Flavours & fragrances
With the EU ban on smoke flavourings taking effect, food producers are racing to find natural alternatives to maintain the smoky depth consumers love in meats, cheeses, snacks and plant-based foods.
impact. Perhaps the best example of a change in flavour having a devastating impact is Coca-Cola’s decision back in 1985 to change the formula of its signature soft drink for the first time in almost a century. New Coke was sweeter and was believed to have a better chance of competing with Pepsi, which had been doing well in taste tests and taking a bigger market share.
The change was short-lived; thanks to a backlash from customers, Coke returned to its original formula and kept its place at the very top of the soft drinks market. The EU’s ban on smoke flavourings is unlikely to have such a huge effect on consumer choices, but it does leave food producers with some work to do if they are to find effective alternatives for all of the food types that are affected.
Furthermore, the challenge is not only to find replacements to provide flavour. There are some applications where primary smoke flavourings are used in meat, cheese and fish to enhance the colour, improve the texture or provide a higher degree of microbiological stability. Amidst the challenge to find alternatives, however, lies an opportunity, at least in the eyes of some developers of flavourings. Not only is there a chance to develop ingredients that provide similar smoky flavours, but also the potential to come up with cleaner alternatives from natural sources. Sensient, for example, has brought out a SmokeLess Smoke range, which is based on a natural approach to smoke flavours that not only satisfy the needs of consumers, but also meet food safety requirements. For its part, ITS has created its own range of ‘smoke-free’ natural flavourings. “Smoky flavours are in demand, not just for adding depth to meat such as bacon or hams but in plant-based foods including meat analogues, as well as in other applications ranging from speciality
66
breads and other baked goods through to cheese, ready meals and snacks,” says Bagshaw. “Consumer demand for a ‘new twist’ on flavours they know and trust means we are seeing the use of smoke to add a contemporary dimension particularly in the bakery and beverage categories,” he adds. “Smoky flavours pair well with sweet notes to give options such as smoked caramel sauce or smoked strawberry Daiquiri.”
In the future, any application for new smoke flavourings will be evaluated by EFSA, as foreseen by the agency’s food safety rules, and in case of positive opinions, they may be authorised for use. So, any alternatives will need to go through a thorough evaluation process, but the impetus to innovate is certainly there.
“The beauty of natural flavours is that any flavour or combination of flavours can be recreated, and they are simply itemised as ‘natural flavours’ on an ingredients declaration,” says Bagshaw. “Our range of ‘smoke-free’ natural smoke flavourings offers an alternative option to ‘real smoke’, and enables food and beverage manufacturers to safely and legally offer smoked-style flavours without the need for complex on-pack labelling declarations.” Natural alternatives are coming to market to meet the needs of many familiar ‘smoked’ styles. There is hickory, beechwood, applewood, smoked paprika, smoked BBQ and more. There are also more complex flavours, combining these with other flavours such as smoked vanilla, smoked maple or even smoked fruits such as apple, plum and strawberry.
Every change in regulation can be seen as an obstacle or an opportunity. For an industry that is ready to embrace natural alternatives and explore the many options the new regulations leave open, there is a great chance to discover something new. ●
Ingredients Insight /
www.ingredients-insight.com
allstars/
Shutterstock.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94
