In the contemporary food and beverage landscape, sugar has become one of the most significant outcasts. Once cherished for its versatility — aiding in cake rising, caramelizing crusts and sauces, and, of course, providing delightful sweetness — an increasing number of health-conscious consumers are turning away from this staple in favor of healthier alternatives. A survey conducted by Label Insight reveals that 22% of U.S. consumers aim to limit their sugar consumption. Sarah Schmansky, vice president of Nielsen’s fresh and health wellness division, informed Food Dive that half of consumers plan to achieve this by opting for products labeled “no sugar added” this year. Additionally, synthetic options are also facing scrutiny. “More than half of consumers were avoiding artificial sweeteners in 2017,” she noted. Schmansky added that products claiming “no artificial sweeteners” experienced a 9% growth with a five-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR), while sales of food and beverage items containing zero-calorie sweeteners without artificial additives surged by 16% in 2017. This shift in consumer behavior, combined with the FDA’s inclusion of added sugars in the 2020 Nutrition Facts panel update, is prompting manufacturers to seek natural alternatives for sweetening.
In recent years, a range of solutions has emerged, from familiar caloric ingredients like honey and agave nectar to non-caloric options like stevia, each presenting unique advantages and challenges for formulators. As the quest to replace sugar accelerates, the estimated $16 billion to $20 billion market for sugar alternatives still offers ample opportunities for innovation. Analysts and ingredient producers have identified several standout natural sweeteners. The pressing question remains: which of these will dominate the market, and why?
Although consumer interest in naturally-sweetened products has surged in recent years, manufacturers have been experimenting with stevia since the 1990s. According to Mintel, the proportion of products launched containing stevia increased by over 13% in the second quarter of 2017 compared to the previous year. By August of that year, nearly 27% of products using high-intensity sweeteners included stevia. This natural sweetener, derived from a Brazilian plant, is reported to be 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar, depending on its grade, and can be utilized in a variety of products from soft drinks and juices to snacks. However, Thom King, founder and CEO of Icon Foods — a company specializing in natural, clean-label ingredients — believes that stevia’s long history may actually hinder its popularity. “Stevia has been around for a while, and many early adopters did not use it correctly,” King explained to Food Dive. “This has led to a consumer perception that it has a bitter aftertaste.”
That undesirable flavor — often compared to metal and licorice — is stevia’s biggest drawback. While producers have worked to enhance the taste profile of stevia extracts, it cannot fully replace sugar due to its strong flavor. Instead, manufacturers can incorporate stevia to lower sugar levels, provided it is blended with a masking agent like erythritol (a zero-calorie sugar alcohol) or monk fruit. King also pointed out that stevia does not participate in the Maillard reaction, the chemical process that caramelizes food and aids in leavening. David Thorrold, general manager of sales and marketing at The Monk Fruit Corp., mentioned that a significant issue for stevia is the association consumers have formed between stevia-sweetened products and an unpleasant aftertaste. “Consumers are less inclined to purchase products sweetened with stevia,” Thorrold asserted. Nevertheless, stevia benefits from a well-established supply chain, low cost, and easy sourcing — advantages that many competitors lack. This versatility is evident in the research and development efforts of major brands like PepsiCo, DanoneWave, Kraft Heinz, and Nestlé.
Late last year, Coca-Cola announced the creation of a stevia-sweetened soda that boasts zero sugar, zero calories, and no bitter aftertaste. The beverage giant plans to launch this drink in a small market outside the U.S. early this year. Continued investments in stevia by major food companies are expected as producers refine their blends. Meanwhile, monk fruit, a natural sweetener that is less sweet than stevia and more costly to produce, is steadily gaining market share. Since its FDA approval, over 2,000 products featuring monk fruit have emerged, according to Thorrold. “Monk fruit is poised to play a significant role in the sugar reduction narrative for the next decade, if not longer,” he stated. “In general, monk fruit is easier to formulate with than stevia; it has a more favorable sensory profile and lacks the metallic aftertaste some consumers associate with stevia.”
While monk fruit also does not participate in the Maillard reaction, it benefits from a clean reputation and positive market perception. “Having been in the stevia industry since 1999, we see ongoing growth, but monk fruit is beginning to surpass stevia,” King asserted. “It’s all about market perception — monk fruit is more label-friendly… when consumers see monk fruit on a label, they expect a sweet flavor and don’t have the same concerns about off-flavors.” Nate Yates, business director of natural sweetness innovation at Ingredion, expressed a differing viewpoint. “I believe it’s premature to claim that monk fruit will surpass stevia simply because it is less bitter,” he told Food Dive. “There is a place for multiple sweeteners based on formulations, needs, and the product’s positioning.”
