic browning that occurs through various means).

Then demonstrated both roasting processes in PSU’s beautiful, well-equipped chocolate lab. So participants could see firsthand the differences in speed, labor intensiveness, mess from breakage, and the ease of monitoring roast changes at the single-bean level, among other decisive elements.

Later students made chocolate using the two different cacao roast methods to compare how each method affects the final product.

Tempering chocolate without a thermometer

For this next class, I talked a bit about the science of chocolate tempering, though Dr. Ziegler had already covered the topic in fine detail. Tempering is all about carefully controlling the temperature of chocolate so the cocoa butter crystallizes in the most stable alignment possible. Read more details about this process here.

For the lab component, participants learned the traditional chocolate-making process called marble slab tempering.

First, melt your chocolate and any  flavor ingredients in a double-boiler or other system to keep temperatures even and prevent burning.

Then pour a manageable portion of that onto a marble slab, and apply shear with a metal scraper to move it around across the smooth, cool surface—until it starts to set up a bit and gets just a little viscous.

Scrape that up and stir it back into the melted chocolate. The cooler stuff brings the overall temperature down a little bit—but it also adds some number of stable cocoa butter crystals to the mix. 

The goal is to have the right proportion of small cocoa butter crystals to liquid cocoa butter. When you get that ratio just right, the chocolate is tempered. Then you can mold it into bars, enrobe confectionery with it, or whatever you want.

How do you know if chocolate is tempered?

I told the course participants that I’d show them how to temper chocolate perfectly without once using a thermometer.

No way, they said. Is that even possible?

After working through a few rounds of the marble slab method, I showed them my “knife trick” for checking chocolate tempering. It’s something that I’d read about years ago from some skilled confectioner that seemed so smart to me, and I immediately incorporated it into business as usual at Patric Chocolate.

Here’s how it works: Once the molten-but-cooling chocolate is nice and smooth after one or more additions of crystals, you simply put in a knife or other thin flat tool. Just get a thin layer of chocolate on it, kind of shake it off, and then set that knife down on a piece of parchment and just let it set. 

  • If it doesn’t set very quickly, it’s not tempered.
  • If it sets but takes a while, it’s partially tempered (or under-tempered).
  • If it sets pretty quickly, it’s in temper.
  • If the melted chocolate is already kind of thick, and sets almost immediately, it’s over-tempered. 

It takes a bit of trial and error, but it’s very easy to see just by watching how long it takes a thin layer of chocolate set up on a butter knife on a piece of parchment. You don’t need to know the temperature. And the appearance helps to confirm your feeling about the speed of chocolate setting. You can hold the chocolate-covered knife up to the light and see how well light reflects off of it. Is it super glossy? Tempered! Is it really spotty? Needs more seed crystals.

By the end, everyone was able to do it—and no one had ever done it before! It was very exciting.

Why attend the PSU chocolate short course?

One of the greatest things about this year was that everyone got to take home chocolate that they made during the short course, using what they’d learned. We’ll definitely continue that.

Participants also get a course-completion certificate with Penn State Food Science Department’s seal—which you can put on your website to impress visitors.

Overall the Penn State chocolate short course was an amazing experience for visitors and teachers alike. Networking, socializing with other chocolate nerds, sharing ideas and stories and chocolate, chocolate, chocolate…

Frankly, everyone who wants to know about making, handling or even selling chocolate needs to attend this thing at some point. There should be no question in your mind.

Stay tuned for more about next year’s chocolate short course!

Questions? Contact me

Do I Need a Food Science Consultant? Summary

by

Quick Version (3 minutes)

So you’ve come upon a problem in your business that calls for expert help.

Remember: Not all food consultants are created equal

There are a lot of very smart and talented food consultants specializing in various elements of the food and beverage industry. 

But when it comes to solving problems they’ve never seen before—even the brightest, most creative food consultants likely don’t have the training or experience to design an effective experiment to figure out exactly why your edible baked good is showing sugar bloom, or set up precise formulation trials to find the best possible recipe for your next CBD gummy release.

