5 Myths About Natural Food Colours

At Sensient, we spend a fair amount of time trying to understand consumer preferences so that we can better anticipate the needs of food manufacturers both today and in the future. We know that colour plays a major part in consumer preference for food and beverages. In fact, a 2007 study published in the Journal of Consumer Research concluded that colour is a more powerful influencer than taste. At the same time, consumers increasingly want the colour in food and beverages to come from natural sources. Our consumer study earlier this year indicated about 66% of them want natural colour. Given that 2015 has seen a number of companies and brands announce their intention to convert to natural colours, interest is higher than ever before. Many of our customers, even those who have worked with natural colours in the past, have a lot of questions. There are a few misperceptions that we hear quite frequently. The following is a list of the most common.
myth1You have to sacrifice on shade vibrancy – This isn’t entirely untrue, but it is overestimated. The reality is that for most applications, we can now achieve very bright, vivid shades. The source of this perception is frequent examples of food products in Europe that lack the same vivid colours that are the norm in North and South America. Firstly, keep in mind that European food manufacturers began the transition to colours from natural sources several years ago, before some of the advances in natural colour technology. Secondly, European products are often using ‘colouring foods,’ which tend to provide less vibrancy. Sensient research indicates that in North America consumers are more concerned about the source of natural food colour (preferring botanical sources) and not with whether it is a colouring food.
myth2Shade variability should be expected – There is no reason for food manufacturers to endure variability when utilizing natural colours. Standardization is a part of the natural colour production process at Sensient and quality control measures ensure consistency.
myth3Off-flavours are a common problem – This is an area where significant progress has been made in recent years. It is accurate that many natural colour sources have the potential to impart off-notes in certain applications. However, new filtration and purification technologies can remove unwanted flavours from botanical colour sources. Additionally, natural colour solutions can be customized to hit shade targets without imparting any flavour. Generally, when working with natural colours, there is more complexity but a solution is almost always available.
myth4Natural colours are less stable – We find this perception is pretty common, but it isn’t quite accurate. For example, in one of our long-term stability studies on panned chocolates, natural colours actually held up better than their synthetic counterparts. And in a light stability challenge for a juice beverage, Red 40 fared significantly worse than the natural red solution that used an anthocyanin vegetable juice. Of course, there are examples where natural colours demonstrate poor stability. Turmeric, for example, does not hold up well to light.
graph myth5Natural colours are expensive – This is a factual assumption if one is comparing natural vs. synthetic colours. However, recalling that colour is at least as important as flavour when it comes to determining consumer preference, natural colours are not necessarily costly. Rather, synthetic colour is exceptionally efficient. Read my blog post on the economics of natural colours to find out more about the cost drivers for naturals.
gelly
Consumers, especially those in North America, are raising their voices through social media and other avenues and asking for natural colours. In response, we are committed to continuously improving the performance and cost-in-use of natural colours. It is an exciting time to be working in the industry, with constant change being the norm.
Related Posts