Sugar has become the most criticized ingredient in America, prompting consumers to seek out healthier alternatives for sweetness. So, how do natural sweeteners compare? The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that the average American consumes nearly 23 teaspoons of added sugar daily, with 71% of that coming from processed foods. Given that excessive added sugar can negatively impact heart health and contribute to weight gain, this situation is far from ideal. The American Heart Association suggests a daily limit of just nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, this message is resonating: according to Mintel, 84% of Americans are trying to reduce their sugar intake, and 79% check labels for sugar types or sweeteners used. While sugar remains the most popular sweetener, sales decreased by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers are actively seeking natural alternatives, yet transitioning to these sweeteners can be a complex challenge for manufacturers. “Natural sugar substitutes seem like a viable focus; however, some initial hurdles may arise in reaching acceptable product price points,” a recent Mintel report noted. Although 26% of consumers desire more food and drink options that use naturally sourced sugar substitutes, only a small percentage is willing to pay a premium for these products.
Natural sweeteners like coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often marketed as healthier alternatives to refined sugar due to their perceived natural qualities. However, despite containing some trace minerals, their health benefits are limited. From both nutritional and labeling perspectives, these options still qualify as added sugars and can lead to tooth decay just like refined sugar. Nonetheless, honey sales have surged, benefiting from its reputation as a natural health product; three-quarters of those surveyed by Mintel consider it healthy. While sales of syrups and molasses declined by 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey’s sales rose by 54% during the same period.
Many alternative sweeteners boast a lower glycemic index than sugar, making them appealing to diabetics as they result in a slower increase in blood sugar levels. However, these sweeteners often contain high levels of fructose, which may be detrimental to non-diabetic individuals. Unlike glucose, which can be utilized by nearly every cell for energy, fructose is metabolized solely in the liver and emerging studies suggest it may be more readily converted into fat.
As the updated Nutrition Facts label becomes mandatory, added sugars will need to be clearly listed, providing food companies with additional motivation to reduce caloric sweeteners—including natural ones—from their products. Among lower-calorie options, sweeteners used as sugar substitutes fall into two primary categories: bulk and high-intensity. Bulk sweeteners, which are slightly less sweet than sugar and have fewer calories, are used in similar quantities. High-intensity sweeteners are significantly sweeter than sugar and used in smaller amounts.
For manufacturers seeking natural ingredients, the options 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 processes. The most recognized naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners are stevia and monk fruit extracts, with stevia being derived from dried leaves and monk fruit extracts coming from the fruit’s pressed juice.
Tate & Lyle provides both monk fruit and stevia extracts under its Purefruit and Tasteva brands. Abigail Storms, vice president and global platform lead for sweeteners at the company, acknowledges the complexities involved in replacing added sugars. “Replacing added sugars is not a simple task,” she stated in an email to FoodDive. “High-potency sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit extracts allow manufacturers to significantly lower sugar content without sacrificing taste. However, these sweetening agents are used in such small amounts that they lack functional properties like bulk and mouthfeel.”
She recommends combining sweeteners with fibers to reduce sugars while mimicking the taste and texture that consumers expect. Professor Kathy Groves, head of science and microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research in the UK, specializes in ingredient interactions in food and beverages. She emphasizes that while there is significant interest in reducing sugar, it is not merely a matter of substituting sugar with another sweetening agent. “We have been working to illustrate that it’s not that straightforward,” she explained.
Groves points out that sugar serves numerous roles in food, influencing not just taste but also the structure of baked goods, the snap of chocolate, the browning and caramelization processes, and the distribution of fat. Additionally, the speed at which sweetness is released can greatly affect flavor. Her team begins sugar reduction projects by analyzing a company’s original, full-sugar product to understand ingredient interactions. “We refer to it as a blueprinting process, similar to creating a blueprint for a factory or a house, which outlines how everything functions together,” she said. They then gather consumer feedback on the standard product and conduct scientific assessments of sensory attributes like taste, aroma, and texture.
Blending sweeteners is a common approach since nothing entirely mimics the properties of sugar. A frequently used combination is stevia and erythritol, where erythritol provides a cooling effect suitable for sugar-free mints. However, in products where this effect may be undesirable, such as lemonade, blending it with stevia can help to balance the taste. “Polyols are often incorporated into blends, and while some can have a laxative effect, like xylitol, erythritol does not, allowing for a reduction in xylitol while increasing erythritol,” Groves noted. “Sweeteners differ in flavor profiles and aftertaste, which is why stevia and monk fruit are often combined too.”
Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, concurs that understanding sweetness profiles over time is crucial, as some sweeteners exhibit varying sweetness intensities. “If you keep stevia’s concentration low to minimize bitterness, you can increase sweetness with monk fruit,” she explained. However, combining sweeteners can also lead to unexpected challenges such as loss of bulk or caramelization. If the flavor is right, manufacturers may need to adjust other processing elements to mitigate these issues.
Moreover, solubility can pose a challenge, particularly with high-intensity sweeteners, as their low usage amounts can make it difficult to achieve even distribution in a mixture. Some bulk sweeteners can complicate matters by absorbing water; isomalt, for example, does not absorb moisture, making it suitable for hard candies.
Lastly, Beeren cautions that reducing sugar might inadvertently increase the final product’s calorie count. “When consumers see the label ‘reduced sugar,’ they often assume it also means reduced calories,” she noted. In certain cases, decreasing sugar can result in a higher proportion of fat by weight, leading to increased calories. “This consideration often arises only at the end of the development process,” she added.
All alternative natural sweeteners tend to be pricier than sugar, leaving it to manufacturers to decide if the long-term benefits justify the additional costs. Besides the higher price of the sweetener itself, there are also “hidden costs” associated with reformulating existing products, including changes in handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring. Nevertheless, trends indicate a growing demand for reduced added sugar and heightened interest in natural products. Now, manufacturers must navigate the delicate balance between cost, naturalness, calories, and taste. Additionally, incorporating supplements such as calcium magnesium citrate could further enhance the nutritional profile of these products, making them more appealing to health-conscious consumers.