In today’s food and beverage landscape, sugar has become a significant outcast. Once cherished for its versatility—assisting in cake leavening, creating caramelized coatings, and delivering delightful sweetness—a rising number of health-conscious consumers are turning away from this staple in favor of more nutritious alternatives. A Label Insight survey indicates that 22% of U.S. consumers aim to limit their sugar consumption. Sarah Schmansky, vice president of Nielsen’s fresh and health wellness division, revealed to Food Dive that one in two consumers plan to achieve this by opting for “no sugar added” products this year. Moreover, synthetic alternatives are also facing scrutiny. “More than half of consumers were avoiding artificial sweeteners in 2017,” she stated. Additionally, products claiming “no artificial sweeteners” experienced a 9% growth over five years, while sales of food and beverages featuring zero-calorie sweeteners and free from artificial additives surged 16% in 2017. This shift in consumer behavior, combined with the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) inclusion of added sugars on the 2020 Nutrition Facts panel, is prompting manufacturers to explore natural sweetening solutions.
In recent years, a range of options has emerged, from well-known caloric ingredients like honey and agave nectar to non-caloric alternatives like stevia, each presenting unique benefits and challenges for formulators. As the quest to replace sugar intensifies, the estimated $16 billion to $20 billion sugar alternatives market offers ample room for innovation. Analysts and ingredient producers have identified a few leading contenders in the realm of natural sweeteners. The pressing question is which sweeteners will dominate the market and why.
Despite the surge in consumer demand for naturally sweetened products, manufacturers have been testing stevia since the 1990s. Mintel reports that the percentage of new product launches containing stevia increased by over 13% in the second quarter of 2017 compared to the previous year. By August of last year, more than a quarter (27%) of products utilizing high-intensity sweeteners included stevia. This natural sweetener, derived from a Brazilian plant, is estimated to be 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar, making it suitable for a variety of applications, from soft drinks to snack foods. However, Thom King, founder and CEO of Icon Foods, believes that stevia’s longstanding presence in the market might actually hinder its success. “Stevia has been around for a while, and many early adopters didn’t use it effectively,” King explained to Food Dive. “This led to a consumer perception that it has a bitter aftertaste.”
This off-flavor, often compared to metal or licorice, is stevia’s primary drawback. While producers have improved stevia’s taste profile over time, it cannot fully replace sugar due to its distinct flavor. Instead, manufacturers are utilizing stevia to lower sugar levels, combining it with masking agents like erythritol (a zero-calorie sugar alcohol) or monk fruit. Another challenge for stevia, as King noted, is its inability to participate in the Maillard reaction, the chemical process that caramelizes food and aids in leavening. David Thorrold, general manager of sales and marketing at The Monk Fruit Corp., pointed out that consumers have begun to associate stevia-sweetened products with an unpleasant aftertaste. “Consumers are less likely to buy products sweetened with stevia,” Thorrold asserted.
Nevertheless, stevia benefits from a well-established supply chain, affordability, and ease of sourcing—attributes that many competitors lack. This adaptability is evident in the research and development efforts of major brands, including PepsiCo, DanoneWave, Kraft Heinz, and Nestlé. Recently, Coca-Cola announced the creation of a stevia-sweetened soda that contains zero sugar, zero calories, and no bitter aftertaste, planning to launch it in a small market outside the U.S. early this year. Investment in stevia by large food companies is expected to continue as they refine their formulations.
Monk fruit, a natural sweetener that is less sweet than stevia and more costly to produce, is steadily gaining market share. Since the FDA approved monk fruit, over 2,000 products have been launched containing this ingredient. Thorrold remarked, “Monk fruit is poised to play a significant role in the sugar reduction narrative for the next decade, if not longer. It is generally easier to formulate with than stevia, as it has a more favorable sensory profile and lacks the metallic aftertaste some associate with stevia.” Although monk fruit also does not engage in the Maillard reaction, it benefits from a clean market image. King noted, “Monk fruit is starting to eclipse stevia in consumer perception—when people see monk fruit on a label, they expect a sweet flavor without preconceived notions about off-flavors.”
