Sugar has become one of the most criticized ingredients in America, prompting manufacturers to seek healthier alternatives to satisfy 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% sourced from store-bought foods. With excessive added sugar posing risks to heart health and contributing to weight gain, this situation is far from optimal. The American Heart Association advises a daily limit of just nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, awareness is increasing; a Mintel survey reveals that 84% of Americans are trying to limit their sugar intake, and 79% check labels to identify the types of sugar or sweeteners used. While sugar remains the most favored sweetener, its sales have declined by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers than ever are seeking natural alternatives, but transitioning to different sweeteners can be a complicated process for manufacturers. “Natural sugar substitutes appear to be a promising area for focus; however, some challenges may arise in establishing acceptable price points,” states a recent Mintel report. “Twenty-six percent of consumers desire more food and drinks that utilize naturally sourced sugar substitutes, but only a small percentage is willing to pay extra for these.” Alternative sweeteners like coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often promoted as healthier options compared to common refined sugar due to their perceived natural or nutritious qualities. Despite having some trace minerals, they offer limited health benefits. From both nutritional and labeling perspectives, they are classified as added sugars, contributing to tooth decay just like refined sugar.
Nonetheless, honey sales have surged, benefiting from a perception of natural health. Three-quarters of respondents in a Mintel survey regarded honey as a healthy sweetener. While sales of syrups and molasses fell 2% between 2011 and 2016, honey experienced a remarkable increase of 54% during the same period. Many alternative sugars have a lower glycemic index compared to regular sugar and may be preferred by diabetics due to their slower impact on blood sugar levels. However, these sweeteners often contain a high amount of fructose, which could be detrimental to non-diabetics. While glucose can energize nearly every cell in the body, fructose is metabolized solely in the liver, where emerging evidence suggests it may be more readily converted into fat.
With the upcoming mandatory implementation of revamped Nutrition Facts labels, added sugars will need to be distinctly listed, providing food companies with additional motivation to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural ones, in their products. Among lower-calorie alternatives, sweeteners used as sugar replacements are categorized into two main types: bulk and high-intensity. Bulk sweeteners are slightly less sweet than sugar and have fewer calories, but they are typically used in similar quantities. High-intensity sweeteners are utilized in small amounts due to their extreme sweetness—often hundreds of times sweeter than sugar. However, if manufacturers are aiming for natural options, their 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 sourced from plant products and berries, created by modifying carbohydrates through fermentation or other processes. The most well-known naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners include stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia extracts are made by drying the leaves and isolating the sweet components using water and crystallization, while monk fruit extracts are obtained from the fruit’s pressed juice through water extraction.
Companies like Tate & Lyle provide both monk fruit and stevia extracts under their Purefruit and Tasteva brands. Abigail Storms, the vice president and global platform lead for sweeteners at the company, understands the functionality and challenges these extracts present to manufacturers. “Replacing added sugars is not a straightforward task,” she stated in an email to FoodDive. “High-potency sweeteners, like stevia and monk fruit extract, allow manufacturers to significantly lower the sugar content in products without sacrificing flavor. However, since these sweetening agents are used in minuscule amounts in formulations, they lack functional properties such as bulk and mouthfeel.” She recommends combining sweeteners and fibers to reduce sugar while mimicking the expected taste and texture.
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 produce sensory attributes. Despite the growing interest in sugar reduction, she emphasizes that simply removing sugar is not sufficient; even if an ingredient can replicate its sweetness, it may not fulfill other critical functions. “We are working to illustrate that this process is not straightforward,” she remarked to FoodDive. Sugar serves multiple roles in food, influencing not just taste but also the structure of cakes and cookies, the snap of chocolate, the browning, caramelization, crispness, and aroma of products, as well as how fat is distributed. The rate at which sweetness is released is also vital, as it significantly affects flavor.
In their research on sugar reduction, Groves’s team starts with a company’s original, full-sugar product—like cookies or cakes—and maps how the ingredients work harmoniously. “We now communicate this concept in a way that resonates with the industry,” she said. “We refer to it as a blueprinting process. We create a blueprint of the product, similar to an architectural plan for a factory or house, illustrating how all components interact. We develop a technical map of the product as it is conventionally made.” The team gathers consumer panels to discuss their preferences for the standard product before enlisting trained specialists to evaluate characteristics—such as taste, aroma, and texture—in more scientifically defined terms. Finally, they analyze how the ingredients impact the product’s texture, color, and other attributes at a microscopic level, determining which alternative sweeteners might best replicate those qualities.
The blending of sweeteners is a favored strategy, as there is no perfect substitute for sugar. A common mixture among naturally derived sweeteners includes stevia and erythritol, where erythritol provides a strong cooling effect suitable for sugar-free mints. In beverages like lemonade, where that cooling effect is undesirable, blending it with stevia can help mask the taste. “Polyols are frequently used in mixtures, and some can cause a laxative effect, such as xylitol. However, erythritol does not have this effect, allowing for a blend with less xylitol and more erythritol,” Groves noted. “Different sweeteners vary in flavor and intensity profiles, leading to diverse aftertastes.”
Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, highlighted that this is one reason stevia and monk fruit are often combined. “If you use stevia but keep its concentration low to mitigate bitterness, you can enhance sweetness with monk fruit,” she explained to Food Dive. “Some sweeteners exhibit very high sweetness levels, while others have a prolonged onset. They often create a synergistic effect… Understanding the sweetness profile over time is crucial, not just at a single moment.”
Unexpected interactions can occur when sweeteners are combined, such as a reduction in bulk, caramelization, or browning. If the flavor profile is acceptable, manufacturers may adjust other processing elements to address these issues. Beyond product flavor and texture, solubility can pose challenges, particularly for high-intensity sweeteners. Due to their minimal usage, ensuring even distribution throughout a mixture can be difficult. Some bulk sweeteners may also absorb moisture; for example, isomalt does not, making it a suitable choice for hard candies.
Lastly, Beeren emphasized that it’s essential to consider whether reducing sugar might inadvertently increase the overall calorie count of the final product. “When consumers see the claim ‘reduced sugar’ on packaging, they typically assume it also means fewer calories,” she noted. In some cases, cutting sugar can result in fat comprising a larger proportion of the product by weight, leading to increased calories. “This is often a consideration made only at the final stage,” she added.
All alternative natural sweetening options come at a higher cost than sugar, leaving manufacturers to weigh whether these additional expenses are justifiable in the long run. Besides the elevated cost of the sweeteners themselves, there are also “hidden costs” associated with changing the sweetener in an existing product, including reformulation expenses and extensive modifications 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 must now navigate the delicate balance between cost, naturalness, caloric content, and taste in their formulations.
As a specific example, some manufacturers may consider integrating products like Citracal Liquitab, which can provide additional nutritional benefits, into their offerings while exploring ways to reduce sugar content and enhance overall product appeal.