Sugar has become one of the most criticized ingredients in America, prompting manufacturers to seek healthier alternatives to satisfy consumers’ sweet cravings. How do natural sweeteners compare? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average American consumes nearly 23 teaspoons of added sugar each day, with a staggering 71% coming from processed foods. This level of sugar intake is concerning, as excessive added sugar can negatively impact heart health and contribute to weight gain. The American Heart Association advises a daily limit of nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, this message is resonating with the public. Mintel reports that 84% of Americans are trying to reduce their sugar intake, and 79% read labels to identify the types of sugars or sweeteners present. Despite sugar’s dominance as a sweetener, sales dropped by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers are now on the lookout for natural alternatives, but transitioning to new sweeteners can be a challenging task for manufacturers. A recent Mintel report highlights that while natural sugar substitutes are an appealing focus, companies might face some challenges in determining acceptable price points. Although 26% of consumers desire more products featuring naturally sourced sugar substitutes, only a small fraction is willing to pay a premium for them. Natural sweeteners like coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often marketed as healthier options compared to refined sugar, as they are perceived as more natural or nutritious. However, despite containing some trace minerals, they offer limited health benefits. All of these options are classified as added sugars from both a nutritional and labeling standpoint, and they can contribute to tooth decay in the same manner as refined sugar.
The rising popularity of honey, which benefits from a perception of being a natural health product, is noteworthy. According to Mintel, three-quarters of those surveyed consider honey to be a healthy sweetener. While sales of syrups and molasses declined by 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey sales surged by 54% during the same period. Many alternative sweeteners do have a lower glycemic index than sugar, making them appealing to diabetics as they cause a slower rise in blood sugar levels. However, these sweeteners often contain a high level of fructose, which may be detrimental to non-diabetics. Unlike glucose, which can be utilized for energy by nearly every cell in the body, fructose is primarily metabolized in the liver and has been linked to increased fat production in the body.
As the revamped Nutrition Facts label is set to become mandatory, added sugars will need to be explicitly listed, providing food companies with additional motivation to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural ones, in their products. Among lower-calorie options, sweeteners for sugar replacement fall into two main categories: bulk sweeteners, which are slightly less sweet than sugar and have fewer calories but are used in comparable amounts, and high-intensity sweeteners, which are used in small quantities due to their extreme sweetness. If manufacturers are aiming for natural ingredients, their choices are further limited.
Naturally derived bulk sweeteners include sugar alcohols known as polyols, such as xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, sorbitol, and erythritol. These are sourced from plant products and berries and are produced by modifying carbohydrates through fermentation or other methods. Notably, the best-known naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners include stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia is obtained by drying the leaves and isolating the sweet components through water and crystallization, whereas monk fruit extracts are derived from the fruit’s pressed juice using water. Tate & Lyle provides both monk fruit and stevia extracts under its Purefruit and Tasteva brands. Abigail Storms, the company’s vice president and global platform lead for sweeteners, acknowledges the challenges of replacing added sugars.
“Replacing added sugars is not a simple task,” she stated in an email to FoodDive. “High-potency sweeteners, such as stevia and monk fruit extract, allow manufacturers to significantly reduce sugar content without compromising taste. However, due to their small usage in formulations, they do not contribute functional attributes like bulk and mouthfeel.” She recommends combining sweeteners and fibers to lower sugar content while mimicking the expected taste and texture.
Professor Kathy Groves, head of science and microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research in the UK, specializes in ingredient interactions within foods and beverages that create sensory attributes. She emphasizes that while there is considerable interest in reducing sugar, it is not as straightforward as simply removing it; even if another ingredient can replicate sweetness. “We have been working to demonstrate that it’s not that easy,” she conveyed to FoodDive.
Sugar serves multiple functions in food products. It influences not only taste but also the structure of cakes and cookies, the snap of chocolate, the browning, caramelization, crispness, aroma, and the distribution of fat within the product. The timing of sweetness release also plays a crucial role in flavor perception. When working on sugar reduction, Groves’s team begins with a company’s original full-sugar product, such as a cookie or cake, to map out the ingredient interactions. “We are now discussing it in a way that resonates with the industry,” she explained. “We refer to it as a blueprinting process, akin to creating a blueprint for a factory or house, which illustrates how everything works together. We create a technical map detailing how the product is conventionally made.”
The team gathers consumer panels to articulate what they appreciate about the standard product, followed by assessments from trained specialists who evaluate attributes like taste, aroma, and texture in scientifically defined terms. Finally, they investigate how the ingredients influence the product’s texture, color, and other microscopic attributes, ultimately identifying which alternative sweeteners can best replicate those qualities. Blending sweeteners has become a popular strategy since nothing quite matches the taste or behavior of sugar. A common blend among naturally derived sweeteners is stevia and erythritol. Erythritol imparts a strong cooling effect, making it suitable for sugar-free mints, but for applications where this effect is undesirable, such as lemonade, blending it with stevia can help mask that taste.
“Polyols are frequently used in blends, and while some, like xylitol, can have a laxative effect, erythritol does not, allowing for a balanced mix,” Groves noted. “Sweeteners vary in their flavor and intensity profiles, leading to differences in aftertaste.” Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, pointed out that this is another reason why stevia and monk fruit are often used in combination. “By using stevia in lower concentrations to reduce bitterness, you can enhance sweetness with monk fruit,” she explained. “Some sweeteners offer very high sweetness levels while others have a delayed onset of sweetness. They often work synergistically, making it essential to understand the overall sweetness profile over time, rather than at a single moment.”
Unexpected interactions can occur when sweeteners are combined, potentially leading to a loss of bulk, caramelization, or browning. If the flavor aligns, manufacturers may be able to adjust other processing elements to address these issues. Beyond flavor and texture, solubility can pose challenges, particularly for high-intensity sweeteners. Given their minimal usage, ensuring even distribution within a mixture can be difficult. Some bulk sweeteners may also absorb moisture, while isomalt does not, making it an excellent choice for hard candies.
Lastly, Beeren emphasizes the need to consider whether reducing sugar might inadvertently increase the overall calorie content of the product. “When consumers see the claim ‘reduced sugar’ on packaging, they often assume that calories are also lower,” she noted. In certain applications, reducing sugar can result in a higher fat content by weight, leading to increased calorie counts. “This is often a consideration that arises only at the end of the process,” she added.
All alternative natural sweeteners come at a higher cost than sugar, forcing manufacturers to weigh whether the added expenses are justified in the long run. Besides the direct costs of the sweeteners, companies face “hidden costs” associated with reformulating existing products and implementing significant changes in ingredient handling, storage, and monitoring. Nevertheless, consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for reduced added sugar and greater interest in natural products. It is now up to manufacturers to find the right balance between cost, naturalness, calories, and taste, while also navigating the differences between calcium carbonate and calcium citrate in their formulations.