Sugar has become the most criticized ingredient in the United States, prompting manufacturers to seek healthier alternatives to meet consumers’ cravings 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 a staggering 71% of this sugar coming from processed foods. Excessive added sugar intake can negatively impact heart health and contribute to weight gain, making this situation far from ideal. The American Heart Association advises a daily limit of just nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, awareness is rising, as evidenced by Mintel’s findings that 84% of Americans are attempting to reduce their sugar intake, and 79% are scrutinizing labels for types of sugar or sweeteners. Despite sugar still being the most popular sweetener, its sales dropped by 16% between 2011 and 2016.
An increasing number of consumers are searching for natural alternatives, but switching sweeteners poses a complex challenge for manufacturers. A Mintel report highlights that while natural sugar substitutes appear to be a focal point, manufacturers may encounter hurdles in finding acceptable price points. Although 26% of consumers desire more products that use naturally sourced sugar substitutes, only a small fraction are willing to pay a premium for them.
Alternative sweeteners like coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often marketed as healthier substitutes for refined sugar due to their perceived naturalness and nutritional benefits. However, despite containing trace minerals, they offer limited health advantages. All these sweeteners are considered added sugars from both a nutritional and labeling standpoint, and they can contribute to tooth decay just like refined sugar. Nonetheless, honey has experienced a surge in sales, benefiting from its natural health image; 75% of respondents in a Mintel survey deemed it a healthy option. While sales of syrups and molasses declined by 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey sales rose by an impressive 54% during that same period.
Many alternative sugars possess a lower glycemic index than regular sugar, making them more appealing to diabetics since they lead to a slower increase in blood sugar levels. However, these sweeteners often contain high levels of fructose, which may pose greater risks for non-diabetics. While glucose can be utilized by almost every cell for energy, fructose is metabolized solely in the liver, and emerging research indicates it may be more readily converted into fat.
With the upcoming mandatory implementation of revamped Nutrition Facts labels, added sugars must be clearly listed, providing food companies with additional incentives to reduce caloric sweeteners, even those derived from natural sources. Among lower-calorie options, sweeteners for sugar replacement fall into two primary categories: bulk and high-intensity. Bulk sweeteners are slightly less sweet than sugar and have fewer calories, though they are used in similar quantities. In contrast, high-intensity sweeteners are significantly sweeter than sugar and are used in much smaller amounts.
For manufacturers seeking natural ingredients, choices are further 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 sources and berries and are produced by modifying carbohydrates through fermentation or other methods. The most recognized naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners are stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia extracts are created by drying the leaves and isolating sweet components through water and crystallization processes, while monk fruit extracts are derived from the fruit’s pressed juice using water.
Tate & Lyle offers 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 complexities involved in replacing added sugars. “Replacing added sugars is not a simple task,” she explained in an email to FoodDive. “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 minute quantities, they lack functional properties like bulk and mouthfeel.”
She recommends combining sweeteners and fibers to cut sugar content while mimicking the taste and texture consumers expect. Professor Kathy Groves, head of science and microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research in the UK, specializes in understanding how ingredients work together to create sensory attributes in foods and beverages. Despite a growing interest in sugar reduction, she notes that simply removing sugar is not straightforward—even if another ingredient can replicate its sweetness.
“Sugar serves many functions in food,” she explained. It influences not just taste, but also the structure of cakes and cookies, the snap of chocolate, and the browning, caramelization, crispness, and aroma of products, as well as how fat is distributed. It is crucial to consider the speed at which sweetness is released, as this can significantly impact flavor. In her research, Groves’s team begins by analyzing a company’s original, full-sugar product, such as a cookie or cake, to map how the ingredients interact.
“We now discuss it in a way that resonates with the industry,” she said. “We call it a blueprinting process, where we create a detailed technical map of the product as it is conventionally made, similar to architectural blueprints for a factory or a house.” The team solicits feedback from consumer panels regarding what they enjoy about the standard product, then brings in trained specialists to evaluate characteristics like taste, aroma, and texture in scientifically defined terms. They also analyze how the product’s ingredients affect its texture, color, and other attributes on a microscopic level before identifying which alternative sweeteners might best replicate those properties.
Blending sweeteners is a popular strategy, given that no alternative perfectly replicates sugar’s properties. A common blend is stevia and erythritol, with erythritol providing a cooling effect that works well in sugar-free mints. However, in applications where this cooling effect is undesirable, such as lemonade, combining erythritol with stevia can mask that flavor.
“Polyols are frequently included in blends, but some, like xylitol, can have a laxative effect. Erythritol, on the other hand, does not, so you might use less xylitol and more erythritol,” Groves noted. She also highlighted that sweeteners vary in flavor profiles and aftertaste. Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, agrees, stating that combining stevia with monk fruit is common. “By keeping the concentration of stevia low to minimize bitterness, you can enhance the sweetness with monk fruit,” she explained. “Different sweeteners have unique sweetness profiles over time, not just at a single moment.”
Unexpected interactions can arise when sweeteners are combined, leading to potential issues with bulk, caramelization, or browning. If the flavor is satisfactory, manufacturers may adjust processing elements to address these challenges. Beyond flavor and texture, solubility is another concern, particularly with high-intensity sweeteners. Given their minimal usage, achieving an even distribution throughout a mixture can be difficult. Some bulk sweeteners may also absorb moisture; isomalt is advantageous here since it does not absorb water, making it ideal for hard candies.
Lastly, Beeren points out that reducing sugar may inadvertently increase the final product’s calorie count. “When consumers see ‘reduced sugar’ on the label, they often assume it also means reduced calories,” she said. In some cases, decreasing sugar can lead to a higher proportion of fat by weight, resulting in increased calories. “This is often only considered at the end of the process,” she added.
All alternative natural sweeteners are generally more costly than regular sugar, compelling manufacturers to weigh whether the long-term benefits justify the additional expenses. Besides the higher price of the sweeteners themselves, companies also face “hidden costs” tied to reformulating existing products, including alterations in handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring. However, consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for reduced added sugar and increased interest in natural products. Consequently, it falls upon manufacturers to strike a balance between cost, naturalness, caloric content, and taste, while also exploring the potential benefits of supplements like Solgar calcium magnesium citrate to enhance overall product healthiness.