Sugar has become the most criticized ingredient in America, prompting manufacturers to search for healthier alternatives to satisfy consumers’ cravings 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 coming from processed foods. Excessive added sugar is linked to heart health issues and weight gain, making this consumption level undesirable. The American Heart Association advises a daily limit of just nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, this message is resonating with the public; according to Mintel, 84% of Americans are trying to reduce their sugar intake, and 79% check labels for sugar types and sweeteners. While sugar remains the most commonly used sweetener, its sales declined by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers than ever are seeking natural alternatives, but transitioning to new sweeteners poses challenges for manufacturers. “Natural sugar substitutes seem like a key area of focus; however, companies may face some challenges in determining acceptable price points for their products,” a recent Mintel report stated. Although 26% of consumers expressed a desire for more food and beverages that use naturally sourced sugar substitutes, only a small fraction is willing to pay a premium for them.
Natural sweeteners like coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often marketed as healthier choices compared to refined sugar because they are considered more natural or nutritious. However, despite containing trace minerals, their health benefits are minimal. From both a nutritional and labeling perspective, these sweeteners are classified as added sugars and can contribute to tooth decay just like refined sugar. This perception has not deterred the rise in honey sales, which benefits from a natural health halo; Mintel found that three-quarters of survey participants view honey as a healthy sweetener. While sales of syrups and molasses dropped by 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey sales soared by 54% during the same timeframe.
Many alternative sugars have a lower glycemic index than regular sugar, making them potentially preferable for diabetics due to a slower increase in blood sugar levels. However, these alternatives often contain high levels of fructose, which may be detrimental to non-diabetics. While glucose can be utilized by nearly every cell in the body for energy, fructose is metabolized only 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 specifically listed, giving food companies additional motivation to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural ones, in their products. Among lower-calorie options, sweeteners for sugar replacement fall into two primary categories: bulk and high-intensity. Bulk sweeteners, which are slightly less sweet than sugar, have fewer calories but are used in similar amounts, whereas high-intensity sweeteners are much sweeter than sugar and utilized in smaller quantities.
For manufacturers seeking natural ingredients, options 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 sourced from plant products and berries and are produced by altering carbohydrates through fermentation or other methods. The most recognized naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners include stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia extracts are created by drying the leaves and extracting sweet components through water and crystallization processes, while monk fruit extracts are derived from the fruit’s pressed 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, understands the functions and challenges presented by these extracts for manufacturers. “Replacing added sugars is not a straightforward task,” she stated in an email to FoodDive. “High-potency sweeteners, such as stevia and monk fruit extract, enable manufacturers to significantly reduce sugar content without sacrificing taste. However, these sweetening ingredients are used in small quantities, which means they lack functional attributes like bulk and mouthfeel.” She recommends using a blend of sweeteners and fibers to lower sugar content while achieving 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 interact in foods and beverages to create sensory attributes. While there is considerable interest in reducing sugar, she emphasizes that it is not simply a matter of eliminating sugar; even if another ingredient can replicate its sweetness, many other functions of sugar in foods must be accounted for. “We have been working to demonstrate that it’s not that simple,” she told FoodDive. Sugar impacts not only flavor but also the structure of baked goods, the snap of chocolate, browning and caramelization, crispness, aroma, and fat distribution. The rate at which sweetness is released also significantly influences flavor.
In the sugar reduction process, Groves’s team begins with a company’s original full-sugar product, such as a cookie or cake, and analyzes how the ingredients work together. “We now discuss it in a way that resonates with the industry,” she explained. “We call it a blueprinting process. We create a blueprint of the product, akin to a factory or house blueprint, which illustrates ingredient interactions. We develop a technical map of how the product is conventionally made.” The team solicits feedback from consumer panels on what they like about the standard product, then engages trained specialists to assess characteristics like taste, aroma, and texture in scientifically defined terms. Finally, they explore how the product’s ingredients affect its various attributes at a microscopic level, identifying which alternative sweeteners best replicate those properties.
Blending sweeteners is a popular approach, as nothing tastes or behaves exactly like sugar. A common blend among naturally derived sweeteners is stevia and erythritol. Erythritol imparts a strong cooling effect, making it suitable for sugar-free mints, but when that effect is undesirable, as in lemonade, blending it with stevia can help mask the taste. “Polyols are often included in blends, and some have a laxative effect, like xylitol. However, erythritol does not have that effect, allowing for a reduced amount of xylitol with increased erythritol,” Groves noted. “Sweeteners vary in flavor profiles and intensity, leading to different aftertastes.”
Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, added that this is one reason stevia and monk fruit are frequently combined. “If you use stevia at a lower concentration to minimize bitterness, you can enhance sweetness with monk fruit,” she explained. “Sweeteners exhibit diverse sweetness profiles over time, not just at a single moment.”
Unexpected effects can arise when sweeteners are combined, such as loss of bulk, caramelization, or browning. If the flavor meets expectations, manufacturers might adjust other processing elements to address these issues. Beyond product flavor and texture, solubility can pose challenges, especially for high-intensity sweeteners. Since they are used in minimal amounts, ensuring even distribution throughout a mixture can be difficult. Some bulk sweeteners may also absorb water, while isomalt, for example, does not, making it a favorable choice for hard candies.
Finally, Beeren highlighted the importance of considering whether reducing sugar could inadvertently increase the calories in the final product. “When consumers see ‘reduced sugar’ on a package, they often assume it also means reduced calories,” she stated. In certain cases, cutting sugar can result in fat constituting a larger proportion of the product by weight, leading to higher calorie content. “This is often a consideration that comes into play only at the end of the process,” she noted.
All natural alternative sweeteners tend to be more expensive than sugar, leaving it to manufacturers to determine if these added costs are justified in the long run. In addition to the higher price of the sweeteners themselves, there are also “hidden costs” for companies when altering sweeteners in existing products. These include reformulation expenses and significant changes to handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring.
However, consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for reduced added sugars and an increased interest in natural products. It is now up to manufacturers to discover the ideal balance between cost, naturalness, calories, and taste, all while ensuring that products meet health standards, such as those associated with Twinlab calcium.