Both sweeteners have unique off-flavors; monk fruit has a taste reminiscent of melon rind. This flavor can be masked with sugar alcohols like erythritol or ingredients like honey or agave, although Thorrold noted that manufacturers often avoid these solutions to keep added sugars low. Despite the rivalry between monk fruit and stevia, these ingredients can complement each other effectively. “In the U.S., about half of the products containing monk fruit also include stevia,” Thorrold revealed. “Stevia and monk fruit work exceptionally well together — the monk fruit market would likely be much smaller without stevia.” He suggested that stevia provides manufacturers with a low-cost option while monk fruit offers superior taste, creating an appealing combination for product developers. Yet, when blended, their contrasting flavors can diminish perceived sweetness.
This challenge hasn’t deterred significant manufacturers from launching monk fruit-centric products, which carry a strong health halo. Recently, Talenti unveiled a new line of gelato sweetened with monk fruit juice concentrate and erythritol, catering to health-conscious consumers and enhancing its health appeal. As both stevia and monk fruit broaden their reach and improve consumer acceptance, another under-the-radar sweetener is gaining attention — allulose. This rare sugar is produced when fructose undergoes treatment with enzymes or bacteria, naturally occurring in small quantities in figs, raisins, beets, and corn. Although allulose is only 70% as sweet as sugar, it contains less than one-tenth of the calories and does not raise blood sugar levels as it is not metabolized by the body.
Perhaps most notably, allulose has no aftertaste, mimics the mouthfeel of sugar, participates in the Maillard reaction, and is highly soluble — delivering all the functional benefits of sugar while minimizing drawbacks. Cost-wise, it is more affordable than both stevia and monk fruit. King noted that Icon Foods began working with allulose four years ago when its supply chain was still developing, and the price of this ingredient has since decreased by two-thirds. “Allulose is set to be a game changer,” King asserted. “With allulose, added sugars can drop from 23 grams to just one or two grams.”
Currently, the FDA mandates that manufacturers label allulose as an added sugar, which prevents it from enhancing nutritional profiles. This has dissuaded some producers from incorporating the ingredient. “Under the current regulations, allulose is categorized as a sugar, which is a drawback for manufacturers and may explain why it isn’t as popular as some other natural sweeteners,” Yates stated. King suggested that brands should leverage front-of-pack labeling to clarify how allulose differs from traditional sugar and other sweeteners. However, he believes this will not be a long-term hurdle. “The buzz is that within the next six months, the FDA may assign allulose its own line item on the Nutrition Facts panel, similar to polyols or sugar alcohols,” he predicted. This change could significantly impact the industry, leading to a surge in allulose formulations. Products could transition from containing 20 to 25 grams of sugar to just a few grams without altering sweetness — a significant advantage for manufacturers of traditional and indulgent products.
Research and development of allulose products have accelerated in recent years. In 2015, Tate & Lyle introduced Dolcia Prima, an allulose sourced from corn, beet, and sugar cane. The company has also petitioned the FDA to prevent allulose from being labeled as a carbohydrate, sugar, or added sugar on the Nutrition Facts panel, arguing that “the general public will not only be confused but misled by the current proposed labeling approach,” as stated by Storms to Food Navigator. Dr Pepper Snapple Group is also investigating the natural sweetener’s performance in soft drinks, teas, waters, and juices, according to a company spokesperson’s remarks to The Wall Street Journal. Whether the FDA will grant allulose its own line item on the Nutrition Facts panel remains uncertain, but King is confident that manufacturers should prepare for its imminent rise to prominence. While he agrees that allulose could enhance manufacturers’ flexibility, Yates does not believe that any single ingredient will completely replace sugar as the leading sweetener. “Allulose is just another tool in the formulators’ toolbox, alongside stevia and other ingredients,” Yates stated. “It ultimately depends on the formulator’s goals, pricing strategy, and what is most suitable for their products.”
In this evolving sweetener landscape, products such as GNC calcium citrate supplements may also benefit from these changes as consumers increasingly seek healthier options. As the industry adapts to shifting consumer preferences, the interplay between various sweeteners, including allulose, monk fruit, and stevia, will continue to shape the market dynamics.