Development of boutique chocolates-Will emergence of such premium products sustain the industry?

Why do people like chocolate products? For their flavor, texture or taste? Probably this is a complicated question and answering it may be as complex as the products themselves! While most kids eat chocolates because of the sweetness and the overall texture and mouth feel, there may be many adults who can be connoisseurs of chocolates looking for some perceived traits which are not easy to be contoured or defined. Think about other beverage crops like coffee, tea or spirits and the consumer expectations can be as varied as the chemical complexity of the products themselves! Coffee tasters, tea tasters and wine tasters are a class by them selves and even to day, despite the tremendous advances made by analytical chemistry, no instrument has been universally accepted as a true tool to take a decision regarding the beverage quality. Probably the reason is that most flavors are made up of hundreds of chemicals with complex molecular structure and even to day 100% identification has not been achieved. Also making the issue more complicated is the relative effect of each component whether minor or major on the flavor bouquet characteristic of each product. This is true with cocoa flavor also. Manufacture of chocolate products has been standardized long ago and there is very little variation in its technology because the technology is highly machine oriented with very little leeway to manipulate. However this seems to be changing with some incisive research being carried out by a few major players in this sector and the result is emergence of specialty premium chocolates with varied bouquet value. Here is a take on this important breakthrough that can boost the bottom line of chocolate industry through marketing value added chocolates with significant flavor differentiation.

If one looks back at the history of beverage industry coffee and tea were the dominating ones with world's consumers vertically divided between the two. According to available data, world produces about 9 million tons (mt) of coffee and 5 mt of tea and this gives one an impression that latter is a poor cousin of the former!  But a relook at this issue will reveal that such a conclusion is too simplistic to accept because the quantity required to make a cup of coffee is three times that of tea and there fore in terms of volume of the beverage consumed tea beats coffee globally. Is it not interesting that per capita annual consumption of coffee is highest in Americas and Europe while Asia and the former Soviet Union countries are predominantly tea drinkers. Where does cocoa fit into this picture? it is well known that coco beans production largely goes for making chocolate products like cocoa mass, compounded sweetened chocolates, chocolate liquor and cocoa powder. It is the cocoa powder which finds its way to beverages like hot chocolates, drinking chocolates and as a flavoring material for candies, confectioneries biscuits , cookies and pastries. Therefore cocoa is never a competitor as a beverage material for coffee and tea. 

Chocolate industry is supposed to have manufactured and marketed about 7.5 mt last year using cocoa beans grown in countries like Ivory Coast, Indonesia, Ghana, Nigeria and a few other countries. The chocolate quality is mostly determined by the variety of beans from which it is made and major chocolate players use the much preferred Forastero variety which predominates the production though Criollo is considered a much superior variety being used exclusively for making premium chocolate products. The third variety Trinitario accounts for a fraction of the cocoa trade. The quality differentiation of chocolate products is mostly based on the variety used, fair trade practice adopted by growers including child labor, environment degradation, safety credentials,eating characteristics and handling modes. The health attributes attached to cocoa flavonoids raised the standing of this crop overnight into a frenetic consumer obsession which was tapped by the industry to churn out the so called bitter chocolates with lesser and lesser sugar and more cocoa solids. However bitter chocolates are appreciated only by a few health conscious consumers and therefore manufacturers have been looking for other USPs for increasing demand for chocolate products. The new line of research is leading the industry to design more niche products with higher price tag. Success seems to have come their way recently when researchers started studying the strains of yeast which are responsible to ferment the pulp in cocoa pods during post harvest processing operations, producing many flavoring materials that impart characteristic flavors to chocolate products.      .    

