Sugar has become one of the most criticized ingredients in the United States, yet consumers’ craving for sweetness has prompted manufacturers to seek out healthier substitutes. How do natural sweeteners compare in this context? 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 coming from processed foods. This is concerning, as excessive added sugar can negatively impact heart health and contribute to weight gain. The American Heart Association advises a daily limit of only nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, awareness appears to be increasing; a Mintel report indicates that 84% of Americans are trying to reduce their sugar intake, and 79% are vigilant about checking product labels for sugar types and sweeteners. Despite sugar’s status as the favored sweetener, sales have dropped by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers are actively seeking natural alternatives, which poses a challenge for manufacturers in terms of reformulating their products. “Natural sugar substitutes seem like a promising area; however, there may be some initial hurdles in reaching acceptable price points,” a recent Mintel report noted. While 26% of consumers express a desire for more food and drink options using naturally sourced sugar substitutes, only a small fraction is willing to pay a premium for them. Alternatives such as coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often marketed as healthier choices compared to refined sugar due to their perceived natural benefits. However, while they may contain some trace minerals, they still qualify as added sugars in terms of nutrition and labeling, and can contribute to tooth decay just like refined sugar.
Despite this, honey sales have surged, benefiting from a reputation for natural healthiness; according to Mintel, three-quarters of respondents consider it a healthy choice. While syrup and molasses sales fell by 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey sales increased by 54% during the same timeframe. Many alternative sweeteners have a lower glycemic index than traditional sugar, making them appealing for diabetics due to their slower effect on blood sugar levels. However, they often contain high amounts of fructose, which could potentially be more harmful for non-diabetics. Unlike glucose, which is utilized by nearly every body cell for energy, fructose is metabolized only in the liver and emerging studies suggest it may be more readily converted into fat.
With the upcoming mandatory Nutrition Facts label updates, added sugars must be explicitly listed, motivating food companies to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural variants, in their products. Among lower-calorie substitutes, sweeteners are generally categorized into bulk and high-intensity types. Bulk sweeteners, which are slightly less sweet than sugar, are used in similar volumes, while high-intensity sweeteners are hundreds of times sweeter and used in minute quantities. For manufacturers pursuing natural ingredients, options become even more limited.
Naturally derived bulk sweeteners encompass sugar alcohols, or polyols, such as xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, sorbitol, and erythritol, derived from plant sources and berries through fermentation or other processes. The most recognized high-intensity natural sweeteners include stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia is obtained by drying leaves and extracting the sweet components through water and crystallization, while monk fruit extracts come from the fruit’s pressed juice.
Tate & Lyle markets 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 complexities involved in replacing added sugars. “Replacing added sugars is not a straightforward task,” she stated in an email to FoodDive. “High-potency sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit extracts allow manufacturers to significantly reduce sugar content without sacrificing flavor. However, because these sweeteners are used in such small amounts, they do not contribute functional qualities like bulk and mouthfeel.” To bridge this gap, she recommends combining sweeteners with fibers to replicate the taste and texture consumers expect.
Professor Kathy Groves, head of science and microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research in the UK, specializes in ingredient interactions that create sensory attributes in food and beverages. She emphasizes that reducing sugar is not merely about substituting sweetness; even if another ingredient can replicate sweetness, sugar serves multiple functions in products. “Sugar influences taste, texture, browning, caramelization, and the distribution of fat,” she noted. Her team starts with a full-sugar product, such as a cookie, mapping how ingredients work together.
“We now approach this in a way that resonates with the industry,” she explained. “We call it blueprinting, creating a technical map of the product similar to architectural blueprints for a factory or house.” Consumer panels provide feedback on what they enjoy about the original product, while trained specialists evaluate characteristics like taste, aroma, and texture in scientific terms. They also analyze how ingredients affect texture, color, and other properties at a microscopic level, ultimately identifying which alternative sweeteners may best mimic those characteristics.
Blending sweeteners is a preferred strategy since no alternative perfectly emulates sugar. A common blend involves stevia and erythritol, where erythritol’s cooling effect works well in sugar-free mints, while blending it with stevia helps mask undesirable flavors in products such as lemonade. “Polyols often feature in blends, although some induce a laxative effect, like xylitol. Erythritol, however, doesn’t have that issue, allowing for a balanced mix,” Groves noted. “Sweeteners vary not only in flavor and intensity but also in aftertaste.”
Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, points out that this is why stevia and monk fruit are frequently combined. “By using a lower concentration of stevia to minimize bitterness, you can enhance sweetness with monk fruit,” she explained. “Sweeteners differ significantly in their sweetness onset and intensity, often creating a synergistic effect. It’s crucial to understand the sweetness profile over time, not just at a single moment.”
Unexpected outcomes can arise from combining sweeteners, such as losing bulk or affecting caramelization and browning. If the flavor aligns, manufacturers may adjust processing elements to address these issues. Additionally, solubility can pose challenges, especially for high-intensity sweeteners, as their minimal usage makes it difficult to ensure even distribution throughout a mixture. Some bulk sweeteners may absorb water, complicating matters; isomalt, for instance, does not absorb water well, making it suitable for hard candies.
Finally, Beeren emphasizes that reducing sugar could inadvertently increase the calories in the final product. “When consumers see ‘reduced sugar’ on packaging, they naturally assume it implies fewer calories,” she noted. However, in some cases, cutting sugar can result in a higher proportion of fat by weight, leading to increased calories. “This consideration often emerges only at the final stages of development,” she added.
All alternative natural sweeteners tend to be pricier than sugar, leaving manufacturers to weigh whether these extra costs are justified in the long run. In addition to the higher price of the sweeteners themselves, there are “hidden costs” associated with reformulating existing products, including costs related to reformulation and significant adjustments to handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring. Nevertheless, consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for reduced added sugar and increased interest in natural products. Manufacturers now face the challenge of striking a balance between cost, naturalness, calories, and taste. In this evolving landscape, the integration of calcium citrate vitamin D3 magnesium hydroxide & zinc sulfate tablets into health-conscious formulations may also gain traction, as consumers increasingly look for comprehensive health benefits alongside their sweetening needs.