Innovation Sweet Spots: Food innovation, obesity and food environments

This chapter describes our findings on global trends on reformulation-related patents. Patents protect intellectual property and, for the purposes of this project, can be seen as an early signal of innovations that might eventually find their way to market. Patents also provide a view on the level and focus of innovation occurring within large corporates. 

Our analysis focused on patents related to food reformulation, as it was seen by our expert panel as one of the most promising innovations to help reduce obesity (see Chapter 6) and because of its importance to Nesta’s wider work on health, obesity, and food environments.

We found that, encouragingly, there has been significant reformulation patenting activity in the past decade, particularly for patents to reduce calories through the addition of fibre, patent applications in this area have increased by 165% in the last decade), and patents to increase satiety – the feeling of fullness – applications for which have increased by around 580%. These are also approaches which our expert panel highlighted as especially promising for obesity reduction.

Artificial sweetener patents show a large increase since the early 2000s, which may have been driven by the introduction of sugar taxes across the world and in Britain, suggesting that targets and regulation may be a useful tool in spurring healthy food innovation more broadly. By contrast, oils and fats with reduced calorie levels appear to have followed the pattern of the so-called "hype cycle", in which there is an initial peak in excitement and expectation surrounding an innovation. This is then followed by a significant dip due to technical problems and low uptake before a second smaller increase as problems are resolved and adoption increases. Patents in this area show a similar pattern with a peak in the late 80s and 90s followed by a sharp decline and then an increase in the 2010s. 

Patents relating to reduced calorie oils and fat compositions

Beginning with the reformulation approach, which appears to have peaked further back in the mid 1990s, we characterise patent applications for reduced-calorie oils and fats (eg, margarine). We find that there was significant innovation in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but that applications fell to a low in the mid-2000s, followed by a small increase from 2010 (see Figure 26 below). 

This pattern echoes the trajectory of expectations around innovations (sometimes referred to as the hype cycle), with initial excitement followed by technical problems and lower-than-expected adoption rates. Finally the innovation enters a productive phase as the innovation is improved and uptake increases.

Trends in this area may also be linked to the concerns of the scientific community and regulators such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which, in the early 1990s, raised a number of challenges relating to fat substitutes including adverse effects on gastrointestinal tract function, impairment of the body's ability to absorb other useful nutrients, and uncertainty as to whether consumption of low calorie fats resulted in an overall decrease in calorie consumption. This pattern is best demonstrated by Olestra, a zero-calorie fat replacement developed by Procter & Gamble which failed to live up to its hype as a medical or dietary product in part due to unfortunate side effects upon the digestive system. After much testing and negotiation, the FDA did allow Olestra to be marketed in the US in 1996, its use was barred in Canada as a food additive in 2000. 

The small increase in patenting activity recently may reflect a renewed interest in the area and some success by companies such as Epogee who have developed a fat alternative, EPG, which cuts calories by 92% for each unit of fat replaced and has been incorporated into a range of products including ice cream and chocolate. EPG has the same characteristics, including mouthfeel, as fat. The company has also managed to avoid some of the problems associated with Olestra, specifically reduced bioavailability of fat-soluble vitamins and digestive issues.

Looking specifically at patents targeting Western countries (which have been granted or are going through the application process between 2012 and 2020), we see that the top five patent developers and holders account for over 50% of these patents. Large corporates, specifically fast moving consumer goods companies (FMCG) such as Procter & Gamble and General Mills are active in this area, as are multinational food and agribusiness companies.

Artificial sweetener patents

Although there is some debate as to their exact role, free sugars have for some time been seen as an important contributor in the global obesity crisis. In 2015 the World Health Organisation (WHO) called for countries to reduce sugar intake for both adults and children due to the role of free sugars in causing obesity, and other health issues such as tooth decay. As a result, governments around the world have started to introduce sugar taxes, especially taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. Since 1981, 54 countries have introduced specific sugar-sweetened beverage taxes: some of the earliest adopters were island nations such as American Samoa and French Polynesia. More recently, larger countries including Mexico (2014), India (2017), and the UK (2018) have also introduced such taxes. 

The patent application data for artificial sweeteners appears to coincide with this regulatory trend. For patents in which the primary focus relates to artificial sweeteners, we can observe a significant jump in applications from the early to mid-2000s (see Figure 27 below).

Looking more specifically at artificial sweetener focused patents targeting Western countries (which have been granted or are going through the approval process between 2006 and 2022), we see that the top ten patent developers and holders account for over 40% of all patents. Unsurprisingly, Coca-Cola and Pepsi are the second and fifth largest patent holders respectively. Stevia-related sweeteners appear to be a very significant area of innovation, with 49% of patents seeming to be Stevia-related. Sweet Green Fields, acquired by Tate & Lyle, and Purecircle are companies focussed on Stevia.  

Dietetic products: Patents that lower the calorie content of foods

Our analysis divided patents lowering the calorie content of foods into two main groups. In the first are patents that work by using an additive which is substantially indigestible; that is, no- or low-calorie substances such as dietary fibre. These additives reduce the total number of calories when a product is consumed.

The second group of patents use a different mechanism to reduce calories. Mechanisms include, but are not limited to altering a preparation process which reduces calories, reducing the amount of a high calorie ingredient by replacing it with a lower calorie but still digestible alternative or an active ingredient which acts to inhibit calorie absorption (see Figure 29 below).

