In today’s food and beverage landscape, sugar has become one of the most criticized ingredients. Once cherished for its versatility—rising cakes, caramelizing sauces, and delivering delightful sweetness—an increasing number of health-conscious consumers are now opting for healthier alternatives. A survey by Label Insight indicates that 22% of U.S. consumers intend 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 plan to do this by choosing products labeled as “no sugar added” this year. Synthetic sweeteners are also facing scrutiny; in 2017, over half of consumers were avoiding artificial sweeteners, according to Schmansky. She noted that products claiming to be free from artificial sweeteners have seen a 9% growth with a five-year compound annual growth rate, while food and beverage items containing zero-calorie sweeteners surged by 16% that same year. This shift in consumer behavior, coupled with the FDA’s decision to include added sugars in the 2020 Nutrition Facts panel update, is prompting manufacturers to seek natural sweetening solutions. Recently, options ranging from traditional, caloric ingredients like honey and agave nectar to non-caloric alternatives such as stevia have emerged on product labels, each presenting unique benefits and challenges for formulators. As the competition to replace sugar intensifies, the estimated $16 billion to $20 billion market for sugar alternatives still allows for experimentation. Analysts and ingredient producers have pinpointed several standout natural sweeteners vying for market leadership.
Although consumer interest in naturally sweetened products has surged in recent years, manufacturers have been exploring stevia since the 1990s. Mintel reports that the percentage of products launched with stevia in the second quarter of 2017 rose by over 13% compared to the same period the previous year. By August of that year, 27% of products utilizing high-intensity sweeteners included stevia. This natural sweetener, derived from a Brazilian plant, can be 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar depending on its grade, and is applicable in various products from soft drinks to snacks. Despite its early market presence, Thom King, founder and CEO of Icon Foods—a natural, clean label ingredients company—believes stevia’s long history may actually hinder its progress. “Stevia has been around for a while, and many early adopters didn’t utilize it correctly,” King shared with Food Dive. “As a result, early perceptions formed around its bitter aftertaste.” This off-flavor, often likened to metal or licorice, remains stevia’s most significant drawback. While producers have worked to improve its taste profile, stevia cannot fully replace sugar due to its distinct flavor. Instead, manufacturers typically blend it with a masking agent like erythritol (a zero-calorie sugar alcohol) or monk fruit to mitigate this issue. Another challenge for stevia, according to King, is its lack of participation in the Maillard reaction, which is crucial for browning and caramelization in foods.
David Thorrold, general manager of sales and marketing at The Monk Fruit Corp., pointed out that a larger issue for stevia is consumer association with unpleasant aftertastes in stevia-sweetened products. “Consumers are less inclined to purchase products sweetened with stevia,” Thorrold asserts. Nevertheless, stevia benefits from a well-established supply chain, affordability, and ease of sourcing—traits that many competitors lack. This versatility is evident in the R&D efforts of major brands like PepsiCo, DanoneWave, Kraft Heinz, and Nestlé. Late last year, Coca-Cola announced the creation of a stevia-sweetened soda that is zero sugar, zero calories, and free from bitter aftertastes, set for launch in a small market outside the U.S. early this year. Investments in stevia by major food corporations are expected to continue as producers refine their formulations.
Monk fruit, another natural sweetener, is not as sweet as stevia and is pricier to produce, yet it is steadily gaining market share. Since receiving FDA approval, over 2,000 products have been launched featuring monk fruit, according to Thorrold. “Monk fruit will play a significant role in the sugar reduction narrative for the next decade, if not longer,” he stated. “Generally, monk fruit is easier to work with than stevia due to its more favorable sensory profile and absence of the metallic aftertaste that some associate with stevia.” Although monk fruit also does not participate in the Maillard reaction, it benefits from a clean image and positive consumer perception. “We’ve been involved in the stevia market since 1999 and see continued growth, but monk fruit is beginning to surpass stevia,” King said. “It’s all about market perception—monk fruit is more label-friendly. When consumers see monk fruit on a label, they anticipate a pleasant sweetness without preconceived notions about off-flavors.”
