5 ms·

A 40% reduction of an ingredient doesn't mean that somehow there's a void in anyone's product (they could reduce the product size also, but that's a separate ma

A 40% reduction of an ingredient doesn't mean that somehow there's a void in anyone's product (they could reduce the product size also, but that's a separate matter). It just means that the other ingredients together will represent a higher proportion of the final product in relation to the reduced ingredient. Think of it this way: 1% milk has some of the milk fat removed/reduced, but that doesn't mean any other ingredient has to replace what is taken out (again, some may choose to add other things, but that's a separate choice), and your milk carton doesn't have to get any smaller. It just means your same milk carton has a higher percentage of the other components of milk. To be clear, the article states: "this can be done without affecting the taste... Its scientists altered the structure of sugar so that it dissolves more quickly. This fools the taste buds, with the effect of raising the sweetness." The way I read that, it seems to support the idea that nothing else has to replace the reduced sugar. But practically speaking, yes - if the other ingredients are costlier than the reduced sugar (as a higher percentage of the final product), then there's a good chance some other fillers could be added to maintain product weight and size.

DavidWanjiru 10y ago
If I'm not mistaken, 1% in milk refers to the butter fat content, but if a chocolate is 60% sugar, isn't that by weight? Like if a bar is 100 grams, 60 grams is sugar? If that is how it works, you'll notice the missing sugar, I think.
- dperfect 10y ago
  If they're claiming a 40% reduction in sugar (by weight or by volume - the same principle applies) without affecting taste, then no, apparently you wouldn't notice the missing sugar. They're saying that an altered structure of the sugar itself makes it taste sweeter, so less sugar ends up tasting the same[1]. I am skeptical that it wouldn't affect other desirable properties of the chocolate, but I guess only time will tell whether or not their claim is actually true. [1] There have been other similar breakthroughs in altering the structure of ingredients to allow for reductions without significantly affecting taste/texture. One notable example is low-temperature extrusion ("slow churned") ice cream.
  - lelandbatey 10y ago
    You may not notice the taste difference, but what I think other posters are saying is that the change in mass will be noticeable? Let's say that we've got a 100 gram candy bar, and 60 grams of that candy bar is sugar. Now, reduce the amount sugar in the candy bar by 40%, bringing it down to 36 grams of sugar. Wouldn't the 24 gram loss of sugar mean a 24 gram loss of mass in the candy bar? And wouldn't that decrease in mass of candy bar be noticeable?
    - wlievens 10y ago
      Of course, as it would be a lot smaller. Or have air bubbles inside. Chocolate is made of fat and sugar. If you put in less sugar, you put in more fat for the same amount of chocolate bar. It's not rocket science.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - dperfect 10y ago
      > Wouldn't the 24 gram loss of sugar mean a 24 gram loss of mass in the candy bar? No. That's what I'm trying to explain. Let's assume they're going to make the candy bar the same size regardless of ingredients. If sugar represents a smaller portion of those ingredients, it just means there will be more of the other ingredients relative to the sugar. You're really just adjusting a ratio of sugar to other ingredients. Don't think of it in terms of a candy bar; instead, think of a giant vat filled with the melted chocolate that will eventually be turned into candy bars. By not adding as much of one ingredient, you're just raising the proportion of other ingredients to the total weight. Those other ingredients may be heavier or lighter than the absent ingredient, but it most likely won't just be air replacing it (they could add more air, but that's probably not necessary). Even if the final product does end up being a bit lighter, I bet most people wouldn't care (and more people would appreciate the lower sugar content).
      - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
        ... and you're not thinking of it like a global conglomerate board member "we've cut weights as much as we can; but we think that we can pack in some filler material or cut weight further if we sell it as 'sugar reduction' - personally I'm going to use the money to buy a second floating palace, my other one doesn't match my third wife's new tiara". Or, they could sell the product and let people choose how much to eat for themselves? If they want to do something moralistic they could quit promoting baby formula to nursing mothers, or stop buying chocolate from places that use child slaves, or go Fairtrade on cocoa and sugar.
dragonwriter 10y ago
Sugar, in addition to being a sweetener, is also (like salt) a flavor enhancer, bringing out flavor of other ingredients. I suspect that boosting sweetness this way will not similar boost the flavor enhancing properties of sugar to the same extent (I'm not sure of the chemical basis of the effect, but my intuition would be that this would actually reduce it.) So it shold impact the taste of the final product, although maybe not in a way that would be noticeable in most mass-market confections where the only taste that really comes through is overwhelming sweetness, with the rest of the distinctions being more textural than taste. OTOH, sugar (including the particular form as well as the amount) has a pretty significant effect on texture, too, so I'may skeptical about that being unaffected, as well.