Nate Yates, business director of natural sweetness innovation at Ingredion, disagrees with the notion that monk fruit will surpass stevia. “When evaluating monk fruit’s challenges, it’s premature to claim it is significantly better than stevia,” he stated. “Both have their place depending on formulation needs and product positioning.” 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, manufacturers often avoid these solutions to keep added sugars low on the Nutrition Facts panel.
Despite the rivalry, monk fruit and stevia can complement each other effectively, as their combined use can mask each other’s aftertaste. “In the U.S., about half of the products containing monk fruit also include stevia,” Thorrold shared. “Together, stevia and monk fruit work exceptionally well—without stevia, the monk fruit market would be considerably smaller.” He argued that stevia provides manufacturers with a low-cost option, while monk fruit enhances taste, creating an appealing combination. However, when used together, their contrasting flavors can diminish overall sweetness perception.
Major manufacturers are undeterred by this complexity and continue to launch monk fruit-centered products, benefiting from the ingredient’s strong health image. Recently, Talenti introduced a gelato line sweetened with monk fruit juice concentrate and erythritol, catering to consumers seeking healthier options. While both stevia and monk fruit gain traction across various categories, another sweetener is quietly emerging that industry insiders believe might revolutionize the market: allulose. This rare sugar is produced when fructose is treated with enzymes or bacteria and occurs naturally in small amounts in figs, raisins, beets, and corn. Allulose is only 70% as sweet as sugar but has less than one-tenth of the calories and does not raise blood sugar levels. Most importantly, it has no aftertaste, mimics the mouthfeel of sugar, participates in the Maillard reaction, and is highly soluble—providing all the functional advantages of sugar with fewer limitations. Moreover, it is less expensive than both stevia and monk fruit. King mentioned that Icon Foods began working with allulose four years ago when its supply chain was still in its infancy, and the ingredient’s price has since decreased by two-thirds. “Allulose is set to be a game changer,” King proclaimed. “With allulose, manufacturers can reduce added sugars from 23 grams to just one or two grams.”
Currently, the FDA requires that manufacturers list allulose as an added sugar on their products, which may deter some from utilizing this ingredient due to nutritional labeling implications. “As it stands, allulose is classified as a sugar, which poses challenges for manufacturers and may explain its current lesser popularity compared to other natural sweeteners,” Yates noted. King suggests that brands should leverage front-of-pack labeling to illustrate how allulose differs from conventional sugar and other sweeteners. However, he believes this will not be an obstacle for long. “Rumor has it that within the next six months, the FDA will give allulose its own line item on the Nutrition Facts panel, similar to polyols or sugar alcohols,” he stated. Should this occur, it would dramatically impact the industry, leading to a surge in allulose formulations. Products could see a reduction in sugar content from 20 to 25 grams to just a few grams without altering sweetness, significantly benefiting traditional and indulgent product manufacturers.
Research and development for allulose products has gained momentum in recent years. In 2015, Tate & Lyle developed Dolcia Prima, an allulose derived from corn, beets, and sugar cane. The company has also petitioned the FDA to exclude allulose from being categorized as a carbohydrate, sugar, or added sugar on the Nutrition Facts panel, arguing that the current labeling approach could confuse and mislead consumers. The Dr Pepper Snapple Group is also exploring the use of allulose in soft drinks, teas, waters, and juices, according to a company spokesperson. Whether the FDA will grant allulose a separate line item on the Nutrition Facts panel remains uncertain, but King believes that manufacturers should prepare for its impending rise in prominence. While he agrees that allulose could provide manufacturers with greater flexibility, Yates argues that no single ingredient will completely replace sugar as the leading sweetener. “Allulose is simply another tool in formulators’ arsenals, alongside stevia and other ingredients,” Yates concluded. “Ultimately, it depends on the formulators’ goals, pricing strategies, and what aligns best with their products.”
In addition to these sweeteners, the market for health supplements is evolving as well, with products like Osavi Calcium Citrate gaining popularity among consumers seeking nutritious alternatives. As the landscape for sweeteners and health supplements continues to shift, consumers are increasingly informed and selective about their choices, paving the way for innovative solutions that cater to their evolving preferences.