Gluten-Free: Fad Or Fixture?

Q&A I conducted for Today In Food Manufacturing newsletter.

July 16, 2010

Mark Whalley, Consumer Analyst, Datamonitor

The global gluten-free market is set to grow by $1.2 billion over the next five years, and is expected to be worth more than $4.3 billion, according to independent market analyst Datamonitor. However, will gluten-free continue to be such a fixture in the food industry, or will it be just a small blip on the food radar? Datamonitor consumer analyst Mark Whalley spoke to Food Manufacturing about this trend and the impact it could have on the food industry.

Q: Datamonitor’s research indicates the U.S. market for gluten-free products could grow by more than $500 million by 2014, making the US contribution to the global market 53 percent. How has gluten-free become so popular so quickly in America?

A: There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, the U.S. is the biggest food market in the western world, and as such, the variety and range of products on offer here are often greater than elsewhere. Secondly, the Asian diet means that very few consumers in Asia are celiacs (or recognized as such) so there is not a big market there. Awareness of gluten intolerance and subsequent ability to be diagnosed is also probably highest here. Finally, consumers in the U.S. are particularly susceptible to “fad” dietary choices, so there may well be a higher percentage of non-celiac gluten-free consumers in America than any other market.

Q: A greater awareness of celiac disease seems to also contribute to a growth in gluten-free product offerings. Are there more cases of celiac disease being reported, or is something else motivating people to go gluten-free?

A: People who suffer from gluten intolerance do not necessarily understand what the problem is, and even those who seek medical advice can be misdiagnosed. As awareness grows, however, this ceases to be the case more and more. The more people who know their condition, the bigger the market.

Q: How do you see gluten-free consumers who do not suffer from celiac disease impacting the market?

A: They will only impact on the market significantly if the quality (and taste) of the products is recognized as being good. Right now, many gluten-free products have a reputation as not being the most pleasing in sensory terms, so those experimenting or trying products because they think they might have health benefits will not keep up consumption for long if they are not satisfied.

Q: Your studies indicate that gluten-free demand may plateau in the future. Given such information, how should gluten-free food producers move forward? Should food manufacturers not already on board with the gluten-free trend pursue it, or would such a move present too much risk?

A: Manufacturers need to concentrate on taste and product variety. I would say that entering into the market is somewhat risky, but there is also potential to really become “the face of gluten-free,” especially if new categories are explored.

Q: What are the biggest obstacles facing gluten-free food manufacturing today?

A: Even if products do taste good, consumers don’t really know this. Perception has to be changed. Current perception is that gluten-free foods are a necessity for celiacs, and as such, do not necessarily taste good because manufacturers are inhibited by what they can and can’t use in product formulation. Gluten-free bread is something which has a reputation of not tasting very nice. In many ways this is a problem also experienced in the soy market. It’s difficult to change perceptions, but focusing on indulgence credentials in product marketing is a good start.

Q: What advice would you give a company looking into gluten-free production?

A: Be creative with categories. Celiacs need as much choice as possible, so providing them with options is a must. Most launches are in the potato chips, cereal bars and savory snacks market. There is a particular problem with products that use dough. Gluten-free pizza is an interesting idea which has surfaced relatively recently.

Interview by Lindsey Coblentz, Associate Editor

Cut The Fat... Or Not

Q&A I conducted for Today In Food Manufacturing newsletter.

July 21, 2010

Gerald McNeill, PhD, Vice President of Research & Development, Loders Croklaan, North America

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) recently released its recommendations for the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, but some in the scientific and food communities are questioning the committee’s suggestions, particularly those regarding limiting saturated fat intake. Gerald McNeill, PhD, Vice President of Research and Development for Loders Croklaan, North America, answers Food Manufacturing’s questions about the impact these recommendations could have on public health.

Q: The DGAC recommended limiting saturated fat intake to less than seven percent of total calories. Where do nutrition experts disagree with the DGAC regarding these recommendations, and what existing data do experts have that refute the arguments of the DGAC?

A: The DGAC focused on the effect of different fats on total cholesterol and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol, while barely referring to HDL (“good”) cholesterol. When measuring any risk of heart disease, both LDL and HDL must be taken into account. A high serum HDL will cancel the effect of a high LDL level. Saturated fats not only raise LDL, but also raise HDL (more than anything else we eat). The net result is that LDL cancels HDL, suggesting that saturates have no effect on the risk of heart disease. The DGAC ignores the effect of saturates on HDL.

Very large observational studies directly measuring heart disease and trying to link it to dietary habits over many years definitively show that saturated fat neither increases nor decreases heart disease risk. Prominent researcher Dr. Robert Krauss and his co-workers studied the impact of saturated fat intake on heart disease in 340,000 people and issued this statement: “A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD (coronary heart disease)”. The DGAC sidestepped this data and talked about the benefits of polyunsaturated fat instead.

Q: Where did the DGAC go wrong in their research regarding these recommendations?