What should you consider when hiring a food science consultant?

There are a few things to think about, before reaching out about food science consultation.

Size/Stage of your business

There’s no hard and fast rule, but we generally work with operational companies or startups who already have dedicated budgets for R&D and want to get moving asap.

We may not be the right choice for throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks. Though for a fee we can help you run a formal ideation process to figure out what the best product to start with might be.

For self-funded people hoping to get started with a somewhat smaller budget, let’s talk once you’ve done some preliminary research, have a specific product in mind, and have created a viable business plan with a solid source of R&D funding to get started.

Type of project

Keep in mind that not every project needs the specialization that a food science consultant brings. For example, non-science-based food consultants can help with:

  • Co-packing (contract packager/manufacturer) searches
  • Sales & marketing
  • Branding

But when it comes to the following, we are just what the doctor ordered:

  • Edible product formulation
  • Technical problem solving
  • Facility setup and scaling
  • Optimizing for multiple objectives
  • Shelf-life or other food-quality advising

Just remember, as with anything, with food science, you get what you pay for.

High-level specialists always cost a little more—because the returns are much greater.

“I get it, food science is valuable, and I need to budget for it. But what should that budget look like?”

Budget

Every project is different, of course, in terms of time, materials, and expenses like lab fees.

If you’re in a rush, hoping for a silver-bullet solution done cheap, quick, and dirty—then we’re simply not the right choice for the job.

But if you’re on a mission to bore into the very building blocks of whatever obstacle you’re facing—and rearrange it into a stairway to lasting success, tell us here, and we’ll work on a proposal that will take your specific budget and needs fully into consideration, to find a plan with which everyone will be happy.

.

How to Make Better Functional Chocolate with Food Science

by

Have you noticed that nearly all the functional chocolates available these days range from waxy and cloying, to mediocre and just barely tolerable?

Trust me, I’m a scientist—I’ve carried out careful sensory evaluation on a significant sample size of the functional chocolates. The results have been…disappointing. But I’m still hopeful. Why?

Because it means there’s a huge opportunity for a functional foods company (like yours) to corner the market niche of high-quality functional chocolate.

Until that happens though, we’re all consigned to gulping down “chocolates” that taste like muddy, bittersweet medicine. Gross.

At least each dose is small enough to take down in a bite or two…

But what if I told you that functional chocolate can be as fantastically flavored and gourmet as anything you’d find in a San Francisco Whole Foods or from a multi-generation French chocolate maker?

It just takes a little focused food science and finesse.

How to use functional ingredients in chocolates

I’m glad you asked. Whether you are trying to incorporate CBD, melatonin, or a newly available functional ingredient into your chocolate—high quality functional ingredients should be your starting point for making functional chocolate, not an afterthought.

Most functional chocolate producers add their functional ingredients almost as an afterthought. It’s just there to pack a punch and deliver a dose. So they can boast some fantastic milligram total on the packaging, and shove mediocre products down our greedy throats.

But don’t our greedy tongues deserve to be in on the experience too? Shouldn’t the chocolates we eat TASTE as good as they are a benefit to our health?

If you agree, here’s the start of an answer:

Think of your functional ingredient as a flavor ingredient. Not just a magic or medicinal one.

If it has clear aroma, bitter, or astringent notes, for example, these should be considered as components of the product from the ground up, not at the final moment.

What’s the best functional ingredient for chocolate?

First and foremost, invest in high-quality ingredients that have minimal off-flavors, if possible. In poorly purified ingredients there can be an array of unpleasant flavors. This is particularly common in the growing edibles industry.

But this is usually avoidable, because there are often a number of functional ingredient producers/vendors representing a range of qualities from cheap and dirty tasting, to clean and virtually without aroma, even if bitterness still needs to be dealt with. 

Because don’t your customers deserve better?

So why would you use anything other than high-quality ingredients in functional chocolates?

How to make high-quality functional chocolate?

