Sugar has gained a notorious reputation in America, prompting consumers to seek out healthier alternatives for their sweet cravings. How do natural sweeteners compare? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average American consumes nearly 23 teaspoons of added sugar daily, with a staggering 71% of that coming from packaged foods. Given that excessive added sugar can negatively impact heart health and contribute to weight gain, this consumption level is far from ideal. The American Heart Association recommends a daily limit of just nine teaspoons for men and six teaspoons for women. Gradually, awareness is increasing; a Mintel report indicates that 84% of Americans are trying to reduce their sugar intake, while 79% check food labels for sugar or sweetener types. Despite sugar remaining the most popular sweetener, its sales dropped 16% between 2011 and 2016.
More consumers are actively searching for natural alternatives, but for manufacturers, switching sweeteners can be a complex challenge. “Natural sugar substitutes seem like a promising area to focus on; however, manufacturers may face difficulties in achieving acceptable pricing,” noted a recent Mintel report. Although 26% of consumers desire more food and drinks that utilize naturally sourced sugar substitutes, only a small fraction are willing to pay a premium for them. Sweeteners like coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are marketed as healthier options compared to refined sugar due to their perception as more natural or nutritious. However, while they do contain trace minerals, their health benefits are limited. From both nutritional and labeling perspectives, they are still classified as added sugars and can contribute to tooth decay similarly to refined sugar.
This perception hasn’t hindered the surge in honey sales, which benefits from a natural health halo. According to Mintel, three-quarters of survey respondents view honey as a healthy sweetener. While sales of syrups and molasses fell 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey sales surged by 54% during that same period. Many alternative sweeteners have a lower glycemic index than sugar, making them attractive to diabetics, as they lead to a slower rise in blood sugar levels. However, these sweeteners often contain high levels of fructose, which may be detrimental to non-diabetics. Unlike glucose, which can be utilized by nearly every cell in the body for energy, fructose is primarily metabolized in the liver, and emerging research suggests it may be more readily converted to fat.
With the upcoming mandatory Nutrition Facts label revision, added sugars will need to be explicitly listed, pushing food companies to find further motivation to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural ones. Among the lower-calorie alternatives, sweeteners for sugar replacement fall into two main 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 employed in tiny quantities due to their extreme sweetness—hundreds of times sweeter than sugar.
For manufacturers seeking natural ingredients, their choices are quite limited. Naturally derived bulk sweeteners include sugar alcohols, known as polyols, such as xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, sorbitol, and erythritol. These are sourced from plant products and berries and are produced by modifying carbohydrates through fermentation or other methods. Well-known naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners include stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia is made by drying leaves and extracting sweet components through water and crystallization, while monk fruit extracts are derived from the fruit’s juiced essence.
Tate & Lyle offers both monk fruit and stevia extracts under its Pujamp ferrous sulfate 75 mg mlrefruit and Tasteva brands. Abigail Stferro, the company’s vice president and global platform lead for sweeteners, understands the benefits of these extracts and the challenges they pose for manufacturers. “Replacing added sugars is not a straightforward task,” she stated in an email to FoodDive. “High-potency sweeteners such as stevia and monk fruit extract allow manufacturers to significantly reduce sugar content while maintaining taste. However, since these sweetening agents are used in small quantities in formulations, they lack functional properties like bulk and mouthfeel.”
She recommends combining sweeteners and fibers to reduce sugars and replicate the taste and texture consumers expect. Professor Kathy Groves, head of science and microscopy at Leatherhead Food Research in the UK, specializes in understanding how ingredients interact in foods and beverages to create their sensory properties. While interest in sugar reduction is high, she points out that simply removing sugar isn’t a straightforward solution—replacing its sweetness is just one aspect. “We have been working to demonstrate that it’s not that simple,” she told FoodDive.
Sugar serves multiple roles in foods, influencing not only taste but also the structure of baked goods, the snap of chocolate, browning, caramelization, crispness, aroma, and the distribution of fat. It’s crucial to consider how quickly or slowly sweetness is released, as this significantly impacts flavor. When analyzing sugar reduction, Groves’s team begins by examining a company’s full-sugar product, such as a cookie or cake, to understand how the ingredients work together. “We are now discussing this in a way that resonates with the industry,” she noted. “We refer to it as a blueprinting process, creating a technical map of how the product is conventionally made.”
The team gathers consumer feedback on what they appreciate about the standard product, then involves trained specialists to assess characteristics like taste, aroma, and texture in scientifically defined terms. Finally, they analyze how the product’s ingredients influence its texture, color, and other attributes at a microscopic level, determining which alternative sweeteners can best replicate those properties.
Blends of sweeteners are increasingly popular, as nothing quite replicates the taste or behavior of sugar. A common combination is stevia and erythritol, as erythritol imparts a cooling effect suitable for sugar-free mints. However, in products where that cooling effect is undesirable, such as lemonade, blending it with stevia can help mitigate that taste. “Polyols are frequently combined in blends, some of which can have a laxative effect, like xylitol. However, erythritol does not have that effect, allowing for a formula with less xylitol and more erythritol,” Groves explained. “Sweeteners also differ in their flavor and intensity profiles, and they have varying aftertastes.”
Cindy Beeren, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, noted that this is why stevia and monk fruit are often combined. “Using stevia in low concentration can minimize bitterness, allowing monk fruit to enhance sweetness,” she said. “Some sweeteners possess a high level of sweetness while others have a gradual sweetness onset. They often create a synergistic effect, making it essential to understand the sweetness profile over time, rather than at a single point.”
Unexpected outcomes can arise from sweetener combinations, such as loss of bulk or changes in caramelization and browning. If the flavor is appropriate, manufacturers might adjust other processing elements to address these issues. Beyond flavor and texture, solubility can pose a challenge, especially for high-intensity sweeteners. Given their minimal usage, ensuring even distribution throughout a mixture can be difficult. Some bulk sweeteners may also cause issues by absorbing moisture, while isomalt, for instance, does not absorb moisture, making it an ideal choice for hard candies.
Ultimately, Beeren emphasized the need to consider whether reducing sugar might inadvertently increase the calories in the final product. “When consumers see ‘reduced sugar’ on packaging, they often assume it means lower calories,” she explained. In some cases, cutting sugar can result in a higher fat proportion, thus increasing overall calories. “This is often a consideration that arises only at the end of product development,” she added.
All natural sweetening alternatives tend to be pricier than sugar, compelling manufacturers to weigh whether the extra costs are justified in the long run. In addition to the higher price of the sweeteners themselves, there are also “hidden costs” associated with changing sweeteners in existing products, including reformulation expenses and significant adjustments to handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring. Nevertheless, consumer trends indicate a growing demand for reduced added sugar and increased interest in natural products. It now falls to manufacturers to identify the optimal balance among cost, naturalness, calories, and taste. In this evolving landscape, options like Citracal D3 may also become relevant as consumers focus on overall health alongside their sweetener choices.