Sugar has gained a notorious reputation in the United States, prompting consumers to seek healthier alternatives for sweetness. 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 derived from processed foods. This is concerning, as excessive added sugar intake 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, awareness is increasing; a Mintel survey shows that 84% of Americans are trying to limit their sugar intake, and 79% read labels to identify the types of sugars or sweeteners included. Although sugar remains the most commonly used sweetener, its sales declined by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers are now searching for natural alternatives, but transitioning to new sweeteners poses challenges for manufacturers. A recent Mintel report noted, “Natural sugar substitutes seem like a place to focus efforts; however, some growing pains may be experienced while landing on acceptable product price points.” While 26% of consumers express a desire for more foods and beverages made with naturally sourced sugar substitutes, only a small fraction is willing to pay a premium for these options.
Natural sweeteners such as coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often marketed as healthier alternatives to refined sugar due to their perceived naturalness or nutritional value. Despite containing some trace minerals, their health benefits are minimal. All of these options are categorized as added sugars from both a nutritional and labeling perspective, and they can lead to tooth decay just like refined sugar. Nevertheless, honey has experienced a sales surge, benefiting from its “natural health halo,” with three-quarters of Mintel respondents considering it a healthy choice. While sales of syrups and molasses fell 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey sales soared by 54% during the same period.
Some alternative sweeteners do feature a lower glycemic index, making them appealing to diabetics due to their slower impact on blood sugar levels. However, they often contain high fructose levels, which may actually be more detrimental to non-diabetics. While glucose can be utilized for energy by nearly every cell in the body, fructose is metabolized exclusively in the liver, and emerging research suggests it may be more readily converted into fat.
With the upcoming mandatory Nutrition Facts label revisions, added sugars will need to be explicitly listed, motivating food companies to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural ones. Low-calorie sweeteners are generally divided into two categories: bulk and high-intensity. Bulk sweeteners are slightly less sweet than sugar and have fewer calories but are used in similar amounts, while high-intensity sweeteners are hundreds of times sweeter and used in much smaller quantities. However, manufacturers seeking natural ingredients face further limitations.
Naturally derived bulk sweeteners include sugar alcohols, also known as polyols, such as xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, sorbitol, and erythritol. These are derived from plants and fruits and are produced by modifying carbohydrates through fermentation and other techniques. The most recognized naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners are stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia is made by drying leaves and separating the sweet components through crystallization, while monk fruit extract is derived from the fruit’s pressed juice.
Tate & Lyle produces 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 manufacturers face when replacing added sugars. “Replacing added sugars is not a simple task,” she explained to 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 sweeteners are used in such small amounts, they lack functional attributes like bulk and mouthfeel.”
To address this, she recommends combining sweeteners with fibers to reduce 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 how ingredients work together to create sensory attributes in foods and beverages. While the interest in sugar reduction is high, she cautions that simply removing sugar is not straightforward, even if another ingredient can replicate its sweetness.
Sugar plays multiple roles in food, affecting taste, structure, browning, caramelization, and aroma, as well as how fat is distributed. The rate of sweetness release also significantly impacts flavor. Groves’s team analyzes a company’s original full-sugar products, like cookies or cakes, to understand how the ingredients interact. They use a “blueprinting process” to create a technical map of the product’s conventional formulation. Consumer panels provide feedback on what they like about the standard product, while trained specialists assess characteristics like taste, aroma, and texture in more scientific terms. They then investigate how ingredient combinations affect texture, color, and other attributes at a microscopic level before identifying suitable alternative sweeteners.
Blending sweeteners is a popular strategy because no substitute behaves exactly like sugar. A common mix is stevia and erythritol, where erythritol’s cooling effect works well in sugar-free mints, but can be undesirable in beverages like lemonade, where blending it with stevia helps mitigate that flavor. “Polyols are often used in blends, and some have a laxative effect, such as xylitol. However, erythritol does not, allowing for a reduction in xylitol and an increase in erythritol,” noted Groves.
Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, added that this is why stevia and monk fruit are often used together. “By using a low concentration of stevia to minimize bitterness, you can enhance sweetness with monk fruit,” she explained. “Different sweeteners have varying sweetness profiles, and understanding their synergies over time is crucial.”
Combining sweeteners can sometimes lead to unexpected issues, such as loss of bulk or caramelization, but manufacturers may adjust processing methods to address these challenges. Beyond flavor and texture, solubility can also be problematic, particularly for high-intensity sweeteners, as their small quantities can make even distribution difficult. Some bulk sweeteners may absorb water, while isomalt does not, making it suitable for hard candies.
Finally, Beeren emphasized the need to consider whether reducing sugar might inadvertently increase the calorie content of the final product. “When consumers see ‘reduced sugar’ on a label, they often assume it means reduced calories,” she said. In some cases, decreasing sugar can result in a higher percentage of fat in the product, raising calorie counts—a consideration that is frequently overlooked until the end of the formulation process.
All alternative natural sweeteners tend to be more expensive than sugar, leaving manufacturers to weigh whether the added costs are justified in the long run. Beyond the higher cost of sweeteners, there are also “hidden costs” associated with reformulating existing products, including adjustments to handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring. However, consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for reduced added sugars and increased interest in natural products. It is now up to manufacturers to strike a balance among cost, naturalness, caloric content, and taste, potentially integrating beneficial supplements like Solgar calcium vitamin D for added nutritional value.