Be thoughtful about every ingredient!

Making top quality chocolate always revolves around at least three main taste elements: sweet, bitter, and sour. Not to mention aroma and other sensory characteristics like astringency.

Cocoa is naturally bitter, and so are many functional ingredients. To compensate for the bitterness of functional ingredients, many brands will simply drop the cocoa percentage and drive up the sugar. But all of that sweetness also drives out the complexity.

There are many ways to mask, balance, and/or incorporate bitterness in functional foods, such as CBD-containing edibles, but remember—every adjustment you make in a chocolate recipe has a ripple effect.

Choosing ingredients that enhance existing flavors while naturally balancing those that tend to be more unpleasant, can go a long way toward creating top-quality functional chocolate to enchant the market. There are many ingredients we can use with this seemingly magical ability. If you’re wondering, one such great example is sea salt. It packs a huge punch when it comes to enhancing flavor of virtually any product.

Also, remember…

You don’t need to go bean-to-bar for gourmet functional chocolate

As a functional chocolate producer, you’re better off as a chocolatier rather than a chocolate maker. Going all the way back to the bean adds little to your goals and process except extra steps and stress.

Chocolate maker is someone who makes chocolate from scratch, using different percentages of cacao (cocoa beans that need to be sourced, roasted, and further processed) and other ingredients.

Chocolatier sources finished chocolate from a chocolate maker, and adds ingredients and flavors to create their own bar or confection.

You should certainly source one or more high-quality chocolates that will pair well with the flavor and aroma profile of whichever functional ingredient(s) you choose. And another thing…

Don’t try to cram maximum functional ingredients into every bite

Not only does that let your customer enjoy a few more bites of your delicious chocolate per dose, but decreasing the density of functional ingredient also automatically decreases the bitterness you have to deal with.

This can work on a marketing level too. Who sells more bars? The brand with 10 doses per bar, or the one that is super delicious and mouthwatering, costs less, and sacrifices only a few doses?

Summary: How does food science lead to better functional chocolate?

When it comes to formulating the best functional chocolate for the market, there are a lot of elements to consider.

  • Functional ingredients vendors
  • Format of the functional ingredients (oils, powders, etc.)
  • Dosage
  • Cocoa percentage
  • Mouthfeel
  • Appearance
  • Sweet, sour, bitter balance
  • Overall flavor bouquet

As a food scientist with a PhD in flavor chemistry, when it comes to functional chocolate formulation, one of my most important and unique tools is formal experimental-design. I have the software, lab experience, and deep knowledge of taste and flavor on a molecular level that you can’t get anywhere else.

And by the way, before becoming a functional food science consultant, I was for many years an award-winning chocolate maker and confectioner, with additional experience in formulation of bakery items, ice cream, beverages, and more.

Any worthwhile chocolate consultant could hopefully help you source a decent chocolate; but only food science can help you pinpoint the best possible version, based on multi-variable experiment setup, multi-objective optimization, and formal sensory analysis (including consumer testing, if you have the budget and time).  

So what it comes down to fundamentally is this: What are you trying to achieve?

Are you trying to make excellent-quality functional chocolate that loyal customers will buy over and over again because it’s so delicious?

Or are you just trying to get a bunch of one-time sales?

If you answered Yes to the first question, reach out and let’s formulate some gourmet functional chocolate at a quality level that still rarely exists in the functional foods market.

MORE: Want to see more about how functional chocolate formulation works? Follow us on LinkedIn!

Do I Need a Food Science Consultant?

by

So you’ve come upon a problem in your business that calls for expert help. You’ve browsed some food consultants’ websites and seen a lot of exciting promises and impressive portfolios. But can they help you, or do you need a food science consultant?

Food consultants in general know a lot. And they’ve helped a lot of businesses to achieve success.

But who do you turn to when you don’t know what you need? How do you get the best bang for your buck? What kind of expert should you be looking for?

Well, like all things in craft and science, that depends on several variables.

