Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Science

Nestle Discovers 'Breakthrough' Method To Cut Sugar In Chocolate By 40% Without Affecting Taste (theguardian.com) 328

Nestle and its scientists have discovered how to "structure sugar differently" to reduce the amount of sugar in some of its products by 40%. What's more is that it can be done reportedly without compromising the taste. The Guardian reports: The new process is said to make sugar dissolve faster so that even when less is used, the tongue perceives an identical level of sweetness. It plans to patent the process, discovered by its scientists, which it says will enable it to significantly decrease the total sugar in its confectionery products. A four-finger milk chocolate Kit Kat currently contains 23.8g of sugar, a plain (milk chocolate) Yorkie contains 26.9g and a medium peppermint Aero has 24.9g of sugar. If the amount of sugar in each of these products was cut by 40% the new amounts would be 14.3g, 16.1g and 14.9g respectively.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nestle Discovers 'Breakthrough' Method To Cut Sugar In Chocolate By 40% Without Affecting Taste

Comments Filter:
  • JUST GREAT! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Dutchmaan ( 442553 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @08:48PM (#53405675) Homepage
    Now I'll have to eat nearly twice as much to maintain my obesity.
    • Re:JUST GREAT! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shoten ( 260439 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @11:14PM (#53406279)

      Now I'll have to eat nearly twice as much to maintain my obesity.

      You laugh...but that's exactly what some people will do if this goes to market.

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        That's all right Nestle have also figured out many ways to cut the chocolate out of chocolate, hmm tasty, any one ready for that ever so tasty chocolate flavoured soy bar, notice Nestle never ever detail have much chocolate is actually in their chocolate.

        • Sorry, but they do. I believe that labelling law requires them to do so (at least, in the EU - this is presumably one of the laws that TTIP etc seek to muzzle by bringing standards down to the lowest common denominator, ie, the USA).

          Yorkie has 25% cocoa solids by mass [sainsburys.co.uk] - which surprised me, it's actually more than our UK favourite, Cadbury's Dairy Milk, which has 22%.

          No PGPR, or butyric acid, aka "What vomit smells of", the stuff that makes Hershey's so "special" either.

          I won't buy Nestlé on principle

      • Now I'll have to eat nearly twice as much to maintain my obesity.

        You laugh...but that's exactly what some people will do if this goes to market.

        Sometimes chocolate and other candy isn't eaten for the taste, or the texture, or anything else but what it does to the blood chemistry. Nerfing out the sugar content will probably cause some people to binge harder, until they get the desired level of sugar rush... but in the new variety, they'll be getting twice as much cocoa butter and cacao, which is healthy in some ways, but still very calorie dense.

    • by lxs ( 131946 )

      Don't worry. Not all calories in chocolate are from sugar.
      The fat content hasn't changed.

    • Chocolate has lots of fat in it. Not impacted.

      • Re:No you won't. (Score:4, Informative)

        by Dr_Barnowl ( 709838 ) on Friday December 02, 2016 @04:23AM (#53407073)

        Sugar is worse than fat. Fat doesn't spike your insulin making you hungry again shortly afterwards.

        The start of the real obesity epidemic in the USA correlates strongly with the research that sugar companies paid [theguardian.com] for that painted fat as the enemy, and the frenzied replacement of fat in many food products with sugar. See "low fat!" on a label? They had to find something to replace it with, and that was usually sugar.

        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          Far too simplistic. And your point doesn't seem to be correct based on the article itself. The obesity epidemic didn't start in the USA until the 90's, and there were far more factors then just "fat and sugar." The 90's also had the "children should say in side" actors spouting off all the time, coupled with the "stranger danger" garbage painted by the media. The lack of actual exercise and all that has more to do with this.

  • by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @08:48PM (#53405679)
    People on slashdot would have a hard time multiplying a number by 0.4
    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @09:02PM (#53405737) Homepage Journal

      People on slashdot would have a hard time multiplying a number by 0.4

      Indeed they would not. However they do sometimes stumble about when to multiply a number by 0.4.

      • People on slashdot would have a hard time multiplying a number by 0.4

        Indeed they would not. However they do sometimes stumble about when to multiply a number by 0.4.

        Well technically you can multiply by 0.4 then subtract from the original number, this is how I do these sorts of sums in my head (multiply everything in factors of 10, 0.1, 0.01 etc then add/subtract as necessary)

    • by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @09:03PM (#53405749)
      If the amount of sugar was *CUT* by 40%, slashdot readers would have to multiply by .6.

      See, math isn't always so simple, is it?
    • A more helpful bit of math for them to do for us would be to calculate the change in calories. Not all, and perhaps not even most of the calories in milk chocolate come from sugar. If you believe this [calorieking.com], slightly more than half come from fat.

      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        I thought calories didn't matter, only carbs matter. Or was there another study this week. The answer changes all the time.
  • What?!?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by freeze128 ( 544774 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @09:00PM (#53405733)

    a plain (milk chocolate) Yorkie contains 26.9g

    Oh my God! They're eating DOGS!

