No growing demand for low-fat chocolate
In recent years, the food industry has been influenced by growing consumer demand for “low fat” products, especially “sugar”. Alternatives to sucrose, natural or synthetic, are thus used in many products. However, do these products have the same physical and sensory properties and an equivalent nutritional value? A recent study was conducted specifically on the subject of chocolate.

Depending on the type of chocolate, the sucrose content is usually between 40 and 50%. Sugar is used for various reasons, in particular for its sweetness, but also for its rheological properties. Is it that easy to replace it?

Elaboration of 5 “low sugar” chocolates
As part of this study, five chocolates were formulated. Their cocoa content was constant (50%) while different ingredients were used for their sweetening power (sucrose for the reference chocolate, polyols, intense sweeteners, steviosides, agave syrup, peppermint, etc.).

All the chocolates formulated have been evaluated for their physical (color, texture, shine, hardness, etc.), sensory (sweetness, aftertaste, odor, etc.) properties, their sugar content and polyphenols. The sensory evaluation of the different products under study was carried out by a panel of 20 people aged 22 to 45, tested and recruited for their ability to identify flavors and aromas commonly found in everyday food.

Study results
The results of this study showed that all chocolates formulated from sucrose alternatives had an overall lower sugar content of 25% and a caloric value 20% lower compared to conventional chocolate. These chocolates were thus of interest to consumers concerned about their weight management but all the same greedy for this type of confectionery.
In addition, certain bioactive components of the flavonoid family (luteolin, apigenin and quercetin) have been found in chocolates formulated from peppermint, stevia and licorice, although they have not been identified within the reference chocolate.

From a physical point of view, all of the chocolates formulated from sucrose alternatives were harder than conventional chocolate, especially when the combination of fructose and isomalt or fructose and lactitol was used (hardness almost 2 times more high).
Moreover, even if in terms of general sensory properties, classic chocolate remained the best rated, chocolates formulated from stevia and peppermint leaves were also appreciated, especially for their sweetness and their herbal aroma. Chocolates formulated from fructose and polyols were judged to be identical or similar in terms of color, gloss or structure.
In conclusion, the alternatives to sugar have not finished saying their last word … but keeping all proportion as to the formulation of the nutritional claims accepted on this subject according to the positive list published in the framework of European regulation 1924/2006. Indeed, for the use of claims such as “no sugars” / “low sugar content” / “no added sugars”, reference is made to all simple carbohydrates or sugars including fructose.