Sugar has become the most criticized ingredient in the United States, prompting manufacturers to seek healthier alternatives due to consumers’ increasing preference for sweetness. How do natural sweeteners compare? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average American consumes nearly 23 teaspoons of added sugar daily, with the majority (71%) sourced from processed foods. Excessive added sugar can negatively impact heart health and contribute to weight gain, making this consumption level far from optimal. The American Heart Association suggests a daily limit of just nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, the message seems to resonate, as 84% of Americans report trying to reduce their sugar intake, according to Mintel, and 79% actively check labels to identify sugar types or sweeteners used. While sugar remains the most popular sweetener, sales dropped by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
An increasing number of consumers are seeking natural alternatives, although the transition to different sweeteners can be challenging for manufacturers. A recent Mintel report notes, “Natural sugar substitutes seem like a promising area; however, manufacturers may encounter growing pains in settling on acceptable price points.” Although 26% of consumers desire more food and drink products featuring naturally sourced sugar substitutes, only a small fraction is willing to pay a premium for these options.
Natural sweeteners like coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often promoted as healthier alternatives to conventional refined sugar due to their perceived natural or nutritional benefits. However, despite containing some trace minerals, they offer limited health advantages, as they are still classified as added sugars in both nutritional and labeling terms and can cause tooth decay like refined sugar. Nonetheless, honey has seen a remarkable surge in sales, buoyed by its natural health image; Mintel found that three-quarters of respondents consider honey a healthy sweetener. While sales of syrups and molasses fell by 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey sales increased by 54% during the same period.
Many alternative sweeteners have a lower glycemic index than sugar, making them preferable for diabetics due to their slower impact on blood sugar levels. However, they often contain high levels of fructose, which might be detrimental for non-diabetics. Unlike glucose, which nearly all cells can utilize for energy, fructose is metabolized solely in the liver and emerging research indicates it may be more readily converted into fat.
With the introduction of the revamped Nutrition Facts label, which mandates the specific listing of added sugars, food companies now have additional incentive to eliminate caloric sweeteners—even those that are natural. Among low-calorie options, sweeteners used as sugar substitutes are categorized into two main types: bulk and high-intensity. Bulk sweeteners are slightly less sweet than sugar and contain fewer calories, but are used in similar amounts. In contrast, high-intensity sweeteners are utilized in much smaller quantities since they are hundreds of times sweeter than sugar. However, if manufacturers are aiming for natural ingredients, their choices are even more limited.
Naturally derived bulk sweeteners include sugar alcohols, also known as polyols, such as xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, sorbitol, and erythritol. These are derived from plant products and berries through fermentation or other processes. The most well-known naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners are stevia and monk fruit extracts, which are produced through methods involving drying leaves or separating juice.
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, emphasizes the challenges manufacturers face in replacing added sugars. “Replacing added sugars is not a straightforward endeavor,” she shared with FoodDive via email. “High-potency sweeteners, such as stevia and monk fruit extract, allow manufacturers to significantly reduce sugar content without sacrificing taste. However, because these sweetening agents are used in minimal quantities, they do not contribute functional properties, such as bulk and mouthfeel.” She advocates for a blend of sweeteners and fibers to reduce sugar content while replicating the taste and texture consumers expect.
Professor Kathy Groves, who leads science and microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research in the UK, specializes in understanding how ingredients interact to create desired sensory attributes in food and beverages. Despite the growing interest in sugar reduction, she notes that simply removing sugar is not a straightforward process, even if another ingredient can replace its sweetness. “We have been working to demonstrate that it’s not that simple,” she remarked to FoodDive. Sugar serves multiple purposes in food, influencing not only taste but also the structure of cakes and cookies, the snap of chocolate, browning, caramelization, and aroma, as well as how fat is distributed. The rate of sweetness release is also crucial, as it significantly impacts flavor.
In their sugar reduction efforts, Groves’s team typically starts with a full-sugar product, such as a cookie or cake, and analyzes how the components interact. “We now discuss this in a way that resonates with the industry,” she explained. “We refer to it as a blueprinting process, akin to a blueprint for a factory or a house, which details how everything interrelates. We create a technical map of the product as it is traditionally made.” Consumer panels are then asked to share their preferences regarding the standard product, followed by assessments from trained specialists focusing on characteristics like taste, aroma, and texture in precise terms. The team further investigates how the ingredients impact texture, color, and other attributes at a microscopic level before determining which alternative sweeteners could best replicate those properties.
Blending sweeteners is a popular strategy because no alternative perfectly mimics sugar’s taste or behavior. A common combination is stevia and erythritol, where erythritol’s cooling effect is beneficial in sugar-free mints but may be undesirable in products like lemonade; blending with stevia can help mitigate that effect. “Polyols are frequently included in blends, though some, like xylitol, may have a laxative effect. Erythritol, however, does not have that side effect at all, allowing for the possibility of using less xylitol and more erythritol,” Groves explained. “Sweeteners vary in their flavor profiles and intensity, and they can also differ in aftertaste.”
Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, noted that this is another reason for combining stevia and monk fruit. “If you use stevia at a lower concentration to minimize bitterness, you can enhance sweetness with monk fruit,” she told Food Dive. “Some sweeteners are extremely sweet while others have a delayed onset of sweetness. They often exhibit a synergistic effect, making it important to understand the sweetness profile over time rather than just at one moment.”
Combining sweeteners can sometimes yield unexpected results, such as reduced bulk, caramelization, or browning. If the flavor is satisfactory, manufacturers might adjust other processing elements to address these challenges. Solubility can also pose a problem, especially for high-intensity sweeteners; ensuring they are evenly dispersed in a mixture can be difficult due to their minimal usage. Some bulk sweeteners may absorb water, while isomalt does not, making it suitable for hard candies.
Finally, Beeren emphasizes the importance of assessing whether reducing sugar could inadvertently increase the overall calories in the finished product. “When consumers see the label ‘reduced sugar,’ they often assume it also means reduced calories,” she explained. In certain cases, cutting sugar may result in a higher fat proportion by weight, thereby increasing calorie content. “This is often only considered at the end of the process,” she noted.
All alternative natural sweeteners are generally more costly than sugar, compelling manufacturers to weigh whether these additional expenses are justified in the long run. Beyond the higher price of the sweeteners themselves, there are also “hidden costs” associated with reformulating existing products, including costs related to handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring. However, both consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for lower added sugar and a greater interest in natural products. Ultimately, manufacturers must find the balance between cost, naturalness, caloric content, and flavor, and consider how these factors might relate to the intake of nutrients like calcium citrate malate and vitamin D3 during pregnancy as consumers seek healthier alternatives.