Obstacles in Applications of Soy Protein Products

A New Era

As the world changes so do the needs of the consumer.  The people responsible for filling the consumer need must evolve to meet the demands of the consumer or be left behind.   It appears that we are living in a time where the perception of and consumer drive for soy products have never been greater.  This is driven by two key factors:  the FDA ruling that allows a health claim to be made on products containing soy and the aging generation of boomers who have transformed consumer goods, needs and services in every stage of their lifecycle.

The traditional soy product offerings are not likely to capitalize on the renewed interest driven by the FDA claim.  Most are available only through health food stores and/or organic markets.  Consumers have typically demonstrated very little cross-over buying behavior.  That is, most retail consumers will not begin shopping in health food stores to find the products of interest to them.  The products will need to come to them via new products in the stores that they already frequent. 

The retail customer not only shops in supermarkets but votes with their dollar, purchasing only the products that have great taste.  Manufacturers of finished goods have repeatedly been taught that meeting a consumer need will not ensure a long term business if the product does not deliver great taste.   In contrast to this type of consumer behavior, the product purchased by patrons of health food stores often have terrific functionality but don’t taste good.  The expectation of those patrons may, in fact, be “no pain, no gain”.  

What all of these factors tell us is that we are entering a new era for the production and sales of soy ingredients and the products made using them.  The manufacturers of soy ingredients will need to supply the industry with more forms of the ingredients with flexibility in how they may be used.   Imagine the changes in consumption patterns if the soy ingredients were easy to incorporate from a functional basis and had little to no apparent flavor impact.   Ever consider marketing your ingredients to a chef?   Why not, it’s a new era.

What’s the urgency?

In October of 1999 the FDA approved a health claim stating that the consumption of soy protein could reduce the risk of heart disease.  However, the claim could not be made unless the product in which it was formulated also had limits on fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium. Soy manufacturers should have already seen an increase in the interest and use of their products in early 1999,  anticipating approval of the FDA claim.   By now, the marketplace is providing much more pull for products as the consumer becomes educated about the benefits of soy protein.

As the consumers become educated on any topic, they have proven themselves willing to try new foods as a measure to improve their health.  Anyone remember how unbelievably fast and how large the low fat/no fat product market became?   Does anyone know how few products remain on the market today?  Let’s take a little deeper look and not repeat the errors of the past.

Manufacturers leapt into the low fat market because consumers were genuinely interested in taking control of their health and managing it in a fashion that they could control…their diet.   It wasn’t long before the consumers discovered that many of the low fat product offerings simply didn’t taste good. Manufacturers of the finished goods found themselves in a situation with incredibly high product trial but very poor repeat sales.  The consumers spoke loudly with their dollars saying that we eat not just as a means to manage our health, but for pleasure and even luxury.   In times of economic downturns, this behavior is even more pronounced.  A good tasting product is an affordable luxury even when a vacation is not. 

What implications does this have for the manufacturers of soy ingredients and finished product manufacturers?  Big ones!  The processors of soy ingredients must step forth to provide product developers with the tools to create products that taste great.  Repeat sales are completely dependent upon it.   The window of opportunity is here and now.  Soy ingredient manufacturers have only one to two years to provide product developers with the tools to succeed; otherwise, the interest in soy protein may fail just as the low fat generation of products did due to their bad taste.  The size of the opportunity in this market is hard to imagine as good tasting products with health benefits could entirely shift the way America eats.

Manufacturers of finished products cannot simply respond to the request of consumers for soy-containing products by moving already existing health food store items into the supermarket.  The retailers are savvy enough to know that what precious shelf space they have will not be given to health foods because they simply do not move very fast.    Why?  Either the taste is or it is believed to be a barrier for trial.  Perception is reality and manufacturers would be required to spend huge amounts to overcome this belief.

Product developer’s perspective

The primary challenge facing any product developer charged with making a soy-containing product that can meet the FDA claim is the shear volume of soy protein required.   The appealing features of soy (foaming, etc.) may now be the developer’s worst enemies.    The developer is being forced to use the only soy ingredients available to meet the claims instead of the type of ingredients best suited for the end product application.  From the perspective of the product developer, having a library of soy ingredients in different forms with different functional properties to choose from would be a great solution.  The odds of getting the product to perform, meet the soy claim, and even taste good would be greatly improved.

The availability of a multitude of soy protein ingredient forms may be contrary to the attitude of the industry where long production runs of a single ingredient are preferred.  Certainly that approach results in the lowest cost for the ingredient and the manufacturer.  However, if the ingredient does not provide the functionality there will not be much demand.  Having a variety of ingredient forms available could drive the tonnage sold albeit with changeovers required in the processing plant.

Soy flavor is and remains a significant limitation in the acceptance of products.   Product developers find themselves in a quandry, first working through the functional challenges that soy ingredients present when used at high levels,  and then masking the beany flavor that is present.   The ability to mask the soy flavor has become the difference between a market of reasonable size and a huge market.  There is a segment of the population that want the health benefits of soy but are extremely sensitive to the flavor and will not purchase products as a result. 

It appears that there have been three very different approaches to manage the beany flavor of soy products.  The first is the spawning of a side business called the “soy masking flavors”.  Interesting that the problem is so profound that it has created an entire business opportunity isn’t it?   Flavor companies have worked furiously to develop agents that may be added to cover the objectionable notes from soy.  They also market and position some flavoring agents according to their compatibility with soy ingredients. 