A: The idea that saturated fat is “artery clogging” started in the 1970s when there was limited understanding of causes and markers of heart disease. Various persuasive scientists of the time persuaded the government to make dietary recommendations where the centerpiece was to reduce saturated fat intake. Many scientists and nutritionists of today learned this as irrefutable fact and naturally will resist contradictory evidence as flawed or biased. However, there is so much evidence building up that saturates are neither good nor bad that we can expect a paradigm shift sooner rather than later. Already we see a shift away from “saturates are bad” to “polyunsaturates are good.”

Q: What are some possible health consequences that could result from the recommendations?

A: Continuing to demonize saturated fats will likely result in continued pressure to replace fats with carbohydrates. We know from recent research that carbohydrates increase the risk of heart disease compared to saturates. This is mainly due to a decrease in HDL caused by sugars.

The DGAC also recommended replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat. While data indicates that this may reduce risk of heart disease, it may have unforeseen negative effects on other disease states. Polyunsaturates are highly reactive to air (causing off flavors in foods). Oxidative breakdown products such as free radicals and unsaturated aldehydes are known to react with DNA and protein. Damage to DNA and protein is associated with diseases of aging, including cancers and arthritis. Conversely, saturated fats are essentially inert and do not generate these oxidized products.

Another suggestion of the DGAC is to use more stearic acid, a less common saturated fat in the diet. This has a lower LDL than other saturates, and therefore is healthier. But stearic acid also has a lower HDL and overall would not be a benefit (a fact that is ignored by the committee). Early research has raised concerns that stearic acid may increase inflammation, which can also contribute to chronic diseases.

Q: The DGAC stated that individuals should substitute mono- or polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats. Is this a good solution, and why or why not?

A: Substitution of saturated fats by polyunsaturated fats is likely to provide some benefit with respect to risk of heart disease. But the benefit is much less than proponents have been claiming, as we now know that saturated fats do not increase the risk of heart disease in the first place. We have no idea what the long term effect of significantly increasing polyunsaturate intake will have. When polyunsaturates are heated in foods or used in frying, these breakdown products are pre-formed and absorbed into the body. (I banned polyunsaturated fats from cooking in my home years ago.) Apparently no one in the DGAC or anywhere else in the government is addressing this serious, unintended consequence.

Oleic acid, a monounsaturate, is not as reactive as polyunsaturated fat and shows moderately good effects on LDL and HDL cholesterol. But recent observational studies show that it only provides a small benefit on actual incidence of heart disease and would provide no significant benefit over saturates (as they are not as bad as once believed). Due to the conflicting evidence over the effects of monounsaturates, it is likely much more research will be required.

Q: What recommendations regarding saturated fat intake do nutrition experts feel should have been made in light of existing scientific evidence?

A: The unintended consequence of demonizing fats and saturated fats was a large increase in carbohydrate and trans fat consumption. This was a major contributor to an obesity epidemic, and heart disease remains the number one killer, the opposite of what previous DGAC committees had promised. As a convincing body of evidence now shows that saturated fat actually doesn’t do anything, no changes should be made to its recommended dietary intake levels. Instead the DGAC and the government should focus their resources on dietary patterns that really make a difference. These may include restriction of processed sugar intake and reduction of salt in foods.

Interview by Lindsey Coblentz, Associate Editor

Column Ad Design

Column ad I designed for the University of Louisville's department of communication.

Magazine Page Design

Page design for Red Magazine.

Red Magazine Cover Design

Red Magazine cover I designed while serving as art director.

Freelance Design: Envyderm

A freelance logo and slogan I created for Envyderm.

Freelance Article for My Whole Sellers

Renew Your Home’s Appearance with Hardwood Flooring

Do you want to give your home a fresh new look this year? Installing wood flooring is a great option for updating the feel of your home without a large and expensive overhaul. Wood flooring is quickly becoming a popular remodeling trend because of its classic appearance and many benefits. Not only does wood flooring add a touch of elegance to any room, but it is also very practical. Wood is much easier to clean and more durable than carpeting. It is also free of the allergens and odors that often plague carpeting and can add value to your home.

If you’re thinking about adding new hardwood flooring to your home, here are some tips to consider:

· What is your budget? Solid hardwood can be pricey, so shop around to get the best deals. Look for a seller who sources directly from the factory to get great discounts.

· Where do you want wood flooring? The answer to this question will likely determine whether you choose solid hardwood flooring or engineered hardwood. Are you planning on installing over existing flooring or a concrete surface? Then engineered hardwood is likely your best bet.

· What look are you going for? Examine the areas of your home where you would like wood flooring. Your décor will often determine what style and type of wood would be best for you. Formal rooms, such as dining rooms, usually look best with darker woods like Brazilian walnut, while casual spaces would do well with the lighter finish of maple or bamboo.

· How’s the traffic? If you’ve got a family, you know that your floor needs to outlast your kids and pets. Make sure you opt for a durable wood like oak or maple to withstand heavy use.

Once you’ve determined your answers to those questions, you’re ready to start looking for a provider. Visit a professional show room for more ideas and advice on what wood would work best for your needs. Hardwood flooring professionals can assist you with all aspects of your planning, from wood selection to installation. Then sit back, relax and enjoy your new home!