Natural food colours waiting to dazzle

Natural food colours offer not only colouring attributes, but additional health benefits that could be leveraged into significant value-addition for the final product, write market analysts Frost & Sullivan. So why are New Zealand and Australia failing to reach the market potential?

With consumers increasingly adopting the 'diet-as-medicine' approach to food choices, the natural colour market should 'naturally' experience unbridled growth.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. The growth rate of the natural colour market in Australia and New Zealand outstrips that of synthetic colours, but natural colour volumes and revenues are still far from reaching full potential.

Why The Bottleneck?​ Natural food colours can be two, five or even ten times the cost of their synthetic colour equivalents. This is because of the high cost of natural materials and the cost of extraction and production of natural food colours. In addition, considering the fact that most natural food colours used in the Australian and New Zealand food and beverage industry are supplied by global companies with production sites most often outside the region, the transportation and distribution costs of these colours are substantial.

Added to the price difference, most natural food colours possess limited stability to variations in light, heat and pH. There are also cases of lack of uniformity in hues and issues with water solubility.

Despite several advances in the manufacture of natural food colours, they are still known to possess less flexibility in integration with food products than most synthetic colours.

Natural food colour manufacturers also face specific difficulties in attempting to bring natural green and blue hues to the Australia and New Zealand market. The User's Guide to the Food Standards Code does not recognise coppered chlorophyll, whereas 'un-coppered' chlorophyll, which does not deliver as effective a hue as coppered chlorophyll, is recognised.

On a more fundamental level, the current joint Food Standards Code does not provide a clear distinction between natural and synthetic colours. Colours in the new Code are differentiated based on permitted usage rates. This ambiguity in the Code is likely to hinder increased acceptance and usage of natural food colours by food product manufacturers.

The Brighter Side​ Thankfully, this is nowhere near a gloom-doom scenario. The strongest ally of the natural food colour market remains the consumer. Despite the irrational basis of many assumptions, consumers are increasingly suspicious of synthetic colours.

The occasional reports linking synthetic colours to health risks reinforces the well-entrenched 'rogue' image of these ingredients. For example, tartrazine (102) - used in fruit juice drinks and cordials, pastries, cakes, desserts, biscuits, soft drinks, snack foods, sauces and confectionery - has been linked to asthmatic reactions.

Some synthetic colours have even been linked to an increased risk of cancer. Others have been linked to skin disorders, migraines, hyperactivity in children and nausea.

So, unflattering as it may be, natural colours are being viewed more as a safe alternative to 'hazardous' synthetic colours, than as attractive and healthy ingredients in themselves. This fact does more than just give hope. It provides natural food colour manufacturers with a blueprint for action.

Those companies that keep track of the nutraceutical market and its future product innovations will make significant gains. Specific attention to the pipeline for proposed 'all-natural' products will reap rich rewards. Ivan Fernandez​