Presented at the American Oil Chemists’ Society Annual Meeting & Expo, these slides highlight what the industry is doing to replace partially hydrogenated oils, and what opportunities are on the horizon. Discover insights from the industry’s technological leaders on advancements like interesterification and blending components to eliminate trans fats while retaining the structural functionality needed for applications like doughnut frying and baking, along with the latest results from high stability oil functionality tests. Learn about recent foodservice case studies that evaluated new oils to improve functionality and the nutritional profile of menu items. Presenters included Robert Collette, Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils; Tom Tiffany, ADM Oils; Josh Tuinstra, Stratas Foods LLC; and Richard Galloway, QUALISOY.

1. Innovative Alternatives for Hard Fats and
High Stability Oils in the Food Industry
AOCS Annual Meeting & Expo
May 2, 2016

2. CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF PHO REPLACEMENTS
ROBERT COLLETTE
Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils
AOCS Annual Meeting
May 2016

3. 2002
2003 2006 2007 2008 2013 2015---------2018
FDA issues mandatory
trans fat labeling rule
Several municipalities follow NYC with
foodservice trans fat bans
FDA proposes to
remove GRAS
status of partially
hydrogenated oils
FDA finalizes its GRAS
determination on partially
hydrogenated oils
FDA GRAS determination on partially
hydrogenated oils becomes effective
2002
2003 2006 2007 2008 2013 2015
Institute of Medicine Report
“Trans fatty acid (TFA)
consumption should be as low
as possible while consuming a
nutritionally adequate diet.”
Trans fat declaration on
Nutrition Facts panels required
January 2006
New York City approves trans
fat ban for restaurants
December 2007
Compliance with NYC
ban in effect
July 1, 2008 November 2013 June 2015
2018
June 18, 2018
FDA TIMELINE

4. 2003
2003 2006 2007 2008 2013 2015---------2018
Trans fat declaration on
Nutrition Facts panels required
MUNICIPAL BANS
FDA Proposes to remove GRAS Status
of partially hydrogenated oils
FDA finalizes its GRAS determination on
partially hydrogenated oils
FDA GRAS determination on partially
hydrogenated oils becomes effective
2002
2006 2007 2008 2012 2013 2015
November 2013 June 2015
2018
June 18, 2018
FDA TIMELINE
FDA issues mandatory
trans fat labeling rule
2003 FOOD REFORMULATION
FDA estimated
trans fat (iTFA) intake= 4.6g/d
FDA estimated
trans fat (iTFA) intake= 1.0 g/d
TRANS FAT INTAKE DECREASES 78%
2012 Today

5. FDA DETERMINES PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED OILS
NO LONGER GRAS
FDA CONCLUSION:
conflict among experts regarding safety of PHOs
precludes GRAS status.
JUNE 2015

6. WRONG
FDA DID NOT BAN TRANS FATS

7. NOT COVERED IN FDA DETERMINATION
• Fully hydrogenated oils
• Partially hydrogenated oils used
in animal feed
• Ingredients containing naturally
derived trans fats (e.g. ruminant
sources)
• PHOs used as raw materials to
synthesize other ingredients

8. PETITION TO ALLOW LIMITED USES OF
PHOS AS FOOD ADDITIVES
Excerpt from GMA News Release (Status: Under Review by FDA)
GMA Food Additive Petition
STATUS: Under Review by FDA
GMA Food Additive Petition
“Our petition shows that the proposed PHO uses are as safe as the naturally
occurring trans fat present in the normal diet…”
“Food and beverage companies have already voluntarily lowered the amount of
trans fat added to food products by more than 86 percent and will continue…”

9. CHALLENGES TO FAT/OIL/FOOD INDUSTRY REGARDING
TRANS FAT ALTERNATIVES
• Functionality
• Availability
• Economics
• Logistics
• Technology
2003 2006

10. FUNCTIONALITY
• Replacements must provide functional characteristics of materials being
replaced (e.g. flakiness, firmness, crispness, melting properties,
appearance, etc.)
• Saturated fat content should not increase to greater than the sum of trans
& saturates before reformulation
• Product stability must be maintained
2003 2006

11. • Major consumer markets (restaurant chains and large food manufacturers)
require significant source availability
• New trait enhanced oils require significant commitment by farmers to
grow trait enhanced varieties and food industry to use the oils therefrom
• Adequate availability of trait-enhanced oils take time to develop (e.g. new
oilseed varieties [at this time] like high oleic canola and low linolenic
soybeans and later high oleic soybean)
AVAILABILITY
2003 2006

12. ECONOMICS
2003 2006
• TFA replacement must be price competitive
• Some newer technologies are more costly
• (Interesterification, modified partial hydrogenation, etc.)
• Newly developed trait-enhanced oils carry a premium

13. • No single solution – multiple ingredient alternatives, multiple inventories,
multiple suppliers
• Regional supply bases, not national (no geographically diverse suppliers)
• Deliveries of no trans fat ingredient alternatives not always available for
just-in-time orders
2003 2006
LOGISTICS