Not all food consultants are created equal

There are a lot of very smart and talented food consultants specializing in various elements of the food and beverage industry. 

Maybe they’ve worked for years at a RTD beverage company, and have a vast body of experience and knowledge, offering incredible consulting value for beverage producers.

Maybe they were a master brewer at a well-known craft brewery, and have tons of insight on fermentation and flavor balance.

Or maybe they’re a marketing genius with a knack for spotting opportunities in the food and beverage market.

But what if you want to scale your gourmet cannabis candy formulation for cost-effective manufacturing? 

Or what if you want to remove the alcohol from something that normally has alcohol in it, and still have it taste incredible?

Or let’s say you have a solid customer base and you want to formulate a new product that appeals to the broadest segment of them, meaning delicious with no room for error?

When it comes to solving problems they’ve never seen before—even the brightest, most creative food consultants likely don’t have the training or experience to design an effective experiment to figure out exactly why your edible baked good is showing sugar bloom, or set up precise formulation trials to find the best possible recipe for your next CBD gummy release.

There’s nothing wrong with that limitation—after all, most food consultants don’t have a food science degree, let alone a doctorate in flavor chemistry, resting on a solid foundation of formal experiment design/analysis and sensory-science experience. And as long as they don’t pretend to offer something they can’t, food consultants are an important contributor to the world of edible production.

But the fact is, there are some problems in food and beverage production that can only be solved through rigorous food science. And that’s where a food science consultant comes in.

What to consider when hiring a food science consultant

There are a few things to think about, before reaching out about food science consultation. While we’re always rooting for your success, your situation may not be the best fit for what we do. At least not yet…

Size of your business

There’s no hard and fast rule, but we generally work with medium to larger companies or well-organized startups who have budgets for R&D.

Whether that comes from established revenue streams, or venture capital doesn’t matter as much as the drive to do what it takes to get to the root of whatever we’re trying to solve.

For some projects we may also train members of your team to run certain elements, so we can be as efficient as possible with our direct consultation time. If you have people on your team who you trust to play such a role, we have even more options available. We don’t always need to be on-site for the magic of food science to work.

Business stage

You don’t have to be a 30-year brand for food science consulting to make sense—but we’re generally not the right choice for throwing ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks.

We work with well-funded startups and generational food manufacturers alike, who have a specific challenge or idea they’re hoping to delve into deeply. Food science is about precision and investigation. Not aimless brainstorming.

For self-funded people with a good idea and no idea what’s next…let’s talk once you’ve done some preliminary research, have a specific product in mind, and have created a viable business plan with a solid source of funding to get started.

Type of project

Keep in mind that not every project needs the specialization that a food science consultant brings. For example, you don’t need a food scientist just to outsource the manufacturing of your product. There are plenty of so-called Co Packers set up to do just that, for any type of food you can think of.

Non-science-based food consultants can help with:

  • Kitchen-to-carton product development
  • Co-packing (contract packager/manufacturer)
  • Sales & marketing
  • Branding

But when it comes to edible product formulation, technical problem solving, scaling, optimizing for multiple objectives, and shelf-life or other food-quality advising—food science offers an array of tools for getting precision results and eliminating expensive guesswork.

Don’t need the power of food science? Here’s a helpful directory of food consultants across a variety of fields.

Budget constraints

Please be clear and upfront about the available budget for your project. This may seem obvious, but you’d be surprised how many people try to prevaricate, hoping for some kind of price match against other food consultant quotes they’ve gathered.

But that ain’t how it works. This is food science. You get what you pay for.

It’s not worth your time for us to get deep into the problem at hand, only to balk at the project proposal price tag. We can help you make the most of your budget, and the quality of our work may seem miraculous to the untrained eye—but we can’t magically make something out of nothing, and we don’t work on spec.

Budget accordingly, and you’ll get the returns you’re looking for.

Why are food science consultants expensive?

Science isn’t simply a body of knowledge. It’s a very specific process for understanding our world by isolating variables and eliminating bias in observation.