DavidWanjiru 10y ago

If I'm not mistaken, 1% in milk refers to the butter fat content, but if a chocolate is 60% sugar, isn't that by weight? Like if a bar is 100 grams, 60 grams is sugar? If that is how it works, you'll notice the missing sugar, I think.

dperfect 10y ago
If they're claiming a 40% reduction in sugar (by weight or by volume - the same principle applies) without affecting taste, then no, apparently you wouldn't notice the missing sugar. They're saying that an altered structure of the sugar itself makes it taste sweeter, so less sugar ends up tasting the same[1]. I am skeptical that it wouldn't affect other desirable properties of the chocolate, but I guess only time will tell whether or not their claim is actually true. [1] There have been other similar breakthroughs in altering the structure of ingredients to allow for reductions without significantly affecting taste/texture. One notable example is low-temperature extrusion ("slow churned") ice cream.
- lelandbatey 10y ago
  You may not notice the taste difference, but what I think other posters are saying is that the change in mass will be noticeable? Let's say that we've got a 100 gram candy bar, and 60 grams of that candy bar is sugar. Now, reduce the amount sugar in the candy bar by 40%, bringing it down to 36 grams of sugar. Wouldn't the 24 gram loss of sugar mean a 24 gram loss of mass in the candy bar? And wouldn't that decrease in mass of candy bar be noticeable?
  - wlievens 10y ago
    Of course, as it would be a lot smaller. Or have air bubbles inside. Chocolate is made of fat and sugar. If you put in less sugar, you put in more fat for the same amount of chocolate bar. It's not rocket science.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dperfect 10y ago
    > Wouldn't the 24 gram loss of sugar mean a 24 gram loss of mass in the candy bar? No. That's what I'm trying to explain. Let's assume they're going to make the candy bar the same size regardless of ingredients. If sugar represents a smaller portion of those ingredients, it just means there will be more of the other ingredients relative to the sugar. You're really just adjusting a ratio of sugar to other ingredients. Don't think of it in terms of a candy bar; instead, think of a giant vat filled with the melted chocolate that will eventually be turned into candy bars. By not adding as much of one ingredient, you're just raising the proportion of other ingredients to the total weight. Those other ingredients may be heavier or lighter than the absent ingredient, but it most likely won't just be air replacing it (they could add more air, but that's probably not necessary). Even if the final product does end up being a bit lighter, I bet most people wouldn't care (and more people would appreciate the lower sugar content).
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      ... and you're not thinking of it like a global conglomerate board member "we've cut weights as much as we can; but we think that we can pack in some filler material or cut weight further if we sell it as 'sugar reduction' - personally I'm going to use the money to buy a second floating palace, my other one doesn't match my third wife's new tiara". Or, they could sell the product and let people choose how much to eat for themselves? If they want to do something moralistic they could quit promoting baby formula to nursing mothers, or stop buying chocolate from places that use child slaves, or go Fairtrade on cocoa and sugar.

dragonwriter 10y ago

Sugar, in addition to being a sweetener, is also (like salt) a flavor enhancer, bringing out flavor of other ingredients. I suspect that boosting sweetness this way will not similar boost the flavor enhancing properties of sugar to the same extent (I'm not sure of the chemical basis of the effect, but my intuition would be that this would actually reduce it.) So it shold impact the taste of the final product, although maybe not in a way that would be noticeable in most mass-market confections where the only taste that really comes through is overwhelming sweetness, with the rest of the distinctions being more textural than taste. OTOH, sugar (including the particular form as well as the amount) has a pretty significant effect on texture, too, so I'may skeptical about that being unaffected, as well.