14. FOOD MANUFACTURER LABELING CONSIDERATIONS
Nutrition Facts panel:
• Trans fat declaration:
 State existing level (no reformulation)
 Reduce trans fat by reformulation (no label advantage)
 Reduce trans fat to “0” (i.e. <0.5g per serving)
 Saturated fat declaration (<10% of calories)
• Ingredient label:
 Presence of “hydrogenated” or “partially hydrogenated”
 Use of oils/fats that are functional but also higher in saturated fat content (e.g. palm, lard,
tallow, etc.)
• Front panel label:
 Zero trans fat per serving
2003 2006

15. EFFECTS OF FDA’S TRANS FAT LABELING FINAL RULE
• Consumer information expanded
• Reformulation of foods accelerated
• Trans fat alternatives stimulated
• Some increase in food ingredient costs
2003 2006

16. REFORMULATION DID NOT END WHEN
TRANS FAT LABELING BEGAN
FOOD REFORMULATION CONTINUES
FDA initiates GRAS
determination for
partially hydrogenated
oils (PHOs)
Trans fat intake
already down 78%
Today trans fat
added to food is
down > 86%
(GMA estimate)
2006 2013 2016

17. OVERCOMING TECHNICAL CHALLENGES
PRODUCT INTRODUCTION TIMELINE / PROGRESS TOWARD TRANS ALTERNATIVES
Least Challenging Most Challenging
Liquid Oils Solid Shortenings
Tailored
Shortenings
Fried Products, Breads
& Snacks
Par-fried French Fry &
Chicken, Fish;
Potato and Corn Chips;
Breads and Rolls;
Foodservice
Traditional Baked Goods,
Heavy Duty Fried
Products
Cookies, Crackers,
Muffins, Pies, Doughnuts
Laminated Dough
Baked Goods,
Confectionary &
Non-Dairy Foods
Pastries, Cakes, Frostings,
Imitation Cheese
Successful reformulation requires time and substantial supplier – manufacturer R&D
effort (particularly challenging for certain product categories firms)

18. INCREASINGLY CHALLENGING REFORMULATION OF PRODUCTS
• Taste
• Functionality/appearance
• Minimal physical difference in
manufacture or preparing foods
• Improved nutritional characteristics
(saturates and trans)
• Sustainability responsibilities
• Non-GMO and clean label
• Price (especially pairing with
functionality demands)
Customers want seamless reformulations that deliver:

19. CHALLENGES TO FAT/OIL/FOOD INDUSTRY REGARDING
TRANS FAT ALTERNATIVES
2003 2006 2016
LOW HANGING FRUIT FRUIT THAT’S HARDER TO PICK
SO, HOW DO WE GET FROM HERE… …TO HERE?

20. BY EXPANDING THE TOOLBOX OF ALTERNATIVES
THROUGH INNOVATION
1. Develop products with zero
trans as quickly as possible
2. Develop products with zero
trans and improved
functionality
3. Develop products with zero
trans, improved functionality
and lower saturates
2003
2016
2003-2006
2006-2016

21. 1. DEVELOP PRODUCTS WITH “0” TRANS LABELING
AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE
• Naturally stable oils and fats
• Liquid oils – corn, cottonseed, peanut, rice bran
• First wave of trait-enhanced oils, including high & mid oleic
sunflower, high oleic canola and low linolenic soybean
• Solid fats – palm oil, palm kernel, lard, tallow, coconut and fully
hydrogenated oils
• “Modified” partial hydrogenation to significantly reduce trans fat
formation
LIMITED TOOL BOX

22. 2. DEVELOP PRODUCTS WITH “0” TRANS LABELING
& IMPROVED FUNCTIONALITY
TOOL BOX EXPANDS
• Number and use of blends grows (e.g. blends of naturally stable oils; or,
when solids are needed for functionality, blends of fully hydrogenated oils
or palm oil and liquid vegetable oils)
• Expansion of innovative processing techniques
• Fractionated natural oils primarily palm and palm kernel= multiple products
with different functional characteristics
• Interesterification (chemical and enzymatic methods)
o Rearrangement of fatty acids alter melt point

23. 3. DEVELOP PRODUCTS WITH “0” TRANS LABELING,
IMPROVED FUNCTIONALITY & LOWER SATURATED FAT
TOOL BOX EXPANDS FURTHER
• High oleic soybean oils emerge with much greater oxidative/heat stability
than commodity and low linolenic soybean oils (Plenish™ and Vistive Gold®)
• Combine greater stability with lower saturated fat content
• Light and heavy frying & other liquid oil applications; stable oil to blend with
solid fats (e.g. fully hydrogenated and palm oils), etc.
• Algal Oils with tailored fatty acid composition including high oleic varieties
(up to 90% oleic)

24. 3. DEVELOP PRODUCTS WITH “0” TRANS LABELING,
IMPROVED FUNCTIONALITY & LOWER SATURATED FAT
TOOL BOX EXPANDS FURTHER
• Multi-fractionated palm oil yielding several fractions with differing
physical and functional properties
• Combinations of innovative technologies
• Interesterified shortening containing trait-enhanced oils combined with
either palm fractions or fully hydrogenated oils for tailored:
 Melting behavior
 Solidification properties
 Compatibility with other ingredients

25. CONSUMER CONFUSION OVER “HYDROGENATED” OILS
Men’s Health
“Some public health experts
now blame the trans fats in
hydrogenated oils for tens of
thousands of premature
deaths…At the supermarket,
limiting dangerous fats is
easy: check labels to find
products without partially or
fully hydrogenated oils or
trans fats.”
Ladies’ Home Journal
“Crack the Code: Look for
‘hydrogenated oil’ or
‘partially hydrogenated oil’
on the label. These are
code for trans fat.”
Woman’s Day
“Trans fats are made when
hydrogen is added to
vegetable oil during the
manufacturing process, so
it’s best to avoid any oils or
shortening that have fully
or partially hydrogenated
oil in the ingredients.”

