From the perspective of a food scientist, the clean-label trend is perhaps a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it makes the job more interesting – now that so many ingredients are out of bounds, your ability to dream up new formulations is constantly put to the test. On the other hand, you may find yourself questioning your clients’ definitions of ‘clean label’.
“I have a lot of clients who want me to take out ingredients that are actually quite functional and useful, because consumers are reporting that they don’t recognise that ingredient,” laments Rachel Zemser, a corporate food scientist turned independent consultant. “But if you’re making a salad dressing and I can’t use xanthan gum, then I’m going to have a lot of problems because the gum is what makes it stay together.”
As Zemser sees it, clean label is no longer just about eliminating the obvious nasties – the artificial flavours and colourings that originally sparked consumer alarm. It has evolved into something more far-reaching, casting a light of suspicion on any ingredient the consumer can’t immediately identify.
“Xanthan gum is completely safe and it’s actually quite natural, but people don’t recognise that word,” she explains. “They’re finally paying closer attention to their labels and saying, well, what is this? Sometimes it doesn’t matter what it is – it’s too late, and they’re not going to buy that product.”
Zemser is based in the San Francisco Bay Area, which has been a good place to observe the progression of clean label. Long before the wider public was even countenancing xanthan gum, many Bay Area consumers were shopping in Whole Foods, checking the ingredients list and opting for all things organic.
This population subset may be easy to stereotype but they were ahead of the curve. According to Zemser, clean label first took root with specialised companies that were catering to this demographic.
“I’ve always worked with entrepreneurs that are very Californian and a lot of this trend started with smaller entrepreneurs that wanted to do things differently,” she says. “Back then, the small start-ups were saying they didn’t want to be like the large companies, which were using chemicals and preservatives.”
It wasn’t long, however, before the larger companies began to see the start-ups as a threat. In order to stay competitive, they too jumped on the clean-label bandwagon.
This meant that, although the early clean-label consumers were predominantly well-to-do, the trend soon began to permeate elsewhere. Before long, major international companies were marketing their products as free from artificial additives. Even the likes of Walmart – which is not renowned for being overly environmentally or socially conscious – was looking to see how it could clean up labels without needing to hike up prices.
“The demographics were probably originally just the upscale buyer but now it’s trickling down into the mainstream – not just boutique stores but everyday chains [and] regular supermarkets,” Zemser explains.
What is clean?
By this point on the clean-label trajectory, it would be fair to say the average person at least has some awareness of its principles. While the term itself eludes any single definition, it maybe boils down to the idea that ‘natural’ products are in some way better for you. Think of the food writer Michael Pollan’s much-quoted mantra: “Don’t eat anything your great-great-great grandmother wouldn’t recognise as food.”
Consumers, it appears, have taken note. A recent study by Ingredion, called ‘Cracking the Clean Label Code’, found that 30% of consumers are actively seeking products with some form of clean-label claim. And of those purchasing dairy and bakery products, 70% say their awareness of such claims influences their buying decisions.
“Consumers in general are becoming more educated,” says Zemser. “Even ones who were not concerned about clean label before are now hearing so much about it, and seeing so many products advertised as cleaner label, that they’re becoming more aware.”
This awareness is placing pressure on the entire food and beverage market. Clean label is now popping up in unlikely places – just think of the confectionery segment, which until recently had few pretensions to all-natural goodness. Last year, Nestlé USA eliminated all artificial flavours and colours from its chocolate products, while Mars has pledged to phase out artificial colours from its products by 2020.
Then there’s Kraft Heinz, which has removed all artificial flavours, preservatives and dyes from Kraft Mac & Cheese. Despite making the move in December 2015, it didn’t announce the changes till March 2016. The company subsequently launched a marketing campaign, highlighting the fact that it had sold over 50 million boxes without anyone noticing the difference. As the tagline claimed, “It has changed, but it hasn’t”.
The take-home message is clear: even when your food product is not conspicuously ‘healthy’, it pays to ensure consumers think it’s trustworthy. Very frequently, a lack of familiarity with a given ingredient can translate to a lack of trust.
“People look at the ingredients and say, ‘I don’t know what that chemical is and I don’t want to eat it if I don’t recognise it’,” says Zemser. “I’m sure somewhere at the back of their minds they think it’ll affect their health down the road and, in particular, they don’t want to give that product to their kids. They think it’s not safe or healthy, even if they don’t know what it means.”