Nate Yates, business director of natural sweetness innovation at Ingredion, offers a different perspective. “While monk fruit does have its advantages, it’s premature to claim it will overtake stevia solely due to its lesser bitterness,” he told Food Dive. “There is a place for multiple sweeteners depending on the formulation and product needs.” Monk fruit does possess its own off-taste, reminiscent of melon rind, which can be masked by sugar alcohols like erythritol or ingredients such as honey or agave. However, Thorrold notes that manufacturers often avoid these masking agents due to concerns about increasing added sugars on the Nutrition Facts panel. Despite the rivalry between monk fruit and stevia, the two ingredients complement each other well; when combined, they can mask each other’s aftertastes. “In the U.S., about half of the products containing monk fruit also include stevia,” Thorrold said. “The monk fruit market would be significantly smaller without the presence of stevia.” He argues that while stevia provides manufacturers with a cost-effective option, monk fruit offers superior taste, creating an appealing combination for product developers. However, blending these ingredients may lead to a reduction in perceived sweetness due to their contrasting flavors.
Major manufacturers have not hesitated to launch monk fruit-centered products, capitalizing on its strong health appeal. Recently, Talenti introduced a new line of gelato sweetened with monk fruit juice concentrate and erythritol, targeting health-conscious consumers and enhancing its health image. As both stevia and monk fruit expand across various categories and gain consumer acceptance, another sweetener has emerged quietly but holds potential for significant market disruption: allulose. This rare sugar is produced when fructose is treated with an enzyme or bacteria and occurs naturally in small quantities in fruits like figs and raisins, as well as in beets and corn. Allulose is only 70% as sweet as sugar, but contains less than one-tenth of the calories and is not metabolized by the body, meaning it does not raise blood sugar levels. Most importantly, allulose has no aftertaste, mimics the mouthfeel of sugar, participates in the Maillard reaction, and is highly soluble—offering all the functional benefits of sugar with fewer downsides. Additionally, it is more cost-effective than both stevia and monk fruit. King noted that Icon Foods began working with allulose four years ago when its supply chain was still nascent, and the price of this ingredient has since decreased by two-thirds. “Allulose is poised to be a game changer,” King stated. “With allulose, added sugars could drop from 23 grams down to just one or two grams.”
Currently, the FDA mandates that manufacturers list allulose as an added sugar on their products, which does not enhance nutritional profiles; this has dissuaded some producers from incorporating the ingredient. “Under the existing regulations, allulose is considered a sugar, which is a drawback for manufacturers and may explain its lower popularity compared to other natural sweeteners,” Yates remarked. King suggests that brands should utilize front-of-pack labeling to clarify how allulose differs from traditional sugars and sweeteners, but he does not believe this will be a long-lasting issue. “There are rumors 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 said. This change could greatly impact the industry, leading to a surge in allulose formulations if it comes to fruition. Products could transition from containing 20 to 25 grams of sugar to just a few grams, all without altering sweetness—an enormous advantage for manufacturers of both conventional and indulgent products.
Research and development of allulose-based products has accelerated in recent years. In 2015, Tate & Lyle launched Dolcia Prima, an allulose sourced from corn, beets, and sugar cane. The company has also petitioned the FDA to prevent allulose from being classified as a carbohydrate, sugar, or added sugar on the Nutrition Facts panel, arguing that the current labeling guidelines may confuse or mislead consumers, as Storms conveyed to Food Navigator. Dr Pepper Snapple Group has been testing allulose in various beverages, including soft drinks, teas, waters, and juices, a spokesperson informed The Wall Street Journal. 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 upcoming prominence, which he asserts is imminent. While Yates acknowledges that allulose could provide manufacturers with greater flexibility, he does not anticipate any single ingredient completely replacing sugar as the leading sweetener. “Allulose is just another tool in the formulators’ arsenal, alongside stevia and other ingredients,” Yates concluded. “It ultimately depends on the formulators’ objectives, pricing, and what aligns best with their products.”