In the current food and beverage landscape, sugar stands as one of the most vilified ingredients. Once celebrated for its versatility—contributing to the rise of cakes, caramelizing sauces, and providing delightful sweetness—a growing cohort of health-focused consumers is turning away from sugar in favor of healthier alternatives. A survey by Label Insight revealed 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 sweeteners are also under scrutiny, as “more than half of consumers were avoiding artificial sweeteners in 2017,” according to Schmansky. The market has seen a 9% growth in products claiming “no artificial sweeteners,” and items containing zero-calorie sweeteners free from such additives experienced a 16% sales increase in 2017. This shift in consumer behavior, coupled with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) inclusion of added sugars in the 2020 Nutrition Facts panel update, is prompting manufacturers to seek natural sweetening alternatives.
In recent years, various solutions have emerged, ranging from traditional caloric sweeteners like honey and agave nectar to non-caloric options like stevia. Each of these alternatives presents its own unique benefits and challenges for product developers. As the competition to replace sugar intensifies within the estimated $16 billion to $20 billion sugar alternatives market, analysts and ingredient producers have identified a few natural sweeteners that are leading the charge. The key question remains: which of these will dominate the market, and why?
Despite the surge in demand for naturally sweetened products in recent years, manufacturers have been experimenting with stevia since the 1990s. According to Mintel, the percentage of products launched with stevia in the second quarter of 2017 increased by over 13% compared to the previous year. By August of the same year, 27% of products using high-intensity sweeteners contained stevia. This natural sweetener, derived from a Brazilian plant, is 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar, depending on its grade, making it suitable for a variety of items, including soft drinks, juices, and snacks. However, Thom King, founder and CEO of Icon Foods, believes that stevia’s long-standing presence in the market may actually hinder its acceptance. He pointed out that “early adopters of stevia formed consumer sentiment that it has a bitter aftertaste.”
This undesirable flavor—often compared to metal or licorice—remains stevia’s biggest challenge. While producers have worked to improve the taste of stevia extracts, it cannot completely replace sugar due to its strong flavor. Instead, manufacturers can utilize it to lower sugar content when combined with masking agents like erythritol (a zero-calorie sugar alcohol) or monk fruit. Another limitation of stevia, as noted by King, is its inability to participate in the Maillard reaction, which is essential for browning and caramelizing food.
David Thorrold, general manager of sales and marketing at The Monk Fruit Corp., added that stevia’s reputation for a bad aftertaste further complicates its acceptance among consumers. Despite these hurdles, stevia benefits from a well-established supply chain, low cost, and easy sourcing—attributes that many competitors lack. Major brands such as PepsiCo, DanoneWave, Kraft Heinz, and Nestlé are reflecting this flexibility in their R&D efforts. Late last year, Coca-Cola announced the development of a stevia-sweetened beverage that contains zero sugar, zero calories, and no bitter aftertaste, with plans to introduce it in a small market outside the U.S. early this year.
Investments in stevia from major food companies are likely to persist as they refine their formulations. Monk fruit, while not as sweet as stevia and more expensive to produce, is gradually capturing market share. Since its FDA approval, over 2,000 products have launched featuring monk fruit, according to Thorrold, who believes that “monk fruit is going to be a significant part of the sugar reduction narrative over the next decade, if not longer.” Generally, monk fruit is easier to formulate with than stevia, offering a more palatable sensory profile without the metallic aftertaste some associate with stevia.
Although monk fruit does not partake in the Maillard reaction, it enjoys a favorable reputation and a clean slate in the market. King noted that while stevia continues to grow, monk fruit is beginning to surpass it, largely due to consumer perceptions. “Monk fruit is more label-friendly… when consumers see monk fruit on a label, they expect a sweet flavor without any concerns about off-flavors.” Conversely, Nate Yates, business director of natural sweetness innovation at Ingredion, cautioned that declaring monk fruit as superior to stevia may be premature. He emphasized the importance of having multiple sweeteners available based on the specific needs of formulations and product positioning.
Monk fruit does have its own off-flavor, reminiscent of melon rind, which can be masked by sugar alcohols like erythritol or ingredients like honey or agave. However, manufacturers often avoid these solutions to prevent increasing the added sugars listed on the Nutrition Facts panel. Despite the competitive landscape between monk fruit and stevia, these two ingredients can complement each other effectively. “In the U.S., about half of the products containing monk fruit also include stevia,” Thorrold stated. Their combination can effectively mask each other’s aftertaste, offering a dual benefit to manufacturers.
Recent product launches centered around monk fruit highlight its strong health halo. For example, Talenti recently introduced a new gelato line sweetened with monk fruit juice concentrate and erythritol, targeting health-conscious consumers. As both stevia and monk fruit expand their presence across various product categories, another sweetener is quietly gaining attention—one that industry experts believe could disrupt the market significantly: allulose. This rare sugar is produced when fructose is treated with an enzyme or bacteria and is found in small quantities in figs, raisins, beets, and corn. Allulose is about 70% as sweet as sugar but contains less than one-tenth of the calories and does not raise blood sugar levels, as it is not metabolized by the body.
Most notably, allulose lacks an aftertaste, mimics the mouthfeel of sugar, and can participate in the Maillard reaction, making it a highly soluble alternative that provides many of the functional benefits of sugar with fewer downsides. Furthermore, it is generally less expensive than both stevia and monk fruit. King mentioned that Icon Foods began working with allulose four years ago when its supply chain was still maturing, and the ingredient’s price has since decreased by two-thirds. “Allulose is going to be a game changer,” he asserted. “With allulose, you can reduce added sugars from 23 grams to just one or two grams.”
Currently, the FDA mandates that manufacturers list allulose as an added sugar on their products, which may deter some producers from using it. Yates noted that under the existing regulations, allulose is categorized as a sugar, which can be a drawback. King believes that brands should leverage front-of-pack labeling to clarify how allulose differs from traditional sugars and other sweeteners. However, he is optimistic that this obstacle will soon be resolved. “The word is that within the next six months, the FDA will provide allulose with its own line item on the Nutrition Facts panel, similar to polyols or sugar alcohols,” he stated. Such a change could significantly impact the industry, leading to a surge in allulose formulations. Products could see their sugar content drop from 20 to 25 grams to just a few, without sacrificing sweetness—an enormous advantage for manufacturers of both traditional and indulgent products.
Research and development efforts involving allulose have gained momentum in recent years. In 2015, Tate & Lyle introduced Dolcia Prima, an allulose derived from corn, beets, and sugar cane. The company has also petitioned the FDA to exempt allulose from being listed as a carbohydrate, sugar, or added sugar on the Nutrition Facts panel, arguing that the current labeling approach could confuse consumers. Dr Pepper Snapple Group is also exploring how allulose performs in beverages like soft drinks, teas, waters, and juices. While the FDA’s decision regarding allulose’s labeling remains uncertain, King believes that manufacturers should prepare for its imminent rise in popularity.
Although Yates agrees that allulose could provide manufacturers with greater flexibility, he does not think any single ingredient will completely displace sugar as the leading sweetener. “Allulose is simply another tool in the formulators’ toolbox, just like stevia and other ingredients,” he remarked. “Ultimately, it depends on the formulator’s objectives, price point, and what aligns best with their products.” In this shifting landscape, the incorporation of complementary ingredients like cal citrate plus vitamin D could also play a role in enhancing the appeal of naturally sweetened products, further enriching the market dynamics.