Thanks to the innovative efforts of Belgian researchers working in close collaboration with the chocolate industry, robust yeast strains have been isolated from the fermenting pulp and using these pure cultures different types of bouquet have been created giving individual personality to them. In the traditional fermentation process mostly carried out near the growing areas, the broken cocoa pods are allowed to get fermented by natural microbes, mostly wild yeasts, to depectinize and generate many artifacts that later impart a complex web of flavors to the final product. By isolating a number of strains and studying their metabolic history the scientists were able to create a pool of strains of yeast which can produce a range of flavors singly or in combination.. This makes it possible to create a new range of boutique chocolates that can match particular flavors in the same way that craft beer, coffee, tea, and wine can. What the team first hoped to do was to find robust strains of yeast that would quickly dominate the others and shorten the fermentation time, allowing cocoa producers better control over the chocolate's taste. It turned out that the different robust strains produced markedly different flavors and aromas. This was despite the fact that the recipe and fermentation process for each one was identical. The team then began to breed the yeast strains and created new hybrids that formed strong flavors that were retained in the final product, instead of getting lost due to their volatility, being trapped in the fat. This means that for the first time, chocolate makers have a broad portfolio of different yeast strains that are all producing different flavors. 

Whoever is not familiar with the range of lactic fermented products from milk? Yoghurt is one of the most accepted milk products consumed widely across the world. Look at the efforts of the dairy industry in converting a simple traditional yoghurt into a multibillion dollar roaring industry through differentiation of the fermentation process using combination of lactic acid bacteria like Lactobacillus delbrueckii, Streptococcus thermophilus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidus, Casei etc which can make yoghurts with different features. Same way chocolates also will now be available with varying flavor profiles using different strains of yeast for the primary fermentation process followed by standard processing. Whether  many consumers will be able to appreciate these value added products and willing to pay premium prices for them, however,remains to be seen.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Is the wheat to day radically different from that produced 50 years ago? What is the truth?

Wheat is an ancient food grain that existed even 1000 years ago and the explosive growth of gluten free foods in the United States with no rhyme or reason is sending scientists on a leather hunt to fix the real culprit which creates the so called demand pull for gluten free food products. It has become fashionable to day to blame wheat for every ailment one can think of! This is reminiscent of a similar situation years ago when fat was the villain on which blame was placed for all human ailments. This leads us to question the logistics of opinion creation that makes a particular food constituents look dangerous to many people. Logically one must ask regarding the role played by scientists in this opinion making? Unfortunately some scientists themselves are responsible in creating fictional notions regarding risks posed by certain foods to the health of the consumer and this is compounded by physicians who rides this bandwagon by advising their patients to avoid these ingredients to overcome their physical discomforts for better health. 

A typical example is the so called gluten allergy which rightly or wrongly has spawned a multibillion dollar industry making fortunes right, left and the center, hawking hundreds of products containing no gluten. According the data put out by the US government there are hardly about 3 million people in that country who are really afflicted by celiac disease for whom gluten consumption can be lethal. As against this the gluten free foods are bought by more than 30 million people and annual turnover of this industry has almost doubled to $ 15 billion in 5 years time since 2009! While it is good going for the industry so far, what is intriguing is why the government is not frowning upon such happenings which may have far reaching implications. Not even a single scientific study has been able to pinpoint that gluten is bad for health and avoiding it in the regular diet may be a wiser option. What is the role of scientists in this whole sordid happenings?

It is not that scientists are not doing any thing to unravel the mystery of gluten free foods and their popularity in the US. There are many studies that attempted to bring to a conclusion regarding any bad effect gluten, contained in wheat, might have on human health. As usual scientific community is not capable to arrive at any unanimity on any controversial subject and gluten free food is no exception. One of the theories floating around talks about the genetic changes wheat must have undergone, creating a "bad" grain that causes allergy to some people. But this has been rebutted unambiguously by geneticists who confirm that wheat hundred years ago was same as it is to day and the fault may lie some where else. Modern agricultural practices have not done any harm to the wheat vis-a-vis wheat gluten. Naturally against such assertions backed up by irrefutable data are forcing the scientists to look for the cause of gluten allergy in other areas.

A culpable culprit was identified in the socalled FODMAPS components present in wheat. These are fermentable carbohydrates like oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols which are present in wheat and which after fermentation in the large intestine produce gas and pull in more water creating stomach discomfort experienced by many people after consuming wheat products. Some isolated studies do pont out to such a possibility but it is doubtful whether such an interpretation can be realistic universally looking at those avoiding wheat. Even if rue it is practically impossible to create wheat flours free of FODMAPS. Who knows next "fad" may be FODMAPS free wheat products if the industry smells money in this area! 