It’s not expensive; it’s valuable.

Food science isn’t just fill-in-the-blank. Designing effective experiments requires a lot of experience and creativity. High-level specialists always cost a little more—because the returns can be much greater.

A doctorate in food science comes with more than just a fancy title and framed certificate. It represents thousands of hours immersed in the best education, labs, and methods in the world. It indicates a mind sculpted to make connections, up and down the scale.

But again, you’re not just paying for all the knowledge we bring to bear. You’re paying to access a portal to overcome any obstacle that can be pieced apart by science, from appearance and sensory analysis to molecular activity.

If you had the budget to hire a full-time food scientist with that level of training, you could expect to pay an easy six-figure salary plus benefits.

But don’t worry—a lot of food-science problems can be solved with just a few days of direct consulting, via experiment design and training your team to conduct the data collection.

How much does a food science consultant cost?

Every project is different, of course, in terms of time, materials, and expenses like lab fees.

If we want to get down to the core of the problem—which we do, right?—it’ll generally take at least a full day of investigation and research. Effective food science isn’t one of those two-hour turnaround magic shows.

We don’t waste any time, but we also don’t cut corners. Food science is a systematic approach to problem solving. There’s investigation and research, experiment design and data collection, analysis and recommendations.

Experiments can take a few days to set up. If we need to collect data, we’ll train your team to do it to keep expenses minimal if possible, but training will take another day or so, and then there is analysis and reporting.

If you’re in a rush, hoping for a silver-bullet solution done cheap, quick, and dirty—then we’re simply not the right choice for the job.

But if you’re on a mission to bore into the very building blocks of whatever obstacle you’re facing—and rearrange it into a stairway to lasting success—then we’d love to hear what you’re working on. Tell us here.

How To Fix Bitterness in Cannabis Edibles

by

Thanks to the slow but steady crawl toward legalization, more and more people are turning to cannabis as medicine or for recreation. 

Led by gummies, cannabis edibles have quickly gobbled up a massive share of the $5 billion cannabis market—with a year-over-year sales growth of more than 20% in 2021—and total edibles sales are projected to reach $8 billion by 2025.

The industry is getting crowded but it’s still a goldrush. And it’s the perfect time for ambitious edibles producers to stake their claim with high-quality, standout cannabis products.

But there’s one big problem that every edibles maker must contend with: cannabis extracts are inherently bitter.

Ricardo Baca, former Editor in Chief of The Cannabist, said “One hundred percent of the edibles market is focused on removing that recognizable scent and flavor of the cannabis plant and replacing it with something that’s more aesthetically familiar.”

In fact, an entirely new industry has emerged within the $1.4 billion cannabis edibles market—whose sole purpose is overcoming the bitter and potentially off-putting flavors of marijuana. 

So what can you do if your edibles come out too bitter?

There are a few different directions to take when it comes to fixing bitterness in edibles—but first let’s take a look at the science of bitterness and flavor. 

How bitterness works

As we learned in school, bitterness is one of the five taste sensations (along with sweet, sour, salty, and umami) that are perceptible by the tongue—and one that is particularly useful for keeping us alive.

Many toxic plants and substances share similarities in molecular structures. So the ability to detect bitterness evolved as a “last chance” defense mechanism (once the toxin is already in your mouth!) causing an unpleasant experience—hopefully not too late.

Research has found that human taste receptors type 2 (T2Rs) and G-proteins like gustducin are responsible for our ability to taste bitter compounds. When you consume something bitter—let’s say quinine from the tonic in your G&T—the quinine compound binds to G-protein-coupled receptors like gustducin, which release several enzymes the taste cell uses to transmit the response via neurons to produce the cognitive experience of bitter.

Scientifically, bitter substances are rated relative to quinine (with a reference index of 1), ranging to the most bitter natural substance (gentian root) which has an index value of 5 million.

Okay so we know how bitterness works—but what can you do about bitterness in marijuana edibles?