While patenting activity for patents in Group 2 has been relatively steady over the last 40 years, there has been a much greater level of activity (165% growth) since 2010 around Group 1 – approaches which add substantially indigestible substances to foodstuffs. Exact analysis of these patents is difficult as, at the time of research, they were being reclassified by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). However, initial analysis indicates that growth is being driven by the use of fibre as an additive to products. 

This rationale for utilising fibre in reformulation is consistent with scientific research over recent decades, which has highlighted both a lack of fibre, particularly in Western diets (attributable in part due to consumption of ultra-processed foods), and the health benefits associated with dietary fibre. There are a broad range of posited health benefits linked to increasing fibre in diets – from achieving and maintaining healthy body weight to a reduced risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease.

Both governments and industry in the UK have responded to these findings. In 2015, the UK Government increased its recommendation on dietary fibre intake from 24g to 30g per day, while in September 2021, the UK’s Food and Drink Federation, a membership body for food and drink manufacturers, launched Action on Fibre, an initiative to increase the level of fibre consumed in the UK. The initiative, which includes major FMCG companies including Unilever and Nestlé, has resulted in new, higher fibre products being launched. These moves on the part of government and industry are likely to explain the recent peak in patent applications using fibre to reduce calories within foods, shown in the graph above.

Looking specifically at the innovators developing patents lowering the calorie content of foods, where Western geographies are being targeted, we see that Nestlé is by far the largest innovator accounting for around 14% of patents in total (see Figure 30 below).

Food patents designed to increase satiety

We also explore trends in food patents targeting satiety: the feeling of fullness. Satiety is an important element of weight management, given the role it plays in helping an individual reduce or moderate the amount of food they are consuming.

As shown in Figure 31 below, there has been a rapid increase (580% growth) in patent applications in this area over the last eight years. FMCG companies including Unilever, Procter & Gamble and Nestlé are major innovators developing patents that target Western markets. However, publicly listed medtech and healthcare companies such as Abbott Laboratories have also been active in the space. There is also a small group of innovative start-ups such as Israel-based company SmartBubble, which produces agar and alginate particles, which are not broken down by the digestive system, increasing feelings of satiety when added to food and drink products.   

Conclusion

There has been significant patenting activity occurring in reformulation, especially in fields relating to calorie reduction and increasing satiety. This is encouraging given the feedback from the external experts we engaged, who identified low calorie and/or high satiety reformulated products as the most promising technology for obesity reduction (findings outlined in more detail in Chapter 6). However, moving from a patent application to a commercialised patent which has been successfully integrated into products is challenging, expensive, and time consuming in any sector. 

The difficulties associated with innovation in food tech are well illustrated by the problems associated with commercialising patents for reduced calorie fats, particularly Olestra. Though the recent success of EPG may suggest a more positive future after long-term development and investment. Given the technical, regulatory, and consumer preference barriers associated with food tech innovation it is important to consider how food tech companies can be incentivised to absorb the financial risks linked to investing in innovation for healthier products. In Chapter 7 we suggest a range of fiscal measures from tax credits to funding for small, innovative companies involved in research.

Patenting data from artificial sweeteners appears to show a peak in patenting activity which coincides with the emergence of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes around the world. This suggests that more interventionist methods such as targets and taxation may well be useful tools in encouraging manufacturers to innovate to make foods healthier. Initial research into the impact of the UK’s sugar-sweetened beverage tax suggests that it has been successful in reducing sugar consumption without damaging industry by reducing soft drink consumption. 

However, rolling out an identical, one-size-fits-all, tax to tackle sugar and/or fat in all other food categories is highly unlikely to be effective, as experts from multiple stakeholder groups have warned that reformulation of soft drinks to reduce sugar is technically relatively easy compared to sugar reduction in other food categories. A more nuanced category-by-category approach will be required.

Methodology

The patent analysis was carried out using PatSnap between June and October 2022 (please see PatSnap’s privacy policy). We restricted the scope to the area of food reformulation, as this was seen by our expert panel as one of the most promising innovations to help reduce obesity (Chapter 6). Moreover, the patent analysis, compared to our venture capital or research funding analysis, was more specific in detail (ie, distinguishing different types of reformulation) and less automated, involving a significant manual effort. 

For the analysis of fats, artificial sweeteners and dietetic (reduced calorie foodstuffs) the International Patent Classification (IPC) system, which assigns symbols to categorise patents, was used to identify patents relevant to the area of reformulation. 

Patents are commonly assigned multiple IPC symbols by external examiners, reflecting the different areas of technology to which they relate. For example, many of the patents identified in this analysis would have a symbol linking them to a type of foodstuff and other symbols relating to chemistry. One of the symbols is designated as the 'main' IPC symbol by the examiners, capturing the primary aspect of the patent.

In our analysis, we have included patents in which the IPC 'reformulation' symbol of interest is the first or main IPC symbol and thus the primary aspect of the patent: for example A23L27/30, 'Artificial sweetening agents'. We found that this approach worked well for uncovering trends in patenting innovation over time. Using an alternative approach in which the IPC reformulation symbol was not the main IPC symbol did not affect our overall results and conclusions.  

In instances where a specific IPC symbol does not exist for patents of interest to us, namely patents relating to satiety, a combination of key words and relevant IPC symbols were used along with manual reviewing to ensure that patents were relevant. 

Within the patenting system, the same invention is protected by a different patent within each jurisdiction. So, for example, if an invention were to be patented successfully in three jurisdictions such as China, the US and the UK, these three patents would cover the same technical detail and as such would be classified within the same simple patent family. As we were interested in the overall level of technical innovation occurring within a given field, we used simple patent families within our charts and graphs so as to avoid any effects due to some innovations being protected in more jurisdictions than others.