Sugar has garnered a negative reputation in America, 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 packaged foods. Excessive added sugar can jeopardize heart health and promote weight gain, making this consumption level less than ideal. The American Heart Association advises a daily limit of nine teaspoons for men and six for women. Gradually, awareness is increasing, with 84% of Americans stating they are cutting back on sugar, according to Mintel, and 79% checking labels for the types of sugars or sweeteners present. Although sugar remains the most popular sweetener, its sales dropped by 16% from 2011 to 2016.
More consumers than ever are searching for natural alternatives, but switching sweeteners can be a complex challenge for manufacturers. A recent Mintel report highlights that while natural sugar substitutes are a promising focus, some initial difficulties may arise in establishing acceptable product price points. Twenty-six percent of consumers express a desire for more food and drinks that utilize naturally sourced sugar substitutes, yet only a small fraction is willing to pay a premium for these options. Alternatives such as coconut sugar, agave syrup, fruit juice concentrates, and honey are marketed as healthier substitutes for refined sugar due to their perceived natural or nutritious qualities. However, while they may contain trace minerals, they offer limited health advantages. All of these are classified as added sugars from both nutritional and labeling perspectives and can contribute to tooth decay similarly to refined sugar.
Despite this, honey sales have surged, benefiting from a natural health perception, with three-quarters of respondents in a Mintel survey considering it a healthy option. While sales of syrups and molasses decreased by 2% from 2011 to 2016, honey’s sales increased by 54% during the same timeframe. Many alternative sweeteners boast a lower glycemic index than sugar, making them appealing to diabetics due to their slower impact on blood sugar levels. However, they contain a relatively high amount of fructose, which may be more detrimental to non-diabetics. Unlike glucose, which nearly every cell in the body can utilize for energy, fructose is metabolized exclusively in the liver and may be more readily converted to fat, according to emerging research.
With the upcoming mandatory implementation of the revamped Nutrition Facts label, added sugars will need to be specifically listed, providing food companies with added incentives to reduce caloric sweeteners, including natural options. Among lower-calorie alternatives, sweeteners are divided into two main categories: bulk and high-intensity. Bulk sweeteners, which are slightly less sweet than sugar and lower in calories, are used in similar quantities, while high-intensity sweeteners are so much sweeter than sugar that only small amounts are needed.
For manufacturers seeking natural ingredients, the options are even more limited. Naturally derived bulk sweeteners include sugar alcohols, or polyols, such as xylitol, maltitol, isomalt, sorbitol, and erythritol. These sweeteners are derived from plant products and berries, created through fermentation or other processes. The most well-known naturally derived high-intensity sweeteners are stevia and monk fruit extracts. Stevia is produced by drying the leaves and extracting sweet components through water and crystallization, while monk fruit extracts are obtained from the fruit’s pressed juice using water.
Tate & Lyle offers 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, understands the benefits 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 allow manufacturers to significantly lower sugar content without sacrificing taste. However, because these ingredients are used in minimal quantities, they lack functional attributes such as bulk and mouthfeel.” She advocates for a combination of sweeteners and fibers to reduce sugar content while mimicking 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 interact in foods and beverages to create sensory characteristics. While there is considerable interest in sugar reduction, she emphasizes that simply removing sugar is not straightforward. “Sugar serves many functions in food,” she explained. It influences not only flavor but also the structure of cakes and cookies, the snap of chocolate, and the browning, caramelization, and aroma of products, as well as how fat is dispersed. She also highlights the importance of the rate at which sweetness is released, as this significantly impacts flavor.
To approach sugar reduction, Groves’s team begins by analyzing a company’s original full-sugar product, such as cookies or cakes, and maps how the ingredients function together. “We refer to this as a blueprinting process, similar to what you would create for a factory or a house,” she said. This blueprint illustrates how the various components work together. The team gathers consumer panels to discuss their preferences for the standard product, bringing in trained specialists to assess attributes such as taste, aroma, and texture with scientific precision. They then examine how ingredients affect texture, color, and other characteristics at a microscopic level before determining which alternative sweeteners could best replicate those properties.
Blending sweeteners has become a popular approach because nothing quite replicates the taste and behavior of sugar. A common combination is stevia and erythritol. Erythritol produces a strong cooling effect, making it suitable for sugar-free mints. However, in products where this effect is undesirable, such as lemonade, it is often blended with stevia to mask the taste. “Polyols are frequently used in blends, and some, like xylitol, can have a laxative effect. Erythritol, however, does not, so you might use less xylitol and more erythritol,” Groves noted. “Sweeteners vary in flavor and intensity profiles, leading to differences in aftertaste.”
Ciwhat is ferrous fumarate, director of sensory, consumer, and market insights at Leatherhead, highlighted the importance of understanding the sweetness profile over time rather than at a single moment. This is why stevia and monk fruit are often combined; by keeping stevia’s concentration low to minimize bitterness, sweetness can be enhanced with monk fruit. “Some sweeteners are extremely sweet, while others have a delayed onset of sweetness, often resulting in a synergistic effect.”
There can be unexpected consequences when combining sweeteners, such as a loss of bulk, caramelization, or browning. If the flavor is satisfactory, manufacturers may adjust other processing elements to overcome these issues. Additionally, solubility can pose challenges, especially for high-intensity sweeteners. Given their minimal usage, ensuring even distribution throughout a mixture can be difficult. Some bulk sweeteners can also absorb water, complicating matters; for instance, isomalt does not absorb water, making it a suitable choice for hard candies.
Finally, Beeren emphasizes the need to consider whether reducing sugar might inadvertently increase the final product’s calorie content. “When consumers see ‘reduced sugar’ on packaging, they often assume it also means reduced calories,” she explained. In certain cases, cutting sugar can lead to a higher proportion of fat by weight, resulting in increased calories. “This is often only considered at the end of the process,” she added.
All alternative natural sweetening options are more expensive than sugar, placing the onus on manufacturers to determine whether these additional costs are justified in the long run. Beyond the higher price of the sweeteners themselves, companies face “hidden costs” associated with reformulating existing products and making necessary modifications to handling systems, storage, and ingredient monitoring. Nevertheless, consumer and industry trends indicate a growing demand for less added sugar and a heightened interest in natural products. Now, it is up to manufacturers to find the optimal balance between cost, naturalness, calories, and flavor, including considerations for ingredients like dissolvable calcium citrate.