Managing bitterness in cannabis edibles

Most cannabinoid extracts are intensely bitter, earthy, and often difficult to work with. When the raw product has such a dramatic impact on flavor, creating a formula for an infused product that tastes good and also delivers the expected amount of THC or CBD can require a bit of finesse and scientific precision. 

For example, when it comes to emulsified cannabinoid products, the carrier oils and preservatives can actually intensify the bitterness. During the process of emulsification, when the cannabinoid particles are broken down into their smallest size, the increased surface area means more likelihood of transferring bitter flavors to the taste receptors. 

Some people are proponents of keeping the herbaceous, bitter flavor of cannabis products—to remind people that what they’re consuming is medicine and not candy, hoping to limit accidental ingestion or overindulgence.

For those who don’t follow that school of thought, there are 3 main ways to deal with the inherent bitterness of cannabis:

  • Incorporate the flavor
  • Mask the flavor
  • Use a lower concentration

Incorporating bitterness flavor in edibles

The cheapest approach to bitterness in cannabis edibles starts with accepting the naturally bitter flavor of cannabis and working with it. 

Adding other familiar flavors that are also bitter—such as cocoa, coffee, peppermint, and hops—can trick the brain into thinking, “Even though this tastes bitter, it’s a bitter flavor I enjoy.”

One method that any chef could tell you is taking advantage of the Maillard reaction (if it makes sense for your flavor profile). The browning of sugars and proteins adds a bitterness and aromatic complexity that we find pleasant and helps incorporate other bitter tastes for an overall positive flavor experience.

Bitterness can also be balanced by adding natural sweeteners—but that may not do much for the aftertaste, and can affect your calorie count and labeling. The bitter effect can also be impacted by sour ingredients like lemon juice or citric acid—but again that changes the whole flavor profile and limits your options.

Many consumers acknowledge that bitterness in cannabis edibles is just part of the experience; a small price to pay for the intended effect, much like alcohol or caffeine. 

But trust a wizened old food scientist and highly decorated flavor maven: it doesn’t have to be that way.

Bitterness masking in edibles

Masking flavors is a relatively low-tech approach that is widely used in the edibles industry. The ultimate goal is to eliminate the natural bitterness of the plant extract by adding ingredients that cover up or block bitterness receptors on the tongue. 

One such technique is called microencapsulation, where a hollow sugar molecule (cyclodextrin) attracts and contains the smaller cannabinoid molecules, and carries them past the tongue’s bitterness receptors into the stomach where the sugar dissolves and releases the THC or CBD into the bloodstream.

There are plenty of other all-natural food science compounds and ingredients for masking bitterness (including plant-based non-nutritive sweeteners, seaweed extracts, and fruit-derived essential oils) but we’ll get to that.

Using lower concentration of cannabis extract per volume

One simple way to manage bitterness is to make a bigger edible per dose. Minor adjustments in a batch’s concentration per volume can perceptibly reduce the bitterness in each edible. 

Obviously this isn’t always feasible for existing cannabis products needing a flavor tune-up—it could impact packaging, labeling, regulatory registration, etc.

Plus at scale, even slight adjustments in recipe volume can affect your product costs in a big way. 

Beyond balance: the future of the edibles industry

For many consumers who are new to cannabis—especially those in the “Baby Boomer” generation—edibles are the preferred method for dosing. 

So this problem of bitterness in edibles has to be solved.

There are plenty of bitterness masking ingredients available—but not all of them work well for cannabis; and if they do, maybe only partially. 

Finding the best one for your edibles recipe could mean expensive rounds of prototyping—and even then, with all the options available, how do you know you aren’t missing out on something that works even better?

As food scientists and chemistry nerds, we at Elevated Edibles are always searching for more effective ways to achieve the holy grail of bitterness masking for cannabis edibles. 

We’ve put in countless lab hours—so you don’t have to—scientifically testing the myriad individual and combined ingredients available on the bitterness-masking market…and we’ve come up with a somewhat remarkable solution that’s all-natural, highly effective, and unique in the industry.