    • by Rei ( 128717 )

      Why can't they just eat horse like normal people?

      • Why can't they just eat horse like normal people?

        We do, but only when hidden in cheap Tesco ready meals.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        A local pub used to make really great lasagna. Then the horse meat scandal broke and they brought us a leaflet explaining that they had checked and guaranteed that from now on their beef really was beef and not equine. From that day on the lasagna sucked.

        If they offered horse meat lasagna on the menu I'd still be going there.

    • by dbIII ( 701233 )
      In Australia we used to eat chocolate Yowies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yowie_(chocolate))
      Japanese visitors looked at us with odd expressions when we mentioned them.
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @09:03PM (#53405745) Homepage

    Honestly I prefer european chocolate as it's not as overwhelmingly sweet. and anyone that actually likes chocolate likes a good dark chocolate that is already not as sweet.

    • by amiga3D ( 567632 )

      I used to get into my mother's semi-sweet baking chocolate when I was a child. The ass whipping was worth it. I too like a good dark chocolate.

    • by Rei ( 128717 )

      I live in Europe and where I am milk chocolate is more popular. Although the type is more like Dove milk chocolate than Hershey's.

      I personally do prefer dark, though.

      • by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @09:29PM (#53405851) Homepage

        Hershey's is something almost but not completely unlike chocolate.

        (Hey, I grew up on Nestles and Cadbury, both in England and Canada.)

        • Hershey's is a bar of sugar with some chocolate liquor and milk thrown in.
        • Hershey's is something almost but not completely unlike chocolate.

          (Hey, I grew up on Nestles and Cadbury, both in England and Canada.)

          Cadbury is heading the same way.

          • by AJWM ( 19027 )

            I think in the US, Hershey licensed some brand names from Cadbury. Look at the fine print on the back of a Cadbury bar. Still tastes better than straight Hershey chocolate, though.

            • The US formulation has PGPR in it. They claim not to have changed the recipe in the UK, but given the number of people complaining it's not as good as it used to be that stretches credibility.

              I've found Dairy Milk to be too sweet and greasy and not chocolately enough for years though.

              Sadly Cadbury's owned my go-to choice of "everyday" (not every day) chocolate, Green & Blacks, which means the Despoiler Mondelez own them too. The cracks are already starting to show, with their US arm now releasing bars t

    • Honestly I prefer european chocolate as it's not as overwhelmingly sweet. and anyone that actually likes chocolate likes a good dark chocolate that is already not as sweet.

      Most popular chocolate brands wouldn't even qualify as chocolate. It is really is more like chocolate flavoured sugar.

      This is the best stuff I've found: http://www.williescacao.com/pu... [williescacao.com]
      It has 40% less sugar than Hersheys out of the box, and tastes a million miles better.
      Having been brought up on Cadbury, I can no longer eat it. Once you get used to real chocolate, the supermarket stuff is just shit.

      • by Rei ( 128717 )

        Healthier, too, without the extra sugar. Heck, if you look at the nutritional data on cocoa powder (aka, with neither the sugar *nor* the fat) it's actually healthy. In addition to being packed with tons of minerals and flavanoids, 100 grams of cocoa powder, at 228 kcal, has 19,6g protein (40% of the minimum daily recommended value) and 33,2g fiber (133% DV), and packed with minerals (75-200% DV of Fe, Mg, K, Cu and Mn) and flavanoids. The challenge is making chocolate and chocolate flavored goods that a

    • by Zontar The Mindless ( 9002 ) <plasticfish,info&gmail,com> on Thursday December 01, 2016 @11:57PM (#53406429) Homepage

      After living overseas for 15+ years, I've found I can no longer eat American chocolate--it's about 3x as sweet as chocolate made anywhere else. It's like trying to drink a cup of coffee with about 6 spoons of sugar in it. Gross.

      • Speak for yourself. As someone who absolutely can not stand the bitterness in coffee, 6 spoons of sugar is close to the minimum for it to be palatable to me.

        • You might want to get yourself some Black Blood of the Earth [funraniumlabs.com], which was developed for just such a reason.

          Or an Aeropress. I find that as long as you don't let it steep more than about 30 seconds, the coffee an Aeropress makes is much less bitter than filter or french press, the taste is almost chocolately in nature.

          Cold-brew produces similar results in terms of flavour as well - but it's powerful ju-ju, I've not titrated the dose right yet. Last time I tried it I had one glass of it cold over ice in the mor

      • I just can't understand why people insist on ruining perfectly good sugar by putting coffee in it.

    • by tsa ( 15680 )

      Everything in Europe is better than in th US.

    • Trader Joe's Swiss dark chocolate bar FTW. That's the kind of chocolate that's healthy as long as you only eat reasonable amounts.

