Sugar has become the most criticized ingredient in the United States, prompting manufacturers to seek healthier alternatives to satisfy consumers’ cravings for sweetness. 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 71% sourced from processed foods. This is concerning, as excessive added sugar intake can negatively impact heart health and contribute to weight gain. The American Heart Association advises a daily limit of just nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Slowly but surely, this message is resonating. A Mintel report shows that 84% of Americans are trying to limit their sugar intake, and 79% check labels for different types of sugars or sweeteners. Although sugar remains the most popular sweetener, its sales declined by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers than ever are searching for natural alternatives, yet transitioning to different sweeteners can be a complex challenge for manufacturers. A recent Mintel report notes, “Natural sugar substitutes appear to be a focus area; however, manufacturers may encounter difficulties in establishing acceptable price points.” While 26% of consumers desire more food and drink products utilizing naturally sourced sugar substitutes, only a small fraction is willing to pay a premium for these options.
Natural sweeteners such as coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are often marketed as healthier alternatives to refined sugar due to their perceived natural qualities. Although they contain some trace minerals, their health benefits are limited. From both a nutritional and labeling perspective, these sweeteners are still classified as added sugars and contribute to dental decay similarly to refined sugar. Despite this, honey has seen a surge in sales, benefiting from its reputation as a natural health product. Three-quarters of Mintel’s respondents consider honey 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 period.
Many alternative sugars have a lower glycemic index than sugar, making them potentially preferable for diabetics as they cause a slower rise in blood sugar levels. However, these sweeteners often have a high fructose content, which may be detrimental for non-diabetics. While glucose can be utilized by nearly all body cells for energy, fructose is metabolized solely in the liver, with emerging research suggesting it may be more readily converted to fat.
With the upcoming mandatory implementation of the revised Nutrition Facts label, added sugars will need to be explicitly listed, providing food manufacturers with additional incentives to reduce caloric sweeteners, even natural ones. Among the lower-calorie alternatives, sugar substitutes fall into two main categories: bulk and high-intensity sweeteners. Bulk sweeteners are somewhat less sweet than sugar and contain fewer calories but are used in similar quantities. In contrast, high-intensity sweeteners are employed in small amounts because they are significantly sweeter than sugar.
For manufacturers focused on natural ingredients, their choices are further limited. Naturally derived bulk sweeteners include sugar alcohols, also known as polyols, such as xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, sorbitol, and erythritol. These are derived from plant materials and berries and are produced by modifying carbohydrates through fermentation or other methods. The most well-known naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners are stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia extracts are created by drying the leaves and isolating the sweet components using water and crystallization, while monk fruit extracts are obtained from the fruit’s pressed juice through a water extraction process.
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, acknowledges the complexities of replacing added sugars. “Replacing added sugars is not a straightforward task,” she noted in an email to FoodDive. “High-potency sweeteners like stevia and monk fruit extracts allow manufacturers to significantly lower sugar content without sacrificing taste. However, since these sweetening agents are used in minimal amounts, they lack functional properties such as bulk and mouthfeel.”
To address this, she recommends a blend of sweeteners and fibers to reduce sugar levels while replicating the taste and texture consumers expect. Professor Kathy Groves, head of science and microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research in the UK, specializes in how ingredients combine in food and beverages to create sensory attributes. While there is considerable interest in reducing sugar, she emphasizes that it cannot merely be replaced with another sweetener. “We’ve been working to show that it’s not that simple,” she explained. “Sugar has multiple functions in food, influencing taste, the structure of baked goods, chocolate snap, browning, caramelization, crispness, aroma, and even how fat is distributed.”
Moreover, the speed at which sweetness is released is crucial, as it significantly affects flavor. Groves’s research team begins by analyzing the original, full-sugar products, such as cookies or cakes, to understand how the ingredients interact. “We now communicate in a way that resonates with industry professionals,” she said. “We refer to it as a blueprinting process, akin to creating a factory or house blueprint that outlines how everything works together. We develop a technical map of the product as it is conventionally made.”
The team solicits feedback from consumer panels about what they appreciate about the standard product. Trained specialists are then brought in to evaluate characteristics such as taste, aroma, and texture in more scientifically defined terms. Finally, they investigate how the ingredients impact the product’s texture, color, and other attributes on a microscopic scale before identifying which alternative sweeteners might best replicate those qualities.
Blending different sweeteners is a popular approach, as nothing quite matches sugar in taste or behavior. A common blend is stevia and erythritol; erythritol has a strong cooling effect that is well-suited for sugar-free mints. However, in products where this effect is undesirable, such as lemonade, combining it with stevia can help mask that sensation. “Polyols are frequently used in blends, and some may have a laxative effect, like xylitol. Erythritol, on the other hand, does not, so you might use less xylitol and more erythritol,” Groves explained. “Sweeteners differ in their flavor and intensity profiles, and they also have variations in aftertaste.”
Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, noted that this is one reason stevia and monk fruit are often combined. “If you use stevia at a lower concentration to minimize bitterness, you can enhance sweetness with monk fruit,” she told Food Dive. “Some sweeteners have extremely high sweetness levels, while others have a prolonged onset of sweetness. They often exhibit a synergistic effect, making it crucial to understand the sweetness profile over time, not just at one moment.”
Unexpected interactions can arise when sweeteners are combined, such as a loss of bulk or issues with caramelization and browning. If the flavor is acceptable, manufacturers may adjust other processing elements to address these challenges. In addition to flavor and texture, solubility can pose a problem, especially for high-intensity sweeteners. Due to their minimal usage, ensuring even distribution throughout a mixture can be difficult. Some bulk sweeteners can also absorb moisture; for instance, isomalt does not absorb water, making it suitable for hard candies.
Finally, Beeren emphasizes that manufacturers should consider whether reducing sugar might inadvertently increase the final product’s calorie content. “When consumers see ‘reduced sugar’ on the label, they typically assume it also means fewer calories,” she said. In certain cases, cutting sugar can lead to a higher fat percentage by weight, resulting in increased calories. “This is often only considered at the end of the process,” she added.
All alternative natural sweeteners are more expensive than sugar, leading manufacturers to evaluate whether the long-term benefits justify the additional costs. Beyond the higher price of the sweeteners themselves, there are also “hidden costs” associated with reformulating existing products, including changes in handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring. Nevertheless, consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for reduced added sugar and greater interest in natural products. Now, it is up to manufacturers to strike the right balance between cost, naturalness, calories, and taste while keeping in mind the potential impact on health, such as the role of citracal bone density in overall wellness.