[sammyd]

Hello all! 

Thank you for taking the time to help me figure this one out.   I did well in basic chemistry in undergrad - but I think this one falls into the realm of organic chemistry and above..

I am starting a baking company, and I need to figure out a way to replace the chemical properties of crystallized sugar in a recipe (without using sugar).   I am currently replacing sugar with some ingredients that replace the flavor/sweetness of sugar but don't follow any of the natural chemical properties of crystallized sugar which are all important to the product when it is cooked.     

FYI, some of the properties of sugar that it promotes in my recipe include:

- Retaining moisture and extend keeping quality
- promoting spread of ingredients
- Promoting browning and caramelizing (I don't think we can replace caramelizing)

At this point, there is a standard acid/base (baking soda/cream of tartar) mix causing the rise in the recipe.

Realizing that all of these properties are simply chemical interactions that occur when the mixture is heated, can any of you all think of a different chemical compound that might act the same as crystallized sugar?  If it is already a food -- that would be great.   Otherwise a tasteless chemical that might already be used as a food filler would be amazing too.   

Thanks again!!!! 

[Dan]

Why are you removing sugar from the food? Is it for producing low calorie food?

If this is the case, I would suggest using an (almost) indigestible sugar instead of sucrose (or glucose or fructose). The immediate one that springs to mind is D-tagatose, which I think is marketed as Nutrilatose and Tagatesse. It is still a sugar, and so should caramelise etc., but is not efficiently digested by humans and therefore low calorie. Another good one is D-psicose, which is indigestible and I know is suitable for making a good creme brulee, but as far as I know it is not cheap enough for this kind of application at the moment.

Note that the term "sugar" is a very broad chemical term, I assume that you are using it in the colloquial sense to mean table sugar (sucrose)?

[sammyd]

Dan, thank you for your response!   We are removing the sugar because we would like it to be "Sugar Free."   So I would imagine that we would be talking about "all" sugars. 

The most helpful would be to make the product hypoglycemic and it seems like the compounds you mentioned would help do the trick.   However, they are "technically" sugar.   Can you or anyone think of other compounds that might also do the trick that are not "sugars."

Thanks!

[Dan]

Dan, thank you for your response!   We are removing the sugar because we would like it to be "Sugar Free."   So I would imagine that we would be talking about "all" sugars. 

I don't think "sugar-free" means all sugars. There are plenty of sweeteners in "sugar-free" foods that are still sugars, e.g. lactitol, maltitol and various sugar polyols such as xylitol and sorbitol.

I would check to see what the food industry's definition of "sugar-free" actually is - I don't know what it is, but it's certainly not consistent with chemical nomenclature.

[sammyd]

I certainly understand that - I've battled the FDA before... the definitions we are looking at are:

(ii) "Sugars": A statement of the number of grams of sugars in a serving, except that label declaration of sugars content is not required for products that contain less than 1 gram of sugars in a serving if no claims are made about sweeteners, sugars, or sugar alcohol content. Except as provided for in paragraph (f) of this section, if a statement of the sugars content is not required and, as a result, not declared, the statement "Not a significant source of sugars" shall be placed at the bottom of the table of nutrient values in the same type size. Sugars shall be defined as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides (such as glucose, fructose, lactose, and sucrose). Sugars content shall be indented and expressed to the nearest gram, except that if a serving contains less than 1 gram, the statement "Contains less then 1 gram" or "less than 1 gram" may be used as an alternative, and if the serving contains less than 0.5 gram, the content may be expressed as zero.

(iii) "Sugar alcohol" (VOLUNTARY): A statement of the number of grams of sugar alcohols in a serving may be declared voluntarily on the label, except that when a claim is made on the label or in labeling about sugar alcohol or sugars when sugar alcohols are present in the food, sugar alcohol content shall be declared. For nutrition labeling purposes, sugar alcohols are defined as the sum of saccharide derivatives in which a hydroxyl group replaces a ketone or aldehyde group and whose use in the food is listed by FDA (e.g., mannitol or xylitol) or is generally recognized as safe (e.g., sorbitol). In lieu of the term "sugar alcohol," the name of the specific sugar alcohol (e.g., "xylitol") present in the food may be used in the nutrition label provided that only one sugar alcohol is present in the food. Sugar alcohol content shall be indented and expressed to the nearest gram, except that if a serving contains less than 1 gram, the statement "Contains less then 1 gram" or "less than 1 gram" may be used as an alternative, and if the serving contains less than 0.5 gram, the content may be expressed as zero.

I assume this would provide guidance?

Thanks again for your help.

[sammyd]

So I am assuming some sort of "polysaccharides" would not count...

[sammyd]

No other thoughts? Quick *Ignore me, I am impatient*...

[Arkcon]

I was waiting for someone with specific food science knowledge, and I guess no one has it.  At any rate, FWIW:

FYI, some of the properties of sugar that it promotes in my recipe include:

- Retaining moisture and extend keeping quality

OK, something that can hydrate and "hold" moisture might be a goo choice.  Maybe xylitol or sobitol are non-nutritive "sugar alcohols" that would work.  But they have other incompatible properties.

- promoting spread of ingredients

I don't even understand this one.  I haven't heard, and I never suspected that sugars did that.  I can defer to your expertise, if you're sure this is true, but this is beyond me.  How can you really define "promoting the spread."

- Promoting browning and caramelizing (I don't think we can replace caramelizing)

I'd heard that, if sugars (or sugar derivatives, such as glycoproteins) aren't available to promote browning, the only other option available are brown dyes.

[kingkubra]

Hey guys,

Maybe you can try to use some (D)-Xylose and histidine. PH should be control between 7 and 9.If you want to see Maillard reaction(promoting brown) , you have to wait more than20 hours.If your baking time is very short, you 'd better to use caramelcolours.