26. WITH U.S. PHARMACOPEIA ISEO DEFINES
FULLY HYDROGENATED OILS
FULLY HYDROGENATED OILS AND FATS
First published: FCC 10
Completely Hydrogenated Oils and Fats
Hydrogenated Oils and Fats
DESCRIPTION
Fully hydrogenated oils and fats occur as solids at room
temperature. They are produced through the
hydrogenation of individual food grade oils and fats, or
through the hydrogenation of mixtures of food grade oils
and fats to achieve an iodine value of NMT 4,
representing the saturation of double bonds from the
source oils and/or fats. Oils and fats used to manufacture
fully hydrogenated oils and fats are expressed or
extracted from a range of seeds, nuts, fruits, and animal
fatty tissues, including canola (low erucic acid rapeseed),
coconut, corn, cottonseed, lard, palm, palm kernel,
peanut, safflower, soybean, sunflower, and tallow.

27. THANK YOU!

28. Innovations in Shortenings and Hardfats
“A Review”
(The Role of High Oleic Oils)
Tom
Tiffany
ADM Oils
AOCS Annual Meeting
5/2/2016

29. Outline
Drivers for Reformulation
Developments in N.A. Oils
Blending for Functionality
Interesterification for
Functionality
Discussion

30. Why Oils and Fats
 Concentrated sources of energy (9 cal/g)
 Source of essential fatty acids (C18:2/C18:3)
 Carrier for fat soluble vitamins
 Serve as a heat transfer medium
 Contribute to texture and flavor (lubricity,
cohesiveness, aeration, oiliness)

31. ~98.4 billion lbs.
~34 billion lbs.
~128.8 billion lbs.
~56 billion lbs.
~12.5 billion lbs.
World Vegetable Oil Production 2013/2014
(million metric tons)

32. The Need for Trait Enhanced Oils
Trans Fat Regulation:
– The 2006 FDA labeling of trans mandate, thus alternative for PHOs
– Geographic / Municipal regulations indicating that for foodservice all products
must meet “0 grams trans per serving”
Increase Oxidative Stability:
– As partial hydrogenation is phased out stable oils are needed
– Industrial demand for a stable oil
– Foodservice / QSR demand for stable oils
Improve Profile:
– Reduction on erucic acid (HEAR to LEAR)
– Increase in Oleic and decrease in PUFAs to increase oxidative stability
– Reduction in saturates (push from NGOs and Health Authorities)
– Increase in Stearic Acid (neutrality of the saturated fatty acid)
– Increase the long chain PUFA content

33. 1990 1997 Jan. 1, 2006
1990
Mensink
and Kataan
Study –
Trans ↑LDL
and ↓HDL
Spring 1994
FDA
acknowledges
trans, but no
labeling
requirement
CSPI
petitions
FDA to
declare
trans on
NLEA
panel
1994
Judd et al.
study
funded by
industry
↑Trans↑LDL
and ↓HDL
Regulatory and industry soft
response to trans fatty acid
issues. Low fat craze dies out,
food safety is a more pressing
issue
1999
FDA
proposes
guidelines
for labeling
of trans
and
saturates
and claims
CSFII Survey
indicates that the
mean intake of
trans is 2.6% of
energy intake
Spring 2002
NAS/IOM
Macronutrient
Study.
Avoid trans
2000
Dietary
Guidelines
Committee –
trans tend to
raise blood
cholesterol
July, 2003
FDA mandates trans
labeling
January 2006
Labeling of
trans fatty acids
on a per
serving basis
Kraft
Food Ingr.
markets
low lin
soy from
Pioneer
seeds
S.
Knowlton
from
DuPont
presents
paper on
HOSoy at
AOCS
The Trans / PHO Timeline

34. 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2018
Labeling of
trans fatty
acids on a per
serving basis
2010 Dietary
Guidelines for
Americans –
limit trans
and saturate
fat intake
Health Canada Trans
Task Force
recommendation on
<2% trans in oils,
spreads and
margarine sold
directly to consumers
and as well as <5%
trans in oil and
shortening used in
food preparation
NYC mandate
that “0 grams
per serving”
products be
used for
frying, grilling,
sautéing
NYC mandate that
only that “0 grams
per serving”
shortening,
margarine, spreads
and oils be used in
foodservice
operations for food
preparation
California
mandate that
“0 grams per
serving”
products be
used for
frying,
grilling,
sautéing
California mandate
that only that “0
grams per serving”
shortening,
margarine, spreads
and oils be used in
foodservice
operations for food
preparation
FDA publishes at IFT
their recent survey of
trans fatty acid
consumption. FDA
data establishes that
trans consumption is
1.9 g/p/d versus 4.6
g/p/d in 2003
June 2015
FDA
to comment on the
Dr. Kummerow
lawsuit
Omega 9 canola
oil accelerates
KFC moves to
low lin soy
Plenish grown in
limited amounts
Low sat, omega 9
sunfower
introduced
PHO no
longer
considered
GRAS
The Trans / PHO Timeline

