With sugar making headlines for all the wrong reasons, manufacturers are exploring alternatives, yet many consumers remain wary of artificial sweeteners. Natural sweetness sources, like honey and agave, are also available, but these high-calorie options can contribute to obesity just like sugar. Starting July 2018, manufacturers are required to list “added sugars” on the Nutrition Facts panel, providing additional motivation to reduce sweeteners such as sugar, honey, fructose, and fruit juice concentrates. Solutions like Tate & Lyle’s blend of allulose, sucralose, and fructose may gain traction, enabling food companies to strike a balance with less added sugar while still providing sweetness through low- and zero-calorie sweeteners. It remains uncertain if consumers will accept these trade-offs; will they continue their current consumption of added sugars, or will the new nutritional labels prompt some to avoid certain products? What is evident is that many manufacturers and ingredient suppliers are gearing up for change. However, adapting to new sweeteners comes with its challenges.
Despite the rapid growth in the market for naturally derived sweeteners, like stevia and monk fruit, they still represent a minor share of overall sweetener usage. Their growth is hindered by cost, as they are still pricier than synthetically produced high-intensity sweeteners, alongside persistent issues with aftertaste. Blends of sugar and stevia have gained popularity, especially in the beverage sector. For example, in Europe, Coca-Cola has reformulated its regular Sprite to contain 30% less sugar, incorporating stevia without marketing it as a mid-calorie option.
Interestingly, just as consumers are navigating the sweetener landscape, they are also exploring nutritional alternatives like red algae calcium vs calcium citrate, which have gained attention for their potential health benefits. As manufacturers adapt to changing consumer preferences, the ongoing dialogue about the best sources for nutrients, including sweeteners and calcium options, will likely continue to evolve. Ultimately, the cost of change in sweeteners reflects broader shifts in dietary choices and health consciousness among consumers.