Cleaning up Colours

The ‘Southampton 6 report’ from McCann et al (2007) highlighted potential issues relating to hyperactivity in children and suggested correlation to the use of six artificial colours: sunset yellow (E 110), quinoline yellow (E 104), carmoisine (E 122), allura red (E 129), tartrazine (E 102) and ponceau 4R (E 124). In response to the ‘Southampton […]

The ‘Southampton 6 report’ from McCann et al (2007) highlighted potential issues relating to hyperactivity in children and suggested correlation to the use of six artificial colours: sunset yellow (E 110), quinoline yellow (E 104), carmoisine (E 122), allura red (E 129), tartrazine (E 102) and ponceau 4R (E 124).

In response to the ‘Southampton 6’ report, a European Union-wide mandatory warning is required on any food and drink (other than alcohol > 1.2%) that contains any of the six colours, advising that the product  ‘may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children’.

As a result, colours have become particularly high profile in recent years in relation to ‘clean label’ and ‘natural’.  They have been replaced with a range of alternatives which are considered to deliver ‘clean label’ credentials.  These alternatives, however, do come with stability issues when exposed to heat, light or changing pH.

However: clean label is holistically ideal, in that it delivers the opportunity for product developers to respond to consumer demand, enable them to re-connect with food and the ingredients, provide a perceived healthier proposition and, most importantly, help regain the trust between ‘industrial’ entities and consumers.  Since there is deep cynicism amongst some consumers regarding large scale food and beverage processing, this mechanism to regain trust essential.  The move to cleaner labels can, however, provide a series of challenges – and stability and shelf life must be considered the primary issues.

Colours have had particular technical difficulty in making the transition to natural alternatives. Ingredients such as ‘beetroot red’ (E162), which deliver clean label credentials, are less stable, pH-sensitive and may not be as widely applicable as the artificial alternatives. This requires a close relationship and dialogue with colour suppliers to ensure that the ‘natural’ alternative selected is actually suitable for a given product matrix. The stability of the colour, and in particular the photosensitivity, is of paramount importance; after all, it is the fundamental feature of the product’s visual impact, and only through careful shelf-life studies can the appeal of the product throughout its life be assured.  It is also important to consider the context for the use of natural colours, since much of the agenda is driven by consumer opinion.  Again, taking the example of ‘beetroot red’, does the presence of ‘beetroot’ in a strawberry beverage, for example, constitute clean label or does it in fact suggest  a large degree of processing that the clean label themes are in fact trying to overcome?

These issues form some of the great paradoxes of the clean label movement, since modern food and beverage production has built great success on stable and homogenous products, and it will take some time for consumers to re-adjust to acceptable variation within products.  This is also leading to the exploration of technologies such as encapsulation and nanotechnologies which may enhance colour stability.  The danger here, however, is the use of new and emerging technologies to overcome the functional challenges of using natural colours may fly in the face of the clean label intentions that were initially driving the changes.