    • Anybody who's a least a bit chocoholic should try Belgian chocolate. We may not be a chauvinistic country, but we all agree that we've got some of the best beers, and definitely the best chocolate. According to Belgian law, US chocolate cannot even be called chocolate. It has be labeled 'cocoa fantasy'. Chocolate can only be made with cocoa butter - no cheaper fatty substitutes allowed. And of course, to mask the shitty flavor of those ersatz fats, more sugar has to be added to US 'chocolate'.

  • Nestle (Score:4, Insightful)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @09:08PM (#53405771)
    Sorry, but Nestle "chocolate" already tastes awful. I'm not shocked that they can't ruin it further without taking over Palmer or Zacarey.
    • by OzPeter ( 195038 )

      Sorry, but Nestle "chocolate" already tastes awful. I'm not shocked that they can't ruin it further without taking over Palmer or Zacarey.

      I take it then you have never tried Hershey's Chocolate?

  • by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @09:10PM (#53405785)

    Except price which you increase

    ?????
    profit

  • Please name it Mockolate! :D

  • by guruevi ( 827432 ) <evi AT evcircuits DOT com> on Thursday December 01, 2016 @09:29PM (#53405849) Homepage

    In the mean time "real" dark chocolate already has 14g or less sugar per serving. They do this by using real cocoa instead of sugar and wax as a filler.

    US chocolate brands are absolutely awful and sweet.

    • The reason they add sugar to chocolate is to make it palatable. Some grow to enjoy dark chocolate but most find its flavor abhorrent.
    • US chocolate brands are absolutely awful and sweet.

      What nationality do you consider Ghiradelli to have?

  • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @09:54PM (#53405971) Journal

    A big part of the chocolate 'experience' is the texture. Sugar does more than just provide sweetness its also a 'wet' ingredient in most cooking. Its also highly soluble in saliva, what does this do the creaminess?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by aXis100 ( 690904 )

      The main textural components in chocolate come from the cocoa mass and cocoa butter.

      Creaminess comes from particle size, and the cocoa mass (and sugar) spends hours and hours in conching mills to get it around 20-30 micron. The mixed chocolate then spends a long time in tempering circuits to promote the right crystal size in cocoa butter fatty acids.

  • by linear a ( 584575 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @10:02PM (#53406001)
    Like all their other "no flavor change" changes to their chocolate over the decades. This will just cheapen it a little bit more. They used to have good chocolate (maybe I'm showing my age with that remark) but it's bilge now. “There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper." John Ruskin
  • What does that mean, exactly? Is it going to change it enough where the end product is actually significantly worse for you health-wise than what it replaced - like hydrogenated vegetable oils?

  • by swell ( 195815 ) <jabberwock&poetic,com> on Thursday December 01, 2016 @10:53PM (#53406189)

    Many years ago I learned about 'left handed sugar'. This, apparently was a regular sugar molecule, except that it was a mirror image. The beauty of it was that it tasted exactly like sugar but the body didn't know what to do with it so it passed through without harm. Perfect for diabetics, fat people and those who want to preserve their brain cells!

    Yeah, I really didn't want to look it up and you probably don't either, so the answer to your question is: it's very expensive to synthesize. The actual question may take some time to calculate.

  • by DRichardHipp ( 995880 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @11:07PM (#53406243)
    ... then you don't need chocolate. Just say'in.
  • by Miamicanes ( 730264 ) on Thursday December 01, 2016 @11:23PM (#53406313)

    Years ago, I used to *love* Nestle's plain chocolate bars (the ones in red wrappers with white writing that were basically "Nestle Crunch, without the 'crunch' part".

    At some point over the past 20 years, they silently vanished from the shelves of American stores (though Nestle Crunch remains), and Hershey's vomit-flavored chocolate was all that remained. Well, and Dove... Dove is better than Hershey's, but not as good as I remember Nestle chocolate being.

    Hopefully, this will be the game-changer that gets Nestle back into American stores & breaks Hershey's hegemony.

  • or replace the sugar with something else? What?

  • by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Thursday December 01, 2016 @11:41PM (#53406379) Homepage Journal

    This is something well-known to anyone with actual culinary experience. See sea salt vs table salt. Same principle applies to sugar - make if finer, you find that you actually end up using LESS because of more even distribution for same effect.

    Nestle is literally trying to patent that which has been known for fucking centuries by any generally-knowledgeable housewife or cook or chef.

  • to get the same amount of sugar while consuming even more fat than before the change since that wasn't reduced. Therefore the total calories consumed will increase despite eating the same amount of sugar. Most importantly, though, Nestle will have higher sales volume.

    The publics ability to neglect the reactions in active systems never ceases to amaze, but the corporate world's ability to take advantage of it is even more astonishing.

  • With this fantastic stride in culinary wizardry they can use more fat instead!
    They sure as hell won't use more cocoa.
  • isn't this still a thing?
    and... cutting sugar from chocolate smacks a bit of when Thatcher worked out how to introduce air to ice cream.

The IBM purchase of ROLM gives new meaning to the term "twisted pair". -- Howard Anderson, "Yankee Group"

Working...