Hence the issues surrounding xanthan gum. As all food scientists know, xanthan gum is the product of bacterial fermentation – arguably a ‘natural’ process, but one the general public isn’t necessarily aware of. guar gum and acacia gum, which rouse similar suspicions, are natural by any metric – they come from seeds and tree sap.
Mix it up
When substances of this kind are no longer considered ‘clean’, recipe formulation becomes a game of trade-offs. In some cases, eliminating the ‘unclean’ ingredient can change the product for the worse.
“I’ve talked to a few companies that want to sell almond or hazelnut milk – they don’t want the nuts to settle to the bottom, but they also don’t want to add any gum to suspend the nuts,” says Zemser. “They say it’s more natural without gum and they’ll compromise on that. So the nuts just fall to the bottom of the glass, and they market it as being without gums or fillers. But their product doesn’t look nice – it looks messy and people have to shake it up.”
For those in Zemser’s position, this is an abiding source of frustration. “To me, they’re not really making the best product they can make, just because they’re not really willing to understand that natural gums, extracted from trees, are out there. If the label includes the words ‘guar gum’, they’re going to get scared and not want to put it in their product,” she explains.
Many food companies, eschewing ingredients of this kind, will look to the formulator to find another ingredient that does the same thing while achieving better consumer recognition. Zemser has to explain that isn’t always possible or that it is possible only with certain caveats.
For instance, a bakery client might want to replace artificial preservatives with a natural preservative like salt or sugar.
“That might not work because it’s not good enough,” she says. “I have to tell them there’s nothing that will keep the product on the shelf at room temperature without it getting mouldy, so you’re going to have to sell it refrigerated.”
The choice may therefore come down to ‘pay extra to ensure the product is refrigerated’, or ‘pay extra to use an expensive ingredient alternative’.
“I try to find something they can work with and everyone’s happy, but it may cost five times as much as the cheaper version that consumers don’t recognise,” says Zemser. “Otherwise, they have to accept the product will have a shorter shelf life. It really depends on who their audience is and what message it wants to relay in the marketing materials.”
Room in the market
While this state of affairs is less than ideal for manufacturers, it works to the advantage of ingredients providers. Zemser has noted a surge in ingredients companies exhibiting at trade shows that have developed products designed to fill the gap. If their clean-label ingredient not only does the same job as the one it’s replacing, but also falls into a similar price bracket, they can be sure they’re on to a winner.
For instance, many manufacturers are choosing to replace their anti-caking agents (commonly silicon dioxide) with the easier-to-recognise ‘rice concentrate’. Anti-caking agents are non-negotiable when you’re making a powdered product – they stop the powder clumping together. However, there is a perception that consumers will prefer an ingredient deriving from rice to one deriving from rocks.
Manufacturers are also broadening their definition of what clean label actually means, to include an absence of allergens as well as an absence of additives.
“There are a lot of new products coming out that are allergen-free, gluten-free, soy-free, wheat-free or preservative-free,” says Zemser. “Nobody wants to see 100 ingredients, even if they can identify them, so another definition of clean label is a short ingredients list.” She feels that, in some cases, this bid to remove anything contentious can err on the side of absurdity.
“With the rice concentrate, some people don’t want rice in their product because rice is a carbohydrate and now carbohydrates are seen as unclean as well,” she says. “So it’s a very difficult time to be a food scientist because we constantly have to come up with different ingredients that work.”
The answer, she thinks, is to further educate the consumers. While consumers are clear that they want to veto ‘unnatural’ products, they aren’t necessarily clear on what actually falls under that bracket.
“I think some consumers are going to become more informed, and will ask why are you using all these expensive ingredients, and charging us triple when you can use the less expensive ingredients that are just as natural?” she says. “I don’t know how they’re going to learn – the food scientist community needs to get a voice and speak out more to the consumers about what these ingredients really are and what they mean.”
Here, the old adage would seem to hold true: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Although the movement towards clean label has, in many cases, resulted in more nutritious, less hyper-processed foods, it has also created an overblown perception of risk. And indulging these perceptions does not always lead to the best-quality products.
“I’m not saying every single ingredient is safe but a lot of ingredients are perfectly fine,” says Zemser. “There’s no reason why we should stop using them just because someone doesn’t recognise them.”
