In today’s food and beverage industry, sugar has arguably become the ultimate outcast. Once cherished for its versatile properties—such as aiding in cake rising, caramelizing sauces, and, of course, providing delightful sweetness—a rising number of health-conscious consumers are now opting for nutritious alternatives. A survey by Label Insight indicates that 22% of U.S. consumers wish to limit their sugar consumption. Sarah Schmansky, Vice President of Nielsen’s Fresh and Health Wellness Division, revealed to Food Dive that half of consumers intend to purchase “no sugar added” products this year. Synthetic alternatives are also facing scrutiny, with more than half of consumers avoiding artificial sweeteners in 2017. Schmansky noted that products boasting a “no artificial sweeteners” claim increased by 9% with a five-year CAGR, while sales of food and beverages containing zero-calorie sweeteners free from artificial additives jumped by 16% in 2017. This shift in consumer behavior, alongside the FDA’s inclusion of added sugars in the 2020 Nutrition Facts panel update, is prompting manufacturers to explore natural sweetening options.
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 offering unique benefits and challenges for formulators. As the competition to replace sugar intensifies, the estimated $16 billion to $20 billion sugar alternatives market still has room for innovation. Analysts and ingredient producers have identified a few standout natural sweeteners leading the way. The question remains: which will dominate the market, and why?
Despite the increasing consumer demand for naturally sweetened products, manufacturers have been investigating stevia since the 1990s. According to Mintel, the percentage of products containing stevia launched in the second quarter of 2017 surged over 13% compared to the same period the previous year. By August of last year, over a quarter (27%) of products using high-intensity sweeteners incorporated stevia. This natural sweetener, derived from a Brazilian plant, is 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar, depending on the grade, and can be utilized in various 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 presence in the market may be hindering its acceptance. “Stevia has been around for a while, and many early adopters did not utilize it correctly,” King explained to Food Dive. This has led to consumer perceptions of a bitter aftertaste associated with stevia.
The off-flavor, often compared to metal and licorice, is stevia’s most significant disadvantage. Although producers have improved the taste of stevia extracts, it will never fully replace sugar due to its strong flavor. Manufacturers can, however, reduce sugar levels by combining it with masking agents like erythritol (a zero-calorie sugar alcohol) or monk fruit. Another drawback of stevia is its failure to participate in the Maillard reaction, which is essential for browning and caramelizing food, as well as aiding in leavening. David Thorrold, General Manager of Sales and Marketing at The Monk Fruit Corp., informed Food Dive that the greater issue for stevia is that consumers often associate it with bad aftertastes. “Consumers are less likely to purchase stevia-sweetened products,” Thorrold stated.
Nevertheless, stevia benefits from a well-established supply chain, low cost, and easy sourcing—traits that many competitors lack. This adaptability is evident in the R&D efforts of major brands across categories, including PepsiCo, DanoneWave, Kraft Heinz, and Nestlé. Late last year, Coca-Cola announced it had developed a stevia-sweetened soda with zero sugar, zero calories, and no bitter aftertaste, planning to launch it in a small market outside the U.S. early this year.
Investments in stevia from major food companies are expected to persist as producers refine their blends. Monk fruit, while not as sweet as stevia and more expensive to produce, is steadily gaining market share. Since its FDA approval, over 2,000 products featuring monk fruit have been launched. According to Thorrold, “Monk fruit is set to play a significant role in the sugar reduction narrative for the next decade, if not longer.” Generally, monk fruit is easier to formulate with than stevia, boasting a more appealing sensory profile and lacking the metallic aftertaste some consumers associate with stevia.
Despite both sweeteners not participating in the Maillard reaction, monk fruit enjoys a favorable perception and a clean slate. King noted, “Having been in the stevia industry since 1999, we observe continued growth, but monk fruit is beginning to surpass stevia in market presence. It offers a more consumer-friendly label.” Nate Yates, Business Director of Natural Sweetness Innovation at Ingredion, disagrees, arguing that it’s premature to declare monk fruit superior to stevia simply because it is less bitter. “There is a place for multiple sweeteners depending on formulations, needs, and product placement,” Yates stated.
