Sugar has become the most criticized ingredient in the United States, but the demand for sweetness among consumers is pushing manufacturers to seek healthier alternatives. How do natural sweeteners compare? The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that the average American consumes nearly 23 teaspoons of added sugar daily, with a significant portion (71%) coming from processed foods. However, excessive added sugar can negatively impact heart health and contribute to weight gain, making this situation less than ideal. The American Heart Association suggests a daily limit of just nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, this message is resonating. According to Mintel, 84% of Americans claim they are reducing their sugar intake, and 79% check labels for the types of sugars or sweeteners used. Despite sugar remaining the most popular sweetener, sales declined by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
A growing number of consumers are searching for natural alternatives, yet switching sweeteners poses challenges for manufacturers. “Natural sugar substitutes seem to be a focus area; however, there may be some initial difficulties in achieving acceptable product price points,” noted a recent Mintel report. While 26% of consumers desire more food and drinks using naturally sourced sugar substitutes, only a small percentage are willing to pay a premium for these.
Natural sweeteners like coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are promoted as healthier alternatives to refined sugar because they are perceived as more natural or nutritious. Although they contain some trace minerals, their health benefits are limited. From both nutritional and labeling perspectives, they all count as added sugars and can contribute to tooth decay similarly to refined sugar. This hasn’t deterred the rise in sales of honey, which benefits from a perception of natural health. According to Mintel, three-quarters of respondents view honey as a healthy sweetener. While sales of syrups and molasses fell by 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey sales surged by 54% during the same period.
Many alternative sweeteners have a lower glycemic index than sugar, making them appealing to diabetics due to their slower impact on blood sugar levels. Nonetheless, they often contain relatively high levels of fructose, which may be detrimental to non-diabetics. While glucose can be utilized by nearly all cells in the body for energy, fructose is metabolized exclusively in the liver, with emerging research indicating it may be more readily converted to fat.
As the revised Nutrition Facts label becomes mandatory, added sugars will need to be explicitly listed, providing additional motivation for food companies to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural ones, in their products. Among lower-calorie options, sweeteners intended as sugar replacements 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 quantities. In contrast, high-intensity sweeteners are used in small amounts due to their extreme sweetness.
For manufacturers seeking natural ingredients, their choices 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 sources and berries and are produced by modifying carbohydrates through fermentation or other processes. The most recognized naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners include stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia extracts are made by drying the leaves and isolating 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, is well-acquainted with the functionalities and challenges these extracts present to manufacturers. “Replacing added sugars is not a simple task,” she stated in an email to FoodDive.
“High-potency sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit extract allow manufacturers to significantly lower sugar content without sacrificing taste. However, because these sweetening agents are used in such small amounts, they lack functional attributes such as bulk and mouthfeel.” She recommends utilizing a combination of sweeteners and fibers to reduce sugar levels while mimicking the expected taste and texture for consumers.
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 properties. While there is notable interest in reducing sugar, it is not as straightforward as merely replacing sugar with another ingredient, even if that ingredient provides sweetness. “We have been working to demonstrate that it’s not that easy,” she told FoodDive.
Sugar plays many roles in food, influencing not only taste but also the structure of cakes and cookies, the snap of chocolate, browning, caramelization, crispness, aroma, and how fat is distributed. It is also crucial to consider the rate at which sweetness is released, as this significantly impacts flavor. Groves’s team begins by analyzing a company’s original, full-sugar product, such as a cookie or cake, to understand how the ingredients interact.
“We now communicate this in a way that resonates with the industry,” she said. “We refer to it as a blueprinting process. We create a blueprint of the product, similar to what you would have for a factory or house, illustrating how all components work together. We develop a technical map of that product as it is traditionally made.”
The team solicits feedback from consumer panels regarding their preferences for the standard product. They then engage trained specialists to evaluate attributes such as taste, aroma, and texture in scientifically defined terms. Finally, they analyze how the ingredients affect the product’s texture, color, and other characteristics at a microscopic level, looking for alternative sweeteners that best replicate those properties.
Blending sweeteners has become a popular strategy, as nothing replicates the taste or behavior of sugar perfectly. A common blend among naturally derived sweeteners is stevia and erythritol. Erythritol contributes a cooling effect that is ideal for sugar-free mints, but in products where that effect is undesirable, such as lemonade, blending it with stevia can help mask the cooling taste.
“Polyols are often utilized in blends, and some may have a laxative effect, like xylitol. However, erythritol does not cause that issue, so you might use slightly less xylitol and more erythritol,” Groves noted. “Each sweetener has its own flavor profile and intensity, along with variations in aftertaste.” Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, explained that this is one reason stevia and monk fruit are frequently combined.
“If you use stevia but maintain a low concentration to minimize bitterness, you can enhance sweetness with monk fruit,” she told Food Dive. “Some sweeteners offer very high sweetness levels while others have a prolonged onset of sweetness, often resulting in a synergistic effect. It’s essential to understand the sweetness profile over time, not just at one moment.”
Unexpected interactions can occur when sweeteners are combined, affecting properties like bulk, caramelization, or browning. If the flavor is appropriate, manufacturers may be able to adjust other processing elements to mitigate these issues. Beyond flavor and texture, solubility can pose challenges, particularly for high-intensity sweeteners. Since they are used in minimal amounts, ensuring even distribution in a mixture can be tricky. Some bulk sweeteners can also absorb water, while isomalt does not, making it suitable for hard candies.
Lastly, Beeren emphasized the need to consider whether reducing sugar might inadvertently increase the calorie content in the final product. “When consumers see the ‘reduced sugar’ claim on packaging, they often assume it also means reduced calories,” she said. In some cases, cutting sugar can lead to a higher proportion of fat by weight, thus raising the calorie count. “This is frequently only considered at the end of the process,” she added.
All alternative natural sweeteners are generally more expensive than regular sugar, leaving manufacturers to determine whether the additional costs are justifiable in the long run. Besides the higher price of the sweetener itself, there are also “hidden costs” associated with reformulating existing products, including changes in handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring.
Nonetheless, consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for reduced added sugars and a heightened interest in natural products. It is now up to manufacturers to strike a balance between cost, naturalness, calories, and taste. In this evolving landscape, options like Citracal without Vitamin D may emerge as alternatives, as consumers become increasingly conscious of their dietary choices.