The second approach to manage product flavor has been the “good enough” stand taken by corporations.  They formulate a product using a combination of data points, many of them financially driven decisions, on when the product is good enough to introduce.  Note that this still does not say that the product under development is a good product, merely good enough to introduce.  The results of this type of business approach could be tragic and lead us down the same path that we have been with the low fat business opportunity.  We will be out of business in short order.

The third approach to managing the beany flavor has been taken on by the breeders, growers, and processors.  They are working diligently to determine ways in which the soy plants themselves may be modified so that some of the beany notes are eliminated.

We eagerly await the breakthroughs that they will make.

Managing taste and functionality

Staying focused on the right issues always has its rewards.  Remember the presidential election where the mantra was “it’s the economy, stupid”?  The candidate kept a laser-like focus on that issue and won the election.   In the case of soy protein ingredients it is clearly all about managing the taste and the ingredient functionality.    If an ingredient manufacturer had significant breakthroughs on both of these fronts, the usage opportunities for soy ingredients would be beyond imagination.

Let’s talk a little bit more about the challenges presented by the beany flavor that soy ingredients impart.  Even the blandest soy protein products have taste driven limits on their use.  This forces the product developer to reach for whatever forms there are available such as powders, flakes, and puffed soy pieces to meet the claims without incurring the off notes.  However, there are some products in which some of the forms such as puffed soy pieces are simply not acceptable to be consistent with the product’s identity.  Being limited to using only one form of soy virtually guarantees a product with a beany flavor note.

A second issue for the developer is that no masking agent is consistently effective across applications.   Each situation is unique and a masking approach must be developed based upon the other ingredients and the process for product manufacture.    Yet another issue is that certain flavors work well with soy and yet others potentiate the beany off flavor.   Fruit and acid flavors are quite compatible with soy whereas vanilla and chocolate are not.  This is a particular issue for soy ingredients since the most common (best selling) flavor in any line of products is either vanilla or plain.  What this means is that special care and attention must be given to getting the flavor profile right in vanilla.  If it is not right in vanilla, the odds of having a successful business are not good.  Product trial on other flavors will likely suffer as well.

One of the aspects of ingredient functionality that the supplier of the soy ingredients may not have thought about is the serving size of the end product.  The product developer’s challenge in formulating to a claim in which 6.25 grams of soy are delivered in each serving means that the soy concentration may vary widely between products.  For example, a cereal bar has a different serving size than a slice of bread or a bowl of cereal.   As noted in the flavor masking discussion, what this means is that each application and approach is different.  Having more tools to work with would certainly help in the development process.

Examples of product opportunities

In many of the products in which soy is used, the ingredient manufacturer may think that the product developer is asking for conflicting properties in the same end product application.  In fact, the manufacturing process used to produce the end product may be very different within the same category and, as a result,  have different product performance requirements.  One such example is in the production of bars.  Two different manufacturing processes are used according to the type of end product desired.  In one process, the products are cold-formed so the viscosity from soy is a problem; in another process the products are baked and the water holding properties of the soy present a different set of problems.  The key for the soy ingredient manufacturer is to understand the needs of the end product and the process used.

One area that is an extremely large market with a multitude of opportunities for soy is beverage arena.  At the present time, formulators are limited to the ingredient tools available.  The soy ingredients available are limited to use in opaque beverages, those products with relatively high viscosity like smoothies,  those having chalky textures, and strong fruit flavors.  New markets could be available if a soy ingredient were available that could be used in clear beverages, those with thinner viscosity,  easily compatible with vanilla flavors, and without the deadly chalky, astringent “barium milkshake” texture.

Opportunities in the baked goods segment may be larger than one would suspect.  The reason is that the soy protein must be used at such a high level to make the FDA’s claim.   For example, a slice of baked bread must contain 25% soy protein by weight in a 1 ounce slice and dry mixes such as nutbreads must contain 20% by weight.   In both of these food systems, the water holding of soy protein affects the batter viscosity, gluten is diluted, product volume is often affected.  Bland flavor is essential in products such as white bread.

Breakfast cereals are available with soy protein, but none of the mainstream items have levels necessary to make the FDA claim.  Taste and texture are presumably the impediments to commercializing products with soy at higher levels.  It is interesting to note that companies resort to the health maintenance style claims when soy cannot readily be incorporated into products.  Pursuing the disease prevention claims may require significantly more R&D dollars, availability of new ingredient forms, and realization by upper level management that the disease prevention claim may be quite powerful.

In side dishes, soups, and entrée product offerings, use of the soy bean often leads to the product being perceived as a vegetarian item.   The current products meet protein claim levels as is.  Savory flavors are very compatible with soy.  The key issue here is to formulate great tasting items that are marketed by mainstream manufacturers.   One side dish item that is begging to be introduced is canned beans.  If the product could be improved to be bland tasting, with low flatulence it could readily be used in recipes calling for beans.  With the right product performance and advertising campaign, the market opportunity could be quite nice.    We have learned from other manufacturers that the importance of potential gastrointestinal side effects cannot be ignored.  Failure to address this issue could completely eliminate this area of opportunity.

A final product area for soy is that of snacks.  Limited options exist as alternatives to dry roasted peanuts (soy nuts).  Most are available only at gourmet shops, art fairs and the like positioned as a specialty and not a mainstream item.   Use in tortilla style chips or formed snacks is often limited by the effect on dough behavior and moisture loss during baking.   Manufacturers may want to give thought to how the bean might be incorporated into snacks that are already familiar to the public.

Another thought on how to use, market and sell soy ingredients in finished goods is to offer products in individual serving sizes, not just the family size option.  If only one family member is truly in tune with the health benefits and really likes the product, they could make a purchase without the risk of waste.

Hitting the mass market