Monk fruit does possess its own off-taste, reminiscent of melon rind, which can be masked by sugar alcohols or ingredients like honey and agave. However, manufacturers often avoid these options to keep added sugars low on Nutrition Facts panels. Although competition exists between monk fruit and stevia, these sweeteners can complement each other well. Thorrold pointed out that approximately half of the products containing monk fruit also include stevia, indicating that their combination effectively masks each other’s aftertaste. “Stevia offers manufacturers low cost, while monk fruit delivers better taste—a compelling combination for producers,” Thorrold explained. However, when blended, their contrasting flavors may reduce perceived sweetness.
Despite this challenge, major manufacturers have launched monk fruit-centered products, capitalizing on its strong health halo. Recently, Talenti introduced a new gelato line sweetened with monk fruit juice concentrate and erythritol, catering to health-conscious consumers and enhancing its wholesome image. As both stevia and monk fruit expand across various categories and gain consumer acceptance, another lesser-known sweetener is emerging that industry experts believe could significantly disrupt the market: allulose.
Allulose is a rare sugar formed when fructose undergoes enzymatic treatment or bacterial fermentation. It naturally occurs in small amounts in figs, raisins, beets, and corn. With only 70% of the sweetness of sugar and less than one-tenth of the calories, allulose is not metabolized by the body, meaning it does not raise blood sugar levels. Most importantly, allulose has no aftertaste, mimics sugar’s mouthfeel, and participates in the Maillard reaction, providing the functional benefits of sugar with fewer drawbacks. Economically, allulose is less expensive than both stevia and monk fruit. King mentioned that Icon Foods began working with allulose four years ago, noting that its price has dropped by two-thirds since then. “Allulose is poised to be a game changer,” he asserted. “With it, added sugars could decrease from 23 grams to just one or two grams.”
Currently, the FDA mandates that manufacturers categorize allulose as an added sugar in their products, which does not enhance nutritional profiles. This regulation has deterred some producers from utilizing allulose. “Under current regulations, allulose is labeled as a sugar, presenting a drawback for manufacturers and potentially explaining its limited popularity compared to other natural sweeteners,” Yates noted. King recommends that brands leverage front-of-pack labeling to clarify how allulose differs from traditional sugar and other sweeteners. He is optimistic that this won’t be an obstacle for long, claiming, “Rumor has it that within the next six months, the FDA will create a separate line item for allulose on the Nutrition Facts panel, similar to polyols or sugar alcohols.” This change could significantly impact the industry, with King predicting an influx of allulose formulations if it occurs. Products could see their sugar content drop from 20 to 25 grams to just a few, without compromising sweetness—an enormous advantage for manufacturers of traditional and indulgent products.
Research and development surrounding allulose has accelerated in recent years. In 2015, Tate & Lyle launched Dolcia Prima, an allulose derived from corn, beets, and sugar cane. The company has also petitioned the FDA to exempt allulose from being classified as a carbohydrate, sugar, or added sugar on the Nutrition Facts panel, arguing that the current labeling will confuse and mislead consumers, as Storms explained to Food Navigator. Dr Pepper Snapple Group is also exploring the natural sweetener’s performance in soft drinks, teas, waters, and juices, according to a company spokesperson.
Whether the FDA will grant allulose its own line item on the Nutrition Facts panel remains uncertain, but King believes manufacturers should prepare for its impending breakthrough. While Yates agrees that allulose may offer producers greater flexibility, he doesn’t foresee any single ingredient dethroning sugar as the leading sweetener. “Allulose is just another tool in formulators’ arsenals, much like stevia and other ingredients,” Yates concluded. “Ultimately, it depends on the formulators’ goals, price points, and what makes the most sense for their products.”
Incorporating natural ingredients like calcium citrate and emphasizing calcium content in formulations can further enhance the appeal of these sweeteners. As consumer preferences shift toward healthier options, the focus on nutrient-rich alternatives will likely intensify, shaping the future of sweetening solutions in the food and beverage landscape.