35. The Need to Increase Oxidative Stability
• Commodity oils such as soy and canola contain C18:3 & C18:2 which can lead to
instability. These oils are partially hydrogenated to decrease the level of C18:2
and C18:3 acid – can create trans in the range from 10% to 60%
• Corn oil and cottonseed oil contain appreciable levels of C18:2, but do not
contain appreciable levels of C18:3, which has some bearing on oxidative
stability
• NuSun™ development is a good example of the industry coming together to
identify and develop a product to meet specific demands

36. Outline
Drivers for Reformulation
Developments in U.S. Oils
Blending for Functionality
Interesterification for
Functionality
Discussion

37. High Oleic Soy - Opportunities
• Work began in the early 1970s to improve soybean oil traits
• Food processing & QSR sector disappointed by low C18:3 soy
• HOSoy will offer greater oxidative stability
• HOSoy will offer lower saturate profiles
• HOSoy will provide a suitable base oil for blending or interesterification to
produce low trans shortenings
• Both food and industrial users are interested in this profile.
Analysis HOSoy Soy
OSI @ 110°C (hrs) 33.80 6.43
Palmitic C16:0 6.56 10.70
Palmitoleic C16:1 0.12 0.10
Heptadecanoic C17:0 0.73 0.12
cis-10-heptadecenoic C17:1 1.21 0.06
Stearic C18:0 3.44 4.43
Total C18:1 trans FA 0.06 0.02
Total C18:1 cis FA 76.24 22.57
Total C18:2 trans FA 0.02 0.19
Total C18 2 cis FA 7.93 52.81
Total C18:3 trans FA 0.04 0.19
Total C18:3cis FA 2.16 7.51
Arachidic C20:0 0.36 0.35
Gadoleic C20:1n9 cis 0.33 0.19
Behenic C22:0 0.37 0.37
Lignoceric C24:0 0.11 0.09
Total trans FA 0.12 0.41
Total Saturated FAs 11.66 16.17

38. High Oleic Soybean Oil Profiles
According to the FDA these oils are to be labeled as “high oleic soybean oil"
OSI Time of High Oleic SBO
(hrs. @ 110 C)
Analysis HOSoy #1 HOSoy #2
Myristic C14:0 0.03 0.05
Palmitic C16:0 2.79 5.97
Stearic C18:0 3.43 4.45
Total C18:1 trans FA 0.04 0.06
Total C18:1 cis FA 71.80 75.75
Total C18:2 trans FA 0.19 0.00
Total C18 2 cis FA 17.18 7.70
Total C18:3 trans FA 0.23 0.07
Total C18:3 cis FA 2.56 1.97
Arachidic C20:0 0.32 0.44
Behenic C22:0 0.34 0.44
Lignoceric C24:0 0.10 0.15
Total Trans FA 0.46 0.12
Total Saturated FAs 7.09 12.35
Total Monos 71.84 75.81
Total PUFAs 20.16 9.74

39. Canola Developments
• Canola oil was developed to move from HEAR to LEAR & lower
levels of glucosinolates in the early '70s
• Early 1990s work on low C18:3 canola oil
• Mid 1990s work on high lauric canola oil
• Late 1990s to today life science companies expand high oleic / low
linolenic canola production

40. High Oleic / Low Lin Canola
• Only 7% saturates
• 70-75% monounsaturates
• Good stability in frying,
spray oil and blends
• Very strong marketing
presence
• Canola oil has a healthy
halo (lower saturates)
• The low saturate profile
works well with palm
blends
Fatty Acid Canola Oil High Oleic
Canola
C16:0 4.13 3.72
C18:0 1.86 1.84
cis C18:1 63.83 72.3
cis C18:2 18.72 14.89
cis C18:3 7.99 2.3
C20:0 0.57 0.63
C20:1 1.19 1.31
C22:0 0.32 0.37
OSI (hrs @ 110 C) 9 16

41. Nusun HOSUN
OSI 10.33 22.58
PalmiticC16:0 4.46 3.22
Stearic C18:0 3.54 3.17
Total C18:1trans FA 0.21 0.39
Total C18:1cis FA 61.83 85.73
Total C18:2trans FA 0.67 0.18
Total C18 2 cis FA 26.96 5.12
Total C18:3trans FA 0.09 0.00
Total C18:3cis FA 0.22 0.15
Arachidic C20:0 0.27 0.28
Behenic C22:0 0.78 0.80
Total Saturated FAs 9.42 7.69
Total trans FA 0.97 0.57
Total Monos 62.14 86.22
Total Polys 27.94 5.45
Mid Oleic Sunflower Oil Development
• 1996 – Industry decision to ‘change oil’
• 1997 – Initial ‘fry’ test
• 1997 –NuSun™ defined
 55-75% monounsaturated (oleic acid)
 13-35% polyunsaturated (linoleic acid)
 Less than 10% saturates
• 1999 first commercial production
Refined
Sunoil
OSI @ 110C (hrs) 4.90
Palmitic C16:0 6.10
Palmitoleic C16:1 0.12
Stearic C18:0 3.55
Total C18:1 trans FA 0.00
Total C18:1 cis FA 29.19
Total C18:2 trans FA 0.70
Total C18 2 cis FA 58.03
Total C18:3 trans FA 0.00
Total C18:3cis FA 0.18
Gadoleic C20:1n9 cis 0.20
Behenic C22:0 0.76
Lignoceric C24:0 0.54
Total Saturated FAs 11.40
Calc. IV 127.57

