Glycerol in bars, OATup in the DACH market and toxins in protein ingredients

Teaser: A new BfR database analysis puts glycerol in protein bars and fine bakery wares under scrutiny, with formulation level, the amount eaten on one occasion and target group determining the exposure. A processed oat pulp is becoming available through a new DACH distributor, but requires coordinated starch and water management in extrusion. A study of wheat gluten, soy and pea protein also shows why analytical panels must be designed for the specific matrix.

Glycerol: ingredient lists show use, not exposure

Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment has analysed 1,294 German product launches recorded in the Mintel Global New Products Database between June 2021 and June 2026 that listed glycerol as an ingredient. More than half were bakery products; snack, cereal and energy bars dominated the snack category. Products positioned as high-protein or sports products were particularly common among the bars and some biscuits. Across the four subcategories examined in detail, glycerol was declared mainly as a humectant [1].

The analysis describes label data for new product launches. It is neither a representative survey of the whole current market nor a quantitative analysis of glycerol content. A prominent position in an ingredient list likewise establishes neither the actual concentration nor exposure. For manufacturers, the relevant assessment emerges only when technological use, actual inclusion level, a realistic amount eaten on one occasion and the body weight of the target consumer are considered together.

The BfR considers the acute reference dose of 125 milligrams per kilogram of body weight derived by EFSA for glycerol-containing drinks to be applicable in principle to solid foods, including fine bakery wares. It also states that any food-matrix effect should be assessed case by case; specific experimental human data are not available for each solid matrix under consideration [2]. This treatment of solid foods is therefore the BfR’s scientific position. Applying the kinetics observed for drinks indiscriminately to every solid formulation would go beyond the evidence.

The ARfD is a health-based guidance value, not a new statutory maximum level. E 422 remains subject to no numerical maximum; use follows the quantum satis principle [2]. This supports neither a general safety warning for bars and bakery products containing glycerol nor an assumption of safety based solely on permitted additive use. During development and approval, the glycerol needed for humectancy should be assessed against the acute intake arising from the formulation and consumption scenario. A competitor’s ingredient list cannot replace that exposure calculation.

OATup: protein and fibre change more than the nutrition table

The Ingredients Experts states that it has become the exclusive distributor in Germany, Austria and Switzerland for OATup ingredients made by the Swedish company Livoo. The starting material is oat pulp from oat-drink production, which is dried and processed into a combined protein and fibre ingredient [3]. Vegconomist reported the new route to market on 2 October; the primary announcement itself is undated [4]. The precise start date of the partnership therefore remains open.

For product development, the two particle sizes matter more than the upcycling narrative. According to the supplier, the fine powder contains approximately 40% protein and 20% fibre and has a particle size below 50 micrometres. The coarse fibre is above 600 micrometres, has higher water- and oil-holding capacity and increased extruder torque in trials. The supplier states that OATup does not behave like starch, so expansion and crispness in an extrudate must come from the starch system [3].

Replacing separate protein and fibre components should therefore not be treated as a simple gram-for-gram substitution. Water balance, mixing and dough properties, energy input, extruder pressure, expansion and texture have to be reset together. Binding, bite and moisture migration are additional considerations in bars and bakery products. The composition and processing figures are supplier claims. This assessment has not identified independently verified industrial supply volumes, an independent carbon comparison or independent confirmation of the promoted PDCAAS.

Protein ingredients: the analytical panel must fit the matrix

A study published on 2 September provides an older, openly dated addition to the current raw-material discussion. El-Khatib and co-authors examined 60 samples bought from German online shops: 20 each of wheat gluten, soy protein and pea protein products from a range of origins. The work was expressly not designed as a representative market survey. The authors developed an LC-MS/MS multi-method for 113 mycotoxins and plant toxins; matrix-specific performance requirements were met for 94 analytes in wheat gluten, 84 in soy protein and 87 in pea protein [5].

The results show different patterns of co-contamination. Within this sample, wheat gluten contained the largest number of substances detected together, while soy and pea protein showed different and generally narrower patterns. These findings do not support a general judgement on plant proteins or prevalence across the market. They instead pose a practical question for supplier qualification and own-control programmes: which raw-material risks can the commissioned panel actually detect in the specific matrix, and at which limits of quantification?

A specification, an analyte list and a laboratory method are three distinct levels of control. A broad panel adds little if individual substances have not been sufficiently validated in the relevant protein matrix or if the limits of quantification do not support the decision at hand. Conversely, an analytical detection below the limit of quantification is not a quantified concentration and does not by itself establish a health risk. An exceedance of a maximum level can likewise be asserted only after checking the precise product category, the applicable limit and a reliable quantitative result. For procurement and quality assurance, matrix coverage in the test order is therefore at least as important as the length of the certificate.

Sources

All sources last checked and accessed on 5 October 2026.

1. BfR, Opinion 057/2026, 5 October 2026.
2. BfR, Opinion 049/2026, 8 September 2026.
3. The Ingredients Experts: Exclusive Partnership with Livoo for the DACH Region, undated; checked 5 October 2026.
4. Vegconomist: The Ingredients Experts takes exclusive DACH distribution for OATup, 2 October 2026.
5. El-Khatib et al.: Analysis of 113 Mycotoxins and Plant Toxins in Wheat, Soy and Pea Protein Concentrates from the German Market, Toxins 18(9), 377, 2 September 2026, DOI 10.3390/toxins18090377.

Note: These news items provide professional context and do not replace a legal, toxicological, analytical, technological or product-specific assessment. Image: AI-generated.