Is sugar a magic ingredient?

31-Jul-2011 - Last updated on 16-Mar-2017 at 04:15 GMT

I recently presented a paper on reformulation at the World Sugar Research Organisation's international conference in Paris to global sugar barons. As a result, I tried to give a balanced, scientifically accurate review of the pros and cons of sugar. In fact, there were more pros than cons.

At Leatherhead, we pursue a host of reformulation projects for reducing fat, salt, sugar and additives. Each poses its own technical challenges, not least producing something that tastes great but has a health or consumer benefit.

For balance, I described salt, fat and sugar reduction. Despite a recent paper saying salt isn't as bad as we thought; scientific consensus is that it raises blood pressure. Saturated fat increases blood cholesterol and cardiovascular disease risk. Replacing fat with carbohydrate more than halves calories.

But the case for sugar reduction is less clear. For soft drinks it's straightforward. You replace sugar with artificial sweetener and add more water. Calories fall. Some argue mouthfeel and flavour also suffer. But if you take sugar out of a cake, biscuit or breakfast cereal, what do you replace it with? Water doesn't work.

Often sugar is replaced with another carbohydrate typically starch so the calorie count is the same. I showed that a sugar-frosted breakfast cereal contained 371kcals per 100g. The reduced sugar version, labelled '1/3 less sugar', contained 369kcal per 100g. This shocked the European Commission speaker who had just spoken about the calorie-busting benefits of cutting sugar.

Sugar has a clean sweet taste, controls bitterness and acidity, improves texture, gives energy and is a natural preservative. Sugar replacers can cause problems with digestion or aftertaste. I concluded cutting sugar yields complex, product-specific issues and solutions.

The conference dinner was at the Paris Ritz. We ate a lot of sugar.

Dr Paul Berryman is chief executive officer of Leatherhead Food Research.