Sugar has become a highly criticized ingredient in the United States, prompting manufacturers to seek out healthier alternatives in response to consumers’ sweet cravings. How do natural sweeteners measure up? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average American consumes nearly 23 teaspoons of added sugar daily, with 71% of that coming from processed foods. This is concerning, as excessive sugar intake can negatively impact heart health and lead to weight gain. The American Heart Association advises a daily limit of just nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, this message is being absorbed; a Mintel survey found that 84% of Americans are trying to limit their sugar consumption, and 79% are checking labels for the types of sugar or sweeteners used. Although sugar remains the top sweetener, its sales dropped by 16% between 2011 and 2016.
More consumers are on the lookout for natural alternatives, but transitioning to different sweeteners can be challenging for manufacturers. A recent report from Mintel noted, “Natural sugar substitutes seem like a promising avenue; however, some initial difficulties may arise in establishing acceptable pricing.” While 26% of consumers would like to see more food and drink products utilizing naturally sourced sugar substitutes, 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 marketed as healthier substitutes for conventional refined sugar due to their perception as more natural or nutritious. However, despite containing trace minerals, their health benefits are minimal. From both a nutritional and labeling standpoint, these alternatives are still classified as added sugars and can contribute to tooth decay just like refined sugar.
Despite this, honey has experienced a sales surge, bolstered by its reputation as a natural health option. According to Mintel, three-quarters of surveyed individuals consider honey to be a healthy sweetener. While sales of syrups and molasses fell by 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey’s sales increased by 54% during the same timeframe.
Many alternative sugars have a lower glycemic index than regular sugar, making them appealing to diabetics due to their slower impact on blood sugar levels. However, these alternatives often contain a high level of fructose, which can be detrimental to non-diabetics. While glucose can be utilized for energy by nearly every cell in the body, fructose is metabolized only in the liver, and emerging research indicates it may be more readily converted to fat.
With the upcoming mandatory Nutrition Facts label revisions, added sugars will need to be explicitly listed, giving food companies additional incentive to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural ones, from their offerings. Among the lower-calorie alternatives, sweeteners used for sugar substitution fall into two primary categories: bulk and high-intensity sweeteners. Bulk sweeteners are slightly less sweet than sugar and contain fewer calories but are used in similar amounts. In contrast, high-intensity sweeteners are utilized in minute quantities because they are significantly sweeter than sugar.
For manufacturers seeking natural ingredients, options are further limited. Naturally derived bulk sweeteners include sugar alcohols, known as polyols, such as xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, sorbitol, and erythritol. These are derived from plant materials and berries and are produced through the fermentation or alteration of carbohydrates. The most well-known naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners include stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia is made by drying the leaves and extracting the sweet components through water and crystallization, whereas monk fruit extracts are derived from the pressed juice of the fruit.
Tate & Lyle offers 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 challenges manufacturers face in replacing added sugars. She stated via email to FoodDive, “High-potency sweeteners, such as stevia and monk fruit extract, allow manufacturers to significantly reduce sugar content without sacrificing flavor. However, because these sweetening agents are used in such small amounts in formulations, they do not provide functional attributes like bulk and mouthfeel.” She recommends a blend of sweeteners and fibers to reduce sugar levels while mimicking the taste and texture that consumers expect.
Professor Kathy Groves, Head of Science and Microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research in the UK, specializes in understanding how ingredients interact in food and beverages to create their sensory qualities. While there is substantial interest in sugar reduction, she emphasizes that simply removing sugar is not straightforward. “We have been working to demonstrate that it’s not that easy,” she explained to FoodDive. Sugar serves multiple roles in food, influencing not just sweetness but also the structure of baked goods, the snap of chocolate, browning, caramelization, crispness, and aroma, as well as the distribution of fat. The speed at which sweetness is released also significantly impacts flavor.
When aiming for sugar reduction, Groves’s team begins by analyzing a company’s original full-sugar product, such as cookies or cakes, to understand the interplay of ingredients. “We now discuss it in a way that resonates with the industry,” she noted, referring to a “blueprinting process” that maps out how every ingredient works together, akin to blueprints for a factory or a house.
Consumer panels are consulted to gather feedback on what they appreciate about the standard product, followed by assessments from trained specialists who evaluate attributes such as taste, aroma, and texture in scientifically defined terms. The team also investigates how the product’s ingredients influence texture, color, and other characteristics at a microscopic level before identifying which alternative sweeteners could best replicate those properties.
Blending sweeteners is a popular approach because nothing truly replicates sugar’s unique qualities. For instance, a common blend is stevia and erythritol, where erythritol’s cooling effect is beneficial in sugar-free mints. However, in products where such an effect is undesirable, like lemonade, combining it with stevia can help mask that flavor.
Cindy Beeren, Director of Sensory, Consumer, and Market Insights at Leatherhead, highlights that this is another reason stevia and monk fruit are frequently combined. “If you use stevia but keep the concentration low to minimize bitterness, you can enhance the sweetness with monk fruit,” she explained to Food Dive. “Some sweeteners are exceptionally sweet, while others have a delayed sweetness onset. They often create a synergistic effect, making it crucial to understand the sweetness profile over time.”
Unexpected interactions can arise when sweeteners are mixed, such as a reduction in bulk, caramelization, or browning. If the flavor is satisfactory, manufacturers might adjust other processing elements to resolve these issues. Beyond flavor and texture, solubility can pose challenges, particularly for high-intensity sweeteners. Given their minimal usage, achieving even distribution throughout a mixture can be difficult. Some bulk sweeteners may also absorb water, complicating matters; isomalt, for example, does not absorb water, making it suitable for hard candies.
Finally, Beeren points out that reducing sugar might inadvertently lead to an increase in the final product’s calories. “When consumers see the label ‘reduced sugar,’ they typically assume it also means reduced calories,” she stated. In some cases, lowering sugar content can result in fat comprising a larger proportion of the product’s weight, thereby increasing overall calories. “This is often only considered at the end of the development process,” she added.
All alternative natural sweeteners are generally more costly than sugar, so manufacturers must weigh whether the additional expenses are justified in the long run. Besides the higher price of the sweeteners themselves, there are also “hidden costs” associated with reformulating existing products, which include adjustments to handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring.
However, both consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for reduced added sugar and a greater interest in natural products. The challenge for manufacturers now is to strike the right balance among cost, naturalness, calories, and taste. Additionally, as consumers become more health-conscious, there is an increasing interest in supplements such as calcium citrate, magnesium, zinc, and vitamin D3 tablets from companies like Cipla, which further highlights the shift towards healthier lifestyle choices.