42. High Oleic Oils – Accelerated Shelf Life

43. Outline
Drivers for Reformulation
Developments in U.S. Oils
Blending for Functionality
Interesterification for
Functionality
Discussion

44. Function of Oils/Shortening in Bakery
• Improves eating qualities
• Helps with tenderization of the baked good; “shortens”
the gluten
• Provides structure
• Provides flavor
• Provides crumb strength
• Moisture barrier

45. Blending for Functionality
Viable approach to meet:
• Nutritional targets
• Labeling limitations
• Cost constraints
• Flavor
• Stability
Optimize components and blend ratios to
produce a functional system.
Liquid
Oil
Fully Hydro
Veg. Oil
or
Palm or
Fractions
Blend
Tank
•Fully hydrogenated fats have low amounts of
TFA’s and is a source of solids
•Palm is a source of solids for functional apps
Blending for Solids
•RBD salad oils have low amounts of TFA’s.
Liquid
Oil
Liquid
Oil
Blend
Tank
•RBD salad oils have low amounts of TFA’s
•RBD salad oils have low amounts of TFA’s
Blending for Liquids

46. High Oleic Soy / Palm Fractions (blends)
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
SFC @ 50° F SFC @ 70° F SFC @ 80 F SFC @ 92° F SFC @ 104° F
SFC
Analytical HOSOY / PST HOSOY / PST HOSOY / PST HOSOY / PST HOSOY / PST
Mettler Drop Point (F) 110.66 121.64 127.22 131.72 135.14
SFC @ 50°F 10.94 21.96 31.57 42.23 51.93
SFC @ 70°F 8.56 17.66 26.53 36.13 45.45
SFC @ 80 F 7.30 15.27 23.51 32.14 41.31
SFC @ 92°F 5.74 12.59 19.96 28.02 36.24
SFC @ 104°F 3.70 9.68 16.23 23.24 30.64
OSI @ 110C (hrs) 28.63 32.83 38.18 44.85 53.30
Total Saturated FAs 20.09 27.55 34.90 42.34 49.88

47. SFC of Canola / Palm Stearine Blends
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 SFC 50 F SFC 70 F SFC 80 F SFC 92 F SFC 100 F
SolidFatContent
Canola / Palm Blends
CanolaOil/
PalmStearine
Total
Saturates
Total
Mono's
Total
Poly's
Trans
B1 31.95 49.18 17.29 0.67
B2 25.85 53.1 19.26 0.72
B3 19.78 56.92 21.29 0.82
B4 13.61 60.9 23.32 0.94

48. Outline
Drivers for Reformulation
Developments in U.S. Oils
Blending for Functionality
Interesterification for
Functionality
Discussion

49. HOSoy Enzymatic Interesterification
• Comparison of traditional EIE soy vs.
EIE with HOSoy
• Very similar saturate profile
• SFC curve is sharp, more solids at the
lower SFC temperatures and more
“palm” like
• OSI time is very good for a low
trans alternative
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
SFC @ 50° SFC @ 70° SFC @ 80 F SFC @ 92° SFC @ 104°
F F F F
EIE HOSoy
EIE Trad. Soy
SBO HOSoy
EIE Trad. Soy EIE HOSoy
MDP (F) 122.5 118.4
SFC @ 50 F 24.30 43.75
SFC @ 70 F 21.61 31.06
SFC @ 80 F 14.65 22.09
SFC @ 92 F 10.87 13.46
SFC @ 104 F 6.85 7.61
OSI @ 110°C (hrs) 10.63 61.43
Myristic C14:0 0.08 0.07
Palmitic C16:0 10.39 7.92
Stearic C18:0 30.51 32.96
Total C18:1 trans FA 0.30 0.09
Total C18:1 cis FA 15.18 51.00
Total C18:2 trans FA 0.32 0.02
Total C18 2 cis FA 35.74 3.95
Total C18:3 trans FA 0.62 0.07
Total C18:3cis FA 5.36 1.13
Arachidic C20:0 0.43 0.45
Behenic C22:0 0.36 0.39
Lignoceric C24:0 0.11 0.12
Total trans FA 1.23 0.19
Total Saturated FAs 42.10 42.55

