ConfectionaryNews.com has collected articles and videos into a Special Edition: The future of 3D printing in confectionery

Hershey tips 3D printing to take off like the microwave oven did in the 80s – with ultra-customized designs a possibility in retail stores. Katjes subsidiary the Magic Candy Factory is already making waves with its 3D sugar confectionery printer, allowing personalized designs. Now others, such as Barry Callebaut, are entering the fray. This special explores what the future holds for 3D printing in the confectionery industry.

• Katjes’s Magic Candy Factory installs 3D candy printers at Warner Bros. World: Katjes-owned, Magic Candy Factory has partnered with Warner Bros. World Abu Dhabi to install multiple 3D candy printers across its theme park, which opens in April 2018… Read
• byFlow to focus solely on 3D printing for food as it sells 100th printer: byFlow has changed its business model focusing solely on 3D printers for food as it sells its 100th printer… Read
• Hershey continues to explore the possibilities of 3D printing: Hershey says it is continuing to explore the possibilities of 3D chocolate printing partnering with a ‘world-renowned culinary school’ and funding two students to focus on exploring real-world applications of the technology… Read
• Elephant-shaped gum: Wacker highlights 3D printer capabilities: Wacker has demonstrated the personalized shapes it can produce for candy, which turns into chewing gum, on its 3D printer at ProSweets 2017… Watch now
• 3D-printed candy selfies coming to theme parks: Katjes-owned company the Magic Candy Factory has introduced 3D Sweets Selfies, which it hopes will open up new channels for the industry at events and amusement parks… Watch now
• FOOD VISION 2017: Food evangelists, 3D printed selfies and the importance of ingredient diversity: Industry movers and shakers gathered in London last week for Food Vision discussing the some of the hottest trends and issues affecting the industry today. Here are some highlights if you couldn’t be there… Display
• 3D food printing: Precision and accuracy an obstacle to fulfilling potential: Printing precision and accuracy, process productivity and the production of colourful, multi-flavour, multi-structure products remain the biggest challenges to wider industry adoption of 3D food printing. .. Read

For months now, I haven’t posted an industry-funded studies with results favorable to the sponsor, but this one about deserves mention.

Title: Critical review of the current literature on the safety of sucralose, by BA Magnuson, A Roberts, and ER Nestmann.

Journal: Food and Chemical Toxicology 2017:106:324-355.

Conclusion: “Collectively, critical review of the extensive database of research demonstrates that sucralose is safe for its intended use as a non-caloric sugar alternative.

Financial support was provided by the Calorie Control Council, Atlanta GA, to the employers of the authors for the preparation and publication of this review.

My comment: This lengthy review of literature on the safety of sucralose (Splenda) was commissioned by the Calorie Control Council, a trade association representing “manufacturers and suppliers of low- and reduced-calorie foods and beverages, including manufacturers and suppliers of more than two dozen different alternative sweeteners, fibers and other low-calorie, dietary ingredients.”

It paid authors affiliated with Health Science Consultants, Inc and Intertek Scientific and Regulatory Consultancy to produce this review.

• The Calorie Control Council has a vested interest in demonstrating Splenda to be safe.
• The consultant groups have a vested interest in pleasing the Calorie Control Council.
• Therefore, this review has a higher-than-average likelihood of bias.

Is Splenda safe?  It very well may be safe, but some contrary evidence exists (this paper dismisses it).  It would be interesting to see how independent scientists view the matter.

The Canadian Heart & Stroke Foundation has released a report on consumption of processed food consumption in Canada.

The report is based on the NOVA (not an acronym) system for classifying foods by their level of processing: unprocessed or minimally processed, processed ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods.  The last category is the one that matters; consumption of ultra-processed foods is highly correlated with obesity.

The report found:

• Canadians consume nearly half their calories as ultra-processed foods.
• This is true among all socioeconomic groups, except for immigrants.
• Children aged 9-13 consume the most ultra-processed food (57% of calories)
• The most frequently consumed ultra-processed products are pizza, burgers, sandwiches and frozen dishes, followed by packaged breads and sweetened drinks.

Lots of room for improvement here.

In the late 1980s, nutrition scientists identified fat and saturated fat as key nutrients that needed to be reduced in US diets.

One result was the Snackwell’s phenomenon in the early 1990s—“no-fat” cookies with just as many calories as the ones with fat.  They flew off the shelves.

Now the push is to get rid of carbs, especially sugars.  The result?  Fat is back, along with its calories (fat has more than twice the calories per gram as carbohydrates, 9 as opposed to 4).

A tweet from Kevin Bass tells the story:

Why are Americans getting fatter? A food love-story in six graphs. (P.S. It's not the carbs or the sugar.) pic.twitter.com/8V2BmIs97k

— Kevin Bass, MS (@kevinnbass) December 3, 2017

The USDA tells the same story, but with respect to specific products:

These products may be more satiating, but watch the calories!

Also watch out for the saturated fat:

The FDA is responsible for food labeling but in the peculiar way things get done in federal agencies, the USDA governs front-of-package labeling for organics and also gets involved in labels for non-GMO, no-antibiotics and those for country-of-origin.

It has just published a report on all this:

The report is a good place to learn about the labeling laws passed in 1990, and it has an interesting case study on GMO labeling:

It has a lot to say about organic labeling:

Do such labels influence what the public buys?  Yes.  (That’s what the USDA is worried about)

Does the public understand what the labels mean?  Not really. (The USDA worries about this too)

The USDA derives many conclusions from this study, but boils them down to this statement:

There are fundamental tradeoffs in how information is presented to consumers. If it is presented simply, then important nuance or complexity may be missed. On the other hand, if standards and labels attempt to convey complexity, then consumers may just be confused. Policymakers and marketers will need to consider these tradeoffs in the future when developing new process-based labels.

What the USDA does not discuss is the fundamental issue behind fights over food labels.  They work well to discourage people from buying products that may not be good for them or do not meet their values.  That’s why the food industry opposes them so strongly.

The annual Global Nutrition Report on progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has just arrived.

It does not provide much good news.

The report views the SDGs as an opportunity to make commitments to improve this situation.

I wish I were more optimistic.

A colleague in France, Serge Hercberg, a nutrition professor at the University of Paris writes to say that the French government’s decision on October 31 to support voluntary adoption of a “Nutri-Score” front-of-package label is now under attack by the food industry.

Nutri-Score looks like this (A is nutritious, lower grades less so):

The food industry wants something like this (of course it does, nobody can possibly understand it):

My colleague writes:

However,a powerful trade group, which includes major manufacturers of breakfast cereals, candies and cookies, is encouraging its members to instead select another type of nutrition al label. The trade group’s position is aligned with that of six food conglomerates – Mars, Mondelez, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, Unilever et PepsiCo (known as the “Big 6”) – who announced in March that they intended to develop an alternative system for the European Union.

With his nutritionist colleague, Chantal Julia, he describes in The Conversation what this fight is about.  I particularly like their example of how the two schemes help (or do not help) consumers choose between a yogurt and a fruit puree.

The Conversation article also comes in a French version.

The USDA, straight out of George Orwell’s 1984, has promised “new SNAP flexibilities to promote self-sufficiency.”

What does USDA mean by “flexibilities”?  Here are its exact words (I put the key words in quotes and in bold for emphasis: