In today’s food and beverage industry, sugar has become one of the most vilified ingredients. Once cherished for its versatility — aiding in cake rising, caramelizing sauces, and, of course, providing delightful sweetness — a growing number of health-conscious consumers are now seeking nutritious alternatives. A survey by Label Insight indicates that 22% of U.S. consumers wish to limit their sugar intake. Sarah Schmansky, vice president of Nielsen’s fresh and health wellness division, stated that half of consumers plan to achieve this by purchasing “no sugar added” products this year. Synthetic sweeteners are also facing scrutiny, as over half of consumers reported avoiding artificial sweeteners in 2017. Schmansky noted that products claiming “no artificial sweeteners” experienced a 9% growth over five years, while sales of food and beverages containing zero-calorie sweeteners free from artificial additives surged by 16% in 2017. This shift in consumer behavior, coupled with the FDA’s update to include added sugars in the 2020 Nutrition Facts panel, is prompting manufacturers to explore natural sweetening options.
Recently, various solutions have emerged, from traditional caloric ingredients like honey and agave nectar to non-caloric options such as stevia, each offering a unique set of benefits and challenges for formulators. The race to replace sugar is accelerating in the estimated $16 billion to $20 billion market for sugar alternatives. Analysts and ingredient producers have pinpointed several natural sweeteners that stand out in this sector. However, the question remains: which one will dominate the market, and why?
Although consumer interest in naturally-sweetened products has surged in recent years, manufacturers have been experimenting with stevia since the 1990s. According to Mintel, the number of products launched with stevia rose by over 13% in the second quarter of 2017 compared to the previous year. By August of last year, 27% of products utilizing high-intensity sweeteners included stevia. This natural sweetener, derived from a Brazilian plant, is 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar, making it suitable for a range of products from soft drinks to snack foods. Despite its first-mover advantage, Thom King, founder and CEO of Icon Foods, argues that stevia’s long history has hindered its acceptance due to past misuses that left consumers associating it with a bitter aftertaste.
This undesirable flavor, often compared to metal and licorice, poses a significant challenge for stevia. Although producers have worked to improve the taste of stevia extracts, it cannot fully replace sugar due to its strong flavor. Instead, it can help reduce sugar content when combined with masking agents such as erythritol (a zero-calorie sugar alcohol) or monk fruit. King points out another limitation: stevia does not undergo the Maillard reaction, the chemical process that caramelizes food and aids in leavening. David Thorrold, general manager of sales and marketing at The Monk Fruit Corp., notes that consumer perceptions of stevia-sweetened products often include a negative aftertaste, leading to reluctance in purchasing these items.
However, stevia’s well-established supply chain, low cost, and easy sourcing give it an advantage that many competitors lack, which is evident in the R&D efforts of major brands like PepsiCo, DanoneWave, Kraft Heinz, and Nestlé. Coca-Cola recently announced the development of a stevia-sweetened soda that contains zero sugar, zero calories, and no bitter aftertaste, with plans for a limited market release this year. Big Food’s investments in stevia are likely to continue as producers refine their formulations.
Monk fruit, another natural sweetener, is not as sweet as stevia and is more expensive to produce, yet it is steadily gaining market share. Since its FDA approval, over 2,000 products featuring monk fruit have launched. Thorrold believes monk fruit will play a significant role in sugar reduction for the next decade, as it is generally easier to formulate with than stevia due to its favorable sensory profile. Although monk fruit also does not participate in the Maillard reaction, it benefits from a clean reputation and consumer acceptance, which helps it gain ground over stevia.
Nate Yates, business director of natural sweetness innovation at Ingredion, expresses caution about declaring monk fruit superior to stevia. He believes it is premature to suggest that monk fruit will surpass stevia just because it is less bitter. The high-potency sweetener has its own off-flavors, reminiscent of melon rind, which can be masked with sugar alcohols or other sweeteners. Although there is competition between monk fruit and stevia, they often work well together; many products combine both to mask each other’s aftertastes.
In addition to stevia and monk fruit, allulose is an emerging natural sweetener that could disrupt the market. This rare sugar, produced when fructose is treated with enzymes or bacteria, occurs naturally in small amounts in figs, raisins, beets, and corn. While it is only 70% as sweet as sugar, it contains less than one-tenth of the calories and does not raise blood sugar levels, as it is not metabolized by the body. Importantly, allulose has no aftertaste, mimics the mouthfeel of sugar, and participates in the Maillard reaction, providing functional benefits while being less expensive than both stevia and monk fruit.
King notes that Icon Foods began working with allulose four years ago when its supply chain was still developing, and its price has decreased significantly since then. He believes allulose will be a game changer, allowing manufacturers to significantly reduce added sugars in products. Currently, the FDA mandates that allulose is listed as an added sugar, which may discourage some producers from using it. However, King suggests that brands should utilize front-of-pack labeling to distinguish allulose from traditional sugars and sweeteners. He anticipates that within six months, the FDA may grant allulose its own line item on Nutrition Facts panels, similar to polyols or sugar alcohols. This change could lead to a surge in allulose formulations, enabling products to go from 20–25 grams of sugar to just a few grams without sacrificing sweetness.
Research and development for allulose products have accelerated recently, with companies like Tate & Lyle creating formulations derived from corn, beet, and sugar cane. Tate & Lyle has also petitioned the FDA to prevent allulose from being classified as a carbohydrate or added sugar on Nutrition Facts panels, arguing that such labeling could confuse and mislead consumers. Meanwhile, Dr Pepper Snapple Group is testing allulose in various beverages to evaluate its performance.
While the FDA’s final decision on allulose remains uncertain, King believes that manufacturers should be poised for its impending success. Yates agrees that allulose may provide greater flexibility for manufacturers but contends that no single ingredient will completely replace sugar as the leading sweetener. “Allulose is simply another tool in the formulators’ toolbox, alongside stevia and other ingredients,” he said. “Ultimately, it depends on the formulators’ goals, price point, and what makes the most sense for their products.”
As the industry evolves, products like calcium citrate malate with vitamin D3 tablets may also find their way into formulations as consumers seek healthful options, highlighting the ongoing trend toward natural and beneficial ingredients in the quest to reduce sugar intake.