Bread was made earlier days using whole wheat flour before the advent of the modern "white" flour and there were no reported cases of gluten allergy to normally healthy consumers 50 years ago. It is only since 2011 that gluten free food industry has been seeing a boom though the trend was perceptible beginning the year 2000. Modern day bread is made using many ingredients which were never used during the preparation of the traditional bread. Among the ingredients used now include vital gluten, bleached flours and a variety of dough conditioners so that an absolutely white bread with "highly liked" features like texture, chewing quality and taste is obtained. Why these ingredients are not being blamed for the allergy for which the wheat grain alone is being blamed? Is this not an anachronism? In the name of "good" bread vital gluten is routinely added to the recipes that ensures good "raising" and texture. Do we know any thing about the ill effects of vital gluten that is routinely added during dough making? Is vital gluten as digestible as natural gluten formed from gliadin and glutenin during slow kneading and fermentation? Could vital gluten be a culprit in stomach discomforts caused by modern wheat products?

What is lost in this gluten free food "Circus" is the long term consequences of more and more people switching over to these foods for imaginary reasons though they really do not need them? In the place of gluten the product formulations contain carbohydrates like starch and effectively reduce the protein content of the formulated final product. This is analogous to the situation 3-4 decades ago fat free food was a "fad" and these fat free or low fat products were richer in carbohydrates, which we know to day is not healthy as per to day's thinking. Gluten free foods like bread becomes a junk food adding to the health problems Americans are already facing currently. 

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Safety of branded instant noodles-A reality check.

Food labeling can be subtle as well as non-transparent as many consumers find themselves while shopping for their daily needs. For a common man many of the information presented by the manufacturers can be "Greek and Latin" but some at least understand the implications of such "facts" presented through the label. As a critic of food industry recently stated the industry can be the "masters of subterfuge" in saying less than what they really hide. What ever it be, food labeling rules do serve a useful purpose and can be made more transparent through consistent efforts in forcing the industry to be more truthful. Here is a typical case of instant noodles which have become popular, especially among the kids. Look at the label declarations made by different brands and what no consumer can make out are the code numbers mentioned for some of the ingredients used in the flavor mix that is added during the preparation process. 

No doubt the food safety authorities permit them to use code numbers, probably to make the system of identifying food ingredients uniform. But in what way this helps the consumer? This information may be as well not there and it will make no difference to the consumer. It is just unfortunate that industry is given this leeway to hide the nature of chemicals used and help it to sell the products more easily to the hapless consumer! Interestingly if we get a little deep into this trickery, it can be realized that industry has come up with alternatives to the erstwhile notorious Mono Sodium Glutamate ( MSG), once monopolized by the famous company Ajinomoto of Japan. After its safety credentials were seriously questioned, its use became highly regulated and the so called INS 627 or E 627 code numbered for sodium Guanylate and INS 631 or INS 631 code numbered for sodium Inosinate were introduced, essentially to obtain the same effect as that would have been generated with MSG. Incidentally these are claimed to be the imaginary fifth flavor called Umami and industry uses them to enhance the flavor of every food and use less salt in their formulations.   

There are two questions the industry and the safety regulators must answer while allowing the use of these chemicals by the food processors. First are these chemicals derived from meat scraps or fish waste? If so can the manufacturers use the green dot on the label to convince the consumers that their products are suitable for consumption by vegans as well as vegetarians?. According to literature, Guanylates and Inosinates can also be made from yeast through hydrolysis of the cells  or from starchy materials by the fermentation route but no one is sure whether the manufacturers use meat derived materials or plant based ones. Interestingly some of them declare use of yeast hydrolyzate also along with 627 and 631 and one wonders why they have to use yeast hydrolyzate which also contains 627 and 631? Could it be to camouflage the real identity of the source from which 627 and 631 are derived. Why not declare that 627 and 631 used in these flavor mixes are really derived from plant sources to satisfy the vegans and vegetarians? 

