Sugar has become one of the most criticized ingredients in the United States, prompting manufacturers to seek healthier sweetening alternatives in response to consumer demand 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 71% of that sugar coming from processed foods. Excessive added sugar intake can negatively impact heart health and contribute to weight gain, making this consumption level less than ideal. The American Heart Association recommends a daily sugar limit of nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, this message is resonating; a Mintel report indicates that 84% of Americans are trying to limit their sugar intake, and 79% check food labels for sugar types or sweeteners used. While sugar remains the most commonly used sweetener, sales dropped by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers than ever are pursuing natural alternatives; however, switching sweeteners can be complex for manufacturers. “Natural sugar substitutes seem like an area to focus on; however, companies may face challenges in determining acceptable product price points,” states a recent Mintel report. Twenty-six percent of consumers express interest in more food and drink products utilizing naturally sourced sugar substitutes, but only a small fraction is willing to pay a premium for them.
Alternative sweeteners such as coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often promoted as healthier substitutes for refined sugar due to their perceived natural or nutritious characteristics. While they may contain trace minerals, their overall health benefits are limited, as they are still classified as added sugars from both nutritional and labeling standpoints and can contribute to tooth decay similarly to refined sugar. Nonetheless, honey has seen a significant sales increase, benefiting from a natural health image; Mintel found that three-quarters of respondents consider honey a healthy sweetener. While syrup and molasses sales fell by 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey’s sales surged by 54% during the same period.
Many alternative sugars boast a lower glycemic index compared to traditional sugar, making them appealing to diabetics because they lead to a slower blood sugar increase. However, they often contain a higher fructose level, which may be more detrimental to non-diabetics. Glucose can be utilized by nearly every body cell for energy, whereas fructose is metabolized solely in the liver, with emerging studies suggesting it may be more readily converted into fat.
With the upcoming mandatory Nutrition Facts label changes, added sugars will need to be clearly listed, motivating food companies to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural ones, from their products. Among lower-calorie options, sweeteners for sugar replacement are primarily categorized into two types: bulk and high-intensity. Bulk sweeteners are slightly less sweet than sugar and have fewer calories but are used in similar quantities. In contrast, high-intensity sweeteners are extremely sweet and used in minimal amounts.
Natural bulk sweeteners include sugar alcohols, also known as polyols, like xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, sorbitol, and erythritol, derived from plant products and berries through fermentation or other processes. Well-known naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners include stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia is produced by drying the leaves and separating the sweet components through water and crystallization processes, while monk fruit extracts are derived from the fruit’s pressed juice using water.
Tate & Lyle provides 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, emphasizes the challenges manufacturers face in replacing added sugars. “Replacing added sugars is not straightforward,” she shared with FoodDive via email. “High-potency sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit extract enable manufacturers to significantly lower sugar content in products without sacrificing taste. However, because these sweeteners are used in small quantities, they lack functional attributes such as bulk and mouthfeel.”
To address this, she recommends combining sweeteners with fibers to reduce sugar content while replicating the expected taste and texture. Professor Kathy Groves, head of science and microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research in the UK, studies how ingredients interact in foods and beverages to create sensory attributes. She notes that while there is considerable interest in sugar reduction, simply removing sugar is not a straightforward solution. “We are working to demonstrate that it’s not that easy,” she stated.
Sugar serves multiple functions in food, influencing taste, structure in baked goods, chocolate snap, browning, caramelization, crispness, aroma, and fat distribution. The rate at which sweetness is released also significantly affects flavor. Groves’s team begins by analyzing a company’s original full-sugar product, like a cookie or cake, to understand the ingredient interactions. “We refer to this as a blueprinting process,” she explained. “We create a technical map illustrating how everything works together, similar to architectural blueprints for a factory or house.”
Consumer panels provide feedback on what they appreciate about the standard product, and trained specialists evaluate characteristics like taste, aroma, and texture in precise terms. The team then examines how the ingredients influence texture, color, and other properties at a microscopic level, ultimately identifying which alternative sweeteners can best replicate those qualities.
Blending sweeteners is a popular strategy because nothing perfectly replicates sugar’s taste and behavior. A common blend is stevia and erythritol, as erythritol creates a cooling effect that is beneficial for sugar-free mints. In cases where this effect is undesirable, such as in lemonade, blending it with stevia helps mask that flavor. “Polyols are frequently used in blends, but some can cause a laxative effect, like xylitol. Erythritol, however, does not have that issue, so it’s possible to use less xylitol and more erythritol,” Groves noted.
Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, pointed out that this is why stevia and monk fruit are often combined. “By using a low concentration of stevia to mitigate bitterness, sweetness can be enhanced with monk fruit,” she explained. “Different sweeteners have unique sweetness profiles over time, making it essential to understand their effects not just at a single moment.”
There can be unexpected outcomes when sweeteners are combined, such as a loss of bulk, caramelization, or browning. If the flavor is satisfactory, manufacturers might adjust processing methods to address these challenges. Beyond product flavor and texture, solubility can also pose an issue, particularly for high-intensity sweeteners. Due to their small usage, ensuring even distribution throughout a mixture can be tricky. Some bulk sweeteners may absorb water, while isomalt, for instance, does not, making it a suitable option for hard candies.
Finally, Beeren highlights the importance of considering whether reducing sugar could inadvertently increase the final product’s calorie content. “When consumers see ‘reduced sugar’ on a label, they typically assume it’s also lower in calories,” she noted. In some cases, cutting sugar can result in a higher fat proportion by weight, leading to increased calorie content. “This consideration is often overlooked until the end of the process,” she added.
All natural sweetening alternatives tend to be more expensive than sugar, leaving manufacturers to evaluate whether the long-term benefits justify the additional costs. Alongside the higher price of the sweeteners, there are also “hidden costs” associated with reformulating existing products and making significant adjustments to handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring. Nevertheless, trends indicate a growing demand for reduced added sugar and increased interest in natural products. Manufacturers now face the challenge of finding the right balance between cost, naturalness, calorie content, and flavor, particularly as they explore options like bariatric advantage calcium chewy bites, which cater to health-conscious consumers.