50. 10.00
0.00
20.00
40.00
30.00
50.00
70.00
60.00
SFC @ 50°SFC @ 70° SFC @ 80 SFC @ 92°
F F F F
SFC
@
104°F
SFC
EIE HOSoy
EIE Trad. Soy
50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
SFC @ 50°SFC @ 70° SFC @ 80 SFC @ 92°
F F F F
SFC
@
104°F
SFC
EIE HOSoy with FHCSO
EIE Trad. Soy
with FHCSO
HOSoy Enzymatic Interesterification
SBO HOSoy SBO HOSoy
EIE Trad.
Soy High
Solids
EIE
HOSoy
High
Solids
EIE Trad.
Soy with
FHCSO
EIE
HOSoy
with
FHCSO
MDP (F) 131.4 132.1 118.9 118.8
SFC @ 50 F 44.52 57.78 27.79 44.03
SFC @ 70 F 32.65 48.75 23.95 30.61
SFC @ 80 F 29.46 37.79 15.81 22.00
SFC @ 92 F 21.26 25.85 11.53 13.07
SFC @ 104 F 15.33 16.24 6.91 7.32
OSI @ 110°C (hrs) 72.15 55.1
Lauric C12:0 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
Myristic C14:0 0.08 0.07 0.17 0.13
Palmitic C16:0 11.12 8.41 12.18 9.33
Stearic C18:0 42.56 41.43 32.03 31.40
Total C18:1 trans FA 0.13 0.08 0.20 0.15
Total C18:1 cis FA 13.02 43.15 15.46 51.08
Total C18:2 trans FA 0.49 0.00 0.41 0.02
Total C18 2 cis FA 27.51 3.30 33.72 3.92
Total C18:3 trans FA 0.79 0.05 0.64 0.13
Total C18:3cis FA 2.68 0.96 3.67 1.10
Arachidic C20:0 0.46 0.47 0.43 0.43
Behenic C22:0 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.34
Lignoceric C24:0 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.13
Total trans FA 1.41 0.13 1.24 0.30
Total Saturated FAs 54.94 51.46 45.44 42.42

51. HOSoy Enzymatic Interesterification
(no hydrogenation)
Analysis Basestock
HOSoy /
Pst 5233-
50
EIE
HOSoy /
Pst 5233-
50
Mettler Drop Point (F) 129.2 100.8
SFC @ 50 F 36.62 44.14
SFC @ 70 F 30.84 18.72
SFC @ 80 F 27.43 11.03
SFC @ 92 F 23.29 5.94
SFC @ 104 F 19.16 2.27
OSI @ 110°C (hrs) 55.65 49.18
Total Tocopherols 784 435
Lauric C12:0 0.21 0.19
Myristic C14:0 0.53 0.53
Palmitic C16:0 32.02 31.91
Stearic C18:0 4.22 4.22
Total C18:1 trans FA 0.09 0.10
Total C18:1 cis FA 54.57 54.56
Total C18:2 trans FA 0.00 0.11
Total C18 2 cis FA 4.69 4.73
Total C18:3 trans FA 0.03 0.12
Total C18:3cis FA 1.22 1.12
Arachidic C20:0 0.39 0.36
Gadoleic C20:1n9 cis 0.19 0.19
Behenic C22:0 0.26 0.26
Total trans FA 0.12 0.32
Total Saturated FAs 38.23 38.17

52. Basestock
PKO:HOSoy:PS
5466-145
EIE Deod
PKO:HOSoy:PS
5466-145
Basestock
PKO:HOSoy:PS
5466-147
EIE Deod
PKO:HOSBO:P
S 5466-147
Basestock
PKO:PS:HOSoy
5466-146
EIE Deod
PKO:PS:HOSoy
5466-146
Mettler Drop Point (F) 107.24 84.74 120.20 89.24 122.36 97.70
SFC @ 50°F 50.05 51.51 57.60 59.85 65.59 70.38
SFC @ 70°F 23.87 16.91 31.60 27.80 40.89 42.69
SFC @ 80 F 8.60 2.92 17.91 11.33 23.14 21.34
SFC @ 92°F 5.61 0.00 13.13 0.19 16.74 2.81
SFC @ 104°F 2.97 0.00 8.88 0.02 11.70 0.00
Caprylic C8:0 2.15 2.03 2.01 1.84 2.18 2.00
Capric C10:0 2.05 2.00 1.91 1.83 2.08 1.97
Lauric C12:0 29.97 29.55 27.66 27.20 30.15 29.43
Myristic C14:0 10.51 10.52 9.81 9.84 10.67 10.70
Palmitic C16:0 15.19 15.34 22.55 22.75 26.34 26.83
Stearic C18:0 3.07 3.10 3.22 3.27 3.14 3.22
Total C18:1 cis FA 31.01 31.39 27.32 27.72 20.84 21.27
Total C18 2 cis FA 3.99 3.98 3.65 3.67 3.14 3.22
Total C18:3cis FA 0.53 0.50 0.44 0.41 0.25 0.23
Arachidic C20:0 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.21
Total Saturated FAs 63.81 63.43 67.96 67.53 75.32 74.84
HOSoy Enzymatic Interesterification
(Development of Sharper SFC Curves)

53. Functionality Improvement (HO Canola)
“Lower Saturate Functional Shortening”
Enzymatically interesterified shortening of high oleic canola oil and
fully hydrogenated cottonseed oil
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
Basestock post IE
10.00
5.00
0.00
SFC @ 50° F SFC @ 70° F SFC @ 80 F SFC @ 92° F SFC @ 104° F
35.00
40.00
%Solids
The Role of Interesterification
Basestock pre IE
HOCan:FHCSO
Basestock
HOCan:FHCSO
EIE Deod
Mettler Drop Point (F) 136.4 119.3
IV by GLC 68.6 68.9
SFC @ 50 F 31.52 37.08
SFC @ 70 F 29.06 21.91
SFC @ 80 F 27.28 16.49
SFC @ 92 F 24.54 10.76
SFC @ 104 F 20.37 6.31
OSI @ 110C (hours) no adds 17.50 17.33
Myristic C14:0 0.25 0.26
Palmitic C16:0 9.90 9.89
Stearic C18:0 22.97 22.84
Total C18:1 trans FA 0.25 0.25
Total C18:1 cis FA 50.03 50.17
Total C18:2 trans FA 0.37 0.32
Total C18 2 cis FA 11.90 12.01
Total C18:3 trans FA 0.23 0.17
Total C18:3cis FA 0.99 1.09
Arachidic C20:0 0.51 0.51
Behenic C22:0 0.28 0.29
Lignoceric C24:0 0.18 0.19
Total trans FA 0.85 0.74
Total Saturated FAs 34.23 34.09

54. Outline
Drivers for Reformulation
Developments in U.S. Oils
Blending for Functionality
Interesterification for
Functionality
Discussion

55. Benefits of High Oleic Oils
 No need of partial hydrogenation (trans fatty acid reduction)
 Improved oxidative stability to maintain or extend shelf life
 Works well in blends with palm oil or palm fractions to produce
functional, stable shortenings for a variety of applications
 Interesterification with fully hydrogenated vegetable oil or
palm fractions to produce functional, stable shortenings for a
variety of applications
 Natural and synthetic antioxidant addition can boost oxidative
stability

56. Profile of High Stability Oils
JOSHUA TUINSTRA
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER, STRATAS FOODS LLC

57. Objective:
• Compare high oleic soybean oil (HOSoy) as a component of doughnut frying oil with
other commercially available options on the basis of functionality
Tests Procedure:
• Three-batch controlled doughnut study
Test Variables:
• Partially hydrogenated (PH) soybean oil
(~31% trans fat)
• Palm/soy blend
• EIE commodity soy
• EIE high oleic soybean oil
Functionality Testing: Doughnut Frying

58. Each variable, tested in triplicate:
• Commercial foodservice fryers
• Fryer set at 375°F for each test
• 10 pounds of doughnut mix per batch
(~110 doughnuts)
• Three batches per oil subject
Key metrics analyzed every trial for:
• Oil quality
– Anisidine, color, %FFA, total polars
• Doughnut quality and characteristics
– Texture, oil weeping, absorption, size, etc.
• Sensory
Fry Study Procedures

59. • Interesterification (IE): rearrangement of fatty acids on the glycerol
backbone
– IE has the ability to modify the melting point and functional crystallization
characteristics without changing the fatty acid composition
• Enzymatic Interesterification (EIE): positional selective IE which cleaves and
reattaches fatty acids using an enzyme catalyst
What Is Interesterification?

60. STRATAS FOODS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Fatty Acid Composition
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
PH Soybean Oil
Palm Blend
IE Soybean Oil
IE HOSoy
Fatty Acid Composition "Fingerprint"
Sats Monos 18:2s 18:3s

61. Solid Fat Content (SFC)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
50°F 70°F 80°F 92°F 100°F 104°F
SFC Profiles--Initial
PH Soybean Oil
IE Soybean Oil
Palm Blend
IE HOSoy

62. Oil Performance - Total Polar Material (%TPM)
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Initial Post Round 1 Post Round 2 Post Round 3
% TPM
Palm Blend
IE Soybean Oil
IE HOSoy
PH Soybean Oil

63. Oil Performance - p-Anisidine Value
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Initial Post Round 1 Post Round 2 Post Round 3
p-Anisidine Value
IE Soybean Oil
Palm Blend
IE HOSoy
PH Soybean Oil

64. Doughnut - Spread and Height
15.5
16
16.5
17
17.5
18
18.5
19
Height
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Spread
Palm Blend
IE Soybean Oil
IE HOSoy
PH Soybean Oil

65. Doughnut - Texture
• Two doughnuts were selected at random, one cut vertically and one horizontally,
to describe interior grain uniformity, texture and internal star shape
• IE HOSO blends produced similar texture, interior grain, and doughnut hole star
shape and size to that of the industry standard PH soybean product
• These results were compared to texture analyzer data using a TA-XT2i Texture
Analyzer Instrument after 30 minutes and 24 hours to determine overall texture

66. Doughnut - Texture Analysis
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Force After 24 hrs
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Force Initial
Palm Blend
PH Soybean Oil
IE HOSoy
IE Soybean Oil

67. 0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
Change in Force Over 24 Hours
IE Soybean Oil
Palm Blend
PH Soybean Oil
IE HOSoy
• Doughnuts are at their peak flavor
and softness when first made and
become harder, more crumbly, and
less desirable over time
• Results indicate that after 24 hours
the IE HOSoy blends preserved
texture better than all other
products testing, including PH
soybean oil
Doughnut - Change in Texture

68. Doughnut - Oil Weeping
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Oil Weeping Averages
PH Soybean
Oil
IE HOSoy
IE Soybean Oil
Palm Blend
• Oil weeping: oil leaching out of
the doughnut and onto the
packaging surface or consumers’
hands
– Randomly selected six doughnuts
from each batch, placed
doughnuts on white construction
paper for 24 hours, and
measured the oil spreads on the
paper

69. Doughnut - Fat Absorption
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PH Soybean Oil IE Soybean Oil Palm Blend IE HOSoy
% Fat Absorption
• Fat absorption in cake doughnuts is
typically around 25 percent
• Analyzed to compare standard PH
soybean oil to various alternatives
• Contributes to structure, mouthfeel,
flavor, and many other
characteristics of the doughnut
• Proper fatty acid profile with a
balanced absorption of oil leads to
doughnut characteristics

70. Doughnut - Sensory Results
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Color
TextureMouthfeel
Sensory Results
IE Soybean Oil
IE HOSoy Oil
Palm Blend
PH Soybean Oil
Sensory was scored based on 3 major
attributes and described flavor:
1. Color
0----------------5----------------10
Too light Typical Too Dark
2. Mouthfeel
0----------------5----------------10
Too Greasy Typical Too Waxy
3. Texture
0----------------5----------------10
Too Gummy Typical Too Dry

71. Summary – Oil Performance
• IE HOSoy provided similar TPM as PH soybean oil, and significantly
outperformed IE commodity soybean oil and the palm blend
• Overall PH soybean oil showed a lower degradation rate by p-anisidine
value than all oil subjects tested
• IE HOSoy and the palm blend outperformed IE commodity soybean oil
due to levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids

72. Summary – Doughnut Performance
• IE HOSoy and PH soybean oil
produced similar texture, spread and
height, and “star” shape of inner
doughnut circle
• PH soybean oil doughnuts produced
less oil weeping than all other
products; IE commodity soybean oil
doughnuts produced the most
• Fat absorption was impacted by type
of oil with IE HOSoy absorbing more
than all other oil types

73. Summary – Doughnut Performance
• Slight differences in sensory provided
– Palm: cardboard notes, slight fishy notes
– IE Soybean Oil and IE HOSoy: slight chemical taste
– PHO: nutty, sweet flavor
• Overall results suggest IE HOSoy doughnuts and oil performed most
similar to PH soybean results
• Continued modifications to fatty acid profiles by blending various oils
should continue closing the gap on PH soybean oil performance,
doughnut functionality, and sensory characteristics

74. Acknowledgments
QUALISOY
Frank Flider
Richard Galloway
Chris Schroeder
Vicki Nesper
Lisa Kelly
STRATAS FOODS
David Tillman
Roger Daniels
Joshua Tuinstra
Alison Gladness
Whitney Owens
Funding for these projects is provided by the United Soybean Board.

75. Case Studies:
Performance in Real World Applications
Richard Galloway
QUALISOY Consultant | Oils Expert

76. FOODSERVICE CASE STUDY PROGRAM
• What are case studies?
• Why do case studies?
• Case studies bring to life the
value of high oleic soybean
oil

77. FOODSERVICE CASE STUDY PROGRAM
• Real time testing
• Real chefs
• Positive results
• Authentic
testimonials

78. Switched to HOSoy
Starting March of 2016
Loved HOSoy
CASE STUDY PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

79. TASTE
“Foods cooked in high oleic soybean oil have a better food quality as
far as texture, taste and color.” -Jonathan Creger
Executive Chef, The Inn at Virginia
Tech

80. DOMESTIC
SOURCING
“High oleic soybean oil comes from U.S.
farms, an important advantage for our
operation.” - Max Kiebach
Director of Food & Beverage, The Inn at
Virginia Tech
POSITIVE IMPACT ON NUTRITION
“Lab analysis of foods cooked in high
oleic soybean oil shows a 4 to 11%
reduction in calories. A big nutrition
win.” - Pam Smith
RDN, Culinary Nutrition
Consultant

81. “I feel that high oleic soybean oil is the
future! I look at high oleic soybean oil and
say why isn’t everyone using it?”
-Emily Ellyn
Chef, Food Network
Star
“From the minute you put the oil
in the fryer to the last time you
use it, it produces food with a
consistent rich color.”
- Steve Sturm
Corporate Executive Chef, Firebirds Wood Fired
Grill
PERFORMANCE

82. Laboratory nutritional analysis showed a reduction in calories and increase in
moisture of foods fried in high oleic soybean oil¹
LAB ANALYSIS OF FRIED FOODS
1. Silliker, Inc. Laboratory Nutritional Analysis of Firebirds Wood Fired Grill menu items fried in high oleic soybean oil vs. commodity soybean
oil. August 2015.

83. HIGH OLEIC SOYBEAN OIL
TEST PROGRAM
HELPING U.S. FARMERS TEST THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR CROPS!
HIGH OLEIC SOYBEAN OIL IS MADE FROM 100% U.S. GROWN SOYBEANS