Second issue pertains to the safety of these additives. Scientific studies do not permit us to draw any firm conclusion because of lack of unanimity. Several reports indicate that at individual levels, 627 and 631 including their blends 635 can create health problems, at times becoming serious if not careful. If one reads the catalog of ill effects of these additives it could be construed as a list compiled by the adversaries who are firmly "convinced" about these "facts". Guanylates and Inosinates have been claimed to cause in humans several adverse effects like Ribo Rash, a form of irritable itchy skin syndrome, elevated heart beats, worsening of gout symptoms, causing migraine, insomnia, asthma, arthritis, sinusitis, etc. However these claims will have to be moderated in the light of the fact that the levels at which they are consumed through noodles can be well below the adversarial concentrations. Also to be borne in mind is that noodles can always be taken with out the flavor mix which contains 627, 631 or 635. 

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com

http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

INJERA VS DOSA- SOME SIMILARITIES

Injera is considered the staple food preparation for most of the population in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Yemen while Dosa is consumed widely in southern part of India. Both are fermented and baked in open stove for eating readily. Probably those who consume these two products would be totally ignorant about each other's food and one may not like the other because of perceptible differences in taste, texture and flavor. It will be interesting to know how similar and nutritious they are in terms of their various characteristics. While Injera is made from the unique coarse grain Teff, dosa batter is prepared using a blend of black gram and rice.

Teff is the smallest grain known to man with an average diameter of 1 mm. As early as 3359 BC, it was found in one of the Pyramids and it is grown in the northern highlands of Northeast Africa. it has some unique characteristics not found in any other food grains. Being rich in Calcium, Phosphorus, Copper, Aluminum, Barium, Iron and Thiamine, it comes with hues of colors ranging from white to brown depending on the cultivar grown. It is a grain containing 14% protein with balanced amino acid profile. Traditionally the fine flour from Teff is mixed with water and allowed to ferment for 2-3 days where upon the yeast present produces a dough or batter that can be poured on to a hot griddle for baking into slightly puffy pan cake like product with a pronounced sour flavor and taste.

Injera eating is also unique in that the product with a diameter of about 30-40 cm is consumed traditionally without a plate when stew preparations and salad are placed on the freshly baked Injera. Pieces are pulled out from the periphery and the accompaniments deposited at the center are scooped with the piece for eating. After finishing the stew, the remaining part of injera, soaked in the juice of the stew is directly eaten. Modern house holds how ever use stainless steel plates for serving Injera. R & D studies have made it possible to make injera with other cereal flours, often substituting them for the expensive Teff flour to a substantial extent. Even ready mixes that can be used to make instant Injera are now available.

Dosa, basically is made similar to Injera but using black lentils and rice. the fermentation time is

some what less, about 18-24 hours under warm climate or 36-48 hours under cooler weather conditions. For obtaining good dosa batter the proportion of rice to black lentil is 2:1 or 3:1, with the lentil ground fine incorporating lot of air during the grinding operation. Fenugreek is invariably added in small proportion which is supposed to provide better fermentation condition. There are indigenously designed stone grinders that make the batter without generating too much heat, considered harmful for promoting fermentation. Modern day electric grinders invariably give a much inferior batter and dosa made with such a better does not compare well with traditionally made products.

There are hundreds of versions of dosa with different recipes, ingredients, preparation procedure, taste, texture and flavor. Traditionally dosa is eaten with the side dish chutney mostly made from coconuts or sambar, the well established Indian curry or onion-potato masala. Open masala dosa is like Injera, eaten with the masala dish in the center. Same batter with varying water content can be used make uttappam, guliyappam etc with different shape, texture and taste. Pesarattu, Adai, Aappam, Uppupuli dosa, Rava dosa, Neer dosa, vegetable dosa, Urad dosa, Maida dosa etc are variations popular with different communities.

Both Injera and Dosa get their characteristic organoleptic characteristics from fermentation with natural microorganisms. The first face of the fermentation is dominated by bacteria like Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Streptococcus faecalis, Pediococcus cereviciae, , Lactobacillus plantarum, L.brevis, L.fermentum, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens etc followed by yeast strains like S.cerevisiae, Debaryomyces hausenii, Trichosporon beigelli etc. These microbes are contributed by the grains used for preparing the batter. Instant dosa mixes being offered by the food industry is based on chemical leavening agents and the end product is invariably inferior to traditionally made counterparts.

If Injera and Dosa are almost like "cousins" from two different continents, why not one think of creating an Indian Injera or an Ethiopian Dosa? Sounds exciting? Any takers?

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com